Show Search Form

Search Results

registered interest	true false
date	exactly: or between: and
answering body
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
hansard heading
house id
legislature	pref label
question text
tabling member printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member printed grouped question UIN question first answered answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

515485

	registered interest
	date	25/04/2016
	answering body	Leader of the House of Lords
	answering dept id	92
	answering dept short name
	answering dept sort name	Leader of the House of Lords
	hansard heading	Human Rights
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask the Leader of the House whether time will be made in the Parliamentary timetable for a full debate on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s <i>Human Rights and Democracy Report 2015</i>.
	tabling member printed	Lord Alton of Liverpool
	uin	HL7865
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/05/2016 answer text <p>My Noble Friend the Government Chief Whip does not expect to be able to facilitate a full debate on the report before the end of this session, but from the start of the new session, the usual mechanisms - which include balloted debates, Thursday debates, and questions for short debate - will be available to secure a debate on the Report.</p> answering member printed Baroness Stowell of Beeston question first answered 09/05/2016 11:05:17 answering member 4205 label Biography information for Baroness Stowell of Beeston
	tabling member	738 label Biography information for Lord Alton of Liverpool

516395

	registered interest
	date	27/04/2016
	answering body	Cabinet Office
	answering dept id	53
	answering dept short name	Cabinet Office
	answering dept sort name	Cabinet Office
	hansard heading	Public Duty Costs Allowance
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the decision by the First-Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) in<i> Gabriel Webber v the Information Commissioner</i> (EA/2015/0194) on 22 March, whether they will now release claims made, with supporting receipts, of public duty costs allowances paid to former Prime Ministers, and if so, when.
	tabling member printed	Lord Storey
	uin	HL8033
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/05/2016 answer text <p>The Public Duties Cost Allowance (PDCA) was introduced to assist former Prime Ministers, still active in public life, with the costs of continuing to fulfil public duties. The PDCA is set in line with the annual Parliamentary Staffing Allowance allocated to Members of Parliament as determined by IPSA. In addition, former Prime Ministers are entitled to claim a pension allowance to contribute towards the pension costs of their staff. This is limited to a maximum of 10% of their staff salary costs.</p><p>The Government is currently considering the decision of the First-Tier Tribunal.</p> answering member printed Lord Bridges of Headley grouped question UIN HL8032 question first answered 09/05/2016 13:39:59 answering member 4535 label Biography information for Lord Bridges of Headley
	tabling member	4238 label Biography information for Lord Storey

517012

	registered interest
	date	03/05/2016
	answering body	Home Office
	answering dept id	1
	answering dept short name	Home Office
	answering dept sort name	Home Office
	hansard heading	Freemasonry
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of reports of collusion within the police forces and other agencies after the Hillsborough disaster, whether they will introduce legislation to prevent serving members of the police force and the judiciary from belonging to the freemasons.
	tabling member printed	Lord Berkeley
	uin	HL8167
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/05/2016 answer text <p>Any police officer must be able to discharge their duties within the law and is expected to abide by the oath of constable. The Standards of Professional Behaviour, set out in Schedule 2 to the Police (Conduct) Regulations (2012), require police officers to be ‘honest, act with integrity and . . . not compromise or abuse their position’. Police officers must be able to do so, irrespective of membership of any external membership organisations.</p><p>The College of Policing introduced a Code of Ethics in July 2014 which applies to all police officers and staff in England and Wales and sets out clear principles and standards of behaviour expected of them. It is for individual forces to determine whether an individual officer’s behaviour or misconduct meets the standards that are set out and where they are not, to investigate and instigate disciplinary proceedings where appropriate.</p><p>Following the Chapman Review in 2014, the Government is continuing its programme of reforms to improve police integrity and the police discipline system, including through the Policing and Crime Bill which is currently before parliament to improve the system and its ability to hold officers to account for their actions and behaviour.</p><p>In the case of judges it is also essential to the rule of law that they are independent and impartial when exercising their judicial functions. All judicial office holders should recuse themselves in any case where bias or the appearance of bias arises and are counselled against engaging in any activity which might undermine or be reasonably thought to undermine their judicial independence or impartiality. These commitments are enshrined in the judicial oath.</p> answering member printed Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon question first answered 09/05/2016 16:11:17 answering member 4210 label Biography information for Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
	tabling member	3526 label Biography information for Lord Berkeley

515035

	registered interest
	date	22/04/2016
	answering body	Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
	answering dept id	26
	answering dept short name	Business, Innovation and Skills
	answering dept sort name	Business, Innovation and Skills
	hansard heading	Audit: EU Law
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	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.
	tabling member printed	Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
	uin	HL7855
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/05/2016 answer text <p>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).</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p> answering member printed Baroness Neville-Rolfe grouped question UIN HL7853 HL7854 question first answered 09/05/2016 12:43:28 answering member 4284 label Biography information for Baroness Neville-Rolfe
	tabling member	384 label Biography information for Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

515034

	registered interest
	date	22/04/2016
	answering body	Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
	answering dept id	26
	answering dept short name	Business, Innovation and Skills
	answering dept sort name	Business, Innovation and Skills
	hansard heading	Audit: EU Law
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	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.
	tabling member printed	Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
	uin	HL7854
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/05/2016 answer text <p>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).</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p> answering member printed Baroness Neville-Rolfe grouped question UIN HL7853 HL7855 question first answered 09/05/2016 12:43:28 answering member 4284 label Biography information for Baroness Neville-Rolfe
	tabling member	384 label Biography information for Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

515948

	registered interest
	date	26/04/2016
	answering body	Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
	answering dept id	13
	answering dept short name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
	answering dept sort name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
	hansard heading	Badgers
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Gardiner of Kimble on 20 April (HL7528), whether damage caused to bulbs and plants in commercial horticultural establishments, in town and country alike, would be considered serious enough to warrant the issue of a licence.
	tabling member printed	Lord Patten
	uin	HL8005
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/05/2016 answer text <p>As licence applications are considered on a case-by-case basis, whether or not a licence would be issued would depend on the specific circumstances under which an application is made.</p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member printed Lord Gardiner of Kimble question first answered 09/05/2016 15:28:29 answering member 4161 label Biography information for Lord Gardiner of Kimble
	tabling member	1137 label Biography information for Lord Patten

517006

	registered interest
	date	03/05/2016
	answering body	Department for Energy and Climate Change
	answering dept id	63
	answering dept short name	Energy and Climate Change
	answering dept sort name	Energy and Climate Change
	hansard heading	Hinkley Point C Power Station
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth on 24 March (HL6984) concerning Hinkley Point nuclear power station, what effect the delay by the government of France will have on the project and its projected completion date.
	tabling member printed	Lord Stoddart of Swindon
	uin	HL8161
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/05/2016 answer text <p>Both the French Government and EDF have restated their support for the Hinkley Point C project. After addressing the financing of the company and its investment plans, the chairman of EDF has begun a non-binding consultation with the company council ahead of a final investment decision. In the meantime, EDF has maintained development work in order to secure the overall schedule of the project. EDF has not changed the planned date for first operation in 2025.</p> answering member printed Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth question first answered 09/05/2016 16:26:08 answering member 4282 label Biography information for Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
	tabling member	950 label Biography information for Lord Stoddart of Swindon

515896

	registered interest
	date	26/04/2016
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Finance
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 25 April (HL7482), whether views have been expressed by non-executive members of any Service Boards to the Permanent Secretary about rebalancing funds between the fighting environments.
	tabling member printed	Lord West of Spithead
	uin	HL7962
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/05/2016 answer text <p>Non-executive members of Service Boards are able to offer their views on defence matters to the Permanent Secretary. We do not comment on the detail of internal discussions.</p> answering member printed Earl Howe question first answered 09/05/2016 15:35:25 answering member 2000 label Biography information for Earl Howe
	tabling member	3834 label Biography information for Lord West of Spithead

515033

	registered interest
	date	22/04/2016
	answering body	Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
	answering dept id	26
	answering dept short name	Business, Innovation and Skills
	answering dept sort name	Business, Innovation and Skills
	hansard heading	Audit: EU Law
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	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.
	tabling member printed	Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
	uin	HL7853
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/05/2016 answer text <p>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).</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p> answering member printed Baroness Neville-Rolfe grouped question UIN HL7854 HL7855 question first answered 09/05/2016 12:43:28 answering member 4284 label Biography information for Baroness Neville-Rolfe
	tabling member	384 label Biography information for Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

516559

	registered interest
	date	28/04/2016
	answering body	Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
	answering dept id	13
	answering dept short name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
	answering dept sort name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
	hansard heading	Pesticides
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government which plant protection products are banned for use in the UK but are currently being used in other member states of the EU.
	tabling member printed	Baroness Byford
	uin	HL8071
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/05/2016 answer text <p>There is a two-step process before a plant protection product can be placed on the market and used. First, the active substance or active substances contained in the product must be approved EU-wide by the European Commission. Second, the product itself must be authorised by the Member State. Authorisations are determined on the basis of an assessment of the risks to people and to the environment. The approach to the assessment is harmonised across the EU, but the outcomes of applications for the same product may differ because of variations in national conditions.</p><p> </p><p>Companies will decide the Member States from which they wish to seek authorisation and authorisation holders may, at any time, instruct that authorisations are withdrawn.</p><p> </p><p>Product authorisations may therefore vary between Member States. At present, there is no central database of authorisations which records these differences.</p> answering member printed Lord Gardiner of Kimble question first answered 09/05/2016 15:12:52 answering member 4161 label Biography information for Lord Gardiner of Kimble
	tabling member	3343 label Biography information for Baroness Byford