Return etc of seized equipment (Hansard, 10 May 1996)

Mr. Greenway
As I explained in Committee on 3 April, I am aware of the need to look at the schedule 557 again, because of the need to ensure that third party rights are taken into account. I understand that the Finance and Leasing Association—which represents companies that provide consumer finance in the form of hire, hire purchase and personal loans—is happy with the revised schedule. I believe it important that I put that on the record.
My amendments require local authorities to take reasonable steps to find the owner of seized equipment where a forfeiture order has been made against someone other than that person. The local authority may dispose of equipment when six months have elapsed after a forfeiture order has been made. The amendments also provide for the return of equipment where proceedings are not undertaken and for the right for local authorities, in certain circumstances, to return equipment only on payment of charges.
The amendments clarify a number of issues relating to the retention, forfeiture and return of seized noise-making equipment, and, in cases where the equipment is sold, the proceeds of sale. I am aware that concerns have been expressed about cases where the owner of the equipment is not aware of its use in the creation of excessive noise. The amendments will help to ensure that the owner is made aware of the fact that his equipment has been seized, and they give him the opportunity to reclaim it.
Amendment No. 23 requires the local authority—where a forfeiture order has been made on someone other than the owner of the equipment—to take reasonable steps to trace the owner, to notify him of his rights to reclaim the equipment. Amendment No. 24 includes a provision to enable the local authority to dispose of the seized equipment six months after a forfeiture order has been made if no claim has been made on it. The amendment ensures that, for up to one year after sale, claims can be made by the owner of the equipment against the proceeds of sale.
The amendment also provides, at subparagraph (5) of the revised schedule, for where there are proceedings and no forfeiture order is made. In those circumstances, the court will be able to give directions as to the return, retention or disposal of the equipment. In cases where equipment has been seized but no proceedings for a noise offence are taken within 28 days, sub-paragraph (6) of the revised schedule will provide that the local authority must return the equipment to any person whom it is satisfied is the owner of the equipment and who makes a claim within six months of the expiry of that period. The local authority will be required to take reasonable steps to find the owner of the equipment, but if no claim is made, it will be able to dispose of the equipment.
Under paragraph 6(4) and (6) of the revised schedule, a local authority, which must return seized equipment under the terms of that schedule, can retain that equipment until the reasonable charges for its seizure, removal and retention are paid. However, a local authority may not charge if the owner did not know or had no reason to suspect that the equipment was likely to be used in the noise offence.
Paragraphs 6(5) and (6) enable the owner of the seized equipment that is being sold by the local authority to claim proceeds of the sale, which must be made within one year of the sale. If a local authority is satisfied that 558 the person is the owner, it will pay him any sum by which the proceeds of the sale exceed the costs incurred by the local authority. If the local authority is satisfied that the owner did not know that the equipment was likely to be used in the commission of a noise offence, it cannot demand charges.
The other amendments in the group, which make minor changes to the schedule, will assist local authorities in their procedures for seizure of equipment. I hope that hon. Members on both sides will recognise that the amendments will help to establish an effective procedure for the seizure and return of equipment.
It is absolutely essential that the procedure we introduce is one that local authorities can implement easily and also provides protection for the owners of equipment used in the commission of an offence without their knowledge.

§ Mr. Thomason
Can my hon. Friend explain the purpose of amendment No. 7, which deletes clause 11(1), which refers to regulations and prescriptions? It is my understanding that a number of powers are still conferred under the Bill, even as it is now amended, on the Secretary of State. Can my hon. Friend explain the wisdom of deleting clause 11(1)?

Mr. Greenway
Amendment No. 7 relates to amendment No. 2, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett). Once that amendment had been withdrawn, it was necessary for me to move amendments Nos. 7 to 12 to ensure that proper protection was offered.

§ Mr. Clappison
I support these sensible amendments, which protect the rights of third parties.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) asked an interesting question. He has obviously paid great attention to the Bill and has great interest in procedural matters. I am sure that he would not want the amendments to be defeated. He should bear in mind the important point that they provide additional protection for the rights of third parties—innocent owners of equipment, who, in certain circumstances, may have had their equipment used to cause the type of noise offence specified in the Bill. In those circumstances, the owner would lose his property. The combined effect of the amendments safeguards their rights. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove will rush to his feet to support them.

§ Mr. Thomason
I was merely expressing concern about the technicality of deleting clause 11(1). I was not in any way attacking the rest of the amendments, which are right and appropriate. I was concerned that we might delete something that was still needed, but I am happy to accept the assurances given.