I have a great deal of sympathy with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, has raised. I recall with pleasure my attendance at Companies House when I was an articled clerk long before the noble Lord, Lord Freeman. However, we ought to avoid giving the impression—if such an impression is given—that any director or other person"““subject to violence or intimidation””"
should be immune from certain things. I did not want to use the word ““immune”” but I cannot think of the correct word.
What I really wanted to say was that we ought to avoid the impression that violence or intimidation exercised by somebody against a director or other person should be immune from punishment. That is not the impression that the proposers of this new clause would like to prevail. As presently drafted, there is a risk of that. Maybe my noble friend ought to take that into account in—I hope—redrafting this amendment.
Company Law Reform Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Clinton-Davis
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 30 March 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Company Law Reform Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
680 c365GC 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-12-17 19:40:20 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_314119
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_314119
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_314119