Guardianship (Missing Persons) Bill

Philip Davies Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 24th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 19, leave out subsection (4):

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 2, line 17, at end insert—

‘(2A) Before hearing an application for a guardianship order the court may require the applicant to take such further steps by way of advertisement or otherwise as the court thinks proper for the purpose of tracing the missing person.”.

Amendment 3, in clause 3, page 2, line 27, leave out “90 days”’ and insert “6 months”.

Amendment 4, in clause 7, page 5, line 18, leave out “4 years” and insert “2 years”.

[Philip Davies]

Let me set out from the start that these are probing amendments and I do not intend to push any of them to a Division. By anyone’s admission, this is quite a meaty Bill, running to 25 clauses, but we have had no scrutiny of it in the Chamber. It received its Second Reading on the nod, without any debate whatsoever, and here we are, with time pressing on, and we have had no opportunity before now to debate any of its provisions. I therefore tabled some probing amendments to tease out from my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) why some of the Bill’s provisions—the timescales, for example—are as they are.

Amendment 1 would remove subsection (4), which states:

“A person who is detained, whether in a prison or another place, is to be treated for the purposes of this Act as absent from his or her usual place of residence and usual day-to-day activities.”

I want to tease out from my hon. Friend the reasoning behind the subsection, because there was no scrutiny of it on Second Reading.

In passing, I should say that we are discussing the Guardianship (Missing Persons) Bill, and a Missing Persons Guardianship Bill is going through the House of Lords. I am not sure whether that Bill’s provisions are different from this Bill’s, but perhaps Members in the other place are trying to achieve the same thing.

In 2014, the Government held a consultation entitled “Guardianship of the property and affairs of missing persons” in which, as far as I could see, the issue addressed by subsection (4) was not mentioned once. Furthermore, I checked the reasoning behind the inclusion of the subsection with the House of Commons Library, but the staff there confirmed that they had not been able to find out anything about its background. They could not explain why it was in the Bill, beyond its inclusion as an example.

After speaking to Library staff at further length, they said:

“The Bill defines a missing person as someone who is absent from their usual place of residence or their usual day-to-day activities. The reason for being absent may be because the person is detained. However, in addition, as in other cases, the first or second condition set out in subsections (2) or (3) must also be met. In most cases, the first condition is likely to be relevant—that is, that the person’s whereabouts are not known, or not known with sufficient precision to enable contact to be made.”

That was the Library’s explanation of why the subsection might be in the Bill but, given that the staff there were not entirely clear about it, I thought it important to table an amendment so that we could hear my hon. Friend explain it at first hand. That is why I see it as a probing amendment.

Amendment 2 would insert into clause 2:

“Before hearing an application for a guardianship order the court may require the applicant to take such further steps by way of advertisement or otherwise as the court thinks proper for the purpose of tracing the missing person.”

That would ensure that all reasonable steps had been taken to try to locate the missing person.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

On reflection, does my hon. Friend agree that the court probably has that power anyway? Someone seeking to obtain an order must surely have to show the court that they have taken all reasonable steps to discover where the missing person is..

[Philip Davies]

I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton will be able to confirm that, which is why I described the amendment as a probing one. I want it to be clear, on the record, that that is the case, because it was not entirely clear from looking through the Bill. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) is right—I am sure he is—but, as I said, it is a probing amendment so that we can get it confirmed on the record.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a valid point, but as far as I understand it good systems are already in place to determine whether a person is missing and all that side of it. There is, however, no system for looking after their estate or anything that they own if they are declared missing. The Bill is about helping the people left at home to deal with the property or the estate, or, indeed, to deal with the hardship that they might be facing because they cannot access funds or money, or get into the house and all those sorts of things. It therefore seems eminently straightforward and sensible.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is right. She is referring to the principle of the Bill, which I absolutely support. I do not intend to do anything to stop the Bill proceeding—that is not the point. The point I am making is that we are looking at the detail, and I want to ensure that we get it right. All hon. Members support the principle of the Bill. I do not want to scupper or affect the principle—she and I are as one on that. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that we are happy that the details are right, because it is quite a chunky piece of legislation that deserves such scrutiny.

Amendment 2 is based on a requirement in the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993—I do not know whether I need to refer hon. Members to my registered interest as a landlord, but I have now done so—section 26 of which addresses applications when the relevant landlord cannot be found.

Similar legislation elsewhere in the world contains similar requirements before a guardian can be appointed, including in three Australian states—New South Wales, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory—which set out a process under which an individual can seek to be appointed to manage the affairs of a person who is missing. There is a similar provision in Canadian law. That is the purpose behind the amendment. I want to ensure that we are happy that we have the detail right.

As hon. Members can see, amendment 3 would increase the amount of time from 90 days to six months for which an individual must be missing before a guardian can be appointed. This was specifically designed as a probing amendment, because it was the only way I could think of to tease out from my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton why he set 90 days as the limit. The only way I could think of doing that was to propose an alternative. My alternative is six months, and I wonder whether 90 days is too short a time.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s scrutiny of this important legislation. He mentioned other territories around the world that use such legislation—New South Wales, Victoria and British Colombia—all of which use that 90-day period. It is therefore a sensible starting point.

[Philip Davies]

I have read the consultation, to which there were 40 responses, of which eight commented on the proposal that applications should be made only after 90 days. Some of the responses said that 90 days was too long—I accept that—but practical points on timing were made, including by the Finance and Leasing Association, which had concerns about the 90 days. The consultation response therefore states:

“We accept that the 90 day period may create problems in some cases, but are also conscious that over-hasty applications may result in unnecessary expenses being incurred.”

The period is 90 days and not 60 or 100, so I am seeking the rationale for 90 days. My hon. Friend was helpful in his intervention and has made it clear why he has gone for 90 days, and I am grateful to him for that.

As hon. Members can see, amendment 4 would reduce the maximum period of guardianship from four years to two years. Clause 7 sets out the period of guardianship and requests that the period for which the guardian is appointed be stated in the court order. The maximum possible is four years, and I propose to halve it. Again, I am trying to tease out from my hon. Friend why he believes four years is right, and why the period should not be longer or shorter. I can see the attractions of making it longer to avoid people having to go back time and again, given the cost of doing that. I was not sure whether the primary purpose was to avoid that or there was another rationale as to why four years was the appropriate time.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

My concern arises from the same issue, and it is what happens when a missing person is found. That does not automatically negate the guardianship, as I would have hoped that it would, and is an argument for saying that the guardianship should be for a shorter period. Otherwise, as soon as somebody is found, the guardian will have to apply to the court to end the guardianship before they can again be treated as a normal person.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. That is why I proposed a shorter period rather than a longer one.

[Sir Greg Knight]

I think that my hon. Friend has inadvertently misled the House. As I read the Bill, the term of four years is a maximum, and the court has power to make an order for any length of time up to four years.

[Philip Davies]

Yes, that is right. If I did mislead the House, I certainly did not intend to. I thought I had made it clear that it was a maximum of four years, but if I did not, I apologise to my right hon. Friend and to the House. He is right: it is a maximum, and it does not need to be exactly that. However, that does not necessarily overcome the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) that a decision for four years could be made in good faith and is then superseded, possibly causing an issue.

Again, I pray in aid the consultation on these matters. It received a range of views on the appropriate duration of guardianship appointments. Two respondents said they agreed with the proposed maximum term of four years, while there were suggestions from four other respondents, including for a shorter period of just one or two years, with one proposal of eight years. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton is saying that we should split the difference and go for four years, and that is the consensus—I do not know. As I said, there are examples in other countries. In Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory, the administrator or manager is appointed initially for up to two years, which can be extended for a further two years. I wonder whether that might have been a more sensible way of going about it. It is the same in Irish law, with an initial two years that can be extended for a further two years. That might be better than a straight four years right from the word go.

My amendments are in no way seeking to cause any problems for the Bill; they are simply to give it some scrutiny that up to this point it has not had, as I am sure my hon. Friend will be the first to concede. Legislation does deserve some scrutiny, particularly when it is as meaty as this. I look forward to his and the Minister’s response to the issues I have raised and their explanations for some of the details in the Bill.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Sam Gyimah)]

I am keen for this Bill to progress.

Amendment 1 relates to the definition of when a person is missing for the purposes of the Bill. The amendment would remove clause 1(4), which relates to the absence of the missing person. Without that subsection, it would be unclear whether, for the purposes of the Bill, the person detained in prison or otherwise would be treated as being

“absent from his or her usual place of residence and usual day-to-day activities.”

Amendment 2 addresses a different aspect of the question of whether a person is missing for the purposes of the Bill. First, the Bill already provides in clause 20(1) that the application must be advertised in accordance with the rules of the court. The subsection provides that

“notice of the application and any other information specified by rules of court”

must be sent

“to the persons specified by rules of court”.

Secondly, the procedure for hearing the application will be governed by rules of court. Those rules have not yet been written, but they will specify the information that needs to be provided to the court with the application. That is likely to include a requirement that the application is supported by evidence of the various issues on which the court must be satisfied before it can make a guardianship order in accordance with the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

In summary, the four-year period is a maximum, and even when it is applied, it can be cut down if circumstances so require. A two-year maximum could be unduly restrictive and result in unnecessary expense for those affected. In the light of that explanation, I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw his amendment.

[Philip Davies]

I am very grateful to the Minister for his explanation. We have not yet heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), the promoter of this Bill, on whether he endorsed the Minister’s points.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. The Minister laid out his responses in a very comprehensive fashion. I have nothing significant to add. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) talked about the other Bill in the House of Lords. That Bill would not be required if this Bill passes through this House today. He mentioned removing clause 1(4). This deals with a situation in which somebody is detained as a hostage or something similar. Terry Waite springs to mind, as he was could not be contacted for five years.

[Philip Davies]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that addition to the Minister’s explanation. I absolutely accept the points that have been made. It is important that we had them put on the record, and that we teased out from the Government why they set the rules as they have. I am sure that that will be useful for people to know. Therefore, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Third Reading