Company Law Reform Bill

I am grateful for my noble and learned friend’s reply, but a little disappointed that he did not show great alacrity in wishing to change anything in this clause. Perhaps I could add in response to his reply that on many occasions in its reports—that is, the final report and the reports called Developing the Structure and The Strategic Structure—the CLR steering group repeated the need for safeguards in this new change in the law of what is a fundamental principle with regard to fiduciary duty. My amendment would only begin the process of providing for safeguards, but the fact that the consent must be informed consent—on which I entirely agree with my noble and learned friend—should be reflected in the Bill, which instead uses the words ““the matter”” in what must be two rather different meanings in the same line. After the final report, Professor Davies, who edited the book to which I referred earlier and was a member of the Company Law Review steering group, wrote that,"““the impact of the law will depend heavily on the integrity of the decision-making of the non-involved members of the board and upon their ability to avoid self-interested decisions and pressure from those seeking approval””." I interpret that remark to mean that we are not given very much guidance in the clause on how we will recognise those directors who are not interested in the matter. Given that,"““the impact of the law will depend heavily on the integrity of the decision-making””," guidance should be given about safeguards on the matter. I hope that my noble and learned friend will look at this again. But, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.