Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Margaret Hodge: I do not take that point, because any system would try to ensure that every shareholder has the right to engage in deliberations around resolutions that a company might take. Indirect shareholders, who may hold shares through pension funds or mechanisms such as personal equity plans, should have those rights, which is a point addressed elsewhere in the Bill. The extent to which their views will influence the ultimate decision of the company depends on the extent of their shareholding. We want to extend shareholder engagement, and it is important to do so through indirect shareholder engagement, particularly because more than half of shares are held indirectly.
The hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) first raised amendment No. 418 in Committee, and it would remove an element of flexibility for no good reason. We discussed whether notice could be given by phone rather than in writing, although I accept the point made by Conservative Members that notice needs to be provided to members of a resolution being tabled or of a meeting being held. We have taken that point, but the issue is flexibility.
Mr. Djanogly: I thank the Minister for taking the point, but how does she intend to deal with it?
Margaret Hodge: 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 Oppositions 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 meetingits 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 companys 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 companiesaround 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.
Mr. Djanogly: Has the Minister had any indication that these provisions will be used? Has anyone requested them?
Margaret Hodge: If they are not used, the objection to them will never become reality, but they remain a tool that could be used. The hon. Gentleman should accept the existence of this mechanism, which will ensure that the conduct of directors in pursuing issues is above board and in order. If it is not, shareholders can employ the mechanism, should they so desire, to ensure that they are properly dealt with. We have put this measure in place to ensure much better shareholder engagement in the processes of a company undertaking its business. I am rather surprised that Conservative Members feel that they have to come back to this time and again and at the final hurdle say, Actually, we do not think this provision is going to be used at all, so why are you putting it into the Bill? That is a rather weak argument against a measure that will ensure that shareholders have the rights that we wish them to have in engaging in a proper way. If those rights are ever challenged, they can take advantage of the provisions in this part of the Bill. I ask hon. Members to reject amendment No. 421.
The Government new clauses and amendments would deliver greater transparency, enhance shareholder engagement and ensure the realisation of the corporate governance objectives that we all support. If we want to encourage more shareholders to exercise their vote, we need to empower them with the necessary tools so that their vote counts.
I therefore urge hon. Members to accept the Government new clauses and amendments and reject the others.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
It being Seven oclock, Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [17 October].
Question, That new clause 14 be brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill, and that Government amendments Nos. 643 and 301 be made, put and agreed to.
Amendment proposed: No. 355, in clause 307, page 142, line 23 , at end insert
( ) Nothing in this Chapter affects a provision of a companys articles which provides for a resolution in writing executed by or on behalf of each member who would have been entitled to vote upon it if it had been proposed at a general meeting, or at a meeting of any class of members of the company, at which he
was present (whether such resolution consists of one instrument executed by or on behalf of each such member or of several instruments in the like form each executed by or on behalf of one or more such members) to be as effectual as if it had been passed at a general meeting, or at a meeting of any class of members of the company, duly convened and held. A resolution in writing passed in accordance with such a provision of the companys articles shall be treated as if it were a written resolution for the purposes of this Chapter.. [Mr. Djanogly.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:
Question, That Government amendments Nos. 443, 302, 348, 349, 444 to 446, 350 and 269 be made, put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker: Will hon. Members please leave the Chamber quietly?
Ian Stewart (Eccles) (Lab): I am pleased to have the opportunity to present a petition initiated by my constituent, Mrs. Maureen Dunleavy. My constituents do not want to stop the safe and legal riding of mini motos, but they want the dangerous and illegal riding of them to end. They do not want local residents to be at risk on pavements, or to be kept up late at night by the noise. They want the police to take firm action, using the powers that they already have, to curb the high-speed riders. I commend the petition of the people of Irlam and Cadishead, signed by more than 300 residents, to the House. It declares:
The Petition of the people of Irlam and Cadishead,
Declares that we, the undersigned, call for a change in the law whereby all off road bikes, including (mini motos, trial bikes, quad bikes, petrol scooters and go-peds) are registered with the DVLA and carry a visible licence plate.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Home Secretary to register such vehicles and require them to carry a visible licence plate
And the Petitions remain, etc.,
Mr. Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con):
I have the honour to present the petition of 6,222 of my constituents in Torridge and West Devon who fear that the withdrawal of the Post Office card account and the continuous erosion of the services that sub-post offices provide will destroy their viability as small
businesses. They plead with the Government for an enlightened recognition of both their social value to rural communities and the compelling case to preserve them. The petition reads:
That any decision not to renew the Government subsidy paid to the rural post office network and the withdrawal of the Post Office Card Account, when combined with the loss of other sources of revenue, may render the rural post office network unsustainable and force sub-post office branches to close.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House shall urge the Government to recognise the importance of Post Offices to those living in rural communities, to reconsider its decision neither to continue with nor to replace the Post Office Card Account, to undertake to support and sustain the Rural Post Office Network and to prevent the further closure of sub post office branches.
And your Petitioner(s), as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
Mr. Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): I have the honour to submit a petition on behalf of Mr. Stan White and some 200 other customers of the Rothwell post office, some of whose customers, including the sub-postmaster, were in the Houses of Parliament earlier today.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |