Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Sharman (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 1 March 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Company Law Reform Bill [HL].


Company Law Reform Bill [HL]

I have listened very carefully to all sides of this debate. I endorse entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, says. I would be very grateful if, when the Minister considers this, he will also consider the fact that it is increasingly common best practice for UK public companies to hold their AGMs and vote on all resolutions at them by poll. If that is the case, we surely cannot afford to have independent assessors effectively delaying the outcome of the AGM by taking weeks to produce a poll. If we are going to encourage transparency—and best practice now does that, as the results for the polls are published the following day; in fact, in some cases they are published at the meeting—I can only see these provisions making people less reluctant to vote on resolutions by poll where they do not have to. Having said that, I will return to the matter at a later stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave withdrawn. Clause 316 agreed to. Clause 317 [Appointment of independent assessor]: [Amendment No. 300UB not moved.] Clause 317 agreed to. Clauses 318 to 323 agreed to. Clause 324 [Offences relating to provision of information]:


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
679 c135-6GC 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Disclosure of information Audit Accountancy Company law Companies Directors Absent voting Liability Donors Expenditure Members Political parties Public companies Public records Meetings Voting methods Shareholders Rules of procedure
Legislation
Company Law Reform Bill (HL) 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk