| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Government have done the right thing as far as judicial appointments are concerned. There has been a great deal of debate about enforcement by taking control of goods and the enforcement of judgments
and orders. We were right to push the amendments that we did and to have votes on some of the key issues. I am sorry that the Minister has not conceded all the different points that we would like her to concede. On the other hand, by subjecting the Bill to substantial scrutiny, we have at least put the points of view of many of the organisations that stand up for people who are likely to get into debt and have bailiffs knocking on their doors. It must be a horrifying experience to go through all that. That is why we, as parliamentarians, were quite right to spend a substantial amount of time looking at the new procedures and powers, and the rights that people have to protect themselves.
I am still concerned, because, including the Committee stage and the debate this afternoon, we have had something like 10 votes on the key issues relating to bailiffs and on not one of those issues did the Government concede a great deal, although to be fair they have made it clear that—through regulations, possible changes to schedule 12, and the flexibility and power that Ministers have to issue guidelines and rules—they will encompass many of the concerns that we have put forward. Obviously we will have to wait and see what happens. With a Bill of this nature, which gives so much power to the Government to issue regulations and to make changes over the next few months and years, we are putting a great deal of trust in Ministers not to deviate from the course that this particular Minister has assured us they will follow.
We were quite right to keep pushing the point about the regulation of bailiffs. If we give bailiffs more power, we must have a proper method of protecting the wider public and give them the chance of redress and recourse to a proper complaints procedure through a body that imposes regulation. I thank the Minister for acceding to some extent to our wishes by bringing bailiffs within the remit of the SIA. That is a positive move forward and it would not have come about were it not for the representations made by Members on both Opposition Front Benches. We have pushed hard for this measure. I know that it is not everything that we wanted, but we have to be grateful for half a step forward, rather than the full step forward that we would have liked.
There is a great deal in the Bill that concerns debt management schemes, administration orders, and debt management and relief. Much of that has been well thought out. We have not subjected it to the same level of scrutiny as other parts of the Bill, but the Government have put a lot of time and effort into it and hopefully it will lead to a far better system.
As far as the protection of cultural objects on loan is concerned, this afternoon’s debate was important. The Minister went a significant distance towards putting the mind of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mark Fisher) at rest. He composed those amendments from his hospital bed. He was in hospital with septicaemia of his leg and was involved in negotiations with various different organisations when working on the amendments. He was brave to come to the House today to talk about the amendments, and I am pleased that the Minister is going to listen to some of the things that he said. We hope that the part of the Bill that relates to cultural objects will become far
better and more effective, because we all realise that galleries and museums are a vitally important part of our cultural life.
We are not going to vote against the Bill, because there is too much good in it to justify doing so—even though we have some ongoing concerns. I hope that we can continue the dialogue that we have had so far about those areas of concern. The Minister has always made it clear to us that, although we may disagree, her door is always open and she is prepared to discuss matters and listen to us and to the outside organisations that have been so assiduous, thorough and professional in briefing me, my colleagues on the Front Bench and other colleagues who take an interest in the Bill. We will not oppose the Bill, but we will be looking carefully at how the legislation develops and how it is implemented over the months and years ahead.
6.25 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I join the chorus of praise. The Bill is leaving the House in a better form than when it arrived. In the main, I do not quibble with most of its provisions, especially those on debt management and relief. My interest has been concentrated on the provisions on bailiffs. I am a latecomer to that debate, so I have been engaged in a catch-up exercise. I am grateful for the advice that I have received from people such as Philip Evans about the way in which to catch up.
My concern about, and interest in, the subject was elicited by the clamping of my daughter’s car and a charge of £700. I secured an Adjournment debate on the subject to which the Minister replied charmingly, although the Grimsby Telegraph categorised my speech as a foul-mouthed rant—we get such reviews from Grimsby. Following that debate, I have become aware that there is a large pool of bitterness and resentment about the behaviour of bailiffs and a need for them to be effectively controlled and regulated. People from throughout the country wrote to me with horror stories that clearly indicated that something needed to be done, and the Bill goes some way towards addressing the alarming situation.
We face the problem that our society is built on debt. We are all encouraged to take on more debt, and some people are carrying crippling burdens of debt. All the fixed penalty fines that are imposed add to such debt, and those fines are a particular burden for the poor and vulnerable. It is interesting that Liberal, Conservative and Labour Members are concerned about the possible oppression of the poor and vulnerable that is caused by the burden of debt. We are seeing penalties on poverty for people at the bottom of the social scale. Members are in a fairly comfortable position because we do not face bailiffs banging on our doors—at least I do not think that we do. It is interesting that since the housing allowance for Members of Parliament became so generous, we have ceased to be interested in housing problems. As we are fairly comfortable and well off, we are less interested than we should be in the problems of the poor, but they are very real. A large section of society is struggling with the burden of debt. A visit from the bailiffs—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but this is a Third Reading debate, rather than an opportunity to canter around the entire course again.
Mr. Mitchell: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A Third Reading third rant is not appropriate.
The problems to which I have referred will have to be addressed effectively through regulations. A large area must be defined through regulations, so I hope that the Minister has listened to what has been said. She is a listening and concerned Minister, and I think that she has dealt effectively with points that have been raised. However, those points must be addressed by the regulations.
I would have preferred an independent regulator to the Security Industry Authority, because the authority will probably be as much use as the community wardens in Grimsby would be if they were asked to deal with the Enron affair, British Aerospace, or a mafia problem. The authority will not be sufficiently powerful or effective. The way in which the authority develops is now in the Minister’s hands, as is the way in which bailiffs’ powers will be controlled, regulated and restrained.
It is unfortunate that we are breaching the principle that an Englishman’s home is his castle, which was first breached by the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. That is bad, because we are making the punishment a further penalty by increasing the burdens on the poor. However, the matter is now in the hands of the Minister and the regulator. My hon. and learned Friend has listened to the debates and made adjustments, so I am sure she will ensure that the regulations that will be the basis of control of the bailiffs will be as effective as the House clearly wants them to be in protecting the poor and the vulnerable.
I congratulate the Minister on her handling of the Bill. It has been an education to watch its effective progress, which I hope will continue.
6.30 pm
Simon Hughes: This has been a momentous afternoon. In less than seven hours, one Prime Minister has answered his last Question Time and indicated his intention to stand down not only as Prime Minister but as a Member of Parliament. The Chancellor of Exchequer of this morning has become the Prime Minister of this afternoon. The Bill, which came into Parliament from the Department for Constitutional Affairs, leaves as a Bill from the Ministry of Justice. I think I am right in saying that when it receives its Third Reading and Royal Assent it will be the first Bill from the new Ministry; indeed, it may also be the first Bill of the new prime ministership to receive Royal Assent.
The Bill is important in terms of history, but it is important in its own right, too, and I congratulate the Government. The Bill is another indication that they are interested in justice reform—of the system and the courts—which has been necessary for a long time.
The first part of the Bill reforms tribunals and gives them a structure, which is necessary and welcome. Like the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) and others, my only reservation is about how the general commissioners for taxes and their clerks will be dealt with, but we have made our views clear on that. There are some welcome proposals on judicial appointments, which met with no dissent on either side of the House.
The measures on debt management and relief are also welcome. As the Minister and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said, we are all aware that we live in a debt-ridden, debt-shackled society, where the chains are getting longer and the pressures are becoming greater all the time. It is important to help people to manage debt and get out of it. I am sure that every MP regularly confronts people in that position in their surgery; it is a sad fact of our society that pressures to buy are so great that they can overtake the possibility of survival. For some people at the lower end of the income scale that has always been the case, but more people are affected, and more severely and dangerously.
The last point of complete assent was that we needed to do something about cultural objects on loan in the UK. We have made progress and protected those objects in a better regime.
A more controversial subject was how we should deal with bailiffs, enforcement agents and others who have the right to enter people’s homes or businesses, or to take their property. There has been dispute about that issue. As well as amendments in Committee, four Opposition amendments and one Labour Back-Bench amendment were tabled today. None succeeded, but the Minister gave us some useful and welcome assurances during the passage of the Bill, not least that the new powers will come into force only when the new protection—the new regulatory structure—is in place. That was the most welcome change in the Government’s position and we backed it with much appreciation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Jenny Willott) and I enjoyed serving in Committee and doing our duty on the Bill. We realise that it is important, but the work is not yet done. As the hon. Member for Great Grimsby reminded us, we live in an age not only of much more debt, but where there are 266 powers under which people can enter the homes of our citizens. We have managed to circumscribe some of them in relation to debt and the collection of debt, but many others remain uncontrolled in a way that the citizen does not understand. There remains work for the Department and for Parliament to do to make sure that we give citizens more rights as well as allow people properly to enforce the debts that are owed to them.
My final reflection is that although there may have been much more interest today in the Executive than in the legislature, the legislature has continued to do its job today while others around us are doing theirs. In the end, it is the laws that are passed as well as the policies of Ministers that most influence people’s lives. This is an important Bill and I hope that many people will benefit from it.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),
That the draft Extradition Act 2003 (Amendment to Designations) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 24th May, be approved. —[Steve McCabe.]
EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 8179/07 and Addenda 1 and 2, Commission Communication, A policy to reduce unwanted by-catches and eliminate discards in European fisheries; and agrees with the Government’s initial assessment of the proposal that it represents a sound basis for debate, but that the discussion of possible solutions needs to take full account of the mixed nature of many of the EU fisheries and balance the socio-economic interests involved, whilst the UK is mindful of the importance of effective enforcement and control and the resource implications thereof. —[Steve McCabe.]
petition
Post Office (Bromley)
6.36 pm
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): My petition relates to the proposal by the Post Office to close the main post office in Bromley town centre and transfer its activities to an upstairs floor of the local WH Smith—a matter of great concern to people in my constituency and in surrounding areas, including the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), who is present.
To the House of Commons.
The Petition of the residents of Bromley and the surrounding area and visitors to the London Borough of Bromley.
Declares that the Petitioners are extremely concerned by the Post Office Ltd. decision to close the East Street crown post office and relocate services to WH Smith and believe that this will lead to a greatly reduced service and result in serious access problems especially for the disabled and elderly.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons make clear to the Government and Post Office Ltd. the importance of the East Street Post Office to the local community and the benefit that it currently provides.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
Kosovo
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Steve McCabe.]
6.37 pm
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con): I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this important subject. Given the current impasse in Kosovo, tonight's debate is timely. First, however, I think it only right to put on the record our remembrance of those people across the ethnic divide in former Yugoslavia who suffered for such a long time, with many thousands losing their lives in the conflict.
The debate on Kosovo's future status has reached a crucial point. United Nations special envoy Martti Ahtisaari's final comprehensive proposal for a Kosovo status settlement still does not have universal agreement, and it is that lack of consensus which is causing the current road-block to progress. The United States, backed by the UK, although understandably eager to see a Kosovo settlement, is perhaps in danger of being a little too eager in calling for a new UN resolution to be adopted “as soon as possible”. At this sensitive juncture, such a resolution might be unhelpful and awkwardly premature. It was not over-constructive of President Bush to declare in Tirana two weeks ago that “Kosovo is independent”. The comments might have played well in Albania, but they did little to advance a consensus-based settlement. A unilateral declaration by the United States and the United Kingdom would also serve to undermine an already weakened United Nations.
Clearly, an early settlement to the Kosovo question is desirable to all players. Failure to make progress would set back the timetable for Kosovo’s and Serbia’s applications to become members of the European Union, and would also impact on other candidate countries in the region.
It is in the interests of Europe and the region that a settlement be agreed, but it needs to be a lasting settlement that stands the test of time—and tests will surely come. German Chancellor Merkel was right to say at the G8 summit that Europe’s leaders want a consensus-based solution, but that consensus should be based on agreement between Serbia and Kosovo, not agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States. The US and the UK should not underestimate the resolve of the Serbian people on that matter, and should not overestimate the attraction of future EU membership for Serbia. Yes, jobs are important, but long-term jobs and investment in both Kosovo and Serbia can be sustained in the long-term only if there is long-term peace.
The United States has impressive insight into and knowledge of geopolitics, but to suggest that the US has a greater knowledge of the Balkans than Kosovo’s near neighbours, such as Slovakia, Romania and Russia, is misguided. I do not wish to be unnecessarily critical of the UK Government, but once again it appears that they are falling in behind the position of the American State Department and, more importantly, the White House, rather than trying to realign the US’s position, which would be more helpful to all those involved in the process.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |