Company Law Reform Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 119:"After Clause 117, insert the following new clause—" ““ENTRIES RELATING TO FORMER MEMBERS (1)   A company may transfer to a separate register any entries relating to a former member of the company. (2)   The provisions of this Chapter apply to the separate register as they apply to the register, with any necessary modifications. (3)   An entry relating to a former member of the company may be removed from the register, or from the separate register of former members, after the expiration of five years from the date on which he ceased to be a member.”” The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 119, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 121 and propose that Clause 118 should not stand part of the Bill. Amendment No. 119 seeks to insert a new clause entitled ““Entries relating to former members””, to give credence or legal status to paragraph 11.40 of the Company Law Review final report, which recommended that a company should be permitted to keep entries relating to former members on a separate register from that for current members. We find it hard to see why the Government have not followed this recommendation. The absence of such a power has been used by hard-nosed researchers as a means of pressurising companies to provide analysis of and information from their registers of members, which they are not strictly required to do by the existing Companies Acts. Accepting this recommendation and introducing the new clause would also provide greater privacy for those no longer involved in the company. Once a person has realised his investment in the company there is surely no reason why the fact that he was once a shareholder should be a matter of public record. Although the recommendation of the report was to keep the period for which records must be held the same as currently in the Bill—I think under the Companies Act 1985 it is longer; it is 20 years—our amendment also reduces the length of time that the entries relating to former members must be kept from 10 years to five years. It seems to us that 10 years is an unduly long time for companies to have to keep these entries and that some deregulation and cost savings could be achieved by reducing this period without any real risk. Amendment No. 121 merely seeks to reduce the period for which records relating to former members must be kept. We offer it as an alternative approach if the Government are not prepared to accept our more radical redrafting of a new clause. As to Clause 118 stand part, if the Government are minded to accept the approach we are proposing, the clause will be redundant and we would seek its removal. But, in the first instance, I beg to move.