International Westminster Bank Bill (By Order)

HC Deb 09 November 1989 vol 159 cc1224-52

[MR. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair.]

Order read for consideration of Lords amendments.

7.15 pm

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will no doubt have seen the report in tonight's Evening Standard that several leading persons in the City have been arrested and that one of the companies involved in the conspiracy to contravene section 13 of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958 was the National Westminster bank. Two people, who were respectively chairman and chief executive of County NatWest at the time of the Blue Arrow deal, have also been arrested.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is bearing in mind the sub judice rule.

Mr. Cryer

That is the very point that I wish to raise with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In addition, the current finance director of County NatWest has been charged with conspiracy to defraud. You have raised the very point that I wish to draw to your attention—that as these cases are pending we might come into conflict with the sub judice rule if we were now to consider the International Westminster Bank Bill. In those circumstances, might it not be better to withdraw it? I am also wondering whether the promoters of the Bill have informed you about the newspaper report. As you rightly said, the sub judice rule influences our ability to debate certain parts of the Bill. I should therefore be grateful for your ruling.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I have received no representations, nor am I aware of the matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I do not think that they need impede our consideration of what are, after all, very narrow Lords amendments.

Mr. Michael Welsh (Doncaster, North)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A number of the amendments relate to the bank's directors. Presumably it will be possible for hon. Members to vote against amendments that relate directly to those directors. It is possible that a number of hon. Members on both sides would like to divide the House.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I went into the Noes Lobby just before the Division and I could find no order of selection of amendments. Do you intend to take together all the amendments to the International Westminster Bank Bill and to have a separate vote on each of them, or do you intend to take each amendment separately and to have a vote after consideration of each amendment?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I think that I can deal with both of the points that have been raised by the hon. Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh). Our usual practice is to take Lords amendments en bloc, but if hon. Members wish to deal with them separately, the Chair will have to take account of that wish. I would be willing to hear argument as to why particular amendments should be taken separately instead of taking them all en bloc.

Mr. Martin Redmond (Don Valley)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was a member of the Committee which considered the Bill. No objections were raised at that time, but subsequently I put my name to the blocking motion. That was because certain matters came to light. The sub judice rule means that it would be extremely difficult to say anything that did not conflict with what the police are saying. As that action has been taken today, would it not be more acceptable if you were to withdraw the Bill and allowed it to be considered on another occasion when the Director of Public Prosecutions might be in a position to bring charges?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman and the House know that the Lords amendments before us are narrow and do not seem directly connected with the matters alluded to in these points of order. It might make sense to see how we get on. I remind hon. Members that, although the sub judice law does not apply when the House is considering legislation, the debate has to be confined to the narrow terms of the amendments before us.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I agree with the suggestion that we should debate the amendments together, but may we have the opportunity to vote on them separately if that is wished?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The Chair will certainly be willing to give a sympathetic response to that, subject to the qualification that, when I consider the amendments carefully, some may be linked or hinge on each other and therefore it may not be appropriate to have a separate decision on every one. If it is appropriate and right hon. and hon. Members wish to have a separate Division, they will not find the Chair unresponsive.

Mr. Redmond

Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it possible to obtain a copy of the Lords amendments? I have only received the broad brush version from the parliamentary agents and unfortunately I do not have the amendments. I have been to the Vote Office several times. I am a relatively new Member of the House. Could you tell me whether it is possible to obtain a copy?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman's feigned naivety shocks the Chair. I understand that copies of the amendments should be available and are available in the Vote Office. I hope that the hon Gentleman will be able to get a copy.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We ought to re-examine the County NatWest affair and the arrests that have been made more thoroughly. There are hon. Members in the House who have clear connections with that bank.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I urge the hon. Gentleman to follow the example of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) and obtain a copy of the amendments from the Vote Office. When he looks at them, he will realise that it is hard to see any link between the point which he is trying to raise and the Lords amendments.

Mr. Skinner

Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point is not about the amendments that have come from the other place, but about the Bill. I am saying that there are so many Tory Members who have direct or indirect interests in the National Westminster bank and County Natwest, including the hon. Member for——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that hon. Members have an obligation to declare their interests. If a question of direct interest arises, doubtless the hon. Members concerned will make their interests known. That does not arise in the Lords amendments before us.

Mr. Skinner

Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not just talking about National Westminster bank. What about Blue Arrow? For example, the right hon. Member for Chingford——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I do not know what Blue Arrow has to do with the debate——

Mr. Skinner

I will tell you what it has to do with it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I am not prepared to allow the hon. Gentleman to give a long explanation of how he thinks Blue Arrow may be connected with it. The motion before the House is that we consider the Lords amendments. I beg the hon. Gentleman to obtain a copy of these amendments, then he will understand that it is difficult to link the matter he is trying to raise with the issue before the House.

Mr. Skinner

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Bill is faulty. Today the fraud squad is getting involved with people connected with the higher echelons of that bank, and the Bill was brought to the House by those same people. In view of that fact, I say that the Bill should be abandoned. Let us get rid of it, and bring it back when all this has been settled. Surely that is the point—we are to debate the bank when its top people are up to their necks in it. They have been making money hand over fist with leveraged buy-outs and Conservative Members are involved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

These are not matters which are admissible in the debate on the Lords amendments. Doubtless right hon. and hon. Members will bear them in mind, but they are not relevant to the debate, or to the decisions which have to be made.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The promoters of the Bill have sent us a letter to explain that the amendments are necessary because Speaker's Counsel and others have suggested that there are errors in the way in which the Bill was originally drafted. To clear up those problems it has had to be drafted again. It seems odd that a respected bank, with experienced legal representatives, should have received advice and presented a Bill to the House which turns out to have been badly drafted. Do you not feel, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it calls into question the quality of all the advice that the bank has received on a wide range of issues? Therefore, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was entitled to raise the issue of——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The quality of the advice which the bank has received is not a matter for me, or for our debate. I suggest that we get on with the debate. The hon. Gentleman correctly identified the matter before the House when he said that the Lords amendments are drafting amendments to correct errors in the Bill. That is the substance of what they amount to.

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice. We have to consider 10 amendments to a Bill concerned with vesting in National Westminster Bank plc. Until the debate is pursued, I shall not be able to understand the significance of the 10 amendments. However, is it your ruling that, when we debate the amendments, we cannot debate the wider principles involved in the Bill? May it not emerge from the debate on specific amendments that we are concerned with the general nature of the Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman has put the matter correctly—these are essentially drafting amendments to correct part of the Bill. The House will certainly be given the opportunity to discuss and consider each amendment. We had better see how the debate progresses, then perhaps we shall see if the other issues alluded to in the various points of order are relevant.

Mr. Barnes

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If we discover that the 10 amendments have greater import or significance for the general nature of the Bill, will that affect procedure at a later stage? Is that possible?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

We should see how we proceed. Let us get on.

Motion made—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means]—and Question put, That the Lords amendments be now considered:—

The House divided:Ayes 160, Noes 49.

Division No. 387]	[7.28 pm
AYES
Alexander, Richard	Carttiss, Michael
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Chapman, Sydney
Amess, David	Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Amos, Alan	Colvin, Michael
Arbuthnot, James	Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)	Couchman, James
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy	Davis, David (Boothferry)
Aspinwall, Jack	Dorrell, Stephen
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)	Dover, Den
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Dunn, Bob
Baldry, Tony	Durant, Tony
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)	Dykes, Hugh
Bellingham, Henry	Eggar, Tim
Benyon, W.	Emery, Sir Peter
Bevan, David Gilroy	Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Fenner, Dame Peggy
Boswell, Tim	Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia	Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Bowis, John	Fookes, Dame Janet
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard	Forman, Nigel
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Gale, Roger
Brazier, Julian	Garel-Jones, Tristan
Bright, Graham	Gill, Christopher
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)	Glyn, Dr Alan
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Buck, Sir Antony	Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Burt, Alistair	Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Butler, Chris	Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Butterfill, John	Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)	Gregory, Conal
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Carrington, Matthew	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Ground, Patrick	Mudd, David
Grylls, Michael	Neubert, Michael
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn	Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Hague, William	Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)	Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Hampson, Dr Keith	Paice, James
Harris, David	Patnick, Irvine
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael	Pawsey, James
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)	Porter, David (Waveney)
Hill, James	Portillo, Michael
Hordern, Sir Peter	Powell, William (Corby)
Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)	Renton, Tim
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Rhodes James, Robert
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)	Rowe, Andrew
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)	Ryder, Richard
Hunt, David (Wirral W)	Sayeed, Jonathan
Irvine, Michael	Shaw, David (Dover)
Jack, Michael	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Janman, Tim	Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael	Shersby, Michael
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine	Sims, Roger
Kilfedder, James	Stanbrook, Ivor
Kirkwood, Archy	Stern, Michael
Knight, Greg (Derby North)	Stevens, Lewis
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Knox, David	Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Lawrence, Ivan	Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Lightbown, David	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Lilley, Peter	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Lord, Michael	Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Lyell, Sir Nicholas	Trippier, David
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)	Viggers, Peter
Maclean, David	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
McLoughlin, Patrick	Walden, George
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael	Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Mans, Keith	Wallace, James
Maples, John	Waller, Gary
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)	Watts, John
Mates, Michael	Widdecombe, Ann
Mawhinney, Dr Brian	Wiggin, Jerry
Meyer, Sir Anthony	Wilkinson, John
Miller, Sir Hal	Wilshire, David
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)	Wood, Timothy
Mitchell, Sir David
Monro, Sir Hector	Tellers for the Ayes:
Morrison, Sir Charles	Mr. Roger King and
Moss, Malcolm	Mr. Roger Kanapman.

NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane	McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Mahon, Mrs Alice
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)	Meale, Alan
Barron, Kevin	Michael, Alun
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)	Morley, Elliot
Boyes, Roland	Nellist, Dave
Caborn, Richard	O'Brien, William
Callaghan, Jim	Pike, Peter L.
Corbyn, Jeremy	Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Cryer, Bob	Quin, Ms Joyce
Cummings, John	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)	Short, Clare
Dixon, Don	Skinner, Dennis
Dobson, Frank	Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth	Spearing, Nigel
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)	Vaz, Keith
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	Wall, Pat
Harman, Ms Harriet	Wareing, Robert N.
Haynes, Frank	Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)	Wigley, Dafydd
Home Robertson, John	Winnick, David
Hoyle, Doug	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Janner, Greville	Tellers for the Noes:
Lamond, James	Mr. Michael Welsh and
Leighton, Ron	Mr. Martin Redmond.
Litherland, Robert

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendments.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

In the light of the foregoing points of order, it might be sensible if the House were to discuss the amendments collectively; if hon. Members wish to have separate Divisions on all or some of the amendments, perhaps they would indicate that to the Chair and sympathetic consideration will be given to any such request.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you explain what procedures the House is adopting? A private Bill is normally steered through the House by an hon. Member, who gives reasons for the amendments. The amendments were moved by the Second Deputy Chairman without any explanation. Will an hon. Member be called to put forward the proposals on behalf of the promoters of the Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

It is open to any hon. Member in charge of a private Bill, should he so wish in the circumstances before the House, to volunteer an explanation of the Lords amendments. The House must bear in mind that any hon. Member is entitled to speak only once, other than with the express consent of the House, on any Lords amendment. Therefore, an hon. Member in charge of a Bill may prefer to respond to points made rather than to volunteer a statement at the outset. The Chair will recognise any hon. Member wishing to respond to points raised in the debate. I ask the House to bear in mind that even an hon. Member in charge of a Bill is allowed to speak only once on a Lords amendment.

Mr. Redmond

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is early in the evening, but later I may be asked to act as a Teller. What would be the procedure if there were a scuffle in the exit of the lobby? Would I have to leave, protect myself or seek your guidance?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

That is purely hypothetical. We shall deal with problems when they arise.

Mr. Cryer

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There will be a short debate on the amendments. Is an hon. Member present on behalf of the promoters to respond to comments made in the debate? If so, will he be prepared to do so?

Sir Peter Emery (Honiton)

I should be happy to answer any questions put in the debate.

7.45 pm

Mr. Michael Welsh

I should like to speak to a number of the amendments. The first amendment is to clause 4, page 3, line 12. Its purpose is to leave out "having regard to" and to insert "by reason of". I cannot see the reason for the amendment.

Parliamentary agents cost much money. It is their duty to present correct Bills on behalf of the organisations which pay them much money for their work. I cannot foresee any reason for the amendment, unless there is an ulterior motive. If there is, I should like to know. If it is better English, we should like to know; if it is better grammar, we should like to know; and if it is better parliamentary wording, we should like to know. I am sure that the people who are financing the Bill would like to know why they must again pay parliamentary agents. I do not want to press that to a vote.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

Does my hon. Friend agree that there are several undercurrents to the debate, one of which is how private business has been conducted in the House? Is it appropriate for hon. Members to have to spend much time on Second Reading and further time in Committee and on Report when the Bill was not presented in its correct form? Is there not a strong argument for not proceeding with these private Bills in this way? A company such as a bank——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)

Order. I must remind the House—the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) has the Floor—that we are considering Lords amendments that deal with comparatively narrow issues. The debate must be restricted to that.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

Further to that point of order——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. It was not a point of order but an intervention. I have explained that the hon. Gentleman's intervention was out of order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Doncaster, North will not be tempted down that road. I call the hon. Member for Doncaster, North.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

Further to that point of order——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

On a point of order——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. It was not a point of order. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) intervened, but I explained to the hon. Member for Doncaster, North that the points that he made would not be relevant in the debate.

Mr. Welsh

My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said that there is an undercurrent to the debate, but it is more like an overdraft.

The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) is well versed in these matters, so I am sure that he will give a good and lengthy reply to the debate and explain the reason for the Lords amendments.

I should like to speak to the amendment to clause 4, page 3, line 14. This amendment is serious, especially in the light of certain things that happened in the City today. The amendment aims to insert the words in the opinion of the directors of the Bank". Without the amendment, the Bill reads, in pursuance of a requirement made under subsection (2) above should be later than the appointed day". Why insert in the opinion of the directors of the Bank in the Bill? It is not necessary, as today's events show.

Mr. Cryer

Does not that amendment and the amendment to leave out "having regard to" and insert "by reason o' mean that the directors can set aside the law of any country or territory outside the United Kingdom with respect to vesting property? Would my hon. Friend care to reflect on today's circumstances and the extra powers that the amendments appear to confer on the directors by setting aside the law?

Mr. Welsh

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that matter to my notice. We are told that the amendments are narrow. but sometimes they can be dangerous. I like to think that, in discussing such a Bill, we aim to protect everyone, especially those who invest. We are talking about pension funds and so on and I cannot understand how these measures can protect them in any way. I am not saying anything about the activities of the directors. That matter is sub judice and has nothing to do with me. However, everything is not right with the bank at present.

The Chairman of Ways and Means said that he would consider Members' wishes on any important issues on which heads should be counted.

Mr. Skinner

The first amendment is very wide. It would leave out "having regard to" the law of any country and insert "by reason of'. Insertion of "by reason of" will mean that the law is binding. For example, a person who has money invested in the Cayman Islands, the Isle of Man or some other offshore outfit has to take account of the binding law. Suppose that that person had made enough money and shared it with Ken Dodd, or someone else, and decided to put some money in Poland because some idiot had said, "Poland is a decent place. It is changing." Suppose the business were subsidised to the hilt and someone said, "Put some of the NatWest money in Poland". I can imagine some Conservative Members saying, "Hold on. Can we be sure that our money will be sound with Jaruzelski and Lech Walesa and the Pope?" That person would have to say, "Just a minute. This is binding." Originally, it was a matter of "having regard to", so the directors could say that they were only "having regard to" the law of any dodgy country and its investments. If the amendment is carried and "by reason of is inserted, they will be tied hand and foot. As has been said, this is a narrow amendment. That means that an investor can either forget such an idea or be tied to a country. Just imagine having money in the——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. That is enough for an intervention.

Mr. Skinner

We shall come to it later. It is a good seam of coal.

Mr. Welsh

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for helping in his usual shy and reserved way. It is good of him to come to the aid of an ordinary Back-Bencher who is not as involved as my hon. Friend in every aspect of the House——

Mr. Greg Knight (Derby, North)

And in banking.

Mr. Welsh

And in banking. I should declare that I have a bank account with NatWest. I do not understand why—I suppose that it is the same for everyone—but every time my bank manager writes to me, he writes in red ink. He is a Socialist.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I realise that the hon. Member was deflected from his speech by a remark from the Government Benches, but I am sure that he will restrict himself to the amendments.

Mr. Welsh

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Back-Benchers who are not satisfied with the answers that they get from the hon. Member for Honiton may request a vote.

Sir Peter Emery

In an intervention, not a speech, may I point out that the words "having regard to" could be taken to mean that the directors would not take account of all the laws of the countries in which accounts were held. The authorities in those countries might think that that was not fair. The bank wishes to abide by the laws of all the countries in which accounts are held, which is why "by reason or' is to be inserted. The provision in the opinion of the directors of the Bank is to be inserted so that the vesting day can be varied if certain of the countries in which the accounts are held wish to do so, for reasons of their own. That provision has been made in the Hambros legislation and in another Bill, so it is not that unusual. I hope that my comment helps the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Welsh

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for helping me.

Mr. Cryer

The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) said that the amendment moves the bank closer to the law. In effect, the Bill provides for a fusion of two banks. One amendment makes it clear that the vesting—which is required by the law which the hon. Member for Honiton claims the bank wishes to recognise—can take place, in the opinion of the directors, on a date later than the vesting day required by law. One amendment says that the directors must abide by the law and another says that the director will have the discretion to avoid it.

Mr. Welsh

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The banks want to operate within the law, but I am worried about a different issue—whether the directors want to operate within the law. I have been told to limit my remarks to the amendments, which concern the directors. No one can say that directors keep within the law. If they did, there would not have been that raid this morning. Sometimes the banks need to be protected from their directors.

Sir Peter Emery

No directors of NatWest or the International Westminster bank have been affected in any way by today's events. Knowing the hon. Gentleman's desire to be fair, I think that he would not want the statement that he has just made to stand on the record.

Mr. Welsh

I am saying only that the fraud squad has called on some houses, as has happened in other undertakings in the City. I should like to think that all directors had clean hands, but they are raided every other day. If they were all as innocent as the men who drink in workings men's clubs, everything in the City would be lovely. As it is, the banks themselves—never mind the people—may have to be protected against their own directors.

8 pm

Mr. Cryer

My hon. Friend may recall that when Lloyds promoted a private Bill in 1981 which gave the accounts of Lloyds almost complete immunity from any legal process, we received assurance after assurance that those promoting the Bill were as white as the driven snow and completely without stain on their honour. Yet shortly after the Bill was passed, scandal after scandal piled up in Lloyds. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should look at assurances with a critical eye?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I remind the House once more that we are dealing with Lords amendments and that the debate must be restricted to them. It is not in order to broaden it into a wide debate on banking practice.

Mr. Skinner

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are right to say that we must find ways and means of sticking to this group of amendments. In this case, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) is speaking primarily about the two amendments to clause 4. I am sure that you are aware of those important amendments.

The point of order on which I seek clarification is whether my hon. Friend is allowed to speak broadly on the issue. As the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) said, the amendments change the relationship of the directors to the country. They cannot just have "regard to" the laws of any country, but must stick to the laws of the country because the amendment seeks to insert "by reason or. The provision becomes binding and it is a wide amendment. My hon. Friend can properly say that the directors must bear in mind the law of the country totally and utterly, as the Prime Minister might say, on a regular basis instead of having a passive affinity with it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Doncaster, North is perfectly capable of looking after himself and keeping in order, as I am sure he will.

Mr. Welsh

I am now speaking to the amendment which says; in the opinion of the directors of the Bank. The amendment was tabled as a second thought and it may be dangerous—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to carry on.

Mr. Welsh

The amendment is important with regard to the directors because it is about international deals, not about deals in this country. Every hon. Member has had complaints about an overseas investment that went wrong in Gibraltar, including the hon. Member for Honiton himself. The hon. Member for Honiton may think that I am wrong, but I do not think that we should allow the chance of such events happening again. When we move to a vote later, if you will allow it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want my head to be counted.

The International Westminster bank will deal with pension funds and it may even deal with miners' pension funds. Things may go wrong and the directors may get into trouble. I am sure that most of the directors are honest, straightforward chaps, but there are always some bad apples in the barrel. If things go wrong, nobody can say that the hon. Member for Doncaster, North did not vote against the amendments. It may not mean a great deal to most hon. Members, but it means a great deal in constituencies like mine, where people are predominantly working class and honest. They like to think that their Members of Parliament try their best to protect everyone. The only way to protect their interests in this House is by a count of heads in a vote.

Mr. Skinner

Before my hon. Friend leaves the amendment dealing with the power of directors, I want to point out that directors, as my hon. Friend knows only too well, have tremendous power. They have more power than trade union leaders, for example. They do not have to go on strike and they do not bother about ballots when they are asset-stripping or when they have a leveraged buy-out. I want my hon. Friend to turn his attention to the question of directors having that power, which is raised by this amendment rather than later ones, and whether the power should go to the people who work in the banks by means of a ballot. We hear much about ballots.

We should oppose this amendment. Perhaps my hon. Friend has a different view, but I believe that it should be opposed on the ground that it does not compel directors to concede a ballot to the people who work in the bank. If we developed that argument, we might be able to see a bit more light at the end of the National Westminster tunnel.

Mr. Welsh

My hon. Friend is right; he has made a vital point. However, as you drew to my attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we must confine our remarks to the Bill and the amendments. There are many other matters that I should like to mention, and many other hon. Members would like to deal with shortcomings in undertakings outside the City, but we must stick to the amendments.

I have a question about another amendment that may be important and the hon. Member for Honiton may be able to explain how it will protect people. The amendment applies to clause 5 and seeks to leave out whether made before, on or after and insert "made before." Perhaps I should not be, but I am suspicious by nature and I cannot help it. I am suspicious when I see an amendment that means that if anyone signs something on that day or after that day, it is not covered by the Bill.

Mr. Skinner

Which amendment is that?

Mr. Welsh

The amendment applies to line 42 of clause 5. I suspect that it seeks to give the directors powers that they do not deserve to have. The clause was written by the parliamentary draftsmen and did not come off the top of someone's head. The draftsmen must have phrased the clause in that way for good reasons. It may have been to protect investors on the day of vestment or after. Perhaps the hon. Member for Honiton can explain why the promoters came to the conclusion that the clause should be amended. Will anybody suffer from that amendment, or are people being protected? My innocence in these matters can easily be seen. All I want is an explanation of the amendment so that we can study it in some depth.

I want to deal next with some other serious amendments that seek to remove words from the Bill. One amendment that applies to line 10 of clause 6 seeks to leave out "omitted" and insert "not to be done". There must be a good reason for that. An identical amendment applies to line 14. Perhaps the original words were not parliamentary language. If they were not parliamentary language, they should not have been included in the Bill in the first place because the parliamentary agents drew it up. If the amendments could cause damage or hurt people, we are obliged to vote on them. Perhaps the hon. Member for Honiton can give me a reasonable answer that might increase my knowledge of international banking.

I am also concerned about the amendment to clause 11: 'page 6, leave out from ("1963") in line 26 to ("as") in line 27. There must be a reason for this amendment. Why were those words included in the Bill originally, if they must be withdrawn now? The important point relates to the Stock Transfer Act 1963. The Bill refers to the Stock Exchange (Completion of Bargains) Act 1976. That has been removed by the amendment. The words were included in good faith.

Another of the Lords amendments relates to clause 15, page 7——

Mr. Skinner

The amendment to clause 11 leaves out the words from "1963". That was a pretty good year. It was Profumo year. That was when Macmillan got prostate trouble. He had a diplomatic illness and a new Prime Minister was needed. I can see 1989 or 1990 being a replica of 1963. The Prime Minister will get a diplomatic illness and some grey-suited men will come along and say, "Enough's enough. You had better get off." The Prime Minister will be able to travel round the world and deposit her money in the International Westminster bank in all the countries to which the Bill refers——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member for Doncaster, North is perfectly in order. He is developing his arguments which are in order. The only thing that worries me is that every time he is interrupted, he is invited to go out of order.

Mr Welsh

Well, 1963 may have been a nice year, but it was not a very good year for me. I had an accident in a colliery after I returned from Ruskin college. I remember it very well.

Another of the Lords amendments amends clause 15. It states: 'Clause 15, page 8 leave out from ("(b)") in line 33 to ("and") in line 38 and insert ("the reference in subsection (3) of Section 11 (Evidence of Vesting) of this Act to the Stock Transfer Act 1963 shall include a reference to the Stock Transfer Act (Northern Ireland) 1963;")' The Bill as it stands reads very differently. Why should the Stock Exchange (Completion of Bargains) Act 1976 be excluded'? Will somebody tell me why?

Mr. Skinner

I will tell my hon. Friend why. The National Westminster bank is experiencing serious trouble at the moment and many of its leading lights have been caught by the fraud squad. Some of them have been handcuffed and put inside. However, very few are actually done. The law in this country is supposed to be straight and above board for everyone. Most of the people who get done here are those who get a couple of bob out of the Department of Social Security. The directors and the people in the City usually get away with it.

8.15 pm

Why is the reference to the Stock Exchange (Completion of Bargains) Act 1976 left out of the Bill? It is excluded because it refers to the amount of money being made by the people who run the bank. The last thing that they want people to know is that the Bill contains an opportunity for completion of bargains on the stock exchange. That does not apply to many people who invest in the National Westminster bank; it is all about the directors making a small fortune——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Doncaster, North will stick to the amendment, as he has been doing.

Mr. Welsh

The amendment to page 8 of clause 15 is narrow, but very important. I am speaking to the amendments, but I understand the feeling of many hon. Members on both sides of the House who may be involved in these matters. I am not used to dealing with finance. I still give my wife £25 a week and spoil her like most men spoil their wives. That is as far as I go in finance.

Perhaps the reason for the amendment is that the parliamentary agents are correcting an error. The boys in the City may think that the parliamentary agents are all right, but they are tying their hands.

Why must we drag Northern Ireland into this? The Bill refers to the Stock Exchange (Completion of Bargains) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977. That is removed from the Bill and substituted with the Stock Transfer Act (Northern Ireland) 1963. What is so sacrosanct about the 1963 Act? No one seems to want the other Acts. There must be an answer for this.

Mr. Skinner

There might be a clue here. Although I might never be in the position of introducing a Bill on behalf of a bank,—I am playing the devil's advocate here—I would want to consider what happened in Northern Ireland a few years ago. I would remember De Lorean, the money, corruption and fiddling. Two Governments allowed large sums of taxpayers' money to be salted away. We had better make sure——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member for Doncaster, North is being as good as gold. He is speaking to the amendments. Unfortunately, he continues to be corrupted by interventions that have nothing to do with the amendments. I hope that all hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), will allow the hon. Member for Doncaster, North, who is perfectly in order, to develop his arguments.

Mr. Welsh

I will stick to the amendments because that is my job. However, I always support people who want more freedom. I will follow your wishes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Why is the 1963 Act sacrosanct? Why is nothing else allowed? Why has it been taken out? There may be good reasons for that, but as a layman I can see no good reason for its removal other than for ulterior motives. No other Act is entertained even though there may be other reasonable Acts.

Sir Peter Emery

It really is quite simple. The Stock Exchange (Completion of Bargains) Act 1976 is material only insofar as it amends the Stock Transfer Act 1963. Accordingly, it would be best to omit altogether the reference to that Act because the 1963 Act applies. The amendment to clause 15 is tabled for the same reason. It refers to the 1976 Act and, therefore, to the Stock Exchange (Completion of Bargains) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977. The words are to be omitted because they are unnecessary and for no other reason.

Mr. Welsh

I cannot say that the parliamentary agents are incompetent. I do not know any of those gentlemen, but I know that they are well-trained and reasonably efficient. Many of the amendments drafted by civil servants are foolish, but that is not the case with parliamentary agents. They are well paid and efficient. They may have included the amendments as a long-stop.

Mr. Skinner

My hon. Friend seems to accept that parliamentary agents cannot do anything wrong. I cannot accept that. As my hon. Friend knows, people make mistakes. On the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, which we are not discussing now, the parliamentary agents did a far from splendid job, and we tried to amend that Bill. I wonder whether my hon. Friend will rephrase what he said about parliamentary agents. They can do only what they are instructed to do and they were instructed by people whom the hon. Member for Honiton knows very well.

My hon. Friend should not think of the parliamentary agents as golden angels. He must think about the City of London asking how it can make more money. That is the principle behind this and it is why the amendments have been tabled. Somebody along the way has said, "We had better amend the Bill in the House of Lords where they are all dropping off to sleep. Do not do it in the House of Commons because somebody might spot it. If we do that we can make a bit on the side." Money is the reason. The parliamentary agents are not acting alone. Their mentors have said, "Get that changed and sharp".

Mr. Welsh

My hon. Friend may have a good point. That is a possibility, but we cannot say that it happens for sure. However, I have some sympathy with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover.

There is an amendment to an amendment—I thought that that was impossible. Therefore, no one is too sure about this. I do not know too much about finance but I have my suspicions.

Mr. Skinner

It is obvious that my hon. Friend is rightly concerned about the amendments. I have already suggested one possible reason for the amendments, but there is another. My hon. Friend says that he does not know about finance but he is not kidding me. He is the treasurer of the all-party group of non-profit-making clubs. Therefore, he is in charge of about threepence ha'penny a week.

Suppose that my first fear—that they are doing it because the bosses are telling them—is not correct. Let us suppose that the parliamentary agents are making money on commission and on the basis of work done in the same way as lawyers—which is really what they are. Somebody may say, "If we can slip in a dozen amendments in the Lords, it will increase our commission". This is the lesser of my two proposals. However, a Machiavellian parliamentary agent may have said, "The longer it goes, the more money I make." Therefore, they might not be too keen on the Bill receiving a speedy passage. My hon. Friend likes the parliamentary agents, but I wonder whether he would favour my second proposition.

Mr. Welsh

My hon. Friend may have a point. I do not know how parliamentary agents are paid, but their job is to work on private Bills. The sooner such Bills are abolished the better. Perhaps, as my hon. Friend said, they include things knowing they will have to amend them later. That happens with many legal people. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover may have a point, but we do not know.

On the removal of the references to the Stock Exchange (Completion of Bargains) Act 1976 and the Stock Exchange (Completion of Bargains) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 the parliamentary agents may be creating a loophole that we have not spotted. Those references should remain in the Bill.

Mr. Skinner

That is too Machiavellian. I do not believe that parliamentary agents would do that. They are into money, and there is also the second proposition that I have described. There is a third possible explanation but it is the least favoured of my ideas. A Left-wing parliamentary agent may have been listening to the debates on the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. He may think that he can help by trying to stop the Bill which will create a massive balance of payments problem for Britain because of the imported coal. He may say, "I will draft some esoteric amendments so that the Bill can be dragged out." That may be going too far, but it is more plausible than my hon. Friend's argument.

Mr. Welsh

My hon. Friend may have a valid point, but I am describing what has happened. We have been told by the sponsors of the Bill that the words to be omitted are not necessary and do not do anything. If that is the case, why did the parliamentary agents include them?

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

My hon. Friend must be careful. I do not think that the agents wanted to include the amendments. We have been given a document that tells us why the Bill's promoter wants us to continue with the Bill. If my hon. Friend looks at that, he will see that the recommendation for the change came about as a result of consultation with Counsel to the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and includes alterations agreed with Counsel to Mr. Speaker. I am puzzled. I understand the role that those two people perform in the House, but why were the recommendations suggested to the Counsel to Mr. Speaker not put forward in this place before the Bill went to the House of Lords?

Those individuals must have recommended alterations for good reasons. Can my hon. Friend explain what those reasons were and the implications of forcing them on the parliamentary agents who may not have wanted to take up more time by bringing the Bill back? They must be important because I am sure that officers of the House would not want to delay the Bill without good reason.

Mr. Welsh

If that is correct and the bank sponsors have no desire for the amendments, it is all the more reason why the Bill should be left as it is. If someone else wants the Bill amended, we should vote for the Bill as it is written. There might be good reason to leave the Bill as it is to protect people when others may not want them to be protected.

8.30 pm

Mr. Skinner

There may be a simple answer. We have a Bill that is not well written. It has been produced by lawyers who earn £100,000 a year. We know what it is like as they want 20 quid to write a letter for our constituents. The Bill is drafted and it is a bit cock-eyed, so someone comes along and says that it must be altered. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) asked why those alterations were not made in the House of Commons. As I said earlier, the answer is that they can slip such changes through in the House of Lords because no one can be bothered. People up there fall asleep and it is conceivable that that is why those changes were made in the House of Lords late on. I have put forward all sorts of propositions to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North, but perhaps it is just a simple matter of neglect. The i's must be dotted and the t's crossed somewhere, so the Bill is taken to the House of Lords.

Mr. Welsh

My hon. Friend may have a point. If that has happened, it is all the more reason why we should vote against the amendments. It means that someone has been conniving, for want of a better word. We are not here to do such things. We are here to be honest and to protect people, even investors.

I do not believe that the amendments should be accepted by the House. The hon. Member for Honiton may say that they have the same purpose. If that is true, why cannot we have two Acts? There would be nothing wrong with double protection.

I have spoken on some of the amendments which I consider important. When the time comes, I should like to think that we could vote separately on the amendment relating to clause 4, page 3, line 14, in the opinion of the directors of the Bank I would also like to think that votes on amendments to clause 11, page 6, and clause 15, page 8, could be taken together.

Sir Peter Emery

I congratulate the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) on speaking for nearly an hour about fairly precise amendments. I shall try to answer his questions clearly in the hope that that will assist the House to obtain answers about the amendments, which are fairly narrow.

The purpose of the amendments is to improve the clarity of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have suggested that something is wrong because parliamentary agents could not get the Bill 100 per cent. right when it was produced for First Reading and Committee. Few Bills produced by Governments of either party do not require some amendment or correction. There are few parliamentary agents who get everything right the first time. I believe that it is correct—I have spent some time in the Procedure Committee to try to ensure this—that we should spend the right amount of time to make legislation as clear and as simple as humanly possible.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

I refer the hon. Gentleman to page 1 of the Bill, which says: And whereas the objects of this Act cannot be attained without the authority of Parliament".. The first amendment refers to things that go on in other countries. Why do we have to have the authority of this House to do something that affects other countries? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we have had many problems with private legislation? I believe that there is a strong case to take such legislation away from the House. I wonder whether the International Westminster Bank Bill should be considered at all. Why is it absolutely essential—the preamble to the Bill says that it is—for the little section that relates to having regard to the laws of other countries to he included in the Bill?

Sir Peter Emery

The amendment, which leaves out "having regard to" and inserts "by reason or, ensures that the laws of any other country are abided by absolutely.

Mr. Cryer

Because of the shoddy directors at NatWest.

Sir Peter Emery

The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) does himself no credit by making remarks of that kind.

The Bill amalgamates, for the convenience of the bank and of this country in its financial dealings, the International Westminster bank, which is operating outside this country, and the National Westminster bank, which operates in this country. The purpose is to bring the two organisations together. The laws of the overseas country in which the bank is operating will be abided by. There is no suggestion in the Bill that those laws should be overridden and there is no desire on the part of the National Westminster bank to do that.

Mr. Michael Welsh

Some countries are known as "bank havens" and there is little control, if any, over their financial transactions. If the International Westminster bank operated in such countries, it would have to be subject to our laws or investors might lose their money—as happened in Gibraltar. Has that been taken into account when discussing the operations of National Westminster and International Westminster?

Sir Peter Emery

The bank has taken that into consideration. Obviously, it wants the most stringent regulations to apply overseas as would apply here. That does not mean that the bank would seek to override the laws of another nation. It is to make that absolutely clear that the amendments have been tabled. The directors of the bank have sought the amendments to ensure that if, when dealing with its banking operations in another country, it was decided that the vesting date in that country should not be the same as for the whole of the Bill, it could be delayed. There is nothing new about that and I have already told the House that that happened with two previous banking Bills.

Questions have also been asked about the amendment relating to clause 5, page 3, line 34. The words in the brackets are unnecessary and slightly misleading. They highlight the probate of a will without referring to the alternative possibility of letters of administration. Such letters of administration may be annexed to a will or issued when the deceased has omitted to appoint any executors of his will. Therefore, those letters ensure that the matter is dealt with.

I come to clause 11, page 6, lines 26 and 27 and clause 15, page 8, lines 33 and 38. I have already said that the Stock Exchange (Completion of Bargains) Act 1976 is material only in that it amends the Stock Transfer Act 1963.

Mr. Cryer

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My attention has been drawn to the fact that the Serjeant at Arms is not in his place. I have never known this in my several years as a Member here and I wondered whether it was right for the House to continue when the Serjeant at Arms had been drawn away to some important matter. If any hon. Member were to become terribly unruly—not I, of course—there would be a problem and I thought that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, might like to consider this.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The debate is proceeding in good order and I am sure that the Serjeant at Arms is within the precincts.

Sir Peter Emery

As the amendments to the 1963 Act become part of the Act there is no need for reference to be made to the 1976 Act and it would be misleading to include it. The hon. Member for Doncaster, North has already explained why it is unnecessary. Therefore, it has been deleted and that applies equally to the Stock Transfer (Northern Ireland) Act 1963.

The group of amendments attempts to clarify the Bill, make it more easily understood and allow the National Westminster bank to operate as efficiently as humanly possible after the amalgamation of its two organisations. That will benefit the country. An extensive amount of work is carried out by this company internationally, and the Bill will help this nation's economy. I should have thought that the House would want to hasten the Bill through. Most organisations would not have to come to the House if they want to bring together their overseas and domestic sections. The Bill is necessary because we are dealing with a bank which is structured under the Banking Act 1987.

The House will divide if necessary, but I hope that it will give a fair wind to the National Westminster bank in trying to do what it can financially for this country's benefit.

Mr. Roger Knapman (Stroud)

rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 111, Noes 36.

Division No. 389]	[8.53 pm
AYES
Alexander, Richard	Durant, Tony
Amos, Alan	Eggar, Tim
Arbuthnot, James	Emery, Sir Peter
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Fenner, Dame Peggy
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)	Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Baldry, Tony	Fookes, Dame Janet
Benyon, W.	Forman, Nigel
Bevan, David Gilroy	Gale, Roger
Blackburn, Dr John G.	Garel-Jones, Tristan
Boswell, Tim	Gill, Christopher
Bowis, John	Glyn, Dr Alan
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard	Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Buck, Sir Antony	Ground, Patrick
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)	Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Hague, William
Carrington, Matthew	Hampson, Dr Keith
Chapman, Sydney	Harris, David
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)	Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)	Hayward, Robert
Colvin, Michael	Heathcoat-Amory, David
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)	Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Holt, Richard
Couchman, James	Hordern, Sir Peter
Davis, David (Boothferry)	Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)
Dorrell, Stephen	Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)	Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Hunt, David (Wirral W)	Renton, Tim
Hunter, Andrew	Rhodes James, Robert
Irvine, Michael	Ryder, Richard
Jack, Michael	Sackville, Hon Tom
Janman, Tim	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine	Sims, Roger
Kilfedder, James	Squire, Robin
Knight, Greg (Derby North)	Stanbrook, Ivor
Lightbown, David	Stern, Michael
Lilley, Peter	Stevens, Lewis
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Maclean, David	Stradling Thomas, Sir John
McLoughlin, Patrick	Summerson, Hugo
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Mans, Keith	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)	Viggers, Peter
Miller, Sir Hal	Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)	Waller, Gary
Monro, Sir Hector	Widdecombe, Ann
Mudd, David	Wilkinson, John
Neubert, Michael	Wood, Timothy
Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Patnick, Irvine	Tellers for the Ayes:
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Mr. Roger King and
Porter, David (Waveney)	Mr. Roger Knapman.

NOES
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)	Meale, Alan
Barron, Kevin	Morgan, Rhodri
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)	Nellist, Dave
Boateng, Paul	O'Brien, William
Boyes, Roland	Pike, Peter L.
Cryer, Bob	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)	Skinner, Dennis
Dixon, Don	Vaz, Keith
Dobson, Frank	Wall, Pat
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Haynes, Frank
Home Robertson, John	Tellers for the Noes:
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)	Mr. Martin Redmond
Lamond, James	Mr. Michael Welsh.
Litherland, Robert

Question accordingly agreed to

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)

It is customary to put all the Lords amendments together——

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

In view of that reaction, I think that the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) lays particular emphasis on the second amendment——

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

So be it; I shall put the Question on the first.

Lords amendment: In clause 4, page 3, line 12, leave out "having regard to" and insert "by reason of".

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 104,Noes27.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)

Have I the agreement of the House to put the remaining amendments——

Hon. Members

No.

Lords amendment: In clause 5, page 3, leave out from "capacity" in line 34 to "and" in line 35.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House proceeded to a Division:—

Mr. Harry Barnes

(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It seems that we are voting on the third amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Yes. I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I read out the wrong amendment. We should be voting on clause 4, page 3, line 14.

Mr. Barnes

On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A problem has arisen with the material that the promoters have supplied to us. Normally a set of amendments would be supplied with amendment numbers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's point of order after the Division.

Lords amendment: In clause 4, page 3, line 14, at end insert in the opinion of the directors of the Bank".

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 101, Noes 23.

Division No. 390]	[9.3 pm
AYES
Alexander, Richard	Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Amos, Alan	Hunter, Andrew
Arbuthnot, James	Irvine, Michael
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Jack, Michael
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)	Janman, Tim
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Baldry, Tony	Kilfedder, James
Benyon, W.	Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Bevan, David Gilroy	Lightbown, David
Blackburn, Dr John G.	Lilley, Peter
Boswell, Tim	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Bowis, John	Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard	Maclean, David
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	McLoughlin, Patrick
Brazier, Julian	McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)	Mans, Keith
Buck, Sir Antony	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Miller, Sir Hal
Carrington, Matthew	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Chapman, Sydney	Monro, Sir Hector
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)	Moss, Malcolm
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)	Mudd, David
Colvin, Michael	Neubert, Michael
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)	Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Paice, James
Couchman, James	Patnick, Irvine
Davis, David (Boothferry)	Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Dorrell, Stephen	Porter, David (Waveney)
Durant, Tony	Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Emery, Sir Peter	Renton, Tim
Favell, Tony	Rhodes James, Robert
Fenner, Dame Peggy	Ryder, Richard
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)	Sackville, Hon Tom
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Gale, Roger	Sims, Roger
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Stanbrook, Ivor
Gill, Christopher	Stern, Michael
Glyn, Dr Alan	Stevens, Lewis
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)	Summerson, Hugo
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Ground, Patrick	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn	Viggers, Peter
Hague, William	Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Hampson, Dr Keith	Waller, Gary
Harris, David	Widdecombe, Ann
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney	Wilkinson, John
Hayward, Robert	Wood, Timothy
Heathcoat-Amory, David
Holt, Richard	Tellers for the Ayes:
Hordern, Sir Peter	Mr. Roger King and
Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)	Mr. Roger Knapman.
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Morley, Elliot
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy	O'Brien, William
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Redmond, Martin
Barron, Kevin	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)	Skinner, Dennis
Boyes, Roland	Vaz, Keith
Cryer, Bob	Wall, Pat
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)	Wallace, James
Dixon, Don	Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Haynes, Frank
Home Robertson, John	Tellers for the Noes:
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)	Mr. Harry Barnes and
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)	Mr. Alan Meale.
Morgan, Rhodri

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

If the House agrees, I will now put the remaining Lords amendments.

Hon. Members

No.

Lords amendment: In clause 5, page 3, leave out from "capacity" in line 34 to "and" in line 35.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 85, Noes 22.

Division No. 391]	[9.15 pm
AYES
Alexander, Richard	Durant, Tony
Amos, Alan	Eggar, Tim
Arbuthnot, James	Emery, Sir Peter
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Favell, Tony
Benyon, W.	Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Bevan, David Gilroy	Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Blackburn, Dr John G.	Gale, Roger
Boswell, Tim	Garel-Jones, Tristan
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard	Gill, Christopher
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Brazier, Julian	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)	Ground, Patrick
Burt, Alistair	Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoin)	Hague, William
Carrington, Matthew	Harris, David
Chapman, Sydney	Hayward, Robert
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)	Holt, Richard
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)	Hordern, Sir Peter
Colvin, Michael	Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)	Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Couchman, James	Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Davis, David (Boothferry)	Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Dorrell, Stephen	Hunter, Andrew

Irvine, Michael	Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Jack, Michael	Renton, Tim
Janman, Tim	Rhodes James, Robert
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine	Ryder, Richard
Kilfedder, James	Sackville, Hon Tom
Knight, Greg (Derby North)	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Lightbown, David	Sims, Roger
Lilley, Peter	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Stanbrook, Ivor
Lyell, Sir Nicholas	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
McLoughlin, Patrick	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Mans, Keith	Viggers, Peter
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)	Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Miller, Sir Hal	Waller, Gary
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)	Widdecombe, Ann
Monro, Sir Hector	Wilkinson, John
Mudd, David	Wood, Timothy
Neubert, Michael
Nicholson, David (Taunton)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Patnick, Irvine	Mr. Roger King and
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Mr. Roger Knapman.
Porter, David (Waveney)

NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane	McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Morgan, Rhodri
Barron, Kevin	Morley, Elliot
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)	O'Brien, William
Boyes, Roland	Redmond, Martin
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)	Skinner, Dennis
Cryer, Bob	Vaz, Keith
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)	Wall, Pat
Dixon, Don	Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Haynes, Frank
Home Robertson, John	Tellers for the Noes:
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)	Mr. Harry Barnes and
McFall, John	Mr. Alan Meale.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With the leave of the House, I will put the Question on the remaining Lords amendments.

Hon. Members

Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

So be it.

Lords amendment: In clause 5, page 3, line 42, leave out whether made before, on or after and insert "made before".

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 100, Noes 21.

Division No. 392]	[9.27 pm
AYES
Alexander, Richard	Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Amos, Alan	Hunter, Andrew
Arbuthnot, James	Irvine, Michael
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Jack, Michael
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Janman, Tim
Benyon, W.	Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Bevan, David Gilroy	Kilfedder, James
Blackburn, Dr John G.	Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Boswell, Tim	Lightbown, David
Bowis, John	Lilley, Peter
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Brazier, Julian	Maclean, David
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)	McLoughlin, Patrick
Burt, Alistair	McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Carrington, Matthew	Mans, Keith
Chapman, Sydney	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)	Miller, Sir Hal
Colvin, Michael	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)	Monro, Sir Hector
Couchman, James	Moss, Malcolm
Davis, David (Boothferry)	Mudd, David
Dorrell, Stephen	Neubert, Michael
Durant, Tony	Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Eggar, Tim	Paice, James
Emery, Sir Peter	Patnick, Irvine
Favell, Tony	Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)	Porter, David (Waveney)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey	Renton, Tim
Forman, Nigel	Rhodes James, Robert
French, Douglas	Ryder, Richard
Gale, Roger	Sackville, Hon Tom
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Gill, Christopher	Sims, Roger
Goodlad, Alastair	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	Squire, Robin
Greenway, John (Ryedale)	Stanbrook, Ivor
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Ground, Patrick	Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Grylls, Michael	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Hague, William	Viggers, Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith	Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)	Wallace, James
Harris, David	Waller, Gary
Hayward, Robert	Widdecombe, Ann
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Wilkison, John
Hind, Kenneth	Wood, Timothy
Holt, Richard
Hordern, Sir Peter	Tellers for the Ayes:
Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)	Mr. Roger King, and
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Mr. Roger Knapman.
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

NOES
Abbort, Ms Diane	Haynes, Frank
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)	Home Robertson, John
Barron, Kevin	Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)	McFall, John
Boyes, Roland	McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)	Meale, Alan
Cryer, Bob	Nellist, Dave
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)	O'Brien, William

Skinner, Dennis	Tellers for the Noes:
Vaz, Keith	Mr. Martin Redmond and
Wall, Pat	Mr. Michel Welsh.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

If the House agrees——

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

Object.

Lords amendment: In clause 5, page 3, line 44, after "and" insert any will made on or after the appointed day, being in either case a will".

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 92, Noes 29

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With the agreement of the House I shall put——

Hon. Members

Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

In that case, I will put the Question on the next amendment.

Lords amendment: In clause 6, page 4, line 10 leave out "omitted" and insert "not to be done".

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 98, Noes 22.

Division No. 393]	[9.39 pm
AYES
Amos, Alan	Holt, Richard
Arbuthnot, James	Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow VI)
Benyon, W.	Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Bevan, David Gilroy	Hunter, Andrew
Blackburn, Dr John G.	Irvine, Michael
Boswell, Tim	Jack, Michael
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard	Janman, Tim
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Brazier, Julian	Kilfedder, James
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)	Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Buck, Sir Antony	Lightbown, David
Burns, Simon	Lilley, Peter
Burt, Alistair	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	McLoughlin, Patrick
Carrington, Matthew	Mans, Keith
Chapman, Sydney	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)	Miller, Sir Hal
Colvin, Michael	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)	Moate, Roger
Couchman, James	Monro, Sir Hector
Davis, David (Boothferry)	Neubert, Michael
Dorrell, Stephen	Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Durant, Tony	Patnick, Irvine
Eggar, Tim	Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Emery, Sir Peter	Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Favell, Tony	Renton, Tim
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)	Rhodes James, Robert
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey	Sackville, Hon Tom
Fishburn, John Dudley	Sims, Roger
Fookes, Dame Janet	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Freeman, Roger	Squire, Robin
Gale, Roger	Stanbrook, Ivor
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Gill, Christopher	Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')	Viggers, Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)	Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Ground, Patrick	Wallace, James
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn	Widdecombe, Ann
Hague, William	Wilkinson, John
Hampson, Dr Keith	Wood, Timothy
Hanley, Jeremy	Younger, Rt Hon George
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Harris, David	Tellers for the Ayes:
Hayward, Robert	Mr. Roger King and
Hind, Kenneth	Mr. Roger Knapman.

NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Dixon, Don
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Dobson, Frank
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)	Evans, John (St Helens N)
Barron, Kevin	Haynes, Frank
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)	Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Boateng, Paul	Home Robertson, John
Boyes, Roland	Hoyle, Doug
Cryer, Bob	Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Dicks, Terry	Janner, Greville

McFall, John	Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)	Vaz, Keith
Meale, Alan	Wall, Pat
Morgan, Rhodri
Nellist, Dave	Tellers for the Noes:
O'Brien, William	Mr. Martin Redmond and
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)	Mr. Michael welsh.
Skinner, Dennis

Division No. 394]	[9.50 pm
AYES
Alexander, Richard	Hunter, Andrew
Amos, Alan	Jack, Michael
Arbuthnot, James	Janman, Tim
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Kilfedder, James
Baldry, Tony	King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Benyon, W.	Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Bevan, David Gilroy	Lightbown, David
Blackburn, Dr John G.	Lilley, Peter
Boswell, Tim	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia	Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard	Maclean, David
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	McLoughlin, Patrick
Brazier, Julian	Mans, Keith
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Burns, Simon	Miller, Sir Hal
Burt, Alistair	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Moate, Roger
Carrington, Matthew	Monro, Sir Hector
Chapman, Sydney	Neubert, Michael
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)	Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Colvin, Michael	Patnick, Irvine
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)	Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Portillo, Michael
Couchman, James	Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Davis, David (Boothferry)	Redwood, John
Dorrell, Stephen	Renton, Tim
Durant, Tony	Rhodes James, Robert
Emery, Sir Peter	Rowe, Andrew
Favell, Tony	Ryder, Richard
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)	Sims, Roger
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Fishburn, John Dudley	Squire, Robin
Freeman, Roger	Stanbrook, Ivor
Gale, Roger	Stern, Michael
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Stevens, Lewis
Gill, Christopher	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Gritfiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Griftiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)	Viggers, Peter
Ground, Patrick	Walker, Bill (Tside North)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn	Wallace, James
Hague, William	Waller, Gary
Hanley, Jeremy	Widdecombe, Ann
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)	Wilkinson, John
Harris, David	Wood, Timothy
Hayward, Robert	Younger, Rt Hon George
Holt, Richard
Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Mr. Michael Irvine and
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)	Mr. Roger Knapman.

NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane	McFall, John
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)	Meale, Alan
Barron, Kevin	Morgan, Rhodri
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)	Nellist, Dave
Boyes, Roland	Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Cryer, Bob	Skinner, Dennis
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)	Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)
Dixon, Don	Wall, Pat
Haynes, Frank
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)	Tellers for the Noes:
Home Robertson, John	Mr. Martin Redmond and
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)	Mr. Michael Welsh.

Question accordingly agreed to.

It being after Ten o'clock, consideration of Lords amendments stood adjourned.

cc1250-1
1. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 61 words
c1252
2. International Westminster Bank Bill 2,670 words, 4 divisions