Tag: Tulip Siddiq

  • Tulip Siddiq – 2025 Resignation Letter to the Prime Minister

    Tulip Siddiq – 2025 Resignation Letter to the Prime Minister

    The resignation letter sent by Tulip Siddiq, the Treasury Minister, to Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, on 14 January 2025.

    Dear Prime Minister,

    Thank you for the confidence you have shown in me in recent weeks.

    I am grateful to your Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards Sir Laurie Magnus for acting with speed and thoroughness in response to my self-referral, and for giving me the opportunity to share the full details of my finances and living arrangements, both present and historic.

    As you know, having conducted an in-depth review of the matter at my request, Sir Laurie has confirmed that I have not breached the Ministerial Code. As he notes, there is no evidence to suggest that I have acted improperly in relation to the properties I have owned or lived in, nor to suggest that any of my assets ‘derive from anything other than legitimate means’.

    My family connections are a matter of public record, and when I became a Minister I provided the full details of my relationships and private interests to the Government. After extensive consultation with officials, I was advised to state in my declaration of interests that my aunt is the former Prime Minister of Bangladesh and to recuse myself from matters relating to Bangladesh to avoid any perception of a conflict of interest. I want to assure you that I acted and have continued to act with full transparency and on the advice of officials on these matters.

    However, it is clear that continuing in my role as Economic Secretary to the Treasury is likely to be a distraction from the work of the Government. My loyalty is and always will be to this Labour Government and the programme of national renewal and transformation it has embarked upon. I have therefore decided to resign from my Ministerial position.

    I would like to thank you for the privilege of serving in your Government, which I will continue to support in any way I can from the backbenches.

    Best wishes, Tulip Siddiq MP

  • Tulip Siddiq – 2024 Speech on the Government’s Vision for the Future of UK Capital Markets

    Tulip Siddiq – 2024 Speech on the Government’s Vision for the Future of UK Capital Markets

    The speech made by Tulip Siddiq, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, at the London Stock Exchange on 6 September 2024.

    Good morning and thanks for the invitation. It’s so lovely to be here today, and it’s one of my first addresses in my new role as City minister.

    And it’s a very deliberate decision that I’ve taken, because growth is the defining mission of this government, which you’ve probably heard us say over and over again. From the top down to the centre out, we recognise the importance of capital markets to delivering this growth mission that we’ve consistently talked about for the last few years. And As the Chancellor herself said – many of you will have heard at Barclays CEO forum recently – “when the City succeeds, Britain succeeds”. Nothing demonstrates that better than our capital markets.

    It’s not just that when our markets do well, our economy does well. Already this year, more than £20 billion worth of equity capital has been raised in London alone, more than three times what has been raised in the next three European exchanges combined – to support businesses to invest, to innovate and to grow.

    And according to a New Financial report from 2020, 90% of large UK companies regularly use capital markets, supporting some 5.5 million jobs. It’s not just large companies which benefit from our markets. Over the last five years combined, more than half of all capital raised in European growth markets was raised in London. And although these facts speak for themselves, I’ll spell out what they say: that UK capital markets will underpin our mission of sustained and meaningful economic growth.

    But I also know that for our capital markets, stability and just the right amount of risk is the formula for economic growth. Whilst too much political change can unbalance that formula by moderating the market’s ability to signal opportunities for profit and risks of loss.

    So let me be clear to everyone who has raised this with me. We will not pursue change for its own sake. The economist Adam Smith once wrote about an invisible hand, a metaphor for the forces that guide decision-making in the market. Well, I want you to be in no doubt – because in the marketplace of ideas, evidence will be the hand that guides our decision making in policy making generally and capital markets policy specifically. You can describe our approach to the existing program of capital markets reform with this timeless saying, which is ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’. I hope that reassures some of the people who’ve raised this with me about continuity.

    And while reviewing the existing plans for reform to a capital markets there’s three things that I was struck by. Firstly, the proposals are technically rigorous. Secondly, they have the support of our financial services industry and its regulators. But lastly, and this is most importantly, I know they will support our mission of sustained and meaningful economic growth. And so I, and this government, will support them.

    And I’ll begin that support by highlighting some of the most exciting policy initiatives. Some of which Julia and I were discussing when we came in. For example, the FCA’s changes to our listing rules will revolutionise our markets. By making changes to rules on dual-class share structures, related party transactions and introducing a new international secondary listing category, we will directly align our markets with leading international counterparts and provide greater flexibility to firms and founders raising capital.

    The impact of some of these changes are already being felt, and I’m delighted that some firms are already taking advantage of them.

    The government will also continue to collaborate with a number of industry driven initiatives. Working closely with our Industry Technical group led by Andrew Douglas, and building momentum towards faster settlement of securities trades. And I look forward to the final report of the Task Force led by Sir Douglas Flint on improving the current system of share ownership and eliminating the use of paper share certificates.

    And we remain fully committed, as I just said before we came on, to take forward the new Private Intermittent Securities and Capital Exchange System – or PISCES – a world-first bespoke regulated market for private company shares. This will help investors to invest in exciting private companies and support innovative companies to grow – and ultimately to an IPO.

    To my mind, government works best when it’s underpinned by honest and open conversation. And that’s why it’s very important to me to thoroughly examine the feedback from the consultation earlier this year, and to ensure that all of your opinions are properly reflected in our decision-making process.

    And while it’s clear to me that there is huge support for the PISCES project, it is also clear that on the issues of disclosure and market abuse we need to tailor our thinking further. So please be assured that my officials and I will continue working with you. And in that spirit, my officials will be in attendance at the roundtable on PISCES later today, and I’ll ensure that all the conclusions from this roundtable are considered in our final proposal to ensure that PISCES does deliver on its promise.

    But I know that we can go even further to restore competitiveness to our capital markets.

    And of course, a lot of you will be looking forward to the Mansion House speech and the Budget later on, which will set out the plans for our sector in more detail. But I would urge you, if you haven’t already, to look at the report “Financing Growth” – that I published earlier this year – which unapologetically puts really reinvigorating our capital markets at the heart of this government’s growth mission. It’s what we campaigned on, and it’s what we intend to deliver in government.

    They include proposals to encourage the investment of capital freed by Solvency II reforms into UK infrastructure and green industries. To empower the British Business Bank with a more ambitious remit, for example, providing match funding to spin out seed funds. And a landmark review of the UK’s pensions and retirement saving landscape to explicitly consider the role of pension funds in capital and financial markets to boost both their returns and broader economic growth.

    Confirming this review was one of the first announcements made by the Chancellor, and this phase will be led by my colleague Emma Reynolds, who is the Minister for Pensions. She will be speaking here later today. And I encourage you to join this, which is the session on the UK pensions landscape, because Emma will outline the exciting plans that we’ve undertaken as a government.

    So, I do recognise that these proposals are challenging. I’m not naive about it.

    But I am confident looking around this room today and seeing the expertise here, that if we work together, we will be delivering this, because sustained and meaningful economic growth is not just the government’s mission, it’s a mission that we share with everyone in this room.

    So now let’s go out and deliver it.

  • Tulip Siddiq – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Tulip Siddiq – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    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.

  • 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 2015-12-14.

    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.

  • 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 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.

  • 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 2016-01-08.

    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.

  • Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

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

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his Answer of 18 December 2015 to Question 19717, which were the 28 communities in Syria supported by the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund.

    Mr Tobias Ellwood

    The Conflict Stability And Security Fund is supporting communities in opposition held areas located in the north west and south west of Syria. A specific list of these communities is not published for reasons of security (it could put civilians in those areas at risk). More information on the work being taken forward can be found at http://www.project-tamkeen.org/category/news-from-the-programme/

  • Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

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

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how many appeals were heard by the Education Funding Agency and Local Government Ombudsman in relation to admissions decisions made by (a) academies, (b) academies which were previously maintained schools and (c) free schools in each year since 2009-10; how many such appeals were upheld; which schools were subject to those appeals; and what proportion of academies and free schools those schools represent.

    Edward Timpson

    Parents have the right to complain to an admission authority regarding its decision to refuse admission of a child. The admission authority must establish an independent appeals panel to hear the complaint. On behalf of the Secretary of State, the Education Funding Agency (EFA) will investigate complaints about the appeals process operated by independent appeal panels for academies and free schools.

    The table below provides information on admission appeals complaints assessed as being in scope for investigation by EFA since April 2012, when it was established. EFA has no record of admission appeal complaints in the last four financial years from any Civil Society Organisations.

    The Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) handles the appeals process operated in respect of maintained schools. The Department does not hold information on the number of admission appeals complaints heard by the LGO. The LGO should hold this information.

    Financial year 2012-13

    Financial year 2013-14

    Financial year 2014-15

    2015-16 Current financial year to date

    PQ25402 (A) Total number of admission appeal complaints about academies investigated by EFA

    127

    163

    144

    203

    PQ25402 (B) Total number of admission appeal complaints about academies which were previously maintained schools investigated by EFA

    115

    150

    130

    193

    PQ25402 (C) Total number of admission appeal complaints about free schools investigated by EFA

    Not recorded centrally for this financial year

    4

    8

    4

    Total number of admission appeal complaints fully upheld by EFA

    15

    13

    26

    15

    Name of schools where EFA has investigated an admission appeal complaint subject to appeals

    See attachment

    See attachment

    See attachment

    See attachment

    Total appeals complaints investigated, as a proportion of open academies and free schools

    5% (of 2,796)

    4% (of 3,874)

    3% (of 4,881)

    4% (of 5,447)

  • Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-02-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to the Answer of 9 February 2016 to Question 25400, which academies and free schools made those applications to her Department to vary admissions requirements.

    Edward Timpson

    Pursuant to the answer of 9 February 2016 to Question 25400, one academy and two free schools have made applications to the Department to vary admissions requirements, these are as follows:

    Academy

    • The Victory Academy (Thinking Schools Academy Trust) – not approved.

    Free Schools

    • Nishkam School West London (Nishkam School Trust) – approved.

    • Cobham Free School – approved.

  • Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the House of Commons Commission

    Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the House of Commons Commission

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

    To ask the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington representing the House of Commons Commission, what the Commission’s policy is on the allocation of service charges paid by card to (a) permanent and (b) contracted canteen and hospitality staff working on the parliamentary estate.

    Tom Brake

    Service charges paid by debit and credit cards are passed on to catering staff employed by the House of Commons in addition to their wages through the House of Commons payroll system. They are shared equally amongst staff working on a particular day in a given venue.

    Agency (contracted) workers do not receive service charge amounts as there is no mechanism for these to be paid to the individual as the agencies are paid separately to the House of Commons payroll system.