---

Companies Bill [Lords]

Reaching the Third Reading of this Bill has taken a long, long time. Right back in March 1998, the Government launched the company law review, as the Minister has said. There was then a good case for updating company law in this country. It is a case that has grown in the intervening years. Since then, we have had eight years to discuss the issues and two White Papers along the way. In another place Lord Hodgson opened the debate in Grand Committee by saying:"““A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single amendment.””—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 January 2006; Vol. 678, GC1.]" It is a view with which I wholeheartedly agree. I should like to return to the issue of the passage of the Bill shortly, but first I thank my colleagues in this House and another place who have worked extremely hard in the past year to improve the Bill. In another place, Lord Hodgson, Baroness Noakes and Lord Freeman made substantial improvements to it. In this House, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), who apologises that he has not been able to stay for this Third Reading debate, has done a marvellous job in keeping on top of the Bill’s more than 1,200 clauses and an even greater number of amendments. I should also like to thank our DTI Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), who has been utterly determined and masterly throughout this long process. We have also had the welcome assistance on the Front Bench of my hon. Friends the Members for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) and for Putney (Justine Greening), who have both worked so hard in Committee and on the Floor of the House. They have proved themselves to be professional and effective Members of Parliament. Conservative Members support most of the Bill and the loudest dissent, it has to be said, has come from Labour Back Benchers. There remain only a small number of issues on which we disagree with the Government. That is due in good part to the Government having conceded our point on a raft of concerns—a point to which I shall return later in acknowledgement of what the Minister said a few moments ago. In wrapping up this long process, I should like to spend a little time dealing with some of the most important issues. The question of directors’ duties has proved one of the most contentious as the Bill has proceeded and I would like to make our position clear and put a few points on the record. First, Conservatives agree with the ethos behind enlightened shareholder value, even though the Government have been unable—or perhaps unwilling—to provide a simple interpretation of what it actually means. We tabled a number of amendments to what will become section 173 because we did not believe that the clause as drafted represented the best statement of the enlightened shareholder value principle. Although the wording has, to be fair, improved, the central problem with the clause remains. It is broad, vague and unclear and is capable of being interpreted in many different ways. That may be something that Ministers have used to their advantage during the Bill’s passage. When addressing business audiences, Ministers have claimed that the clause is merely a restatement of the status quo, but when talking to campaign groups such as the Corporate Responsibility Coalition, they have emphasised how much the new approach will change things. The lack of certainty goes to the heart of the issue, as the House should aim to pass laws that are clear about what it is they are meant to do. We should reject laws that are worded in such a way as to make recourse to interpretation by the courts inevitable. Let me make another point clear. Our amendments have not been designed to make it easier for directors to ignore concerns about employee issues, social issues or the environment. My hon. Friends will know that we are calling on the Government to introduce a climate change Bill in the next Session. Such a Bill would contain concrete provisions on companies and their environmental impact. That is the sort of regulation that we Conservatives believe would work effectively. By contrast, the Government perhaps want to fob us off with the vague provisions of clause 173. It was Lord Eldon, then Lord Chancellor, who set down in 1817 one of the fundamental tenets of company law—that the courts should not"““be required on each Occasion to take the Management of every Playhouse and Brewhouse in the Kingdom.””" Since that time, the judiciary has been rightly reluctant to interfere with the internal management of companies. Lying behind Lord Eldon’s phrase is the principle that, so long as the directors of a company act in good faith, decisions will not be revisited by courts with the benefit of hindsight. I am afraid that the Government’s phrasing may well end up undermining that commendable principle. The second contentious issue relates to clause 22, which deals with entrenched provisions in a company’s articles. There are potentially two logically consistent positions that one can hold on this matter. The first was put forward by the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth), who said that full and irreversible entrenchment was desirable and that companies should have the right to create articles that can then never be changed. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman for reasons that I shall come on to in a few moments, but it is a logically consistent position to hold. The second possible approach is one of flexibility, reflecting the fact that businesses need to be able to respond to a changing marketplace or to changing purposes as a company’s scope and activities change. The changed circumstances that we will see in the future will mean that companies will have to change, but the people entrenching provisions in today’s companies are not able to foresee the changes that lie ahead. We should not allow the present shareholders to impose absolutely on future shareholders. Such fossilisation may entrench principles that are inferior and unsuitable for future circumstances. That is our position and it, too, is logically consistent. The Government’s position, on the other hand, is not logically consistent. They have argued, and continue to argue, that there may be value in allowing companies to entrench articles, but now they say that it should not be irreversible. In Committee, the Minister said that they do not want companies’ constitutions set in stone, but they have allowed the unreasonable requirement of unanimity to change provisions. What is really unacceptable is that the Government’s programming did not even give time for that issue to be debated at all on Report. Thirdly, we are concerned about directors’ conflicts of interest and that the tightening of what constitutes a conflict and, more important, how it is dealt with by a board will lead to experienced directors being unwilling to share their experience on other boards. Our fourth area of concern relates to the new derivative claims regime, which by broadening the scope for shareholder-inspired actions against directors could lead us to the US have-a-go litigation culture, with the associated risks of higher directors and officers insurance premiums and fewer people wishing to serve as a director. We must look at the implications of Sarbanes-Oxley, which are stifling small and medium-sized listed companies in the United States, and be sure not to repeat the same mistakes in the UK. Our fifth concern is the requirement to disclose institutional voting. That provision is one of a large number of clauses introduced by the Government at the end of Committee. No time was given to debate it in Committee, or to give it proper scrutiny. We support institutional investors voluntarily declaring how they voted with the shares they own. However, we feel that making it compulsory could be counter-productive. If such declarations mean extra costs, extra paperwork and intimidation from campaign groups, institutional shareholders are more likely not to bother voting at all with the shares they hold, which would not be good news for shareholder democracy. Our sixth area of contention—and Members will be relieved to hear, the last—concerns the business review. Here, too, the Government and others have misrepresented our position. We believe in and support the business review, and for the avoidance of doubt I shall explain why. Clause 423 refers to businesses reporting annually on"““trends and factors likely to affect the future development, performance and position of the company’s business””." That is eminently sensible. Investors will be pleased to see the provision enacted and will be able to make better investment decisions as a result of the extra information made available to them. The next paragraph in the clause requires reporting on environmental and social matters, along with issues relating to the company’s employees, and is also covered by the phrase:"““to the extent necessary for an understanding of the development, performance or position of the company’s business””." Again, that seems perfectly sensible from the point of view of investors and not over-burdensome from the point of view of quoted companies. Indeed, according to the Association of British Insurers all FTSE 100 companies were reporting at some level on social, ethical and environmental issues as long ago as 2003. British companies are leading the way. What is happening with voluntary reporting is good news. The business review will improve things by making companies that currently report nothing report something. Even greater levels of corporate disclosure will be commonplace in the next few years, through the voluntary actions of companies that increasingly recognise—as the Minister said earlier—the business benefits of openness and transparency. Companies I talk to broadly welcome the business review, as it gives them flexibility to refer to their social and environmental actions in their own way and in a way that is relevant to their business. However, there is just one small spanner in the works of the business review: the Government’s decision to table last Monday a new amendment on the subject. It is not as though they have not already tinkered enough with corporate reporting provisions. First, they consulted on an operating and financial review and then regulated for it. Then, last November, the Chancellor scrapped it without telling the Department of Trade and Industry. Nine weeks later, he U-turned again and agreed to consult on it again. Finally, in March, the Government formally scrapped it. Let us be clear: indecision on that issue helps no one and achieves nothing. Many British companies already lead the world in corporate social responsibility. They want to act decently and to be seen to be doing the right thing; yet, without consultation and without so much as a courtesy phone call, the Government slipped in amendment No. 821 at the last possible moment. The effect of the amendment will be significant and wide-ranging. Again, the proposed wording is broad, vague and unclear. Of course, the Government’s programme motion for Report ensured that Members did not even get a chance to debate it.