Blog

  • Madeleine Moon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Madeleine Moon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Madeleine Moon on 2016-05-05.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, on what dates reviews have been carried out of his Department’s Complaints Protocol written in 2005; and what alterations have been made to that protocol as a result of each such review.

    Mr Julian Brazier

    The Ministry of Defence’s procedures when handling complaints from members of the general public is governed by the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman who issue government departments with guidance and advice on protocols when dealing with complaints from the general public, more specifically guidance around response times and handling. Since 2005, the Ministry of Defence has updated its internal instructions (Defence Internal Notice) in 2010 and 2015, both updates did not change internal protocols but made changes to points of contact and departmental structures where required.

    The Ministry of Defence also operates procedures by which civil servants and Service personnel can make complaints. These are governed by separate policies respectively. For Service personnel the independent Service Complaints Ombudsman was established in 2015. Further information can be found at:

    https://www.gov.uk/guidance/armed-forces-service-complaints-process .

  • David Anderson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    David Anderson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Anderson on 2016-05-05.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps the Government took in response to the report of the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones, chaired by Sir William Stewart, published in 2000; what steps the Government has taken in response to that report’s recommendations on limiting children’s use of mobile phones; what research the Government has commissioned or undertaken since that report on that issue; and whether any such research supported or contradicted the findings of that report.

    Jane Ellison

    The Government published a detailed response to the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP) report’s recommendations and set in place a range of measures to address concerns about mobile phones and health. International guidelines for limiting exposures to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields were adopted, and precautionary advice to mobile phone users was published. The Mobile Telecommunications Health Research Programme ran for 11 years after the IEGMP report and government continues to support research on this topic.

    IEGMP concluded the balance of evidence at the time of its report did not suggest mobile phone technologies put the health of the population at risk; that remains the case after a considerable volume of more recent national and international research.

    Precautionary advice to mobile phone users has been maintained and is available here:

    http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Mobile-phone-safety/Pages/Introduction.aspx

    “

  • David Jones – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    David Jones – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Jones on 2016-05-05.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what representations he has made to the organisers of the Eurovision Song Contest on their refusal to allow the display of the Red Dragon flag at the 2016 contest.

    Mr Edward Vaizey

    I understand that the governing body of the Eurovision Song Contest has reversed its ban on the display of the Red Dragon flag. We welcome this example of European co-operation, and wish Joe Woolford and Jake Shakeshaft the best of luck on 14 May.

  • Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Timms on 2016-05-05.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what advice his Department provides to employers on how to respond when advised by an employee that the Department for Work and Pensions has determined that their universal credit award has been affected by that employer’s incorrect PAYE real time information submission.

    Mr David Gauke

    HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and the Department for Work and Pensions continually monitor the quality of Real Time Information. Where a claimant disputes the earnings details used in the Universal Credit calculation, in the first instance the employer will work with the employee to understand the cause of the discrepancy and put it right. If HMRC need to be involved then they will contact the employer to identify the cause of the error and, if appropriate, arrange for the returns to be corrected, as well as working with the employer to ensure errors do not re-occur.

  • Victoria Prentis – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Victoria Prentis – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Victoria Prentis on 2016-05-05.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the Electoral Commission’s 2013 recommendation that political parties that receive and spend less than £500 annually should be exempt from submitting a full statement of accounts.

    John Penrose

    The Electoral Commission published a report “a regulatory review of the UK’s party and electoral finance laws” in June 2013 that made 50 recommendations. The report’s first recommendation proposed changes to the reporting requirements for parties that receive and spend less than £500 annually. Such a change would require primary legislation. The Government recognises that there is a balance to be struck between reducing the burden on smaller parties and maintaining transparency of the funding of all parties which contest elections in the UK.

  • David Anderson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    David Anderson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Anderson on 2016-05-05.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps the Government has taken in response to Resolution 1815 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on measures to reduce exposure, particularly of children, to electromagnetic fields, agreed on 27 May 2011.

    Jane Ellison

    Pre-existing precautionary advice remains available to the United Kingdom public and internationally recommended (ICNIRP) guidelines on limiting exposures to electromagnetic fields are in place. The Government has not responded specifically to this Resolution.

  • Chi Onwurah – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Chi Onwurah – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chi Onwurah on 2016-05-05.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, whether the remit of the Council of Data Science Ethics will extend beyond big data and personal data and include (a) wearable technologies, (b) health monitoring and (c) robotics.

    Matthew Hancock

    The Science and Technology Committee report on the Big Data Dilemma recommended that a Council for Data Ethics be established. The Government response was published on 26th April 2016 and can be found at the following link: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmsctech/992/99204.htm

    “

  • Chi Onwurah – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Chi Onwurah – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chi Onwurah on 2016-05-05.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what the advisory role to government of the Council of Data Science Ethics will be; whether that advice will include advice on EU legislative proposals on the right to be forgotten; and what steps he is taking to ensure that the Council’s membership has the necessary leadership expertise to fulfil its role.

    Matthew Hancock

    The Science and Technology Committee report on the Big Data Dilemma recommended that a Council for Data Ethics be established. The Government response was published on 26th April 2016 and can be found at the following link: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmsctech/992/99204.htm

    “

  • Chi Onwurah – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Chi Onwurah – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chi Onwurah on 2016-05-05.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, when the Council of Data Science Ethics will first meet; and whether the minutes of that meeting will be published.

    Matthew Hancock

    The Science and Technology Committee report on the Big Data Dilemma recommended that a Council for Data Ethics be established. The Government response was published on 26th April 2016 and can be found at the following link: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmsctech/992/99204.htm

    “

  • Chi Onwurah – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Chi Onwurah – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chi Onwurah on 2016-05-05.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what steps he is taking to ensure that the membership of the Council of Data Science Ethics includes non-public sector experts and other representatives from that field.

    Matthew Hancock

    The Science and Technology Committee report on the Big Data Dilemma recommended that a Council for Data Ethics be established. The Government response was published on 26th April 2016 and can be found at the following link: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmsctech/992/99204.htm

    “