Tag: Tulip Siddiq

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-07-21.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, when his Department plans to publish its response to the recommendations in the final report of the Review on Antimicrobial Resistance, published in May 2016.

Nicola Blackwood

The Department is finalising the cross-Government response to the recommendations contained in the final report of the Review on Antimicrobial Resistance. The response will be published shortly.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-10-17.

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will request that regulators investigate whether disabled people have access to insurance that fairly reflects risk.

Simon Kirby

Paragraph 21(1) of Schedule 3, Part 5 of the Equality Act 2010 makes clear that it is not a contravention of the Act for insurers to make decisions on the grounds of disability provided they do so by reference to information from a reliable source that is relevant to the risk to be insured, and that it is a reasonable decision. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) expects firms to comply with relevant legislation, including the Equality Act, and can undertake its own enquiries to better understand what the firm is doing and whether any of its regulatory requirements have been breached.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.