Author: admin

  • Baroness McIntosh of Pickering – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Baroness McIntosh of Pickering – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness McIntosh of Pickering on 2016-04-22.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of EU Directive 2014/56/EU and Regulation 537/2014 on statutory auditing, what assessment they have made of the impact of implementing the provisions relating to joint audit on the creation of a more competitive market and limiting market dominance by the largest professional services networks.

    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.

  • Baroness McIntosh of Pickering – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Baroness McIntosh of Pickering – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness McIntosh of Pickering on 2016-04-22.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of EU Directive 2014/56/EU and Regulation 537/2014 on statutory auditing, what assessment they have made of the potential impact of joint audit on levels of competition across the UK auditing sector.

    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.

  • Baroness Smith of Basildon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Baroness Smith of Basildon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Smith of Basildon on 2016-04-22.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many dedicated road traffic officers there were in each of the past five years in (1) Essex, (2) Kent, (3) Sussex, and (4) London.

    Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

    The number of full time equivalent police officers employed in traffic policing roles as at 31 March in each of the last 5 years is provided in the tables. Officers with multiple responsibilities are recorded under their primary function or role. Data for 31 March 2015 (the latest period for which figures are available) can also be found in the supplementary tables of the July 2015 police workforce statistics publication:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/444537/police-workforce-supptabs-mar15.ods

    As HM Inspectorate of Constabulary has made clear, there is no simple link between police numbers and crime levels, between numbers and the visibility of police in the community, or between numbers and the quality of service provided.

    Decisions on the size and composition of the police workforce are operational matters for Chief Officers working with their Police and Crime Commissioners and taking into account local priorities. What matters is how officers are deployed, not how many of them there are.

  • Baroness Whitaker – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Baroness Whitaker – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Whitaker on 2016-04-22.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have plans to issue guidance to vets on how to proceed with the micro-chipping of dogs or horses when the owner is of no fixed abode, such as in the case of Gypsies and Travellers.

    Lord Gardiner of Kimble

    Owners of horses and dogs without a fixed address should provide the address of a family member or close friend with whom they keep in contact. Defra have worked with the veterinary representative organisations on their guidance for vets on microchipping of dogs.

  • Baroness Whitaker – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Baroness Whitaker – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Whitaker on 2016-04-22.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, where a dog or horse is being micro-chipped and its owner is of no fixed abode, such as in the case of Gypsies and Travellers, whether they have considered allowing a mobile phone number or address of a friend or relation of the owner to be recorded rather than the owner’s address.

    Lord Gardiner of Kimble

    Owners of horses and dogs without a fixed address should provide the address of a family member or close friend with whom they keep in contact. Defra have worked with the veterinary representative organisations on their guidance for vets on microchipping of dogs.

  • Lord Wills – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Wills – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Wills on 2016-04-22.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on people at the end of life of delaying the publication of their response to the Choice in end of life care review.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    The Government recognises that the response to the Review of Choice in End of Life Care is keenly awaited. Ensuring that everyone at, or nearing, the end of life receives high quality, compassionate care, tailored to their individual needs and preferences is a priority for this Government, and the response to the Choice Review is therefore being carefully considered.

    As previously set out, in its response the Government will address each of the Review recommendations including: care coordination; improving the quality, availability and responsiveness of care; improving the quality and use of data; care planning and the use of digital care records; and the involvement of family members and carers in discussions about care. Further details regarding the publication of the response, which is expected shortly, will be made available when it is appropriate to do so.

  • Lord Wills – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Wills – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Wills on 2016-04-22.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government why they have not provided a specific date for when they will publish a response to the Choice in end of life care review, and why that response has not yet been published.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    The Government recognises that the response to the Review of Choice in End of Life Care is keenly awaited. Ensuring that everyone at, or nearing, the end of life receives high quality, compassionate care, tailored to their individual needs and preferences is a priority for this Government, and the response to the Choice Review is therefore being carefully considered.

    As previously set out, in its response the Government will address each of the Review recommendations including: care coordination; improving the quality, availability and responsiveness of care; improving the quality and use of data; care planning and the use of digital care records; and the involvement of family members and carers in discussions about care. Further details regarding the publication of the response, which is expected shortly, will be made available when it is appropriate to do so.

  • Lord Wills – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Wills – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Wills on 2016-04-22.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether their formal response to the Choice in end of life care review will be published before the purdah period ahead of the EU referendum begins.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    The Government recognises that the response to the Review of Choice in End of Life Care is keenly awaited. Ensuring that everyone at, or nearing, the end of life receives high quality, compassionate care, tailored to their individual needs and preferences is a priority for this Government, and the response to the Choice Review is therefore being carefully considered.

    As previously set out, in its response the Government will address each of the Review recommendations including: care coordination; improving the quality, availability and responsiveness of care; improving the quality and use of data; care planning and the use of digital care records; and the involvement of family members and carers in discussions about care. Further details regarding the publication of the response, which is expected shortly, will be made available when it is appropriate to do so.

  • Lord Wills – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Wills – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Wills on 2016-04-22.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend fully to fund measures to implement the recommendations set out in the Choice in end of life care review.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    The Government recognises that the response to the Review of Choice in End of Life Care is keenly awaited. Ensuring that everyone at, or nearing, the end of life receives high quality, compassionate care, tailored to their individual needs and preferences is a priority for this Government, and the response to the Choice Review is therefore being carefully considered.

    As previously set out, in its response the Government will address each of the Review recommendations including: care coordination; improving the quality, availability and responsiveness of care; improving the quality and use of data; care planning and the use of digital care records; and the involvement of family members and carers in discussions about care. Further details regarding the publication of the response, which is expected shortly, will be made available when it is appropriate to do so.

  • Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-04-21.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the reply by Baroness Anelay of St Johns to the private notice question from Lord Alton of Liverpool on 21 April, which members of the United Nations Security Council they believe would veto a referral to the International Criminal Court of evidence of genocide against Christian, Yazidi and other minorities in Iraq and Syria.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    The International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor set out some of the complicated issues involved in the ICC investigating Daesh in her press statement of 8 April 2015. It is not possible to refer Daesh itself to the ICC. Any referral would cover ALL potential crimes against international humanitarian law within a specified geographic area, rather than a specified organisation or set of actors.

    When efforts were made to refer the situation in Syria to the ICC in 2014, it was vetoed by Russia and China. We expect that any Security Council resolution at this time seeking to refer the situations in Iraq or Syria to the ICC would likewise be blocked.