COOPERATION BETWEEN COURTS EXERCISING JURISDICTION IN RELATION TO INSOLVENCY LAW (Hansard, 28 October 1985)

§ Mr. Howard
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 61 to 69 and 73A.

§ Mr. Howard
Amendments Nos. 60 to 63 and 63A enable provisions to be made in subordinate legislation to assist the working of the new inter-jurisdictional clause, introduced by Commons amendment No. 383, and to make it easier for courts to assist insolvency practitioners in their duties.
Following consultation with the authorities of the three United Kingdom jurisdictions, it appears that provisions need to be made so that, where property exists in one jurisdiction but the insolvency procedures are in another, such property can be protected and claimed for the benefit of the insolvent estate's creditors but without automatic vesting provisions in relation to property in another jurisdiction, which can create serious anomalies—for example, in relation to innocent third parties who purchase land without notice of the bankruptcy of the vendor.
Amendments Nos. 64 to 69 and 73A are consequential on the previous amendments. The whole group can be said to rationalise the provisions of the insolvency law in the three United Kingdom jurisdictions and the relationships between them.

§ Mr. Hanley
Practitioners broadly agree on and are very grateful for the alterations that have been made.
On the commencement dates of the legislation as a whole, in another place the Minister observed that no decision had been taken on a target date for the various commencement orders. Can my hon. and learned Friend tell us at least when the date is likely to be—this year, next year or 1987? He noted that, although the greater part of the Bill is designed to be brought into effect at the same time, some of the provisions are free standing, such as those relating to the disqualification of directors, so desperately needed, which I believe now, following this Bill, might well work, and the attachment of personal liability for wrongful trading. It seems that those free standing provisions may be brought into effect at an earlier date. I believe that when they will be brought into effect should be known well in advance so that proper advice can be taken. Can my hon. and learned Friend give that assurance?
Secondly, in another place the Minister stated that the Government had no intention of introducing amending insolvency legislation in the forthcoming Session. I beg my hon. and learned Friend not to have a closed mind. My hon. and learned Friend will know, as his predecessor learnt, that insolvency law is a highly specialised and extremely complex matter. Despite all the changes, there is no guarantee that every matter is now right. Some would guess to the contrary. The Government should monitor the effect of the legislation as soon as possible and, if required, amendment should be made without promises that no amending legislation will occur next Session.
Lastly, on the rules, I regard the passing of the Bill without knowing the rules as not unlike being asked whether one is Jewish without knowing the contents of the 10 commandments. Consultation needs time. Practitioners are not full-time legislators.
I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend would wish to acknowledge the assistance of practitoners, so freely and generously given, and to obtain the full benefit of their assistance on the many vital aspects which may be dealt with by way of secondary legislation.

§ Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth (Stockton, South)
I should like to add my support to some of the points made by the 690 hon. Members for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box.
From my observation, it was not only the Minister's predecessor who made a contribution to the proceedings on the Bill, but, if I may say in a non-partisan way. the hon. Members for Dagenham, for Richmond and Barnes and for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), and they should be commended.
Many of us who pressed for the Bill thought that it would have a speedy and uncomplicated passage through the two Houses of Parliament. We now know how wrong that hope was. The Bill was introduced in another place on 10 December 1984. Since then, as the hon. Member for Dagenham said, there have been more than 1,200 amendments, which we understand is a parliamentary record. The Bill was brought from the other place on 16 April 1985 and had its Second Reading in this House on 30 April. It has spent almost 35 hours in Committee. Cork was established in January 1977, which is a considerable time ago. One would have hoped that there would have been sufficient time for Government Departments and others to have given it adequate consideration. It is most regrettable that the House was placed in the predicament of having to deal with so many amendments because of the way that the Government introduced the Bill.
I hope that the Minister and his officials will respond to the appeal made by the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes, because the Bill, without the rules, is only half a Bill. I hope that they will learn a lesson from recent months and consult widely and seek to reach as broad agreement as possible on the content of those rules. We all realise that there is a balance of arguments and interests to be reached, but I hope that the Government, in the coming weeks and months, will consult widely to ensure that the rules are as acceptable as possible to those who have daily to deal with the legislation.
Most of us wanted to see the legislation on the statute book because we were aware that a great deal of damage was being done to a large section of industry due to the inadequacy of the law. Despite some of the deficiencies that undoubtedly still exist in the statute, it will overcome some of the problems that were faced by the profession and by those industries that went to the wall and were made bankrupt. If the new procedure had been in operation, they would not have done so.

§ Mr. Howard
I thank the hon. Member for Stockton. South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) for his kind welcome to me, and associate myself with the tribute that he paid to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley).
My hon. Friend mentioned a number of points, and I shall endeavour to respond to them. I cannot be precise about commencement dates at this stage. I do not imagine——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The Minister need feel under no obligation to respond to matters that went beyond the terms of the amendment.

§ Mr. Howard
I am grateful to you for that reminder, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am anxious to be as helpful as possible to my hon. Friend.
691 The most likely date for commencement is 1986. I can give an assurance that notice of the bringing into effect of any of the free standing provisions to which my hon. Friend referred will be given well in advance. Although I do not resile from what was said in another place—that it was not the Government's intention to introduce any amendment to this legislation—I hope that everything that I have said this afternoon makes it clear that these matters will not be approached with closed minds. Of course, the operation of the legislation will be monitored, and what my hon. Friend has said will be taken to heart.