---

Company Law Reform Bill [HL]

I am glad to agree with my noble friend. That is exactly what I want to do, and my noble friends in the Government have to hand several different ways to do it. For example, we do not necessarily need to go with this amendment. The Government could come back with an amendment saying: ““The following information should be disclosed for each director: the rate of increase in their basic salary for each of the last three years; the average pay increase for staff elsewhere in the company for each of the last three years; the distribution of pay throughout the company as a whole by grade; and where the average rise in basic pay for directors is significantly higher—more than 1 per cent higher than the average rate for employees as a whole, say—an explanation for the differential is required from the remuneration committee and should be included in the report””. There should also be disclosure of the type of pension schemes, final salary or money purchase, offered to directors, with details of the type of scheme available to the staff. Where those are not the same, an explanation should be given. The report should set out the contribution rate for directors and that for other employees. Where those differ, an explanation should be given. For final salary schemes, the accrual rate for directors and that for other employees should be given. Where they differ, an explanation should be given. I note the time, so I shall not go into all the other points I that wanted to make, such as the role of consultants on remuneration committees. I conclude by underlining the point made by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis: the minimum with which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, will agree is that transparency is now the least that we should look for. I should like to see that laid down in some form of statutory code of practice. I beg to move.