HL Deb 11 November 1992 vol 540 cc180-1

3.4 p.m.

Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:

What further conclusions have been reached on the legality in the United Kingdom of clamping vehicles on privately owned land and the imposition of penalties, following the finding by a Scottish court and comments by Ministers on 17th June (HL Deb. Col. 183) and 23rd June (HL Deb. Col. 383).

The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers)

My Lords, the judgment in the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland would appear to provide only a limited precedent for England and Wales, where the legality of the practice is likely to be governed by the particular circumstances of each individual case. The Government, however, intend to publish a consultation paper depicting the law as we see it and canvassing a range of options for addressing the problem.

Lord Campbell of Croy

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. Is he aware that the subject of clamping is of keen interest to the public? Many of their daily lives are bedevilled by problems of parking. Does the noble Earl's statement mean that the situation would be determined more easily in England and Wales if there were to be a test case?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, if there were to be a test case, obviously the law as it stands at the moment would be clearer. When my noble friend says that there is keen public interest—because I think he inferred people hated being wheel-clamped—the answer is that of course I understand people disliking it. But the purpose of wheel clamping is to enable traffic flows to continue. People are only clamped when they have been illegally parked.

Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone

My Lords, if and when the consultation paper appears, will it tackle the question of whether wheel clamping on privately owned land—to which the Question refers—is a trespass to goods?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I think that my noble and learned friend is quite right. If one parks on private land, the parking is itself a trespass. If one clamps a car on private land, the clamping can also be a trespass. But there are defences for trespass such as consent. An example of that might be that if a person illegally parked his car when there was a notice warning him of its illegality, he would know that he would be carrying out an illegal act if he parked. That would be a defence.

Lord Morris of Castle Morris

My Lords, will the Minister do everything in his power to publish the Government's proposals on private wheel clamping as soon as possible, because the problem seems to be growing almost by the hour? Can he tell the House whether the proposals include the Government's reaction to Mr. John Spellar's Private Member's Bill on the issue in another place?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, obviously that is one of the matters about which the Government are concerned at the moment. Our idea is that the consultation paper should canvass all the details and also all the possible solutions.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that clamping on private land is not the only problem? Not only do people clamp but they then demand extortionate charges for removing the clamp. They are then in the position of demanding a fine, which is not open to anyone else, to satisfy their own sense of being in charge.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, that is one of the problems. The learned judge in the Scottish case said clearly that the clamp was theft and to ask for a fee to remove the clamp was extortion. But under Scottish law, theft is the dishonest appropriation of property; in England, Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 states that theft requires dishonest appropriation, as in Scotland, as well as the intention permanently to deprive the owner. Whether or not a person is entitled to levy a fee for releasing that car is one of the matters which will be discussed in the consultation document.

Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone

My Lords, if I may pursue my noble friend one stage further, has he considered the possible application of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 to the levy of this degree of penalty and to the legitimacy of that in relation to the law of trespass?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I have addressed my mind to many points on this subject, but not that one. I should tell my noble and learned friend that it would not be for me to address my mind but for the court to address its mind, were a case to come before it. As yet, no case has come before it.

Forward to