Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 98: 98: Clause 55, page 40, line 17, at end insert— ““( ) Any individual acting as an enforcement agent must act in accordance with the regulations established under section 56.”” The noble Lord said: Tempted though I am to discuss with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, the jurisdiction of the Marcher Lords and the efficacy of the justice given in their courts, which led directly to the rising by Owain Glyndwr in 1403—a rising that lasted for some 15 years until Owain Glyndwr disappeared—I shall address the amendments to which my name is attached. In this group, there are two issues with which we are concerned. The first is the regulation of bailiffs. The second is the question, if the Government still resist regulating bailiffs with a regulatory authority, of what should be done in respect of the certification process they put forward. I am trying to think what the proper term is. The agencies that are involved with bailiffs produced national standards, which are not a statutory matter; they were adopted by many bailiff firms and, to a degree, they have succeeded. However, it is a matter of self-regulation, and the national standards have not prevented people falling below them in some instances. While that malpractice should be condemned, it is nevertheless right that we say that the certification is time-consuming and largely ineffective. There are so many statutes which go back centuries governing the powers of bailiffs that it is very difficult to find the proper procedure for making complaints about bailiffs to the courts, which currently certify bailiffs in a way that the Government propose to continue. It is surprising that, the Government having argued in their Green Paper and White Paper for a system of regulation, they have not carried that through and are content to continue with the system of certification. I have just checked Second Reading in Hansard to see whether the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, made any comment on that. She gave no explanation that I can see in her closing speech as to why the Government were not following through their proposals. If I am wrong, no doubt she will put me right. There is no reference in the Bill to a proper regulatory and licensing regime—for which the Government themselves argued. This is a missed opportunity. Of course, Crown employees are exempted from the process as contained in the Bill. There will now be two different types of enforcement agent: the large gentleman who comes round to enforce a judgment debt; and the large gentleman who comes round to enforce the liability for tax, VAT or whatever other government functions. It seems odd that the Government should say, ““We will look after the bailiffs who are civil servants, but we will have a completely different system of court certification for other people””. Why is that distinction made? We seek by the amendments to apply the Bill to all enforcement agents in both private and public sectors and that it provide for a licensing and regulatory regime, as was set out in the White Paper. That is in Amendment No. 109, to which Amendment No. 98 refers. If there were a proper regulatory scheme, it would involve the creation of an accredited professional association. That association would be required to comply with a code of practice. There would be a regulatory body that would handle complaints—heaven knows, the legal profession is being forced to stomach an independent legal complaints authority, but that is another Bill that we can argue about at another time. All I can say is that if you can have an independent regulatory body for the legal profession, how much more does one need it for the profession of bailiff? I am not sure how one describes that profession, other than as the profession of bailiffs. Such a body would not only regulate the conduct of bailiffs but could set levels of training and say what was necessary to obtain a licence. It could control the industry overall and would have the power to award licences and accreditation. An explanation is required from the Government why they have abandoned their policy, especially when it seems that it could be funded perfectly well without any call on the public purse. The other provision of the amendments concerns what happens if such a regulatory authority is not brought into being: what about certification? We believe, as the Law Society has suggested, that an enforcement agent who does not act in accordance with a statutory requirement should be guilty of an offence. It is unusual for us to propose a new criminal offence to add to the 3,000 that the Government have brought into being during the past 10 years, but we think that the conduct of enforcement agents should be carefully monitored under a certification scheme and that, if the procedures that they follow are not in accordance with the licences that they have been granted, that should be an offence. Similarly, the Law Society has suggested—we support it—that there should be a code of practice followed by enforcement agents that would strengthen the protection of the interests of vulnerable debtors. As I said on Second Reading, we are concerned here with the most vulnerable people in our society. The gap has widened between the wealthy and the poor. It is important, when we propose legislation of this type that affects people who are in poverty, that all necessary safeguards should be included. I beg to move.