Asked by: Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many intellectual property licences the Department of Health and Social Care holds under contracts or terms of reference for (1) grants, (2) pre-procurement or proof of concept work, and (3) procurement; how many of those have sub-licensing rights; how many of those have resulted in sub-licensing; and how many of those sub-licences are for patents, and for which countries.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The standard contract terms and conditions that are in use by the Department and across the Government include intellectual property (IP) clauses which grant the buyer a licence to use the supplier’s IP in the context of receiving and benefiting from the deliverables being bought. These typically allow sub-licensing under certain conditions and restrictions designed to avoid unfair exploitation of supplier IP. Standard terms and conditions are available on the GOV.UK website.
Such terms and conditions also allow for the buyer to publish any new IP rights as open licence under the Government’s standard open licence.
The Department may also obtain licenses from external supplier/organisations to utilise their IP. An example of this is the Family Nurse Partnership (FNP), which is a licensed program developed and owned by the University of Colorado Denver. The Department and the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID) have entered into a licence to deliver the program in the United Kingdom, and OHID is authorised to sub-license the FNP program to other organisations.
The Department’s grant funding agreements may include IP clauses where outputs are expected, but the intellectual property is usually retained by the grant recipient, with the Department granted a royalty-free, non-exclusive licence to use any arising IP for public benefit.
The Department currently has 474 active contracts and 31 active grants. Finding instances of active sub-licensing of IP would involve manual searches of the information held for each of these cases, and would only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
Asked by: Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many intellectual property licences the Department for Transport holds under contracts or terms of reference for (1) grants, (2) pre-procurement or proof of concept work, and (3) procurement; how many of those have sub-licensing rights; how many of those have resulted in sub-licensing; and how many of those sub-licences are for patents, and for which countries.
Answered by Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill - Minister of State (Department for Transport)
The information requested could only be collected and verified for the purpose of answering this question at disproportionate cost.
Asked by: Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many intellectual property licences they hold under contracts or terms of reference for (1) grants, (2) pre-procurement or proof of concept work, and (3) procurement; how many of those have sub-licensing rights; how many of those have resulted in sub-licensing; and how many of those sub-licences are for patents, and for which countries.
Answered by Baroness Smith of Basildon - Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal
The government does not collate this information centrally.
Asked by: Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answers by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch on 10 March (HL5235), why the guidance was not developed to address matters relating to distributable profits given that, under part 23 of the Companies Act 2006, annual accounts are the relevant accounts for determining whether a distribution is lawful.
Answered by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
The guidance referred to in HL5235 is the FRC's Guidance on the Going Concern Basis of Accounting and Related Reporting (including Solvency and Liquidity risks). This guidance was developed to support companies in completing their 'going concern statement' and not to address matters relating to distributable profits. The Institute of Chartered Accountants England and Wales (ICAEW) currently prepares guidance on how companies should calculate their distributable reserves.
Asked by: Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answers by Baroness Jones of Whitchurchon 10 March (HL5234 and HL5235), whether they have taken account of the fact that the House of Commons Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy Committee's report The Future of Audit, published on 26 March 2019, concluded that international accounting standards were defective compared to the requirements of company law.
Answered by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
The Government announced in the King's Speech its intention to publish a draft Audit Reform and Corporate Governance Bill that will transition the FRC to a new Audit, Reporting and Governance Authority and provide it with relevant powers. The Government will consider the recommendations of the report, including relating to the Government and FRC producing definitions and guidance on what constitutes distributable profits, as work progresses.
Asked by: Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch on 10 March (HL5234), whether complying with accounting standards rather than the law was invoked by KPMG when the Insolvency Service sought £1.3 billion from KPMG in connection with its audits of Carillion plc and its subsidiary companies.
Answered by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
The Official Receiver on behalf of Carillion Plc and another issued a negligence claim against KPMG, the company's auditors, in November 2021. The area of law on which the claim was based was negligence. The negligence action and compliance with accounting standards are closely connected and the defence to the action relates to both. The defence itself is held on the court file which can be inspected with the consent of the court.
Asked by: Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch on 10 March (HL5234), whether they have considered whether the Financial Reporting Council guidance would have caused the threshold for applying the going concern basis of accounting in the cases of Carillion and its subsidiary companies to be regarded as high even where these were insolvent.
Answered by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
Guidance issued by the Financial Reporting Council does not change any legal requirement. The issuance and/or application of this guidance would not therefore have caused a change in the going concern basis of accounting assessment.
Asked by: Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the discrepancy between the Financial Reporting Council's Guidance on the Going Concern Basis of Accounting and Related Reporting (including Solvency and Liquidity Risks), published on 25 February, and section 393 of the Companies Act 2006, where the former requires that "the financial statements give a true and fair view" while the latter addresses specific numbers being "a true and fair view of the assets, liabilities, financial position and profit or loss".
Answered by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
The Financial Reporting Council (FPR) 'Guidance on the Going Concern Basis of Accounting and Related Reporting (including Solvency and Liquidity Risks)' (the guidance) is non-mandatory and non-statutory guidance issued by the FRC to support its public interest outcomes. The guidance was not developed to address matters relating to distributable profits.
Section 393 of the Companies Act 2006 is referenced in the guidance as one of the relevant requirements. Accounting standards set the threshold for departing from the going concern basis of accounting. As noted in paragraph 3.3 of the guidance, there are often realistic alternatives to liquidation or cessation of operations.
Asked by: Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask His Majesty's Government why the Financial Reporting Council’s Guidance on the Going Concern Basis of Accounting and Related Reporting (including Solvency and Liquidity Risks), published on 25 February, does not mention that using the going concern basis of accounting is relevant under Part 23 of the Companies Act 2006 in considering whether or not a distribution is lawful.
Answered by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
The Financial Reporting Council (FPR) 'Guidance on the Going Concern Basis of Accounting and Related Reporting (including Solvency and Liquidity Risks)' (the guidance) is non-mandatory and non-statutory guidance issued by the FRC to support its public interest outcomes. The guidance was not developed to address matters relating to distributable profits.
Section 393 of the Companies Act 2006 is referenced in the guidance as one of the relevant requirements. Accounting standards set the threshold for departing from the going concern basis of accounting. As noted in paragraph 3.3 of the guidance, there are often realistic alternatives to liquidation or cessation of operations.
Asked by: Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask His Majesty's Government why the Financial Reporting Council’s Guidance on the Going Concern Basis of Accounting and Related Reporting (including Solvency and Liquidity Risks), published on 25 February, does not mention that section 836 of the Companies Act 2006 requires the numbers in the "relevant accounts" to establish whether or not a distribution is lawful.
Answered by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
The Financial Reporting Council (FPR) 'Guidance on the Going Concern Basis of Accounting and Related Reporting (including Solvency and Liquidity Risks)' (the guidance) is non-mandatory and non-statutory guidance issued by the FRC to support its public interest outcomes. The guidance was not developed to address matters relating to distributable profits.
Section 393 of the Companies Act 2006 is referenced in the guidance as one of the relevant requirements. Accounting standards set the threshold for departing from the going concern basis of accounting. As noted in paragraph 3.3 of the guidance, there are often realistic alternatives to liquidation or cessation of operations.