Clause 65
Company Law Reform Bill [Lords]
9:45 am
Vera Baird (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Redcar, Labour)
The amendment would create uncertainty, and the sentence that it seeks to delete is necessary. The company will be able to comply with a direction to change its name more quickly if the directors can change the name, as clause 65(3) provides, rather than having to go through the rigmarole of a special resolution.
The words that the amendment would remove will prohibit the change from being made by a special resolution, for instance. The clause says:
“A change of name in order to comply...may be made by resolution of the directors”,
but that is
“without prejudice to any other method”
of doing it. If we remove that, does it not become the case that it can only be done in that way? However, I see the argument that the word “may” is important in that context.
The amendment would remove the alternative methods of changing a name, and we want them to work for purposes of compliance with a direction. We shall come later, during debate on another amendment, to the point of principle whether a change of name should generally occur by special resolution, but the Government suggest that that part of the clause is important and that its removal would generate uncertainty. I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.