1-20 of 471 results for subject:Privatisation
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.287 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.004 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Privatisation
- We searched for
- subject_t:Privatisation OR subject_t:Denationalisation OR subject_ses:92601
Type
House
Session
Month
Department
Member
More
Primary member
More
Answering member
More
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, if he will ensure that the Green Investment Bank continues to pursue its principal objectives after its privatisation.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, if he will ensure that the Green Investment Bank continues to pursue its principal objectives after its privatisation.
The Government is seeking to sell the Green Investment Bank (GIB) so it can grow and increase its impact in green sectors, free of the restrictions of being in the public sector.
GIB has over £2bn in existing and successful green investments, and employs seventy green sector specialists. This unique green specialism is what will attract investment from investors
As a key part of any sale discussions, the Government will be asking potential investors to confirm their commitment to GIB’s green values and investment principles and to set out how they propose to protect them.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what steps he plans to take to ensure that the Green Investment Bank continues to pursue its principal objectives after privatisation.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what steps he plans to take to ensure that the Green Investment Bank continues to pursue its principal objectives after privatisation.
Green investment is what the Green Investment Bank (GIB) does and is where its value lies. It is clear from preliminary feedback that potential investors are interested in GIB precisely because of its unique green specialism and its existing forward business plan and pipeline of green projects. Investors will have sound commercial reasons to maintain GIB’s green focus and continue operating in accordance with its clearly stated green principles and highly transparent and robust green reporting practices.
As a key part of any sale discussions, potential investors will be asked to confirm their commitment to these values and to set out how they propose to protect them. We envisage this would involve new shareholders agreeing to:
• ensure GIB continues to invest in a way that achieves a positive green impact; and
• maintain GIB’s existing standards for reporting on its green investment performance as well as continue providing for independent assurance of this.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the remarks made by the Prime Minister on 4 November (HC Deb, col 965), what information they are using to estimate the financial gains from privatising Channel 4.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the remarks made by the Prime Minister on 4 November (HC Deb, col 965), what information they are using to estimate the financial gains from privatising Channel 4.
My Lords, the Prime Minister has said that he wants Channel 4 to have a strong and secure future. No decisions have been made about the channel’s prospects. The Government are looking at a range of information to assess a broad spread of options including those proposed by Channel 4’s own leadership.
My Lords, the Prime Minister has said that he wants Channel 4 to have a strong and secure future. No decisions have been made about the channel’s prospects. The Government are looking at a range of information to assess a broad spread of options including those proposed by Channel 4’s own leadership.
My Lords, the Prime Minister has said that he wants Channel 4 to have a strong and secure future. No decisions have been made about the channel’s prospects. The Government are looking at a range of information to assess a broad spread of options including those proposed by Channel 4’s own leadership.
Is the Minister aware that while the Prime Minister says that private investment will safeguard Channel 4, leaders in the advertising industry and Campaign magazine say the exact opposite? How is it possible that a great Thatcherite success that supports more than 350 independent production companies annually is now under threat of what looks like the equivalent of a one-off car-boot sale?
Is the Minister aware that while the Prime Minister says that private investment will safeguard Channel 4, leaders in the advertising industry and Campaign magazine say the exact opposite? How is it possible that a great Thatcherite success that supports more than 350 independent production companies annually is now under threat of what looks like the equivalent of a one-off car-boot sale?
Channel 4 is not under threat. It has an important remit. It must deliver innovative, experimental and distinctive content that appeals to a diverse society. Looking at all the options we shall obviously have full regard to that remit and indeed to the creative industries that depend on it.
Channel 4 is not under threat. It has an important remit. It must deliver innovative, experimental and distinctive content that appeals to a diverse society. Looking at all the options we shall obviously have full regard to that remit and indeed to the creative industries that depend on it.
Channel 4 is not under threat. It has an important remit. It must deliver innovative, experimental and distinctive content that appeals to a diverse society. Looking at all the options we shall obviously have full regard to that remit and indeed to the creative industries that depend on it.
Is the Minister aware that while the Prime Minister says that private investment will safeguard Channel 4, leaders in the advertising industry and Campaign magazine say the exact opposite? How is it possible that a great Thatcherite success that supports more than 350 independent production companies annually is now under threat of what looks like the equivalent of a one-off car-boot sale?
Channel 4 was established by Act of Parliament by a Conservative Government. Does the Minister agree that it is highly unlikely that any commercial purchaser could be found for Channel 4 unless the Government change its remit which at present ensures that all profits are reinvested in programmes? Will she confirm that it would require primary legislation to amend the current remit?
Channel 4 was established by Act of Parliament by a Conservative Government. Does the Minister agree that it is highly unlikely that any commercial purchaser could be found for Channel 4 unless the Government change its remit which at present ensures that all profits are reinvested in programmes? Will she confirm that it would require primary legislation to amend the current remit?
My Lords, we are still at a fairly early stage of the process on Channel 4. The issue of whether legislation would be required for any change that we decide to make will certainly be one of the considerations.
My Lords, we are still at a fairly early stage of the process on Channel 4. The issue of whether legislation would be required for any change that we decide to make will certainly be one of the considerations.
My Lords, we are still at a fairly early stage of the process on Channel 4. The issue of whether legislation would be required for any change that we decide to make will certainly be one of the considerations.
Channel 4 was established by Act of Parliament by a Conservative Government. Does the Minister agree that it is highly unlikely that any commercial purchaser could be found for Channel 4 unless the Government change its remit which at present ensures that all profits are reinvested in programmes? Will she confirm that it would require primary legislation to amend the current remit?
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that Channel 4’s coverage of the 2012 Paralympic Games clearly demonstrated the benefit of its public service remit and non-profit ownership model and the old adage,
“if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”?
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that Channel 4’s coverage of the 2012 Paralympic Games clearly demonstrated the benefit of its public service remit and non-profit ownership model and the old adage,
“if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”?
I share the view of my noble friend about the excellence of Channel 4’s coverage of the Paralympics. Indeed, I am a big fan of “Channel 4 Racing”.
I share the view of my noble friend about the excellence of Channel 4’s coverage of the Paralympics. Indeed, I am a big fan of “Channel 4 Racing”.
I share the view of my noble friend about the excellence of Channel 4’s coverage of the Paralympics. Indeed, I am a big fan of “Channel 4 Racing”.
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that Channel 4’s coverage of the 2012 Paralympic Games clearly demonstrated the benefit of its public service remit and non-profit ownership model and the old adage,
“if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”?
Hear, hear.
Hear, hear.
What we are doing is looking at the options in an objective way, engaging with Channel 4, and in the fullness of time—in due course, as they say—we will reach conclusions.
What we are doing is looking at the options in an objective way, engaging with Channel 4, and in the fullness of time—in due course, as they say—we will reach conclusions.
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that Channel 4’s coverage of the 2012 Paralympic Games clearly demonstrated the benefit of its public service remit and non-profit ownership model and the old adage,
“if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”?
Even if one takes the Minister’s reply at face value and is reassured by it, she surely must recognise that if Channel 4 were to be privatised, that capital would have to be serviced, either by dividends paid to investors or interest paid to those who provided loans. That would represent money that would otherwise have gone to creative programming—surely an undesirable outcome.
Even if one takes the Minister’s reply at face value and is reassured by it, she surely must recognise that if Channel 4 were to be privatised, that capital would have to be serviced, either by dividends paid to investors or interest paid to those who provided loans. That would represent money that would otherwise have gone to creative programming—surely an undesirable outcome.
I can understand the noble Lord’s comments but we have to look objectively at all the options in the light of the changing media market and the needs of Channel 4 and its viewers.
I can understand the noble Lord’s comments but we have to look objectively at all the options in the light of the changing media market and the needs of Channel 4 and its viewers.
I can understand the noble Lord’s comments but we have to look objectively at all the options in the light of the changing media market and the needs of Channel 4 and its viewers.
Even if one takes the Minister’s reply at face value and is reassured by it, she surely must recognise that if Channel 4 were to be privatised, that capital would have to be serviced, either by dividends paid to investors or interest paid to those who provided loans. That would represent money that would otherwise have gone to creative programming—surely an undesirable outcome.
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of your Lordships’ Select Committee on Communications. The committee has heard from Channel 4 about its highly acclaimed news coverage. Bearing in mind that news programmes are not profitable because their production costs are relatively high and you cannot export or resell them, does the Minister not agree that the privatisation of Channel 4 would mean a major reduction in this distinctive and impressive news service?
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of your Lordships’ Select Committee on Communications. The committee has heard from Channel 4 about its highly acclaimed news coverage. Bearing in mind that news programmes are not profitable because their production costs are relatively high and you cannot export or resell them, does the Minister not agree that the privatisation of Channel 4 would mean a major reduction in this distinctive and impressive news service?
I repeat the point that we are looking at options. I agree that “Channel 4 News” and news provision are an important part of decisions on public sector broadcasting. I think in Parliament we feel that even more strongly than elsewhere in the country.
I repeat the point that we are looking at options. I agree that “Channel 4 News” and news provision are an important part of decisions on public sector broadcasting. I think in Parliament we feel that even more strongly than elsewhere in the country.
I repeat the point that we are looking at options. I agree that “Channel 4 News” and news provision are an important part of decisions on public sector broadcasting. I think in Parliament we feel that even more strongly than elsewhere in the country.
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of your Lordships’ Select Committee on Communications. The committee has heard from Channel 4 about its highly acclaimed news coverage. Bearing in mind that news programmes are not profitable because their production costs are relatively high and you cannot export or resell them, does the Minister not agree that the privatisation of Channel 4 would mean a major reduction in this distinctive and impressive news service?
My Lords, with regard to the fourth channel in Wales, S4C, can the Minister give an assurance that whatever consideration the Government are giving to the future of Channel 4 in England, there is no danger to the independence of S4C in Wales, and that it will be given adequate finance to ensure that it is not subject to death by a thousand cuts?
My Lords, with regard to the fourth channel in Wales, S4C, can the Minister give an assurance that whatever consideration the Government are giving to the future of Channel 4 in England, there is no danger to the independence of S4C in Wales, and that it will be given adequate finance to ensure that it is not subject to death by a thousand cuts?
We have made clear our commitment to funding in Wales. S4C continues to have, as I think the noble Lord will be pleased to hear, a dual funding model and currently receives around £75 million a year from the licence fee.