I am grateful for the intervention made by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn. My concern is with the word ““memorandum””, and I repeat that I cannot trace, certainly in statute, a clear definition. I accept the Minister’s explanation; the thrust of what he said must be correct. We on this side would prefer that the memorandum should be an accurate written record of the terms. If there is no contract—maybe a contract has to be amended or simply has not been concluded—the record should be clear, comprehensive and specific. I am not persuaded by the word ““memorandum””, although it is well established in practice. Here is an opportunity for us to do something that would improve practice. I accept what the Minister said, but I reserve the right to return to this. It may seem a small point, but for me it is a point of principle. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 221.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 206 agreed to.
Clauses 207 to 209 agreed to.
Clause 210 [Provisions protecting directors from liability]:
Company Law Reform Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Freeman
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 9 February 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Company Law Reform Bill (HL).
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
678 c363GC 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 01:48:18 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_299645
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_299645
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_299645