AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. (Hansard, 23 October 1985)

Lord Bruce of Donington
My Lords, to echo a phrase that the noble Lord has used many times this is a technical amendment. It may in the event be unnecessary, and I put it with some diffidence. I have already discussed it with the noble Lord. Subsection (3) of the new clause in the proposed Amendment No. 43 says: Except with the concurrence of the secured creditor concerned, a meeting summoned under section (Summoning of meetings) above shall not approve any proposal or modification which affects the right of a secured creditor of the company to enforce his security". The amendment seeks to add to that: and no secured creditor shall be required to value his security before voting at and taking part in meetings to which he is summoned under this section". If this amendment was not put in, what would happen in a common case where it is unknown whether a security will pay a creditor or not? In a certain sense he may be part secured and part unsecured. It is in an endeavour to solve that little problem that this amendment has been put down.
The noble Lord may say that it is covered in the rules. If I have the assurance of the noble Lord that that will be covered in the rules—although I do not like 1144 rules on principles because they are put in statutory orders which one cannot then amend except by rejecting the whole order—then I shall accept that. I beg to move, and perhaps the noble Lord can reply.

§ Lord Lucas of Chilworth
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord opposite. I understand that he is concerned to protect the rights of a secured creditor in all the circumstances. I should then say that subsection (3) of the clause introduced by Commons Amendment No. 43 fully protects him against any attempt to tamper with his rights over his security.
With regard to the debt itself it is our intenten to provide the secured creditor with a weighted right to vote dependent upon the nature of the proposal for an arrangement. Where an arrangement would seek to defer or otherwise alter his right to repayment he will be able to vote for his full debt. This in turn would enable him to challenge the proposal before the court if he still felt that he was unfairly prejudiced by the proposal.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, of course anticipated that at the end of the day I was going to say that in this chapter—as indeed throughout the Bill—voting rights are to be determined in the rules. I give him the assurance that he seeks: that they will be so held in the rules.

Lord Bruce of Donington
My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord. I ask leave of the House to withdraw the amendment.