Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [Lords]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon). I echo his comments in relation to current levels of personal debt of about £1.3 trillion—some estimate the figure to be higher—and the impact on individuals. His comments about the need for restrictions on the way in which loans are offered to individuals echo some of the debates on the Consumer Credit Bill 12 months ago in relation to promoting responsible lending. As shown by the reports that constituency advice surgeries continue to receive about ordinary people getting into serious problems as a consequence of debt, we need to maintain our focus on this area. Before I address part 4 of the Bill, on enforcement, I should declare my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests as a non-practising solicitor. If we are to have a system of law that is seen to be just and to address disputes effectively, that must be reflected at all stages: in access to justice; in the manner in which individual claims are dealt with in court; and, thereafter, in obtaining redress once a court or tribunal has reached its determination. In the previous Session, I was a member of the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs, which conducted an evidence session and, subsequently, issued a formal report on all aspects of the small claims court. In his evidence to the Committee, Professor John Baldwin, head of the school of law at the university of Birmingham, focused on the issue of enforcement, and the fact that it is possible to go all the way through the process and end up with virtually nothing to show for it. He said:"““In my view, ineffective enforcement procedures undermine the credibility and integrity of the civil courts—and the credibility and integrity of small claims—more than any other factor. When enforcement mechanisms fail, claimants feel let down, if not cheated. Access to justice requires more than the provision of fair, expeditious and inexpensive procedures to resolve legal disputes; for judicial procedures to have meaning, the courts must in addition provide effective mechanisms by which litigants can enforce the judgment.””" That touches on a crucial aspect of our system of law. The current weakness in relation to ensuring that judgments are properly enforced is fundamental. The weakness in the system has been underlined by practitioners as well as the judiciary. The Association of District Judges highlighted its concerns in evidence to the Committee. It said:"““The Association recognises that enforcement of judgments has been highly unsatisfactory for many years. We understand that, statistically, only one third of judgments are paid in full. Some payment is made in half the remaining cases, but in one third of cases no payment is made at all. We suspect that, since insurance companies or other commercial litigants will meet their obligations in full, the great majority of litigants whose judgments are unsatisfied are private individuals. This is a deplorable state of affairs.””" Given the measures introduced in the Bill, I recognise that the Government have taken that on board. It is hardly surprising that the Select Committee, in advocating certain key recommendations, said that reform needed to be undertaken ““expeditiously”” and that the process needed to be monitored and kept closely under review. In part, the Bill makes important changes to the enforcement of judgments, and perhaps brings greater certainty to the process for individuals who seek to resolve disputes and enforce claims through the courts system. The attachment of earnings in the provision of information on employers is a welcome measure to assist in tracking people down and ensuring that court judgments are enforced. The provision of fixed rates of deduction might also provide greater certainty. Clauses 90 and 96 also introduce information orders and departmental information requests. I was interested to read in clause 96(3) that the"““relevant court may use the debtor information for the purpose of providing the creditor with information about what kind of action (if any) it would be appropriate to take in court (whether the relevant court or another court) to recover the judgment debt.””" The issue of information is important. I have been contacted in my constituency advice surgery by people who have been frustrated at not being able to identify the address, or other related information, of the creditor against whom they are seeking to enforce. The clause makes an interesting suggestion as to the involvement of the court and what might be an appropriate remedy for the person who has obtained a judgment in their favour. It will be interesting to hear in the wind-up or in Committee whether the process is intended to be more dynamic in assisting people in recovering their judgment debt. Certainly, information, support and guidance for individual claimants would be beneficial, especially in the context of the small claims track of the county court. During my involvement in the Select Committee investigation, I had the opportunity to spend some time in the small claims court. That was informative and instrumental in showing that people require quite a lot of assistance in making their case, providing the correct documentation to establish a claim, and presenting their case in a manner that demonstrates that they have good grounds for seeking recompense. It is understandable that people seeking justice may feel that, having gone through a lengthy process, they are being denied the opportunity to see judgments being enforced and justice being done. We must be clear about what is achievable. I hope the Minister will assure us that enforcement assistance will not be represented merely by words in statute, and that a much more constructive process will be introduced to give individual claimants advice, information and support. The Department has focused on helping such claimants through the small claims procedure. People would be let down if access to information and support were shut off following a judgment, and would feel frustrated at the fact that justice had not been done. Members, including the Minister, have said that lawyers should not be involved when that is not necessary. People would certainly be let down if they had to have recourse to legal advice to enforce a judgment that they had obtained through their own merits, and to secure payment. While I welcome the Government’s proposals to add to existing enforcement mechanisms, I hope that they will be examined closely in Committee, and that the Government will be pressed on the subject of the information and support that will accompany the strict legal measures in the Bill. In their provisions on distraint for recovery of rent the Government have followed recommendations, and have acted on the basis that the existing law is to be abolished and a distinction is to be drawn between the recovery of rent in commercial circumstances and its recovery in residential circumstances. They have addressed concerns that the existing law is unfair and disproportionate, and might unnecessarily penalise non-commercial tenants with rent arrears. However, as many Members have pointed out, they have chosen to extend bailiffs’ rights to force entry to property and seize assets without providing, at this stage, the full protection of a regulatory system. I took on board what the Minister said about the certification process providing some reassurance, but that is obviously not the end result. It has been accepted that in many respects the current arrangement is a halfway house. It is rather unfortunate that the Select Committee had to consider half the issue— the codification of the law on bailiffs’ rights, and the extension of certain aspects of that law—without also being able to consider, fully and properly, the question of regulation. The Government are consulting on it now; the consultation is due to conclude at the end of April, and the Minister assured us today of the intention to present regulations and orders to Parliament before the summer recess. I hope that the Minister and the Government will take account of our wish for a mechanism to prevent a mismatch, and for an opportunity to consider the issue in its entirety. Arguments that we have heard today have persuaded me that we should delay the implementation of provisions to extend bailiffs’ powers until there is clarity and certainty about the regulatory aspects of their work. If what we have been told today is true—that once orders have been laid before Parliament, they will be followed by regulations and then by training—it is to be hoped that the two sides of the issue can be married within a manageable time framework. Members have mentioned representations made by citizens advice bureaux. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury told us that about 39.5 per cent. of them had reported problems with bailiffs’ misrepresenting their powers of entry. As I told the Minister, I fear that any new laws may cause further confusion by suggesting that bailiffs have new powers when they have no such powers, thus increasing the risk of misrepresentation. The problem of misrepresentation is important, and underlines the need for regulation to provide more protection for individuals against the small proportion of bailiffs who are abusing their powers and bringing their whole area of practice into disrepute. I pay tribute to the work of Havering citizens advice bureau, which wrote to me about a case in which car wheels were chained by a firm of bailiffs which then tried to charge £554 for the release of the vehicle, although an offer had been made to pay the relevant parking fine and £200 for the release. Eventually the police were called, and warned the bailiffs about obstructing the highway and causing a breach of the peace. That is typical of the problems that our constituents face every day when bailiffs wish to extend their powers further than they should, and to abuse their position. I appreciate that the Bill is an interim measure. The Government have made it clear that they want to introduce a system of regulation that will, in all likelihood, involve the Security Industry Authority. While it is to be hoped that appropriate regulations and orders will be presented before the summer recess, I for one feel somewhat uncomfortable about a potential extension of bailiffs’ rights and powers without the establishment of such protective measures. It is unfortunate that we cannot deal with the whole issue in a seamless way. Given the concern about certain rogue operators, I hope that the Government will consider introducing further protections. If that is not practicable, I hope that they will assure us that there will be no extension of powers until a proper regulatory regime has been put into effect.