—(1) Subject to subsection (7) below, for the purposes of this Act any question whether a person is an associate of another person shall be determined in accordance with the following provisions of this section (any reference, whether in those provisions or in regulations under the said subsection (7). to a person being as associate of another person being taken to be a reference to their being associates of each other).
(2) A person is an associate of an individual if that person is the individual's husband or wife. or is a relative, or the husband or wife of a relative, of the individual or of the individual's husband or wife.
(3) A person is an associate of any person with whom he is in partnership, and of the husband or wife or a relative of any individual with whom he is in partnership; and a firm is an associate of any person who is a member of the firm.
(4) For the purposes of this section a person is a relative of an individual if he is that individual's brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, lineal ancester or lineal descendant, treating
(5) A person is an associate of any person whom he employs or by whom he is employed; and for the purposes of this subsection any director or other officer of a company shall be treated as employed by that company.
(6) In subsection (5) above, "company" includes any body corporate (whether incorporated in Great Britain or elsewhere).
(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations—
Brought up, and read the First time.
5.35 pm
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 30.
The purpose of the new clause is to provide a definition in the Bill of the expression "associate", and follows from our discussions in Committee. The definition covers the principal categories relevant to personal bankruptcy of persons who are defined as being associates for the purposes of the Insolvency Bill. The definition will allow for arty necessary changes to it to be made by regulations. The amendment to clause 72 makes a consequential change in the interpretation clause.
I welcome the new clause. In Committee I said that it was unsatisfactory that the Bill did not contain a definition of "associate" and I welcome the fact that we now have it.
I take it that, although the wording is different, the effect of the clause is basically the same as the effect of the definition in the Insolvency Bill. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that.for Scotland: I am happy to give that confirmation. The effect is the same. As I said, the only difference is that, should it be necessary to extend that classification, it could be done by regulation in future.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.