Proceeding contribution from Lord Razzall (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]

Yes, that is a very helpful answer—especially the Minister’s first point that the Electoral Commission will be asked to provide guidance to companies. As I said, my major concern here from experience is that we do not want companies to be restricted from carrying out perfectly legitimate commercial activities in their interface with political parties because there is a general aversion on the part of the board to making political donations. Therefore, unless there is clarity on what is or is not a political donation, it will just get either a blanket ““no”” or a blanket resolution that is meaningless. I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 301ZZC and 301ZZD not moved.] Clause 337 agreed to. Clause 338 [Meaning of ““political expenditure””]: [Amendments Nos. 301ZZE and 301ZZF not moved.] Clause 338 agreed to. Clause 339 [Authorisation required for donations or expenditure]:

Secondary information

Type: Proceeding contribution
Reference: 679 c145-6GC
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

Company Law Reform Bill [HL]

Secondary information

Librarians' tools