Company Law Reform Bill [HL]

My Lords, as someone who hated cricket with a passion I will resist responding in similar terms. I hope that I can meet the noble Lord’s points. These amendments would all largely have the effect of bringing up elements of the existing law unchanged into the new Bill. They would thus take a further step towards putting the new legislation on to a consolidated basis. We discussed this general issue in Grand Committee, and I said there that I recognised that there were strong arguments in favour of restating elements of the remaining 1985 Act provisions in the Bill. I can confirm that we are now looking at all of the remaining elements of the 1985 Act to see whether they could sensibly be brought into the Bill. There will be certain areas which do not lend themselves to this treatment; for example, areas of the law that have an application wider than companies, and which it would not make sense to bring up into a new Bill, which would in effect be a consolidated code of companies legislation. In certain other areas where there is a specific power to set out the law in regulations, and where we expect to make such regulations in the medium term, it may not make sense to consolidate the existing primary legislation into the new Bill now. These sorts of exceptions apart, I can assure the House that we are looking at what remains of the 1985 Act very much with an eye to bringing it into the new Bill wherever possible. I think the introduction of amendments giving effect to this approach, if it is to be managed in a coherent and co-ordinated way, may need to wait until the Bill is in another place. But I would certainly hope to be able to say more at Third Reading about the areas we are currently identifying as candidates for further consolidation, and I would certainly expect that the areas which are the subject of these amendments—pre-emption rights and share transfers—would be prime candidates for future consolidating amendments. In particular, I said in Grand Committee that we support the principle that provisions relating to the transfer of securities should be brought together in one place, and I confirm that the Government will bring forward their own consolidating amendments to Part 20. Unfortunately, there have been other significant issues to be dealt with by way of government amendment on Report and we have not had time to deal with the proposed amendments to Part 20 at this stage. We would also like to consult key City stakeholders on the draft amendments in view of the technical complexity of this part of the Bill. I would like to make one final point regarding consolidation. This is already a very substantial Bill and I suspect that there would be a general reluctance to see amendments introduced at any stage that greatly added to the requirement for parliamentary scrutiny during its passage. While I certainly do not seek in any way to constrain the debates that will be held here and in another place, I hope we all recognise that amendments that effectively did no more than restate existing provisions in the law without substantial change would not require the same level of scrutiny as those elements of the Bill that do make changes. I hope that what I have said has demonstrated how actively the Government are pursuing the principle that lies behind these amendments, and I hope on that basis that noble Lords and noble Baronesses will agree not to press their respective amendments for the moment. I will of course be happy to say more when we return at Third Reading.