Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [HL]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her lengthy explanation. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that I had nothing to do with putting all these matters together, nor did I consent to it. However, that is neither here nor there. With regard to the notice that we have suggested in Amendments Nos. 70 and 72, we do not suggest that it is enough for the bailiff to produce a notice saying to the debtor, ““This is how much you owe. This is how you can discharge it””, and so on. The amendment proposes that the debtor should be told not simply how much he owes and how he can pay but what his rights and remedies are and what are the powers of the bailiff who calls at the house. That goes rather further than the existing paragraphs in the schedule to which the Minister drew our attention. I would be grateful if she could take some time to think about that because it is an important matter. The debtor is in a vulnerable position when the bailiff calls and should know the limits of the powers to be granted to the bailiff under the schedule. I shall return to the matter but I hope the Minister can assure me that she will think about it. As to the application for power to use reasonable force, again the noble Baroness is a little off beam. The paragraphs with which we are concerned and which we seek to delete are headed: "““General powers to use reasonable force””." Reasonable force can be used without further application if paragraph 14, ““Entry without warrant””, or paragraph 16, ““Re-entry””—I think I am now on the same wavelength as the noble Baroness on this topic—apply. The purpose of the amendment is to make it necessary to go to the court to obtain authorisation for the use of reasonable force. That is not simply for a power of entry without the use of force but for authorisation where, in the view of the bailiff, reasonable force is required. Where it is proposed that you should break into someone’s house, we suggest that the court should be seized of the matter and should take into account the various elements set out in sub-paragraphs (5) and (6), in particular, of our amendment. This is not a question of obtaining a warrant to enter premises but to enter premises with reasonable force. That is the point. In the Bill as drafted it looks as though a bailiff, if he gets a warrant, for example, from a court for execution, can use reasonable force at his discretion. If I am right, I do not think that that is acceptable. Accordingly, I will return to the issue in due course. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that we have lumped together a number of issues. Perhaps we can separate them out on Report, by which time further thought can be given to the matters to which I have referred. I am grateful to the Minister, however, for producing the document on the regulatory policy. It is very useful, particularly in regard to my first amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.