Blog

  • Lord Patten – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Lord Patten – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

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

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon on 11 May (HL8205), whether they hold information on the number of single line tracks on passenger lines in their records; and if not, why not.

    Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

    The Department for Transport does not hold detailed records of track layouts. These records are held by the Infrastructure Operators. The information is provided to the Department on request and is also available in commercial map publications at specialist railway bookshops.

  • 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    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will place in the Library of the House the three unpublished industry studies of the safety of the herbicide glyphosate relied upon by the European Food Safety Authority when it reached its decision that glyphosate is not carcinogenic to humans, namely the 2001 study owned by the Israeli pesticides company ADAMA Agan Ltd Carcinogenicity Study with Glyphosate technical in Swiss Albino Mice, the 2009 study owned by the Australian pesticides company Nufarm Glyphosate technical: Dietary Carcinogenicity Study in the Mouse, and the 1997 study owned by the Japanese pesticides company Arysta Life Sciences HR-001: 18 month Oral Oncogenicity Study in Mice.

    Lord Gardiner of Kimble

    The European Food Safety Authority concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard in humans. This conclusion followed a very thorough consideration of a wide range of scientific data, including a number of studies on laboratory animals.

    The mouse carcinogenicity studies were performed by independent testing laboratories and comply with the applicable OECD test guideline and Good Laboratory Practice. Carcinogenicity studies in mice are among the many EU data requirements for pesticides, and help to establish whether or not an active substance in a pesticide has carcinogenic potential.

    Under the regulatory system for pesticides, studies are not published because of the danger that data may be wrongly used to support other rival applications for authorisation. However, requests to view the documents can be submitted to the Health and Safety Executive’s Chemicals Regulation Directorate and will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

  • 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 what is their assessment of the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) view that three unpublished industry-sponsored carcinogenicity studies on mice played an important role in informing EFSA’s decision that the herbicide glyphosate is not carcinogenic to humans.

    Lord Gardiner of Kimble

    The European Food Safety Authority concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard in humans. This conclusion followed a very thorough consideration of a wide range of scientific data, including a number of studies on laboratory animals.

    The mouse carcinogenicity studies were performed by independent testing laboratories and comply with the applicable OECD test guideline and Good Laboratory Practice. Carcinogenicity studies in mice are among the many EU data requirements for pesticides, and help to establish whether or not an active substance in a pesticide has carcinogenic potential.

    Under the regulatory system for pesticides, studies are not published because of the danger that data may be wrongly used to support other rival applications for authorisation. However, requests to view the documents can be submitted to the Health and Safety Executive’s Chemicals Regulation Directorate and will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 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 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 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 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.