My Lords, perhaps I should mention—though it is not an interest, being from so long ago—that I was a member of the Insolvency Practices Council, which oversaw insolvency practitioners. I was there as a consumer, not as a trade union member, of the noble collection of insolvency practitioners.
One of the strange things is that this is a deregulation Bill, but it is going to create a new system of exams, oversight and monitoring. That is somewhat odd in a deregulation Bill, but that is beside the point. The assertion is made that it will attract new entrants, without any evidence. The assertion is made that IP fees will be reduced, without any evidence. The assertion is made that training costs will be reduced. Actually, the main training provider, BPP, has to apply its overheads across the exams, so the cost per exam will go up even if you do two exams rather than three. These are assertions, not evidence.
When I was involved in this area—this may answer the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, though not to me—there had been suggestions about a personal insolvency-only regime, never a corporate insolvency-only regime. The idea was that people working in debt management companies in particular might want a personal insolvency-only regime. However, despite the fact that I spoke on this at Second Reading and have had lots of lobbying and approaches from everyone else, none of the debt counselling people has approached me to support the idea of a single licence. There has been silence on that. However, it explains why the amendment would be to allow a personal-only insolvency regime. None the less, I remain worried about the idea of a corporate-only insolvency regime, whereby people dealing with corporates would have no training in personal insolvency. It is an issue that we may want the Government to reconsider, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw.