Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Austin Mitchell:
There is no doubt that there is a move to restrict the sale of tax advice by auditors to their clients, just as is happening in America. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Jim Cousins) is exactly right: we are being dragged
behind the Americans, step by step. It is as if we are regulating audit in the same way that we are treating Iraq.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can help the Minister. That is not a good line to pursue, I think.
Vera Baird: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not think that I could cope even if I did try to pursue it.
The Government believe that it is better for businesses and investors in the UK to use the ways set out in the Bill to guarantee or safeguard auditors independence, and that the approach adopted is more compatible with the culture that we are used to than would be a pursuit of the course taken by the US, with its Sarbanes-Oxley rules.
Similarly, we do not agree with the proposal that regulatory action against an audit firm or an individual auditor should be disclosed in every audit report with which they are involved. If an auditor, whether a firm or individual, is found guilty of a disciplinary offence by the professional body or by the AIDB, that is publicly available information to which audit committees and shareholders can have ready access. If auditors are investigated and cleared of a professional shortcoming, it would be unreasonable and wrong to require them to disclose that in reports.
In summary, I sympathise powerfully with the desire on the part of my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central and for Great Grimsby to improve the independence and accountability of auditors, but I believe that we have made real progress in these areas in the past few years and that the extra bits of regulation that they propose would be counter-productive.
Finally, the six Government amendments in this group are minor but worthwhile technical improvements. Amendment No. 213 removes a reference to a type of fine that is inappropriate in relation to conviction on indictment. Amendment No. 261 provides a definition for a supervisory body for the purposes of clause 539. Amendments Nos. 447 to 449 clarify that, when rights are available to a specified percentage of shareholders, someone who holds shares on behalf of more than one investor can choose to deploy the part of his overall holding appropriate to those investors who wish him to do so. Amendment No. 519 updates the definition of bank in clause 1174 so that it now refers to the new banking consolidation directive published in June 2006.
Justine Greening: 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 Ministers 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:
A proposal for a liability limitation agreement must be circulated to all the parties entitled to receive company accounts in accordance with section 429.. [Jim Cousins.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Jim Cousins: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 751, in page 264, line 36, clause 546, leave out from proceedings) to end of line 37.
No. 752, in page 265, line 12, leave out clauses 548 to 552.
No. 763, in page 265, line 33, clause 549, at end insert , and
(c) shall not specify a sum of money as a cap or absolute upper limit on the total liability..
No. 803, in page 266, line 41, clause 551, leave out Part and insert Act.
No. 802, in page 267, line 14, clause 552, at end insert
(1A) The regulations must require that all such agreements must be filed at Companies House within 21 days of the date of agreement together with a copy of the correspondence relating to the agreement between the company, its advisers, auditors and their advisers..
Jim Cousins: In our last debate, when my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and I tried to draw the Houses attention to the possibility of market regulation in dealing with our new overmighty subjectsthe big four accountancy firmsit was reasonably clearly established that we can await rescue from the United States in due course. In this debate, we will consider the legal situation is as regards these matters. We are in the hands of a powerful array of impressive lawyers, although I see that we do not currently have the assistance of the Solicitor-General, who did heroic work in former times.
We are dealing with a situation in which there was already moral hazard because of the enormous power and influence of a few institutions, the domination that they had over their own markets, and the need to open up those markets to a much wider range of audit and accountancy firms that could seek to challenge them. We now have an attempt to strengthen and embed the privileges and to deepen the moral hazards that such institutions already have. The hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) may put me right, but the Caparo judgment was the first step on the route towards embedding the privileges of these powerful firms.
In 1997, two further court casesit is unnecessary to go into detaillimited the liabilities of the big firms even further and established the idea of proportionate liability, which has become part of our courts practice. Not content with that, in 2000, the Government introduced the concept of limited liability partnerships, which effectively further strengthen and defend the powers of a few large firms to dominate the audit and accountancy market. On that point, I had a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) when she spoke up for the smaller firms. New entrants to the big end of accountancy will find it extraordinarily difficult, given the market power of a few large firms and their international reach and connections.
It is extraordinary that the Government seek to add even further limitations on liability and even more protections. I hope that they will clarify how much further they intend to go in regulation. There has already been a cascade of protections, yet the Government propose an additional one.
The new clause would simply provide that people apart from the members of a companythe Government have already accepted in clause 429 that such people should receive relevant documents from the companyshould also receive the information about the limitation of liability agreements so that they are in a position to challenge it. It is a small point and perhaps the Government intend to cover it in regulations. The debate provides an opportunity for my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to clarify that.
In the general structure of introducing liability limitation agreements, amendment No. 763 would provide at least that no one should specify a figure that represents an absolute cap on liability. That would protect the principle of proportionate liability, which has already become a feature of our common law and hardly needs the further reinforcement of the Government opening up the possibility of a final and absolute cap.
I ask my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to consider how the big four accountancy firms behave in the public interest when they act through the insolvency procedures in which they become administrators of a company. An extraordinary case was brought against the Bank of England and convulsed it for years because it had to put legal and manpower resources into defending itself. The big four accountancy firms, which brought the case, made a great deal of money through the way in which they work the fee system in insolvency cases, despite the compensation that they may ultimately have to pay the Bank of England.
It worries meand should worry hon. Membersthat, when those firms act in insolvency cases, they are adept at suing each other, yet they seek ever further and deeper protections against the common world. I hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench can clarify their future line of march on the matter. We already have examples in the European Union of attempts to introduce a general system of liability protection, and the Government must set out how they propose to deal with that. Of course, the gaping hole in all these arrangements represented by the very different course being taken by the United States could bring the structure of liability protections that the Government are seeking to introduce crashing to the ground. That, too, is something on which the Government Front Bench ought to express a view.
Justine Greening: I am conscious of the time, so I shall briefly set out the Oppositions view on the new clause and amendments. We broadly support the limited liability agreement clauses and do not therefore support amendments Nos. 751, 752, 763, 802 and 803. The limited liability agreement is not made mandatory by the Bill. It will be a matter for companies and their auditors, an agreement between the audit firm and the business. It might, however, provide a tool for more carefully limiting the risk to auditors in relation to the corporate risk that they can influence and have some responsibility for. It is right that clauses 458 to 552 do not take an over-prescriptive approach. It will clearly be a matter for companies and their auditors to work through the fine details of structuring the agreement, and that process will no doubt be adapted with experience and time.
New clause 86 provides for a limited liability agreement to be circulated to all parties entitled to receive company accounts. This would result in unnecessary bureaucracy, as any agreement would have to be approved by members through the normal company procedures anyway and at that stage the agreement would be available for scrutiny. Similarly, amendment No. 803 also seems to involve unnecessary bureaucracy.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |