Schedule 12
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [Lords]
10:45 am
Simon Hughes (Shadow Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs & Shadow Attorney General, Constitutional Affairs; North Southwark and Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)
We are now coming to the meat not only of the schedule, but the substantive part of the Bill, about which, when and how goods can be taken from people in pursuit of a judgment in the criminal law or some right that is claimed in civil law. The amendments deal with the concept of exempt goods—the goods that should not be taken away from someone’s home. The Minister said the other day, as she did in a letter to me that she placed in the Library after Second Reading—the Government have said the same in the structure of the Bill—that she accepted the need to deal with domestic premises separately from commercial premises. That view is supported strongly on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
There is a general presumption that we should protect people from having everything taken from their domestic premises and that we must decide what sort of goods need to be protected from bailiffs at all times. The criteria are what goods people need, which goods are the basic necessities of life and the basic amount of cash that is needed to survive. We live in a world where more people have material possessions that used to be regarded as luxuries, but which are now viewed as indispensable. They are often items that are expensive to buy or hire, such as televisions, DVD players, cassette players and video recorders; by and large, they are electronic equipment. There are also white goods, such as fridge-freezers.
“Exempt goods” under the Bill are certain goods that are defined by regulation. We propose to add certain goods to the Bill. I realise that there will be a proper debate about whether the list of exempt goods should be in the Bill at all or whether it should be contained in regulations. It needs to be somewhere, however, where it is clear and on an agreed basis. Amendment No. 159 sets out what things we think should be exempt. We are open to discussion about the accuracy and correctness of the list, but we have taken advice and such a debate has taken place in the other place.
Amendment No. 159 refers to
“such tools, books, vehicles and other items of equipment as are necessary to the debtor for use personally by him in his employment, business or vocation”.
Mercifully, in this country a lot of people still have skilled manual jobs, are self-employed and can keep their work materials at home. Indeed, many bring those materials into the house because they are not happy leaving them overnight in a van, garage or lock-up. Pretty well everyone in the building trade is self-employed, such as decorators, electricians and plumbers, but many others work from home and keep their equipment there. The last thing we should do is to take away people’s means of earning a living. The amendment would protect those means, and I hope that the Committee agrees that that is a proper thing to do. Self-evidently, if people do not have the kit to earn a living, they will not have the money coming in to pay off the debts and get out of their financial hole.
The second group of items that should be exempt includes
“such clothing, bedding, furniture, household equipment and provisions as are necessary for satisfying the basic domestic needs of the debtor and his family.”
It clearly would be wrong in a civilised society for someone to come in and take away the children’s beds, table and chairs and any other basic furniture that they need. There has to be a basic understanding of what a home has to have, whatever the financial muddle or dispute that people have got into over debts.
The third category that should be exempt is the money that a family needs immediately. The phrase that we have used is
“money where an enforcement agent has reasonable cause to believe that this would be necessary for the immediate domestic needs of the debtor and his family.”
I am conscious that in amendment No. 86, which is one of those tabled by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk, a more specific sum is mentioned. I think that it would be right to debate the minimum amount that someone can retain in the circumstances. The hon. Gentleman proposes that no sum of money of £500 or below should be taken. If people have more than £500, the excess can be taken to pay off debts, but a family needs to have enough money. In some ways, £500 may be regarded as generous, but for a family with children, it will not pay for much more than a few weeks’ shopping and basic food necessities. Therefore, there is a perfectly proper case to be put that people should be allowed to retain a set amount of money in order to survive. If they do not have that money, how do we expect them to survive? The answer is that they would not. We cannot be unreasonable or unfair about that.
The last group that we believe should be exempt is domestic pets. We have had a debate about that. It related to an amendment tabled by Lord Beaumont of Whitley in the other place. In amendment No. 86, the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk has listed not just domestic animals and animals kept as pets, but guard dogs, any dog on which a blind person relies and animals kept for commercial gain—any animals that are kept as part of a business such as kennels. Certainly, the general argument is that if we are trying to sustain the welfare of families, we will not get much money if we take away someone’s cat, dog, hamster or gerbil. If we are trying to minimise distress to the family, particularly the children, it is important that animals are not part of the process. It is probably regarded as a sign of a civilised society that one does not take away animals that are used as pets. They should not be part of the process of catching other people for debts that they have entered into.
Let me return now to the question of definition. If there is agreement that we give better protection to domestic rather than commercial premises, which I hope and believe that there is, that we do not allow enforcement agents, whoever they are and whomever they act for, to come in and take away everything, and that there are things that are protected and exempt, which there clearly are, the question that then arises is what we define as exempt. The Liberal Democrats think that the issue is important enough for the bare necessities to be mentioned in the Bill rather than in regulations. If we make the right decision now, we would need to change this sort of thing later. One of the reasons why we have not put a specific sum in the provision on how much cash can be kept is that that sum will change with inflation. Therefore, if a specific sum is to be included, it would have to be in the regulations rather than in the Bill.
I hope that those points form a good starting point for the debate. Such provision is important because we must have a civilised society in which people can hang on to what they need to survive and to earn a living. I hope that the Committee will be responsive to that argument.