It may assist if I explain how the clauses concerning the register of interests operate. Public companies are required under Clause 599 to keep a register of interests disclosed in response to their requests for information under Clause 590. Clause 600 requires the company to keep the"““register kept under section 599””"
available for inspection. Clause 607 states that a company ceasing to be a public company,"““must continue to keep any register kept under section 599””."
Therefore, since Clause 607 provides that the register continues to be one,"““kept under section 599””,"
the inspection requirement in Clause 600 continues to apply. Accordingly, the amendment is unnecessary.
Perhaps I may briefly go back to the earlier question about requirements on the location of the register and notification of the register under Clause 600. In fact, Clause 600 merely states in clearer terms what is already in practice required under Section 211 of the 1985 Act. Section 211 requires the register to be kept in the same location as the register of directors’ interests. That register is subject to the same requirements that we have set out in Clause 600. Therefore, in practical terms, the requirements in Clause 600 are not new. The point that we missed earlier is that linkage with the directors’ register.
Company Law Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord McKenzie of Luton
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 20 March 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Company Law Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
680 c64-5GC 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 01:44:15 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_310116
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_310116
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_310116