Author: admin

  • Lord Judd – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Lord Judd – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Judd on 2016-05-19.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what arrangements they have made to use their discretionary powers under the Dublin III Regulations to take charge of the asylum applications of any mothers or fathers with children who are seeking to reunite with family members in the UK.

    Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

    The Dublin III Regulation sets out the criteria for determining responsibility for asylum cases and using discretionary powers. The procedures for dealing with an asylum seeker in Calais, including an unaccompanied child, are for the French authorities to determine, in line with their obligations under the Regulation. We are committed to making the Dublin Regulation work effectively and are in ongoing discussions with France, Italy and Greece to ensure that the right processes and resources are in place to enable this. We are also working with other EU Member States, the UNHCR and other non-governmental organisations and local authorities in the UK to establish the best way to implement the provisions of the Immigration Act 2016 for the transfer of unaccompanied refugee children from elsewhere in the EU to the UK.

  • Lord Judd – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Lord Judd – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Judd on 2016-05-19.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking, in Calais and throughout Europe, to enhance the processes for identifying children with rights to family reunion in the UK.

    Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

    The UK and France are running regular joint communication campaigns in northern France which inform unaccompanied children and others of their right to claim asylum in France and of the family reunion process. The frequency of these campaigns has been increased in line with the Joint Declaration signed in August 2015. Since February 2016 more than 20 children have been transferred to the UK from France and there are many other cases in train.

    75 UK personnel will be deployed to Greece to support implementation of the EU-Turkey Migration Agreement. Supporting the operation of the Greek asylum system is a fundamental part of our approach to identifying individuals in need of protection at the earliest opportunity, including those who may be eli-gible for family reunification under the Dublin Regulation. We are also providing bilateral support to the Dublin Unit in Italy.

  • Lord Judd – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Lord Judd – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Judd on 2016-05-19.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether improving the accessibility and clarity of the rules covering family reunion, and ensuring that those rules were more flexibility applied, would prevent perilous journeys being undertaken by children seeking asylum in the UK.

    Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

    Our family reunion policy is intended to allow immediate family members, who formed part of a family unit before the refugee fled their country, to reunite in the UK with the refugee and rebuild their lives together. Those family members can apply from the country in which they are resident.

  • Lord Judd – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    Lord Judd – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Judd on 2016-05-19.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they are making in identifying the most geologically suitable site for the future storage of nuclear waste.

    Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth

    The 2014 Implementing Geological Disposal White Paper set out three initial actions for Government and the developer (Radioactive Waste Management) to provide greater clarity on issues such as geology, development impacts and community representation.

    In April 2016 Radioactive Waste Management (RWM) published National Geological Screening Guidance which sets out how they intend to bring together, present and provide authoritative and existing information on UK geology relevant to the long term safety of a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF).

    RWM are applying this Guidance and have started gathering existing information on the UK’s geology which will help communities across England, Wales and Northern Ireland better understand their potential suitability to host a GDF. It will not, however, determine if a particular location, region or area can definitively host a GDF.

    Formal engagement between the developer and potential host communities will start in 2017 once the Government and RWM have delivered the initial actions, including the national geological screening outputs. Good progress is being made in the short term with a clear long term goal of delivering safe and secure final disposal of all our radioactive waste.

  • Lord Judd – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    Lord Judd – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Judd on 2016-05-19.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they are making in identifying the most appropriate means for the short- and medium-term storage of lethal and hazardous nuclear waste.

    Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth

    The UK Government has clear policies for the safe and secure short and long–term management of radioactive waste.

    The UK Government published a Policy Statement for the management of Low Level Waste (LLW) in 2007. In accordance with it an updated UK Nuclear Industry LLW Strategy was published by DECC in February 2016. It requires the application of the waste management hierarchy. It means disposal of LLW should be a last resort and waste avoidance, recycling and reuse of waste should be considered first. This will preserve capacity in the UK’s national LLW repository in West Cumbria so it can continue to dispose of the highest priority LLW only.

    The policy for higher activity waste is contained in the Implementing Geological Disposal White Paper published by DECC in 2014. The policy is that higher activity waste from nuclear facilities will be held in safe and secure interim storage facilities on nuclear licensed sites until a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) is available for final disposal.

  • Lord Laird – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    Lord Laird – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2016-05-19.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and others who live for part of the week in Northern Ireland can avail themselves fully of parity of esteem, and if not, what parts of the concept of parity of esteem they are unable to avail themselves of.

    Lord Dunlop

    This Government understands the concept of parity of esteem, as set out in the 1998 Belfast Agreement, as placing a general obligation on the UK Government to treat people of different traditions in Northern Ireland fairly and with equal respect. In the Agreement it is clearly expressed and defined in relation to people living in Northern Ireland.

    As a general obligation there is no definition of particular circumstances in which it does or does not apply.

    As I have set out in previous replies to the Noble Lord, this Government is firm in its commitment to the protection of people against any form of discrimination, and the promotion of opportunity for all, across the whole of our United Kingdom.

    In respect of the Noble Lord’s question about those who might march wearing army uniforms but who are not members of an army, the concept of parity of esteem clearly does not absolve people from upholding the law. This Government has made clear many times that we will never accept any form of equivalence between members of the security forces and those who engage in terrorism or other forms of paramilitary activity.

  • Lord Laird – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    Lord Laird – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2016-05-19.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government who defines parity of esteem as required by the Belfast Agreement 1998; how it is defined; whether it is possible to change the definition; and if so, how.

    Lord Dunlop

    ‘Parity of esteem’ is expressed and defined in the 1998 Belfast Agreement in relation to people living in Northern Ireland. That Agreement was reached following talks between the then UK Labour Government, several of Northern Ireland’s political parties – including the Ulster Unionist Party, Sinn Fein and others – and the then Irish Government. This Government sees parity of esteem as treating everybody in Northern Ireland fairly, with equal respect, just as it is committed to treating people fairly and with equal respect wherever they live in the United Kingdom.

  • Lord Laird – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    Lord Laird – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2016-05-19.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the concept of parity of esteem as outlined by the Belfast Agreement 1998 applies to those who march on the streets of Northern Ireland in army uniforms but are not members of the army, in the same ways as to members of the recognised security forces.

    Lord Dunlop

    This Government understands the concept of parity of esteem, as set out in the 1998 Belfast Agreement, as placing a general obligation on the UK Government to treat people of different traditions in Northern Ireland fairly and with equal respect. In the Agreement it is clearly expressed and defined in relation to people living in Northern Ireland.

    As a general obligation there is no definition of particular circumstances in which it does or does not apply.

    As I have set out in previous replies to the Noble Lord, this Government is firm in its commitment to the protection of people against any form of discrimination, and the promotion of opportunity for all, across the whole of our United Kingdom.

    In respect of the Noble Lord’s question about those who might march wearing army uniforms but who are not members of an army, the concept of parity of esteem clearly does not absolve people from upholding the law. This Government has made clear many times that we will never accept any form of equivalence between members of the security forces and those who engage in terrorism or other forms of paramilitary activity.

  • Lord Lexden – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Lord Lexden – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Lexden on 2016-05-19.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many Acts of Parliament have been passed since 2010; and how many of those have not been implemented.

    Lord Bridges of Headley

    212 Government and non-Government Bills have been passed by the United Kingdom Parliament since 2010. The Government monitors implementation of its policy commitments rather than individual legislative measures.

  • The Countess of Mar – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The Countess of Mar – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Countess of Mar on 2016-05-19.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the group led by Tom Rigby can expect a response to their question about the advice that was received by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food from the Health and Safety Executive and the National Poisons Unit immediately prior to the end of compulsory dipping following the Revocation Order of 4 June 1992.

    Lord Gardiner of Kimble

    Defra officials have been investigating this issue since the meeting with the Sheep Dip Sufferers Group in November and sent information to Tom Rigby on 26 May.

    The information follows up the actions from the meeting and includes news releases from MAFF and the Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) from 1992 and 1993. These explain why the decision was taken to end compulsory dipping, and the conclusions of the VPC reviews of organophosphate sheep dips at the time.

    A note of agreed actions from the meeting was also provided.