Company Law Reform Bill [HL]

My Lords, I would like to put in a word of support for my noble friend Lady Turner. I, too, know how disappointed and frustrated our noble friend Lord Wedderburn is in not being able to participate in these deliberations. Indeed, it is difficult to think of deliberations of this kind without the presence of my noble friend Lord Wedderburn. Whatever one feels about his views, I am sure that all would put on record our admiration for his expertise and dedication to the importance of legislation in this sphere. In supporting my noble friend Lady Turner I would like to make just a couple of observations. First, I am one of those who believes that socially responsible capitalism has a dynamic and positive role to play in the future of humanity. I do not have an ideological position dismissing that possibility. I strongly believe that there is great potential there. I also recognise that both the Opposition and the Government frequently put forward their support for that principle, and they believe that a great deal of the social policy necessary for a healthy society—not only nationally, but internationally—can come from the way in which companies conduct themselves. I have always believed, however, that it is not good enough simply to wish the end; one must ensure that the means are there. It seems to me that the amendment is endeavouring to ensure that there is a proper consultation about the wider responsibilities of industry when remuneration is being fixed. As I argued on the previous amendment, if that is happening then there is nothing to be feared in an amendment of this kind. If it is not happening, then there is everything to be feared. It is quite clear that these arrangements are very important. Our noble friend Lord Wedderburn is simply helping the Government—and, indeed, the Opposition—to fill in the substance for making a success of the rhetoric they so frequently express about the possibility of meeting social responsibility through the behaviour of the private sector. I commend the amendment to the House. I hope that if the Minister is unable to accept it in this precise form, he will be able to say something to us suggesting that he may have practical proposals on Third Reading, according to what I know is his personal conviction, about how legislation that this House implements on these matters can be made a little firmer.