---

Companies Bill [Lords]

Is not that the same question put by the hon. Member for Cambridge, which I have already answered? [Interruption.] I think that it is, but let me say it again. There are rarely claims for third parties, but if a creditor of some sort—including a depositor— can get recourse outside of the contract to limit liability, there is nothing in the provisions that will prevent them from doing so. They will be in no worse or better a position than they were before the change was introduced. The current position is that the requirements for publicity surrounding the entry into an agreement are as I have set out, but new clause 86 would force the company to send the proposal to all those—including private companies that had already decided to waive the need for approval—who receive the company’s accounts. It would also include venture holders as well as members. If the company wants to send the publicity to the venture holders, that is absolutely fine, but they are not part of the decision-making process and we see no good reason for forcing companies to send the proposals to them. Amendment No. 802 would constrain the regulations on disclosure that include filing the full agreement and all correspondence at Companies House within 21 days. As I have already explained to the hon. Member for Putney, the Department will consult on the best form of disclosure, seeking views on the balance between the need for transparency and the avoidance of unnecessary burdens. I would not like to pre-judge that consultation, but it strikes me that the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central lie towards the extreme wing of the argument. In our view, it is best left to regulation and we should not place such definitive proposals in the Bill.