Proceeding contribution from Baroness Cohen of Pimlico (Labour) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 2 November 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Companies Bill [HL].
Companies Bill [HL]
My Lords, I need to make a declaration of interest before I offer my support to the government amendment. I am a director of the London Stock Exchange, which is a signatory to the letter sent to the Minister by the CBI, the QCA and the London Stock Exchange. It is wrong to underestimate the anxiety that this clause causes among the business community. The purpose of this Companies Bill is, as has been stated many times, to give better information to shareholders and to increase, but not damage, the competitiveness of UK companies. Suddenly being asked to disclose all your suppliers is something that gives natural anxiety to quoted companies, particularly to smaller quoted companies which may well be dependent on only one or two suppliers. I speak as somebody with a long career as a director of the smaller quoted company. Nor, as the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, suggested, were we all on side and clearly enthusiastic about the OFR. Most smaller quoted companies were viewing it with real doubt and anxiety, and rather thankfully stopped having to think about it at the point it was suddenly withdrawn. Although I do not think it was withdrawn through any lobbying of ours, we had merely been anxious as opposed to lobbying. However, having got over our shock at the requirement, I think that we can all accept Amendment No. 245 and can pull ourselves together to provide suitable disclosures about our suppliers. In this context, I welcome the assurance given by the Minister in his opening speech that the new clause was intended to require the disclosure of information at a high level. It was not intended to require companies to produce long lists of the names of their suppliers, but to illustrate the principal risks and uncertainties facing the company. We can indeed be asked to do that and should be, provided we are not risking our suppliers or our businesses by disclosing more than is commercially sensible. But it is entirely right to disclose the principal risks which the company faces and the loss of a small number of suppliers may well be one of the commercial risks which we face. Against that background, I am able to support the amendment. However, I think that those who advocate the interests of the NGOs forget that small companies also have difficulties and interests that must be taken into account.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 686 c465-6
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Disclosure of information Accountability Charities Audit Company law Company accounts Companies Directors Business Conduct Annual reports Certification Freedom of information Inspections Eligibility Liability Donors EU law Investment Ethics Powers Membership Public interest Political parties Public companies Loans Private companies Small businesses Shares Trade unions Voting rights Shareholders
- Legislation
- Companies Bill (HL) 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 21:12:45 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_357662
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_357662
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_357662