Clause
84
Application
to the
Crown
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Simon
Hughes:
This is obviously a simple clause that
says:
“This
Part binds the Crown... But the procedure in Schedule 12 may not
be used...to recover debts due from the Crown...to take
control of or sell goods of the Crown (including goods owned by the
crown jointly or in common with another person), or...to enter
premises occupied by the
Crown.”
Will the Minister
explain how wide is the definition of the Crown? The Palace of
Westminster, for example, used to be protected from all sorts of legal
interventions because of its special status. In some circumstances, the
definition of the Crown could be extended to include agencies of the
Crown. I can understand that it would be rather indelicate for the
bailiffs to go into Buckingham palace; it would not look terribly good
if somebody had not paid the electricity bill. However, there should be
a procedure, which would need to be extremely tightly drawn, for people
to get their money back.
Vera
Baird:
I do not think that the measure is intended to deal
with Buckingham palace. It refers to the Crown in the form of the
Government. The Palace of Westminster can never conceivably have been
part of the Crown. In fact, I see that the Crown does include the
Palace of Westminster. That is extraordinary. It also includes agents
of the Crown.
Simon
Hughes:
My suspicions and fears are realised. We need to
reflect on this point. The measure appears to be narrowly drawn. There
are lots of Crown agencies; I do not know whether it applies, for
example, to the Duchy of Cornwall, which owns estates over the road,
including the Oval cricket ground, or to Crown property around
Regent’s park, or to lots of other Crown lands. There will be
cases of bills not having been paid that have no remedy. If the debtor
is a Crown agency, how do people go about getting their
money?
Vera
Baird:
The provision does not mean that such cases have no
remedy; it means that they do not have this remedy. They have every
other remedy under common law of which I am aware. However, I shall not
give the hon. Gentleman a comprehensive list at present.
Question put and agreed
to.
Clause 84
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 85
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
New
Clause
2
Uniforms
‘All
enforcement agents, both private and Crown employed, must at all times
wear a uniform as prescribed by the Secretary of
State.’.—[Mr.
Ellwood.]
Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Mr.
Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth, East) (Con): I beg to move,
That the clause be read a Second
time.
It is a pleasure
to work under your tutelage today, Mrs. Humble. It has been
interesting to be part of a major overhaul of the entire enforcement
system, particularly with respect to bailiffs. It is well overdue, and
we ask the Minister to consider going a step
further.
The new
clause would be a useful, radical and simple provision. The entire
process is complex and confusing in law. The new clause is
straightforward: it would require bailiffs to be given a uniform. That
would not replace the ID that they are expected to carry, but work in
addition to it. In researching the subject, I was interested to come
across a BBC documentary on bailiffs. It included some undercover work,
which showed the attitudes of people whose goods were taken away and of
the bailiffs, who worked for private companies, many of whom were
labelled as hired thugs. That does not do the industry any good
whatsoever.
The new
clause would put a more acceptable face on the work of the bailiffs. We
see uniforms used in many walks of life, not only in the military, but
in other security companies and in the NHS. A uniform shows a degree of
authority; it shows status and helps to generate respect. That is
exactly what is required of bailiffs, particularly those who work for
councils, private bailiffs and so on. That is why we wish to introduce
the new clause.
In
rare circumstances, bailiffs operate in conditions in which they are
not sure what to expect. There might be a requirement to wear
additional protection, which could be part of the consideration of the
uniform.
The new
clause says that the Crown employee
‘must at all times wear a uniform
as prescribed by the Secretary of
State.’.
It would be fair to say, Mrs.
Humble—this is no reflection whatsoever on your
chairmanship—that the Bill has not been the sexiest one that has
gone through the House. [
Interruption.
] It is not
a Bill that immediately grabs the limelight. However, judging by the
level of noise that that comment has generated, I am pleased to see
that perhaps my thoughts on the Bill should be put into question. The
way that the new clause is written provides an opportunity for the
Minister to throw a little public limelight on to the Bill and on to
the workings and proceedings of the Committee. The Minister might
consider coming up with the first design of that
uniform.
Vera
Baird:
Bottle
green.
Mr.
Ellwood:
Indeed. From what I hear in the tea rooms, the
Minister is considered to be quite a trendy dresser; in fact, that is
reflected in what she is wearing today.
This is a fantastic opportunity
for us to showthe workings and proceedings of our Committee,
regarding something that is perhaps considered light-hearted but is
actually very serious. The new clause would be a simple but important
addition to the legislation, and I certainly hope that the Government
will view it sympathetically. We have developed it in consultation with
those in the industry, who are also keen to see such a measure. I am
also pleased to see that the Liberal Democrats are supporting it, and I
certainly hope that the Minister will consider doing so.
Simon
Hughes:
We are indeed very supportive of the new clause,
and the Minister indicated the other day that she was sympathetic to
it, so we are hopeful that we will make some progress.
When we added our names to the
new clause, Ihad not anticipated that the hon. Member for
Bournemouth, East, with his military background, would see uniforms as
the way of sexing up the Bill, but there we are. I understand now that
that idea is compatible with his past and links his past with his
present, and it may be an additional argument in favour of the new
clause.
There is a
strong case for this proposal. People often do not know who is at their
door; people often claim to be people whom they are not, and people
regularly allege that they have a right to enter a property. We often
read in local papers all over the country that people pretend to have
authority on behalf of a utility company, a bank or finance company.
One way of minimising that risk is to ensure that people are in
uniform. I remember that we had such a debate in another Committee,
when we were considering legislation in relation to people who have a
right to come into people’s
homes.
I hope that the
Minister is sympathetic to thenew clause. We do not pretend
that the drafting is perfect, but it seems to be a perfectly good,
sensible proposition, which is absolutely in accord with the public
mood about how bailiffs and those in the enforcement agencies should
conduct their business.I therefore hope that the Minister will
give us a sympathetic response.
Emily
Thornberry (Islington, South and Finsbury) (Lab): I am
someone on the Committee who has perhaps had a fairly unique experience
in this area. When I was seven years old, my mother and my family were
thrown out of our house by bailiffs. The bailiffs were all wearing
bowler hats; that was their uniform then. It was a profoundly
embarrassing experience. I remember that, even though I was only seven,
I was profoundly embarrassed by it. We must counter all the discussion
about uniforms with this consideration: if a group of uniformed
bailiffs were to appear on an estate, it would make the process that
much more difficult and oppressive for the family who were suffering it
and much more terrifying for the children.
Vera
Baird:
That is a terrible tale, and I can imagine that it
is etched on my hon. Friend’s memory, not least because of the
bowler hats, although I would have thought that it was generally a
pretty awful experience. However, it is probably better to return to
the level that we were at when the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East
moved the new clause. I am pleased that he thinks that I am a trendy
dresser; I shall probably go away for the weekend a happier woman for
having received that compliment. I would be very pleased to design a
uniform for anyone, really. He thinks that this is not a sexy Bill; all
I can say is that he has not seen the rest of
them.
9.30
am
My primary
point is that the issue in the new clause is not one for the Bill.
Opposition Members will understand why we could certainly never accept
a new clause stating that both private and Crown employees must at all
times wear the uniform—in bed or what? Clearly, a bit more
thought must go into the whole thing. I accept completely in principle
the need for proper identification of a bailiff to be made plain, at
least—and following what my hon. Friend the Member for
Islington, South and Finsbury said, possibly at most—to the
person who is being visited. We will design an identifier with a unique
number on it so that there is no difficulty in knowing exactly who is
coming to the door, their status and nature. The identifier will have a
number; it will probably have a name too, but the number is important.
We will ensure that people know who is coming to their
door.
I can see the
argument that the public would have increased confidence in enforcement
if they saw people in uniform, and I am not unsympathetic to it. They
would have increased confidence that the people empowered to do the
work were regulated, as they would look more regulated if they were
wearing uniform. Opposition Members who have had their ears close to
the ground on submissions to the Committee will know that there are
concerns about uniform: for instance, that it would make people an easy
target. I have had it said to me that when fire officers go on to
estates they are sometimes stoned, and bailiffs worry about what might
happen to them if they were known to be going into particular areas and
their presence were advertised by their uniform.
My hon. Friend the Member for
Islington, South and Finsbury made the point that if somebody has to go
through the humiliating process of having their goods taken away
because of debt, out of respect it
ought to be done as discreetly as possible. Uniform would militate
against that. I am well aware of theneed for proper
identification, as is my noble Friend Baroness Ashton, but we are not
convinced that a uniform is the right form. We certainly would not
state in the Bill that bailiffs should wear a uniform at all
times. There will be
times when bailiffs want to have the protection of a stab vest or
something of that kind when using their powers of forcible entry, so
there may be occasions when it would be in everyone’s interest
for us to prescribe that they should dress in a particular way, but
there needs to be flexibility. The issue of how to identify bailiffs is
very much in the Government’s mind, and we will return to the
matter in regulations.I hope that that is sufficient
reassurance to allow Opposition Members not to press the new
clause.
Simon
Hughes:
I am grateful to the Minister for her sympathetic
response and I am perfectly happy to accept the proposition that the
matter be dealt with in regulations rather than in the Bill. I
understand the point made by the hon. Member for Islington, South and
Finsbury and I wish to add two
reflections.
I am
dealing at the moment with a case in which there is a dispute between a
constituent of mine and a local authority—not our local
authority—about the enforcement of liability. It arose, as it
happens, from parking fines. One issue in dispute is whether the
bailiffs came on the days when they say they came. My constituent says
that on certain days he did not see them; he was in, they did not come
to the door and nothing was put through the door. The bailiffs say that
they came and that they called. It would be easier for that issue to be
resolved if the bailiffs had been publicly identifiable, because other
people would have seen them and there would be more evidence. People
would remember that more clearly, as they would remember a police or
fire officer or someone else in uniform coming, than when bailiffs have
no uniform and come in civilian clothes, even if they had to present a
number, name badge or
warrant.
I reflected
on the second point when I had a letter this week about another case
that I am dealing with. A constituent, with my help and that of my
constituency office team, has reached a satisfactory resolution with
some bailiffs. Her remaining complaint is that they have added an
excessive fee
for
“attending with a
view to removing
goods”—
a charge
on top of the original liability order. My constituent is being charged
a fee even though she had been trying to contact them to resolve
matters and to prevent them coming round to the house. Her letter
ends:
“I am
enclosing the last letter I received
from”
the particular
bailiffs’
company
“giving their
version of events.”
The
gentleman from the
bailiffs
“fails to
disclose in the letter my many attempts to get in touch with his firm
to settle the debt but they refused to listen, insisting that the only
option left was to call at my home to remove goods. I am sure you can
appreciate that such tactics are commonly used by bailiffs to get more
money out of people and that is what they have done in my
case.”
Other
important things follow as well—records of communications
between people and bailiffs are often crucial. People often say that
they have tried to leavea message, have left a message or have
sent a letter.I ask the Minister to consider that, in the
context of uniforms. I also understand the sensitivity of the example
from personal experience of the hon. Member for Islington, South and
Finsbury. However, just a name badge or warrant is not sufficient,
certainly for older people, people of less intelligence, people who do
not have English as their first language or speak poor or no English,
or people who are blind or with poor sight. We can all think of such
people in every constituency in the land. We need to think of a way
that makes the process acceptable to all parts of the
community.
I also ask
the Minister to reflect on the linked issue of how we can establish a
system that traps the communications as efficiently as possible, before
people ever come to the doorstep. Ideally, we do not want bailiffs
coming to people’s doorsteps; the bailiffs should be able to do
their business beforehand, by communication, by letter, by arrangements
being made. We need to civilize the process a
little.
My last point
concerns the last bit of debate on this subject. I think that the local
authorities should be able to help with this job more than they do. I
am talking generally. Local authority and other debts are eventually
passed over to the bailiffs—for example, council tax or other
arrears. That is
understandable.
The
Chairman:
Order. The final point of the hon. Gentleman is
not part of our discussion on uniforms. Could he get back to uniforms
or conclude his
remarks?
Simon
Hughes:
Absolutely. I want to link my point to local
authority people who are now out and about in uniform. I apologise if
that was not
obvious.
Local
authorities, such as mine, often have neighbourhood wardens, who are in
uniforms. We have just agreed, as a matter of policy, that all our
housing department officials working on estates will have uniforms.
That is a way of narrowing the responsibility for the local authority
and trying to avoid bailiffs doing the job. The better course of action
is to have, as part of the process, yes, the bailiffs when
needed—in uniforms—but first, ideally, people who are
always out and about on the estate. They are there for a different
purpose than the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury
suggested. They do not look like special, alien people coming on to the
estate.
Could the
Minister, her officials and their colleagues in the Department for
Communities and Local Government reflect on how bailiffs and their
uniforms can tie in with the increasing development of local authority
personnel with uniforms? The public wish people in
authority—those with powers over them or having an obligation in
relation to their property or the goods in it—to be
identifiable. I take the point that the first people who come do not
come with a particular threat. Possibly some of the earlier work could
be done by uniformed people who are employed by the local authority and
out and about on the estates. Will the Minister reflect on that and
respond to me in writing, having considered how we can combine such
work with that done by local authorities and other
Departments?
Mr.
Ellwood:
Although we might not all agree entirely on the
wording or, indeed, the principle of the new clause, it has been
helpful in raising some of the challenging issues surrounding the
mechanics of how bailiffs go about their duties. I thank the Minister
for her reply and her concessions in agreeing on some of the issues
that we have tried to highlight—in particular,
identification.
Clearly,
there is a thin line between respecting the concerns of the resident,
as we heard from the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, and
improving the status of the bailiff. As the hon. Member for North
Southwark and Bermondsey just said, others, such as police community
support officers, go about their daily business in uniform. In a
coupleof estates in Bournemouth, members of volunteer
organisations wear a sort of uniform—a pullover with an insignia
and label, which is provided by the borough council to show that they
are part of a team working together in a friendly manner. We must bear
in mind also that in many cases where there is a concern that a visit
might cause problems, bailiffs are often escorted by the police anyway.
Carrying out such duties covertly can be a bit tricky. We cannot get
away from the fact that they must be overt—that is the way
forward.
We were
hoping, however, for more of an agreement from the Minister. I wonder
if, between now and Report, she will consider a compromise on a wording
in order to improve the identification process, which is what we tried
to achieve with the new clause. On that note, I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
motion.
Motion and
clause, by leave,
withdrawn.
| 
