Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): Briefing the Committee today are Mr Richard Monds, director of the Insolvency Service; and Mr Jack Reid, deputy principal with the Insolvency Service. You are very welcome to the Committee. Thank you for attending. If you want to give us a brief overview, we can then move into questioning from members.

Mr Richard Monds (Insolvency Service): Thank you very much, Chair. The Committee was last briefed on 27 September 2012. Since then, there have been changes to the draft Bill, which has delayed its passage through the Assembly. The Minister has written to the Committee on a number of occasions to update you on the developments and additional issues that have caused the delay. Thank you for this further opportunity to give an oral update on the latest developments. My colleague Jack Reid will now provide a short update on the main developments since the Committee was last briefed in 2012.

Mr Jack Reid (Insolvency Service): When we last briefed you back in September 2012, the intention was that the Bill would basically replicate measures contained in the GB Legislative Reform (Insolvency) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 2010. There was only one additional measure for Northern Ireland, and that was a repeal of the legislation relating to deeds of arrangement. Provision to repeal the GB Deeds of Arrangement Act 1914 has now been included in the Deregulation Bill, which is in progress at Westminster. The upshot would have been a Bill, the primary purpose of which was to provide legal authority for the use of electronic communications in insolvency proceedings and which would have also altered certain specific insolvency procedures to make them more streamlined and efficient. The Bill has since been expanded considerably to take account of legislative developments in GB. One is the ending of early discharge from bankruptcy. Bankruptcy has never been a one-day event. The making of a bankruptcy order is followed by a period of time during which the person in respect of whom the order has been made is said to be bankrupt. The period ends with their discharge from bankruptcy. During the period of their bankruptcy, the person is subject to certain restrictions. For example, they are not allowed to take credit for more than £500 or to trade in a name other than that in which they were judged bankrupt without disclosing their bankruptcy.

Under the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which is the main piece of primary legislation applying to insolvency, the bankruptcy period was set at three years when it was first enacted. It was reduced to one year by the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 2005. In consequence, most bankrupts in Northern Ireland are automatically discharged from their bankruptcy on the first anniversary of being made bankrupt, provided that they have not been made subject to a bankruptcy restrictions order in consequence of having been found to be culpable in their own bankruptcy. Discharge releases them from the restrictions that applied during the period of their bankruptcy.

However, article 253 of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, as substituted by article 12 of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 2005, went further. Paragraph 2 of the substitute article provided that a bankrupt could be discharged before the first anniversary of his or her bankruptcy if the official receiver filed a notice with the High Court stating that investigation of the bankrupt's conduct and affairs was unnecessary or concluded. Clause 12 of our Bill repeals paragraph 2. That is in line with the repeal of the corresponding provision in the legislation applying in England and Wales by the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013. The corresponding provision was repealed because, on evaluation, the early discharge scheme was found to be costing a disproportionate amount to administer, with little or no benefit for bankrupts through being discharged on average only three or four months before they would have gained their automatic discharge.

Northern Ireland's early discharge provision was never implemented on the same scale as in England and Wales. In Northern Ireland, for resourcing reasons, the provision was only implemented when a bankrupt specifically asked for it, and only two people have ever been discharged early under the Northern Ireland provision.

A second major change to our Bill since we last briefed you effects major reform to the licensing system for insolvency practitioners in line with provision included in the Westminster Deregulation Bill, which is currently being dealt with in the House of Lords. An insolvency practitioner has to be licensed or, to use the proper term, "authorised". It is a criminal offence to act as an insolvency practitioner without being authorised. Two licensing systems currently exist for insolvency practitioners. They can be authorised either by a competent authority or by a recognised professional body. There has only ever been one competent authority in Northern Ireland — DETI itself — and just two of Northern Ireland's insolvency practitioners are authorised by it. The remainder — over 50 — are authorised by one of seven recognised professional bodies.

Repeal of the provision for licensing by competent authorities has been included in the Bill at subsection 5 of clause 14. Repeal will result in all licensing and regulation of insolvency practitioners being undertaken by the recognised professional bodies. It will result in all insolvency practitioners being alike, subject to the more graduated disciplinary regime operated by the recognised professional bodies. The only disciplinary measures available to the Department are withdrawal of an insolvency practitioner's authorisation — which, in most cases, would be too draconian — or the issue of a non-binding improvement notice.

A second element of the reform to the authorisation system is introduction of partial authorisation for insolvency practitioners, also by clause 14. Current legislation allows only for authorisation as an insolvency practitioner to take any kind of case. That means that anyone who wants to become an insolvency practitioner has to qualify in both corporate and individual insolvency, even though they may have no intention of ever taking cases of one type or the other.

The Bill will make it easier to become an insolvency practitioner in the future by making it possible to be authorised to either take only individual or only corporate cases. We think that that will open up the market to more people becoming insolvency practitioners, and that that should both drive up the quality of the service that is provided to clients and bear down on the cost.

We consulted the insolvency profession about that measure —

The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): Sorry to interrupt, but do you have much more to go through? In the efficiency of what we are doing, it would have been helpful if we had had that paper in advance of the meeting — I know that you have put a lot of work into it — and then we could have asked you questions on the back of it. Can you synopsise the main points, please?

Mr Reid: Some who responded to the consultation disagreed that that measure would be of benefit. They thought that it would lead to a loss of general knowledge in the profession and that it would become too specialised. We feel that specialisation would lead to benefits and that, in any case, we are obliged to follow suit with what England is doing to comply with the EU directive. If a person is partially authorised in GB, it will be essential for them to be able to operate on the same basis in Northern Ireland.

I was also going to mention that bankrupts can encounter problems accessing bank accounts. A measure has been put into the Bill that will facilitate them in doing so and encourage banks to offer bank accounts to them. We have also put in an amendment to ensure that it will be possible for legislation to be made to allow all credit unions, and not just those that are registered as industrial and provident societies, to enter administration or a voluntary arrangement.

Finally, it is our intention to ask our Minister to table some minor technical amendments at Consideration Stage. Those will reflect changes that have been made in the Deregulation Bill as introduced. They will not impinge on policy.

The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): Thanks very much for that.

There is one issue that emerged yesterday; Mr Allister raised it. The Committee will probably intend to go into that in a bit more detail. In fact, the complainant or the person he referred to may well give evidence to the Committee. We will come back to that and see how you intend to rectify that. Can you give me any indication that the issue he raised will be covered?

Mr Monds: We are certainly well aware of the specific individual case. I think that Mr Allister's point was in relation to establishing a code of conduct in future for insolvency practitioners. There is no provision in the Bill to cover those sorts of things. However, the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill is going through Westminster, and it is within that Bill. We intend to recommend to the Minister that, in future legislation that we would cover, a regulatory objective be put in place. That will require the regulated professional bodies to ensure that a number of objectives and principles are put in place to regulate insolvency professionals, such as training persons properly; ensuring consistent outcomes; providing high-quality services; acting transparently with integrity; considering the interests of all creditors in any particular case; promoting the maximisation of the value of returns; and protecting and promoting the public interest.

Those issues will be enshrined in legislation through the Westminster Bill. It is our intention to recommend to the Minister that those should also be enshrined in a future insolvency Bill.

The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): I do not know the details of that, and we will come back to it again. If we take the insolvency practitioner concerned, who would, for want of a better word, regulate that person or make sure that they properly practice and —

Mr Monds: That insolvency practitioner was one of the ones who was authorised by the Department. As Jack said, we have the powers as the competent authority to authorise insolvency practitioners, as well as the regulated professional bodies. Currently we regulate two insolvency practitioners. This Bill will remove our authorisation powers so that, in the future, insolvency practitioners will only be authorised by the seven regulated professional bodies. That will allow them to have a range of disciplinary measures that can be taken against insolvency practitioners. At present, the Department can only take away an insolvency practitioner's licence. There is no middle ground, so sometimes that is an overly draconian approach, whereas the regulated professional bodies have a number of measures that they can put in place against insolvency practitioners.

The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): Thanks for that. Obviously we will come back to it in more detail when we get the detail.

Mr Flanagan: Thanks for the presentation. Is there a backlog in the system at the minute?

Mr Monds: In insolvency cases?

Mr Flanagan: Yes.

Mr Monds: At present, we have around 3,500 live cases in the Insolvency Service.

Mr Flanagan: How long will it take to process all those if we do not change things?

Mr Monds: At present, a number of cases will be passed out to insolvency practitioners. The residual ones, which are the ones with no assets attached, will remain with the official receiver to process. The current legislation probably will not have a large impact on the numbers of cases coming through to us. In the case of workload, it probably will not have any effect on the amount of cases we have or our ability to administer those more quickly. It deals more with specific technical issues, so it will not impact on the workloads.

Mr Flanagan: So this piece of legislation will not speed up the process?

Mr Monds: At present, it is unlikely to. I think that I am right in saying that it will not reduce the numbers of insolvencies coming through, nor will it speed up the Department's processes in processing those particular cases. We are at the mercy of the number of companies and individuals coming through the courts.

Mr Flanagan: Are there any changes that the Department can make to speed up the process? I do not mean reducing the numbers going through the process, because that is outside your direct responsibility.

Mr Monds: Absolutely.

Mr Flanagan: Is there any way that you can speed up the process and deal with the significant backlog that exists through legislative or other policy changes?

Mr Monds: Through legislative means, there are no real intentions, and nor have we identified any specific ways, but within the service we are constantly restructuring and re-looking at our processes to try to speed up cases and get them put through as quickly as we can.

Mr Flanagan: Can you give us an example of something you have done to change the process so that things can be done quicker?

Mr Monds: We have restructured within the organisation. Now, rather than each examiner dealing with a case from one end to the other, we have set up specific functional units. For example, because of the credit crunch, a lot of properties came through, so we set up a specialised properties team to deal exclusively with properties. That maintains that expertise within one unit; all the properties are dealt with in one specific area. We also split up the work so that each examiner will have a case worker assigned to them. That means that two people can look at the various elements of each case to speed up the process. We were obviously doing specific pieces of work.

Mr Flanagan: Is the process constantly under review to find better ways of doing things?

Mr Monds: Absolutely. We are constantly looking at different ways, including moving staff. For instance, the profiles of insolvencies have changed over the years. The numbers of trading and company bankruptcies are going down, but the numbers of consumer bankruptcies are increasing, so we are constantly looking at putting more resource to the areas where more insolvency cases come through, to ensure that we tackle the cases as and when they come in.

Mr Flanagan: What are the staff numbers in the Insolvency Service like? Have they significantly increased since the start of the recession and the numbers started to go up?

Mr Monds: Yes. Since the start of the recession, the numbers in the Insolvency Service have increased from around 50 to just slightly over 100. In the same period, the numbers of insolvencies have more than trebled, so whilst the numbers of staff have increased significantly, the numbers of cases have gone up by a larger percentage. Indeed, they continue to increase. The numbers of cases in trading bankruptcies and corporate winding-up have levelled off in the last few months, but the numbers of personal bankruptcies continue to increase.

Mr Flanagan: What efforts have you made to try to get additional staff members to help to deal with the backlog?

Mr Monds: As I said, the numbers of staff have increased, but, obviously, with the current public sector difficulties and the financial situation, it is more and more difficult to get numbers in. We have brought in some temporary staff to help to bring down the backlogs in the short term, and that has been helpful. We are trying to work within our current headcount more efficiently and more effectively. We are putting in a new IT system at the moment, which will, hopefully, also aid the processing time for insolvency cases and help us to get the backlog down.

Mr Flanagan: In terms of clause 12 and the repeal of the provision for the early discharge from bankruptcy, we have been told that it is a procedure that is little used. I think that two people have been discharged early.

Mr Monds: That is right.

Mr Flanagan: You will appreciate that probably none of us round the table is an expert in the insolvency process. I would be interested to find out why those two individuals were given early discharge and what the benefits were. Have you information on those two cases, without going into personal details, of what the benefits were of those cases being discharged early to the Insolvency Service and to the individuals in question?

Mr Monds: Jack, do you have any information?

Mr Reid: I do not have any information on the two individuals specifically. However, the reason why they would have been discharged early is because they would both have written into the Department and requested early discharge. I do not see that there would have been any benefits to the Department through their early discharge; in fact, there would have been a cost to the Department in administering it, whereas if they had waited until they were discharged automatically, as the majority of bankrupts do, then that would have happened without any cost to the Department. There would have been a very minor benefit to the people themselves, in that they would have been discharged perhaps three or four months before their normal discharge, which would have been on the first anniversary of their bankruptcy. Those benefits are minimal, because the restrictions that a person is under when they are bankrupt are on taking credit without disclosing the fact that they are bankrupt, and they are not allowed to trade under any name other than that on the bankruptcy order without disclosing to those that they do business with the fact that they are bankrupt. Those are not major benefits, because, if anyone applies to a bank, for example, for credit, they are going to be asked whether they have been bankrupt in the past, so they will have to declare it anyway. So no, I do not see that there is any significant gain to the individuals concerned.

Mr Flanagan: The thing is that you are disqualified from holding certain positions for a period of time.

Mr Reid: That is correct, yes.

Mr Flanagan: Giving people the opportunity to get out of that early may allow them to take up a certain position in society, and some of those positions are ones that we actually hold.

Mr Reid: Yes.

Mr Flanagan: So there are some benefits to people but, if you have been declared bankrupt and there is a penalty of being disqualified for a year, it is strange that people can opt out of it by merely requesting permission from the Department to do so. You referred to the fact that an awful lot more people in England and Wales availed themselves of that opportunity and that it was run differently over there. Have you had any discussions with colleagues over there to see what the benefits were for people over there — or the benefits to the system?

Mr Reid: We have seen plainly in the documentation relating to the repeal of early discharge provisions in England and Wales that they administered it on a different basis to us. They did not wait until people wrote in or applied for early discharge; they dealt with it on an automatic basis. If investigation of a bankruptcy was deemed to be unnecessary or if it had been carried out and concluded, which in most cases would be where it has been found that there was no irregularity, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, as it is in England and Wales — it is not the Department — would have applied to the court for the person to be discharged from their bankruptcy early. The Secretary of State would have done that on his own initiative without waiting for the person to request it. An academic study was conducted in England of the benefits of the scheme, and it was found that the costs of administering it far outweighed any benefit to the bankrupts.

You mentioned people who would be debarred from holding offices or positions. That would be a very tiny minority of the people who are bankrupt.

The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): Thank you for that. Members, we have to be conscious of the time. We have questions that we have to elicit from the Department, so let us make best use of the time. Otherwise, I will have to use the hammer.

Mr Agnew: Thank you, gentlemen. At the suggestion of the Minister of Justice, an amendment has been made to include a requirement for the Lord Chief Justice to be consulted about making any order creating a right of appeal to a court. Given especially the time context that we have just discussed, why was that considered necessary? What would its impact be on processing times?

Mr Reid: It would have no impact on processing times. It is included for a different reason. It relates to the bar on people holding various offices and positions if they are bankrupt. In some cases, there is not an automatic bar on a person holding a position if they are bankrupt, but their situation could be looked at. There is a discretion as to whether they should be allowed to hold an office or position, and that discretion can obviously be exercised in order either to bar the person or not to bar them. A provision was inserted into the 1989 Order by the 2005 Order to provide for the exercise of that discretion to be subject to a right of appeal, and the Department is empowered to make orders that that right of appeal can be to a court. So the legal system — the courts — have an interest. That is why it is deemed essential that the Lord Chief Justice should be consulted about the making of any order which would provide for a right of appeal to a court, not least because he would have an interest in ensuring that the appeal was to an appropriate court, whether to a County Court or to the High Court.

Mr Agnew: You said that it would not have an impact on processing times. Maybe this is just my misunderstanding of it, but presumably that aspect of the process is deemed to be relatively quick. If that is the assumption, on what basis is it made? Writing to the Lord Chief Justice seems to me to be an extra piece of administration.

Mr Reid: The only situation in which there would be communication with the Lord Chief Justice would be on the making of an order, that is, a piece of subordinate legislation, providing for a right of appeal to the court. The actual appeals to the court themselves would not involve the Lord Chief Justice; that is an event which would happen only very rarely. It would only happen in the instance where someone's position on a particular board was in jeopardy because of the fact that they had been made bankrupt. That will not happen very often, but it could happen. It is to cater for that situation that if, for example, the discretion were exercised against the person being allowed to remain — for example, on a health board — that person can appeal to a court; but, if they make that appeal, there will be no recourse to the Lord Chief Justice. It is only the legislation providing for the appeal to the court has to be subject to scrutiny by the Lord Chief Justice. So that is a one-off event.

Mr Agnew: OK. Apologies for my lack of understanding.

Mr Dunne: Thank you very much, gentlemen, for coming in to make your presentation. My questions are fairly short, unlike the questions of some other members. I want to ask about the fast-track voluntary arrangements. In paragraph 11 of your document you mention them; is the intention to retain that system?

Mr Reid: In the meantime, yes. However, the Small Business Bill, which is currently progressing through Westminster, includes provision to repeal the fast-track system entirely. Likewise, we hope to repeal it in a future insolvency Bill, hopefully to be passed during the lifetime of the next Assembly.

Mr Dunne: The fast-track system is currently administered by the Official Receiver. Is that right?

Mr Reid: It is; but there has never been a case in Northern Ireland of a person availing themselves of it.

The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): Excuse me, Gordon. Mr Reid, is the Bill that you referred to the UK Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill 2014-15?

Mr Reid: That is it, yes.

The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): That is the one. OK. Thank you.

Mr Dunne: My last point is something that was raised yesterday in the Chamber. Our understanding is that the sign-off of legal documents is generally done in hard copy. Is there a likelihood that that will change, and that an electronic signature will suffice?

Mr Monds: As part of the primary legislation, a set of rules will be introduced in secondary legislation. I think that I am right in saying that those rules will allow for and define what can be used to formally sign off a document.

Mr Reid: They will provide for electronic documents to be authenticated as genuine, yes. A document or information given, delivered or sent in electronic form is sufficiently authenticated if the identity of the sender is confirmed in a manner specified by the recipient or, where no such manner has been specified by the recipient — that will likely be the case in the majority of cases — if the communication contains or is accompanied by a statement of the identity of the sender and the recipient has no reason to doubt the truth of that statement.

Mr Dunne: It would be the case then?

Mr Monds: It would be, yes.

Mr Dunne: The electronic signature will be acceptable.

Mr Reid: Yes.

Mr Frew: Paragraphs 4, 7 and 8 of schedule 2 to the Bill make provision for statutory demands to be in writing. Is that just a tidying-up of the writing? What is the present circumstance?

Mr Reid: Yes, that is a clarification. The statutory demand is an important document informing the person that they are at risk of being made bankrupt or that the company is at risk of being wound up if payment is not tendered within a three-week period. That document has to be served personally. So, it would not be appropriate for it to be served electronically. That is to clarify that it needs to be in writing.

Mr Frew: So it is a written demand. What are the current arrangements? Is that changing the arrangements or is it just tightening up the wording?

Mr Reid: It has always been understood that statutory demands have to be in writing, but the legislation was vague on the point. It is to make it more certain and concrete.

Mr Ó Muilleoir: Go raibh maith agat. Gentlemen, we talked about what the original clause 14 removed, and we are now saying that, if a financial institution becomes insolvent — God forbid that that would happen — the compensation to the customer is £85,000, as I understand it.

Mr Reid: Yes.

Mr Ó Muilleoir: What about someone who has more than that on deposit? What happens to the additional money? Is there compensation for that?

Mr Reid: No.

Mr Ó Muilleoir: So that is lost.

Mr Reid: The person would be at risk of losing any deposit in excess of £85,000. The only hope that they would have of getting their money back would be if the liquidator could sell off the bank's assets, loans and so on to raise funds to hopefully pay part of what the customer would otherwise have lost.

Mr Ó Muilleoir: Why did they come to the figure of £85,000?

Mr Reid: The scheme is administered by the Financial Services Authority on a UK-wide basis. It is not the responsibility of the Insolvency Service, and I could not speak for the scheme.

The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): Can you clarify the Treasury's role in regard to having call on the moneys or anything like that?

Mr Reid: Sorry, on what?

The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): On the £85,000. What is the Treasury's role in all that?

Mr Monds: The Treasury sets the policy on a UK-wide basis. Whenever a financial institution becomes insolvent, the Treasury would become a preferred creditor because of the £85,000. The Financial Services Authority would recompense the people their £85,000 and then, to get that money back, the Treasury would be the preferred creditor.

The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): That is an interesting question. If anybody is over the £85,000 mark, who has the first call on the money?

Mr Monds: Whenever the institution is wound up, its assets will be identified and then sold off. Therefore, the preferred creditors have the first call on any moneys. The Treasury would be one of the preferred creditors in that case along with the other secure creditors.

The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): Is it one of the preferred or the preferred?

Mr Monds: One of the preferred creditors.

Mr Reid: The matter has been taken out of the Insolvency Bill; it will be dealt with in a statutory instrument on a UK-wide basis. It will provide for the financial services scheme to have first recourse to the sums paid out by way of compensation to customers, which are up to £85,000. Further provision is now being included in that statutory instrument. I do not have it in front of me, but, as I recall, it addresses what you are speaking of; it will give a certain priority to customers who have had deposits of more than £85,000. As I said, I would like to check that before I say it definitively. They come in after the financial services compensation scheme in respect of the moneys they have had on deposit.

Mr Humphrey: Thank you very much for your presentation. In terms of the backlog that we have reached, you said to Mr Flanagan that the economic downturn has a major role in that. Has the response been inadequate in terms of reaching the backlog? Given the economic downturn, could this not have been seen, and could we not have put more practitioners in the field to address it?

Mr Monds: At present, when an insolvency order is made, the Official Receiver will carry out initial investigations. His office will identify whether the person who has become insolvent has any assets that are likely to be realised. If it looks as though assets will be realised, we will pass those out to a private sector insolvency practitioner so that they can realise the assets and take their fee from those assets as part of their work. However, if the insolvent or bankrupt person does not have any assets, there are no fees to be realised, and so the case is taken on by the Official Receiver and administered by the Department. We are really at the mercy of the nature of the cases that come across our desk every day. The majority up to now have been cases where there have been no assets, largely because of negative equity in property. We are unable to pass those out to insolvency practitioners, so they will be kept in-house. We will administer those ones, and that is where the —

Mr Humphrey: So, there are no cases that could have been passed to the private sector?

Mr Monds: The cases where assets have been identified will be passed out to private sector insolvency practitioners, and —

Mr Humphrey: I am asking you whether more could have been done. Are you basically saying that, because the Official Receiver had to be appointed and that it had to be retained in the Department, that could not happen?

Mr Monds: Insolvency practitioners are under no obligation to take the cases. If there is no way for them to derive a fee from the case, they will not take them. Those are then administered by us.

Mr Humphrey: Obviously, the economy is strengthening. Are we beginning to see the backlog being addressed?

Mr Monds: As I said, we are constantly looking at our processes, procedures and structures in the Insolvency Service. Over the last few months, the numbers of bankruptcies and companies winding up have levelled off and are starting, thankfully, to go down a little bit. That has allowed us to get the backlog down. The backlog is still there, but it has levelled off. We are hopeful that, over the coming short to medium term, we will get that down.

Mr Humphrey: Very briefly, Mr Reid, if we have to comply with the EU directive, as every other member state has to, why has the Bill not passed through the House quicker? Other regions of the UK and other member states would have been through this.

The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): If you do not have detail —

Mr Reid: An infraction letter has been issued to the UK about the issue of non-compliance with the services directive. That issue is being dealt with by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). It has negotiated a date by which, if it complies with the directive, no further action will be taken by the EU. That date is in 2016. All being well, the Act should be in operation by that date, and that will ensure compliance.

The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): We have a very brief question from Mr Anderson, and we need a brief answer.

Mr Reid: I will do my best.

Mr Anderson: The Department's briefing paper refers to provision:

You have already mentioned capacity. The paper also states:

What was the thinking behind that approach?

Mr Reid: The thinking is to make to easier for people to become insolvency practitioners. They will not have to study both areas. Someone, for example a debt adviser, might like to qualify as an insolvency practitioner and do more things for individuals but may not be interested in acting as an insolvency practitioner for companies. What would be the point in them being required to study and take examinations in how to deal with company affairs? That is the thinking behind it. Greater specialisation should also lead to greater expertise.

Mr Anderson: I have one other very quick point. There are two insolvency practitioners in Northern Ireland. Should practitioners opt for one area or the other, it may create the risk of a lack of provision in the future. Is there a need for further regularisation?

Mr Reid: That is a misunderstanding. There are more than two insolvency practitioners in Northern Ireland. There is in excess of 50 insolvency practitioners in Northern Ireland.

The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): How many are registered with DETI?

Mr Monds: Just two.

Mr Reid: Two. That is where the number comes from.

Mr Anderson: Is there a need for further regularisation of those practitioners?

Mr Reid: We have no alternative except to go along with what is being done in GB. We cannot opt out of bringing in partial authorisation, because we have to comply with the EU directive. The UK would be in breach of that directive if we did not bring in partial authorisation. If we did not, someone who was partially authorised in GB in what will be their Deregulation Act would be entitled to practice on the same basis in Northern Ireland. We need to have a scheme to allow for partial authorisation here.

The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): Thank you very much for that. I have two wee things to decide, and members can then go to the remembrance service. If the officials are content, will they respond in writing to any further queries we have? Are members content to add the Law Society of Northern Ireland, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland to the list of those who will provide written evidence? Are they further content to ask them to include information about the issue that was raised by Mr Allister at last week's meeting?