---

Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [Lords]

Indeed. I have a constituent who works in the building where our constituency office is, a relatively young and competent widow, who is in exactly that position, and I have taken up the case to try to deal with the people who are chasing her for debts that are not her liability at all. She finds it extremely oppressive. Anything to do with a financial liability is so important that I find that I put it at the top of the cases that I deal with. Colleagues may do the same. Even if only a small sum is involved, I deal with the matter more urgently than with other cases because I know that often, if it is not dealt with quickly, it may escalate and become a much bigger problem. The penalty charge notice for non-payment of the congestion charge can suddenly get out of control. I shall deal with the Minister’s responses. She referred to the Security Industry Authority that has already been set up. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby tabled a carefully drafted new clause which argues for an independent regulatory authority for bailiffs and enforcement agents. He indicated that in due course he would press it to a Division. We are likely to support that, because it does not tie the Government to creating a separate body. It ties the Government to creating a body that is independent and fit for purpose. As the SIA moves on, it should change its title. It needs to be seen to be a body that regulates not just the bouncers, but the bailiffs. I buy the Minister’s argument that it is better to have one body than two administrative structures, two organisations and two sets of set-up costs. That is not inconsistent with the hon. Gentleman’s argument that the body must be independent and appropriate and do the job set out in his new clause 6. On our amendment No. 5, which would delay the imposition of chapter 1 to part 3, I accept the Minister’s argument. I accept that it would be inappropriate to delay the whole of the implementation of that part of the Bill pending the new authority taking responsibility, because there are many other aspects that we need to get on with. She is persuasive in that argument, so we will not press our amendment. That leaves new clause 4 and the uniform point. The Minister was, as I would have expected, observant enough to notice that I had sought to vary slightly the terms of the proposition. We went in arguing for uniform, but I heard that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) described a personal experience which was very telling. I understand the point that uniform per se may have significant disadvantages if, sadly, people are occasionally subject to abuse, stone throwing and so on, but uniform also identifies the person walking across the estate or the road. However, we are keen to flag up, and it is not inconsistent with the objective, that there should be a system that is self-identifying. What is in the schedule at present is, as the Minister pointed out, an obligation to produce identification on request, before or during the interchange with the bailiff. Our new clause would oblige the Government to have in place uniform or some other means of identification, such as a badge. We all know the practical problems of things that are permanent and things that can be taken off. Nobody wants nonsensical requirements for insignia to be worn at the bailiffs’ and enforcement agents’ ball or for a romantic weekend in Paris—no doubt even bailiffs have romantic weekends in Paris—but we are keen that there should be the obligation that the Minister says she is willing to work to. It is important that there should be an obligation on the industry, not just a duty to respond when asked, and that that should be written into the Bill. When the time comes, therefore, I shall therefore seek a vote on new clause 4. In the meantime, on the basis of the Minister’s assurances, and on the understanding that in all parts of the House from which there has been a contribution and beyond we share an objective that there must be regulation, it must be clear and transparent, it must end the existence of anomalous sets of legislative provision, and the citizen must know that in future that there will be control of those who have powers of enforcement, that it will be possible to complain and to seek redress, and hopefully that there will be much less abuse as a result, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.