Company Law Bill [HL]

In tabling and speaking to the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, referred to precedence in Clause 599(4) concerning entries on the register of interests disclosed of information received in response to Clause 590 notices. However, that clause operates differently. Under Clause 599(4) there is an automatic duty to record the information specified; that is, the fact that a requirement has been imposed under Clause 590, the date on which it was imposed and the information received in pursuance of the requirement. The company is not required to check the accuracy of the information; it must enter the information it has received. However, in the case of Clause 606—which we are dealing with—before entering the information received on to the register, the company has to be satisfied that the notifying party has ceased to be a party to the agreement. This may perhaps require it to make further inquiries. To impose a three-day deadline from receipt of the notification would give the company very little time to be so satisfied and this amendment would therefore place an undue burden on the company. That is the difference in what the company is required to do in this case. It has to satisfy itself under the clause, and three days could be insufficient for that. The department is not aware of any evidence that the operation of Section 217 of the 1985 Act has caused problems in practice. I would therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. I understand that Section 211 of the 1985 Act does not require the company to be satisfied, so the three-day limit is OK. Clause 606 requires the check of accuracy, as I have said. That is the distinction between the two situations.