BETA

Activities of Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE related to 2011/2037(INI)

Legal basis opinions (0)

Amendments (10)

Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Reminds the Commission that a wide- ranging, in-depth impact assessment is needed, looking at the various political options and focusing on practical issues in line with the principles of ‘better lawmaking’ and including an analysis of interest groups in order to clarify the segmentation of the impact assessment study for the various groups such as SMEs, systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs) and other listed and non-listed companies; takes the view that an assessment should be made of the impact on the users of audit reports, such as investors and SIFI regulators; calls on the Commission to analyse the added value generated by both the proposed regulation and the progressive harmonisation of auditing standards and practices in the European single market;
2011/03/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Believes that, in order to guarantee the independence of audits, auditing contracts should run for no longer than eight years; takes the view that an initial contract should be concluded for four years, renewable only once for a further period of four years, followed by a period of at least four years – eight years for public interest entities – during which the audit firm concerned cannot audit the same company again; considers that there would be a need, at the end of the initial four-year period, for a new team to be appointed from within the audit firm;deleted
2011/03/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Takes the view that the independence of statutory auditors vis-à-vis the management of the companies they are auditing is essential and must be preserved at all times; takes the view that the role of the audit committee is fundamental in guaranteeing this independence and that it should be strengthened; considers that the requirements placed on the audit committee should include responsibility for proposing the appointment of the statutory auditor for approval by shareholders at the annual general meeting, as well as the notification to shareholders of the measures adopted to review the qualification of the audit firm, the reasons which led to its being recommended and the action taken to guarantee its independence, including any restrictions imposed on the provision of services other than auditing and guarantees as regards the rotation of the main audit partners;
2011/03/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Considers it vital that steps be taken to prevent attempts to get round the mandatory rotation rule by appointing another audit firm from within the same group or by using the same auditors working for a different company;deleted
2011/03/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Appeals to the Commission to ensure that company practices help to preserve the protections provided, including protection linked to the mandatory rotation of the main audit partners, even where those partners change firms, transparency vis-à-vis shareholders throughout the process and in relation to the reasons for which the proposed auditors were recommended, as well as the clear attribution of responsibility to the audit committee as regards the process and as regards the final decision vis-à-vis shareholders;
2011/03/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Takes the view that there should be a ban on services other than auditing being provided to the audited company, as this would pose a risk to the auditor’s independence; takes the view, furthermore, that under no circumstances should internal and external auditing services be provided simultaneously; points out that this would restrict ‘lowballing’, the practice of offering cut- price auditing with a view to obtaining compensation by charging for additional services; therefore takes the view that the ban must apply to all firms and their clients, particularly where major audit firms are concerned;deleted
2011/03/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Considers it essential to preserve the independence of the auditor; takes the view that external auditors should be banned from providing services to the audited company that could give rise to non-compliance with the applicable requirements as regards independence or with other ethical requirements; recognises that, in order to boost growth in the European economy, it is necessary to ensure that all undertakings, regardless of their size and including SMEs, can contract independent auditors and audit firms that have a wide range of skills;
2011/03/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
22. Calls on the Commission to bring in a system of compulsory tendering on a periodic basis for public interest entities, under which at least one non-Big Four company would have to be included; takes the view that the audit committee must be given a key role in this process, in which shareholders must also take part;deleted
2011/03/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22a. Calls on the Commission to review the functions of the audit committee so that the shareholders' final decision on the appointment of auditors is based on a proposal from the audit committee; takes the view that this proposal should include a description of the procedure followed, the criteria used and the reasons underlying the audit committee's recommendation;
2011/03/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 b (new)
22b. Considers it important for the Commission and regulatory bodies in each Member State to recognise the quality and experience of all audit firms and recommend to public interest entities that they actively consider different audit firms other than the Big Four which have a suitable level of knowledge and experience, and that they include them in their public tendering processes;
2011/03/28
Committee: JURI