Tag: Tulip Siddiq

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-02-22.

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, pursuant to his Answer of 9 February 2016 to Question 26570, on planning permission, which local authority made each of those article 4 directions; and what modifications his Department made to eight of those directions.

Brandon Lewis

The Department has been notified of Article 4 directions for basement developments made by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and the City of Westminster.

The Secretary of State has modified Article 4 directions which remove office to residential permitted development rights for:

– the London Borough of Richmond; the London Borough of Sutton; Brighton and Hove City Council and Oxford City Council: to exclude those properties which had secured prior approval for the change of use from office to residential before the date the Article 4 directions took effect;

– London Borough of Camden: to reduce the geographical coverage of the Article 4 direction;

– Broxbourne Borough Council; the London Borough of Islington and the London Borough of Merton: to exclude those properties which had secured prior approval for the change of use from office to residential before the date the Article 4 directions took effect and to reduce the geographical coverage of the Article 4 directions.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-02-23.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how much funding from NHS England General Practices under (a) General Medical Services and (b) Personal Medical Services contracts in Hampstead and Kilburn (i) was allocated in 2014-15, (ii) has been allocated in 2015-16 and (iii) is forecast to be allocated for each financial year to 2021-22.

Alistair Burt

The information is not available in the format requested. Information provided by NHS England is in the attached table.

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 for stem cell research was allocated to the British Society of Blood and Marrow Transplantation in each year since 2003-04.

George Freeman

No funding for stem cell research has been allocated or awarded to the British Society of Blood and Marrow Transplantation from the Department’s research and development budget.

A wide range of research relating to stem cell transplantation is funded by the Department’s National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The NIHR supports the delivery of translational medicine in this field through its biomedical research centres and units, clinical research facilities, and experimental cancer medicine centres (funded jointly with Cancer Research UK), and later phase trials through its clinical research network. In addition, the NIHR is funding the Blood and Transplant Research Unit in stem cells and immunotherapies. This is a research partnership between University College London and NHS Blood and Transplant.

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 (a) import extradition requests her Department received from non-Category 1 and 2 countries and (b) export extradition requests her Department made to non-category 1 and 2 countries in each year since 2009-10; and how many such requests were (i) granted and (ii) refused.

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 2016-03-04.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education, which Local Safeguarding Children’s Boards have requested that a CPS representative join its board to date; and (a) how many and (b) which of those applications have been accepted.

Edward Timpson

Local authorities are responsible for establishing Local Safeguarding Children Boards in their area, and there are statutory requirements regarding membership.

Information about the composition of LSCBs is set out in the 2004 Children Act and repeated in Working Together to Safeguarding Children 2015.

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 8 March 2016 to Question 28967, on stem cells: transplant surgery, which five transplant centres were found to be non-compliant with the NHS England specification.

Jane Ellison

NHS England has advised that three of those five services are now compliant. Two services, Birmingham Children’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Paediatric Bone Marrow Transplant service and Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust Bone Marrow Transplant, are still awaiting accreditation confirmation from the Joint Accreditation Committee International Society for Cellular Therapy & European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (JACIE). Confirmation of compliance is expected no later than December 2016 in line with the JACIE assessment programme. In the meantime, commissioners have been assured that the services are safe to continue to treat patients.

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