Asked by: Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:
Her Majesty's Government when they expect to publish the results of their review into the role and remit of the Grocery Code Adjudicator; and whether the Adjudicator will have powers to (1) investigate alleged breaches of the Code on her own initiative, and (2) increase the level of fines in the event of a breach of the Code.
Answered by Lord Prior of Brampton
The Government published the statutory review of the Grocery Code Adjudicator on 19 July. This review considered the Grocery Code Adjudicator’s performance within the current remit.
The Government separately launched a Call for Evidence to consider whether the remit should be extended. The Government is considering the evidence submitted through the Call for Evidence including considering the position of indirect suppliers within the dairy sector. The Government will respond in due course.
The Grocery Code Adjudicator can already investigate suspected breaches of the Code. It has published statutory guidance on how it will carry out investigation and enforcement functions on GOV.UK (GCA Statutory Guidance on Enforcement and Investigations).
The review decided that the maximum level of fines the Grocery Code Adjudicator could impose would not be amended at this time.
Asked by: Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:
Her Majesty's Government whether they are planning to extend the remit of the Grocery Code Adjudicator to cover the dairy sector.
Answered by Lord Prior of Brampton
The Government published the statutory review of the Grocery Code Adjudicator on 19 July. This review considered the Grocery Code Adjudicator’s performance within the current remit.
The Government separately launched a Call for Evidence to consider whether the remit should be extended. The Government is considering the evidence submitted through the Call for Evidence including considering the position of indirect suppliers within the dairy sector. The Government will respond in due course.
The Grocery Code Adjudicator can already investigate suspected breaches of the Code. It has published statutory guidance on how it will carry out investigation and enforcement functions on GOV.UK (GCA Statutory Guidance on Enforcement and Investigations).
The review decided that the maximum level of fines the Grocery Code Adjudicator could impose would not be amended at this time.
Asked by: Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on rural areas of the proposed Industrial Strategy.
Answered by Lord Prior of Brampton
The industrial strategy is an opportunity to make the most of the diverse strengths of all of the UK’s cities and regions, including rural areas. Government is already taking a range of steps to improve productivity in rural areas, for example through investment in digital infrastructure. Our industrial strategy Green Paper seeks views on how we can take further steps to drive improved productivity in growth in all parts of the country, including rural areas.
Asked by: Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they plan to take to ensure that regulations governing the exploitation on a significant scale of shale gas by fracking will be robust and will not permit an unacceptable level of self-regulation.
Answered by Baroness Neville-Rolfe - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
Shale companies need permission from independent expert regulators before any hydraulic fracturing operations can begin:
- A licence for onshore oil and gas exploration is required from the Oil and Gas Authority
- Planning permission is required from the local Mineral Planning Authority
- Permits to operate a site are required from the Environment Agency
- Safety on a drilling site and standards of well construction are regulated by the Health and Safety Executive
- A drilling consent is also required from the Oil and Gas Authority
We are confident that we have a robust regulatory regime in place. The Government will keep the regulatory regime for shale under review as the industry develops to ensure it is proportionate and fit for purpose.
Asked by: Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the possible impact on the local economy and the environment of hydraulic fracturing in Ryedale, and what were the results of the economic impact assessment carried out on that proposed development.
Answered by Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
A planning application for the extraction of shale gas in Ryedale is currently under consideration by North Yorkshire County Council. It would not be appropriate for the Government to comment on the specifics of any proposal. It will be for the Council to take into account the impacts of the proposed development on the local economy and the environment as relevant in its determination of that application.
The Government continues to support the development of the shale industry in the UK. It has the potential to power economic growth, create tens of thousands of jobs and provide a new domestic energy source, making us less reliant on imports from abroad.
Asked by: Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:
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.
Answered by Baroness Neville-Rolfe - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
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.
Asked by: Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:
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.
Answered by Baroness Neville-Rolfe - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
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.
Asked by: Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:
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.
Answered by Baroness Neville-Rolfe - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
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.