| Limited Liability Partnerships Bill [Lords]
|
|
Mr. John Burnett (Torridge and West Devon): May I also welcome you, Mr. Stevenson? I have served under your deft, wise and patient chairmanship in previous Committees. We, too, support the principle behind the Bill, as we made clear on Second Reading, and as my colleagues in another place also confirmed. Nevertheless, the Bill could and should be significantly improved. Joint and several liability in this world economy can be especially unfair. Therefore, the law is ripe for change. However, the price for limited liability should be full disclosure to protect creditors, customers and clients. A good deal of the legislation will be introduced in regulations, which we deprecate, because many of those matters should be included in the Bill. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) referred to the impact of the Bill on the solicitors' profession. I should disclose that I am a qualified solicitor. I should also add that I am no longer connected with any firm of solicitors. I believe that I am owed some money by a firm of solicitors in which I used to be a partner, but other than that, I have no connection with any firm. However, I hope that I shall have an opportunity to move new clause 1. It is nonsensical that the solicitors' profession should be the only profession or business that is unable to become a limited liability partnership, a matter to which I hope to revert in future. Nevertheless, we support the thrust of the Bill and hope that it progresses speedily through Committee. Mr. Fabricant: May I, too, say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Stevenson? I echo what the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) said about your wisdom and experience. In addition, you are a fellow Staffordshire Member of Parliament and, although I would not expect you to be too indulgent when it comes to my excesses, I hope that that factor will influence my attempts to speak just a little. However, I do not intend to speak for more than an hour, or even five minutes.
10.45 amI welcome the Bill. Times have changed since the Partnership Act 1890 was introduced. The idea of joint and several liability in large partnerships is out of place in the modern world. Britain has led the way in financial institutions, especially our large firms of chartered accountants and solicitors. Sadly, they are not covered by the Bill. The Minister should explain that decision at length. It is important that partners are afforded protection. Some people might be unwilling to join a firm if they were jointly and severally liable. I want to mention the strange case of the John Lewis Partnership plc, which is probably the first example of a limited liability partnership. The organisation was given in trust to its staff. It has 45,000 partners. Instead of a dividend being declared to shareholders, each partner receives a bonus at the end of the year that is a percentage of his or her salary. However, to protect the whole organisation, the trust is held by trustees and the assets are held by a £100 plc, which is not quoted on the stock exchange. It is an unhomogeneous hybrid organisation which, for the sake of the partners, tries to get around the rules of normal partnership. It will be interesting to see what its chairman, Sir Stuart Hampson, decides to do when the Bill becomes law. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said, the idea was originally the Conservative's. How nice it is that the Government are treading in the footsteps of the previous Administration—how wise of them, too—and how good it is to know that the Minister is no longer left wing. Mr. Brian White (Milton Keynes, North-East): Is the Conservative party going to follow the practice that it employed last time the Labour party picked up an idea from its manifesto? It decided to repudiate that idea and opposed the Bill that became the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1998. The Chairman: Order. I am allowing a wide-ranging debate on the sittings motion. There will be ample opportunity for Committee members to make their points when we discuss the clauses and amendments. I do not want the Committee to cite political history, recent though it may be. Mr. Fabricant: I also want to echo the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton made about Henry VIII clauses. Too many blank cheques have been written in the Palace of Westminster. We have passed Acts of Parliament with huge spaces that are filled by statutory instrument Committees. There is insufficient scrutiny of that legislation, which is a dangerous move. Some Bills—I shall not name them, first, because it would be out of order and, secondly, because we all know what they are—have not received sufficient scrutiny. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has been accused of prolonging debate when, in fact, prolonged debate has provided the scrutiny that is necessary to protect the Government. Without it, they might introduce Bills that need to be corrected or—in one case—torn in half and discarded. It is dangerous to have parts of Bills in which the future is not clear. We are writing a blank cheque. That is not to say that some elements, especially with regard to charges and penalties, cannot be dealt with by a statutory instrument Committee because certain factors will vary according to inflation and changes in the business community. General principles of law should not be dealt with by statutory instruments and secondary legislation. They should be considered on the Floor of the House. On that point, I disagree with the principle, or rather the detail, of the Bill. Having said that, the Bill is long overdue. I wish it a fair wind. Under your chairmanship, Mr. Stevenson, it will be concluded sooner rather than later. I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton every success—and I will support him in persuading the Government to make the changes necessary to enable the business community to prosper under the current difficult conditions. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That, during proceedings on the Limited Liability Partnerships Bill [Lords], the Committee do meet on Tuesdays at half-past Ten o'clock and at half-past Four o'clock and on Thursdays at Ten o'clock and at half-past Two o'clock. The Chairman: I remind the Committee that there is a financial resolution in connection with the Bill. Copies are available in the Room. I also remind hon. Members that adequate notice is required of amendments. As a general rule, I do not intend to call starred amendments, including any starred amendments that are reached during an afternoon sitting of the Committee.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2000 | Prepared 13 June 2000 |
