---

Companies Bill [HL]

My Lords, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, had to say on this subject. We ought to focus on the substance or merits of the amendment rather than complaints made about the behaviour of the Minister in another place or elsewhere over cups of tea. If I may say so, I took the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, on this matter as an uncharacteristic expression of irritation. The amendments tabled by the Government are entirely logical and consistent with the rest of Clause 399. The clause already provides, in a non-controversial sense, for the fact that the business review must contain, "““a fair review of the company’s business””" and "““a description of the principal risks and uncertainties facing the company””." The review is required to provide a balanced and comprehensive analysis of various things and the main trends and factors likely to affect the future development, performance and position of the company’s business. What is proposed here is entirely consistent with that logical structure; the idea that it would be possible or practical consistently with those provisions not to have the provisions that are being suggested strikes me as absurd. The matters it is now proposed should be incorporated are consistent with the philosophy that one finds elsewhere in that provision. The proposal for protecting the position of the individual in proposed subsection (11) is again logical and consistent. The proposed paragraph (c) is designed to require the production of the information from the individual. Proposed subsection (11) will protect that individual in the circumstances there described. The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, might already be covered by—or at least, in very large part—subsection (10) which is designed, albeit in different language, to protect the interests of the company rather than the individual.