Joan Humble (Blackpool North & Fleetwood, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 1—Enforcement by taking control of goods (No. 2)—

‘(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.’.

Henry Bellingham (Shadow Minister, Constitutional Affairs; North West Norfolk, Conservative)

It is a pleasure to be back in action with you, Mrs. Humble—[ Laughter. ] No double entendre intended.

The key purpose of new clause 1 is to remove any misunderstanding about the words “taking control of goods” and to determine exactly what they mean. Is the ability of a bailiff to take control of goods unduly restricted by the phrasing of schedule 13? Above all, is it not clear that a bailiff can accept and take control of goods and so on when the debtor is not present in a home, even when another responsible adult is present?

In Scotland, bailiffs can take what is called walking possession, which is a flexible approach. As far as bailiffs are concerned, the object of the exercise is not   necessarily to remove the goods; it is to secure the money that is owed. The threat of removal of goods can achieve a bailiff’s objective. Various bailiff organisations have repeatedly told me and other Opposition Members that bailiffs do not want to have to face up to the necessity of removing goods if there is an alternative. Taking walking possession is such an alternative. I was particularly impressed by the briefing given to me by Philip Evans of the Enforcement Law Reform Group. New clause 1 would clarify the powers open to bailiffs and it would give them more flexibility in their approach. On that basis, and on the basis of all the assistance and advice that we have been given, I commend the new clause to the Committee.

Vera Baird (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Redcar, Labour)

I am not convinced that new clause 1 is necessary, because clause 57 and paragraph 13 of schedule 12 already provide for what it seeks to do. In particular, proposed subsections (1), (2) and (3) are just about the same as clause 57, in that they are about taking control of goods in the style currently described as walking possession. Similarly, the provisions in proposed subsection (4) about taking control of goods replicate provision already made in paragraph 13(3)(a) of schedule 12, so they will add nothing to the Bill.

Proposed subsection (5) of the new clause is probably more dubious than the other provisions on its merits because it seeks to exclude liability when securing goods on the highway but does not cover goods secured on premises. That would mean taking a different approach to taking control of goods depending on whether they were on the highway or on premises. There is no logical reason why that should be so; it is much better to have clear, straightforward powers that are the same in all similar circumstances. New clause 1 goes against the efforts that we have made in the Bill to clarify and simplify the laws concerning enforcement agencies.

There is no need for the bulk of the provisions in new clause 1. Proposed subsection (5) would add confusion and does not deal with a matter about which the Government have received representations from enforcement agencies. I hope that having been given those words of explanation, the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk will, having probed the rationale for clause 57, not press his proposals.

Henry Bellingham (Shadow Minister, Constitutional Affairs; North West Norfolk, Conservative)

I thank the Minister for that explanation. She has reassured the Committee, and I will not seek to press the new clause.