Company Law Reform Bill

I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury. From our side, we think that a signal should be sent both to public and private companies. After all, it is only a contract and contracts can be, once the appropriate process is gone through, renewed. It is the signal that should be sent throughout our economy: there are no jobs for life—to use a phrase that some have adopted regarding this clause. I think that it would send the right signal if we reduced it to two. I look forward to the results of the consultation and perhaps, in consultation with the Minister, find common ground: something that is not too overbearing but which sets a signal for the next two decades—if it is going to be that long, some of us may not be here—before we return to another company law reform Bill. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 188 not moved.] Clause 171 agreed to. Clause 172 agreed to. Clause 173 [Substantial property transactions: requirement of members’ approval]: