Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

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

[Baroness Fookes (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am delighted to support the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, in the two amendments she has tabled, to which I have added my name. I speak not only as a member of the Constitution Committee but as a former member and chairman of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I was delighted to hear my successor speak so robustly and correctly. Over the years, I have become increasingly concerned by the way the Government take on to themselves more and more delegated powers. It is important, even when we have a serious problem with coronavirus, that we make our case firmly.

The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, discussed the two amendments in detail, so I will not go into them, other than to say that Clause 18, which we are trying to soften, is an immensely powerful one. It gives the Government unrivalled powers to take whatever powers they think they need in this emergency, without much restraint.

I regard Clause 18 as King Henry VIII at his most obese, and it is time he was slimmed down; the two amendments standing in our names try to do just that. I thought we had got there with Clause 23, which was the expiry one, but, when you look at it closely, you find that it is not a sunset clause at all because it is possible to renew the power to make these amendments. So I regard it as a pseudo-sunset clause, and it is high time that we all make sure that the Government do not get away, whenever they want, with whatever they want. We must bear in mind too, that it will not always be the present Government; some of the powers would remain for other Administrations, who might not be as enlightened as I am sure the present Government think they are.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Baronesses, Lady Fookes and Lady Taylor of Bolton, who are both my colleagues on the Constitution Committee. I have added my name to the amendments that have been spoken to in the previous two contributions, and that carry on the theme of both my noble friend Lady Northover and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, about the wide powers in the Bill. As indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, the Constitution Committee accepts that there is a need for temporary emergency arrangements to protect business and the economy in the current pandemic crisis. But the committee also stresses, in its seventh report, published last Friday, that:

“During times of crisis and emergency it is all the more important to be vigilant about constitutional principles, such as the rule of law and parliamentary accountability. The need for an urgent response to COVID-19 does not justify Parliament neglecting its duty to consider the constitutional implications of the legislation presented to it.”


As speakers have already mentioned, there are very wide Henry VIII powers in the Bill, not least in Clause 18, which Amendments 66 and 70 seek to address. The Constitution Committee in a report in the 2017-19 Session specifically looked at the use of delegated powers, and said that Henry VIII powers are

“a departure from constitutional principle. Departure from constitutional principle should be contemplated only where a full and clear explanation and justification is provided”.

One looks in vain here for some full and clear explanation. Rather, we are told, in the delegated powers memorandum:

“There are no specific plans to use the power to make temporary changes at present, but it is likely that its use will be considered where representations have been made by industry or where discussions with key stakeholders have identified areas where urgent legislation could help save otherwise viable businesses or mitigate the impact of the pandemic otherwise.”


That is not exactly what one would call an intimation of specific intent.

Notwithstanding these misgivings, Amendments 66 and 70 are relatively modest, so I hope that they will commend themselves to the Government. The noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor and Lady Fookes, have already explained how they will work. In Amendment 66, we seek that a review should take place and report to Parliament. We have reviews of the current emergency regulations, and we find that they are more often shared with the Downing Street press briefing than with Parliament, but this modest amendment would require a report to Parliament. Amendment 70 would see a sunset clause in effect no later than 30 April 2022. The amendment probably to be spoken to later in this group by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, would have an earlier sunset clause, and I must say I find that somewhat attractive. In the Government trying to take powers like this, they should adhere to constitutional principle. When such widespread powers are sought, they should be well and truly limited in their effect.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I am glad to follow my noble friend Lord Blencathra, chairman of the Delegated Powers Committee, and other experts on delegated powers. I am sure that we will get a helpful response from my noble friend the Minister on these wider powers. As has been said, I will speak on Clause 39 stand part and the Northern Ireland equivalent, Clause 40.

I tabled these amendments with the help of our excellent Bill clerks, alongside my Amendments 68 and 74, which I may not now need to move as my questions are exploratory in nature; that may help us to make progress. I want to open up a discussion on time limits, particularly of the emergency measures. As I said at Second Reading, I support all these measures, but they change the balance of corporate law and can make life more difficult for the lenders and investors that businesses need for success.

I am very concerned about the powers of extension, which I do not believe will be properly scrutinised if used. Some are more contentious than others; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, raised a good point about wrongful trading, and, as I said, even delays in annual general meetings and corporate filings are unwelcome. These provide vital transparency and the opportunity for probing questions to be asked of companies. If the Opposition’s proposal to extend the emergency measures to the end of September is accepted, I see no need for an extension to the various emergency powers, and certainly not of the easy kind proposed. So that I can consider my position on Report on the various amendments that we are discussing, I would like more details from the Minister on the use of the powers of extension; more of an analysis of the downsides of the emergency measures, as well as their obvious advantages; and details of the criteria that will be applied if and when an extension of power is used, how any costs will be assessed and when the arrangements will sunset completely.

Clauses 21 and 22 seem very elastic—a pseudo-sunset clause, as my noble friend Lady Fookes said—which is not what we are looking for on these emergency measures.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist]

My Lords, if I might take just a couple of seconds of your Lordships’ time, we have 10 minutes left to finish this group. I encourage people to make their comments as short as possible, so that we at least finish this group.

Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

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

[Lord Balfe (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I want to say a few words in support of Amendment 48, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes. I know from experience that when you have a requirement to report on anything without a time limit, there is always the tendency not to do it. There is always something more pressing, and even if the Minister raises it, the civil servant will say, “Well, no one has actually asked for it, Minister, and we have got this or that.” The only way to keep a piece of legislation or a policy under review is to have it timetabled. Whether it is every three months, four months or six months, the key point is that you have a timetable and you have a requirement to report at the specific point of that timetable, because then it gets into the system.

I urge the Minister, thinking not of himself but of Ministers in years to come, to accept this amendment or a close variant of it, that, crucially, puts in a time limit. A refusal today could snooker us when trying to get reports in the future, as we end up with parliamentary questions such as, “When is the Minister proposing to review?” and answers saying, “He or she is certainly thinking about it”, but not getting the review. I urge the Minister, looking to all our political futures, to accept some sort of time limitation. As such, I am very happy to support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD) [V]]

My Lords, my colleagues on the Constitution Committee, the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor and Lady Fookes, have made their points very clearly, so I am very happy to rest behind their submissions.

[Baroness Northover (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I raised in Committee that there were numerous Henry VIII powers in the Bill, as the Delegated Powers Committee flagged in its devastating report. I am very glad that the Government have responded to the criticisms of the Delegated Powers Committee and the Constitution Committee by bringing forward these amendments, even if they are not comprehensive.

I am glad that we have been able to scrutinise the Bill in this House in a way that simply did not happen in the Commons. This Bill is indeed a mixture of emergency and permanent changes. I note particularly that the Government propose affirmative procedures in Amendments 58, 66 and 67, and “made affirmative” procedures in Amendments 68, 69, 72 and 73. The notes say that it is either affirmative or “made affirmative”—although I note what the Minister, said—in Amendment 109. I welcome these amendments. Those serving on the Constitution Committee have tabled Amendments 48 and 50, which bring more precision to this, and I hear what they have to say. Although I welcome what the Government have brought forward, I hope that the Minister can give further assurances.

--- Later in debate ---

When we considered this Bill, the Constitution Committee had seen no justification from the Government for the retrospective provisions. We therefore advised in our report that Ministers should set out the justification. Last Friday, 19 June, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, wrote to our chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, responding to our report and including a response to our concerns about retrospectivity. Such is the speed with which the Bill is progressing through Parliament that your Lordships’ Constitution Committee has not yet had an opportunity to consider the Minister’s response. It will, I am sure, assist your Lordships if the Minister, when responding to this group of amendments could explain the need for retrospective cancellation of court judgments in this context and answer the other questions I have posed.

[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.