VACATION OF OFFICE (Hansard, 28 October 1985)

§ Mr. Howard
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

§ Mr. Speaker
With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 29 to 33 and 76.

§ Mr. Howard
The amendments fall into two categories, those which deal with administrative receiver and receiver provisions in England and Wales —amendments Nos. 28 and 76—and those which refine the provisions for receivers in Scotland— amendments Nos. 29 to 33.
Dealing first with the amendments relating to England and Wales, amendment No. 28 ensures that an administrative receiver will not commit an offence under clause 37(5) if he has a reasonable excuse for not sending the notice of his vacation of office to the registrar of companies, and is in line with other provisions of the Bill. Amendment No. 76 is a drafting amendment.
With regard to the five amendments to the Scottish provisions, amendments Nos. 29 and 33 are both minor drafting amendments. Amendment No. 30 removes a contradictory qualification on the Scottish receiver's personal liability by removing the reference to section 473(1) of the Companies Act 1985 in section 473(2) of that 685 Act. The consequential amendment No. 31 inserts the relevant words into the repeal schedule to the Bill. Amendment No. 32 makes a minor consequential amendment to section 477 of the Companies Act 1985 following the bringing of the receiver's powers to dispose of any interest in property subject to a security into line with those for England and Wales.

§ Mr. Hanley
There is nothing with which I disagree in this group of amendments. However, in the other place there was concern that the Bill did not make clear the position of practitioners with regard to contracts of employment after the 14-day period of grace in respect of adoption by omission had elapsed. In fact, it was I who mentioned the matter to the then Minister, and I was followed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), who very much regrets his absence today on parliamentary business.
During the debate in the other place the Lord Advocate tried to put the minds of practitioners at rest by stating; Where, for example, the contract is not discovered for a month after appointment, the court will not deem adoption to take place by that fact alone. With the greatest respect to the Lord Advocate, how can he say what the courts will or will not deem to be the case? It was my understanding—I may be wrong—that courts are not bound by the intention of Ministers in describing legislation. Therefore, if it is the intention that the legislation should not catch such circumstances, surely the amendment should have said so, and the Bill itself should he clearer, rather than hoping what judges might or might not take as being the proper interpretation of the clause.

§ Mr. Howard
My hon. Friend is correct when he says that the courts are not bound by the intentions or, indeed, the observations of Ministers. Nevertheless, in assessing the likely effect and impact of legislation, Ministers are entitled to give the House guidance. The guidance given by the Lord Advocate was guidance given on the basis of my right hon. and learned Friend's experience and expertise in the branch of the law that is relevant to a consideration of the likely effect of the clause to which my hon. Friend has referred. He was not giving any guarantee as to the way in which the clause would be interpreted by the courts; he was giving another place the benefit of his experience and expertise. It was on that basis that another place was content with the clause as drafted, and it is on that basis that I commend it to my hon. Friend and to the House.