Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 20 March 2007.

Further written evidence to be reported to the House

Clause 57

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 1—Enforcement by taking control of goods (No. 2)—

‘(1) There shall be a form of enforcement against corporeal moveable property for recovery of money owed that is to be known as taking control of goods.

(2) Taking control of goods shall include selling them to recover a sum of money.

(3) Schedule 12 shall apply where an enactment, writ or warrant confers power to take control of goods.

(4) Regulations may make provision about taking control of goods, including provision determining the time when control is taken.

(5) Any liability of an enforcement agent (including criminal liability) arising out of his securing goods on a highway is excluded to the extent that he acted in accordance with Schedule 12 and with reasonable care.’.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

It is a pleasure to be back in action with you, Mrs. Humble—[ Laughter. ] No double entendre intended.

The key purpose of new clause 1 is to remove any misunderstanding about the words “taking control of goods” and to determine exactly what they mean. Is the ability of a bailiff to take control of goods unduly restricted by the phrasing of schedule 13? Above all, is it not clear that a bailiff can accept and take control of goods and so on when the debtor is not present in a home, even when another responsible adult is present?

In Scotland, bailiffs can take what is called walking possession, which is a flexible approach. As far as bailiffs are concerned, the object of the exercise is not necessarily to remove the goods; it is to secure the money that is owed. The threat of removal of goods can achieve a bailiff’s objective. Various bailiff organisations have repeatedly told me and other Opposition Members that bailiffs do not want to have to face up to the necessity of removing goods if there is an alternative. Taking walking possession is such an alternative. I was particularly impressed by the briefing given to me by Philip Evans of the Enforcement Law Reform Group. New clause 1 would clarify the powers open to bailiffs and it would give them more flexibility in their approach. On that basis, and on the basis of all the assistance and advice that we have been given, I commend the new clause to the Committee.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

I am not convinced that new clause 1 is necessary, because clause 57 and paragraph 13 of schedule 12 already provide for what it seeks to do. In particular, proposed subsections (1), (2) and (3) are just about the same as clause 57, in that they are about taking control of goods in the style currently described as walking possession. Similarly, the provisions in proposed subsection (4) about taking control of goods replicate provision already made in paragraph 13(3)(a) of schedule 12, so they will add nothing to the Bill.

Proposed subsection (5) of the new clause is probably more dubious than the other provisions on its merits because it seeks to exclude liability when securing goods on the highway but does not cover goods secured on premises. That would mean taking a different approach to taking control of goods depending on whether they were on the highway or on premises. There is no logical reason why that should be so; it is much better to have clear, straightforward powers that are the same in all similar circumstances. New clause 1 goes against the efforts that we have made in the Bill to clarify and simplify the laws concerning enforcement agencies.

There is no need for the bulk of the provisions in new clause 1. Proposed subsection (5) would add confusion and does not deal with a matter about which the Government have received representations from enforcement agencies. I hope that having been given those words of explanation, the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk will, having probed the rationale for clause 57, not press his proposals.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I thank the Minister for that explanation. She has reassured the Committee, and I will not seek to press the new clause.

Schedule 12

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I beg to move amendment No. 158, in schedule 12, page 206, line 16, after ‘means’, insert—

‘(a) ’.

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 159, in schedule 12, page 206, line 17, at end insert—

‘(b) such tools, books, vehicles and other items of equipment as are necessary to the debtor for use personally by him in his employment, business or vocation;

(c) such clothing, bedding, furniture, household equipment and provisions as a necessary for satisfying the basic domestic needs of the debtor and his family;

(d) money where an enforcement agent has reasonable cause to believe that this would be necessary for the immediate domestic needs of the debtor and his family;

(e) domestic pets;’.

No. 161, in schedule 12, page 206, line 17, at end insert—

‘(b) goods that fall within paragraph 4A(1);’.

No. 86, in schedule 12, page 207, line 3, at end insert—

‘4A (1) The following fall into the definition of exempt goods so as to preclude seizure of—

(a) any goods which are fixtures or fittings attached to the premises including goods which are plumbed in or connected to water, fuel or power supplies,

(b) domestic animals and animals kept as pets,

(c) guard dogs,

(d) any dog on which a blind person relies,

(e) any animal which is kept for commercial gain, save as allowed through common law and where provision for the welfare of the animal has been arranged in advance,

(f) in the case of domestic dwellings no sum of money of £500 in cash or below,

(g) in the case of domestic dwellings no sum of money which would leave the debtor with less than £500.

(2) In the case of domestic dwellings no sum of money above £500 is to be removed without the civil enforcement officer recording the purpose for which the money is to be used.’.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

We are now coming to the meat not only of the schedule, but the substantive part of the Bill, about which, when and how goods can be taken from people in pursuit of a judgment in the criminal law or some right that is claimed in civil law. The amendments deal with the concept of exempt goods—the goods that should not be taken away from someone’s home. The Minister said the other day, as she did in a letter to me that she placed in the Library after Second Reading—the Government have said the same in the structure of the Bill—that she accepted the need to deal with domestic premises separately from commercial premises. That view is supported strongly on the Liberal Democrat Benches.

There is a general presumption that we should protect people from having everything taken from their domestic premises and that we must decide what sort of goods need to be protected from bailiffs at all times. The criteria are what goods people need, which goods are the basic necessities of life and the basic amount of cash that is needed to survive. We live in a world where more people have material possessions that used to be regarded as luxuries, but which are now viewed as indispensable. They are often items that are expensive to buy or hire, such as televisions, DVD players, cassette players and video recorders; by and large, they are electronic equipment. There are also white goods, such as fridge-freezers.

“Exempt goods” under the Bill are certain goods that are defined by regulation. We propose to add certain goods to the Bill. I realise that there will be a proper debate about whether the list of exempt goods should be in the Bill at all or whether it should be contained in regulations. It needs to be somewhere, however, where it is clear and on an agreed basis. Amendment No. 159 sets out what things we think should be exempt. We are open to discussion about the accuracy and correctness of the list, but we have taken advice and such a debate has taken place in the other place.

Amendment No. 159 refers to

“such tools, books, vehicles and other items of equipment as are necessary to the debtor for use personally by him in his employment, business or vocation”.

Mercifully, in this country a lot of people still have skilled manual jobs, are self-employed and can keep their work materials at home. Indeed, many bring those materials into the house because they are not happy leaving them overnight in a van, garage or lock-up. Pretty well everyone in the building trade is self-employed, such as decorators, electricians and plumbers, but many others work from home and keep their equipment there. The last thing we should do is to take away people’s means of earning a living. The amendment would protect those means, and I hope that the Committee agrees that that is a proper thing to do. Self-evidently, if people do not have the kit to earn a living, they will not have the money coming in to pay off the debts and get out of their financial hole.

The second group of items that should be exempt includes

“such clothing, bedding, furniture, household equipment and provisions as are necessary for satisfying the basic domestic needs of the debtor and his family.”

It clearly would be wrong in a civilised society for someone to come in and take away the children’s beds, table and chairs and any other basic furniture that they need. There has to be a basic understanding of what a home has to have, whatever the financial muddle or dispute that people have got into over debts.

The third category that should be exempt is the money that a family needs immediately. The phrase that we have used is

“money where an enforcement agent has reasonable cause to believe that this would be necessary for the immediate domestic needs of the debtor and his family.”

I am conscious that in amendment No. 86, which is one of those tabled by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk, a more specific sum is mentioned. I think that it would be right to debate the minimum amount that someone can retain in the circumstances. The hon. Gentleman proposes that no sum of money of £500 or below should be taken. If people have more than £500, the excess can be taken to pay off debts, but a family needs to have enough money. In some ways, £500 may be regarded as generous, but for a family with children, it will not pay for much more than a few weeks’ shopping and basic food necessities. Therefore, there is a perfectly proper case to be put that people should be allowed to retain a set amount of money in order to survive. If they do not have that money, how do we expect them to survive? The answer is that they would not. We cannot be unreasonable or unfair about that.

The last group that we believe should be exempt is domestic pets. We have had a debate about that. It related to an amendment tabled by Lord Beaumont of Whitley in the other place. In amendment No. 86, the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk has listed not just domestic animals and animals kept as pets, but guard dogs, any dog on which a blind person relies and animals kept for commercial gain—any animals that are kept as part of a business such as kennels. Certainly, the general argument is that if we are trying to sustain the welfare of families, we will not get much money if we take away someone’s cat, dog, hamster or gerbil. If we are trying to minimise distress to the family, particularly the children, it is important that animals are not part of the process. It is probably regarded as a sign of a civilised society that one does not take away animals that are used as pets. They should not be part of the process of catching other people for debts that they have entered into.

Let me return now to the question of definition. If there is agreement that we give better protection to domestic rather than commercial premises, which I hope and believe that there is, that we do not allow enforcement agents, whoever they are and whomever they act for, to come in and take away everything, and that there are things that are protected and exempt, which there clearly are, the question that then arises is what we define as exempt. The Liberal Democrats think that the issue is important enough for the bare necessities to be mentioned in the Bill rather than in regulations. If we make the right decision now, we would need to change this sort of thing later. One of the reasons why we have not put a specific sum in the provision on how much cash can be kept is that that sum will change with inflation. Therefore, if a specific sum is to be included, it would have to be in the regulations rather than in the Bill.

I hope that those points form a good starting point for the debate. Such provision is important because we must have a civilised society in which people can hang on to what they need to survive and to earn a living. I hope that the Committee will be responsive to that argument.

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mrs. Humble.

I would like to ask my hon. and learned Friend the Minister a question that relates to commercial properties rather than domestic properties. It relates to a case of a non-domestic rate debt, which I know from my constituency is not unusual. The case is indicative of the sort of problems that can arise, and I shall be careful how I talk about it, because it is fairly well known.

The case involved a fish and chip shop owner who faced the bailiffs coming in. The argument here—this is the reason why I am sympathetic with those who wish to identify what is meant by constraint on somebody’s ability to do the business—is that, with the best will in the world, anyone who knows anything about the fish and chip business knows that it relies on the fryer and the basic equipment. When the bailiffs arrived in their white van, the only thing that they could have taken in this case was the fryer, but they could not have got it into the van and they certainly would have destroyed the business if they had taken it.

I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will respond to my point, which is about a completely fallacious visit, because although there was no way that the bailiffs could have taken anything from the property, they charged the owner £350. If bailiffs are to have any credibility, there has to be some foreknowledge of what they are rightfully to be taking and what is to be done if they are clearly going to damage a business or cannot take anything. In this case, the moneys were subsequently paid and the debt was off-laid. However, I should like my hon. and learned Friend to comment on such cases, in which, to my mind, the bailiffs are outwith any credible reason for going to take any goods from a particular commercial premises. I want to know what restraints there are on bailiffs to ensure that they do not just go on a trip, even though they cannot take anything from the business, whack the owner with the extra charge and then say, “Well, we’ve tried our best, but there was no way that debt could have been off-laid by seizing goods.”

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

It is a pleasure to be working under your tutelage once again, Mrs. Humble.

I should like to speak to amendments Nos. 161 and 86. Amendment No. 161 is a paving amendment for the core amendment, No. 86. Like the Liberal Democrats, we would like to see more detail included in the Bill, rather than pushed into secondary legislation. The Bill currently leaves any definition of the exemption of goods purely for the regulations. Having sought advice from a number of groups, including citizens advice bureaux, it is clear that there is a desire to see more information in the Bill about exactly what goods can be taken by a bailiff and which are exempt.

Amendment No. 86, would alter schedule 12 by inserting at the end of line 3 a definition of what exempt goods can be precluded from seizure, including

“any goods which are fixtures or fittings...domestic animals”,

guard dogs, any dog for blind persons or

“any animal which is kept for commercial gain”

whose removal would have a direct financial impact on the individual.

The Liberal Democrats also mentioned the sums of money that could or could not be taken by a bailiff. We would like to see limitations on the amount of cash that could be removed, because otherwise we would leave the individual worse off than they would be without such protective measures being put in place. The Zacchaeus 2000 Trust made that clear; the Reverend Paul Nicholson commented on the fact that the seizure of pets should not be left to regulations introduced at a later stage. Although the Minister has argued many times during debates on probing amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk that sometimes we have to bestow a bit of faith in secondary legislation, there is a fine balance between what should be included in the Bill and what should be left out. It would be most appropriate to have some strong definitions of what is exempt to make that clear-cut and not leave it to a body outside Parliament to make that decision.

Anne Snelgrove (Labour, South Swindon)

I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mrs. Humble.

There are concerns about the Bill at the Swindon CAB. Will the Minister consider some of them? In particular, local people are concerned that the safeguards on the Bill’s proposed powers of forcible entry for bailiffs are inadequate and should be strengthened. They are concerned that some of the examples that we have seen in Swindon might be made worse by some of the Bill’s proposals, and are hoping that she might consider some of them. We have heard of an elderly lady who was not a debtor being harassed by bailiffs for her son’s debt. The CAB adviser was told by the bailiff that he did not care that the son was not in the house, and that he and his colleague would sit outside the house all day until she opened the door.

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

Order. I must interrupt the hon. Lady. This group of amendments deals with the sorts of goods that bailiffs can take. A later group of amendments deal with the power to which she is referring. I ask her to speak to the amendments before us and to the question proposed.

Anne Snelgrove (Labour, South Swindon)

I beg your pardon, Mrs. Humble. I think that the CAB’s concern is that the powers are all wound in together, and that the power of entry means that goods could be taken from people’s houses when they are feeling under pressure from the bailiffs’ power of entry. One of our biggest concerns in Swindon is that the rise in council tax of more than 20 per cent. during the past 10 years has meant that many people’s houses and goods have been threatened by bailiffs’ entry, and goods have been taken that would not have been taken before.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

I rise to support the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East. My local citizens advice bureau is concerned about the proposed powers for bailiffs. In support of their concerns and of the points made by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey, we must consider precisely what we are talking about in terms of exempt items. It is important that they should be named in the Bill.

When we talk about tools, people instantly think of the means by which someone can continue a form of manual labour, whether plumbing or work in the construction industry, but I argue that for many people, the tools of their trade could include, for example, their PC. That is an area that perhaps needs more definition. I understand that the Minister feels that such matters can be covered in regulations, which offer more flexibility as the times and workplace requirements move on.

Brooks Newmark (Conservative, Braintree)

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which I had not thought through, on PCs as well as manual tools. If people are in financial trouble, we want to encourage them to keep working. If one removes their tools, whether they are a PC, a wrench or a toolbox, that will prevent them from getting out there to earn back the necessary money to repay debts and prevent the bailiffs from returning to repossess more items.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is underlined by a case highlighted to me by my local citizens advice bureau. A garage workshop owner was visited by bailiffs. In the course of an altercation, he was removed by the police. While he was being detained, the bailiffs re-entered the premises and took his tools. They also took a vehicle that did not belong to him, but I recognise that that is not part of this discussion.

The most important point to reflect on is that the individual’s means for getting himself out of debt should be protected. Do we satisfy ourselves that that will be guarded in regulations, or do we want it put more precisely in the Bill? I agree with the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey that we do not need the wording to be so precise that we must revisit it in future, but there should be some understanding in the Bill that the means for such individuals to get themselves out of debt must be protected.

Brooks Newmark (Conservative, Braintree)

I, too, support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East, but in reading proposed paragraph (b), I thought of a new slogan that could be added with respect to household pets. We could say, “Bailiffs might be able to take the Rover from the driveway, but there should be no doubt that they cannot take the Rover from the kennel.” That might be an interesting amendment for the Minister to consider—perhaps she will even smile for a moment.

The amendment is quite right in seeking to protect the vulnerable by preserving the necessities of life, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury discussed in some depth, as well as sums of money covering reasonable living expenses. Those are the two things that I should like us recognise—people need the tools to continue working, and they need some basic cash to help them get through the days and look after their families. For those reasons, I support the amendment.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

My dog is called Zack. I think that that is a much more imaginative name than Rover. However, it was not such a bad joke overall.

I shall deal first with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, although obviously the Government cannot say anything particular about an individual case. I do not know whether the bailiffs in question knew that there was any non-essential among the business items. The new fee regime in paragraph 62 of schedule 12, to which we will come in due course, means that the amounts taken will be regulated properly and cannot be outrageous, as my hon. Friend’s example appears to have been. Paragraph 12 contains an extra precaution, which is not directly on the point but might be interesting for him to hear about. It states that enforcement agents can take control only of goods whose value is equal to the amount outstanding plus reasonable costs. Taking huge amounts of fixtures and fittings would be unlawful under the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon recovered brilliantly from starting a speech about forcible entry to say that it was really about what could be taken out if a forced entry were made. We shall come to forcible entry soon, and I am sure that I will be able to help alleviate her concerns and those of her CAB. I met some CAB representatives yesterday, and I have detailed conversations with my own CAB in Redcar, so I have been apprised of the troubles that can be caused by bailiffs.

Anne Snelgrove (Labour, South Swindon)

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for her kind words. One of the issues is that a number of bailiffs’ companies have codes of practice on what to take and what not to take from the houses of vulnerable people, such as those on incapacity benefit. Unfortunately, individual bailiffs from those companies ignore the codes of practice and do exactly the opposite of what the companies say they believe in. Will the Bill help people in such situations?

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

Yes, it will. In due course, it will regulate bailiffs properly under structures already in place in the Private Security Industry Act 2001. In the meantime, a beefed-up certification process at the county court will ensure that such companies and their employees are properly regulated in two respects—the bailiff on the street, and the people supervising the bailiffs. Both will be tied up. We will be ensuring that they are securely regulated when the Bill comes into force, and all the more so when we introduce the new security industry authority system.

The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East made points supporting those made by his colleagues. It has just come to me that there are also offences that can be used against enforcement agents under paragraph 66 of schedule 12 for improper behaviour of the kind mentioned. I hope that that is helpful.

The hon. Member for Newbury made some points in support of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk and the gist of what was said by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey. I am sure that I am right in asserting that it has never been possible for a bailiff lawfully to take away tools of trade. Although one might immediately associate tools of trade with a screwdriver or axe, they are not confined to such things. I recall when I was a barrister having a conversation about what my tools of trade would be—not, I hasten to say, that I was in debt. Would my tools of trade have been wig, gown, bands, “Archbold” and perhaps a civil law textbook? Tools of trade might be an old fashioned piece of terminology but it means anything that is necessary for a person to earn their living. The hon. Member for Braintree was absolutely right about the need to leave a person with the ability to work to get out of debt. Giving bailiffs the ability to take tools of trade away was never on the scene, even as a possibility, and it is certainly not in the Bill.

Drawing attention to the list, which is non-exhaustive—

Brooks Newmark (Conservative, Braintree)

On the point about tools of trade, something that I had not thought about—I was thinking about plumbers and electricians—was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury. Is it right for bailiffs to take PCs, or should they be seen as a tool of trade?

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

I was going to refer hon. Members to the detailed policy statement on delegated powers that is in the House of Commons Library and on the Table, and which contains a list in paragraphs 129 to 133.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

Before my hon. and learned Friend deals with that list, if I heard correctly, a moment ago she said to one of my hon. Friends that, in paragraph 66 of schedule 12, there are offences that control the behaviour of bailiffs detailed. I have looked at paragraph 66. I see that there are civil wrongs for which a debtor can take an enforcement agent to High Court or county court, but I did not see any offences.

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

Order. We have not come to that provision yet, and it is not directly to do with the debate at hand. Perhaps the Minister will deal with the point at a later stage and return to the amendments.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

There are remedies that will stand my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon’s constituents in good stead, but we will discuss them later.

Turning again to the list in the policy document, hon. Members will find that they need not worry about whether the Government have looked at the question of what should not be seized. Paragraph 129 states:

“An enforcement agent will only be able to take control of goods that are not exempt from seizure.”

Jennifer Willott (Liberal Democrat, Cardiff Central)

If the Minister is saying that it has always been the case that tools of trade and such like have been exempt from being taken by bailiffs, will she explain why the Government are so reluctant to put that in the Bill?

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

There is no need for such an explanation. I am setting out the reasons why the Government do not want to put such things in the Bill. We will not do so because of the need for flexibility, pretty much of the kind referred to by the hon. Member for Braintree.

Paragraph 132 contains the express provision that:

“A computer may be considered a necessary tool for the debtor’s employment, business or vocation.”

I do not want a situation in which we have put a list of items in the Bill and then have to relegislate to bring into its ambit a new technological invention or some refinement on a PC that has emerged, possession of which is imperative. Such an item could be for the education of children, not just a tool of trade. We will not put such a list in the Bill because it will be too rigid and is unnecessary. There is no problem about clarity. The regulations will be as clear as the statute. There is no problem about definition. It will be as clear as the statute. Such matters should go in the appropriate tier of legislation. That is where they properly belong.

I wish to reassure members of the Committee that the Government already have in mind as regards the delegated legislation powers rather more than the list of items that they have talked about. Paragraph 130 makes clear that exempt goods will include

“tools, books, vehicles and other items of equipment as are necessary to the debtor for use personally by him in his employment, his business or vocation; and such clothing, bedding, furniture, household equipment and provisions as are necessary for satisfying his basic domestic needs and those of his family. The definition may also include domestic pets”—

so the gerbil is pretty secure, and I dare say that we will put his cage in as well—

“and sufficient cash to support basic domestic needs.”

I am sure that everyone will agree that it is best not to define the amount because families probably have different needs. Families with two children need a different sum from a family with four children. To set the amount arbitrarily at one figure is not wise or particularly helpful to people.

White goods are listed in paragraph 131. It includes a dining table and chairs so that people can still sit and eat,

“bed and bedding for each member of the household”,

and a telephone. That is important and would not have been in the Bill had we accepted the amendments. Furthermore, necessary medical equipment should not be removed and that would not have been listed had we accepted the proposals. I have mentioned the computer. We then specify as exempt from seizure

“Fixtures and fittings attached to external power and water supplies to provide lighting, washing and heating facilities”,

which are baths, gas fires and light sockets.

We have covered the range of goods that are in both amendments. I do not think that there would be difficulty regarding a guide dog. A hearing dog is missed off the amendment, but I should think that that would be covered by domestic pets. However, we can put in a provision to make sure that matters are clear. Guard dogs will probably be covered by the definition, too. I imagine that dogs used for businesses would fall into the territory of items necessary for the person’s business or vocation. If there is an argument that they should be expressly identified because they had a particular generic nature, that can all be done during the consultation that will come within the framework of the schedule when we have passed the Act and are looking to regulations.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

We will be very reliant on subsequent regulations. When will the Department for Constitutional Affairs lay the regulations? Let us assume that the Bill becomes an Act in the middle of the summer. When will the regulations be laid? We will have an Act, which will be the law of the land, but we will not have regulations and, thus, not the protection that might be necessary unless the exempt goods are described in the Bill.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

We want to ensure that the Act is not implemented until the exemptions are clear in regulations so that people are as secure as the hon. Gentleman wants them to be. We will consult as soon as we have draft regulations and, on Royal Assent, we will not need to bring into force that aspect of the Bill until we have had the regulations. That is the safeguard that the hon. Gentleman seeks. Although I shall have to firm that up, we must be sure that that happens.

I agree with members of the Committee that it is not tenable to have a power of seizure without specifying the exemptions, so they will have to be specified and that is the way forward. Hon. Members will be well aware that it is extremely difficult to gain legislative time in this House or the other place, and the notion of having to do so to ensure that some item that has been missed off an amendment is included is just not tenable. I have already mentioned three or four items that have been missed today. I hope that my comments have reassured the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey and that he will ask leave to withdraw his amendment.

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

I am encouraged by some things that the Minister said, particularly about the certification process for bailiffs. One of the most stressful, difficult and upsetting times that a family or an individual can face is hearing a bailiff knocking on the door. It is imperative that there are stringent guidelines, rules and regulations to ensure that the process of taking goods away from an individual is conducted fairly.

The Minister stated that there is no problem about clarity or definition in schedule 12. I should like to deal with the same paragraphs that she mentioned. Paragraph 3 of schedule 12, for example, is titled, “General interpretation”. That is the sort of vagueness that we are trying to get rid of.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

I did not say that at all. I said that the regulations will be clear and definite and as clear as legislation. They are drafted by the same people. The schedule covers the territory that the regulations will cover, but regulations, as everyone surely knows, have to be couched in terms drawn up by parliamentary counsel and will be absolutely as clear and unavoidable as the Bill.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

Regulations cannot be amended.

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

As my hon. Friend said, they cannot be amended. It is for us to make the judgment and to debate the matter now. The Minister says that there will be consultation, but this is a major question. We are debating primary legislation. She admitted that we will now delay primary legislation and wait for secondary legislation that cannot be passed until the primary legislation is agreed. This is becoming confusing. We are asking for a simple recognition that some key aspects need to be included and must be exempt to ensure that the matter is clear-cut.

Because of their background, court bailiffs currently operate under different guidelines from private bailiffs. We are getting into an overhaul of what can and cannot be exempt, which prompted the Bill in the first place.

Paragraph 130 of the policy statement, which deals with schedule 12, says:

“It is intended that exempt goods will include tools”

and

“books”.

It does not say that it will include those. It continues:

“The definition may also include domestic pets, and sufficient cash to support basic domestic needs”,

not “it will include”. Paragraph 131 mentions

“The items that will be considered as necessary”,

rather than those that will be necessary. Paragraph 132 says:

“A computer may be considered a necessary tool”

and does not specify at all. The Minister acknowledged that there is some vagueness concerning dogs. For example, guide dogs are not mentioned. However, we are grateful that she is willing to include them. Will guard dogs be included? She hinted that they might be. Why not have clarity on all dogs—and all pets? That is what we are asking for. We are confusing things by having to delay primary legislation to have a hint about, or a glance at, the secondary legislation.

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

I was a Committee member on the Animal Welfare Bill, where we spent a long time on the role of those who could seize animals. Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that there are strict restrictions on who can enter a building for the purpose of taking an animal? There may be a need to link the Bill with that.

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. However, we are stressing that, in a difficult time, when a bailiff knocks on the door, the individual whose goods are being taken away from them and the person taking them away must both be working from the same rule sheet. Currently, that is unclear. It is left to the ambiguities of secondary legislation, over which we have no control.

On that note, we shall not press amendment No. 158, but will support Liberal Democrat amendment No. 159.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The Minister said that she asked her Department to produce an indication of what would be in the regulations. I have it here for my colleagues who have not seen it. When the Minister read from it, she will have noticed that the wording of paragraphs (b), (c) and (e) comes from, and is identical to, the wording that is set out as part of the plan that the Government have for regulations. The question for us is whether we think that there should be anything in the Bill or everything in the regulations. I have listened to the debates and the arguments, and I believe that we should have the items that will always be in the category of exempt goods—the items that are unchanging—in the Bill itself. That does not preclude them from being in the regulations as well. Our amendment No. 158 would expressly permit that if the Bill is amended as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central and I have asked and as my colleagues support.

Under schedule 12, exempt goods would mean

“(a) goods that regulations exempt by description or circumstances or both;”

and then paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and (e). Therefore it is not an either/or debate; it is about whether we put anything or nothing in the Bill, accepting that we will always have regulations. I accept that the sum of money that a person is allowed to keep stays in the regulations because that sum will vary. I accept that anything that is technological may change and so, of course, needs to be in the regulations. The mobile phone, for example, may disappear in 20 years and be replaced by another device that fulfils the same purpose. If we are serious about making the statement of principle in such a consolidating Bill, which will become the Act that governs how enforcement can happen, the message should be clear that certain things are protected. They include things that are needed for a job, such as computers, adzes, saws and ladders, the things that are needed to run a household, a basic amount of money and the animals at home.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

The hon. Gentleman mentioned household goods and the basic domestic needs of the debtor. Presumably, that would include central medical equipment as well. Perhaps he could comment on the point made by the Minister that, if we include some of the definitions in the Bill, we could not have regulations. Surely, the best way forward is to have some core categories in the Bill but to link that with the regulations to give flexibility in the future.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

That is my view. I am not saying that we have the perfect formula—that is not something that anyone could argue in Committee—but the argument is clear. Should we have core items within the Bill? We believe that we should and I should like to test the opinion of the Committee. I hope that Labour Members will understand and be sensitive to that. I hope that they will consider supporting us and making a statement. We could certainly negotiate on the detail if there is further thought and reflection. We could come back on Report and make it an even more perfect Bill.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

I should like to indicate that I have now got some advice about the timing. We will introduce the Bill and the regulations simultaneously, but we will not put such things into the Bill.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I am grateful to the Minister for that statement; it is as I hoped and as I expected, but it does not change our view about the principle. No matter how wonderful the regulations are, we still think that some things should be included in the Bill.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I beg to move amendment No. 85, in schedule 12, page 206, line 31, at end insert—

‘Code of conduct

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 87, in schedule 12, page 207, line 42, at end insert—

‘Rights and remedies information

‘Premises occupied by a single woman or persons under 16

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

Amendments Nos. 85, 87, 89, 95 and 108 were tabled in my name and the names of other Opposition Members. Amendment No. 85 would introduce a code of conduct to ensure that the poor, vulnerable and socially excluded are protected from disproportionate enforcement. No. 87 would insist that HM Courts Service prepare an information sheet to inform debtors of the rights and remedies available to them. Amendment No. 89 is consequential. No. 95 would issue protection for single women and any persons under 16, and No. 108 is consequential on No. 85.

Opposition Members feel that a code of conduct is needed to protect the vulnerable in society. Amendments Nos. 85 and 87 need to be discussed as part of a package. We take the view that the poor and vulnerable in society need to know where they stand. After all, the Bill will give bailiffs substantial extra powers. Surely, it is incumbent on us as legislators to provide extra protection to those people who are likely to be caught up in difficult situations.

We all know that the vast majority of bailiffs in this country are exemplary, professional and do a very good job, but there are too many examples of abuse, bully-boy tactics and downright intimidation. It gives me no pleasure to point out that there are cases in which bailiffs go over the top and use disproportionate, bullying tactics, certainly in respect of goods being seized.

CABs and other organisations have given us a number of examples, and I shall refer to one or two to back up the case for a code of conduct as well as an information sheet. The information sheet would be supplied by the bailiffs on their first visit. It would include the rights of a debtor, the powers available to bailiffs and the details about what bailiffs can and cannot do. I hope that it is in order to consider some examples of abuse. We have all been briefed by our local CABs, and most of us on the Committee probably received briefings from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, or Citizens Advice as it is now called.

A case was brought to my attention by the Rev. Paul Nicolson of the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust that involves a lone parent on full benefits with a child aged four. The lone parent owed £1,072, mainly as a result of four or five fines for motoring offences. The fines were not paid, the court costs accumulated and the sum in question got bigger and bigger. The bailiffs arrived and decided to seize a variety of goods. They were not essential goods; there were items of china, one or two ornaments, a television, a radio and some kitchen goods.

Those goods probably filled the back of a van. They were handed over to an auctioneer. Although they were prized goods that meant a great deal to the family and had substantial sentimental value, they raised £70 at auction, of which £30 was given to the auctioneer. We are talking about a debt of £1,072, yet the amount raised was £40. The lone parent went back to court, and the magistrates settled for payments of £5 a week, deducted from benefits. Why the procedure before the magistrates court and the deduction decision did not occur before the bailiffs’ visit I do not know, but the parent had no idea what her rights were. We take the view that a code of conduct would have protected that individual.

I shall consider another case that involves a person who was pursued for council tax arrears. The arrears were paid off in due course, but the person—a constituent of one of my colleagues—wrote in an e-mail:

“As I write this, I am sitting in my house with all the windows and doors closed...because we are waiting for a visit from a bailiff—for something we do not owe. The bailiffs insist that we owe them £258 for council tax arrears. The council have confirmed that we have no arrears either for council tax or business rates—but the council nevertheless insists that we do owe the bailiffs the money for visiting us.”

The upshot was that they owed £500 for one visit from the bailiff. They owed that sum to the bailiff, despite the fact that their debt was paid. Obviously, the bailiff company was completely out of order in that case, but it does not remove the fact that that happened. It was brought to our attention, and it causes me great concern.

One need only look at some of the evidence presented by Citizens Advice. CABs throughout the country performed a survey between October 2006 and this January. Citizens Advice received 500 submissions from 131 bureaux. From that evidence, 40 per cent. of reports indicated that bailiffs misrepresented their powers of entry. Some 25 per cent. reported that bailiffs were threatening clients with imprisonment; 43 per cent. reported that they were overcharging clients for their fees—as illustrated in the case that I mentioned a moment ago—and 64 per cent. reported that bailiffs were harassing or intimidating clients.

We are obviously talking about a small minority of cases, but there is no question but that they build up. Each case that has been brought to my attention indicates a worrying trend. Some bailiffs out there are just using unnecessary bully-boy tactics. One such occasion was brought to the attention of Sean Poulter, the consumer affairs correspondent for the Daily Mail. In that case, the bailiffs threatened a woman that her mobility car would be taken away. That is completely wrong and out of order, and quite despicable. Again, a small minority of bailiffs are behaving in an unconscionable and totally unacceptable way.

Anne Snelgrove (Labour, South Swindon)

The hon. Gentleman gives some good examples to illustrate his point, but surely he is talking about the very people who would ignore a code of conduct. They are not the people who will sit down to read a code of conduct, because their behaviour is extreme already. A code of conduct is pretty much nonsense, surely.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I am surprised by that intervention. I submit that with the combination of a code of conduct, an information sheet that gives the debtor some indication of their rights and the proper independent regulation of bailiffs, along with the certification system in the Bill, we might make some progress. What concerns me is that a minority of bailiffs are bringing the whole bailiff industry into disrepute. As I said, most bailiffs do an excellent job. There is no doubt about that.

In a successful market economy, creditors have to enforce their debts. We have not discussed at any great length the fact that if someone is owed a debt, whether an individual, a company, an organisation or an arm of government, it is only fair that that debt be paid. It is only fair to council tax payers in the case of the Government or to employees in the case of a business. Of course there must be a system for collecting debt, and we are saying that the system works well in the main. It needs improving, which is why we support so much of the Bill, but there is still a small rogue element that is bringing the whole industry into disrepute.

On the code of conduct and the information sheet, the amendment would make a difference. We are saying that the Government should bring in a clear code of conduct. Combined with an information sheet supplied to the debtor, that would at least mean that the debtor knew exactly where they stood.

I wish to ask the Minister about the guidance given to civil enforcement officers. We discussed it on Second Reading, and the Minister has written to me about it since then. It sets out the rules and is a full, comprehensive guide telling bailiffs what they can and cannot do. The Zacchaeus 2000 Trust asked for the document in July 2006, and I am afraid that it took a great deal of correspondence—e-mails, letters and telephone calls—before eventually, on 23 January 2007, the DCA came up with Her Majesty’s Courts Service’s magistrates courts guidance on search and entry powers. There are 31 pages in the document and unfortunately 15 of them have been redacted, which means blacked out. The Minister wrote to me, because I raised the matter on Second Reading, and pointed out:

“I would like to make it quite clear that this document does not contain ‘secret instructions’ about how to make use of powers of forced entry for enforcing distress warrants. What this document contains is procedural guidance that advises enforcement agents on how to react and what to look for in certain operational situations. It was provided to HMCS employed staff who carry out enforcement work in the magistrates’ courts as an instruction guide. It was also provided to those contracted in from outside companies as part of the compulsory training package they had to undergo”.

We welcome the comprehensive training package. The letter continued:

“The disclosure of this guidance more widely could potentially assist offenders in evading enforcement agents in the execution of their lawful duties, and hinder or even prevent the administration of justice. Much of the guidance, for example that pertaining to searching persons taken into custody when executing a warrant of arrest, commitment or detention, is designed to ensure the protection of the agent and the offender. Most of the redacted material is with regard to executing commitment warrants, and the powers and procedures for searching an arrested person. Disclosing this guidance, however, could give unscrupulous offenders details as to how to evade arrest”.

In some ways, what the Minister wrote was fair and made sense. She was saying that the guidance is issued to both court officers and private bailiffs under the training scheme, and that it is the bailiff’s bible. She is telling us that the bailiff’s bible cannot be disclosed to the wider public under either freedom of information applications or any other request. In fact, she kindly said that MPs could be invited into her private office to have a look at the document in full and perhaps satisfy ourselves that nothing in it is too draconian, underhand or unconscionable. However, I am concerned that we have those instructions and that set of guidance rules, yet we have no code of conduct and no information sheet for the debtor.

I take the point made by the hon. Member for South Swindon that a small minority of bailiffs will ignore any code of conduct. We have a situation in which the bailiff has instructions but the debtor has nothing at all, apart from his or her common sense and reaction to circumstances that arise on the day. Most of us have not been in a situation in which a bailiff is knocking on the door, using intimidatory language, threatening with imprisonment, harassing and intimidating. As Citizens Advice discovered in its survey, many bailiffs misrepresent their powers of entry, which in most circumstances they do not have.

The debtor must know where they stand just as the bailiff does. We welcome the extra training that bailiffs are having, but we question why their instructions cannot be made public. Perhaps the Minister can explain and elaborate on that. Having seen it, I find the document quite sinister—the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey is as concerned as me about it. If the document is as innocent as the Minister claims it is, why did operational purposes and the other reasons given in the letter prevent it from being produced for members of the Committee and Opposition spokesmen, except at a private meeting? If the Minister feels so strongly about the document, why did the Department not make it available to the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust at the first request? For the trust, getting to see the document was like getting blood out of a stone. There was endless correspondence: all sorts of letters going backwards and forwards, e-mails, and telephone calls. Eventually, the existence of the document became apparent.

The balance of power in any situation involving bailiffs and a debtor heavily favours the former, and many debtors have no idea about their rights. One could argue that people with debts should pay them—no one is trying to suggest that that is not the case—but, often, the debtor is at an extremely vulnerable time in his or her life. They owe money, their whole life might be falling apart, they might be a single parent going through a time of huge stress, and they do not know what their rights are—they do not have a clue. They cannot afford legal advice. They might get help from a citizens advice bureau or from friends, but when they get a knock on the door at 6 o’clock in the morning from a bailiff armed with the document and knowing exactly where he stands, they may not know their rights.

That is why we want to put into the Bill some redress for vulnerable people. Perhaps the code of conduct idea is not perfect, but the information sheet concept is a good idea. If a bailiff is armed with the bailiffs guidance document, which tells him what his rights are, why should he not hand the debtor a document detailing his or her rights?

Jennifer Willott (Liberal Democrat, Cardiff Central)

The Liberal Democrats support a number of the proposals put forward by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk. For us, the key part of the proposals is the protection of the rights of vulnerable people. As he mentioned, a number of firms provide information sheets to the people on whom they call, and a number of firms have voluntary codes of conduct that their employees follow. However, it is not necessarily those firms that we are most concerned about; we are most concerned about the firms that do not provide information and codes of conduct. If such firms do not act voluntarily, we need to do something to make sure that they follow the letter of the law and that they are ensuring that particularly vulnerable people are protected. Given the implications for the rights of privacy of all the measures in the Bill, it is clearly fundamental that we get the code of conduct completely right, protect the rights of privacy, ensure that people know what their rights are and ensure that the borderlines are not crossed.

The code of conduct should also protect those bailiffs who act within the law and behave as they should. They would be protected by their actions in following the code, and as long as they could show that they had acted in the way in which they are supposed to, they would be offered a measure of protection against unfounded allegations from debtors. Vulnerable debtors would also have the protection of knowing that bailiffs were acting within a certain code.

The debtors who are most likely to abuse the system—I believe that they are called “won’t pays”—are more likely to know what their rights are and what the process is than those who are vulnerable and most in need of protection. Ensuring that an information sheet is provided to everyone in that situation effectively levels the playing field. It ensures that everybody has the same information and the same protection. Information about how to complain is a fundamental part of that. Pretty much all public bodies and Departments ensure that they provide information on how to complain about services in big letters on the front of leaflets and on display boards in the entrances to public buildings. It is a fundamental part of ensuring that a service is up to scratch and that people know what to expect and what to do if something goes wrong. I do not see why it should be any different for bailiffs. Information about what people can expect, and how they can do something about it if something goes wrong, is a fundamental part of ensuring that the service is provided properly.

As a non-lawyer, can I put in a plea that the information sheet should be in plain English? When a vulnerable individual has the bailiff at the door, the information needs to be in language that they can understand. The Government have a lot of experience of putting together leaflets and information sheets in language that people can readily understand and take in at a glance. That would be fundamental in ensuring that an information sheet worked.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

I agree entirely about plain language. What worries me somewhat in this argument is that, if people are in the distress that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk said they are likely to be in, whether they are culpable or not, it is a bit late in the day to give them something when they are confronted by a bailiff, however plain the English is, to invite them to reflect on their rights and to deal with them appropriately. Surely we have a duty to ensure much earlier that there is a maximum amount of public information about debtors’ rights, and codifying it all in one Bill, so that it is available to lawyers and bailiffs at least, even if not necessarily in plain English, is much more important than notices. I have plenty to say about the notices that we will give, but it is much more important to ensure that people know their rights up front, rather than struggle in a panic to find out what they are.

Jennifer Willott (Liberal Democrat, Cardiff Central)

I suggest that it is not an either/or situation. Clearly, the information needs to be available up front. However, many of the people who find that the bailiffs are coming to call might have been given the information in advance, but put off reading it. People think that it will not happen to them and that there will be a way out of the situation. They probably will not have taken in the information; they might not even know where it is. When someone knocks at the door, it becomes real. At that point, it is important that they should be given information about their rights and about what the bailiff can and cannot do, so that the bailiff cannot misrepresent their ability to seize goods, to enter, to use force or whatever they might want to do. Evidence shows that some bailiffs are doing that. It is important that at that point the debtor receives further information to give them the protection that they need.

Amendment No. 95 concerns the situation where a bailiff calls at the door of vulnerable people, including single women and young people under the age of 16. Clearly, they need extra protection. It can be intimidating when someone is alone if great big hulking blokes come to the door and try to take their goods away. There is a need for some protection. While I understand the reason behind ensuring a female is present when that happens, I am not entirely convinced that some women are not just as scary and intimidating as some male bailiffs. That might not be the only protection that is needed and we need to ensure that the information sheets and the code of conduct back it up.

Anne Snelgrove (Labour, South Swindon)

I want to detail my worries about a voluntary code of conduct and the piece of paper setting out people’s rights. I do not disregard the Opposition’s concern about such matters and, indeed, welcome the Conservative party’s belated worry about vulnerable people. I remember the days of poll tax when people could be locked up for non-payment and bailiffs’ powers were extended for the first time. However, the example that I gave earlier demonstrates that codes of conduct will not be effective in the protection of vulnerable people.

I shall set out an example from Swindon. A single parent was living on incapacity benefit and was really intimidated by a bailiff. She let him in to draw up an inventory and take walking possession. The bailiff failed to apply his company’s code of practice in relation to vulnerable people, and levied goods, including a washing machine and a kettle. That illustrates two points: the problem with the Bill is that vulnerable people might still be in that situation, and secondly that the bailiff might not take notice of a code of conduct. If he ignores his company’s code of conduct, as sure as eggs is eggs he will not take notice of the Government’s code of conduct.

The other issue concerns the piece of paper setting out the rights. My experience of working with people in Swindon who are in considerable debt is that the average debt before people ask for help is £36,000. That is before mortgage debt. Very vulnerable people also have reading difficulties, and I do not believe that a bailiff handing them a piece of paper, if he can be persuaded to do that, especially at the last minute when they are in a panic, will have any effect whatever. It will just confuse them even more. Neither method will be effective.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

There is an argument both ways. It is true that some people cannot read, but the Government have introduced new regulations that require the police to give pieces of paper to people they stop. They do not discriminate in respect of those regulations about whether the people can read or speak English. What is the difference between the police being required, when they are on the beat, to give information to people in paper form, and bailiffs being required to do it?

Anne Snelgrove (Labour, South Swindon)

There is a difference. I do not believe that some of those whom the police meet on the streets are particularly vulnerable, especially if they have been committing crimes. I was talking about very vulnerable people who, in my experience, are up to their eyes in debt and subject to bailiffs. I said not that they could not read but that they had reading difficulties. There is a difference. They panic in such situations, and that makes it more difficult for them to read clearly.

Will the Minister comment on the Security Industry Association and its role in regulating bailiffs? The SIA is the organ to ensure that, if their powers were strengthened, bailiffs would behave in a reasonable way when dealing with vulnerable people. It has a good record with doormen and security officers. I have been impressed with its action in my constituency when training doormen and ensuring that people with records for grievous bodily harm and other issues are removed from the industry. Can she reassure us about the position of the SIA in regulating bailiffs?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk for having tabled amendments that enabled our debate to extend to the wider issues of ensuring that bailiffs act in accordance with their rights and restrictions, and that information is made available so that people are fully cognisant of their rights should they be subject to a judgment debt but unable to make the necessary payments as a consequence of the involvement of bailiffs.

Bailiffs have a difficult job. When a debtor is unwilling or unable to pay a court judgment or other judgment debt, they act as the mechanism that ensures that the law is upheld and orders are properly enforced. We should have no illusions about the challenges that they face. This mini-debate is not about seeking additional favours or suggesting that one group within society should be subject to different rules or laws; it is about justice, fairness and proportionality.

It is clear from the cases that we have seen in our constituencies, and had explained to us by citizens advice bureaux and other interest groups that provide Committee members with information, that there are rogue operators who seek to abuse their powers or to misrepresent them. The amendments highlight the need for clarity about the manner in which those rights should be exercised. It is difficult to separate regulation, which is accepted by all in this House as being necessary to ensure that proper standards are maintained by bailiffs in the conduct of their duty, and the need for a code of conduct. The legislation sets out the law, the basic framework within which bailiffs should operate, and there is an argument for a code to sit alongside the sheer legal drafting of the law—separate from any guidance, toolkit or manual that might be available to bailiffs—to inform them how they may use their powers. That would provide those who are subject to the actions of bailiffs with a clear understanding of the service and the standards that they should expect in those circumstances.

It is important to have the debate. We need to understand how regulation would operate in order to provide individuals who are subject to enforcement with a context in which to seek to complain to a regulator, should that be necessary. Equally, where enforcement and the upholding of standards are concerned, bailiffs should have a prescribed manner in which to work and a framework within which to conduct their duties and fulfil their responsibilities.

On the information sheet, I agree with the Minister that information should be available at all stages of a court or enforcement process, so that people understand what is taking place. When I was involved in the Constitutional Affairs Committee’s investigation into the small claims court, I saw that it was essential for people involved in the process to understand what was going on and what steps and procedures were involved in a case, whether in the small claims court or elsewhere. I am aware that the Government are seeking to make information more generally available at an earlier stage.

The point that the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central made is that when one is subject to enforcement it is an acute situation. The issues are writ large: one is subject to enforcement and is likely to have assets seized to ensure that that enforcement takes place. There is therefore a strong case for further information to be provided at that point, to reinforce the message and to ensure that people properly understand the procedures that are undertaken. We need to ensure that the law is not only enforced but seen to be enforced, and that it is much harder for that small proportion of unscrupulous bailiffs to misrepresent their powers.

The hon. Member for South Swindon made a valid point about whether unscrupulous bailiffs would seek to ignore the code of conduct. It comes down to enforcement. The amendment states:

“Enforcement agents, courts, creditors and others with responsibility for an enforcement action shall comply with the code of conduct.”

I see the amendment as an interlinking factor of the overall regulation. If the code of conduct is not adhered to, there would be a regulatory sanction, whether through the SIA or another regulator, to ensure that standards are properly maintained and enforced and that the system is robust and credible.

Anne Snelgrove (Labour, South Swindon)

The hon. Gentleman seeks to create more work for lawyers and more interpretations in court. If the Opposition had the courage of their convictions, they would write something into the Bill, in law, rather than in the code of conduct. Does he not agree that the Security Industry Association is the better way forward?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

The hon. Lady makes an interesting point about lawyers. As a lawyer, albeit non-practising, I think that we sometimes get a bad press. I understand why, because of the manner in which certain people conduct themselves, but I do not see the amendment as a lawyers’ charter. It is a mechanism to ensure that proper standards are upheld.

The hon. Lady talks about the SIA almost as a panacea. Surely for people to understand whether they have recourse to the SIA, there needs to be a context and a framework. A code of conduct would simplify that and make it clearer to people, if it was a separate document written in plain English. That would ensure that people properly understood the standards that could be expected. It is an essential part of maintaining standards and ensuring that the regulation, through the SIA or otherwise, is properly adhered to, which would ensure the necessary protection.

Jennifer Willott (Liberal Democrat, Cardiff Central)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the other advantage of having a code of conduct is that it gives other bodies, such as Citizens Advice or NGOs, the opportunity to complain on behalf of people, particularly vulnerable people, and to highlight severe breaches?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

The hon. Lady makes a reasonable point. It emphasises the issue of content, which I sought to advance in my comments. If the framework is there, it is all very well to point to a schedule to the Bill. Despite the best efforts of the parliamentary draftsman to use plain English, however, a schedule fulfils a slightly different purpose from a code of conduct. The concept of a code of conduct is that individuals, Citizens Advice and other organisations are able to point to it to maintain fair and appropriate standards, to provide protection and to ensure, for the industry itself, that it is seen to adhere to a high standard of service and performance, so that the law is not only enforced but seen to be enforced.

The amendment might not be a perfect solution, and my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk certainly highlighted that in his comments, but we must consider it properly and appropriately to ensure that protections are afforded people, that bailiffs are clear about what rules they operate within, and that we have greater clarity and protection. The rules and regulations introduced under the Bill must be seen to be effective and to ensure that we have proper and robust enforcement that is fair, clear, understandable and proportionate.

Brooks Newmark (Conservative, Braintree)

I will try to be brief. I add my words of support to those of my hon. Friends the Members for North-West Norfolk and for Hornchurch. As we have heard, amendment No. 85 would require all those with responsibility for the enforcement of an action to comply with a code of conduct to ensure that the poor, the vulnerable and the socially excluded are protected from disproportionate enforcement. It is the disproportionate aspect on which I shall focus.

My first point is a general, fundamental point. I think that all hon. Members would agree that protection of the most vulnerable ought to be at the core of this part of the Bill. It might as well be explicit as well as implicit, which I fear is the direction in which the Minister seems to be going. Secondly, in requiring that action should not be disproportionate, the amendment is advocating the use of common sense. I know that it is hard to legislate common sense, but it is an important aspect. I am not saying that there should be a blanket ban on enforcement against the vulnerable—liabilities must be dealt with—but bailiffs should not feel that they have carte blanche to do what they like. That is what is driving the amendment. Thirdly, by drawing

“agents, courts, creditors and others with responsibility”

into the equation, the amendment would achieve the vital objective of preventing creditors from abdicating responsibility for those who act on their behalf.

I turn to amendment No. 95. The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central did an excellent job in making her points. The amendment seeks to recognise that women and children are particularly vulnerable when it comes to visits from bailiffs, and that they therefore deserve special protection. I am sure that we all agree that protecting women and children, particularly when dealing with the dramatic changes in circumstance that necessitate the use of bailiffs to take their basic livelihoods away, is something that we should be focusing on. That is why I welcome amendment No. 95.

As a matter of law, can a person under 16 allow a bailiff entrance to a building for the purpose of removing property? Do they have the legal capacity to allow the bailiff to take control of goods, and can they give informed consent? If the Minister could answer that for me, it would be helpful. Further, given that bailiffs are not likely to be shy and retiring, is it not absolutely necessary that a woman on her own or looking after children, particularly young children, should be protected from the implicit threat of a man, or even an aggressive woman, entering her house? We need to focus on the issue and address it, which is why I welcome amendment No. 95.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I just want to say a word about the guidance document to which the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk referred. It has been partly revealed and partly not, and it has been the fruit of the Rev. Paul Nicolson’s labour on behalf of his trust to discover what the rules are. I guess that the matter may go to the Information Commissioner and that in the end it may all be in the public domain anyway. That would be a sensible way to proceed. However, I am troubled about the fact that there are currently—it is proposed that this should continue—rules that are public in law, statute, regulations or published guidance, and rules that are private. It is important that the citizen knows exactly what the powers of the state, or officers of the state, are in respect of people acting on behalf of the court—those doing enforcement on behalf of the public authorities—and that the citizen knows what rights they have, whether they are dealing with people acting on behalf of the state or acting on behalf of other citizens. Therefore, a guidance document about how bailiffs should react and what their powers, strategies and tactics are ought to be in the public domain. I presume always that such documents ought to be in the public domain.

I can see, by comparison, that if the police produced a manual on how they dealt with somebody who was taken hostage and what their tactics were, perhaps it would be sensible for certain things to be kept private. However, that should be the exception rather than the rule. I should be grateful if the Minister explained why she thinks that it is necessary for the information to be kept secret—so far—and why the Government have insisted that it be generally kept secret, subject to the offer that she has made for parliamentarians to read the document, which does not get it out into the public domain.

If these matters go to the Information Commissioner and there is a ruling that says that such guidance or some of the guidance can be kept secret, it is none the less sensible that the maximum amount of information governing the way that bailiffs behave is in the public domain. It should not be about how clever they are at getting up the drainpipes, through the skylight, or whatever; it should be about what the rules are and what people can expect. I thought that that was what we were trying to do in the Bill: to make clear complicated law, some of which is common law and some of which is statute law, and to bring it all together, as the Minister says, so that everybody can look in one place. I am in favour of that. If that is so, we should have maximum openness and transparency and as little hidden as possible.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

Having as little hidden as possible is the watchword, as far as I am concerned, for how the Bill and all these proceedings will be conducted. I have no idea what the delay was in respect of the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust. I apologise for that if it was inappropriate. It certainly was not my delay. I guess that, because difficulties have been raised about disclosure, there was a delay in order to take advice. But I do not know. I hope that the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust was kept informed about what the reasons were.

The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk said that the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust and the Rev. Paul Nicholson were at the end of the road, but they are not, as the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey has just said. It can appeal against the decision of the Department for Constitutional Affairs’ access rights unit to the Information Commissioner, if it wishes to do so.

It is not a document that is properly described as including rules that ought to be made public. It is about operational issues and how it is recommended that bailiffs should approach particular operational situations. Consequently, it is deemed wise and within the Freedom of Information Act 2000 exemptions to keep it private. I repeat the offer that I made in my letter and on Second Reading, which both hon. Gentlemen mentioned. Any Member of Parliament who wants to see the document, so that they can better judge whether there is a problem, is welcome to do so, on the terms that they use it only for their own information for the time being, pending any appeal that there may be to the Information Commissioner.

I will pick out one or two elements of the debate before I move on to the amendments themselves. My hon. Friends the Members for South Swindon and for Stroud and Opposition Members have all referred to how private bailiffs behave. It is not up to me to say that that behaviour does not happen, and I do not. Although, as the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk said, many bailiffs are excellent, professional, courteous and simply do their job properly, there is also a good deal of evidence to the contrary. Much of it comes from citizens advice bureaux, but some of it comes from a number of other sources, including from face-to-face meetings in surgeries in my own constituency.

I do not find it difficult to accept that, in 500 case reports that citizens advice bureaux referred to their central office in 2006, two thirds of bailiffs were allegedly guilty of harassment or intimidation, 40 per cent. misrepresented their powers of entry either deliberately or because they did not know what those powers were—I suppose that some are debt collectors and are bound to muddle their roles—a quarter threatened debtors with imprisonment, which is wholly unacceptable, and 42 per cent. charged excessive fees back to, for example, the fish fryer in Stroud. In more than half of those cases, the CAB described the debtor as vulnerable, although how that is defined is a difficulty, which brings me to the amendment and the thrust of what it intends to do.

The amendment is extraordinarily well meant. It is good that all parties want to ensure that there is not disproportionate enforcement against the vulnerable, and that is certainly our intention. Let me indicate that we have probably gone far further than hon. Members expected. It is necessary to look at some detail of the legislation, which they probably have not had a chance to do.

Let me start with schedule 12 and the regulations that will underpin it. Those regulations will clarify what enforcement agents are and are not legally entitled to do. I am not suggesting that debtors should read those, but it is excellent and important that there will be a comprehensive code available in one place. For example, paragraph 12 restricts what can be taken to the value of any outstanding debt plus future costs. Therefore, there has to be imposed on the agents an element of care about what they seek to take. As has already been made clear from the earlier debate, there is a list of exempt goods that cannot be touched at all. It is important that all that information should be centrally available.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I have a general point. The Minister is right to say that a lot of the important detail is under schedule 12. After we have concluded the debates on the detail of the Bill, will she be willing to have a meeting between the parties? Having read the schedule over and again and consulted my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central, who has read it but who is not a lawyer, I think that the schedule is very complicated and confusing. I would be happy to try to draft the schedule in a shape and form that avoids some of the cross-referencing and pitfalls which, to be honest, do not help us very much.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

I think that the schedule is very comprehensive and well put. It was subject to scrutiny in the other place and it arrived with us in a final form that sets out what it intends. It is extremely helpful in doing that.

Furthermore, regulations will reflect the provisions for the national standards for enforcement agents. Let me refer to that document. The standards were produced by my Department, when it was still the Lord Chancellor’s Department, to share, to build on and to improve existing good practice and to raise the level of professionalism across the whole sector. The standards are intended for use by all enforcement agents, public and private, the enforcement agencies that employ them, and the major creditors who use their services. The national guidance does not replace local agreements, existing agency codes of practice or legislation, but it does set out what the Department, those in the industry and the major users regard as minimum standards. The document is not legally binding yet, but it is intended to underpin the regulations that follow. There is already a code, as it were, of minimum standards, which in many areas is built upon by local agency codes of practice and local area agreements.

If a bailiff arrives and the only person on the premises is a child aged 12 or under, the enforcement agent simply has to withdraw without making any further enquiries. The regulations would also say that, where a young person is over 12 but under 18, the bailiff may simply ask for confirmation of the address of the debtor and when the debtor will return. After that, the agent should leave the premises.

All enforcement agents will be required to use their discretion in deciding whether to withdraw without taking goods if it appears that the debtor is in any way vulnerable. Training will become part and parcel of the job; once the Bill has been enacted, nobody will be able to be a bailiff unless they have gone through training. That training will cover diversity awareness, which has not been raised here, although it is vital that people who are dealing with the public in this fashion should learn it, as well as dealing calmly and properly with situations of potential conflict, and understanding vulnerability and ascertaining its level.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

The Minister has mentioned an important point. Will the training include an awareness of religious festivals, for example, such as Yom Kippur, the Chinese new year or some of the Muslim festivals? Will there be recognition of the times of day when some religions instruct their members to be in prayer?

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

It would be important that all those factors were understood. I cannot see how one could train people about diversity and miss out elements such as beliefs or diverse ways of behaving.

The issue goes further and is broader than anything anyone has raised today. I hope that it is clear, even now when I have a good deal left to say, that the Government intend to ensure that there is a proper bailiff service, reflecting in its behaviour not simply the creditors’ interest, but the public interest, which is that such matters should be conducted in a proper fashion. The training requirements relate to clause 59 and the certification process that will immediately follow the introduction of the legislation. That comes before the SIA, to which I will turn shortly, for my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon.

Nobody will be able to be a bailiff until they have gone through the training. The problem with the amendment, which I alluded to when I started to speak, is that vulnerability and social exclusion are very difficult to define. Many people in prison for grave offences would be regarded as socially excluded, but they probably do not need the protection that Opposition Members are looking for. Vulnerability is probably on a sliding scale across a range of difficulties, and there might be difficulties about definitions at the margins. What we ought to do is ensure that nobody suffers disproportionate enforcement, so the vulnerable will be safe without our seeking, as the amendment somewhat laboriously does, to define them. That is our intention. That is why we are codifying and training, and why we are going to certificate and ultimately regulate.

As to information, the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central is right: I was not suggesting that this is an either/or question. Clearly, a lot of information must be made available about creditors’ and debtors’ rights so that vulnerable people are not exposed, as long as they look at the information, to a situation that might end up with the bailiff not knowing the rights and wrongs. Her Majesty’s Courts Service is excellent at producing information leaflets and ensuring their availability at advice centres and libraries. The Legal Services Commission is also excellent at producing documents in fairly plain English—as good as we have got so far—that indicate what people’s rights are in an accessible way.

It is not correct to suggest, as the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk did, that debtors would not be entitled to legal advice; anybody who is in debt is entitled to legal advice. If they are poor—that is what we are talking about—they are entitled to free legal advice. Through the LSC, we fund an enormous amount of debt advice, from Citizens Advice, law centres and private solicitors. The financial inclusion fund has just allocated 500 new positions with training by Citizens Advice to give debt advice, and the Department of Trade and Industry already has debt advisers. I think that I am right in saying that in my citizens advice bureau, one debt adviser is funded by the LSC and two by the DTI. Advice is available if people look for it.

People might have heard on the radio this morning about the Consumer Credit Counselling Service, which is the credit card and loan organisations body that tries to manage debt. It produces very good information indicating how it can help, which can be accessed online and through documentation. There should be no shortage of information on the codes and people’s general rights and it will have to be updated and made as publicly available as practical.

That is a very important step to emphasise, as the Government have every intention of ensuring that people are fully informed. If they are getting into debt difficulties, they need to know where those difficulties can lead and, if necessary, to get advice quickly. We intend not only to provide the information, but to ensure that the advice is there as well. The notion that it is sufficient protection for somebody to be given a notice when the bailiff is on the doorstep is not a realistic one. Everybody is familiar with stress such as that of an individual who is visited by a bailiff; we have all experienced it ourselves when the finger points and we have to confront a position in which we are vulnerable. It is not easy to read and digest information put before us in such situations. It is not enough to say, “If they give them the notice, that will do.” Clearly, those involved ought to be talking to people, apart from anything else. The notice is not sufficient.

Plenty of notices will be given, however—notices in advance and notices on the arrival of the bailiff. Paragraph 7(1) of schedule 12 requires that an

“enforcement agent may not take control of goods unless the debtor has been given notice.”

That notice must state

“the minimum period of notice”

before any further action can be taken,

“the form of the notice...what it must contain”—

the sorts of information that I have mentioned—

“how it must be given”,

and “who must give it”. The enforcement agent is required to

“keep a record of the time when the notice is given”,

so that he can provide proof. That notice should be given not when somebody arrives to take the goods away; somebody should deliver a notice to a debtor that the intention is to take goods away if they do not make moves in the right direction and contact the creditor.

In addition, paragraph 28(1) of schedule 12 requires the enforcement agent to produce a notice to the debtor on arrival at the premises. Paragraph 160 of the policy statement on delegated powers lists what will be provided for in regulations in order to compel the contents of those notices. When an enforcement agent enters a premises in order to levy execution, he must provide the debtor with a notice, the form of which will be contained within regulations. It will cover the statutory liability or the judgment that has given rise to the debt; the legislative provisions authorising the action; the amount for which the warrant is issued; the charges that have been and can be made in relation to it; how payment can be made; the fact that the goods will be sold if the debt and costs are not paid; and any rights of appeal or avenues of complaint that the debtor may have. It is clearly intended that the notice should be given in writing.

The Bill therefore provides for what one could almost call an abundance of notices—an essential amount of notice. It is imperative that debtors should be well informed about the difficulty that will ultimately confront them. I hope that hon. Members are satisfied that we have gone far further than the amendments would provide for, and that we intend to treat people properly and be as fair as we can.

Regulatory structures within the SIA are substantial. My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon mentioned the SIA’s good reputation when it got into a position of being able properly to regulate doormen, and it has done an excellent job. It has raised standards immensely and good-quality professionals are pleased that that has happened. It has got rid of many of the bandits and improved the situation. It is the ideal body to do exactly the same in this regard.

An extract from the SIA’s policy code of conduct indicates that it will regulate in detail and that it will use verbal or written warnings if it finds companies, organisations or individuals failing to comply. That is important at all levels, not just in relation to the bailiff on the ground. If the SIA did something to him, the company could simply employ another bailiff who might be just as bad. If a company is badly run, there needs to be a power against it. SIA investigators can issue improvement notices that offer advice and guidance and a manageable time frame within which to rectify matters. The SIA can also initiate prosecutions for breaches of legislation, although it will always prefer compliance to prosecutions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford perspicaciously pointed out that there are not actually any offences in the schedule, only remedies. However, there are offences in the Private Security Industry Act 2001 that carry penalties such as a £5,000 maximum fine or six months’ imprisonment or, if the case goes to the Crown court, five years’ imprisonment or an unlimited fine for serious breaches in how licensable tasks are carried out or for carrying out tasks unlicensed. There will in due course be a proper regulatory system, which I hope will satisfy everybody. I hope rather more that what I have set out here, and how, has made it plain that the Government intend people to have all the information that they require if they are in the position of being confronted by a bailiff.

Brooks Newmark (Conservative, Braintree)

I do not think that the Minister has answered my question about people aged under 16. Can a person under 16 open a door and let a bailiff in to empty the contents of the house?

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman. If he wants me to act as his legal adviser on that point I shall do my best.

Brooks Newmark (Conservative, Braintree)

Well, no.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

I am not being critical. I do not know the answer—I am not that kind of lawyer—but I have read out the fact that a bailiff will have to withdraw if he finds a 16-year-old there. The question whether, should the bailiff not withdraw, the individual has the capacity to consent to his entering does not arise. The regulatory system requires the bailiff to withdraw. The hon. Gentleman will know as well or as badly as I do whether a 16-year-old can open the door and let somebody in.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I am grateful to the Minister for her words of assurance on the code of conduct, the protection for people who need information on their rights and remedies and the information sheet.

On the code of conduct, I take on board what the Minister said about schedule 12, but it is extremely complex, however one looks at it. I accept that schedule 12 lays out a great deal of information and goes to the core of what bailiffs can do and how they should go about their job and, certainly, I am quite attracted by the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey to make it that much simpler—it is very long and complicated. It contains a lot of references backwards and forwards and, to be honest, one would need a wet cloth over one’s head and to put aside a number of hours in order to go through and understand it. That is why we feel that a code of conduct in the Bill would make sense.

I shall return to a point made by the hon. Member for South Swindon when she asked why we did not put more details in the code of conduct. I think that she said that we would have been braver as the Opposition if we had spelled that out in more detail. However, if she looks at our proposal, she will see that actually we suggest that the Secretary of State should come up with the code. We suggest that the Secretary of State should

“issue a code of conduct to ensure that the poor, vulnerable and socially excluded are protected from disproportionate enforcement.”

We are saying that the Secretary of State is competent, wise and able enough to come up with a code of conduct. However, I take on board what the Minister said about the code of conduct, and in the light of her very full explanation, we are not inclined to push that amendment to a vote.

On the information sheet on rights and remedies, again I take on board what the Minister said about people faced with the prospect of the bailiffs arriving at their house. If they are being dragged out of bed at the crack of dawn and the bailiffs are on their doorstep saying, “Here is an information sheet, here are your rights”, they might be even more bemused. But, of course, it is a question of how that information is drafted. If it is user-friendly and contains no more than, say, a dozen or so bullet points, it surely would give the debtor some basic information about, above all, what the bailiff can and cannot do and about their own rights, such as the right not to admit the bailiff in to their house. Those are simple and obvious rights of which the debtor might not be aware. We will probably want to come back to that on Report and certainly keep on raising it with the Minister.

I want to push the Minister a bit more on amendment No. 95, because we might be minded to press it to a vote if we do not get assurances from her. My point is slightly different from that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree. Let us look again at the proposed new paragraph entitled: “Premises occupied by a single woman or persons under 16”. It reads:

“Where a dwelling is known or believed to be occupied by a single woman or a child under 16, no visit with the intention of seizing goods shall be permitted unless the enforcement officer is female or is accompanied by a female enforcement officer.”

Surely, that will provide the extra protection to young single woman facing a very difficult, stressful and traumatic situation. We have heard examples from Citizens Advice, the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust and other organisations of how a minority of bailiffs have used bully-boy tactics and misrepresented their powers. I think that putting that protection in the Bill would make sense and I do not think that the extra costs would be significant. Before we take a final decision on whether to push that amendment to a vote, will the Minister assure me on that point, because she did not really give a full response?

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

I am happy to indicate our position. I do not think that there is any need for that protection, but not because I do not think that people need to be protected. I suppose that when the amendment refers to “a single woman”, it actually means a woman on her own—married, divorced, widowed or whatever. The amendment would give protection only if it could be shown that the bailiff knew or believed that there was a woman on her own in the relevant house at the relevant time. That would be an extraordinarily difficult thing to prove. Furthermore, that category is not the only category of women on their own that I want to see protected; I want such women to be protected even if the bailiff does not know that they are on their own. That is why we shall have a comprehensive code of conduct that will deal with vulnerability, and training on vulnerability.

We have not yet quite reached the powers to use reasonable force to gain entry, but I said on Second Reading that it would be possible for judges to place conditions on any warrant granting such power. I also said that if a woman were known to be on her own it would be sensible for another woman to accompany the agent, and I think that probably rather rashly I suggested that that could be a police community support officer. In any case, that might be an important step to allow judges to consider.

Nevertheless, that will be possible only if it is known that the woman is a sole occupant. Furthermore, some women are quite fierce, whether they are on their own or not, so the proposal does not necessarily hit the spot. Much more important than specific rules for a specific category of relatively vulnerable people, therefore, is the kind of extensive protection that I have indicated will be available. It is better not to pinpoint one sub-category of people.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is content enough not to press amendment No. 95. If he wishes to press it to a vote, that is up to him, but the amendment is a poor attempt at protection and the Government are putting far better protection in place.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I entirely take on board what the Minister has said. She is saying that the protection will exist anyway by way of schedule 12, and that it will be better, so that our suggestion for a code of conduct is unnecessary. However, on amendment No. 95 she said that single women and children under 16 have protection under the code of conduct. That might well be the case, but having specific protection would surely make sense. I do not think that we are putting too great an onus on bailiffs. Judges will often have a clear idea of what is happening and will be able to issue instructions.

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

My hon. Friend might be interested to know that the armed forces have their own code of conduct, which is a helpful indication of the expected standards of behaviour. I understand that the police and NHS doctors and nurses do too. It seems entirely appropriate to have one for bailiffs.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

My hon. Friend is right. That is relevant to the code of conduct. On amendment No. 95, I want to see express provision in the Bill. The Minister alluded to the fact that many single women are not that vulnerable, but generally speaking such people are in a difficult and stressed situation. We shall therefore press amendment No. 95 to a vote at the appropriate time. However, as to the lead amendment, No. 85, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I beg to move amendment No. 90, in schedule 12, page 209, line 16, at end insert

‘by serving a notice on the debtor or a person in control of the premises and additionally, if the enforcement agent deems it necessary, by physically securing the goods’.

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 91, in schedule 12, page 209, line 19, at end insert

‘, if this will not cause undue hardship to the debtor or his family or significantly impair his ability to continue in his business, employment or vocation’.

No. 92, in schedule 12, page 209, line 20, at end insert

‘or with a person in control of the premises where the goods are found’.

No. 93, in schedule 12, page 209, line 29, at end insert ‘or other competent person’.

No. 94, in schedule 12, page 209, line 34, at end insert—

‘(5) In this paragraph a “competent person” is any person either residing at the relevant premises or working at the relevant premises where these are premises where the debtor carries out trade or business at the time when control is taken, who—

(a) is 18 years of age or over; and

(b) fully understands the consequences of the procedure being carried out.’.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

The amendments are not dissimilar to new clause 1, which we discussed earlier. When a bailiff enters someone’s house, they obviously want to take possession, perhaps walking possession, of the goods in question. The amendments propose the simple solution that other defined people apart from the debtor should be competent to sign the agreement. I think that there is a strong argument to allow someone specified in the Bill and of competent age who is physically in control of the goods to sign them away.

Amendment No. 90, for example, says:

“by serving a notice on the debtor or a person in control of the premises and additionally, if the enforcement agent deems it necessary, by physically securing the goods”.

Amendment No. 91 would insert

“if this will not cause undue hardship to the debtor or his family or significantly impair his ability to continue in his business, employment or vocation”.

That is not dissimilar to what we were talking about under new clause 1.

Amendment No. 92 would insert

“or with a person in control of the premises where the goods are found”,

and No. 93 would insert

“or other competent person”.

No. 94, which is arguably the most important amendment in the group, speaks for itself.

We are suggesting giving the system greater flexibility. It is important that the details are put into the Bill. We are aiming at a situation in which the bailiff leaves the goods in place where that is sensible to give the debtor more time to find the money. Bailiffs should not be put in the position of having to take goods because of what is in the Bill. We do not want the wording to give them the idea that in all circumstances, they should take the goods if the debtor is not in the home.

We are suggesting that other responsible people who might be in the home—the amendment makes it quite clear who they are—should be able to sign for the goods in front of the bailiff. That would give the bailiff more flexibility, meaning that they would not have to take the goods on that occasion simply because the debtor is not home. We feel that the group of amendments gives the system that much more flexibility. On that basis, I commend them to the Committee.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I just want to make one point about the amendments on a common issue. If people come to collect goods, it is clearly a better option that they register their interest without walking out with the cooker, fridge or whatever it is, but the person at the door will often say, “They’re not mine.” It could be the son who answers the door, when the goods belong to the parents. It could be a student house, a house full of nurses, a house full of single people or a lodging house where people are paying to rent the room. It could be a house where people are renting but the landlord lives on the premises—

Schedule 12

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 91, in schedule 12, page 209, line 19, at end insert

‘, if this will not cause undue hardship to the debtor or his family or significantly impair his ability to continue in his business, employment or vocation’.

No. 92, in schedule 12, page 209, line 20, at end insert

‘or with a person in control of the premises where the goods are found’.

No. 93, in schedule 12, page 209, line 29, at end insert ‘or other competent person’.

No. 94, in schedule 12, page 209, line 34, at end insert—

‘(5) In this paragraph a “competent person” is any person either residing at the relevant premises or working at the relevant premises where these are premises where the debtor carries out trade or business at the time when control is taken, who—

(a) is 18 years of age or over; and

(b) fully understands the consequences of the procedure being carried out.’.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

It is a great pleasure to serve again under your chairmanship, Mr. Bercow. I am sure that the deliberations of the Committee will be presided over with the light touch and the charm that you showed last week.

We have already debated the amendments and have heard what the Minister has had to say by way of response—

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Order. To refresh the hon. Gentleman’s memory, we are continuing the debate on an amendment initiated by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey. No ministerial reply has yet been extracted and no opportunity for the Minister to provide it has been given, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to continue his remarks until their conclusion.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

Indeed, and on that basis I am happy to hear what the Minister has to say.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

With respect, Mr. Bercow, it was not a debate that I initiated. I was just intervening before we adjourned. I apologise if I put the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk in the firing line, but I am grateful to him for trying to sweep up, as it were.

My simple point was to ask how we could create a system wherein others in the household can have the authority either to take responsibility for a notice, or to accept a bailiff saying that he will take possession of the goods but that he will leave them there, in a way that is compatible with the fact that those people may be independent of the person in relation to whom the obligation first arises. “It is not my responsibility”, is a common response to bailiffs on the doorstep and happens frequently. I described such circumstances before we adjourned. I wonder what the Minister’s thoughts are and what advice officials have come up with on the best way to secure both the interests of those who are seeking to enforce their debts and ensure that money is paid and the interests of the household. Those in the household may be unrelated to each other and someone might wittingly or unwittingly take responsibility without necessarily having the authority of the person whose goods they are to do more than be the receiver of the message. Historically, it has been a fairly intractable question. I should be grateful to hear the hon. and learned Lady’s views on how the matter can best be dealt with in everyone’s interests.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

I, too, welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Bercow. I echo everything that was said about your charm.

Amendment No. 90, tabled by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk, is not necessary. Paragraph 28(1), to which I have already referred, stipulates that an enforcement agent must provide a notice for the debtor on entering the premises. We have covered that territory. Regulations will be made under paragraph 28(2) to determine the form and content of the notice, and further details of its contents are contained in paragraph 160 of the statement on delegated powers. We had a gallop around that course this morning. The notice will set out details of the debt, how it can be paid, any charges and any avenues of appeal or complaint, all of which are essential.

I understand the concerns behind amendment No. 91 about not causing undue hardship, but those, too, are covered adequately, and we have already considered them. We will regulate to exempt goods from seizure when they are necessary for a debtor’s basic domestic needs. We have been through the list as it is currently composed, and I have said that I am happy to hear representations about anything that should be added to it for the sake of completeness and comprehensiveness. Anything that is necessary for the basic domestic needs of the debtor can be added to the list, as can those things that are necessary to enable him to carry on his business, his work or his vocation.

Paragraph 12 of schedule 12 limits the enforcement agent to take control of goods to the value only of the outstanding debt and any future costs. One expects that such a provision will not result in the cleaning out of everything except the exempt goods, except on rare occasions. I believe that the Bill finds an appropriate balance between creditors and debtors and will not cause undue hardship to the debtor or his family, or impair his ability to carry on his business or education.

Amendment Nos. 92 to 94 seek to provide that a controlled goods agreement—the new name for the walking possession arrangement that we have discussed in those terms—can be signed by a person other than the debtor. It is the wish of Her Majesty’s Opposition that that should be so if a competent person who is over 18 lives on the premises or works on them where the premises are business premises, as long as he fully understands the consequences of the procedure. As my noble Friend Baroness Ashton has said many times in the other place, the Bill does not preclude the possibility of another person signing for a controlled goods agreement. In addition, paragraph 13(3) of the schedule provides for regulations to make further provision about taking control of goods by way of a controlled goods agreement. I am happy to confirm that the regulations will specify that a controlled goods agreement may be signed by a person other than the debtor, but such regulations would also need to clarify that that person would require the debtor’s consent.

Lest anyone be troubled, I shall set out how we hope the procedure will work. Where a person on the premises volunteers to sign the agreement saying that they have the authority to do so, the enforcement agent will have to ascertain their relationship to the debtor and, if satisfied, may accept the statement at face value and allow the person to sign. It is in the debtor’s interest to allow that to happen, as the alternative might be that the goods are removed.

Where no one on the premises is willing to claim the authority to sign, the enforcement agent should try to contact the debtor by telephone to explain the situation and to ask whether the debtor can instruct someone who is present to sign the agreement or come over to sign it in person. Where it is not possible to authorise someone who is present or no one is willing to sign the agreement, the enforcement agent would be within his rights to take control of the goods immediately by securing them on the premises or by removing them for storage and sale.

A person who could sign in those circumstances should not be someone under the age of 18 or someone who is incapable of understanding the serious nature and consequences of what they are signing. All of that is intended to be put into regulation, and given that, I hope that hon. Members will not press their amendments to a Division.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

You slightly wrong-footed me at the start of this sitting, and I apologise for not being more on the ball, Mr. Bercow.

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. She has gone through the matter most thoroughly. Given the spirit in which we are conducting our proceedings and the good will that everyone has shown towards each other so far, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

‘Premises occupied by a single woman or persons under 16

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I beg to move amendment No. 97, in schedule 12, page 210, line 7, at end insert—

‘(7) Entry without a warrant by an enforcement agent to premises containing domestic or living accommodation is restricted to the normal methods and places of entry used by visitors to the premises.’.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 98, in schedule 12, page 210, line 28, leave out paragraphs 17 to 22 and insert—

‘Application for power to use reasonable force

‘Preservation of common law rights restricting entry by force

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

The amendments go to the heart of an important part of the Bill and are vital to the powers of bailiffs. I can deal with amendment No. 97 fairly swiftly. Our aim is to prevent bailiffs using entry methods that might be in any way underhand or unconscionable. Anyone who saw the recent BBC “Whistleblower” programme on bailiffs would have noticed with dismay bailiffs gaining access through windows and managing to get their foot inside the door when it was half open. That is why I wish to insert a reference to

“normal methods and places of entry used by visitors to the premises.”

In other words, getting in through an attic window or a window at the back of a house is simply not acceptable. Amendment No. 97 is a bit out on a limb from the others in the group.

Amendment No. 98 is important. The schedule contains the heading “General powers to use reasonable force” and in the following paragraphs, the Government give bailiffs a general power to use reasonable force. Our amendment would strike out paragraphs 17 to 22, thus removing that heading and another, “Application for power to use reasonable force”, and the paragraphs to which they apply. We would reinsert the title “Application for power to use reasonable force” and our own remodelled paragraphs, which make it clear what the bailiff can do. I shall not run through it in a lot of detail, as it is there in the amendment for members of the Committee to look at carefully, but I shall pick up on a few points. We say in the amendment:

“This paragraph applies if an enforcement agent has the power to enter the premises under paragraph 14 or 16 or under a warrant under paragraph 15.”

Paragraph 14, of course, concerns entry without warrant, paragraph 16 concerns re-entry and paragraph 15 concerns entry under a warrant. The amendment goes on:

“If the creditor applies to the court, it may issue a warrant authorising an enforcement agent to use, if necessary, reasonable force to enter the premises for the purpose of taking control of goods... The court may issue a warrant under sub-paragraph (2) only if it is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances.”

I want to put the emphasis on the requirement for exceptional circumstances.

The amendment goes on to require that

“In considering whether to issue a warrant under sub-paragraph (2), the court shall have regard to the matters set out in sub-paragraph (5)”.

Those matters are listed in a way in which that would be helpful to the implementation of the system, as follows:

“Those matters are—

(a) the nature of the debt

(b) whether the debtor resides at the premises specified in the application

(c) whether the debtor carries on a trade or business at those premises

(d) the personal financial circumstances of a debtor and their family.”

The amendment goes on to list a few more items for consideration and goes on to define “exceptional circumstances” as:

“(a) that the debtor has been given a reasonable opportunity to repay by affordable instalments but has deliberately or wilfully chosen not to do so;

(b) that the debtor is not a vulnerable person;

(c) that there is a reasonable prospect that the sum recovered from the sale of a debtor’s goods would be at least be equal to an amount prescribed by order of the Lord Chancellor.”

The amendment would also tidy up other provisions.

Amendment No. 100 would remove paragraph 24, which appears under the title “Other provisions about powers of entry”. Sub-paragraph (1) states:

“The power to enter and any power to use force are subject to any restriction imposed by or under regulations.”

Sub-paragraph (2) states:

“A power to use force does not include power to use force against persons, except to the extent that regulations provide that it does”

which, it seems to me, is extremely verbose. We wish to take those paragraphs out and insert the text of the amendment so that sub-paragraph (1) would read:

“Nothing in this Act shall permit the entry by force to a dwelling house by a civil enforcement agent where...the door is locked or secured against entry”,

which is self-explanatory, and

“a householder has indicated to a civil enforcement officer or enforcement agent that such entry is refused; or...where a dwelling is occupied or appears to be occupied by a person or persons under 16 or by a person lacking the mental capacity to understand the consequences of entry.”

Sub-paragraph (2) would read:

“(2) Nothing in this Act shall allow a civil enforcement officer pursing a fine recoverable as a civil debt to...search a person without their consent”—

which is extremely important—

“search a person of the opposite sex”

and, because there have been cases in which bailiffs removed watches from the arms of debtors,

remove items of clothing or jewellery or other wearing apparel”

or

“remove a person from a dwelling who has sole care of children resident in that dwelling whether the children are physically present at the time or not.”

The amendment also proposes a paragraph (3) that mentions a number of important points.

Amendment No. 99 would preserve the common law rights that restrict entry by force. Why is that so important? There are a number of reasons. The Bill as it stands will overturn two fundamental principles of our common law on bailiffs’ power to enter private property: that bailiffs may only enter peaceably and with the permission of the debtor. Those rights are fundamental.

That force may not be used to effect entry has been established in law since at least the 14th century. The case most often cited in relation to the rule that an Englishman’s home is his castle is Semayne’s case. That laid down very clearly that an individual householder has every right to deny entry to a bailiff or agent of the Crown. There have been many famous comments on the case, but none are as well known as that from William Pitt the Elder, first Earl of Chatham. It is a classic passage that sums up why it is so important to preserve that part of common law. In Southam v. Smout in 1964, Lord Denning quoted Pitt, who said:

“The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail—its roof may shake—the wind may blow through it—the storm may enter—the rain may enter—but the King of England cannot enter—all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement”.

We know that there are circumstances in which the police can launch dawn raids on people’s property and in which the uniformed services of this country can enter a property, but that established right in our common law makes it clear that if entry is refused, force may not be used to make that entry.

It is worth bearing in mind that, in that respect, the pass was arguably sold in the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, which introduced the right of forcible entry in respect of some fines levied under that Act. We are asking for that implicit reversal of common law to be overturned. We feel that that is important, because it goes to the heart of the protection that people need. We are talking about some of the most vulnerable people in society. If we are to give them more power, surely that common law right should be reinstated.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I am sympathetic to not giving up people’s right to resist other people entering their property to enforce civil debts and so on, but I have also believed for a long time that we ought to codify our law so that people can find it all in one place. Is not the weakness of the argument for keeping the common law as it is the old problem that people will not know what the law is as clearly as if it were all written down in one place? I do not dissent from the objective, but I am concerned about the means.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

That is a fair point, and one could debate it. It is a pretty academic subject, but I submit that if we use amendment No. 99 to preserve the common law rights, combine it with amendment No. 98—which would rewrite the application for power to use reasonable force and which the hon. Gentleman signed, for which I am grateful to him—and combine their provisions with the changes made by amendment No. 100, the package that we are presenting for inclusion in the Bill would provide extra protection, which would not otherwise be available.

I should mention the other common law right that the Bill will overturn. The first common law right that I mentioned in connection with Semayne’s case is one on which the pass was sold in the 2004 legislation, but as I understand it, at present, entry may take place only with the permission of the occupier. Paragraph 14 of schedule 12 aims to overturn that right, and I ask the Minister to comment on that. I submit that if bailiffs are granted a power to enter or remain against the wishes of the occupier, they will actually be in a more privileged position than police officers executing warrants of arrest, despite the fact that they will be immeasurably less well regulated and disciplined than constables. I find that worrying. The provision needs to be discussed and debated in detail.

I do not want to test your patience, Mr. Bercow, by considering what regulation we need. I would certainly regard clauses on regulating and rewriting the certification system as part of a wider response to the Bill to help people in a vulnerable position. We are discussing people who are facing crises in their lives—those who have the bailiffs on their doorsteps. Furthermore, bailiffs are to have more rights. In that context, it is of fundamental importance that the Bill contain more protection.

As legislators we should be extremely wary of overturning common law. I understand the comments of the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey: common law is often difficult to understand and gives lawyers a field day, and one can conclude that codification would be better. However, if a Bill does not include appropriate codification, and instead gives additional powers, the Opposition believe that it is a retrograde step to tear up hundreds of years of common law. That is why we are proposing the amendments.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I shall make a short contribution now. After that I believe that it would be helpful if the Minister were to put on the record her understanding both of the current legal position regarding citizens’ right not to open their doors and let people in, and of the effect of the proposed change. The provisions that we are considering are the most controversial in the Bill, and they combine two elements. The first relates to the rights that people have to stop others entering their property, and the second to the occasions on which someone seeking entry has a right to use reasonable force. Will the Minister explain the current status of the law and its defects, as well as, in the context of amendment No. 98, the reason why paragraphs 17 to 22 and the following paragraphs should remain in the Bill?

All the representations that I have seen suggest that bailiffs and the rest of the enforcement fraternity do not want an additional right to use reasonable force. They do not want to use any more force than the criminal law allows. They fear that if they are given the right to use reasonable force, altercations might be precipitated that might escalate and make matters worse. At present, if someone lawfully enters a house and someone else attacks them unreasonably, they are justified in using force to defend themselves. However, my understanding is that there is no lobby for the statutory availability of greater powers to use force, as is being proposed.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

The provision is not about the use of force on people. I do not think that bailiffs want the right to use force on people, although there is an existing power for certain people to use it. We are talking about the use of force only when a warrant has been applied for and the judge has allowed it.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

That is right. There are two species of force: the force to kick the door in, and the force to deal with something thereafter. As far as I know, the bailiffs are saying that they do not want any additional powers in relation to people whom they encounter in properties.

Jennifer Willott (Liberal Democrat, Cardiff Central)

Does my hon. Friend agree that this debate relates to the one we had this morning on codes of conduct and on bailiffs who either do or do not conform to the rules? If extra powers are provided to bailiffs, the people who are most likely to abuse them are those who are already not behaving as they should.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I am sure that that is correct. People who make representations to us as Members of Parliament often make the point that some people exceed the limit, although there are many who do their job competently.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

I was not sure what the hon. Gentleman meant when he said that no one wants the extra power. We have a memorandum—TRI 6—from Barrie Minney, who chairs the local authority civil enforcement forum, expressing strong approval for the extra power:

“We agree that force (with a court order) is needed for those professional debt avoiders who can simply circumvent the law by not answering the door or hiding behind locked gates.”

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

My understanding is that there is wish in some circumstances for the enforcement agents to be able to get through the door. However, people do not want the agents to have any additional powers to do anything to anyone behind the door. I therefore think that there is an agreement between us. I am not dissenting from the Minister’s or the hon. Gentleman’s proposition that there are two issues.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

As other people will hear and read the report of this debate, it is very important to make it clear that we are not talking about the use of force against people. We are talking about an application to a judge to be permitted to use reasonable force to gain entry under very confined circumstances, which we will talk about in a minute. It is terribly important that we do not muddle the two uses of force or we will mislead the public and worry them completely unnecessarily.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I am happy to ring-fence the debates separately. May I make two additional points? In this group, amendment No. 97 makes it clear that entry by an agent is restricted to what is described as

“normal methods and places of entry used by visitors”.

I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to that; it is the conventional argument. If an agent is seeking entry, they should do so by knocking at the door or at the French windows—they are doors as well—but it is not acceptable for an agent to seek to get in by a window, a skylight, or by the top window on the latch. They have to get in conventionally.

My last point relates to the comment I made this morning about the confusing nature of this part of the schedule. I was not seeking to damn the whole of schedule 12. However, the sequence in this part of the schedule and in paragraph 14 is confusing. I can see how the draftspeople have sought to put this on paper. We start with a section called “Entry without warrant”, then “Entry under warrant” and then “Re-entry”. I understand that triple division. Then there are paragraphs on

“General powers to use reasonable force”.

Anyone who does not carry around a copy of “Halsbury’s Statutes” would probably not understand what that means, because it implies that there is a general reference to powers to enter the premises under two earlier paragraphs or under a warrant under another paragraph. There is then a power to enter under an enforcement power conferred by the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 and another power, which is an entitlement to execute the warrant by virtue of two other sections of the 1980 Act. Then there is a whole set of conditions.

The schedule then goes back to talk out of sequence about the fact that an agent would need to apply for permission. Therefore, if we are really trying to clarify the law and represent what the public wants, we must start with the presumption that people cannot enter someone else’s property. After that, we have to set out the occasions when they can. Before that, however, we need to set out the procedure that gives people permission to enter someone else’s property. Therefore, we say that people cannot come in.

If an agent goes to court, however, and makes the case—that is the subject of another amendment in this group—and they persuade the judge of the circumstances, they will be given permission to go in. If the agent goes in, they are entitled to go in by the front door or the French windows. They are even entitled to push the door in. I make my case for that in a constructive way. That is one of the most fundamental bits of our unwritten constitution. The civil liberties of people in their own homes include having their own territory, which is not entered into by other people, other than in the most exceptional circumstances.

If I, like the Minister, am arguing that we should seek to consolidate and codify—I generally start from that proposition—we need to be doubly clear about what we mean. If the legislation goes through, my presumption is that common law will not be as easily prayed in aid, so we must ensure that the guarantees that make the Englishman’s home his castle—or, as discussed in the Lords, the Welshman’s home his castle—are defined in a way that everyone understands. That is my reflection. Will the Minister help us by setting out the law, common law and all, and the changes to the law and whether we are right in thinking that the measure disadvantages the civil liberties of a citizen, because it takes away some of their current rights?

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

Before the Minister responds, I draw her attention to the amendment’s key words, which are that entry to the

“accommodation is restricted to the normal methods...of entry used by visitors to the premises.”

The amendment would exclude the types of entry through different points of the house that the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey discussed, and it would be a vital addition to the Bill.

Emily Thornberry (Labour, Islington South and Finsbury)

Will my hon. and learned Friend help with an aspect of the matter? I am concerned that, immediately after the Bill becomes law, bailiffs will not be regulated by the Security Industry Authority, so will she consider withholding their right to enter premises using reasonable force until they are regulated by the SIA?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I have just read a press release about that.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

I should be intrigued to know what it said. I shall deal with that point presently, but my hon. Friend has put her finger on the next point with characteristic accuracy. It is highly germane to the amendment, and I shall state the Government’s position. First, the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk referred to what he called a separate point in amendment No. 97, to which the hon. Member for Newbury has just referred. The amendment would restrict entry to normal methods of entry—through doors and French windows. We will undertake exactly that provision, and regulations in paragraph 14(3) will restrict that entry.

The remaining amendments in the group are amendments Nos. 97, 99, 128 and 129, and the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk has said little enough about the latter two. Their essence is the preservation of common law rights, but the trouble is that, if those rights are preserved, they will also preserve the modes of entry discussed by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey. In certain circumstances, using a skylight or getting a foot in the door to enter are not violations of the law, but elements of the common law that bailiffs have gained over the years. It is imperative that we repeal and take out of use all that common law, so that there is no mistaking bailiffs’ powers, which will comprise those in schedule 12 and in the Bill, and no others at all. That is the way forward.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

If entry to a premises by what I would describe as unconventional methods is established in common law, I accept entirely what the Minister says. However, I should like her to focus on the two areas of common law in which force may not be used to effect entry and in which entry may not take place without the occupier’s permission, because they are fundamental. Although much of the Bill’s codification is welcomed, if those two extra items of common law were preserved, we would have a stronger Bill that worked better in the interests of the wider public.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

I thought I had made it clear that if we were to preserve the common law as the amendments request, we would preserve the queer old precedents that allow people to put their foot through the skylight and enter. They are odd cases that have occurred over the years, and this stuff is very old, as everybody has conceded, but the notion that oldness and veneration are virtues is completely misplaced when it comes to such matters. We must prescribe the way in which people can enter the property and totally erase from the law the remaining modes of entry.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

The Minister is being very patient. We do not want to turn this debate into a lawyer’s discussion, although I appreciate that she is a learned QC and I am only an unknown junior. Would she be more sympathetic to the amendment if we had proposed preserving one or two of the more fundamental common-law rights, rather than all of them? I entirely take on board her point about preserving all common-law rights, because doing so would have the consequences that she has outlined. In the spirit of a probing amendment, we are discussing the issues around the amendment, so would the Minister be happy to preserve any of the common-law rights that currently apply?

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

No; the purpose of the legislation, as has been said many times, is to consolidate and clarify bailiff law and put it all in one place. It should be in everyone’s interests that that law should be easily accessible, in much the same way as we discussed during this morning’s sitting the need for complete accessibility to what the law is generally.

It is the long-standing objective of the civil enforcement review to make enforcement law completely straightforward and understandable, and the Bill will achieve that. It will put in one piece of legislation a consolidated code of enforcement agent law, setting out the legal structure for virtually all the enforcement of civil debts, judgments and criminal fines. The Bill is written in terms that clearly outline the rights and responsibilities of creditors, debtors and enforcement agents alike, and it is written in good statutory language.

Even picking and choosing which common-law rights to retain—that is certainly not what the amendment provides for—would run contrary to the main objective of the Bill. One would then have to run through the precedents to try to find out whether somebody was indeed allowed to make a queer entry in 1384, or whether we had repealed that incidentally, as part of getting rid of another precedent. Chapter 1 of part 3 will replace all the common-law rules on the exercise of the powers that, under chapter 3, will become the powers to use the procedure as set out in schedule 12. That is the situation, and it is our deliberate intention.

The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk talked about paragraph 14 of schedule 12 overturning the common law that a debtor’s permission is needed. Under paragraph 14, a debtor must agree to entry when an approach is first made, so people cannot disregard the need for a person’s authority to enter. They must ask first and then use the powers under paragraph 14. People will be able to apply to the court only if they cannot gain entry in any other way. However, people cannot disregard what a creditor says and run in—of course not; they should try peaceful means first, and if the creditor agrees, that is the end of the matter.

Most people agree to let bailiffs in for the purposes of making an inventory or enforcing a controlled goods agreement. If the creditor does not agree, however, one has recourse to the court. Only the court can authorise a single step further. It is hugely important to say that strongly and repeatedly. Although it has been put out by responsible bodies, an impression has been created at large that we are licensing bailiffs to knock once and then break in. That is completely contrary to what we are doing.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central just pointed out to me that the sequence that the Minister has described is not clearly set out in the schedule. The sequence that she has outlined is that the bailiff can knock on the door and is allowed to enter if given permission to do so by the person behind it. That is obvious—it would apply to anyone knocking on a door. If the person behind the door lets them in, they can go in. However, it is not clear what right the citizen has to ask, “Who are you?” and if the answer is “I’m a bailiff” to say, “I’m not letting you in”, or what sequence of events would have to happen next for that to be overruled. I put it to the Minister that nobody reading the schedule would discover that. I am with her in wanting to consolidate matters, but I ask her to look again at the proposal, because it does not match the sequence that she has set out.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

The hon. Gentleman is wholly incorrect. For example, paragraph 15 states:

“If an enforcement agent applies to the court it may issue a warrant”.

It continues:

“Before issuing the warrant the court must be satisfied that...conditions are met”.

It then sets out the conditions, the situation in which there may be re-entry and the general power to use reasonable force. It provides that the application to use reasonable force may be made if such authority exists under paragraphs 14, 15 or 16—I particularly alluded to paragraph 15—and it goes on to say that a person may make an application and there will be certain conditions, and so on. It is as clear as day that a person has a right to do what they have to do, either under warrant or in some other way. If they need further powers they must apply to the court, when the conditions under which the court can even consider their application come into play. That is not only transparently clear as a sequence, but it is actually in sequence, so it is not difficult to follow.

I want to mention a couple of other aspects of common law raised by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk. Common law allows forced entry to commercial premises and forced re-entry to domestic premises in certain circumstances. If a person has obtained, under the ordinary provisions and with the individual’s permission, a walking possession agreement—its name will soon change—and they withdraw satisfied that the goods are secure but is then refused further entry, they have a power to break in. The Englishman’s castle is not totally surrounded by a moat and high wall, as envisaged by Opposition Members and various propagandists against the proposals, who, I venture to suggest, have not entirely followed their purpose.

This Englishwoman wants to have a right to enforce her debts against somebody and she does not want that person, whoever he may be, to be able to defy her for ever, simply by closing his front door, when he owes her money. This Englishwoman wants a right to be able to apply to a judge and say, “May my bailiff have permission under very restricted circumstances to break in to get my money back?” That is what the proposal is about, and only that.

I want to mention one more thing before I turn to the change in powers. There has been much fairly casual reference to the increase in bailiff powers. The phrase “reasonable force” was also bandied about, although the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey and I have agreed that we are talking only about force to break in. I make it clear that there are no increases in bailiff powers in the Bill, save for this one: if, in due course, there is a consultation exercise and anyone wants the ability to use restraining force on an individual, that will be a completely separate matter, and we will consult on it and consider it. My best guess is that nobody would want that ability, as the right of self-defence is sufficient to satisfy most people who have to deal with others in heated situations.

I want to make it clear that loose talk about increases in powers is inappropriate, because this power is the only one and it is extremely heavily regulated, as I will now describe. Its use must be fair and reasonable. It cannot be right for a debtor to evade payment just by closing the door, thus making a mockery of the creditor and the judge who has ruled that the debtor must pay and of every other means of enforcing the will of justice against that debtor. That simply cannot be right.

If there is to be a right to enter someone’s premises as a last resort, it must be very carefully regulated. That is exactly what the Bill allows—a heavily circumscribed power of entry, using reasonable force, with prior judicial authority. The necessary conditions for that power include those to which I have alluded: under paragraphs 14, 16 or 15, a power to apply for consent to enter must already be in place, which, in some circumstances, will require going to court for an express warrant to enter the premises with consent. Those statutory requirements must be complied with first.

After those conditions are met, an application must be made to a judge. As all hon. Members who were present on Second Reading know, there is a strict list of conditions to which a judge must have regard before he or she can consider granting leave to enter. They are outlined in paragraphs 149 and 150 of our detailed policy statement on delegated powers, and they will be put into regulations. If hon. Members think that further restrictions are necessary, they should let us know and we will consider them. I had a meeting with the citizens advice bureaux yesterday, and I think that I satisfied them that those conditions will be enough, but that is not the last word.

As a condition, the judge will have to be satisfied

“that other methods of enforcement have failed”.

That probably ought to come into regulations as a satisfaction that all other methods of enforcement have failed. The judge must be sure that

“the property is inhabited by the debtor; normal entry attempts have been unsuccessful; there is reason to believe there are suitable goods on the premises to satisfy the debt (and evidence to support that belief); the enforcement agent has considered the likely means required to gain entry”—

the judge will want to know what that is—

“and the enforcement agent will leave the property in a secure state.”

All those conditions that must apply before the judge will even consider granting a right of forced entry. At present, paragraph 150 says that the judge

“may also take other factors into account when making his decision, including: the size of the debt; the type of debt; and any other information about the debtor’s personal circumstances.”

Brooks Newmark (Conservative, Braintree)

I am not a lawyer, so I hope that the hon. and learned Lady will be patient with my question. She talked about the enforcement of debts and bailiffs’ rights. Can bailiffs use force in a different way when dealing with a fine, as opposed to an ordinary civil debt? Are there differences in bailiffs’ rights to try to get hold of assets, force their way into a house or anything like that with respect to a fine?

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

Yes. There is a power in the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 for the enforcement of a fine by reasonable force, but that is not what we are talking about at the moment. We are talking about the proposal to give a bailiff enforcing power against a civil creditor, not a criminal fine debtor. I shall carry on to discuss that power, which is the new power in schedule 12. The other power is not new. It has been in force since 2004, and it has presumably felt the approbation of all parties—it did, as I recall.

Brooks Newmark (Conservative, Braintree)

I am still not clear. Will the Minister explain why there is a difference in the powers? I think that I am hearing that bailiffs can use force to get assets for a fine, as opposed to a civil debt. Why does that distinction exist, as she seems to be implying?

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

I am not implying anything. I am telling the hon. Gentleman that a power in the 2004 Act will now exist in the Bill. The power to enforce a fine by entry using reasonable force has been in existence since 2004. It has been that long since the Englishman’s castle crumbled around his ears.

Brooks Newmark (Conservative, Braintree)

So there is a difference in the mechanisms—

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Order.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

Yes, there is, and I hope that that is now clear.

I turn to the powers in the Bill, which is what we are discussing.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I want to pursue this question. I understand that the Minister wants to talk about the powers in the Bill, but we are talking about enforcement and bailiffs in the Bill as a whole. The Minister argued that the Government want to put everything together, so there seems to be a strong argument for putting all powers under English and Welsh law in the same Bill from now on and for repealing all previous legislation dealing with that—both common law and the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004—and then making a political decision on whether we want one form of process, irrespective of whether the debt arises from a criminal fine or a civil bailiff, or two different forms of process. What is the argument against putting everything in the Bill and having one form of process?

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

There is no argument against that, and it is in the Bill. We have repealed, or will repeal, the provision and have put it in the Bill for the sake of having everything under one roof. That is important, because a great deal of concern has been raised about the exercise of the powers, and it must be made clear how they will function.

I was about to say something that needs saying. In our original proposals, the detailed policy statement on how we intend to use our delegated powers set out two circumstances that the judge must look at before granting the right to use reasonable force to enter. I have set out all the conditions that he must consider. It is also provided that the judge may then take other factors into account when making his decision, including the size of the debt, the type of debt and any other information about the debtor’s personal circumstances. Clearly, the third of the relevant paragraphs is the important one, and I was able to assure a Labour Member on Second Reading that the phrase

“any other information about the debtor’s personal circumstances”

was intended to embrace all aspects of vulnerability that he then raised and which are recorded in Hansard. I have made it clear that the terminology is intended to be very wide.

I proposed to Citizens Advice yesterday that we should change the reference in the policy statement that

“The judge may also take other factors into account when making his decision”,

so that the judge must take those factors into account, to make the individual’s vulnerability—the size and type of debt—a first order consideration and not an additional one. That is important, and it will ensure that people are comfortable that a judge must take into account every aspect of the individual when considering whether reasonable force may be used to enter their house. All their vulnerabilities will be taken into account before a judge allows the use of force.

Furthermore, the judge may put conditions on the entry power. I note that when an application is granted under paragraph 20(2) of schedule 12—this plays on an issue raised by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk this morning—the warrant given to the bailiff may require a constable to assist the enforcement agent to execute the warrant. Paragraph 22 refers to “any constable”, which may be a useful adjunct in the circumstance that the hon. Gentleman was worried about this morning—namely, that if it were known that the debtor was a women on her own or a women with children in the house, one could ensure that a police officer also attended, preferably a female officer. All sorts of conditions can be imposed to ensure that there is no disproportionate treatment of anyone, whether vulnerable or not, but that is particularly important when vulnerable people are involved.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury raised a hugely important point. It has not yet had much airspace because it is yet to be discussed, but the Government envisage the question of regulated bailiffs as a double-decker process. As is well known, the Security Industry Authority was not ready to take the responsibility to regulate bailiffs, so that they could be part and parcel of the Bill.

There will be what I call a beefed-up version of the county court certification process. That will require a lot of investigation by a county court judge before he certifies a bailiff and the training to which I have alluded in diversity, vulnerability and dealing with conflict resolution. It should be a powerful source of regulation, but it will not be as good as when bailiffs are regulated properly within the ambit of the Private Security Industry Act 2001. The regulation will then be as tight as one could hope and will provide as good a set of protections as my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon rightly said that the SIA has given to doormen.

I intend that the power even to apply to use reasonable force in domestic premises should not come into force until the industry is properly regulated by the SIA. That is a useful reassurance, and I hope that it comforts those who have been concerned. That seems to be what the press release mentioned by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey said before I even announced it. He is quite a remarkable man.

Anne Snelgrove (Labour, South Swindon)

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reassurance. She will know from our discussions this morning that concerns have been raised with me by my citizens advice bureau about the powers of the SIA. It will reassure citizens advice bureaux up and down the country if the regulations will not come into force until the SIA is ready to take them on.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

I need to make it clear that what will not come into force is the new power to apply for reasonable force to gain entry. The application of the power under the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, which is to be transferred to this legislation, will not be affected. Only that single example of how bailiffs’ powers will be increased in the Bill will not come into force until the industry is regulated by the SIA.

I talked about amendment No. 97. The rest of the concerns of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk rested—I am not being unkind—on tinkering with the conditions under which we have said judges may grant the warrants and putting those conditions on the face of the Bill. We think that it is better not to have them in the Bill but to have them in clearly set out regulatory forms, so that they can be changed if they need to be. It is not impossible that we will put the provisions into regulations and find that we want to add something more. We could do that if they were in regulations, and we would not have to legislate.

Amendment No. 100 concerns the powers to enforce a criminal fine. We intend not to reduce or remove the powers in the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act, but to bring them into the Bill. The introduction of those powers has played an important role in the ongoing improvement in the recovery levels for unpaid fines. My understanding is that the powers have not been used often, but the fact that they exist has played a significant role. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales said in closing the debate on Second Reading, they have been used sparingly.

There is no intention to introduce any new power that would allow physical body searches on a debtor, or forcible coercion for the removal of clothing or jewellery or wedding rings; neither is there any intention to force debtors to do anything against their will. That includes not removing debtors from premises and not escorting them to other premises where they might be holding goods.

I am not sure whether the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk addressed amendment No. 101 and the following amendments in the group.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

In fact, amendments Nos. 101 to 104 are all concerned with consequential deletions, as are amendments Nos. 128 and 129. They flow from the earlier key amendments, which I addressed.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

One or two of them go a tiny bit further. For instance, amendment No. 101 would restrict the people who were permitted to accompany an enforcement agent on entry. The point of allowing agents to be accompanied is that if one goes into large business premises to take an inventory, one needs to take another person, or possibly two or three people. For that reason, we do not want the amendment to proceed. The enforcement agent would of course be responsible for the actions of those who accompanied him to assist in the exercise of his powers unless those accompanying the agent did something absolutely outwith the ambit of the exercise. If an individual hit somebody, for instance, it would be he rather than the bailiff who was responsible.

It is sometimes necessary to take a locksmith to assist with the removal of locks and thereby avoid a more brutal, forced entry. Enforcement agents therefore need to be able to call for assistance. Amendments Nos. 102 and 103 would restrict their ability to take equipment on to premises and, if necessary, leave it there. However, the type and nature of the goods and assets in the commercial and industrial premises of some large-scale businesses mean that an enforcement agent often has to take equipment on to premises to get access to goods, take control of them or secure or immobilise them. That might require the carrying of tools for the purpose and the leaving of equipment on the premises. There seems to be no reason why we should restrict that ability—it is part and parcel of entering premises.

Amendment No. 104 concerns the way in which reasonable force can be used to control goods on the highway, but the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk has not mentioned it at all, so I imagine that having probed what he wanted to probe by means of the other amendments he intends not to press it.

I hope that hon. Members now feel secure that the single increase in bailiff power will not come into force until the whole industry is properly regulated and governed by a judge. That judge will—himself or herself—operate under strict conditions, including a requirement to have due regard to the vulnerability of the individuals involved. I hope that the amendments will therefore not be pressed.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

In answer to the Minister’s question, it was not my press release or news release from the Department for Constitutional Affairs—it was hers. It is not timed, but it has today’s date. It gave me the exciting anticipation that the Minister was going to make an announcement. It also meant that the question planted with the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury was entirely expected, and I was ready for it. Nevertheless, I am very glad that we had both the paper version and the spoken words on the same day.

As to the substance of the matter, I am pleased that, regardless of our debate on the merits, the Minister has accepted that the powers will not come into force until the new system is in place. I shall talk to my colleagues and no doubt the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk will talk to his. I think that the Minister is right—the powers passed by Parliament under the 2004 Act were in general supported across the House. There may be a view that they ought also to be encompassed in the general regulatory framework, but that is a matter to which Liberal Democrat Members will return.

The Minister has been straightforward in telling the Committee that the proposal is a step forward and puts on a statutory basis further powers for bailiffs to obtain permission from the courts to enter people’s houses in certain circumstances. That is clearly the case. I know that the Minister has not accepted the point, and I shall not argue line by line with her now, but my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central and I still contend, as would most people who examined the proposals, that the schedule, the sequence and the conditions could be much clearer and much more straightforward.

I, too, have examined the detailed policy statements and delegated powers that anticipate what is coming. I am glad that the Minister anticipates saying that judges “must” rather than “may” take things into account. The more I hear of this debate, the more I am clear about the fact that the conditions that the judge must apply before granting permission should be in the Bill. Unless I have misinterpreted things, that is exactly what the Joint Committee on Human Rights said when it examined this part of the legislation. I understand that it recommended that both Houses examine these matters again, using the normal and fairly courteous phrase that it draws them to the “attention of both Houses”. It clearly argues that such conditions ought to be in the Bill.

Paragraph 2.31 of that Committee’s fifth report of session 2006-07, published on 12 February, states:

“We reiterate our view that where safeguards are necessary to ensure the protection of Convention rights, those safeguards ought to be clearly identified on the face of the Bill. In cases where the State is using, or authorising the use of, intrusive powers such as entry, search and seizure, we consider that the case for including minimum safeguards (such as the requirement that an enforcement agent should identify himself and the authority for his entry the premises to an occupier without need for a request; the minimum period of notice required; the requirement that entry take place at a ‘reasonable’ time, and protection for material subject to legal professional privilege) on the face of primary legislation is particularly strong. We draw this to the attention of both Houses.”

I accept that many of those things are in the schedule, but people ought to be able to find the law setting out what happens when somebody goes to court requesting permission to enter the house of Vera Baird QC MP, John Bercow MP or Henry Bellingham MP in an Act of Parliament, so that they know the score and the process. Such things are not variables, and we will not be coming back to them every two minutes; they are not detailed procedural matters.

The sorts of things that seem to be fundamental preconditions, without prejudice to the general argument, are: that other methods of enforcement have failed; that the property is inhabited by the debtor; that normal entry attempts have been unsuccessful; and that there is reason to believe that suitable goods should be on the premises. I see no reason why such things cannot be provided for in the Bill.

I am not one of those people who argue that we have more and more legislation and more and more stuff in it, but people’s rights and liberties—the right of people to close their door to someone and the right of others to enter a person’s home—are among the rare cases where one should start from the presumption that the relevant provision is made in an Act of Parliament that someone can refer to, examine and know.

As the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk started by saying, we are discussing an area of great legal tradition and the historic and famous presumption that an Englishman’s home is his castle. If we are changing that, even in limited additional circumstances, we must do so explicitly in the Bill, and not in regulations, whenever they may come into force.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

We obviously need to try to make some progress. I appreciate what the Minister said about a judge having to take into consideration what will be in the regulations and common law. We could debate this for a long time. In spite of what she said—I support the argument of the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey—many of the provisions under the headings “General powers to use reasonable force” and “Application for power to use reasonable force” are vague. The schedule gives substantial new powers and, even having listened to the hon. and learned Lady, I believe that there is an argument for her accepting amendment No. 98 to which the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey has added his name. It is our wish to press it to a Division so, on that basis, I want to withdraw amendments Nos. 97, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 128 and 129.

However, I wish to put some quick points to the Minister. We have discussed force being used, but the Bill prohibits force against a person by bailiffs unless permitted by regulations. My concern is that regulations might permit restraint against debtors who interfere with the seizure of their goods. Different trade associations were worried about that force. What effect will the new proposal have on Wheatham orders that have been signed by magistrates courts? Will the Minister clarify the situation? Despite what she has said, I am not satisfied with the response that we have received to amendment No. 98 because the way in which this part of the Bill is written will provide more specific protection.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

I shall deal first with the issues raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and will quote what it said as the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey did. It stated:

“In cases where the State is using, or authorising the use of, intrusive powers...minimum safeguards (such as the requirement that an enforcement agent should identify himself and the authority for his entry on the premises to an occupier without need for a request; the minimum period of notice required; the requirement that entry take place at a ‘reasonable’ time, and protection for material subject to legal professional privilege)”

should be included on the face of the Bill.

Paragraph 26 states that the enforcement agent should be asked to prove his identity. He has to show his authority to be on the premises. Under paragraph 8, he must provide a notice as to what he is doing when he has entered the premises. The times when an enforcement agent can call will be contained within regulations, for the sake of flexibility. Again, that seems pretty sensible. We have met the demands of the JCHR, save for the protection of materials subject to legal professional privilege, which is a fairly arcane point to make. It is pretty unlikely that materials subject to legal professional privilege are likely to be the target of a bailiff looking for assets to realise or to freeze for future realisation.

I do not know what the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk meant when he referred to a Wheatham order. I shall ask him for clarification after our proceedings and write to him. If it is of more general relevance, I shall write to all members of the Committee.

Last week, the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey criticised the Bill for having too much in it. He is now criticising it this week for not having enough in it. We are satisfied that we have got the correct balance, and I commend the schedule to the Committee.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

‘Application for power to use reasonable force

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I beg to move amendment No. 105, in schedule 12, page 213, line 35, at end insert—

‘(3) Where an enforcement agent seizes a sum in cash it must be accounted for, receipts must be issued, and the creditor and the court must be notified.’.

We will try to make some progress, because we still have much important business to discuss. The amendment, which stands in my name and in those of my hon. Friends on the Opposition Benches, is simple. It would insert:

“(3) Where an enforcement agent seizes a sum in cash it must be accounted for, receipts must be issued, and the creditor and the court must be notified.”

Mr. Bercow, you may call me pedantic, but several organisations have advised me that in the past, there has been a problem with bailiffs accounting for cash that they have received, so the amendment—a probing amendment—would afford that extra protection, which we feel is most necessary.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

Amendment No. 105 has been covered in the other place. Baroness Ashton said in Grand Committee that the regulations made under paragraph 34(4), covering the inventory of goods to be given to the debtor when goods are seized, will include the provision for ensuring that the inventory takes the form of a receipt for any cash that an enforcement agent takes. I am happy to restate that commitment today.

I should add, however, that the schedule also deals with non-court debts such as tax and commercial rents, so it would not make sense for an enforcement agent enforcing those debts to have to notify a court when taking money from a debtor. The amendment would therefore be misplaced. Notwithstanding that fact, I hope that the reassurance that I have given the hon. Gentleman will persuade him to withdraw the amendment.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

It is a pleasure to serve on a Committee chaired by you, Mr. Bercow, with your assured touch and good humour. Although you were not present this morning, I shall treasure for a very long time the praise that I received from my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for my perspicacity. However, on the very point to which she referred, I should like to ask her a question before we approve the schedule.

This morning we discussed offences, and paragraph 68 includes a couple of offences that relate to the obstruction of enforcement agents carrying out their lawful duties. My hon. and learned Friend mentioned paragraph 66 as including the remedies that are available to a debtor who feels wronged by the actions of an enforcement agent. I thought that she had said “offences”, and that it was a slip of the tongue, but when I pointed it out, she said that she had meant “remedies”.

Paragraph 62 is about cost, and my hon. and learned Friend said this morning that there will be regulations so that enforcement agents do not make up fees that they say they are entitled to receive. In my time as an MP, the most common complaint has been from constituents on the receiving end of such enforcement action, and in fact, the most recent complaint was at my advice surgery just last month, so it is a current and constant matter. My hon. and learned Friend quoted some statistics about a high proportion of complaints on that point, so when we have regulations that say that someone cannot abuse their position of authority as an enforcement agent by claiming costs and charges beyond the regulations, what will be the remedy? Will debtors have to go to county court to stop them claiming that money, or will they be able to do something more?

I would like to think that in the most abusive cases a criminal offence will be deemed to have been committed, and that in the least abusive cases there will be a remedy such as alternative dispute resolution by which to solve the problem there and then. Nowhere in the Bill, never mind in the schedule, do I see any offences except the one in clause 58 about a person claiming to be an enforcement agent when they do not have the authority to do so. I cannot see any controls over them. My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the Security Industry Authority this morning. I know that there is a consultation process about that organisation becoming the licensing or regulatory body for enforcement agents, but I cannot see anything to tie the Bill to that, if it happens, so how will people get an easy, simply remedy when they think that they have been ripped off by an enforcement agent?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I have two or three questions for the Minister, two of which are along the same lines as those of the hon. Member for Stafford. Like him, I discovered in clause 58—I appreciate that we will come to that clause later, but it is tied to the schedule so I hope that you will permit these comments, Mr. Bercow—the proposed, presumably new, offence of purporting to act as an enforcement agent. Is that the only new offence either in the Bill or that is envisaged to apply to enforcement agents, bailiffs and that family of individuals? There is an argument for considering what the proper sanctions should be and how best to get the message out that someone who abuses this power is likely to be caught. I assume that any such criminal offence will be actionable in the normal way, with someone making a complaint that the police then pursue, and would not require the person to take action themselves.

In paragraph 68, “Offences”, there are four sub-paragraphs. Sub-paragraph (1) proposes:

“A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally obstructs a person lawfully acting as an enforcement agent.”

Sub-paragraph (2) states:

“A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally interferes with controlled goods without lawful excuse.”

The rest of the paragraph sets out what the penalties will be and makes adjustments in relation to a transition period. Are those two offences new or are they existing offences that have been pulled from elsewhere? Are they the only offences that can be committed by a debtor as a consequence of this legislation?

My last point is about paragraph 66. Like the hon. Member for Stafford, and probably every other hon. Member who has constituents come and see him or her, one of the most frequent complaints that I hear is that constituents cannot take action against what they believe to be inappropriate behaviour. Clause 66 is entitled “Remedies available to the debtor”, but the sanctions in it strike me as being pretty bureaucratic and not very user-friendly. People will have to bring proceedings

“in the High Court, in relation to an enforcement power under a writ of the High Court”

or in a county court to take action. Is there not an easier way of doing things without requiring people to go through a long and complicated court process with a course of action, a claim, a defence and all the proceedings that come with that? Could not these matters be better dealt with in the small claims court or with some form of arbitration—somewhere where there is a civil remedy? I am asking a question rather than making a suggestion.

Lastly, the Minister and the Committee have heard our concerns about the schedule not being nearly as user-friendly or straightforward as it could be. Some parts of the schedule are welcome. Given that, it would be inappropriate to press for a Division. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central and I will therefore seek to work with our colleagues and to persuade the Minister before Report that there are better ways in which to set out the new plan presented in the schedule. We reserve our position. I wish to put on the record that we are not fully content with the measure, but we hope that it can be improved at a later stage. I would also be grateful for answers to the specific questions asked by both me and the hon. Member for Stafford.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I have one question for the Minister. Will she tell the Committee whether the enforcement and collection of a fine incurred for a criminal offence is a civil or criminal matter? I would like her to clarify that point, because there has been some confusion, and I felt that a debate about the schedule as a whole was the appropriate time to ask that question. Other than that, as we have discussed the schedule at great length through the various groups of amendments, I have no further questions.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

Watch my lips: it is criminal. Certainly, I agree that, if possible, mediation or alternative dispute resolution should be involved in issues concerning the excessive use of bailiffs’ powers and fees to short-circuit the current route, which is none the less pretty plain. It was a slip of the tongue that led me to say “remedies”—I read my note too quickly and did not think, but I am a lawyer and I know the difference between a remedy and a criminal offence. The remedies in paragraph 66 allow an individual to come back to the court that granted an authority and to make a claim that the fees charged were too high.

There will, however, be some changes. Up-front fees will be paid to bailiffs so that they can no longer rely on the cut, as it were, that they take from recovered money. That ought to take the bite out of the kind of complaints of which both I and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford are aware. The fees that bailiffs charge will be fixed and made public, so they should be known. However, one would have to go back to the court that gave an authority to try to get some resolution. It is important that we try to include mediation and alternative dispute resolution in that, which I accept completely. The Government are committed to the whole notion of mediation and alternative dispute resolution because they help to avoid the stress of court proceedings and enable simple recovery.

I shall answer some of the questions asked by members of the Committee. It is correct that clause 58 contains the only new offence. Disputed amounts will be assessed by the court, as I mentioned. Offences under paragraph 68 are offences against the enforcement agent and no others, and the remedies are as I stated. I hope that I have covered everything asked of me, and I commend the schedule to the Committee.

Clause 58

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I beg to move amendment No. 120, in clause 58, page 44, line 2, leave out ‘certificate’ and insert ‘licence’.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

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.’.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

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.]

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

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.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

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.

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

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 (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

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 (Labour, Redcar)

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 (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

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 (Labour, Redcar)

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.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

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.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

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.’.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

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.’.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

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.

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 (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

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 (Labour, Redcar)

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.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I beg to move amendment No. 122, in clause 58, page 44, line 6, leave out ‘one of these’.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

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));’.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

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 (Labour, Redcar)

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.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

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 (Labour, Redcar)

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.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

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 (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

They have gone to a higher place.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

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.