COMPANY CEASING TO BE A MEMBER OF A GROUP (Hansard, 24 June 1976)

§ Mr. Ian Stewart
I beg to move Amendment No. 69, in page 35, line 8, leave out 'as near as may be'.
This amendment may appear to be facetious, but it is not intended to be so. It raised a question in the mind of the Minister whether the drafting of the immensely complicated Clause 21(5) was satisfactory. Clause 21 deals with a case in which a company ceases to be a member of a group. Subsection (5) deals with the case in which land has been developed for industrial purposes and the interest held at the time when the land was developed does not exactly match the interest held by the company leaving the group.
1877 The difficulty is that we felt that the words as near as may be were exceptionally vague following the precision of the preceding lines in the subsection. Why not use the phrase "by and large", or "as near as damn it" or "by no more than a cat's whisker", or something like that?
Does the provision refer only to the nature of the interest? We are worried that it might also relate to the extent or value of the difference. If that is so, it would create doubts as to how the clause should be interpreted. With that explanation, I invite the Minister's comments, with the benefit of the time he has had for reflection.

§ Mr. Denzil Davies
In the time between the Committee stage and now the parliamentary draftsman has wrestled with this monster, but it must be said that the monster has got the upper hand of him.
The hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Stewart) is quite right to say that I misled the Committee, if that is the right way to describe it. I suggested that the words were concerned only with area, but they are meant to relate both to interests in land and the particular area mentioned in subsection (5).
Let me give an example. If one member of a group has developed 10 acres of land for industrial purposes and has subsequently transferred three acres to another member, that is a part disposal. The 10 acres may comprise a freehold and the three acres a leasehold. Therefore, there would be a part disposal of that area and a part disposal of an interest in land.
The draftsman had to examine both the area and the interest. He attempted to find a more precise form of words. I assure the House that parliamentary draftsmen always strive for precision. In this case he has been unable to produce a better form of words to describe this situation. I am sorry to have to say that the words as near as may be will have to stay in the Bill. We have considered this matter at some length, and I wish that we could have accepted the amendment, but in the result we cannot do so.

§ Mr. Ian Stewart
I am grateful to the Minister for the attention that he has given to this problem and also for the further and slightly corrected comments he has made. It is useful to have this exchange on the record. In view of what the Minister has said, and bearing in mind the appalling difficulties that the parliamentary draftsman must have faced in dealing with this subsection at all, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.