POWER OF COMPANY TO REQUIRE DISCLOSURE OF BENEFICIAL INTERESTS IN ITS VOTING SHARES (Hansard, 19 October 1976)

§ Mr. Clinton Davis
I beg to move Amendment No. 95, in page 27, line 14, leave out 'inform it whether' and insert 'indicate in writing the capacity in which'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton)
With this we are to take Government Amendments Nos. 96 to 101 inclusive.

§ Mr. Davis
We feel that it is important that persons replying to a company's request for information about the nature of their shareholding should do so formally in writing. That will avoid any dispute as to whether any answer was given. For example, I think that a telephone conversation would be agreed to be highly inappropriate. This is similar to the requirements of Sections 27 and 33 of the 1967 Act.
The other amendments are of a similar drafting character.
I ought to say that during the consultations on the 1973 Bill, in which this clause appeared as Clause 19, I am advised that two deficiencies were brought to the attention of the Department. First, the 1379 clause assumed that a member of a company could hold shares either as a beneficial owner or as a trustee. There are, of course, other capacities in which the shares can be held—for example, as a mortgagee. The amendment therefore substitute the wider phrases otherwise than as beneficial owner". The second criticism concerned the meaning of the phrase so far as he can", which was thought to be ambiguous, as it might mean "so far as he knew" or "so far as he could in compliance with other obligations". The amendments make it clear that the qualification relates to the extent of the person's knowledge.

§ Mr. Higgins
At this hour of the morning I do not know whether it would be right for the Minister to be told what consultations took place on the 1973 Bill—but I let that pass. I merely ask the Minister this question. The change to an indication in writing may create some problems concerning timing. Has he had consultations on that matter and is he satisfied that notification can be made in writing within the time limits now suggested?

§ Mr. Davis
I am not quite sure on that specific point. I do not want to offer an answer simply out of the back of my head. I would want to confer with my officials as to the nature of the consultations which took place. However, I know that they have gone into the matter very fully and I believe that our proposal is consistent with the time limit. Again, as the hon. Gentleman has previously remarked, in all these matters it is absolutely true that we must look at the experience of events and adjudicate the position then.
I am advised "No time limit. It must be within a reasonable time". Perhaps there is the answer. I hope that that clarifies the position. It has certainly done wonders for me.

§ Mr. Clinton Davis
I beg to move Amendment No. 61, in page 28, line 21, after "liable", insert "(i)".

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this we are to take Government Amendment No. 62.

§ Mr. Davis
This amendment makes provision for summary proceedings to be instituted in respect of an offence under Clause 24. When the clause appeared in the 1973 Bill there was no need to make specific provision for summary proceedings since the matter would have been dealt with by reference to the Magistrates Courts Act, but this procedure is no longer adopted for new offences and there is consequently a need for provision to be made in the clause.