Tag: Lord Tebbit

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Tebbit on 2016-03-02.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether any (1) minister, (2) official, or (3) ministerial special adviser, importuned any persons to sign letters concerning the European Referendum or the consequences of a national vote for leaving the EU in national newspapers; and if so, (a) how many were importuned, (b) how many signed, and (c) how many declined to do so.

Lord Bridges of Headley

I refer the Noble Lord to the Prime Minister’s oral response to the Hon Member for Mid Bedfordshire on 22 February 2016: Column 32.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Tebbit on 2016-03-17.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Bridges of Headley on 16 March (HL6672), whether the respective Codes of Conduct for (1) ministers, (2) officials, and (3) special advisers, allow them to draft letters to be signed by retired military officers or business people and then published in national newspapers.

Lord Bridges of Headley

The respective Codes of Conduct for Ministers, officials and special advisers make clear the role of these individuals in developing and implementing Government policies.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Tebbit on 2016-03-16.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Bridges of Headley on 14 March (HL6673), whether Mr Hopkins importuned any persons to sign letters to national newspapers concerning the European Referendum or the consequences of a national vote for leaving the EU; and if so, how many (1) were importuned, (2) signed, and (3) declined to do so.

Lord Bridges of Headley

I refer the Noble Lord to the Prime Minister’s answer to the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries) on 22 February 2016, Official Report, column 32. As set out in the Civil Service Code, it is the role of the civil service to support the Government of the day in developing and implementing its policies.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Tebbit on 2016-03-23.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many people held in Immigration Control Centres are not free to leave to go to other jurisdictions.

Lord Keen of Elie

There are no countries to which, as a matter of immigration policy, the Home Office does not return people if they wish to return voluntarily.

There may be a small number of people who might be detained for immigration purposes who are not free to leave the jurisdiction of the UK because, for example, of ongoing criminal proceedings but this is not centrally recorded.

For those being detained with a view to removal, detention may continue lawfully only for as long as there is a realistic prospect of removal within a reasonable period of time. Home Office guidance is clear that detention must be used sparingly and for the shortest period reasonably necessary to achieve its purpose.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Tebbit on 2016-03-23.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the levels of pollution in (1) drinking water, (2) river water, and (3) coastal waters, caused by chemicals used in medications which are resistant to present purification techniques

Lord Gardiner of Kimble

The Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) published research in 2012 to assess the levels of pollution caused by a range of pharmaceuticals and illicit drugs found in source waters, such as rivers, abstracted for drinking water and the comparative levels after water treatment. Over a year, substances were measured at four sites. Results agreed with similar studies and concentrations in English surface waters are generally low and below 1 microgramme per litre (1 μg/L). Levels of pharmaceuticals and drugs in drinking waters after treatment were generally significantly lower than those found in surface waters. This indicates that the drinking water treatment systems used in England and Wales are effective at removing these contaminants. The study concluded that the presence of low levels of pharmaceuticals and illicit drugs in drinking waters in England and Wales do not pose an appreciable risk to human health.

There is evidence that widely used pharmaceuticals are detected at low concentrations in sewage effluent and receiving surface waters. Due to a lack of good quality toxicity data for many of these substances to assess reliably risks to aquatic wildlife that may be exposed to them, research is underway in the UK, at European level and by the pharmaceutical industry to characterise the risks better. This includes a Chemical Investigations Programme, undertaken by England’s water companies, where significant investment is being made to investigate around 20 substances from 2015-2017. Reported data will improve our understanding of the contamination of surface waters due to these chemicals and information will contribute to assessment of the risk posed to, or via the aquatic environment.

In addition, the UK is participating in a European monitoring network of surface water sites on a ‘watch list’ of contaminants and pharmaceuticals, including the active ingredient of the contraceptive pill, EE2. The Devolved Administrations are doing something similar. Data will inform the Commission’s selection of future priority substances requiring control, and the chemical status of the EU’s surface waters with respect to these chemicals.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Tebbit on 2016-03-23.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the possible role of the contraceptive chemical E22, which is resistant to water purification techniques, in the increase in number of freshwater and coastal water fish bearing both male and female sexual organs.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble

In the UK, environmental regulators, scientific experts and the water industry have been researching the link between the synthetic steroid, 17α-ethinyloestradiol (EE2, used in human oral contraception) and fish populations to understand the role of endocrine disrupting chemicals on the reproductive physiology of fish. Most work has focused on EE2 which has been measured in some of our rivers and downstream of sewage treatment works (STWs); this matches findings in other countries.

Based on scientific evidence from the UK and in Europe, there is reasonable certainty that very low concentrations of EE2 can cause feminisation (intersex condition) in male fish. The incidence of intersex seems to relate to the size of the STWs and the dilution ability of receiving waters. In the UK, fish inhabit comparatively small-sized rivers where limited dilution of EE2 occurs. Conventional STWs can remove EE2 from sewage, but not to the very low levels of less than one nanogramme per litre (ng/L) where no endocrine disrupting effects are predicted. In some cases the impact on fish populations remains unclear, and some affected populations appear to be self-sustaining.

In 2014, EE2 was included on the European Commission’s ‘watch list’ under the Water Framework Directive to gather information on its occurrence in surface waters across the European Union. Data will be reported by the UK and other Member States, and reviewed by the Commission throughout 2017 to assess whether this pharmaceutical is to be prioritised for monitoring and control and is to be included in future versions of the Directive.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Tebbit on 2016-03-23.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many people held in Immigration Control Centres are not free to leave to go to other jurisdictions.

Lord Keen of Elie

There are no countries to which, as a matter of immigration policy, the Home Office does not return people if they wish to return voluntarily.

There may be a small number of people who might be detained for immigration purposes who are not free to leave the jurisdiction of the UK because, for example, of ongoing criminal proceedings but this is not centrally recorded.

For those being detained with a view to removal, detention may continue lawfully only for as long as there is a realistic prospect of removal within a reasonable period of time. Home Office guidance is clear that detention must be used sparingly and for the shortest period reasonably necessary to achieve its purpose.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Tebbit on 2016-03-23.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the levels of pollution in (1) drinking water, (2) river water, and (3) coastal waters, caused by chemicals used in medications which are resistant to present purification techniques

Lord Gardiner of Kimble

The Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) published research in 2012 to assess the levels of pollution caused by a range of pharmaceuticals and illicit drugs found in source waters, such as rivers, abstracted for drinking water and the comparative levels after water treatment. Over a year, substances were measured at four sites. Results agreed with similar studies and concentrations in English surface waters are generally low and below 1 microgramme per litre (1 μg/L). Levels of pharmaceuticals and drugs in drinking waters after treatment were generally significantly lower than those found in surface waters. This indicates that the drinking water treatment systems used in England and Wales are effective at removing these contaminants. The study concluded that the presence of low levels of pharmaceuticals and illicit drugs in drinking waters in England and Wales do not pose an appreciable risk to human health.

There is evidence that widely used pharmaceuticals are detected at low concentrations in sewage effluent and receiving surface waters. Due to a lack of good quality toxicity data for many of these substances to assess reliably risks to aquatic wildlife that may be exposed to them, research is underway in the UK, at European level and by the pharmaceutical industry to characterise the risks better. This includes a Chemical Investigations Programme, undertaken by England’s water companies, where significant investment is being made to investigate around 20 substances from 2015-2017. Reported data will improve our understanding of the contamination of surface waters due to these chemicals and information will contribute to assessment of the risk posed to, or via the aquatic environment.

In addition, the UK is participating in a European monitoring network of surface water sites on a ‘watch list’ of contaminants and pharmaceuticals, including the active ingredient of the contraceptive pill, EE2. The Devolved Administrations are doing something similar. Data will inform the Commission’s selection of future priority substances requiring control, and the chemical status of the EU’s surface waters with respect to these chemicals.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Tebbit on 2016-03-23.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the possible role of the contraceptive chemical E22, which is resistant to water purification techniques, in the increase in number of freshwater and coastal water fish bearing both male and female sexual organs.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble

In the UK, environmental regulators, scientific experts and the water industry have been researching the link between the synthetic steroid, 17α-ethinyloestradiol (EE2, used in human oral contraception) and fish populations to understand the role of endocrine disrupting chemicals on the reproductive physiology of fish. Most work has focused on EE2 which has been measured in some of our rivers and downstream of sewage treatment works (STWs); this matches findings in other countries.

Based on scientific evidence from the UK and in Europe, there is reasonable certainty that very low concentrations of EE2 can cause feminisation (intersex condition) in male fish. The incidence of intersex seems to relate to the size of the STWs and the dilution ability of receiving waters. In the UK, fish inhabit comparatively small-sized rivers where limited dilution of EE2 occurs. Conventional STWs can remove EE2 from sewage, but not to the very low levels of less than one nanogramme per litre (ng/L) where no endocrine disrupting effects are predicted. In some cases the impact on fish populations remains unclear, and some affected populations appear to be self-sustaining.

In 2014, EE2 was included on the European Commission’s ‘watch list’ under the Water Framework Directive to gather information on its occurrence in surface waters across the European Union. Data will be reported by the UK and other Member States, and reviewed by the Commission throughout 2017 to assess whether this pharmaceutical is to be prioritised for monitoring and control and is to be included in future versions of the Directive.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Tebbit on 2015-11-26.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Gardiner of Kimble on 16 November (HL3254), what is the UK share of the Common Agricultural Policy budget for 2015 in percentage and cash terms respectively.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble

In 2015, the UK was allocated 7% of the Common Agricultural Policy budget which is equivalent to €4 billion.