---

Companies Bill [Lords]

As we have in the Bill, not as phrased in the amendment. Amendments Nos. 419, 420 and 421 would put us in an odd position. Amendments Nos. 419 and 420 suggest that we are against regulation and legislation while the Conservatives are for it, whereas amendment No. 421 suggests that we are for it and they are against it. That shows the oddity of political decision making. We do not think it necessary to legislate in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. However, I am happy to ensure that his views about the combined code on corporate governance go to the Financial Reporting Council, which is responsible for ensuring that the code is in place. Amendment No. 421 is the Opposition’s fifth attempt to remove the provisions giving members the power to require an independent report on a poll. Let me address the key objections that Conservative Members have expressed before. I hope that they will, at this eleventh hour, accept what I say, which is still valid. First, they express concern about the impact of a delay between the meeting and the completion of the independent report on the poll. In my view, that is overstated. The report is not intended to delay company action arising from the meeting. It cannot in itself undo resolutions passed or rejected at a meeting—its purpose is to satisfy shareholders about the accuracy and integrity of the polling process. Secondly, Conservative Members question the sanction that the company could suffer if the report is unfavourable. The provisions are intended to deliver the greater transparency that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby seeks and to enhance shareholder engagement. The facility to challenge and to have an independent report provides a vehicle for openness. It allows shareholders to expose any problem in the company’s voting processes. It is not entirely fail-safe, but this level of accountability to shareholders should ensure proper practice in the exercise of polls. Thirdly, Conservative Members raise the regulatory and cost burdens. The provisions are entirely consistent with our deregulation and better regulation agenda. They empower shareholders with an additional tool by which to hold directors to account. The provisions apply only to quoted companies—around 1,300 or 1,400 in all. Shareholders of companies with good, transparent voting processes in place are less likely to ask for independent reports.