Clause 101
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [Lords]
2:00 pm
Vera Baird (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Redcar, Labour)
I compliment the hon. Gentleman on his analysis. Our view is that there is no need to insert the phrase
“subject to the discretion of the court”
because the power is entirely permissive. The word “may” is sufficient to allow the court to exercise all its discretion in making the decision. I assure him, if that is his concern, that administration orders will be made on a case by case basis, and on no other, wholly with regard to individual circumstances.
Amendment No. 167 would indeed exclude the new section 112E(10), which would allow the court to decide, taking account of individual circumstances, whether it would be appropriate for the debtor to make a lump sum or other kind of payment in addition to normal instalments. Apart from the perhaps semantic point—I do not mean that as a criticism—about what is an instalment and what is a lump sum, I have not, I am afraid, fully understood what in the subsection is worrying the hon. Gentleman, so if I do not deal with the root of his worries I know that you, Mr. Bercow, will allow him to return to the matter.
The provision is there because in addition to a normal instalment order, a debtor might somehow get some more money—from a bonus or a windfall, for example, or by disposing of assets—and it may become appropriate for the court to make an additional order. Instalment is intended to mean a constant series of similar instalments, although they can be variable. That is all that the clause is about; there is nothing sinisterin it.
I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman, but he can come back to me if he still has concerns that I have not dealt with.