---

Company Law Reform Bill [HL]

I understand the question raised, which is effectively about the length of the list of gateways. We have to recognise that we are operating at a complex intersection between company law, financial services regulation and other areas of activity. That makes it difficult to avoid having a detailed list of other regulators with whom the Takeover Panel may wish to share information, and with whom it may be right that it should do so. When one adds to that the fact that we are concerned not simply with the domestic but also with an international dimension, the matter becomes more complex. The way in which the noble Lord proposes dealing with this—I suspect this is something of a probing amendment—is to require that it would not be enough for a disclosure to be made to a person identified in part 1 of the schedule, nor for the purpose in part 2. It would have to be both. Rather selfishly, I see immediately the result: there is a specific gateway for disclosure to me in connection with my public interest functions which I exercise in relation to charities, but I am not listed in part 1 of Schedule 2 and because I am not, the gateway would not be able to operate at all. I picked that example because it relates to me but I have no doubt that when one goes through the schedule there will be other examples of the amendment preventing some of the gateways operating at all because the relevant person is not listed in the first part of the schedule. Notwithstanding that, the list to identify the appropriate gateways is carefully drawn. I invite the noble Lord to consider that the amendment does not do the business.