---

Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [Lords]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. At the moment, that is an important omission for public purposes, but once the network is in place the problem will diminish immensely. May I therefore return to my argument? Obviously, my hon. Friend did not intend that only the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions could carry out the enforcement of child support legislation, so I assume that he will not persevere with his proposal. By smiling happily at me, he appears to indicate that I am correct. May I turn to the question of uniforms? As I said in Committee and on Second Reading, I well understand the sentiments that underpins the proposal that all enforcement agents should wear a uniform or carry a means of compulsory identification. I was initially attracted to the notion of a uniform, but I thought that I had persuaded the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey in Committee to agree that it was not such a good idea as it appeared. Perhaps I have done so, as new clause 4 includes the words,"““or other means of identification””." Although the hon. Gentleman has suggested that he intends to press the new clause to a Division, I hope that he will be satisfied by my reply. I think that we all recall the touching account by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) in Committee of bailiffs coming to her home as a child. Not only did they take away goods, as they were empowered to do, but they wore what she described as the unfailingly identifiable uniform from those long-ago days of a bowler hat. Everyone knew that the bailiffs had come, so it was extra humiliating for her and her family. The enforcement industry says with considerable force that uniforms make such a person identifiable not merely to the person whose home they have approached but to everyone else. It points out that from time to time, lamentably, even fire service personnel are attacked when they go into the community, so it fears that if its members were obliged to wear a recognisable uniform they would be more subject to attack. It is therefore a thornier issue than anyone first appreciated, but the reference in new clause 4 to ““other means of identification”” is the crux of the matter. I agree entirely that an enforcement agent must be clearly and easily identifiable to a debtor and readily accountable for his actions. Paragraph 26 of schedule 12 requires an enforcement agent to show the debtor and any person who appears to be in charge of the premises evidence of his identity and his authority to enter those premises. We are considering what form that evidence might take but, as I said in Committee, I am keen to introduce a single form of identification for all agents, with a unique identifying number—a photograph is probably important, too—so that a debtor approached by such a person at their front door knows exactly who there are, what their status is, precisely what authority they have to be there and, where appropriate, how to complain about an agent’s actions. I respectfully suggest to the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey that, once again, I am in a position to demonstrate the political will to ensure that there is compliance with all of that in the regime that we have set up under the Bill. I invite him to consider the fact that there is no need to press his new clause to a vote. It is not apposite in our view to include all that detail in the Bill, as we will ensure that the issue is properly covered. Indeed, we would be very happy to consult and negotiate with him, or those people whom he nominates for consultation, to try to advance the matter powerfully. The exact form of identification will be determined after consultation with all the relevant stakeholders. In passing, the new clause appears to contain a flaw that was part of the proposal tabled in Committee, too, as it appears to suggest that enforcement agents would have to wear their uniform all the time. They might find it a little oppressive at the enforcement agents’ annual ball if they were required to wear their epaulettes—that might be an unintended imposition. As I said before, I think with characteristic wit, would the agent have to wear his uniform in bed? That is not the reason why we oppose the new clause: on a serious note, it is just unnecessary. I appreciate the sentiments behind new clause 2 and amendments Nos. 5 and 42, and I restate the commitment that I gave in Committee. We will not allow enforcement agents to apply for a warrant to use reasonable force to enter domestic premises until we have full regulation of enforcement agents under the SIA. However, as I explained in Committee, chapter 1 of part 3, which the proposals would amend, is about much more than forced entry. It will introduce a great deal of valuable protection for debtors, including fixed dates and times at which enforcement agents can come to a premises; limits to methods of entry; exemption of goods from seizure; a single fee structure; and new remedies when enforcement agents break the law. There is no reason whatsoever to wait to implement all those protections until the SIA procedure is in place. New clause 2 and amendments Nos. 5 and 42 would prevent us from doing everything that we intend to do, and would mean that we would have to wait months and probably years before we could protect the public in the way in which all hon. Members intend. Hon. Members will recall that a clause identical to new clause 5 was debated in Committee, and I remain of the view that the provision is not necessary. Clause 57 and paragraph 13 of schedule 12 already make provision for what the new clause is seeking to achieve. In particular, the provisions in new clause 5(1), (2) and (3) are very similar to those in clause 57. New clause 5(4), which deals with regulations governing procedures for taking control of goods, is nearly the same as paragraph 13(3) of schedule 12. I remain unconvinced of the merits of new clause 5(5), which seeks to exclude liabilities when securing goods on the highway, but does not cover goods secured on premises. Bailiffs would therefore have to take a different approach when taking control of goods depending whether they did so on the highway or on premises. That is likely to result in confusion, and it would go completely against our efforts to clarify and simplify procedures in the Bill. Finally, amendment No. 37 would remove clause 57 from the Bill, and would prevent schedule 13 from taking effect. That would mean that the important consequential amendments in that schedule would not take effect, leaving enforcement agent law scattered across the statute book. It would do nothing to address the confusion and scope for abuse allowed by the law as a result of that scattering and of the differentiation between various pieces of legislation enacted at various times. I am sure that no one intends that, so I hope and predict that amendment No. 37 will not be pressed any further. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby spoke, in passing perhaps, about fees. I know that that was an important part of what worried him in the Adjournment debate. Because, as he would say, bailiffs make money out of enforcement, it is possible for them to carry on enforcing in order to make more money. Paragraph 62 to schedule 12 allows the Secretary of State, the Lord Chancellor, to make regulations about costs and fees. It is our intention to use that power to ensure that the fees are front-loaded so that there is much less incentive for an enforcement agent to carry on, as my hon. Friend put it, in order to make money. Enforcement agents will get an up-front payment to do the job. I hope that will give the right kind of incentive and a powerful signal that those people are not working on a partisan basis for creditors, but that they work also as agents of the state. I hope that what I have said across all these issues has reassured my hon. Friend and hon. Gentlemen, and that they now feel able to withdraw the proposals.