Results 21–40 of 174 for speaker:Lord Sharman

Company Law Reform Bill [HL] (16 May 2006)

Lord Sharman: moved Amendment No. 427: Page 276, line 26, leave out "principal purpose" and insert "predominant reason"

Company Law Reform Bill [HL] (16 May 2006)

Lord Sharman: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 427, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 428, which is grouped with it. We return to the issue of a definition, and we are advised in this matter by the Law Society. Amendments Nos. 427 and 428 would replace the words "principal purpose" with the words "predominant reason", and their purpose is to overcome a problem in the interpretation of the expression...

Company Law Reform Bill [HL] (16 May 2006)

Lord Sharman: My Lords, I am grateful for that very full reply from the Minister, and for his acknowledgement that the amendments he mentioned will be looked at. I hope that the Government will be bringing forward their own amendments to deal with those issues. In my mind, the issue is still unresolved. I would like to read carefully what the Minister has said and then take some advice on it, but it seems...

Company Law Reform Bill [HL] (16 May 2006)

Lord Sharman: Yes, my Lords, I do. The only issue between us is precisely the one he mentioned up front; that is, the question of whether the words reflect what we are seeking to achieve. In the opinion of the Law Society that is not the case. I will look at what he said, and I will probably discuss it with the Law Society before I decide whether I wish to push the thing any further. In the mean time, I...

Company Law Reform Bill [HL] (16 May 2006)

Lord Sharman: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the response that the Government have made to the concerns I raised in Committee. Amendment No. 408 was proposed to us by the Law Society. I accept that it is a wide enabling amendment. I would like to consider carefully the impact of the government amendment and, if appropriate, return to this on Third Reading, but in the circumstances I will not move the...

Company Law Reform Bill [HL] (16 May 2006)

Lord Sharman: moved Amendment No. 398: Page 252, line 36, leave out "calculated" and insert "intended"

Company Law Reform Bill [HL] (16 May 2006)

Lord Sharman: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 398 and to speak to Amendments Nos. 399 to 403. These amendments go back to an issue we raised in Committee. The amendments, all in Clause 530, deal with the intention behind the issue of shares. The purpose is to ensure that a test should be one of intent, rather than an objective test of whether the securities are likely to get into the hands of the...

Company Law Reform Bill [HL] (16 May 2006)

Lord Sharman: My Lords, I shall not repeat everything that the noble Baroness said about our thanks for how the Government have responded to the concerns expressed in Committee. We now have a workable series of clauses that respond to our original concerns. Although my name is not attached to Amendment No. 391A, the issue that remains—albeit one for which there should be an explanation—is from what...

Company Law Reform Bill [HL] (10 May 2006)

Lord Sharman: My Lords, my name is attached to this amendment. For the sake of brevity—it is a quarter to 10 at night—I will not repeat all the arguments which the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has put forward in support of this group of amendments. However, I support them absolutely. In Committee, we discussed the issue of "knowingly or recklessly". I was advised by the Law Society that this did not...

Company Law Reform Bill [HL] (10 May 2006)

Lord Sharman: My Lords, it is wrong to demean this issue by describing it as box-ticking. The consequence of what is proposed is not box-ticking, but a considerable expansion in the amount of detailed work that takes place. That can by no means be described as box-ticking. That is the issue. If it were box-ticking, I would be much more relaxed about it.

Company Law Reform Bill [HL] (10 May 2006)

Lord Sharman: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps he could clarify something that I thought that I heard him say for the record. I thought that I heard him say twice, "knowingly and recklessly", not "knowingly or recklessly". "Knowingly and recklessly" would go a long way to solving my concerns with the clause.

Company Law Reform Bill [HL] (10 May 2006)

Lord Sharman: My Lords, I add my endorsement of what the noble Baroness has said. I, too, was very concerned in Committee about this, and the Government have responded entirely satisfactorily.

Company Law Reform Bill [HL] (10 May 2006)

Lord Sharman: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness's amendment. I shall not repeat what she said, but she has it absolutely right. At one time I used to oversee her on these procedures. As noble Lords who have listened to the 14 or 15 days of debate on the Bill will know, we do not always agree. It is very relevant that we should put this matter right.

Company Law Reform Bill [HL] (10 May 2006)

Lord Sharman: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has said, my name and that of my noble friend Lord Razzall are attached to these amendments. We support them for the reasons outlined by the noble Lord at the beginning of his remarks: we believe that it is much better to key this in to the Charities Bill with its criteria and definitions than to leave it here by itself. I support the amendments and...

Company Law Reform Bill [HL] (10 May 2006)

Lord Sharman: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. The provision is surplus to requirements, as she has quite rightly said. The statute requires the appointment of an auditor and the basis on which he reports. It has long been a tenet of our corporate law that that is a requirement. We do not have to have separate disclosure of the terms of appointment. All you will get is disclosure of a...

Company Law Reform Bill [HL] (10 May 2006)

Lord Sharman: My Lords, if I provided the Minister with a copy of a letter of engagement, in confidence, would he agree to reconsider this? One needs to have first-hand experience of what is in these letters. I am quite happy to provide, in confidence, a real-life example.

Company Law Reform Bill [HL] (10 May 2006)

Lord Sharman: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. I think the phrase "in the distant past" is the key.

Company Law Reform Bill [HL] (10 May 2006)

Lord Sharman: My Lords, with the greatest respect—which, as my noble friend Lord Razzall, says, means, "I am not going to listen to you"—developments over the past three or four years have been quite astonishing. For that reason, I encourage the Minister to look at this.

Company Law Reform Bill [HL] (10 May 2006)

Lord Sharman: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness in these amendments. She asked me to confirm that my report did not envisage the creation of a two-tier structure. I can confirm that most assuredly. Nothing was further from our minds at the time. We thought that a company is a company is a company. We were persuaded that the C&AG should be able to audit companies. I shall have to be careful in my...

Company Law Reform Bill [HL] (10 May 2006)

Lord Sharman: My Lords, I support these amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has spoken eloquently about the need for balance, and, again, that is what the issue is about. We have spoken on many occasions in these debates, both in Committee and on Report, about how the Bill must strive to get the right balance between the public interest and the rights of the individual. I should not like to see us...


<< < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 > >>

Create an alert

Advanced search

Find this exact word or phrase

You can also do this from the main search box by putting exact words in quotes: like "cycling" or "hutton report"

By default, we show words related to your search term, like “cycle” and “cycles” in a search for cycling. Putting the word in quotes, like "cycling", will stop this.

Excluding these words

You can also do this from the main search box by putting a minus sign before words you don’t want: like hunting -fox

We also support a bunch of boolean search modifiers, like AND and NEAR, for precise searching.

Date range

to

You can give a start date, an end date, or both to restrict results to a particular date range. A missing end date implies the current date, and a missing start date implies the oldest date we have in the system. Dates can be entered in any format you wish, e.g. 3rd March 2007 or 17/10/1989

Person

Enter a name here to restrict results to contributions only by that person.

Section

Restrict results to a particular parliament or assembly that we cover (e.g. the Scottish Parliament), or a particular type of data within an institution, such as Commons Written Answers.

Column

If you know the actual Hansard column number of the information you are interested in (perhaps you’re looking up a paper reference), you can restrict results to that; you can also use column:123 in the main search box.