| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
That is all that I wanted to say about new clause 6, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby. I hope that I have allayed his concerns through my best endeavours. My officials have worked very hard to make sure that I am in a position to use those best endeavours to try to deal with his
complaints. I have said, and will say again, that the will of the Government is that there should be proper licensing, proper regulation and proper complaints procedures to ensure that the enforcement agency sector no longer produces the kind of horrors of which we have heard.
Amendments Nos. 33 to 35 concern certification, and as the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk said, they effectively replicate amendments tabled by the Conservatives in Committee in the Commons, and in Grand Committee in the other place. Our position on the certification of Crown employees has already been made clear, but let me restate it: I do not believe that it is necessary for them to fall within the new regime. The Government have little or no control over the training, conduct and discipline of enforcement agents. In contrast, Her Majesty’s Courts Service has a large degree of control over agents such as county court bailiffs. Other departments, such as Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, have similarly high levels of control over their own enforcement staff.
County court bailiffs and civilian enforcement officers in the magistrates courts are subject to civil service recruitment procedures, and the civil service code governs their behaviour. They are subject to strict controls relating to conduct and discipline under civil service disciplinary procedures, and complaints against them can be made to the appropriate court manager. They are also subject to continuous training and development, which is provided by their departments, and of course they are subject to compulsory criminal record checks. Although we can insist that such standards be adhered to within our own departments, we have no such power outside our departments, hence the need for certification. However, it is not needed for our own employees. It is widely acknowledged that the problem is private sector bailiffs; they are the source of most of the complaints about the activities of enforcement agents. Figures provided by Citizens Advice show that well over 90 per cent. of the complaints that it receives on the subject relate to that sector. It is at that sector that we must target the comprehensive system of regulation.
I want to reiterate what my noble Friend Baroness Ashton said on Third Reading in the other place, and what I said in Committee about Crown employees: the Government are committed to ensuring a common set of standards and a common appearance—that gives an indication of the subject that I shall move on to next—across the enforcement industry, built around a high standard of training and professionalism across the public and private sectors. We are considering what we can do on the subject of common information and a central register of enforcement agents, so that debtors can verify that the person on the doorstep has the necessary authority.
Amendments Nos. 21 and 24 are unnecessary. Amendment No. 21 would mean that enforcement functions could not be carried out by those who assist the enforcement agent in his presence and under his direction. Enforcement agents need to take other persons on to premises with them for practical reasons, for example when they are dealing with large-scale business or industrial premises. They may need
assistance in taking an inventory or removing goods that need packaging and safeguarding; for those tasks, expertise is essential. Frequently, of course, they require the assistance of a locksmith. If we insist that those functions cannot be carried out by someone assisting the enforcement officer under his direction and in his presence—that is what is required—it will make the whole process of taking control of goods so lengthy and complex that it is virtually unworkable.
Amendment No. 24 would have far-reaching consequences which, I guess, were not intended. For many statutory debts, such as debts owed to national or local government bodies, the statutory power to enforce, using certain methods, is placed in the hands of the relevant Secretary of State. The Secretary of State then confers that power on another person working on his behalf. He may confer it on a member of staff in the relevant organisation, or on a company that provides the relevant services, by means of a contract. If the amendment were made, the effect would be that only those on whom the relevant statutory enforcement power was conferred could carry out the function of enforcement. I am sure that is not what my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby intends, and I shall go on to explain how catastrophic it would be if the Secretary of State alone could carry out those functions.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I am interested to hear that. My hon. and learned Friend is almost certainly right, as she usually is. However, those contracts whether with local authorities or courts, could be made publicly available, and we should use more power to regulate the enforcement officer’s behaviour and the charges. Most of those contracts are not clear or adequate, and they are not known.
2 pm
Vera Baird: 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 underpin 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 they 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.
Simon Hughes:
I thank the Minister for her full and careful response to the debate. It was extremely helpful that she dealt with all four new clauses and eight
amendments in the group, which were tabled from different parts of the House and deal with several different but interrelated issues.
The Minister made the point and we all accept—there is a huge amount of common ground—that the Bill seeks to address the concerns of those who are old, those with learning difficulties, and those who are inadequate, poor, incapacitated, ill and vulnerable, who find at some stage in their lives that at their door—usually the door of their home, but occasionally the door of their business—somebody has come to enforce the consequence of some financial arrangement that they have got themselves into. As the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said, it can start with something as inconsequential as a parking ticket, and often does, or with a clamp on their vehicle, if they have one. It can start with a very small fine for dropping litter on the street.
There was a story in the Evening Standard yesterday about some well known star or starlet—I forget who it was—who faces a huge fine for congestion charge non-payment because she thought that her vehicle was an eco-friendly vehicle that qualified for exemption, and therefore had never paid. She now discovers that she has been liable all the time. I am not defending her. I am merely pointing out that the bright, the intelligent and the well connected can get into trouble, and if they can, then people not in those categories are even more likely to do so.
People may have got into trouble with the local authority about council tax, or with child support liabilities, judgment debts at their local court, or credit cards. We could all quote statistics: 20 per cent. of people with credit cards are behind with their payments. Repossessions are running at 10,000 a year, and applications for repossessions at 100,000 a year. As we all agree, the number of such liabilities goes up all the time.
Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow) (Lab): Does the hon. Gentleman accept also that it is not just people who are in financial trouble who will have someone knocking at their door? I am sure he has come across cases where a false address has been given or someone has moved, and the person in the property has great difficulty dealing with bailiffs who refuse to believe that they are not liable and continue to pester and harass them.
Simon Hughes: 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.
2.15 pm
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.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on when to move new clause 6.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is slightly ahead of himself. All good things, or perhaps some good things, come to those who wait. We have to proceed now with new clause 3 and we will come later to new clauses 4 and 6.
Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful for that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have spent much of my life in that condition.
‘The Lord Chancellor must by regulations make provision for legal aid for applicants for relief under section 15.’.— [Simon Hughes.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Simon Hughes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 11— Enforcement of Mobile Homes Act 1983—
‘(1) The Mobile Homes Act 1983 (c. 34) is amended as follows.
(2) In sections 1(5), 2(2), 2(3), and 2(4), for “the court”, substitute “the tribunal”.
(1) The local authority for the district in which the protected site is situated must establish a tribunal to perform functions under this Act if the occupier or the owner so requests.
(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations about tribunals under this Act.
(3) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument.”.
(4) In section 4, and in the heading to that section, for “the court”, substitute “the tribunal”.
(a) omit the definition of “the court”, and
(b) at the appropriate place insert—
(a) in relation to England and Wales, the tribunal established under section 3A or, where the parties have agreed in writing to submit any question arising under this Act or, as the case may be, any agreement to which it applies to arbitration, the arbitrator;(b) in relation to Scotland, the sheriff having jurisdiction where the protected site is situated or, where the parties have so agreed, the arbiter.”.(6) After section 6(4) insert—
“(5) Section 3A extends to England and Wales only.”’.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |