Tag: Lord Alton of Liverpool

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2015-11-10.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions will take place at the forthcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference in Malta about the recent state of emergency declared in the Maldives.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

On 10 November the Maldivian government lifted the State of Emergency. The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire) welcomed the announcement.

On 11 November the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) and Mr Swire met Kamalesh Sharma, the Commonwealth Secretary General. The Prime Minister urged the Secretary General to use the forthcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM), and in particular the meeting of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, to highlight the situation in the Maldives and to support the process of restoring democracy and the rule of law.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2015-11-30.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they intend to make to the government of Saudi Arabia about the sentencing of a Sri Lankan female domestic worker to death by stoning in that country.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

We continue to be concerned by the case of Waleed abu Al-Khair and have raised it at a senior level with the Saudi authorities. We will continue to follow this and other cases closely.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-01-12.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether any North Korean assets are held in the UK; and what steps they are taking to freeze assets they suspect to be linked to weapons proliferation, smuggling, money laundering, or human rights abuses in North Korea.

Lord O’Neill of Gatley

HM Treasury has, since 2007 implemented European Union sanctions against individuals and entities identified as linked to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s (DPRK) nuclear programmes.

The result of these sanctions is that financial institutions are required to freeze funds and economic resources of persons, entities and bodies engaged in or providing support for North Korea’s nuclear-related, other weapons of mass destruction-related or ballistic missile-related programmes. Any assets in the UK which are owned, held or controlled by any of the 70 listed individuals and entities identified as linked to North Korea’s nuclear programmes are frozen. HM Government works to ensure that these measures are robustly implemented, including by looking to uncover assets which may be hidden behind complex company structures.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-01-14.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what recommendations the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has made to the Department of Health in the light of recently published claims that about 800 babies have already been fathered by a 41-year old man in the UK who has been an unlicensed sperm donor for 16 years.

Lord Prior of Brampton

A private arrangement between a man and a woman for him to provide sperm to her for insemination at home is not covered by the legislative controls set out in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, as amended. Unlike regulated sperm donation, where donors are screened for inheritable genetic conditions and tested for the presence of serious infections such as HIV, women making a private arrangement have no such protection and risk themselves and any resulting child contracting a serious, potentially life threatening, disease.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority advises that the safest and most reliable way of obtaining sperm from a donor is via a clinic that is licensed, inspected and regulated by the Authority.

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what evidence the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has received that bona fide trophectoderm stem cells have already been successfully derived and propagated from human embryos; whether any such stem cell lines have been deposited in the UK Stem Cell Bank; and if so, when.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has advised that it holds information on the number of stem cell lines derived in each licensed research project and checks for compliance (on inspection) with the requirement for stem cell lines to be deposited in the UK Stem Cell Bank. However, this information does not differentiate between stem cells derived from the inner cell mass and those from trophectoderm.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-02-23.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answers by Lord Prior of Brampton on 11 February (HL5909, HL5910 and HL5960) and 12 February (HL5909), what specific licence conditions have been required by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) in accordance with its Code of Practice in order to resolve any potential or perceived conflict between the demand for sufficient numbers of zygotes to perform genome editing successfully and the usual practice of transferring embryos to the uterus following assessment of their potential to develop further after at least two to three days; what reasons the person responsible provided when requesting that reference to surplus embryos should be removed from the research project title; and whether they will now place in the Library of the House copies of the patient information and consent forms submitted to the HFEA by the person responsible in order to perform genome editing in human embryos by means of CRISPR-Cas9.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) publishes on its website the inspection report relating to a licence renewal application and the minutes of the Licence Committee’s decision. It does not publish other information associated with a licence application.

The Licence Committee considering the application to which the noble Lord refers was satisfied that the requirements of General Directions 0008 were met, with the exception of evidence of ethics approval, which must be submitted to the HFEA before any licensed research can begin.

The HFEA has advised that licence conditions R18-R27 and T97 address any potential conflict between the use of embryos in research and the use of embryos in the provision of treatment services. The person responsible did not give a reason on the application form for requesting that reference to surplus embryos should be removed from the research project title, nor are they required to do so. The removal of ‘surplus’ from the title does not reflect a change in the way embryos will be donated to the research.

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made on behalf of the 12 Christian leaders tried in Zhejiang Province of China in February and what assessment they have made of (1) the impact of that trial and the sentences handed down on the right to freedom of religion or belief in China, and (2) how those events have been received in China.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

We pay close attention to the human rights situation in China and regularly raise our concerns about freedom of religion and the restrictions placed on Christianity. We make representations on specific cases during the annual UK-China Human Rights Dialogue. The next Dialogue is scheduled for April 2016. We also raise our public concerns about freedom of religion and belief in China in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s Annual Report on Human Rights and Democracy.

Regarding the recent trial of Christian leaders in Zhejiang, we remain concerned about the application of due legal process and transparency of justice in China. We are particularly concerned that people seeking to peacefully exercise their right to freedom of expression or belief are being prevented from doing so. We urge China to protect civil and political rights in line with its constitution and international human rights commitments.

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 Baroness Anelay of St Johns on 24 February (HL6089), which specific Democratic People’s Republic of Korea ministries the British Embassy in Pyongyang has met with since the release of the report of the UN Commission of Inquiry on 7 February 2014.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

As stated in my previous response, our Embassy in Pyongyang has met a number of officials from various ministries of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea since 7 February 2014, including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of People’s Security, the Ministry of Public Health and the Ministry of Education.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-04-13.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government why no mention of human rights is made in the new UK aid strategy; whether they intend to address that omission; and if so, how.

Baroness Verma

The UK Aid Strategy was published alongside the Government’s Strategic Defence and Security Review which sets out the Government’s approach to human rights. The UK will continue to promote universal human rights as an integral part of building prosperity and stability around the world. We will work with our partners to strengthen the promotion and protection of human rights and hold to account those responsible for violations and abuses. This is part of our work to promote the golden thread of democracy, rule of law, free media and open, accountable institutions.

The UK Aid Strategy has at its heart the Global Goals for Sustainable Development, which represent a commitment to achieve substantive, measurable improvements on economic, social and political human rights. It commits to leading the world in implementing the Leave No One Behind Promise agreed by the Prime Minister and other world leaders in September 2015. The ‘leave no one behind’ principle is an expression of the human rights agenda, which the UK played a key role in securing in negotiations. It also commits us to working towards ending violence against girls and women, including ending FGM and child, early and forced marriage, and tackling sexual violence in conflict. It commits to prioritising work that targets the most vulnerable and disadvantaged, the most excluded, those caught in crises, and those most at risk of violence and discrimination.

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.