Linked Data API

Show Search Form

Search Results

1133850
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2019-06-21more like thismore than 2019-06-21
answering body
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs more like this
answering dept id 13 more like this
answering dept short name Environment, Food and Rural Affairs more like this
answering dept sort name Environment, Food and Rural Affairs more like this
hansard heading Radioactive Waste more like this
house id 1 more like this
legislature
25259
pref label House of Commons more like this
question text To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment his Department has made of the environmental effects of the dumping of radioactive waste in Hurd Deep and Atlantic Deep as detailed in the Ministry of Defence archived document entitled British Isles Explosive Dumping Grounds. more like this
tabling member constituency Edinburgh North and Leith more like this
tabling member printed
Deidre Brock more like this
uin 267753 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer remove filter
answer text <p>Dumping of radioactive waste (before being banned under the London Convention of 1972 for highly contaminated and in 1993 for low contaminated waste) was subject to approval by the MAFF Approval Committee, whose procedures included careful checks on the containment and transport of the waste. Both the Hurd Deep and Atlantic Deep sites have been subject to monitoring.</p><p> </p><p><strong>Hurd Deep:</strong></p><p> </p><p>From 1946 to 1993, the UK disposed of amounts of both civilian and radioactive waste at sea, in accordance with national policy and legislation, and with later international agreements regulating such disposals. These disposals were seen at the time as routine and uncontroversial.</p><p> </p><p>The total estimated activities in curies (TBq) for these dumpings were: Alpha activity, 400 curies (14.8 TBq); Beta-Gamma activity, 1,200 curies (44.4 TBq). The very low active waste (mainly sludges) dumped into the Hurd Deep was packed in approved light metal drums to permit rapid dispersion of the contents. The UK regularly monitors the Channel Island States and report the results in the annually produced RIFE (Radioactivity in Food and the Environment) report series. These reports can be found here:</p><p><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/radioactivity-in-food-and-the-environment-rife-reports" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/radioactivity-in-food-and-the-environment-rife-reports</a></p><p> </p><p>In addition, Cefas and the Food Standards Agency have jointly published a peer reviewed paper (MARINE RADIOACTIVITY IN THE CHANNEL ISLANDS, 1990 – 2009) which looked further at time trends over around 20 years. UK monitoring shows that there is no evidence for significant releases of radioactivity from the Hurd Deep site and the effects of discharges from local sources have continued to be of negligible radiological significance.</p><p> </p><p><strong>North Atlantic Dump site:</strong></p><p> </p><p>The Nuclear Energy Agency’s (NEA) surveillance of the North-East Atlantic dump site used by OECD/NEA member countries (including the UK) started in 1977 and ended in 1995. In 1985, the OECD/NEA Co-ordinated Research and Environmental Surveillance Programme (CRESP) delivered a report on the dump site. The report concluded that the North-East Atlantic dump site posed negligible human radiological risk although the report noted that in the absence of baseline data on the benthic biology, it was difficult to draw firm conclusions about the environmental impacts. A new report on the dump site conducted by CRESP in 1996 reached the same conclusions.</p><p> </p><p>A summary of the “Historic Dumping of Low-Level Radioactive Waste in the North-East Atlantic” was recently compiled by the Radioactive Substances Committee of OSPAR. OSPAR’s document can be found here:</p><p><a href="https://www.ospar.org/site/assets/files/1173/factsheet_historic_dumping_final.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.ospar.org/site/assets/files/1173/factsheet_historic_dumping_final.pdf</a></p><p> </p>
answering member constituency Suffolk Coastal more like this
answering member printed Dr Thérèse Coffey more like this
question first answered
less than 2019-06-28T15:32:54.213Zmore like thismore than 2019-06-28T15:32:54.213Z
answering member
4098
label Biography information for Dr Thérèse Coffey more like this
tabling member
4417
label Biography information for Deidre Brock more like this
1133868
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2019-06-21more like thismore than 2019-06-21
answering body
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs more like this
answering dept id 13 more like this
answering dept short name Environment, Food and Rural Affairs more like this
answering dept sort name Environment, Food and Rural Affairs more like this
hansard heading Wood-burning Stoves more like this
house id 1 more like this
legislature
25259
pref label House of Commons more like this
question text To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whether the Government is reviewing the planning regulations on the installation of wood burning stove chimneys near residential properties as part of the ongoing review into domestic fuel burners. more like this
tabling member constituency Cheltenham more like this
tabling member printed
Alex Chalk more like this
uin 267761 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer remove filter
answer text <p>No. The focus is on the fuels used and guidance on how stoves should be best used.</p> more like this
answering member constituency Suffolk Coastal more like this
answering member printed Dr Thérèse Coffey more like this
question first answered
less than 2019-06-28T15:44:57.997Zmore like thismore than 2019-06-28T15:44:57.997Z
answering member
4098
label Biography information for Dr Thérèse Coffey more like this
tabling member
4481
label Biography information for Alex Chalk more like this
1133670
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2019-06-20more like thismore than 2019-06-20
answering body
Ministry of Justice more like this
answering dept id 54 more like this
answering dept short name Justice more like this
answering dept sort name Justice more like this
hansard heading Criminal Injuries Compensation more like this
house id 1 more like this
legislature
25259
pref label House of Commons more like this
question text To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 9 May 2019 to Question 248641, what criteria the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority uses to determine who cannot afford the cost of providing initial medical evidence up to a maximum cost of £50. more like this
tabling member constituency Ashfield more like this
tabling member printed
Gloria De Piero more like this
uin 267308 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer remove filter
answer text <p>The criteria used by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority in determining whether an applicant cannot afford the cost of obtaining medical evidence is outlined in its internal guidance. This states:</p><p> </p><p><em>If the applicant tells us they cannot afford to obtain medical evidence we may meet the cost of doing so and deduct it from any award we make, up to a maximum of £50. However, before we do so you should ask the applicant for evidence of their inability to meet the cost. You should consider all the relevant circumstances in deciding whether you accept the applicant cannot afford to pay for the medical evidence. Some factors you should consider include: </em></p><p> </p><p><em>• whether they are relying solely on any of the benefits listed </em>[as Jobseeker’s Allowance or low-income benefits on gov.uk]<em>; </em></p><p> </p><p><em>• whether they have a low income and are in receipt of any of the tax credits as listed </em>[on gov.uk]</p><p> </p><p><em>• whether they earn less than the minimum amount needed to qualify for Statutory Sick Pay as evidenced by a pay statement or letter from their employer or, if self-employed, copies of their most recent tax returns; or </em></p><p> </p><p><em>• whether they are struggling to manage significant debts, bankruptcy or insolvency.</em></p><p> </p>
answering member constituency Charnwood more like this
answering member printed Edward Argar more like this
question first answered
less than 2019-06-28T15:11:28.693Zmore like thisremove minimum value filter
answering member
4362
label Biography information for Edward Argar more like this
tabling member
3915
label Biography information for Gloria De Piero more like this
1132402
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2019-06-17more like thismore than 2019-06-17
answering body
Ministry of Justice more like this
answering dept id 54 more like this
answering dept short name Justice more like this
answering dept sort name Justice more like this
hansard heading Criminal Injuries Compensation more like this
house id 1 more like this
legislature
25259
pref label House of Commons more like this
question text To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, since 2010 how many claims have been rejected by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority because the application was made more than two years following the criminal incident. more like this
tabling member constituency Leeds East more like this
tabling member printed
Richard Burgon more like this
uin 265569 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer remove filter
answer text <p>The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012 (the Scheme), which was approved by Parliament, sets out the time limits in which applications must be received by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA). The CICA publishes data about the number of claims rejected for being out with the time limit in its annual reports and accounts at: <a href="https://www.gov.uk/search/transparency-and-freedom-of-information-releases?organisations%5B%5D=criminal-injuries-compensation-authority&amp;parent=criminal-injuries-compensation-authority" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/search/transparency-and-freedom-of-information-releases?organisations%5B%5D=criminal-injuries-compensation-authority&amp;parent=criminal-injuries-compensation-authority</a></p><p> </p><p>In the 2017-18 annual report and accounts, this data was presented as a proportion of all refusal reasons used. The number of cases refused for being submitted out with the time limit was 1252.</p><p> </p><p>The figures published in the annual reports and accounts show the number of times each rejection reason was used. For some applications there will have been more than one reason for rejection. This means that the total number of reasons for rejection is higher than the actual number of claims refused.</p>
answering member constituency Charnwood more like this
answering member printed Edward Argar more like this
question first answered
less than 2019-06-28T15:44:40.367Zmore like thismore than 2019-06-28T15:44:40.367Z
answering member
4362
label Biography information for Edward Argar more like this
tabling member
4493
label Biography information for Richard Burgon more like this