Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Kingsland (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 31 January 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Bill [HL].


Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 83: 83: Clause 86 , page 54, line 30, leave out ““provide that a charge may”” and insert ““recommend that a charge should”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, this group of amendments would leave the decision whether to make a charging order to judicial discretion in a limited number of cases. We want to emphasise that the amendments would not prevent the Lord Chancellor making regulations that would set guidelines—guidelines which a district judge would have to have very good reason not to follow. Regulations under the Bill, as I understand it, would impose a floor below which charging orders could not be made. The circumstances that our amendments envisage do not concern the small amounts of money that are the targets of the regulations. We have in mind, for example, a utilities board with many debts from an individual, all of which are below the threshold. A water authority, for example, might have multiple debts owed to it, each amounting to only £500 or £600. In this case, it would not be able to obtain a charging order. The amendments do not undermine the broad intention of the Government, which we entirely endorse. I beg to move.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
689 c291 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Complaints Consumers Disadvantaged Courts Administration of justice Cultural heritage Credit Debt collection Enforcement Legal aid scheme Judiciary Isle of Man Private sector Powers of entry Northern Ireland Public appointments Museums and galleries Ombudsman Standards Tribunals Training Security Regulation Security Industry Authority
Legislation
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill (HL) 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk