Tag: Tulip Siddiq

  • Tulip Siddiq – 2025 Resignation Letter to the Prime Minister

    Tulip Siddiq – 2025 Resignation Letter to the Prime Minister

    The resignation letter sent by Tulip Siddiq, the Treasury Minister, to Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, on 14 January 2025.

    Dear Prime Minister,

    Thank you for the confidence you have shown in me in recent weeks.

    I am grateful to your Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards Sir Laurie Magnus for acting with speed and thoroughness in response to my self-referral, and for giving me the opportunity to share the full details of my finances and living arrangements, both present and historic.

    As you know, having conducted an in-depth review of the matter at my request, Sir Laurie has confirmed that I have not breached the Ministerial Code. As he notes, there is no evidence to suggest that I have acted improperly in relation to the properties I have owned or lived in, nor to suggest that any of my assets ‘derive from anything other than legitimate means’.

    My family connections are a matter of public record, and when I became a Minister I provided the full details of my relationships and private interests to the Government. After extensive consultation with officials, I was advised to state in my declaration of interests that my aunt is the former Prime Minister of Bangladesh and to recuse myself from matters relating to Bangladesh to avoid any perception of a conflict of interest. I want to assure you that I acted and have continued to act with full transparency and on the advice of officials on these matters.

    However, it is clear that continuing in my role as Economic Secretary to the Treasury is likely to be a distraction from the work of the Government. My loyalty is and always will be to this Labour Government and the programme of national renewal and transformation it has embarked upon. I have therefore decided to resign from my Ministerial position.

    I would like to thank you for the privilege of serving in your Government, which I will continue to support in any way I can from the backbenches.

    Best wishes, Tulip Siddiq MP

  • Tulip Siddiq – 2024 Speech on the Government’s Vision for the Future of UK Capital Markets

    Tulip Siddiq – 2024 Speech on the Government’s Vision for the Future of UK Capital Markets

    The speech made by Tulip Siddiq, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, at the London Stock Exchange on 6 September 2024.

    Good morning and thanks for the invitation. It’s so lovely to be here today, and it’s one of my first addresses in my new role as City minister.

    And it’s a very deliberate decision that I’ve taken, because growth is the defining mission of this government, which you’ve probably heard us say over and over again. From the top down to the centre out, we recognise the importance of capital markets to delivering this growth mission that we’ve consistently talked about for the last few years. And As the Chancellor herself said – many of you will have heard at Barclays CEO forum recently – “when the City succeeds, Britain succeeds”. Nothing demonstrates that better than our capital markets.

    It’s not just that when our markets do well, our economy does well. Already this year, more than £20 billion worth of equity capital has been raised in London alone, more than three times what has been raised in the next three European exchanges combined – to support businesses to invest, to innovate and to grow.

    And according to a New Financial report from 2020, 90% of large UK companies regularly use capital markets, supporting some 5.5 million jobs. It’s not just large companies which benefit from our markets. Over the last five years combined, more than half of all capital raised in European growth markets was raised in London. And although these facts speak for themselves, I’ll spell out what they say: that UK capital markets will underpin our mission of sustained and meaningful economic growth.

    But I also know that for our capital markets, stability and just the right amount of risk is the formula for economic growth. Whilst too much political change can unbalance that formula by moderating the market’s ability to signal opportunities for profit and risks of loss.

    So let me be clear to everyone who has raised this with me. We will not pursue change for its own sake. The economist Adam Smith once wrote about an invisible hand, a metaphor for the forces that guide decision-making in the market. Well, I want you to be in no doubt – because in the marketplace of ideas, evidence will be the hand that guides our decision making in policy making generally and capital markets policy specifically. You can describe our approach to the existing program of capital markets reform with this timeless saying, which is ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’. I hope that reassures some of the people who’ve raised this with me about continuity.

    And while reviewing the existing plans for reform to a capital markets there’s three things that I was struck by. Firstly, the proposals are technically rigorous. Secondly, they have the support of our financial services industry and its regulators. But lastly, and this is most importantly, I know they will support our mission of sustained and meaningful economic growth. And so I, and this government, will support them.

    And I’ll begin that support by highlighting some of the most exciting policy initiatives. Some of which Julia and I were discussing when we came in. For example, the FCA’s changes to our listing rules will revolutionise our markets. By making changes to rules on dual-class share structures, related party transactions and introducing a new international secondary listing category, we will directly align our markets with leading international counterparts and provide greater flexibility to firms and founders raising capital.

    The impact of some of these changes are already being felt, and I’m delighted that some firms are already taking advantage of them.

    The government will also continue to collaborate with a number of industry driven initiatives. Working closely with our Industry Technical group led by Andrew Douglas, and building momentum towards faster settlement of securities trades. And I look forward to the final report of the Task Force led by Sir Douglas Flint on improving the current system of share ownership and eliminating the use of paper share certificates.

    And we remain fully committed, as I just said before we came on, to take forward the new Private Intermittent Securities and Capital Exchange System – or PISCES – a world-first bespoke regulated market for private company shares. This will help investors to invest in exciting private companies and support innovative companies to grow – and ultimately to an IPO.

    To my mind, government works best when it’s underpinned by honest and open conversation. And that’s why it’s very important to me to thoroughly examine the feedback from the consultation earlier this year, and to ensure that all of your opinions are properly reflected in our decision-making process.

    And while it’s clear to me that there is huge support for the PISCES project, it is also clear that on the issues of disclosure and market abuse we need to tailor our thinking further. So please be assured that my officials and I will continue working with you. And in that spirit, my officials will be in attendance at the roundtable on PISCES later today, and I’ll ensure that all the conclusions from this roundtable are considered in our final proposal to ensure that PISCES does deliver on its promise.

    But I know that we can go even further to restore competitiveness to our capital markets.

    And of course, a lot of you will be looking forward to the Mansion House speech and the Budget later on, which will set out the plans for our sector in more detail. But I would urge you, if you haven’t already, to look at the report “Financing Growth” – that I published earlier this year – which unapologetically puts really reinvigorating our capital markets at the heart of this government’s growth mission. It’s what we campaigned on, and it’s what we intend to deliver in government.

    They include proposals to encourage the investment of capital freed by Solvency II reforms into UK infrastructure and green industries. To empower the British Business Bank with a more ambitious remit, for example, providing match funding to spin out seed funds. And a landmark review of the UK’s pensions and retirement saving landscape to explicitly consider the role of pension funds in capital and financial markets to boost both their returns and broader economic growth.

    Confirming this review was one of the first announcements made by the Chancellor, and this phase will be led by my colleague Emma Reynolds, who is the Minister for Pensions. She will be speaking here later today. And I encourage you to join this, which is the session on the UK pensions landscape, because Emma will outline the exciting plans that we’ve undertaken as a government.

    So, I do recognise that these proposals are challenging. I’m not naive about it.

    But I am confident looking around this room today and seeing the expertise here, that if we work together, we will be delivering this, because sustained and meaningful economic growth is not just the government’s mission, it’s a mission that we share with everyone in this room.

    So now let’s go out and deliver it.

  • Tulip Siddiq – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Tulip Siddiq – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2015-12-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people owe money to his Department in criminal courts charge impositions; what proportion of those people were convicted in (i) magistrates court and (b) a crown court; and what the total amount of outstanding debt is owed in criminal courts charges.

    Mr Shailesh Vara

    Data relating to the criminal courts charge for the period April to September 2015 will be published on 17 December 2015.

    Enforcement action is taken against the total amount an offender owes and offenders are often ordered to pay more than one type of financial imposition.

    The cost of enforcing the criminal courts charge cannot be separated from the total cost of enforcing all types of court ordered financial impositions.

    It is not possible to identify how many people have had a criminal courts charge imposed in magistrates or crown courts or for specific offences without carrying out a manual search of all financial imposition accounts which would incur disproportionate costs.

  • Tulip Siddiq – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Tulip Siddiq – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2015-12-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many appeals were heard in the First-Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum) relating to immigration decisions made by her Department in each of the last five years; for how many of those cases her Department did not appoint a legal representative; and in how many of those cases where no legal representative was appointed the appeal was upheld.

    James Brokenshire

    The Ministry of Justice publishes data at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/tribunals-statistics on the total number of appeals disposed at the First-Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum) which includes all types of immigration appeal. Due to the way that data is recorded on Home Office systems, overseas appeals have been excluded from the data set included in the table attachment. The data also excludes paper cases at which a Home Office representative is not required.

    The Home Office is usually represented at appeal hearings by a Home Office Presenting Officer acting as a Crown representative on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) in immigration appeals pursuant to s84 (6) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Section 84 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 covers who can act as legal representatives in immigration appeals. Subsection 6 specifies that persons acting on behalf of the Crown or relevant Government Department can represent the SSHD at immigration appeals and do not need to be a legally qualified person. However in some cases barristers have also been used.

    The proportion of oral appeals not represented increased between January – September 2015 in comparison to the previous 2 years. This was the result of the availability of Presenting resource in the Home Office to match court listing schedules which varied from forecasts used for planning purposes to a significant extent. Resources were put in place to ensure that representation rates increased in the final three months of the calendar year.

  • Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-01-05.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many (a) requests were made for and (b) individuals passed Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) adult first checks in each year since 2012; what the average time taken was for that check to be carried out; and how many of those passed subsequently failed their DBS check, and were therefore not issued with a DBS certificate.

    Karen Bradley

    The Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) Adult First is a service provided by the Disclosure and Barring Service that can be used in cases where, exceptionally, and in accordance with the terms of Department of Health guidance, a person is permitted to start work with adults before a DBS Certificate has been obtained.

    An individual neither passes nor fails an Adult First check and a certificate is not withheld if a person is on the Adults barred list. If a person is on the list, that fact will be disclosed on the completed DBS certificate.

    There are two outcomes to an Adult First check and the Registered Body is either advised that no match exists for this person on the current Adults barred list, or they must wait for the full disclosure as a match against the Adults barred list cannot be ruled out at this stage. Further investigation is then carried out through the normal disclosure checking process and if a match against the Adults barred list is confirmed, it will be disclosed on the certificate.

    The table below shows the number of requests that were made for DBS Adult First checks, the average time taken to complete Adult First checks and the number of times the Registered Body received a ‘wait for the full disclosure’ or ‘no match found’ response between December 2012 and November 2015.

    Period

    Number of Adult First Requests

    Average Number of Days to Conduct Adult First Check

    Number of “No Match Found” responses

    Number of “wait for full Disclosure” responses

    Dec-12 to Mar-13

    50,175

    1.07

    39,200

    10,975

    Apr-13 to Mar-14

    166,287

    1.08

    130,333

    35,954

    Apr-14 to Mar-15

    173,503

    1.19

    135,792

    37,711

    Apr-15 to Nov-15

    116,602

    1.06

    91,782

    24,820

  • Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-01-06.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many people have challenged HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) in court following the issue of an Accelerated Payment Notice (APN) for their alleged role in a tax avoidance scheme since the APN system came into force; and in such cases (a) on how many occasions the courts have found against HMRC and (b) what the total value is of tax paid back with interest to people who have won.

    Mr David Gauke

    There has been one substantive hearing of a Judicial Review challenging Accelerated Payment notices (APN) which had in the region of 150 claimants. The case was decided in HM Revenue and Customs’ favour. Some of the claimants have since appealed to the Court of Appeal. Their appeal is due to be heard in December 2016.

  • Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-01-25.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what proportion of (a) calls attempts to HM Revenue and Customs customer helplines were handled and (b) post to HM Revenue and Customs was handled within 15 working days from customers in (i) London and (ii) Hampstead and Kilburn constituency in each year since 2009-10.

    Mr David Gauke

    Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) does not hold data by constituency and regularly publishes general performance reports at Gov.uk

  • Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-02-03.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 5 January 2016 to Question 20663, how many clinical commissioning policies Deloitte is involved in supporting under the terms of the contract awarded by NHS England.

    George Freeman

    NHS England is working with Deloitte and its clinical reference groups in developing a number of policies.

  • Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Attorney General

    Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Attorney General

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-02-22.

    To ask the Attorney General, how many full-time equivalent staff his Department provided to assist with (a) Home Office immigration and asylum cases and (b) other Home Office legal cases in reach year since 2009-10; and how much was spent by his Department on such cases in each of those years.

    Robert Buckland

    The Government Legal Department (GLD) conducts litigation for most government departments. GLD charges its government department clients for the litigation services it provides on an hourly fee basis. The remaining Law Officers’ Departments do not have any notable involvement in Home Office litigation.

    It is not possible to identify how many full time equivalent GLD staff were working on Home Office cases each year because this will inevitably change during the year and staff will also work on cases for other client departments.

    Any spending incurred by GLD is recovered by charges received from the Home Office for litigation services provided.

  • Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-02-23.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer of 13 January 2016 to Question 19716 and 18 February 2016 to Question 26688, what estimate her Department has made of the (a) average and (b) total cost to the public purse of (i) appeals heard in the First-Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum) which have a Home Office representative and (ii) appeals heard in the First-Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum) which do not have a Home Office representative in each year since 2009-10.

    James Brokenshire

    The information requested is not held centrally by the Home Office and can only be collated at disproportionate costs.