Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill

Lord Bates Excerpts

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

Relevant document: 14th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)]

My Lords, a limited number of Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, and if the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded I will immediately adjourn the House. Other Members will participate remotely, but all Members will be treated equally, wherever they are. For Members participating remotely, microphones will unmute shortly before they are due to speak—please accept any on-screen prompt to unmute. Microphones will be muted after each speech. I ask noble Lords to be patient if there are any short delays between physical and remote participants. I should remind the House that our normal courtesies in debate still very much apply in this new hybrid way of working.

I shall begin by setting out how these proceedings will work. A participants list for today’s proceedings has been published and is in my brief, which Members should have received. I also have lists of Members who have put their names to the amendments or who have expressed an interest in speaking on each group. I will call Members to speak in the order in which they are listed. Members’ microphones will be muted by the broadcasters, except when I call a Member to speak. Interventions during speeches or “before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted, and uncalled speakers will not be heard. Other than the mover of an amendment or the Minister, Members may speak only once on each group. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are permitted but discouraged; a Member wishing to ask such a question, including Members in the Chamber, must email the clerk.

The groupings are binding and it will not be possible to degroup an amendment for separate debate. A Member intending to press an amendment already debated to a Division should give notice of that fact in the course of the debate. Leave should also be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely intends to trigger a Division, they should make this clear when speaking on the group. We will now begin.

Clause 1: Moratoriums in Great Britain

Amendment 1

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)]

I call the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. No? Then I call the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.

[Lord Pannick (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I am speaking to Amendments 103 and 106, which are in my name and in the names of three other members of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee: our esteemed chairman—the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton—the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness.

These amendments address aspects of the retrospective nature of provisions in the Bill. Paragraph 7 of Schedule 10 and paragraph 7 of Schedule 11 will render void a relevant winding-up order which was made by a court on or after 27 April this year but before the day on which the schedules come into force.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness [V]]

My Lords, in Committee I made the point that even during a crisis it is still important that we are vigilant in scrutinising legislation, particularly where basic rule of law issues are at stake. Specifically, I drew attention to the provisions in the Bill that raise the fundamental question of retrospective legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, one of my fellow members of the Constitution Committee, has just outlined why it is important that we closely scrutinise attempts by government to introduce retrospection in legislation.

I place on record my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his very prompt reply to some of the points I raised in Committee—echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, who is also on the Constitution Committee. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, indicated, we have now received the Government’s response to the Constitution Committee’s seventh report on the Bill—although, as he pointed out, the committee has not had a proper opportunity to consider that response.

As we have heard, retrospective legislation prima facie offends the rule of law, although it is recognised that there will be occasions, when there is an urgent or compelling need, when it may be necessary. I will address the retrospection issues in Amendment 40 and its equivalent Northern Ireland provision, Amendment 42. They draw particular attention to the retrospective nature of Clauses 10 and 11, which suspend directors’ liability for wrongful trading in Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Under insolvency legislation, the general rule is that a court may hold directors personally liable for allowing a company to continue trading beyond the point when insolvency appears inevitable. The provisions in Clauses 10 and 11 oblige the courts to assume that a director is not responsible for any worsening of the financial position of the company or its creditors that occurs during the “relevant period”, which starts on 1 March and—with reference to the amendment the Government have just moved—would conclude on 30 September this year.

Clearly, if that is the assumption the courts are obliged to make—there is no suggestion in the legislation that it is a rebuttable presumption—no one will go to court to challenge the behaviour of a director. Indeed, the rationale for the policy, set out in the Explanatory Notes and reiterated in the Government’s response to the Constitution Committee report, is that the deterrent to a company continuing to trade where there is a threat of insolvency is removed by these clauses. Pandemic-induced insolvencies can thus be avoided.

To use the words of the Explanatory Notes, I fully recognise the merit of helping

“to prevent businesses, which would be viable but for the impact of the pandemic, from closing.”

I suspect that most, if not all, of us would generally assent to that. However, I will point out two aspects of the Government’s arguments that need further clarification. As pointed out in the Constitution Committee’s seventh report, the removal of the so-called deterrent effect cannot credibly be said to have carried any weight in decisions taken by directors between 1 March and the date when the policy to suspend personal liability for wrongful trading was announced, 28 March, allowing almost four weeks of extra retrospective effect. Secondly, as the Government acknowledge in paragraph 225 of the Explanatory Notes:

“There is no requirement to show that the company’s worsening financial position was due to the COVID-19 pandemic.”


The amendments to which I am speaking seek to maintain the spirit of the concession on wrongful trading and would apply only if the courts are satisfied that on the underlying facts, creditors can discharge the burden of proving that the instance of wrongful trading was not attributable to the financial pressures of the pandemic.

The Constitution Committee’s seventh report says that

“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”.

As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the Government have now responded. In fairness, in my reading of that response the Minister seeks to give some justification for the exceptional retrospective effect of these provisions in relation to wrongful trading. I echo the noble Lord, Lord Pannick: it would be helpful if the Government could set out on the record, on the Floor of the House, what these justifications are.

Furthermore, on page 4 of his reply the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, states that

“the temporary suspension of liability for wrongful trading is required to mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 emergency, and is a proportionate measure. There are safeguards against abuse in the form of other, unchanged elements of Company and Insolvency law. As I have also set out above, given the inevitable delay in drawing up legislation, it was essential to give public assurance that these provisions would have retrospective effect in order for them to be able to have their intended effect on directors’ confidence in continuing to keep their companies going.”

In conclusion, I have two questions for the Minister arising from that response. First, what is the rationale for the retrospection’s having effect from 1 March, rather than from a date when the Government were able to give the public assurance referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, given that ahead of the announcement, there could be no removal of the so-called deterrent effect? Secondly, can the Minister confirm that an announcement by the Government of their intention to change the law is not, by itself, sufficient justification for using retrospective legislation and should not become a regular practice? I look forward with interest to her reply.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Baroness Fookes? I call Lord Bourne.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara [V]]

Briefly, the amendments on dates tabled in Committee that the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, mentioned were also in my name. I am therefore very grateful that the Government have decided to extend the initial period to September 2020. That does not seem to be contested by anybody.

My major point on the rest of the amendments concerns whether there should be retrospection in the Bill at all, but people seem to have broadly accepted that, with the condition that we expect the Minister to make a very full statement on it. In passing, I have received quite a lot of representations about the Bill in my position as the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, and the vast majority were on this particular aspect. Therefore, there is public sensibility about it and I am grateful that the Minister will deal with it when she responds.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Just before I call the Minister, I am going to see whether we can try the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, again. No? I call the Minister.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist]

I thank my noble friend Lady Fookes, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for the issues they raised concerning the suspension of wrongful trading and restrictions on winding-up petitions.

I turn first to Amendments 40 and 42, which seek to remove the suspension of wrongful trading in cases where a company’s financial problems are unrelated to the coronavirus. Noble Lords will recall that the purpose of this measure is to remove the potential for wrongful trading liability at a time when many directors have been, and still are, making difficult decisions about the future of their companies. The suspension does not mean that a struggling company could just carry on trading without any regard for the consequences, but that, if it unfortunately enters insolvency, the directors will not face personal liability for using their best endeavours and trading while the pandemic is having such an impact on businesses.

Amendments 40 and 42 would disapply the suspension of wrongful trading if it can be shown that the underlying causes of the problems are unrelated to Covid-19. While this is a laudable aim, I fear that at this uncertain time it would be very difficult for directors to disentangle the various reasons for their company’s woes. Asking them to be 100% certain that those difficulties are related exclusively to Covid-19 before continuing to trade may be a test too far. Moreover, they would want to be 100% certain. The threat of personal liability is a very effective deterrent and directors do not want to put themselves in a position where they could lose their house if they took the risk of trying to save a struggling company. The stakes here are high: if there is any doubt—and in most situations there surely will be—directors would be likely to cease trading and the objective of this measure will not be achieved.

We understand noble Lords’ concerns about a blanket suspension of liability, but other protections for creditors and the wider business community will continue to apply. For example, directors’ duties under the Companies Act 2006 and directors disqualification actions are not affected. For it to be successful in its objective to save otherwise viable businesses, the blanket suspension given by Clauses 10 and 11 is necessary.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, asked why we are suspending trading from 1 March, as indeed did my noble friend Lord Bourne. Wrongful trading does not in itself affect normal business; rather it is the recovery action that may be made retrospectively by an insolvency officeholder against the company’s directors after the company enters insolvency proceedings. Suspension of the wrongful trading liability will not interfere with normal relationships between a business and its customers.

I turn next to Amendments 103 and 106, which would remove the retrospective provision in Schedules 10 and 11 regarding the making of winding-up orders. We understand the concerns of noble Lords regarding retrospection. This is not a step to be taken lightly and, if it is misapplied, retrospective legislation could indeed lead to significant injustice. We do not dispute the conclusion of the Constitution Committee that such measures should be based on need rather than on desirability. However, the need for retrospection in the context of this measure has been amply demonstrated, and I believe that there has been an especially compelling justification for these provisions.

Certain creditors have shown that they will pursue their debts despite government requests for pragmatism or forbearance, regardless of whether such action is in the interest of the survival of other businesses and irrespective of the impact on the economy as a whole. It is because the evidence demonstrates that the restraint required in the current circumstances can be guaranteed only through legislation that the Government have brought forward this widely supported measure.

However, its purpose would be wholly undermined if the protection it gives against certain types of undesirable creditor behaviour were to begin only after Royal Assent. That approach could have led only to an immediate rush to court by creditors urgently seeking winding-up orders in order to beat the deadline. That would have defeated the legislation even before it reached this House. It is right that creditors who have obtained winding-up orders specifically to frustrate Parliament’s legislative intention should not benefit from that behaviour. That is particularly so when the behaviour has caused potentially significant harm to a company that was the subject of a petition.

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, also asked how anyone could tell whether an order made between 27 April and the Bill coming into force is void. It is possible that a small number of creditors may not have acted responsibly and have brought winding-up petitions on the basis of the current law despite the Government’s previous announcement that this will not be allowed. The official receiver, or in Scotland the interim liquidator, will be required to bring any such circumstances to the attention of the court so that it can take appropriate measures.

I hope that noble Lords will understand why we are not able to accept Amendments 40, 42, 103 and 106, and that they will agree not to press them.