On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have read in the newspapers this morning that two terrorist suspects restrained under the control order legislation have absconded—one of them some months ago. You will remember that the control order legislation was only passed, after the longest ever sitting of the House of Lords, when the Home Secretary gave an undertaking to report back on the operation and effectiveness of the legislation. Accordingly, quarterly statements are made to the House.

On 11 September, the statement from the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety said:

“There are 15 control orders currently in force, six of which are in respect of British nationals.”—[Official Report, 11 September 2006; Vol. 449, c. 122WS.]

It then outlined details of applications to modify those orders. There was no mention of a breach of orders, an escapee or a risk to the public. That statement may be true, but it is not the whole truth. Has the Home Secretary indicated to you, Mr. Speaker, whether he intends to come to the House to explain why such information was withheld?

Order. I am going to stop the right hon. Gentleman, because he put an urgent question before me, and for reasons that I do not have to give to the House, I refused that urgent question. But it appears to me that he is pursuing that urgent question on the Floor of the House. He is drawing the occupant of the Chair into this matter. He can table parliamentary questions and seek answers to these matters. I will say no more on this.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I am saying no more on the matter. I have given a ruling.

It is a slightly different point.

It needs to be a bit more than slightly different.

It is entirely different.

It has gone from “slightly” to “entirely”. I will hear it if it is entirely different.

You have just indicated, Mr. Speaker, that an urgent question was requested. You will know that I also requested an urgent question. My understanding was—I would appreciate your clarification on this—that Members who request urgent questions should not disclose that fact in the House. It may be that you have just changed that ruling, in which case I would very much like to know.

I have not changed the rule. If an hon. Member puts an urgent question before me and pursues the same question on a point of order, I am entitled to tell the House that the urgent question was refused. It would defy all logic to say otherwise. I will not allow hon. Members, even Front Benchers, to try to push a point of order when they tried to get an urgent question. By the way, as Speaker, I am always very generous about urgent questions, so when I refuse them, I have good reason to do so.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that and I am not criticising. I simply want to know whether Members like me who request urgent questions are entitled to say that fact in the House on appropriate occasions.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not supposed to say so in the House. But of course, it is more than an open secret when an application for an urgent question goes before me in the Speaker’s Office. Of course, it should not be mentioned on the Floor of the House, except—I give this ruling—where a right hon. or hon. Member tries to pursue something on a point of order that has been refused only a few hours earlier. In my view, that was the case here.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Gambling Act 2005 to allow for increased provision of casinos; and for connected purposes.

The Bill’s objectives are to amend the Gambling Act 2005 to allow a minimum of eight regional casinos, with the onus on the regeneration of key cities, as initially proposed by the Government. After the Act’s consideration in Committee, the Government introduced new clauses to set limits on the number of casinos. At that point, the number of regional casinos was set at eight, but as the Government faced opposition, that number was reduced to one. As a result, the national potential for jobs and investment will not be fully achieved.

The failure to recognise that loss of potential investment could result in the loss of about 22,000 possible jobs and an additional 17,000 support jobs. In total, the opportunity for 40,000 new jobs could have been lost, not to mention reductions in investment. The failure to support all the main regeneration schemes will have a negative effect and may put back regeneration programmes by about a decade. In total, the UK could lose the potential for more than £5 billion in investment, particularly in deprived areas.

In terms of protective legislation, the Secretary of State has addressed concerns regarding habitual gambling, stating that she does not think that casinos would increase problem gambling, and that she would prefer to close them if they did. In advance of the implementation of the relevant provisions of the Gambling Act 2005, and every two or three years thereafter, the Government intend to fund a national study that will measure the impact that any new casinos have on the surrounding areas and the issue of problem gambling. In addition, provision has been made in the Act to establish the Responsibility in Gambling Trust. The trust has been established on a voluntary basis to provide funding to support problem gamblers and their dependants.

The casino advisory panel’s criteria, as laid down by the Secretary of State, were to ensure that location satisfies need, for there to be the best possible test of social impact to include areas of need and regeneration, for consideration to be given to areas that are likely to benefit in those terms from a new casino, and to ensure that the areas selected were willing to license a new casino. The panel condensed the applications down to a shortlist of eight. On the shortlist were Blackpool, Wembley, Cardiff, Glasgow, Manchester, Newcastle and Sheffield. I believe that the Government should increase the numbers of casinos, as the decision that has been taken is not based on the best interests of areas that are in dire need.

Local authorities should not be fighting each other over restricted resources. Rather, the Government should allow a fair system of opportunity, and allow more than one area of need to benefit from regeneration, investment and jobs. The Government have hinted that legislation could be revisited, and that the permissible number of regional casino licences could be increased, given sufficient support from local authorities, MPs and the public. It should be remembered that the Government expect that a regional casino will be a major development, offering clear potential for regeneration, and providing not only a range of gambling activities, but also perhaps including hotel accommodation, conference facilities, restaurants, areas for live entertainment and other leisure attractions.

There is already a casino in Coventry that would meet the criteria, should the Government be willing to increase the numbers. In contrast to many other proposals, Coventry’s submission was based on an extensive independent assessment. Therefore, I propose that an amendment be made to the Act, increasing the number of regional casinos from one to a minimum of eight.

I rise to speak against the desire of the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) for there to be an amendment to this gambling legislation. I do so despite the fact that I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Gentleman, who is a neighbour and colleague in the west midlands, as I believe that he is profoundly wrong to think that his constituency would benefit from such a development. If I may say so to the hon. Gentleman, I also think that he is being used somewhat as a stalking horse by his Government, to test opinion in the House on whether there is an appetite to change what was set out by the Gambling Act 2005. The simple fact is that it is not necessary to have this proposed legislation, because the relevant provisions in the Act can be changed by statutory instrument, subject to a vote by all Members.

It might be helpful if I remind the House about how we got the Gambling Act 2005. When the Government introduced the original Bill, they intended to have a free-for-all on the development of casinos across the country, subject to demand as the operators saw that. As time passed, and as Members spoke out, along with other sections of society—including the Daily Mail, the Minister for Sport might be fond of remembering—it became clear that it would not be acceptable to have a major extension of such Las Vegas-style casinos across the United Kingdom. Given that a general election was imminent, the Government agreed to the idea that there should be only one regional casino, eight large casinos and eight small casinos, and that that would be the way that the measures would be proceeded with, unless the House decided otherwise through a statutory instrument such as that which I mentioned.

The Minister for Sport, who is in the Chamber, might remember that my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) asked him about the matter during Question Time just a week or so ago. The Minister said:

“The Conservatives decided to come back with the proposal of one regional casino, which we accepted because we wanted to get the Bill on to the statute book in order to protect the vulnerable in our society. That is where it now stops—at one regional casino—unless the hon. Gentleman says to the Government that the Conservatives want to change the proposal.”—[Official Report, 9 October 2006; Vol. 450, c. 11.]

I applaud the Minister’s remark to my hon. Friend, but although that represents the public face of the Government, their private face appears to be somewhat different. I suspect that the Secretary of State is much keener on a bigger free-for-all in casino development than the Minister is, at least in public. Following a meeting that took place between the Secretary of State and Coventry Members to petition her about a casino in Coventry, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) wrote on his website:

“It was a very positive meeting. She invited us to submit early day motions and a ten-minute bill asking for Coventry to be included on the shortlist, and also to get the Government to increase the number of super casino licences from one to eight.”

I, and other Conservative Members, reject wholesale the private view that the Government have expressed to Labour Members.

Of course, the Government would like the number of such casinos to be increased from one to eight, because they face the political problem of who the one licence should be given to. Technically, that should be a matter for the casino advisory panel, but we all know that Ministers have views on the issue.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Order. There are no interventions during speeches on a ten-minute Bill.

I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Speaker.

We found out that the Government had views on who they would like the licence to be awarded to when we heard about the Deputy Prime Minister’s visit to a ranch in Colorado owned by Mr. Philip Anschutz, who also happens to own the dome. Mr. Anschutz is determined to get a regional casino licence for the dome, but were such a licence to be granted, the Government would face the huge embarrassment of having to tell everyone else in the country that the development attached to that licence—such as it is—had gone to the most prosperous part of the United Kingdom, rather than another area.

I hope that the casino advisory panel—and the Government, for that matter—will give the one licence available to Blackpool. That would allow Blackpool to revive its tourism and enjoy the regeneration attached to the proposals that was described by the hon. Member for Coventry, South. The best case that has been put forward is for such a development to be in the Blackpool area.

I should warn the people of the Blackpool area that such a casino would involve significant moral hazards. One of the arguments that is often cited about the development of casinos is that we have insufficient exciting opportunities for betting and gaming in the United Kingdom today. I profoundly refute such a suggestion because there are ample opportunities for betting. We can bet at the races, in betting shops and on the internet. We can bet on national savings bonds, if we want to buy some. We can bet on the lottery. We can win more money than we ever thought that we would have, and lose more money than we would hope to do, by participating in activities that are available in the United Kingdom today. We do not need Las Vegas-style betting casinos, which offer a profoundly different form of gambling and are almost certainly bound to lead to a big increase in addictive gambling in the United Kingdom.

Hon. Members who have not seen such casinos should visit one for themselves. They are made up of huge complexes in which sheds upon sheds are filled with gaming machines. People put their coins in those machines and pull the levers in the hope that they will win the jackpot prize.

The machines are deliberately designed to encourage the player to believe that one more pull of the lever will win them the jackpot, but the owners of the machines have programmed them to pay out exactly the amount that the operator is prepared to lose. No gaming is involved; the machines are simply for money-making.

Gaming machines pose a significant moral hazard for our fellow countrymen, as was shown in the recent PricewaterhouseCoopers report, commissioned by Greenwich council to assess the implications of such developments in the Greenwich area. The report was leaked to the Evening Standard but it has not yet been published, because of its explosive contents. We are led to believe, however, that the report notes that groups such as young people, the poorly educated, pensioners and people who play on slot machines are at high risk and more likely to become addicts. I cannot believe that Labour Members are keen to see that happen in their constituencies.

The social costs of such developments include bankruptcy, suicide, illness and crime, which can involve money acquired from family, friends and employers under false pretences. Those are the moral hazards of the casino industry and the Government were right to proceed on the basis of a pilot project, by offering only one regional licence. It is right and proper that we assess the impact of that project before we proceed with a roll-out across the United Kingdom, whether it involves one, eight or 100 new casinos. We want to know about the implications before we go ahead with such a worrying social development, so I oppose the Bill.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

I beg to move,

That the Order of 6th June 2006 (Company Law Reform Bill [Lords] (Programme)) be varied as follows:

1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Order shall be omitted.

2. Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be completed in three days.

3. Proceedings on consideration shall be taken on each of those days as shown in the first column of the Table and in the order so shown.

4. Each part of those proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in relation to it in the second column of the Table.

5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 6.00 p.m. on the third day.

The motion increases the time allowed on Report and Third Reading from one day to three days. It also sets out an order of consideration and a time for conclusion of proceedings on various parts, which has been discussed through the usual channels to assist us in making the best use of the time. This protects time for Members to debate the areas regarded as most important, and allows time for scrutiny of other areas of the Bill.

We recognise that the Bill is long and complex, but there has been a high degree of collaboration with interested parties. The Bill has had the benefit of detailed scrutiny in another place and of 11 days in Committee. There is a strong consensus on a great deal of it.

Before the Minister concludes her remarks, will she confirm that the Government are introducing 1,000 new amendments to the Bill at this late stage?

No, we are not introducing 1,000 new amendments. [Hon. Members: “How many?”] We are introducing six hundred and—[Hon. Members: “The Minister does not know.”] It is not a matter of not knowing. It is a matter of looking at what those amendments seek to do.

If Opposition Members wish to spend the valuable time that we have to scrutinise the Bill on a programme motion, so be it. I draw their attention to the fact that the longer we spend on the programme motion, the less time we have to discuss the meat of the Bill, which people outside would expect us to do. We are attempting to get the framework of company law right for the next generation. On that basis, and in the hope that we can save time on this part of the proceedings, I commend the programme motion to the House.

The House has just heard a highly inadequate justification for a programme motion that curtails debate on a massive piece of legislation. We are about to move on to consideration of the largest Bill ever to come before Parliament. I believe I am right in saying that this is the biggest Bill in parliamentary history. Indeed, some people have estimated that if all the documents relating to the Bill, its amendments, its explanatory notes and its reprinted papers were put in a pile, the pile would be even taller than I am, and perhaps even taller than my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski).

The Bill has been eight years in preparation and has undergone significant changes already during its parliamentary study, before we come to consider 100 proposed new clauses and—perhaps the Minister can remember this figure—836 amendments, not to mention three new schedules. The vast majority of these are being proposed by the Government.

Despite the eight years of preparation, and the fact that the parliamentary Session began back in May last year, this enormous Bill did not receive a Second Reading in another place until 11 January this year. Unsurprisingly, it took their lordships nearly six months to complete their consideration of it. They did that in a thorough and expert way and did their best to consider the Bill, as Parliament should, clause by clause, line by line and argument by argument. The Bill received its Second Reading on the third sitting day after the House received it from another place and duly proceeded to Committee. The Bill, which was already enormous when it left another place, was then made into a parliamentary leviathan by the Government’s late but none the less welcome acceptance of the argument that it should be a consolidation measure and should replace the whole of the Companies Act 1985. The Opposition welcomed that decision, but we consistently urged the Government to enable us to do our duty as legislators on the detail of the Bill in Committee, and asked them to take the summer recess as additional time to get the generally uncontentious consolidation measures right and allow the Committee stage to extend into October.

My hon. Friend has made it plain that the Opposition will be perfectly willing to assist the Government if they give us sufficient time. Does he agree that a carry-over motion might be appropriate, as in the case of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill of last week?

That option is definitely available to the House, but I doubt whether I will persuade the Minister to entertain it, because instead the Government insisted on the Committee stage finishing in July, and Standing Committee D was not able to examine any of the consolidation measures that were passed without debate at the end of the Committee stage, as the programme motion required.

As a consequence, we estimate that, during the next three days, the House is being invited to consider about 200 amendments to amendments that the Committee was not able to consider in July, but which have since turned out to be defective in some way. Those amendments to amendments, together with the hundreds of other new amendments and 88 new clauses, were tabled only last week. That has inevitably placed the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen in some difficulties, even with the assistance of their advisers— and even with the best will in the world, it is simply beyond the capacity of any Back Bencher to have any sensible appreciation of the scale of what is being attempted.

I am sorry to intrude on my hon. Friend again, but he has spoken of the problems experienced by his advisers and himself. Would he also confirm that one of the consequences of so many amendments being tabled last week is that the outside interest groups do not have an adequate opportunity to make representations to the House?

My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. Perhaps I can just pay credit to those on the Opposition Front Bench, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), and those who have slaved away with him for the best part of a year on the Bill. No sooner have they climbed the mountain and reached the summit than the Minister gives us yet another mountain to climb. Unbelievably, a further 24 new amendments have been tabled only today. Not only are some of these politically sensitive, but we did not even have so much as a courtesy call from the Government to say that they had been tabled.

In trying to put some order around the vast array of amendments that the House is being invited to consider, you, Mr. Speaker, have identified nine separate debates for today, 12 separate debates for Wednesday, and under the programme motion presented by the Government, 31 debates on Thursday. Proceedings on Report on Thursday will be further curtailed by the weekly business statement and by the Third Reading debate, which I understand is due to commence at 4 o’clock. That means that each subject identified by you under the rules of the House, let alone individual amendments, will have less than seven minutes for the Government to explain the case for their amendments, for the Opposition then to raise their concerns and for the Government to reply, let alone leaving any time at all for Back Benchers to make a contribution—and that is only if there are no Divisions, which would eat into the time available.

There is simply no way that the House has been or will be able to discharge its duty to exercise proper scrutiny over this enormous piece of legislation. We contend that the way in which the Government have managed and programmed the Bill during its progress through the House has further undermined the reputation of the House of Commons in its role as scrutineer of legislation.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No.

On the basis of the evidence, we ask the House to reject the programme motion and make it clear that the Bill’s management has been highly unsatisfactory, to request the Government to learn from the experience of the Bill, and to invite them to provide a better opportunity for the House to undertake its primary responsibility as legislator.

I sympathise with what the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) has just said. The real problem is not just the amount of time allowed on Report, given all the new amendments and new clauses, but more importantly, the timing of this stage of the Bill. As the hon. Gentleman said, Opposition Members have had only a short time to digest, understand and consider the various late amendments.

However, most of the problems go back to a decision, which unfortunately seemed to have had universal consent, at least in all parts of the other place, to bring into the Bill’s scope a massive consolidation exercise, including hundreds of new clauses from existing company law. This Bill was originally called the Company Law Reform Bill, and its intention was to reform parts of company law. It is now called the Companies Bill, thanks to an interesting vote in Committee, which the Government managed to lose—technically it was a free vote on their side. The Bill is now a general Companies Bill. It tries to consolidate the whole of the existing law, and it is that specific decision which has led to the various difficulties.

The Government have been courteous and helpful to Liberal Democrat Members in making sure that there is enough room to debate the topics that we want to debate. Given how much is going on in the Bill, however, the fundamental problem is that there is not enough time for debate, because at this time of year there is not enough time to allow additional days for discussion. We are in a very difficult position, which was entirely foreseeable when all sides decided to change the Bill from a reform Bill into a consolidation Bill. As it stands, the programme motion is not adequate.

I must preface my remarks by saying that I will, of course, vote with the Government on the programme motion. Having been absent from so many votes owing to illness, I want to burnish my record of loyalty and show just how grovelling and subservient I can be.

This is a fairly shocking way to proceed, because we do not have time adequately to consider the Bill and the amendments. The Bill is based on a series of concessions to the vested interests in the field, which is the antithesis of what we should be doing. We should learn from America, where running a company has become a matter of engaging in financial manipulation to enhance the share price, which enhances the income of the people at the top through share options and pay schemes. Those dodges are being used both here and in the United States, and such practices led to the collapse of Enron and many prosecutions by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which is now, as they say in the United States, “seeing the perps walk”. We should be countering those practices, which brought about the collapse of huge American companies and which are all practised here. We should also combat the trend towards excessive rewards, and collusion between auditors and people who run companies to enhance profits, share prices and returns to shareholders and directors.

Order. The hon. Gentleman is putting a case for or against the Bill—I do not know which—but we are concentrating on the programme motion.

You are, of course, right, Mr. Speaker. I am expressing my pent-up feelings, which would have come out earlier.

The Government have clearly claimed their prerogative to amend the Bill, because they have tabled more than 800 afterthoughts. If the Government are rethinking at this stage, it indicates that the thinking process at an earlier stage was not satisfactory: we are effectively dealing with a new Bill. The strongest critics of the Bill were not members of the Standing Committee, so they were unable to table amendments in Committee. The Bill has not been given the intense scrutiny that it needs.

The Bill is effectively a new Bill, because there are so many amendments. My head bursts when I read through the amendments. Some hon. Members are accountants and auditors, and they cluck appreciatively when they read such amendments, but my head is strained by trying to digest them. If I were to read out the amendments, it would take three days. There is just not time for us to deal with all the inherent complexities and all the changes that need to be made from any point of view that is either critical of the way in which companies are run or deferential to the vested interests that deal with those companies.

We need more time if we are to produce a Bill that will endure. After all, the Government have had nine years in which to introduce this Bill. A new companies Act was necessary to change the balance when we first came to office. Now, after nine years of gestation, we have a Bill that requires, at this very late stage, 800 amendments that there will be no time to consider. I have tabled, with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Jim Cousins), several amendments of genius that I would want to discuss in full. Some have been selected, mercifully, while some have not, but there are serious issues to discuss in relation to each one. Having read the selection list, I find that all my amendments are crammed into Thursday, when we have about 36 groups to deal with. Thursday is going to be hell on the basis of this timetable. I plead for more time, while affirming my deference to our Front Bench and to the purposes of this Government whom I so loyalty support.

I very much support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), by the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth), and by my relatively close neighbour, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). What we are doing is profoundly unsatisfactory. This House faces a very large number of amendments, new clauses and new schedules, many of which were tabled very recently within the past few days. There is no point in the Minister’s shaking her head in a despairing way; we are despairing of the conduct of Government Front Benchers. The fact that these amendments—hundreds of them—were tabled but two or three days ago means that right hon. and hon. Members cannot form a view as to their merits. Worse than that, neither can the outside interest groups that would wish to make representations to this House. That is wholly wrong.

The other point to keep in mind is that this Report stage is the first occasion on which the House as a whole, as distinct from the Committee, can consider the detail of the Bill. The effect of a timetabling motion of this kind is to preclude the House from doing so. Because of the way in which the knives will fall, a whole range of important issues will not be addressed or examined, far less voted upon.

We are doing this far too often, and there are examples of the chaos that results. I often have to handle the Criminal Justice Act 2003 in the courts, as does my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). We know full well that the timetabling motions with regard to that Act produced one of the worst criminal justice Acts that the courts have ever had to deal with. We are now doing the same thing, but in this case it is worse because we have not only a new Bill but the new companies legislation incorporated into it.

The point that my hon. and learned Friend is making in expressing the criticism that the Government should face is underlined and made all the worse by virtue of the fact that the Bill is largely politically uncontroversial in seeking to bring up to date, consolidate and modernise the law governing corporations, yet the Government say that they are in a tremendous hurry and must allow it go through at an accelerated pace, probably because of their own incompetence.

I agree entirely with my hon. and learned Friend. His comments lead to another point: we could use the carry-over procedure. The Bill is important, so let us use the carry-over procedure. We were willing to use it for the Corporate Manslaughter Bill last week. The measure that we are considering is as difficult, if not more so. Let us take time over it.

I introduced many Bills when I was a Minister. I suppose that I handled six, seven, eight or nine Bills on the Floor of the House or in Committee. I am therefore well versed in their conduct. As hon. Members know, I am not an especially modest man, but they will accept that it was my considered view that a Minister had to master the detail of a Bill as well as any official; otherwise, the Minister cannot overrule the officials or set policy. Ministers cannot handle Bills that are much more than 30 clauses to that standard of excellence. Bills that are much longer need teams of Ministers to deal with them.

It is inevitable that Ministers will not understand what they are doing when measures are the size of the Companies Bill. They are thus wholly in the hands of their officials. That is not a proper exercise. Moreover, it makes timetabling even more inappropriate. Any honest and sensible Member knows full well that it is a disgrace and that we are not doing our duty, and will vote against this timetable motion, as against many others.

I am now looking at the Conservative Whip. When we get into office, he and the Front-Bench team will find people such as me unwilling to support timetable motions. The Conservative party, when in office, had better not ask people like me to vote for such motions because, in general, we will vote against them.

In principle I support the Bill, which is well conceived, and I disagree with the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) about consolidation. It is a good thing that we have turned the measure into a proper, new Companies Bill—potentially an Act. Producing a long Company Law Reform Bill alongside the Companies Act 1985 would constitute a bad day’s work by Parliament.

The Bill’s gestation period was long. We said that there should be consolidation four years before the Committee proceedings started. The Opposition have therefore long held their view on consolidation.

Indeed. The matter is bipartisan, not tripartisan, because the Liberal Democrats do not appear to agree with consolidation.

I did not mean to say that I was against consolidation. I intended to convey that the difficulties that we are experiencing with the timetable are a consequence of the decision made by all parties to go for consolidation. Although consolidation is a long-standing idea, the decision to go for it was made only this summer.

I may have drawn the wrong conclusion from the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, in which case I am happy to apologise and acknowledge that perhaps—although he has not said so explicitly—he is in favour of consolidation. I repeat that consolidation is sensible.

However, this afternoon’s proceedings are a sad and worrying example of what is wrong with Parliament and the way in which the legislative process has been eroded. The Executive branch has achieved a dominance in our constitution that has unbalanced what used to be a fine constitution. That is deeply worrying. I greatly object to the Minister for Industry and the Regions telling hon. Members that if we objected to timetabling we would lose time for discussion of the Bill. That is arrogant because it shows the Government automatically assuming that they have a majority. It also means that the notion of timetabling includes an element of blackmail. The House is constantly told, “You mustn’t object, speak your mind or ask for more time because if you do, you’ll get even less time for debating the Bill.” That is wrong.

Even worse, the Minister said that the Bill had already been the subject of considerable scrutiny in another place. It is true that the other place spent six months or so on the measure and did a fine job. The other place contains people of great distinction and often technical expertise, whose deliberations are extremely useful to us when we take a Bill from the Lords. The fact remains, however, that the other place consists almost entirely, apart from some hereditaries, of nominated Members—people who have no democratic mandate whatever. The role of the House of Lords as an additional stage in the process is one thing, but the idea that it can replace the House of Commons and that, if a Bill has received a certain amount of consideration in the other place, it requires no more than perfunctory consideration from ourselves, is deeply offensive. It is against the democratic idea that legislation should be undertaken by elected representatives who are directly responsible to those who sent them to the legislature.

The Minister seems to have forgotten some of what were always essential foundations of our political system. The Bill is a sad example of a malaise, which, I am afraid, has been getting worse for many years. Often, there is no one dramatic moment when everyone focuses on what has happened—but, suddenly, after a few years, we turn around and realise that the fundamental balance of the constitution has been eroded and lost.

The Minister today gave a particularly bad example of the Government taking its large majority for granted. She has added insult to injury by producing all these amendments at the last moment. What she is telling the House and the country is that the bureaucracy is instructed that even if the Committee stage ends in July, it has two or three months to do any necessary work deriving from the Committee stage and to produce further consequential amendments. It does not need to bother to introduce those until 24 hours before the parliamentary process begins, because the stupid politicians will have no time to spend on them anyway, and they will be rolled over by a large majority. The parliamentary process has therefore become just a decorative aspect of the constitution—a time-consuming and rather trying formality that is really just a rubber stamp for what has been agreed in Whitehall.

By behaving in that fashion, the Minister has dramatically demonstrated the extent of the contempt for Parliament in Whitehall and in sections of the Government. That is deeply upsetting. We may be defeated in a few minutes, and we may be able to do nothing about it for the moment. Certainly, however, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said, the next Government must change that. I can think of few other examples of serious problems in our country that so urgently need to be addressed by a change of Government.

I agree wholeheartedly with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies). As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said, a Bill as big as this—it is bigger than the Leicestershire telephone book—[Interruption] It is also bigger than the Rutland telephone book. I shall not go into the other variations. My right hon. and learned Friend was entirely right that a Bill of this size needs a team of Ministers to achieve mastery of it. Perhaps what upset me most was the attitude that the Minister displayed to the House when she moved this short motion, as she did not have mastery of that, let alone of the content of the Bill. She did not even know how many schedules and amendments we would have to discuss in little eight-minute sections. Of course, there are many of these topics for which we will even have an eight-minute section.

The Government do not care. After nine years of this appalling Administration, we are all used to their incompetence, intellectual dishonesty and political shenanigans. What we cannot tolerate, however, and what I find so offensive, is the smugness with which they overlay their incompetence, stupidity and political and intellectual dishonesty. If the Minister thinks that it is appropriate for her, as a Minister of the Crown, to defend her Government’s policy and to explain the detail of the Bill in the way that she just has, she ought to be ashamed of herself and of her Government.

This Bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before this or possibly any other Parliament, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), the shadow Secretary of State, said. The Government’s treatment of it is offensive—to me as an individual, although my personal feelings do not matter, but also to Parliament and, more importantly, to the people who sent us here. Their approach speaks volumes about their attitude to the electorate and to good governance. The sooner we get rid of this lot, the better—[Interruption.] My words appear witty and amusing to the hon. Member for Burnley (Kitty Ussher), the Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, who clearly likes to poke fun at people like me. I must seem an easy joke as I stand here in my pinstriped suit and make remarks about the Government’s conduct. However, I am concerned about the calibre of the Government and of this Bill, and about the attitude displayed by the Minister and her hon. Friends to the people of this country. I warn them that they ignore our people at their peril, as the electorate will grab the Government firmly by the throat and remove them from office.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that we who practise in the law know that people will say subsequently that it was a disgrace that a Bill such as this was not discussed properly by this House?

I do not want to embarrass the Minister, but I understand that she is quite close to people who know a little about the law. I hope that she is sometimes advised at breakfast in a way that she finds more acceptable than is the case this afternoon. Frankly, this is not a motion that this House should ever entertain.

I am the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on corporate governance, which has taken a considerable interest in the Bill, for obvious reasons. Some of the largest corporate entities in the country are represented on the group. Many have made representations about the Bill during its passage through the House, and they are horrified by the proposals in the programme motion. The Minister’s predecessor handled this brief for four years, but she has not had the same benefit and I fear that she will have difficulty in coping with the Bill’s ramifications. Before she puts the motion to a vote, she should consider whether she wants to embarrass herself and her Government in front of corporate Britain plc.

I served on the Standing Committee considering this Bill, and wish to put on the record my concern that it has not been properly managed or discussed, even though it has been before Parliament for some eight years. It is certainly true that not enough time was spent on it in Committee, and it is regrettable that the Government chose to end those proceedings in July rather than carry them over from the summer, which is what the Bill deserved.

As has been stated, this is the largest Bill ever to go through Parliament. Its consequences are far reaching, affecting the very lifeblood of our economy. It is therefore especially regrettable that the Government should introduce almost 1,000 new amendments and a huge number of new clauses when, once again, the time available for debate is very limited.

The Government’s abuse of power has also been referred to, and that is the right term in this context. The Minister is abusing her power, and she demeans herself and her office by treating the Bill in this cavalier fashion. More importantly, she also treats with contempt the people who will be affected by the Bill—the mainstream public and the businesses that run the economy. The Government amendments and new clauses are detailed and specific. If we do not consider them properly, we risk producing shoddy legislation that will have a negative impact on the business community and on the public at large.

This Bill is a consolidation measure and comes some 20 years after the Companies Act 1985. However, it does not take into adequate consideration the fact that the global business environment has changed considerably. Business is now compelled to take into account environmental issues and the protection of data, as well as a huge number of other issues that simply did not exist in 1985. Again, we fail in our duty by failing to consider all those issues properly, in the context not only of Britain and the European Union, but of worldwide business.

Sadly, the Government’s not allowing enough time today, tomorrow and on Friday—or, indeed, in previous years—to debate these issues will result in the sad consequence that we shall do a disservice to the business community. In failing properly to scrutinise the Bill, we also fail in our duty to the House and to the country.

I can well understand why the Government have tabled this motion: it has become a habit for them to assume that Parliament need no longer scrutinise legislation. The second reason why I understand this was also given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg)—that Ministers are not masters of their briefs on such an extensive Bill as this.

The House recognises the importance of this legislation, as we have heard from hon. Members on both sides. We recognise that it is a landmark. It is a consolidation measure, but it also covers new ground. The Government have tabled almost 1,000 amendments, and no doubt the Minister will have taken advice from her civil servants on what will actually be constituted by the proposed changes. However, the Government will not allow the House to find a rhythm for the consideration of a landmark piece of legislation that will guide company law. It will directly affect those who run companies, as well as those who are employed by them. It is a major ethical statement of what we regard as appropriate law. That the Minister has come forward with a timetable motion such as this shows a contempt for the House and a failure to understand the central importance of the authority of Parliament.

I am terrified that a misjudged clause in the Bill could have ramifications right across the business community. That is why Ministers should listen carefully to the people who represent businesses and to those who work in them. They should give consideration to sensible proposals such as that to allow carry-over in these circumstances, so as to permit proper consideration of these matters and to give the Opposition and other Members with opinions the opportunity to comment. As is my tradition, I shall oppose all guillotine motions whenever I am able to do so. This motion traduces the proper purpose of the House.

I have to say to Opposition Members that, by starting the proceedings on Report and Third Reading of this historic Bill by opposing the programme motion, they are playing a very poor political game. They are effectively trying to score a questionable political point at the expense of spending time allotted by the House to the serious and considered scrutiny of the Bill. Indeed, I put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is the knockabout politics that the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) is trying to prevent. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) has shown himself to be an old Tory by the way in which he has approached this debate.

Will the Minister give way?

No.

The Bill has been developed in a unique way. We have ensured the full involvement of all the interested parties throughout the process.

Will the Minister give way?

No.

We have sought and achieved a high degree of consensus on the overwhelming majority of the clauses in the Bill. We have—for those who bothered to turn up—approached the parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill in a very co-operative spirit, and been more than ready to listen to suggestions—

rose—

Order. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that I do not think that the right hon. Lady is going to give way. I felt that it was right, in view of the criticisms that have been made in several quarters, that she should be given ample time to reply to the debate.

If I have time, I will give way to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies).

The hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara) said that he was concerned that there had not been sufficient scrutiny of the Bill. He was so concerned that, one morning in Committee, only the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) was present to defend the Tory line, and there was no scrutiny whatever by any other member of the Committee. When we started to discuss important issues to do with the takeover panel, I was impressed by the ability of the hon. Member for Huntingdon to talk for more than two hours—in fact, he talked the sitting out—without saying anything to purpose. [Interruption.] Opposition Members do not like being brought to account.

rose—

I am sure that those outside the House who hope that there will be considered scrutiny of the Bill—

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that it is the practice of the House, and good manners, that a Minister who launches an attack on an hon. Member gives way to them, so that they can respond

That is not a point of order for the Chair, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise. It is possible that the Minister might yet give way at some stage to the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, but it is up to her.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had intended to give way to the hon. Member for Huntingdon when I finished the point. He will remember that he spent an entire morning—two and a half hours—talking out a Committee sitting, to absolutely no purpose, just when we were about to discuss the takeover panel. I am sure that those outside the House who hoped for considered scrutiny of the Bill by Her Majesty’s Opposition will have been as impressed by his tactics as I was.

I thank the Minister for giving way. The reason why I spoke for two hours on the takeover panel is that it is an important aspect of corporate life in this country, but perhaps she fails to appreciate that. We needed to speak about it. She mentioned the number of people in Committee, but I must remind her that it was during Committee that, for the first time in history, the Opposition defeated a programme motion because the Minister could not get her own people there.

The record will speak for itself. Those who were present when we considered the takeover panel will recognise that the hon. Gentleman was doing no less than filibustering, rather than focusing on providing proper scrutiny of the Bill by Her Majesty’s Opposition. As for why so many amendments have been tabled this afternoon, I was correct in thinking that there were about 600 of them—there are 655 Government amendments. The other amendments were tabled by members of the Opposition and have been discussed not once or twice, but probably three, four or five times during proceedings on the Bill in this House. The reason for the 600 Government amendments is twofold. First, we all agreed that consolidation would take place, and many of the amendments simply put in place correct cross-references and make the changes required to follow them through. Secondly, we have listened to representations from Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members, and so have come back to the Chamber with other propositions.

We have wasted enough time on process. Let us now get on with the business of the House and let us give proper consideration to an historic Bill that requires Members on both sides to take the matter seriously. I hope that Members of all parties will now support—

It being forty-five minutes after commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(8).

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I inform you that, today, the Ministry of Defence published an extremely important document, “Defence Technology Strategy”, which follows from “Defence Industrial Strategy”, published last December? The new document sets out some of the key technology capabilities that it is believed we must maintain in the United Kingdom.

I must report to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have spoken to the Secretary of State for Defence within the past few moments. He assures me that copies have been sent to the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence and to the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey). None of them has received the documents, yet those in industry have copies on their desks. I understand that the media have them, so it is parliamentarians who do not have copies, save for one copy of a 200-page document in the Library. Mr. Speaker regards it as being very important that Ministers report adequately to the House.

Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, refer this matter to Mr. Speaker? Without this document, we simply cannot hold the Government to account. The press will respond to the document today, and if we do not have adequate advance knowledge of it, it is very difficult for us to participate in the debate. The Government get just one bite of the cherry, and we get none. Could you please take up this issue with Mr. Speaker? It is a grave discourtesy to the House.

The hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity to put this matter on the record, and I am sure that it will be noted by Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman probably supplied the answer to his concern in his remarks. Mr. Speaker has indeed made it clear that he expects hon. Members to have as much early notice as is possible of matters of importance in the form of publications or whatever. Certainly, Mr. Speaker will be concerned that some problem arose with the dispatch of these documents and that parliamentarians did not have what others outside the House had. I am sure that Mr. Speaker will take note of that fact. However, there is indeed a copy in the Library at the moment.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 2, in page 79, line 1, leave out clause 173.

No. 392, in page 79, line 2, clause 173, after ‘faith’, insert

‘and as appropriate for the size of the company’.

No. 393, line 4, leave out from ‘whole’ to end of line and insert

‘having regard, insofar as he considers them relevant, to the following factors (amongst others)—’.

No. 394, line 4, after ‘to’, insert

‘what he considers, in good faith, to be’.

No. 395, line 13, at end insert ‘, and

(g) all common law duties of directors.’.

No. 396, line 20, at end insert—

‘(4) None of the duties set out in or implied by this section shall take priority over any of the other duties.’.

No. 397, line 20, at end insert—

‘(4) The duty to promote the success of the company shall be paramount.’.

No. 398, line 20, at end insert—

‘(4) The Secretary of State must issue a non-statutory set of guidelines concerning the application of this section, which must be updated annually.’.

No. 788, line 20, at end insert—

‘(4) The duties implied by this section shall not apply to small and medium sized companies.’.

I am relieved that, at last, we can get on to the matters of substance in which many members of the public are interested, and I should have thought that many hon. Members are concerned about them, too. I hope that we shall do so with some of the tolerance, good humour and dignity that we experienced in Committee but which we did not experience during the debate on the programme motion.

It is a little daunting to open the batting on a 1,264 clause Bill. However, thankfully, I wish to speak only to new clause 4 and amendment No. 2—the consequential amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Sarah McCarthy-Fry) and me.

The House will be aware that directors’ duties have attracted a great deal of attention outside Parliament and, consequently and quite rightly, were subject to detailed and lengthy scrutiny in Committee. I am given to understand that the public response to the issue has been one of the largest of all time. The office of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and the Regions has been inundated by the cards generated by the Corporate Responsibility Coalition and the Trade Justice Movement. I congratulate those two umbrella organisations on their campaign, and I thank the many members of the public who have flagged up their views, both to the Department and to individual Members of Parliament around the country.

My hon. Friend raises issues that are of huge concern to many hundreds of thousands of people outside this House. Does he therefore share my concern that, following an acrimonious debate on the programme motion, only one Conservative Back Bencher has chosen to be present for this debate on one of the Bill’s key issues?

That is entirely up to the official Opposition, as my right hon. Friend knows.

I was reflecting on the fact that there is a great deal of interest in these matters outside this place. Therefore, although we should not judge the quality of an issue on the size of the postbag on it, it is right that we recognise the scale of interest and concern and reflect that on the Floor of the House on Report, as we did in Committee.

I therefore reiterate my welcome for the progress that the Government have made—which is widely supported elsewhere—in respect of this first ever statement in statute that company directors, in fulfilling their primary duty to promote the interests

“of the company for the benefit of its members”

should have regard to the six factors listed in clause 173 and new clause 4. Those factors include

“the interests of the company’s employees”

and

“the impact of the company’s operations on the community and the environment”.

That is the first ever codification, and placement in statute, of duties around the concept of corporate social responsibility. That is, indeed, progress.

It would be remiss of us, however, not to take this opportunity on Report to seek to ensure that what we end up with is the best outcome—one that is pro-business and at the same time socially and environmentally responsible. New clause 4 follows clause 173 closely, but substitutes “have regard…to” with “must endeavour to”. The reason for that is clear. An examination of the “Shorter Oxford English Dictionary” reveals that “endeavour” means

“To exert oneself…To try”

or

“make an effort for a specified object; to attempt strenuously”

to do something. On the other hand, to have regard to something is to give attention or consideration to it. Whereas “have regard…to” is a subjective test—a director can say that he or she has thought about the six secondary duties listed in clause 173 and new clause 4, and may or may not have done more about them—“must endeavour to” is an objective test, requiring some evidence of having sought to abide by those duties before deciding whether it was in the best interests of the company so to do.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I note that he said that the clause is pro-business. Given the changing environment and the concern about environmental issues in this country, does he agree that good businesses will look to be responsible in any event, because they must move with the times or else they will not survive in the new century?

That is an important point, and good businesses do approach such matters in that way. What we are trying to create through the Bill, perhaps as amended, is a level playing field to ensure that they are not disadvantaged for giving emphasis to these important matters.

I emphasise that what I am proposing would not change the current position that the overriding duty is to promote the success of the company, but it places the six duties that articulate the essence of enlightened shareholder value at the heart of company law, which has never been the case before. The measure would thus place those desirable objectives firmly on the agenda. I am not convinced that merely having regard to them would suffice, but we shall see.

Being positive about the duties is a pro-business position that helps to create a level playing field underpinning the good practice to which the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) referred. There is much good practice around, so why not support it in company law? Good companies already do many of the things listed in clause 173, so if those duties are set out in law, and especially if they are strengthened as proposed in new clause 4, it will encourage directors to be proactive, rather than passive, about the long-term impact of their business operations on employees, communities, suppliers and the environment. That would support directors who provide the leadership to take such a route, and why should that not be so? Who would not want it to be so? I suggest that they would be the directors who are irresponsible, short-sighted and too lacking in imagination to see the business case for a more progressive approach.

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that businesses are worried that if they are to be able to show that they have taken notice of the items, they will have to set up processes, introduce new sorts of board minutes and effectively go through all the individual requirements, which will lead to more box ticking and administration.

Several of the objectives, such as looking after the environment and caring about one’s employees, are issues that all good companies would have no difficulty in addressing. Those that experience such difficulty should be put in a position in which it is unacceptable for them to continue in such a way. Of course, it will be argued that any demand generates time and bureaucracy, but there must be a balance. Some companies already do what is proposed, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and they do not make arguments about ticking boxes and excess bureaucracy. There will obviously be some consequences if we take that route, but there will be hidden and unrecognised costs if we do not do so.

I am keen that companies should do their bit for the environment, but can the hon. Gentleman explain what the provision about the environment adds to the big body of environmental legislation and regulation that companies rightly have to observe at present?

Indeed, British companies have to obey British law. The provision would put the obligation at the centre of company law, where it would be firmly on the agenda. It would also apply to the behaviour of British companies in their overseas operations, as British statute law does not.

I want to touch on the criticism that the new clause would lead to conflict between the different duties. That is certainly not the intention of the proposal, nor would that be its effect. The primary duty remains clear; were there any conflict the directors have the means to resolve it in the normal way, as at present. There is no change in the current situation or as it is envisaged in the Bill, so I do not agree with the criticism.

It has been suggested that the new clause represents a pluralist approach to corporate social responsibility. That is absolutely not the case. A pluralist approach would allow the interests of all the company’s stakeholders—its employees, the wider community, local residents and consumers—to be given the same priority as the interests of shareholders. It is true that such a situation is a desired long-term objective of CORE—the Corporate Responsibility Coalition—and others but I accept entirely that the framework advanced by the Government through the Bill is one of enlightened shareholder value. The Bill is not about a pluralist approach, nor is the new clause. It is firmly under the umbrella of enlightened shareholder value, which means that the primary duty of directors is to promote the success of the company. If there is to be suing for loss, only losses to the company will count.

Before I conclude, I want to make some observations about the position of the official Opposition. In the other place, in May, Conservative peers sought to remove all matters pertaining to enlightened shareholder value—an attempt to turn back the clock on the progress that is being made in company law. The word “reactionary” may be appropriate. Their position flies in the face of the new support for corporate social responsibility and compassionate Conservatism offered by the new leader of their party, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), who has made some welcome and strong comments in support of the enlightened shareholder value perspective, so different positions are on display.

In Committee, we saw clear evidence of the conflict and difficulties in the Conservative party—Conservatives did not know where to stand or which way to face. Although the hon. Member for Huntingdon did not try to repeat the tactics of his friends in another place, he none the less—courteously and good-naturedly, as always—tried to weaken the Government’s approach, never mind mine. It would seem from the amendments that have been tabled today that he and his colleagues are trying to do the same again.

The hon. Gentleman has described the road to enlightened shareholder value as one of good intention but meaningless platitude, and the six secondary duties listed in what is now clause 173 and in new clause 4 as a statement of fashion. Let me explain what that statement apparently applies to. Is it fashionable to

“have regard…to

(a) the likely consequences of any decision in the long term,

(b) the interests of the company’s employees,

(c) the need to foster the company’s business relationships with suppliers, customers and others,

(d) the impact of the company’s operations on the community and the environment,

(e) the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct, and

(f) the need to act fairly as between members of the company”?

To describe those issues as the mere trivia of fashion is wrong, although I am happy to allow the hon. Gentleman a chance to explain himself.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to explain what he has misconstrued. I mentioned that those were objects of fashion and I repeat that statement. I say that not for the reasons that he gave, but because there are some 650 common-law duties, of which these six are part, and the Government have cherry-picked certain duties that they want to put into the Bill. All the duties are equally relevant. I am not saying that the six that the Government have chosen are not relevant; I am saying that they should not be codified.

That indicates some of the difficulties that the Conservative party has on this issue. Frankly, to regard all 650 duties—I take the hon. Gentleman’s word for the fact that there are 650—as of equal weight and value is not credible and does not stand up to scrutiny. Looking after one’s employees, and having regard to the local community and the environment are perfectly reasonable issues to give higher priority to. We know that the right hon. Member for Witney adopts a kindly, sunny and progressive stance on these matters. The Conservative party went to the polls last May on the ticket, “Go green, vote blue,” but when it comes to delivery and to contributing to company law through this important Bill, we have seen confusion, weakness and another policy vacuum.

Finally, I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and the Regions takes a genuine, sympathetic and detailed interest in these matters. With clause 173, welcome progress is being made. In Committee, she did not accept my argument that “having regard to” is just too passive and that we should take the opportunity, as suggested by new clause 4, to protect responsible directors and to encourage a proactive, pro-business approach within the ambit of enlightened shareholder value by asking them to “endeavour” to do their best. I look forward to her response. We are not worlds apart, but what she says on the record is really important.

I declare my interests as they appear in the Register of Members’ Interests. After seven years of consultation and 10 months of Bill process, involving several thousand amendments—650 of them tabled by the Government in the past week—we near the end of the process on the largest Bill in history. One issue that is directly relevant to every group of amendments to be discussed on Report is the timing of implementation. There is much speculation and there are many rumours going round the City and the law firms on that point. It would be most helpful if the Minister could set out the position when the opportunity arises for her to do so.

I will speak to our amendments Nos. 392 to 398. As the hon. Member for Bedford (Patrick Hall) said, the issue of directors’ duties to promote the success of the company as set out in clause 173 is the area of the Bill that has probably courted the most controversy. I do not believe that the Government really wanted that when they set out with the Bill, but gradually, possibly over seven years of consultation, they have dug themselves into something of a hole on these provisions, from which they are now finding it difficult to extract themselves. We have seen that in the conflicting messages from Ministers since the Committee stage. It was interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman say that we are sending out conflicting messages. I suggest that quite the opposite is the case.