ADMINISTRATION ORDERS (Hansard, 29 November 2000)

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. In speaking to this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 13, 22, 23 and 24.
These amendments deal mainly with a landlord's ability to forfeit a lease by way of peaceable re-entry, a matter which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, in Committee. At that time I was able to inform them only that we were in the process of consulting on the matter.
The purpose of these amendments is to provide that a landlord's right to effect peaceable re-entry and so terminate the tenancy in respect of premises rented by an insolvent is generally stayed while a company or an individual is the subject of a moratorium in the company and individual voluntary arrangement and administration procedures. Our recent consultation, started while the Bill was passing through this House, showed that there was a general agreement that that right should not be available to a landlord during statutory moratoria. Additionally, Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 make the individual voluntary arrangement moratorium effective against all forms of 1344 distress and provide that the court may stay the levying of distress while an application for a moratorium in that procedure is pending.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

§ Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 1 which, with Amendments Nos. 13, 22 and 23, have become part of the Bill as a result of what I said at Second Reading. I said then that consideration had to be given to whether it was appropriate that a landlord should be able to forfeit a lease under which the company was a tenant during a moratorium. I pointed out that we could see no policy reason why a landlord should be in the privileged position of being able to re-enter premises let to a tenant during a moratorium, but all other creditors were restricted from exercising their rights. Even a landlord would be restricted from taking proceedings for possession but, curiously, would not be prevented from peaceably re-entering the premises. I also pointed out that if landlords were not restricted from exercising their right to re-enter premises the whole point of the moratorium and a proposal for a voluntary arrangement would be defeated.
At Second Reading the Minister said that it was too complex a point for the Government to deal with in the context of the Bill. In Grand Committee the noble Lord changed his mind and said that it was an important matter. The Minister informed your Lordships' House that the Government had put in hand a consultation process, and we expected government amendments to be tabled in due course. We on this side of the House waited with bated breath for the amendments so that we could consider them properly and consult those whom the amendments would affect most. We waited and waited. I passed a couple of happy afternoons with the Minister in this Chamber on Report and at Third Reading. The surroundings were pleasant, as was the company of the Minister and others, but there was no sign of the amendments. The Bill went to another place. Towards the end of October the amendments finally appeared. In essence, it took six months for the Government to produce relatively straightforward amendments, and it is they who complain about delays in this House.
The lateness of the amendments means that we cannot give them the consideration that they obviously merit. The amendments could be improved in one particular respect because, as presently drafted, they would prevent a landlord from peaceably re-entering the premises even if they were unoccupied. We believe that that is an unreasonable restriction. However, we on this side of the House are anxious that the Bill should be enacted as soon as possible, and in a spirit of compromise we have not tabled any amendments to these particular Commons amendments.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, I do not begrudge the noble Baroness her gloat. I said in introducing the amendments that they had been tabled because the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, 1345 Lord Razzall, had raised the issue in the first place. I said, wrongly, that the matter had first been raised in Committee. The noble Baroness is quite right to remind noble Lords that she raised the matter at Second Reading. The noble Baroness is also right to say that the consultation took a certain amount of time. However, the amendments have been considered both in Committee and at Report stage in another place and have received parliamentary scrutiny.
I am glad that the noble Baroness has only one remaining concern about the amendments. That concern is related to the case where a property which is leased is no longer needed for a rescue. If it is not needed for a rescue or occupied—they are related cases—surely it is in the interests of the tenant to see that the lease is surrendered because that will improve his financial position. Therefore, the boot is somewhat on the other foot. He may seek to surrender the lease to the landlord, but if he does not he is unlikely to defend any application by a landlord to forfeit the lease of premises that he no longer requires. In any case, peaceable entry is not a right that is used very often and applies almost exclusively to business premises. Without going back over all the arguments, the period of a moratorium is only short. In any case, there is the fallback that an application can be made to the court for leave to re-enter any premises whether or not they are necessary for the rescue; for example, if rent is unpaid.
I accept the thrust of what the noble Baroness says about the way in which the issue has been dealt with, but we have come out right in the end.
On Question, Motion agreed to.