| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
'and notify the registrar of companies, the company and any petitioning creditor of the company of the actual fees charged, the basis of the charges, the outcome of the moratorium and whether during the term of the moratorium he has been the subject of any adverse court judgment or disciplinary findings by any of the Recognised Supervisory Bodies.'.
No. 33, in page 20, line 20, at end insert--
'(5) The nominee shall have the power to apply to the court for directions to enable him to perform his duties under this paragraph.'.
No. 47, in page 21, line 45, at end insert--
'(c) on an application by any creditor, any member of the company or any other person affected by the moratorium.'.
No. 3, in schedule 2, page 35, line 47, at end insert--
'(ba) After subsection (4), there is inserted--
"(4A) The supervisor shall owe a duty of care to the employees of the company and consult regularly with their representatives.".'.
Mr. Mitchell: The purpose of the new clause and associated amendments is to swing the balance in favour of workers and trade unions. The new clause would involve them more in the process of a company's 28-day moratorium, and outline their role in that process.
So far the debate has been like a class reunion of Standing Committee B. It is a shame that more Labour Members are not present, as by amending in little ways little measures such as this Bill we can swing the balance in
favour of the workers, the less well-off and the people who form the section of society that we represent. The vested interests always have people such as the Conservative Members present this afternoon who will speak for them and push their views and interests. It is important that we Labour Members use our influence to push the balance the other way when the opportunity arises.It is as important for us to do that as it is for the Government to introduce major legislation. The Government tackle the big picture, and we Back Benchers tackle the small picture. That is what I want to try and do with these amendments. New clause 3 would impose on the nominee duties at present incumbent on the directors, to ensure that he attends to the same interest.
The Bill is right and worth pursuing. It is a minor measure, but it will be useful and will help to save companies. If we can get this measure in the interstices of the Government's legislative programme--as we can now, because the House is effectively ticking over, waiting for more messages to come from the Lords so we can get our teeth into the bigger issues--we should do so, and that is what we are doing. The Conservative party's critique that this is an unnecessary measure has no standing. However, if it is necessary, it is necessary to use it for the purposes of the people.
4 pm
The measure gives a new role to a vested interest--it creates a new role for insolvency practitioners. They have already been consulted on it extensively and they say that they want to be consulted more and to exert more influence on the processes and regulations when they are introduced. This is a Labour Government, however--it is not a Conservative Government, pandering to the vested interests. So when we have the legislative opportunity, we should use our role as a Labour Government to tilt the balance in the right direction. After all, for 18 years, it has been substantially tilted the other way. It is time to swing the balance back a little.
New clause 3 would impose responsibilities that are in the Companies Act 1985. Indeed, I was surprised to find them there. They were introduced to the Companies Act 1967. The surprising thing is that after the long years of Conservative Government, in which numerous Companies Acts were passed, almost year after year, as the previous Government changed their mind on these issues, these provisions were never removed. This is an important and potentially influential measure. The 1985 Act says:
- The matters to which the directors of a company are to have regard in the performance of their functions include the interests of the company's employees in general . . .
A company is a team--it depends on its employees. It is a collective effort. We have to take a collective, communal view of a company. It does not consist simply of the directors and those in charge--everyone has an interest. The interests of the workers clearly lie in the company's survival. However, those interests get neglected in the vulture culture of insolvency and administration.
The whole process is a grab for money--the banks are the most powerful grabbers and play the most powerful role. They make so many loans, mortgages and floating charges, they have the necessary personnel and experience, so they will be the dominant influence. The workers are in a very weak position. They have a role as creditors; my hon. Friend the Minister will doubtless emphasise that as he did in Committee, because the workers may be owed wages.
I want to give the workers a role beyond that, as an integral part of the company, with an interest in its survival. They are stakeholders. I know that we do not talk so much about stakeholders now. Having discovered stakeholderism in the mid-1990s, we moved rapidly on to the third way. I am not sure what happened to the third way, but it has gone the way of all bright ideas. However, I think that the stakeholder philosophy is correct. Employees are stakeholders in the company; they have an interest in the company, and that should be taken into account.
The new clause is a comparatively diluted expression of that view, which amendment No. 3 develops more fully. It was well supported in Committee by both Labour and Liberal Democrat Members. I am not gifted with the killer instinct--something I have in common with the Prime Minister. I am too nice a guy and tend to think that one simply has to put the argument and the truth will prevail, a failing that spreads right across to Downing street. But had I the killer instinct, the Minister could have been beaten on this issue. I did not want to do that. The Minister undertook to look at the issue and see what he could do to incline the balance my way. I am sure that he has done that, and I am grateful to him.
I see from the posters going up around the country that it is now party policy to say "Thank you, thank you, thank you." As one of my constituents said, "What the hell for?" So I thank the Minister, but I was disappointed by the reply that he sent me when he exercised that function. He more or less advised me to go away in a fashion advised by French Connection UK. He said that it could not be done in the way that I wanted. I know what is happening here. The vested interests say, "We can't do that". The officials say, "Play it safe, Minister, there's no point in extending the role of the Bill. It will be a nuisance, it's another imponderable, it's not within the scope of the Bill which is simply concerned with matters of company administration and insolvency, so let us keep the focus on the main issue. Don't buy into emotive concepts like the workers or the stakeholders. Best say no--that's the easiest course."
I hope that, now I have approached the issue in a moderate form by proposing new clause 3, the Minister might look again at what he said in his letter. The nominee
is effectively making a life or death decision on the company and should have the same responsibilities as directors.
Mr. Butterfill: I have the disadvantage of not having served on the Standing Committee although, together with my hon. Friends on the Select Committee, I considered a number of these issues. The effect of the amendment is not entirely clear, and perhaps when the Minister replies it will become a little clearer. At present, the directors and, indeed, the officers of the company have personal liability under certain circumstances for malfeasance and can be sued individually. Is the hon. Gentleman intending to pass on to the nominee a similar liability vis-a-vis his duties in the particular connection that he proposes? If so, does he think that it will be easy to find a nominee under those circumstances?
Mr. Mitchell: It is good to hear the voice of the vested interests again expressed here, even if it did not get on to the Committee. The answer is that the directors have that responsibility, but they are also responsible for having regard to the interests of the company's employees in general. They have both responsibilities. They continue to be in charge of the company during this period. I want the nominee to be impressed with the same responsibility. It is fairly simple. It does not detract from the directors--they have the responsibility too. The new clause would spread the responsibility to the nominee.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |