Select Committee on Trade and Industry Annxes to the Report

Follow-up Questions


It would be helpful to know how, when and to whom, information on significant changes between the draft clauses as circulated and the bill as presented were made available

  The significant changes between the draft clauses considered by the Committee and the Bill as introduced into the House of Lords were highlighted in the Parliamentary Under-Secretary's letter of 3 February 2000 to the Committee Chairman enclosing the memorandum in response to the Committee's Report. The Bill and the associated Explanatory Notes were ordered to be printed on the same day and so were publicly available from that time.


A list of changes introduced to the draft clauses "to limit the extent of the sanctions to which the nominee may be exposed" would be helpful

  The nominees will no longer commit a criminal offence under the Bill if he authorises or permits actions/transactions under what were paragraphs 14(2), 16(3), 17(4), 18(4) and 21(2) (in the Bill as brought from the House of Lords paragraphs 16(2), 17(3)(b), 18(3)(b), 19(3)(b) and 22(2)) of Schedule A1 as considered by the Committee. Additionally, as what was paragraph 27 of Schedule A1 has not been retained in the Bill, the associated offence will no longer apply.


The Committee has asked how it has been made clear that the provisions on insolvent estates of deceased persons will have no retrospective effect

  Firstly, the Committee may wish to note that the Government will be bringing forward amendments to deal with potential difficulties associated with clause 11 of the Bill. However, as regards the specific question of retrospective effect, the Committee will wish to note that in Grand Committee in the House of Lords Lord McIntosh said on behalf of the Government that "we also propose that the new provision will only apply in those cases where the petition for an insolvency administration order is presented after the new provision has come into force".


Clarification of the response would be helpful, particularly in view of the addition of Clause 10 of the Bill as presented in the Lords

  We remain of the view that to do as the Committee suggested would go beyond the limited purposes of the proposed amendment. What is still Clause 10 in the Bill addresses a different issue from that addressed by the Committee. Section 219 of the Insolvency Act 1986 is clearly not compatible with the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Saunders-v-the UK. Unfortunately that section was not identified for inclusion amongst a number of other changes to insolvency legislation which were made in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. Clause 10 will remedy that oversight.

previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2001
Prepared 18 January 2001