Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Oliver Heald (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Monday, 5 March 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [HL].


Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [Lords]

I would welcome that. My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) has suggested the alternative, which is not to implement the increased powers at this stage—I would, of course, accept a commitment to that effect from the Minister—and then for the regulation to come in at the same time. That is what most Members of all parties consider to be the obvious way forward. [Interruption.] Members are expressing agreement. The Government’s proposals are a funny way of consulting on, and dealing with, these matters. We hope to receive a cast-iron commitment that none of the important new powers in the Bill will come into force until the regulation of enforcement agents has been completed. Baroness Ashton was not prepared to give that commitment, although she promised that the regulations would be debated. The regulations must set out clear standards of conduct for those who are given these new powers, and there must be clear and enforceable penalties for those who do not respect them. It must be known to bailiff and debtor alike what standards of conduct are expected. Those standards must be made clear at the outset of the process; the practice of High Court bailiffs offers a possible example to follow in that regard. A debtor should be handed a leaflet explaining the procedure and their rights, so that all is made clear and there is no scope for the sort of deception that we have heard about. There must be effective monitoring and a proper regulator. In terms of the common law right of distraint for arrears of rent, we agree to its abolition in the Bill. That will ensure that there is less scope for misconduct and that issues between landlord and tenant are resolved in court, rather than at the doorstep or on the street. Part 4 of the Bill deals with the issue of access to debtor’s information, which we will want to pursue in Committee. We recognise, for example, that providing the details of a debtor’s employer might be important in enforcing a debt, but we would want to ensure that that is not misused by unscrupulous persons to harass a debtor. Part 5 of the Bill covers helping people deal with over-indebtedness and multiple debts through debt management. Over-indebtedness is an issue of vital concern in our society. With the number of individual insolvencies reaching a record 107,000 in 2006, and with the amount people owe on credit cards, loans and mortgages now more than £1 trillion, this is clearly an area where help is needed. Over-indebtedness can be caused by low levels of financial literacy and awareness, and we would like more effort to be made in that regard. The citizens advice bureaux state that"““in particular, the Debt Relief Order proposals have the potential to help a substantial proportion of CAB clients, many of whom are vulnerable and on low incomes””." The debt relief orders will enable many people who were unable to access any of the debt solutions currently available to plan their debt repayments, and will help them in respect of the question of application fees. We therefore cautiously welcome the intention behind the envisaged debt relief orders. As with much of the Bill, secondary legislation will be needed. For debt relief orders, it will cover the criteria specifying liabilities, and the levels of assets and of surplus income. The debt relief orders will also reduce some of the pressure on the courts, because to maintain the lowest application fee possible, applicants will need not to apply to them but to use the internet. With the court system currently in crisis, anything that can reduce the burdens is an important benefit. Finally, the Bill also deals with objects lent from overseas for inclusion in exhibitions. This is an important area, because it affects the ability of museums to attract loans for exhibition, and the ability of those who have had artwork stolen to be aware of when those artworks travel and where to, and to make a claim in respect of them. We accept that great progress has been made on that provision in the other place, but we will continue to probe it in Committee to ensure that the Government strike the right balance. The Bill deserves a Second Reading, although there are some important issues to deal with in Committee. On that basis, the Government have our support for its broad objectives.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
457 c1317-8 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Consumers Administration of justice Bankruptcy Cultural heritage Credit Debt collection Fees and charges Enforcement Legal aid scheme Eligibility Judiciary Exemptions Harassment Powers of entry Public appointments Museums and galleries Property Proof of identity Tribunals Training Regulation Sequestration of assets Security Industry Authority
Legislation
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill (HL) 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk