Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Hodge of Barking (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 19 October 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Companies Bill (HL).


Companies Bill [Lords]

I must say first to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) that this is not a last-minute idea. These provisions were in the Bill when they were introduced, but were overturned in the House of Lords. We reinstated them in Committee. They have been part of the Bill from the start. I have to say further, to all hon. Members, that a theme running through the Bill is our attempt to ensure better shareholder engagement. We think that this is part of it. The hon. Gentleman, in a very lengthy contribution, quoted every business organisation he could—the CBI, the ABI et al—and I found it extremely difficult to work out whether he was working in the spirit of what his leader said—that is, whether the hon. Gentleman was standing up for business or willing to stand up to it in the interest of shareholders. I could not get it at all. On the other hand, the contribution made by the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) was perfectly valid, and I hope to give him the undertaking that he wants. We want a practical scheme and we want to ensure that we do not have a one-size-fits-all approach. We also want a proper cost-benefit analysis and consultation, although not in the terms of the amendment. This is a good move—a reserve power that will not allow again, in the words of the hon. Member for Huntingdon, an institution that wants to maintain secrecy to do so. We do not think that is appropriate. We would rather back shareholders in this instance. There are people who appear to oppose transparency of voting on principle. That seems to me pretty fundamental, so it was good that Lord Hodgson said in Committee in the Lords that"““shareholders whose shares are held through nominees or are managed on their behalf are entitled to know what is being done with the shares that they own.””—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 April 2006; Vol. 681, c. GC69.]" I could not agree more. They are entitled, which means that the entitlement goes to the shareholders, not the companies. Nor is that an isolated view. The hon. Member for Huntingdon talked about a number of business interests, but John Bogle, the founder of the $500 billion Vanguard funds group, has said:"““Vanguard’s founding principles stand for the simple proposition that it is the duty of an agent to faithfully serve his principal…Viewed in this light, it would seem self evident that each Vanguard Fund shareholder has the right to know how the shares of the corporations in his or her portfolio are voted””."


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
450 c1035-6 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Disclosure of information Consumers Accountability Audit Accountancy Company law Company accounts Companies Directors Business Civil proceedings Conflict of interests Liability Jurisdiction Documents Intellectual property Internet Protection Prosecutions Mergers Public companies Staff Shares Voting rights Shareholders Reorganisation
Legislation
Companies Bill (HL) 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk