Tag: Tulip Siddiq

  • Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

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

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, pursuant to the Answer of 3 May 2016 to Question 35753, how many and which companies have not confirmed to Companies House that they no longer have bearer shares; and what action he plans to take against such companies.

    Anna Soubry

    As of 6 May 2016, 63 companies had not informed Companies House that they no longer have bearer shares.

    No action will be taken against these companies at the present time. There is no statutory obligation for any company that has converted bearer shares to registered shares to inform Companies House until it delivers its annual return or confirmation statement.

    I have requested the Registrar of Companies to write to the Hon Member with the list of the company names.

  • Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-05-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, with reference to the Answer of 31 March 2016 to Question 31997, on employment: telephone services, if he will provide that data for financial years (a) 2010-11, (b) 2011-12, (c) 2012-13 and (d) 2013-14.

    Nick Boles

    The table below shows the number of referrals (complaints) from the Pay and Work Rights Helpline (PWRH) to relevant enforcement authorities for the 2010/11 to 2013/14 financial years.

    Table 1: Referrals from the PWRH to each enforcement agencies, 2010/11 to 2013/14

    2010/11

    2011/12

    2012/13

    2013/14

    HMRC

    2,080

    2,440

    2,610

    3,690

    EAS

    490

    530

    600

    630

    HSE

    200

    250

    210

    250

    DEFRA

    280

    210

    200

    150

    GLA

    60

    70

    50

    50

    *The Pay and Work Rights Helpline opened in May 2009

    Notes

    1. Numbers are rounded to the nearest 10.

    2. Calls can be referred to more than one agency so the sum does not amount to the total number of calls referred for the period.

    3. Calls referred to agencies include complaints, complex queries and calls where intelligence was passed to other agencies.

    4. Figures include referrals via all PWRH communication channels, including telephone calls, post and online complaints.

    5. These figures are based on final data submitted by BSS on closure at the end of March 2015. They may not reconcile with provisional data provided while the old helpline was operational.

  • 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 2016-07-21.

    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.

  • 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 2016-10-17.

    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.

  • 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.