---

Company Law Reform Bill [HL]

Perhaps I may say a word in admiration of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. I am sure that tomorrow his words will read exactly as logically in Hansard as he has just spoken them. But there my congratulations on the clarity of his explanation probably end. As the noble and learned Lord himself admitted, and as the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, pointed out, ultimately we will be down to subjective judgment about how the Bill affects people’s perceptions and behaviour. I remain to be convinced that there will at least not be a perceived increase in the risk of litigation. As the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, pointed out, with codification but still with reliance on interpretation from the common law, in a sense we will have a double complication. That is a feature of the Bill. If you are going to codify but still rely in part on common law and equitable principles, we cannot improve the Bill—it cannot be amended out. It is a basic feature and the inherent nature of the Bill, and we would not necessarily have proceeded in the same fashion from these Benches. I notice that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, slipped in a definition of what the discussions with the Minister might be. He talked about technical improvements. Perhaps I could suggest a definition of ““technical””. I welcome that offer unreservedly. I think that ““technical”” includes clarification, simplification, avoidance of unnecessary burdens and the preservation of an efficient financial market. My noble friends and I, and colleagues from the Liberal Democrat Benches, hope to have discussions with the Minister. I hope that they will not be confined to a very narrow sense of technically improving the words—clearly that must be the case—but that they will also take into account people’s genuine concerns, which I hope will be proven and shown today. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 151 not moved.]