Tag: Lord Alton of Liverpool

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.

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.