Tag: Lord Alton of Liverpool

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they have taken to investigate and address the role of the Embassy of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in London in evading UN Security Council sanctions in respect of their submission of vessel registration changes to the International Maritime Organisation in 2014; and what assessment they have made of the involvement of embassies of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea worldwide in sanctions evasion.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Vessel registration is a matter for Flag state action. The UK is not a Flag state for any Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) vessels, so has not been involved in investigating this issue. We have processes in place to verify the provenance of any vessel registered under the British flag.

There are documented links between the DPRK’s diplomatic missions and its proliferation activity which are in breach of sanctions. For example, the UN DPRK Panel of Experts reported that DPRK Embassy officials in Cuba were engaged in making arrangements for the 2013 Chong Chon Gang shipment of conventional arms and related materials in violation of UN Security Council Resolutions. We have since worked with partners to encourage the need for vigilance over possible illicit activity taking place by DPRK diplomatic missions.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-03-02.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the televised public confession of Kai Zhang prior to formal arrest, indictment or trial; what assessment they have made of what legal assistance he is receiving and what contact he has been permitted to have with his family; what contact the UK authorities have had with him; and what representations they have made to the government of China on his behalf.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

We remain concerned that a number of Chinese lawyers and human rights defenders, such as Zhang Kai, have been arrested, detained, or have simply disappeared since last July. We have raised the cases regularly with the Chinese authorities. In January, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right Hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), raised our concerns directly with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Beijing. We supported a public statement by the Delegation of the EU in Beijing on 29 January, expressing concerns about the human rights situation in China, which included the detention of lawyers.

We urge the Chinese authorities to release the detained lawyers, including Zhang Kai, and ensure all detainees have access to legal counsel of their choice.

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 (HC27826), whether the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) relies upon information from the United States Department of the Treasury to ascertain which elements of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea government fund or participate in that country’s nuclear and missile programmes; or whether the FCO conducts its own research into this matter.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

The Government works collaboratively with international partners and organisations to counter the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s nuclear, ballistic missile or other weapons of mass destruction-related programmes. This includes sharing information to identify persons and entities responsible for this activity in violation of UN Security Council Resolutions.

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 Darzi of Denham on 23 October 2007 (WA101), by Lord Triesman on 12 November 2007 (WA1–2), by Baroness Neville-Rolfe on 8 June 2015 (HL44) and by Lord Prior of Brampton on 11 February (HL5648), how the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has rigorously checked that what is stated in centres’ lay summaries on its website about the purposes and likelihood of success of the research is realistic for both donors and the public, as explicitly recommended under Key actions for HFEA” in the summary of the “Post Hwang Meeting” on 1 March 2006 that was published on the HFEA website; and how the currently stated aim of research licence R0152 “to improve outcomes of ART for the treatment of infertility” relates to any reasonably foreseeable applications of nuclear transfer that accord not only with the statutory tests but also with the originally stated purpose of the proposed research in the initial application for this particular licence.”

Lord Prior of Brampton

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has advised that centres’ lay summaries are checked at inspection by the relevant HFEA inspector and by the HFEA Licence Committee. In the case of licence R0152, the lay summary was last approved on 15 July 2015 when the HFEA Licence Committee agreed to approve updates to the centre’s lay summary and the updates to the research objectives. The minutes note the committee was content that the revised objectives and lay summary were consistent with the activities and purposes for which the project was licensed.

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.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-05-19.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Prior of Brampton on 10 May (HL7949), what factors are thought to be responsible for differences in the number of serious adverse incidents of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) between each of the three years from 2010 to 2012 compared to 2013 and 2014; and whether the reference to professional standards applies only to clinicians or also to the activities of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority in attempting to mitigate the risks of OHSS.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has advised that whilst certain factors may increase the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), there is no agreed method to predict the amount of severe OHSS that will occur. Therefore, the Authority cannot infer what factors, if any, would cause year to year variation in the number of incidents reported.

Professional clinical standards are set by the appropriate Royal Colleges and issued to guide clinicians and health professionals directly, not the HFEA.

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the government of North Korea on reports of widespread rape committed by its military; and whether the UK defence attaché to North Korea will raise this issue with their counterpart.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

We are aware of the disturbing reports of sexual violence within the Korean People’s Army. We consistently raise our concerns about the appalling human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) directly with the regime. In June, our Ambassador to North Korea made clear the UK’s position on human rights in a speech in Pyongyang attended by DPRK senior officials. We regularly raise North Korean human rights issues in multilateral fora such as the UN Security Council and the Human Rights Council, and will continue to do so.

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what information they have about (1) land confiscation, (2) military activity, (3) health, (4) education, (5) drug use and its consequences, (6) local drug supply and drug use, (7) the killing of civilians, (8) arbitrary taxation, and (9) the displacement of villagers and forced recruitment, in Burma’s Karen state; and whether they plan to discuss those issues with the new government of Burma.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

The British Government follows events in Burma’s Karen State closely, including those listed in the noble Lord’s question. Staff from our Embassy in Rangoon visit regularly. Many of these issues are connected to the legacy of conflict. We play a key role in international efforts to resolve the conflict across Burma. As part of these efforts, we have supported both the previous and current Governments of Burma, as well as the Ethnic Armed Groups that are party to the conflict (including the Karen), to find a negotiated political settlement. In addition, the Department for International Development (DFID) has a major development programme in Burma, of which Karen State is a beneficiary, including on health and education. For example, DFID works with several non-government organisations to fund programmes for the prevention and treatment of malaria which is prevalent in Karen State, and to establish community based schools and centres for early childhood development. The UK discusses conflict-related issues with the Government of Burma on a regular basis.

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the remarks by Lord Prior of Brampton on 22 October 2015 (HL Deb, col GC37), what progress has been made in establishing across the country a network of NHS practitioners interested in Lyme disease.

Lord Prior of Brampton

We will be considering options for improving professional engagement on Lyme disease in light of the reviews on the diagnosis, treatment and transmission of Lyme disease, commissioned by the Department to inform future decision making. Public Health England continues to work with local authorities and primary care providers to raise awareness.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-09-14.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the report by Siegfried Hecker, published on 12 September, concluding that North Korea will have enough material for about 20 nuclear bombs by the end of this year, that it has expanded uranium enrichment facilities, and that it has stockpiled plutonium.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

We have made clear our deep concern at and condemnation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) nuclear programme. We take into account all sources of information when assessing it. As the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my Hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) made clear in his remarks to the UN Security Council on 23 September, that the United Kingdom condemns the recent nuclear test conducted by the DPRK, which is a direct violation of binding Security Council Resolutions. The DPRK must comply with its obligations under all relevant UN Security Council Resolutions, including abandoning all nuclear weapons and nuclear programmes in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner.