Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [Lords]

It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway), who added a timely note of caution, with which I concur, to the debate. I also concur with his support for Citizens Advice and its work in our constituencies. My experience of serving more than a dozen years on the management board of my local citizens advice bureau, and closely following the organisation’s social policy recommendations locally and nationally since I have been a Member of Parliament, has informed me when considering the Bill. I agree with hon. Members of all parties that the Bill is important and will affect the lives of millions of people, especially the most vulnerable members of society. The second experience that I bring to the debate is that of being an employer who has been the subject of a vexatious claim that ended in a tribunal. It happened some years ago but one holds such experiences in one’s head and hopes that they can add a little to debates on important subjects. The experience gave me an insight into the tribunal system and showed me the way in which a vexatious claimant can use it on a nothing-to-lose basis. I am glad to say that the tribunal found in my favour. As we have heard, a plethora of different tribunals has emerged in recent years—more than 70 at the last count. They hear 1 million cases a year at a cost of more than £250 million a year to the taxpayer in administrative costs. Growth in that part of the legal system has been unstructured and it is therefore right for hon. Members of all parties to welcome moves to create a single administrative system. The Government’s record in unifying organisations across Government has not been universally happy, and we must therefore wait and see how the matter develops, but I broadly support the thrust of the Government’s intentions. Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), I pay special tribute to the work done at the other end of the Corridor. The Bill has been well debated, thought through and amended in the other place in a way that has improved it. I am concerned that there should be a better means of weeding out vexatious claims before they reach a tribunal. Opportunities exist for individuals to pursue a totally vexatious claim, with nothing to lose. Even if the employer wins, as in the case that I mentioned, he has suffered enormous cost, not only financially but in time, and has often left the court—as I did after three days of a hearing—asking why anybody employs anyone in this country. At times, that sense of despair—among small business men in particular—will be felt across the country. Given that a rampant compensation culture has entered our society and the extent to which many legal rights have been extended in recent years, we must look seriously—there may be such an opportunity in Committee—at following recommendations from organisations such as the CBI on weeding out vexatious claims before they get to tribunal. The CBI has suggested that some form of bond or deposit arrangement could be used. Therefore, if it was felt during pre-hearing scrutiny that a claim could be vexatious, the decision could be left to the tribunal, adjudicator or whoever and they could demand that a bond or a deposit be left with the tribunal, which would fall if the tribunal decided that the claim was indeed vexatious. It is worth noting that many of Sir Andrew Leggatt’s proposals would not require legislation. As a member of the Home Affairs Committee, last year I spent a lot of time looking into asylum and immigration tribunals, but since then responsibility for those tribunals has fallen to the Department for Constitutional Affairs. I thought that there was, at the very least, a conflict of interest—perhaps a perverse anomaly—whereby the Department whose decisions were being questioned was responsible for the tribunals themselves. I came to the debate concerned about how much of the detail of the new tribunal system has been left out of the Bill, and I wanted to echo the concerns of the citizens advice bureaux on that, but I have been encouraged by the Minister’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood), which seemed to suggest Government willingness to look at the matter in Committee and report back to the House. I pay particular tribute to an important amendment, achieved in the other place by Lord Goodlad, on introducing much more mediation to the tribunals process. I am glad that it was accepted in all parts of the House. I want briefly to discuss the enforcement of judgments and orders—part of the Bill that has attracted the attention of a lot of Members this afternoon. It is a shame that the intentions of the White Paper have not found their way into the Bill. I was very affected by details of the Citizens Advice survey of bureaux around the country, which received almost 500 submissions from 131 bureaux. I shall not list them all, but it is worth pointing it out that 40 per cent. report that bailiffs are misrepresenting their powers of entry; 64 per cent. report that bailiffs are harassing or intimidating the client; a staggering 79 per cent. report problems negotiating with bailiffs; and 56 per cent. report that the client was vulnerable when those negotiations occurred. That shows that there is a serious problem with the process. My hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway) used the time honoured phrase, ““An Englishman’s home is his castle,”” but it is worth noting that an awful lot of other bodies and organisations can enter a person’s home. That is true not only of the emergency services, of course, but of utilities and several local authority departments such as planning and council tax, and even of pest and vermin control officers. It is becoming increasingly difficult to address the direct importance of the concept of who is allowed into a person’s house and in what circumstances such an entry can be made. The Citizens Advice pamphlet ““Putting Bailiffs on the Spot”” says:"““Unfortunately, the government has dropped from the draft Bill any plans to regulate the activities of bailiffs even though the legislation, if enacted, will give them added powers. We think this is unacceptable, given the outrageous practices by some bailiff firms reported in the evidence sent in by bureaux.””" I accept that there may be movement on that, and I am delighted by it, but I hope that the assurance given to my hon. Friends that there could be some time link to allow the consultation process and the new regulations to form part of the Bill will achieve an excellent situation. I commend the Government for moving on that. I am not one who tends to call for greater regulation, but I believe that it is necessary in this area of enforcement. If the Credit Services Association, the citizens advice bureaux and the civil enforcement agencies all agree on this, it is time to take note. In west Berkshire, our experience with bailiffs is interesting and the magistrates courts bailiffs seem to be a law unto themselves. The citizens advice bureaux can find no means of negotiating or of trying to make them take a wider view than the precise circumstances of the order that they are seeking to enforce, whereas the bailiffs contracted to the council are a completely different animal altogether. They seem to be able to work with organisations such as the money advice service to ensure that a wider view is taken of the debts of a vulnerable individual. I am delighted that the Bill will incorporate a degree of control over all the different types of bailiff in that respect. There is one other important item. We need in the Bill a list of exempt goods. In another place, it was said that it is too complicated to list those exempt items because this is a constantly changing world and making such a list is too difficult. I am not asking for great detail, but it should be accepted that bailiffs should not seize the means for an individual to continue his employment. For example, the tools of a carpenter or a plumber should not be taken. Also, there should be a wider application so that control of goods may be taken—for example, if a taxi driver has fallen into debt, his taxi clearly should not be seized in respect of those debts, but we might be able to prevent him from selling the taxi until the debts have been settled and an agreement made with an organisation such as the citizens advice bureau to achieve that. Those moves must be made hand in glove with a serious attempt to educate people about debt. I am staggered by the financial illiteracy in the world, and I am staggered by the economic illiteracy that sometimes exists in this place, but the Government should have a cross-Government objective in this area. My party attempted on its website, through the introduction of a certain character whose name is probably unparliamentary, to address and educate people. That was a faintly risible but honest and straightforward attempt to inform people of the problems of getting into debt. The Daily Mail needs congratulating on the debt service that it runs through its website and the many articles that it writes on the subject of debt. The ease of getting a loan is everywhere to be seen and the Sunday papers offer endless opportunities to take out reverse mortgages to resolve debt—get rid of debt in one fell swoop and all people’s problems will go away.