I am sure that it is more in order for me to concern myself with this debate, rather than the next one, in which I will not be seeking to speak, but I will say that we want to ensure that the advertising in terms of the insolvency process is the most effective. That is our concern and why we have proposed the order.
The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) asked why I disagreed with the Committee's verdict. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in another place was satisfied with the order; it gave it the thumbs-up, to use the colloquial phrase. The House of Commons Committee also stated that all the preconditions in the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 and the Standing Order tests had been met, but it expressed several reservations and stated that, in its view, the order should not be approved. Those reservations are set out in the report, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), the Committee Chairman, will explain them, but, in brief, the Committee felt the order was too "narrow in its focus" and that its effects would be "minor". It felt it may be unlikely to result in further dividends for creditors and would not provide them with enough protection.
We have two main reasons for wanting to introduce this order. First, it has the potential to save business and creditors money, by reducing costs. Each advert costs an estimated £300 a time, and since there is a requirement to place two adverts, that cost is obviously doubled. That £600 charge may not be a life-or-death sum in each individual case, but when one adds up the sums involved throughout the process, it can increase the costs of insolvency. For creditors who have already lost money, it is important to ensure that their money is spent usefully during an insolvency process, so that as much as possible can be returned to them at the end of that process. The savings from the proposals, together with parallel changes that we propose to the insolvency rules, will combine to mean estimated savings of some £17 million a year. This is not a "narrow" measure.
Legislative Reform
Proceeding contribution from
Pat McFadden
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Thursday, 19 March 2009.
It occurred during Legislative debate on Legislative Reform.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
489 c1074 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 10:34:10 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_540670
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_540670
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_540670