Tag: Lord Myners

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Myners on 2015-12-09.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether Commissioners of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact receive funding to cover travel and hotel expenses ahead of visits, or whether they are reimbursed for meeting those costs personally.

Baroness Verma

The majority of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) commissioners’ air and rail journeys and hotels are booked in advance by the ICAI secretariat through DFID’s internal travel system to ensure value for money in line with DFID/ICAI guidance. These invoices are then verified and settled by the Secretariat. In the minority of cases where travel cannot be booked in advance, commissioners pay up-front and their submitted expense claims with receipts are then verified by the Head of the Secretariat and reimbursed.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Myners on 2016-04-12.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what actions they will take to ensure that arrangements for post-trade collateral management consequent on the takeover of the London Stock Exchange by Deutsche Börse does not increase risks to financial stability.

Lord O’Neill of Gatley

I refer the noble Lord to the investor relations section of the London Stock Exchange Group website, which contains information about the proposed merger, including some information on the combined group’s proposed structure. I also refer the noble Lord to my previous written answer HL7153.

Once formally notified of the proposed merger, the Bank of England and the Financial Conduct Authority (as supervisors of the London Stock Exchange Group’s UK-authorised subsidiaries) must assess the proposal from a regulatory standpoint.

In addition the proposed merger must be approved by competition authorities and is subject to a range of other assessments including those of overseas regulators and shareholders.

European Regulation No 648/2012 (EMIR) sets out detailed standards on the quality of collateral that a central counterparty (CCP) can accept, and includes a general requirement that the CCP can demonstrate to its supervisor that the form of collateral in question does not present unmanageable risk to the CCP. Furthermore, CCPs are permitted under EMIR to invest their collateral “only in cash or in highly liquid financial instruments with minimal market and credit risk.”

Any proposals for inter-CCP links would need to be assessed against relevant parts of EMIR by the Bank of England, as supervisor of LCH. EMIR requires that models used to set CCP margin requirements (and any changes to them) are validated by the CCP’s supervisor. EMIR also requires that a CCP wishing to extend its business to additional products or services must obtain the authorisation of its supervisor.

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have had any talks with the owners, managers or advisers to BHS; and whether they will take any action to protect employees, creditors and pensioners.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe

This is a worrying time for the BHS workforce and their families.

I understand that there are no plans for immediate store closures and that the administrators are looking to sell BHS as a going concern.

Clearly if this proves not to be possible, then we stand ready to help those affected, including through Jobcentre Plus’ Rapid Response Service, to help people move into new jobs as quickly as possible.

The Insolvency Service continues to liaise with the administrators, and stands ready to provide statutory assistance to employees in the event that the commercial situation changes.

I understand that the BHS schemes are in the early stages of a Pension Protection Fund (PPF) assessment period, during which the PPF will determine the final funding position of the scheme and whether it should assume responsibility for a scheme. We cannot comment on this, or any other individual case directly.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Myners on 2016-05-03.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Altmann on 28 April (HL7905), whether the Pensions Regulator has taken any action in the case of the BHS pension scheme in order to fulfil its statutory duty to reduce the risk of situations that may lead to claims for compensation from the Pension Protection Fund, and what assessment they have made of whether the Pensions Act 2004 provides adequate protection to pension scheme members.

Baroness Altmann

The investigation into the BHS pension schemes and any associated action is a matter for the independent Pensions Regulator.

Once the Regulator has completed its investigation, any subsequent determination will be published on its website.

The Government considers that the Pensions Act 2004 provides the Regulator with a sufficient range of measures to protect pension scheme members and the Pension Protection Fund, including anti-avoidance powers to enable it to act where corporate transactions are aimed at avoiding debts to the pension scheme. The powers of the Regulator are kept under review.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Myners on 2016-06-07.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the answer by Baroness Neville-Rolfe on 6 June (HL Deb, col 625), what factors make it difficult to estimate the cost to the taxpayer of the failure of BHS; and in what ways those costs can be covered by existing BHS resources.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe

It is too early to determine the cost to the taxpayer of BHS’ insolvency.

When a company becomes insolvent, redundancy costs are paid from the National Insurance Fund, up to legal limits, as part of a statutory guarantee scheme administered by the Insolvency Service’s Redundancy Payments Service. The Redundancy Payments Service then becomes a creditor in the insolvency and can recover some of the debt should any assets be sold as part of the insolvency process. If an employee has a claim over and above the statutory amount paid by the Redundancy Payment Service, then they can also claim as a creditor in the insolvency.

Therefore, the cost to the Government depends on the number of people made redundant, the amount paid to them and the amount recovered from the insolvency as a creditor.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Myners on 2016-07-20.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what powers they have to review the financial capacity of SoftBank to support ARM Holdings, and in particular whether they can require a further injection of capital into ARM Holdings before any takeover occurs.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe

It is for the parties to the proposed transaction to consider their relative positions in compliance with the Takeover Code. The board of the target company must take independent advice on the offer, and evaluate its effects on the company’s interests, before giving the board’s opinion to shareholders.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Myners on 2016-03-21.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government why the budget made concessions available on capital gains to non-domiciled residents of the UK that are not available to standard UK tax payers.

Lord O’Neill of Gatley

The Summer Budget reforms to the domicile tax regime are the most significant since the rules were introduced. They are forecast to raise £1.2 billion this Parliament. The transitional provisions announced at Budget 2016 are necessary for a reform of this scale as they help to ensure that non-doms remain here and continue to pay UK tax on their income and gains within the new domicile tax regime. In April 2017, over 3,000 non-doms will still become subject to UK taxation on their worldwide income and gains.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Myners on 2016-04-12.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what actions they have taken, if any, to ensure that the proposed cross-margining arrangements between Eurex and LCH do not subordinate counter-parties in the latter in the event of a failure of Eurex.

Lord O’Neill of Gatley

I refer the noble Lord to the investor relations section of the London Stock Exchange Group website, which contains information about the proposed merger, including some information on the combined group’s proposed structure. I also refer the noble Lord to my previous written answer HL7153.

Once formally notified of the proposed merger, the Bank of England and the Financial Conduct Authority (as supervisors of the London Stock Exchange Group’s UK-authorised subsidiaries) must assess the proposal from a regulatory standpoint.

In addition the proposed merger must be approved by competition authorities and is subject to a range of other assessments including those of overseas regulators and shareholders.

European Regulation No 648/2012 (EMIR) sets out detailed standards on the quality of collateral that a central counterparty (CCP) can accept, and includes a general requirement that the CCP can demonstrate to its supervisor that the form of collateral in question does not present unmanageable risk to the CCP. Furthermore, CCPs are permitted under EMIR to invest their collateral “only in cash or in highly liquid financial instruments with minimal market and credit risk.”

Any proposals for inter-CCP links would need to be assessed against relevant parts of EMIR by the Bank of England, as supervisor of LCH. EMIR requires that models used to set CCP margin requirements (and any changes to them) are validated by the CCP’s supervisor. EMIR also requires that a CCP wishing to extend its business to additional products or services must obtain the authorisation of its supervisor.

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have considered the risk to the solvency of the Pension Protection Fund of owners of companies with funding deficits selling the business for a nominal consideration or to an unsuitable purchaser.

Baroness Altmann

The independent Pensions Regulator, which oversees worked based pensions, has a statutory objective to reduce the risk of situations arising which may lead to compensation being payable from the Pension Protection Fund. It was given a significant range of anti-avoidance powers in the Pensions Act 2004, which can be deployed where it is appropriate and where the legal tests laid down in legislation are met.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Myners on 2016-05-11.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will consider giving the owners of Alternative Tier One instruments capital voting rights in banks which are approaching a contingent convertible conversion point.

Lord O’Neill of Gatley

The Government does not have plans to propose changes to Additional Tier 1 (AT1) instruments. These instruments have been designed without voting rights for investors because it is necessary for issuing banks to have the capital readily available in times of stress. Introduction of voting rights before a bank reaches a trigger point could undermine the ability to quickly convert these instruments and secure the capital necessary to prevent additional stress.