Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [HL]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. The question of bailiffs’ forced entry without a warrant applies to paragraphs 18 and 19 of Schedule 12 only with regard to criminal fines. That is already in the Magistrates’ Court Act, to which I have referred a few times now. The wording regarding re-entry replicates the common law for the county court and the High Court on tax debts. There is nothing else in the legislation. It is important that we are clear about that. I’m sorry, but I cannot resist this. We keep hearing that ““an Englishman’s home is his castle””, so we dug out what the judgment in Semayne’s case of 1604 actually said. I just had to put this in Hansard—that, "““the house of anyone is not a castle or privilege but for himself, and shall not extend to protect any person who flies to his house or the goods of any other which are brought and conveyed into his house to prevent a lawful execution””." I said in paragraph 146 of the detailed policy statement that we will bring forward regulations under paragraph 14(3) of Schedule 12 to restrict entry to normal methods, through doors, French windows or whatever. The noble Lord will know that, because of the way in which the law has grown up, there are many odd things about how people can enter if a window has been left open by someone. All that will disappear, and we will move to normal methods of entry. We intend to put the detail of acceptable methods of entry into regulations. Again, I am using regulations because I want to keep that flexibility. If we find that something is not working properly, we can deal with it. If we find that changes need to be made, we can make them. Furthermore, the concept of normal methods and places of entry used by visitors to premises is very difficult to define, as the noble Lord will accept. I understand what he is seeking to do. I do not want to remove the powers of re-entry because we want to enable people to go back to inspect or remove goods when they have taken control. That is why the powers must remain. Again, I am trying to achieve a balance between what is appropriate for creditors and what is appropriate for debtors. Amendment No. 87, as the noble Lord rightly points out, envisages permitting forced re-entry to premises where the debtor carries on a trade or business. The noble Lord made a point about the computer and the desk in the corner. I will think about tabling an amendment on Report to prevent any such re-entry to any premises that are wholly or partly residential. I think that that will address the noble Lord’s particular concern. We have appropriate safeguards especially to ensure that the level of force is reasonable, except in the cases that I have identified in relation to convictions. Under the Magistrates’ Courts Act, that power applies only with prior judicial authority. That is a fundamental part of it. I hope that, given the alterations that I propose, the noble Lord will feel reassured, at least in part, and will be able to withdraw his amendment.