Proceeding contribution from Lord Brett (Labour) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 15 January 2009. It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Companies (Disclosure of Address) Regulations 2008.
Companies (Disclosure of Address) Regulations 2009
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords for their contributions. Taking them in order, I turn, first, to the question of exemptions. There is no exemption for registered offices, as their purpose, under company law, is to be the company’s point of contact with third parties. The same argument applies where companies choose to keep their records available for inspection at a location other than at their registered office. Of course, many of those are accountants’ offices and other premises not directly associated with the trading company. That possibly is the solution to the first question. The second question concerned people who make a career out of being directors of companies that fail and then immediately reappearing as directors of other companies. The 2006 Act provides that a court may order disclosure on an application of a liquidator or creditor where necessary. I think that, until events prove differently, we would rely on that as a solution. To turn to the third and major point made by both the noble Lords, Lord De Mauley and Lord Addington, in principle there is probably nothing between us. We do not want banking to be made more difficult in the present circumstances for small and medium enterprises—or even for large ones. The issue was brought forward by the British Bankers’ Association, but the Committee in the original passage of the legislation recognised the need to strike a balance between the register being useful to those attempting to prevent crime such as money-laundering while preventing it being useful to those attempting to commit other crimes such as serial fraud by serial directors of companies. In that sense the balance is thought to be correct. The banks are particularly concerned that they may no longer be able to link directors to the addresses used. However, dates of birth are generally more reliable for this purpose than names. The banks are also concerned about not being able to contact someone who has given a personal guarantee on an agreement. The 2006 Act provides that if the service address is not affected by a court order the closure of the director’s usual residence can be made. Some of the banks’ concerns are misplaced. They will still be able to contact company directors and the public record will show where the director was appointed. If, however, as the noble Lord indicated, he has additional information, and given that we are not holding up the progress of these regulations, I shall be more than happy to speak to him outside. I commend the regulations to the House. Motion agreed.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 706 c1430
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Disclosure of information Company law Companies Directors Business premises Exemptions Harassment Protection Registration
- Legislation
- Companies (Disclosure of Address) Regulations 2009
- Companies (Trading Disclosures) (Amendment) Regulations 2009
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-05-23 23:07:44 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_518620
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_518620
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_518620