The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness McIntosh of Pickering on 2015-11-30.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether basic farm payment applications on paper for 2016 will continue to be accepted.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
For 2016 we will look to offer an online Basic Payment Scheme application process with online transfers of entitlements and land. There will be a paper application for those that need it.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness McIntosh of Pickering on 2016-04-19.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many cyclists have been successfully prosecuted in each of the last three years for a breach of the Highway Code; and how many have been issued with a fixed penalty notice for (1) a summary offence, and (2) a more serious offence.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Enforcement of cycling offences and collection of data on such offences is a matter for the Ministry of Justice and Home Office.
Based on information provided to the Department for Transport, the number of defendants proceeded against at Magistrates’ courts and found guilty and sentenced for some cycling (non- motoring) offences in England and Wales from 2012 to 2014 (latest available) can be viewed in the attached table. This includes the average fine given at all courts for the specific offences listed in the table.
The Home Office collects data on the number of fixed penalty notices issued for motoring offences only and these data are published by the Home Office in the annual ‘Police Powers and Procedures’ publication. Data on fixed penalty notices issued to cyclists are not held centrally.
We are not able to provide an overall average financial penalty figure for all cycling offences. Many of these cycling offences are recorded under a miscellaneous offence grouping. The information required to split this miscellaneous grouping at offence level is held in individual court files, which can only be inspected at disproportionate cost.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness McIntosh of Pickering on 2015-12-07.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what recent discussions they have had with the insurance sector about financing flood defences.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
The Secretary of State and Floods Minister have met recently with the Association of British Insurers to discuss how people could be incentivised to take action to manage their flood risk and the role the insurance industry can play. In addition to this, Flood Re will develop its plans in relation to incentivising resilience and will provide information on how those whose policies are ceded to the Scheme can access information about their flood risk and how to manage it.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness McIntosh of Pickering on 2016-04-19.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the average financial penalty issued for a breach of the Highway Code in each of the last three years.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Enforcement of cycling offences and collection of data on such offences is a matter for the Ministry of Justice and Home Office.
Based on information provided to the Department for Transport, the number of defendants proceeded against at Magistrates’ courts and found guilty and sentenced for some cycling (non- motoring) offences in England and Wales from 2012 to 2014 (latest available) can be viewed in the attached table. This includes the average fine given at all courts for the specific offences listed in the table.
The Home Office collects data on the number of fixed penalty notices issued for motoring offences only and these data are published by the Home Office in the annual ‘Police Powers and Procedures’ publication. Data on fixed penalty notices issued to cyclists are not held centrally.
We are not able to provide an overall average financial penalty figure for all cycling offences. Many of these cycling offences are recorded under a miscellaneous offence grouping. The information required to split this miscellaneous grouping at offence level is held in individual court files, which can only be inspected at disproportionate cost.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness McIntosh of Pickering on 2015-12-07.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the reply by Lord Gardiner of Kimble on 3 December (HL Deb, col 1205), how much of the estimated £600 million additional partnership funding” has been received from private sources; and from which sources.”
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Six months into a six-year programme, £250 million has been secured. A further £350 million of potential contributions has been identified. Of the £250 million secured to date, £61 million comes directly from private sources.
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.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness McIntosh of Pickering on 2015-12-16.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to match revenue spending on flood defence and protection measures to capital spending, and whether they plan to move towards a total expenditure budget for such measures.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
We are investing £2.3 billion in 1,500 flood defence improvement schemes over the next six years. This will provide better protection to at least 300,000 households, up to 420,000 acres of agricultural land, over 200 miles of railway and 340 miles of roads. The Government has confirmed that flood maintenance funding will be protected in real terms for the duration of this Parliament.
There are no plans to move towards a total expenditure budget for flood defence and protection in this Parliament. The Environment Agency have advised us that the current funding is an optimal mix of resources funding (for maintaining defences) and capital funding to rebuild and improve defences as set out in the 6 year investment programme. We do not believe that there would be significant additional benefits from this flexibility at this stage.
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.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness McIntosh of Pickering on 2015-12-21.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the delay in the introduction of Flood Re on those houses recently flooded in Cumbria and elsewhere.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Until Flood Re becomes operational, the insurance industry is continuing to make insurance available to those policy holders at high flood risk, as agreed to in the Statement of Principles.
Flood Re has submitted a comprehensive application for authorisation to the financial regulators, and is engaging with them. Flood Re is continuing to build and implement the systems necessary to support the operational launch of the scheme in April 2016.
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.