HC Deb 19 July 1967 vol 750 cc2380-6
Mr. Gresham Cooke

I beg to move Amendment No. 110, in page 52, line 37, at the end to insert (5) References in this Part of this Act to a company which carries on business outside the United Kingdom shall be construed as including any company carrying on business of any description whatever outside the United Kingdom provided only that such business is distinguishable in the accounts of that company from business carried on within the United Kingdom. Under Clause 3 there is to be disclosure, by a subsidiary company, of the country where it is registered. Clause 4 lays down that if a company holds one-tenth of another company's shares the name of the body corporate or the country of origin shall be disclosed.

There is protection against this disclosure if it is harmful and if the company is carrying on the business outside the United Kingdom. In Committee it was rather assumed that the words "carrying on business outside the United Kingdom" meant that the whole of the business had to be carried on outside the United Kingdom. The President of the Board of Trade has been helpful, in Clause 20, in saying that disclosure of information need not take place if the Board of Trade is satisfied that this is in the national interest. I hope that he will look sympathetically at this Amendment, which asks that a company shall be deemed to be carrying on business outside the United Kingdom, provided that some of its business is carried on outside the country.

Many companies could have part of their business outside this country, maybe an important and distinguishable part. A company may have overseas depots for the sale of its goods, and in that event should have the protection envisaged in Clauses 3 and 4. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that this is what he has in mind.

Mr. Jay

This argument follows another on an earlier Amendment. We are concerned with companies carrying on business outside the United Kingdom. The object of the Amendment, as I understand it, is to make clear that carrying on a business in this country means a business of any description. It does not seem necessary to add to the words already in the Bill. There is no difference between us as to intention. Before agreeing to an exemption from disclosure the Board of Trade would have to be satisfied that disclosure would be adverse to overseas business, and that that business was significant, so that it was therefore in the national interest, on certain occasions, for information not to be disclosed. In our view it is more convenient and wiser to do this without spelling out in the Bill exactly how this power and discretion would be used. I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that that is our intention, and that according to the advice given to me we are most likely to achieve it in this fashion.

Mr. Corfield

I do not really want to pursue this point; I just wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the fact that we have just come to the end of the first Part of the Bill and have Parts 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 to complete, whether he thinks this is a suitable time at which we might adjourn. He will recall that at the last session he felt it was inappropriate to go on after 11 o'clock. It is now ten minutes past four; perhaps the same argument might apply to our proceedings this evening, and we might complete the other half of the Bill at a later time.

Mr. Speaker

Order. Perhaps the right hon. Member could raise this in a moment—we are on an Amendment and it would be tidier to dispose of it.

Mr. Gresham Cooke

I am glad to hear what the President of the Board of Trade has said. He has told us that his words cover what I had in mind. If that is so, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker

I take it the hon. Gentleman wishes to move that further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.

Mr. Corfield

Yes, Sir. I beg to move, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.

Mr. Jay

If it is in order for me to speak to that motion, I would say that it seems to me that we are making excellent progress in a very harmonious atmosphere with constructive assistance from all sides of the House. Hon. Members opposite seem to me almost as fresh and vigorous as those on this side of the House. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) showed no signs of exhaustion or fatigue; we now have the fresh light of dawn, I would hope, about to re-invigorate us even further, and therefore I should like to propose that consideration of the Bill should proceed now.

Mr. Temple

I must say that I think that the President of the Board of Trade is a little callous as to the interests of the staff of the House, including, if I may say so, your good self, Mr. Speaker. The House has now been in session on this measure for approaching 13 hours, and, as the President of the Board of Trade said, we have made excellent progress.

When on 12th July he said about the progress made at a previous sitting We have had useful, helpful and, if I may say so, rational discussion … and We have made, perhaps not sweeping progress, but some material progress,"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1967; Vol. 750, c. 967.] and his Motion to adjourn was put at 10.55, after a relatively modest discussion. We have now had a fantastically long discussion on the companies' section, and are going to enter into discussion on the insurance section, which is not insuperably difficult but which is a complicated matter. I cannot think we are at our best to discuss this matter at this very late hour.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give very much more serious consideration to what my hon. Friend has proposed. I think it is reasonable in all the circumstances.

When I go back to my constituency and report that we have been sitting up discussing these complicated matters all night I get no sympathy. All my constituents say is, "You should order your business better."

I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman responsible for ordering business has not even been seen peeping round the back of the Speaker's Chair. I have seen Press reports that he does not actually take his seat, but peeps around the back of your Chair, Mr. Speaker. I have not seen his face once during the whole of these 13 hours. If he does order business like this it is really his duty to come to see how it is being carried on; otherwise, how can he form an opinion which is based on what he reads of the remarks of the President of the Board of Trade?—that everyone is as fresh as a daisy. I must admit I do not feel at all fresh at this hour.

At an earlier stage, the right hon. Gentleman accused me of going out to sleep when in fact I had gone out for refreshment. I have not been to sleep tonight and I can still stay on my feet. But I do not feel at my best to tackle this question of insurance at this hour and after so many hours. I hope that he will reconsider.

4.15 a.m.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne

I, too, hope that the right hon. Gentleman will think again. It is undesirable to continue to discuss a Measure of this importance at this hour. It affects vast numbers of our constituents and all the business operations of the country. A quite intolerable strain is being imposed not only on hon. Members but, above all, on the staff and servants of the House, day after day, night after night, morning after morning. But the man responsible does not even have the grace and courtesy to take part in the sort of punishment he is inflicting. If only as a gesture of contempt to the Leader of the House, the right hon. Gentleman should accept my hon. Friend's Motion.

Mr. Gresham Cooke

I know at least enough about company law to be able to discuss it fairly intelligently but I am not an expert on insurance, which is a speciality on its own. My hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) is something of a specialist on the subject, however. Insurance affects persons different from those we have so far been dealing with. It affects millions of motorists and millions of other members of the general public and we should approach it with fresh minds.

Mr. Temple

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his compliment but he will recollect that the Minister of State, who is in charge of the part of the Bill dealing with insurance, said earlier that some of these matters could wait for a further Bill. But these insurance matters cannot wait for another Bill. They are pressing and must be got right either tonight or at another sitting on this Bill.

Mr. Gresham Cooke

They are urgent because there have been some disgraceful episodes, particularly in motor insurance. This is a very important matter which we should approach with fresh minds.

Mr. Corfield

My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Temple) said that he could stay on his feet but was not sure if he could go on tackling this important matter at this hour. My great difficulty at such an hour is not that I am not sure that I can speak but that I cannot stop speaking. If that is so, we shall be here a long time yet. Most of us have had some sort of military service and the first thing one learns there about leadership is that, when one inflicts tiresome duty on other people, one turns up onself to see them through. But where is the Leader of the House tonight?

It is outrageous that the Leader of the House, having arranged business in this way in order, basically, to mess about with private Members' time last week, should not even be here. We have got our two sittings on this Bill lop-sided. The first finished at 10.55 p.m. and in the second we are still going on at twenty minutes past four in the morning, having only just reached the end of Part I of the Bill.

The original Amendment Paper for Report stage was 75 pages long. A large percentage was taken up by Opposition Amendments and the fact that you, Mr. Speaker, thought fit not to select only a very tiny fraction of our Amendments is an indication that they deal with valid points. There has been no question of drawing out the proceedings. What we are complaining about—we are not complaining to the President of the Board of Trade—is the way in which the business of the House has been mismanaged, which causes this sort of nonsense.

This would have been quite unnecessary if we had not been mucked up with Private Members' Bills and if the Government had not abused the whole idea of Private Members' time. The corollary is that, when Private Members have an opportunity to legislate other hon. Members have the opportunity to intervene, but once the Government intervene they upset the whole balance of their business. We bear the whole brunt of it, as does the right hon. Gentleman.

It is no good the President of the Board of Trade saying that he is as fresh as a daisy. He is very plucky, and, so is the Minister of State. But neither of them is fresh. We think that it is disgraceful.

Mr. Jay

I think that hon. Members opposite are still not doing 'justice to themselves. The hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Temple) said that he was not at his best. In my experience, he is always at his best. Whatever he may feel like, he looks at the top of his form at present. The hon. Members for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) and for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) have made perfectly coherent speeches. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield), though he said he could not stop, has made two speeches and stopped with great rapidity. Therefore, I think that while this harmonious and constructive spirit lasts, we should continue consideration of the Bill.

Question put and negatived.