---

Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [Lords]

I shall speak about amendments Nos. 68, 25, 69, 36, 26, 38, 27, 28, 70, 29 to 32 and 40. Reading them out is a speech in itself, so I shall try to be brief. I do not want to hold up proceedings—we are here, feeling the hand of history on our shoulders, while our constituents are feeling the waters of history in their wellingtons and basements. I would much rather be in my constituency helping my constituents deal with their problems. I congratulate the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) because it is good to see the Conservative party taking up the defence of the poor and vulnerable, as he has done consistently throughout our debates on the Bill. My amendments have the same purpose. A high proportion of mistakes occurs in many cases in which bailiffs are brought in. Those mistakes are made in the system of delivering fines and punishment, which is extraordinarily sloppy. We have a mobile society, especially in London, and fairly antiquated court procedures, which grind slowly on and get to grips with the issues some weeks after the matters have arisen, and then mistakes are often made in delivery. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will explain why we do not require all court matters and judgments to be sent by recorded delivery. It is not an expensive system—heaven knows it would not add substantially to costs. All European countries require delivery by such a system so that people can be sure that details and fines have arrived. My amendments attempt to avoid mistakes by ensuring that fines and details of bailiffs’ intended actions are delivered. The amendments would prevent the sort of abuses that happen now, when bailiffs make phantom visits. They are paid for visits and, in many cases, it suits them to claim for phantom visits—visits that never took place or left no record at the relevant house. They can charge for all such visits to increase their revenues. It is silly. There are cases where a mistake has been made, and the person involved is not responsible for the charge, yet visits are claimed to have been made, which adds to the bill and compounds the problem. My amendments Nos. 28, 69, 70, 29 and 30 are an attempt to ensure effective delivery of the bailiffs’ action, and of the fines and charges that have been claimed to have been made, to the people responsible. With proper delivery in place, if a mistake had been made the person concerned could contest it. That would cut the whole procedure off. This is a simple provision, and I do not know why we do not adopt it, to ensure that all deliveries by bailiffs, courts and councils are made by recorded delivery, so that guarantees are in place. Amendment No. 68 would require the publication of the contracts between the courts, the local authorities and the firms of bailiffs, so that people would know how effectively the firms were being regulated, what the bailiffs’ rights and responsibilities were, and what their own rights were. All too often, inquiries have revealed contracts to be out of date, badly drafted or ineffective, and councils are often reluctant to produce them. People have to go through freedom of information procedures to see the contracts on which this whole system is based, which is ridiculous. We need published contracts to ensure proper enforcement and the proper regulation of bailiffs. Amendment No. 36 is intended to rectify a major omission from the Bill by providing protection for essential household items and other things needed by the debtor or his family to continue earning a living. Bailiffs should not be able to seize such items, and they need to be protected. I know that essential items are exempt under various statutes. For example, the tools of a person’s trade are exempt, except in relation to the enforcement of non-domestic rates and VAT payments. As the amount of penalties and sanctions increases, we need to define what items bailiffs can take, and to extend the basic provision to cover money and foods, which are necessary for the survival of the family. The policy statement sets out the protection to be given to goods in the regulations. However, if Parliament, through this legislation, effectively abolishes the common law protections, we should enact their replacement in the form of statutory protections, rather than delegating the task to the Minister. The Minister is responsible for using bailiffs to recover Government revenues, and therefore has a vested interest in sustaining and helping them. That is a conflict of interest. We should therefore define what is protected in the legislation and not leave it to be set out in regulations. That is why my amendment No. 36 defines what bailiffs may and may not take, in a clear and simple fashion. What is wrong with that? I turn to amendment No. 40. Paragraph 53(2) of schedule 12 states that goods that are unsold at auction are to be ““abandoned”” and must be returned to the debtor. Paragraph 54(1)(a) states that, if that happens,"““the enforcement power ceases to be exercisable””." Surely that will cause problems. At the moment, if an item does not attract a reasonable price at auction, it is kept back until the next auction. That is sensible, because someone will eventually buy it, and we want to get the best price for such items. Am I correct in saying that the new paragraph will prohibit that? If the alternative to selling the item is to return it, it will surely be flogged for whatever the auctioneers can get for it. It is therefore likely to attract a much lower price than if it is put back in the next auction. Currently, failure to sell one item does not affect the sale of any other items taken from the debtor. Under paragraph 54, however, if the enforcement power ceases to become exercisable, none of the other items can be sold. It is therefore probable that all the items will be sold off as a simple job lot. That means that they will raise less money than they would if they were sold individually. It is in all our interests that the debtor gets the best price for the items confiscated. I worry that the provision will stop that.