Proceeding contribution from Vera Baird (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 19 October 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Companies Bill (HL).
Companies Bill [Lords]
The majority of the amendments in this group are drafting amendments and I do not propose to dwell on them at length. If hon. Members have questions about them, I shall do my best to reply. The amendments are all pretty self-evident. They make improvements to the Bill and should cause no contention. I should say something about the amendments relating to the provisions on proper delivery, as these introduce changes to the Bill in the interests of clarity and consistency. It is clear from the Bill, as set out in clause 1038(1), what requirements a company must meet in order to have ““properly delivered”” a document. In the Bill there is some inconsistency as to the implications of failure to comply with these requirements. For example, clause 862(6) as it currently stands makes it clear that when we talk about a company failing to deliver its annual return, what is meant is failure to comply with all the requirements set out in clause 1038(1). If the company does not meet those requirements, it cannot be said to have delivered the document for the purposes of compliance with the law. However, provisions in the Bill in relation to many other documents do not make similar reference to clause 1038, implying that there are, so to speak, two sorts of delivery, a ““first class”” status of ““proper delivery”” and a ““second class”” one of ““mere delivery””. Such an inconsistency cannot be helpful to anyone and it leaves the status of documents that are ““delivered”” but not ““properly delivered”” somewhat uncertain. It is important to be clear about what a company does and does not need to do in order to comply with the law when it submits documents. Clarity is provided by amendment No. 742, which makes it clear that in order for a document to be considered as delivered, it must be properly delivered in the terms of clause 1038. That clarity will be helpful to companies, so that they know what they need to do, and to Companies House, which needs to be sure when it can and cannot take action against a company. Introducing a consistent policy across the Bill has some implications for other clauses, which are dealt with by other amendments.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 450 c1082
- 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
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 14:05:41 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_353798
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_353798
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_353798