§
Amendments made: No. 72, in page 27, line 7, at end insert—
'(cc) the Accountant of Court when acting in the exercise of his functions in connection with the consignation or deposite of sums of money;'.
§
No. 73, in page 27, line 17, at end insert—
'(gg) a sheriff clerk when acting in the exercise of his functions in connection with the consignation or deposit of sums of money;'. —[Mr. Butcher.]
§ Mr. Tim SmithI beg to move amendment No. 74, in page 27, line 32, at end insert—
'(k) a person acting as an authorised insolvency practitioner within the meaning of section 3 or section 5 of the Insolvency Act 1985.'The amendment would add to the list of various people referred to in clause 42. The White Paper said that the functions of insolvency practitioners would be a type of activity that did not require authorisation to be obtained. It said that insolvency practitioners wereoften obliged … to dispose of investments included among the assets under their control. They will be required to be licensed under the Insolvency Bill now before Parliament.That is now the Insolvency Act 1985. The implication was that the legislation would regulate the activities of insolvency practitioners.I raised this matter in Standing Committee with my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State. He said that the matter was still being considered. What progress has been made in formulatting an exception which could be introduced by the Government?
§ Mr. ButcherI am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) for raising this issue. I shall take this opportunity to explain some of the complexities of the points he has raised.
There are two main situations we need to consider. First, there is the position of an insolvency practitioner who is acting as liquidator or administrator for a company which is not an investment business but which may have to dispose of assets which include investments. In such a case the liquidator or administrator is in the same position as the former directors. Therefore he would be covered by the exemptions for selling investments as a principal and would not normally need to be authorised.
Secondly, there is the position of an insolvency practitioner who is concerned with the winding up of an authorised investment business. That is a much more complicated issue and I am still considering the implications for the Bill of the various provisions of the Insolvency Act 1985 and the numerous problems which 593 will arise if an authorised business has to be wound up. The position of insolvency practitioners has to be considered in this context. If the investment business is a company and the regulator decides to allow its authorisation to continue in order to be able to continue to use its intervention powers to protect investors, once again the liquidator or administrator will be in much the same position as the former directors and, like them, will not be required to be personally authorised.
If the business concerned is a partnership or sole trader, the position is more complicated. If investment business is to be continued—for example, to complete outstanding commitments — is it right to exclude the insolvency practitioner concerned from the authorisation requirement? Such a practitioner may have no relevant experience. We need to consider those points further and will, if necessary, table amendments in another place.
With those comments, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield will feel that it would be timely to withdraw his amendment.
§ Mr. Tim SmithThis is the first time we have had a full explanation of the difficulties. It is helpful and it will be read with interest by those outside. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.