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 previous answer version answering member constituency answering member printed answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

1054999

registered interest
date	05/02/2019
answering body	House of Commons Commission
answering dept id	18
answering dept short name	House of Commons Commission
answering dept sort name	House of Commons Commission
hansard heading	House of Commons: Security
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, representing the House of Commons Commission, for what reasons the terms, conditions and rates of overtime pay of House of Commons security staff have been altered.
tabling member constituency	Stroud
tabling member printed	Dr David Drew
uin	216913
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 12/02/2019 answer text <p>The terms and conditions and rates of overtime pay for House of Commons security staff have not been altered.</p><p>Approximately 55% of security staff in the Parliamentary Security Department, are former employees of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and transferred to the House Service on 1 April 2016. Their MPS terms and conditions are honoured under the Transfer of Undertaking (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE). New recruits are employed on House of Commons terms and conditions which differ in a number of ways including the rates of overtime paid. The overall value of these terms is broadly equivalent to the MPS TUPE terms.</p><p>In late 2016, an error was identified in the contracts for a small number of staff employed on House of Commons terms which resulted in overtime being paid at an incorrect rate. Affected staff were informed of the error and given a notice period for a variation to their contracts during which they were paid at the higher rate. Any overtime paid during the relevant period (between date of appointment and date of variation to contract) was paid at the higher rate and not recovered. This issue was also heard at an Employment Tribunal which ruled in favour of the House.</p><p>The unions have asked us to consider changes to overtime rates for those staff on House of Commons contracts which we will consider as part of pay negotiations for 2019/20.</p> answering member constituency Carshalton and Wallington answering member printed Tom Brake question first answered 12/02/2019 12:19:10 answering member 151 label Biography information for Tom Brake previous answer version 101144 answering member constituency Carshalton and Wallington answering member printed Tom Brake answering member 151 label Biography information for Tom Brake
tabling member	252 label Biography information for Dr David Drew

1055013

registered interest
date	05/02/2019
answering body	Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept id	13
answering dept short name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept sort name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
hansard heading	Air Pollution
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to his Answer of 4 February 2019 to Question 213914 and with reference to page 11 of the 2018 report of the Air Quality Expert Group (AQEG) entitled Ultrafine Particles (UFP) in the UK, if he will list the studies that the AQEG report states show highly effective removal of UFP by their pollution control systems.
tabling member constituency	Stroud
tabling member printed	Dr David Drew
uin	216917
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 11/02/2019 answer text <p>The 2018 Air Quality Expert Group (AQEG) report ‘Ultrafine Particles (UFP) in the UK’, lists a number of studies that show highly effective removal of UFP by their pollution control systems. The references for these are:</p><p> </p><ul><li>Hinds, W. C. Aerosol Technology. Wiley, New York, 1999.</li></ul><p> </p><ul><li>Johnson, D. R. Nanometer-sized emissions from municipal waste incinerators: A qualitative risk assessment. J. Hazard. Mater, 320, 67-79, 2016.</li></ul><p> </p><ul><li>Jones, A. M., Harrison, R. M. Emission of ultrafine particles from the incineration of municipal solid waste; a review. Atmos. Environ., 140, 519-528, 2016.</li></ul> answering member constituency Suffolk Coastal answering member printed Dr Thérèse Coffey question first answered 11/02/2019 13:05:21 answering member 4098 label Biography information for Dr Thérèse Coffey
tabling member	252 label Biography information for Dr David Drew

1055067

registered interest
date	05/02/2019
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	Sudan: Migrant Camps
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, whether people based in the camps around Omdurman, Sudan are refugees or internally displaced persons.
tabling member constituency	Stroud
tabling member printed	Dr David Drew
uin	216921
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 08/02/2019 answer text <p>We understand that both South Sudanese refugees and internally displaced persons from Sudan are based in the camps around Omdurman.</p> answering member constituency West Worcestershire answering member printed Harriett Baldwin question first answered 08/02/2019 14:33:46 answering member 4107 label Biography information for Dame Harriett Baldwin
tabling member	252 label Biography information for Dr David Drew

1055068

registered interest
date	05/02/2019
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	South Sudan: Peace Negotiations
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, which parties were signatories to the current peace deal in South Sudan; and which parties refused to sign it.
tabling member constituency	Stroud
tabling member printed	Dr David Drew
uin	216922
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 12/02/2019 answer text <p>The Revitalised Agreement of the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan (R-ARCSS) was signed on 12 September 2018. The Parties listed in R-ARCSS are: the Transitional Government of National Unity of the Republic of South Sudan; the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army-In Opposition; the South Sudan Opposition Alliance; former detainees; and a range of other smaller political parties. A diverse range of stakeholders from civil society and the region, including representatives from the church, business, and women's groups, also signed. The agreement can be found on the Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Commission website. The most significant party to the conflict which did not sign R-ARCSS is the National Salvation Front (known as NAS) led by General Thomas Cirillo.</p> answering member constituency West Worcestershire answering member printed Harriett Baldwin question first answered 12/02/2019 15:52:08 answering member 4107 label Biography information for Dame Harriett Baldwin
tabling member	252 label Biography information for Dr David Drew

1055070

registered interest
date	05/02/2019
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	Darfur: Peace Negotiations
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what progress is being made towards a lasting peace deal in Darfur; which parties have (a) signed and (b) not signed the 2006 peace deal for that region.
tabling member constituency	Stroud
tabling member printed	Dr David Drew
uin	216923
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 08/02/2019 answer text <p>​We welcome the 6 December signing in Berlin of a &quot;Pre-Negotiation Agreement for the Resumption of the Peace Process&quot; in Darfur. We continue to press all parties to engage with the peace process, including progress towards a permanent ceasefire, and ensure full humanitarian access. The 2006 Darfur Peace Agreement (also referred to as the Abuja Agreement) was signed by the Government of Sudan and the Sudan Liberation Movement – Mini Minnawi. This agreement was not signed by the Justice and Equality Movement and the Sudan Liberation Army – Abdul Wahid.</p> answering member constituency West Worcestershire answering member printed Harriett Baldwin question first answered 08/02/2019 14:43:54 answering member 4107 label Biography information for Dame Harriett Baldwin
tabling member	252 label Biography information for Dr David Drew

1055073

registered interest
date	05/02/2019
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	Darfur: Peace Negotiations
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what steps the Government plans to take to support the resolution of the conflict in the Jebel Marra mountains in Darfur in Sudan.
tabling member constituency	Stroud
tabling member printed	Dr David Drew
uin	216924
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 08/02/2019 answer text <p>The UK is deeply concerned by reports of conflict in the Jebel Marra region of Darfur and the impact on the civilian population. We continue to press for a peaceful solution. Senior UK officials in Khartoum raised the issue with the Government of Sudan's chief negotiator for Darfur on 5 February 2019. We continue to urge all parties to end military action, to allow unfettered access for the United Nations - African Union Mission in Dafur (UNAMID) and to humanitarian actors, and to engage meaningfully in the peace process to secure a permanent ceasefire.</p> answering member constituency West Worcestershire answering member printed Harriett Baldwin question first answered 08/02/2019 14:35:48 answering member 4107 label Biography information for Dame Harriett Baldwin
tabling member	252 label Biography information for Dr David Drew

1055212

registered interest
date	05/02/2019
answering body	Department of Health and Social Care
answering dept id	17
answering dept short name	Health and Social Care
answering dept sort name	Health and Social Care
hansard heading	Slaughterhouses: CCTV
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, how many slaughterhouses have (a) complied and (b) not complied with the order to install CCTV; and what steps the Food Standards Agency has taken against those who have failed to comply with that order.
tabling member constituency	Stroud
tabling member printed	Dr David Drew
uin	216935
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 08/02/2019 answer text <p>The Food Standards Agency (FSA) enforces legislation for animal welfare in slaughterhouses on behalf of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in England, where CCTV legislation applies.</p><p> </p><p>All operating slaughterhouses in England were required to comply with the new CCTV legislation by 5 November 2018.</p><p> </p><p>The following table shows the status of compliance on 1 February 2019:</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p> </p></td><td><p>Number of Slaughterhouses</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Compliant</p></td><td><p>228</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Not yet fully compliant</p></td><td><p>7 (includes 3 not currently operating)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Total slaughterhouses</p></td><td><p>235</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p>Of the seven not yet fully compliant, three are not currently operating due to seasonal operating patterns so compliance status of these slaughterhouses cannot be verified. The remaining four are operating within the deadline specified for their compliance in enforcement documents.</p><p> </p><p>98% of currently operating slaughterhouses in England have fully compliant CCTV in place.</p><p> </p><p>Since 5 November 2018 the FSA has taken enforcement action against all non-compliant slaughterhouse operators. The Agency is following its standard hierarchy of enforcement and is working with slaughterhouse operators to ensure full compliance. To date this enforcement action has included verbal and written advice as well as formal Enforcement Notices with compliance deadlines.</p> answering member constituency Winchester answering member printed Steve Brine question first answered 08/02/2019 12:41:48 answering member 4067 label Biography information for Steve Brine
tabling member	252 label Biography information for Dr David Drew

1052351

registered interest
date	04/02/2019
answering body	Department of Health and Social Care
answering dept id	17
answering dept short name	Health and Social Care
answering dept sort name	Health and Social Care
hansard heading	Air Pollution: Health Hazards
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what comparative assessment (a) his Department and (b) Public Health England has made of the health effects of (a) PM 0.1 and (b) PM 1 in those parts of England (i) with and (ii) without waste incineration plants.
tabling member constituency	Stroud
tabling member printed	Dr David Drew
uin	215078
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 08/02/2019 answer text <p>Recent assessments have been undertaken of the health effects of long-term exposure to the air pollution mixture in the United Kingdom. This was based on studies reporting associations of mortality risk with fine particulate matter (PM2.5), which includes PM1 and PM0.1, and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), available to view at the following link:</p><p> </p><p><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nitrogen-dioxide-effects-on-mortality" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nitrogen-dioxide-effects-on-mortality</a></p><p> </p><p>Public Health England funded a study to further extend the evidence base as to whether emissions from modern municipal waste incinerators (MWIs) affect human health. Study outputs concluded that the amount of particulate matter people are exposed to from MWI emissions is very low in Great Britain. The document can be viewed at the following link:</p><p> </p><p><a href="http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.6b06478" target="_blank">http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.6b06478</a></p><p> </p><p>No comparison has been made of PM emissions in areas with or without MWIs as overall they contribute very little to the emissions of particulate matter.</p> answering member constituency Winchester answering member printed Steve Brine question first answered 08/02/2019 12:30:49 answering member 4067 label Biography information for Steve Brine
tabling member	252 label Biography information for Dr David Drew

1054671

registered interest
date	04/02/2019
answering body	Department of Health and Social Care
answering dept id	17
answering dept short name	Health and Social Care
answering dept sort name	Health and Social Care
hansard heading	Incinerators: Health Hazards
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, pursuant to the Answer of 1 February 2019 to Question 212586 on Incinerators: Health Hazards, will he will publish the (a) reports and (b) evidence considered by Public Health England.
tabling member constituency	Stroud
tabling member printed	Dr David Drew
uin	216110
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 12/02/2019 answer text <p>The Public Health England (PHE) position statement published in 2009 outlines the basis of the conclusion that well run and regulated municipal waste incinerators are not a significant risk to public health.</p><p> </p><p>The evidence reviewed is outlined in the reference section of the position statement.</p><p> </p><p>PHE’s position statement is available to view at the following link:</p><p><strong> </strong></p><p><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/municipal-waste-incinerator-emissions-to-air-impact-on-health" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/municipal-waste-incinerator-emissions-to-air-impact-on-health</a></p> answering member constituency Winchester answering member printed Steve Brine question first answered 12/02/2019 11:52:19 answering member 4067 label Biography information for Steve Brine
tabling member	252 label Biography information for Dr David Drew

1054672

registered interest
date	04/02/2019
answering body	Department of Health and Social Care
answering dept id	17
answering dept short name	Health and Social Care
answering dept sort name	Health and Social Care
hansard heading	Incinerators: Health Hazards
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, pursuant to the Answer of 1 February 2018 to Question 212589 on Incinerators: Health Hazards, which reports provided via the url link in that Answer reference PM0.1 and PM1 emissions from incinerators.
tabling member constituency	Stroud
tabling member printed	Dr David Drew
uin	216111
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 12/02/2019 answer text <p>None of these assessments focus specifically on particulate matter emissions from incinerators.</p><p> </p><p>Public Health England’s (PHE’s) position is that well run and regulated modern municipal waste incinerators (MWIs) are not a significant risk to public health. This view is based on detailed assessments of the effects of air pollutants on health and the fact that modern and well managed MWIs make only a very small contribution to local concentrations of air pollutants.</p><p> </p><p>PHE will review its advice in light of new substantial research on the health effects of MWIs published in peer reviewed journals. To date, PHE is not aware of any evidence that requires a change in its position statement.</p> answering member constituency Winchester answering member printed Steve Brine question first answered 12/02/2019 11:54:06 answering member 4067 label Biography information for Steve Brine
tabling member	252 label Biography information for Dr David Drew