Only a few days to go: We’re raising £25,000 to keep TheyWorkForYou running and make sure people across the UK can hold their elected representatives to account.

Donate to our crowdfunder

Scottish Limited Partnerships: UK bank account requirement

Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords] – in the House of Commons at 4:30 pm on 1st May 2018.

Alert me about debates like this

Votes in this debate

‘(1) For the purposes of preventing money laundering, where a limited partnership registered in Scotland has general partners at least one of those must have an active UK bank account.

(2) Where a limited partnership registered in Scotland has limited partners at least one of those must have an active UK bank account.

(3) In this section—

a “limited partnership registered in Scotland” means a partnership registered under the Limited Partnerships Act 1907;

“general partner” has the meaning given in section 4(2) of the Limited Partnership Act 1907;

“limited partner” has the meaning given in section 4(2A) of the Limited Partnership Act 1907.”—(Alison Thewliss.)

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

The House divided:

Ayes 301, Noes 314.

Division number 143 Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords] — Scottish Limited Partnerships: UK bank account requirement

Aye: 297 MPs

No: 314 MPs

Ayes: A-Z by last name

Tellers

Nos: A-Z by last name

Tellers

Question accordingly negatived.

Photo of Geoffrey Cox Geoffrey Cox Conservative, Torridge and West Devon

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you know, at the conclusion of the debate on the amendments, I informed you that I wished to raise a point of order. I intervened on several occasions in the debate and I should have made it clear—as I would had you called me to speak—that I have on occasions practised in some of the Caribbean countries that formed the basis of our discussion in my capacity as a member of the Bar. I have done that for more than 20 years and I have a familiarity with those jurisdictions as a result.

The other matter I wish to raise is that before the commencement of the debate you informed us that you were not able to select the Government amendments. Can you clarify whether it was open to you to select those amendments, because you mentioned also that they had been submitted late? So that there should be no misunderstanding, especially outside the House, will you confirm that it would have been open to you, even though they were submitted late?

Photo of John Bercow John Bercow Speaker of the House of Commons, Chair, Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, Chair, Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, Chair, Commons Reference Group on Representation and Inclusion Committee

Yes. I do not wish to be unkind to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but—uncharacteristically for someone who is normally as fastidious and precise in his use of language and exegesis of what others say—he errs in quoting me. He said that I had indicated that I was not able to select the amendments. I accept that the error is inadvertent and not deliberate, but I never said that I was not able to select the amendments. I said at the outset that I had decided not to use my discretion to select the late starred new clauses and amendments from the Government, which were tabled yesterday afternoon and appeared in print for the first time only this morning. I absolutely accept that I have discretion in the matter, and I used that discretion as I thought right.

As for the other part of the hon. and learned Gentleman’s point of order, he was being most courteous in advising the House of that matter, but—and I do not mean this in any sense discourteously—I think it would be true to say that he was more interested in what he had to say to me and to the House than anything that I might have to say to him on the subject. He has made his point with force and clarity and I thank him for doing so.

Photo of Hannah Bardell Hannah Bardell Shadow SNP Spokesperson (Trade and Investment)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance. New clause 6 has just passed in a spirit of cross-party co-operation. I find it interesting that Sammy Wilson spoke so vigorously against the new clause. What can we do to ensure that Members who speak so vigorously against an amendment put their money—as we know, the DUP have rather a lot of it—where their mouth is, proverbially speaking?

Photo of John Bercow John Bercow Speaker of the House of Commons, Chair, Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, Chair, Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, Chair, Commons Reference Group on Representation and Inclusion Committee

That is a somewhat tendentious attempt at a point of order, which is rather revealed by the hon. Lady’s grinning visage. The convention in this place is that votes should follow voice. Votes should not be in opposition to voice, but as to how the hon. Gentleman voted I do not know. If the hon. Lady is suggesting that he spoke on the matter in one direction and then did not vote, that is entirely up to the hon. Member. The hon. Member has not behaved improperly. The hon. Member may have irked the hon. Lady, but that is another matter. If it was in relation to an amendment on which there was no vote, there is nothing to be said—that is no matter for the Chair.

Photo of Toby Perkins Toby Perkins Labour, Chesterfield

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I made Mr Cox aware, as is the convention, that I intended to raise a point of order about the fact that he spoke very passionately in favour of the Cayman Islands when he has clearly, according to his own entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, done a lot of work on their behalf. That seems to have given him the opportunity to respond in advance to my point of order. Can you advise me, Mr Speaker, whether, on drawing the attention of the House to a particular entry, it makes any difference if a contribution is an intervention or at the start of a grandiose speech?

Photo of John Bercow John Bercow Speaker of the House of Commons, Chair, Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, Chair, Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, Chair, Commons Reference Group on Representation and Inclusion Committee

I would not refer to a speech as grandiose—that is the hon. Gentleman’s choice of language—but the short answer is no. If a Member is intervening in a debate, whether by intervention or in the form of a full- blooded speech, the responsibility to declare an interest is unchanged. I feel that Mr Cox has clarified the position, which I think is appreciated, and I would like to leave it there. I thank him for what he has said.

Photo of Luke Graham Luke Graham Conservative, Ochil and South Perthshire

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Today is the 311th anniversary of the signing of the Act of Union between England, Wales and Scotland. May I seek the Chair’s advice on how we might mark this momentous occasion?

Photo of John Bercow John Bercow Speaker of the House of Commons, Chair, Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, Chair, Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, Chair, Commons Reference Group on Representation and Inclusion Committee

I think the hon. Gentleman has achieved his objective. I gently point out that I still have propositions to put to the House and there is not a huge amount of time for the second group. I hope that that is the end to points of order. I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said.

Amendments made: Amendment 10, page 2, line 11, clause 1, at end insert—

“(ea) provide accountability for or be a deterrent to gross violations of human rights, or otherwise promote—

(i) compliance with international human rights law, or

(ii) respect for human rights,”.

This amendment makes clear that sanctions regulations can be made for the purpose of preventing, or in response to, a gross human rights abuse or violation.

Amendment 11, page 2, line 12, leave out “and human rights”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 10.

Amendment 12, page 2, line 16, leave out “human rights,”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 10.

Amendment 13, page 2, line 38, at end insert—

“(6A) In this Act any reference to a gross violation of human rights is to conduct which—

(a) constitutes, or

(b) is connected with, the commission of a gross human rights abuse or violation; and whether conduct constitutes or is connected with the commission of such an abuse or violation is to be determined in accordance with section 241A of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.”

This amendment establishes that “gross violation of human rights” includes the torture of a person, by a public official or a person in an official capacity, where the tortured person has sought to expose the illegal activity of a public official or to defend human rights or fundamental freedoms.

Amendment 14, page 3, line 3, after first “to” insert “(e), (ea) and (f) to”. —(Sir Alan Duncan.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 10.

Clause 2