Blog

  • Baroness Randerson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Baroness Randerson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Randerson on 2016-04-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will outline the decision-making process following their expected announcement on airport expansion in the South East, and at what stage in that process there will be a vote in Parliament.

    Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

    On 14 December 2015, the Government formally announced that it accepted the Airports Commission’s case for new runway capacity in the South East, as well as the Commission’s three shortlisted schemes. At the same time, it was also announced that the Department for Transport would undertake a package of further work which it anticipates will conclude over the summer. Alongside this, they would prepare an airports national policy statement as the framework for implementing decisions on airport capacity in line with the Planning Act 2008. National policy statements are designated in Parliament, at which point there can be a vote.

  • Lord Mendelsohn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Lord Mendelsohn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Mendelsohn on 2016-04-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will be participating in the Investment Association’s roundtables on executive pay; and whether Minister or officials intend to communicate with the Investment Association in preparation of those roundtables.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    The Government welcomes the interim conclusions of the Executive Remuneration Working Group. They represent a valuable source of ideas for ensuring more effective engagement between investors and directors and ensuring that executive pay policies are tailored to the needs of individual businesses. We also welcome the Working Group’s plans to consult interested stakeholders on practical ways of improving the current approach to executive pay. Departmental officials will be engaging with the roundtables that are being planned.

    The Government made significant reforms to the governance of executive pay in 2013. Under these reforms, companies are required to put their pay policies to shareholders at least every three years. These policies have to include information on how each director will be paid and how that is linked to different levels of performance. This is subject to a binding vote. Companies also have to provide shareholders with an Annual Remuneration Report which reports the pay of each director in a single figure and again has to set out clearly how the actual payments relate to performance. Shareholders have an advisory vote on this report, but if they reject the report, the company must submit a revised pay policy to a binding vote at the next AGM.

    These reforms give shareholders effective powers to challenge excessive pay and hold boards to account on executive pay policies. There is strong evidence from the current AGM season that shareholders are willing to use these powers, particularly where levels of pay are out of line with performance.

    The Government has no current plans for further legislation or regulation, but is looking for firm evidence that companies are liaising effectively with shareholders and adjusting pay policies where there is shareholder dissatisfaction.

  • Lord Mendelsohn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Lord Mendelsohn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Mendelsohn on 2016-04-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they track executive pay; and whether they collect data on what percentage of Long Term Incentive Plans were changed for FTSE 100 companies when performance changed negatively.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    Executive pay has risen significantly since 1998 and the link between top pay and company performance has sometimes been weak. That is why the executive pay reforms brought in by the Government in 2013 included measures to clarify the links between pay and performance as well as giving shareholders a stronger say. Company remuneration policies (on which shareholders now have a binding vote at least every three years), for example, must include information on how directors’ pay is linked to different levels of performance. In addition, the Annual Remuneration Report, which sets out what directors have been paid in the past financial year, has to set out clearly how the actual payments made relate to performance.

    It is too soon to form firm conclusions about the impact of the 2013 reforms. Executive pay is typically set on a three year cycle and the reforms have not yet reached their third anniversary. However, there is growing evidence from the current AGM season that shareholders are prepared to use the new powers, particularly where pay is out of line with company performance.

    The Government does not track executive pay across the more than 1,000 companies subject to the Regulations. We do however work closely with independent researchers that regularly survey the level and structure of pay, such as Manifest, and with key stakeholders such as the Investment Association and the Financial Reporting Council to ensure that we have access to the evidence needed to keep executive pay under review.

  • Lord Mendelsohn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Lord Mendelsohn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Mendelsohn on 2016-04-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the FTSE share index of public companies trading at broadly the same levels as 1998 whilst executive pay over the same period has trebled.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    Executive pay has risen significantly since 1998 and the link between top pay and company performance has sometimes been weak. That is why the executive pay reforms brought in by the Government in 2013 included measures to clarify the links between pay and performance as well as giving shareholders a stronger say. Company remuneration policies (on which shareholders now have a binding vote at least every three years), for example, must include information on how directors’ pay is linked to different levels of performance. In addition, the Annual Remuneration Report, which sets out what directors have been paid in the past financial year, has to set out clearly how the actual payments made relate to performance.

    It is too soon to form firm conclusions about the impact of the 2013 reforms. Executive pay is typically set on a three year cycle and the reforms have not yet reached their third anniversary. However, there is growing evidence from the current AGM season that shareholders are prepared to use the new powers, particularly where pay is out of line with company performance.

    The Government does not track executive pay across the more than 1,000 companies subject to the Regulations. We do however work closely with independent researchers that regularly survey the level and structure of pay, such as Manifest, and with key stakeholders such as the Investment Association and the Financial Reporting Council to ensure that we have access to the evidence needed to keep executive pay under review.

  • Lord Mendelsohn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Lord Mendelsohn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Mendelsohn on 2016-04-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the Executive Remuneration Working Group’s conclusions, and whether they have any plans either by statutory means or by Ministerial engagement to ensure greater transparency in relation to executive pay, clearer alignment of shareholder, company and executive interests, more accountability on the part of remuneration committees and greater engagement with and control by shareholders working through company boards.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    The Government welcomes the interim conclusions of the Executive Remuneration Working Group. They represent a valuable source of ideas for ensuring more effective engagement between investors and directors and ensuring that executive pay policies are tailored to the needs of individual businesses. We also welcome the Working Group’s plans to consult interested stakeholders on practical ways of improving the current approach to executive pay. Departmental officials will be engaging with the roundtables that are being planned.

    The Government made significant reforms to the governance of executive pay in 2013. Under these reforms, companies are required to put their pay policies to shareholders at least every three years. These policies have to include information on how each director will be paid and how that is linked to different levels of performance. This is subject to a binding vote. Companies also have to provide shareholders with an Annual Remuneration Report which reports the pay of each director in a single figure and again has to set out clearly how the actual payments relate to performance. Shareholders have an advisory vote on this report, but if they reject the report, the company must submit a revised pay policy to a binding vote at the next AGM.

    These reforms give shareholders effective powers to challenge excessive pay and hold boards to account on executive pay policies. There is strong evidence from the current AGM season that shareholders are willing to use these powers, particularly where levels of pay are out of line with performance.

    The Government has no current plans for further legislation or regulation, but is looking for firm evidence that companies are liaising effectively with shareholders and adjusting pay policies where there is shareholder dissatisfaction.

  • Biography information for Lord Mendelsohn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Biography information for Lord Mendelsohn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Biography information for Lord Mendelsohn on 2016-04-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the Executive Remuneration Working Group’s conclusions that the current pay approach for listed companies had resulted in a poor alignment of interests between executives

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    The Government has noted the views set out in the interim report of the Executive Remuneration Working Group.

    Government reforms introduced in 2013 provide a significantly more transparent and robust governance framework for executive pay. The reforms give shareholders a binding vote at least every three years on company pay policies and an annual vote on the remuneration report which sets out exactly what directors have been paid. The annual vote is advisory but if the shareholders vote down the report, the company has to bring a revised pay policy to the next Annual General Meeting.

    These reforms give shareholders effective powers to challenge excessive executive pay and to hold boards to account on pay policies and it is now for investors and companies to engage constructively to ensure that pay policies are fit for purpose and that they align the interests of executives, shareholders and companies.

    Evidence from the current round of Annual General Meetings is that the reforms are having an impact and that shareholders are increasingly willing to use these powers where they are dissatisfied. BP and Smith and Nephew’s shareholders, for example, voted against their companies’ remuneration reports and the shareholders of Weir Group voted against that company’s remuneration policy in a binding vote. There have been significant shareholder votes against the remuneration reports at a number of other companies.

    The Government has no current plans for further legislation or regulation, but expects to see companies liaising effectively with shareholders and adjusting pay policies where there is shareholder dissatisfaction.

  • Lord Mendelsohn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Lord Mendelsohn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Mendelsohn on 2016-04-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the Executive Remuneration Working Group’s conclusions that executive pay is not fit for purpose” and that extensive reform is needed to allay “widespread scepticism and [the] loss of public confidence”.”

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    The Government has noted the views set out in the interim report of the Executive Remuneration Working Group.

    Government reforms introduced in 2013 provide a significantly more transparent and robust governance framework for executive pay. The reforms give shareholders a binding vote at least every three years on company pay policies and an annual vote on the remuneration report which sets out exactly what directors have been paid. The annual vote is advisory but if the shareholders vote down the report, the company has to bring a revised pay policy to the next Annual General Meeting.

    These reforms give shareholders effective powers to challenge excessive executive pay and to hold boards to account on pay policies and it is now for investors and companies to engage constructively to ensure that pay policies are fit for purpose and that they align the interests of executives, shareholders and companies.

    Evidence from the current round of Annual General Meetings is that the reforms are having an impact and that shareholders are increasingly willing to use these powers where they are dissatisfied. BP and Smith and Nephew’s shareholders, for example, voted against their companies’ remuneration reports and the shareholders of Weir Group voted against that company’s remuneration policy in a binding vote. There have been significant shareholder votes against the remuneration reports at a number of other companies.

    The Government has no current plans for further legislation or regulation, but expects to see companies liaising effectively with shareholders and adjusting pay policies where there is shareholder dissatisfaction.

  • The Marquess of Lothian – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The Marquess of Lothian – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Marquess of Lothian on 2016-04-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Immigration Minister, James Brokenshire, on 14 March (HC29894), and in the light of the figures released by the Home Office on the number of non-EU students who had their visas curtailed in the three years to the end of December 2015 as part of their strategy to clamp down on immigration abuse, how many educational institutions were affected, and whether any of those educational institutions remain open to British and EU students.

    Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

    It is not possible to run a report linking each curtailment decision to a specific educational institution. To provide the information requested would require a manual check of every curtailment in the cohort referenced which would incur a disproportionate cost.

    The Immigration Rules allow for leave of an individual to be curtailed for a variety of reasons, not only as a result of an institution losing its sponsor licence but also, for example, is a student drops out of their course of study and is reported to the Home Office by the sponsor. Sponsors have a number of reporting duties in respect of their students, and these can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sponsor-a-tier-4-student-guidance-for-educators

    The Home Office does not close down educational institutions. The revocation of a Tier 4 sponsor licence means that an educational institution can no longer recruit non-EEA students under the Points Based System. The institution may, however, continue to operate and teach UK and EEA students. The Home Office does not routinely monitor educational institutions who do not hold a sponsor licence.

  • The Marquess of Lothian – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The Marquess of Lothian – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Marquess of Lothian on 2016-04-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many public libraries have closed since 2010; how many are currently under threat of closure; and what action they are taking to ensure that public libraries are maintained as a statutory service and to promote improvement of the public library service.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    The Department for Culture, Media and Sport monitors closely proposed changes to library service provision throughout England. The Department does not maintain detail on the number of public libraries under review by local authorities, but based on desk research we estimate that from January 2010 to January 2016 approximately 110 static public libraries in England closed completely.

    Public libraries are funded and run by local authorities and it is a matter for local authorities to determine how best to provide a comprehensive and efficient public library service to their local community, within available resources.

    My Department, together with the Local Government Association, has set up a Leadership for Libraries Taskforce to help public libraries in England build on good practice and add value for the communities they serve. The Taskforce is currently consulting on the attached document at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/libraries-deliver-ambition-for-public-libraries-in-england-2016-2021 which sets out the ambition for public libraries in the future. Furthermore, thanks to Government funding, free Wi-Fi is available to 99% of public libraries in England.

  • The Marquess of Lothian – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The Marquess of Lothian – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Marquess of Lothian on 2016-04-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to combat Daesh in Libya.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    We are extremely concerned about the rise of Daesh in Libya. We are engaging with the new Libyan government and working closely with international partners to develop a comprehensive approach to defeat Daesh in Libya. Initial planning has focused on building the capabilities of Libyan security forces.