INTERPRETATION OF PART V (Hansard, 3 March 1980)

§ Mr. Anderson
I beg to move amendment No. 116, in page 82, line 16 leave out 'specific'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this we may discuss the following amendments:

§ Mr. Anderson
We recognise the difficulty of defining with the right amount of clarity the offence which we are now discussing. We have commented about the difficulties that a judge will have trying to explain the offence of insider dealing to a jury. I was amused when the Minister said that this was a crystal clear piece of legislation. I draw his attention to the interpretation section of the Bill—clause 69(2)(a) which states that the unpublished price-sensitive information relates to specific matters relating or of concern (directly or indirectly) to that company, that is to say, is not of a general nature relating or of concern to the company and". That is what the Minister says is a crystal clear piece of legislation. We think that it is very vague and that there will be obvious difficulties of explanation. We have, therefore, tried our honest best to produce a definition which could be given to a jury with, we hope, some greater chances of comprehension than the definition which the Government have currently proposed.
Our new definition would read: relates to matters specifically relating or of concern (directly or indirectly) to that company, and not of a general nature, for example matters relating or of concern to all persons doing similar business. We do not claim that our amendment is perfect, but it is an effort to make the definition more simple, because without that how seriously can a judge direct a jury on the distinction between "specific" 156 and "general"? We therefore commend it to the Government.
We believe that our amended definition has the merit of being somewhat more elegant than that currently proposed by the Government.

§ Mr. Parkinson
I do not want to start receiving 200 letters about the crystal clarity of this legislation, so let me put it firmly on record that I was saying that when the Bill is reprinted with all the amendments incorporated in it the definition will be a great deal clearer than it is now. I make no greater claim than that.
I find myself at a disadvantage. I have here a four-page answer to the points that the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) has made, but we have debated these issues in Committee. While what he is proposing might or might not be more elegant—and I might have an argument with him about that one some other occasion—his amendments would totally destroy the definitions which have been built up for the benefit of this part of the Bill. Therefore, although we welcome his interest and his attempt to be helpful, were his amendments to be accepted they would totally undermine the definitions in the Bill, and we therefore cannot accept them.

§ Mr. Nicholas Baker
Will my hon. Friend clarify, in relation to specific transactions, what the Bill is designed to cover? Does it seek to cover not just takeover transactions, but transactions in the securities of the company which may be of another kind altogether? I know that my hon. Friend has received representations on the matter, and I seek to clarify the point.

§ Mr. Parkinson
The short answer to my hon. Friend is "Yes".

§ Mr. Parkinson
I beg to move amendment No. 306, in page 82, line 36, at end add— '"debenture" has the same meaning in relation to companies which were not incorporated under the 1948 Act as it has in relation to companies which were so incorporated;

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
We shall consider at the same time Government amendment No. 307.

§ Mr. Parkinson
These amendments provide definitions of "share" and "debenture" in the case of foreign companies for the purposes of part V of the Bill.