Matt Hancock has unveiled a government concession giving MPs a say in future “significant national measures” to tackle the coronavirus pandemic, including holding votes wherever possible.
In response to mounting frustration over the introduction of new Covid-19 rules and a lack of parliamentary oversight, the health secretary said he had listened to concerns raised by dozens of backbench Conservatives, who had threatened a rebellion.
His comments followed the dramatic intervention from Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Commons speaker, who rebuked Boris Johnson’s government for treating parliament with “contempt” and pushing through sweeping restrictions in a “totally unsatisfactory” way.
During a press conference at Downing Street on Wednesday evening, the prime minister also warned he would “not hesitate” to impose further national restrictions if the evidence from scientific advisers required it.
Opening a debate on the Coronavirus Act, which provides ministers with the powers to enact draconian
Federal employees and their family members run into this situation, which unfortunately is not so uncommon. In planning for retirement, the federal employee seeks verification of the amount of money to be received upon retirement. In some cases, a government agent with the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) or other agency will notify the employee of a guaranteed sum of monthly pension benefits. There are even cases in which the government will make this promise to the employee in writing. When the employee retires however, the government argues that the promise was made in error and that employee is not in fact entitled to the promised amount.
An equally frustrating situation involves the employee’s family members, typically the employee’s spouse, who may be planning for her future upon the death of her husband. In some cases, the spouse will make inquiry to OPM to determine her survivorship benefits upon the … Read More