§ Matters for which Trust Deeds pursuant to Unit Trust Schemes must provide.
§ 5. For the audit and publication of accounts relating to the trust (including accounts of the manager in relation to the trust and statements of his remuneration in connection therewith).
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR had given Notice of an Amendment, in paragraph 5, to leave out "publication" and insert "the circulation to holders of units." The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is due to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who raised the question whether the words in the paragraph, which requires the publication of accounts, meant publication to the world. I am not sure that the words would have that effect, but it was thought proper to make the matter clear—because doubtful things in a Bill should always be made clear—and this Amendment which is on the Paper in the names of Lord Templemore and myself would at least have done that. The noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, however, has sent in an Amendment so drafted that it is to some extent, at any rate, an Amendment to the Amendment on the Paper. In these circumstances I think the right course is that either he should move an Amendment taking in the Government Amendment and inserting the words he proposes, or that I, by the leave of your Lordships, should incorporate his Amendment in my Amendment that stands on the Paper. But the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, is technically, I think, too late to table his Amendment. I think therefore there is some difficulty in allowing his Amendment to be moved, but I am quite willing to incorporate his Amendment, so far as Notice has been given of it, in my Amendment.
§
Lord Rankeillour's Amendment is to leave out the word "publication" and to insert the words "making available free of charge to holders of units." If that is done, paragraph 5 would begin:
For the audit and making available free of charge to holders of units …
I am not sure that there is not some technical difficulty in inserting the further words "who so desire," which are proposed by the noble Lord—perhaps he will deal with that himself—owing to the lack
582
of proper Notice. The paragraph would then go on:
of accounts relating to the trust (including accounts of the manager in relation to the trust and statements of his remuneration in connection therewith).
Your Lordships know that I never take it upon myself to pretend to be any sort of authority on the rules of procedure in your Lordships' House. When I came here this evening I thought I would be able to move the insertion of the words "who so desire" at the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, but I think no Notice has been given to your Lordships. I understand that I am not entitled to incorporate them in the Amendment which stands in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, and myself. If there is that difficulty we must leave them out and I would move to leave out the word "publication" and to insert "making available free of charge to holders of units."
§ LORD RANKEILLOURMy Lords, I understand that the practice of the House is that a new Amendment cannot be put on the Third Reading unless it has appeared on the Paper, but that that rule may, with the consent of the House, be to this extent varied, that when an Amendment is on the Paper a sub-Amendment to that Amendment may be put. I see the difficulty that the noble and learned Lord is in in moving a different Amendment to that on the Paper, and I would ask if possible to move to add to the Lord Chancellor's Amendment, which is now on the Paper, the words "who so desire," which I think cover the matter. It is perfectly simple and comprehensive, and it is congruous with the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord. I notice that no Amendment has actually been put, and so the Amendment now on the Paper in the name of the noble and learned Lord may be moved, and if it is, then I would move to add these words at the end of it.
§ LORD MANCROFTMy Lords, I am not acquainted with the rules of the House, nor am I disposed to quarrel with my noble friend Lord Rankeillour, but I hope he will not press his wish to add this Amendment in his name, and for this reason. I have taken considerable interest in Clause 16. I called the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the surroundings of the word "publication," 583 and he has very kindly put down this Amendment, which I have come to the conclusion meets my point and the point of those who agree with me.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND)My Lords, may I call the attention of the House to the fact that, as I understand it, no Motion is before the House?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I may have been wrong, but I thought that, having regard to the fact that there might be some question raised before the Amendment was moved, I ought to abstain from putting the Question for the moment. I dare say I was wrong, because I have not sufficient knowledge of these matters, but I will put the Amendment which I am intending to move. The Question is: In the Schedule, page 33, line 24, leave out "publication" and insert "the circulation to holders of units."
§ LORD MANCROFTI perhaps did not make it clear that I was rising to a point of Order. I did not think it was fair to put the Amendment to us in view of the fact that the manuscript Amendment of Lord Rankeillour was not known to us and it will take two or three days to consider.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORPerhaps I may be allowed to read the Rule, which is perhaps not familiar to all of your Lordships. It is in these terms. It is Rule XXXVII. "Proceedings on Bills":
No Amendment shall be moved upon the Third Reading of any Public Bill unless notice of moving the same be given to the Clerk not later than the day preceding that on which the Amendment is to be moved in sufficient time to enable the Amendment to be printed and circulated to members of the House in the form in which it is proposed to move.That Rule would be observed by moving the Amendment as it stands in the name of Lord Templemore and myself, to which Lord Rankeillour proposes to add certain words. May I say this to Lord Rankeillour, that I understand there will be no difficulty in another place, if that other place thinks proper, in adding the words which he has put down in the Amendment which is too late for consideration according to the Rule?
§ LORD RANKEILLOURMy Lords, on a point of Order. I was quite aware of 584 the text of that Rule, but I understood from inquiry that it was not held to apply to a sub-Amendment to an Amendment already on the Paper. I did give notice to the Clerk of Parliaments yesterday, but unfortunately it was too late, in the circumstance of the early rising of the House, to get it printed. When my noble friend Lord Mancroft says he will require two or three days to digest the simple words "who so desire," I think he is belittling his own abilities very much. The point is this. As the Amendment stands, it would involve the circulation of an enormous number of documents. I was told a day or two ago that in one case the number would be 11,000. I have been told since then by the manager of several trusts, that in their case it will involve the circulation of 80,000. Surely that is a great waste when a large number of the unit holders would certainly consign those documents to the wastepaper basket. My Amendment does provide that if any unit holder wishes to know, he has only to write a post card and get it not once but all the time. I venture to think that that is a very simple proposition, and as I understand there is a precedent for such a sub-Amendment, I beg to be allowed—it may be by leave of the House—to move it.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW)My Lords, if it is suggested that a manuscript Amendment can be handed in on Third Reading—I do not say it has never been done; it was done ten or fifteen years ago, but only under very strong protest—I would like to remind you that on that occasion it was said that, although departure from the practice might in that case be sanctioned, for very special purpose, in future your Lordships would be very careful before you departed from the practice, which has been I think the rule of the House for many years, of not admitting manuscript Amendments on Third Reading. I do not know what the exact procedure should be, because it has only occurred to me at this moment, but possibly your Lordships might consider adjourning the debate. The Amendment could then appear on the Paper, and your Lordships could discuss it when you had had the opportunity of seeing what the proposal was. I do not think that this matter is one which would bring a 585 large number of members together to discuss it on a future occasion, but an important precedent is involved. The principle of not allowing an Amendment to go forward on the Third Reading unless it is on the Paper, seems to me to be one which should be very carefully observed, and not departed from except in some special circumstances.
§ LORD RANKEILLOURI need hardly say that I am only too glad to accede to the view of the Lord Chairman.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI will put the Question. It is: In the Schedule, at page 33, line 24, leave out "publication" and insert "the circulation to holders of units."
§
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 24, leave out ("publication") and insert ("the circulation to holders of units")—(The Lord Chancellor).
§ THE MARQUESS OF ZETLANDMy Lords, in view of the discussion which has just taken place, I would like to move that the debate be adjourned. There will then be time to have the Amendment put down on the Paper, and it can be discussed when the Amendment is before us all. I beg to move.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI do not know whether your Lordships have realised that that may involve a delay in passing the Bill into law.
§ LORD MANCROFTMy Lords, this Amendment, if thought proper by the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, could easily be inserted in the Commons and, if agreed to, could then come back here. I think that would be the best course, because the Amendment now on the Paper is one that meets the views of most of us, whereas the amending Amendment would in some sense nullify it.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.