Company Law Reform Bill [HL]

My Lords, this debate has demonstrated that the Minister and possibly even his officials have not seen up-to-date examples of letters of engagement. They have changed hugely since I left the profession; I now see them on the other side of the fence. As an audit committee member or chair, one is obliged to read letters of engagement because one is obliged by corporate governance rules to approve them. There should be no requirement for anybody else to go through that. The Minister said that he had not heard any arguments against the power. He is approaching it the wrong way around: it is for the Government to make a case for taking this power, especially given that, for quoted companies, there is a perfectly good power in the case of the FRC. The gap between the government side of the House and this side of the House is so great that we need to explore why it exists. When the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, provides an up-to-date example of a letter of appointment, I hope that the Minister will see that the Government are in error and that they may want to return to the matter at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 313 not moved.] Clause 486 [Auditor’s report on company’s annual accounts]: