Propose a change

Companies Act 2006

Write the words of this act the way you think they should read. Solon shows your change as a redline against the published text and pins it to that exact text, so it can never be applied to wording you did not see.

Change 1

What to do with it
As published

485A Appointment of auditors of private company: additional requirements for public interest entities with audit committees

(1) This section applies to the appointment under section 485(4) of an auditor or auditors of a private company— (a) which is also a public interest entity; and (b) which has an audit committee. (2) But it does not apply to the appointment of an Auditor General as auditor or one of the auditors of the company. (3) Before an appointment to which this section applies is made— (a) the audit committee of the company must make a recommendation to the directors in connection with the appointment, and (b) the directors must propose an auditor or auditors for appointment ... (4) Before the audit committee makes a recommendation or the directors make a proposal under subsection (3), the committee ... must carry out a selection procedure in accordance with Article 16(3) of the Audit Regulation , unless the company is a small or medium sized enterprise within the meaning in Article 2(1)(f) of Directive 2003/71/EC . (5) The audit committee must in its recommendation— (a) identify its first and second choice candidates for appointment, drawn from those auditors who have participated in a selection procedure under subsection (4), (b) give reasons for the choices so identified, (c) state that— (i) the recommendation is free from influence by a third party, and (ii) no contractual term of the kind mentioned in Article 16(6) of the Audit Regulation has been imposed on the company. (6) The directors must include in their proposal— (a) the recommendation made by the audit committee in connection with the appointment, and (b) if the proposal of the directors departs from the preference of the audit committee— (i) a recommendation for a candidate or candidates for appointment drawn from those auditors who have participated in a selection procedure under subsection (4), and (ii) the reasons for not following the audit committee’s recommendation. (7) Where the audit committee recommends re-appointment of the company’s existing auditor or auditors, and the directors are in agreement, subsections (4) and (5)(a) and (b) do not apply.

Your change, as a redline

485A Appointment of auditors of private company: additional requirements for public interest entities with audit committees

(1) This section applies to the appointment under section 485(4) of an auditor or auditors of a private company— (a) which is also a public interest entity; and (b) which has an audit committee. (2) But it does not apply to the appointment of an Auditor General as auditor or one of the auditors of the company. (3) Before an appointment to which this section applies is made— (a) the audit committee of the company must make a recommendation to the directors in connection with the appointment, and (b) the directors must propose an auditor or auditors for appointment ... (4) Before the audit committee makes a recommendation or the directors make a proposal under subsection (3), the committee ... must carry out a selection procedure in accordance with Article 16(3) of the Audit Regulation , unless the company is a small or medium sized enterprise within the meaning in Article 2(1)(f) of Directive 2003/71/EC . (5) The audit committee must in its recommendation— (a) identify its first and second choice candidates for appointment, drawn from those auditors who have participated in a selection procedure under subsection (4), (b) give reasons for the choices so identified, (c) state that— (i) the recommendation is free from influence by a third party, and (ii) no contractual term of the kind mentioned in Article 16(6) of the Audit Regulation has been imposed on the company. (6) The directors must include in their proposal— (a) the recommendation made by the audit committee in connection with the appointment, and (b) if the proposal of the directors departs from the preference of the audit committee— (i) a recommendation for a candidate or candidates for appointment drawn from those auditors who have participated in a selection procedure under subsection (4), and (ii) the reasons for not following the audit committee’s recommendation. (7) Where the audit committee recommends re-appointment of the company’s existing auditor or auditors, and the directors are in agreement, subsections (4) and (5)(a) and (b) do not apply.

One line that says what changes, such as "Halve the dog tax".

Who it helps, what it costs, what it fixes. It is what persuades people to support it.

A proposal here is not law. Support on Solon is evidence that people want the change; the official route says what it takes to make it law.

Sign in to file your proposal. What you have written stays on this page.

Sign in to file it

Think it through

Ask what your change would do, who would gain and who would bear a cost, and where something like it is already law. The assistant reads your draft as it stands, cites the law and the studies it finds, and takes no side. What you file stays yours.

Questions to start with
Think it through
Legal information from the published text, not advice for your case. Check the sources. Find a law · What the register holds