Search Results

1-20 of 126 results for subject:"Mirror Group Newspapers"

Show detailed: On Off

Results: 10 20 50 100

Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

May I add my tribute to Tony Lloyd? He was a good man, who never underestimated or undervalued the extreme power of kindness.

The Leader of the House will have seen last month’s judgment in the case of the Duke of Sussex v. Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd, which records that witnesses...

Member

Caroline Dinenage (Conservative)

Type

Business questions

Date

18 January 2024

Reference

743 c1026

House

House of Commons

Business of the House

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. The powers and privileges of this House are necessary to enable Parliament to function freely and fully, and it is vital that Select Committees are able to obtain full and accurate evidence from witnesses as part of their inquiries. That is critical....

Member

Penny Mordaunt (Conservative)

Type

Proceeding contributions

Date

18 January 2024

Reference

743 c1026

House

House of Commons

Self regulation of the press. Minutes of evidence 6 March 2007. (Printed in HC 375)

Type

House of Commons papers; Select Committee oral evidence; Parliamentary committees

Committee

Culture, Media and Sport Committee

Date

6 March 2007

Reference

HC 375-i 2006-07

House

House of Commons

Pensions: Mirror Group

asked Her Majesty's Government:What safeguards exist to protect Mirror Group pensioners if Trinity Mirror is sold or broken up to ensure that any deficit in the moneys available to maintain pension levels is made up and will continue to be made up; and whether they will take action to strengthen...

Asked by

Lord Morris of Manchester (Labour)

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Answered on

21 February 2007

The Government have introduced or strengthened a number of safeguards to protect scheme members where their company is sold on or broken up. Where a defined benefit occupational pension scheme pension continues to run on and the new sponsoring employer remains solvent, the employer would need to meet the new scheme funding requirements applicable to pension scheme valuations completed on or after 30 December 2005 which are based on an effective valuation date on or after 22 September 2005. Under the new regime trustees must develop prudent funding strategies, and the new requirements can be expected to lead to improvements in scheme funding levels generally over time. Where such a pension scheme commences wind-up, any deficit in the scheme becomes a debt on the employer. The Government have strengthened this requirement so that the debt is calculated on the basis that the scheme should be able to meet the full costs of winding up and the full benefits that scheme members have accrued and expect to receive (the ““full buy-out”” level). The law also specifies a priority order so that, where a defined benefit occupational pension scheme is wound up with insufficient assets to meet all liabilities, the assets are shared as fairly as possible among scheme members. Where the sponsoring employer of a defined benefit occupational pension scheme becomes insolvent and the scheme cannot pay the benefits members were expecting, members may be eligible for compensation from the Pension Protection Fund, which was set up in April 2005 The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry may make payments out of the National Insurance Fund into an occupational pension scheme if he is satisfied that an employer has become insolvent and that at the time it became insolvent there remained unpaid employee or employee contributions falling to be paid to the scheme. In addition to these measures, the Government introduced the financial assistance scheme, which was recently extended substantially. The financial assistance scheme provides assistance funded by the taxpayer to qualifying members of qualifying schemes who face pension losses because their scheme started to wind up underfunded, between 1 January 1997 and 5 April 2005, where the employer is insolvent or no longer exists. The Government are currently considering the implications of the recent ruling of the European Court of Justice on article 8 of the 1980 insolvency directive, as explained by the right honourable John Hutton in his Written Statement laid in both Houses on 26 January 2007.

Date

21 February 2007

Reference

689 c262-3WA; 1998

House

House of Lords

Filkin, Lord

Answered by

Lord Filkin (Labour)

Type

Oral answers to questions

Date

12 May 2004

Reference

661 c273-5

House

House of Lords

Filkin, Lord

Answered by

Lord Filkin (Labour)

Type

Oral answers to questions

Date

12 May 2004

Reference

661 c273-5

House

House of Lords

Filkin, Lord

1st supplementary on press standards.

Asked by

Lord McNally (Liberal Democrat)

Oral questions - 1st Supplementary

Status

Answered

Date

12 May 2004

Reference

661 c273-5

House

House of Lords

Filkin, Lord

Following the recent ruling by the Lords if Appeal in Ordinary in the case of Campbell v MGN Limited, whether they have any plans to introduce a privacy law.

Asked by

Lord McNally (Liberal Democrat)

Oral questions - Lead

Status

Answered

Date

12 May 2004

Reference

661 c273-5

House

House of Lords

Dept of Trade and Industry

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what actions she has taken following the publication of the Companies Act Inspectors' report into Mirror Group Newspapers plc on 30th March 2001.

Asked by

Linda Gilroy (Labour; Co-operative Party)

Answering body

Department of Trade and Industry

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

13 March 2002

For answer on

15 March 2002

Answered on

15 March 2002

Linda Gilroy: :To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what actions she has taken following the publication of the Companies Act Inspectors' report into Mirror Group Newspapers plc on 30 March 2001. [44031] Ms Hewitt: :Independent inspectors were appointed under Companies Act powers to investigate and report on the affairs and membership of Mirror Group Newspapers plc. They were asked to look, in particular, at the flotation of Mirror Group Newspapers on 30 April 1991. Following receipt of the report, the DTI's Companies Investigation Branch sought legal advice on whether disqualification proceedings should be instigated under the Company Directors Disqualification Act against any of those involved. After careful consideration of advice from leading Counsel, officials have recommended, and I have agreed, not to institute disqualification proceedings. Important lessons have been learnt from the Mirror Group Newspapers affair and, as the inspectors themselves noted, a number of important changes were made prior to their final report. The report made a number of further recommendations which have all been passed for consideration to the different Departmental bodies and regulators that hold responsibility in these areas. As the inspectors suggested, the Company Law Review considered a number of issues and the Government will be announcing its response to these and the rest of the Review's recommendations in due course. I have recently announced the setting up of a group jointly with the Treasury and including other regulators to oversee and co-ordinate the response in the UK to auditing and accounting issues raised by the collapse of Enron. This work is also relevant to the concerns expressed by the inspectors on the independence of auditors. I have also announced an independent review of the role and effectiveness of non- executive directors in the UK. The review will report jointly to me and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Where particular recommendations are the prime responsibility of other Departments and regulatory authorities I am liaising with these other bodies and will further inform the House in due course.

Date

15 March 2002

Reference

44031; 381 c1256-7W;381 c1258-9W

House

House of Commons

Dept of Trade and Industry

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, when he expects to receive his Department's report on the alleged share dealings by the Editor of the Daily Mirror; and if he will make a statement.

Asked by

Lord Stratford (Labour)

Answering body

Department of Trade and Industry

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

20 July 2001

Reference

5900; 372 c602W

House

House of Commons

Sainsbury of Turville, Lord

Whether they have completed their examination of how best to put in place a monitoring mechanism, as suggested by the inspectors, to ensure that the recommendations in their report on the investigation into Mirror Group Newspaper plc are carried through. [HL 32].

Asked by

Lord Campbell of Croy (Conservative)

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

3 July 2001

Reference

HL 32; 626 c35WA

House

House of Lords

Sainsbury of Turville, Lord

Answered by

Lord Sainsbury of Turville (Labour)

Type

Oral answers to questions

Date

8 May 2001

Reference

624 c2032-3

House

House of Lords

Sainsbury of Turville, Lord

Answered by

Lord Sainsbury of Turville (Labour)

Type

Oral answers to questions

Date

8 May 2001

Reference

624 c2032-3

House

House of Lords

Sainsbury of Turville, Lord

1st supplementary on same.

Asked by

Lord Phillips of Sudbury (Liberal Democrat)

Oral questions - 1st Supplementary

Status

Answered

Date

8 May 2001

Reference

624 c2032-3

House

House of Lords

Sainsbury of Turville, Lord

How they intend to follow up the findings of the report of the investigation into Mirror Group Newspapers plc, published on 30th March.

Asked by

Lord Phillips of Sudbury (Liberal Democrat)

Oral questions - Lead

Status

Answered

Date

8 May 2001

Reference

624 c2032-3

House

House of Lords

Sainsbury of Turville, Lord

What was the total cost of the Inspectors' investigation into the affairs and membership of Mirror Group Newspapers plc; and, in particular, what amounts in respect of their appointments as Inspectors were paid to (a) Sir John Thomas QC and (b) Raymond Turner FCA, such amounts to be broken down...

Asked by

Lord Bruce of Donington (Labour)

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

26 April 2001

Reference

624 c232-3WA; HL 1720;HL 1721;HL 1722

House

House of Lords

Dept of Trade and Industry

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, for what reason the conclusions of the report by Hugh Aldous delivered to his Office on 12th December 1999 were not communicated to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; and if he will list the honourable Members who were informed of...

Asked by

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Department of Trade and Industry

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

19 March 2001

For answer on

2 April 2001

Answered on

2 April 2001

Mr. Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) for what reason the conclusions of the report by Hugh Aldous delivered to his office on 12 December 1999 were not communicated to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; and if he will list the hon. Members who were informed of the conclusions of the report and the dates on which they were informed; [154853] (2) if he will make a statement on his actions relating to the allegations contained in the Daily Mail on 19 March in respect of his official responsibilities. [154952] Mr. Lilley: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he informed the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) of the contents of the report on Hollis Industries; [155838] (2) if he received and read the Section 447 report on Hollis Industries. [155840] Mr. Byers: [holding answer 22 March 2001]: The following statement was issued by my Department on 23 March 2001: "The following statement sets out the facts in relation to the conduct of the 1999 investigation into companies associated with Geoffrey Robinson (principally Hollis Industries plc) and the involvement of Stephen Byers. In the light of allegations made about the activities of Geoffrey Robinson and companies associated with him, a decision was taken by officials of the Department of Trade and Industry on 12 January 1999 to conduct an investigation under section 447 of the Companies Act 1985. The decision to conduct an investigation under section 447 of the Companies Act 1985 was taken in accordance with the Department's normal procedures when such allegations are made. Informal inquiries into these matters had been earlier undertaken by the Department itself, and it was now decided to go beyond this to the appointment of an independent investigator under section 447. A section 447 inquiry is essentially fact finding and carried out in confidence. Depending on the outcome of the investigation, further action could be taken for example to launch a more wide ranging investigation under section 432. The Department did not consider the appointment of inspectors under section 432 was justified at this stage: section 432 inspections are rare, and are undertaken in respect of alleged major frauds or irregularities. This decision was taken by officials in accordance with the Department's normal procedures, and because on 8 January 1999 Stephen Byers had been advised by Sir Michael Scholar that neither he nor any of his Ministerial colleagues should be involved in the inquiries into companies associated with Geoffrey Robinson, or in any decisions that needed to be taken, but that this matter should be delegated to officials. Stephen Byers accepted this advice. On 9 December 1999, officials informed Stephen Byers that the inquiries into companies associated with Geoffrey Robinson had been completed; that no further action was to be taken; and that Geoffrey Robinson, through his solicitors, had already been informed of this outcome. Because Stephen Byers had taken the advice of his Permanent Secretary and decided that he should not be involved in the inquiries, at no time did he see any papers or other documents obtained by the Department during the course of the inquiries. On 21 December 1999, Parliament was informed of the outcome when Stephen Byers replied to a Parliamentary Question from Ian Pearson MP about the progress of the Department's inquiries into Hollis Industries with the answer "There have been thorough inquiries in line with the Department's normal procedures in these matters. These inquiries have now been completed and the solicitors acting for my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) have been informed that the Department does not propose to take any further action." In line with the practice under successive administrations, no papers or documents arising from the inquiry were published because information obtained under section 447 of the Companies Act is confidential and may not be published or disclosed except in strictly defined circumstances under section 449 of the Companies Act 1985. The way in which the inquiry was conducted was in accordance with the usual procedures for investigations under section 447 of the Companies Act 1985. Over 200 such inquiries are carried out every year in this way. The Department throughout has acted wholly in accordance with its normal procedures, notwithstanding the fact that the business affairs of a former Minister were being investigated." I also wrote to the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) on the same day in the following terms: "Thank you for your letter of 21 March 2001. I attach a copy of a statement made by my Department, setting out the facts in relation to my involvement in the conduct of the 1999 investigation into companies associated with Geoffrey Robinson (principally Hollis Industries plc). I hope this answers the points raised in your letter. But the key facts which concern my role are as follows. Acting on the advice of Sir Michael Scholar, I ruled myself out of involvement in the inquiries into companies associated with Geoffrey Robinson and any decisions that needed to be taken; the matter was delegated to officials. Had I not taken this advice, and insisted on playing a personal role in the investigation then I am sure you would have been amongst the first to question such a decision--and rightly so. Officials decided to appoint an independent investigator under section 447 of the Companies Act 1985. I saw no papers or documents arising from the inquiry. I am not nor ever have been in possession of or seen a report into the affairs of Hollis Industries plc. I had no role in the decision to take no further action as a result of the inquiry. My role was limited to that of responding to Parliamentary Questions and dealing with correspondence from Parliamentary colleagues, in accordance with my duties as a Minister".

Date

2 April 2001

Reference

366 c5-6W; 154853;154952

House

House of Commons

Dept of Trade and Industry

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, when the inspectors investigating the affairs of Mirror Group Newspapers plc completed their report; and when it will be published. - Inc fact that intend to publish the report before the end of March 2001.

Asked by

Baroness Golding (Labour)

Answering body

Department of Trade and Industry

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

27 March 2001

Reference

156082; 365 c583W;365 c585W

House

House of Commons

Sainsbury of Turville, Lord

When they expect to publish the report into the usage of the Mirror Group newspapers' pension funds by the late Robert Maxwell. [HL 889].

Asked by

Lord Naseby (Conservative)

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

1 March 2001

Reference

HL 889; 622 c159WA

House

House of Lords

Dept of Trade and Industry

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, if he will estimate the cost to public funds to date of the inquiry into Mirror Group Newspapers plc; if he will make a statement on the progress of the inquiry set up in 1992 into the affairs and membership...

Asked by

David Heathcoat-Amory (Conservative)

Answering body

Department of Trade and Industry

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

12 February 2001

Reference

363 c19W; 149927;149928

House

House of Commons

Librarians' tools

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

Publisher