Tag: Parliamentary Question

  • Rosie Cooper – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Rosie Cooper – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rosie Cooper on 2016-07-21.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, within what period for time a mandatory reconsideration must be completed for a personal independence payment application.

    Penny Mordaunt

    We introduced Mandatory Reconsideration to make the system as fair as possible for those going through it. It gives people the opportunity to present new evidence and to have their case looked at again.

    The Department for Work and Pensions does not have a clearance time target for Mandatory Reconsiderations. Claimants have one calendar month from the date of their Personal Independence Payment (PIP) decision to request a Mandatory Reconsideration. Further information on Mandatory Reconsideration in PIP can be found at https://www.gov.uk/pip/appeals.

    “

  • Jim Cunningham – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Trade

    Jim Cunningham – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Trade

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Cunningham on 2016-10-12.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, how many civil servants work for his Department in EU member states excluding the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

    Greg Hands

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak on 13 October, UIN 47419 and 47396.

  • Danny Kinahan – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Danny Kinahan – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Danny Kinahan on 2015-10-27.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what steps he is taking to restore the cider differential.

    Damian Hinds

    The government recognises that small cider producers are a traditional part of rural economies and its support for small cider producers has helped create a diverse and vibrant market, improving consumer choice and creating jobs. To support the wider industry, at the March 2015 Budget the duty on lower strength cider was cut by 2 per cent.

  • Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2015-11-23.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of reports from the Shan Human Rights Foundation that between 9 and 12 November the Burmese Army carried out shelling and aerial bombing of Mong Nawng and that those attacks constitute war crimes.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    We are concerned by reports of continued fighting in Shan State, including around Mong Nawng and Wanhai, which the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs estimates has displaced approximately 6,000 people since 6 October. Our Ambassador in Rangoon raised our concerns about the conflict in Shan with the Burmese military on 20 November. The UK has played a leading role in supporting efforts to broker ceasefire agreements, funding expert advice to both sides in support of dialogue and peacemaking.

    We welcomed the signing of a ceasefire agreement on 15 October and we continue to urge armed groups who did not sign the ceasefire and the Burmese government to engage in ceasefire talks to bring the conflict to an end.

    The UK has made no assessment of whether these allegations amount to war crimes. Any determination as to whether specific international crimes have occurred is a matter for an international judicial decision rather than for governments or non-judicial bodies. Our approach is to seek an end to all violations and to prevent their further escalation, irrespective of whether these violations fit the definition of specific international crimes.

  • Clive Efford – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Clive Efford – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Clive Efford on 2016-01-05.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will request representatives of the British Embassy to attend the public hearing in the case of the imprisoned academic Miguel Angel Beltran scheduled for January 2016 in the city of Bogota.

    Mr Hugo Swire

    The British Embassy was notified by the Colombian authorities in August 2015 of the detention of Professor Miguel Angel Beltran, who is held at La Picota prison in Bogotá.

    The United Kingdom cannot interfere in the judicial process of another country. We take every opportunity to encourage the Colombian authorities to allow access for all to legal representation, a fair trial without prejudice and minimise delays.

  • Tom Watson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Tom Watson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Watson on 2016-02-01.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, how many meetings Ministers and officials of his Department have had with representatives of Uber since July 2015.

    Andrew Jones

    Details of Ministerial meetings with external organisations are published on a quarterly basis and are available via the gov.uk website.

    Since July 2015, representatives of Uber have had one meeting with Department for Transport officials.

  • Andrew Rosindell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Prime Minister

    Andrew Rosindell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Prime Minister

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Rosindell on 2016-02-23.

    To ask the Prime Minister, if he will make representations to bodies campaigning on the EU referendum to ensure that members of the Royal Family are not referred to in the debate on that referendum; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr David Cameron

    This is a matter for the campaign groups. Government activities in respect of the EU Referendum will be in line with published propriety guidance.

  • Charles Walker – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Charles Walker – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Charles Walker on 2016-03-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what estimate his Department has made of the number of its senior civil servants who will potentially fall under the provisions of the fourth EU Money Laundering Directive, 2015/849; and what assessment he has made of which of his Department’s agencies or other public bodies will potentially be classed as holding a prominent public function for the purposes of that directive.

    Mr Julian Brazier

    Under the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, which will be transposed into national law by June 2017, a politically exposed person is one who has been entrusted with a prominent public function domestically or by a foreign country. This would include some senior civil servants, such as ambassadors and chargés d’affaires. The Government’s view is that the Directive permits a risk-based approach to the identification of whether an individual is a politically exposed person and, when identified, the Directive enables the application of different degrees of enhanced measures to reflect the risks posed. The Government will be setting out this view in a consultation which will be published shortly.

    The changes proposed under the Directive should not prevent any individual in this category from gaining or maintaining access to financial services. The Treasury regularly raises these issues with financial institutions and the regulator, and we encourage financial institutions to take a proportionate, risk-based approach when applying these measures.

  • Diana Johnson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Diana Johnson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Diana Johnson on 2016-04-25.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, whether the Government has investigated the airstrikes of 3 June 2015 in al-‘Eram and Sa’da, Yemen.

    Mr Tobias Ellwood

    The Saudi Arabian authorities have their own internal procedures for investigations and they announced more detail of how they investigate incidents of concern at a press conference on 31 January. It is important that all sides conduct thorough and conclusive investigations into all incidents where it is alleged that civilians have been targeted.

  • Jim Fitzpatrick – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Jim Fitzpatrick – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Fitzpatrick on 2016-05-25.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, when his Department plans to implement the National Screening Committee’s recommendations on introducing (a) the Faecal Immunochemical Test into the bowel screening programme and (b) HPV as the primary test in the cervical screening programme.

    Jane Ellison

    Ministers have accepted the UK National Screening Committee’s (UK NSC) recommendation on replacing the guaiac Faecal Occult Blood test with the Faecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) in the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Following the change to FIT we expect that around 200,000 more people per year will take up the opportunity to be screened as part of the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England. This has the potential to save hundreds more lives by detecting bowel cancer earlier. Public Health England is responsible for the leadership of the NHS Screening Programmes and will oversee the change to the programme in partnership with NHS England.

    Ministers are currently considering the UK NSC’s recommendation that human papillomavirus testing should replace the currently used cytology test as primary screening for cervical disease.