The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Myners on 2016-03-23.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much the UK contributes towards the subsidisation of sugar production.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Sugar production is not directly subsidised in the UK. However, sugar beet growers in the UK are entitled to make a claim for support under the Basic Payment Scheme of the Common Agricultural Policy.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Myners on 2016-04-25.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will establish an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding BHS being placed in administration, and in particular in to the implications for employees, pension scheme members and creditors.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
When a company enters administration, the administrators have to report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills within three months on the conduct of the directors.
In the case of BHS the Insolvency Service is making early contact with the administrators to discuss the directors’ conduct and to consider whether further steps, such as a detailed investigation, may be necessary.
Where misconduct is established it can lead to disqualification of a director for between 2 and 15 years.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Myners on 2016-05-03.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether it is their policy that the ultimate holding company for the London Stock Exchange remains incorporated in the UK.
Lord O’Neill of Gatley
I refer the noble Lord to my previous answers of 26 April (HL7583 and HL7780) which noted that, once notified of the merger, the Bank of England and Financial Conduct Authority would assess the proposal from a regulatory standpoint, and that it would also be subject to assessments and approvals by the competition authorities, overseas regulators, and shareholders.
My previous answers further noted that any inter central counterparty links would need to be assessed against the relevant parts of European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR) by the Bank of England, as supervisor of LCH.
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 626), on how many occasions since its inception has the Pensions Regulator used provisions for dawn raids, and how it determines the circumstances in which such provisions should be employed.
Baroness Altmann
The Pensions Regulator has a power to request information which it exercises regularly and successfully. This means that it is often not necessary to use the powers under section 73 (inspection) or section 78 (warrants) of the Pensions Act 2004.
Under section 78, a justice of the peace may issue a warrant where there are reasonable grounds for believing that there are –
or that
This power is only used in extreme circumstances, and such cases usually involve suspicions of wider criminal activity. Since 2004, the Regulator has used its powers to either inspect premises or issue a warrant on five occasions.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Myners on 2016-07-20.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to introduce legislation restricting the acquisition of key UK companies by foreign investors while they consider their industrial strategy.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
As we build an economy that works for all, the Government will keep the law on takeovers under constant review.
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.