Deregulation Bill

Lord Sharkey Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Rooker]

My Lords, having listened to the Minister, I should like to raise a couple of minor issues. Before Report, it would be extremely helpful for the House to have a list of insolvency practitioners who support this proposal. Paragraph 214 of the Joint Committee on the Draft Deregulation Bill’s report states that it was told,

“that there was ‘broad support’ for the clause from a range of stakeholders, including some practitioners themselves”.

We did not receive evidence to reflect that view. In a way, part of our problem was that we had only one side of the story. I am not out to cause trouble by saying that it is clear that this clause started life under the previous Labour Government. No one ever says that, but it is true. In March 2010, before the general election, the Insolvency Service sent a consultation letter to all key stakeholders inviting views on the specialist authorisation proposals. Indeed, there was a consultation meeting in April 2010. We did not explore this in the committee and it is a big issue. We had information from the Law Society and I think that we had information from Scotland as well, but the fact is that we did not delve too deeply into where this came from. The minute I see red tape challenged these days I dismiss it because I think it is a farce. However, given that this started life under the previous Labour Government, it might have had some merit. While the papers are not available to the present Administration, it would be useful to ask the then Ministers—I do not know who they were—why they started on this journey before 2010. There must have been a reason to trigger this thing so long ago. It has not just turned up in the Bill after trawling around Whitehall; it started life before the general election. We failed to ask why in the Joint Committee but I am asking that question now.

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

My Lords, to take up some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, the Joint Committee noted that there appeared to be some confusion about the extent of consultation on this clause. We recommended that there be further consultation on what was then Clause 9. In their response to the Joint Committee’s report in January this year, the Government took the opportunity to repeat the arguments in favour of the clause in some detail. They also stated in paragraph 116 that,

“following the Committee’s recommendation, the Government is inviting any further views on this Clause during the passage of the Bill”.

How did the Government go about soliciting these further views? Who did they invite to give those views and what was the general burden of any of those responses that were made after the Government’s response?

As things stood when the Joint Committee reported, we did not feel that there had been sufficient consultation, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was saying, to enable us to express a firm view on the merits of the clause. I note what the Government have said, but I also note the case put forward by R3. In particular, I note R3’s view that partial licences are not being introduced to fix a problem. It claims that there is insufficient evidence of undercapacity in the market and no evidence that the current regime causes concerns about the quality of the advice given. Essentially, it asserts that the system is not broken and asks why the Government are trying to fix it.

The Government, in their turn, advance two reasons for reform. The first is that the partial licences will benefit insolvency practices of all sizes and the personal insolvency market as a whole. R3 has advanced survey data that it says refutes these claims. Secondly, the Government say that partial licences will increase competition, decrease training costs, lower fees and deregulate access to the IP profession. R3 maintains that there is no evidence of the need for more IPs; in fact, it claims that the market is oversupplied. It also challenges the Government’s other assertions.

All this illustrates the position that the Joint Committee found itself in during December. There are competing claims, somewhat unevidenced, and a narrow consultation base, while the Government have not provided an impact assessment on this clause. It would be easier to make a judgment on the merits of the clause if we knew more and had more evidence. There is a strong case for the Government to agree to further substantive consultation on this issue before we reach a conclusion.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I say first to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that I did not mention that the provision had started life under the previous Labour Government because I did not know that until he informed me of it. Of course, not everything that the previous Labour Government did was wrong, as I recall from going through the Lobbies at times in your Lordships’ House. I will take the point that the noble Lord makes and find out just who was behind that, if I might make that inquiry.

There were some specific questions asked and I will certainly respond in writing to those who have contributed to this debate. However, it is also important to make the point that existing insolvency practitioners are, by the very nature of their business and profession at the moment, people who are qualified in corporate and personal insolvency. I understand that my noble friend Lord De Mauley has in the past been an insolvency practitioner and he has indicated that these are two different specialisations. Clearly, however, the practitioners are duly qualified and may well question why everyone coming behind them should not go through the same route that they followed.

It may well be, as we believe, that aspiring insolvency practitioners have shown a desire for some partial authorisation. A survey of members of the Insolvency Practitioners Association showed that non-IP members were in favour of this. It would be wrong to go so far as to say that there is an element of protectionism here. However, one of my arguments is that we are looking at people who want to come into the profession—by their nature they are not already there, giving their views—and there are many benefits to allowing that specialisation.

Since I stood up, I have received a further response to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I understand that this clause is a development of a policy started under the previous Government. An earlier version of it was proposed for inclusion in a legislative reform order, although the measure was withdrawn and, in the event, the order did not proceed. I will not to try to decipher this note further in case I get it wrong—I will write to the noble Lord.

With regard to the question from my noble friend Lord Sharkey, on 23 January the Government, on the recommendation of the Joint Committee, launched further consultation on whether any changes were required to what is now Clause 18. Responses were considered and included representations from insolvency practitioners, creditor representatives and others. I am not sure whether the responses have been published or whether there is any intention to do so, but perhaps I could write further to my noble friend and give him a flavour of the responses before Report.

My point is that we are dealing with people who are looking to the future and may aspire to a career as an insolvency practitioner but who do not particularly want to take on the whole gamut of it, preferring to specialise in one form or the other.