BUSINESSES IN ADMINISTRATION, ROLE OF SUPPLIERS AND INSOLVENCY ACT

Early day motion 2621, tabled 19 January 2012 by Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party). Signed by 6 members.

That this House notes that the Association of Business Recovery Professionals-R3 (Rescue, Recovery, Renewal) has declared that present uncertainty surrounding `administration expenses' is forcing more businesses into closure instead of rescue; is concerned that trading a business in administration is being made far more expensive by suppliers, including `on suppliers' who take advantage of insolvency situations by demanding ransom payments, increasing tariffs on withdrawing supply altogether; supports R3's `Holding Rescue to Ransom' campaign which seeks amendment of section 233 of the Insolvency Act 1986, which fails to protect businesses in administration against such unreasonable actions; further notes R3's estimate that such a change could result in over 2,000 additional business rescues a year, a 14 per cent. reduction in liquidations, a 22 per cent. fall in the number of pre-packaged administrations, increased returns to creditors and more jobs being saved; andcalls on the Government to bring forward legislative proposals to ensure that suppliers continue to supply at a reasonable cost on insolvency, as is the case in the US under the `Chapter 11' procedure, and in doing so still have the security of priority payment as an `administration expense'.

Signatures by party: Conservative 2, Labour 2, Social Democratic and Labour Party 2.