Clause 57
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [Lords]
10:45 am
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.