Tag: Tulip Siddiq

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

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many advance pricing arrangements (APAs) were agreed between companies and his Department in each year since 2009-10; how many such arrangements resulted in a (a) positive and (b) negative yield to the Exchequer; what the net amount raised by these APAs was in each such year; and how many APAs were annulled by HM Revenue and Customs in each such year.

Mr David Gauke

HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) publishes annual statistics reporting its performance across its transfer pricing work, including enquiries, advance pricing agreements, advance thin capitalisation agreements and mutual agreement procedure cases. The most recent published statistics are for 2013- 14. HMRC intends to publish the statistics for 2014-15 shortly. These statistics answer many of the individual questions asked. However, HMRC does not hold information centrally in a form which allows it to answer all the questions asked in the required timeframe.

The aim of the Advance Pricing Arrangements (APA) Programme is to provide businesses with certainty on the pricing of complex intra-group transactions. An APA sets out the method for determining, in accordance with the law, the transfer price for intra-group transactions. APAs are part of the internationally recognised best practices recommended by the OECD. HMRC has published guidance about what APAs are, the circumstances where it would be appropriate for businesses to apply for an APA and what information is required before any agreement can be made.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-06-24.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will make it his policy to introduce mandatory data collection on hospital-initiated postponement or cancellation of ophthalmology follow-up appointments.

Alistair Burt

All follow-up appointments should take place when clinically appropriate. It is for clinicians to make decisions on when they see patients, in line with their clinical priority, and patients should not experience undue delay at any stage of their referral, diagnosis or treatment. The appropriate interval for follow up appointments will vary between different services or specialties, and between individual patients, depending on the severity of their condition.

To ensure that patients are seen at the appropriate time, NHS England’s guidance, “Recording and reporting referral to treatment waiting times for consultant-led elective care” is clear that when patients on planned lists are clinically ready for their care to commence and reach the date for their planned appointment, they should either receive that appointment or be transferred to an active waiting list. At that point, a waiting time clock will be started and their wait reported in the relevant statistical return.

Hospital episode statistics contain details of all outpatient appointments at National Health Service hospitals in England and commissioned by the NHS from independent sector organisations in England. The recording of a primary diagnosis and postponed or cancelled appointments is not mandatory within the outpatient commissioning data set and there are no plans to make it so.

Data is not, therefore, available on the number of cancelled or postponed follow up appointments for patients with age-related macular degeneration, central retinal vein occlusion and diabetic macular oedema.

No assessment has been made of the effect of hospital-initiated postponement or cancellation of ophthalmology follow-up appointments on patients’ sight. However, officials have met with the Clinical Council for Eye Health Commissioning and are considering their concerns.

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

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what steps have been taken to prevent taxi drivers charging extra to disabled people.

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.

Nobody should face discrimination when accessing transport services, and it is unacceptable for any provider to charge a disabled person extra on account of their disability.

The Equality Act 2010 requires service providers to make reasonable adjustments to enable disabled people to access their services, and Sections 168 to 173 specifically prevent a taxi or Private Hire Vehicle driver from charging an assistance dog owner extra.

I have also committed to commencing Sections 165 and 167, which will require drivers to provide assistance to passengers in wheelchairs and prevent them from charging more.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-10-21.

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to the Answer of 14 October 2016 to Question 47528 and the Answer of 17 October 2016 to HL 2020, if he will provide further detail on the consideration of responses to questions seven and 11 and summary paragraphs 45 and 67 of the consultation on housing benefit reform, Cm 8152, where there are references to meeting appointed housing needs through locally administered funding; and if he will make a statement.

Caroline Nokes

We received a number of responses to questions 7 and 11 on the consultation CM8152, along with the other questions in the consultation, which the Government considered at the time. There was a range of views, comments and suggestions, from a range of stakeholders, relating to the proposition that local authorities should administer funding for supported housing and that supported housing should be removed from Housing Benefit altogether.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2015-10-27.

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, how many times each of the three tenancy deposit schemes which hold contracts with his Department to run authorised scheme mediated in disputes between landlords and tenants over deposits in each year since each scheme was put in place; how many disputes have been found in favour of the (a) landlord and (b) tenant; and what the average length of time was for the dispute resolution process to conclude.

Brandon Lewis

Under tenancy deposit protection legislation introduced in the Housing Act 2004, all landlords who let out property on an assured shorthold tenancy are required to protect their tenants’ deposits in one of the three Government-approved deposit protection schemes.

Details of the number of deposits protected under each scheme as at March 2015 are set out below:

Custodial scheme: Deposit Protection Service: 1,170,564

Insurance Schemes:

Tenancy Deposit Scheme: 1,135,769
Deposit Protection Service: 20,944
MyDeposits: 738,853

Whilst the Government has authorised three private companies to provide tenancy deposit protection schemes, we do not have a day-to-day role in the running of the schemes, however, we do maintain an oversight responsibility, and the Department holds quarterly monitoring meetings with scheme providers at which any performance issues can be discussed. Over the period that the schemes have been in operation, they have performed at a consistently high level. We have not issued guidance for the schemes who all engage the services of dispute resolution professionals. However, the majority of disputes are resolved in 28 days, which is the performance target set by the Government.

The number of adjudications per year for each scheme is set out in the attached table, including the percentage of adjudications awarded to tenants and landlords.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2015-12-14.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what progress has been made by (a) his Department and (b) NHS commissioners to ensure NHS services in England are meeting the six inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) standards set out by the IBD Standards Board in the 2013 Board Report; and if he will make a statement.

Jane Ellison

The six inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) standards were published in 2013 by the IBD standards group, an independent organisation made up of a number of clinical professional organisations and the charity Crohn’s and Colitis UK. The standards were designed to support clinicians, commissioning organisations in developing IBD services locally and may be considered, if appropriate, alongside sources of guidance, such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).

In February 2015, NICE published a Quality Standard (QS) for IBD. As part of the QS development process, the IBD Standards Group and other related organisations submitted evidence to help shape the four Quality Statements which constitute the QS. The NICE QSs are important in setting out to patients, the public, commissioners and providers the key elements of what a high quality service should look like in a particular area of care.

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

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, from what funding stream he plans to fund educational providers to provide training to jobseeker’s allowance and universal credit claimants mandated to improve their English skills.

Nick Boles

Jobseekers referred by jobcentres to improve their English language skills will be funded through the core adult education participation budget.

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

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what assessment he has made of possible factors that would trigger a change in circumstances for a working tax credit claimant who has been transferred from universal credit (UC) which would cause their tax credit entitlement to be re-assessed based on UC thresholds.

Priti Patel

The information requested is not available.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-01-13.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, pursuant to the Answers of 12 January 2016 to Questions 19955 and 19954, (a) how much funding was allocated to and (b) how many full-time equivalent staff were employed by the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate in each year from 2009-10 to 2014-15.

Nick Boles

In 2009-2010 the spend for the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate (EAS) was £1,072,608 and the Inspectorate employed 30 staff, including administrative support and call handling staff.

In 2010-2011 the spend for EAS was £932,000 with 29 staff employed (as of 1 May 2010).

In 2010 the Pay and Work Rights helpline was created. This took over complaint handling and provision of advice and guidance for agencies and agency workers, thus reducing the need for EAS support staff who had previously performed this function. Consequently, in 2011-2012 EAS spend reduced to £637,631 with 23 staff employed.

Following a restructure in the Department and streamlining of processes, in 2012-2013 EAS spend was £551,461 with 16 staff employed.

In 2013-2014 EAS spend was £532,023 with 12 staff employed (as of the 1^st April 2013).

In November 2013, as part of the Government’s ongoing commitment to review regularly the enforcement of the national minimum wage, a more targeted enforcement strategy for the recruitment sector was announced, focusing on protecting the most vulnerable, low-paid workers. Resources from EAS moved to HM Revenue and Customs’ National Minimum Wage (NMW) team to form a new HMRC team which mainly focussed on enforcing non-payment of national minimum wage in the recruitment sector. This ensured that the most vulnerable workers were protected and created a level playing field for the vast majority of agencies who play by the rules. Two staff remained in BIS to enforce the recruitment sector regulations and prioritised complaints using a risk-based approach.

As part of the Government programme on illegal working and tackling exploitation, a decision was taken in February 2015 to increase EAS resourcing. In June 2015 the number of full time equivalent staff increased to nine. Actual spend will not be available until the end of the financial year.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-01-27.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what representations his Department has received on the protection of hedgehogs in Regent’s Park from trucks using the London Zoo car park for the construction of High Speed 2.

Mr Robert Goodwill

12 petitions to the 3^rd additional provision to the Phase One hybrid Bill were received that included concerns regarding the impact on the hedgehog population in Regent’s Park of the proposed lorry holding area in the London Zoo car park. Additionally, one of the responses to the AP3 Environmental Statement Consultation raised concerns about the hedgehog population in the Regents Park area. As part of the ongoing engagement with the Zoological Society of London, HS2 Ltd are considering locations for replacement habitats to mitigate the impact on the hedgehog population.