---

Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 126A:

Page 76, line 23, leave out from first "the" to end of line 24 and insert "relevant amount (as defined in that section)"

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 126B:

Page 76, line 31, leave out from first "the" to end of line 32 and insert "relevant amount (as defined in that section)"

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 122, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 123 [Restraint orders etc]:

Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 127:

Page 77, line 15, at end insert—

"( ) to specified parts of the realisable property held by the specified person"

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 127, which I can do telegraphically. In considering what property would be affected by a restraint order, in our view due regard must be given to the principle of proportionality. In that respect, consideration should be given as to whether it is necessary to restrain all realisable property or only specified parts. This

13 May 2002 : Column 42

amendment seeks to ensure that any action taken is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: In response to the noble Lord's final point, I have every reason to believe that this provision is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The certificate on the front of the Bill is not in any way qualified and thus makes a fairly bold statement. I received good advice that I could sign the paper which declared the Bill compatible and I am satisfied that that advice was sound.

The noble Lord has raised an important point. However, Clause 123(2)(a) provides that a restraint order can apply to all realisable property held by a specified person. This amendment seeks to provide that a restraint order need only apply to specified parts of the realisable property. We believe the amendment to be unnecessary. Clause 123(1) already makes it clear that not all the realisable property need be restrained. In other words, the court in exercising its discretion already has the power to order restraint against only specified parts of the realisable property. Given that, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Kingsland: So far as concerns opinions about compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights, there are those that are certified and there are those that are certifiable. I cannot accept the view expressed by the noble Lord in the context of this amendment. I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.

5.4 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 127) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 68; Not-Contents, 143.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS
Anelay of St Johns, B.
Astor of Hever, L.
Biffen, L.
Blackwell, L.
Boardman, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.
Burnham, L.
Buscombe, B.
Byford, B.
Caithness, E.
Carnegy of Lour, B.
Chadlington, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]
Craig of Radley, L.
Craigavon, V.
Crickhowell, L.
Dean of Harptree, L.
Denham, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.
Elles, B.
Elton, L.
Flather, B.
Freeman, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B.
Geddes, L.
Glentoran, L.
Goschen, V.
Gray of Contin, L.
Hanham, B.
Hayhoe, L.
Henley, L.
Higgins, L.
Howe, E.
Howe of Aberavon, L.
Howell of Guildford, L.
Hunt of Wirral, L.
Kimball, L.
Kingsland, L.
Kirkham, L.
Lucas, L.
McColl of Dulwich, L.
Marlesford, L.
Marsh, L.
Monson, L.
Montrose, D.
Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Naseby, L.
Northesk, E.
O'Cathain, B.
Onslow, E.
Park of Monmouth, B.
Pilkington of Oxenford, L.
Prior, L.
Rawlings, B.
Saatchi, L.
Seccombe, B. [Teller]
Selborne, E.
Sheppard of Didgemere, L.
Stewartby, L.
Strathclyde, L.
Swinfen, L.
Thatcher, B.
Trumpington, B.
Vinson, L.
Vivian, L.
Wade of Chorlton, L.
Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS
Acton, L.
Addington, L.
Ahmed, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V.
Alli, L.
Andrews, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Ashton of Upholland, B.
Bach, L.
Barker, B.
Barnett, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.
Berkeley, L.
Billingham, B.
Blackstone, B.
Boothroyd, B.
Borrie, L.
Boston of Faversham, L.
Brennan, L.
Brett, L.
Brookman, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.
Burlison, L.
Carlile of Berriew, L.
Carter, L. [Teller]
Chester, Bp.
Christopher, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L.
Clement-Jones, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Cohen of Pimlico, B.
Currie of Marylebone, L.
Dahrendorf, L.
David, B.
Davies of Coity, L.
Davies of Oldham, L.
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.
Desai, L.
Dholakia, L.
Dixon, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.
Dubs, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Filkin, L.
Gale, B.
Gavron, L.
Gilbert, L.
Gladwin of Clee, L.
Goldsmith, L.
Goodhart, L.
Gordon of Strathblane, L.
Goudie, B.
Gould of Potternewton, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L.
Gregson, L.
Grenfell, L.
Grocott, L.
Hardy of Wath, L.
Harrison, L.
Haskel, L.
Haskins, L.
Hayman, B.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Howells of St. Davids, B.
Howie of Troon, L.
Hoyle, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)
Janner of Braunstone, L.
Jay of Paddington, B.
Jenkins of Hillhead, L.
Jenkins of Putney, L.
Jones, L.
Jordan, L.
Judd, L.
Layard, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.
Lipsey, L.
Livsey of Talgarth, L.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]
McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
McNally, L.
Maddock, B.
Mar and Kellie, E.
Masham of Ilton, B.
Mason of Barnsley, L.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Merlyn-Rees, L.
Michie of Gallanach, B.
Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.
Milner of Leeds, L.
Mitchell, L.
Morris of Aberavon, L.
Morris of Manchester, L.
Newby, L.
Northfield, L.
Orme, L.
Paul, L.
Pendry, L.
Peston, L.
Pitkeathley, B.
Prys-Davies, L.
Puttnam, L.
Radice, L.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Razzall, L.
Rea, L.
Rendell of Babergh, B.
Rennard, L.
Richard, L.
Rooker, L.
Roper, L.
Russell, E.
Russell-Johnston, L.
St. John of Bletso, L.
Sandberg, L.
Sawyer, L.
Scotland of Asthal, B.
Scott of Needham Market, B.
Sharp of Guildford, B.
Sheldon, L.
Shutt of Greetland, L.
Simon, V.
Smith of Clifton, L.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Tenby, V.
Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Turner of Camden, B.
Walmsley, B.
Warner, L.
Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
Whitty, L.
Wilkins, B.
Williams of Elvel, L.
Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)
Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

13 May 2002 : Column 44

5.15 p.m.

[Amendments Nos. 128 to 130 not moved.]

Clause 123 agreed to.

Clauses 124 to 130 agreed to.

Clause 131 [Enforcement administrators]:

Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 131:

Page 82, line 6, at end insert "and in so doing, to appear before it"

The noble Baroness said: I shall be brief. This amendment is similar in principle to previous amendments. It would ensure that those persons likely to be affected by an enforcement order under Clause 131 would have an opportunity to appear before the court to make representations.

We have been in consultation with the Law Society of Scotland, which welcomes, as we do, the express provision in the Bill to enable third parties who are likely to be affected by orders of the court to make representations to the court. We feel that it should be clear from the Bill that such parties can appear before the court to make those representations. The aim of the amendment is to ensure that those who will be affected by the actions of an administrator under Clause 131 will have such a right. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: I can be equally brief, because the answer is virtually the same as on the previous amendment. The amendment would not add anything to the clause. Subsection (11) provides that before giving an enforcement administrator the power to manage or realise any realisable property, or before ordering a person to make payments to the administrator, the court must give persons who have an interest in the property an opportunity to make representations to it. The aim of the amendment is to give such persons a right to appear before the court.

However, in practice, any person who may be affected by an action of the court in that regard is entitled to appear before the court and make out their case. This is a well-established procedure in Scotland and is endorsed by the courts. The amendment would not afford third parties any greater rights than are already afforded to them under subsection (11). The question is the same, legitimately asked, and the answer is the same. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.

---