Company Law Reform Bill [HL]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling this amendment again so that I may now give him the right answer to address his concerns. When the noble Lord first laid his amendment at Grand Committee seeking to provide that agreements under paragraph 9 should be valid for a minimum of twelve months, we had thought the objective might be about providing a degree of certainty to businesses investing in web technology upgrades. However, the amendment clearly does the opposite in limiting the period of the agreement to a maximum of 12 months. I do not see the value in imposing a maximum period for agreements to receiving company documents by means of a website. This seems unduly burdensome—a case of minor silver-plating rather than gold-plating, but nevertheless burdensome—and an unnecessary hurdle when we are seeking to facilitate the use of electronic communications. The other point is that people are not locked into these agreements. If someone changes his or her mind, it is clear that he or she can withdraw at any time. In any event, members and debenture holders always have the right under Clause 762 to request that a document or information received otherwise than in hard copy form be sent to them in hard copy. Furthermore, a company must, under paragraph 13 of Schedule 6, notify an intended recipient of new documents posted on the website. If he has provided no e-mail address, then the company will, in effect, be obliged to send such notification in hard copy form by post, thus reminding the recipient of the website arrangement in place. We think that the communications clauses and schedules together provide adequate protection for members and other intended recipients who may not have easy access to the internet or to e-mail. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.