I do not see the value of requiring a minimum period of commitment to receiving company documents by means of a website. Why should a member who agrees to use the web not be able to change his mind? If the argument is about the cost of investing in the appropriate technology, I do not accept that. Most companies that choose that form of communication will already have websites. They are unlikely to move to website communication unless a critical mass of members opts for it, or are deemed to have agreed to it by virtue of other provisions in the schedules. I do not think that start-up costs will be wasted.
In any event, it appears that the noble Lord accepts the principle of Clause 752, that a member who has received a document or information other than in hard copy form is entitled to a hard copy. It does not seem consistent with that to restrict a member’s right to change his mind on communication by means of a website. He could not change his mind, but he could still ask for a hard copy, so this provision does not help the company in any way. I hope that with that clarification, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Company Law Reform Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Sainsbury of Turville
(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 c378GC 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-12-17 19:40:14 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_314163
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_314163
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_314163