Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [HL]

I thank noble Lords. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. We tried, when setting up the groupings, to ensure that everyone was comfortable with them and that they were grouped around particular themes. I will try to go through all the points that have been made as best I can. I know that noble Lords will jump in and tell me if I have missed anything on the way. Noble Lords began by talking about the exemption of certain goods. I should say by way of introduction that I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said about the balance that we are trying to strike here. I think noble Lords will recognise that we have considered issues of debt more generally and have tried to set out new approaches in the Bill to support people with debts who need either time to pay or a better method of paying. I hope that when one looks at the Bill in the round as well as at this part of it, one will see that we have tried to address those issues in other ways as well. As noble Lords have already indicated, I have set out in the policy statement a list of goods that will be considered exempt, but I thought it would probably do no harm simply to repeat them very briefly so that they are in Hansard too for noble Lords who are not present today and who may not have a copy of this document. It is intended that the list will include tools, books, vehicles and other items of equipment necessary for the debtor to use personally in their employment, business or vocation, and such clothing, bedding, furniture, household equipment and provisions necessary to satisfy basic domestic needs for the person and their family. It will also include domestic pets and sufficient cash to support basic domestic needs. These specific items will be included: cooker, fridge, washing machine, dining table and chairs to seat each member of the household, bed and bedding for every member of the household, a telephone—including a mobile phone—and any medical equipment. A computer would be considered exactly for the reasons that noble Lords have given—use for employment, business or a vocation. I interpret ““vocation”” to include the use by children for their schoolwork. Fixtures and fittings attached to external power and water supplies to provide lighting, washing and heating facilities—baths, gas fires and electric light sockets—would be exempt from seizure. I am resisting the temptation to put the list into the Bill because times change and the list would need to be updated. A mobile phone is a very good example of an item that we would not have considered even a few years ago but which, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, quite rightly says, has taken the place in many households of a phone connected by old-fashioned wiring. It should therefore be included for the reasons that have been given. The items I have indicated will be dealt with in the way I have said. The list, which will not be exhaustive, will change according to circumstances. I hope that when Members of the Committee have had a chance to reflect on the list and the context in which I have set it out in the document, they will feel reassured. I should like to go through all the amendments and then come back to any outstanding points so that I have covered them properly for the benefit of those who read our debates. Amendments Nos. 70 and 72 cover the availability of information sheets and other guidance notes. We will have to ensure that we have made these available to court users in a variety of formats regarding all the new enforcement laws contained in Schedule 12 and its underpinning provisions, and we will. Information will also be given to debtors under paragraphs 7 and 28 of Schedule 12. However, I cannot commit to producing huge amounts of paper with every notice of enforcement. We think that we have captured the essence of what was being asked for in having information available at the court and, under paragraph 28(1), requiring an enforcement agent to provide a notice to the debtor. The policy statement in paragraph 156 shows that the legislative provision authorising the action and the avenues of appeal or complaint will be set out in notice in accordance with regulations. Information is available at the courts and on the operation of bailiffs. I hope that that will capture most if not all of what noble Lords wish to see. I hope my assurances will be accepted that information will be made available in a number of formats by Her Majesty’s Courts Service for all parties to access at any time. On Amendment No. 71, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, asked about the minimum period of notice. He was concerned that it would be raised far higher than the one day he is seeking to achieve. We think that a minimum notice period of one day would be too short; it would not give the debtor the one last chance to pay or to come to an arrangement with the creditor before taking control of the goods becomes necessary. In that respect, we believe it is a necessary protection for vulnerable debtors who would be able to use that window of opportunity to get financial help or seek legal advice if they genuinely could not pay. It is our intention to lay down the minimum regulations under paragraph 7(2)(a) of Schedule 12. Again, the detailed policy statement in paragraph 134 says that we intend the minimum notice to be seven calendar days other than for commercial rent arrears recovery purposes, when it will be 14 calendar days. This is an out-of-court remedy and the notice will be the first indication that action would be taken, so we think that 14 days is appropriate in those circumstances rather than seven. Where there is evidence, which I think is the nub of the noble Lord’s point, that the creditor would remove the goods or abscond before recovery action can take place, paragraph 7(4) of Schedule 12 gives scope for the creditor to apply to the court for the notice period to be reduced. In addition, where a debtor removes goods to another location in the period between notice and recovery action in a bid to avoid successful recovery action, paragraph 15(1) of Schedule 12 gives scope for the granting of a warrant permitting entry to other specified premises for the purposes of taking control of goods that have been moved there. I think the Bill has the balance that Members of the Committee were seeking between giving a suitable notice period in which to enable people, particularly vulnerable debtors, to have the opportunity to deal with the situation, and allowing creditors to take swift and appropriate action where circumstances dictate that to be necessary, including being able to apply to the court. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will be surprised to hear me say that I understand what he means by the term ““morally offensive to seize””, but he will understand that it is impossible to define that in a Bill. I hope that instead we are trying to capture the essence of what the noble Lord seeks to do by listing the goods and being open to add to that list as appropriate. On Amendment No. 75, under paragraph 12 of Schedule 12, enforcement agents can take control of goods only to the value of the outstanding debt and any future costs. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was concerned about that matter, which was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. I hope that the measure makes it clear that it is not a question of being able to take goods inappropriately, and that the proportionality that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, seeks is captured in that provision. Amendments Nos. 76, 78 and 80 seek to enable a controlled goods agreement to be signed by a person other than the debtor. I checked that as it is a sensible point. I believe that it is also the objective of Amendment No. 77 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Paragraph 13(3) of Schedule 12 enables regulations to make further provision on taking control of goods by way of a controlled goods agreement. I am perfectly happy to look at the regulations to make sure that they are clear that a controlled goods agreement may be signed by a person other than the debtor. Obviously, we shall need to clarify that such a person has the debtor’s consent and make sure that it is not just anybody signing. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, was concerned that a child might end up signing the document, which would be completely inappropriate. As I say, I am happy to look at that. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, spoke to Amendment No. 82, but he asked whether a female enforcement officer could be sent to premises occupied by a single woman or a child under 16. The difficulty is that one would not know who was in the premises until one arrived. However, I completely understand the noble Lord’s concern. The new certification process under Clause 56 will make sure that there are provisions to deal with vulnerable debtors. An obvious way to deal with such a situation is for staff to withdraw immediately if a child is on the premises. We will make sure that we deal with those issues. I shall write to the noble Lord to inform him how I intend to deal with that. On entry and re-entry, I was trying to be helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, but failed completely. I think that he implied that forced entry was not allowed anyway, but it is under Schedule 4A to the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. As I say, I was trying to be helpful but did not manage to be. That is why I intervened; I apologise. The noble Lord was concerned about entry being done under a warrant and the importance of the court playing its role. Entry will be under warrant only. There is one exception under Schedule 4A to the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, which enables people to go in where there is a warrant to enforce a criminal fine because they already have the judicial authority to do so due to the criminal fine being in existence. To clarify the entry and re-entry provision, all enforcement agents can enter but can use force only with a warrant from the court. Force has to be reasonable, as stated in the warrant. All enforcement agents can re-enter but can use force only with a warrant from the court unless it is done under the existing law that I identified and the purpose of the entry is to inspect or remove goods. We think that we have the balance right between enabling bailiffs to deal with creditors’ right to have their needs addressed and ensuring that we do not treat vulnerable debtors unfairly. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made a good point about having the same system. The purpose behind the Bill is, indeed, to do that—to bring in the same system to cover all purposes. That includes, for example, making sure that the hours in which bailiffs can operate are the same right across the system. He probably knows—although I did not until I looked at the matter in great detail—that the right for people to deal with getting back property has grown up over the years in different parts of legislation, so people can operate in different hours and in different ways. One great advantage of the Bill is that it will make it all the same, so there will be far greater understanding, we trust, by people of when bailiffs can operate and what they are allowed to do, because the same system will be applied. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, asked me whether it also applied to bailiffs’ enforcement fines and council tax in terms of exempt goods. I am sorry that I did not deal with that point when I dealt with that group of amendments. Again, it is exactly the same. All parties are trying to ensure that we cover that in the right way. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is concerned that we think about the vulnerability of the debtor. As he said, that is very difficult. It is often only when the enforcement officer finds someone—when they call on them—that they know that they are vulnerable. We hope that across the Bill we will be able to consider the whole question of people who find themselves in debt and deal with it in considering the future of bailiffs—we will come to those discussions shortly—and think more carefully about having one system applying, so that people understand what bailiffs are doing and that we take greater cognisance of people's needs in debt, which is a separate but important part of the Bill. I shall also clarify the limited powers of force against persons—about which noble Lords are concerned—to be granted under regulations under paragraphs 24(2) and 31(5) of Schedule 12. They are purely for restraining purposes, enabling enforcement agents to go about their lawful duty without fear of physical interference or harm as detailed at paragraphs 152 and 158 of our detailed policy statement on delegated powers. There is no intention to introduce powers allowing physical body searches of debtors or using forcible coercion against people—for example, to remove wedding rings. In any event, the powers will be introduced subject to affirmative resolution in your Lordships' House and another place. I turn to Amendments Nos. 93 and 94. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, asked about those requiring assistance to help them carry out their duties. Especially in many business premises, listing goods can be an onerous and lengthy process and will require assistance, so we are keen to keep that provision available in the Bill. On Amendment No. 96, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that I will ensure that regulations covering the inventory of goods given to debtors when goods are seized will include provision for providing receipts for any moneys taken by any enforcement agent. On the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about the wrong address being given, a fresh notice should be issued if an address given is found to be wrong and a new address given. That is not in the Bill because it is a matter of court practice. We do not need to address it in the Bill because that is the current position. I hope that I have addressed all the points raised and that noble Lords will feel reassured about how we are trying to deal with exemption; the issues of entry and re-entry; the safeguards that we have built into the system; our recognition that we need to act appropriately, proportionately and to balance the needs of creditors and debtors; and will feel able to withdraw the amendment.