Tag: Lord Tebbit

  • Lord Tebbit – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Lord Tebbit – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    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.

  • Lord Tebbit – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Lord Tebbit – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    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.

  • Lord Tebbit – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Lord Tebbit – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    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.

  • Lord Tebbit – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Tebbit – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Tebbit on 2015-02-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Anelay of St Johns on 5 February (HL4559), whether they consider it to be in the interests of the United Kingdom to remain in the European Union in its existing form of membership.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    The UK’s membership of the European Union brings many benefits to the UK, including jobs and investment, free access to the largest common market in the world and a strong collective voice to negotiate free trade agreements. EU Membership also gives the UK greater international influence on global threats such as climate change and Ebola. The Government’s position remains clear: the EU must reform to become more competitive, democratically accountable and fair for those inside and outside the Eurozone. The need for reform is widely recognised among EU Member States and the Government has already shown that it is possible, through our success in cutting the EU budget, reforming the Common Fisheries Policy, reducing the burden of EU regulation on business and ending the UK’s bailout obligations.

  • Lord Tebbit – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Lord Tebbit – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Tebbit on 2014-06-04.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their total expenditure on financial support for organisations which lobby them on government policy.

    Lord Wallace of Saltaire

    The information requested is not held centrally. Government Departments fund and contract with various organisations. It would be a matter for the relevant Department to determine whether any of these organisations lobby the government inappropriately.

  • Lord Tebbit – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Lord Tebbit – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Tebbit on 2014-06-04.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many people have been killed in the United Kingdom since 1984 by persons previously convicted of homicide.

    Lord Faulks

    A life sentence is mandatory on conviction for murder and a whole life order starting point applies to a murder by an offender previously convicted of murder. Discretionary life sentences or long determinate sentences are available for other very serious offences. This Government has introduced an automatic life sentence for a second very serious violent or sexual offence.

    The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) holds information on those persons convicted of homicide offences having previously been convicted of a homicide offence. However, the MOJ does not hold information centrally on the number of homicide victims associated with these crimes.

    The table shows the number of offenders with previous convictions for homicide by offenders convicted of homicide in each year from 2001 to 2013. Homicide includes among others, the offences of murder, manslaughter, infanticide, corporate manslaughter and causing death by dangerous and careless driving. See footnote 3 for all types of homicides.

    The MoJ’s extract of the Police National Computer only holds the complete criminal records of offenders who have been sentenced or cautioned since the beginning of 2000, Therefore it is not possible to provide criminal history time series information all the way back to 1984.

    The figures given in the table have been drawn from the extract of Police National Computer (PNC) data held by the Ministry of Justice. As with any large scale recording system the PNC is subject to possible errors with data entry and processing. The figures are provisional and subject to change as more information is recorded by the police.

  • Lord Tebbit – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Lord Tebbit – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Tebbit on 2014-03-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the total yearly extra cost to schools of educating children whose first language is not English.

    Lord Nash

    We do not collect this data centrally. It is for individual schools to decide how much extra they choose to spend on educating pupils whose first language is not English.

    Through their local funding formulas, local authorities may allocate funding to schools on the basis of the number of pupils in the school who speak English as an additional language and entered the state school system in the past three years. Local authorities allocated £233 million in this way in 2013-14. The funding is not ring-fenced within a school’s budget so this figure may not be a reliable indicator of actual spending.

  • Lord Tebbit – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    Lord Tebbit – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Tebbit on 2014-04-08.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to widen the terms of reference of the independent review of the operation and extent of the administrative scheme for dealing with so-called on the runs” to cover the question of what understandings or guarantees of immunity from prosecution may have been given to facilitate the talks leading to a ceasefire by IRA/Sinn Fein and to the Belfast Agreement.”

    Lord Bates

    The Prime Minister set out the terms of reference for Lady Justice Hallett’s review on 27 February. How those terms of reference are delivered is a question for Lady Justice Hallett, who has full access to government officials and documentation in order to fulfil her remit.

  • Lord Tebbit – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Tebbit – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Tebbit on 2014-04-08.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to instigate an inquiry into possible links between the 1999 NATO bombing of Serbia and the incidence of leukaemia and cancer in that country.

    Baroness Warsi

    We do not plan to instigate an inquiry into possible links between the 1999 North Atlantic Treaty Organisation air operation in the former Republic of Yugoslavia and any incidence of leukaemia and cancer in Serbia. An assessment by the UN Environment Programme in 2002 found no evidence of harm by depleted uranium weapons.

  • Lord Tebbit – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Tebbit – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Tebbit on 2014-04-08.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Warsi on 2 April (WA 195), whether either they, or the European Union, employ a formal definition of the word Europe”.”

    Baroness Warsi

    The UK does not employ a formal definition of the word “Europe” and we are not aware of the EU Institutions employing a formal definition of the word “Europe” either.