moved Amendment No. 317BC:"Page 234, line 9, at end insert—"
““(3A) The auditor’s name or the name of the senior statutory auditor need not be stated if the auditor or senior statutory auditor—
(a) has given notice to the Secretary of State that the auditor or the senior statutory auditor considers on reasonable grounds that the statement of the name in published copies of the report would create or be likely to create a serious risk that the auditor, the senior statutory auditor or any other person would be subject to violence or intimidation, and
(b) has notified the company that they have given notice to the Secretary of State.””
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment I shall speak also to the two other amendments in this group.
Clause 493 requires auditors’ and senior statutory auditors’ names to be stated when the auditors’ reports are published, but has an important ability to withhold the name if there is a serious risk of violence or intimidation. We fully support that. But the withholding of the name is wholly in the hands of the company which, under subsection (3), must pass a resolution and give notice to the Secretary of State.
The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, which suggested these amendments to us, believes that the auditor or the senior statutory auditor should also be able to initiate the withholding of names. In the case of the withholding of directors’ home addresses under Clause 217, the power is given to the individual director to avoid publication. It is not left in the hands of the company, and we argue by analogy that there should be an equivalent power for the audit firm or the senior statutory auditor in relation to the disclosure of names.
I accept that auditors are not powerless. They could refuse to sign the audit report or they could resign from the audit. But those are nuclear options, and it should not be necessary for auditors to resort to those options. It would be more civilised to give the auditors the ability to remove their names. I hope the Minister will agree, and I beg to move.
Company Law Reform Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Noakes
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 14 March 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Company Law Reform Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
679 c400-1GC 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 01:35:50 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_308084
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_308084
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_308084