1-20 of 154 results for tabledby:"Michael Wheeler"
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.244 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.002 seconds
- Search query
- tabledby:"Michael Wheeler"
- We searched for
- tablingMember_ses:547064
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
More
Member
More
Primary member
Answering member
More
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, for what reason the Maritime and Coastguard Agency changed the operating model of the Coastguard Rescue Service to an unpaid model rather making changes necessary to reflect the Court of Appeal judgment in Maritime and Coastguard Agency v Martin Groom and bringing...
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, for what reason the Maritime and Coastguard Agency changed the operating model of the Coastguard Rescue Service to an unpaid model rather making changes necessary to reflect the Court of Appeal judgment in Maritime and Coastguard Agency v Martin Groom and bringing...
Plans to move the Coastguard Rescue Service to an expenses-only volunteer model in September will not go ahead, and current arrangements will remain in place. We will now take time to gather the robust information required to understand the full operational implications of future decisions, as well as the impact on individual Coastguard Rescue Officers and the choices they will make. This will involve engaging with CROs directly and ensuring that their views inform the decisions that we will take on the shape of the Coastguard Rescue Service.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, pursuant to the Answer of 11 June 2026 to Question 9197, and with reference to his Department's publication entitled Employment Rights Act 2025: economic analysis and enactment summary impact assessment, published 7 January 2026, for what policy reason the hours...
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, pursuant to the Answer of 11 June 2026 to Question 9197, and with reference to his Department's publication entitled Employment Rights Act 2025: economic analysis and enactment summary impact assessment, published 7 January 2026, for what policy reason the hours...
The government’s preference is for the hours threshold for the right to guaranteed hours to be between 8 and 20 hours per week, on the basis that options in this range are more likely to provide a favourable balance of costs and benefits. A baseline of 8 hours per week mitigates against potential avoidance behaviour of employers moving zero hours workers to contracts with a very low number of hours.
The consultation includes evidence from the Living Wage Foundation which shows that the percentage of workers working above contracted hours decreases with the number of contracted hours, with only around 19% of those with between 16-24 hours guaranteed working more hours than contracted.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, pursuant to the Answer of 11 June 2026 to Question 9197, and with reference to his Department's impact assessment entitled ZHCs - Right to Guaranteed Hours, published 21 October 2024, for what policy reason the hours threshold for the right...
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, pursuant to the Answer of 11 June 2026 to Question 9197, and with reference to his Department's impact assessment entitled ZHCs - Right to Guaranteed Hours, published 21 October 2024, for what policy reason the hours threshold for the right...
The government’s preference is for the hours threshold for the right to guaranteed hours to be between 8 and 20 hours per week, on the basis that options in this range are more likely to provide a favourable balance of costs and benefits. A baseline of 8 hours per week mitigates against potential avoidance behaviour of employers moving zero hours workers to contracts with a very low number of hours.
The consultation includes evidence from the Living Wage Foundation which shows that the percentage of workers working above contracted hours decreases with the number of contracted hours, with only around 19% of those with between 16-24 hours guaranteed working more hours than contracted.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, pursuant to the Answer of 11 June 2026 to Question 9197 and with reference to page 19, paragraph 62 of his Department's impact assessment entitled ZHCs - Right to Guaranteed Hours, published 21 October 2024, if he will publish the...
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, pursuant to the Answer of 11 June 2026 to Question 9197 and with reference to page 19, paragraph 62 of his Department's impact assessment entitled ZHCs - Right to Guaranteed Hours, published 21 October 2024, if he will publish the...
The government has published the 2024 guaranteed hours impact assessment, including the results of the sensitivity analysis referred to in paragraph 62. The impact assessment made clear that many policy details, including eligibility and the process for making offers, would be set in secondary legislation following consultation. To account for this uncertainty, the impact assessment undertook sensitivity analysis in line with the Green Book, varying key assumptions around the potential population in scope and the time employers would take to familiarise with and implement the obligations associated with the right, as well as track hours and formalise guaranteed hours offers.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, pursuant to the Answer of 11 June 2026 to Question 9197, and with reference to page 19, paragraph 62 of his Department's impact assessment entitled ZHCs - Right to Guaranteed Hours, published 21 October 2024, what the key assumptions in...
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, pursuant to the Answer of 11 June 2026 to Question 9197, and with reference to page 19, paragraph 62 of his Department's impact assessment entitled ZHCs - Right to Guaranteed Hours, published 21 October 2024, what the key assumptions in...
The 2024 guaranteed hours impact assessment clarifies that many policy details, including eligibility and the process for making offers, would be set in secondary legislation following consultation. To account for this uncertainty, the impact assessment undertook sensitivity analysis in line with the Green Book, varying key assumptions around the potential population in scope and the time employers would take to familiarise with and, implement the obligations associated with the right, as well as track hours and formalise guaranteed hours offers. These assumptions are included within the impact assessment.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer of 3 June 2026 to Question 4646, how the Animals in Science Regulation Unit (ASRU) ensures statutory requirements are met in practice when granting generic licences for regulatory testing.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer of 3 June 2026 to Question 4646, how the Animals in Science Regulation Unit (ASRU) ensures statutory requirements are met in practice when granting generic licences for regulatory testing.
Trained Home Office Inspectors assess applications for animal research on a case-by-case basis. All such research must meet the rigorous legal and ethical requirements set out in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
The use of animals in scientific procedures is only authorised where the proposed work is for a permissible purpose and where the expected benefits to human health, animal health, and the environment, justify the harms to the animals involved. In all cases, the principles of the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction and Refinement) must be fully applied.
Inspectors consider the scientific purpose of the proposed studies, the regulatory questions they are intended to address, and whether suitable non-animal alternatives are available. These studies support the safe development and use of medicines and other products, meaning the benefits of the work are clearly defined in advance, even where the specific test substance is not known at the outset. In practice, inspectors may request additional information or amendments from applicants to ensure that harms to animals are minimised and that the scientific justification for the work is robust. Once authorised, work must remain within the scope, severity limits and conditions of the licence.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer of 3 June 2026 to Question 4648, what assessment her Department has made of whether the statutory Home Office guidance used by inspectors and the Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Bodies (AWERBs) requires an update to...
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer of 3 June 2026 to Question 4648, what assessment her Department has made of whether the statutory Home Office guidance used by inspectors and the Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Bodies (AWERBs) requires an update to...
The Home Office keeps guidance related to the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA) under review. Regular independent advice is obtained through commissioning the independent statutory advisory body – the Animals in Science Committee (ASC). The ASC has been commissioned to provide advice on strengthening the functioning of Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Bodies and also Named Information Officers. This advice is expected to inform future updates to guidance and regulatory standards, with a report expected later this year. The commission is available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/commission-on-awerbs-and-named-information-officer.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer of 3 June 2026 to Question 4646, how harm–benefit analysis is undertaken in relation to studies authorised under service licences where the specific substances are not specified in advance.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer of 3 June 2026 to Question 4646, how harm–benefit analysis is undertaken in relation to studies authorised under service licences where the specific substances are not specified in advance.
Trained Home Office Inspectors assess applications for animal research on a case-by-case basis. All such research must meet the rigorous legal and ethical requirements set out in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
The use of animals in scientific procedures is only authorised where the proposed work is for a permissible purpose and where the expected benefits to human health, animal health, and the environment, justify the harms to the animals involved. In all cases, the principles of the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction and Refinement) must be fully applied.
Inspectors consider the scientific purpose of the proposed studies, the regulatory questions they are intended to address, and whether suitable non-animal alternatives are available. These studies support the safe development and use of medicines and other products, meaning the benefits of the work are clearly defined in advance, even where the specific test substance is not known at the outset. In practice, inspectors may request additional information or amendments from applicants to ensure that harms to animals are minimised and that the scientific justification for the work is robust. Once authorised, work must remain within the scope, severity limits and conditions of the licence.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer of 3 June 2026 to Question 4646, what assessment she has made of whether the number of Animals in Science Regulation Unit inspectors is sufficient to scrutinise the scientific purpose of proposed studies under service licences...
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer of 3 June 2026 to Question 4646, what assessment she has made of whether the number of Animals in Science Regulation Unit inspectors is sufficient to scrutinise the scientific purpose of proposed studies under service licences...
The number of inspectors has recently been increased from an average of 14.5 inspectors in 2023 to 22 in 2026 following an assessment of the resource required for the Animals in Science Regulation Unit to meet its purpose and strengthen the regulatory system. The 3Rs, replacement, reduction and refinement, are a legal requirement under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and must be fully applied in every project involving the use of animals in science. Applicants must demonstrate consideration of the 3Rs before submission, and all applications are assessed by Home Office Inspectors to assure that no practicable non-animal alternatives exist, that animal numbers are minimised, and that methods are refined to reduce suffering. This assessment is supported by continuous scrutiny after a licence is granted. ASRU conducts announced and unannounced audits, reviewing records and practices to monitor the continually application of the 3Rs and that licence conditions remain appropriate. In November 2025, the Government published “Replacing animals in science: a strategy to support the development, validation and uptake of alternative methods”. This strategy includes commitments to improve regulatory confidence and acceptance of alternative methods to animal testing, including plans to establish a UK Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (UKCVAM) to help coordinate validation activity and facilitate engagement between policy makers, regulators, industry end users and alternative method developers. This strategy includes clear time-bound targets for the reduction of animals used in science. In addition, the National Centre for Replacement, Refinement and Reduction is scheduled to provide recommendations to the Home Office to enhance the project licence application form for undertaking research involving animals. This will include advice aimed at strengthening the evaluation of replacement strategies. |
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer of 3 June 2026 to Question 4646, what assessment her Department has made for the implications for her policies of page 14 of the The Animals in Science Committee’s Non-Human Primates Used in Service License publication...
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer of 3 June 2026 to Question 4646, what assessment her Department has made for the implications for her policies of page 14 of the The Animals in Science Committee’s Non-Human Primates Used in Service License publication...
The Government has considered the implications of the Animals in Science Committee’s advice, including the findings on page 14 of its October 2024 report on non-human primates used in service licences. The Minister for the Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) has formally responded to the Committee, and that response is available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/non-human-primates-used-in-service-licences-response-from-lord-hanson.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, with reference to his Department's consultation document entitled Make Work Pay: ending one-sided flexibility – reforms of zero hours and similar contracts, published on 2 June 2026, whether his Department assessed the relationship between each proposed hours threshold and the...
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, with reference to his Department's consultation document entitled Make Work Pay: ending one-sided flexibility – reforms of zero hours and similar contracts, published on 2 June 2026, whether his Department assessed the relationship between each proposed hours threshold and the...
The government has published a comprehensive assessment of the potential impacts from the zero hours contract measures in the Employment Rights Act 2025 and will publish further analysis in due course. This includes an assessment of the impact of the measures on low-paid workers.
The government’s preference is for the hours threshold for the right to guaranteed hours to be between 8 and 20 hours per week, on the basis that options in this range are more likely to provide a favourable balance of costs and benefits. A baseline of 8 hours per week mitigates against potential avoidance behaviour of employers moving zero hours workers to contracts with a very low number of hours. We believe that options up to 20 hours per week would be more likely to ensure that workers experiencing one-sided flexibility benefited from the right to guaranteed hours, while balancing the need to be proportionate in the costs to employers and the potential for unintended impacts.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, with reference to his Department’s consultation document entitled Make Work Pay: ending one-sided flexibility – reforms of zero hours and similar contracts, published on 2 June 2026, how many meetings with businesses his Department had when concluding the Government’s preference...
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, with reference to his Department’s consultation document entitled Make Work Pay: ending one-sided flexibility – reforms of zero hours and similar contracts, published on 2 June 2026, how many meetings with businesses his Department had when concluding the Government’s preference...
Ministers and officials have engaged extensively with business, trade unions and representative organisations on the zero hours measures in the Employment Rights Act 2025, informing the development of the consultation.
We have held over 13 individual meetings and more than 6 roundtables with businesses on these measures. We have held over 11 individual meetings and more than 4 roundtables with trade unions alongside wider engagement on Make Work Pay. We continue to meet regularly with business representative organisations and trade unions.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, with reference to his Department's consultation document entitled Make Work Pay: ending one-sided flexibility – reforms of zero hours and similar contracts, published on 2 June 2026, what definition his Department uses of "income security" for the purpose of determining...
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, with reference to his Department's consultation document entitled Make Work Pay: ending one-sided flexibility – reforms of zero hours and similar contracts, published on 2 June 2026, what definition his Department uses of "income security" for the purpose of determining...
Our focus is on giving income security to people who do not have it: particularly those with zero hours and similar contracts, who lack security and predictability.
The government’s preference is for the hours threshold for the right to guaranteed hours to be between 8 and 20 hours per week, on the basis that options in this range are more likely to provide a favourable balance of costs and benefits. A baseline of 8 hours per week mitigates against potential avoidance behaviour of employers moving zero hours workers to contracts with a very low number of hours. We believe that options up to 20 hours per week would be more likely to ensure that workers experiencing one-sided flexibility benefited from the right to guaranteed hours, while balancing the need to be proportionate in the costs to employers and the potential for unintended impacts.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, with reference to his Department's consultation document entitled Make Work Pay: ending one-sided flexibility – reforms of zero hours and similar contracts, published on 2 June 2026, what is the evidential basis for the Government's preference for those with more...
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, with reference to his Department's consultation document entitled Make Work Pay: ending one-sided flexibility – reforms of zero hours and similar contracts, published on 2 June 2026, what is the evidential basis for the Government's preference for those with more...
The government has published a comprehensive assessment of the potential impacts from the zero hours contract measures in the Employment Rights Act 2025 and will publish further analysis in due course.
The government’s preference for the hours threshold for the right to guaranteed hours is between 8 and 20 hours per week. A baseline of 8 hours per week mitigates against potential avoidance behaviour of employers while options up to 20 hours per week would be more likely to ensure that workers experiencing one-sided flexibility benefited from the right, while balancing the need to be proportionate in the costs to employers and the potential for unintended impacts.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, with reference to his Department’s consultation document entitled Make Work Pay: ending one-sided flexibility – reforms of zero hours and similar contracts, published on 2 June 2026, what is the evidential basis for the Government's preference for an hours threshold...
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, with reference to his Department’s consultation document entitled Make Work Pay: ending one-sided flexibility – reforms of zero hours and similar contracts, published on 2 June 2026, what is the evidential basis for the Government's preference for an hours threshold...
The government has published a comprehensive assessment of the potential impacts from the zero hours contract measures in the Employment Rights Act 2025 and will publish further analysis in due course.
The government’s preference is for the hours threshold for the right to guaranteed hours to be between 8 and 20 hours per week, on the basis that options in this range are more likely to provide a favourable balance of costs and benefits. A baseline of 8 hours per week mitigates against potential avoidance behaviour of employers moving zero hours workers to contracts with a very low number of hours. We believe that options up to 20 hours per week would be more likely to ensure that workers experiencing one-sided flexibility benefited from the right to guaranteed hours, while balancing the need to be proportionate in the costs to employers and the potential for unintended impacts.
To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what assessment her Department has made of the effectiveness of workplace lottery exemptions under the Gambling Act 2005 in enabling workplace sweepstakes associated with major sporting events in the context of increased remote and hybrid working.
To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what assessment her Department has made of the effectiveness of workplace lottery exemptions under the Gambling Act 2005 in enabling workplace sweepstakes associated with major sporting events in the context of increased remote and hybrid working.
Workplace lotteries and sweepstakes are a fun way of bringing people together to enjoy and engage with major sporting events.
We are aware that the legislation, as drafted, is arguably now somewhat out of date given the context of increased remote and hybrid working. We will look to amend it at the earliest opportunity, but in the meantime, we would encourage the spirit of the legislation to be adhered to.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, with reference to his Department’s consultation document entitled Make Work Pay: ending one-sided flexibility – reforms of zero hours and similar contracts, published on 2 June 2026, what cost-benefit analysis his Department has undertaken comparing thresholds of 8, 12, 16,...
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, with reference to his Department’s consultation document entitled Make Work Pay: ending one-sided flexibility – reforms of zero hours and similar contracts, published on 2 June 2026, what cost-benefit analysis his Department has undertaken comparing thresholds of 8, 12, 16,...
I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to Question 7810 on 12 June 2026.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, with reference to his Department’s consultation document entitled Make Work Pay: ending one-sided flexibility – reforms of zero hours and similar contracts, published on 2 June 2026, whether his Department has estimated the number of workers who would be excluded...
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, with reference to his Department’s consultation document entitled Make Work Pay: ending one-sided flexibility – reforms of zero hours and similar contracts, published on 2 June 2026, whether his Department has estimated the number of workers who would be excluded...
I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to Question 8243 on 15 June 2026.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, with reference to his Department’s consultation document entitled Make Work Pay: ending one-sided flexibility – reforms of zero hours and similar contracts, published on 2 June 2026, what meetings he had with businesses when determining how to maintain business flexibility.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, with reference to his Department’s consultation document entitled Make Work Pay: ending one-sided flexibility – reforms of zero hours and similar contracts, published on 2 June 2026, what meetings he had with businesses when determining how to maintain business flexibility.
I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to Question 7811 on 8 June 2026.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, with reference to his Department’s consultation document entitled Make Work Pay: ending one-sided flexibility – reforms of zero hours and similar contracts, published on 2 June 2026, whether the Government modelled the impact of a higher hours threshold than 20...
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, with reference to his Department’s consultation document entitled Make Work Pay: ending one-sided flexibility – reforms of zero hours and similar contracts, published on 2 June 2026, whether the Government modelled the impact of a higher hours threshold than 20...
The government has published a comprehensive assessment of the potential impacts from the zero hours contract measures in the Employment Rights Act 2025 and will publish further analysis in due course.
The government’s preference for the hours threshold for the right to guaranteed hours is between 8 and 20 hours per week. A baseline of 8 hours per week mitigates against potential avoidance behaviour of employers while options up to 20 hours per week would be more likely to ensure that workers experiencing one-sided flexibility benefited from the right, while balancing the need to be proportionate in the costs to employers and the potential for unintended impacts.