Company Law Reform Bill [HL]

I thank the Minister for that reply and thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this interesting debate. The Minister referred to the ““members”” losing faith with the auditors. It does not work like that. The members certainly appoint the auditors, but it is the directors who ““lose faith””, probably choosing to have a different face to their auditors. What the amendment is trying to flush out is for the directors to tell the members why they have chosen to recommend that the members boot the auditors out. So I do not think that the Minister has grasped why we need this type of provision—it is to allow the members to exercise informed judgment. Members to not lose faith with auditors—I do not believe there is any example of members as a whole losing faith, but there are examples where directors and auditors have fallen out for various reasons that are not usually to do with losing faith. They usually relate to disagreements such as those referred to Part 1 of Article 36 of the eighth directive, with which, as the Minister explained, the Government have not the faintest idea what to do at this stage. I am aware that this is not new law, but this is an important area that we should return to at Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 498 agreed to. Clauses 499 and 500 agreed to. Clause 501 [Failure to re-appoint auditor: special procedure required for written resolution]: