Skip to main content

1-20 of 63 results for subject:"Company law"

Member X
Austin Mitchell

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

More
Mitchell, Austin (63)

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

More

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

The hon. Lady asked for an example. I wonder whether the Department of Trade and Industry report on the performance of Coopers and Lybrand as auditors in the Maxwell case might provide her with a convincing one. The evidence cited was that the senior partner at Coopers and Lybrand summed...

Member
Austin Mitchell (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 October 2006
Reference
450 c1049
House
House of Commons

Can the hon. Lady tell us from her experience as a chartered accountant whether any malfeasance by an auditor, whether reckless or not, ever comes to light unless the company goes belly-up and flops? Was there reckless behaviour in Andersen’s audit of Enron in the United States?

Member
Austin Mitchell (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 October 2006
Reference
450 c1047
House
House of Commons

It is interesting to get a clear-cut opinion from the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth), who is leading for the Liberal Democrats, at least on this issue, and an opinion in favour of the Government. I welcome that. I was amazed at the case advanced by the official Opposition...

Member
Austin Mitchell (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 October 2006
Reference
450 c1054
House
House of Commons

It is certainly true that the main problems are caused by the big four. Their failures and their practices act as a slur on the entire accountancy profession and audit. However, the Government’s aim, and ours, is to achieve proper, effective audit. Audit is valuable, important and required by law,...

Member
Austin Mitchell (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 October 2006
Reference
450 c1054-6
House
House of Commons

That is a fairly far-fetched picture. It is ridiculous to suggest that, because auditors report that action was taken against them in one jurisdiction, clients will flee from the firm that is being audited. However, on the hon. Lady’s basic point, I simply answer that the international composition that she...

Member
Austin Mitchell (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 October 2006
Reference
450 c1056-7
House
House of Commons

Does not any limitation of liability—whether introduced by agreement, a cap or some other means—strengthen the big four against the smaller accountancy businesses that the hon. Lady and I want to protect and encourage?

Member
Austin Mitchell (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 October 2006
Reference
450 c1069
House
House of Commons

I rise to support the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Jim Cousins) and to put the case for the amendments. We are trying to enforce liability, particularly against the big firms. The auditor has responsibilities and it is not reasonable that liability...

Member
Austin Mitchell (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 October 2006
Reference
450 c1069-70
House
House of Commons

That is correct, and the reluctance of even big City law firms to embark on a case against the big four has been pointed out. They do, however, embark on cases against each other. When there is a question of making the auditor liable, the case is usually brought by...

Member
Austin Mitchell (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 October 2006
Reference
450 c1070-1
House
House of Commons

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...

Member
Austin Mitchell (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 October 2006
Reference
450 c1061-2
House
House of Commons

I was interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) because it is fairly typical of the Opposition’s approach throughout the Bill, which is to trot behind the Government, nagging and niggling, trying to turn themselves into the political arm of the Law Society—which is a...

Member
Austin Mitchell (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
18 October 2006
Reference
450 c977-8
House
House of Commons

I am glad to see that the Liberal faith in human virtue and the virtue of companies lives on. Lots of organisations have something to hide, and lots choose to hide it. I do not want to provide any more opportunities for them to do so. New clauses 16 and...

Member
Austin Mitchell (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
18 October 2006
Reference
450 c940-1
House
House of Commons

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point.

Member
Austin Mitchell (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
18 October 2006
Reference
450 c940
House
House of Commons

The principle the hon. Gentleman’s invokes is that we should not publish any information about anything or anybody. In relation to his fishing activities, I picture him in his waders in the rivers of north Wales, which is a touching spectacle—but that that must be kept from the public eye,...

Member
Austin Mitchell (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
18 October 2006
Reference
450 c938-9
House
House of Commons

We are making heavy weather of a straightforward issue, although it was fascinating and quite a spectacle to see the Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth), struggling to maintain a foot in both camps, in his usual fashion and in his lawyerly way. However, the issue...

Member
Austin Mitchell (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
18 October 2006
Reference
450 c938
House
House of Commons

The next group will have to be voted on at 3 pm as well, and the principle is exactly the same—the publication of information by companies so that markets and the authorities know what is going on. That applies to amendment No. 820, which deals with the publication of the...

Member
Austin Mitchell (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
18 October 2006
Reference
450 c912-3
House
House of Commons

I shall speak briefly in support of new clauses 1 and 2, but I also want to speak to some other amendments tabled by myself and my hon. Friends. They further the same principle of keeping companies accountable by reporting—in other words, by asking them to say what they have...

Member
Austin Mitchell (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
18 October 2006
Reference
450 c911-2
House
House of Commons

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who was of course in the investigative journalism trade—and a very good trade it is, too. I was in the electronic media, so we did not do any investigation. We just shouted at people, which was perhaps a mistake; perhaps we conducted ourselves...

Member
Austin Mitchell (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
18 October 2006
Reference
450 c940
House
House of Commons

My hon. Friend is becoming excessive in his moderation. Unless the law requires companies to take account of the views of their employees, it is difficult to see how those views are to be included. Our workers have fewer rights in their companies than those of any other European country....

Member
Austin Mitchell (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 October 2006
Reference
450 c804
House
House of Commons

I beg to move amendment No. 761, in page 71, line 10, at end insert ‘and domiciled in the United Kingdom’.

Member
Austin Mitchell (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 October 2006
Reference
450 c807
House
House of Commons

The principles of amendments Nos. 761 and 762, which are in my name and those of my hon. Friends, are fairly clear. Up until now, we have been dealing with the duties of directors and companies. The problem is how we take account of those duties and how directors and...

Member
Austin Mitchell (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 October 2006
Reference
450 c807-8
House
House of Commons