Tag: Tulip Siddiq

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-02-29.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how much public funding has been allocated in each year since 2003-04 to improve post-transplant outcomes for people with blood cancer or blood disorders after they receive a successful stem cell donation.

Jane Ellison

NHS England commissions stem cell transplant activity for adults and children from 46 providers and have provided the following information on funding.

Total funding for stem cell transplantation was £163 million in 2013/14 and £170 million in 2014/15. Services are commissioned within this budget based on need rather than as individual services. Stem cell transplantation is subject to local pricing and so it is not possible to provide information about funding by provider as this is commercially sensitive.

NHS England is responsible for commissioning specialised care involving adult bone marrow transplantation that includes care up to 100 days after transplant. The costs of care up to 100 days post-transplant are included within the overall budget for stem cell transplantation. NHS England does not hold data on the funding of care beyond this 100 day period.

The Department does not hold information on funding provided for these services before the creation of NHS England in 2013.

The Joint Accreditation Committee for the International Society for Cellular Therapy and the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (JACIE) is an independent organisation and the Department does not hold data related to JACIE compliance.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-02-29.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many import extradition requests from Category 2 territories were passed to the International Criminality Unit of the Home Office in each year since 2009-10; how many such requests were authorised by her to be sent to Category 2 territories for hearing in their courts; and in how many of those cases the foreign court ordered extradition.

James Brokenshire

“Category 2 territories” refers to countries designated as extradition partners under Part 2 of the Extradition Act 2003. Not all the information requested is held centrally. The tables below set out the information which is centrally held by the Home Office.

Figures for the numbers of people extradited or requests refused in a particular year may include those for whom a request was made in a previous year.

Import extradition requests involving Category 2 territories

Year	Requests submitted to the Home Office for Category 2 territories	Requests sent to Category 2 territories	Number of people extradited to the UK
2009	35	35	26
2010	33	33	19
2011	49	49	22
2012	32	32	25
2013	23	23	26
2014	37	37	11
2015	45	45	26

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

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many convictions there have been for breach of forced marriage protection orders in each month since section 120 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 came into force.

Caroline Dinenage

This information is available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/428937/outcomes-by-offence-tables.xlsx.

The next available annual statistics will be published in May 2016.

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

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Answers of 21 July 2015 to Question 7583 and 9 September 2014 to Question 207819, how many (a) military, (b) civilian and (c) liaison personnel are now stationed at each of those sites in Saudi Arabia; how many of each of those personnel are in locations where Saudi Arabia plans and executes military operations in Yemen; and how many (i) military, (ii) civilian and (iii) liaison personnel are in the command and control centre for Saudi airstrikes in Yemen.

Penny Mordaunt

Further to my answer of 21 July 2015 the UK currently has:

11 personnel providing mentoring and advice to the Saudi Arabian National Guard, as part of the British Military Mission to the Saudi Arabian National Guard.

19 military and 37 civilian personnel working on the Saudi Arabia National Guard Communications Project to acquire and support, modern communications capabilities for the Saudi Arabian National Guard.

72 military and 42 civilian personnel working on the Ministry of Defence Saudi Armed Forces Projects, supporting the United Kingdom’s commitment to the defence of Saudi Arabia through the supply of modern military aircraft, naval vessels, weapons and associated support services to the Saudi Armed Forces.

We have a small number of liaison personnel who work at the Saudi MOD and Operational Centres to provide insight into Saudi operations. They remain under UK command and control. There are no other UK military or civilian personnel working at these headquarters.

British personnel in Saudi Arabia are not involved in carrying out strikes, directing or conducting operations in Yemen or selecting targets and are not involved in the Saudi targeting decision-making process

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

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, whether the statutory duties imposed on the independent regulator will ensure that fees for (a) statutory functions and (b) non-statutory functions of the Land Registry will (i) not increase above operating costs and (ii) not increase above inflation in the event that the Land Registry is privatised under the Government’s alternative model of privatisation with economic regulation.

Anna Soubry

Under a contract-based approach, fees would still be prescribed in fee orders made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and set before Parliament. Under a regulator-based approach, fees would be controlled by the regulator.

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

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what assessment his Department has made of the effect of the ban on bearer shares which came into force on 26 May 2015.

Anna Soubry

The government introduced a ban on the issue of new bearer shares on 26 May 2015 through the Small Business Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. The legislation provided a transition period to allow existing bearer shareholders to convert their shares into other types of shareholding or to realise their value. The transition period ended on 25 February 2016. Companies notify Companies House of the removal of bearer shares when they file their annual return (which will change to the confirmation statement from 30 June 2016).

Since 26 May 2015 Companies House has worked closely with the approximately 1,300 companies that had bearer shares as well as their directors and professional representatives. Over 1,233 of those companies have confirmed to Companies House that they have no longer have bearer shares.

Companies House is monitoring each filing of these companies’ annual return to confirm that the bearer shares have been converted. This exercise will end in February 2017 once the annual filing cycle concludes following the end of the transition period.

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

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, with which countries the UK has negotiated agreements on the exchange of tax information which (a) are in compliance with the OECD’s standard for such agreements and (b) provide for the automatic exchange of tax information since the OECD’s standard was released in July 2014.

Mr David Gauke

The UK has exchange of tax information agreements with 142 different jurisdictions, through Double Taxation Agreements and Tax Information Exchange Agreements, and also as party to the OECD/Council of Europe Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters (the ‘Multilateral Convention’).

A list of the international agreements the UK is party to can be found on Gov.uk under ‘Tax Treaties’, and details of which jurisdictions have entered the Multilateral Convention into force alongside the UK can be found on the OECD website.

Of the 142 international tax agreements the UK is party to, only the following 12 do not meet the international standard for exchange of information on request:

1. Egypt

2. Fiji

3. Gambia

4. Israel

5. Jamaica

6. Kenya

7. Namibia

8. Oman

9. Papua new Guinea

10. Sri Lanka

11. Swaziland

12. Zimbabwe

    That international standard does not apply to automatic exchange. The standard for automatic exchange the question refers to (as published by the OECD in July 2014) is the Common Reporting Standard, the globally acceptable standard on automatic exchange of information with respect of financial accounts information.

    The means of ensuring this standard was through a common Competent Authority Agreement, which supplements the international tax agreement allowing for exchange of tax information, rather than being an international tax agreement itself. There is no standard for automatic exchange in international tax agreements; just whether the agreement allows for it or not.

    It is the UK policy to interpret international tax agreements to allow automatic exchange even where not expressly stated, with the exception of cases where the exchange of information provision clearly uses restrictive wording that would preclude such an exchange.

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

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the Answer of 18 April 2016 to Question 32849, which 90 countries will provide automatic offshore account and trust data to the UK; which responsible authorities in the UK will be able to access that data; and whether the 90 countries referred to will also be able to access automatic offshore account and trust data held by the UK.

Mr David Gauke

The UK expects to receive information from the following jurisdictions under the automatic exchange of information agreements it has, or will soon have, in place.

Albania	Colombia	Hong Kong	Marshall Islands	Seychelles
Andorra	Cook Islands	Hungary	Mauritius	Singapore
Anguilla	Costa Rica	Iceland	Mexico	Sint Maarten
Antigua & Barbuda	Croatia	India	Monaco	Slovak Republic
Argentina	Curacao	Indonesia	Montserrat	Slovenia
Aruba	Cyprus	Ireland	Netherlands	South Africa
Austria	Czech Republic	Isle of Man	New Zealand	Spain
Bahamas	Denmark	Israel	Niue	Sweden
Barbados	Dominica	Italy	Norway	Switzerland
Belgium	Estonia	Japan	Poland	Trinidad & Tobago
Belize	Faroe Islands	Jersey	Portugal	Turkey
Bermuda	Finland	Korea	Qatar	Turks & Caicos Islands
Brazil	France	Kuwait	Romania	United Arab Emirates
British Virgin Islands	Germany	Latvia	Russian Federation	Uruguay
Brunei Darassulam	Ghana	Liechtenstein	St Kitts & Nevis	United States*
Bulgaria	Gibraltar	Lithuania	St Lucia
Canada	Greece	Luxembourg	St Vincent & the Grenadines
Cayman Islands	Greenland	Macao	Samoa
Chile	Grenada	Malaysia	San Marino
China	Guernsey	Malta	Saudi Arabia

*The United States has committed to move to full reciprocation of data exchange under the Inter-Governmental Agreement of 12 September 2012. The domestic legislation required in the US for this to happen has not yet been put in place and we have no indication of when this will happen. Until then the UK will continue to receive limited information collected by the Internal Revenue Service under existing regulations –this pertains to interest bearing financial accounts, but not trusts.

The use of the information received is governed by the international agreements under which it is exchanged. As these are international agreements concerned with taxation matters, the information is restricted in its use to the administration, assessment, and collection of taxes covered by the agreement in question for each jurisdiction. As these are functions of HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), only HMRC can use the information without further recourse to the sending jurisdiction and the primary use must be the functions of HMRC. Sharing the information found to be relevant to other Government Agencies with those other Agencies is only permitted where the international agreement allows it, and the sending jurisdiction gives express permission that it can be so shared by HMRC. HMRC will always seek to share the information where relevant and possible, and it is our policy to ensure that new agreements and amendments to existing agreements allow such sharing.

The UK expects that most of the automatic exchange agreements with the jurisdictions listed above will be reciprocal. However, not all jurisdictions require information from the UK and in those cases the UK will receive information but send nothing the other way.

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

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how much was raised by the diverted profits tax in 2015-16.

Mr David Gauke

The Diverted Profits Tax is designed to counteract contrived arrangements used to avoid tax in the UK, and incentivise businesses to change their behaviour and pay tax on profits from economic activities in the UK. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s (OBR) recent assessment at Budget 2016 is that overall yield (including Corporation Tax from behavioural change) is expected to be close to that originally scored.

The OBR noted on page 122 of its “Economic and fiscal outlook” March 2016: “Our forecast assumes that overall yield from the measure will be close to that originally scored, but we now expect that around two-thirds of the yield will come through higher Corporation Tax payments (as firms restructure their tax affairs) rather than via the diverted profits tax itself.” This is available at: http://cdn.budgetresponsibility.org.uk/March2016EFO.pdf.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-06-08.

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, with reference to his Department’s Employment and Support Allowance: Work Capability Assessment Outcomes Made on Paper Evidence, published on 19 November 2012, if he will publish the figures for tables 1, 2 and 3 for the financial years 2102-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16.

Priti Patel

The information requested is not readily available and to provide it would incur disproportionate cost.