Company Law Reform Bill [Lords]
9:00 am
Crispin Blunt (Whip, Whips; Reigate, Conservative)
I join the Minister in welcoming you to the Chair, Mr. Illsley. She was correct when she said that we might finish in time for the Sweden match, as it kicks off at 7 o’clock. I suspect that if we are still here shortly before 5 o’clock, even I would command a majority if I were to move that the Committee be adjourned.
This is one of those occasions when our primary duty as legislators is to work together to produce the best framework for our companies. There is broad agreement that company law needs to be recast. There is no disagreement on that in principle—indeed, there is significant agreement. The subject may be politically dull, but it is important. We are all charged with a precious responsibility to get the legislation right, because the prospects and living standards of all our citizens will be hampered if we do not get right the legal environment that affects our wealth creation. The Bill is immensely important.
The Bill had a lengthy gestation period. There has obviously been substantial consultation since the Department first started serious preparation of it as far back as 1998. However, it is only in Parliament that the arguments of the people who are being consulted about the Bill, the people whose interests are affected by it and the experts who have made contributions to all sides of the debate will be exposed to public discussion. It is only by examining the detail of the legislation that, in Committee here and in another place, we can expose the arguments put to the Department of Trade and Industry over a long period to determine how strong they are, particularly when the Government have rejected submissions that have been made to them. The Government are asking for trouble by introducing legislation that will become the largest Act to reach the statute book, as everyone anticipates it will, and by getting into detailed Committee consideration more than one year into the parliamentary Session—it is a year since this Parliament was formed—when there has been such substantial preparation time. It will be difficult for us to do the job that, as legislators, we are sent here primarily to do.
This is a 925-clause Bill. Some 181 amendments and 22 new clauses are tabled for consideration. I suspect that 22 new clauses will be multiplied by a factor of at least 22 to give us perhaps 400 new clauses to deal with the consolidation. At this stage, we do not know for sure, however, because the Government will table the consolidation measures in due course. They cannot produce them yet because they are drafting them and consulting on them. However, this programme motion provides for a finish date in Committee of 13 July. That is the principal problem.
With this Bill, programming as a way of doing our business as legislators reaches its nadir. With a Bill of this length, the 13 July finish date will not enable us to do our job properly, and we will have to examine the legislation with that handicap. We must make it clear to the people whose interests are affected by all 925 clauses that Her Majesty’s Opposition will not be able to examine significant aspects of the Bill in the detail that we would wish. We are being forced into a position whereby we will have to focus our attention on those aspects of the Bill which have attracted the most public controversy. Important elements deserving of proper consideration will not receive it because of the time constraints on us.
We will have to focus our efforts on specific aspects to meet our priorities for examination. We have had to produce a batting order for the things that we wish to examine. Sadly, we will reach perhaps only the top 11 in that batting order. At the moment it runs to 925, but no doubt it will be rather longer when we reach the end of our proceedings.
Although on Second Reading we can no longer debate programming because of a change in Standing Orders, the Secretary of State said:
“As I understand it—I may be wrong—the timetable was agreed through the usual channels, though they are not always foolproof.”—[Official Report, 2 June 2006; Vol. 447, c. 123.]
The usual channels never agree to timetables on any legislation. Her Majesty’s Opposition have a principled opposition to programming, and that goes for all legislation. The Government must expect Divisions on programme motions at any stage. We are in principle opposed to them imposing programme motions because they deny legislation the chance for proper consideration.
We agree that the Government are entitled to get their legislation. If it becomes clear in the course of proceedings on any legislation that obstruction or filibustering is likely to prevent that from happening, we accept, as we did when we were in government, that timetables might need to be applied. The fact that the Bill has been introduced in June and is likely to be the largest Bill ever makes our position extremely difficult. We shall oppose the programme motion. I refute the suggestion that it was in any sense agreed; it was not. It might be suggested that we sit for all hours of the night between now and 13 July to consider the Bill. The Government might decide that that is an appropriate way to proceed. I do not think that it is.
The Bill is technical and requires a lot of work and preparation. The Government are still doing a great deal of that and their civil servants are working away trying to meet their deadline of 13 July. We should have a proper chance to scrutinise the Bill in sensible time. That has been denied us by the Government and that is why we oppose the motion.