Company Law Reform Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. A242: "Page 390, line 37, at end insert—" ““(   )   The order shall have the effect of making the body appointed under subsection (1) designated under section 5 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (c. 36) (further powers to designate public authorities).”” The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to the similar Amendment No. A252. Amendment No. A242 seeks to make the independent supervisor, which will oversee the audit functions of the auditors general, subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Amendment No. 252 seeks to do the same for the body to be delegated by the Secretary of State under Clause 848 to oversee auditors generally. The Minister will be aware that Section 5 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 allows the designation of bodies carrying out public functions or providing, under contract with a public authority, the functions of that authority. I should mention that Section 5 is correctly described in Amendment No. A242 as, "““further powers to designate public authorities””," but is incorrectly described in Amendment No. A252, which I shall blame on the otherwise blameless Public Bill Office. These amendments bring the independent supervisor and the body to which the Secretary of State will delegate his Part 33 functions within the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I understand that, in practice, it is anticipated that the Public Oversight Board for Accountants will carry out both of these functions. I am sure that the Minister will agree with me that transparency in supervisory functions is a necessary prerequisite of public confidence, in particular on audits in which there is a clear public interest. I know he will share my concern that the Public Oversight Board for Accountants does not at present disclose information relating to specific audit firms. The opposite number of the Public Oversight Board for Accountants in the US, the PCAOB—which is generally pronounced ““Peek-a-boo””—does release information about specific firms. The Committee may recall that I chair and serve on several audit committees of listed companies. Those of us in that position need to know how well their auditors fare in the supervisory process and whether any criticisms or shortcomings might be relevant to the audit of our own company. If we are putting an audit out to tender, an informed process would want to know about the relative performance of individual firms. The anonymised reports put out by the Public Oversight Board for Accountants give no decision-useful information in these circumstances. It would now be appropriate to improve the transparency and openness of the oversight process by bringing those bodies within the 2000 Act, an Act of which the Government have been so proud. I beg to move.