HL Deb 25 July 1990 vol 521 cc1533-5

7.4 p.m.

Lord Strathclyde rose to move, That the regulations laid before the House on 6th July be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, these regulations set out amendments to certain of the fees for the statutory activities of Companies House Executive Agency. They replace a similar order which expired at midnight on 4th July, before it had been considered by this House.

The main changes set out in the regulations are to the fee for a company search, which is increased from £2.50 to £2.75, and to the fee for registering an annual return, which is increased from £20 to £25. In addition, the fees for re-registering a company, for example from a public to a private company, have been standardised at £50.

I am pleased to say that there are no changes to the other statutory fees of Companies House. This includes the fees for incorporation and change of name, which will remain at £50 and £40 respectively, the levels set in 1973. Companies House has a duty to recover, taking one year with another, all the costs involved in running the system of regulating companies and of developing company law. In addition from this year the annual return fee will be used to provide a contribution to financing the new framework for setting accounting standards. While Companies House is firmly committed to providing its many customers with a better quality service which represents good value for money, it is now necessary to increase these fees in order to achieve a broad balance between income and the relevant costs. In moving these regulations, I wish to say what a pleasure it is to be dealing again with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I beg to move.

Moved, That the regulations laid before the House on 6th July be approved. [23rd Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Strathclyde.)

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for having made some brief observations on these regulations, No. 1368.

Although the noble Lord introduced the regulations in his usual urbane style, we on this side rather expected to hear an expression of contrition from Her Majesty's Government on this matter. The original regulations, No. 1197, which introduced this same measure, were laid before Parliament on 8th June, to come into force on 1st July. Unhappily, owing to an error for which the Opposition were in no way responsible, they lapsed because they were not approved in time. This is a unique event. If it had not been for the vigilance of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel, the original regulations, No. 1197, would have been assumed, wrongly, to be valid. That error would have passed unnoticed, until perhaps some enterprising chappie in about three or four years' time suddenly decided to look at the original regulations No. 1197, and lighted upon the fact that, as they had lapsed at midnight on 4th July, they were not valid at all.

One could envisage circumstances where companies or directors of companies suddenly became apprised through their legal advisers that the sums of money that they had paid, possibly on incorporation but certainly thereafter by way of filing annual returns, had been illegally paid and that the regulations had no validity. The Government could have been exposed to a whole series of actions for the return of moneys. I believe we are entitled, as I have said, to some little show of contrition from the Government. We are also entitled to hear some appreciation for the work of the Opposition on this matter. If it had not been for the vigilance of the Opposition, the regulations numbered 1197 would have been void because they lapsed at midnight on 4th July.

The Opposition do not have the clerical and secretarial resources that are available to the Government. The Government have a vast Civil Service machine behind them of highly paid and skilled individuals whose business it is to ensure that mistakes do not occur. An expression of contrition would have done no harm, and neither would an expression of thanks to the Opposition for having drawn this matter to the attention of the Government. The regulations have now been reintroduced as regulations No. 1368 made on 5th July instead of 7th June. They were laid before Parliament on 6th July instead of 8th June and came into force on 6th July instead of 1st July.

The regulations are unexceptional. I say in parenthesis that all the small businesses that are coming into being as a result of what is termed the "whoosh" enterprise of the DTI, may find the sums of money a little more onerous than the ones that were previously enforced. Generally speaking, and bearing in mind the general inflationary tendencies under Her Majesty's Government, we have to accept them.

In the meantime I should like to ask the noble Lord two questions of which I have already given him notice because I wish to deal with the matter as expeditiously as possible. First, what happens in the case of those people who have already paid fees on the basis of regulation number 1197 which they need not have paid until 6th July? I do not know how many people are affected. But do the Government anticipate repaying the difference between the old fees and the new fees to those people who have paid fees they need not haw paid?

There is a short interregnum between midnight on 4th July and the afternoon of 6th July. The Government may conceivably have lost revenue by reason of applications being submitted during that period with cheques which were incorrectly made out. Have the Government taken those small matters into account? I willingly concede that they are small matters, but we have found over the years—and the noble Lord will find in due course—that attention to such matters of detail and correctness are very often the sign of good government whereas to ignore them and try to ride over them may be out of place and a sign of taking things too much for granted. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to reply.

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I take it that he welcomes the regulations. Of course we apologise to the House. Perhaps I can direct the noble Lord to col. 2330 of Hansard of 5th July when my noble friend Lord Ullswater made a proper and full apology to the House.

The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asked me what was being done about those people who had been overcharged. We have already agreed that it is a matter that we all regret. I can confirm that Companies House has written to all companies whose annual returns were registered on that day. It has also written to all of its major search customers as well as putting up notices in its search rooms. Companies House will consider all claims for reimbursement from those who believe that they were charged incorrectly. That is precisely how it should be.

On Question, Motion agreed to.