First elected: 1st May 1997
Left House: 6th November 2019 (Standing Down)
Speeches made during Parliamentary debates are recorded in Hansard. For ease of browsing we have grouped debates into individual, departmental and legislative categories.
These initiatives were driven by Kelvin Hopkins, and are more likely to reflect personal policy preferences.
MPs who are act as Ministers or Shadow Ministers are generally restricted from performing Commons initiatives other than Urgent Questions.
Kelvin Hopkins has not been granted any Urgent Questions
Kelvin Hopkins has not introduced any legislation before Parliament
Workers (Definition and Rights) Bill 2017-19
Sponsor - Chris Stephens (SNP)
Low-level Letter Boxes (Prohibition) Bill 2017-19
Sponsor - Vicky Ford (Con)
Legalisation of Cannabis (Medicinal Purposes) Bill 2017-19
Sponsor - Karen Lee (Lab)
Fetal Dopplers (Regulation) Bill 2017-19
Sponsor - Antoinette Sandbach (LD)
Live Animal Exports (Prohibition) Bill 2017-19
Sponsor - Theresa Villiers (Con)
Improvement of Rail Passenger Services (Use of Disruption Payments) Bill 2015-16
Sponsor - Joan Ryan (TIG)
Following remaining recruitment, the Department will have five full-time officials working on Eco Design and Energy Labelling Directives.
ICF International are contracted by the team to provide technical advice and this is supplemented by support from analysts across DECC’s Energy Efficiency Deployment Office.
DECC have appointed the National Measurement Office to monitor compliance and enforce the Eco Design and Energy Labelling implementing measures within the UK.
At the time of publication of the Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme (ESOS) consultation document, the Government estimated that ESOS would have a net present value ranging from £900m to £3bn, with a central estimate of £1.9bn, measured over the period 2015-2030. The Final Stage Impact Assessment, published alongside the Government’s Response to the ESOS Consultation, took account of new evidence which led to it revising down the estimated net present value, to between £600m and £2.7bn, with a central estimate of £1.6bn. The reasons for this change are set out on pages 17-19 of the Final Stage Impact Assessment, which can be found at the link below:
Following the end of a two year agreement with the Department, Peter Boyd completed his formal role as Chair for Energy Efficiency Deployment Office in May 2014.
The Department has decided not to continue a Chair role for this Office.
The Government is committed to increasing compliance with minimum wage legislation and effective enforcement of it. Everyone who is entitled to the minimum wage should receive it. Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs have 173 staff dedicated to the enforcement of the National Minimum Wage.
The Government is already taking tougher action on employers that break minimum wage law. We have made it simpler to name and shame employers that don't pay the national minimum wage and increased the financial penalty that employers pay for breaking the law.
The Electoral Commission informs me that the confirmation dry run involved matching all entries on the electoral registers against the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Customer Information System database. Entries would be marked as green if they matched with DWP, amber if they were a partial match or red if there was no match.
Results for all wards are available on the Commission's website here: http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/excel_doc/0003/163146/Confirmation-dry-run-2013-Results-Wards.xls
The ward results for Luton Borough Council were as follows:
Ward | Green matches | Amber matches | Red matches |
BARNFIELD | 82.0% | 1.5% | 16.4% |
BISCOT | 68.7% | 5.1% | 26.2% |
BRAMINGHAM | 82.8% | 1.1% | 16.1% |
CHALLNEY | 77.9% | 2.8% | 19.3% |
CRAWLEY | 79.6% | 1.3% | 19.1% |
DALLOW | 66.9% | 5.0% | 28.1% |
FARLEY | 76.6% | 2.4% | 21.0% |
HIGH TOWN | 63.6% | 2.9% | 33.5% |
ICKNIELD | 85.2% | 1.3% | 13.5% |
LEAGRAVE | 79.8% | 2.1% | 18.1% |
LEWSEY | 81.8% | 2.3% | 15.9% |
LIMBURY | 83.4% | 1.9% | 14.6% |
NORTHWELL | 81.1% | 2.4% | 16.6% |
ROUND GREEN | 81.1% | 1.8% | 17.1% |
SAINTS | 74.7% | 3.9% | 21.4% |
SOUTH | 57.6% | 4.5% | 37.9% |
STOPSLEY | 85.3% | 1.1% | 13.7% |
SUNDON PARK | 82.9% | 2.0% | 15.1% |
WIGMORE | 81.9% | 1.2% | 16.9% |
The consultation on the future of the Energy Company Obligation (ECO) closed on 16 April 2014, and the Government expects to publish its response before Parliament rises for Summer recess.
The Government has already confirmed that the Energy Company Obligation (ECO) is intended to be ambitious and long-term, extending through until at least 2022.
The recent consultation on the future of the Energy Company Obligation (ECO) focussed on the period between now and 2017. The precise shape of the obligation after March 2017 will be the subject of a separate consultation in due course.
As highlighted in the answer given on 24 January to PQ 210434 the SFO can neither confirm nor deny if these individuals are subject to any investigation. The SFO carries out all of its work in compliance with legislation.
The SFO also works collaboratively with law enforcement and regulatory partners to combat serious or complex fraud, bribery and corruption and share information, both in the UK and abroad. This includes membership of the newly launched multi-agency National Economic Crime Centre which was set up by the Government following the 2017 Economic Crime Review to ensure a more effective law enforcement response to economic crime.
The SFO has sufficient funding to carry out its work. Funding arrangements were reviewed in April 2018 when cost-neutral changes were made to the SFO’s core budget enabling it to work flexibly and efficiently. This allows the SFO to carry out its work, including money laundering investigations that fit within its statutory remit.
The Attorney General and Solicitor General superintend the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) as set out in the Criminal Justice Act 1987 and are the ministers responsible to Parliament for the work of the SFO. The SFO was created and given its functions and powers by the Criminal Justice Act 1987; it exercises those functions on behalf of the Crown. It is a non-ministerial department headed by the Director. The SFO is therefore independent and makes its own investigative and prosecutorial decisions independently. Part of the role of the Law Officer is to protect that independence.
The SFO also forms one of the ‘Law Officers’ Departments, and as such constitutes a public arm’s length body sponsored by the Attorney General’s Office. The terms of our sponsorship arrangement are set out in the Framework Agreement between the AGO and the SFO which was published on 22 January, replacing the 2009 Protocol document. The Framework Agreement is agreed between the Director of the SFO and the Law Officers.
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) is aware of the allegations made publicly about Sudhir and Bhanu Choudhrie. The SFO can neither confirm nor deny if Sudhir or Bhanu Choudhrie are currently subject to investigation by the SFO, or what, if any, representations the SFO has received about them.
In order to protect the investigative process it is not always possible, or even desirable for investigative bodies to confirm whether or not an individual or organisation is subject to an investigation, or provide any details of matters under investigation.
The SFO proactively publishes information about its cases on its website whenever it is appropriate.
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) is aware of the allegations made publicly about Sudhir and Bhanu Choudhrie. The SFO can neither confirm nor deny if Sudhir or Bhanu Choudhrie are currently subject to investigation by the SFO, or what, if any, representations the SFO has received about them.
In order to protect the investigative process it is not always possible, or even desirable for investigative bodies to confirm whether or not an individual or organisation is subject to an investigation, or provide any details of matters under investigation.
The SFO proactively publishes information about its cases on its website whenever it is appropriate.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) prosecutes cases that are referred to it by the police and does not have any investigative function.
The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the Authority to reply.
The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the Authority to reply.
During my meeting with the Prime Minister of Israel we committed to working together on a wide range of areas including defence and security. We discussed the important work our countries do together and committed to talk further about how we can deepen this cooperation.
I discussed a range of issues with President Trump, including defence and security issues. The UK Government remains determined to continue to work with partners across the international community to prevent proliferation and to make progress on multilateral nuclear disarmament.
The Emerging Technology and Innovation Analysis Cell (ETIAC) launched as part of the Defence Innovation Initiative by the Secretary of State for Defence had not been established when evidence was drawn for the National Cyber Security Strategy, so it did not make a direct contribution. However, officials from the Ministry of Defence and Home Office (who currently staff ETIAC) did contribute to its conclusions on technology and innovation, as did a range of other stakeholders across Government, industry and academia.
As train operating companies generally only work through the Department of Transport, we have no plans at present to add them to the list of Strategic Suppliers, which is reviewed on a regular basis.
The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has no plans to make such assessments.
The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has no plans to make such assessments.
The Insolvency Service, an executive agency of the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, regulates the Recognised Professional Bodies on behalf of my rt. hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
The Recognised Professional Bodies, when discharging their regulatory functions, are required to act in a way which is compatible with statutory regulatory objectives. The Insolvency Service has a range of powers exercisable against the Recognised Professional Bodies if these objectives are not met.
The number of insolvency practitioners licensed by each of the 5 Recognised Professional Bodies is published every year as part of The Insolvency Service’s ‘Annual Review of Insolvency Practitioner Regulation’. The most recent report was published on 11 May 2018 and is available on Gov.uk
Only individuals, not firms, can be licensed to act as insolvency practitioners.
The Insolvency Service maintains a public register of insolvency practitioners, including the names of firms, which is available online.
The insolvency of a party will not necessarily prevent the use of existing dispute resolution mechanisms such as mediation and arbitration. If, however, insolvency related remedies are sought, for example in relation to claims against directors, preference claims, claims to set aside transactions at undervalue, steps will need to be undertaken to ensure appropriate authority is provided by the court.
Insolvency practitioners deal with a number of conflicting interests and their authorising bodies cannot intervene in, or adjudicate upon, disputes of a commercial or legal nature. Ultimately, it is for the Courts to adjudicate upon commercial disputes and disagreements about the application of insolvency law.
Where there are concerns about the actions of an insolvency practitioner, these should in the first instance be raised directly with the practitioner. If this fails to resolve the matter, then a complaint can be made through the Insolvency Service’s Complaints Gateway at: https://www.gov.uk/complain-about-insolvency-practitioner. In June 2013, we established this new gateway to provide a single point of entry for complaints about insolvency practitioners following collaborative discussions between the Insolvency Service and the bodies that authorise insolvency practitioners. The Gateway handles circa 700 complaints annually.
Given the existing options for resolving disputes, I am not proposing to make any changes at this time.
The following UK bodies have regulatory responsibility for enforcing compliance with the Companies Act 2006:
Public Bodies (under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000):
Companies House
Financial Reporting Council
Insolvency Service
Other:
Association of Chartered Certified Accountants
Chartered Accountants Ireland
Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales
Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland
Takeover Appeal Board
Takeover Panel
This answer does not consider obligations on companies and other businesses generally such as employment regulation, environmental regulation or for reasons of public safety, or those bodies that have general responsibilities in respect of criminal investigations and prosecutions. The categorisation of bodies reflects the categorisation used for government accounting purposes and the application of the requirements of managing public money.
Under the provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986, my rt. hon. Friend the Secretary of State recognises certain independent professional bodies, called Recognised Professional Bodies, for the purpose of authorising their members to act as insolvency practitioners. There are currently five Recognised Professional Bodies:
Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales;
Insolvency Practitioners Association;
Association of Chartered Certified Accountants;
Institute of Charted Accountants of Scotland; and
Chartered Accountants Ireland.
The Recognised Professional Bodies enforce compliance with insolvency laws by insolvency practitioners they authorise. The Insolvency Service, an executive agency of the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, regulates the Recognised Professional Bodies on behalf of the Secretary of State. The Insolvency Service also enforces compliance with insolvency laws through a range of powers exercisable against a Recognised Professional Body and directly against an insolvency practitioner.
Documents filed with Companies House should be legible and enable Companies House to make an acceptable copy of the document for the public record. Documents are examined for legibility before they are accepted for registration and may be returned if an examiner believes they do not meet the legibility requirements. Should Companies House receive a public complaint, or become aware in some other way, that a document is not legible, it will contact the company and request a new copy of the document.
When Thames Water Utilities Limited files its accounts for 2017-18 they will be subject to Companies House’s usual examination checks. These include checks to ensure a legible copy can be made for the Public Record. If Companies House is not satisfied a legible copy can be made it will reject them and ask for a copy that meets the requirements.
Data that relies on company filings such as annual reports as its source shows that, as at 27 June 2018, 3,263 UK companies report that they have between 500 and 1,000 employees; and 3,573 UK companies report that they have more than 1,000 employees.
The Department has identified a number of partner organisations as performing regulatory functions. They are the British Hallmarking Council, the Coal Authority, the Competition and Markets Authority, the Copyright Tribunal, the Financial Reporting Council, the Insolvency Service, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, the Oil and Gas Authority and the UK Space Agency.
All our regulatory bodies are subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 with the exception of the Financial Reporting Council which is subject to the Act for some but not all of its functions. The Financial Reporting Council and its status under the Freedom of Information Act is currently being reviewed by Sir John Kingman. We expect the review to report at the end of 2018.
Companies House does not hold this information. Having a criminal conviction does not preclude a person from being a director. Consequently, Companies House does not ask for or record this information.
Companies House does not hold this information. Having a criminal conviction does not preclude a person from being a director. Consequently, Companies House does not ask for or record this information.
Unless it is already in voluntary liquidation, a company may only be wound up by a petition to the Court. There are no provisions in the Companies Act 2006 for the Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy to present a petition to wind a company up; these are contained in the Insolvency Act 1986.
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy may present a petition, as provided in the Insolvency Act 1986 only if he decides it is in the public interest to do so, having considered a report of information obtained by a statutory investigation into the company's affairs. I am not currently aware of any ongoing investigation into Business Bank Italy Limited.
The Insolvency Service is currently bringing disqualification proceedings against a number of former directors of BHS and connected companies. As these matters may now be tested in Court it would not be appropriate to comment or issue further information at this time.Once the disqualification proceedings are complete government will consider what detail it is appropriate to publish, having full regard to any legal restrictions on publication and also the legitimate public interest in the cause of the BHS failure.
The Secretary of State has delegated responsibility for overseeing the work of recognised supervisory bodies (RSBs) to the Financial Reporting Council (FRC). The FRC must be satisfied that an RSB meets the conditions set out in Schedule 10 of the Companies Act 2006, as amended by the Statutory Auditors and Third Country Auditors Regulations 2016, in order for it to be recognised. In addition, as the competent authority for statutory audit, the FRC must be satisfied that each RSB has the necessary arrangements in place to fulfil the audit regulatory tasks delegated to it by the FRC.
If necessary where there is a failure to meet the required conditions the FRC can reclaim any audit regulatory functions that it has delegated to an RSB. If an RSB does not meet the Schedule 10 requirements, the FRC can remove the body’s recognition as a supervisory body.
Companies House’s role is to incorporate and dissolve limited companies. It registers the information that UK companies are required to disclose and makes it available to the public. Companies House does not have a front-line role in combatting money laundering but it can support and assist law enforcement in their investigations.
Company House carries out a number of checks on all information received, ensuring it is valid, complete, and in compliance with company filing requirements. When it detects or receives intelligence relating to suspicious actions, including possible money laundering, Companies House will report the information to the relevant enforcement body.
The Department is not responsible for carrying out checks on dividends paid by companies to ensure that they do not exceed their distributable reserves.
The Government has no plans to appoint such a committee. The work of the Financial Reporting Council has been reviewed by committees in both Houses of Parliament and we would expect this to continue.
The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) agreed a disciplinary scheme with the accountancy professional bodies in 2004 meeting requirements in company law for it to have in place arrangements with the recognised supervisory bodies for the purposes of disciplining auditors. The funding basis for the scheme was that the professional bodies would fund the costs of disciplinary actions and that any costs and fines ordered against the members of their bodies would be paid to those bodies.
New statutory powers for the FRC to impose fines on auditing firms were introduced in the Statutory Auditors and Third Country Auditors Regulations 2016. The Regulations require that fines imposed under the powers must be transferred by the FRC to the Secretary of State.
The FRC continues to maintain a disciplinary scheme for non-statutory audit matters: for fines recovered under those arrangements, the fines continue to be paid over to the relevant accountancy professional bodies.
The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) oversees of the work of recognised supervisory bodies (RSBs) as the Secretary of State’s delegate and the UK’s competent authority for audit. The FRC is designated for these purposes by the Companies Act 2006 and certain secondary legislation. If the RSBs breach the requirements put in place under that legislation, the FRC can remove the bodies’ recognition and can also reclaim any audit regulatory functions that it has delegated to them.
Shareholding through nominee accounts is commonly used for legitimate investment and commercial reasons. The Government has no plans to introduce legislative proposals to prohibit nominee shareholdings.
Companies are already required to identify all of their shareholders. Companies Act 2006 requires companies to keep a register of members and enter the details of members in this register (in the case of a company limited by shares, the members are the shareholders). The register of members must be kept available for inspection at the company’s registered office and any person may request to inspect it on payment of any fee set by the company (the size of which is limited by legislation).
Companies House does not have powers to verify the authenticity of company directors, secretaries and registered office addresses. However, it does carry out a number of checks on all information received; ensuring it is valid, complete, correctly formatted and in compliance with company filing requirements. The obligation to ensure the information is accurate lies with the company and its directors. An offence is committed by the company if it files false information. Companies House maintains one of the most open and extensively accessed companies’ register in the world. It is a powerful tool in identifying false, inaccurate or possibly fraudulent information. With many eyes viewing the data, errors, omissions or worse can be identified and reported.
No action has been taken at this time against the promoters and officers of Magnolia Fundaction UK Ltd for filing inappropriate information in Italian at Companies House. The company has already filed documents providing appropriate information and terminating the inappropriate appointment.