Information between 4th March 2024 - 13th April 2024
Note: This sample does not contain the most recent 2 weeks of information. Up to date samples can only be viewed by Subscribers.
Click here to view Subscription options.
Division Votes |
---|
4 Mar 2024 - Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill - View Vote Context Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 69 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 0 Liberal Democrat No votes Tally: Ayes - 277 Noes - 167 |
4 Mar 2024 - Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill - View Vote Context Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 69 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 0 Liberal Democrat No votes Tally: Ayes - 260 Noes - 169 |
4 Mar 2024 - Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill - View Vote Context Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 71 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 0 Liberal Democrat No votes Tally: Ayes - 282 Noes - 180 |
4 Mar 2024 - Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill - View Vote Context Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 70 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 0 Liberal Democrat No votes Tally: Ayes - 274 Noes - 172 |
4 Mar 2024 - Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill - View Vote Context Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 71 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 0 Liberal Democrat No votes Tally: Ayes - 258 Noes - 171 |
6 Mar 2024 - Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill - View Vote Context Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 66 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 0 Liberal Democrat No votes Tally: Ayes - 228 Noes - 184 |
6 Mar 2024 - Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill - View Vote Context Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 70 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 0 Liberal Democrat No votes Tally: Ayes - 278 Noes - 189 |
6 Mar 2024 - Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill - View Vote Context Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 66 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 0 Liberal Democrat No votes Tally: Ayes - 244 Noes - 160 |
6 Mar 2024 - Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill - View Vote Context Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 69 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 0 Liberal Democrat No votes Tally: Ayes - 265 Noes - 181 |
6 Mar 2024 - Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill - View Vote Context Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 67 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 0 Liberal Democrat No votes Tally: Ayes - 246 Noes - 171 |
20 Mar 2024 - Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill - View Vote Context Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 67 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 0 Liberal Democrat No votes Tally: Ayes - 249 Noes - 219 |
20 Mar 2024 - Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill - View Vote Context Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 70 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 0 Liberal Democrat No votes Tally: Ayes - 263 Noes - 233 |
20 Mar 2024 - Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill - View Vote Context Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 70 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 0 Liberal Democrat No votes Tally: Ayes - 276 Noes - 226 |
20 Mar 2024 - Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill - View Vote Context Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 67 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 0 Liberal Democrat No votes Tally: Ayes - 248 Noes - 209 |
20 Mar 2024 - Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill - View Vote Context Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 71 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 0 Liberal Democrat No votes Tally: Ayes - 285 Noes - 230 |
20 Mar 2024 - Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill - View Vote Context Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 71 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 0 Liberal Democrat No votes Tally: Ayes - 271 Noes - 228 |
20 Mar 2024 - Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill - View Vote Context Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 67 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 0 Liberal Democrat No votes Tally: Ayes - 251 Noes - 214 |
Speeches |
---|
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer speeches from: Local Government Finances
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer contributed 1 speech (710 words) Thursday 21st March 2024 - Lords Chamber Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities |
Written Answers |
---|
Sewage: Waste Disposal
Asked by: Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat - Life peer) Tuesday 12th March 2024 Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: To ask His Majesty's Government whether they intend to revoke the Sludge (Use in Agriculture) Regulations 1989 that regulate sewage sludge and bring sewage sludge regulation within the Environmental Permitting Regime; and if so, when. Answered by Lord Douglas-Miller - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) The Government is working with the Environment Agency to assess the regulatory framework for sludge. We recognise the importance of improving the regulatory framework, however, further work is required before any proposal for change may be progressed. |
Sugar Beet: Neonicotinoids
Asked by: Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat - Life peer) Thursday 21st March 2024 Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: To ask His Majesty's Government, with regard to the Statement of reasons for the decision on the application for emergency authorisation for the use of Cruiser SB on sugar beet crops in 2024, updated on 18 January, what steps they are taking to ensure that sugar beet growers are able to comply with the conditions of emergency use, in particular that (1) "Only a specific list of crops, none of which flower before harvest, are permitted to be planted in the same field as treated sugar beet within 32 months", and (2) "no further use of thiamethoxam seed treatments on the same field within 46 months"; and what assessment they have made of likely compliance from sugar beet growers given restrictions on land supply and restrictions on reuse of a field for sugar beet cultivation that may take place before 46 months has passed since the last same usage. Answered by Lord Douglas-Miller - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) All pesticide use in the UK is regulated through HSE’s overarching programme of enforcement and compliance. This includes extensive monitoring and intelligence-led enforcement activities to ensure that the supply and use of pesticides complies with legal requirements.
All UK sugar beet is grown under commercial contracting arrangements. Growers are used to meeting a range of requirements and are supported throughout the season by weekly monitoring and advice provided by the British Beet Research Organisation (BBRO). This provides a robust control mechanism for stewardship.
As part of the stewardship programme, all growers are fully advised of the requirements for use of seeds treated with Cruiser SB. The restrictions on the planting of succeeding crops are designed to limit levels of neonicotinoids in the environment and to be capable of incorporation into typical arable crop rotation patterns.
Farmers can decide whether or not they wish to grow sugar beet in a given year and, if so, whether they wish to use Cruiser SB. The restrictions on succeeding crops will be a factor in that decision; those farmers that opt to grow sugar beet with Cruiser SB will have considered how to accommodate the restrictions within their crop rotation plans. |
Sugar Beet: Neonicotinoids
Asked by: Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat - Life peer) Thursday 21st March 2024 Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: To ask His Majesty's Government with regard to the ban on the use of neonicotinoids, what is their rationale for allowing a derogation in 2024 year for sugar beet growers; and for how many years an emergency authorisation can be in place. Answered by Lord Douglas-Miller - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) A statement of reasons for the emergency authorisation of Cruiser SB in 2024 can be found attached to this answer. An emergency authorisation cannot run from year to year. This authorisation is for the 2024 sugar beet crop only and is valid for 120 days. Use of Cruiser SB or a similar product in any subsequent years would require the submission of a further application. Any future applications would be carefully assessed against the regulatory framework for emergency authorisations. |
Select Committee Documents |
---|
Tuesday 26th March 2024
Oral Evidence - Local Government Association (LGA), and District Councils' Network (DCN) High streets in towns and small cities - Built Environment Committee Found: Bailey of Paddington; Baroness Eaton; Lord Faulkner of Worcester; Viscount Hanworth; Lord Mair; Baroness |
Tuesday 19th March 2024
Oral Evidence - British Beer & Pub Association, and UK Hospitality High streets in towns and small cities - Built Environment Committee Found: Paddington; Baroness Eaton; Lord Faulkner of Worcester; Viscount Hanworth; Baroness Janke; Lord Mair; Baroness |
Tuesday 12th March 2024
Oral Evidence - Locality, and Power to Change High streets in towns and small cities - Built Environment Committee Found: Bailey of Paddington; Baroness Eaton; Viscount Hanworth; Baroness Janke; Lord Mair; Lord Mawson; Baroness |
Tuesday 5th March 2024
Oral Evidence - Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), Financial Times, and The National Association of British Market Authorities (NABMA) High streets in towns and small cities - Built Environment Committee Found: Baroness Eaton; Lord Faulkner of Worcester; Viscount Hanworth; Baroness Janke; Lord Mair; Lord Mawson; Baroness |
Calendar |
---|
Tuesday 12th March 2024 10:30 a.m. Built Environment Committee - Oral evidence Subject: High streets in towns and small cities View calendar |
Tuesday 19th March 2024 10:30 a.m. Built Environment Committee - Oral evidence Subject: High streets in towns and small cities View calendar |
Tuesday 26th March 2024 10:30 a.m. Built Environment Committee - Oral evidence Subject: High streets in towns and small cities View calendar |
Tuesday 23rd April 2024 2 p.m. Built Environment Committee - Private Meeting Subject: High streets in towns and small cities View calendar |
Tuesday 30th April 2024 10:30 a.m. Built Environment Committee - Oral evidence Subject: High streets in towns and small cities View calendar |