Clause 57
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [Lords]
10:45 am
Vera Baird (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Redcar, Labour)
I am not convinced that new clause 1 is necessary, because clause 57 and paragraph 13 of schedule 12 already provide for what it seeks to do. In particular, proposed subsections (1), (2) and (3) are just about the same as clause 57, in that they are about taking control of goods in the style currently described as walking possession. Similarly, the provisions in proposed subsection (4) about taking control of goods replicate provision already made in paragraph 13(3)(a) of schedule 12, so they will add nothing to the Bill.
Proposed subsection (5) of the new clause is probably more dubious than the other provisions on its merits because it seeks to exclude liability when securing goods on the highway but does not cover goods secured on premises. That would mean taking a different approach to taking control of goods depending on whether they were on the highway or on premises. There is no logical reason why that should be so; it is much better to have clear, straightforward powers that are the same in all similar circumstances. New clause 1 goes against the efforts that we have made in the Bill to clarify and simplify the laws concerning enforcement agencies.
There is no need for the bulk of the provisions in new clause 1. Proposed subsection (5) would add confusion and does not deal with a matter about which the Government have received representations from enforcement agencies. I hope that having been given those words of explanation, the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk will, having probed the rationale for clause 57, not press his proposals.