Proceeding contribution from Justine Greening (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 19 October 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Companies Bill (HL).
Companies Bill [Lords]
We have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate. The hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) appears to think that he belongs to the real Opposition, but will clearly vote with the Government on the Conservative amendment before the House. I listened very carefully to the hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Jim Cousins) and for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), and I understand the points that they raised. However, I have considered their amendments previously, and I cannot agree that they would have a positive effect. I therefore remain unconvinced of their merit. Similarly, I take on board the points made by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), but there seemed a slight prejudice in his remarks against successful multinational audit firms, some of which happen to be British. By and large, they get on with their business very well. I appreciate the Minister’s acceptance that I am not trying to protect reckless accountants. In fact, the representatives from the accountancy and audit professions who have got in touch with me are worried about the rising costs that they may now have to pass on to customers. They do not feel that that will add anything to the audit approach, and we ignore their views at our peril. Finally, my main concern is for the impact that increasing audit costs could have on small business. I very much hope that the Minister will keep a close eye on how the legislation is working once it is enacted, as that would go a long way towards minimising the potential risks that I have flagged up today. I am fully aware of how the offence is structured legally, and I understood the arguments that the Minister made in Standing Committee. However, the impact that the measure will unwittingly have on the audit profession broadly, and the costs to business that will result, cause me concern. As I have had no assurances that those arguments have been taken on board at all, I shall push amendment No. 439 to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made:— The House divided: Ayes 121, Noes 306.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 450 c1062-3
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Disclosure of information Consumers Accountability Audit Accountancy Company law Company accounts Companies Directors Business Civil proceedings Conflict of interests Liability Jurisdiction Documents Intellectual property Internet Protection Prosecutions Mergers Public companies Staff Shares Voting rights Shareholders Reorganisation
- Legislation
- Companies Bill (HL) 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 14:05:35 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_353765
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_353765
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_353765