Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Middleton): I welcome Mr Jack Reid and Mr Richard Monds from the insolvency department of the Department for the Economy.

We will make a start at clause 1.

The Committee Clerk: I will briefly summarise the clause and ask the officials whether they have anything to add. We will then take members' temperature on what they want to do. It may take a while.

There is an evidence table — there is not much evidence in it — and you may find it handy to look at a copy of the Bill, which is also in your packs, and the explanatory and financial memorandum.

Clause 1 is entitled "Introductory". The clause is described as providing:

It is foundational to the rest of the Bill.

Does the Department have anything to add?

Mr Richard Monds (Department for the Economy): There is nothing to add.

The Committee Clerk: I ask members to confirm that they understand the clause and to indicate whether they have any questions or comments on it.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Middleton): Are members content that we informally agree the clause?

The Committee Clerk: You are informally agreeing that the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee Clerk: We move on to clause 2: "Power for administrator to bring claim for fraudulent or wrongful trading". The clause makes three insertions into the Insolvency Order 1989 that relate to the assets of companies where there has been wrongful trading.

Does the Department want to clarify or add anything to that?

Mr Monds: No.

The Committee Clerk: Do members understand the clause? No amendments were proposed to it.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Middleton): Are members content that we informally agree clause 2?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 3 is "Power for liquidator or administrator to assign causes of action". The clause is described as enabling:

Contradictory commentary from the Bar of Northern Ireland and the Insolvency Practitioners Association is summarised in the table. The Department has kindly responded on the matters raised. Does it have anything to add?

Mr Monds: There is nothing to add to the response that we provided.

The Committee Clerk: May I ask, Chair, whether members understand the clause and the commentary that we received on causes of action?

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Middleton): Yes.

The Committee Clerk: Informally, are members content that the clause stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 4, "Application of proceeds of office-holder claims", is described as ensuring:

Floating charges are held by creditors who own stock or raw materials in the insolvent company. The intention appears to be to ensure the provision of assets for unsecured creditors.

Does the Department want to add to that?

Mr Monds: No. That is a good summary.

The Committee Clerk: I ask members to confirm that they understand the clause. If you do not understand it, this is a good time to ask. No evidence was submitted on it, and no amendments were proposed.

Informally, is the Committee content that the clause stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 5 is "Exercise of powers by liquidator: removal of need for sanction". The clause is described as giving liquidators the power to take action without the sanction of the High Court.

Does the Department want to add to that?

Mr Monds: No, we have nothing to add to that.

The Committee Clerk: Do members understand the clause?

Some Members: Yes.

The Committee Clerk: Nobody said anything about it, so are you happy for it to stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 6 is "Exercise of powers by trustee in bankruptcy: removal of need for sanction". The clause is described as allowing trustees in bankruptcy the power to take certain actions without the sanction of the High Court.

Again, if the Department is happy with that, I ask whether members understand that clause.

Some Members: Yes.

The Committee Clerk: Informally, are members happy that it stands part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 7 is "Abolition of requirements to hold meetings: company insolvency". Currently, decisions made by creditors in corporate insolvency proceedings have always been at physical meetings. The clause provides that physical meetings will no longer be the default mechanism for seeking decisions from creditors and contributories in corporate insolvency proceedings. The clause also sets out a "deemed consent procedure" whereby anyone seeking a decision from a company's creditors or contributories will be able to write to them with a proposal and, unless 10% or more of the creditors or contributories by value object, the proposal will be deemed to have been accepted. Clause 8 covers similar ground for individual insolvency.

There was commentary from the Bar of Northern Ireland around the use of virtual meetings. Assurances were provided by the insolvency practitioners in respect of deemed consent. They liked the idea.

Does the Department have anything to add?

Mr Monds: No. We have provided quite a detailed response on that one from the Bar. We understand that there is probably no ideal way of arranging meetings. We looked at providing information digitally. We are looking to ensure that it extends to as many people as possible. Some of the Bar were concerned that people who were not aware of digital or who did not have digital means of communication may be left out. We are looking at what other things could be put in place to ensure that we get as many people as possible. We continue to look at that.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Middleton): When you say that you are looking at other means, what do you have in mind?

Mr Monds: For example, it has been suggested that not everybody has access to digital means but there are means by which people can phone into a meeting, rather than their having to be part of a Teams meeting. There are certain means around that. Those are the sorts of things that we are looking at to ensure that nobody is really disenfranchised from the process.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Middleton): Are you content that the Bill, as presented, will allow for that?

Monds: It will, yes.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Middleton): Sinéad, do you have anything to add to that? You raised some issues informally in relation to virtual meetings and ensuring equal access across the board.

Ms McLaughlin: I support the virtual meetings, absolutely, but I want to make sure that those who do not have digital access have the ability to call an in-person meeting. I note that five business days' notice has to be given before you can have an in-person meeting. Why is it so restrictive? Can you give us any further detail on that? Is it something that we could have more flexibility on in the Bill?

Mr Jack Reid (Department for the Economy): The intention is that it will be possible for creditors to take part in virtual meetings. Meetings are not being done away with altogether. It is just that the means by which they are conducted is to be changed.

It is important to ensure that those who are entitled to take part in the meeting are made aware of their rights to do so, even if they do not have the necessary means to allow them to take part electronically. The alternative, as Richard said, would be to allow them to take part by telephone. I am looking into whether there should be provision in legislation to require the person who is convening the meeting to alert those entitled to attend that they have the right to attend the meeting using alternative means; that is, by telephone. The appropriate place to include any provision to require the office holder to do that would be in subordinate legislation. The Bill is only the framework: a lot of detail will go into subordinate legislation in the form of a set of rules. We see that as the appropriate home to place a requirement on insolvency practitioners to alert creditors as to their rights. The requirements for notice of a meeting will also be in rules.

A complete, new set of rules has been made in England and Wales that consolidated and modernised the previous rules in the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016. Those will have to be replicated for Northern Ireland. Rule 15.3 of the English rules sets out the means that can be used to seek decisions from creditors or, in the case of companies, contributories:

Under the primary legislation, the intention is that it will be possible for a physical meeting to be held in limited circumstances only if 10 creditors or 10% of them by number or value request it. The other means that can be used to make decisions is described as:

That would allow creditors to be offered the option of phoning in to a meeting if they did not have the means to access it by computer, iPad or smartphone.

You mentioned the notice that has to be given of decisions, is that not right?

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Middleton): Yes.

Ms McLaughlin: Five working days' notice of a physical meeting has to be given, or something like that.

Mr Reid: I do not think that that is in the primary legislation. Am I right? Do you know where the reference to five business days is?

Ms McLaughlin: I saw it somewhere.

Ms D Armstrong: Is it in the insolvency rules review document?

Ms McLaughlin: It is on pages 57 and 58 of our pack.

Mr Reid: I do not think that there is any reference in the primary legislation to a specified period of notices to creditors having to be given to those being invited to a meeting. I cannot see any.

Ms McLaughlin: Maybe it is just [Inaudible.]

Ms D Armstrong: Is it in the insolvency rules?

The Committee Clerk: The English rules?

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Middleton): Jack, are you saying that there is no time period in the Bill?

Mr Reid: Not in the primary legislation. The issue of the minimum notice period should not be dealt with in primary legislation, but in the English rules, which are to be replicated for Northern Ireland, rule 15.8 is "Notices to creditors of decision procedure". That should tell us what the anticipated period is to be. The rule states:

It then lists what the notice must contain.

Ms McLaughlin: OK.

Mr Reid: But what is the period of notice that has to be given?

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Middleton): It is important to have clarity and get that set out. We can come back to it at formal consideration, but it is important that the Minister sets out the Committee's concerns and that they are reflected in the rules when they are published.

Mr Monds: Sure.

Mr Reid: I have found it here. It is set out in a table in rule 15.11, which states:

It then lists the various procedures in relation to which meetings can be convened.

The usual period, in the table, is 14 days. There are some procedures for which a shorter period is prescribed. In the case of what is termed a "moratorium" under Part A1 of the Act — we have a moratorium here — the minimum notice period is five days, but it relates only to that procedure. Most of the rest of the procedures have a requirement of a minimum of 14 days. For bankruptcy decisions of creditors on the appointment of a new trustee following the removal of the previous trustee, the minimum period is seven days. For most of them, it is 14 days.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Middleton): I will ask the Clerk to summarise the Committee's position and the potential options for getting the clarity that Sinéad and others have asked for on making sure that people are not disadvantaged by the method and can have a virtual meeting, a physical meeting or a phone call, if that is what they want.

The Committee Clerk: Members, it is clear that the Committee is concerned about the default move away from physical meetings to virtual meetings, because you probably all know people, as I do, who do not have access to digital assets or, if they did, could not use them. You could seek an amendment to the Bill to clarify or, as the Department is indicating that a lot of those rules will be specified in regulations, we could write to the Department seeking assurance from the Minister that, when the regulations are brought forward, they will clearly indicate that people who do not have access to digital assets will certainly be included. You could also require the Department to review how that is going, and that could all be covered in regulations rather than by amending the Bill. One option is to amend the Bill; a second option is not to amend the Bill but to get the Minister to give you an assurance that, when the regulations come forward, they will take account of the Committee's concerns and, further, that the Department will review how that is going to make sure that there is no exclusion for those who, as you may very well know, in different parts of the country, may not have access to digital media. Where is the Committee with that: the first or the second?

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Middleton): In the interests of time, is there an issue with doing both in parallel as regards scoping out the potential? My point is that, if the Minister will give assurances, that is good and important, but, if the Bill Office is scoping out amendments on other issues, could it scope out a potential amendment to ensure that it is in the Bill so that there is no ambiguity?

The Committee Clerk: Yes. Is that agreed, Chair?

Ms D Armstrong: Is age taken into account when there may be creditors, so that we are not discriminating against age? That is very important too.

The Committee Clerk: Yes, Chairperson. That is what I took from the points that members were making. That is who I am thinking of in my family.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Middleton): Are members content that we scope out a potential amendment around those issues in the Bill Office and write to the Minister to seek her clarity and assurances on them?

Mr Reid: May I clarify that there are different types of subordinate legislation? Regulations are one form and rules are another, distinct form, so the intention is that any matters in relation to the notice period would be set out in rules rather than in regulations. It is a technical distinction.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Middleton): That is a fair point. That is where the important clarification should come from the Minister. We have not seen the rules, so, if the Minister can clarify that that will be the case, that will be important for us.

Mr Reid: Yes.

The Committee Clerk: OK. On that basis, we move on, if that is agreed.

Clause 8 is "Abolition of requirements to hold meetings: individual insolvency". It deals with the same things: deemed consent and physical meetings for individual insolvency. It is very similar to clause 7, so I assume that it is the same answer.

The Committee Clerk: Clause 9 is "Ability for creditors to opt not to receive certain notices: company insolvency". The clause is described as allowing creditors to opt out of receiving notices from company creditors. Again, the Department referred to it, as did insolvency practitioners. Does the Department have anything to add?

Mr Monds: Nothing more.

The Committee Clerk: Do members understand the clause? Are they content, because there are no amendments nor was evidence provided, to support the proposition, informally, that the clause stands part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 10 is "Ability for creditors to opt not to receive certain notices: individual insolvency". It is pretty much the same as the previous clause. Are members, therefore, content, informally, for it to stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 11 is "Creditor consent for the purposes of Article 13CB". The clause is described as supporting clause 7 and the removal of the need to hold physical meetings. I guess that the same thing will apply: we will look for either an amendment or an assurance, possibly both.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Middleton): Yes.

The Committee Clerk: Yes. We can move on from that clause.

Clause 12 is "Challenge to directors’ actions". The clause is described as supporting clause 7 and the removal of the need to hold physical meetings. The Department advised that there is a drafting error. Sorry, I have got that wrong. Clause 13 has the drafting error.

As the clause refers to physical meetings, we are probably in the same place. Do members agree?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 13 is "Regulated companies: modifications to Part 1A". The clause is described as supporting clause 7 and the removal of the need to hold physical meetings. Again, we are probably there again.

The Committee Clerk: OK. We will move on to clause 14. Clause 14 is "Nominee’s report on company’s proposal". The clause also supports clause 7; we have said that a few times. Does the Department have anything to add about clause 14?

Mr Monds: I have nothing more to add to that.

The Committee Clerk: Again, because it is linked to clause 7, there will be an amendment or assurances from the Minister to satisfy.

On that basis, we can move on to clause 15: "Summoning of meetings". Again, the clause is about physical meetings, and the same thing applies. There is nothing to add. Are members agreed?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 16 is "Decisions of meetings". Again, it is about physical meetings. That is the case for all the clauses up to clause 22. Are members agreed that we will treat all those clauses in that way?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 23 is "Report by administrative receiver". The clause appears to provide supporting clarification in respect of clauses 9 and 10 and the provisions that relate to opted-out creditors. Those are the creditors who have opted out of receiving notices. The Department has nothing to add.

Informally, are members content for the clause to stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 24 is "Committee of creditors". Again, the clause appears to provide supporting clarification in respect of clauses 9 and 10 and the provisions that relate to opted-out creditors. Again, there are no amendments.

Are members content, informally, for the clause to stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 25 is "Progress report to company". The clause is linked to clause 34, and there is nothing about it in the explanatory and financial memorandum. Can the Department tell us what clause 25 is about?

Mr Reid: It provides that only one article is to be present in article 29. That is because article 88 is repealed by the Bill.

Mr Monds: Article 88 is repealed.

The Committee Clerk: Members, I misspoke. Clause 25 is, in fact, in the explanatory and financial memorandum. I was wrong; there are some other clauses that are not included. As has just been explained:

Article 88 is repealed. Therefore, it is a tidying up clause.

Informally, are members content for the clause to stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 26 is "Final meeting prior to dissolution". The clause appears to do away with the need for a final meeting of creditors and instead requires a report to be sent to the registrar of companies.

Do members understand the clause? Are members happy for the clause to stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 27 is "Effect of company’s insolvency". The clause sets out what the liquidator in a members' voluntary liquidation must do on discovering that the company will not be able to pays its debts in full from the start of the winding
up. Does the Department have anything to add?

Mr Monds: No. Again, it is in relation to meetings, so it is consequential to those amendments.

The Committee Clerk: Right. I did not actually realise that. Clause 27 is therefore related to the calling of meetings, so we will hold that one until we get a response from the Department.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Middleton): Yes, it is no longer required.

The Committee Clerk: Clause 28 is "Conversion to creditors’ voluntary winding up". The clause refers to the point at which a members' voluntary liquidation turns into a creditors' voluntary liquidation, when the creditors nominate a liquidator to replace the one that had been acting in the members' voluntary liquidation. Again, does the Department has anything to add on that one?

Mr Monds: No.

The Committee Clerk: Are members content, informally, that it stands part of the Bill? We received no evidence on that one.

The Committee Clerk: Clause 29 is "Application of Chapter 4". The clause makes amendments to the Insolvency Order in respect of creditor winding up replacing member winding up of a company. Again, no evidence was received or amendments proposed on that one.

Is the Committee content, informally, that it stands part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 30 is "Meeting of creditors". It seems to replace article 84(5) of the Insolvency Order. Again, no amendments were proposed.

Is the Committee content, informally, for it to stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 31 is "Directors’ statement of affairs to creditors". The clause requires that the directors of a company undergoing winding up still have to prepare a statement of the company's affairs but that they now have to send it to the creditors. They must do that within seven days from the day after the day on which the resolution to wind up the company was passed.

Do members have any questions? Do you understand the clause?

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Middleton): There were no concerns from oral evidence raised on that, either.

The Committee Clerk: Not at all.

Are members informally content that it stands part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 32 is "Appointment of liquidator". The clause makes provision as to how a liquidator is to be appointed in a creditors' voluntary liquidation not preceded by a members' voluntary liquidation. Again, no evidence was received, and no amendments have been proposed.

Is the Committee informally content that it stands part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 33 is "Appointment of liquidation committee". The clause amends existing provisions that give the creditors in a creditors' voluntary liquidation the right to appoint a liquidation committee with up to five members and the company the right to appoint up to a further five members. Again, no evidence was received, and no amendments have been proposed.

Is the Committee informally content that it stands part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 34 is "Creditors’ meeting where winding up converted under Article 82". The clause appears to repeal article 88 of the Insolvency Order. Again, no evidence was received, and no amendments have been proposed.

Is the Committee informally content that it stands part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 35 is "Progress report to company and creditors". The clause appears to alter references to creditors to those that have not opted out. The Committee was told that you get creditors that do not really want to receive lots of communication, so there is an option earlier in the Bill for them to opt out of that. There are a lot of tidying-up amendments around that. No evidence was received, and no amendments have been proposed.

Is the Committee informally content that it stands part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 36 is "Final meeting prior to dissolution". The clause dispenses with the former requirement for the liquidator to call meetings of the company and its creditors once a company in a creditors' voluntary liquidation has been fully wound up. Again, no evidence was received, and no amendments were proposed.

Is the Committee informally content that it stands part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 37 is "Powers of directors where no liquidator appointed or nominated by company". The clause provides that the directors of a company in voluntary liquidation are not to exercise any of their powers, except in certain circumstances. Again, no evidence was received, and no amendments have been proposed.

Are members content, informally, that it stands part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 38 is "Functions of official receiver in relation to office of liquidator". The clause makes amendments to article 116 of the Insolvency Order to ensure that, in a High Court winding up, the choice of a person to replace the official receiver as liquidator is made in ways that do not involve a physical meeting. Again, no evidence was received, and no amendments have been proposed.

Is the Committee informally content that it stands part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 39, which is headed "Appointment by Department", makes amendments to the Insolvency Order such that, in a winding-up by the High Court, the duty that the official receiver is under to decide whether to refer the need for a person to be appointed to take over from them as liquidator to the Department now arises if the creditors and contributories have failed to nominate a person to act as liquidator. No evidence was received on the clause, and no amendments were proposed.

Is the Committee content, informally, that clause 39 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 40, which is headed "Choice of liquidator at meetings of creditors and contributories", amends the Insolvency Order so that provisions now apply where the creditors and contributories of a company that is being wound up by the High Court are asked to nominate a person to be liquidator. As was the case with the previous clause, no amendments were proposed or evidence received on this clause.

Is the Committee content, informally, that clause 40 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 41, which is headed "Appointment of liquidator by High Court following administration or voluntary arrangement", is described as simplifying the text by which articles 116(5)(a) and 116(5)(b) of the Insolvency Order is disapplied in cases where the voluntary arrangement of an administration or company ends with the administrator or supervisor of that arrangement being appointed by the High Court as the liquidator. These sound like tidying-up amendments. No evidence was received or amendments proposed.

Is the Committee content, informally, that clause 41 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Thank you, members. Well done. If you feel that you would like to have a break, please say. I am all right.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Middleton): No, it is early days.

The Committee Clerk: We are doing well.

Clause 43, which is headed "Duty to summon final meeting", requires the liquidator to prepare an account of the winding-up as soon as it appears for practical purposes to be complete, and it obliges the liquidator to send a copy of the account and confirmation about whether any of the creditors objected to his or her release. We heard about issues regarding the release of liquidators, such as questions about when their job is actually done. Again, no evidence was received on this clause, and no amendments were proposed.

Is the Committee content, informally, that clause 43 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 44, which is "Delegation of High Court's powers to liquidator", introduces provisions enabling or requiring liquidators, acting under the control of the High Court, to exercise any powers or discharge any duties that the court is under with respect to:

No evidence was received on this clause, and no amendments were proposed.

Is the Committee content, informally, that clause 44 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 45 is "Liquidator's powers and duties in creditors' voluntary winding", and it sets out the powers that a liquidator who is nominated by a company in a creditors' voluntary liquidation has during the period prior to the creditors nominating or failing to nominate a person as liquidator. No amendments were proposed or evidence received.

Is the Committee content, informally, that clause 45 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 46, which is headed "Liquidator's supplementary powers", gives the liquidator the right to:

and obliges him or her to do so if requested by "'one-tenth in value'" of either the creditors or contributories. No evidence was received on this clause, and no amendments were proposed.

Is the Committee content, informally, that clause 46 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 47 is headed "Removal of liquidator: voluntary winding up". It provides that, in a creditors' voluntary winding-up, the only way in which the liquidator can be removed from office, otherwise than under a High Court order, is by the company's creditors deciding in a qualifying decision procedure that has been instigated for the purpose of removing the liquidator that he or she should be removed. No amendments were proposed.

Is the Committee content, informally, that clause 47 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 48, which is "Removal of liquidator: winding up by the High Court", looks similar to clause 47. No amendments were proposed or evidence received on it.

Is the Committee content, informally, that clause 48 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 49 is "Release of liquidator: voluntary winding up", and it introduces new paragraphs setting out the ways in which the liquidator's time in office can end and their release take place. No evidence was received on the clause.

Is the Committee content, informally, that clause 49 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Thanks, members. We are doing well. Clause 50 is headed "Release of liquidator: winding up by the High Court" and also deals with the liquidator's release in the case of winding-up by the court. No evidence was received. There was no commentary on the clause, and no amendments were proposed.

Is the Committee content, informally, that clause 50 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 51 is "Resolutions passed at adjourned meetings", and it appears to repeal article 163 of the Insolvency Order, which concerns "Resolutions passed at adjourned meetings". There was no commentary on this clause, and no amendments were proposed.

Is the Committee content, informally, that clause 51 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 52 is headed "Meetings to ascertain wishes of creditors or contributories". It amends the Insolvency Order such that, where the High Court takes the creditors' and contributories' wishes into account when dealing with the winding-up of a company, the court can direct that the qualifying decision and deemed consent procedures be used to ascertain those wishes. Again, there was no commentary on the clause, and no amendments were suggested.

Is the Committee content that clause 52, informally, stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 53, which is headed "Dissolution: voluntary winding up", revises provisions that establish when a company that has been voluntarily wound up is dissolved to include when the "final account and statement" has been sent to the registrar of companies. Again, there was no commentary on the clause.

Is the Committee content, informally, that clause 53 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 54 is on "Early dissolution". It amends the Insolvency Order to include reference to "'opted-out creditors'", and we learned earlier what those are. No evidence was received, and no amendments were proposed.

Is the Committee content, informally, that clause 54 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 55, which is headed "Dissolution in other cases", seems to be rather similar to clause 53.

Is the Committee content, informally, that clause 55 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 56 is titled "Misconduct in the course of winding up", and it amends the Insolvency Order to refer to the qualifying decision or deemed consent procedure. Again, no evidence was received, and no amendments were proposed.

Is the Committee content, informally, that clause 56 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 57 is headed "Protection of supplies of goods and services". The Insolvency Order renders void clauses in contracts for the supply of goods and services that provide for automatic termination of the contract or supply or that permit the supplier to terminate the contract or supply in the event of a company entering any of a range of "relevant insolvency procedures". The new clause provides that the insolvency period ends when the liquidator complies with certain conditions.

There was no commentary on the clause, and no amendments were proposed. If the Department has nothing to add —

Mr Monds: No.

The Committee Clerk: — is the Committee content, informally, that clause 57 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 58 is "Penalties for offences under the 1989 Order", and it amends the penalties for offences to level 3. No amendments were proposed, and no evidence was provided.

Is the Committee content, informally, that clause 58 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 59 is "Definition of 'the relevant date'" and amends article 347(2) of the Insolvency Order to alter the wording on relevant date consideration. I think that I am right in saying that this does not appear in the explanatory and financial memorandum. Will the Department explain what "the relevant date" is?

Mr Monds: Jack, will you take that?

Mr Reid: I would have to look at article 347 to give you an answer to that.

The Committee Clerk: It is not in the explanatory and financial memorandum, members.

Mr Reid: Article 347(2) talks about, for the purposes of article 17, "meetings to consider" company voluntary arrangement. That relates to where a scheme to address a company's insolvency has been put forward for consideration to allow for what would usually be the company's debts to be paid over a period of time. Previously, creditors would have been asked to vote at a meeting on whether to approve a proposal that was being put forward. That, of course, would no longer be appropriate given the policy of doing away with meetings. Therefore, the use of the word "meetings" in article 347(2) would not be appropriate, which is why it has to be changed to "consideration" by the company's creditors.

The Committee Clerk: Are members content for the clause to stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 60 is headed "Admissibility of evidence in statement of affairs etc". Article 375(2) of the Insolvency Order restricts the use that can be made of certain statements in criminal proceedings. Article 375(3)(a) disapplies article 375(2) in the case of offences that are under listed articles in the Insolvency Order. Clause 60 removes from that list a reference to article 84(5), which is repealed by clause 30. It is a tidying-up amendment. No amendments or proposals on the clause have been received.

Is the Committee content, informally, that the clause stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 61 is "Representation of corporations at meetings". Article 384(1) of the Insolvency Order made provision for how a corporation that was a creditor or debenture holder of a company could be represented at meetings with the company's creditors. Clause 61 replaces article 384(1)(a), referring instead to representation:

Again, no commentary was received on the clause.

Is the Committee content, informally, that the clause stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 62 is headed "Provision that may be included in company insolvency rules". It amends schedule 5 to the Insolvency Order, which sets out provisions that can be included in company insolvency rules, including the appointment of a liquidator and the establishment of a creditor committee, which we heard about in earlier clauses. Again, there was no commentary on the clause.

Is the Committee content, informally, that the clause stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 63 is "Nominee's report on debtor's proposal". Article 230 of the Insolvency Order applies where a debtor who intends to put a proposal for a voluntary arrangement to their creditors has obtained an interim order from the High Court, giving them temporary protection against bankruptcy and other proceedings. Article 230 obliges the nominee to:

during the interim order period that includes an opinion on the prospects for success of the voluntary arrangement that the debtor is proposing. Clause 63 removes all references from article 230 to consideration by the creditors taking place at a meeting. Again, that is to be done by the deemed consent approach. There was no commentary on the clause.

Is the Committee content, informally, that the clause stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 64 is "Debtor's proposal and nominee's report". Article 230A of the Insolvency Order applies in cases where a debtor who intends to put a proposal for a voluntary arrangement to his creditors has not obtained an interim order. When making a report to the creditors, the nominee has to include an opinion on the prospects for success of the voluntary arrangement that the debtor is proposing. Clause 64 amends article 230A(3) so that it no longer refers to consideration by the creditors taking place at a meeting. Again, that goes back to deemed consent.

Is the Committee content, informally, that the clause stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 65 is "Creditors' meeting". Clause 65 amends article 231 of the Insolvency Order that establishes the procedure that is to be used by the creditors to reach a decision on whether to approve a proposal for a voluntary arrangement. Clause 65 allows for the creditors to make their decision using a creditors' decision procedure rather than to have a physical meeting, presumably. Again, that is not about the digital thing; it is about deemed consent.

Are members content, informally, that the clause stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 66 is "Decisions of creditors' meeting". Again, this clause removes the reference to physical meetings, as is the case with clause 65.

Are members content, informally, that the clause stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 67 is headed "Report of decisions to High Court". It amends article 233 of the Insolvency Order, which makes provision for the person to whom the creditor's decision is to be communicated. Clause 67 provides that the nominee must first:

and then give notice of it to:

No commentary or amendments were received.

Is the Committee content, informally, that the clause stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 68 is "Effect of approval". Article 234 of the Insolvency Order establishes when an approved voluntary arrangement takes effect and sets out the consequences for creditors of its being approved. Clause 68 amends article 234 to reflect that approval is now by means of a creditors' decision procedure instead of being done at a meeting. Again, no commentary was received on the clause.

Is the Committee content, informally, that the clause stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 69 is "Additional effect on undischarged bankrupt". Article 235 of the Insolvency Order applies where a voluntary arrangement has been approved and the debtor is an undischarged bankrupt. Under article 235, application can be made to the High Court to have the bankruptcy order annulled. Clause 69 amends article 235 to reflect that approval is now by means of a creditors' decision procedure instead of being done at a meeting.

Is the Committee content, informally, that the clause stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 70 is headed "Challenge of meeting's decision". Article 236 of the Insolvency Order gives the debtor, the creditors and certain other interested parties the right, within specified time limits, to apply to the High Court for redress if they consider that there has been "material irregularity" in the procedure that has been used to seek the approval of creditors to a proposal for a voluntary arrangement. Clause 70 amends article 236 to reflect that approval is now by means of a creditors' decision instead of being done at a meeting. Again, no commentary was received.

Is the Committee content, informally, that the clause stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 71 is headed "Prosecution of delinquent debtors". Article 236B of the Insolvency Order sets out what action a nominee or supervisor is required to take on discovering that a debtor appears to have been guilty of a criminal offence in connection with a voluntary arrangement that has taken effect following approval by the creditors. Clause 71 amends article 236B so that it now refers to approval by a "decision of the debtor's creditors" instead of by a "'creditors' meeting'". Again, that is about deemed consent etc.

Is the Committee content that that clause stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 72 is headed "Arrangements coming to an end prematurely". Article 236C of the Insolvency Order establishes the circumstances in which a voluntary arrangement is to be treated as having ended prematurely. Clause 72 amends that article so that it now refers to approval by a "decision of the debtor's creditors" instead of a "'creditors' meeting'".

Again, members, are you content, informally, that the clause stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 73 is headed "Implementation and supervision of approved voluntary arrangement". Article 237 of the Insolvency Order provides that, once a voluntary arrangement takes effect, the nominee is to become known as "the supervisor", and sets out what interventions the High Court can make. Clause 73 amends article 237 so that it now refers to approval by a "decision of the debtor's creditors" instead of by a "'creditors' meeting'".

Again, members, are you content, informally, that the clause stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 74 is headed "Definition of 'bankrupt's estate'". It amends a bankrupt's right to exercise power over property that does not form part of their estate such that it is not to be treated as the bankrupt's property if the trustee in bankruptcy has vacated office by giving notice to the High Court and creditors that their administration of the bankrupt's estate is complete. Again, there was no commentary on that clause. Do members require clarification on that?

Mr Honeyford: Will you clarify what that means in practice? Is it about somebody's personal property?

Mr Reid: The "bankrupt's estate" means any assets that they have, but the estate is defined as excluding household furniture and tools and equipment for use in their business, which means business that is carried out by the bankrupt personally.

Mr Honeyford: Is that the one about the spouse?

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Middleton): No.

Mr Honeyford: That is fine.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Middleton): I think that you are referring to clause 85. I happened to look at it just at that second.

The Committee Clerk: They all sound very similar.

Mr Honeyford: I think that it is clause 76.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Middleton): It is right to ask.

The Committee Clerk: Clause 85 is about a bankrupt's home.

Is the Committee content, informally, that clause 74 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 75 is titled "Default in connection with voluntary arrangement", and it makes amendments to the Insolvency Order such that a bankruptcy order can be made if information that is made available by the debtor to their creditor in connection with the creditor's decision procedure is discovered to have been materially false or misleading. Again, no information was received, and no amendments have been proposed.

Is the Committee content, informally, that the clause stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 76 is headed "Powers of interim receiver". It gives an interim receiver who is appointed to safeguard a debtor's property the right to seek a decision on any matter from the debtor's creditors and places the receiver under a duty to do so if directed by the High Court. The Bar made some suggestions on the court's discretion to appoint receivers. We will pick those up when we discuss clause 92.

Other than that, is the Committee content, informally, that the clause stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 77 is headed "Appointment of trustee by Department". A person who is appointed by the Department as a trustee of a bankrupt's estate has to either give notice to the creditors of their appointment or, if the High Court allows it, advertise their appointment in accordance with the court's directions.

Following the amendment that clause 77 makes, the notice or advertisement must include an explanation of how to establish a creditors' committee. Again, no amendments were proposed to that clause.

Is the Committee content, informally, that the clause stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 78 is "Trustee's vacation of office". Article 271 of the Insolvency Order makes provision for how a trustee in bankruptcy can be removed from office, how they can resign and when they can vacate office.

Are we still quorate?

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Middleton): Yes.

The Committee Clerk: Following amendment by clause 78, article 271 will now list the circumstances in which a creditors' decision procedure can be instigated for the purpose of removing the official receiver from the office of trustee if he or she occupies that office by reason of having been automatically appointed to it on the making of a bankruptcy order, or removing from office a trustee who has been appointed by the Department or the High Court. There was no commentary on that clause.

Is the Committee content, informally, that the clause stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 79 is "Release of trustee". It amends article 272 of the Insolvency Order, which makes provision for release of both the official receiver when acting as trustee and insolvency practitioner trustees. Again, there was no commentary on that.

Are members content, informally, that the clause stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 80 is headed "Vacancy in office of trustee". Article 273 of the Insolvency Order establishes that, in the event of the office of trustee of a bankrupt's estate becoming vacant, the official receiver becomes trustee and sets out actions that the official receiver can or is required to take to have the vacancy filled. Clause 80 makes a number of changes, including giving the official receiver the right to ask the creditors to appoint an insolvency practitioner as trustee and obliging the official receiver to do so, if a minimum of one tenth in value of the creditors request it. Again, there was no commentary on that clause.

Is the Committee content, informally, that the clause stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 81 is headed "Creditors' committee". Article 274 of the Insolvency Order gives a bankrupt's creditors the right to establish a creditors' committee. Clause 81 amends Article 274 to remove all reference to that being done in "'A general meeting'". Again, no commentary on that has been received.

Is the Committee content, informally, that the clause stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 82 is titled "Trustee's powers", and it gives a trustee in bankruptcy the right to seek a decision on any matter from the creditors and obliges a trustee to:

if a creditor requests it and a minimum of one tenth in value of the creditors want it done.

Again, there was no commentary on that. Is the Committee content, informally, that the clause stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 83 is "Final distribution". It amends article 303 of the Insolvency Order such that notices need not be provided to opted-out creditors. Those are the creditors who have decided that they do not want to receive any more notices. No amendments to or information on the clause have been received.

Is the Committee content, informally, that it stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 84 is "Final meeting". It makes amendments to article 304 of the Insolvency Order, which sets out the action to be taken by an insolvency practitioner trustee once it:

There were no comments on the clause and no amendments were proposed.

Is the Committee content, informally, that the clause stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 85 is "Bankrupt's home". It amends article 305 of the Insolvency Order, which applies where a bankrupt's estate includes an interest in property that the trustee has not been able to realise. Clause 85 amends article 305(2) such that it now prevents the trustee issuing a notice to the creditors that administration of the bankrupt's estate is, for practical purposes, complete unless certain actions have been taken by the High Court or the Department.

The Bar of Northern Ireland made reference to differences between Northern Ireland and England and Wales in the assessment of the rights to the family home of the non-bankrupt spouse. The Department argued that related amendments would have consequences that are far-reaching and go well beyond the scope of the Bill.

Mr Honeyford: I have a question about the difference between the laws and why we are not following England. Does the Department accept the Bar's concern that we are not following England and Wales and will not have those full protections for the spouse when it comes to the family home?

Mr Reid: I will just look at article 305 and the alteration that will be made to it.

Mr Monds: The alteration just refers to the fact that, under the Bill, those matters will not be dealt with at a meeting. The Bar was bringing in wider considerations on protections that would not necessarily be within the scope of the Bill. Jack, do you want to say something on that?

Mr Reid: That is exactly the reason for the alteration that was previously referred to. The trustee was able to summon a meeting under article 304, which is a final meeting of the creditors, to lay his report before them and explain what had been carried out in the course of the administration of the bankruptcy. In keeping with the policy that physical meetings are done away with, it would be inappropriate for article 305(2) to refer to a meeting being summoned under article 304. Therefore, the wording needs to be changed so that it refers to giving notice under the previous article, that is, article 304. Therefore, it does not alter the safeguards for the bankrupt's spouse or children in any way; it simply deals with a requirement that the trustee is under at the conclusion of his administration of the estate.

Mr Honeyford: What is the purpose of that? The Bar is saying that we are not following England and Wales in the wider powers of the Bill, and you then say that it is out of the Bill's scope, but what is the purpose? What protections are there, then, or is that outside the scope of the Bill?

Mr Reid: I can neither confirm nor deny that this amendment is not in keeping with England and Wales, because I do not have a copy of the Insolvency Act 1986 in front of me. I believe that the same amendment would have been made to the equivalent provision in England and Wales, but I would have to check that in the '86 Act.

Mr Honeyford: Can we check that?

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Middleton): We are talking about different things. We are referring to clause 85, not clause 84.

Mr Honeyford: Clause 85, yes.

Mr Reid: Yes, that is the clause, but it amends article 305.

The Committee Clerk: The point that the member is making — he can keep me right here — is that it is not what clause 85 does. He is making a wider point about the bankrupt's home. In Northern Ireland, you are more likely to lose your home than you are in England and Wales. Therefore, although that is not what the clause does, it opens the Pandora's box of the bankrupt's home. That is where the Committee would possibly seek an amendment. What the members are looking for from the Department is clarity on why we are different. Why are we more likely to lose our homes in Northern Ireland than we would be in England and Wales, and why would you not want to amend in order to bring us into line with England and Wales?

Mr Reid: That is really a wider issue that is outside the scope of the Bill. This aspect of the Bill deals with consequential amendments that are required as a result of the changeover from using physical meetings to virtual means to communicate. It does not address safeguarding the interests of spouses or dependants in the bankrupt's home where there is a threat of their losing it as a consequence of the person's bankruptcy. We did not address that. It was not the purpose of the Bill to put in place additional safeguards for spouses and dependants in those circumstances.

I know that the issue has been brought up of families being more likely to lose their homes in Northern Ireland. The same protections would apply under human rights law to a person's right to enjoy their property in Northern Ireland that apply in the rest of the United Kingdom. I think that that is the policies of the courts rather than a difference in legislation. Offhand and without studying the issue in depth, I cannot confirm that there is no difference in the legislation in the two jurisdictions, but I do not think that there is. It would be a matter of how that provision is applied by the courts.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Middleton): In its evidence to the Committee, the Bar said that there are differences.

Mr Honeyford: The Bar is flagging it up.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Middleton): Mr Honeyford has raised some of the concerns that the Committee had about the differentiation when we looked at the clause. I know that you have said that the Department feels that the issue is not within the Bill's scope, but surely it is something that should be addressed. That is why the Committee discussed scoping out tabling a potential amendment to ensure that people in Northern Ireland are not more vulnerable to losing their home than their counterparts in England and Wales. Is that fair?

Mr Honeyford: That sums up my concern exactly.

Mr Reid: Was that said in the Bar's presentation, or was it in the letter that it sent to the Committee?

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Middleton): The Bar gave a presentation to the Committee via Zoom. Evidence was presented, and a written submission was provided. Is that right?

The Committee Clerk: Yes. It sounds as though the Committee is agreed. I suggest that we write to the Department about the issue. I will also ask the Bill Office to scope out tabling a an amendment to see what it thinks about the matter. I am conscious that it is involved, and it may be hard for the departmental officials to provide an answer today. We will therefore write to you. Before we get to formal clause-by-clause consideration, you will hopefully get back to us to tell us why you think it cannot be done. I will also speak to the Bill Office and see whether it thinks that it can be done. The Committee can then decide how to move forward.

Mr Reid: The difficulty that we have is that, at this late stage, we would be introducing a completely new policy element that has not been addressed at all in the Bill. The intention of the legislation is to bring in provision equivalent to that made by three Acts at Westminster for the benefit of the insolvency profession here. A lot of procedure would be involved in introducing that policy element. I think particularly of consultation and the preparation of a regulatory impact assessment, equality screening etc. The same sequence would have to be followed as when a Bill is done from scratch. To start to do that at this stage —

Mr Honeyford: We are at the start of Committee Stage.

Mr Reid: — could be difficult, given the mandate's remaining lifetime.

Mr Honeyford: Hang on. Sorry. This is the first time that we have had the opportunity to look at doing stuff with the Bill. We are not at a late stage in the process. We are at the very start of it, and we are flagging it now. Your service so far in taking us through the Bill has been great, but we are flagging the issue now. I could not care less that there are 18 months left in the mandate. The Committee will do what it needs to do to scrutinise the legislation that is in front of us. Otherwise, it is absolutely pointless for us to go through its 121 clauses.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Middleton): I share that sentiment. David is right. This is the Committee's first opportunity to have an informal discussion on the clauses with the Department. A lot of the Bill is lifted from legislation for England and Wales. A lot of the learning is also lifted from England and Wales. It is therefore right to ask why we should not address that particular issue now rather than, as David said, agree a clause that does not address all the concerns.

I will move on. The Committee Clerk has made a proposal. Are members happy that we write to the Department to get that clarity and that, in tandem, we ask the Bill Office to do a scoping exercise to see what can be done?

The Committee Clerk: Marvellous. I will move on to clause 86, which is titled "Offence of making false statements". It amends article 327(3)(c) of the Insolvency Order. The amended provision makes it an offence for someone who is later made bankrupt to have attempted to account for the loss of property through fictitious losses or expenses. We received no commentary on the clause. Informally, is the Committee content that clause 86 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 87 is titled "Provision that may be included in individual insolvency rules". It amends schedule 6 to the Insolvency Order, which sets out provision that can be included in individual insolvency rules. Again, there was no commentary on that clause. Informally, is the Committee content that clause 87 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 88 is titled "Extension of administrator's term of office". It amends schedule B1 to the Insolvency Order so as to increase the maximum period for which it is possible for an administration to be extended with the consent of the creditors from six months to one year. Again, no comments were received. Informally, is the Committee content that clause 88 stand part of the Bill?

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Middleton): Are you OK to keep going?

The Committee Clerk: I am grand. If you can keep listening to me, I can keep going.

Clause 89 is titled "Administration: payments to unsecured creditors". It amends schedule B1 to the Insolvency Order to establish that an administrator can make a payment out of the prescribed part of a company's property without seeking the High Court’s permission and that the fact that the administrator thinks that a company is in a position to make such a payment does not trigger the option of moving to a creditor's voluntary liquidation. Again, there was no commentary on the clause. Informally, is the Committee content that clause 89 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 90 is titled "Creditors not required to prove small debts: company insolvency". It inserts new paragraph 13A into schedule 5 to the Insolvency Order, which will enable provision to be included in company insolvency rules to permit the payment of dividends to creditors who are owed less than a prescribed amount without the creditor having to submit a claim. The intention is to set that amount at £1,000 initially. No commentary was received on the clause. Informally, is the Committee content that clause 90 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 91 is titled "Creditors not required to prove small debts: individual insolvency". It inserts new paragraph 16A into schedule 6 to the Insolvency Order, which will enable provision to be included in individual insolvency rules to permit the payment of dividends to a bankrupt's creditors, if they are owed less than a prescribed amount, without the creditor having to submit a claim. The intention is to set that amount at £1,000 initially. No commentary was received on the clause. Informally, is the Committee content that clause 91 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 92 is titled "Trustees in bankruptcy". The Insolvency Order provides that, when the High Court makes a bankruptcy order, the official receiver automatically becomes receiver and manager of the bankrupt's estate, unless, as can happen only in certain special cases, the court appoints an insolvency practitioner as trustee. That means that, until such time as a trustee is appointed, the official receiver's role is limited to protecting the estate. The Department advises that the initial appointment of the official receiver as receiver and manager has not been shown to have any practical benefit for the administration of bankruptcy cases and that it serves to delay the realisation of assets. Clause 92 therefore inserts new article 264A into the Insolvency Order, which provides for the official receiver instead to become a trustee on the making of a bankruptcy order, unless the court appoints someone else.

The Bar of Northern Ireland suggested that the provisions relating to the immediate appointment of the official receiver should be amended to indicate that they will not override the court's power to appoint another insolvency practitioner in exceptional cases. The Department countered that the court has general powers of administration and superintendence and, as such, can appoint receivers whenever it likes. Nothing in the Bill undermines that position. Informally, is the Committee content, on balance, that clause 92 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 93 is titled "Abolition of fast-track voluntary arrangements". Fast-track voluntary arrangements (FTVAs) are a streamlined individual voluntary arrangement (IVA) procedure for cases in which a debtor has already been made bankrupt. They were introduced in March 2006 and have never been used in Northern Ireland. Informally, is the Committee content that clause 93 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 94 is titled "Power to add to supplies protected under the 1989 Order". It gives the Department the power to make regulations amending article 197 of the Insolvency Order. The article currently allows utility suppliers to seek a personal guarantee from the insolvency officeholder before continuing to supply an insolvent company and prevents such suppliers from insisting on the pre-insolvency arrears being cleared as a condition of continuing supply. The clause widens the scope of utility suppliers to include IT supplies. There was no commentary on the clause or any amendments proposed. I think that the purpose of the clause is to allow companies that are on the brink of insolvency to continue to trade.

Mr Monds: Yes.

The Committee Clerk: IT is therefore key. Informally, is the Committee content that clause 94 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 95 is titled "Power to give further protection to essential supplies". It gives the Department the power to make regulations that, provided any conditions specified in the regulations are met, render void certain contractual terms in contracts for the supply of essential goods or services that would otherwise be triggered by a company going into administration. The supplies that may be protected are supplies of gas, electricity, water, communications and IT. That is not dissimilar to the previous clause. Informally, is the Committee content that clause 95 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 96 is titled "Protection of supplies of water, electricity, etc". It appears to be pretty much the same as clause 94, but is for supplies in cases in which an individual has been carrying on business in their own right or as a member of a partnership. There was no commentary on the clause. Informally, is the Committee content that clause 96 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 97 is titled "Further protection of essential supplies". It applies where a voluntary arrangement proposed by an individual who has been carrying on a business in their own right or as a member of a partnership is approved. Article 343A provides that, on that happening, any insolvency-related terms in contracts for the supply to the business of utility or other goods cease to have effect. The effect is to prevent the supplier causing or permitting the termination of the supply or the contract, altering the contract terms or demanding increased payments for the supply. That appears to be similar to previous clauses. Informally, is the Committee content that clause 97 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 98 is titled "Power to add to supplies protected under the 1989 Order". It appears to replicate clause 94, except that it is for individuals trading and that it adds IT to the list of essential supplies. Again, there was no commentary on the clause. Informally, is the Committee content that clause 98 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 99 is titled "Power to give further protection to essential supplies". It appears to replicate clause 95, except that it is for individuals trading. Informally, is the Committee content that clause 99 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 100 is titled "Sections 94 to 99: supplemental". It relates to regulation-making powers that are subject to draft affirmative resolution. Informally, is the Committee content that clause 100 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 101 is titled "Remote attendance at meetings and use of websites". It inserts new articles into the Insolvency Order. Those new articles allow meetings of company members to be held in company insolvency proceedings without the participants having to be present at a single physical location. Clauses 7 and 8 also refer. There was commentary from the Bar of NI about the clause. I suggest that we treat clause 101 as we have treated the other clauses and wait for various responses and possible amendments. Do members agree?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 102 is titled "Miscellaneous provision about insolvency law". It introduces schedule 3, which makes miscellaneous amendments to the Insolvency Order, the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 and other legislation. There was no commentary on the clause. Informally, is the Committee content that clause 102 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 103 is titled "Notice of proposed resolution for voluntary winding up". Article 70 of the Insolvency Order makes provision for when a company can be wound up voluntarily and for the procedure that must be carried out before a resolution to wind up a company voluntarily can be passed. Clause 103 amends that article to include reference to the Enforcement of Judgments Office. There was no commentary on clause 103. Informally, is the Committee content that clause 103 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 104 is titled "Notice of result of resolution to wind up voluntarily". Article 71 of the Insolvency Order sets out action that is to be taken by a company once a resolution to wind it up voluntarily has been passed. Clause 104 amends article 71 so that it now provides that, on a resolution for voluntary winding up being passed, notice has to be given within 14 days to the Enforcement of Judgments Office, as well as be published in 'The Belfast Gazette'. Again, there was no commentary on the clause. Informally, is the Committee content that clause 104 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 105 is titled "Presentation of bankruptcy petition: conditions to be satisfied". It amends the conditions that need to be satisfied before a bankruptcy petition can be presented to the High Court by an individual’s creditors. That will mean that rather than the debtor simply having to be present in Northern Ireland for the test to be passed, they will either have to be domiciled in Northern Ireland or, at any time during the three years, to have been ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland, had a place of residence in Northern Ireland or carried out business in Northern Ireland. There was no commentary on the clause or any amendments proposed. Informally, is the Committee content that clause 105 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 106 is titled "Orders relating to recognised professional bodies to be subject to negative resolution". It is a regulation-making power. Informally, is the Committee content that clause 106 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 107 is titled "Amendments of the 1995 Order". It sets out transitional provisions for amendments made to the Insolvent Partnerships Order (Northern Ireland) 1995 by Part 12 of the Bill. No amendments have been proposed to the clause. Informally, is the Committee content that clause 107 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 108 is titled "Voluntary arrangements of insolvent partnerships". It appears to alter article 4 of the Insolvent Partnerships Order to include references to opted-out creditors and the use of qualifying decisions, which we have heard a bit about. No amendments have been proposed to the clause. Informally, is the Committee content that clause 108 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: We are nearly there. Clause 109 is titled "Voluntary arrangements of members of insolvent partnership". Article 5 of the Insolvent Partnerships Order applies where a winding-up order is made for an insolvent partnership and where a winding-up order is made against a corporate member or a bankruptcy order is made against an individual member. The clause includes reference to deemed consent and qualifying decisions. There was no commentary on the clause. Informally, is the Committee content that clause 109 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 110 is titled "Administration in relation to insolvent partnerships". Article 6 of the Insolvent Partnerships Order applies to insolvent partnerships the provisions in the Insolvency Order pertaining to administration. The clause adds references to the treatment of opted-out creditors. Informally, is the Committee content that clause 110 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 111 is titled "Creditors' winding-up: concurrent petition against member". Article 7 of the Insolvent Partnerships Order provides that Part VI of the Insolvency Order is to apply where an insolvent partnership is being wound up as an unregistered company on the petition of various listed parties. Among the parties listed is the supervisor of a voluntary arrangement entered into by a member of the partnership. Clause 111 adds to the list the supervisor of a voluntary arrangement entered into by the partnership itself. Again, there was no commentary on the clause. Informally, is the Committee content that clause 111 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 112 is titled "Creditors' winding-up: concurrent petitions against member or members". Article 8 of the Insolvent Partnerships Order applies where an insolvent partnership is wound up as an unregistered company and a petition is presented to have one or more corporate members wound up or to have one or more individual members made bankrupt. The clause inserts reference to the treatment of opted-out creditors. Again, there was no commentary on the clause. Informally, is the Committee content that clause 112 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 113 is titled "Members' winding-up: concurrent petitions against all members". Article 10 of the Insolvent Partnerships Order applies where a member of an insolvent partnership presents a petition to have the partnership wound up as an unregistered company and to have all its members wound up or made bankrupt. Again, the clause inserts reference to the treatment of opted-out creditors. Informally, is the Committee content that clause 113 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 114 is titled "Individual members presenting joint petition: no winding-up of partnership". Article 11 of the Insolvent Partnerships Order applies where the members of an insolvent partnership are all individuals and all petition to be made bankrupt and to have the partnership wound up but not as an unregistered company. Again, the clause inserts reference to the treatment of opted-out creditors. Informally, is the Committee content that clause 114 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 115 is titled "Application of the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002". The clause sets out the provisions in the 2002 Order that apply if an insolvent partnership is wound up as an unregistered company, enters administration or is wound up otherwise than as an unregistered company. Again, there was no commentary on the clause, and no amendments have been proposed. Informally, is the Committee content that clause 115 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 116 is titled "Supplemental and transitional provision". It appears to introduce minor wording changes. Again, there was no commentary on that devil. Informally, is the Committee content that clause 116 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 117 is titled "Amendments to the Schedules to the 1995 Order". The clause introduces schedule 4 to the Bill, which makes amendments to schedules 1 to 10 to the Insolvent Partnerships Order (Northern Ireland) 1995. No amendments have been proposed, and no evidence was received. Informally, is the Committee content that clause 117 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 118 is titled "Interpretation". It includes minor clarifications on interpretation. Again, no amendments have been proposed, and no evidence was received. Informally, is the Committee content that clause 118 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 119 is titled "Power to make consequential amendments, repeals and revocations". It is another regulation-making power. The Department advised that, in order to ensure that clause 119(3) applies comprehensively to all forms of primary legislation, including Westminster legislation, an amendment will be tabled by the Minister at Consideration Stage or Further Consideration Stage. Informally, is the Committee content that clause 119 subject to that amendment, stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 120 is titled "Commencement". It commences provisions at Part 9, which covers the protection of essential supplies, after Royal Assent. It is the bit about electricity, gas and IT. Everything else will be commenced when the Department chooses. Presumably, that is to give the Department time to bring forward regulations and rules. Again, there was no commentary on the clause. Informally, is the Committee content that clause 120 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Clause 121 is titled "Short title". Informally, is the Committee content that clause 121 stand part of the Bill?

The Committee Clerk: Schedule 1 is titled "Amendments to Schedule B1 to the 1989 Order". Clauses 11 to 20, clause 21 and schedule 1, and clauses 22 to 24 all make amendments to provisions in the Insolvency Order that are needed in order to apply the policy that underpins clauses 7 to 10. It deals with holding creditor meetings. It is probably linked to the provision on virtual meetings. Subject to the answers that we are awaiting from the Department and the Business Office, I think that members are content to wait for now and come back to schedule 1. Do members agree?

The Committee Clerk: Schedule 2 is titled "Trustees in bankruptcy: consequential amendments". It appears to be a long list of minor amendments relating to bankruptcy provisions. Informally, is the Committee content that schedule 2 be agreed?

The Committee Clerk: Schedule 3 is titled "Miscellaneous amendments of insolvency law". The schedule has five parts: "Administration of companies"; "Winding up of companies"; "Disqualification of unfit directors of insolvent companies"; "Bankruptcy; and "Other minor amendments of the 1989 Order and other enactments".

The Bar suggested that, in part 3 of the schedule, the provisions relating to the immediate appointment of the official receiver should be amended to indicate that they do not override the court's power to appoint another insolvency practitioner in exceptional cases. As we heard, however, when that was discussed under clause 92, the Department countered that the court has lots of general powers of administration and superintendence and will not be scared to do whatever it needs to do. Informally, is the Committee content that schedule 3 be agreed?

The Committee Clerk: We are nearly there. Schedule 4 is titled "Insolvent partnerships: Amendments to Schedules to the 1995 Order". The Bar of Northern Ireland suggested that deemed consent in the Bill provides insolvency practitioners with an unnecessary level of additional discretion. Insolvency practitioners disputed that, however, arguing that the deemed consent principle in the Bill provides insolvency professionals with a necessary level of discretion to call creditor meetings if required. In any event, it was argued that creditors could seek a physical meeting and that the deemed consent principle was an alternative to the default physical meeting of creditors and could provide a lower-cost option for creditors.

Additionally, the proposed new article 23(4) in the 2002 Order that is mentioned in schedule 4 requires that regulations need only be laid in the Assembly and will not be subject to any form of resolution. It was suggested that the regulations should be subject to negative resolution. The Department, however, said that that might not be logical, and its feeling was that, because the provision was so narrowly drawn, no further amendment was required. Informally, is the Committee content that schedule 4 be agreed?

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Middleton): Was the Insolvency Practitioners Association content?

The Committee Clerk: Very much so. It loved the deemed consent principle. It had been called for that kind of thing for years.

We will move ton o other matters that have been raised. The Bar of Northern Ireland advised that, under current practice in Northern Ireland, a petition for insolvency will not be entertained unless the creditor has first obtained a judgement, even if the creditor's claim is entirely unopposed.

The Department indicated that that was the subject of a practice direction issued by a High Court master and that it therefore did not wish to amend it. The Committee may be minded, however, to ask the Bill Office to explore the possibility of an amendment to provide that petitions for insolvency could be entertained without a judgement, as in England and Wales, particularly if the claim is entirely unopposed. Deputy Chair, is that where the Committee is on that?

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Middleton): Yes. Are members content that we approach the Bill Office to scope out there being a potential amendment?

The Committee Clerk: That is fab. The Bar of Northern Ireland also commented on post-petition transactions. As has been explained, such transactions involve a transfer of property that occurs after the commencement of the bankruptcy case. They must be validated by the courts. In Northern Ireland but not in other jurisdictions, that is all done in the High Court. In follow-up correspondence, the Bar seemed to clarify its position, indicating that it was content with the current arrangements. Is the Committee therefore content to let that matter lie and not pursue it as an amendment at this point?

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Middleton): Well done, Peter, for getting us through the Bill. I also thank Jack and Richard.

I do not want anybody to despair, because we have the opportunity to go through the Bill again on 19 November. Do not be disappointed. Thank you for that, Peter. We have a good summary of the actions, but do you want to summarise anything?

The Committee Clerk: We have done very well today to get through it all, so we will not deal with the Bill next week. When we meet on 26 November, I will group the clauses for Question on stand part so that we do not have to go through them all. There are about nine Parts, so the Chair will put nine Questions rather than close to 130. Members, if you have a brainwave about an amendment, you can bring it to the Committee. That is no problem. Alternatively, you can table it yourself by going to the Bill Office. I am sure that Aoibheann would be glad to see you.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Middleton): I think that there is broad consensus on the Committee on the direction of travel and some of the amendments. As you say, however, everybody is entitled to —.

The Committee Clerk: Absolutely. I am just making it clear to members what they can do. That should not be interpreted as a commentary on the Bill by the Clerk, because it is not. You have an opportunity to table amendments, and you may or may not wish to use it.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Middleton): Thank you both very much for your time today. We will see you soon.

Mr Monds: Thank you very much.