Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Michael Fallon (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 27 June 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [Lords].


Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [Lords]

These are important amendments. The House is indebted to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mark Fisher) for drawing our attention to clause 129, which I support. The risk of judicial seizure is a significant one, and exhibition planning becomes increasingly impossible if international lenders will not lend to countries that do not have immunity as regards seizure legislation. There is a balance to be struck between the rights of potential claimants and the much wider public interest in ensuring that such international exchanges take place. Amendments Nos. 83 and 85 are fairly innocuous; I certainly support the concept of due diligence. I have slight reservations about amendment No. 84, which goes very wide and is almost an invitation to any person to litigate. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman might reflect on its drafting. The same applies to amendment No. 86, which would make the guidelines mandatory not only for every exhibition but for every conceivable object in the exhibition. Guidelines should probably be no more than guidelines. However, the whole House should support the spirit behind the amendments and the letter of the clause.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
462 c423 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Administration of justice Debts Artworks Debt collection Courts martial Fees and charges Enforcement Legal aid scheme Judiciary Judges Law Commission Pay Public appointments Park homes Tribunals Regulation Retirement Uniforms
Legislation
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill (HL) 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk