Proceeding contribution from James Brokenshire (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 18 October 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Companies Bill (HL).
Companies Bill [Lords]
I will try to allow some time for the Solicitor-General to respond, but we are short of time, as he will realise. Not only did the revised arrangements cause problems, but the CBI suggested that the authorised signatory route would"““impose significant additional burdens on business compared with the existing regime, whilst imposing criminal sanctions for non-compliance. With the requirement for an authorised signatory to be an individual, these provisions also prevent corporate secretarial service companies acting as an authorised signatory.””"
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 450 c957
- 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
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 13:45:41 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_353226
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_353226
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_353226