Company Law Reform Bill [HL]

My Lords, I understand that there were two barrels to that argument. One was that although the panel had the power, it would not want to use it. The noble and learned Lord said that we need not be concerned because the panel could not enlarge the offences. My concern was not about enlarging but altering them. As the nature of what is required in the offer document changes, so does the nature of the offence. In addition, my noble friend Lord Patten mentioned the issue of the light touch. We read very carefully what the noble and learned Lord said in Committee, which is why we tried to find out what other people were doing about this. We have been unable to find any other country that has found it necessary to introduce a criminal offence to cover this point. We on these Benches are very concerned about gold-plating. We admire what the panel has done; we do not wish to see it dragged any further into the criminal justice system. Its success in the past has been its light touch. We understand that it cannot continue to be a self-regulatory body because of the EU takeovers directive. However, I think that this is a step in the wrong direction and I wish to test the opinion of the House. On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 464) shall be agreed to? Their Lordships divided: Contents, 54; Not-Contents, 123. Clause 635 [Failure to comply with rules about bid documentation]: [Amendment No. 465 not moved.]