Tag: Lord Alton of Liverpool

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 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 2016-05-05.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Prior of Brampton on 25 April (HL7390), what assessment the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has made of 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 with the statutory tests and the originally stated purpose of the proposed research in the initial application for that licence; and on what grounds the HFEA Licence Committee was “content that the revised objectives and lay summary were consistent with the activities and purposes for which the product was licensed”.”

Lord Prior of Brampton

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has advised that research project R0152 has a number of aims, which are summarised in the HFEA inspection report for July 2015, a copy of which is attached. One of the aims of the research project R0152 is to improve outcomes of assisted reproduction technologies (ART) for the treatment of infertility. This relates to gaining a better understanding of the cellular and molecular events occurring during pre-implantation development in vitro, and to determine how these are affected by the routine laboratory procedures, for example the vitrification process to enable storage.

The aim that refers to nuclear transfer does not specifically relate to the aim of improving outcomes of ART for the treatment of infertility.

As stated in my Written Answer of 25 April 2016 (HL7390), in 2015 the HFEA Licence Committee was satisfied that the activities licensed were necessary or desirable for the purposes, specified in Schedule 2, Paragraph 3A(2) to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, as amended, and was, therefore, content with the revised objectives and lay summary.

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much UK aid has been given to Pakistan over the last five years; and how much of that has been used to promote human rights, the rule of law and the protection of minorities.

Baroness Verma

Since financial year 2011-12, the UK has provided more than £1.2 billion of official development assistance to Pakistan. A commitment by Pakistan to respect human rights is one of the four principles set out in the Partnership Principles Assessment which provides the basis for regular bilateral assistance talks between the UK and Pakistan.

The UK Government raises human rights issues and the rights of minorities on a regular basis at the highest levels in Pakistan and we ensure our development assistance targets poor women and men, regardless of race, religion, social background, or nationality. Through DFID’s Peacebuilding Support Programme (PSP) we are supporting the provincial Government in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to improve security and access to justice for 250,000 citizens and the new Rule of Law programme will strengthen security and justice institutions across the country. The Aawaz voice and accountability programme works in 45 districts with over 3 million poor people including minority communities to promote their rights and DFID’s education programme has enabled 4.6 million more girls to attend primary and secondary school, to stay longer and learn more.

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the government of China about the case of Guo Feixiong; and what response they have received.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

The former Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my Rt Hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), raised the case of Guo Feixiong with the Chinese Ambassador on 3 December 2015, who said the case was being handled according to Chinese law. More recently, we supported an EU statement on 22 June 2016. That statement called for Guo, along with several other individuals detained for seeking to protect the rights of others, such as their right to freedom of expression, to be released.

We continue to monitor Guo’s case and report on it via the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s Annual Report on Human Rights and Democracy. We will raise Guo’s case at the next round of the UK-China Human Rights Dialogue.

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 Saudi Arabia’s human rights record, and its role in Yemen, before announcing that the UK would continue to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

The UK Government takes its arms export responsibilities very seriously and operates one of the most robust arms export control regimes in the world. All export licence applications are assessed on a case-by-case basis against the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria, taking account of all relevant factors at the time of the application.

Risks around human rights violations are a key part of our assessment against the Consolidated Criteria. We do not export equipment where we assess there is a clear risk that it might be used for internal repression, or would provoke or prolong conflict within a country, or where we assess there is a clear risk that the intended recipient would use the items aggressively against another country. Export licensing requires us to consider how the equipment will be used by the end-user. This is done by reference to all currently available and relevant information at the time of application. A licence will not be issued, for any country, if to do so would be inconsistent with any provision of the mandatory Criteria, including where we assess there is a clear risk that it might be used in the commission of a serious violation of International Humanitarian Law.

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the reply by Baroness Goldie on 13 September (HL Deb, col 1394), what plans are in place, once cities such as Mosul and Raqqa have been liberated from ISIS, to ensure the restoration of property, homes and businesses to their rightful owners, the re-establishment of diverse communities, and the creation of a legal framework to bring to trial those who have been responsible for genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Our goal is to liberate Mosul, and eventually Raqqah, in a way that minimises the humanitarian impact, and supports political reconciliation and the return of local communities. We are engaging with the Government of Iraq and Kurdistan Regional Government, our Coalition partners, the UN and other international organisations to ensure comprehensive plans are in place which do this. On 21 July, the Foreign Secretary announced that the UK will lead a global campaign to bring Daesh to justice, including putting in place processes to assemble evidence for future legal proceedings.

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that UK-owned companies do not facilitate the forced labour of North Korean nationals.

Baroness Williams of Trafford

Current trade between the UK and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) is minimal and covered by an overarching provision that any activities should satisfy existing UN and EU sanctions. These refer to restriction in the export of goods and financial assistance, which may contribute to the development of the DPRK’s nuclear and ballistic missile programmes.

The Modern Slavery Act 2015 introduced a landmark transparency in supply chains provision. This requires all commercial organisations operating in the UK with a turnover of £36m or more to set out what steps they have taken to prevent modern slavery in their business and supply chains each year. This mandatory reporting will allow consumers, investors, campaigners and others to scrutinise the activities of businesses and call businesses to account if they are not doing enough, including in relation to North Korean nationals.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-10-17.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what role armed militias play in enforcing Sudan’s commitments under the Khartoum Process; whether they are being used to enforce border controls and to capture migrants; and what action the regime took, under its commitments in the Doha Document for Peace, 2012, to disarm militias.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

We are concerned by the reported use of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) to tackle migration in Sudan and have raised these concerns with the government of Sudan, most recently during the visit of the UK Special Representative to Sudan and South Sudan in September. We have also made clear that our cooperation on migration will necessarily be guided by our human rights principles. The EU has also raised the role of the RSF with the government of Sudan and has made absolutely clear that no funding aligned with the Khartoum Process will be provided to them.

The government of Sudan has undertaken some of its disarmament commitments under the Doha Document for Peace in Darfur (DDPD), but together with our international partners we continue to urge them to do more. The UK is a member of the DDPD’s Implementation Follow-Up Commission (IFC), which we use to press for progress on disarmament and other areas of the DDPD’s implementation. The most recent meeting of the IFC was in May 2016.