Company Law Reform Bill [HL]
5:00 pm
Lord Clinton-Davis (Labour)
My Lords, even though it has been said that this is a probing amendment, it is still the duty of those moving it to ensure that such an amendment can be of some value. What is proposed in subsections (1) and (2) represents an incentive for carelessness, or even worse. The situation is not wholly or even partly saved by subsection (2). Frankly, despite what the noble Baroness has said, I cannot comprehend how this amendment came to be tabled. I think it is absurd. Why should the directors be free of liability in the circumstances envisaged? That has not been explained at all by the noble Baroness, although of course I await with interest to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, has to say about it. But as I have said, I think the whole thing is absurd.