Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill

Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 9th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I draw attention to my financial interests, as in the register. Although we broadly support the Bill, it is a little frustrating. It does too much by permitting things in a fast-tracked temporary measures Bill, and too little because it has left out other important measures similarly well consulted on. The Minister may conclude that that balance is like Baby Bear’s porridge and just about right. Nevertheless, there are some lumps in the porridge. Expediency has meant that it is the business-favouring parts of the consultations that are being fast-tracked and the more social-facing, small business and employee-facing measures that are left out. I therefore ask the Minister for reassurance that the Bill is not seen as removing pressure from legislating other important reforms on corporate governance and reporting, ESG, insolvency practitioners, audit and replacement of the Financial Reporting Council. I certainly do not see it as a justification for holding off.

The moratorium provision was expected, but there may be traps in the way it works, especially in the event of a following insolvency. There are changes in the insolvency distribution waterfall, with unpaid moratorium debts, and pre-moratorium debts without a payment holiday, being given a new super-priority. Both the treatment of what becomes super-priority and what is “normal supply” disadvantage smaller suppliers. All their pre-moratorium debt is in the subordinated category and normal supply favours stronger creditors’ amounts of super-priority, as they will have contracted shorter payment terms. Will events be monitored, and rankings readjusted if the super-priority does result in outcomes with less in the pot for SMEs, unsecured creditors and pension fund deficits? Unfortunately, it also looks as though the slaying hand will be held by HMRC, with its new claims for extra super-priority, and by banks, as they are outside the ipso facto provisions. It may be that security is not exercised in moratorium, but where are the provisions that prevent banks charging special fees and hiking interest so they can profit in moratorium, or making repayment acceleration demands to secure larger sums with super-priority? Such actions will not help rescue companies, are unfair and should be restrained. That is not to say that the moratorium concept is unwelcome but, because we do not have the time now to weigh up all the checks and balances, it would be sensible to hold its operation under review, to see how it worked and for revisions in the light of unintended consequences to be brought forward.

The temporary suspension of winding-up petitions also has lumps. In a sense, it robs Peter to pay Paul and whether it is the potential petitioner or the company that is smaller, more at risk or more aggressive, is not always one way. I therefore recognise the compromise in trying to keep the period short. However, under Schedule 10, the courts could impose retrospective restoration costs on those required to withdraw petitions made under the current law. Unlimited, might that be a retrospective step too far?

I am conscious that fast-tracked emergency legislation is not appropriate for complex changes and additions, but a few simple things within the scope of the Bill could be achieved. My noble friends will say more.

I regret that there are not more provisions to assist with personal bankruptcy. Australia has raised both the payment time and the financial threshold for initiation of proceedings.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I remind the noble Baroness of the time limit.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted [V]]

What is happening in the UK? Additionally, I regret that the Bill does not include simple Companies House provisions on identity verification, enabling it to play a role in preventing rogue or criminal elements abusing the current crisis to commit fraud. Again, there has been consultation already, but how is that being followed up?

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist]

I ask the noble Baroness to bring her comments to a close.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted [V]]

I intend to revert to the various matters I have mentioned with amendments.

Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill

Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 16th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for his detailed amendment to Clause 12, and support it most strongly. I apologise to the Committee; I must be responsible for the fact that I am listed ahead of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, who will move his amendment, but I hope that my brief comments will nevertheless make sense. As it stands, Clause 12 interferes in an unacceptable way in the commercial activities between companies. By restricting the ability of suppliers of goods and services to terminate contracts with a company that has entered a relevant insolvency procedure, the clause puts the viability of supplier companies in jeopardy, particularly if they are small, as other noble Lords have mentioned, or if their client company represents a substantial percentage of their sales.

Along with the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, I am particularly concerned about the provision in Clause 12 to allow the Secretary of State to remove exclusions in Schedule 4ZZA using subordinate legislation. As the Bill stands, small companies are excluded from the restrictions on supplier companies, so they can, at the moment, terminate their contract to supply goods and services to a client company when it enters relevant insolvency procedures. This is surely absolutely essential if we are to encourage new entrants to the supply sector and if we are not to threaten the future of small companies. As I understand it, the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, would permanently protect small companies from the effects of Clause 12.

Another control over supplier companies is the restriction preventing them from requiring payment of outstanding charges as a condition of continued supply. Such a restriction surely also risks the financial viability of the supplier. I question the morality of a Government interfering in the marketplace to protect one company, apparently at the expense of others. Will the Minister explain how the Government justify the different treatment of companies involved in insolvency proceedings and their suppliers? Why do the Government appear unconcerned about the future of supplier companies? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, that a major problem with the Bill is that it combines understandable emergency measures to deal with the Covid crisis with permanent Henry VIII powers. This has been the matter of most concern to the Delegated Powers Committee, of which I am a member.

In conclusion, I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. If not, I hope that the noble Lord will bring it back on Report.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interests in the register as a company director. There are many good amendments in this group that I support, but I will limit my speech to the ones in my name, relating to creditor priorities and to review, and to a couple related to them. The background to Amendments 25 and 40 is the same as that already raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. The position of financial institutions is uniquely privileged in that they will inevitably continue to be involved but they are not bound by the same conditions of moratorium as others who must continue to supply. They are not bound to normal supply terms or the ipso facto clause, and are free to accelerate and increase their demands, achieving elevation to both the amount and priority of their lending.

As well as the issue of priority, enhanced charges and advancement extract funds from the company, which is counterproductive to the very rescue that is the purpose of the moratorium. The effect of both those possibilities would be to leave unsecured creditors and, notably, pension deficits in a worse position in a subsequent insolvency. Put together, the two effects make the price of the moratorium too high, and the financial institution behaviour pattern is compelled to happen.

I do not need to remind the Committee that the operation of banks is not geared towards benevolence. I wish they had that in their articles but they do not; they are geared towards maintaining their own capital and their own profit, which is encouraged by bonuses and regulation. There have been some appalling examples of banks squeezing SMEs, for example as elaborated in the FCA’s report on RBS’s Global Restructuring Group, which this House debated last June. It is clear from that FCA report that there is no desire to interfere in contractual terms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd [V]]

I put my name down to speak on these amendments because of the very wide terms in which they were drafted. From the perspective of legal certainty and the importance of the London financial markets, it seemed that the Government’s overall policy of excluding financial service contracts was completely the right one, and the suggestion of these amendments was to remove part or all of that protection. However, from what has been said in this debate, it is clear—at least, I hope it is clear—that what gives rise to the concern really relates to the position of pension funds. It seems to me that this is a much narrower subject and it turns on the question of the priorities that will need to be clearly spelt out in the event of an insolvency.

Earlier, I raised the rather difficult issues that relate to priorities. This debate seems to underline the importance of that. I hope the Minister will have the opportunity to clarify precisely the way in which the priorities as between financial service contracts and a pension fund are to be resolved in the event of an insolvency.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow many speakers with great experience in the pensions world. As the Minister said in speaking to the first group of amendments, the objective of moratoriums in this legislation is that they will succeed and that companies with a hope of surviving will do so. But that will not always be the case. Insolvencies or other arrangements may follow. The moratorium structure rewards those who continue to supply, with an enhanced priority in a subsequent insolvency. It rewards financial institutions in a particular way that is identified as giving priority to creditors, including those who would have just ranked alongside pensions as unsecured creditors but are promoted above them.

As has already been mentioned, the Minister said in responding to the first group of amendments that some change will be made to exclude accelerated debt from super-protection. That does not sound like even as much as was covered in the group 1 amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, which I signed, but it is a start. Nevertheless, I am still concerned that it elevates all financial debt above pensions, as explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake. If I heard the Minister correctly, he implied that without being given priority, in return for none of the things that bind other companies, banks would not play ball—I paraphrase what was actually said. The reason why the banks will play ball is to get benefits. That still means that they will make greater demands and ask for bigger fees. They will still accelerate payments even if they do not get priority, but that will still suck funds out, because banks do not have a payment holiday.

I am attracted somewhat to what the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, said on whether the PPF will survive. I note that having to stand behind pensions actually comes from European legislation. I believe the UK was taken to court on this subject. Do the Government still stand behind legislation protecting pension benefits, or is that a piece of EU legislation headed for the dustbin of broken promises?

Like other noble Lords, I think that the Government need to think further about the legislation’s effects on pensioners, the Pension Protection Fund, the Pensions Regulator, pension trustees, companies contributing to the PPF, which will face elevated contributions, and those self-same companies facing deficit repayment schedules that will need to be greater to compensate for the actions in this legislation, as well as the fact that many schemes are much further in deficit because of the current crisis situation that we are in.

Also, what does this blackmail change—I call it “blackmail” because that is what it sounded like when the Minister explained it—to the insolvency waterfall say about the stability of legal agreements and contracts in the UK, if securities that have been pledged to pension funds can be sold from under them through a retrospective law change made without any warning or notice? That is what this priority change is. “Moratorium” might have been trailed, but “moratorium” means delay, not a change of priorities and the inclusion of financial institutions in special arrangements for no consideration—for that is what it is: no consideration. It is more than simply consequential to the running of a moratorium.

Various amendments in the group aim to prevent harm to pensions, and my probing Amendment 118 suggests that the PPF should be consulted in any compromise arrangement. It could or probably should be made stronger and require consent, but then I do not really need to speak to it because the noble Baronesses, Lady Drake and Lady Altmann, have come up with extremely sound, detailed amendments. I support them and commend them to the Government.

I realise that the Minister indicated in his email last night that some movement in this direction will happen. He has also said that the Government will give creditor rights, which is the issue covered by Amendments 63 and 64 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, but the extent and effect of those rights is important. I therefore remain concerned. Changing the ranking of creditors also opens up questions about, “Why just that change?” There are arguments, with which I have a lot of sympathy, that say pension deficits should have a higher ranking in insolvency anyway, given their origin as deferred pay. We will come to other provisions on that in the next group.

I am now quite glad that we have not finished the pensions Bill because, if these new priorities are enacted, they will take a wrecking ball to the difficult consensus that was being reached on the speed of paying down deficits, and other provisions coming from the regulator regarding its powers and what it would do to make sure that deficits were paid down. We will certainly have to take into account these new circumstances in this Bill and seek follow-on protections if it proceeds largely in the format it is in at the moment.

In summary, this group has four sensible proposals, independently made from across the House, that have significant overlap: scrap the financial institution priority, which weakens the position of pensions; ensure that pledged securities are not sold without the consent of the PPF; amend the Pensions Act 2004 so that a moratorium is an insolvency event and triggers a PPF assessment period; and have the PPF involved, with vetoes, in restructuring arrangements. I commend a composite of those arrangements to the Minister and I hope that productive discussions can follow because, welcome though the moves already flagged are on the PPF having creditor rights, we need to make sure that they fit the bill and that pension deficits do not still face significant losses.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted]

23: Clause 1, page 11, line 22, at end insert—
“( ) the prescribed part of a company’s net property available for the satisfaction of unsecured debts under section 176A of the Insolvency Act 1986”Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment to discuss the effect of priority advancing on unsecured creditors and in particular pension fund deficit, notwithstanding the power for rules to rank the order in inserted section A18.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted [V]]

My Lords, I will also speak to the other amendments in this group. In some ways, I see this group as a continuation of the previous debate concerning the effect of the moratorium on pension funds and small companies. Amendment 23 inserts the prescribed part for unsecured creditors into the A18 priority. It should in fact have had an extra condition to it that said “when there is a pension scheme” but, in the amendment rush, that somehow got left off. Noble Lords will see that in the explanatory statement I did reference pensions as being of particular relevance.

This was an idea I had as part of the continuing story of the adjusted insolvency waterfall and the damage that can be done to pensions. My objective was to probe how else the prescribed part could not be diminished or how there could be some form of compensating balance. Another way could be by putting an extra or reserved part into the higher priority, designated as a first tranche reserved towards pension deficit, with any remaining pension deficit still sharing in the later general pool of the prescribed part. For example, if the prescribed part is raised to 30% so that there is more available in general for pension deficits, as other noble Lords have suggested, could the extra 10% be moved to be given a higher exclusive priority reserved for pension debt alone?

As I said before in the group on pensions, the Government have lifted the lid on changing priorities, and what has to date been accepted as an uncomfortable compromise regarding the position of pension deficit is now open to challenge. Why should there not now be some extra reserved part or special preference in the mix, especially given the point made more than once already that pensions really belong with wages and salaries? They should never have been demoted to unsecured creditors.

As a generality, I see the raising to 30% as beneficial, not just for making more available for pension deficits but also for SMEs. Irrespective of whether there is any changed priority as part of the compensating measures that one will have to start looking at, the rise to 30% —which has been proposed before—is given more impetus in the light of what is happening in the Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Hendy [V]]

My Lords, my contribution dovetails with that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, whose remarks I support. I speak to Amendment 56, the purpose of which is to preserve for the unsecured creditors a larger share of the assets available for distribution than the legislation currently provides. The legislation recognises that something must be preserved for them, but the question is: how much?

The first part of our amendment seeks 30% of the “prescribed part” of the company’s property. This is an arbitrary figure, intended to be reasonably fair. The problem is that the “prescribed part” is fixed by a formula and is capped. I understand it to be £800,000, or thereabouts, but I confess that I am no expert on this. Consequently, 30% may be a very small sum and spread very thin. The second part of the amendment therefore proposes that, in any event, if assets are being sold to pay debt, as is usual, at least 30% of the proceeds should be reserved for the unsecured creditors, leaving 70% for the secured and other creditors.

I add a word about unsecured creditors. Included in this, for reasons I touched on earlier, will be much of the debt owed to employees of the company, which falls outside that preserved for preferred creditors. The unsecured creditors also include all the workers for the company who are not classed in law as employees but who are nominally self-employed or engaged through a personal company. This is a significant sector of the workforce—over 5 million people in total.

As I mentioned earlier, it is right that workers should have priority because, unlike secured creditors, they cannot diversify the risk of the company becoming insolvent, and their stock of labour is ever-diminishing. There is another reason that they should be given preference: they spend their remuneration; they do not put it in hidden bank accounts in the Cayman Islands. They spend it because they and their families have to live on it. This creates demand and is good for the economy and for business.

Also included among the unsecured creditors are the many SMEs in the company’s supply chain. This may involve dozens of suppliers who have supplied materials, items or labour on credit, but cannot recover them. In turn, they may employ hundreds or thousands of workers. It is right that, in a complex and interconnected economy, unsecured creditors and their workers should be guaranteed an appropriate slice of the cake.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist]

I take the noble Lord’s point. The point of the Bill is to provide emergency relief in the current crisis. The restructuring planned provisions that we have tabled and are taking forward in the Bill are flexible and will permit complex funding arrangements to be used in a company rescue. This will bring our regime more in line with other jurisdictions where debtor in possession rescue finance is well established. These measures will add to the UK’s existing first-class restructuring and insolvency framework and ensure that it keeps pace with developments in other highly regarded international jurisdictions.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted [V]]

My Lords, I thank everybody who spoke in this wide-ranging debate. We have explored further how the Bill has been a catalyst for looking at some long-standing issues with the fairness of the insolvency waterfall in general. I hear what the Minister says about the April update but that is still broadly based on the original tenets.

As the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, explained so well, the situation is different in modern times, with many more what would have been employees and other workers falling to the unsecured creditors. It is also they who are squeezed in the robbing of Peter to pay Paul that goes on in the adjustments to provide the impetus for a moratorium. We heard an interesting suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann—one she has made before, perhaps in connection with the Pensions Bill—that, instead of looking at Section 75 debt, which tends to make you throw up your hands in horror and run away, we should look at technical provisions or the amount that would go to the PPF; that is another part that could be preserved.

I thank noble Lords. We have more food for thought. I accept that new Clause A18 is perhaps not the place to introduce new priority protection—that probably belongs more in Schedule 3—but these matters are serious enough that they must be brought back at a later date. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 23 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill [V]]

I will not speak for long, bearing in mind the time constraints. I am concerned by Amendment 75 and the mention of the Small Business Commissioner. I wonder whether, perhaps separate from this debate, the Minister could say what successes the Small Business Commissioner has had. I have made previous speeches in your Lordships’ House on his ineffectiveness.

The amendment before us now sounds sensible but it does not use the normal term “small and medium-sized enterprises”; it mentions “small business” and “larger businesses”. From my professional life, I know that many firms that consider themselves small I would consider large, and that many firms that are large would consider themselves small. The vagueness that this amendment would introduce to the legislation, if it ever got in, would not be useful.

The Small Business Commissioner was really set up to deal with late payments, which of course affect small companies. Here, the amendment is trying to give the Small Business Commissioner a much wider remit, but I have never seen great success in the small remit it has.

While I am on my feet—in a theoretical sense— I want to mention that another Minister speaking from the Front Bench took issue with my comment on HMRC and VAT. She said that VAT was not being given special priority in the Finance Bill 2019-21. I advise her to look at Clause 95. Perhaps the noble Lord the Minister will write to me on this matter.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted [V]]

My Lords, this group deals with a range of issues which I broadly support, but I shall keep to those amendments with my name on.

I am not quite sure what my Amendment 73 is doing in this group, but its purpose was to ensure that the interests of SMEs are specifically taken into account when reviewing amendments to legislation made under Clause 18, the Henry VIII clause. Clause 21, governing the time-limited effect of Clause 18 amendments, states that regulations made under Clause 18 must be held under review, and revoked or amended if they are no longer expedient or proportionate. My amendment adds a third option if they cause harm to SMEs, as I fear that SMEs could fall between the two stools of expedience and proportionality.

I signed Amendment 78, concerning the FRC, because its replacement is long overdue and it is hard to understand why this top recommendation from the Kingman report has not yet come about. I know that there has already been one consultation on it because I replied to it over a year ago, so what happened to that and why is there prevarication? There is still so much more about the unsatisfactory past of the FRC that could come out—it is constantly dribbling out. It will taint ARGA if it is perceived as just the FRC by a new name, which is what the delay is doing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, I have Amendment 129 in this group. It seeks to equalise the different levels of protection afforded to firms in trouble under this legislation. It has been brought to my attention by a firm of solicitors that specialises in insolvency. The two critical dates in the legislation are 27 April, after which general protection is available; and 1 March, just under two months earlier, after which protection is afforded, but only if a statutory demand for payment has been made.

However, a statutory demand is not the only way that a company can be caused to fail. It is possible to go for a default judgment in a county court or a liability order in the magistrates’ court and proceed directly to a winding-up. Firms that are subject to either of these other two procedures do not benefit from protection from 1 March, but from 27 April only.

Firms are able to object and to fight these proceedings but, from 23 March, the country was in lockdown. Understandably, courts have found it more difficult to inform defendants about cases brought against them and, in many cases, smaller companies—where the proprietor is running the business almost on their own —may have been involved in self-isolation. They are therefore unable to access proper legal advice to protect their position. My amendment seeks merely to extend protection for these cases, particularly those affecting small companies, from 27 April to 23 March—the date on which lockdown began and the inequality of legal arms may have commenced.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted [V]]

My Lords, I can be brief because my amendment in this group contains a separated half of the GB-Northern Ireland pair of amendments relating to small businesses that I spoke about in the previous group, so I do not need to explain those again, and in the interests of time I will forgo speaking on anything else.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness [V]]

My Lords, I will seek to be brief. The point I will make relates to retrospection, which Amendment 129 from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, perhaps illuminates; he is trying to make some of the provisions even more retrospective. I will not work through all the detail; suffice it to say that in Schedule 10 we are asked to enact a provision that would retrospectively void a court order that had been legally pursued and granted. In the words of the Government’s Explanatory Notes, this

“may lead to the petitioner becoming liable for the cost of doing so.”

I do not doubt that there are important business and commercial reasons underpinning these provisions. I ask simply that the Committee proceeds with the utmost caution when making retrospective provision. I quote from the Constitution Committee’s seventh report:

“We recognise that the COVID-19 pandemic presents companies with considerable challenges and that the Government is rightly seeking to protect businesses and the economy as a whole … However, measures with retrospective effect are exceptional and undesirable in principle, requiring the strongest possible justification. We do not think the Government has yet made the case for them in this Bill.”


I simply invite the Minister, when he comes to reply, to try to make a justification and, if he is unable to do so in the time remaining in these foreshortened proceedings today, to undertake to make a response to the Constitution Committee’s report before the House meets for Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox]

My Lords, I associate myself with some of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, around works councils. In my past life, working with works councils, particularly in the Netherlands and in Germany, I found them to be a positive, long-term force within companies. An earlier speaker mentioned that in private sector businesses, unions have low representation, which is why works councils should be important in this country, but on departing the European Union I understand that the Government are going to reduce or negate the need for companies to have works councils, which is something to be regretted. What is also to be regretted is that we cannot have a proper debate on these amendments, which means that Report will inevitably have to go on longer.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted [V]]

My Lords, I support the two amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, that include changes to the definitions of the smallest businesses and a new definition to help first-year businesses. These both seem sensible. We have had a lot of instances in the various coronavirus reliefs where help is not extended to everywhere that might reasonably have been covered; therefore, examination of definitions in the light of that and other experiences seems worth while.

Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill

Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 17th June 2020 Lords Chamber

I strongly urge the Minister to give as full and as expansive an explanation as possible—and in particular, to be clear about whether the Government are truly committed to the Pre Pack Pool’s continued existence, and whether they feel it is their responsibility or role to keep it functioning. I certainly urge him to give some indication of what they will do, not just to plug this obvious gap in the long term, but—in the short term, at this critical moment—to ensure that the measure, which should have been exercised previously, is at least available when it is most needed.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]]

My Lords, there is little to add to what has been said. I signed both the amendments, and I agree with what the noble Lords, Lord Hodgson and Lord Vaux, have said, and with what they have proposed both in these and in their other amendments. I also associate myself with the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, about pre-packs. Profitable as they may be for some, and right in some instances, they are too frequently a blot on our corporate landscape. They are despised by the public, who recognise them as being too often against the public interest.

It is important to take forward a fulsome operation of the Pre Pack Pool, by mandating its use. As has been explained, there was a provision that could have enabled that, but it expired recently, possibly through unavoidable circumstances. As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, also explained, there is a greater need for that provision now, because otherwise even the moratorium, and the good intentions that lie behind it, could be undermined.

Who refers something to the pool could be left open, but it is probably better to specify, as the noble Lord’s amendment does. It does not have to be the purchaser; it could be a monitor duty, making the process look more independent.

As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, says in his amendment, there should also be some kind of positive response from the panel. He put “not unreasonable”. I tend to favour something a bit more positive, possibly that it is “fair and reasonable”, which carries an overtone both of an open market or arm’s-length value and of being viewed in the round—again, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, explained in his speech. Indeed, he even used the word “fair” in explaining what should happen.

If we compare the two amendments, which I did when I signed up to both, it comes down to where they are placed in the relevant schedule and whether to link them to connected persons rather than to associates, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has done. As “connected persons” was the language used in earlier debates on the Bill, that is the placing that caught my eye, but I would not bet against the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, having found possibly the better spot. However, now that we are alert to it, an optimal draft could be produced, and I urge the Government to do that.

Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill

Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 23rd June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab) [V]]

I added my name to Amendment 13 and I set out in Committee my concerns about the Bill. As I said then, I fully support the intention behind it—that the disruption caused by Covid-19 should not be allowed to trigger the failure of otherwise financially viable companies—but I was anxious, and I remain anxious, that some of the permanent and far-reaching proposals would be damaging to pension funds and to their members in the longer term. I assumed that this damage was unintended and was caused by the speed with which this package of protective measures had had to be introduced, and I am pleased that the Government have gone some way to acknowledging this in the amendments they have brought forward.

Other noble Lords have set out in detail the problems that the Bill would cause as currently drafted. I emphasise just one point in relation to defined benefit pension schemes. The stability and effectiveness of the current system in dealing with insolvency has depended on unsecured pension debts ranking side by side with debts owed to other unsecured lenders. This has underpinned all valuation funding and covenant discussions. The super-priority status granted by the Bill to finance debts in an insolvency following a moratorium undermines that stability and endangers members of affected pension schemes, while preventing the PPF acting effectively as creditor. As I said in Committee, it also undermines the role of the regulator. However, the Government have clearly made efforts to address these concerns and go some way to addressing the issues raised by me and other noble Lords. I have been convinced that the Government want to make this work and will ensure that the PPF has access to and influence on discussions about recovery plans.

The Secretary of State will have access to considerable Henry VIII powers in the Bill and will be able to intervene swiftly if it seems that restructuring plans and insolvency procedures are being abused, to the detriment of pension scheme members. So in thanking the Minister for the way he has responded to the concerns we in this House have expressed about the Bill, I urge him to stay alert to any attempts to undermine the assurances he has given that the position of pension scheme members will not be weakened, and that their lifeboat—the protective umbrella of the PPF—will not be undermined in any restructuring and insolvency discussions.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register. I support Amendment 13 and what has been said already about it. I am a signatory to that amendment, but I shall concentrate on Amendment 14. The Times this morning reports that Intu, owner of shopping centres, is seeking a standstill on loans from its banks, otherwise it will go into administration. Without commenting on the merits of the case, save to mention that coronavirus has stopped rent payments, the facts are writ large: it is all in the hands of banks.

The idea of a moratorium is as a formal standstill, a breathing space for a company to trade out of its problems, get back on its feet or at least find a way to reorganise without the situation deteriorating due to a feeding frenzy of creditors, each trying to get at the assets before someone else does. For all essential suppliers other than financial institutions the moratorium terms are that they must continue with normal supply, with no demands for up-front payments or elevated prices that would destroy cashflows and undermine the purpose of a moratorium. But not for banks: they have no constraints and are free to demand accelerated payment. So there is a feeding frenzy exclusively reserved for the banks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan]

My Lords, the amendments in my name make provisions relating to pension schemes in the moratorium and the restructuring plan. Although the moratorium is not an opportunity for employers to walk away from their liabilities, it may become the point at which preparations for and discussions about a restructuring proposal begin. Where the pension scheme would be a large unsecured creditor in any insolvency, should the employer ultimately fail, restructurings can have a significant and immediate impact on the expected outcome of the scheme.

There is the possibility that the company may seek to reschedule payments to provide working capital to give time to shore up its operations. This might result in lower payments to the scheme for a period of time. A rescue may also involve certain other creditors, such as new lenders providing rescue finance, taking security over company assets. This would mean that there would be less available for other creditors, including the scheme, in the event that any such rescue ultimately failed.

Some insolvency procedures are designated as “insolvency events” under existing pensions legislation. One effect of such designation is that the Pension Protection Fund has a statutory role to play, acting as a creditor in place of the trustees of eligible schemes. However, the new procedures are different. They are not qualifying insolvency events, as they are focused entirely on giving the company every opportunity to achieve a rescue as a going concern. This would be the best outcome for a pension scheme: moving forward with the support of its newly rescued sponsoring employer.

Nevertheless, there is concern that these procedures could result in the pension scheme being disadvantaged as an unsecured creditor of the company. The PPF, as the provider of protection for members of eligible schemes in specified circumstances, could potentially face a greater loss. An example of this would be if the company subsequently fails and the scheme falls into the PPF with a larger deficit than it originally had.

Consequently, it is agreed that there is a need to build in specific protections. These focus on the interests of the scheme and its members, and the interests of the PPF and its levy payers. This would be by ensuring that the PPF has a seat at the table in any restructuring proposal and that its voice is heard. After all, it is the statutory compensation scheme for members of eligible defined benefit schemes, and ultimately bears the risk for the scheme should the company subsequently fail.

The challenge has therefore been to strike the right balance between the interests of the trustees, the board of the Pension Protection Fund, the company and its creditors. Taken together, these amendments achieve this balance. They provide for both the PPF and the Pensions Regulator to get appropriate information in the case of both a moratorium and a restructuring plan. The regulation-making power will allow the Secretary of State to provide for the board of the PPF to act in the place of the trustees of the scheme as a creditor in certain circumstances. The board of the PPF and the Pensions Regulator will have the right to the same information as creditors, concerning the start and end point of a moratorium and any change in the monitor, in specified circumstances. The board of the PPF will have the same rights as trustees to challenge in court the monitor’s or director’s actions in specified situations where the interests of the trustees as a creditor are considered to be unfairly harmed by those actions.

Where a restructuring plan is proposed and the company is a sponsoring employer, provision is made for the board of the PPF and the Pensions Regulator to receive the same information sent to creditors, in specified circumstances. This means that they are informed that a proposal has been made and they can then consider what action, if any, to take.

In respect of both the moratorium and the restructuring plan, where the trustees of a PPF-eligible scheme are a creditor of the company concerned, the proposed amendments provide a regulation-making power. This power will give the board of the PPF the ability to exercise the creditor rights of the trustees; again, in appropriate circumstances. These rights include attending the creditors’ meeting, voting on the restructuring plan and making representations to the court. The powers are drafted to allow an appropriate balance between the trustees and the Pension Protection Fund’s interests by allowing creditor rights to be exercised concurrently where appropriate. Conditions can also be placed on the exercise of any rights given to the board of the PPF.

Restructuring will always involve trade-offs. Employees will be concerned that the rescue ensures that their jobs are secure, but at the same time they will be interested in the impact on the company pension scheme if they are a member. The changes tabled in my name have balanced the interests of employees and scheme members with those of a company and its creditors, giving them all the best chance for survival, in our view. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted [V]]

My Lords, I welcome the amendments tabled by the Government to address the position of the Pension Protection Fund and the Pensions Regulator where there is a relevant scheme. The amendments give them the right to be notified of moratorium events and give the Pension Protection Fund rights to challenge the monitor or directors, vote as a creditor and make representations to the court.

An amendment on the issue that remains unaddressed was originally tabled in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann; we have tabled one on Report with her support. The noble Baroness, with her great experience in pensions, will speak next.

Amendment 15 concerns the status of pledged assets and whether the court can give permission for their disposal without the Pension Protection Fund’s permission. In the absence of an amendment, those assets are not protected, which unravels the basis on which settlements over funding and deficits are made with trustees.

The effect of that is twofold: the actual disposal of the assets, which may be unfavourable to the pension scheme; and, even without any of that happening, the fact that such a possibility exists raises doubts about the numerous pledges that underpin contribution agreements. It is far from desirable to have to revisit them but, without any assurance, it would seem necessary for trustees to think about that and seek more cash funding. That would be bad at any time, but when companies are facing more difficult times due to the pandemic and its after-effects, it would be particularly unwelcome. That is the reasoning behind the amendment, and I know that other noble Lords are well able to illustrate the problem further.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted]

14: Clause 1, page 13, line 48, at end insert—
“(f) banks and other financial creditors may not seek to accelerate payment.”

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted [V]]

I thank noble Lords who signed the amendment and spoke in support. The noble Lords, Lord Hodgson and Lord Holmes, and my noble friend Lady Kramer all spoke from experience about how banks will behave to extract cash. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, asked what grounds the Government had for thinking banks could be constrained. The noble Baronesses, Lady Drake and Lady Altmann, expressed concerns about gaming. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, admitted that the amendment was persuasive. There is consensus that the focus is people.

The Minister’s answer is simply that if the banks press for too much, the payment will not happen and the moratorium will end. That does not stop the accelerated payments and death by a thousand cuts. From the cash flows and other information they have about their clients, banks are well able to know how much they can take a company for and to pace their demands until the money is gone or they have pressurised the business into other lucrative financial arrangements. It is game on.

I am not convinced by the answer about financial stability; the Minister knows this is a subject I know very well. Contracts on market operations do not have to end; it is simply the acceleration of payment on lending that needs restriction. Every pound that is required over and above the general terms existing pre-moratorium is tantamount to reaching through and picking the pocket of employees, pension schemes and small businesses.

The scope given to banks and other lenders to press their advantage during moratorium is too great. It can remove the very breathing space that is the objective of the moratorium. I have not heard any expression of limit to reasonableness other than some kind of banking self-control caused by a moratorium end if the banks get too greedy. As my noble friend Lord Fox said, it is simply tiptoeing around the banks.

To save jobs and businesses and protect pensions, banks must be far more equally in the moratorium. No amount of employee consultation can blunt the banks, and I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox]

My Lords, very briefly, it seems that the solution of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is very elegant, and, like the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, I am struggling to find out why the Government might not accept it. One of the things that has come up on a number of occasions is the need for speed for both the Bill and decision-making: “We do not have time to talk to the workers”; “We do not have time to do this.” This is an opportunity to take one moment out and review whether this move—a pre-pack—is in the best interests of all concerned. I cannot see why the Government would not support it, and I expect that the Minister will stand up and wholeheartedly embrace Amendment 45 shortly.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted [V]]

My Lords, I supported the pre-pack amendments in Committee and have done so again. The reason for the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is simple: reference to the pool is not happening, and bad pre-packs are. Like others, I do not consider all pre-packs to be bad, but it is unquestionable that some bad deals are going on.

The Government are reinstating a provision to give themselves powers that have recently lapsed. I do not wish to prevent that but, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said, that power has already lain for too long—for five years—without regulations being forthcoming. Due to coronavirus, more deals and insolvencies are likely, and there will be horrid cases, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, also reminded us again of the storm that is about to come—or the “tsunami”, as my noble friend Lord Palmer said. Every day we already hear of more, and some are a rip-off of creditors, as the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, said in Committee and as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, reminded us. The evidence is that insolvency practitioners can easily tick boxes to cover themselves. It is happening.

This amendment is simple and complete: use the panel that has been set up. In Committee the Minister was critical of the fact that the panel is set up in a light-touch way rather than having a regulatory power, but it is like that because government wanted it that way. If the Government want to come forward with powers for ARGA to take over the job—and to make ARGA happy—I will be there in support. But that is not here now, and nor are other regulations. So let us not hurt the public still further by having the recovery from Covid littered with scandals of cosy and inappropriate pre-packs. This is another feature of how the unfairness built into the moratorium will work, with pressure for restructuring, where the big winners will be the financiers. The least we can do is to have some assurance that the deal meets the standard of reasonableness.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara [V]]

My Lords, my name is on Amendment 46, as I strongly support the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, in her attempt to revive the powers taken in the small business Act 2015. We supported her in 2015 and pressed then for action to be taken against the abuses which were occurring in the pre-pack cases that came to light at the time.

However, as the noble Baroness said, thanks mainly to the rhetoric of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn, the Government have done a U-turn. Therefore, purely on consistency grounds, it is logical and right that we should support Amendments 37 and 38 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. When he responds, I hope that he will confirm that he intends to use these powers and to act urgently.

I have been in discussion during the past couple of weeks with the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, about his Amendment 45. In the absence of government Amendments 37 and 38, I would have backed his proposal. However, I have an old-fashioned view about statutory powers being operated by non-statutory bodies such as the pre-pack pool. Given that the powers sought by Amendment 45 are contained within those to be taken under Amendments 37 and 38 and that, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, admitted, there are some problems with the existing arrangements —the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, called them “murky” and denigrated the standards being achieved—I am minded to support the Government on this issue.