SECTION 4.

Question proposed : " That Section stand part of the Bill."

On Paragraph (a), we have, in line 47, yet another example of the absence of consolidation. It sends us chasing through various Acts to find out what is a holding company and what is a subsidiary company. We have not only to try and find definitions in this Act but in various other Acts as well.

It raises a very interesting point.

It is as if this Act had not been passed.

It means that the other Act, which we do not know anything about, is the governing Act. If there is a definition, the other Act rules and this Act does not.

I do not think there is any great difficulty there. The idea is that there have been in earlier enactments references to this expression " subsidiary company " and it had a particular meaning in these earlier enactments. In the 1959 Act it was thought desirable, though not necessary, to ensure that when we used the term " subsidiary company " we meant the expression for the purposes of the Companies Act.

You define " subsidiary company " in Section 155. Then you come back to Section 4 and you say :

" References, in whatever terms, in any Act other than this Act to a holding company or to a subsidiary company shall be construed in like manner as if this Act had not been passed."

You may therefore have an anomalous position, a possible example of which would be the Sugar Company or any other such big company which might have, in the future, legislative backing. This might involve some sort of definition and the company would be subject to two Acts at the one time with contradictory definitions. That is a possibility.

May I suggest the explanation given by the Minister is not the true interpretation of the Paragraph. If that were the explanation, then the Paragraph would require to be amended by a definition. If it were so amended, I would not have any objection. If the Committee will look at Section 49 and then reverts to this Paragraph where it says " shall be construed in like manner as if this Act had not been passed ", they will see it is as if this Act had not been passed at all. I would suggest the Minister would look into this. If what I say is what is meant by the Paragraph I am quite happy.

Question put and agreed to.