| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Howells: I shall try to convince the hon. Gentleman that we have addressed it and that we are concerned.
As the hon. Gentleman says, some nominees might be more rescue-oriented than others for many reasons, good as well as bad. We know that there is a flip side to
the coin. There are some professionals who are notoriously not interested in rescues, whereas there are others who generally are. It could work both ways. Any prospective nominee should be up to the standard expected of him. There is no question about that. That goes to the point made by the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page). I believe that they will be up to the proper standard because they will be authorised and regulated by a body recognised by the Secretary of State for that purpose. However, if needed, in the unlikely event of a director being able to pull the wool over a nominee's eyes, various remedies are available in schedule A1 to address the abuse. Not the least of those is the offence contained in paragraph 40, which provides for the punishment of those who make false representations and the like to obtain a moratorium.Those of us who have previously been involved with the Bill are accustomed to hearing my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby talk about the importance of public accountability of insolvency practitioners, and he is right to highlight that. However, in amendment No. 46, he is again talking about fees. I am glad that he wants to discuss fees, which are an important subject and one that is obviously dear to his heart--but the fact is that the Bill is not about the regulation of practitioners' fees.
At issue is the requirement on the nominee to give notice of the end of a moratorium. That requirement can arise for two reasons, among others: first, because the moratorium has come to an end without a voluntary arrangement being agreed; and, secondly, when an arrangement has taken effect following the meetings of a company and its creditors. In the first instance, the question of payment of the nominee's fees will be a matter for the company and its directors, not anyone else, to deal with. In the second instance, the nominee's fees will be a matter for the meetings to consider when voting on whether or not to accept the voluntary arrangement. What the nominee is to be paid is a matter that must be included in a voluntary arrangement, under rule 1.3 of the existing company voluntary arrangement procedure, and we intend that a similar provision should apply to the new moratorium procedure.
My hon. Friend should also take comfort from paragraph 32 of the new schedule, which sets out that, if a meeting proposes to extend the moratorium, the nominee has to inform the meeting of the costs of his monitoring activity up to that point and what he intends to do in that respect during the proposed extension. Therefore, anticipated costs will have to be approved if the moratorium is not to end. In those circumstances, I consider it to be neither necessary nor appropriate for the nominee to have to give the notice set out in amendment No. 46 regarding his fees.
My hon. Friend also desires the nominee to have to notify various individuals of
- any adverse court judgment or disciplinary findings by any of the Recognised Supervisory Bodies.
The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire spoke to amendment No. 33, which is identical to one that he tabled in Committee. For the benefit of those who have
not had a chance to read Hansard, I repeat that we do not consider it necessary to provide the nominee with the power to apply to the court for directions. The nature of the nominee's role is such that he should not be in a position in which such an application would be appropriate. Commercial and administrative decisions are for the nominee, not for the court. We do not consider that the court should be used to provide the nominee with a way in which to avoid taking decisions that are, rightly, for him, or to enable him to obtain the court's endorsement of his intended course of action.I look to Mr. Justice Neuberger for neither direction nor support, but the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire is correct to say that I take a great deal of comfort from Mr. Justice Neuberger's ruling in the case of T and D Industries plc and another, relating to a company that was the subject of an administration order.
Having made those points, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby will withdraw his amendment and that the others will not be pressed.
Mr. Mitchell: I should make a couple of points before coming to my agonising decision about whether to keep the House on tenterhooks by pressing the matter to a Division.
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White), may I say that I was not neglecting the big things that the Labour Government are doing: they are important and the Government are successful. What I said was that, as Back-Benchers, we have a little influence on legislation affecting the way in which companies are run, insolvencies administered and companies rescued, and we should use that opportunity to tilt the balance towards our section of society and the workers. We have only a little influence but we can do much to improve society through little changes to legislation. That seems to me to be the responsibility of the Back Bencher. We do not get much responsibility, for heaven's sake; we should use what we have.
I did not want to take the question from the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) because I did not want to go down that legalistic path. If the hon. Gentleman understood me to say that he represented vested interests or, worse still, that he was one of the vultures I was criticising, I correct that impression and apologise. I was not saying that.
The hon. Gentleman was asserting the primacy of company directors by pointing out their legal responsibilities--to the detriment of the workers, I thought. My sole point was about the need to swing the balance towards the workers.
Mr. Mitchell: No, I will not give way.
I make no correction on the vulture culture. In too many cases the interests of the banks is predominant, and in the scrabble over the money, the banks have enormous power. I know that there are tear-jerking pictures of people all over the country who are owed small sums by fraudulent companies, but that is not what we are discussing.
Through the Bill, we are trying to instil the rescue culture, to keep companies going. The power of the vultures to close companies down and to call in debt,
in the unpredictable, lurching way in which banks do that, needs to be checked. All that I am trying to do is to tilt the balance towards the workers. After all, we are the Labour party still, I think. We are a party of stakeholders, and voice the interests of stakeholders. We work in a European context, and workers' rights are properly advanced by all the proposals coming out of Europe--something that I strongly support. We have an opportunity, so why are we not doing what we can and should do?The trade unionists to whom I have spoken and with whom I formulated the amendments think that we will do so, but I am disappointed to find that my hon. Friend the Minister does not consider that necessary. I do not accept the argument that workers can apply to the courts. That is not part of their repertoire or expertise, and it should not be necessary if we write their primacy into legislation. I am not asking for the interests of the employees alone to be taken into consideration. I am asking for them to be taken into consideration, but not as the predominant influence.
Dr. Howells: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I am sure that he did not mean that it is not for workers or trade unions to take these matters to court. Many of the great advances that have been made by trade unions and workers have been made in court, as a result of brilliant advocacy. Even I am old enough to remember some of it, and I have witnessed it first-hand. I am sure that my hon. Friend does not mean what he just said.
Mr. Mitchell: I wish that I could speak Welsh, rather than the simple verities of Yorkshire--pure language of the people of the north. I was not saying that at all. I said that applying to the courts was not part of workers' expertise. Certainly, they need backing and support from the trade unions, and the trade unions provide it. We can encourage them to provide more of it. If the rights of workers have been trampled on, it is the responsibility of the trade unions to help them to go to court, but in some cases workers are not members of trade unions. The courts are an uncertain way of making progress, and we could make progress in the matter by simply writing into the Bill the requirement of a duty of care to the workers. That is all I ask.
I do not see why my hon. Friend is so adamant. I know that he has received advice to the effect that that would be a nuisance, would complicate matters and might lead to unforeseen consequences. I believe that it would set the tone for the entire procedure. My hon. Friend has turned down the idea and I am disappointed by his reply. It seems to me that as he is the Minister of social and corporate responsibility and as such issues are raised in that context, appropriate provisions should be included in the Bill.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |