Tag: Tulip Siddiq

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

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, with reference to paragraph 57 of the Equality Analysis in the new contract for doctors and dentists in training in the NHS, published in March 2016, if he will implement the recommendation that a pro rata cash sum equivalent to a five per cent to 10 per cent pay enhancement should be paid to part-time doctors based on the proportion of full-time work for on-call that has been agreed in the work schedule.

Ben Gummer

Yes. This is explicit paragraph 11 of Schedule 2 in the Terms and Conditions of Service published by NHS Employers on 31 March 2016.

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

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many companies in each business sector have been registered with HM Revenue and Customs’ Supervised Business Register in each year since 2009-10; and what estimate his Department has made of the proportion of companies which were not registered with a professional body as required by anti-money laundering regulations in each such year.

Mr David Gauke

The number of HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) anti-money laundering supervision registrations by sector in each year since 2009 are given in the table below. HMRC does not have an estimate of businesses not registered for supervision that should be, but as part of its supervisory role actively undertakes to identify such businesses by using its own data and working with other supervisors and agencies.

End of year…	2009/2010	2010/2011	2011/2012	2012/2013	2013/2014	2014/2015	2015/2016
Money Service Business registrations*	3,585	3,633	3,691	3,480	2,850	2,373	2,177
High Value Dealer registrations	1,173	1,193	1,332	1,336	1,294	1,035	881
Accountancy Service Provider registrations	12,689	12,941	13,009	13,151	13,246	13,120	13,131
Trust or Company Service Provider registrations	2,301	2,340	2,442	2,531	2,577	2,640	2,729
Estate Agency Business registrations**					7,809	8,710	9,305
Total registrations***	18,219	18,570	18,799	18,740	18,182	26,032	26,371

* From 2011/2012, the Money Service Business (MSB) sector includes a very small number of Bill Payment Service Providers (BPSPs) and Telecommunications, Digital and IT Payment Service Providers (TDITPSPs)

** Before 2013/2014 Estate Agency Businesses (EABs) were supervised by the Office of Fair Trading. HMRC is now the sole supervisor of EABs.

*** The sums of sector breakdowns are less than the total registration figures because a business may be registered for more than one sector. HMRC does not double-count businesses when calculating total registrations.

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

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what oversight her Department has over the operation of the Financial Crime Alerts Service; and which banks have agreed to share information through that Service.

Mr John Hayes

The Department does not have oversight of the Financial Crime Alerts Service. The service was established and is operated by the British Bankers’ Association.

The Government published the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Terrorist Finance Action Plan on 21 April 2016. As part of the Action Plan, the Government is seeking to strengthen public-private partnership, based on joint-working and the sharing of information.

The Financial Crime Alerts Service is a good example of this kind of partnership and will help deliver the aim, set out in the Strategic Defence and Security Review, to make the UK a more hostile place for those seeking to move, hide or use the proceeds of crime or corruption.

The Financial Crime Alerts Service distributes real-time alerts from domestic and international bodies, including the National Crime Agency and 11 other government and law enforcement agencies, with banking officials in place to tackle fraud, financial crime and other violations.

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

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answers of 1 February 2016 to Questions 23158 and 23749, on vetting, what progress she has made in compiling the data.

Karen Bradley

The relevant data is being finalised and I will write to the Honourable Member shortly with the information requested.

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

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many incidences of loss or deterioration of vision as a result of postponed ophthalmology appointments his Department has recorded in each of the last three years.

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 2016-10-17.

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what plans his Department has to tackle online abuse and harassment targeted at Jewish people on (a) social media networks, (b) Facebook and (c) Twitter.

Mr Marcus Jones

The Government recognises the significant harm caused to individual Jewish victims and communities by online hate material. We have a robust legislative framework which allows the operationally independent Crown Prosecution Service and Judiciary to balance the right to exercise free speech with the need to protect communities and individuals from targeted abuse.

In July 2016, we published Action Against Hate: The UK Government’s Plan for Tackling Hate Crime which sets out a range of non-legislative responses. This includes counter-narrative activity and collaborative work with the Internet industry to identify ways to reduce the harm caused, for example, by taking down illegal material within 24 hours.

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

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what estimate his Department has made of the number of assured shorthold tenancies registered with each of the three tenancy deposit schemes; whether each deposit is held under (a) a custodial and (b) an insurance scheme; and how many assured shorthold tenancies there were in England and Wales in each year since each scheme’s establishment.

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 the Home Department, how many individuals applying for leave to stay in the UK who successfully appealed against a rejection from UK Visas and Immigration through the First-Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum) have not yet been issued with the right to stay in the UK.

James Brokenshire

The Home Office considers applications on their own merits and takes great care to get decisions right first time, recognising the difficulty that errors can cause legitimate applicants. Where applicants are granted leave to remain the UK, we take all reasonable steps to issue their visas accordingly. The requested information cannot be accurately defined on our internal systems. To provide this information a manual reconciliation of existing work in progress and appeals implementations would be required. Manual reconciliation of individual cases would incur a disproportionate cost.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2015-12-17.

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the Answers of 6 May 2014 to Question 197359, 12 September 2014 to Questions 205613 and 218085, and pursuant to the Answer of 26 November 2015 to Question 16851, (a) under what circumstances HM Revenue and Customs identify non-compliance with minimum wage enforcement without (i) recovering arrears in unpaid wages from workers and (ii) issuing penalties to employers, (b) what mechanisms are in place to ensure that an employer for whom non-compliance has been identified has paid back minimum wage arrears without the need for a penalty to be issued or fine to be imposed, (c) how much money in unpaid wages was identified following HM Revenue and Customs investigations in each year since 2009-10 and (d) how many employers agreed to pay all arrears following a finding on non-compliance before a penalty was issued in each year since 2009-10.

Mr David Gauke

The Government is determined that everyone who is entitled to the National Minimum Wage (NMW) receives it. Anyone who feels they have been underpaid NMW should contact the confidential Acas helpline on 0300 123 1100. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) review all complaints that are referred to them. Non-compliant employers are issued with a Notice of Underpayment (NOU) detailing the arrears they owe workers and the penalty due. The employer will pay the arrears directly to the worker and the penalty to the Government. HMRC takes steps to ensure that workers receive the arrears to which they are entitled; I refer the honourable member to the answer provided at UIN 211605 on the action taken by HMRC where arrears are identified. A penalty will be issued on the NOU except in exceptional circumstances. To encourage voluntary compliance, where an employer has identified non-compliance outside of an HMRC investigation and notified of their intention to self-correct and pay arrears, for example through HMRC’s NMW Campaign in the hair and beauty sector, HMRC will not impose a penalty. For information on arrears identified, I refer the honourable member back to the answer provided at UIN 16851.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-01-08.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 17 December 2015 to Question 19827, which authority is overseeing the implementation of NICE Quality Standards; and what steps are being taken to (a) monitor progress in developing Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) services against, (b) implement and (c) promote NICE Quality Standard Q581 on IBD.

Jane Ellison

The Health and Social Care Act 2012 places a duty on NHS England to have regard to quality standards, published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Quality standards are important in setting out to patients, the public, commissioners and providers what a high quality service should look like in a particular area of care.

NHS England would expect providers and commissioners to take into account NICE quality standards, including for inflammatory bowel disease, in designing services locally. However, the quality standards do not provide a comprehensive service specification and are not mandatory.