Author: admin

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-04-26.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have assessed the evidence that ISIS have sold Yazidi women to Saudi Arabians, and what representations they have made to the government of Saudi Arabia about recovering them.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

We maintain a close dialogue with Saudi Arabia on Counter Terrorism issues. We have seen no evidence of Saudi Foreign Terrorist Fighters trafficking Daesh sex slaves to Saudi Arabia.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-04-26.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have evidence that the Kurdistan Workers Party and the Peoples Protection Units have rescued some captive Yazidi women; what assessment they have made of whether the Kurdistan Regional Government Peshmerga have carried out any rescues, and if so, whether they have offered to assist them; and whether the same British technology that is able to identify ISIS commanders has been used to identify and to rescue women captives.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

We are aware of media reports about organisations that are working to free those being held hostage by Daesh. We do not have any information regarding the rescue of Yezidi captives by either the Kurdistan Workers Party or the Peoples Protection Units. During offensive operations against Daesh, Yezidi hostages have been freed by the Peshmerga. We continue to work in support of Iraqi and Kurdish Regional government forces towards defeating this terrible organisation. The UK has been at the forefront of these efforts and plays a leading role in a Global Coalition of 66 countries and international organisations to respond to Daesh’s inhumanity.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-04-26.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 17 March 2015 (HL5319) and by Lord Prior of Brampton on 25 April (HL7391), how the incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) has been substantially reduced as a result of changes introduced by the HFEA since the publication of the McCracken Report in accordance with recommendations 10 and 11 and in the light of paragraphs 4.40 and 4.44; and what assessment they have made of the extent to which the lack of reporting by the HFEA of any adverse incidents to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has mitigated the risks of OHSS.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has advised that Ovarian HyperStimulation Syndrome (OHSS) is primarily a matter for clinical judgement and professional standards. The responsibility for reporting adverse reactions in accordance with the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 rests with clinics and the treating clinician. The number of serious adverse incidents of OHSS reported to the HFEA in each of the three years 2010-2012 was approximately 60. In 2013 it was 46, and in 2014 it was 42. Figures for 2015 will be published in September 2016.

Where the HFEA is made aware of information relevant to the regulatory functions of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the information is shared between the two organisations.

Recommendations 10 and 11 of the McCracken Report relate to a variety of issues not just OHSS. The HFEA has advised that its strategy for 2014–2017 fulfils these recommendations.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-04-26.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answers by Lord Prior of Brampton on 17 March (HL7118) and 25 April (HL7391), what assessment they have made of (1) the specific steps during the evolution of the peer-review process by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) over the last 10 years that allow specific members of the HFEA Licence Committee to overrule recommendations by the HFEA’s appointed peer reviewers; and (2) the relative impact on the licensing of proposed research over the last 10 years of (a) scrutiny by a team of inspectors, (b) scrutiny by an external, independent peer reviewer and (c) scrutiny by the HFEA’s Licence Committee; how participants in each of those levels of scrutiny have been (i) briefed regarding the impact of their recommendations and (ii) remunerated for their efforts; and how many research licence applications have ultimately been rejected following scrutiny over the last 10 years.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has advised that its Licence Committee acts under delegated power from the Authority to make decisions on licences based on information put before it, which includes recommendations from peer reviewers. Given that they are the decision makers appointed by the HFEA in accordance with its statute, they are able to accept or reject information as appropriate. This therefore includes rejecting or accepting recommendations of peer reviewers. The Committee’s effectiveness is reviewed on an annual basis.

The Licence Committee is made up of authority members who are remunerated on an annual basis. The remuneration figures are publicly available in the HFEA’s annual reports. Peer reviewers receive a fee of £189.67 per review.

Inspectors receive a yearly salary and are not remunerated per inspection, unless they are external inspectors who are used occasionally.

The information regarding research licenses is only held in a readily accessible format from 2011 onwards and before this date can only be provided at disproportionate cost. Since March 2011 there have been no research applications rejected by the Licence Committee. The HFEA works closely with licence applicants to develop their applications and resolve any issues prior to being submitted to the Licence Committee.