---

Company Law Reform Bill [HL]

I thank the noble Lord for that clarification. It does not remove my point that it could apply to the central debate that has been continuing for much of the evening about the codification of directors’ duties. Is this just playing with words or is it a change of policy? As the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, said, there is something quite meaningful about the codification and my noble friend the Minister will comment that. I wish also to make a point about the dog that has not barked in this debate when it comes to modern companies. This must be the only economic debate that I can remember in the past couple of years when we have not talked about India and China. Yet it is remarkable, is it not, that here we have employees who are spread around the world? They have international trade unions. We have all sorts of ramifications of the global economy and I am a little surprised that I have not heard much about that, whether it is a European company or any other global phenomenon. In conclusion, will my noble friend confirm that the phrase ““so far as reasonably practicable”” does not mean that directors only have to have regard to these other interests when they do not find it particularly inconvenient to do so? I ask my noble friend to give a definitive assurance that the proviso about ““reasonably practicable”” will not drive a coach and horses through the clause as a whole. Finally, I echo those who have said that the operational and financial review in its new guise is important to produce a narrative which will give some substance to the philosophy of the Bill. As I have mentioned, I also believe it is very important that Clause 866 concerning transparency of voting will go a little way towards shareholders’ understanding of companies, as the noble Lords, Lord Hodgson and Lord Freeman, have advocated.