1-20 of 819 results for askedby:"Lord Kinnock"
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.293 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.004 seconds
- Search query
- askedby:"Lord Kinnock"
- We searched for
- tablingMember_ses:301646 OR askingMember_ses:301646
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
More
Member
More
Primary member
Answering member
More
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
To ask His Majesty's Government what has been the cost to public funds of the Treasury's arrangement to support the Bank of England practice of quantitative tightening since 2022.
To ask His Majesty's Government what has been the cost to public funds of the Treasury's arrangement to support the Bank of England practice of quantitative tightening since 2022.
The Bank of England has operational independence from the Government to carry out its statutory responsibilities for monetary policy, including quantitative easing and quantitative tightening.
HM Treasury’s response to the Treasury Select Committee’s inquiry into QT set out that different unwind paces will impact the time profile of when losses are incurred but are expected to have little effect on total cost in present value terms. Therefore, all else equal, there is no reason to believe that holding gilts for longer would avoid these losses. Instead, a higher net interest cost would be incurred from holding the portfolio for longer. QT also reduces the sensitivity of the public finances to changes in interest rates.
Since October 2022, HM Treasury has transferred £107.64bn to the Bank of England to cover losses arising from the indemnity of the Asset Purchase Facility, the vehicle used to implement quantitative easing. This covers losses incurred from net interest costs and the sale and redemption of bonds as the portfolio is unwound. Since 2013, the Bank of England has transferred £123.85bn to HM Treasury, giving HM Treasury a net position of £16.21bn to date.
Data on these cash transfers are made publicly available by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in its monthly Public Sector Finances publication. The data are available in the ONS data series ID MF7A in worksheet PSA9B.
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the approach to quantitative tightening undertaken by the European Central Bank and US Federal Reserve, which allow the relevant bonds to mature rather than engaging in the sale of such bonds.
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the approach to quantitative tightening undertaken by the European Central Bank and US Federal Reserve, which allow the relevant bonds to mature rather than engaging in the sale of such bonds.
The Bank of England has operational independence from the Government to carry out its statutory responsibilities for monetary policy, including quantitative easing and quantitative tightening.
HM Treasury’s response to the Treasury Select Committee’s inquiry into QT set out that different unwind paces will impact the time profile of when losses are incurred but are expected to have little effect on total cost in present value terms. Therefore, all else equal, there is no reason to believe that holding gilts for longer would avoid these losses. Instead, a higher net interest cost would be incurred from holding the portfolio for longer. QT also reduces the sensitivity of the public finances to changes in interest rates.
Since October 2022, HM Treasury has transferred £107.64bn to the Bank of England to cover losses arising from the indemnity of the Asset Purchase Facility, the vehicle used to implement quantitative easing. This covers losses incurred from net interest costs and the sale and redemption of bonds as the portfolio is unwound. Since 2013, the Bank of England has transferred £123.85bn to HM Treasury, giving HM Treasury a net position of £16.21bn to date.
Data on these cash transfers are made publicly available by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in its monthly Public Sector Finances publication. The data are available in the ONS data series ID MF7A in worksheet PSA9B.
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of regional variation in England in access to, and take up of, biologic medicines for people with (1) severe asthma, and (2) chronic pulmonary obstructive disease.
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of regional variation in England in access to, and take up of, biologic medicines for people with (1) severe asthma, and (2) chronic pulmonary obstructive disease.
To ask His Majesty's Government how many people with (1) severe asthma, and (2) chronic pulmonary obstructive disease, are currently prescribed biologic medicines in England, with figures for each integrated care board and NHS region.
To ask His Majesty's Government how many people with (1) severe asthma, and (2) chronic pulmonary obstructive disease, are currently prescribed biologic medicines in England, with figures for each integrated care board and NHS region.
To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to increase access to biologic medicines for people with asthma and chronic pulmonary obstructive disease.
To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to increase access to biologic medicines for people with asthma and chronic pulmonary obstructive disease.
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they possess a statistical assessment of the social cost of leaving England's water companies in private ownership and, if so, whether they will publish it.
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they possess a statistical assessment of the social cost of leaving England's water companies in private ownership and, if so, whether they will publish it.
This Government is committed to protecting the most vulnerable. Defra has not carried out a statistical assessment of the social cost of water companies remaining privatised.
We expect water companies to ensure support is available for customers – through bill discount schemes and financial support measures. We are working with industry to keep support under review and have consulted on reforms to WaterSure. We will publish our response this year.
To ask His Majesty's Government what discussions they have had with the Bank of England about suspending its quantitative tightening policy of selling bonds accumulated through quantitative easing, as opposed to allowing maturing debt to expire.
To ask His Majesty's Government what discussions they have had with the Bank of England about suspending its quantitative tightening policy of selling bonds accumulated through quantitative easing, as opposed to allowing maturing debt to expire.
The Bank of England has operational independence from the government to carry out its statutory responsibilities for monetary policy and financial stability. Monetary policy, including quantitative easing, is the responsibility of the independent Monetary Policy Committee at the Bank of England.
The separation of fiscal and monetary policy is a key feature of the UK’s economic framework, it is in line with international standards and essential for the effective delivery of monetary policy, so the government does not comment on the conduct or effectiveness of monetary policy.
Since October 2022, HM Treasury has transferred £93.32bn to the Bank of England to cover losses arising from the indemnity of the Asset Purchase Facility, the vehicle used to implement quantitative easing. This covers losses incurred from net interest costs and the sale and redemption of bonds as the portfolio is unwound. Since 2013, the Bank of England has transferred £123.85bn to HM Treasury, giving HM Treasury a net position of £30.53bn to date
Data on these cash transfers between HM Treasury and the Bank of England are made publicly available by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in its monthly Public Sector Finances publication. The data are available in the ONS data series ID MF7A in worksheet PSA9B.
To ask His Majesty's Government what losses have been sustained by the Treasury since 2022 as a result of the Bank of England's decision to sell bonds as part of its policy of quantitative tightening.
To ask His Majesty's Government what losses have been sustained by the Treasury since 2022 as a result of the Bank of England's decision to sell bonds as part of its policy of quantitative tightening.
The Bank of England has operational independence from the government to carry out its statutory responsibilities for monetary policy and financial stability. Monetary policy, including quantitative easing, is the responsibility of the independent Monetary Policy Committee at the Bank of England.
The separation of fiscal and monetary policy is a key feature of the UK’s economic framework, it is in line with international standards and essential for the effective delivery of monetary policy, so the government does not comment on the conduct or effectiveness of monetary policy.
Since October 2022, HM Treasury has transferred £93.32bn to the Bank of England to cover losses arising from the indemnity of the Asset Purchase Facility, the vehicle used to implement quantitative easing. This covers losses incurred from net interest costs and the sale and redemption of bonds as the portfolio is unwound. Since 2013, the Bank of England has transferred £123.85bn to HM Treasury, giving HM Treasury a net position of £30.53bn to date
Data on these cash transfers between HM Treasury and the Bank of England are made publicly available by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in its monthly Public Sector Finances publication. The data are available in the ONS data series ID MF7A in worksheet PSA9B.
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the relative merits of selling bonds as part of quantitative tightening, verses disposing of them at maturity.
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the relative merits of selling bonds as part of quantitative tightening, verses disposing of them at maturity.
The Bank of England has operational independence from the Government to carry out its statutory responsibilities for monetary policy and financial stability. Monetary policy, including quantitative easing, is the responsibility of the independent Monetary Policy Committee at the Bank of England.
In a letter to the Chancellor (12 November 2024), the Governor of the Bank of England said:
“Whilst different unwind strategies might affect the timing of cash flows between HMT and the APF, they are expected to have little effect on total cost in present value terms. For example, active sales incur upfront costs, but they also reduce lifetime net interest costs from carrying gilts on the APF’s portfolio when Bank Rate is higher than coupon payments.” [1]
Since October 2022, HM Treasury has transferred £85.9bn to the Bank of England to cover losses arising from the indemnity of the Asset Purchase Facility, the vehicle used to implement quantitative easing. This covers losses incurred from net interest costs and the sale and redemption of bonds as the portfolio is unwound.
Between 2012 and 2022, the APF transferred £124bn in excess cash to HMT under the terms of the indemnity from net interest payments on purchased assets.
Data on these cash transfers between HM Treasury and the Bank of England are made publicly available by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in its monthly Public Sector Finances publication. The data are available in the ONS data series ID MF7A in worksheet PSA9B.
The independent OBR provides detailed projections of the underlying losses from the APF and the impact on different fiscal metrics. As per the OBR’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook for the Spring Forecast 2025, the lifetime cost of the APF is forecast to be £133.7bn.
[1] Letter from the Governor of the Bank of England to the Chancellor of the Exchequer 12 November 2024
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the Bank of England's policy to sell bonds, in the light of the US Federal Reserve and European Central Bank practice of disposing of bonds through maturation.
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the Bank of England's policy to sell bonds, in the light of the US Federal Reserve and European Central Bank practice of disposing of bonds through maturation.
The Bank of England has operational independence from the Government to carry out its statutory responsibilities for monetary policy and financial stability. Monetary policy, including quantitative easing, is the responsibility of the independent Monetary Policy Committee at the Bank of England.
In a letter to the Chancellor (12 November 2024), the Governor of the Bank of England said:
“Whilst different unwind strategies might affect the timing of cash flows between HMT and the APF, they are expected to have little effect on total cost in present value terms. For example, active sales incur upfront costs, but they also reduce lifetime net interest costs from carrying gilts on the APF’s portfolio when Bank Rate is higher than coupon payments.” [1]
Since October 2022, HM Treasury has transferred £85.9bn to the Bank of England to cover losses arising from the indemnity of the Asset Purchase Facility, the vehicle used to implement quantitative easing. This covers losses incurred from net interest costs and the sale and redemption of bonds as the portfolio is unwound.
Between 2012 and 2022, the APF transferred £124bn in excess cash to HMT under the terms of the indemnity from net interest payments on purchased assets.
Data on these cash transfers between HM Treasury and the Bank of England are made publicly available by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in its monthly Public Sector Finances publication. The data are available in the ONS data series ID MF7A in worksheet PSA9B.
The independent OBR provides detailed projections of the underlying losses from the APF and the impact on different fiscal metrics. As per the OBR’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook for the Spring Forecast 2025, the lifetime cost of the APF is forecast to be £133.7bn.
[1] Letter from the Governor of the Bank of England to the Chancellor of the Exchequer 12 November 2024
To ask His Majesty's Government how much quantitative tightening has cost the Treasury since it began in 2022; and what they estimate the cost will be by 2029.
To ask His Majesty's Government how much quantitative tightening has cost the Treasury since it began in 2022; and what they estimate the cost will be by 2029.
The Bank of England has operational independence from the Government to carry out its statutory responsibilities for monetary policy and financial stability. Monetary policy, including quantitative easing, is the responsibility of the independent Monetary Policy Committee at the Bank of England.
In a letter to the Chancellor (12 November 2024), the Governor of the Bank of England said:
“Whilst different unwind strategies might affect the timing of cash flows between HMT and the APF, they are expected to have little effect on total cost in present value terms. For example, active sales incur upfront costs, but they also reduce lifetime net interest costs from carrying gilts on the APF’s portfolio when Bank Rate is higher than coupon payments.” [1]
Since October 2022, HM Treasury has transferred £85.9bn to the Bank of England to cover losses arising from the indemnity of the Asset Purchase Facility, the vehicle used to implement quantitative easing. This covers losses incurred from net interest costs and the sale and redemption of bonds as the portfolio is unwound.
Between 2012 and 2022, the APF transferred £124bn in excess cash to HMT under the terms of the indemnity from net interest payments on purchased assets.
Data on these cash transfers between HM Treasury and the Bank of England are made publicly available by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in its monthly Public Sector Finances publication. The data are available in the ONS data series ID MF7A in worksheet PSA9B.
The independent OBR provides detailed projections of the underlying losses from the APF and the impact on different fiscal metrics. As per the OBR’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook for the Spring Forecast 2025, the lifetime cost of the APF is forecast to be £133.7bn.
[1] Letter from the Governor of the Bank of England to the Chancellor of the Exchequer 12 November 2024
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is part of democracy that there is a universal call for politicians to tell the truth but that, when they do, they attract criticism, like that from the noble Lord opposite? Last year our right honourable friend the Chancellor told the truth about what she described as the black hole, and which I described as: “Nothing bloody worked”. Is it not a fact that to repair the damage done in 14 years will take time and patience? The Government are showing the right way with fresh capital investment and a total commitment to stimulating growth in the private and public sectors of our economy.
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is part of democracy that there is a universal call for politicians to tell the truth but that, when they do, they attract criticism, like that from the noble Lord opposite? Last year our right honourable friend the Chancellor told the truth about what she described as the black hole, and which I described as: “Nothing bloody worked”. Is it not a fact that to repair the damage done in 14 years will take time and patience? The Government are showing the right way with fresh capital investment and a total commitment to stimulating growth in the private and public sectors of our economy.
I completely agree with my noble friend, and I am grateful to him for what he says. It is absolutely no approach to say that we should continue a previous Government’s cover-up and not be honest about the difficulties in the public finances. It is also completely wrong to say that we were wrong to deal with those challenges and should instead have maintained what my noble friend describes as a £22 billion black hole in the public finances. We were absolutely right to do what we did. We know that there are costs
to responsibility, but the cost to irresponsibility would have been far greater—we saw that in the Liz Truss mini-Budget. Repeating the failures of the last 14 years is exactly not what the British economy needs.
To ask His Majesty's Government what arrangements they have made to commemorate the 85th anniversary of the 1940 proposal for the establishment of the Franco–British Union in 2025.
To ask His Majesty's Government what arrangements they have made to commemorate the 85th anniversary of the 1940 proposal for the establishment of the Franco–British Union in 2025.
2024 has been a remarkable year for our bilateral relationship, with many successful joint engagements commemorating 120 years of the Entente Cordiale. These include the joint ceremonial events at Buckingham Palace and the Élysée Palace on 8 April, the Prime Minister and President Macron marking Armistice Day, and the inaugural Entente Littéraire Prize. Minister Doughty celebrated Bastille Day with the French Ambassador and met his counterpart in Paris for the Olympics. The Foreign Secretary also welcomed his counterpart to Carlton Gardens, near the Free French Headquarters established after the proposal for a Franco-British Union. We have no plans to mark this but look forward to further strengthening ties with France in 2025, including through the next bilateral Summit.
To ask His Majesty's Government why the National School of Government was closed, and whether they have any plans to establish an equivalent institution in place of Civil Service Learning and the Government Campus.
To ask His Majesty's Government why the National School of Government was closed, and whether they have any plans to establish an equivalent institution in place of Civil Service Learning and the Government Campus.
The National School of Government was closed in 2012 by the previous administration.
We are currently considering what approach to training will best ensure the civil service has the skills needed to support the delivery of the government’s priorities.
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) report into the proposed subsidy to the Cromarty Firth Port Authority under the Floating Offshore Wind Manufacturing Investment Scheme (FLOWMIS), published on 12 November, and when they expect to receive a report from the...
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) report into the proposed subsidy to the Cromarty Firth Port Authority under the Floating Offshore Wind Manufacturing Investment Scheme (FLOWMIS), published on 12 November, and when they expect to receive a report from the...
We are considering the recommendations set out in the Competition and Markets Authority report on the Port of Cromarty Firth FLOWMIS grant proposal. We intend to submit a subsidy control assessment for ABP Port Talbot’s proposal soon.
To ask His Majesty's Government what progress they have made with implementing the Floating Offshore Wind Manufacturing Investment Scheme to enable the development of port infrastructure for the successful bids from Port Talbot and the Port of Cromarty Firth.
To ask His Majesty's Government what progress they have made with implementing the Floating Offshore Wind Manufacturing Investment Scheme to enable the development of port infrastructure for the successful bids from Port Talbot and the Port of Cromarty Firth.
We are currently finalising grant terms and conditions with Port of Cromarty Firth, following the subsidy control process. We intend to submit a subsidy control assessment for ABP Port Talbot’s proposal soon.
To ask His Majesty's Government why the cost of Crossrail in England justified consequential proportionate funding for Wales while the construction of HS2 in England does not.
To ask His Majesty's Government why the cost of Crossrail in England justified consequential proportionate funding for Wales while the construction of HS2 in England does not.
HS2 is a heavy rail programme. The UK Government is responsible for heavy rail infrastructure across England and Wales, so spends money on this in Wales rather than funding the Welsh Government to do so through the Barnett formula. This approach is consistent with the funding arrangements for all other policy areas reserved in Wales, as set out in the Statement of Funding Policy.
The Government remains committed to heavy rail schemes in Wales, by providing funding for both operations, maintenance and infrastructure, and enhancement schemes such as modernising Cardiff Central Station.
Conversely, Crossrail is a local transport project. Since local transport is devolved to the Welsh Government, the Barnett formula is applied in the usual way when the Department for Transport is allocated additional funding for Crossrail.
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they plan to undertake an audit of the usefulness and results of the Enterprise Investment Scheme and the Venture Capital Trust scheme with regard to (1) their value for public money, sustained investment, employment and innovation, and (2) recommendations about the continuation and development...
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they plan to undertake an audit of the usefulness and results of the Enterprise Investment Scheme and the Venture Capital Trust scheme with regard to (1) their value for public money, sustained investment, employment and innovation, and (2) recommendations about the continuation and development...
An evaluation of the venture capital schemes was undertaken in 2022. These were published on gov.uk 1.
The Government is committed to ensuring early-stage, innovative companies have access to the investment they need to grow and develop. These schemes provide a range of tax reliefs to encourage investment in higher-risk, early-stage companies which face the biggest challenges in accessing growth capital.
The Government legislated on 3 September to extend the UK venture capital tax relief sunset clause, from April 2025 to April 2035.
My Lords, was it the confidence of the Government, of which the Minister just spoke, that induced them yesterday to advertise for:
“Resilience Advisers: EU Exit Readiness and Response Support to Local Preparedness”,
in the event of a no-deal Brexit? Is that intelligent, prudent anticipation on the Government’s part or is it anticipation of utter chaos?
My Lords, was it the confidence of the Government, of which the Minister just spoke, that induced them yesterday to advertise for:
“Resilience Advisers: EU Exit Readiness and Response Support to Local Preparedness”,
in the event of a no-deal Brexit? Is that intelligent, prudent anticipation on the Government’s part or is it anticipation of utter chaos?
It is sensible contingency planning by a responsible Government. As I have said on numerous occasions, we do not want no deal. We hope to negotiate a deal and are working hard to do so, but if we are unsuccessful there will be no deal and we need to make the appropriate preparations. That is presumably why we are advertising these posts and why we published our technical notices.
My Lords, years ago the UK abolished the advertising of tobacco in any form. When it is so evident that problem gambling and gambling among young people, according to recent evidence, are generating so much tragedy and potential disaster for individuals and families, why can we not now, in 2018, do the same with gambling?
My Lords, years ago the UK abolished the advertising of tobacco in any form. When it is so evident that problem gambling and gambling among young people, according to recent evidence, are generating so much tragedy and potential disaster for individuals and families, why can we not now, in 2018, do the same with gambling?
I say to the noble Lord what has been said in the House before: problem gambling has stayed static, at under 1% of adults, despite a steep rise in advertising since 2007. However, this is not the end of the story, because we are seeking more research. More work needs to be done. A major research survey by Per Binde in 2014 concluded that the impact was not particularly big, but he is doing more research as we speak.