Tag: Tulip Siddiq

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-03-01.

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many full-time equivalent staff from (a) police, (b) probation and (c) prison services employed in multi-agency public protection arrangements work in each responsible authority (a) on the last date for which figures are available and (b) in each year since 2009-10.

Andrew Selous

The Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) provide a statutory framework within which criminal justice and social care agencies are required to assess and manage the risk presented by sexual and violent offenders, with a view to reducing re-offending and protecting the public. MAPPA is not a statutory body in itself but is a mechanism through which agencies can better discharge their statutory responsibilities and protect the public in a co-ordinated manner.

The Responsible Authorities – the Probation, Police and Prison Services acting jointly – have a duty to ensure that the risks posed by specified sexual and violent offenders are assessed and managed property. The work undertaken by the Responsible Authorities to manage these offenders can therefore not be disaggregated from the core business of agency management.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-03-10.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 3 March 2016 to Question 28970, how much public funding for stem cell research has been allocated through the National Institute for Health Research in each year since 2003-04.

George Freeman

The information requested is not available. Spend on research funded directly by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) is categorised by Health Research Classification System (HRCS) health categories. There is no HRCS category for stem cell research.

Prior to the establishment of the NIHR in April 2006, the main part of the Department’s total health research expenditure was devolved to and managed by National Health Service organisations. The NHS organisations reported on their use of these allocations in annual research and development reports. These reports estimated total, aggregated spend on certain priority areas but spend on stem cell research was not estimated. From April 2006 to March 2009, transitional research funding was allocated to these organisations at reducing levels. At the same time, an increasing amount of NHS research funding was awarded competitively through new NIHR programmes and schemes.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-04-14.

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many statutory instruments to vary fees charged by public bodies have been laid in Parliament under section 102 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1987 in each year since 2009-10; how many of those proposals have allowed public bodies to (a) increase fees, (b) levy fees to raise revenues in excess of the cost of the services that body provides and (c) levy fees to raise revenues below the cost of the services that body provides.

Greg Hands

The public record indicates that there was one statutory instrument authorised by parliament, laid under the authority of section 102 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1987, during the 2009-10 parliamentary session, and none in subsequent sessions.

This instrument allowed the former Office of Fair Trading (OFT) to take past deficits into account in setting fee levels under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, for the three years ending on 31 March 2013. Whether individual fee levels subsequently increased or decreased in any year would depend on the level of costs incurred by OFT in delivering the services for which fees were charged in those years.

A decision to levy fees below the costs of the service in any year would have been for the OFT to determine in proposing its fee levels for the subsequent years, and its sponsor department in agreeing how to fund any shortfalls.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-04-27.

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, with which countries the UK has negotiated bilateral tax conventions; and how many of those conventions contain tax evasion information-sharing agreements in a similar form to Article 26 of the Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital, published by the OECD.

Mr David Gauke

The UK has double taxation agreements (DTA) in force with 127 countries and territories. They all contain provisions governing the exchange of information.

In addition, the UK has 24 bilateral tax information exchange agreements. Fifteen of these agreements are with countries with which the UK does not have a DTA. The UK exchanges information with other EU Member States under the Administration and Cooperation Directive (EU Directive 2011/16/EU). The UK is also one of 94 signatories to the OECD/Council of Europe Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-05-04.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what powers the police have to obtain information on the beneficial ownership of companies when considering whether to impose restraint orders or confiscation orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

Mr John Hayes

As part of a criminal investigation, police can also conduct a parallel confiscation investigation using the powers in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The purpose of a confiscation investigation is to obtain a confiscation order following the offender’s conviction. As part of that process, and in order to preserve assets for confiscation, a restraint order can be obtained at any point during the criminal investigation or proceeding to effectively freeze those assets. The powers provided by Part 8 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 for a confiscation investigation are a production order, a search and seizure warrant, a disclosure order, a customer information order and an account monitoring order. A disclosure order effectively empowers an investigator to demand information and evidence, including by way of an interview. A customer information order requires any financial institution to provide information they possess on an individual or business including details of any customer due diligence information.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-05-03.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many confiscation orders were issued under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in each year since 2009-10; how many of those orders were not enforced; and of those orders not enforced how many people subject to those orders were in prison.

Mr John Hayes

The value of assets subject to restraint orders between 2009-10 and 2015-16 is shown in the tables below.

Orders are counted as fully paid where the outstanding balance, including any interest payable, is nil. There is no central record which would show how many people subject to unenforced orders were serving prison sentences.

Data is extracted from reports run on 4 May 2016 using the Joint Asset Recovery Database (JARD). JARD is a central repository of information relating to the seizure of the proceeds of crime.

JARD is a live database which is continually updated. As such, the data provided may vary from reports run on earlier dates.

Restraint Orders issued in England & Wales	2009-10	2010-11	2011-12	2012-13	2013-14	2014-2015	2015-16
Values (in millions)	£648.68m	£873.40m	£500.78m	£463.75m	£393.70m	£368.18m	£448.10m

Gross confiscation receipts – includes compensation paid to victims and receiver’s fees	2009-10	2010-11	2011-12	2012-13	2013-14	2014-2015	2015-16
Values (in millions)	£110.39m	£113.55m	£124.58m	£134.85m	£139.20m	£155.67m	£206.30m

Year	2009-10	2010-11	2011-12	2012-13	2013-14	2014-2015	2015-16
Number of confiscation orders issued	5592	6425	6268	6401	6043	5926	5900

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-05-06.

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what sub-departments HMRC has in addition to the Tax Capacity Building Unit, the Large Business Service/Directorate, the Compliance Unit, the Transfer Pricing Unit, the Business International Directorate, and the Anti-Money Laundering Supervision Team; and (a) what funds were allocated to and (b) how many FTE staff were employed by each sub-department in each year since 2009-10.

Mr David Gauke

HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) is split into four sub-departments, or business areas, for delivery purposes, which are supported by corporate areas.

Please see below the expenditure and full time equivalent (FTE) staff for each of those areas for the period 2009/10 onwards.

Net expenditure (£m)

	09/10	10/11	11/12	12/13	13/14	14/15
Enforcement and Compliance	1,033	1,004	991	1,028	1,037	987
Business Tax	222	248	181	185	156	201
Personal Tax	763	682	726	728	670	531
Benefits & Credits	169	164	154	157	153	154
Corporate	1,760	1,477	1,647	1,566	1,629	1,595
HMRC	3,947	3,575	3,699	3,664	3,645	3,468

HMRC has not yet published accounts for 2015/16.

FTE staff

	09/10	10/11	11/12	12/13	13/14	14/15	15/16
Enforcement and Compliance	26,864	25,475	25,334	26,601	26,923	26,223	26,798
Business Tax	3,776	3,877	3,695	3,410	3,160	4,415	4,582
Personal Tax	27,307	25,975	26,858	24,444	20,558	14,949	15,661
Benefits & Credits	6,307	5,834	5,301	5,157	4,983	5,193	5,459
Corporates	6,445	5,720	5,279	4,865	6,376	6,358	7,356
HMRC*	70,699	66,881	66,467	64,477	61,370	57,138	59,856

*this total for HMRC includes Civil Service Resourcing.

The question mentions specific teams within HMRC and those teams are within the Business Areas above, as follows:

Large Business – Business Tax

Compliance Unit – Enforcement and Compliance

Transfer Pricing Unit – Business Tax

Business International – Business Tax

Anti-money laundering – Enforcement and Compliance

HMRC does not publish accounts information at a level of detail that includes expenditure or allocations by specific teams.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-06-07.

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many requests for paper-based reviews for employment and support allowance were submitted in each year since 2009-10; and how many of those claims were (a) accepted and (b) rejected.

Priti Patel

The information you have requested is not available.

The decision as to whether a paper-based review is appropriate is made by the Healthcare Professional. Their decision on whether to do so is based on evidence provided by the claimant to support their claim including all medical evidence from the claimant’s GP, hospital doctor or other appropriate clinicians.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-10-07.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, when steps have been taken to enact the provisions within section 165 of the Equality Act 2010.

Andrew Jones

Government is committed to building transport networks that work for everyone, including ensuring that disabled people have the same travel choices as other members of society.

I am committed to commencing Sections 165 and 167 of the Equality Act, making it unlawful for drivers of wheelchair accessible taxis and Private Hire Vehicles to refuse to provide assistance to passengers in wheelchairs or to charge them extra.

We will shortly be consulting on Regulations regarding the exemption certificates for drivers unable to provide such assistance, and on relevant guidance. We will commence the Sections once the Regulations and guidance are ready for issue.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-10-18.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, what progress his Department has made in implementing (a) all the recommendations and (b) the recommendations that seek to achieve fairer energy tariffs for disabled people in the report by the Extra Costs Commission, Driving down the extra costs face disabled people.

Jesse Norman

We welcome the Extra Costs Commission’s report ‘Driving down the extra costs disabled people face’, and in particular the Commission’s recommendation that disability organisations should consider setting up price comparison and collective switching schemes to assist disabled consumers to compare and switch tariffs so as to achieve better energy deals.