Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from David Howarth (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 18 October 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Companies Bill (HL).


Companies Bill [Lords]

That is true. One cannot declare whole classes of people to be vexatious, only specific individuals. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme claimed that the new clause was too widely drawn. That is a serious accusation against it. However, I believe that it is narrowly drawn. It would provide that the Secretary of State had to find a specific set of facts to do with violence and intimidation before being allowed to close the register. If the Secretary of State failed to do that properly, there would be a possibility of judicial review. That is not the full system of independent review that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) mentioned, nevertheless it is an important safeguard. Let me outline what makes the new clause much narrower than the proposal that was made in Committee and therefore acceptable. First, it would provide for the Secretary of State to prescribe circumstances in which, despite the closure of the register, information could be given out. That is an important difference between the proposal that was made in Committee and the new clause. As I said earlier, it deals with the problem of investigative authorities, perhaps even investigative journalists, being locked out of proper investigations. Secondly, the new clause includes an important element of our original proposal. The closure of the register should not prevent people from getting legitimate, lawful information to shareholders. The purpose is to prevent the violent intimidation of shareholders, not stop information getting to them. We proposed that a company that wished to invoke the new procedure should undertake, at a reasonable fee, to direct to its shareholders any information sent to it for them. The new clause maintains the right balance. Often, there are legitimate campaigns, even in industrial relations, and it is important that people get information to shareholders, perhaps over directors’ heads. An important point about openness and transparency was made in Committee. The new clause preserves at least the essence of the proposal that was made in Committee.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
450 c935-6 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Access Disclosure of information Animal welfare Accountability Company law Community development Companies Directors Business Annual reports Liability Donors Expenditure Exemptions Harassment Ethics Journalism Personal records Membership Political parties Public companies Loans Staff Meetings Private companies Lobbying Registration Trade unions Voting rights Shareholders Huntingdon Life Sciences Business plans
Legislation
Companies Bill (HL) 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk