| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Peston: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that the policy of raising excise duty at a rate higher than inflation was introduced by the previous Conservative government? That was very much to the credit of the then Chancellor, the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, and we strongly supported that policy at the time, when we were in opposition. Would my noble friend be impressed if the Conservatives occasionally supported the Government in pursuit of a policy that is very beneficial to the nation--and also happens to help the Treasury?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I noticed that the opposition to excise duties on tobacco came from the noble Lord, Lord Clark, on the Conservative Back Benches. He was not supported by his Front Bench. It would be helpful if the Conservatives supported us now as we supported them then.
Lord Shaw of Northstead: My Lords, is the Taylor report available to the Comptroller and Auditor General?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that it is a financial report, so it does not come within the scope of the Comptroller and Auditor General's responsibilities. If I am wrong, I shall write to the noble Lord.
Public Transport: Concessionary Fares
3.2 p.m.
Lord Islwyn asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether any further consideration has been given to the starting time for the proposed minimum half-fare concession for pensioners on public transport.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, as some noble Lords may recall, the issue was addressed on two occasions yesterday during the Committee stage of the Transport Bill. To repeat what I said then, the Bill provides that the starting time for the statutory minimum concession is 9.30 a.m. That reflects representations from local government. It is open to local authorities to set an earlier time if they think it appropriate. If they already have an earlier start time, there is no need for them to change it because of anything in the Transport Bill.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, although the introduction of concessionary fares in the Transport Bill is welcome, it is a very restricted measure. Even the 9.30 a.m. start is unacceptable to pensioners' organisations and the disabled. They are particularly concerned about getting to hospital appointments. Does the Minister also accept that the 9 a.m. start has operated in London for many years, where free passes are available? Why not at least make the 9 a.m. start uniform throughout the country? That would be welcomed as fair by pensioners and the disabled.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, in the other place, we introduced a free bus pass. In your Lordships' House, we extended the concessions to the disabled. We accepted a Liberal Democrat amendment in Committee in the other place to change the morning start time from 9 a.m. to 9.30 a.m. The passenger transport executive group had called for that later starting time because considerable numbers of school and college journeys are undertaken between 9 a.m. and 9.30 a.m. and in larger cities transport operators have to recover from the congestion of the morning peak during that time. It is also true that 9.30 a.m. is the usual starting time for concessionary fares and for off-peak season tickets. I stress that local authorities are free to provide a scheme that is better than the statutory minimum.
Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
The Bill was brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time.
Limited Liability Partnerships Bill [H.L.]
3.4 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.--(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
1Clause 7, page 4, line 19, leave out from ("partnership") to end of line 21 and insert--
| ("(3) But subsection (2) does not affect any right to receive an amount from the limited liability partnership in that event.") |
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.
The aim of the amendment is to prevent difficulties that we foresaw might arise from the interpretation of the phrase
In many cases, the former member or his representative would not want to receive a continuing entitlement, which the phrase implies, but would wish to have his share in the firm bought out. That may also be favoured by the limited liability partnership, which would otherwise face a continuing liability. The amendment replaces the problematic phrase with a new subsection that refers to the right to receive an amount to ensure that any buyout provision in the member's agreement is not hindered by the clause.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.--(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I welcome the amendment in principle. I have one technical question on it. It is understandable and correct to leave out the words that follow "partnership" in line 19, but I am not sure why it is necessary to insert a new subsection (3). Subsections (1) and (2) say that a retired member
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I support the amendment. I have some sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has said. The amendment may not be necessary, but I was pleased to see that it has been added to the Bill, because it clarifies a point as regards which the original drafting of the Bill was hard to understand.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for that support--one and a half times--for the amendment. Subsection (3) is there more for the avoidance of doubt than because it adds anything positive. However, it ensures certainty of rights for third parties, which is not stated anywhere else in the clause. Clause 7 is intended to ensure that third parties have no right to interfere in the activities of the limited liability partnership--both opposition parties have supported that--but it is desirable to say explicitly that their rights for repayment or for a continuing interest are ensured.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
"may receive from the LLP any amount to which the former member, or member, would have been entitled but for that event".
There is a risk that the phrase could be interpreted to mean that the only entitlement was to what the former member had been receiving before that event--the event being the circumstances set out in subsection (1)(a) to (d), such as death or bankruptcy.
2Clause 17, page 11, line 4, after ("in") insert ("or made under")
3Page 11, line 7, after ("in") insert ("or made under")
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
We were concerned that the references in subsection (5)(a) and (b) to "provisions contained in" the Insolvency Act 1986 or the specified parts of the Companies Act 1985 might be interpreted too narrowly. In either case, some of the provisions may trigger subordinate legislation. It would be peculiar--and unintentional--if the affirmative procedure were triggered in that way. The intention of the amendments is to make the position more certain by changing the wording to read:
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.--(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
"provisions contained in or made under".
That covers primary and secondary legislation.
4Clause 19, page 12, line 18, leave out subsection (6)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4. The amendment removes the privilege clause.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.--(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
5In the schedule, page 15, line 15, leave out ("incorporated as a limited liability partnership with that name,") and insert ("a limited liability partnership or oversea limited liability partnership,")
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5. When the Trade and Industry Select Committee of the other place undertook its review of the limited liability partnership legislation, we told the committee that it was our intention that company legislation which requires that oversea companies prominently display the company's name and country in which it is incorporated would also be applied to oversea-registered limited liability partnerships by regulation, and that that would include the requirement to display that information on letterheads and all notices and other official publications of the limited liability partnership. That remains our intention.
Therefore, it was queried with us why we were additionally planning to prevent the use of the phrase "limited liability partnership" at the end of the title of an oversea registered LLP. That would cause particular difficulties for existing oversea LLPs, many of whom are required, by the legislation of the jurisdiction in which they are registered, to include exactly those words.
We concluded, as a result, that it was unnecessary and unreasonable both to restrict the use of the words "limited liability partnership" in the title of oversea LLPs and to require that they display their place of registration on all their publications. The latter should prove wholly sufficient to notify clients that they are dealing with an oversea entity.
On a related point, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, will remember that at an early stage of the Bill I undertook that we should amend the application in regulations of Section 351(a) and 351(b) of the Companies Act 1985 to limited liability partnerships so as to require firms that use the abbreviation "LLP" after their names to mention on their business letters and order forms that they are limited liability partnerships. That will show clearly to those who are unfamiliar with the acronym "LLP" that they are dealing with a limited liability entity.
Clearly, the existing wording in paragraph 4 would not actually prevent the use of the words "limited liability partnership" in the title or name of an oversea-registered LLP. It would merely prevent those being the last words in the title. The regulatory requirement to display the place of registration will be far more effective to alert clients to the fact that the firm with which they are dealing is registered oversea.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5.--(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page