I am disappointed by the Minister’s reply because we are not seeking to extend the Bill. All we are seeking to do is to make the wording match the titles of the previous clauses to which we refer. If the Government accept that the provision should include the words ““company re-registering as unlimited””, which applies to Clause 103, that refers to re-registration of a private limited company as unlimited. All we are trying to do is to get those two words in. It helps and does not increase the complexity of the drafting. I hope the Government will have another look at this. A couple of simple words make it easier. Just the word ““company”” does not answer the question of what sort of company, which is what this is all about. I hope the Minister will have a look at this and will feel able to put these words in at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 5.24 to 5.32 pm]
[Amendment No. 112 not moved.]
Clause 111 agreed to.
Clause 112 [The members of a company]:
Company Law Reform Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 1 February 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Company Law Reform Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
678 c144-5GC 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 02:01:54 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_296718
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_296718
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_296718