Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 68: 68: Schedule 12, page 199, line 2, at end insert ““but shall include— (a) 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; (b) such clothing, bedding, furniture, household equipment and provisions as are necessary for satisfying the basic domestic needs of the debtor and his family; (c) 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; (d) domestic pets.”” The noble Lord said: We are moving from the fascinating area of tribunals and judicial appointments to the even more fascinating area of the enforcement of debts. Although I am making the lead speech on the group, I pay tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Beaumont of Whitley and Lord Lucas, who seized these issues by the throat at Second Reading and have tabled some very cogent and suitable amendments. My amendment has come about only with the support of Citizens Advice. I recognise the work that it has done from its great experience in the area. The views that it has put forward are very pertinent. Amendment No. 68 is similar to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. As Members of the Committee know, current bailiff law allows for certain goods to be exempt from seizure, but the rules of exemption are not consistent across the different legal powers authorising enforcement by bailiffs. The Bill rightly proposes a common set of rules for the goods to be exempt from seizure in all cases. Having regard to the mishmash of powers that exists—it is a maze—it is good that all those strands will be drawn together by the Bill. However, the Bill leaves the definition of exempt goods entirely to regulations. We and Citizens Advice believe that it is an essential and fundamental safeguard to put the definition of exempt goods into the Bill, and to discuss the nature of the goods that ought to be exempt, if we have to, instead of simply tidying up the provisions. Proposed new sub-paragraph (1)(a) and (b) in my amendment is taken from Section 283(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986, which unifies the way in which chattels are treated in bankruptcy and enforcement by bailiffs. Proposed new sub-paragraph (1)(c) seeks to prevent a debtor having a large sum of cash—for example, a week’s wages—seized by a bailiff, which would obviously cause undue hardship. Proposed new sub-paragraph (1)(d) is on domestic pets and reflects the position taken by the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust. Again, I must pay tribute to Mr Paul Nicolson, who has been extremely assiduous in lobbying all those interested in the Bill on the issue, including the Government, no doubt. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, expands on the matter, but we support the exemption of domestic pets from seizure being made clearer at this stage and not being left to regulations at some later point. Amendment Nos. 70, 72 and 88 are grouped with Amendment No. 68, and deal with a different matter. Paragraphs 17 to 19 of Schedule 12 are described as: "““General powers to use reasonable force””." Paragraph 19 re-codifies the power of bailiffs forcibly to enter business premises. Paragraph 18 re-codifies the provisions of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 that allow bailiffs enforcing magistrates’ court fines to forcibly enter domestic premises. Paragraphs 20 to 22 extend a power for all other bailiffs forcibly to enter domestic premises. That is a great step backwards. The English law has never permitted a general power for forcible entry. The provisions could be a charter for bad practice. Bailiffs have threatened vulnerable debtors that they will break into their homes to seize goods when that power is not open to the bailiff. It is a way in which bailiffs intimidate debtors into paying amounts that they cannot afford. Those sums are handed over when the proper course should be for the bailiffs to negotiate affordable and sustainable debt payments. The granting of a more general power of forcible entry gives an unwelcome weapon to the hand of the bailiff to say, ““If you do not pay, I will come back tomorrow and break into your house””.