Clause 53 - Vehicles used in manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance
Police Reform Bill [Lords]
5:45 pm
Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)
I seek clarification from the Minister on the impact of the clause. I understand that if a constable identifies careless and inconsiderate driving that is likely to cause alarm, distress or annoyance, under subsection (3) he will have the power to stop, seize and remove the motor vehicle. He must warn the driver—if that is possible—before he uses that power, and the vehicle's use must have continued after the
warning. So far, so good. The purpose of the clause is, therefore, to prevent a public nuisance at a particular time, which nobody could disagree with.
I want to clarify the impact of subsection (2). It states that a constable shall also have the power to seize and remove a vehicle
''where he has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle has been used on any occasion in a manner falling within subsection (1).
Is that provision designed to identify a case in which a constable had warned someone that his driving was inconsiderate and causing alarm, and had been unable to apprehend the vehicle because the person had driven off, but had seized it subsequently? Is that the purpose of the provision? If so, it is different from preventing a public nuisance from occurring. Presumably, the public nuisance had ended because the person had driven off yet, under the Bill, a sharp-eyed constable may notice the vehicle—which may have been used, in his view, some months previously to cause disturbance—and can seize and retain it. That seems different from dealing with the public nuisance when it happened. Will the Minister confirm whether I have understood the clause correctly?