---

Company Law Reform Bill [HL]

My Lords, we started by seeing no need for Amendment No. 321. We would not expect adding the words,"““in his own name, for and on behalf of””" to change the effect of Clause 495 in any way. We had understood that the concern was related to some potential change in liability, which we have sought to address in Amendment No. 322. If the concern is about the perception of readers of the audit report, I do not really understand it. I do not see what scope there is for confusion. The firm is the auditor of the company and the individual is not. That is clear. If people are confused about that, I do not think that adding words to this clause is likely to make them any less confused. The senior statutory auditor only signs in the firm’s name when signing on behalf of the firm. Here he is merely required to sign. Therefore, it follows that he must sign in his own name. While I resist the amendment tonight, I promise to reflect further on the wording. If the manner in which the individual must sign is unclear—which I think was the point that the noble Baroness made, certainly in relation to the first part of her amendment—I shall reflect on that but without commitment.