Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [HL]

I would rather set that out for the noble Lord in writing. As we have prepared for this legislation, I have had many discussions about how bailiffs are currently operating. I have indicated to the noble Lord that consistency of approach is part of reasonableness overall, although I know that that does not specifically cover the point about entry. Reasonableness is very important. We are generally considering where people are behaving unreasonably, and where that the time has arrived to do something to redress the balance in favour of the creditor. In the context of doing that, we have been as mindful as possible, not least through the other provisions of the Bill, of the vulnerability of the debtor in many circumstances. The courts must also play their full and proper role in this. We want to design the Bill so that we are very clear what is and is not permissible in terms of entry—not least, as the noble Lord understands, to take account of the way the law has grown up over the years and the different ways in which people have been allowed to enter. We want that clarified as far as possible. This also takes us back to the earlier discussion about information to those against whom these powers would be used. I take the point about making sure we get as much information to them as possible. I am only resisting my department having to find the money to get lots of pieces of paper out, but I am not resisting the principle that those against whom these powers will be used need to have information. We just need to think of a way of ensuring that. I will set out more as we develop that, and in any event we will be bringing this back via affirmative regulations. On Question, amendment agreed to. [Amendments Nos. 93 and 94 not moved.]