The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Pursglove on 2016-04-22.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many personal independence payment assessment appointments were cancelled by Capita in (a) Corby, (b) East Northamptonshire and (c) the UK in the last year; and for what reasons such appointments were cancelled.
Justin Tomlinson
The information requested is not readily available and to provide it would incur disproportionate cost.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alan Brown on 2016-04-22.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, if he will review the language and terminology used in written communications to people attending personal independence payment or work capability assessments to ensure that those communications are readily understood by recipients.
Justin Tomlinson
We are undertaking a full review of PIP and ESA communication products and messages. This work includes customer testing to ensure that the language and terminology used is clearly understood by recipients.
As part of our work to review claimant communications we are working with our Health Assessment Providers for PIP and ESA, to align the notifications sent to claimants invited to attend a face-to-face consultation with content produced by the Department.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Empey on 2016-04-22.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the implications for the Falkland Islands of the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf finding that they are in Argentinian territorial waters.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
I refer the noble Lord to the answer given by the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my Rt Hon. Friend the member for East Devon (Mr Swire), on 13 April 2016 (PQ 33811).
"The UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) has no jurisdiction to consider areas subject to competing claims and therefore has no locus to make recommendations in relation to the Falkland Islands. The UN itself has acknowledged that the CLCS could not consider those parts of the original Argentine submission of 2009 that were subject to dispute. This would include the Falkland Islands."
Furthermore, the UK has no doubt about its sovereignty over the Falklands and surrounding maritime areas, nor about the Falkland Islanders’ right to decide their own future. We will continue to make that clear to Argentina and other countries in the region.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Empey on 2016-04-22.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the Falkland Islands Government regarding the future of its territorial waters.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
As a self-governing Overseas Territory of the UK, it is up to the Falkland Islanders to determine their own future. The UK is in no doubt about its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and surrounding maritime areas, or about the principle and the right of the Falkland Islanders to self determination. We have discussed with the Falkland Islands government the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS)’s remit, and the fact that the UN itself has noted that the CLCS cannot consider claims relating to disputed areas. In this case that would include the Falkland Islands. Furthermore, the CLCS has no jurisdiction over the sovereignty of any land territory, including the Falkland Islands.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Empey on 2016-04-22.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in the South Atlantic.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
We have obtained written clarification from the UN Legal Counsel as to the remit and mandate of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). This confirms that the CLCS has no jurisdiction over the sovereignty of any land territory. That would of course include the Falkland Islands. The UN itself has noted that the CLCS cannot consider claims relating to disputed areas. In this case that would include the Falkland Islands. The British Government remains in no doubt over its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, and has no doubt about the right of the Islanders to determine their own future.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Empey on 2016-04-22.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to appeal against the decision of the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf that the Falkland Islands are in Argentinian territorial waters.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
I refer the noble Lord to the answer given by the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my Rt Hon. Friend the member for East Devon (Mr Swire), on 13 April 2016 (PQ 33811).
"The UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) has no jurisdiction to consider areas subject to competing claims and therefore has no locus to make recommendations in relation to the Falkland Islands. The UN itself has acknowledged that the CLCS could not consider those parts of the original Argentine submission of 2009 that were subject to dispute. This would include the Falkland Islands."
Furthermore, the UK has no doubt about its sovereignty over the Falklands and surrounding maritime areas, nor about the Falkland Islanders’ right to decide their own future. We will continue to make that clear to Argentina and other countries in the region.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Empey on 2016-04-22.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government who can give permission for oil exploration in the waters off the Falkland Islands.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
Oil exploration in the Falkland Islands is governed by the Falkland Islands Offshore Minerals Ordinance of 1994. Subject to this Ordinance, and with the consent of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Hammond), the Rt Hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, the British Government appointed Governor of the Falkland Islands may, on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen, grant to any person a licence for the purposes of exploration or production in the controlled waters, or in the sea-bed or subsoil thereof, of the Falkland Islands.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Jopling on 2016-04-22.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Neville-Rolfe on 21 April (HL7637), whether they will now state what contingency plans they have drawn up, if any, to repatriate the British Art Collection from the European Parliament in the event that the UK votes to leave the EU.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
It has not proved possible to respond to this question in the time available before Prorogation. Ministers will correspond directly with the Member.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Jopling on 2016-04-22.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government why people leaving the UK have their passports examined and recorded at some airports, whilst at others no examination takes place.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Border Force does not operate a uniform passport control regime against passengers departing the UK in the same way that it does for passengers who arrive in the UK. However, it does undertake targeted passport checks against selected cohorts of passengers leaving the UK for a range of law enforcement purposes.
We check the passports of all those passing through passport control on entry to the UK and we also conduct exit checks.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness McIntosh of Pickering on 2016-04-22.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government why they have chosen not to implement provisions relating to joint audit and increased tendering as set out in EU Directive 2014/56/EU and Regulation 537/2014 on statutory auditing.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
The Government does intend to implement provisions relating to increased tendering as part of the implementation of the EU Audit Regulation and Directive. This is in line with the recommendations of the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA).
The provision on joint audit in the EU Regulation would act as an exemption from having to retender with the frequency envisaged by the CMA. The government consulted on the implementation of the audit directive including this option, and concluded the option should not be taken up.
Joint audit is not a practice followed in the UK, though it is expressly permitted by the Companies and legislation on some other entities. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has consulted on whether to take up this derogation. In response to our discussion document in December 2014 on auditor regulation, only 4 of 25 respondents supported its implementation.
It is unclear that increased joint audit would encourage competition. The option in the EU Regulation could result in prolonged audit engagements (up to 24 years) and fewer changes in auditor. This would be contrary to the objective of the CMA and the Regulation, which is to increase retendering and rotation of auditors not less.
The CMA considered the impact of joint audits on competition and concluded that promoting joint audits would have little effect on barriers to entry, expansion and selection. The CMA’s conclusions were based on views provided by a range of stakeholders. The CMA was not able to quantify the potential cost of imposing joint audits, but did state that they believed that across the market the costs would be potentially significant. They state that a lot of weight was placed on the views of investors, who were almost universally opposed to joint audits on the grounds of additional costs and risks to audit quality.