Asked by: Kevin Hollinrake (Conservative - Thirsk and Malton)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what plans he has to introduce bylaws following the consultation on four of England’s Marine Protected Areas, published February 2021, which proposed the prohibition of the use of bottom towed fishing gear in four offshore Marine Protected Areas.
Answered by Rebecca Pow - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
The Fisheries Act 2020 introduced new powers enabling the Marine Management Organisation to implement management measures within our offshore Marine Protected Areas. The byelaws for the first four offshore sites are now in the process of being finalised.
Asked by: Kevin Hollinrake (Conservative - Thirsk and Malton)
Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, what steps his Department is taking to ensure strict anti-money laundering and identity checks for directors are in place at the point of company formation on Companies House.
Answered by Paul Scully
The Government has already committed to introduce identity verification for all directors at the point of incorporation with Companies House. Third parties that seek to form companies are already required to be supervised for anti-money laundering purposes. Under the reforms announced by the Government in September 2020, third parties will be required to register with Companies House and have their supervision confirmed before they will be permitted to request company formations.
Asked by: Kevin Hollinrake (Conservative - Thirsk and Malton)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what steps he is taking to protect sandeel populations in the North Sea in advance of the 2022 sea bird breeding season.
Answered by Victoria Prentis - Attorney General
The UK’s seabirds are an important part of our natural heritage, and their protection is a high priority for this Government. Forage fish such as sandeels play a crucial role in the health of the wider marine ecosystem.
Defra and the UK Fisheries Administrations recently published a call for evidence on sandeels and Norway pout to help inform decision making and to consider possible measures to manage these stocks more sustainably in the future. The responses are currently being analysed.
ICES releases its annual scientific advice about the condition of sandeel stocks in the North Sea on 25 February. We will carefully consider this advice, as well as the advice given in response to the call for evidence, in developing a UK position ahead of the negotiation with the European Union of a total allowable catch for North Sea sandeel in 2022.
Defra is also working with Natural England to develop a comprehensive and ambitious English Seabird Conservation Strategy. The Strategy will aim to assess the vulnerability of each seabird species in light of the pressures they are facing and propose actions to address them.
Asked by: Kevin Hollinrake (Conservative - Thirsk and Malton)
Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, if he will provide a full list of the lenders to the (a) Bounce Back Loan Scheme, (b) Covid Business Interruption Loan Scheme and (c) Covid Large Business Interruption Loan Scheme; and which lenders have made a disproportionately high number of loans to (i) dissolved entities or (ii) entities incorporated since the outbreak of covid-19.
Answered by Paul Scully
The Department and the British Business Bank continue to work with lenders to identify and address all types of fraud perpetrated through the Covid Loan Schemes. For example, under the Bank’s Guarantee Assurance Analytics programme, BBLS lenders are investigating several thousand facilities with potential data inconsistencies, including regarding incorporation dates.
We are unable to disclose the rates of indicators of suspected fraud by individual lender at this time due to the commercially sensitive nature of this information.
Full lists of all accredited lenders as at scheme closures on 31 March 2021 are as follows:
CBILS | BBLS | CLBILS |
ABN AMRO | Bank of Scotland | Bank of Scotland |
Aldermore | Barclays | Barclays |
ART Business Loans | Clydesdale / Yorkshire Banks | Clydesdale / Yorkshire Bank |
AskIf | Danske Bank | Danske Bank |
Bank of Ireland UK | HSBC | HSBC UK |
Bank of Scotland | Lloyds Bank | Lloyds Bank |
Barclays | NatWest | NatWest |
BCRS Business Loans | RBS | RBS |
Business Enterprise Fund | Santander | Santander |
Calverton Finance | Ulster Bank | Ulster Bank |
Chamber Acorn Fund | TSB | Coutts |
Clydesdale / Yorkshire Bank | AIB | Greensill |
Compass Business Finance | Starling Bank | Metro Bank |
County Finance Group | The Co-operative Bank | OakNorth Bank |
CWRT | Bank of Ireland (UK) | Secure Trust Bank |
Danske Bank | Skipton Business Finance | ThinCats |
DSL Business Finance | Tide | Close Brothers |
Enterprise Answers | Metro Bank | HSBC Bank plc |
Finance for Enterprise | Paragon Bank | Silicon Valley Bank |
First Enterprise | JCB Finance | BBVA |
GC Business Finance | Investec | Investec |
Genesis Asset Finance | Arbuthnot Latham | Mercedes Benz Financial Services |
Haydock Finance | Coutts | AIB |
Hitachi Capital | Adam & Co | Bank of Ireland (UK) |
HSBC UK | Capital on Tap | RBC Capital Markets |
Let's Do Business Group | Funding Circle | The Co-operative Bank |
Lloyds Bank | Conister | Bank of Ireland (Governor & Company of) |
Metro Bank | GC Business Finance |
|
MSIF | Close Brothers |
|
NatWest | Bank of Scotland |
|
Newable | Barclays |
|
RBS | Clydesdale / Yorkshire Banks |
|
Robert Owen Community Banking | Danske Bank |
|
Santander | HSBC |
|
Skipton Business Finance | Lloyds Bank |
|
SWIG Finance | NatWest |
|
TSB | RBS |
|
UKSE | Santander |
|
Ulster Bank | Ulster Bank |
|
Arkle Finance Limited | TSB |
|
Close Brothers | AIB |
|
Coutts | Starling Bank |
|
Cynergy Bank | The Co-operative Bank |
|
OakNorth Bank | Bank of Ireland (UK) |
|
Secure Trust Bank | Skipton Business Finance |
|
Starling Bank | Tide |
|
The Co-operative Bank | Metro Bank |
|
Funding Circle | Paragon Bank |
|
AIB | JCB Finance |
|
IGF | Investec |
|
Paragon | Arbuthnot Latham |
|
Thincats | Coutts |
|
1pm | Adam & Co |
|
Adam & Co | Capital on Tap |
|
Assetz Capital | Funding Circle |
|
Atom bank | Conister |
|
Ebury | GC Business Finance |
|
Investec | Close Brothers |
|
Social Investment Business |
|
|
Tower Leasing |
|
|
Ultimate Finance |
|
|
White Oak UK |
|
|
Bank Leumi / Leumi ABL |
|
|
Capital on Tap |
|
|
MarketFinance |
|
|
Shawbrook Bank |
|
|
Liberis |
|
|
Community Finance Ireland (previously Ulster Community Investment Trust (UCIT)) |
|
|
iwoca |
|
|
Scania Financial Services |
|
|
Triodos Bank UK |
|
|
Woodsford TradeBridge |
|
|
FSE Group, The |
|
|
FW Capital |
|
|
Mercia Asset Management |
|
|
Whiterock Finance |
|
|
Arbuthnot Commerical ABL |
|
|
Shire Leasing |
|
|
Silicon Valley Bank |
|
|
Growth Lending |
|
|
Invocap |
|
|
NEL Fund Managers |
|
|
Triple Point |
|
|
4Syte |
|
|
Asset Finance Partners |
|
|
JCB |
|
|
Merchant Money |
|
|
United Trust Bank |
|
|
Previse |
|
|
Handelsbanken |
|
|
Lending Crowd |
|
|
Nucleus Commercial Finance |
|
|
Maven Capital Partners |
|
|
Bank of India |
|
|
Fiduciam |
|
|
Simply |
|
|
Regency Factors |
|
|
BLG Development Finance |
|
|
Conister |
|
|
RM Funds |
|
|
Western Union Business Solutions |
|
|
LendInvest |
|
|
Interbay |
|
|
Charities Aid Foundation (CAF) |
|
|
Cyan Finance |
|
|
Ortus Secured Finance |
|
|
Greensill |
|
|
Funding 365 |
|
|
Hampshire Trust Bank |
|
|
Kingsway Asset Finance |
|
|
BRYDG Capital |
|
|
Kennet Leasing |
|
|
West One |
|
|
KSEYE |
|
|
Aspen Bridging |
|
|
Pluto Finance |
|
|
Asked by: Kevin Hollinrake (Conservative - Thirsk and Malton)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the Answer of 20 January 2022 to Question 103605 on Financial Services Authority, on what specific information and reports the decision not take forward the legislation referred to in that Question was based.
Answered by John Glen - Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office
The Government decided that it would not take forward legislation but would keep the position of contracts sold to unregulated firms under review and return to legislation if there was sufficient evidence of consumer detriment. This decision was reached based on careful consideration of the market conditions at the time, analysis of the available evidence of consumer harm and engagement with a range of stakeholders, including the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS).
The Government continues to keep the position of mortgage contracts sold to unregulated firms under review. All mortgages, regardless of the regulatory status of the owner, must be administered by a regulated administrator.
It is worth reiterating that further regulation of this kind would not necessarily enable borrowers to switch to a cheaper mortgage deal or lower the interest rates they pay.
Asked by: Kevin Hollinrake (Conservative - Thirsk and Malton)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will make it his policy to introduce legislation to make the sale of banned narcotics to people under the age of 16 a specific criminal offence.
Answered by Kit Malthouse
We have no plans to introduce legislation to make the sale of drugs to people under the age of 16 a specific criminal offence. Under s.4(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (MDA 1971), it is unlawful to “supply or offer to supply a controlled drug to another”. This is expanded upon by s.4(3), which makes it an offence: (a) to supply or offer to supply a controlled drug to another in contravention of s.4(1); or (b) to be concerned in the supplying of such a drug to another in contravention of s.4(1); or (c) to be concerned in the making to another an offer to supply such a drug (in contravention of s.4(1)).
These provisions do not differentiate between different classes of person based on age or any other characteristic. The offence is made out where a person supplies a controlled drug to another person or offers to supply a controlled drug to another person. It would therefore be an offence under s.4 MDA 1971 to supply a controlled drug to a person under the age of 16 (subject of course to any applicable exemptions and licences held).
Additionally, section 4A of the MDA 1971 sets out the circumstances that a court must treat as aggravating factors in respect of the offence of supply of a controlled drug under s.4. These circumstances are:
(a) When a person supplies a controlled drug on or in the vicinity of school premises when those premises are being used by persons under 18 (and within one hour of any such time); and
(b) When a person causes or permits a person under 18 to deliver a controlled drug to a third person or to deliver a drug related consideration to himself or a third person in connection with the offence of supply of a controlled drug.
The provisions of s.4A are concerned with where the supply took place (e.g. in the vicinity of a school), when the supply took place (e.g. during school hours) and whether a child courier was used to effect the supply.
Asked by: Kevin Hollinrake (Conservative - Thirsk and Malton)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he has made an assessment of the effect of the review of excise duties on wine and subsequent price impacts on small businesses and independent wine sellers of higher strength and higher value wines.
Answered by Helen Whately - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Government believes the reforms announced at the Budget will produce an alcohol duty system that is overall simpler, fairer and healthier.
The reforms announced at Autumn Budget 2021 mean higher strength still wines will pay more duty, while lighter wines (below 11.5% alcohol by volume – ABV) will become cheaper.
The Government also announced that the 28% higher duty rate on sparkling wine will be abolished, so that sparkling wines will pay considerably less duty in future. From 2023 sparkling and still wines of the same strength will pay the same duty.
The Government is continuing to engage with industry – including small businesses – for further information about the effect of the changes on them. Industry members are encouraged to respond to the alcohol review consultation before the deadline of 30 January 2022.
Asked by: Kevin Hollinrake (Conservative - Thirsk and Malton)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what (a) correspondence and (b) other information his Department holds on the basis on which the Economic Secretary to the Treasury decided not to take forward the Financial Services Authority regulation of administering a regulated contract on 2 January 2013.
Answered by John Glen - Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office
In January 2011, the Government announced its intention to introduce further regulation in relation to the sale of regulated mortgage contracts to unregulated firms. Following a review, the Government decided that it would not take forward legislation but would instead keep the position of contracts sold to unregulated firms under review and return to legislation if there was sufficient evidence of consumer detriment.
The Government remains open to further regulation but is yet to see evidence that any consumer harm has occurred under the current regulatory regime that would have been prevented by the proposed regulation. Under the current regulatory regime, firms administering regulated mortgages, including third-party administrators, must be regulated. This means that they are subject to relevant provisions of the Financial Conduct Authority’s Mortgage Conduct of Business requirements, including provisions regarding the fair treatment of customers in arrears. It is also worth noting that further regulation of this kind would not necessarily enable borrowers to switch to a cheaper mortgage deal or to materially lower the interest rates they pay.
Asked by: Kevin Hollinrake (Conservative - Thirsk and Malton)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what steps he is taking to reduce red tape for the importing of ornamental plants and trees; and if he will introduce a trusted trader scheme for that sector.
Answered by Victoria Prentis - Attorney General
Great Britain's (GB) plant health regime is risk-based, and the history of compliance of specific trades (where the ‘trade’ is the combination of a specific commodity from a specific origin), is a significant factor in determining biosecurity risk. Consequently, trades with a proven track record of compliance and meeting prescribed eligibility criteria may be subject to a reduced frequency and/or intensity of checks. While the biosecurity risk of imported goods is largely trade based, there are areas where trader considerations may also play a role. For example, as the phased introduction of EU-GB plant health import controls is completed in 2022, Defra is enabling the performance of plant health controls away from the border, including through increased uptake in the use of designated plant health Control Points. Eligibility criteria to be designated as a Control Point include elements consistent with a trusted trader model.
Defra officials are actively exploring with stakeholders other options for minimising the regulatory burden on individual traders in a way which maintains the high biosecurity standards the United Kingdom enjoys.
Asked by: Kevin Hollinrake (Conservative - Thirsk and Malton)
Question to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities:
To ask the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, what Government body will determine (a) which buildings are most at risk due to dangerous cladding and (b) a matrix of which buildings to remediate first.
Answered by Christopher Pincher
The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is prioritising remediation on the highest risk buildings. After the Grenfell tragedy, the Government identified the high-rise buildings with the highest risk ACM cladding and made sure that interim measures were installed to reassure and protect residents while remediation of those building is taken forward.
Government funding is targeted to high rise buildings (18 metres and over) with ACM and other forms of unsafe cladding. The fire risk is lower in buildings under 18 metres and costly remediation work is usually not needed. Where fire risks are identified, they should always be managed proportionately. The Government has therefore focused its financial support on high-rise residential buildings over 18 metres because we know that the risk to multiple households is greater when fire does spread in buildings of this height. As the Secretary of State said in his announcement on Monday 10 January, taxpayers should not be funding the remediation of 11-18 metres buildings. It is for industry to develop a solution to this problem and ensure that leaseholders living in their own flats in medium buildings do not pay a penny to remediate historic cladding defects that are no fault of their own. That is why we are asking the industry to step up and agree how they can fund cladding remediation in the next two-three months. Detailed information on which buildings are eligible for Government funding can be found in Prospectus Annex A: Technical Information of the Building Safety Fund Prospectus, available at: www.gov.uk/guidance/remediation-of-non-acm-buildings#prospectus---outlining-eligibility-for-the-fund.