Company Law Reform Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. A208ZAA:"Page 357, line 34, leave out from ““supplied”” to end of line 5 on page 358 and insert ““““by electronic communication”” if it is transmitted (whether from one person to another, from one device to another or from a person to a device or vice versa)—" (a)   by means of a telecommunication system (within the meaning of the Telecommunications Act 1984 (c. 12)); or (b)   by other means but while in an electronic form.”” The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. A208ZAC, ZAD, ZAE and ZAF and oppose the Question that Clause 751 stand part. The amendments concern the meaning of ““in hard copy form””, ““in electronic form”” and ““by means of a website””. The issue has been raised with us by the Law Society and by others. There has, therefore, not been agreement between them on precisely the best wording to follow. The Law Society’s formulation is the other amendment in this group, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharman. We have slightly changed that formulation. It seeks to replace the complicated phraseology of Clause 751(2) and (3) with the all-encompassing phrase ““electronic communication””. It thus inserts the definition of electronic communication established in the Electronic Communications Act 2000. That definition was inserted into Section 744 of the Companies Act 1985 by means of the Companies Act 1985 (Electronic Communications) Order 2000 SI 3373. We argue that the definition of ““electronic communication”” is a more flexible definition which is technology neutral. It covers the full range of electronic communication and has the benefit of consistency with existing legislation on this topic and in this area. The subsequent amendments are consequential. Our drafting avoids some of the pitfalls of the drafting in the Law Society’s amendments, which would not resolve the problem of what ““electronic form”” or ““electronic means”” actually meant. Our amendments will cover both those scenarios in one all-encompassing phrase ““electronic communications””, which has the additional advantage of already being clearly defined in statute. We oppose the Question that Clause 751 stands part because of the bluntness of the heading. It refers among other things to the meaning of the expression ““by means of a website””. This expression is not defined in the clause, but the expression ““by electronic means”” is, and yet that is not referred to in the heading. Our clause stand part debate seeks to draw the Government’s attention to that illogicality in the hope that they will refine it in the name of clarity and accuracy for those who will read the Bill. But, in the mean time, I move the substantive Amendment No. A208ZAA. I beg to move.