Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [Lords]

Reasonable force can be used to enter premises. Bailiffs are not entitled to use reasonable force against people at all. The plan is that the locksmith should come with the bailiff to remove the lock from the door—that is the best way of getting in—and to put another lock on the door afterwards to secure the property. Training will be available for people who have a supervisory role in the security industry, and under the new system they will be responsible for those whom they take with them. In the model at which we are looking, the locksmith is needed for practical reasons to support the bailiff’s activity. No doubt it is self-evident after that analysis, but any condition can be imposed by a judge on the warrant for entry. It may be appropriate, for instance, to ask a constable or a police community support officer to go along, or to ensure that a woman officer is present if a woman is likely to be the person in a premises. That would be an entirely reasonable and probably desirable condition for a judge to consider putting on such an order. That is the nature of the new proposal, and given everything that I have set out, it is far likelier to be used, if it is used, against the ““won’t pay”” rather than the ““can’t pay””. Is it a necessary power? The alternative is to say that whatever the debt, whatever family distress may be caused by non-payment of the debt, and however clear it is that someone can pay but will not pay, even if attachment of earnings has failed, and judges have made orders of all kinds to try to enforce, someone can avoid recovery against his goods if he simply keeps his front door shut. That is not satisfactory for judgment creditors, for businesses that require bills to be paid to keep going, or for a belief in the administration of justice. Is there any point at all in people going to court if, in the end, all someone needs to do is to close their front door to prevent enforcement? I have experience of complaints about bailiff abuse. We will regulate—I will come to that. We cannot allow a continuation of the present situation, which gives rise to visits to our surgeries because some bailiffs who do not have the right to enter through the formal channel use force. They stick their foot in the door, go in through an open window or a skylight, wait till the garden is open and so on. Such appalling, scary behaviour cannot continue. We believe that the regulation that I shall describe will stop that, and that this carefully and finely tailored procedure is the way forward. The changes should control the actions of enforcement agencies, determining, for example, when the agent goes in—between fixed hours, not at dead of night. The changes introduce a simplified fee structure applicable to enforcement agents when seizing and selling goods, an aspect that has been open to abuse in the past. If they are paid an up-front fee for what they do, they will be less desperate to get their cut through enforcement. Coupled with these changes, clauses 58 and 59 introduce greater regulation of enforcement agents who are not Crown employees or constables. Currently only certain enforcement agents hold a certificate under the 1888 legislation. The Bill extends and modifies certification to cover any enforcement agent who is not exempt and who wishes to seize and sell goods for the enforcement of judgments and fines. The certification process is set out in regulations made under clause 59. In order to qualify, agents will have completed suitable training, which will include an understanding of vulnerability, diversity training, how to mediate heated situations, and an understanding that they represent the public interest and are the officers of the court, not solely the fee-earning agent of the creditor—an important realisation. They will be subject to strict criminal record checks. It is possible, and indeed likely, that judges will take evidence in court from individuals to ensure that they understand their role and their powers, and a bond will need to be deposited. I hope that even in this interim proposal, pending the advent of full regulation by the Security Industry Authority, there will be a strong guarantee of better quality in bailiffs. The level of fine for acting without a certificate will be increased from a derisory £200 to £5,000. This is, however, an interim solution. The Government remain committed to regulating all non-Crown employed enforcement agents through an independent regulator. A consultation document was issued on 30 January seeking views on options for regulation, with our clear preference being regulation by the SIA. Such a change can be effected through secondary legislation under the Private Security Industry Act 2001 and does not require a change to the Bill. Any non-departmental public body would take longer to set up than this transition to give the responsibility to the SIA, which is beginning to prove itself.