Company Law Reform Bill [HL]

That is a slightly disappointing reply, but I thank the Minister for it. His speaking note shows that a good deal of thought has been given to this. The argument hangs on two points. The first is that companies limited by guarantee are not in frequent use nowadays and therefore we do not need to design a special procedure for them. If I had a pound for every time I have heard governments argue that infrequent use is not a reason for getting rid of something, I would be a rich man. This time, the Government are arguing the reverse. The second point is the complex legal position that would have to be adopted. Our amendment pointed out that this merely shifted the complex legal issues to the private sector. As the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, pointed out, practitioners and companies have found this difficult—not necessarily very often—and since we are now setting up a universal company law system, it would be helpful to deal with all the re-registration possibilities. We will read carefully what the Minister said, because he has clearly addressed the issue in some detail, and see whether the Law Society feels that we ought to push the Government a little harder on this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 89 agreed to. Clause 90 [Re-registration of private company as public]: