Every parliamentary written question tabled by Kevin Hollinrake this session, with the full answer and department. See how every department answers, or back to the MP page.
Showing 321–340 of 3,003 · this parliament
Pursuant to the Answer of 12 January 2026 to Question 101767 on Jeffrey Epstein, whether Jeffery Epstein visited HM Treasury offices in Whitehall during the period 1997 to 2010.
Visitor information for HM Treasury offices in Whitehall is not retained for the time periods specified.
Pursuant to the Answer of 21 January 2026 to Question 101775 on 1 Carlton Gardens: Council tax, whether the Chancellor’s residence in Downing Street is her primary residence.
I refer the Hon. Member to the answer given on 8 January 2026 to Question 101771.
Commonwealth and Development Affairs, whether the Rt hon. Member for (a) Tottenham and (b) Ashton-Under-Lyne made representations on the appointment of Lord Mandelson as Ambassador to the United States.
I refer the Hon. Member to the Government's response to the Urgent Question tabled on 12 February, the Written Ministerial Statement in the name of the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister that same day, and Oral Statement on the 23 February which set out an update on the Government's process. We will set out further details in due course. The Government wishes to ensure that Parliament's instruction is met with the urgency and transparency that it deserves.
Whether the Prime Minister was informed of Gordon Brown's letter to the Cabinet Secretary of February 2025 on the relationship between Lord Mandelson and Jeffery Epstein.
I refer the Hon Member to the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister’s words to the House during the debate on the ‘US Department of Justice Release of Files’ on Monday 2 February (Hansard Vol 780, Col 49). https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2026-02-02/debates/10A2B314-165E-4992-A7BF-0F30739D7BBD/USDepartmentOfJusticeReleaseOfFiles
What role Lord Mandelson played while Ambassador to the United States on advising on the awarding of defence contracts to Palantir.
Details of central Government contracts above £12,000 for procurements commenced before 24 February 2025 are published on Contracts Finder. Contracts procured under the Procurement Act 2023, which came into force on 24 February 2025, are published on the Central Digital Platform Find a Tender service. The details published online include whether each contract was let through competitive tendering or via direct award.
Whether the Cabinet Office due diligence exercise for the appointment of Lord Mandelson as Ambassador to the United States considered (a) the Financial Times report entitled Links between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein detailed in JPMorgan report, published on 21 June 2023 and (b) the associated material on the Epstein-Mandelson relationship detailed in JP Morgan's Project Jeep released by the US courts, reference: Government of the United States Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (1:22-cv-10904), District Court, S.D. New York, published on 20 June 2023, Exhibit 4.
I refer the Hon Member to the Government's statement and release of information on 11th March, providing an update on the response to the Humble Address. The Government is working to ensure that Parliament’s instruction is met with the urgency and transparency that it deserves.
What role Jonathan Powell, as national security adviser, had in the (a) advice to the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary and (b) due diligence, over the appointment of Lord Mandelson as Ambassador to the United States.
I refer the Hon Member to the Government's statement and release of information on 11th March, providing an update on the response to the Humble Address. The Government is working to ensure that Parliament’s instruction is met with the urgency and transparency that it deserves.
If he will ask the Cabinet Secretary to investigate Peter Mandelson's role (a) as an adviser to the then Leader of the Opposition and (b) in the selection of Parliamentary Candidates.
The former Cabinet Secretary was asked to review available information regarding Peter Mandelson’s contacts with Jeffrey Epstein during his period as a Minister. After an initial review of some documents, the matter was referred to the police. In light of the ongoing criminal investigation that was announced, that review has now been paused. The government is cooperating fully with the police investigation and providing any assistance required.
Further to the oral statement of 2 February 2026, Official Report, Column 47, on US Department of Justice Release of Files, and with reference to the Cabinet Secretary’s review into Peter Mandelson, whether the review will be assisted by the Cabinet Office Propriety and Ethics Team, including the members of PET who assisted in the drafting of the due diligence on Mandelson.
The former Cabinet Secretary was asked to review available information regarding Peter Mandelson’s contacts with Jeffrey Epstein during his period as a Minister. After an initial review of some documents, the matter was referred to the police. In light of the ongoing criminal investigation that was announced, that review has now been paused. The government is cooperating fully with the police investigation and providing any assistance required.
Representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, with reference to the Electoral Commission press release entitled Electoral Commission response to cyber-attack attribution, of 25 March 2024, whether the cyber-attack compromised data other than the electoral registers; and whether it included the Electoral Commission's investigatory data.
During the cyber-attack in 2021-2022, hostile actors were active in the Electoral Commission’s systems which held our email, our control systems, and copies of the electoral registers. The Commission cannot be certain whether any data was copied or downloaded.Information, evidence and analysis relating to investigatory matters, along with donations and loans data was held in a separate system not affected by the attack.The Commission has now significantly strengthened its systems against cyber-attacks and has secured Cyber Essentials Plus accreditation.
What recent discussions the Financial Conduct Authority has had with representative bodies, including UKHospitality, on unresolved Covid Business Interruption claims.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), as the independent regulator for financial services, sets the conduct standards required of insurance firms. This includes rules requiring insurers to handle claims fairly and promptly. The FCA meets with a wide variety of organisations in the course of delivering its statutory objectives. Queries about such engagements can be addressed directly to the FCA. The Supreme Court published its final judgment in the FCA’s Business Interruption Insurance test case in 2021. At the time of the judgment, the FCA set out its expectation that insurers should communicate to all impacted policyholders what the judgment meant for their claim and should move quickly to resolve claims as determined by the judgment. The FCA court case did not cover all potential issues with business interruption policies. The FCA has been clear that, in the event of further court rulings, insurers will need to consider carefully how the rulings impact claims they have already decided. The FCA is continuing to supervise firms to ensure they are meeting their expectations and has robust powers to take action where necessary.
What assessment he has made of the potential impact unresolved Covid Business Interruption claims expiring without payment on hospitality and leisure businesses.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), as the independent regulator for financial services, sets the conduct standards required of insurance firms. This includes rules requiring insurers to handle claims fairly and promptly. The FCA meets with a wide variety of organisations in the course of delivering its statutory objectives. Queries about such engagements can be addressed directly to the FCA. The Supreme Court published its final judgment in the FCA’s Business Interruption Insurance test case in 2021. At the time of the judgment, the FCA set out its expectation that insurers should communicate to all impacted policyholders what the judgment meant for their claim and should move quickly to resolve claims as determined by the judgment. The FCA court case did not cover all potential issues with business interruption policies. The FCA has been clear that, in the event of further court rulings, insurers will need to consider carefully how the rulings impact claims they have already decided. The FCA is continuing to supervise firms to ensure they are meeting their expectations and has robust powers to take action where necessary.
What information his Department holds on the number of times Jeffery Epstein visited (a) No10 and (b) No11 from 1997 to 2010.
This information is not retained for the time periods specified.
Whether Morgan McSweeney will receive a severance payment follow his departure as Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister; and whether he will sign a Non Disclosure Agreement.
It is a longstanding policy not to comment on individuals. The Model Contract for Special Advisers is published online and details the specific circumstances in which severance is payable. As with all civil servants, the Model Contract sets out that special advisers are bound by the Official Secrets Act 1989.
What assessment he has made of the potential impact of recent changes to (a) co-investment in apprenticeships and (b) levy accounts on apprenticeship starts.
As we introduce new products, such as apprenticeship units and foundation apprenticeships, we are also simplifying the Growth and Skills Levy, improving its transparency, and making it more efficient. From August 2026, we are removing the 10% top-up for levy-paying employers, changing expiry of levy funds to 12 months, and changing the government’s co-investment rate from 95% to 75% for levy-paying employers once they have exhausted all their funds. Levy-paying employers will still be able to benefit from a very generous government contribution once their funds are exhausted, but it is right that employers who utilise all their levy funds contribute more to apprenticeship training and assessment. These changes will ensure funding is available to roll out further flexibility for business and increase opportunities for young people. We continue to support SMEs to take on apprentices and for the first time we will be fully funding the cost of training eligible apprentices aged 16-24 at non-levy paying employers (essentially SMEs). From August 2026, training and assessment will be completely free for SMEs who hire young people, boosting starts and reducing bureaucracy for both SMEs and training providers. We will carefully monitor the impact of these changes once they take effect.
What assessment his Department has made of (a) the impact of reducing government co-investment in apprenticeships once levy-paying employers have exhausted their levy funds, and (b) the impact of removing the uplift to levy accounts.
As we introduce new products, such as apprenticeship units and foundation apprenticeships, we are also simplifying the Growth and Skills Levy, improving its transparency, and making it more efficient. From August 2026, we are removing the 10% top-up for levy-paying employers, changing expiry of levy funds to 12 months, and changing the government’s co-investment rate from 95% to 75% for levy-paying employers once they have exhausted all their funds. Levy-paying employers will still be able to benefit from a very generous government contribution once their funds are exhausted, but it is right that employers who utilise all their levy funds contribute more to apprenticeship training and assessment. These changes will ensure funding is available to roll out further flexibility for business and increase opportunities for young people. We continue to support SMEs to take on apprentices and for the first time we will be fully funding the cost of training eligible apprentices aged 16-24 at non-levy paying employers (essentially SMEs). From August 2026, training and assessment will be completely free for SMEs who hire young people, boosting starts and reducing bureaucracy for both SMEs and training providers. We will carefully monitor the impact of these changes once they take effect.
How much additional funding an SME is expected to contribute per apprentice following the reduction in government co-investment once levy-paying employers have exhausted their levy funds.
As we introduce new products, such as apprenticeship units and foundation apprenticeships, we are also simplifying the Growth and Skills Levy, improving its transparency, and making it more efficient. From August 2026, we are removing the 10% top-up for levy-paying employers, changing expiry of levy funds to 12 months, and changing the government’s co-investment rate from 95% to 75% for levy-paying employers once they have exhausted all their funds. Levy-paying employers will still be able to benefit from a very generous government contribution once their funds are exhausted, but it is right that employers who utilise all their levy funds contribute more to apprenticeship training and assessment. These changes will ensure funding is available to roll out further flexibility for business and increase opportunities for young people. We continue to support SMEs to take on apprentices and for the first time we will be fully funding the cost of training eligible apprentices aged 16-24 at non-levy paying employers (essentially SMEs). From August 2026, training and assessment will be completely free for SMEs who hire young people, boosting starts and reducing bureaucracy for both SMEs and training providers. We will carefully monitor the impact of these changes once they take effect.
What distributional analysis his Department has made of the potential impact of (a) reducing government co-investment once levy-paying employers have exhausted their levy funds, and (b) removing the uplift to levy accounts on businesses.
As we introduce new products, such as apprenticeship units and foundation apprenticeships, we are also simplifying the Growth and Skills Levy, improving its transparency, and making it more efficient. From August 2026, we are removing the 10% top-up for levy-paying employers, changing expiry of levy funds to 12 months, and changing the government’s co-investment rate from 95% to 75% for levy-paying employers once they have exhausted all their funds. Levy-paying employers will still be able to benefit from a very generous government contribution once their funds are exhausted, but it is right that employers who utilise all their levy funds contribute more to apprenticeship training and assessment. These changes will ensure funding is available to roll out further flexibility for business and increase opportunities for young people. We continue to support SMEs to take on apprentices and for the first time we will be fully funding the cost of training eligible apprentices aged 16-24 at non-levy paying employers (essentially SMEs). From August 2026, training and assessment will be completely free for SMEs who hire young people, boosting starts and reducing bureaucracy for both SMEs and training providers. We will carefully monitor the impact of these changes once they take effect.
What assessment he has made of the potential impact of NICE's draft guidance on brexucabtagene autoleucel on (a) the Life Sciences Strategy and (b) outcomes for patients with rare cancers.
The Government remains committed to the ambitions set out in the Life Sciences Sector Plan, which set out an ambition that by 2030, we will be one of the top three fastest places in Europe for patient access to medicines. We will achieve this by reducing friction in the system to optimise access and uptake of new medicines so the most clinically and cost-effective can reach patients faster.The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is currently re-evaluating brexucabtagene autoleucel to determine whether it should be recommended for routine National Health Service use following a period of managed access through the Cancer Drugs Fund. NICE’s draft guidance, published in December 2025, does not recommend it as a clinically and cost-effective use of NHS resource, although NICE has not yet published final guidance. The Government recognises that the potential withdrawal of brexucabtagene autoleucel as a treatment for future patients will be concerning for patients and their families, but it is right that these decisions are taken independently and on the basis of the available evidence. In line with an arrangement between NHS England and the company, if NICE’s final guidance does not recommend use, patients who started treatment during the managed access period can continue their treatment.
Communities and Local Government, pursuant to the Answer of 28 January, Question 107071, whether his Department or any body administering Government-backed loan guarantees or financing facilities have undertaken any quantitative modelling or formal assessment of the impact of the rent review provisions in the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 on (a) cash-flow certainty, (b) valuation assumptions or (c) default risk for build-to-rent developments.
I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to Question UIN 107071 on 28 January.