Tag: Lord Alton of Liverpool

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-07-18.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they now recognise that a genocide is underway against minorities in Syria and Iraq; and whether the opinion set out in The Sunday Telegraph on 27 March that ISIS are engaged in what can only be called genocide of the poor Yazidis” by the new Foreign Secretary reflects their official position.”

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

This Government shares the House of Commons’ condemnation of Daesh atrocities against all civilians, including Christians, Mandeans, Yazidis, and other minorities, as well as the majority Muslim population in Iraq and Syria who continue to bear the brunt of Daesh’s brutality.

It is a long-standing Government policy that any judgements on whether genocide has occurred are a matter for the international judicial system rather than governments or other non-judicial bodies. Our approach is to seek an end to all violations, and to prevent their further escalation, irrespective of whether these violations fit the definition of specific international crimes.

We are fully committed to working internationally to ensure Daesh is held to account for its crimes. Ultimately, the best way of preventing future atrocities is to defeat Daesh and its violent ideology. That is why the UK is playing a leading role in the Global Coalition of more than 66 countries and international organisations united to defeat Daesh.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-09-12.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the effectiveness of the UK–China Human Rights Dialogue and the EU–China Human Rights Dialogue, and whether they will establish specific benchmarks for progress in those dialogues.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

The UK-China Human Rights Dialogue provides a platform to highlight a wide range of the Government’s human rights concerns to relevant Chinese officials. It also provides an opportunity for frank, expert exchanges on policies as they are applied in the UK and China. In recent years workshop themes have included: judicial procedures; disability rights; and minority languages.

The Dialogue is an addition to, rather than a replacement for discussions in other bilateral and multilateral fora. It is one part of our strategy to promote British values in China, and we do not have benchmarks to measure the Dialogue in isolation. We do measure progress against our overall strategy and we report on it in the FCO Annual Human Rights report.

The EU-China Human Rights dialogue functions in a similar way, and we engage closely with the organisers to share views and objectives. We are confident that the EU-China Human Rights Dialogue is coherent with UK objectives.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-10-11.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, and to what extent, the expert panel convened by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has concluded that a potentially viable pregnancy with normal karyotype can be achieved through pronuclear transfer based on the accompanying images of the relevant karyotypes in figures or other supporting data presented in Reproductive BioMedicine Online published in October.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has advised that the independent expert panel are currently reviewing the latest evidence of safety and efficacy for pro-nuclear transfer and maternal spindle transfer. The panel has not yet reached its conclusions. It is anticipated that the panel’s report will be published by the end of the year.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-10-18.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the priority given to the promotion of democracy and human rights within the UK–Sudanese strategic dialogue; and what assessment they have made of (1) the reliability of the Sudanese regime as a reliable partner with a shared agenda, and (2) the extent to which the strategic dialogue will embolden the regime in Sudan to continue with their current policies.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Improving human rights remains one of our policy priorities in Sudan, and therefore discussions of human rights issues are a key part of the UK-Sudan Strategic Dialogue. At the last round of talks on 10/11 October, a representative from the Sudan Advisory Council for Human Rights accompanied the Sudanese delegation.

In a number of areas we fundamentally disagree with the government of Sudan; however, in others our interests are much more closely aligned. We assess that direct engagement through the Strategic Dialogue process provides better opportunities to raise issues of bilateral concern, as well as to look at strategic questions such as the resolution of internal conflicts, regional security and migration. We keep this policy under regular review.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2015-11-02.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the findings in reports by Yale Law School and Queen Mary University of London, and an investigation by Al-Jazeera, as well as research by Fortify Rights, that claim to provide evidence that genocide is being committed against the Rohingya people in Burma.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

These and other disturbing reports from Rakhine State make clear that the Rohingya are being persecuted and denied the most basic rights. We welcome the work of a highly effective UN Special Rapporteur on Burma, who has shone a spotlight on violations against the Rohingya in Rakhine. She has not characterised the treatment of the Rohingya as genocide, and neither did the UN Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide in his 4 November Statement on Burma’s elections.

However, any judgement on whether genocide has occurred is a matter for international judicial decision, rather than for governments or non-judicial bodies. A UN investigation would require high level international support for which we assess there is little prospect of agreement at this stage. Our approach is to seek an end to all violations, irrespective of whether or not they fit the definition of specific international crimes. British Government Ministers take every appropriate opportunity, both publicly and in private, to press the Burmese authorities to take urgent steps to address the situation of the Rohingya. Most recently, the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), did so with the Burmese Foreign Minister Wunna Maung Lwin in September in New York.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2015-11-23.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will make representations to the government of China about not returning to North Korea nine refugees transferred to China from Vietnam; what assessment they have made of conclusions by Human Rights Watch that, should those refugees be repatriated, they will be at grave risk; and what assessment the British Ambassador in Pyongyang has made of the fate of other refugees returned to North Korea.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

We are aware of the situation and are discussing the case with the relevant authorities. We raise the issue of non-refoulement with the Chinese government regularly, including at the last UK-China Human Rights Dialogue.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2015-12-10.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether any disciplinary action is being taken against the doctors at the Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother Hospital in Margate who listed Down’s syndrome and learning difficulties among the reasons for issuing a Do Not Resuscitate order.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The Department expects National Health Service trusts and NHS foundation trusts to have in place local policies on resuscitation that are based on expert professional guidance. We have commended, as a basis for local policies, professional guidance, Decisions Relating to Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (2014), published jointly by the British Medical Association, the Resuscitation Council (UK) and the Royal College of Nursing. The guidance is clear that any resuscitation decision must be tailored to the individual circumstances of the patient and must not be made on the basis of blanket assumptions. A copy of the guidance is attached.

Where a person lacks capacity to make decisions about their care or treatment, the Mental Capacity Act makes clear that doctors must act in the best interests of patients. Doctors must take account as far as possible of the known wishes of the person and consult with relatives and colleagues as appropriate to help inform their decision.

Departmental officials have recently contacted the Trust about recent media coverage concerning an incident when Down’s syndrome was listed as a reason to issue a Do Not Resuscitate order. The Trust confirms it accepts that it failed to consult with the family and has apologised unreservedly for this isolated incident by a junior doctor.

In regards to any disciplinary action taken against the doctor this would be an operational issue for the Foundation Trust. We have written to Ms Nikki Cole, Chair of East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust informing her of the Noble Lord’s enquiry. She will reply shortly and a copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-01-18.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the public policy implications arising from the recent reports that one 41-year old man has fathered up to 800 children by providing his gametes to women seeking to become pregnant.

Lord Prior of Brampton

According to media reports, this particular case concerns private arrangements made between individual women seeking sperm for home insemination and the man providing the sperm. There is no third party involved. Such private arrangements between a man and a woman are not regulated. We understand that there is also no evidence to support the claim of up to 800 children having been born.

It is important that women seeking sperm donation treatment fully understand the benefits of using clinics licensed by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-01-26.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are the proposed protocols for (1) detection of aneuploidy in embryos following application of the proposed Augment technique, and (2) demonstrating that injected mitochondria either disperse so as to be equally inherited by each blastomere of any resulting embryos or are concentrated in the inner cell mass, in the recent application received by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) for a pilot trial in the UK; what estimate the HFEA has been provided regarding (1) the likely financial costs to patients undergoing the proposed Augment procedure, and (2) the potential impact on clinical pregnancy rates of any assessments deemed to be scientifically necessary; and what assessment the HFEA has made of the ruling by the US Food and Drugs Administration in 2013 that Augment is a novel drug in need of extensive and expensive safety testing.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) advises that it does not hold data from clinics on the incidence of aneuploidy in oocytes over time, nor has it received evidence from OvaScience, Professor Simon Fishel or other sources that mitochondrial defects are primarily responsible for age-related increases in oocyte chromosomal aneuploidy.

The HFEA also advises that it has not been made aware of any published randomised trials regarding the Augment technique and has not made an assessment of the credibility of claims by OvaScience and those previously made by Clonaid, in the light of data available in peer-reviewed journals. It is currently considering whether techniques, which involve addition of autologous mitochondria to eggs, would be legal in the United Kingdom (under the framework of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, as amended). Part of this consideration involves considering the claims made for Augment by Ovascience.

The HFEA has not received any formal applications for clinical use of the Augment technique, and has not made an assessment of the ruling by the US Food and Drugs Administration to which the Noble Lord refers.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-02-10.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government under what circumstances embryonic stem cell lines that have been derived from human embryos subjected to genome editing by means of CRISPR-Cas9 would be considered to conform to good manufacturing practice and classed as clinical grade by either the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority or the UK Stem Cell Bank.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has advised that it has licensed one human embryo research project involving the use of genome editing CRISPR-Cas9. One objective of this project is to derive human embryonic stem cells. As outlined in the HFEA Inspection Report, there is no intention for these stem cells to be used in human application. In these circumstances, there is no need to assess whether they conform to good manufacturing practice and are classed as clinical grade.