Cyn MP ar gyfer Beaconsfield
Is my hon. Friend saying that there are already two classes of saver, in the case of certain resolutions, such as electing directors and calling special general meetings? If there is already a distinction, why cannot we build on it?
How much?
I have considerable sympathy with what the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) had to say about the amendment. First, I agree that it is not a satisfactory way in which to legislate. The Bill comprises 47 clauses and nine schedules, all of which are being taken on the Floor of the House and will not receive the detailed consideration that they deserve and would have received in...
That was what I meant when I used the word "protect". It is because such building societies will have greater commercial freedom that they may be less tempted to go down the public limited company route. I recognise my hon. Friend's point. Against that we must balance the apparent proposal to drop the two-year rule that Parliament clearly wanted to impose in 1986—even though it turns out...
There is an important difference between a variation that is extremely small and no variation at all. The new clause refers to a situation in which there is no variation at all, so I do not understand what it would add to the existing arrangement because, to qualify for a PRP scheme, people had to have some element of pay that varied in accordance with movements in profits.
Having listened to the debate, I conclude that new clause 3 would be ineffective and that it is misdirected. The Government have become a victim of their own success. Tax relief on profit-related pay was introduced in 1987 and was generally welcomed. A chart in the Red Book shows how the cost of relief has risen substantially over the past few years, especially since 1991, when it was...
It is not the Minister's new clause. It has been tabled by the Opposition, and we are entitled to ask a few questions about its implications. The hon. Gentleman seems to be shifting his ground and saying that we should place more emphasis on subsection (1), but that is what I have been saying. Why not stick to the first condition and drop the second? Subsection (2) does not make sense. It is...
New clause 4 is far too widely drawn in two respects. In Committee, concern was expressed about clause 54, which deals only with attachment of debts by Customs and Excise. New clause 4 deals not only with attachment of debts, but with matters that are covered by clauses 51 and 52—that is, enforcement by distress and enforcement by diligence. Moreover, it deals not only with Customs and...
