---

Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [Lords]

The amendments relate to enforcement by taking control of goods, and the relevant procedure. I shall say a word about the amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friends. Amendment No. 10 is about protection for vulnerable people. Amendment No. 11 makes it clear that enforcement agents must act in accordance with national standards. Amendment No. 19 is about exempt goods. Amendment No. 13 is about a code of conduct to protect the vulnerable, and is closely related to amendment No. 10. Amendment No. 12 deals with the tools of trade. Amendment No. 3, which is about rights and remedies information, was tabled by the Liberal Democrats but we have signed it. Amendments Nos. 16 and 20 are about the competent persons test. Amendment No. 15 is about protection for the under-16s. We have heard today about vulnerable groups and the pressure that they may come under. Although the vast majority of bailiffs act correctly and properly and do an excellent job, there are those who do not do such a good job and who abuse their power. We have already debated whether it would appropriate to bring in tougher regulation for those who do abuse their power, but too many cases have come to our attention of bailiffs turning up on the doorsteps of vulnerable people. I want to refer to one or two cases that should never have happened. A case in 2001 involved a man from Southwark suffering from serious learning difficulties, who might well have been a constituent of the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), and the local council outsourced the collection of the debt to a private bailiff. This man had a council house debt of £235.10, plus the costs of a hearing, and he received a summons, parts of which were highlighted and in bold type. Many such summonses are despatched every day. It said:"““If a liability order is granted the Council will be able to take one or more of the following actions: instruct bailiffs to take your goods to settle your debt…you will be liable to pay the bailiffs’ costs…instruct your employer to deduct payments…deduct money…make you bankrupt, or make a charging order against your home, or have you committed to prison.””" That person had no support or help whatever and he ended up committing suicide. Other cases involve people who were in desperate plight. A case reported to us by the citizens advice bureau in Lincolnshire involved a tenant who had vacated premises without notice and owing rent. The client did not know where the tenant had gone and was unaware that he had not paid his TV licence. One day when the client was at the premises, two bailiffs arrived to collect the sum due. The client explained who he was, and eventually the bailiffs believed him. However, they said that they had not come all that way to leave with nothing, and insisted that the client pay the fine instead. The client again said that he was not liable, but the bailiffs said that if he did not pay the fine in cash immediately, they would telephone for a lorry, break into his premises and take goods to the value of the fine. When the client explained that he did not have sufficient cash on him, the bailiffs insisted on accompanying him to the bank to withdraw the money. When the client phoned the magistrates court, he was told to take his complaint to the local CAB. The client told the CAB that he felt so intimidated and frightened that he had no choice but to pay the fine, and went to the bank with one of the bailiffs. I gave an example earlier of a tragic case involving a woman from Manchester who was visited by bailiffs in respect of a debt owed by her daughter, who did not live with her. The bailiffs told her that she was responsible for her daughter’s debt and that they were permitted to move goods from the property, which of course was wrong. I also gave an example earlier of a CAB client in Bedfordshire whose husband had died, but the next day the bailiffs called at her house. She explained that her husband had died, that there were real problems in the family and that he had not made his will, but they insisted on going ahead with enforcement action. The Minister said in Committee, and she alluded to it again this afternoon, that various measures will be in place to help vulnerable people. She referred specifically to the national standards for enforcement agents, which make clear those who are potentially vulnerable, including the elderly, people with a disability, the seriously ill, the recently bereaved, single parent families and pregnant women. When the Minister replies, I hope that she will be able to make clear whether those national standards are being properly adhered to. The Reverend Paul Nicholson of the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust has done a huge amount of work in helping the vulnerable over many years and has become an expert in bailiff procedure and enforcement procedure. He has been assiduous in briefing the Committee and hon. Members and I applaud him for his work. When the Minister wrote to him, she made it clear:"““We remain of the opinion that the best way to tackle the problems that enforcement agents may face when identifying or being confronted by so-called potentially vulnerable debtor groups or situations is through the training they will have to undergo and through the enhanced and extended certification process.””" Is she going to honour that pledge? Will the existing national guidelines be adhered to? I hope that they will. The Bill will give bailiffs substantially more power. I am concerned by the use of complicated language in schedule 12, and Philip Evans, national chair of the Certified Bailiffs Association, made it clear in a letter to members of the committee that he felt that the language used in the schedule was ““gobbledegook.”” He was concerned that, over many years, the Government had not enforced the national standards and made sure that they were adhered to properly. We will have a system of regulation for private bailiffs, but it will not cover Crown agents. There will be a new certification process for them and the Minister says there will be remedies for people who have complaints. The Government have a huge vested interest in making sure that the money is collected—in many ways we respect and accept that—but there will be a great deal of pressure on bailiffs, who, we must bear in mind, will have increased powers. I am concerned by the new forced entry powers, which, to be fair, do not flow from the Bill; they were brought in by the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. This extra amendment to that Bill was tabled at the last moment and overturns many hundreds of years of common law. Bailiffs now have far more power as a result of the 2004 Act and will receive additional powers under the Bill. In Committee, I quoted the argument about the Englishman’s home being his castle, which dates back to the 14th century Semayne case. The case was commented on by William Pitt the elder, the first Earl of Chatham, in a classic quote that sums up this part of common law. In the 1960s case Southam v Smout, Lord Denning cited William Pitt the Elder’s famous saying:"““The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storms may enter; the rain may enter—but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement””." That sums up the situation that was prevalent in common law until the Government changed it. The Bill gives bailiffs yet more powers, including more powers of entry, and vulnerable people may suffer as a consequence. We do not want that to happen and it would be easy to add extra safeguards, which is what the amendment proposes. Why should not the tools of the trade be exempt in the Bill? Many of those who run into debt will be self-employed small business people. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) mentioned a constituency case in which a firm had run into debt and the bailiffs came round and removed what might have been vital equipment. I would like the Minister to comment on two additional points. First, there has of late been a lot of discussion as to whether, once the bailiffs have been unleashed, for example by a central payment office, to go to visit a debtor and to raise the money, if the debtor then wants to go back to the magistrates court to request a hearing for a review of a disproportionate fine, the magistrates court can withdraw the bailiffs after the request to enter. The Minister wrote to Rev. Paul Nicholson saying that in her view the magistrates court does have the power to order the bailiffs to be called off so that the case for review can take place. On the other hand, I have seen an opinion by leading counsel, in reference to a particular case, making it clear that it does not have the power to withdraw the bailiffs. In fact, the clerks to the magistrates court in Her Majesty’s Courts Service central payments office in Buckinghamshire say that they do not have that power. They cited—it was also cited by leading counsel—the case of R v. Hereford and Worcester Magistrates Court, ex parte MacRae, 1998, 163 JP 433. The Minister needs to clarify this because it is very important in terms of how the vulnerable are treated once they get seriously into debt and run into major problems. If Rev. Paul Nicholson and leading counsel are saying one thing and the Minister and her civil servants are saying something else, that is a pretty unfair and rum situation. Secondly, I should like to touch on the point relating to judicial review. As we know, judicial review is used to control illegal or unlawful decisions—decisions which break the law or which a body or organisation has no power to make. For example, there could be procedural impropriety, or a situation where unfair decisions are made, or the decision maker is biased, or unreasonable decisions take place where the bodies in question have discretion but do not use it. In 1948, a well known case—Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation—laid down the Wednesbury rules, which refer to all cases of judicial review. When it comes to Crown bailiffs—the Government-employed bailiffs—who act on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government, public bodies and local authorities, there is no proper system of judicial review, which means that the actions of these Government employees and Crown servants cannot be properly held to account in the courts. That concerned us a great deal in Committee, where we had a substantial debate about it. That strengthens the case for amendment No. 10, which would lay down in the Bill a proper code to help the vulnerable. Earlier, the Minister said that schedule 12 lays down the appropriate remedies and protection. She mentioned the use of reasonable force, methods of address and the procedures relating to the sale of goods. We accept a great deal of that, but it does not go far enough. We feel very strongly at a time when the Government are giving bailiffs more power, when more and more people are falling into debt, and when, sadly but inevitably as more debts are enforced and more private bailiffs are employed, that there will be abuses of the system. The Bill’s consequences will be felt in places, and we are grateful for that. For example, the Security Industry Authority will regulate private bailiffs. Not only the small minority of private bailiffs abuse power, however. Government bailiffs also do that from time to time. There are far too many cases of vulnerable people who are at their wits’ end suffering persecution, strain and stress that none of us would wish on anyone. We get such cases in our surgeries and advice centres and we read about them. They are unfortunately a fact of life. The Bill will help to reduce such cases; but granting more power, not putting in place a proper system of judicial review, and relying exclusively on schedule 12 and its remedies are not enough. I therefore urge the Under-Secretary to consider the amendment, which would provide for issuing national standards and guidance that required enforcement agencies not to act oppressively or disproportionately. If she accepts it, I shall not press amendments about the tools of the trade, the code of conduct, the rights and remedies information sheet, the competent persons test and protection for the under-16s. Amendment No. 10 goes to the core of what we are trying to achieve. We have grave concerns about the Bill, but it will do a substantial amount of good through the unified tribunal system, the provisions on looted art and the measures to update the enforcement system. However, if we go ahead without the amendment, we will unleash on the public a system that will not give them a fair deal.