Clause
58
Enforcement
agents
Mr.
Bellingham:
I beg to move amendment No. 120, in
clause 58, page 44, line 2, leave
out ‘certificate’ and insert
‘licence’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: Amendment No. 110, in
clause 59, page 44, line 21, leave
out ‘certificate’ and insert
‘licence’.
Amendment
No. 112, in clause 59, page 44, line 24, leave out
‘certificates’ and insert
‘licences’.
Amendment
No. 113, in clause 59, page 44, line 28, leave out
‘certificates’ and insert
‘licences’.
Amendment
No. 114, in clause 59, page 44, line 30, leave out
‘certificates’ and insert
‘licences’.
Amendment
No. 115, in clause 59, page 44, line 32, leave out
‘certificates’ and insert
‘licences’.
Amendment
No. 116, in clause 59, page 44, line 33, leave out
‘certificates’ and insert
‘licences’.
Amendment
No. 117, in clause 59, page 44, line 34, leave out
‘certificate’ and insert
‘licence’.
Amendment
No. 118, in clause 59, page 44, line 36, leave out
‘certificates’ and insert
‘licences’.
Amendment
No. 119, in clause 59, page 44, line 39, leave out
‘certificate’ and insert
‘licence’.
Amendment
No. 130, in clause 85, page 53, line 23, after ‘under’,
insert
‘section
[Licensing of enforcement agents, enforcement agency businesses and
enforcement trade associations]
or’.
New clause
3—Licensing of enforcement agents, enforcement agency
business and enforcement trade
associations
—
‘(1)
Within one calendar year of the enactment of this Act the Secretary of
State must lay draft regulations (the regulations) for the licensing of
enforcement agents, enforcement agency businesses and enforcement trade
associations before both Houses of
Parliament.
(2) Before laying
the regulations the Secretary of State must consult such enforcement
trade associations and such
representatives of magistrates, enforcement agents, enforcement agency
businesses, the credit industry, providers of advice about credit and
other interested parties as he considers
appropriate. (3) The
regulations shall establish an independent regulator (the regulator)
to—
(a) license
enforcement agents (other than those made exempt by section 55) and
enforcement agency businesses and trade
associations;
(b) establish
standards by requirements for licensing, by codes of practice, by
prescribed forms, by training requirements and by the inspection of
licensed individuals and
undertakings;
(c) investigate
complaints made against licensed individuals and
undertakings;
(d) impose
financial and other requirements on licensed individuals and
undertakings as a condition of licence or as a result of investigations
made under paragraph (c) above;
and
(e) do such other things as
it is reasonably required to do properly to fulfil those
functions.
(4) The regulations
shall also establish a means of appeal for licensed individuals and
undertakings against decisions taken by the
regulator.
(5) The regulator
may delegate such of its functions as it considers appropriate to trade
associations that it has
licensed.
(6) The regulator may
require any government department that employs enforcement agents to
co-operate in producing common standards for the conduct of enforcement
agents and for dealing with complaints against
them.
(7) The regulator shall
each year lay a report before each House of Parliament on the operation
of this Act.
(8) The
regulations may make such amendments to other regulations or statutes
as are reasonably consequent upon the
regulations.
(9) On the first
occasion that both Houses of Parliament approve the
regulations—
(a) section
58 shall be amended by substituting the words “is licensed under
section [Licensing of enforcement agents, enforcement agency businesses
and enforcement trade associations]” for the words “acts
under a certificate under section 59” in subsection (2)(a);
and
(b) section 59 shall be
repealed.’.
New
clause 8—Commencement of Chapter 1 of Part
3
—
‘The
provisions of Chapter 1 of Part 3 of this Act shall not come into force
until a registration scheme for bailiffs and enforcement agents,
enforcement agency businesses and enforcement trade associations has
been set up and implemented in accordance with the provisions of the
Private Security Industry Act 2001 or of this
Act.’.
Amendment
No. 160, in
clause 143, page 110, line 3, at
end insert—
‘(4A) No order
may be made under this section to bring Chapter 1 of Part 3 into force
unless the provisions of section [Commencement of Chapter 1 of
Part 3] have been complied
with.’.
Mr.
Bellingham:
We will try to make some progress, because we
are now debating an important part of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 120, 110, 112
to 119, 130 and 160 are consequential on the new clauses. They would
remove the word “certificate” and insert
“licence”, because obviously, under a system of
independent regulation, the independent regulator issues licences. The
Government have a choice of two new clauses. They can have either
Conservative new clause 3 or
Liberal Democrat new clause 8, but let us not split
hairs. Both the new clauses would do the job that they are intended to
do. There is an
overwhelming feeling in the bailiff industry that there should be
proper outside regulation. It is not just
us—[Interruption.]
The
Chairman:
Order. There is a certain hubbub developing from
two Members in sedentary positions. I feel sure that they will want to
desist so that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk can develop his
argument.
Mr.
Bellingham:
I am grateful to you, Mr. Bercow,
for protection from the hubbub emanating from that direction. It is
never easy to develop an argument in the context of a substantial
hubbub.
I shall try to
be brief, because I do not want to go in great detail through all the
arguments for regulation—they were discussed at some length in
the other place and on Second Reading—but I should mention that
a number of people have underlined the need for outside regulation,
including the Enforcement Law Reform Group and the indomitable
Mr. Philip Evans in representations. I hope that I did not
see someone shaking their head at the name of Philip Evans. He has been
most helpful in briefing Committee
members.
The National
Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, or Citizens Advice as it is now
called, has lobbied MPs up and down the country to express its concern
about the Bill’s provisions and its belief that in the context
of giving bailiffs extra power, a system of outside regulation should
be introduced. The Zacchaeus 2000 Trust, about which we have heard, has
been helpful and assiduous in ensuring that we have been properly
briefed on those aspects of the Bill affecting vulnerable people. The
Enforcement Services Association and the Association of Civil
Enforcement Agencies also take the view that there should be outside
regulation.
The
original enforcement Green Paper argued strongly for independent
outside regulation. That was endorsed by Professor J. Beatson,
professor of public law at Cambridge university. He produced a report
for the Lord Chancellor in 2000, on which I believe the Green Paper was
partly based, in which he made it clear that he felt strongly that
independent regulation of bailiffs was necessary. The arguments are
strong if one considers the extra powers that bailiffs will be given.
When the Minister joined the debate on the last group of amendments,
she said that the extra powers are quite minimal and will concentrate
around one key area, but I submit that they are considerable.
We are in a society in which
more and more debt is building up. The amount of debt in private
households in this country is now quite frightening. We hear day in and
day out in our constituencies of families that get themselves into
debt, go to loan sharks, try to pay off the debt using additional
credit cards and get into a spiral of increasing debt. We all know of
terrible examples of families that started off with quite a modest debt
that became impossible.
Later in the
Bill, we shall come to the proposed new arrangements to help people who
end up in serious
debt. However, the problem is that in society when there is debt,
creditors have the right to enforce and collect it. We could be talking
about private individuals; debts could be owed to them. Debts may also
be owed to corporate entities, companies or Departments. As debt builds
up, so collections increase and the activities of the
bailiffs—both Crown and private—also increase in a
commensurate fashion. In the next few years, more and
more work will be done by bailiffs. We have talked at length about how
only a small minority of bailiffs abuse the system and represent
themselves, wrongly, as having powers that they do not have. Only a
small minority will behave in an aggressive and intimidating fashion.
Nevertheless, we all know that such things happen, and they happen
because of human nature.
Although we certainly agree
with the Minister that it is a good idea to codify the rights and
powers of bailiffs in one place in the Bill, there is an overwhelming
case for outside, independent regulation by a body that could lay down
exactly what could and should not be done and was able to issue
licences. Furthermore, as well as issuing licences, that body would
have the power to take them away and discipline the bailiffs in
question completely independently.
The Minister suggested that
that role can be fulfilled by the Security Industry Authority. We
understand that the SIA is not keen to take on that role; that has been
reported to me by a number of the different organisations that I
mentioned earlier. If the Minister says categorically that the SIA is
happy to take on that role, I will be slightly more
reassured.
The other
important point is that the SIA will be regulating only private
bailiffs, not Government bailiffs, the Crown agents. We propose an
independent outside regulator to regulate all bailiffs. The arguments
in favour of that approach are overwhelming. If we are going to give
bailiffs more power, if their activities increase—as will
inevitably happen in a society where debt is building up—and if
we are to protect creditors, as we have to do in any market economy, I
am afraid that there will be more examples of vulnerable people being
oppressed and maltreated and more people will come to our surgeries
complaining. That is why we need proper outside regulation.
I want to ask the Minister
about one more important point. The Bill introduces a new certification
procedure for bailiffs. I understand that Ministers have made it clear
that the proposals will cover all private bailiffs. However, I gather
that the proposals will not do that. The Enforcement Law Reform Group
said:
“This
could, in fact, exempt any bailiff the Lord Chancellor chooses but I
expect it will be used to exempt county court bailiffs (who are civil
servants) and the private bailiffs authorised to enforce High Court
orders.”
Will the
Minister clarify that
point?
As legislators,
it is vital that we should act in good faith and do all we can to help
those in society who deserve extra protection. I would not like to go
away from this Committee and the deliberations on this Bill without
being able to sleep more quietly at night, knowing that, rather than
having an SIA that will regulate only private bailiffs, we will have a
proper system of overarching, overall regulation of the entire bailiff
industry.
5.45
pm
Mr.
David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): It is a delight to serve
under your chairmanship once more, Mr. Bercow, and I
apologise for the hubbub, which was entirely the fault of my hon.
Friend the Member for Bristol,
North-West.
I seek
clarification as to whether the consultation on the regulation of
enforcement agents is running in parallel with the Bill. As the hon.
Member for North-West Norfolk said, the notion of the regulation being
undertaken by the SIA seems to be the main idea that comes from that
consultation, and I have considerable sympathy with what he said about
proper, transparent and accountable regulation by an independent body.
Can the Minister clarify whether there has been an overwhelming
response to the effect that there should be a different form of
independent body to deal with the vagaries of the bailiff system, and
if so, whether that can be incorporated in legislation? I refer not to
the primary legislation, which I hope will already have been enacted,
but secondary legislation, to make the changes that give us an
independent body to which bailiffs will be
accountable.
Simon
Hughes:
I commend the attempts that have been made to link
the implementation of this part of the legislation to a registration
system. My new clause is far shorter than that of the hon. Member for
North-West Norfolk, so it should commend itself doubly to the
Committee.
I have a
slightly philosophical dilemma, because I come from a tradition that
wants as little regulation as possible. I would normally, therefore,
resist the idea that we should give more powers to
regulators—the state is already too oppressive rather than not
oppressive enough. However, we are talking here about people who are
empowered to interfere with people’s homes and property, and
therefore with their civil liberties. It seems to me that, just as we
have tight legislation concerning what the police can do in such
circumstances, so we need a regulatory system that will ensure that
others with such powers are controlled. That is how I square the
political and philosophical circle.
First, this is an area in
which, as we have discussed, the public need to know that, where
possible, the people who have the power have a uniform. The Minister
was positive about that on Second Reading. Secondly, I am sympathetic
to the idea that there should be a limited number of categories.
Constables should not fall under the regulator, because they have
powers elsewhere and it would be inappropriate to suggest that they
should be subject to further regulation. Further, because this is an
enforcement mechanism, it is probably right to work on the basis that
anybody who works for the courts does not need to be separately
regulated. If the people working for the courts are not working
properly, we are in trouble. If this service is to be
contracted-out—as, increasingly, it is—it must be up to
the Courts Service, and above it the Department for Constitutional
Affairs, to ensure that those working on behalf of the courts system
have a good reputation.
However, it seems reasonable
that others should be regulated. In that case, it is easier to think in
terms of people who work for Revenue and Customs as being in
the same system as others who are neither police constables nor working
for the Courts Service. In any event, members of the public need to
know that those in authority can be identified not just by a piece of
paper but by their
uniforms. Lastly, on
who should do the regulating, we already have a Security Industry
Authority. My simple political principle suggests that it is better to
use an agency that exists, as long as it is more or less appropriate or
can be made so, than to create another organisation and therefore more
bureaucracy, more cost and more management. Therefore, I think that the
authority that we set up in 2001 is the right one. It has been going
for only a few years. It may need to be modified. It may need to be
rebranded slightly. It may need other changes. But let us use an agency
that we have.
I
obviously am sympathetic to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member
for North-West Norfolk. I am glad that we will link the system, but I
hope that the Minister can give us the assurance that there will not be
this interim period. At the moment we are in the slightly muddled
position that the Bill proposes one regime and then later down the
track there will be another regulated regime. We do not need the
interim stage. We could go from where we are to a regulated system. If
there is no interim period, it will make the regulated system come more
quickly because the pressure will be there to deliver it more quickly.
Finally, could the Minister reconsider having no new interim
arrangement and moving straight to regulation? What is the earliest
date that Ministers believe that a new regulated system can apply to
bailiffs, enforcement agents and the like?
Vera
Baird:
We intend to regulate this industry. The industry
itself wants to be regulated and the stakeholders who have made
representations to us, and almost all of those who have made
representations to fellow members of the Committee, want regulation.
And regulation there will be. There will be regulation as soon as it
can possibly be put in place. It will regulate those who are not court
or state employees. There are precious few complaints about them.
Citizens Advice makes it very clear that it is private bailiffs about
whom it complains and not court or state employees, who are, of course,
subject to civil service codes, discipline and complaints procedures
already. We think that that is sufficient.
I hope that the hon. Member for
North-West Norfolk is wrong to suggest that there will be an increase
in bailiff activity. I hope that there is good power in part 5 that
will help a lot of people to deal more adequately with their
indebtedness than in the past. That will obviate the need for this type
of action as much as
possible.
The
Government issued a joint consultancy partial regulatory impact
assessment exploring the cost and impact of regulation and setting out
the preferred option: that is the Security Industry Authority, which is
an agency of the Home Office. I should reiterate that implementing the
preferred option—in other words, regulation by the
SIA—can be achieved through secondary legislation. What is
required, as there is a structure in the Private Security Industry Act
2001, is to use secondary legislation to bring the bailiffs
into that structure. There will be an affirmative order, which the Home
Office intends to lay before the summer recess.
After the
making of the affirmative order it will be for the Home Office and the
SIA to take regulation forward toward implementation after consulting
all the stakeholders. It is not appropriate to set, as the hon. Member
for North-West Norfolk does, a time limit because it is more important
to get it right for all parties. He can rely on us. We intend to move
as quickly as we possibly can. We are committed to regulation. The
interim solution, as it has been described by the hon. Member for North
Southwark and Bermondsey, is important therefore in the meantime. There
are provisions in the Bill that it is imperative to introduce very
quickly. There must be a beefed up certification process to hold the
fort for us until we can bring in the SIA.
Simon
Hughes:
Could the hon. and learned Lady help us with my
question about the timetable? What are the earliest and the latest
dates that the Government would expect the regulation under the SIA to
be
achieved?
Vera
Baird:
I do not think that I can be as specific as that.
The hon. Gentleman would not derive much assistance from the latest
date and we are not clear about the earliest date. Let me make it very
clear to the Committee that the political will is to do it as soon as
at all possible. We want regulation, and regulation we intend to bring
in.
I
have referred to the interim solution and said how important it is.
Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said, there is a significant
difference between his amendment No. 160 and the amendment that the
hon. Member for North-West Norfolk has moved. Amendment No. 160 would
not allow any of the provisions of chapter 1 of part 3 to come into
force until the regulatory scheme was in place. That is wholly
undesirable, because chapter 1 introduces many valuable protections for
debtors, including fixed times and dates when enforcement agents can
call, limits to the methods of entry that they can use, exemption of
goods from seizure, a single fee structure and new remedies when
enforcement agents break the law. If amendment No. 160 were accepted,
many of the things that we discussed this morning that we currently do
not do and which urgently need to be brought into force would not come
into force.
To give
further reassurance, I shall repeat what I have already said. The only
increased power is the one that I have committed the Government to not
introducing until the full regulatory scheme is in force. The rest of
the Bill is all supportive of the fair use of bailiff procedures and is
intended to get rid of the anomalies and irregularities that have been
much quoted to me today and which I accept
occur.
The hon. Member
for North-West Norfolk suggested that the SIA was not keen to take the
task on. That is incorrect; furthermore, I have written to him to say
so. He suggested the same on Second Reading, so I wrote to him
afterwards to say,
“you
suggested that the SIA was not keen to take on the work of licensing
enforcement agents. That is not the case. It has long been the
intention that the SIA would take on this work and the organisation is
now in a position to do
so.”
We must therefore
hasten to get the SIA to do exactly that.
Mr.
Bellingham:
I am very grateful to the Minister for
explaining things so clearly. We on the Conservative Benches feel
strongly about the issue and so hope to return to it on Report. We are
concerned that the SIA will regulate only private bailiffs. We feel
that our solution is better and would have more impact on protecting
those who need protection. However, we are certainly grateful to the
Minister for ensuring that those provisions in the Bill that create new
powers will not be commenced until the SIA procedures come into place.
That is a significant concession to those of us who have been arguing
the case strongly for some time, and it is always good to go away with
something. When the Minister reflects on this debate, I hope that she
will appreciate that members of the Committee and those interested in
the subject have worked hard together to try to improve the Bill.
However, on the basis of what she has said, I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Mr.
Bellingham:
I beg to move amendment No. 121, in
clause 58, page 44, line 5, at
end insert—
‘(2A) Any
individual acting as an enforcement agent must act in accordance with
the regulations made under section
59.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 111, in
clause 58, page 44, line 17, at
end insert—
‘(6A) The
Secretary of State may by order permit a specified person or class of
persons to use the style “bailiff” in connection with
enforcement by taking control of
goods.
(6B) A person is guilty
of an offence if, knowingly or recklessly, he describes himself as a
bailiff in connection with enforcement or by taking control of goods or
with any other debt collection activities without being authorised to
do so by subsection
(6A).’.
No.
127, in
clause 58, page 44, line 17, at
end insert—
‘(6A) A person
is guilty of an offence under this section if he knowingly or
recklessly fails to comply with any regulation, code of practice or
other requirement made in pursuance of the powers set out in section
59.’.
No.
106, in
clause 59, page 44, line 26, leave
out ‘may’ and insert
‘shall’.
No.
107, in
clause 59, page 44, line 29, at
end insert—
‘(ba) for
requirements to be fulfilled before a certificate is issued, and the
manner in which the meeting of those requirements is
verified;
(bb) the training
requirements of holders of
certificates;
(bc) for rules to
be followed by holders of certificates in the course of their
business;
(bd) for the
provision of information and identification to
debtors;
(be) for the insurance
to be carried by holders of
certificates;
(bf) for the
payment of compensation to injured
parties;’.
No.
109, in
clause 59, page 44, line 36, at
end insert—
‘(3A) The Lord
Chancellor shall by order provide for the regulation of individuals
certified to act as an enforcement
agent.
(3B) No order may be
made under subsection (3A) unless a draft of the order has been laid
before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of
Parliament.’.
Mr.
Bellingham:
I shall try to be brief. The amendment would
insert proposed new subsection (2A), which says:
“Any individual acting
as an enforcement agent must act in accordance with the regulations
made under section 59”,
which is currently clause 59,
“Certificates to act as an enforcement agent”. The
amendment would tighten up clause 58.
Amendment No. 111 would insert
proposed new subsection (6A), which
says:
“The
Secretary of State may by order permit a specified person or class of
persons to use the style ‘bailiff’ in connection with
enforcement by taking control of
goods.”
Proposed new
subsection (6B) in amendment No. 111
says:
“A person
is guilty of an offence if, knowingly or recklessly, he describes
himself as a bailiff in connection with enforcement or by taking
control of goods or with any other debt collection
activities”.
It is
important that there should be an offence for people who represent
themselves as bailiffs when in fact they are not. That might sound like
a simple and straightforward point, but amendment No. 111 would add
that extra
protection.
6
pm
Amendment No.
127 repeats proposed new subsection (6B), as set out in amendment No.
111, so I shall not read it out. It would create an offence for someone
who knowingly or recklessly fails to comply with a regulation or code
of practice. Amendment No. 106 would simply take out
“may” and insert “shall”. I think that it
is a consequential amendment, which is why it refers to clause 59. I
think that amendment No. 107 is another consequential amendment to
clause 59—I see the Clerk nodding. It would lay down a
requirement for the proper training of certificate holders. It is quite
complicated to keep track of things when one dodges from one clause to
another, particularly when dealing with clause 58. Amendment No. 109
would insert the
following:
“The
Lord Chancellor shall by order provide for the regulation of
individuals certified to act as an enforcement agent...No order
may be made under subsection (3A) unless a draft of the order has been
laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of
Parliament.”
The
amendments are fairly simple and straightforward. They would add an
extra layer of protection. We feel that they are worthy and well
thought out. They may not be perfectly drafted, but I commend them as
probing
amendments.
Simon
Hughes:
In one sentence, I commend amendment No. 109 to
the Minister, as it is important that Parliament should have the right
to agree to the regulations as a matter of course, as they will raise
important matters for the individuals and organisations
concerned.
Vera
Baird:
Amendment No. 121 mirrors an amendment tabled at
the Grand Committee in the other place, and it closely resembles
amendments that are to be discussed in the next group. I have already
made clear the Government’s position on the certification of
Crown employees. I do not believe it to be necessary, and if it is
acceptable to the Committee, I shall give more detailed reasons in the
later debate.
Amendment No. 111 mirrors an
amendment moved on Report in the other place. The Bill gives the
collective title of “enforcement agent” to all who take
control of goods and sell them under a power in accordance with
schedule 12. The term will apply to county court bailiffs, High Court
enforcement officers, tax collectors, private bailiffs and anyone else
who is certificated under the enhanced and extended regime of clause 59
when taking control of
goods.
I am not
entirely sure of the point of the amendment, unless it is a concern
that people who now call themselves bailiffs will not be able to do so
in future. Many who work in the industry like to use the job title of
bailiff; they have got used to it. Let me clarify the matter: they can
still call themselves bailiffs if that is their job title. The
provision is not about changing titles. County court bailiffs will
still be county court bailiffs, High Court enforcement officers will
still have the same title, tax collectors will remain as such and so
on, but collectively they will all be called enforcement agents when
taking control of goods in accordance with schedule
12.
The amendment
would also create a new offence if a person knowingly or recklessly
describes himself as a bailiff in connection with enforcement by taking
control of goods or engaging in other debt collection activities
without being authorised to do so. As we are not creating a specific
and separate category of enforcement agent called a bailiff, it follows
that we do not need a separate offence to deal with those who describe
themselves as bailiffs. I hope that the hon. Member for North-West
Norfolk will be satisfied that there is no need for those
amendments.
In
amendment No. 127, the hon. Gentleman proposes to make failure to
comply with regulations about certification a criminal offence. We do
not think that that is necessary. Application is made to a county
court, and the contents of the application form will be sworn on oath
before a judge. Examination of applicants on the details required by
the judge is carried out under oath, so contravention of the process
would amount to a contempt of court. That is an appropriate sanction
for dealing with such a contravention.
Amendment No. 106 appears to
stipulate the provisions that must be contained in regulations. The
provisions in subsection (3) are an indicative list and set the minimum
provisions, and I would prefer to maintain that flexibility.
The extra requirements in
amendment No. 107 are not necessary. We have committed to putting many
of them in regulations and much of their detail is in paragraph 194 of
the policy statement, to which I have referred extensively. The
provision of information to debtors is already contained specifically
in paragraphs 7 and 28 of schedule 12, to which extensive reference has
been made. The provision of identification by an enforcement agent to a
debtor is covered in paragraph 26 of the same schedule.
Prescribing insurance
requirements for individual agents may not be practical if bailiff
companies employ many agents. Agents will have to provide a bond anyway
as part of the certification process, and it will be used when
appropriate to pay compensation to debtors who successfully complain
about the actions of
an enforcement agent. Paragraph 194 of the detailed policy statement
deals with that
issue. Amendment No.
109 is intended to regulate by order all agents who would be subject to
certification under regulations under clause 59 and, on the final point
made by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey, proposes
that such an order-making power should be subject to the affirmative
resolution procedure. I share the view of the Delegated Powers and
Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place that the negative
resolution procedure is appropriate for the purpose. I hope that hon.
Members will feel able not to press the
amendments.
Mr.
Bellingham:
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Mr.
Bellingham:
I beg to move amendment No. 122, in
clause 58, page 44, line 6, leave
out ‘one of
these’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 123, in
clause 58, page 44, line 8, leave
out paragraph (b).
No.
124, in
clause 58, page 44, line 9, leave
out paragraph (c).
No.
125, in
clause 58, page 44, line 11, leave
out subsection
(4).
No. 126, in
clause 58, page 44, line 13, leave
out subsection
(5).
No. 156, in
clause 59, page 44, line 31, at
end insert—
‘(ca) for
certificates of prescribed categories to be given to prescribed classes
of person (including, but not limited to, officers of government
departments and persons appointed under section 2(1) of the Courts Act
2003 (c. 39) (court officers, staff and
services));’.
Mr.
Bellingham:
The amendments would improve the Bill and they
make sense. Amendment No. 122 is purely a paving amendment. It would
remove the words “one of these” from clause 58(3), which
states:
“An
individual is exempt if he acts in the course of his duty as one of
these—
(a) a
constable;
(b) an
officer of Revenue and
Customs;
(c) a person
appointed under section 2(1) of the Courts Act
2003”.
Amendment No. 123
would remove paragraph (b), amendment No. 124 would remove paragraph
(c) and amendment No. 125 would remove subsection (4), which
states:
“An
individual is exempt if he acts in the course of his duty as an officer
of a government
department.”
Amendment
No. 126 would remove subsection (5), which
states:
“For
the purposes of an enforcement power conferred by a warrant, an
individual is exempt if in relation to the warrant he is a civilian
enforcement officer”.
We
feel that there are too many exemptions. There are exemptions for
officers of Revenue and Customs, but do they not have enough power
already? There are
exemptions for Government officers, and again we believe that that
extends the powers too far. I wish to push the Minister on
one particular point. The essence of the clause is to introduce a new
certification procedure for bailiffs, and I return to a point that I
made a moment ago. Twice now, Ministers have told hon. Members that the
proposals will cover all private bailiffs, but I am not sure whether
that is 100 per cent. correct. Clause 58(3)(c), which we would
delete, exempts
“a person
appointed under section 2(1) of the Courts Act
2003”.
That provision
could, in fact, exempt any bailiff whom the Lord Chancellor chooses. I
expect that it will be used to exempt county court bailiffs, who are
civil servants, and private bailiffs authorised under the relevant
paragraphs of schedule 12 to enforce High Court orders. I know that
that is a technical, tricky point, but perhaps the Minister could put
our minds at rest. In light of the fact that we are probing, will she
give me some comfort that the clause does not require the improvement
that I am
suggesting?
Vera
Baird:
Amendments Nos. 122 to 126 would mean that no
enforcement agents except police constables would be exempted from the
proposed enhanced and extended certification process. We believe that
there is no need for Crown employees to be certificated under this new
procedure, because they are already subject to suitable recruitment,
training and disciplinary procedures in their position as civil
servants. At present, the Department for Constitutional Affairs does
not have control over the training, conduct and discipline of private
enforcement agents, but it does have a very large amount of control
over its own enforcement staff.
County court
bailiffs, civilian enforcement officers and the magistrates court are
subject to civil service recruitment. The civil service code governs
their behaviour. They are subject to strict controls over their
conduct, subject to discipline under the civil service discipline
procedures and complaints against them can be made to the appropriate
court manager. They are also subject to continued training and
development provided by the Department, and they are now, of course,
subject to compulsory criminal record checks. We can therefore insist
that certain standards will be adhered to within our own Department,
but we have no such power in respect of private sector and local
authority enforcement agents; hence the need for compulsory
certification for those sectors of the industry.
It is widely acknowledged that
the private sector bailiffs are the source of most complaints about the
activities of enforcement agents. Figures from Citizens Advice indicate
that 93 or 94 per cent.—it was certainly more than 90 per
cent.—of the complaints that it receives about the behaviour of
bailiffs are about those employed in the private sector. Compulsory
certification is therefore aimed at the sector that is in most need of
regulation.
Although
Crown-employed enforcement agents will be exempt from the new process,
I want to reiterate what my noble Friend Baroness Ashton said in the
other place on Third Reading. The Government are committed to ensuring
a common set of standards and a common appearance across the
enforcement industry.
There
is a footnote: the cost to the public purse of certificating all Crown
employees and the application process, bearing in mind the
£10,000 bond that every certificated bailiff must put forward,
would be £22 million. Given that few complaints are
made about those involved and that they are already closely tied to the
civil service code, and although I accept that cost will not be
determinative in any issues concerning the security of ordinary people,
that is none the less another important
point.
We are
committed to ensuring common standards across the enforcement agencies,
and I hope that those reassurances will empower the hon. Member for
North-West Norfolk to seek leave to withdraw his
amendment.
Mr.
Bellingham:
I have a final point. I commented on how
Ministers had told hon. Members that the proposals in clause 58 would
cover all private bailiffs. Will the Minister elaborate a tiny bit more
on that issue and on the point made about section 2(1) of the Courts
Act 2003? Perhaps she could write to
me.
Vera
Baird:
I am happy to write if that is acceptable. I shall
write to everyone on the Committee, because
clearly there is strong interest in the matter. If other issues arise
from it, I am sure that we will find other opportunities to address
them.
Mr.
Bellingham:
I am very grateful to the Minister. I think
that to talk about a strong interest on the part of the whole Committee
could be exaggerating slightly, because quite a few hon. Members have
decided to take an early evening
off.
Simon
Hughes:
They have gone to a higher
place.
Mr.
Bellingham:
Yes, I would like to have gone to a higher
place, but unfortunately I had to refuse.
In the light of the good will
shown by the Minister in response to our probing amendments, I beg to
ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
58 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Further
consideration adjourned.—[Mr.
Michael
Foster.]
Adjourned
accordingly at fourteen minutes past Six o’clock till
Thursday 22 March at Nine
o’clock.
| 
