Company Law Reform Bill

moved Amendment No. 178:"Page 71, line 32, leave out subsection (1)." The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 178, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 179 to 181. I believe that the consequences of breach of duty are so complicated and varied that codification is almost impossible. A valiant effort has been made, but I am not quite sure whether it has succeeded—hence the Bill’s retreat to the existing common law and equitable remedies. Therefore, this is a probing amendment to seek some comfort from the Attorney-General as to how the provision will be interpreted. Amendments Nos. 179 and 180 are tidying-up amendments. We have already spoken to some of the principles involved therein. I do not intend to move Amendment No. 181 and therefore I shall not speak to it. I shall deal in a little more detail with Amendment No. 180. Again, this is a probing amendment. As currently drafted, Clause 162(2) implies that other fiduciary duties beyond those intended to be encapsulated in the statutory statement of duties apply to directors and that those duties will remain outstanding following codification. In other words, they are separate and they are still continuing. However, the sentence in subsection (2) is unclear, is likely to cause confusion and should be redrafted. I beg to move.