| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
3.30 pm
Mr. Forth: Perhaps the Minister could clarify something. He seems to be saying that all the required information is available from 1998 onwards since the company was restored to the register. Is he also telling us that we now know everything that we need to know and
should know about the company between 1996 and 1998, as that is the period of the most interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch?
Dr. Howells: I understand that the relevant information is there, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Christchurch could find out very quickly by accessing the terrific new computerised filing system in Companies House. He need merely get on to his PC--
Mr. Chope: I do not have a PC.
Dr. Howells: That has certainly thrown me. It would be good if the hon. Gentleman had a PC, but if he does not have one he cannot access the files online. I suggest that he travels to Cardiff, which is an excellent city, goes to Companies House and talks to the estimable staff there, who will do the job for him. By the way, I understand that there are even short courses to help people access files via their PCs, if the hon. Gentleman is interested, but clearly he is not.
Amendment No. 14 would require the Secretary of State to prepare a summary statement of the outcome of the relevant investigation before accepting a disqualification undertaking from a director, and to make that summary a matter of public record. I am not at all sure that the hon. Member for Christchurch would like the effect of the amendment, were it accepted. It would seem to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to make public a summary of the unfit conduct he alleges against a director following the completion of his investigation.
Although I would ask which investigation the hon. Gentleman needs to refer to, that is not at all clear and only section 8 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act expressly refers to investigations. That summary would include any allegations that the Secretary of State was prepared subsequently to withdraw before accepting a disqualification undertaking.
Let me remind the House of how we envisage the process working. When inviting a director to offer an undertaking, as a matter of practice, the Secretary of State will put the unfit conduct that he alleges to the director concerned so as to give the director the opportunity to respond to it. It might be that the director is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that one or more of the allegations made no longer stands up--in other words, that the case that the Secretary of State is putting to him is not accurate in one or more respects. A director may be able to introduce new evidence which puts an entirely different complexion on the conduct concerned. Where that occurs, the Secretary of State may withdraw that allegation and consequently be prepared to accept an undertaking for a lesser period. In those circumstances, if the amendment were agreed to, the public record would disclose an allegation of unfit conduct that had subsequently been withdrawn. I am sure that the hon. Member for Christchurch would agree that it would be unjust to place a director in that position. It does not seem right to us and we do not consider that the amendment should become part of the Bill. We remain of the view that the public record at Companies House should only show particulars of disqualification undertakings accepted by the Secretary of State.
I now turn briefly to amendment No. 22, which was addressed by the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire. It is the same as amendment No. 71, which
we debated in Committee. For those who have not had the opportunity to read Hansard, I shall repeat the point that I made. We do not consider that the court should be restrained in the way that is proposed under the amendment. It would be far more appropriate for the court to have a discretion on whether to reduce the period for which an undertaking is to be in force or provide for it to cease to be in force. It could be that some factor other than a material change in circumstances since the person gave the undertaking--a change in law, for example--would be of sufficient importance to persuade the court to make an order under new section 8A. According to the text of the new section, the court will be able to take into account any factors that it considers relevant when making such an order. The court will be helped in reaching a view by any matters that the Secretary of State calls to its attention under subsection (2) of the new section. With that, I urge the hon. Member for Christchurch to withdraw his amendment.
Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for his response, although I find it disappointing in some respects. He argued that my amendment No. 14 could cause injustice to directors because the statement of facts might subsequently be proved to be inaccurate. That is why, when we made the original proposal in Committee, we said that we wanted an agreed statement of facts. The Minister raised all sorts of objections to that. He said that it might cause delay or that it might be difficult to get an agreement. We then moved an amendment to overcome those obstacles and now, in typical civil service fashion, the Minister raises objections to the idea that there should be a non-agreed statement of fact. It is desirable to have more facts available on the public record than there will be under the Government's proposals. That is my concern.
As for the Minister's arguments in relation to new clauses 1 and 2, first, I am grateful to him for letting us know that the People's Trust has become a phoenix rising from the ashes. Back in 1997 there was an enormous amount of press comment saying that the People's Trust was no longer trading, had gone out of business and had vacated its luxurious Knightsbridge offices. It was reported that the disappearance of the People's Trust
- marks the end of Mr. Fayed's third foray into public morals.
Perhaps the resurrection of the People's Trust suggests that there is yet another foray on the way. I shall look with interest at the contents of the documents to which the Minister has drawn our attention, but I do not think that the fact that they have now been filed alters the burden of my argument. I illustrated my contention that there was a gap in the law and the Minister agreed. However, he then recited a series of sanctions which, although they might apply to different cases do not apply to a case in which somebody makes only one serious breach of his duty to file accounts.
Mr. Page: If my hon. Friend is in the slightest bit worried about finding examples to prove his point, I can spend an hour or two with him after the debate giving him the necessary names.
Mr. Chope: I do not think we need any more examples. The examples that I quoted are sufficient. The fact that
the Minister has not been able to show us what remedies are available demonstrates that there is a gap in the law that needs to be filled.
Mr. Burnett: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Not only should there be a duty to file accounts, but there should be a duty to file one set of accounts in good time. In the case of the additional clause which is qualified, as new clause 2 is, there should be a draconian sanction for failure, and there is not one now.
Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I am very grateful to him for his involvement in the promotion of new clause 2. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) spoke earlier about the implications for limits on party political funding. It is no good if people say that they will not file the accounts, and the company is then dissolved and struck off, and, at some stage in the future, when the time for investigating the funding of parties in a general election campaign is over, the company is resurrected.
I was caught out because I had assumed that, once a company's accounts were no longer available because it had been struck off and dissolved, that was the end of the matter. Now the Minister says that, in this specific case, the company came back later. That is no good. The people responsible for that appalling default of their obligations under company law have carried on with impunity. New clause 2 would put an end to that loophole.
The Minister made a rather feeble response to new clause 1. We are talking about serious issues of rogue traders. The Government purport to be on the same side as us in campaigning against rogue traders and the injustice that they cause to the hapless individual. An early-day motion has been tabled on the subject and the hon. Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran) promoted a ten-minute Bill supporting action against rogue traders.
I tabled the new clause to take action on the matter, and the Minister's response is that it is not appropriate. That is not good enough. The people will decide on this. The Government have been going on about how they will do something against rogue traders, but they are merely paying lip service to people's concerns. They are not legislating to close the loopholes.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) for introducing into the debate a pertinent example drawn from his own experience as a non-executive director and as a member of the Trade and Industry Committee; I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) for his support for my new clauses and amendments; and I thank the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) for his help and advice.
It would be a gross indulgence to divide the House on more than one of the new clauses. As new clause 2 would remedy the greatest mischief straight away, and there is no complaint about its drafting, that will be the right one on which to have a vote. I hope that hon. Members will support it when I give them the opportunity to do so. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |