Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from David Howarth (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 18 October 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Companies Bill (HL).


Companies Bill [Lords]

The hon. Gentleman’s question, asked from a sedentary position, shows that it is a big issue in the House as to which party is the real Opposition. [Interruption.] I want to make progress. The question is whether the business review that emerged from the row that blew up after the Chancellor removed Government approval for the original OFR goes far enough. That is what new clauses 1, 2 and 75, as well as our amendment (a) to new clause 1, are about. The business review is too narrow in a variety of ways, and the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton mentioned them all. In particular, it covers too few companies for the purposes for which we think it should be created. It does not cover the supply chain issue, although the Government have rightly introduced a proposal to correct that position. Most important for us is the fact that the new business review fails to have proper audit requirements. There is a general requirement of audit, as the hon. Member for Putney mentioned, but what is not contained in the business review, which was contained in the original OFR, is a requirement for auditors to report on matters that come to their attention that are inconsistent with what is in the business review. The wording that we have used in new clause 75 is precisely that which was in the original OFR regulations. I suppose that it is fair to say that our starting point, and our reason for supporting new clauses 1, 2 and 75, is perhaps rather different from that of the Government and the Conservative party. We are interested not just in the risks that the company faces, from loss of reputation through to introducing policies that are environmentally unfriendly or socially irresponsible, and unwelcome—from its point of view—regulatory activity, but in helping to create a market for ethical investment and ethical consumption. That precise point is where we differ from the other parties, because that is our first concern as to what the business review should contain and how it should work.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
450 c901 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Access Disclosure of information Animal welfare Accountability Company law Community development Companies Directors Business Annual reports Liability Donors Expenditure Exemptions Harassment Ethics Journalism Personal records Membership Political parties Public companies Loans Staff Meetings Private companies Lobbying Registration Trade unions Voting rights Shareholders Huntingdon Life Sciences Business plans
Legislation
Companies Bill (HL) 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk