Tag: Lord Alton of Liverpool

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-02-04.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Prior of Brampton on 27 January (HL5039), what specific recommendations the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has made in order to resolve any conflict between the demands of research and the best interests of patients, in particular regarding (1) a demand for sufficient numbers of human embryos at the single-celled zygote stage in order successfully to perform genome editing by means of CRISPR-Cas9, and (2) the usual practice of transferring embryos to the uterus after assessing their potential to develop further after either two to three days or five to six days.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has advised that it requires, through its Code of Practice, that embryo donors will be recruited in a manner compliant with standard licence conditions. These conditions prevent conflict between the demands of research and the best interests of patients.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-02-22.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answers by Lord Prior of Brampton on 11 February (HL5773, HL5959 and HL5960), why they have not placed in the Library of the House a full copy of the original licence application submitted to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) to perform genome editing in human embryos by means of CRISPR-Cas9; why they have not placed 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 such work; how the conditions stipulated under paragraph 13 of Section G in Direction 0008 version 4 as published by HFEA on 29 October 2015 (http://www.hfea.gov.uk/docs/ General_Directions_0008. pdf) regarding Information to be submitted to the HFEA as part of the licensing process” were satisfied in the case of the decision; and why they will not place in the Library of the House a full copy of the responses to peer reviewers by the person responsible.”

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 2016-03-07.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of their recommendation that members of the public donate to the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) appeal for Nepal following the earthquakes in 2015, what assessment they have made of (1) how much money was donated to that appeal, (2) how soon after the emergency those funds were spent, (3) individual donors’ levels of satisfaction with how their donations were spent, (4) how that money was shared between NGOs that are members of the DEC and Nepalese NGOs, and (5) what effect that spending had.

Baroness Verma

Funds raised by the British public for the DEC appeal have already reached over £85 million, which includes £5 million in matched funding provided by DFID. UK Government representatives in Nepal’s meet regularly with Disaster Emergency Committee (DEC) members to discuss the ongoing earthquake response, recovery and reconstruction efforts.

The DEC publishes regular updates on the Nepal response on their website and through social media. Information on how funds are being used is also shared directly to donors via email and post. The DEC has also commissioned and published an independent evaluation of the work, which I have attached for ease, of members in Nepal which particularly focuses on the emergency response phase.

The DEC is planning on producing a ‘one year on’ report which will be published on the anniversary of the earthquake. This will give details of how funds were raised, how they were disbursed to member agencies, how they have been spent and what has been achieved.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-03-17.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the remarks by the Minister of State for the Department for International Development, Desmond Swayne, on 16 March (HC Deb, col 937), what assessment they have made of measures required to confer on the International Criminal Court jurisdiction over crimes committed by Daesh in Syria and Iraq.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

The International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor has set out some of the complicated issues involved in the ICC investigating Daesh in her press statement of 8 April 2015. As neither Iraq nor Syria are State Parties to the Rome Statute, the ICC has no territorial jurisdiction over crimes committed on their soil. In order for Daesh’s crimes to be investigated by the ICC, Iraq and Syria would have to declare their acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction, or the UN Security Council could refer the situation to the Court.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-04-25.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will apply the principles of the Responsibility to Protect to the situation in North Korea.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is a governing principle of the British Government’s work across the conflict spectrum, including in human rights and development. R2P imposes an obligation on all UN member states to protect their populations and for the international community to assist.

The British Government continues to maintain pressure on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) to engage with the international community and take concrete steps to improve their appalling human rights record. We have urged the North Korean regime to allow the UN Special Rapporteur on DPRK Human Rights free and unfettered access to investigate the disturbing reports of human rights violations as documented in the UN Commission of Inquiry report.

The Government strongly supported the recent Human Rights Council Resolution on DPRK which created a Panel of Experts to investigate the issue of accountability for those accused of committing human rights violations. We will continue to support this process to ensure that those who are responsible for human rights abuses are held to account.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s Human Rights Report 2015 designated the DPRK as a Human Rights Priority Country. Improving the human rights situation in the DPRK remains a key objective of our engagement with the North Korean government.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-05-03.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what efforts they are making to press for the publication of the UN Security Council Sudan Panel of Experts’ most recent report, presented to the Sudan Sanctions Committee in December 2015, detailing the use of cluster munitions and gold smuggling in Darfur.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

The UK fully supports the work of the UN Panel of Experts on Darfur. We are extremely concerned that last year’s report has not been published and have raised this issue with our UN Security Council partners.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-05-18.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the aerial bombing of the Heiban locality in the South Khordofan and Blue Nile regions on 1 May, what assessment they have made of whether the government of Sudan is now in breach of international humanitarian law.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

The reported aerial bombardment of civilians in the Heiban locality of South Kordofan is appalling. Targeting of civilians would be a clear breach of International Humanitarian Law. We continue to make clear to the Government of Sudan that they have a responsibility to protect citizens, distinguish between combatants and non-combatants and uphold International Humanitarian Law.

We consistently raise the importance of ending the conflicts in South Kordofan and Blue Nile directly with both the Government of Sudan and the Opposition; most recently, the UK Special Representative for Sudan and South Sudan raised this issue during his visit to Khartoum earlier this month. We continue to call on all sides to end the violence and believe that the Roadmap proposed by the African Union High-Level Implementation Panel represents a viable way forward.

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what procedures they have in place to identify the occurrence of genocide for the purposes of fulfilling their obligations as a contracting party under Article VIII of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide 1948; and whether there is a protocol in place to guide those procedures.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

The UK is party to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide 1948 which requires that we prevent and punish the crime of genocide in our jurisdiction. As a State Party to the International Criminal Court Statute (ICC), the UK has made it a domestic crime to commit any of the crimes in the ICC Statute, including genocide. Where such crimes take place in the UK, or are committed by UK nationals, they can be prosecuted before the UK courts. Responsibility for investigation and prosecution in the UK lies with the Crown Prosecution Service and the Police.

Our seat on the UN Security Council means that the UK is able to swiftly engage where a threat of atrocity crimes emerges. The form of that engagement depends on the particulars of any individual situation. Where prevention has failed, it is the international community’s responsibility to take collective action, through diplomatic, humanitarian and other means. Where timely and decisive action to end, or prevent, the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes is necessary, the UK is active in calling for UN action. However, the Government believes that formal recognition that genocide has been committed is ultimately a matter for the courts, not political bodies.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-07-11.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Prior of Brampton on 7 July (HL830), what prevents Genomic England from sharing all 8,408 genomes in the rare disease and all 1,671 cancer genomes programmes with the relevant commercial interpretation partners to accelerate the delivery of full reports back to patients.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The interpretation of a genome for clinical purposes requires high quality genomic and clinical data. Genomics England is expanding the access to genome data by clinical interpretation partners at an appropriate rate to avoid exceeding their capacity. This is to ensure there are interpretation services that are sustainable for the remainder of the project.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-09-05.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, following North Korea’s launch of three ballistic missiles on 5 September, the UN Security Council will be convened to consider the implications of that launch and an international response.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

The UN Security Council (UNSC) met on 6 September to discuss a response to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s (DPRK) ballistic missiles launches on 5 September. The UNSC subsequently issued a statement condemning these launches as a flagrant violation of UN Security Council Resolutions. The UK strongly supports this statement, as we have with previous UNSC statements condemning DPRK provocations in 2016. We will continue to discuss at the UNSC, and with close partners, further measures in response to the DPRK’s destabilising and provocative actions.