Skip to main content

1-20 of 123 results for subject:Functions

Legislation X
Companies Bill (HL) 2005-06

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

More
Companies Bill (HL) 2005-06 (123)

Subject

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

It will be clearer and more accessible in the sense that the constraints on someone using it in a way that we would not regard as justified—I am not sure that there is much difference in our view on that—are quite strong. Yes, the procedures that I have set out...

Member
Mike O'Brien (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 October 2006
Reference
450 c833-6
House
House of Commons

The Minister says that the procedure will be clearer and more accessible. One of our concerns is that the fact that the procedure is clearer and more accessible will mean that more people will want to use it and therefore there will be more litigation.

Member
Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 October 2006
Reference
450 c833
House
House of Commons

If the hon. Gentleman had been here earlier in the debate, he would realise that I do not agree with that point at all. If the director has behaved inappropriately, we want the shareholder to be able to take a course of derivative action that will enable them to enforce...

Member
Mike O'Brien (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 October 2006
Reference
450 c836-7;450 c836-8
House
House of Commons

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but I know that he wants to read the note that his colleagues have passed to him. Does he agree that the net upshot of the clause is that more people can be sued under it than previously?

Member
James Gray (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 October 2006
Reference
450 c836
House
House of Commons

Under these provisions, there will be a wider variety of people who can be sued, it will be possible to sue people for a greater variety of offences, and there will be a more straightforward procedure by which to sue people, which I think the Minister called a clearer and...

Member
Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 October 2006
Reference
450 c838
House
House of Commons

I certainly agree that a successful company will have regard to many of the items set out in the list in clause 173. That is not in dispute. However, the experts are saying that for companies to be able to show that they have complied with the clause will require...

Member
Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 October 2006
Reference
450 c769
House
House of Commons

The hon. Gentleman conceded in Committee and today that successful companies do these things anyway, and do so while being successful, so how does he equate the two and why does he see it as burdensome?

Member
Patrick Hall (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 October 2006
Reference
450 c769
House
House of Commons

I remind the House that I have declared my interest as a company director in the register. Taking for an example the part of the clause on the environment, does my hon. Friend think that it means that a company director would have to do more than simply comply with...

Member
Lord Redwood (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 October 2006
Reference
450 c768
House
House of Commons

No. I shall finish my point. If the audience is a campaigning body, the Government’s tactics seem to change. They go on to talk about the concept of enlightened shareholder value and how it will change things. For instance, I mentioned the conflicting statements made by the Minister and the...

Member
Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 October 2006
Reference
450 c769
House
House of Commons

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Member
Baroness Hodge of Barking (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 October 2006
Reference
450 c769
House
House of Commons

I shall make progress. The Government change their viewpoint, depending on the audience.

Member
Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 October 2006
Reference
450 c769
House
House of Commons

That is entirely up to the official Opposition, as my right hon. Friend knows. I was reflecting on the fact that there is a great deal of interest in these matters outside this place. Therefore, although we should not judge the quality of an issue on the size of the...

Member
Patrick Hall (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 October 2006
Reference
450 c762-3
House
House of Commons

That is an important point, and good businesses do approach such matters in that way. What we are trying to create through the Bill, perhaps as amended, is a level playing field to ensure that they are not disadvantaged for giving emphasis to these important matters. I emphasise that what...

Member
Patrick Hall (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 October 2006
Reference
450 c763-4
House
House of Commons

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I note that he said that the clause is pro-business. Given the changing environment and the concern about environmental issues in this country, does he agree that good businesses will look to be responsible in any event, because they must move with the times...

Member
Mike Weir (Scottish National Party)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 October 2006
Reference
450 c763
House
House of Commons

Several of the objectives, such as looking after the environment and caring about one’s employees, are issues that all good companies would have no difficulty in addressing. Those that experience such difficulty should be put in a position in which it is unacceptable for them to continue in such a...

Member
Patrick Hall (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 October 2006
Reference
450 c764-5
House
House of Commons

Indeed, British companies have to obey British law. The provision would put the obligation at the centre of company law, where it would be firmly on the agenda. It would also apply to the behaviour of British companies in their overseas operations, as British statute law does not. I want...

Member
Patrick Hall (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 October 2006
Reference
450 c765-6
House
House of Commons

I am keen that companies should do their bit for the environment, but can the hon. Gentleman explain what the provision about the environment adds to the big body of environmental legislation and regulation that companies rightly have to observe at present?

Member
Lord Redwood (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 October 2006
Reference
450 c765
House
House of Commons

That indicates some of the difficulties that the Conservative party has on this issue. Frankly, to regard all 650 duties—I take the hon. Gentleman’s word for the fact that there are 650—as of equal weight and value is not credible and does not stand up to scrutiny. Looking after one’s...

Member
Patrick Hall (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 October 2006
Reference
450 c766-7
House
House of Commons

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. It can be argued that the law would not be expanded. However, companies have told us that dealing with it on a daily basis will involve going through more red tape, setting out the steps that they take when reaching decisions in...

Member
Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 October 2006
Reference
450 c768-9
House
House of Commons

The hon. Gentleman should hang around for a bit, as he might find that that is no longer the case. The Government appear to have changed their mind on that matter, and very glad we are about it, too. There is a problem with amendment No. 762. I do not...

Member
David Howarth (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 October 2006
Reference
450 c810-1
House
House of Commons