Company Law Reform Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 160:"Leave out Clause 321." The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No.160, I shall also speak to Amendments No. 161 to 169 inclusive. I hope the Minister will finish off this very satisfactory first day on Report with a suitably deregulatory flourish of his sword. With his help, I am sure that we are going to strike out some four pages of this gargantuan Bill. It refers to Chapter 5, Part 13, ““Additional Requirements for Quoted Companies,”” which is all about independent polls. It is an issue we raised in Grand Committee, concerning new provisions which allow members to requisition an independent report on a poll. There have been a number of concerns over this new power being granted to members of companies. On a financial level it will impose a potentially significant burden on any company required to commission such a report. On a practical level it may cause cumbersome delays in decision-making. With the Minister’s assistance we wish to strike out nine clauses, covering no less than five pages of his little Bill. I hope he will not be upset by that. Throughout the passage of the Bill, there have been a number of occasions when the Government do not seem to have had a grip on the reality of how businesses are run. Businesses run to tight deadlines; quick decisions need to be made on the spot. It is all well and good for the Government to say that this Bill forms part of their wider objective to,"““promote greater transparency and promote shareholder engagement””. [Official Report, 1/3/06; col. GC 135]" At what cost are they achieving this? There is a cost in time, money and management diversion. These provisions do not give adequate value for money, particularly as there are existing mechanisms under Clause 459 of the Companies Act 1985, and indeed in the common law—for shareholders to question the validity of a poll. These mechanisms do not appear to need fixing. The Minister said in Committee:"““If there is no problem, there is no point in producing a remedy for it””. [Official Report, 1/3/06; col. GC 134]" Having given careful consideration to the arguments put forward by the Minister in Grand Committee, I am afraid to say that he has failed to convince us that there is a problem here. Therefore I would urge him to reconsider the value of all these clauses and what it is that he is trying to remedy. The Minister has produced a heavy and elaborate hammer to crack a non-existent nut. I beg to move.