Show Search Form

Search Results

human indexable	true false
published	true false
registered interest	true false
answer date	exactly: or between: and
date	exactly: or between: and
date tabled	exactly: or between: and
ddp created	exactly: or between: and
answering body
question status
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
ddp modified
hansard heading
house id
identifier
legislature	pref label
parliament number
question first answered
question text
session
session number
tabling member printed
title
type
uin
version
written parliamentary question type
answer	answer text question first answered answering member
creator	label
publisher	pref label
tabling member	label

Search

1019270

	human indexable
	published
	registered interest
	answer date	17/12/2018
	date	03/12/2018
	date tabled	03/12/2018
	ddp created	03/12/2018 22:39:49
	answering body	The Senior Deputy Speaker
	question status	Tabled
	answering dept id	204
	answering dept short name
	answering dept sort name	Senior Deputy Speaker (HoL)
	ddp modified	03/12/2018 22:46:12 18/12/2018 13:30:04
	hansard heading	Bills: Parliamentary Scrutiny
	house id	2
	identifier	HL11959
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	parliament number	57
	question first answered	18/12/2018 12:58:07
	question text	To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker, further to the Government’s response to the report of the Constitution Committee, Parliament and the Legislative Process, published on 20 April 2005 (HL Paper 114), whether the Procedure Committee will consider the recommendation that bills should normally be committed after Second Reading to a committee empowered to take evidence.
	session	2017/19
	session number	1
	tabling member printed	Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
	title	House of Lords Tabled Parliamentary Question 2017/19 HL11959
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	HL11959
	version	1
	written parliamentary question type	Ordinary
	answer	answer answer text <p>In 2005, when it responded to the Constitution Committee’s report, Parliament and the Legislative Process, the Government was “not convinced that it would be appropriate to commit all bills which have not been scrutinised in draft to an evidence-taking committee after Second Reading but we are ready to consider this option in exceptional circumstances (and have done in the past).” <br> <br>I am aware that the idea that bills should normally be committed after Second Reading to a committee empowered to take evidence is under fresh consideration by the Constitution Committee as part of its current inquiry on the legislative process, stage 2 of which is covering the passage of legislation through Parliament. Written and oral evidence received as part of that inquiry is available here - https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/lords-select/constitution-committee/inquiries/parliament-2017/legislative-process/. I am looking forward to the Committee’s report and any recommendations it might make on this and other matters. The Procedure Committee will give it due consideration then.</p> question first answered 18/12/2018 12:58:07 answering member 4148
	creator	2024 label Biography information for Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
	publisher	25277 pref label House of Lords
	tabling member	2024 label Biography information for Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

1275474

	human indexable
	published
	registered interest
	answer date	25/01/2021
	date	11/01/2021
	date tabled	11/01/2021
	ddp created	11/01/2021 23:35:40
	answering body	Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
	question status	Tabled
	answering dept id	13
	answering dept short name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
	answering dept sort name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
	ddp modified	11/01/2021 23:45:16 25/01/2021 17:39:06
	hansard heading	Sugar Beet: Neonicotinoids
	house id	2
	identifier	HL11959
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	parliament number	58
	question first answered	25/01/2021 17:08:00
	question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the decision to approve a neonicotinoid pesticide for use on sugar beet seed on (1) the population numbers and population health of bees and other pollinators, (2) soil health and loss, (3) other insects, (4) fish and other water-dwelling species, and (5) other species of animals.
	session	2019/21
	session number	1
	tabling member printed	Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
	title	House of Lords Tabled Parliamentary Question 2019/21 HL11959
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	HL11959
	version	1
	written parliamentary question type	Ordinary
	answer	answer answer text <p>The process for considering emergency authorisation for a pesticide is derived from the legislation and includes consideration of potential risks to people and to the environment. This process was followed for application to use the neonicotinoid seed treatment Cruiser SB on sugar beet in 2021.</p><p> </p><p>The assessment of risks included consideration of risks to bees, other insects, soil organisms, fish, aquatic invertebrates, birds and mammals. Risks to bees were identified arising from soil residues taken up by flowering weeds or following crops. Mitigation measures were therefore built into the requirements of the emergency authorisation. These included a reduced application rate, effective control of weeds and minimum periods set between the planting of treated sugar beet and a subsequent flowering crop. For most crops this period was set at 22 months but a longer period of 32 months was chosen for oilseed rape as it is particularly attractive to bees</p> question first answered 25/01/2021 17:08:00 answering member 4161
	creator	4719 label Biography information for Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
	publisher	25277 pref label House of Lords
	tabling member	4719 label Biography information for Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle