| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. Lady confirm that, in Committee, when we discussed the matter in detail, she and her colleagues did not divide the Committee on one occasion? We provided four days for the Committee. That time was not taken up. She could have asked all those questions in Committee. She is making cheap party political points, undermining the whole basis of the CDC. It is a disgrace to her and to the House.
Mrs. Gillan: It is good to see that the age of chivalry is not dead and that at least some men on the Labour Benches rush to the defence of the ladies in their party. However, the Minister's reaction only goes to make my point.
We were not going to divide the House on the matter, but this evening's performance has led Conservative Members to believe that the Secretary of State does not know what she is doing and that the CDC will suffer. Therefore, I will press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:--
Mr. David Heath:
I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 10, line 31, leave out from 'nominee' to end of line 32.
Hon. Members who served on the Committee will recognise that the amendment has some similarities to the discussion that we had on clause stand part on what was then clause 24 and is now clause 25. Yesterday, I received a letter from the Secretary of State which attempted to elucidate the reasoning behind the original wording of the Bill. I thought that I might have struck a slightly curious position when I realised that neither the Ministers in Committee nor the civil servants--which was the crucial thing--quite knew why that part of the clause had been put in. I realise now that it was a slightly tortuous formulation.
There is still an ambiguity in the Bill which I would like to test with Ministers. If I understand the Secretary of State's letter correctly, clause 25(2)(b), which has the effect of allowing a company to be placed between the Secretary of State and the CDC, is inserted there for one purpose, and one purpose only--to qualify clause 25(4), which deals with associated companies.
If I understand it correctly, where an associated company is a wholly owned subsidiary of the CDC, it qualifies as a company that is wholly owned by the Crown, and therefore qualifies for associated company status. I do not entirely understand why the Bill is drafted as it is, as an ambiguity is introduced. There is a possibility that a future Government could interpolate a company between the Secretary of State and the CDC, and that is acknowledged in the letter to me.
Would not it have been easier to qualifyclause 25(4)(b), which refers to a company that
"is wholly owned by the Crown"?
Why not make it "wholly owned by the Crown or by a company that is wholly owned by the Crown" at that point? Or--perhaps this is an easier way of dealing with it--why not rely on the ordinary understanding of the Companies Act 1985 provision dealing with wholly owned subsidiaries, which provides a perfectly appropriate definition of a wholly owned subsidiary company which could have been interpolated in clause 26 in the definition section? That would have had the effect of allowing a wholly owned subsidiary of the CDC to be treated as an associated company without providing the ambiguity which the Bill provides.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |