Insolvency Bill [Lords] — Insolvent estates of deceased persons — 16 Nov 2000

Dominic Grieve MP, Beaconsfield did not vote.

I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 6, line 7, at end insert "and occupied by".

Madam Deputy Speaker:

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 27, in page 6, line 14, at end insert "and occupied by".

proposal to reverse the Razzaq vs Pala court decision so that a landlord may not exercise the right of peaceable re-entry of a property while a voluntary moratorium agreement is in place without the permission of a court.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 7, line 32, at end insert--

'who has died after the commencement of this section'.

There is a genuine policy question as to whether the interests of a deceased debtor in property held jointly should be treated as forming part of his estate for the purpose of its administration in bankruptcy. This deserves to be addressed explicitly rather than by merely referring back to . . . the 1986 Act; it remains for Ministers to make a positive case

It would be useful if the explanatory notes could confirm that no retrospective effect is intended . . .

Hon. Members will appreciate that we must strike a balance between the interests of creditors who have not been paid by a deceased insolvent and a survivor who has become sole owner of what he or she formerly owned jointly with a deceased insolvent.--[ Official Report, Standing Committee B , Tuesday 7 November; c. 130.]

the court must have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the interests of the deceased's creditors and of the survivor.

but, unless the circumstances are exceptional--

the court must assume that the interests of the deceased's creditors outweigh all other considerations.

the need to be satisfied there is no retrospective aspect involved.--[ Official Report, House of Lords , 4 April 2000; Vol. 611, c. 1272.]

It will be made clear that provisions will not have retrospective effect.

the commencement of this section.

Question put , That the amendment be made:--

The House divided: Ayes 34, Noes 210.

Historical Hansard | Online Hansard |

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Con0 22 (+1 tell)014.4%
Independent1 0033.3%
Lab208 (+2 tell) 0050.8%
LDem0 11 (+1 tell)025.5%
PC1 0025.0%
UUP0 1011.1%
Total:210 34039.0%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
no rebellions

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

There are lots of plans afoot, including extensive redevelopment of the site and plans for new functionality. To keep up with what's happening, please check out the blog. We're working on updating all the contact details throughout the site, but if you'd like to talk to us about the project, please email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Advertisement - Helping keeping PublicWhip alive