Search Results

1-20 of 22 results for subject:Packaging

Show detailed: On Off

Results: 10 20 50 100

Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

Dept for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what recent discussions she has had with companies that use large quantities of food wrapping paper on (a) mechanisms to persuade customers not to cause litter and (b) using biodegradable materials to reduce litter.

Asked by

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative)

Answering body

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

7 April 2005

Reference

432 c1667-8W;432 c1663W; 224980

House

House of Commons

European Scrutiny Committee fifteenth report with minutes of proceedings. Nominal quantities for pre-packed products [[15570/2004]. Recommended for further consideration.

Type

Select Committee reports; House of Commons papers; Parliamentary committees

Committee

European Scrutiny Committee

Date

6 April 2005

Reference

HC 38-xv 2004/05

House

House of Commons

Merits of Statutory Instruments Select Committee (HL) on SI 2005/598, SI 2005/627, SI 2005/639, SI 2005/658, SI 2005/659, SI 2005/717.

Type

Select Committee reports; House of Lords papers; Parliamentary committees

Committee

Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee

Notes

Received 11.04.2005

Date

5 April 2005

Reference

HL 105 2004/05

House

House of Lords

Dept of Health

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what discussions his Department has had with representatives of parallel importers of pharmaceutical products on how repackaging carried out by them may impact on the ability to recall products.

Asked by

Adrian Flook (Conservative)

Answering body

Department of Health

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

24 March 2005

Reference

432 c1069W;432 c1069-70W; 223805

House

House of Commons

Dept for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what steps the Government is taking to encourage (a) retailers and (b) manufacturers to reduce the amount of plastic waste produced in the UK.

Asked by

Ed Davey (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

18 March 2005

For answer on

24 March 2005

Answered on

24 March 2005

Mr. Edward Davey: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps the Government is taking to encourage (a) retailers and (b) manufacturers to reduce the amount of plastic waste produced in the UK. [223539] Mr. Morley: The Government is taking a number of measures to reduce the amount of waste produced, including plastic waste. The Government-funded Envirowise programme offers UK businesses free advice and support on practical ways to minimise their waste and reduce their environmental impact. Additional revenue generated from increases to the landfill tax will be redistributed to business through the Business Resource Efficiency and Waste (BREW) programme to encourage and support resource efficiency, waste minimisation and diversion of waste away from landfill. As part of their Retailer Initiative, the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) are working with retailers to reduce waste from supermarkets. Part of this work is looking at design issues around packaging and the scope for reduction. There are two sets of regulations that encourage producers and retailers to minimise packaging. The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 (as amended) are intended to increase the recovery and recycling of packaging waste and incorporate a cost incentive to reduce the overall amount of packaging. The Packaging (Essential Requirements) Regulations 2003 place a number of requirements on all packaging placed on the market in the UK, including a requirement that packaging should be manufactured so that the packaging volume and weight are limited to the minimum adequate amount to maintain the necessary level of safety, hygiene and acceptance for the packed product and for the consumer.

Date

24 March 2005

Reference

432 c932W; 223539

House

House of Commons

Materials and Articles in Contact with Food (England) Regulations 2005

SI 2005/898 (Negative instrument). Coming into force 29 April 2005.

Department

Department of Health

Type

Statutory instruments

Notes

DEBATE: JCSI 19 OCT 2005

Date

24 March 2005

Reference

SI 2005/898

House

House of Commons; House of Lords

House of Commons Commission

To ask the honourable Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will estimate how many of the plastic bags issued by the Refreshment Department for customer use are (a) reused and (b) put into the general waste either within or outside the parliamentary estate...

Asked by

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

House of Commons Commission

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

23 March 2005

Reference

432 c875W; 222306

House

House of Commons

House of Commons Commission

To ask the honourable Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will estimate the total volume of waste that has been produced each year since 1975; and how much was (a) food and other organic waste, (b) paper products, (c) printer products and (d)...

Asked by

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

House of Commons Commission

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

23 March 2005

Reference

432 c876W; 222254;222328

House

House of Commons

Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2005

SI 2005/717 (Negative instrument). Coming into force 7 April 2005.

Department

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Type

Statutory instruments

Date

16 March 2005

Reference

SI 2005/717

House

House of Commons; House of Lords

Dept for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

Statement on what the outcome was of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 28th February; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if she will make a statement.

Asked by

Jim Hood (Labour)

Answering body

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

28 February 2005

For answer on

15 March 2005

Answered on

15 March 2005

Mr. Hood: Statement on what the outcome was of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 28 February; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if she will make a statement. [219501] Margaret Beckett: I represented the United Kingdom at the meeting of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Brussels on 28 February 2005. The Council reached political agreement to send decommissioned EU fishing vessels to areas affected by the tsunami. Once possible vessels had been identified, an assessment of their suitability for the relevant communities would be made. Exports would only take place in accordance with requests from the third countries concerned. The Council adopted by qualified majority a proposal concerning wood used in packaging material entering the Union. I supported this proposal, which will delay until March 2006 a requirement under new EU plant health rules that such wood should have been de- barked, while the scientific evidence for this requirement is reviewed in consultation with third countries. The Council discussed the Rural Development proposal, focusing on its contribution to Lisbon agenda goals for growth and development, the scope of the competitiveness objective, possible simplification and support for Natura 2000 sites. I stressed that rural development measures should deliver public benefits. On competitiveness, I argued that support should be targeted on those businesses that found it difficult to raise capital through the normal channels. On simplification, I suggested that it would be appropriate to reduce the number of measures and adopt a more flexible approach to cross cutting projects. And I supported the Commission's work on biodiversity and Natura 2000 while suggesting that there could be a focus on water and climate change issues. No specific conclusions were drawn but the presidency indicated that it would be producing a revised draft of the proposal in the course of the week. The Council discussed the CAP financing proposal. We stressed the importance of securing equitable treatment of those member states outside the euro zone, supported the case for effective application of the budgetary discipline provisions and reiterated the need for further modulation, whether voluntary or compulsory, to meet land management commitments. A number of points were raised under any other business. The Commission reported on: the case of a French goat in which BSE had been diagnosed; and on continuing contacts with the Russian authorities over their veterinary and plant health import requirements. The presidency accepted a Dutch request to discuss at a future Council the threat posed by Avian Influenza. Germany urged the Council to seek involvement in action on food and health, sought an update on the WTO Dispute Panel considering the EU approval system for GM crops and products, and suggested a greater use of country of origin requirements in food labelling. The Commission rejected a Spanish proposal that the sugar trade concession offered to certain developing countries under the Everything But Arms commitment should be amended. The Commission also undertook to examine a Spanish request as to whether a regionalised approach to decoupling of tobacco aid could be permitted under the CAP reforms agreed last April. Olive oil producing countries pressed for the EU to resume its contributions to international promotional campaigns. Italy requested a change in the method for calculating part of the aid granted to nut producers. Several landlocked countries pressed for action to help dispose of the exceptionally heavy cereals harvest of 2004.

Date

15 March 2005

Reference

432 c168-9W;432 c166-7W; 219501

House

House of Commons

Adjournment debate

Westminster Hall adjournment debate on British Cellophane (Innovia Films).

Lead member

Ian Liddell-Grainger

Answering member

Baroness Smith of Malvern

Department

Department of Trade and Industry

Type

Adjournment debates

Date

8 March 2005

Reference

431 c391-8WH

House

House of Commons

Debate on bill

Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill. Programme motion (No 2) on proceedings on Report and Third reading. Agreed to on division (245 to 116). Report stage. New clauses 6 and 11 debated and withdrawn. New clause 2 debated and negatived on division (268 to 210). New clauses 10,12-13,15-18 debated. Bill reported...

Lead member

Alun Michael

Answering member

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Department

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Type

Debates on bills

Date

21 February 2005

Reference

431 c31-123

House

House of Commons

Dept for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what measures she is taking to encourage increased clarity in the labelling relating to recycling on plastic packaging and containers; and if she will ensure that local authorities have consistent policies relating to the range of plastic materials...

Asked by

Richard Taylor (Independent (affiliation))

Answering body

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

10 February 2005

Reference

430 c1673-4W; 214915

House

House of Commons

Dept for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, how many farm plastics recycling schemes are in place. - Inc ref to consultation paper published on 9 December 2004 and is available in the Library and http://www/defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/agwaste-regs/index .htm.

Asked by

David Drew (Labour; Co-operative Party)

Answering body

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

26 January 2005

Reference

211079; 430 c338W

House

House of Commons

Debate on bill

Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill. Amendment negatived on division (151 to 356). Second reading debate. Main question agreed to on question. Programme motion on proceedings in Committee, on Report, Third Reading and any other proceedings. Agreed to on division (345 to 153). Money resolution agreed to on question (formal).

Lead member

Baroness Beckett

Answering member

Tim Yeo

Department

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Type

Debates on bills

Date

10 January 2005

Reference

429 c40-131

House

House of Commons

Dept of Health

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what mechanisms are in place to prevent tamper-proof packaging on medicines being removed by commercial middlemen.

Asked by

Adrian Flook (Conservative)

Answering body

Department of Health

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

20 December 2004

Reference

201723; 428 c1380W;428 c1379W

House

House of Commons

Dept of Health

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what discussions she has had with the pharmaceutical industry on the effects of medicines supplied to patients in the UK being provided in tamper-proof and patient-safe packaging.

Asked by

Adrian Flook (Conservative)

Answering body

Department of Health

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

16 December 2004

Reference

201722; 428 c1279-80W

House

House of Commons

Dept for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what estimate she has made of (a) the total amount of household waste going to landfill in each of the last three years and (b) the proportions within this total accounted for by (i) fit for purpose food...

Asked by

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

2 December 2004

For answer on

13 December 2004

Answered on

13 December 2004

Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what estimate she has made of (a) the total amount of household waste going to landfill in each of the last three years and (b) the proportions within this total accounted for by (i) fit for purpose food and (ii) packaging. [202959] Mr. Morley: [holding answer 7 December 2004]: The amounts of municipal waste going to landfill in England in each of the three years for which data is available are shown in the table: Municipal waste going to landfill _________________________________________________________________________________________________. Million tonnes 2000-01 22.0 2001-02 22.3 2002-03 22.0 _________________________________________________________________________________________________. There are no estimates available on the amounts of fit for purpose food and packaging within these totals. Around 90 per cent. of municipal waste comes from households. It is estimated that just over four million tonnes of household waste produced in England is kitchen waste, or approximately 17 per cent. of total arisings. The Government are currently consulting on a waste data strategy, designed to improve the quality of waste data in the interests of all potential users.

Date

13 December 2004

Reference

202959; 428 c807W

House

House of Commons

Dept of Health

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, whether it is his policy to support rights for patients (a) to refuse to accept medicines from pharmacies if they are packaged in a way that the patient believes is substandard and (b) to accept medicine only in the packaging intended by...

Asked by

Adrian Flook (Conservative)

Answering body

Department of Health

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

9 December 2004

Reference

201681; 428 c757W;428 c757-8W

House

House of Commons

Dept of Health

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what discussions he has had with parallel trade associations about possible risks to patient safety from re-packaged medicines; what discussions he has had with patient organisations regarding (a) parallel traded medicines and (b) substandard and poorly repackaged medicines.

Asked by

Adrian Flook (Conservative)

Answering body

Department of Health

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

29 November 2004

For answer on

9 December 2004

Answered on

9 December 2004

Mr. Flook: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what discussions he has had with parallel trade associations about possible risks to patient safety from re-packaged medicines; [201684] (2) what discussions he has had with patient organisations regarding (a) parallel traded medicines and (b) substandard and poorly repackaged medicines. [201685] Ms Rosie Winterton: The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is in regular discussions with the parallel importer's trade association (British Association of European Pharmaceutical Distributors), United Kingdom marketing authorisation holders and individual parallel importers to discuss aspects of the packaging of imported medicines. This has generally been done on a case-by-case basis if issues are identified or when new requirements or guidance are introduced. The agency has not had any formal discussions with parallel trade associations regarding the possible risks to patient safety from re-packaged medicines from the parallel trade in pharmaceuticals. To date, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has not received any representation from, nor had any discussions with patient organisations regarding any substandard and poorly repackaged medicines from the parallel trade in pharmaceuticals, nor has had any discussions specifically dealing with parallel trade in medicines. The MHRA has received some letters from individual patients, patient carers and health professionals on the packaging of parallel imports. In these cases, the product labelling and repackaging has been reviewed and, where appropriate, the parallel importer asked to address the concern raised. The agency has also met with the National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA) to advise them of its requirements relating to parallel imports so that patients and their carers can have access to accurate information about these medicines. In licensing parallel imports, the MHRA ensures the products comply with the appropriate regulations. The repackaging of licensed medicinal products, such as parallel imports, is controlled by the specification registered in the parallel import licence and may only be carried out by assembly sites licensed and inspected by the MHRA. During the repackaging operation parallel importers are not permitted to change or interfere with the primary packaging of the product--that is the immediate packaging in contact with the product itself (for instance the blister packaging). However to comply with the ED labelling regulations as laid down in Title V of the Directive 2001/83/EC the importer is required to over label the immediate packaging with certain details in English and to over label or replace the outer packaging to provide additional information in English. Each product must also contain a patient information leaflet in English. These operations may be carried out by the importer if the company holds an assembly licence, issued by MHRA after the inspecting the site. Any repackaging and re-labelling proposed by a parallel importer is considered by MHRA before a parallel import licence is issued. MHRA operates a Defective Medicines Report Centre (DMRC) which deals with reports of defects to all medicines, including parallel imports. All reports made to the DMRC are investigated and where necessary, appropriate action taken. MHRA would be happy to meet with any patient organisation to discuss parallel imports.

Date

9 December 2004

Reference

428 c757-9W;428 c758-9W; 201684;201685

House

House of Commons

Librarians' tools

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

Publisher