Tag: Treasury

The press release issued by HM Treasury on 9 December 1998.

The first schemes in which receipts from fines, levies and fees can be used to fund specific projects were announced today by Chief Secretary, Stephen Byers. The detailed criteria against which applications to retain receipts from specific activities will be assessed were also set out. This new flexibility will allow government departments and agencies to retain money raised from fines and levies in cases where this would encourage the development of new initiatives, more efficient use of public money and better services.

Explaining this new policy Mr Byers,said:

“The Treasury is determined to provide a flexible and effective framework within which controls on public money will work. Where appropriate, and providing they meet strict criteria, I believe it is now right to consider how bodies can in future meet the costs of their activities from the money they raise from fines, levies and fees.

“The criteria will ensure that the money raised is in each case appropriate for such treatment, in particular, that the money is spent where it is most needed and will not distort the operational priorities of the organisations concerned.”

Separate criteria are applied to fines/penalties and licences/levies, reflecting the different considerations that apply. For example, money raised from fines and penalties will only be allowed to meet costs where: this is likely to improve performance against policy objectives; enforcement costs can be readily identified and apportioned; and where arrangements are in place to prevent any possible abuse of the system through the use of fine and penalty collection as a method of revenue raising.

The criteria applying to licences and levies require, for example: that the service provided is closely linked to the payer of the fee; that the activity must further the government’s economic goals; and that efficiency regimes are in place to keep costs down.

A full list of the criteria used is set out below.

Activities where using receipts to meet costs has been approved include:

DVLA receipts from wheel clamping activities; fees charged for removing wheel clamps from illegally parked cars and proceeds from the sale of unclaimed cars removed from the roadside will meet the costs of wheel clamping teams and the pounds where cars are held.

Office of Rail Regulation licence fees; the costs of the rail regulator will be met from licence fees charged to rail operators.

Environment Agency charges on waste packaging producers; waste packaging producers must register with the Environment Agency, which then monitors their activities. The costs to the Environment Agency can be met through registration fees.

For the remaining applications, discussions are continuing with departments on whether and how each case could meet the criteria. These include:

a request that the agencies involved should be allowed to retain the money raised from speed camera fines to meet the associated costs;

Environment Agency fines for breaches of environmental regulations.

The Treasury would be happy to consider further detailed proposals from departments, set against the criteria, to use receipts to meet costs.

NOTES TO EDITORS

1.  The Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 1998 (June 1998, CM 3978) announced that departments were to be able to keep more of their receipts in order to improve efficiency and effectiveness.

2.  Any questions relating to the specific activities for which receipts might offset costs should be addressed to the departments concerned.

3.  The full list of criteria used for assessing proposals by departments to allow netting off of receipts from costs, within Departmental Expenditure Limits, is:

(I) CRITERIA TO BE APPLIED TO FINES AND PENALTIES

Will performance against policy objectives, e.g. crime fighting and prevention, be likely to be improved?

Are arrangements in place which will ensure that the activity will not lead to the abuse of fine and penalty collection as a method of revenue raising, and that operational priorities will remain undistorted?

Will revenues always be sufficient to meet future costs, with any excess revenues over costs being surrendered?

Can costs of enforcement be readily identified and apportioned without undue bureaucracy, and with interdepartmental and inter-agency agreement, where necessary?

Can savings be achieved through the change and are adequate efficiency regimes in place to control costs, including regular efficiency reviews?

(II) CRITERIA TO BE APPLIED TO LICENCES AND LEVIES

The service delivered should be closely linked to the payer of the licence or levy, either because they are the beneficiaries of the service, or because they are the cause of the expenditure being incurred;

The licence or levy is appropriate, i.e. applied in the economically most advantageous way in the circumstances;

Introducing the levy or licence should not materially restrict the Government’s fiscal policy;

The activity financed by the levy or licence must further our economic goals;

Netting off receipts would improve the efficiency with which resources are allocated eg because of a difficulty in otherwise matching resources to unpredictable changes in externally driven demand;

Where appropriate, charges should be set using the principles of the Fees and Charges Guide, and surpluses would have to be surrendered;

There should be adequate efficiency regimes in place to keep costs down, including stretching targets and regular efficiency reviews;

Day-to-day decisions on the level of charges and an efficient level of costs should be taken separately from the body raising the levy, to prevent abuse of its monopoly power. Normally this would be by the departmental minister. There will be periodic reviews, involving the Treasury, of the operation of the licences and levies, including whether they should exist at all, what scale of activity is appropriate, and the level of charges set.

The press release issued by HM Treasury on 7 December 1998.

An expanded Network of Ministers to tackle social exclusion was welcomed today by the newly appointed Chair, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Stephen Byers on the first anniversary of the establishment of the Social Exclusion Unit (SEU).

The Network will be made up of Ministers who work closely with SEU and they will act as champions to help guide and present its work. It will now include Ministers from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Mr Byers said:

“If we are to achieve our aim of creating a modern Britain and a decent society there must be no forgotten people. That is why tackling social exclusion is a priority for the government.

“In it’s first year the Social Exclusion Unit has made good progress and action is now being taken to cut school exclusions and truancy; reduce rough sleeping and tackle the problems faced by poor neighbourhoods.

“We have established a new way of working across Whitehall. By breaking down the traditional departmental barriers we have been able to respond in a more positive and practical way to the needs of individuals and communities.

“The Unit is a vital part of our programme to modernise government. Providing joined up solutions to deep seated problems is a key aspect of democratic renewal”.

NOTES TO EDITORS

1. The membership of the Ministerial Network on Social Exclusion was announced today in a written answer from the Prime Minister to Robin Corbett MP. It is:

Stephen Byers HM Treasury (Chair)

Hilary Armstrong Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions

Paul Boateng Home Office

John Denham Department of Social Security

Lord Falconer Cabinet Office

Peter Hain Welsh Office

Tessa Jowell Department of Health

Geoffrey Robinson HM Treasury

Barbara Roche Department of Trade and Industry

Lord Sewel of Gilcomstoun Scottish Office

John McFall Northern Ireland Office

Andrew Smith Department for Education and Employment

2. The Social Exclusion Unit was set up by the Prime Minister in December 1997, and is staffed by a mixture of outside experts and civil servants. They come from a number of Government departments and from organisations with experience of tackling social exclusion – the probation service, housing, police, local authorities, the voluntary sector and business. The Unit has a remit to produce ‘joined up solutions to joined up problems’. It is tasked with analysing the web of problems that make up social exclusion, and then improving the mechanisms to prevent them happening.

3. The Unit forms part of the Cabinet Office, and reports directly to the Prime Minister. It works closely with the No 10 Policy Unit and policy officials across Whitehall. It does not cover issues which are dealt with by one Government department, or duplicate work being done elsewhere.

The press release issued by HM Treasury on 7 December 1998.

The membership and direction of the new Public Services Productivity Panel was announced today by Paymaster General Geoffrey Robinson.

Speaking at the second Productivity Roadshow in Cambridge, Mr Robinson said:

“The productivity challenge must be met across all sectors of the economy – that includes the public sector. We want to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of public spending, and the quality of service it buys. We are determined that the extra 40 billion billion we are investing in health and education delivers real measurable improvements.

“The new Public Services Productivity Panel will draw on private sector experience to look at ways of improving the productivity of Government departments and other public sector bodies.

“It will examine the Public Service Agreements to determine what will be most critical to each department’s ability to deliver its targets. It will also offer specific recommendations on service delivery improvement.

“I look forward to working with the Panel on how we can improve our productivity in Government.”

The Panel will be chaired by the Paymaster General; and the Vice Chair will be Byron Grote, of BP-Amoco.

Participating in the Cambridge event, Tottenham chief and entrepreneur Alan Sugar said:

“The Productivity Panel is another excellent Government initiative, designed to stimulate innovation and enterprise and I welcome the opportunity to help whenever I can in this worthwhile programme.”

Alan Sugar, a member of the Treasury’s team of business leaders, will tomorrow relaunch his nationwide Enterprise Tour of Schools, with the Chancellor and Paymaster General.

NOTES FOR EDITORS

1. The members of the Public Services Productivity Panel are:

Geoffrey Robinson MP, Paymaster General (Chair)

Byron Grote, Group Chief of Staff, BP (Vice Chair)

Lord Simon, Department of Trade and Industry

Lord Sainsbury, Department of Trade and Industry

Dame Sheila Masters DBE, Partner KPMG

Clare Spottiswoode, Senior Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, Azurix

John Mayo, Finance Director, GEC plc

John Makinson, Group Finance Director, Pearson plc

Andrew Foster, Controller of Audit, The Audit Commission

John Dowdy, McKinsey

2. The Panel’s remit is to advise the Government on ways of improving the productivity and efficiency of government departments and other public sector agencies. It will report to the Cabinet Committee charged with overseeing departments’ progress against their new Public Service Agreements.

3. The roadshow was held at TWI (The Welding Institute) at Abington, near Cambridge. There will be other similar regional events throughout the UK over the next few months, as part of the Government’s consultation on the Pre-Budget Report. Ministers from a number of Government Departments will be involved – they will want to discuss directly with local business people and others possible solutions for closing the productivity gap. The roadshow will end in Birmingham on 5 February.

4. The Pre-Budget Report was published on 3 November. As well as setting out the steps needed to secure high and stable levels of employment, it forms the basis for a wide-ranging consultation on the steps that need to be taken to address the UK’s long-standing productivity gap.

The press release issued by HM Treasury on 30 January 1998.

UK firms should consider carefully how changes to the European business environment following the introduction of the single currency on 1 January 1999 will affect them before they address the practical implications, Chancellor Gordon Brown’s Business Advisory Group on EMU recommended in a report published today.

Welcoming the report, Mr Brown said :

“The report from the Business Advisory Group underlines the importance for all businesses of gearing up to meet the challenges which they must address before the single currency is introduced at the end of the year.  Introduction of the euro provides both opportunities and challenges which must be addressed effectively whether or not the UK joins the single currency.

“A wide range of representatives from all sectors of commerce and industry contributed to the report. It comprises the practical views of those who will need to take the action about how they believe business will be affected and what must be done if business is to take maximum benefit from the changes ahead.

“We shall take close account of their views in the coming months as we continue to work closely with British business to ensure that it can successfully anticipate and prepare for the changing economic environment within Europe.”

The report is a summary of the findings of working parties to the Advisory Group. It is not a statement of the Government’s views, but represents the assessment of the Advisory Group, which includes the CBI, British Retail Consortium, British Chambers of Commerce, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Institute of Chartered Accountants and the TUC as well as other interested bodies such as the Consumers’ Association.

The Advisory Group addressed issues such as information technology, legal and tax implications, accounting issues, an information campaign and arrangements required if the UK decides to join the single currency. Its recommendations cover issues such as: the provision of targeted information to business likely to use the euro; the practicalities of dealing with the euro for trading and retail purposes; and the strategic implications of the single currency.

The press release issued by HM Treasury on 28 January 1998.

In a wide ranging speech to the Chartered Institute of Bankers in London tonight, Alistair Darling set out the Government’s achievements since it came into office.  He stressed that it was vital to ensure pay rises are fair and affordable if the country is to enjoy the fruits of long term prosperity.

He said:

“We have been in Government for eight months.  In that time we have put in place the building blocks which will see us through not just this Parliament, but beyond.  We said we would modernise Britain and we are doing that.

We are building the foundations for the future.  Low inflation.  Stability.  Reforming the Welfare State.  We have started to rebuild the education and health services.  Building alliances in Europe where we can influence and shape our destination.  Building together long-term prosperity for this country.

But if we are to succeed, we need to maintain the strict discipline necessary to put the public finances on a sound footing, and keep them there.  We are not going to repeat the mistakes of the past, when the signals were misread.

We are therefore determined to ensure that pay rises are fair and affordable.  In the public and private sector.  It is in no one’s interest if today’s pay rise becomes tomorrow’s mortgage rise.  The worst form of short-termism would be to pay ourselves today at the cost of fewer jobs tomorrow and lower living standards in the future.

The Government’s responsibilities are clear.  But the same responsibility lies fairly and squarely with boardrooms in the private sector.  Every single one of us has the same responsibility.  Pay awards have to be fair and affordable and must be seen to be so – right across the board.  Those in the boardroom must show the same responsibility as those on the shop floor.”

The press release issued by HM Treasury on 23 January 1998.

Financial developments in Asia will be discussed at forthcoming meetings of the EU and G7, to be chaired by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, it was confirmed today.

In a letter to Michel Camdessus, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, sent following the first ECOFIN meeting of the UK Presidency of the EU, the Chancellor said:

“European Union Finance Ministers discussed financial developments in Asia at ECOFIN today. As President of ECOFIN I would like to invite you to join us for a similar discussion at a future meeting – perhaps at the Informal ECOFIN on 20-21 March, when we will be joined also by EU Central Bank Governors. The subject will also be prominent on the agenda at the meeting of G7 Finance Ministers and Governors in London on 21 February, where I hope we might begin to draw some lessons for the future from what has happened.”

The text of the letter to Michel Camdessus, which is attached, also puts forward a number of ideas for consideration:

“to help prevent such crises recurring; and to reflect on whether we could improve our techniques for handling crises when they occur.”

M Camdessus
Managing Director
International Monetary Fund
700 19th Street N W
Washington DC 20431
WASHINGTON USA

Dear Michel

20 January

1998 FINANCIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN ASIA

European Union Finance Ministers discussed financial developments in Asia at ECOFIN today. As President of ECOFIN I would like to invite you to join us for a similar discussion at a future meeting – perhaps at the Informal ECOFIN on 20-21 March, when we will be joined also by EU Central Bank Governors.

The subject will also be prominent on the agenda at the meeting of G7 Finance Ministers and Governors in London on 21 February, where I hope we might begin to draw some lessons for the future from what has happened.

European countries have a very substantial interest in successful resolution of the current financial difficulties in Asia.   European economic interests in Asia, including British interests, are high. Exports from European Union countries to the region are greater than those from the US. The exposure of European banks is greater than the sum of United States and Japanese exposure.

European countries have therefore: been giving full support to the IMF’s action in seeking to restore confidence in the region, including exceptionally large calls on IMF finance.

As major shareholders, we are ultimately responsible for a significant proportion of the resources committed by the IMF and World Bank. played an active role in getting agreement to the new IMF Supplemental Reserve Facility; encouraged our commercial banks to play an important and positive role in the current global efforts to secure continued rollovers of Korean banking debts. provided 8 of the 13 bilateral contributions to Korea’s second line of defence.

Above all, like my European partners, I believe it is essential to keep the IMF at the centre of the global response to what is a global problem.

European Union countries fully support the action taken by the IMF so far in the region, and the strong programmes of macroeconomic and structural reform to which countries in the region, including Indonesia, Korea, the Philippines and Thailand, have committed themselves. Confidence will not be re-established overnight. But it will return in time, so long as these policies are implemented with wholehearted commitment and vigour.

In time we will then see renewed healthy economic growth in the region.

I can assure you that we will continue to give full and active support to the countries concerned as they tackle their difficulties, through the IMF and in other ways. I am also looking forward to a full exchange of views on developments in Asia at the meeting of G7 Finance Ministers and Governors in London on 21 February. Beyond that, it is already clear that the subject will be high on the agenda for the meeting of ASEM leaders in London in April, and for the G8 Summit in Birmingham in May.

I also recognise the importance of finding a forum to discuss these issues with a wider group of emerging market economies.   In addition to continuing the close cooperation that we have had in the G7 and elsewhere in tackling the crisis as it has developed, we should begin to reflect on the lessons for the future.

We need to consider whether there are further measures that could be taken to help prevent such crises recurring; and to reflect on whether we could improve our techniques for handling crises when they occur.

Among the ideas I would like to see considered are the following:

we should do more to promote transparency in all countries about the operation of economic policy, and economic developments, and the operations of financial institutions. The better the understanding that the market has, the less will be the risk of sudden market readjustments.

I hope the IMF will quickly bring forward proposals for a code of conduct on transparency in fiscal policy, as we agreed in Hong Kong last year, and look for ways to broaden that into other areas.

I hope the Fund will also pursue other ways of improving the quality and timeliness of economic data supplied to the market; the IMF itself should consider being more transparent, also.

There is a balance to be struck here with maintaining the sometimes necessary confidentiality of the Fund’s policy dialogue with its members.

But I believe there are ways in which the Fund could and should begin to make its concerns known in public, certainly when policy advice has been given over a period and not acted on.

We may also need to consider whether there are other ways to encourage international banks and investors to make better use of the information and analysis that is available; the Fund should pay more attention in future, during its regular economic surveillance, to the vulnerability of domestic financial systems to potential shocks and reversals in capital flows.

I believe this should go hand in hand with the desirable widening of the IMF’s Articles to cover capital account issues, on which we agreed in principle in Hong Kong. we need to reflect on different ways to ensure that when there is a crisis, international private sector investors continue to play a full part in its resolution.

It will be important to ensure that private investors have a continuing, and if possible enhanced, incentive to make a full assessment of the risks before they invest in emerging market countries; it is absolutely right for the IMF to have focussed in recent Asian programmes on the need to reform and strengthen domestic financial systems.

We should consider whether more can be done to enhance the quality of assistance we give to emerging market countries in this area, including through improved cooperation with financial regulators in developed countries, who I believe have an important contribution to make, and with the World Bank.

I look forward to discussing these and other issues with you and colleagues over the weeks and months ahead.

Yours sincerely

GORDON BROWN

The press release issued by HM Treasury on 21 January 1998.

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) is to be given extensive supervisory powers over Lloyd’s the Economic Secretary, Helen Liddell announced today.

The FSA will have intervention and authorisation powers to ensure a greater independent element in the regulation of Lloyd’s.

In response to a Parliamentary Question from Jackie Lawrence [Preseli Pembrokeshire], Mrs Liddell said:

“In her statement of 23 July 1997, my right hon friend the President of the Board of Trade announced that the supervision of insurance business, including that carried on at Lloyd’s, would ultimately become a responsibility of the proposed Financial Services Authority (FSA).  Since then, I have been considering the options for the future regulatory arrangements for Lloyd’s in the context of the comprehensive reforms which we will implement in the forthcoming financial services reform bill.  As we have already made clear, we intend to publish a draft Bill for consultation in the Summer.

“Holders of insurance policies underwritten at Lloyd’s should enjoy the benefits of  the same kind of supervisory regime as those with policies issued by other insurers.  I intend as part of the modernisation of the prudential supervision powers currently available to the Treasury under the Insurance Companies Act 1982, that the FSA will have much more extensive supervisory powers in relation to Lloyd’s.  I intend that these should include enhanced powers of intervention and a requirement for authorisation by the FSA of managing agents, who are responsible in practice for running underwriting syndicates.  I also intend that the FSA should have reserve power to undertake direct authorisation and supervision of Members of Lloyd’s, should that prove to be appropriate in due course.

“Certain activities at Lloyd’s are similar to business which is currently regulated by the Financial Services Authority under the Financial Services Act 1986. Members’ agents advise Members of Lloyd’s about which syndicates they should participate in  and I intend that their activities should be subject to authorisation by the FSA.  In addition, the emerging secondary market in syndicate capacity  resembles markets subject to control under the 1986 Act.  I intend that the FSA should oversee the operation of the market under a regime similar to that currently in place for recognised investment exchanges.

“These arrangements will continue to allow scope for a major role by the Council of Lloyd’s in ensuring that Lloyd’s continues be a well-regulated, successful and important part of the UK financial services industry. They will however provide, for the first time in many areas, a major element of external regulatory accountability.”

In a speech to the Life Insurance Association tomorrow, Mrs Liddell will say:

“Lloyd’s itself has recognised the need for a greater independent element in its regulation. It rightly believes that businesses which are well regulated – and are perceived to be so – will be in a better position to compete in global markets.”

The press release issued by HM Treasury on 21 January 1998.

Preventing young children from becoming socially excluded is top of the agenda at a seminar being hosted by the Treasury today.

The seminar, the first in a series of three, is part of a Cross Departmental Review which aims to consider whether the multiple causes of social exclusion affecting young children could be more effectively tackled at the family and community level.

Representatives from Government, local authorities, universities and voluntary organisations will attend and speak at the event. The aim is to ensure that the best information is available to inform decisions.

Tessa Jowell, chair of the Ministerial Committee said:

“We want to help those young children, who are at present not getting the support and help from services they need in early childhood, who fall behind before they even get to school and never catch up.

“We want services to be flexible and responsive to the needs of each child so everyone can get the best possible start in life.

“If Government departments work together not only can we give best value to the child but we can also get value for money by cutting the costs of crime and unemployment which can so easily follow if children do not get help at an early age. “

The Treasury is organising the event and leading the review in close collaboration with the Prime Minister’s Office, the Social Exclusion Unit and other Government Departments eg the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health.

The first seminar will look, in particular, at which children are most at risk of becoming socially excluded. The second seminar in February will look at the effectiveness of different forms of early intervention to help children and how services can be delivered effectively.

The press release issued by HM Treasury on 14 January 1998.

“Pay increases must be affordable right across the board, from boardroom to shop floor, in both the private and public sectors, if we are to bring about the long term stable growth and prosperity we all want to see”.

That was the clear message from Alistair Darling, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, speaking tonight at an event organised by Ernst and Young.

He added:

“Since we took office we have begun to put in place the building blocks we need to bring about the long term prosperity we all want to see.

Our strategy is based around building a stable framework for fiscal and monetary policy, encouraging investment in our economic infrastructure, the education and skills of our workforce and rebuilding the welfare state around the work ethic.

This means we have to take tough decisions now. We are not going to repeat the mistakes of the past, where the economic signals were misunderstood and an unsustainable boom led to bust.

Central to this aim is the need to make sure pay increases are fair and affordable, in both the public and private sectors.

We are determined to deliver long term growth and prosperity.”

The press release issued by HM Treasury on 14 January 1998.

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) must be cost effective in order to protect the consumers’ purse and the competitiveness of the UK financial services industry, and that goes hand in hand with providing effective protection for the consumer, the Economic Secretary Helen Liddell said today.

Addressing the Law Society Commerce and Industry Group the Minister said that the FSA will be required to publish its proposed budget for consultation at the same time as it publishes its proposals for fees.She said:

“Not only must the FSA use its resources effectively, it must also show the public and the industry that it is doing so.

“After all, the costs of regulation are met by the firms under regulation. This means they are ultimately passed to consumers in the form of higher charges or lower  returns. Firms themselves need to know that the UK will remain a competitive place to do business.”

The Minister also announced that where the FSA introduces a new rule or change to an existing one, it must consult the public and practitioners by publishing the proposals. Their proposals will include estimates of costs and benefits of the proposals and other options. Mrs Liddell said:

“This statutory requirement to publish cost-benefit analysis will allow much more focussed consultation than sometimes happens now. Indeed firms will be able to challenge the FSA’s estimates if they believe they are inaccurate.”

The Minister stressed this goes well beyond the current requirement upon the Self-Regulatory Organisations (SROs) to take account of the costs of compliance.