Skip to main content

1-20 of 285 results for subject:Staff

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 (285)

Subject

More

Publisher


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

The new clauses relate to the old section 212 notice provisions. Where a shareholder or beneficial holder fails to respond to a section 212 notice inquiry into the ownership of the shares in question, a public company generally has powers in its articles to remove rights from the shares. Those...

Member
James Brokenshire (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 October 2006
Reference
450 c1081
House
House of Commons

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Member
Vera Baird (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 October 2006
Reference
450 c1081
House
House of Commons

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...

Member
Vera Baird (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 October 2006
Reference
450 c1082
House
House of Commons

As the Minister said, these are largely drafting, technical and legal changes. We agree that they improve the Bill, so we have no objection to the amendments and new clauses. Question put and agreed to. Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Member
James Brokenshire (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 October 2006
Reference
450 c1082
House
House of Commons

We will do our best to ensure that all the interests in such arrangements are consulted as thoroughly as possible about the right level at which to pitch the measure. It would be wrong for me to suggest that the Government were going in a particular direction. It is a...

Member
Vera Baird (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 October 2006
Reference
450 c1075-6
House
House of Commons

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Member
Baroness Hodge of Barking (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 October 2006
Reference
450 c1077
House
House of Commons

This has been an interesting series of exchanges. I am left to puzzle about what my hon. and learned Friend the Minister has just told us—that a court can override a limited liability agreement. A number of people will ponder carefully what circumstances might give rise to that situation. She...

Member
Jim Cousins (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 October 2006
Reference
450 c1076
House
House of Commons

I will respond to that point, because I am rather tired of it. [Interruption.] I am delighted to welcome the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) to his place for the first time since we have been discussing the details of the Bill. I wonder whether he knows—

Member
Baroness Hodge of Barking (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 October 2006
Reference
450 c1079
House
House of Commons

I know that there are a lot of new clauses in this group, but I hope that they are pretty uncontentious. The restatement clauses in part 27 of the Bill allow for the wide range of reorganisations, arrangements and reconstructions that can arise within a company and allow some types...

Member
Baroness Hodge of Barking (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 October 2006
Reference
450 c1078
House
House of Commons

The Government’s approach in this group is acceptable to the Opposition, but I would like to put it on the record that, with just over half an hour to go, we have finished dealing with only four of the 31 groups to be discussed today. Many of the issues in...

Member
Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 October 2006
Reference
450 c1079
House
House of Commons

I am sure that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton knows full well what is involved in this group of new clauses. I will simply say what I said at the beginning: the amendments tabled in the names of Opposition Members are all amendments that we have discussed before...

Member
Baroness Hodge of Barking (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 October 2006
Reference
450 c1079
House
House of Commons

To prove that someone has behaved recklessly, it is necessary to show that the auditor was aware that an action or failure to act carried risks, that they personally knew that the risks were not reasonable ones to take, and that, despite knowing that, they went ahead. Why does the...

Member
Vera Baird (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 October 2006
Reference
450 c1049
House
House of Commons

Again, Members seem to misunderstand my argument. Even if the hon. Gentleman is right, is it therefore appropriate that we should take action that leads to incredibly increased audit costs for businesses—large, medium and small—when there is apparently nothing for auditors to worry about because, in his mind, there is...

Member
Justine Greening (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 October 2006
Reference
450 c1048-9
House
House of Commons

The hon. Lady asked for an example. I wonder whether the Department of Trade and Industry report on the performance of Coopers and Lybrand as auditors in the Maxwell case might provide her with a convincing one. The evidence cited was that the senior partner at Coopers and Lybrand summed...

Member
Austin Mitchell (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 October 2006
Reference
450 c1049
House
House of Commons

People who are prosecuted are not always found guilty and the provision may well lead to spurious cases that put reputations on the line. The judgment as to whether the auditor’s judgment about whether he or she knew that a risk was unreasonable will be made by the courts, rather...

Member
Justine Greening (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 October 2006
Reference
450 c1049
House
House of Commons

The hon. Lady seems to be following the line of argument that she took in Committee, but at that stage the Minister reassured us that ““recklessly”” meant knowingly taking an unreasonable risk, and knowing about its unreasonableness. In those circumstances, I cannot see how the concerns that the hon. Lady...

Member
David Howarth (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 October 2006
Reference
450 c1048
House
House of Commons

The hon. Lady’s point about following up matters that would not previously have been pursued applies to the lower test of negligence, not to the higher test of knowingly or recklessly doing something criminal. Her point is aimed at a different civil liability.

Member
Stephen Hesford (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 October 2006
Reference
450 c1048
House
House of Commons

In Committee, we argued about the fine legalities of the meaning of the offence in relation to existing law. I am not going back down that track; I am trying to get more information from the Government about the cost of the offence to business and the audit profession. I...

Member
Justine Greening (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 October 2006
Reference
450 c1048
House
House of Commons

The hon. Lady has referred twice to remarks that I made at a breakfast meeting at which she and I were both present. I just want to put the record straight in the House. I said that, of the 700,000 or so audits that take place a year, most are...

Member
Baroness Hodge of Barking (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 October 2006
Reference
450 c1050
House
House of Commons

The hon. Gentleman raises another potential problem with the clause as it is drafted, to which I will come later. Frankly, I do not think that it is for Members to interpret what that Coopers and Lybrand partner was saying. One of the amendments that the hon. Gentleman has tabled...

Member
Justine Greening (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 October 2006
Reference
450 c1049
House
House of Commons