Company Law Reform Bill [HL]

My Lords, we end on a downtick, if I may use market phraseology. That was a disappointing response. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, for some heavy softening-up artillery fire, which was direct and well aimed. The Minister fell back on three points: the Company Law Review recommendation, that we have to retain the ““vigorous integrity of our voting systems””—I think that was the phrase he used—and that there was no requirement to hold polls because, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, said, polls are becoming more common. The one thing that was missing from the Minister’s response was any evidence of the problem that this huge chunk of clauses sets out to cure. We will read carefully what he said, because he took a lot of time and trouble to answer the points that the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, and I made in Grand Committee, and he deserves a careful response. However, I think this is something that we will want to consider again because I do not think he has answered the points that we have been making. We will want to consider this again on the grounds of deregulation and of trying to find a way to make the Bill more effective and efficient. However, we owe it to the Minister to read carefully what he said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.