Item List : "Comments on corporate governance draft report"

126. Letter, dated 3 August 1992, from Julian Hepplewhite, Alliance and Leicester, transmitted by fax.

Comments on internal control systems requirements, going concern, auditing, submission of questions to the AGM and who should deal with specific types of question.

127. Correspondence, dated 3 August 1992, with the Brian Thompson, Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators.

Comments on the tone of the report, enforcement of the Code of Best Practice and the auditor's role in reviewing compliance with the Code. Other comments include sizeable subsidiaries, board procedures and directors' service contracts.

128. Letter, dated 4 August 1992, from Bill Morrison, Auditing Practices Board.

Comments on the practicality of auditors commenting on corporate governance compliance while proposing an alternative method and also comments on interim reporting.

129. Letter, dated 4 August 1992, to JP Charkham, Bank of England, enclosing comments on the draft report.

Comments in the manner of a learned paper, highlighting some alternatives or where the report could have been stronger and monitoring compliance.

130. Letter, dated 4 August 1992, from Sir Alick Rankin, Scottish & Newcastle plc.

Comments on the division between executive and non-executive directors, pensions governance, shareholders and gives detailed comments on specific paragraphs.

131. Letter, dated 4 August 1992, from SAT Foster, South Western Electricity plc.

Comments on different responsibilities of directors and auditors and the section in the draft report on the Board.

132. Letter, dated 5 August 1992, from MN Karmel, British Bankers' Association.

Comments on independence of non-executive directors. This seems to be intended to be an addition to comments sent in July 1992, but not traced.

133. Letter, dated 5 August 1992, from JF O'Mahony, Ladbrooke Group plc.

Comments on the availability of high calibre non-executive directors, unitary boards, internal auditors and auditor rotation.

134. Letter, dated 5 August 1992, from Malcolm Bruce, Liberal Democrat Trade and Industry Spokesman.

Comments on the rejected statutory approach, the role of non-executive directors, separation of roles, audit committees and commends employee involvement. Quarantining auditors is advocated.

135. Letter, dated 6 August 1992, from MA Smith, SG Warburg & Co.

Comments on the timescale for implementation, making compliance with the Code of Practice an obligation to achieve Stock Exchange listing, smaller companies, separation of roles, independence of non-executive directors, the requirement for a 'going concern' statement and aspects of auditing.

136. Letter, dated 7 August 1992, from Ernst & Young.

Questions the likely effectivess of parts of the Code including subjectivity of statement of compliance. Comments on non-executives and their role vs independent directors, unitary boards, audit committees, financial reporting and various aspects of auditing.

137. Letter, dated 7 August 1992, from JE Rogers, National Association of Pension Funds.

Comments on various paragraphs in section 4 in detail and also on auditing.

138. Letter, dated 10 August 1992 from RC Grayson, British Petroleum company plc.

Comments on the perceived division of roles for executive and non-executive directors and auditors responsibility to review a company's (non)/compliance with the Code. Further comments on internal controls are included.

139. Letter, dated 10 August 1992, and comments from IL Rushton, ABI.

Comments on issues of compliance and its enforcement. It also includes detailed comments by paragraph on non-executive directors, various aspects of boards, committees, financial reporting, auditing and shareholders.

140. Comments, dated 10 August 1992, from GT Southern, Humberside County Council.

Comments on board structures and accountability, shareholder participation and auditors.

141. Briefing notes for lunch with regional city editors, 10 August 1992.

This document updates the editors about responses received, the challenges of enforcement and criticism. Also on the back are hand written notes about the role of non-executive directors, cost-benefit, small companies and directors' pay.

142. Letter, dated 11 August 1992, from David Adams, British Rail Pension Trustee Company Limited.

Includes the Company's corporate governance policy. Comments on the need to enforce compliance, accounting standards and reporting requirements, separation of roles and roles of non-executive directors.

143. Summary of responses by companies up to 12 August 1992.

Collates and summarises 70 reponses to the draft report from companies and business organisations.

144. Summary of responses by accountants up to 14 August 1992.

Collates and summarises 24 reponses to the draft report from accountants. Covers comments on the contents of the draft report and additional topics with appendices on example sections on non-executive directors, suggested action plan and the response by the Auditing Practices Board.

145. Letter and comments, dated 14 August 1992, from the Association of Authorised Public Accountants.

Comments on various aspects of auditing, duties and responsibilities of directors and their contracts.

146. Letter, dated 14 August 1992, and comments from RF Hussey, Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland.

Questions the feasibility of the timescale for compliance, while supporting voluntary compliance. Most recommendations are supported as they are already recommendations of the Institute.

147. Summary of responses by shareholders up to 14 August 1992.

Summarises reponses from 21 institutional and private shareholders.

148. Letter, dated 18 August 1992, from DF Macquaker.

Main comment relates to internal controls, based on experience in the public sector.

149. Fax, dated 19 August [1992], from Sir Adrian Cadbury to Nigel Peace, about wording of 5.34, clipped to letter from MJ Harding, Ernst & Young, dated 3 August 1994.

Asks Nigel Peace's opinion of alternative working for para 5.34. This may have been prompted by comments on the draft report from among others Ernst & Young as it is clipped to a letter saying they may have been wrong in their criticisms.

150. Correspondence, dated August 1992, from McMullen & Sons and to Andrew Hugh Smith about specific cases.

Expresses concerns about the 'Continuing Obligation' as the companies have some shares listed on the London Stock Exchange.