Tag: Charles Walker

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Charles Walker on 2016-01-12.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether he has received representations from the Mayor of London on his concerns about the number of private hire vehicles being licensed each month in London.

Andrew Jones

We receive representations on a number of issues from the Mayor of London, and this has included the impact of the increasing number of private hire vehicles in London on congestion, air quality and parking issues on London’s road network.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Charles Walker on 2016-03-16.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what estimate his Department has made of the number of its senior civil servants who will potentially fall under the provisions of the 4th EU Money Laundering Directive, 2015/849; and what assessment he has made of which of his Department’s agencies or other public bodies will potentially be classed as holding a prominent public function for the purposes of that directive.

Mr David Lidington

Under the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, which will be transposed into national law by June 2017, a politically exposed person is one who has been entrusted with a prominent public function domestically or by a foreign country. This would include some senior civil servants, such as ambassadors and chargés d’affaires. The Government’s view is that the Directive permits a risk-based approach to the identification of whether an individual is a politically exposed person and, when identified, the Directive enables the application of different degrees of enhanced measures to reflect the risks posed. The Government will be setting out this view in a consultation which will be published shortly.

The changes proposed under the Directive should not prevent any individual in this category from gaining or maintaining access to financial services. The Treasury regularly raises these issues with financial institutions and the regulator, and we encourage financial institutions to take a proportionate, risk-based approach when applying these measures.”

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Charles Walker on 2016-03-21.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what estimate his Department has made of the number of its senior civil servants who will potentially fall under the provisions of the Fourth EU Money Laundering Directive, 2015/849; and what assessment he has made of which of his Department’s agencies or other public bodies will potentially be classed as holding a prominent public function for the purposes of that directive.

Mr Julian Brazier

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to his Question 31527 on 22 March 2016.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Charles Walker on 2016-04-12.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will identify for the purpose of Article 3(9)(F) of the Fourth EU Money Laundering Directive which ranks in the armed services will be classed as high-ranking.

Mark Lancaster

The Fourth EU Money Laundering Directive seeks to prevent the financial and certain non-financial sectors from being used for money laundering (the conversion, by various means, of the proceeds of crime into apparently ‘clean money’) and terrorist financing (the provision or collection of funds used to carry out any terrorist offences).

In addition to the financial sector, the directive applies to certain non-financial sectors including lawyers, notaries, accountants, estate agents, providers of gambling services, trust and company service providers, and to all providers of goods when payments are made in cash in excess of €15,000.

The directive introduces additional requirements and safeguards (‘enhanced due diligence’) for situations posing a higher risk of money laundering and terrorist financing, for example, trading with correspondent banks situated outside the EU. Amongst those additional requirements is a broader definition of Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs).

Those subject to the directive are required to:

Identify and verify the identity of their customer (‘customer due diligence’) and of the beneficial owner (person(s) who ultimately owns or controls the customer on whose behalf a transaction is being carried out, e.g. in the case of a company, the owner of a sufficient percentage of the shares or votes), and to monitor their business relationship with the customer,

Report suspicions of money laundering or terrorist financing to the public authorities

Ensure that personnel are properly trained and that appropriate internal preventive policies and procedures are set up.

The Ministry of Defence (MOD) is not a financial institution nor does it fall into the non-financial sector organisations identified by the Directive, and it is not a provider of goods where payments are made in cash in excess of €15,000.

The responsibility of implementing the requirements of the Directive is for the financial sector and the non-financial sectors identified by the Directive and not the MOD.

The new Directive gives additional guidance in dealing with those risks and issues relating to corrupt activities. As with all legislation it cannot differentiate between those nations, sectors and institutions that are more or in the UK’s case, less corrupt. What this Directive attempts to do is give those organisations and sectors at risk of money laundering and terrorist finances the ability to make their own judgements as to what they deem as a high risk person (PEP) or transaction. Whilst ambassadors, chargés d’affaires and high-ranking officers in the Armed Forces are included in the Directive as PEP’s, the financial institutions in particular will assess their individual risk. In some countries the military are involved and in some cases run the political and governing systems, this makes them a significant corruption risk. The UK, its ambassadors, chargés d’affaires and high-ranking officers carry a lesser risk than some others; it is therefore unlikely that the extended Directive will affect them. But the interpretation of the Directive is for the financial and certain non-financial sectors to interpret.

The MOD takes its responsibility to prevent, detect, deter and investigate fraud (including corruption, money laundering and terrorist financing) very seriously and has undertaken detailed risk assessments to identify its risks, where needed implementing additional preventative and detective controls and undertakes due diligence on its suppliers.

Transparency International publishes a Government Defence Anti-Corruption Index based on 77 indicators which assesses the existence, effectiveness and enforcement of a nation’s ability to manage the risk of corruption including money laundering.

The UK MOD scored an ‘A’ (very low corruption risk) in the 2015 index, the only country to achieve this in the G20 and NATO as well as being one of only two in the world to achieve this.

Transparency International attributed the ‘A’ to the UK MOD having strong anti-corruption systems underpinned by effective independent oversight mechanisms.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Charles Walker on 2016-10-20.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, how much income has been received from anglers through the rod licence in each of the last five financial years; and if she will make a statement.

George Eustice

The income received from anglers through the rod licence for each of the last five years is provided in the table below:

Income (in million)
2015/16	£21,083
2014/15	£21,147
2013/14	£21,590
2012/13	£21,840
2011/12	£23,742

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Charles Walker on 2015-10-20.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, what the level is of public subsidy per megawatt of energy generated sought by the developers and operators of the proposed Swansea Bay tidal lagoon; and how this subsidy compares to similar subsidies sought by the nuclear industry.

Andrea Leadsom

The negotiations between the UK Government and Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay PLC are commercially sensitive and it is not appropriate for us to comment on matters such as the potential strike price.

The negotiations must be kept confidential in order to allow the Government to secure the best possible deal for consumers.

Any decision to offer a contract for difference (CFD) would be subject to strict value for money considerations, the funds available within the Levy Control Framework at the time of a decision and be subject to State aid approval.

If issued, any CFD would be published once completed, including the strike price, having redacted commercially sensitive information.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Charles Walker on 2015-10-20.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, if she will consider the environmental impact of tidal lagoons in the Severn Estuary, Bristol Channel and Swansea Bay before granting permissions for these lagoons; and if she will make a statement.

Andrea Leadsom

Before determining any consent applications for tidal lagoons that are nationally significant infrastructure projects, my rt. hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider their individual and cumulative environmental impacts alongside all other relevant information.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Charles Walker on 2015-10-20.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, whether the plans for the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon have been delayed; and if she will make a statement.

Andrea Leadsom

The Government is currently in the first phase of a Contract for Difference negotiation with the developer of the proposed Swansea Bay tidal lagoon project. This process of due diligence will enable us to gain a better understanding of the potential of a tidal lagoon programme in the UK.

At present there is no timeframe for how long the negotiation process may take. The timeframe depends on a number of factors, many of which would be outside the control of the Department. Robust due diligence is needed to determine whether undertaking this proposed project would be in the best interests of the consumer long term.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Charles Walker on 2015-10-20.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will ensure that revenue raised by the sale of rod licences is used to maintain and improve fisheries and fish stocks.

George Eustice

The revenue raised from the rod licence fee is classed as a hypothecated tax. The Environment Agency Financial Memorandum clearly sets out that this income is used for the provision of its fisheries service.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Charles Walker on 2015-10-20.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what proportion of the revenue from the sale of rod licences was not allocated to the maintenance and improvement of fisheries and fish stocks in the last five years.

George Eustice

The revenue raised from the sale of rod licences is classed as a hypothecated tax. The Environment Agency Financial Memorandum clearly sets out that this revenue is used for the provision of the Environment Agency fisheries service. The Environment Agency Financial Memorandum clearly sets out that the rod licence fees are for maintaining, improving and developing salmon, trout, freshwater and eel fisheries under the Salmon and Fresh Water Fisheries Act 1975.

The Environment Agency Fisheries Service provides activities including; fisheries monitoring and enforcement, fisheries advice, preparing and responding to incidents and the necessary functions to support these services such as accommodation and legal advice.