---

Company Law Reform Bill

I understand the comments made by the Minister. However, with the benefit of experience, I do not think that the Government’s answer really deals with the point. The fact is that, if you have a private company which wishes to raise money from external shareholders and you ask a law firm, a firm of accountants or a firm of merchant bankers to advise you on how many people can become shareholders without crossing the line so that the offer becomes illegal, you will get a five, six or seven-page memorandum advising you about what you can do. Given that we are attempting to simplify company law, it seems to be a mistake by the Government not to respond, because the situation arises all the time in the arena. In effect, the Government are saying that they do not want to make any change to the current law in this area. That is fine. It will provide a lot of fees to lawyers, to bankers and to accountants, but it does not actually help to resolve the issue, because the Government are leaving us with the current relative state of uncertainty. As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, says, if you are a private company and you want to raise some money, you will end up with an answer that you can probably have 49 shareholders providing the money, or maybe you can stretch it to 50. Is there actually any logic in that? The noble Lord says, ““Well, the answer is that you can always become a public company””. There are often reasons why people do not want their company to become a public company—cost is one of them. I am disappointed with the noble Lord’s answer. I do not think that it deals with the practical issue. I will obviously consider what he has to say, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. A18 to A23 not moved.] Clause 526 agreed to. Clause 527 negatived. Clause 528 [Enforcement of prohibition: order restraining proposed contravention]: