---

Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [Lords]

I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes)—my hon. Friend, in this context—said. We would certainly support him on new clause 4. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) obviously carried out a good deal of research before preparing his new clauses and amendments, to which he spoke with eloquence. When I saw the amendment paper, I was amazed that so many of his proposals were similar to those tabled by the official Opposition in Committee. We devoted a substantial time to debating this subject in Committee. The Minister was able to explain that some of our fears were unfounded, and we were comfortable on some fronts after hearing what she said. However, there are many aspects of the Bill that still cause us great concern. That is why Conservative Members will be minded to support the Lib Dems on new clause 4, which would require bailiffs to wear uniforms—we tabled such an amendment in Committee—and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby on new clause 6, which would provide for regulation by an outside body. The Bill gives bailiffs a substantial number of extra powers, such as increased powers to enter homes. It also takes away existing constraints. As the hon. Member for Great Grimsby pointed out, that is happening at a time when the amount of debt in our society is increasing, as is the pressure on individuals throughout our constituencies. More and more people are being persuaded to take out debt, or bamboozled into doing so. The Government have created an additional 2,900 criminal offences and there are many new fines and penalties. To some extent, the Government have warped our sense of what is criminal. Many bailiff actions stem from crimes that resulted in fixed penalty notices. There has been a huge proliferation in the use of such notices. There is great concern in the enforcement industry that many Government Departments have created a situation in which more people will get into debt, which will have to be enforced. I should make it clear that people who run up debts should of course pay those debts, whether they are owed to companies or to other individuals. There should be a mechanism by which debts may be enforced. If people owe money to government-related organisations for council tax or because of fines, including parking fines, those debts should be paid, because if they are not paid, other taxpayers suffer. However, at the same time, there must be a proper system for protecting the vulnerable. We have tabled amendments in a later group that would specifically protect the vulnerable. Everyone who has examined this issue will know that the vast majority of bailiffs behave responsibly. There is no doubt that the industry prides itself on high standards. However, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby pointed out, and as we discussed at length in Committee, a small minority of bailiffs bring the industry into disrepute by going completely over the top. We have all come across examples in our constituencies of bailiffs acting in an intimidating way. Various examples have been cited by citizens advice bureaux, including my local citizens advice bureau. A CAB in Somerset was looking after a 44-year-old woman who had been visited by a bailiff collecting council tax arrears. The bailiff said that he wanted immediate payment for the full sum owing. He tried to enter and stated that he would go to all the rooms and remove children’s possessions, white goods—including the cooker—and all furniture. The bailiff stated that for every half an hour he sat outside the house he would charge £50, which he did after sitting there for exactly 30 minutes. Owing to the bailiff’s threatening behaviour, the woman’s partner made a payment, but only by using the rent money, which moved the debt problem elsewhere. A CAB in Bedfordshire told me about a woman whom it was looking after. Sadly, her husband died relatively young, and the next day a bailiff called at her house about council tax arrears. The woman explained that her husband had just died and that because he had not made a will, and she would therefore have to go through probate, there would not be enough money in the estate to pay the council tax. She thus asked the bailiff to wait for a while, but he refused and said that unless she paid at least £150 then and there, he would seize her goods. He also threatened her with arrest. The behaviour of that bailiff was completely contrary to the Government’s guidelines for the enforcement industry, which make it clear that people in vulnerable situations should be protected. While a minority of bailiffs behave in such a way, there is a need for proper outside regulation, which brings us to the two key amendments in the group. New clause 2 relates to the Security Industry Authority. For those who have not been following our debates carefully, I should explain that the SIA is a private sector organisation approved by the Government, which regulates various private sector organisations. Under the Government’s plans, private bailiffs, rather than court and Government-employed bailiffs, will be regulated by the SIA. We support those proposals because, as we said in Committee, if the Government will not introduce full independent regulation not just for private bailiffs but for the whole industry, we will reluctantly accept the second-best option of the SIA, because a step in the right direction is better than no step at all. In essence, new clause 2 provides that the greater powers for bailiffs under the Bill, especially powers to enter people’s homes, should not come into effect until SIA regulation is implemented. We have various concerns that are relevant to new clause 2. Can the Minister tell the House when the new SIA system will be in place? I am concerned that it may not be for quite a while, which means that it is even more important to include in the Bill the provisions proposed by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey. The Bill may be in its final stages—it will have its Third Reading this afternoon and will in due course receive Royal Assent—but we need to hear from the Minister exactly when the regulation under the SIA will be in place. Can the Minister also tell us how the proposed new certification scheme will work alongside regulation by the SIA? We discussed the matter in Committee at some length so she is well aware that the present certification scheme is flawed because many local authorities do not insist on their contracted bailiffs complying with the existing scheme. Will the new scheme work properly? One of the problems under the SIA plans is that a debtor will not be able to get redress even if the bailiff loses his or her licence. I want to pick up on a point made by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, which causes me concern, too. We have been told time and again of the feeling in the bailiff industry and among many organisations working hard to try to protect the vulnerable, such as the Church of England, the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust, the Child Poverty Action Group and the CAB, that because bailiffs collect billions of pounds for central and local government the Government have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, with regulation as light-touch as possible. Philip Evans, chair of the Enforcement Law Reform Group, made a telling remark the other day, which he will not mind me quoting:"““Among police and judiciary there is an institutionalised complacency about the behaviour of bailiffs.””" His organisation is not like the CAB or the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust, whose approach might be that most bailiffs should be looked at suspiciously; his were the remarks of someone who represents the enforcement and bailiff industry. The industry, too, is calling for greater regulation, because it realises that the actions of a small minority of bailiffs—including the examples to which I referred and many more—are doing huge damage to the reputation of bailiffs generally. That is why the industry wants regulation. It is worth looking at what other outside third parties have said about regulation. Professor J. Beatson, professor of public law at Cambridge university, produced a report for the Lord Chancellor in 2000, which had quite an impact on the subsequent Green Paper. Professor Beatson made it clear that he felt that independent regulation for bailiffs was absolutely essential. He said that the arguments for bailiffs having extra powers could be countenanced only in the context of proper outside regulation. Can the Minister comment on why the Government did not follow the recommendations in the Green Paper and why they have not listened to the views of many organisations, such as the Enforcement Services Association and the Association of Civil Enforcement Agencies, as well as the voluntary bodies that spend their time trying to help vulnerable people? Yes, we are taking a small step forward with the SIA. I do not want to be churlish, because we advocated that move in Committee; we pushed hard for it and we thank the Minister for agreeing. We may even be entitled to give ourselves a pat on the back for that small step forward, but it does not go far enough, especially when bailiffs are being given more powers. From the examples given in Committee and in this debate, we know that in many cases bailiffs misrepresent their legal powers. People are knocking on doors pretending to be someone they are not, which is why new clause 4, proposed by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey, says that bailiffs should wear a distinctive uniform or carry more than merely a card as identification. We debated that matter in Committee and the Minister was not happy about the idea of bailiffs turning up in uniform. She took the view that it was bad enough for a vulnerable person living in a block of flats if the police came round, so if a bailiff in uniform came to their flat, word would quickly get out that they were in debt. I entirely accept the need to strike a balance, but the existing situation is not satisfactory.