The noble Lord is correct. We are talking about someone who has never appeared before the court and has not responded in any way to the various methods—through which I am afraid I have gone at some length—to try to contact them. There may be bad reasons for their not having got in touch with the court; there may be valid reasons. Our answer to the proposal that the provision be put in law, which the amendment would do, is that the guidance to which I referred states that the bailiff or ““the contractor””—the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, described him as a very large person; I do not think that that is a requirement for the job— "““shall not take any action to levy distress without prior reference to the court if the defaulter””—"
it then lists a whole series of possibilities, including being in hospital or a nursing home, or being heavily pregnant; there are others. They are the terms and conditions and specifications in the existing contracts. They should not be broken and the contractor must take some notice of the person who answers the door. If the person falls into one of the listed categories, the contractor is obliged to go back to the court. That is better than putting it in legislation, which is not necessary because it happens now.
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Bach
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 3 March 2008.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
699 c892 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 23:38:15 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_450924
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_450924
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_450924