Blog

  • William Bain – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    William Bain – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by William Bain on 2014-04-30.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, which priority investors in Royal Mail have subsequently sold all or part of their holdings of shares since the date of flotation; and what estimate he has made of the level of profits made in each case.

    Michael Fallon

    Maintained by Royal Mail and is subject to uncertainties (e.g. funds can hold their shares through a range of nominees/custodians).

    Based on the Bloomberg register dated 23rd April, we estimate that more than half of the pilot fishing investors allocated shares remain invested and that they hold shares equal to more than 50% of their combined allocations.

    Given that the timings of sales and purchases are not available on a fund by fund basis, the Department does not know, and has not made any estimate, of any profits made by these investors (other than Lazard Asset Management whose representative told the Public Accounts Committee on 30 April the level of profit it made on the sale of Royal Mail shares for its clients).

  • William Bain – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    William Bain – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by William Bain on 2014-04-30.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what meetings or telephone calls have taken place between Ministers and officials in his Department with (a) the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, (b) BlackRock, (c) Capital Research, (d) Fidelity Worldwide, (e) GIC, (f) Henderson, (g) JP Morgan, (h) Kuwait Investment Office, (i) Lansdowne Partners, (j) Lazard Asset Management, (k) Och Ziff, Schroders, (l) Soros, (m) Standard Life, (n) Third Point and (o) Threadneedle in relation to the flotation of the Royal Mail since May 2010; and what was discussed in such meetings.

    Michael Fallon

    Neither Ministers in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills nor officials have discussed the Royal Mail flotation with any of these investors.

  • William Bain – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    William Bain – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by William Bain on 2014-04-30.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, which meetings or telephone calls have taken place between Ministers and officials in his Department and (a) the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, (b) BlackRock, (c) Capital Research, (d) Fidelity Worldwide, (e) GIC, (f) Henderson, (g) JP Morgan, (h) Kuwait Investment Office, (i) Lansdowne Partners, (j) Lazard Asset Management, (k) Och Ziff, Schroders, (l) Soros, (m) Standard Life, (n) Third Point and (o) Threadneedle since 2010 and what was discussed in any such discussions.

    Andrea Leadsom

    Treasury Ministers and officials have meetings with a wide variety of organisations in the public and private sectors as part of the process of policy development and delivery.

    Details of ministerial and permanent secretary meetings with external organisations on departmental business are published on a quarterly basis and are available at:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/hmt-ministers-meetings-hospitality-gifts-and-overseas-travel

    Details of officials’ meetings with external organisations are not held centrally and it would entail disproportionate cost to collate this information.

    “

  • Cathy Jamieson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Cathy Jamieson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Cathy Jamieson on 2014-04-30.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment he has made of the effect of his Department’s withdrawal from the Debt Management Plan Protocol guidance group on the development of future non-statutory debt solutions.

    Andrea Leadsom

    The Government is committed to improving standards in the debt management industry to deliver a better deal for consumers and greater transparency for creditors. The Debt Management Plan Protocol played a crucial role in meeting this objective, working in complement with the OFT regulatory framework, and paved the way for more robust regulation of the sector by the FCA.

    From 1 April, responsibility for regulating debt management firms, along with all other consumer credit firms, transferred from the Office of Fair Trading to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).

    Consumers will be better protected under the new regime – the FCA will:

    · police the gateway to the market more thoroughly;

    · proactively identify risks to consumers;

    · focus its supervisory resources on areas most likely to cause consumer harm;

    · approve individuals in influential roles in firms;

    · operate a flexible and responsive regime;

    · use its wide enforcement toolkit;

    · and ensure consumers have access to redress.

    The FCA will thoroughly assess every debt management firm’s fitness to trade as part of the authorisation process – debt management firms will be amongst the first to require authorisation.

    The FCA has also introduced new requirements for debt management firms, including:

    · Prudential requirements: Debt management firms often hold consumers’ money – the FCA is requiring large debt management firms to hold capital to ensure that consumers don’t risk losing their money if things go wrong.

    · Guidance added that debt management firms should not allocate more than half the money received from customers in debt management plans to meeting their fees and charges.

    With the new FCA regulatory regime in place which will greatly improve consumer protection in the debt management market, the Government decided following discussions with a range of stakeholders that it was the right time to step away from an active role in the Protocol.

    The Government hopes that the stakeholders involved in the Protocol will continue to work together to help the FCA monitor the market and drive best practice in the sector.

  • Cathy Jamieson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Cathy Jamieson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Cathy Jamieson on 2014-04-30.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment he has made of the future implementation of the Debt Management Plan Protocol.

    Andrea Leadsom

    The Government is committed to improving standards in the debt management industry to deliver a better deal for consumers and greater transparency for creditors. The Debt Management Plan Protocol played a crucial role in meeting this objective, working in complement with the OFT regulatory framework, and paved the way for more robust regulation of the sector by the FCA.

    From 1 April, responsibility for regulating debt management firms, along with all other consumer credit firms, transferred from the Office of Fair Trading to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).

    Consumers will be better protected under the new regime – the FCA will:

    · police the gateway to the market more thoroughly;

    · proactively identify risks to consumers;

    · focus its supervisory resources on areas most likely to cause consumer harm;

    · approve individuals in influential roles in firms;

    · operate a flexible and responsive regime;

    · use its wide enforcement toolkit;

    · and ensure consumers have access to redress.

    The FCA will thoroughly assess every debt management firm’s fitness to trade as part of the authorisation process – debt management firms will be amongst the first to require authorisation.

    The FCA has also introduced new requirements for debt management firms, including:

    · Prudential requirements: Debt management firms often hold consumers’ money – the FCA is requiring large debt management firms to hold capital to ensure that consumers don’t risk losing their money if things go wrong.

    · Guidance added that debt management firms should not allocate more than half the money received from customers in debt management plans to meeting their fees and charges.

    With the new FCA regulatory regime in place which will greatly improve consumer protection in the debt management market, the Government decided following discussions with a range of stakeholders that it was the right time to step away from an active role in the Protocol.

    The Government hopes that the stakeholders involved in the Protocol will continue to work together to help the FCA monitor the market and drive best practice in the sector.

  • Cathy Jamieson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Cathy Jamieson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Cathy Jamieson on 2014-04-30.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, for what reason his Department will no longer participate in the Debt Management Plan Protocol guidance group; and if he will make a statement.

    Andrea Leadsom

    The Government is committed to improving standards in the debt management industry to deliver a better deal for consumers and greater transparency for creditors. The Debt Management Plan Protocol played a crucial role in meeting this objective, working in complement with the OFT regulatory framework, and paved the way for more robust regulation of the sector by the FCA.

    From 1 April, responsibility for regulating debt management firms, along with all other consumer credit firms, transferred from the Office of Fair Trading to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).

    Consumers will be better protected under the new regime – the FCA will:

    · police the gateway to the market more thoroughly;

    · proactively identify risks to consumers;

    · focus its supervisory resources on areas most likely to cause consumer harm;

    · approve individuals in influential roles in firms;

    · operate a flexible and responsive regime;

    · use its wide enforcement toolkit;

    · and ensure consumers have access to redress.

    The FCA will thoroughly assess every debt management firm’s fitness to trade as part of the authorisation process – debt management firms will be amongst the first to require authorisation.

    The FCA has also introduced new requirements for debt management firms, including:

    · Prudential requirements: Debt management firms often hold consumers’ money – the FCA is requiring large debt management firms to hold capital to ensure that consumers don’t risk losing their money if things go wrong.

    · Guidance added that debt management firms should not allocate more than half the money received from customers in debt management plans to meeting their fees and charges.

    With the new FCA regulatory regime in place which will greatly improve consumer protection in the debt management market, the Government decided following discussions with a range of stakeholders that it was the right time to step away from an active role in the Protocol.

    The Government hopes that the stakeholders involved in the Protocol will continue to work together to help the FCA monitor the market and drive best practice in the sector.

  • Cathy Jamieson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Cathy Jamieson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Cathy Jamieson on 2014-04-30.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what discussions he has had with (a) representatives or organisations offering free debt advice, (b) representatives of fee charging debt management organisations, (c) creditors and (d) the Insolvency Service on the potential effect of his Department’s withdrawal from the Debt Management Plan Protocol guidance group.

    Andrea Leadsom

    The Government is committed to improving standards in the debt management industry to deliver a better deal for consumers and greater transparency for creditors. The Debt Management Plan Protocol played a crucial role in meeting this objective, working in complement with the OFT regulatory framework, and paved the way for more robust regulation of the sector by the FCA.

    From 1 April, responsibility for regulating debt management firms, along with all other consumer credit firms, transferred from the Office of Fair Trading to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).

    Consumers will be better protected under the new regime – the FCA will:

    · police the gateway to the market more thoroughly;

    · proactively identify risks to consumers;

    · focus its supervisory resources on areas most likely to cause consumer harm;

    · approve individuals in influential roles in firms;

    · operate a flexible and responsive regime;

    · use its wide enforcement toolkit;

    · and ensure consumers have access to redress.

    The FCA will thoroughly assess every debt management firm’s fitness to trade as part of the authorisation process – debt management firms will be amongst the first to require authorisation.

    The FCA has also introduced new requirements for debt management firms, including:

    · Prudential requirements: Debt management firms often hold consumers’ money – the FCA is requiring large debt management firms to hold capital to ensure that consumers don’t risk losing their money if things go wrong.

    · Guidance added that debt management firms should not allocate more than half the money received from customers in debt management plans to meeting their fees and charges.

    With the new FCA regulatory regime in place which will greatly improve consumer protection in the debt management market, the Government decided following discussions with a range of stakeholders that it was the right time to step away from an active role in the Protocol.

    The Government hopes that the stakeholders involved in the Protocol will continue to work together to help the FCA monitor the market and drive best practice in the sector.

  • Jenny Chapman – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Jenny Chapman – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jenny Chapman on 2014-04-30.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many members of staff in each prison in England and Wales were serving on detached duty in (a) January, (b) February and (c) March 2014.

    Jeremy Wright

    A nationally co-ordinated detached duty scheme has been operating since 21 October 2013. Information on the number of officers serving on detached duty before the introduction of the national scheme is not available. The full-time equivalent of officers provided on detached duty from the beginning of the nationally co-ordinated scheme until the 31 December 2013 is contained in the table below. Some allocations outside of the national scheme continued after October 2013 but is not included in the information provided. London region particularly allocated staff within their own region. Information collected on the staffing allocated. On occasions the resource is not actually deployed due to changes in local circumstances.

    The deployment of staff between prisons on detached duty is a regular and normal part of prison resourcing. It allows staff to be allocated from prisons with the capacity to provide them, to those where additional staffing is required. On average over the three month period (October to December 2013), less than 1% of staff were provided on detached duty. A large proportion of the capacity was available from prisons that were in the process of closure or going through a re-role. This process temporarily releases a number of officers who are not supplied for specific occasions but are sent and received on a shift pattern throughout the week.

    Full Time Equivalent of Officers Working on Detached Duty 1

    – 21 October 2013 to 31 December 2013

    Full Time Equivalent Officers Provided on Detached Duty

    Scheme started in October so no data available for earlier period

    October 2013 (Data relates to part month from 21 October)

    46

    Nov-13

    107

    Dec-13

    205

    1 Detached duty figures are not published but other staffing data is published up to 31 December 2013 and therefore information is only presented up until that date.

  • Jenny Chapman – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Jenny Chapman – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jenny Chapman on 2014-04-30.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how much was spent by his Department on travel and accommodation costs for prison officers serving on detached duty in (a) 2011, (b) 2012 and (c) 2013.

    Jeremy Wright

    Identifying total travel and accommodation costs for prisons serving detached duty would require manual collation of data from online expenses systems and travel providers, which would incur disproportionate cost.

  • Jenny Chapman – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Jenny Chapman – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jenny Chapman on 2014-04-30.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many prison officers were serving on detached duty in each month from January 2011 to January 2014.

    Jeremy Wright

    A nationally co-ordinated detached duty scheme has been operating since 21 October 2013. Information on the number of officers serving on detached duty before the introduction of the national scheme is not available. The full-time equivalent of officers provided on detached duty from the beginning of the nationally co-ordinated scheme until the 31 December 2013 is contained in the table below. Some allocations outside of the national scheme continued after October 2013 but is not included in the information provided. London region particularly allocated staff within their own region. Information collected on the staffing allocated. On occasions the resource is not actually deployed due to changes in local circumstances.

    The deployment of staff between prisons on detached duty is a regular and normal part of prison resourcing. It allows staff to be allocated from prisons with the capacity to provide them, to those where additional staffing is required. On average over the three month period (October to December 2013), less than 1% of staff were provided on detached duty. A large proportion of the capacity was available from prisons that were in the process of closure or going through a re-role. This process temporarily releases a number of officers who are not supplied for specific occasions but are sent and received on a shift pattern throughout the week.

    Full Time Equivalent of Officers Working on Detached Duty 1

    – 21 October 2013 to 31 December 2013

    Full Time Equivalent Officers Provided on Detached Duty

    Scheme started in October so no data available for earlier period

    October 2013 (Data relates to part month from 21 October)

    46

    Nov-13

    107

    Dec-13

    205

    1 Detached duty figures are not published but other staffing data is published up to 31 December 2013 and therefore information is only presented up until that date.