---

Company Law Reform Bill [HL]

I really do not see a problem with the clause as it stands, in particular with the definition of ““rule-based requirement””, which the noble Lord’s amendment goes to. He would insert after those words the phrase,"““whether pursuant to a decision or ruling of the Panel or otherwise””," because, as I understand it, he wants to be clear that decisions or rulings of the panel can be rule-based requirements. But I cannot imagine what ““rule-based requirement”” would mean if it did not include a decision or ruling of the panel made pursuant to the rules. If that is right, the definition stands perfectly well as it is. The current definition is perfectly functional, so the court would enforce the rulings and decisions that have been made, as we both agree it ought to be able to. As always, putting something else in to cure a supposed ambiguity—although I do not think there is one—always raises the risk that you will create a problem in another direction. In the light of what I have said about the Government’s view, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.