I move amendment No. 47:
In subsection (2), page 74, line 43 after " copied " to add " where the copy of the register or any part thereof exceeds 2,000 words a special fee at the rate of 1/- per every 100 words in excess of 2,000 may be charged ".
This is just to cover a situation in relation to a charge for the provision of appropriate information.
There is an objection to it in so far as you provide earlier on for 6d. per 100 words. There would not seem to be much of a deterrent in charging 1/- per 100 words after 2,000. My only reason for opposing it is that it would be better to have uniformity in the subsection in the charge per 100 words.
Was this amendment not recommended by some body as well?
We have no knowledge of it.
I thought it was put up by some body to Deputy Cosgrave and myself.
I move amendment No. 48 :
In subsection (2), page 74, line 45 to delete "10" and substitute "30".
I can see that, if it is a very big list, ten days is too short, but frankly I am a little bit worried that 30 days might be a bit too long.
It might defeat its own purpose possibly.
I presume ten days was inserted so that it would have to be provided within the period for the meeting?
Yes. We have 21 days' notice and 14 days' notice.
How long does it take to do the roll for a constituency? Take addressing envelopes for a 30,000 constituency, you can do it in a week.
It depends on what help you have.
You would have commensurate help for a company.
It could be awkward.
If a person felt strongly enough about the terms of a resolution and wanted to oppose it or make overtures to the other members of the company, and the company could hold its meetings on 14 days' or 21 days' notice, the member would have no chance if they do not have to deliver the copy until the end of 30 days.
I will withdraw the amendment and discuss it further with Deputy Cosgrave.
Before you pass from the amendment, perhaps Deputy Sweetman knows that the Jenkins Committee dealt with that point at paragraph 479.
Is the wording of subsection (2) the same as prior legislation apart from the 6d.? " Any member or other person may require a copy of the register, or any part thereof . . ." I think there was a similar provision in the earlier Act?
The second paragraph is new.
The second is new, but the first part " any part thereof ", is that the same?
I think it is. Subsection (2) of Section 30 of the Act of 1908 says ". . . or any part thereof."
The only thing about the addition you are putting in is that the company will have to bear additional postal costs. I do not think that is a serious thing unless you had a large register and had a member in the Fiji Islands who requested it.
I think that nowadays airmail will get a postal package to any part of the world.
But it is very dear. It cost me £1 1s. 6d. to send three copies of memoranda and articles to Canada.
Do you think it would be more equitable, since there is a cost, to put the onus for paying the cost on the person ?
If we look at the paragraph again, it says :
The company shall cause any copy so required by any person to be sent to that person within a period of ten days commencing on the day next after the day on which the requirement is received by the company.
I do not think that means that it must be received within ten days.
I am talking about the cost now.
You do not have to send it by air mail. You can use the ordinary post.
Does that not rather spoil the whole effect ?
If you want to get it by air mail, you have to send the cost of the air mail.
That would be reasonable.
I think it would be reasonable that the person requesting it pay for the postage.
I move amendment No. 49 :
In subsection (5), page 75, line 48, to add :
" The company shall, within 21 days, give notice of the rectification to the registrar of companies ".
Subsection (5) is a new provision and its purpose is to relieve the company of the obligation to procure court sanction for the rectification of minor errors or omissions in the register. The amendment requires the company to give notice of such rectification within 21 days.
Obviously it is right that the company should give notice to the Registrar to rectify anything that has already been filed with the Registrar but if in fact the mistake has not been filed what is the sense in giving the notice ? What the Minister wants to do with his amendment—and I entirely agree—is to provide that if there is any incorrect information on the Companies Office file it should be changed but that is not what he says. Suppose, for example, the register of members is wrong and the Form 6 is a copy of the wrong entry and you want to correct it——
A member's name for instance.
But if the error has been found before the Form 6 is filed, what is the sense in giving notice ?
If somebody has been registered as " Thomas F " and he writes in to say that his name is " William P." you change the register and you must give notice within 21 days.
If you have included " Thomas F." in Form 6 sent to the Companies Office, then clearly when you change your register you should also inform the Companies Registrar. But if " Thomas F." has come on the register since the last occasion and you have not given any notice under Form 6 that " Thomas F." is there at all, why have you to give notice that you have changed it ?
There is another point that as heretofore there will be periodic notification to the Registrar of Companies of changes in the register. That will be automatic every year?
Yes.
All transactions and so on. Why then single out giving that notice within 21 days? For instance, even if you had an error in the name of somebody on the register, that is, an error that is not substantial, why do you want to give notice when in fact you will not give notice of changes in title, that is, a devolution of a share, until the statutory period comes around? Do you understand the point?
In the case of rectifications ordered by the court, the court will fix its time for notification. We have to fix a time in this because we have no court, there is no obligation to go to court. The company rectifies it and therefore notice should be sent.
So that it means apart from recording the devolutions, any change in the register will be notified in 21 days.
Yes.
It is fair enough, I am not objecting.
There would not be much point in telling the Registrar about little things that have not appeared in the copy which he has. We can consider an amendment to that.
Subject to that, is amendment No. 49 agreed?
