Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 56: 56: After Clause 53 , insert the following new Clause— ““Enforcement by taking control of goods (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.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will speak at the same time to Amendment No. 58. The amendments are intended to be entirely helpful. They follow on from discussions in Committee and arise from widespread misunderstanding of what the words ““taking control of goods”” in the Bill meant. Many people in the industry, and observers, have expressed concern, reading the words in the Bill as they do, that the ability of the bailiff, if I may use that word in the context of this Bill, to take control of goods is unduly restricted by the phraseology in Schedule 13. It is not clear that the bailiff can accept taking control when the debtor is not there, even if some obviously adult, responsible person is there. It is not clear, although it has been widely canvassed, that the bailiff should be able to take walking possession of goods in the manner in which that is done in Scotland. Both make for a flexible service, because the object of individual bailiffs, although not necessarily the law on bailiffs, is that they should not actually remove goods—what they want to remove is the debtors’ money, and bailiffs use the threat of the removal of goods to achieve that, albeit over a reasonably short timescale. All sectors of the industry would like the Bill to end the necessity for the removal of goods when you cannot take walking possession. My amendment is an attempt to put that into English and to put it into regulations in which all noble Lords feel that a matter of this complexity best resides. Any problems that arose could then be dealt with easily and we could ensure that the practice, as it would have arisen under this Bill, could be adjusted to ensure that the system was working correctly. I beg to move.