Item List : "Comments on corporate governance draft report"

101. Letter, dated 29 July 1992, from LE Linaker, IFMA and list of association members.

The comments raise the issue of compliance for smaller companies and the possibility of distinctions between executive and non-executive directors.

102. Letter, dated 29 July 1992, and paper on contracting from K Cleaver, P Ormrod, University of Liverpool.

Comments on contracts in corporate operations, accounting techniques and disclosure.

103. Letter, dated 29 July 1992, from CA Mallin, University of Liverpool.

Comments on non-executive directors' roles and independence, board remuneration and auditing.

104. Letter, dated 30 July 1992, from JD Traynor, CRH plc.

Expresses concerns about emphasis on control and monitoring, and the influence of accountants and auditors. It continues to make specific points.

105. Letter, dated 30 July 1992 from Institute of Investment Management and Research and accompanying comments.

The document gives detailed comment on specific paragraphs in the draft code.

106. Letter, dated 30 July 1992, from Lord Toombes of Brailes with further comments.

Rolls-Royce's comments on potential differences of responsibilities between non-executive and executive directors.

107. Letter, dated 30 July 1992, and comments from NN Graham Maw, Rowe & Maw.

Comments on the Code of Best Practice and sets out the author's own code besides commenting on other issues in the report, especially enforcement of the Code.

108. Letter, dated 30 July 1992, from RWD Hanson, Hardys & Hanson plc.

Comments on the cost of implementation for smaller companies.

109. Letter, dated 30 July 1992, from Mark Gifford-Gifford, Centre for Management Studies, University of Exeter.

Comments on the Terms of Reference and standards of practice in unlisted companies,in addition to specific points.

110. Letter, dated 30 July 1992, from PM Elliott, English China Clays.

Comments on various committees, financial reporting, auditing and the going concern disclosure.

111. Letter, dated 30 July 1992, and comments from Anthony Williams, Hay Management Consultants.

Comments on disclosure of remuneration, performance pay and access to the Audit Committee.

112. Letter, dated 30 July 1992, from Pannell Kerr Forster.

Among topics covered are: unitary boards, audit committees, financial reporting, auditing and going concern.

113. Letter, dated 31 July 1992, from Maureen Howe, Legal and General, and response to the draft code.

Welcomes the code and comments with concerns about possible two-tier board and time-limited contracts for non-executives.

114. Correspondence, dated June and July 1992, from RHF Croft, Jeremy Orme, both of SIB and accompanying letter and document on auditing.

These documents concentrate on auditing and its role in investment businesses. The Board supports the Auditing Practices Board, believing its primary function is to form and express an opinion.

115. Letter, dated 31 July 1992, and comments on the draft report from BT O'Driscoll, ICI Group.

The main comments relate to terms of reference of the Committee, internal control and internal audit.

116. Letter, dated 31 July 1992, from Sir Richard Greenbury.

Letter comments on board structure, especially unitary boards, the duties of directors to shareholders and the responsibilities of the external auditors.

117. Letter, dated 31 July 1992, from Sir Andrew Hugh Smith, London Stock Exchange.

Comments on statements of compliance with the code of best practice as an obligation but not a requirement of listing, responsibilities of the directors and financial reporting.

118. Letter, dated 31 July 1992, and comments from Stoy Hayward.

Comments on the draft report in detail on unified boards, separation of roles, board structures, non-executive directors, executive directors and directors' training. It also comments in some depth on audit committees, auditing, internal control systems and financial reporting.

119. Letter, dated 31 July 1992, from Clark Whitehill & Co.

The response comments on the application of the Code to smaller listed companies, the effectiveness of internal control and the Caparo case.

120. Letter, dated 31 July 1992, from Neville Russell, accountants, and which includes comments on the draft report.

Comments on potential difficulties with a voluntary code and its review, for smaller companies, emphasis on non-executive directors and goes on to specific points.

121. Letter, dated 31 July 1992, and detailed comments from Arthur Andersen.

Contains detailed comments on the draft report. The main recommendation relates to the supervisory function of the board.

122. Letter, dated 31 July 1992, from Association of Investment Trusts.

Comments on the challenges that smaller companies may have in complying with the Code.

123. Letter, dated 31 July 1992, from Howard Davies, CBI and a detailed CBI response to the draft report.

Includes summary of CBI response (13 points) and the full response under headings such as statement of compliance, review of code, board structures, separation of roles, non-executive directors, directors' remuneration, auditing and going concern. Also includes the draft response before approval by the CBI Council.

124. Letter, dated 31 July 1992, and comments from Coopers & Lybrand.

Main comments are on auditing, quality of boards and appointment to boards, monitoring compliance with the Code, two-tier boards and audit committees.

125. Letter, dated 31 July 1992, from Professor Gerald Vinten, Luton College of Higher Education.

Generally supportive comments about the draft report.