Asked by: Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask His Majesty's Government what guidance, if any, they give to the management of NatWest about their expectations, in managing their 38.6% shareholding in that company.
Answered by Baroness Penn - Minister on Leave (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State)
The Government’s 38.6% shareholding in NatWest Group is managed at arm’s length and on a commercial basis by UK Government Investments (UKGI). UKGI’s role is to manage the shareholding, not the bank itself. As a shareholder in NatWest, the government does not intervene in the operational decisions of NatWest. NatWest’s board is responsible for the bank’s strategic and operational decisions.
As set out at Budget, the Government intends to exit its shareholding by 2025-26 subject to market conditions and achieving value for money for taxpayers.
The Government does have wider responsibilities for financial services regulation. As a matter of public policy, the Government has been clear that it is wrong to remove someone's bank account on the basis of their lawfully-held views, and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury reiterated that message on Wednesday 26 July with leaders from the banking and building society sector.
The Government notes NatWest Group’s confirmation, on 25 July 2023, that they will be conducting an independent review into account-closure arrangements, and that, upon completion, the findings of that review will be made public[1].
[1] https://www.natwestgroup.com/news-and-insights/news-room/press-releases/our-updates/2023/jul/update-from-natwest-group-board-and-chief-executive-officer.html
Asked by: Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made, given their 38.6% shareholding in NatWest, of the descriptions of the “purpose” and “values” of NatWest in the papers released to Nigel Farage.
Answered by Baroness Penn - Minister on Leave (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State)
The Government’s 38.6% shareholding in NatWest Group is managed at arm’s length and on a commercial basis by UK Government Investments (UKGI). UKGI’s role is to manage the shareholding, not the bank itself. As a shareholder in NatWest, the government does not intervene in the operational decisions of NatWest. NatWest’s board is responsible for the bank’s strategic and operational decisions.
As set out at Budget, the Government intends to exit its shareholding by 2025-26 subject to market conditions and achieving value for money for taxpayers.
The Government does have wider responsibilities for financial services regulation. As a matter of public policy, the Government has been clear that it is wrong to remove someone's bank account on the basis of their lawfully-held views, and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury reiterated that message on Wednesday 26 July with leaders from the banking and building society sector.
The Government notes NatWest Group’s confirmation, on 25 July 2023, that they will be conducting an independent review into account-closure arrangements, and that, upon completion, the findings of that review will be made public[1].
[1] https://www.natwestgroup.com/news-and-insights/news-room/press-releases/our-updates/2023/jul/update-from-natwest-group-board-and-chief-executive-officer.html
Asked by: Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether, as 38.6% shareholders in NatWest, they will request the company to investigate the briefings provided to the BBC about the alleged financial position of Nigel Farage.
Answered by Baroness Penn - Minister on Leave (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State)
The Government’s 38.6% shareholding in NatWest Group is managed at arm’s length and on a commercial basis by UK Government Investments (UKGI). UKGI’s role is to manage the shareholding, not the bank itself. As a shareholder in NatWest, the government does not intervene in the operational decisions of NatWest. NatWest’s board is responsible for the bank’s strategic and operational decisions.
As set out at Budget, the Government intends to exit its shareholding by 2025-26 subject to market conditions and achieving value for money for taxpayers.
The Government does have wider responsibilities for financial services regulation. As a matter of public policy, the Government has been clear that it is wrong to remove someone's bank account on the basis of their lawfully-held views, and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury reiterated that message on Wednesday 26 July with leaders from the banking and building society sector.
The Government notes NatWest Group’s confirmation, on 25 July 2023, that they will be conducting an independent review into account-closure arrangements, and that, upon completion, the findings of that review will be made public[1].
[1] https://www.natwestgroup.com/news-and-insights/news-room/press-releases/our-updates/2023/jul/update-from-natwest-group-board-and-chief-executive-officer.html
Asked by: Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made, given their 38.6% shareholding in NatWest, of the decision by NatWest to give no loans for new oil and gas projects.
Answered by Baroness Penn - Minister on Leave (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State)
The Government’s 38.6% shareholding in NatWest Group is managed at arm’s length and on a commercial basis by UK Government Investments (UKGI). UKGI’s role is to manage the shareholding, not the bank itself. As a shareholder in NatWest, the government does not intervene in the operational decisions of NatWest. NatWest’s board is responsible for the bank’s strategic and operational decisions.
As set out at Budget, the Government intends to exit its shareholding by 2025-26 subject to market conditions and achieving value for money for taxpayers.
The Government does have wider responsibilities for financial services regulation. As a matter of public policy, the Government has been clear that it is wrong to remove someone's bank account on the basis of their lawfully-held views, and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury reiterated that message on Wednesday 26 July with leaders from the banking and building society sector.
The Government notes NatWest Group’s confirmation, on 25 July 2023, that they will be conducting an independent review into account-closure arrangements, and that, upon completion, the findings of that review will be made public[1].
[1] https://www.natwestgroup.com/news-and-insights/news-room/press-releases/our-updates/2023/jul/update-from-natwest-group-board-and-chief-executive-officer.html
Asked by: Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Conservative - Life peer)
Question
To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker why Remembrance Day poppies are not on sale at Peers' Entrance as in previous years.
Answered by Lord Gardiner of Kimble
A box of Remembrance Day poppies was placed at Peers’ Entrance on Wednesday 2 November. This was in addition to poppy boxes already placed in the Attendants’ Office off Peers’ Lobby and at Millbank House reception.
Asked by: Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the decision to reduce the size of the Accession Council and to hold an annual ballot of Privy Councillors only applies to the next meeting of the Accession Council or whether annual ballots will continue thereafter.
Answered by Lord True - Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal
The decision not to summons all Privy Counsellors to the next Accession Council, and to hold a ballot of Privy Counsellors not eligible to attend on an ex officio basis, was taken with the collective agreement of the Lord President of the Council and Number 10. The Royal Household was also consulted on the basis of this collective advice. This decision-making process is consistent with the decision-making process for previous Accession Councils.
The decision to reduce the size of the Accession Council and to hold a ballot for those ineligible to attend on an ex officio basis applies to all Privy Councillors, regardless of their nationality or their usual place of residence.
St. James’s Palace is the senior Royal Palace in the United Kingdom and the Court of St. James is the Royal Court to which all Realm High Commissioners are accredited. St. James’s Palace has therefore long been agreed to be the most appropriate setting for the Accession Council.
In any case, Westminster Hall will not be available to host the Accession Council because an intensive and time critical series of works will begin on the Parliamentary estate, including Westminster Hall, as soon as Demise is announced. The purpose of these works is to prepare the estate and surrounding areas for significant elements of ceremonial and procedural activity. Hosting the Accession Council in Westminster Hall would prevent the completion of these critical works, resulting in significant disruption to other national activity.
Attendance at an Accession Council is not a statutory matter and there is no constitutional requirement to consult Privy Counsellors on any amendments to attendance arrangements.
Decisions on attendance arrangements for future Accession Councils will be taken at the appropriate time.
Asked by: Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what consultations were undertaken by the Privy Council with Privy Councillors prior to the decision to reduce the size of the Accession Council.
Answered by Lord True - Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal
The decision not to summons all Privy Counsellors to the next Accession Council, and to hold a ballot of Privy Counsellors not eligible to attend on an ex officio basis, was taken with the collective agreement of the Lord President of the Council and Number 10. The Royal Household was also consulted on the basis of this collective advice. This decision-making process is consistent with the decision-making process for previous Accession Councils.
The decision to reduce the size of the Accession Council and to hold a ballot for those ineligible to attend on an ex officio basis applies to all Privy Councillors, regardless of their nationality or their usual place of residence.
St. James’s Palace is the senior Royal Palace in the United Kingdom and the Court of St. James is the Royal Court to which all Realm High Commissioners are accredited. St. James’s Palace has therefore long been agreed to be the most appropriate setting for the Accession Council.
In any case, Westminster Hall will not be available to host the Accession Council because an intensive and time critical series of works will begin on the Parliamentary estate, including Westminster Hall, as soon as Demise is announced. The purpose of these works is to prepare the estate and surrounding areas for significant elements of ceremonial and procedural activity. Hosting the Accession Council in Westminster Hall would prevent the completion of these critical works, resulting in significant disruption to other national activity.
Attendance at an Accession Council is not a statutory matter and there is no constitutional requirement to consult Privy Counsellors on any amendments to attendance arrangements.
Decisions on attendance arrangements for future Accession Councils will be taken at the appropriate time.
Asked by: Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Accession Council on the death of the Sovereign could be held in Westminster Hall; and if not, why not.
Answered by Lord True - Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal
The decision not to summons all Privy Counsellors to the next Accession Council, and to hold a ballot of Privy Counsellors not eligible to attend on an ex officio basis, was taken with the collective agreement of the Lord President of the Council and Number 10. The Royal Household was also consulted on the basis of this collective advice. This decision-making process is consistent with the decision-making process for previous Accession Councils.
The decision to reduce the size of the Accession Council and to hold a ballot for those ineligible to attend on an ex officio basis applies to all Privy Councillors, regardless of their nationality or their usual place of residence.
St. James’s Palace is the senior Royal Palace in the United Kingdom and the Court of St. James is the Royal Court to which all Realm High Commissioners are accredited. St. James’s Palace has therefore long been agreed to be the most appropriate setting for the Accession Council.
In any case, Westminster Hall will not be available to host the Accession Council because an intensive and time critical series of works will begin on the Parliamentary estate, including Westminster Hall, as soon as Demise is announced. The purpose of these works is to prepare the estate and surrounding areas for significant elements of ceremonial and procedural activity. Hosting the Accession Council in Westminster Hall would prevent the completion of these critical works, resulting in significant disruption to other national activity.
Attendance at an Accession Council is not a statutory matter and there is no constitutional requirement to consult Privy Counsellors on any amendments to attendance arrangements.
Decisions on attendance arrangements for future Accession Councils will be taken at the appropriate time.
Asked by: Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the decision to reduce the size of the Accession Council and to hold a ballot also applies to Privy Councillors from (1) Commonwealth, or (2) other countries.
Answered by Lord True - Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal
The decision not to summons all Privy Counsellors to the next Accession Council, and to hold a ballot of Privy Counsellors not eligible to attend on an ex officio basis, was taken with the collective agreement of the Lord President of the Council and Number 10. The Royal Household was also consulted on the basis of this collective advice. This decision-making process is consistent with the decision-making process for previous Accession Councils.
The decision to reduce the size of the Accession Council and to hold a ballot for those ineligible to attend on an ex officio basis applies to all Privy Councillors, regardless of their nationality or their usual place of residence.
St. James’s Palace is the senior Royal Palace in the United Kingdom and the Court of St. James is the Royal Court to which all Realm High Commissioners are accredited. St. James’s Palace has therefore long been agreed to be the most appropriate setting for the Accession Council.
In any case, Westminster Hall will not be available to host the Accession Council because an intensive and time critical series of works will begin on the Parliamentary estate, including Westminster Hall, as soon as Demise is announced. The purpose of these works is to prepare the estate and surrounding areas for significant elements of ceremonial and procedural activity. Hosting the Accession Council in Westminster Hall would prevent the completion of these critical works, resulting in significant disruption to other national activity.
Attendance at an Accession Council is not a statutory matter and there is no constitutional requirement to consult Privy Counsellors on any amendments to attendance arrangements.
Decisions on attendance arrangements for future Accession Councils will be taken at the appropriate time.
Asked by: Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government which minister made the decision (1) to reduce the size of the Accession Council, and (2) to hold a ballot of Privy Councillors to attend the Council.
Answered by Lord True - Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal
The decision not to summons all Privy Counsellors to the next Accession Council, and to hold a ballot of Privy Counsellors not eligible to attend on an ex officio basis, was taken with the collective agreement of the Lord President of the Council and Number 10. The Royal Household was also consulted on the basis of this collective advice. This decision-making process is consistent with the decision-making process for previous Accession Councils.
The decision to reduce the size of the Accession Council and to hold a ballot for those ineligible to attend on an ex officio basis applies to all Privy Councillors, regardless of their nationality or their usual place of residence.
St. James’s Palace is the senior Royal Palace in the United Kingdom and the Court of St. James is the Royal Court to which all Realm High Commissioners are accredited. St. James’s Palace has therefore long been agreed to be the most appropriate setting for the Accession Council.
In any case, Westminster Hall will not be available to host the Accession Council because an intensive and time critical series of works will begin on the Parliamentary estate, including Westminster Hall, as soon as Demise is announced. The purpose of these works is to prepare the estate and surrounding areas for significant elements of ceremonial and procedural activity. Hosting the Accession Council in Westminster Hall would prevent the completion of these critical works, resulting in significant disruption to other national activity.
Attendance at an Accession Council is not a statutory matter and there is no constitutional requirement to consult Privy Counsellors on any amendments to attendance arrangements.
Decisions on attendance arrangements for future Accession Councils will be taken at the appropriate time.