Tag: Lord Alton of Liverpool

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-02-01.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord O’Neill of Gatley on 26 January (HL4928), whether any assets linked to North Korean individuals or organisations that are not associated with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s (DPRK) nuclear programmes are held in the UK; and what steps they are taking to freeze assets held by individuals or organisations that are not associated with the DPRK nuclear programme that they suspect to be linked to weapons proliferation, smuggling, money laundering, or human rights abuses in North Korea.

Lord O’Neill of Gatley

Existing UN and EU sanctions against North Korea, which include measures such as asset freezes, are based upon UN Security Council Resolutions prohibiting the further development of North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile programmes. Therefore, the current requirement to freeze funds or economic resources only occurs in circumstances where the funds and economic resources are controlled by the persons and entities designated by the Sanctions committee, the Security Council or the EU council as being engaged in North Korea’s nuclear-related, ballistic missile related, or other weapons of mass destruction-related programmes.

The UK is currently discussing a response to the nuclear test of 6 January with key allies and partners. We want the response to be robust and send North Korea a clear signal that it must change its approach to international peace and security, We are also using our position as a member of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) to discuss ways in which the international community can increase the pressure on North Korea to improve its appalling human rights record. North Korea will be discussed during the forthcoming March session of the HRC.

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government why they did not respond to correspondence sent by the UN Panel of Experts, as listed in UN Security Council Report S/2015/131; and whether they have investigated the actions of Princess Yachts International in the light of the sighting of the Princess 95MY yacht in North Korea in 2013.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

The Government fully cooperated with the Panel of Experts on this matter. Following a request to the Government for assistance, the Panel were put in direct contact with Princess Yachts International to follow up on their investigations.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-03-03.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the difficulties that refugee children face in accessing legal advice or paying the fee required to register their citizenship; whether legal aid is available for those purposes; what the current fee is for registering citizenship; what proportion of that fee represents profit accumulated by the Home Office; whether they have plans to increase that fee, and if so, by how much.

Lord Bates

Civil legal aid remains available for advice and representation in relation to applications and appeals for asylum. The majority of unaccompanied refugee children applying for permission to remain in the UK will be seeking asylum, and legal aid will therefore be available. For non-asylum immigration matters and citizenship applications, legal aid is generally not available, although may be provided exceptionally where required by the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Government has committed to review the legal aid provisions within the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 within 3-5 years of implementation.

The current fee for a child to register as a British citizen is £749. The estimated unit cost to process this application is currently £223. For 2016/17 the fee will increase to £936 on 18th March 2016 with a rise in estimated unit cost to £272. The power to set fees that are higher than the cost of processing applications is contained within The Immigration Act 2014, which provides that the Home Office may take into account not just the cost of processing an application, but also the benefits and entitlements available to an individual if their application is successful and the cost of exercising any other function in connection with immigration or nationality.

The Home Office does not provide exceptions to the requirement to pay application fees for naturalisation or registration as a British citizen. This is because the Home Office considers that citizenship is not a necessary pre-requisite to enable a person to exercise his or her rights in the UK in line with the European Convention on Human Rights.

British nationality applications are not mandatory and many individuals with Indefinite Leave to Remain decide not to apply. A person who has Indefinite Leave to Remain may continue to live in the UK and travel abroad using their existing valid passport and residence permit, visa or travel document.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-03-21.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by the Minister of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Mr Hugo Swire, on 25 February (HC27825), whether UK companies that operate in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea must demonstrate that the funds used do not contribute to that country’s nuclear and ballistic missile programme or its human rights violations; and whether the UK Government must investigate the final destinations of UK company funds in that country.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

UK companies have a legal obligation to comply with UN and EU sanctions measures, including those on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The Treasury is responsible for the implementation and administration of international financial sanctions in effect in the UK, and works with law enforcement agencies to enforce these measures.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-04-11.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answers by Lord Prior of Brampton on 11 February (HL5646), 14 March (HL6504) and 24 March (HL6955), what was the purpose of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) no longer placing lay summaries of human embryo research proposals on the HFEA website prior to consideration by the Licence Committee.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has advised that it is unable to provide information about this decision beyond that set out in the response to the Noble Lord on 24 March (HL6955). The HFEA’s Business Plan for 2016/17 commits the organisation to a review of the operational aspects of applications for research licences.

“

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 2016-05-05.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answers by Lord Darzi of Denham on 22 January 2008 (WA 28), 21 April 2008 (WA 234) and 12 May 2008 (WA 109–10), what assessment the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has made of the recently published research in Nature (DOI: 10.1038/nature17948) and Nature Cell Biology (DOI: 10.1038/ncb3347); and whether in the light of that research it has changed its conclusion that outgrowing human embryos cultured in vitro for more than 14 days could no longer be considered to be live human embryos as a matter of principle.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has advised that it has not made a formal assessment of the recently published research in Nature (Deglincerti A. et al. 2016 and Shahbazi MN. et al. 2016). The HFEA has also advised that it is not expected that this research will lead to a change in the Authority’s assessment of embryonic masses, which form when embryos outgrow their structure. However, this research will be drawn to the attention of the HFEA’s Scientific and Clinical Advances Advisory Committee at its meeting in June.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-06-07.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have raised the recent murder of Khurram Zaki, and his campaign work, with the government of Pakistan.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

We condemn the murder of Khurram Zaki in Karachi on 7 May. As a journalist and human rights activist, Khurram Zaki campaigned against sectarian violence and religious extremism in Pakistan. His murder is a sad reminder of the hostile climate in which Pakistani campaigners and journalists operate.

Under its National Action Plan, the Government of Pakistan is taking steps to improve security by tackling terrorist and extremist elements. We continue to urge Pakistan to honour in practice all its human rights obligations and uphold the rule of law. During his visit to Pakistan in March, the Foreign Secretary, my Rt Hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), raised the importance we attach to safeguarding the rights of all Pakistan citizens regardless of ethnicity, faith or political views.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-07-08.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the US Treasury decision to impose sanctions on North Korean senior officials in the light of reported human rights abuses; and whether they plan to impose similar sanctions.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

The US decision to designate senior members of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) regime follows its decision to introduce the US North Korea Sanctions Policy Enhancement Act in February 2016. The British Government shares the objective of maintaining pressure on the DPRK to fulfil its international human rights obligations and is deeply concerned by the human rights situation in the DPRK. It regularly consults with partners such as the US, the EU and regional partners on the best way to achieve this.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-09-06.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they made of the risks to national security and to service personnel before publishing the names of soldiers and potential recruits online.

Earl Howe

The Armed Forces have a long history of publishing a nominal roll of serving officers, in the form of the ‘The Navy List’, ‘The Army List’ and the ‘The Air Force List’, generically known as the Armed Forces Lists.

The Armed Forces Lists’ information was first published online in 2014, following requests under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act and as part of our overall commitment to transparency. This information was judged to be releasable, having previously been published annually for over 200 years.

In September 2015, the policy on the publication of the Armed Forces Lists was reviewed and a decision was made to significantly reduce the information published, limiting this to information on officers at one star rank (Brigadier and equivalents) and above, except in respect of the Royal Navy. Details of those officers commanding a warship would continue to be published through release of a suitable version of the ‘Fleet Bridge Card’, which provides information on the number of RN Senior officers in command of the Fleet, the Flotillas and the warships. This decision was informed by advice on security risks. The previous Service Lists published on the Gov.uk website have now been removed.

Names of soldiers at Warrant Officer rank and below and potential recruits have never been published online in the Armed Forces Lists.