Draft Companies (Disclosure of Address) (Amendment) Regulations 2018

Debate between Alex Chalk and Bill Esterson

Thursday 29th March 2018 General Committees

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I had planned to trace the history of the Companies Act 2006 and, for the benefit of our illustrious company, to go through the reasons why it was so important that residential addresses, later service addresses, were published, but the Minister has given such a thorough, detailed and lengthy explanation—

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Exhaustive.

[Bill Esterson]

Exhausting or exhaustive? I could not quite catch from the Parliamentary Private Secretary which it was. I leave that for the readers of Hansard to determine for themselves.

I have two questions for the Minister. It is clearly right that the authorities still have access to residential addresses, including for former directors, and that a service address is available. As the Minister rightly set out, for reasons of fraud and the risk of violence and intimidation, and the 2003 cut-off, it is right that directors—as well as, I believe, company secretaries, shareholders and persons with significant control—receive adequate protection. My understanding from research from the fraud prevention organisation, CIFAS, is that one in five victims of recorded cases of such fraud is a company director. As the Minister says, there has been an increased incidence of fraud or risk of violence and intimidation reported to his Department.

It is clearly right that if the service address option exists, it is only fair that all directors, current and former, can take up the option. Will the Minister explain how the redactions are possible? What has changed in the technology to allow that? What is the new process that means it is now possible? Will he confirm that my understanding about full access by the authorities is correct and also that the publication of a service address is important to the wider public? With those replies, we will be happy to support the regulations.

European Union (Approvals) Bill

Debate between Alex Chalk and Bill Esterson

2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 4th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson]

I had moved on to the second part, but I will come back to the hon. Gentleman’s question. We need to know what our relationship will be, given the important work—as the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) rightly described it—carried out by Members in this House over many years, which has been extremely important in making progress in the countries named in this Bill and others. It is important that we have a sense from the Government as to how we will stay involved in the work of such agencies. I am sure all Members will agree that this country still has a very important role to play whether or not we are in the EU.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a key bulwark of human rights in this country, and indeed across Europe, is the European convention on human rights, which is not affected by this Bill at all? That has to remain the key and most important element.

[Bill Esterson]

I completely agree.

The EU Commission states that there is a danger that the absence of a power to exchange information with the Canadian Competition Bureau will become an impediment as co-operation between the two parties increases; the Minister made that point. Co-operation with other competition authorities is now standard practice in international competition investigations. The EU has co-operation agreements with the USA, Japan, South Korea and Switzerland. The most advanced is the one with Switzerland; it is very similar to the Canada agreement and has proved, as the Minister said, uncontroversial. Many worldwide or transatlantic cartels include Canada in their operations, and the Canadian commission will get a good opportunity via this agreement to gain additional information concerning these cartels and whether practice is anti-competitive or not.