Company Law Reform Bill [HL]

I have two points to make. The first concerns Article 36 of the statutory audit directive and the first amendments, which require the company and the auditor to notify the public oversight authority. As the Minister explained, the clause is drafted so that the relevant supervisory body will be notified for non-major audits. However, if Article 36 requires notification to public oversight authorities, is the DTI happy that it has correctly transposed the directive? I am not normally greatly in favour of transposing directives at all but, since we have to do it, we might as well do it properly. The second point is that the Minister resisted Amendment No. 332 because ““he”” could refer only to an auditor. An auditor is normally a firm, and it is normal to say ““it”” in relation to an auditor. It is very unnatural drafting to have ““he”” referring to an auditor. As the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, says, it is sexist as well. However, we all know that the male encompasses the female in legal drafting and I am entirely comfortable with that. Perhaps the Minister will comment on those two points.