Show Search Form

Search Results

registered interest	true false
date	exactly: or between: and
answering body
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
hansard heading
house id
legislature	pref label
question text
tabling member constituency
tabling member printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member constituency answering member printed question first answered answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

1156184

registered interest
date	24/10/2019
answering body	Home Office
answering dept id	1
answering dept short name	Home Office
answering dept sort name	Home Office
hansard heading	Extradition: USA
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether she has made an assessment of the implications for her policy of Clause 1 of Article 4 of the Extradition Treaty between the UK Government and the US Administration which states that Extradition shall not be granted if the offense for which extradition is requested is a political offense.
tabling member constituency	Derby North
tabling member printed	Chris Williamson
uin	4981
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 01/11/2019 answer text <p>The consideration of whether an offence for which extradition is requested is a political offence is implicit in UK law under section 81 of the 2003 Extradition Act, which states:</p><p><em>“A person’s extradition to a category 2 territory is barred by reason of extraneous considerations if (and only if) it appears that— </em></p><p><em>(a)the request for his extradition (though purporting to be made on account of the extradition offence) is in fact made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing him on account of his race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or political opinions, or </em></p><p><em>(b)if extradited he might be prejudiced at his trial or punished, detained or restricted in his personal liberty by reason of his race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or political opinions.”</em></p><p>The determination of whether extraneous considerations apply is made by the appropriate judge, entirely independently of the Government.</p> answering member constituency Great Yarmouth answering member printed Brandon Lewis question first answered 01/11/2019 11:44:29 answering member 4009 label Biography information for Sir Brandon Lewis
tabling member	3976 label Biography information for Chris Williamson

1151863

registered interest
date	23/10/2019
answering body	Treasury
answering dept id	14
answering dept short name	Treasury
answering dept sort name	Treasury
hansard heading	Off-payroll Working
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment he has made of the effect on pay rates of the roll-out of the off-payroll rules.
tabling member constituency	Derby North
tabling member printed	Chris Williamson
uin	4307
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 28/10/2019 answer text <p>The off-payroll working rules (sometimes known as IR35) have been in place since 2000. They are designed to ensure that individuals working like employees pay broadly the same amount of tax and NICs, regardless of the structure they work through. They do not affect the self-employed.</p><p> </p><p>In 2017 the Government reformed the way the rules operate in the public sector in order to address widespread non-compliance. Evidence shows that compliance is improving, without reducing the flexibility of the labour market.</p><p> </p><p>Budget 2018 announced that the reform would be extended to all sectors, but not until April 2020, giving businesses more time to prepare. The Government has consulted extensively on the reform and HMRC are rolling out guidance as well as an education and support programme.</p><p> </p><p>On 11 July 2019, HMRC published a Tax Information and Impact Note setting out the costs to business and individuals of the reform. This can be found here: <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rules-for-off-payroll-working-from-april-2020/rules-for-off-payroll-working-from-april-2020" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rules-for-off-payroll-working-from-april-2020/rules-for-off-payroll-working-from-april-2020</a>.</p> answering member constituency Hereford and South Herefordshire answering member printed Jesse Norman question first answered 28/10/2019 13:49:39 answering member 3991 label Biography information for Jesse Norman
tabling member	3976 label Biography information for Chris Williamson

1135167

registered interest
date	27/06/2019
answering body	Department for Work and Pensions
answering dept id	29
answering dept short name	Work and Pensions
answering dept sort name	Work and Pensions
hansard heading	Universal Credit
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what assessment she has made of the effect of the (a) wait for payment and (b) monthly payment of universal credit on the number of weeks of benefit paid annually to claimants compared with the number they were paid under their legacy benefits.
tabling member constituency	Derby North
tabling member printed	Chris Williamson
uin	270345
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 05/07/2019 answer text <p>There is no need to wait for a Universal Credit payment, as 100 per cent advances are available from day one of a claim. Advance payments are simply an advance of entitlement, meaning that by month 12 of a claim, a claimant would normally have received exactly the same Universal Credit regardless of whether they had an advance or not.</p><p> </p><p>Furthermore, frequency of payment should not affect the total amount of Universal Credit paid over the course of a year. Whilst legacy benefits were paid in two-weekly arrears, Universal Credit is paid in monthly arrears to help reduce welfare dependency by mirroring the world of work, where currently around 70 per cent of tax credit claimants are paid monthly or four weekly.</p><p> </p><p>We know that claimants are currently not getting all the entitlements for which they are eligible on legacy benefits. Requiring claimants to make a new Universal Credit claim will ensure that people will not miss out on any entitlements. This will result in an additional £2.4 billion going to 700,000 families who currently do not take up their full benefit entitlement.</p> answering member constituency Reading West answering member printed Alok Sharma question first answered 05/07/2019 13:04:00 answering member 4014 label Biography information for Sir Alok Sharma
tabling member	3976 label Biography information for Chris Williamson

1133362

registered interest
date	19/06/2019
answering body	Foreign and Commonwealth Office
answering dept id	16
answering dept short name	Foreign and Commonwealth Office
answering dept sort name	Foreign and Commonwealth Office
hansard heading	Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what representations he has made to his Brazilian counterpart on the release from detention of former Brazilian President, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva as a result of the publication of documents revealing a plot to jail Mr da Silva to prevent him from standing in the 2018 presidential election.
tabling member constituency	Derby North
tabling member printed	Chris Williamson
uin	266834
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 27/06/2019 answer text <p>Brazil has a robust, transparent and independent justice system that is rightly tackling corruption and wider issues.</p> answering member constituency Rutland and Melton answering member printed Sir Alan Duncan question first answered 27/06/2019 16:18:04 answering member 343 label Biography information for Sir Alan Duncan
tabling member	3976 label Biography information for Chris Williamson

1132440

registered interest
date	17/06/2019
answering body	Foreign and Commonwealth Office
answering dept id	16
answering dept short name	Foreign and Commonwealth Office
answering dept sort name	Foreign and Commonwealth Office
hansard heading	Syria: Chemical Weapons
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, whether he was informed that there was dissent among Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) team members on 14 March 2019 when the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) Executive Council voted down a proposal to allow all FFM team members to brief the OPCW Executive Council on the FFM investigation of an alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma in 2018.
tabling member constituency	Derby North
tabling member printed	Chris Williamson
uin	265497
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 20/06/2019 answer text <p>Ministers receive regular and frequent advice on Syria, including the use of chemical weapons by the Asad regime. The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) published on 1 March 2019 the Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) report into the chemical weapons attacks in Douma. The FFM conducted a full briefing of States Parties on 5 March. The Director General of the OPCW offered all States Parties the opportunity to submit further questions in writing; and to have technical discussions with the FFM. At the Executive Council on 14 March, the Russian delegation proposed without prior notice a vote on an FFM briefing to State Parties. The UK voted against holding a vote on this issue, as did a clear majority of Executive Council members. The Director General OPCW has confirmed that all evidence and views were taken into consideration in preparing the FFM report; and that the Technical Secretariat stands by the findings. These are: that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a toxic chemical, likely molecular chlorine, was used as a weapon in Douma on 7 April 2018. This is a clear breach of the Chemical Weapons Convention. The UK has confidence in the FFM's investigation and the conclusions of its report.</p> answering member constituency Rutland and Melton answering member printed Sir Alan Duncan question first answered 20/06/2019 15:39:18 answering member 343 label Biography information for Sir Alan Duncan
tabling member	3976 label Biography information for Chris Williamson

1132455

registered interest
date	17/06/2019
answering body	Foreign and Commonwealth Office
answering dept id	16
answering dept short name	Foreign and Commonwealth Office
answering dept sort name	Foreign and Commonwealth Office
hansard heading	Syria: Chemical Weapons
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, whether he instructed the UK's permanent representative on the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) Executive Council to vote against a proposal to allow all Fact Finding Mission (FFM) team members to brief the OPCW Executive Council on the FFM investigation into the alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma in 2018.
tabling member constituency	Derby North
tabling member printed	Chris Williamson
uin	265498
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 20/06/2019 answer text <p>On 14 March 2019 the UK and a clear majority of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) Executive Council members voted against holding a vote on a Russian proposal on the handling of a briefing by the Fact-Finding Mission (FFM). The vote was called without prior notice. Instructions to the UK Delegation to the OPCW issued in line with normal procedures. The FFM briefed States Parties on 5 March on the findings of the Douma report and regular briefings are held, most recently on 28 May, on the OPCW's work in Syria. We continue to have confidence in both our own and the FFM conclusions into the chemical weapons attack in Douma on 7 April 2018.</p> answering member constituency Rutland and Melton answering member printed Sir Alan Duncan question first answered 20/06/2019 15:41:50 answering member 343 label Biography information for Sir Alan Duncan
tabling member	3976 label Biography information for Chris Williamson

1129628

registered interest
date	04/06/2019
answering body	Foreign and Commonwealth Office
answering dept id	16
answering dept short name	Foreign and Commonwealth Office
answering dept sort name	Foreign and Commonwealth Office
hansard heading	Syria: Chemical Weapons
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, whether an assessment has been made of the implications for the 12 March 2019 statement by the UK delegation to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons that the UK welcomes FFM’s extremely thorough & well-evidenced report on the incident in Douma of the exclusion from that report of an engineering assessment by members of the Fact Finding Mission team.
tabling member constituency	Derby North
tabling member printed	Chris Williamson
uin	259946
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 12/06/2019 answer text <p>UK stands by its assessment Syrian regime was responsible for the chemical weapon attack in Douma and by 12 March statement welcoming the Fact Finding Mission's report which drew a clear conclusion of reasonable grounds to believe that a toxic chemical, likely molecular chlorine, was used as a weapon on 7 April 2018. On 28 May the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Director General confirmed all evidence and views were considered in preparing the Fact Finding Mission (FFM) report. Technical Secretariat stands by the findings and we continue to have confidence in both our own and the FFM's conclusions.</p> answering member constituency Rutland and Melton answering member printed Sir Alan Duncan question first answered 12/06/2019 11:38:21 answering member 343 label Biography information for Sir Alan Duncan
tabling member	3976 label Biography information for Chris Williamson

1129631

registered interest
date	04/06/2019
answering body	Foreign and Commonwealth Office
answering dept id	16
answering dept short name	Foreign and Commonwealth Office
answering dept sort name	Foreign and Commonwealth Office
hansard heading	Syria: Chemical Weapons
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, whether he has made an assessment of the adequacy of a further investigation by the Investigations and Identification Team to identify those responsible for the incident in Douma without an explanation why the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons excluded an engineering assessment from the report by the Fact Finding Mission team.
tabling member constituency	Derby North
tabling member printed	Chris Williamson
uin	259947
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 10/06/2019 answer text <p>​We have full confidence in expertise and methodologies of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) Fact Finding Mission (FFM). The OPCW Director General has confirmed that all evidence and views were considered by FFM in reaching its conclusion. The final FFM report of 1 March made a clear conclusion of reasonable grounds to believe a chemical weapons attack took place. Important now the Investigation and Identification Team (IIT) are allowed to move forward with their vital work of identifying those responsible for such attacks in Syria. We are confident the IIT will consider all relevant information when attributing responsibility for such attacks.</p> answering member constituency Rutland and Melton answering member printed Sir Alan Duncan question first answered 10/06/2019 16:12:40 answering member 343 label Biography information for Sir Alan Duncan
tabling member	3976 label Biography information for Chris Williamson

1129302

registered interest
date	03/06/2019
answering body	Foreign and Commonwealth Office
answering dept id	16
answering dept short name	Foreign and Commonwealth Office
answering dept sort name	Foreign and Commonwealth Office
hansard heading	Syria: Armed Conflict
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, with reference to investigations suggesting that reports of the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian Government in Douma in April 2018 were staged and with reference to reports that OPCW expert advice was redacted from its final report, whether he has made a reassessment of the decision to bomb targets in Syria in 2018.
tabling member constituency	Derby North
tabling member printed	Chris Williamson
uin	259185
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 10/06/2019 answer text <p>​The UK has full confidence in the expertise and methodologies of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) Fact Finding Mission (FFM). We welcome the clearly-evidenced FFM report on Douma that found &quot;reasonable grounds that the use of a toxic chemical as a weapon has taken place on 7 April 2018. This toxic chemical contained reactive chlorine. The toxic chemical was likely molecular chlorine.&quot; We have confidence in this conclusion. The OPCW Technical Secretariat has confirmed that all evidence and views were considered in preparing the FFM report.</p><p>A significant amount of information indicates that the Syrian Regime was responsible for this attack, a regime with a history of using such weapons against its people. No other group could have carried out this attack. The UK considers that the military action in April last year was legal. The UK is permitted under international law, on an exceptional basis, to take measures in order to alleviate overwhelming humanitarian suffering. The action taken was to alleviate the suffering of the Syrian people which has been exacerbated by the use of chemical weapons.</p> answering member constituency Rutland and Melton answering member printed Sir Alan Duncan question first answered 10/06/2019 16:10:16 answering member 343 label Biography information for Sir Alan Duncan
tabling member	3976 label Biography information for Chris Williamson

1129393

registered interest
date	03/06/2019
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Family Courts: Domestic Abuse
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to his Department's press release of 21 May 2019, Spotlight on child protection in family courts: A panel of experts will review how the family courts protect children and parents in cases of domestic abuse and other serious offences, whether that panel of experts plan to include a review of the status of parental alienation as child abuse in that review.
tabling member constituency	Derby North
tabling member printed	Chris Williamson
uin	259186
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 06/06/2019 answer text <p>The expert panel announced on 21 May has a specific remit, first, to gather evidence on how the family courts are responding to alleged or admitted domestic abuse, including the operation of Practice Direction 12J, and the operation of this Practice Direction with the risk of harm exception to the presumption of parental involvement. Second, the panel will consider the adequacy of protections in relation to a range of other serious offences. Third, the panel will consider the handling of repeat applications in the family courts, which may be used to re-victimise or control children and victim parents, including the operation of section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989.</p><p> </p><p>The Government is committed to ensuring that the family justice system can robustly address instances of parental alienation. Where Cafcass practitioners prepare a report into the child’s welfare, they are aware of the potential for children to be influenced or alienated by parental views. The Child Impact Assessment Framework launched last year provides further support for Cafcass practitioners in relation to alienating behaviour by a parent.</p> answering member constituency Blackpool North and Cleveleys answering member printed Paul Maynard question first answered 06/06/2019 16:02:55 answering member 3926 label Biography information for Paul Maynard
tabling member	3976 label Biography information for Chris Williamson