My Lords, Clause 484 is one of a small number of new provisions, despite the protestations, relating to the appointment of auditors. It provides a power to require companies to disclose the terms on which a company engages its auditors.
We heard a number of arguments against this provision in Grand Committee, but I do not believe that any of them are wholly compelling. The auditors’ central role is to provide assurance to the members of the company about the directors’ stewardship. Published audit accounts also provide vital information for third parties so that markets can work well. I can see no good reason, other than cost, for not giving those members and third parties access to the audit engagement letter.
Company Law Reform Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord McKenzie of Luton
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 10 May 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Company Law Reform Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
681 c1017 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 09:36:32 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_320300
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_320300
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_320300