HC Deb 19 October 1976 vol 917 cc1351-3
Mr. Peter Morrison

I beg to move Amendment No. 85, in page 10, line 10, after 'company' insert: 'or in the case of companies of a particular class or description, by notice laid before the Commons House of Parliament'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this we may take the following amendments:

No. 86, in page 10, line 15, at end insert: 'or of any company of the class or description specified in the notice'.

No. 87, in page 10, line 15, at end insert: 'except that no notice under this section shall have any effect in respect of any company the majority of the shares of which are owned directly or indirectly by the Government until that notice has been approved by resolution of each house of Parliament'.

Mr. Morrison

Amendments Nos. 85 and 86 extend the Secretary of State's power concerning the period for the laying and delivering of accounts to groups of companies as opposed to individual companies, that is, individual notices being served on individual companies.

It would seem to me to make sense that if there is a group of companies which is trading, for example, with countries such as Nigeria or Kenya, and for some very good external reason it is difficult for the accounts to be completed in time, then, rather than those companies having to be individually named and have an individual notice served upon them, they should be dealt with in a group. Equally, I should have thought that a similar example would be companies which happen to be in a specific line of business, whether it be a chocolate making business and there are some complications in respect of the cocoa market. Again it would be simpler if they could be classified as a group of companies rather than as individual companies.

Amendment No. 87 specifically excludes companies which are nationalised, or indirectly nationalised, except by regulation of both Houses. I hope the Minister would agree that there is nothing particularly doctrinaire about this but as long as Parliament is the custodian of the Government, and the Government, in effect, are in control of the nationalised industries, it is right that Parliament should have that final say. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about these amendments.

Mr. Arthur Davidson

I think I can reply briefly. I must ask the House to reject the amendments. They are not necessary. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Secretary of State will sparingly use the power under subsection (7)—that is the power to extend a company's accounting reference period. It is to be used in respect of individual companies, not classes of companies. It certainly would not be used to favour companies in which the Government have a controlling interest. That is the answer to Amendments Nos. 85 to 87.

I can also assure the hon. Gentleman that the provision is similar to an existing power in Section 148(1) of the 1948 Act which allows the Department to extend the period allowed for laying accounts. I am not aware that the manner in which this power has been exercised has given rise to any criticism, nor have I reason to suppose that Clause 6(6) would do so. I would also tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no precedent in the Companies Acts for a notice to be laid before the House of Commons.

Mr. David Mitchell

I would support my hon. Friend the Member for Chester (Mr. Morrison). In relation to Amendment No. 87 it seemed that the Minister's reply was in contradiction to his recommendation to the House. The Minister has said, in effect, that he can give an assurance that the Government will not use the powers they have got to favour companies in which they themselves have a controlling interest. In that case it would appear that the right course of action would be to recommend that the House accepts Amendment No. 87. If the Minister is not able to give that assurance, there must be a lingering suspicion on this side of the House that he has a reason for refusing to accept the amendment. I would urge the Minister to reconsider not the substance of what he said but the recommendation that he has made to the House.

An assurance from the Minister during the course of a debate in the House of Commons at 4 o'clock in the morning is not the law of the country. We are therefore entitled to ask that Amendment No. 87 should be put on the statute book in fulfilment of the Minister's own assurance.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The Question is—

Mr. Mitchell

The Minister has not replied, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the points put to him during the course of the debate. I know it is an early hour, but the House cannot be treated in this way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am not in a position to control what the Minister is proposing to do.

Amendment negatived.

Back to
Forward to