Clause 76
Company Law Reform Bill [Lords]
1:30 pm
James Brokenshire (Hornchurch, Conservative)
I will not speak to amendment No. 141, because of the assurance given by the Minister. However, amendment No. 140 is on a slightly different subject. Clause 76 provides a mechanism whereby if a misleading indication is given as to the nature of the activities of a company and it is
“likely to cause harm to the public, the Secretary of State may direct the company to change its name.”
The amendment is intended to clarify the use of the words “the public”. When looking through the Bill, I asked myself what would happen if only a section of the public were harmed—for example, the elderly or another vulnerable group.
In other companies legislation a distinction can be drawn between the public and a section of it. While the language in the clause repeats that in section 32(1) of the 1985 Act, the Bill gives us the opportunity to ensure that we adequately and properly address the problem. We are considering activities likely to cause harm, and even if harm is caused to only a section of the public, it is still harm. I appreciate that there is a balance to be drawn and that the amendment may not be as precise and elegant as it would need to be, but the point is still valid and worth further examination to ensure that we are clear as to when an order should be given. We must ensure that a person subject to such an order is not given the right to make a legal challenge by saying, “Well actually, we are not affecting the public. We are only affecting a section of the public.” That would clearly not be in the public interest, so it is worth examining.