Abolition of Warrant Sales (Scotland) (Hansard, 3 June 1981)

§ Mr. Dennis Canavan (West Stirlingshire)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish the existing practice of warrant sales and to replace it with a Debt Arbitration Service; and to control the employment and conduct of sheriff officers. It is more than a year since I attempted to introduce a similar Bill which would have placed an embargo on the use of warrant sales in Scotland, pending the long-awaited report by the Scottish Law Commission on the law of diligence. I said at the time that warrant sales were a form of legalised intimidation whereby sheriff officers may, without the permission of a householder, enter a person's house and threaten to sell the furniture, often at a mere fraction of its real value, in order to clear a debt. The sale usually takes place at the debtor's home and is advertised in public, either in newspapers or by the door-to-door delivery of leaflets in the neighbourhood of the debtor.

Most of the debts that we are talking about are less than £100 and most of the individuals and families concerned are on low incomes. There is no legal obligation on the courts or anyone else to take into account the financial circumstances of the debtor.

Defenders of the status quo, who seem to include the Solicitor-General for Scotland, claim that the number of warrant sales in Scotland is only about 300 a year. I say that that is 300 too many and should point out that more than 3,000 sales are advertised every year and that more than 20,000 poindings take place. A poinding is an official valuation and earmarking of goods for a warrant sale and the poinding takes place in the debtor's home. Poinding and advertising can be distressing experiences for individuals and families, even if the sale is eventually called off.

Last year the Government refused to support my Bill and would not grant it any time beyond the First Reading stage. But much has happened since then. In October the Scottish Law Commission, after dragging its feet for the best part of a decade, eventually came out with some provisional proposals which would be an improvement on the status quo, though they fall short of the abolition that I propose.

The Scottish Law Commission proposed, for example, an extension of the list of articles that would be exempt from warrant sales. The list was originally introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie) in a Private Member's Bill in 1973 and includes essential articles such as bedding, clothing, and heating appliances. The extension of this list would be an improvement, as would the proposal to take account of the financial circumstances of a debtor, and the provisional proposal to hold sales in auction rooms rather than in debtors' homes. That would at least help to respect the anonymity of the debtor and would help to achieve more realistic prices.

Some of the prices realised at warrant sales are ridiculously low. For example, a three-piece suite may fetch only £60, a radiogram £20 and a fridge £5. The carpet, vacuum cleaner and television set of one of my constituents were recently valued at a total of £37. It would have cost more than 10 times that amount to replace those articles.

928 The Scottish Law Commission is not the only body to have made recommendations about warrant sales. Earlier this week, the Faculty of Advocates came out in broad agreement with the commission. I understand that the Solicitor-General for Scotland is still a member of the Faculty of Advocates and, therefore, he appears to be at loggerheads with his own trade union on this vexed matter of warrant sales.

I should like to quote from a document in my possession: The Warrant Sale is a distressing and obnoxious procedure which has become socially unacceptable in its present form and whose immediate reform is therefore desirable. That quotation does not come from any Left-wing, radical, revolutionary literature. It comes from a memorandum on warrant sales published by the Scottish Tory Reform Group, the vice-presidents of which include the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland with responsibility for home affairs and the environment.

That is evidence of the groundswell of opinion among all shades of political views, with a few notable exceptions. I should add that four Conservative Members have agreed to sponsor my Bill. Many bodies and individuals throughout Scotland advocate reform and some would go even further and agree with me in seeking abolition of warrant sales.

The Labour-controlled Stirling district council has decided not to use warrant sales and many other local authorities are following its excellent example. The Scottish conference of the Labour Party favours abolition, as does the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties. The print union SOGAT took direct action to stop the printing of newspaper advertisements for warrant sales, and they no longer appear in many Scottish newspapers. Unfortunately, one of the more unenlightened sheriffs in Scotland, sheriff principal John Dick of North Strathclyde has tried to get round the SOGAT ban by having a door-to-door delivery of leaflets in the neighbourhood of the debtor.

The whole coercive system is a form of public humiliation and punishment rather than a constructive attempt to get a debt repaid. My Bill proposes the abolition of warrant sales in all cases of personal debt and their replacement by a debt arbitration service which would provide the opportunity for the debtor and the creditor to come to a mutual agreement on repaying the debt by instalments, taking into account the financial circumstances of the debtor.

Failing a voluntary agreement, the arbitrator would be given the power to issue repayment orders payable, if necessary, at source from the wages or other income of the debtor. This seems to me a reasonable proposal. There seem to be only two major reasons behind the reluctance of some people to accept it. One is what can only be described as the vested interest of the legal mafia in Scotland, some of whom are making a fat living out of the whole system. Debt collecting is big business. A minority of people are exploiting the misery, the fear and the unfortunate circumstances of the debtors.

There are in many cases connections between firms of sheriff officers and private debt collecting agencies. It is not like the English bailiff system where the bailiff is a full-time court employee. Sheriff officers in Scotland are 929 often allowed to act more or less like private enterprise. My Bill would separate the functions of sheriff officer from that of private debt collecting agencies. A sheriff officer would become an employee of the court and therefore more accountable to the court and to the general public.

I also propose in my Bill a code of conduct for sheriff officers. Some high-handed bullying tactics and threatening behaviour have been used by sheriff officers, sometimes, but not always, in the execution of warrant sales and poindings. Not long ago, three children were dragged from their beds at half-past four in the morning by sheriff officers in the execution of a child custody order. More recently, a flat occupied by three young women in Glasgow was invaded by sheriff officers. The women were not even in debt. It appears that the debtor was the landlord but the women were served with the arrestment notice. The sheriff officers brought along joiners who used hammers and chisels to smash down a door. A newspaper cameraman who arrived to take photographs was prodded in the stomach with a screwdriver. It is time that these Gestapo tactics were outlawed in a civilised society.

The last principal objection to my proposed Bill would seem to come from those who say that my debt arbitration service would be expensive. In my view it would reduce the burden and therefore the expenditure of the courts. Most of the debts about which I am talking are not even contested. The debtor admits the debt and there is no need 930 to go to court to prove the debt. An arbitration service would help to get the debt repaid. Public expenditure would be kept to a minimum by putting a levy on some of the big credit companies that encourage people to get into more debt than they can afford.

Even if some public expenditure is necessary, it would be worth while. The pursuit and administration of justice cost money. Members of any society claiming to be civilised should be prepared to put their hands in their pockets and to rid Scotland once and for ever of a barbaric, inhuman and medieval relic that has caused undue hardship and misery to countless thousands of people and their families.