§
8 Clause 4, page 4, line 13, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
(4) For the purposes of subsection (2) above, a share allotted in pursuance of an employee's share scheme may not be taken into account in determining the nominal value of the company's allotted share capital unless it is paid up at least as to one quarter of the nominal value of the share and the whole of any premium on the share.
§ Lord LYELLMy Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8. I wish to speak to a further list of amendments, Nos. 13, 14, 15, 17, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 31, 36, 38, 39, 40, 61, 62, 63, 80, 81, 86, 89, 91, 98, 107, 112, 133, 134 and 186. These amendments clarify and simplify. For example, Amendment No. 86 improves considerably the drafting of Clause 22(1). As drafted, this subsection spells out explicitly and in some detail 986 what is meant by talking of a share being paid up as to one quarter of its nominal value together with the whole of any premium. We do not believe that this is necessary, and in fact causes some problems which can and will be removed by the simpler drafting proposed.
Again, Amendment No. 98 simplifies Clause 24(1) by using the phrase
otherwise than in cashin place of the more complex drafting which is at present in the subsection. This phrase is also used in Amendment No. 91 to Clause 23(1). Similar changes are made by the amendments elsewhere in the Bill. Amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 186 are minor technical improvements. We are proposing a small amendment to Clause 22(1), and this is consequential on the changes which are made to subsection (3) of that clause by Amendment No. 89, to which I am speaking. We shall come to that at a later stage.
§ Moved, That this Houes doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Lyell.)
§ Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTONMy Lords, before we pass this cluster of amendments, may I say one word not opposing it in any way? I thought I heard correctly that the Minister did not read out "236". My copy of the grouping of these amendments is very faint from Xeroxing. I believe that Amendment No. 236 comes under Clause 56.
§ Lord LYELLI can confirm that straight away. I referred to Amendments Nos. 134 and 186. I will take particular care. I hope that your Lordships will bear with me if I read as clearly as I can and take time in reading each individual amendment. I appreciate that there are lengthy lists to which I am speaking, I hope for the convenience of the House, I will take great care.
§ Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTONMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I was sagefuarding myself against being wrong for the point I want to make. In a sense, I want to place a marker. Amendment No. 8 from the other place changes the relationship of Clause 22 in its effect upon employee share schemes. Therefore it is very important to notice 987 that when we come to Amendment No. 236 the definition of employee share schemes has been changed in a way which the noble Lord's honourable and right honourable friends in another place thought was a major work. Therefore I place a marker against this clause when we come to the re-definition of the employee share schemes.
§ Lord LLOYD of KILGERRANMy Lords, as I have thrown a few pebbles at the Government, may I say that so far as Amendment No. 8 is concerned, it seems to me that it restates the position in a more direct fashion instead of referring somewhat elliptically to the other subsections in the original drafting. I support these amendments as I think they are very useful in simplifying and clarifying the position.
§ Lord LYELLMy Lords, I am most grateful.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Greenwood of Rossendale)My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to take Amendments Nos. 9 to 11 together.