---

Company Law Reform Bill [HL]

My Lords, as the Minister will realise, that is a disappointing response after the evidence that we have given him. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, for his support. Trying to talk about clients is confusing the issue, because Clause 876(9) states,"““The regulations may require the information to be provided, in such manner as may be specified, to such persons as may be specified, or to the public, or both””." There is nothing to do with clients; it is about the world at large. When the Minister starts trying to confuse that with talking about clients, with the greatest respect, on this last lap, he is slightly edging the truth. Clients are a different matter; this is about the public at large. We do not accept that this provision is needed at this stage for the reasons I explained. I hope that when the Minister goes back to his office he will look at today’s Financial Times, which contains an interview with Mr Ed Balls on his new role. He says that the City of London must retain its light touch and risk-based regulatory regime. This is neither light touch nor risk-based; it is a complete red herring. I intend to finish off the Bill with a bang rather than a whimper and I beg leave to seek the opinion of the House. On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 96) shall be agreed to? *Their Lordships divided: Contents, 125; Not-Contents, 120. [*The Tellers for the Contents reported 125 votes; the Clerks recorded 126 names.]