Linked Data API

Show Search Form

Search Results

1538520
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2022-11-02more like thismore than 2022-11-02
answering body
Department for Work and Pensions more like this
answering dept id 29 more like this
answering dept short name Work and Pensions more like this
answering dept sort name Work and Pensions more like this
hansard heading Universal Credit: Disqualification more like this
house id 1 more like this
legislature
25259
pref label House of Commons more like this
question text To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, whether his Department has undertaken modelling of the expected impact of raising the administrative earnings threshold on levels of sanctions imposed on Universal credit claimants. more like this
tabling member constituency Wirral South more like this
tabling member printed
Alison McGovern more like this
uin 77416 remove filter
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2022-11-07more like thismore than 2022-11-07
answer text <p>All requirements are set following discussion with the claimant, tailored to their capability and circumstances, making them realistic and achievable. They take account of health, caring responsibilities, ongoing work or volunteering and any earnings.</p><p> </p><p><strong> </strong></p><p>It is not possible to do modelling for the claimants who have been affected by the changes to the Administrative Earnings Threshold. This is because we cannot determine in advance if a claimant does not meet their requirements.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>People are only sanctioned if they fail to meet their agreed requirements without good reason.</p> more like this
answering member constituency Hexham more like this
answering member printed Guy Opperman more like this
question first answered
less than 2022-11-07T17:49:40.683Zmore like thismore than 2022-11-07T17:49:40.683Z
answering member
4142
label Biography information for Guy Opperman more like this
tabling member
4083
label Biography information for Alison McGovern more like this
1379858
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2021-11-18more like thismore than 2021-11-18
answering body
Ministry of Justice more like this
answering dept id 54 more like this
answering dept short name Justice more like this
answering dept sort name Justice more like this
hansard heading Judicial Review more like this
house id 1 more like this
legislature
25259
pref label House of Commons more like this
question text To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what progress he has made in reforming the law of judicial review. more like this
tabling member constituency Hendon more like this
tabling member printed
Dr Matthew Offord more like this
uin 77416 remove filter
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2021-11-26more like thismore than 2021-11-26
answer text <p>The Judicial Review and Courts Bill delivers on the Government’s manifesto commitment to ensure that judicial review is available to protect the rights of individuals against an overbearing state, while ensuring that it is not abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays.</p><p> </p><p>The Bill creates new powers for the courts to modify quashing orders in Judicial Review proceedings and improves the flexibility of the courts to provide proportionate remedies, increasing the tools in their toolbox.</p><p> </p><p>Specifically, the power to suspend a quashing order allows the courts to give time for transitional arrangements to be made, or give Parliament the opportunity to pass legislation in response to a decision to quash.</p><p> </p><p>The Bill also allows for the retrospective effect of quashing orders to be removed or limited. This measure allows the court to protect third parties that have relied on decisions in the past, and whose legal position may be compromised if that decision is quashed retrospectively.</p><p> </p><p>Finally, the Bill removes <em>Cart</em> judicial reviews, by way of a narrow and carefully worded ouster clause. We want to remove <em>Cart </em>reviews because the situation is, in the Government’s firm view, a disproportionate use of resources in our justice system. Out of around 750 applications a year only 3.4% are successful, and these cases take up around 180 days of precious judicial resource a year.</p><p> </p><p>The Bill finished its Commons Committee stage on 23 November.</p>
answering member constituency South Suffolk more like this
answering member printed James Cartlidge more like this
question first answered
less than 2021-11-26T14:58:10.59Zmore like thismore than 2021-11-26T14:58:10.59Z
answering member
4519
label Biography information for James Cartlidge more like this
tabling member
4006
label Biography information for Dr Matthew Offord more like this