HC Deb 27 March 1963 vol 674 cc1427-37
Mr. Deputy-Speaker

With this Amendment can be discussed the following three Government Amendments.

Mr. du Cann

I think that would be most convenient, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. In spite of the battering I received in our last discussion, I hope the House will feel that we are doing what we can to meet some of the views which were expressed in Committee both by my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett)—who is temporarily absent from his place—and the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), because these Amendments are tabled very largely in order to meet points which they raised at that stage.

Clause 11 as drafted requires a company which has advertised for deposits to furnish without charge a copy of its latest accounts to any person on receiving a deposit from him and to any existing depositor who asks for a copy. It was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay and by the hon. and learned Member that we should broaden this provision and enable accounts to go to any prospective depositor who asked for them. We have considered this matter and these Amendments are tabled largely as a result of that consideration and to meet the Committee's wishes.

Their purpose, which involves a great deal of re-drafting of Clause 11, is principally to enable a "prospective depositor"—if I may use those words—to obtain a copy of the company's accounts subject—and this is most important—to the company being given protection against frivolous demands. There is, however, an additional purpose. Clause 11 as at present drafted provides that a person who becomes a depositor shall be furnished with a copy of the Company's accounts unless he has had a copy within 21 days. On consideration it was felt unreasonable to require a company to furnish a copy of its accounts to anyone who had at any time been furnished with a copy of the same accounts. The Amendments deal with that point. I ought to explain to my hon. Friend in particular why the words "prospective depositor" are not used. We were advised that they were insufficiently exact.

The first of the four Amendments extends the requirement to the furnishing of a copy of the latest accounts without charge to any person who signifies to the company that he requires a copy of the accounts or document with a view to becoming a depositor with the company. I do not know whether it would be convenient to the House for me to say a word about the Amendment to the Amendment which is in the names of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering and the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond). If that is of assistance, I certainly will do so. I have made the point that we feel it important to protect the company against frivolous demands. I acknowledge at once that there is a plain limit to what one can do in practice. I dare say that the hon. and learned Member and his hon. Friend, and perhaps other hon. Members, might feel that their Amendment recognises the reality of the situation. All this would be logical and completely true, but on the other hand I hope that the hon. Members will not press that Amendment because we feel that there is some advantage in putting in the Bill specific words to indicate what we have in mind. If the House feels that we should give protection against frivolous demands, we should make that clear. That is why I have some doubts about the Amendment to the Amendment.

On the other hand—I hope that I can say this without getting out of order—I observed that a few days ago there was another Amendment on the Notice Paper which was very largely a drafting point. It contained a form of wards which perhaps might be acceptable if the hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester care to bear that in mind for the future.

The effect of the Amendments in page 9, line 44, and in page 10, line 1, is to ensure that a company is not required to furnish more than one copy of any one set of accounts to any one person, no matter whether he is a person who has just made a deposit or is an existing depositor, or a prospective depositor. Again, I hope that the House will think this is sound.

The Amendment in page 10, line 4, permits a company to refuse to furnish a copy of the accounts to a person from whom it is not willing to receive a deposit. This sounds rather standoffish. It may be for the convenience of the House if I explain it. It will be recalled that in our earlier discussions we noticed in particular Clause 7, which is the exit Clause for any company which wishes not to go on taking deposits any longer and not to be bound by the Bill. The point here is to take account of that situation. I may be asked what is to happen if the company changes its mind. In the first instance, it must be reasonable that it should say, "No, we are not sending out accounts to any new depositors in the future, because we are not seeking any additional deposits".

Similarly, if the company were seeking deposits in the future, under the terms of the Bill it would be obliged to acknowledge the request of prospective depositors to send out accounts again. So there would be no possibility of any company using this provision to avoid the real provisions of the Bill.

With this explanation I hope that the House will think that these Amendments are reasonable and make good sense. I hope, too, that the House will think that they certainly comply with the undertaking that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay and the hon. and learned Member for Kettering.

Mr. F. M. Bennett

As direct reference was made to the Amendment I moved in Committee containing the words "prospective purchaser", and as my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has virtually asked whether these Amendments meet the undertaking given in Committee I should like to say at once that in my opinion they do.

I was rather amused to hear my hon. Friend, during his remarks, several times, both consciously and unconsciously, in seeking to give an explanation, use the words "prospective depositor", as he did in Committee and as he has done on at least five occasions since he began to speak this afternoon. If he thinks that, on the whole, his form of words is a better one, I am willing to accept it, although I, like him, am doubtful as to their validity, because I do not myself see how it can be proved whether or not a man has it in mind to become a depositor. Therefore, I do not think that this carries it any further than "prospective purchaser". Having said that, I think that the matter might be left where it is.

Mr. Mitchison

I must thank the hon. Gentleman for trying to give effect to what was said in Committee, but the Amendment standing in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) to line 3, to leave out from "any" to the end of line 5 and to insert "person" would, I think, have shortened this considerably and I doubt if it would have made any difference. The Minister's Amendment, on the other hand, states that a … company … shall furnish a copy of the accounts or other document mentioned … to any depositor with the company and to any other person who signifies"—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Member, but if he is proposing to move his Amendment now I do not think that that could be done because it would arise at a later stage. I would have to dispose of the present Question first and then call the words to be added, when the hon. and learned Member could deal with his Amendment. I am merely trying to get the order clear.

Mr. Mitchison

I do not think that I quite appreciate that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for I merely want to point out why I find the Ministerial Amendment insufficient and why I would have preferred the amended version. I did not attempt to move my Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The point is that the hon. and learned Member cannot move his Amendment now. If he wishes to discuss it now and move it later formally, I would then put the Question. It is really a matter for the convenience of the House because I am sure that hon. Members would not wish to discuss the matter twice over.

Mr. Mitchison

I had not intended to move it and I do not think that I said that I was moving it. I was referring to it and I did not propose to do any more. I was saying that if our Amendment had been inserted it would have removed the words after "any" and the words about … any other person who signifies to the company that he requires a copy of the accounts or document with a view to becoming a depositor with the company. It would simply have meant, those words having been removed, that it would be made obligatory to hand them over to anybody; any member of the public. I cannot see any real difference between "anybody" and "any member of the public". I must remind the Government about what was said in Committee. The Economic Secretary said: I cannot accept the wording of this Amendment"— that was the Amendment in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett)— because 'prospective depositor' is extraordinarily difficult to define, as I know my hon. Friends will understand. I quite see the hon. Gentleman's point, but I am not quite certain that he has succeeded in defining it. After the Economic Secretary made those remarks I said "It means nothing", and the Minister went on to justify what we had said by saying: One never knows where money comes from if one is at the receiving end in these matters. That is a rather nice picture. For that reason it is not possible to accept the Amendment as it stands. My answer to the question, however, is a clear and unqualified. 'Yes'. The Economic Secretary went on to say something in comment to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), who was the Chairman of the Committee, following which I said: I entirely agree with what was said about a 'prospective depositor'. What it comes down to is that any member of the public should be entitled to these accounts, and no less than that. Perhaps I may take the Economic Secretary's nod as indicating his assent on this occasion. This was followed by the Economic Secretary saying: The answer is most certainly, 'Yes'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 14th February. 1963; c. 435.] As I understood it, what the Economic Secretary was assenting to was the proposition that any member of the public should be entitled to these accounts, and no less than that. That is why the Amendment in question has been tabled. With very great respect to the Government—who have not accepted any Amendment yet and who have obviously made up their minds that however meritorious an Amendment might be and whatever clear undertaking was given in pursuance of it, they will not accept anything—it is perfectly clear what was said in Committee on that occasion.

It is perfectly clear that the Economic Secretary assented to the proposition that any member of the public should be entitled to these accounts. And it is perfectly clear that there is no difference, in this context, between any member of the public and "any person" and I am surprised that the Amendment has not been accepted. When I say that I am surprised, I am not really certain that I am. I am, to be frank, shocked that it has not been accepted.

This is really too bad. The Amendment to which I am referring has been on the Notice Paper for some time and that is the reason why another Amendment was withdrawn and this one put in its place. I thought that by so doing I would meet exactly what was said in Committee. As I say, there is no distinction between "any member of the public" and "any person" and I must ask the Government to carry out the undertaking they gave in Committee.

Mr. du Cann

I can see the hon. and learned Member's point and I think, frankly, that there is a genuine misunderstanding. I see the words to which he has drawn my attention. I have not looked at them again in the sense in which he has now described them. What the hon. and learned Member says is absolutely true and I apologise if I have misled hint. I had in mind any member of the public intending to make a deposit and I thought that we were talking in this sense all the time.

Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill, put and negatived.

Question proposed, That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison

If it was a misunderstanding one can say no more, but I call the Economic Secretary's attention to this once more.

I entirely agree with what was said about a prospective depositor. What it comes to is that any member of the public should be entitled to these accounts, and no less than that. The hon. Gentleman will at least agree that I gave those words their ordinary meaning. Those were the words to which he assented, and I am, surprised that the Amendment cannot be accepted. I do not think that this is a point of great importance. I do not propose to divide the House on it, but I protest about it, while accepting that there may have been a misunderstanding and that the Economic Secretary did not exactly mean what he said on that occasion. But what he said was pretty clear, and I think that it should be carried out.

I want to explain why I tabled my Amendment. To start with, the phrase is rather long and not at all clear. A person who requires a copy … with a view to becoming a depositor … may, and really does, require a copy for a rather different reason—with a view to deciding whether he shall become a depositor. That was in my original Amendment, which I took away in order to substitute this, and the Government's form of words is unsatisfactory from that point of view.

There is the more important point of the position of the financial journalists. There is no doubt that the accounts to which all this refers will be available in London, but there are financial journalists in places other than London. The financial journalists are the people upon whom the Government rely to get over to the public the contents of the accounts, but a financial journalist who wrote from, say, Edinburgh or Liverpool asking for a copy of the accounts would be told, "You cannot have a copy because you are not a person who signifies to the company that you require a copy of the accounts or document with a view to becoming a depositor with the company. You are only a financial journalist, not a depositor. You must get Tom, Dick or Harry to write to us." That is a very strange position when the Government rely on these journalists to do the job of telling the public what the accounts are all about.

I find the Government's form of words quite mysterious. There is only one explanation, and it is that an hon. Member opposite put forward the phrase "prospective depositor". The Government seized on that, and tried to put it into what they thought was clearer language, and it was only a member of the poor, miserable Opposition who suggested that exactly the same result would be achieved—and a more advantageous result, I think—if "person" was used. The Government's Amendment is obscure, insufficient and muddled. I think that the Government would still be wise to accept my Amendment—which I have not yet moved—when it is reached.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment: In line 3, leave out from "any" to end of line 5 and insert "person".—[Mr. Mitchison.]

Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment, put and agreed to.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I propose for the convenience of the House to put the next three Government Amendments together.

Mr. Diamond

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I right in assuming that I have lost my right to speak to the Government Amendment in page 10, line 4?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

No. I will put the Question on that Amendment separately if the hon. Gentleman so desires.

Amendments made: In page 9, line 44, after "document", insert: under this section to any person to whom a copy of the accounts or document in question has already been furnished by the company and, without prejudice to the foregoing provision, a company shall not be required to furnish a copy of any accounts or other document".

In page 10, line 1, leave out from beginning to "or" in line 3.—[Mr. Green.]

Amendment proposed: In page 10, line 4, leave out from "person" to end of line 6 and insert: (not being a depositor with the company) to whom the company gives notice that it is unwilling to receive a deposit.".—[Mr. Green.]

Mr. Diamond

Although I listened carefully to what the Economic Secretary said, I was not absolutely happy with the situation. This is not a major point, it is only a question of interpretation upon which I should like some confirmation. I recognise that if these words referred exclusively to circumstances arising out of Clause 7, the exit Clause, there would be no problem, but I am not absolutely satisfied that they could refer only to those circumstances.

For example, I am not absolutely satisfied that a company could not give notice that it was unwilling to receive a deposit and then proceed to receive one—the same day or the following day, to make the point absolutely clear. This Amendment does not say that it shall not receive a deposit; it merely says that it shall give notice.

If I may start from the beginning. Clause 11 as amended would read: A company shall not be required to furnish a copy of any accounts or other documents … under subsection (2) to any person (not being a depositor with the company) to whom the company gives notice that it is unwilling to receive a deposit. It does not say that it shall not have to supply accounts to any person from whom it does not accept a deposit.

I hope I am making the point clear. I am drawing attention to the fact that the only requirement apparently is to give notice, to write a letter saying, I am unwilling to receive a deposit."

The second question is, how long does that notice last? If one writes to a person saying, "You cannot have accounts because I am unwilling to accept a deposit", how long does that notice last? Can one say three months later, "I have given you notice, but you can give me a deposit and I accept it without giving you accounts"?

This is not a very substantial question. It is a question of interpreting the words as they have been used. If I have given the Economic Secretary time to consider the matter, I shall leave it at that and ask him to explain it and confirm that there is no need for the present anxiety which I feel about these words.

Mr. du Cann

In courtesy, the hon. Gentleman must have an answer, and I am sorry to tell him that I am not in a position to give him as full as answer as I would like to do. I agree that the point is not one of fundamental importance. I do not believe that it necessarily carries any serious connotations of the sort which might exist by inference in the suggestions that he made.

I hope the hon. Gentleman will find it acceptable if I say that, in order to give him a considered answer, I should like to consider the matter further. I will certainly get in touch with him and let him have that full and considered answer. I can only apologise for not giving it now, but I would rather give a proper answer at a later stage than a botched answer now.

Amendment agreed to.