Proceeding contribution from Stephen O'Brien (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 6 June 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Company Law Reform Bill (HL).
Company Law Reform Bill [Lords]
My point arises from the discussion that has just taken place. Clearly, consideration in the other place benefited hugely from not being curtailed by a programme motion: there was an enormous amount of helpful debate. The Secretary of State spoke of incorporating parts of the Companies Act 1985 in the Bill. Until a recent concession, that was not going to happen. One of the problems initially identified was that so much interpretation in the courts had been based on phrases in the 1985 Act. Importing some of that precedent into consolidated legislation that would also apply was seen as one of the main difficulties. Is the Secretary of State taking enough advice to ensure that it will be catered for?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 447 c124
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Disclosure of information Accountability Audit Accountancy Company law Company accounts Companies Directors Conduct Consolidation bills Animal experiments Fraud Finance Liability Environment protection Harassment Ethics Protection Staff Private companies Working conditions Registration Small businesses Regulation Trade Sustainable development Research Shareholders
- Legislation
- Company Law Reform Bill (HL) 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-01-26 17:28:49 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_328014
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_328014
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_328014