Early Day Motions
Through the EDM Web Server
one can find all of the current Early Day Motions. I have "sponsored" 7 which means I have written 7 and proposed them and others have seconded them.
I am working on a database of EDMs with comments to enable me to work out which others to support. In the mean time I have signed a couple.
I put two more EDMS in Yesterday. One related to Family Tax Credit (the same issue as below). The Employments Right Act 1996
has been pointed out to me. This act basically means that before an employer can deduct overpayments from wages "there is a general rule that an employer must not act in such a way as to undermine the employment relationship or to breach trust and confidence. In the light of this general duty, the best advice for an employer is to discuss the overpayment with the employee and propose repayment over a reasonable period of time depending upon the size of overpayment and the period over which it occurred."
In other words although an employer needs to discuss and ideally agree deductions before making them the government does not need to do the same in relation of deduction of over paid Family Tax Credit.
The other EDM is about Iatrogenic Diseases (MRSA, Difficile etc) calling for more disinfectant to replace detergent.
Checking Hansard I don't seem to have any written answers yesterday. However, I did definitely get some on paper. The departments post them in internal mail. Which is a real nuisance as I would much prefer an Email. It is also difficult to track where they go in Hansard as that does not seem to correlate either.
I have one of my researchers doing a question and answer reconciliation to find out which questions the government has failed to answer. One I can remember is when the government expects global crude oil production to peak. No answer yet.
I have also managed to identify some logical inconsistencies in the government's position. One is in relation to Carbon emissions and Air Traffic growth. Although the government ignore international air flight (inconsistency 1), there is a need to constrain growth in carbon emissions from here. This is an important consituency issue as people living in Sheldon are blighted by the possibility of a second runway. What I need to prove is that the second runway will never happen and then the blight will be removed.
I have received some interesting answers recently, but for most of them I need to wait until they are on the net before commenting here.
One is that it appears that the marked registers for Woking Constituency have been lost. (Answer they are trying to find them.)