Beaumont Carol: Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill — In Committee 
Beaumont Carol: Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7246] 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I start by saying that Labour members are supporting the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill with amendments. We will continue to support any genuine efforts to make progress in this area. That is because this is a serious issue. All of the speakers from this side of the Chamber and frankly all the speakers from that side of the Chamber have acknowledged that this is a serious problem. I acknowledged when I spoke last time not only my colleague Clayton Cosgrove’s effort but also the fact that the Government is doing something in this space. 
We are trying to raise areas where there are concerns. I think that Mr Woodhouse’s contribution was a little confused. He started out by saying that Supplementary Order Paper 75 weakens the provision but that is actually one of the Government’s Supplementary Order Papers. We put forward Supplementary Order Paper 73 and we intend to put up a proposition to toughen this bill. 
I also start by acknowledging the people who submitted to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on this bill. There were 58 of them. A lot of those people did not actually support the crushing part of the bill. Those of us who looked at it carefully saw that there are some very useful things in it; I want to add my comments to those made by Mr Cosgrove about the closing of the loophole regarding third parties. I think that is a very sensible move. That is a very good part of this bill. 
Basically the bill has a number of provisions. They include strengthening supposedly the powers of the court to order confiscation; empowering courts to order destruction; and strengthening provisions to seize motor vehicles to enforce collection of unpaid fines. I will focus particularly on the first two of those provisions in this initial contribution. As it stands at the moment the focus has all been on the crushing provisions. Those have been if you like the window dressing that has shown the Government being tough. Already we have heard quite a clear contribution from Mr Cosgrove. He pointed out how tough in fact the legislation is. It says that offenders have been bad; then it says that they have been very very bad; and then police might think about doing something about it. We need to be looking at real progress that builds on the legislation that was put in place by the previous Government the Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Act of 2003. 
We should also—and the police supported this—be looking at why the courts have been so hesitant in this area. We did not have a lot of conversation on that area in the select committee. We did not really nail what the issue was there. Basically the rate of confiscation under the provisions of the current law is less than 2 percent. It begs the very real question that the police raised: if the courts are not using those current confiscation powers what makes the Government think they will use the new destruction powers? 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Closing the loopholes. 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: The loophole is one part of it and that is a positive as we have said. That will deal with one of the issues which is cars being registered in someone else’s name. But that is not the only reason why rates of confiscation are so low. We think and this is the reason for our Supplementary Order Paper that the focus should be on toughening up the current law so that vehicles are confiscated on a second offence as the law intended. Really it makes very little difference to the offender whether the car is confiscated or crushed because either way they do not have the car. I think that is the point. 
We have talked about the fact that maybe 10 cars a year will be crushed. That does not seem to be all that tough. I think that the amendment that has been put up on Supplementary Order Paper 73 is worthwhile. I ask the Government to seriously consider supporting this amendment because both the Government and the Opposition have said they want to deal with this problem. Both have said we should get tough on some of the people who are making other people’s lives a misery. Well here is an opportunity to improve the bill that is before the Committee. Supplementary Order Paper 73 effectively provides for an amendment that will make it mandatory for a vehicle to be confiscated on a second boy-racer offence. That is what we will ensure. We do not agree with the crushing of cars and we think that mandatory confiscation on a second offence—even when owned by a substitute for the offender a third party—is a very useful contribution. I ask the Government to consider supporting it.