Jonathan Djanogly (Shadow Solicitor General (Also Shadow Minister for Trade and Industry), Law Officers (Assist the Home Affairs Team); Huntingdon, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 33, in clause 120, page 54, line 16, leave out from beginning to end of line 18 and insert—

‘(1) A company may transfer to a separate register any entries relating to a former member of the company; and the provisions of this Chapter apply to the separate register as they apply to the register, with any necessary modifications.

(2) An entry relating to a former member of the company may be removed from the register, or from the separate register of former members, after the expiration of ten years from the date on which he ceased to be a member.'.

The clause relates to section 352(6) of the Companies Act 1985 on entries regarding former members. Lord Hodgson proposed an amendment to insert the Law Society’s recommended clause, which is largely reproduced in amendment No. 33. The benefit of the amendment would be greater privacy for those who are no longer members. Lord Hodgson’s amendment would also have reduced the relevant time period from 10 years to five years. He said that the 10 year period would be burdensome on companies and that a reduction would provide some deregulation and cost savings.

Lord Sainsbury responded that such an amendment to separate the registers would be unnecessary as clause 743 gives companies the power to arrange their records as they wish, and that the time limit for keeping records should be reduced to 10 years to take account of any claims arising from errors in the register.

The explanatory notes to the Bill state that the reduction to 10 years was the result of a company law review recommendation. However, the company law review also recommended that companies be permitted to keep entries relating to former members on a separate register from that used for current purposes. The Government seem to have ignored that recommendation.

The provision has been reviewed in the Lords, but we ask the Government to reconsider and we ask why they have ignored the company law review recommendation.

Margaret Hodge (Minister of State (Industry and the Regions), Department of Trade and Industry; Barking, Labour)

We have not ignored it. Indeed, it is our view—as I think was expressed in another place—that the issue is covered by what is now clause 787(1)(b), which says that company records

“may be arranged in such manner as the directors of the company think fit”.

That enables companies to keep a separate register if they so wish. The opinion of the commercial registrars whom we consulted on the issue was that that provision covers the arrangement that the hon. Gentleman is proposing. Therefore I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.

Jonathan Djanogly (Shadow Solicitor General (Also Shadow Minister for Trade and Industry), Law Officers (Assist the Home Affairs Team); Huntingdon, Conservative)

I thank the Minister for that explanation and I apologise for not having clause 787(1)(b) to hand. The problem with the Bill is that there are so many volumes to carry around, and sometimes we do not need clause 787. On the basis of that explanation I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.