Became Member: 20th September 1971
Left House: 14th February 2016 (Death)
Speeches made during Parliamentary debates are recorded in Hansard. For ease of browsing we have grouped debates into individual, departmental and legislative categories.
These initiatives were driven by Lord Avebury, and are more likely to reflect personal policy preferences.
None
A Bill to make provision to secure the establishment of caravan sites by local authorities in England for the use of Gypsies and Travellers.
Lord Avebury has not co-sponsored any Bills in the current parliamentary sitting
Catering and Retail Services seek to provide an appropriate level of service to support an active and busy parliamentary chamber, and to provide excellent value to the taxpayer. The catering subsidy has been reduced by 32% since 2007 and we are working hard to reduce it further through an ambitious Change Programme.
The unpredictable nature of parliamentary business – in terms of sitting days, recesses, the length of each sitting, and the level of attendance at the House for each sitting – means that staffing costs and wastage are higher than would be the case in purely commercial catering outlets. This makes an operating loss extremely difficult to avoid.
Furthermore, catering facilities are used by a wide range of people, not just Members. Venues such as the River Restaurant and Millbank House cafeteria are mainly intended to provide facilities for staff and other users such as the Metropolitan Police, contractors and others working on the Parliamentary Estate. It is good practice for large employers to provide cafeteria facilities for staff, particularly for organisations that operate outside normal office hours as is the case in the House of Lords. We pay all catering staff at least the London Living Wage and provide them with workplace pensions. We are proud to do so but it means our costs are higher than some commercial restaurants.
Given these factors, some element of tax-payer funding is appropriate, but the Administration is vigilant to ensure that public money is stewarded responsibly. Catering and Retail Services are also exploring novel ways to generate income in quieter times, such as opening the Peers’ Dining Room to the public in longer recesses. This helps to reduce the overall cost of the refreshment service to the tax payer, and so the subsidy.
The turnover, expenditure and profit or loss of each Catering and Retail Service outlet in 2012-13 and 2013-14 are set out in the tables below.
2012-13
Outlet | Turnover (£) | Expenditure (£) | Profit/loss (£) |
Peers' Dining Room | 491,364 | 1,308,224 | -816,860 |
Barry Room | 238,267 | 498,307 | -260,040 |
Home Room | 44,838 | 182,122 | -137,284 |
River Restaurant | 257,041 | 689,116 | -432,075 |
Bishops Bar | 51,399 | 111,197 | -59,798 |
Peers Guest Room | 59,952 | 56,524 | 3,428 |
Lords Bar | 99,612 | 130,914 | -31,302 |
Millbank House | 90,139 | 205,036 | -114,897 |
2013-14
Outlet | Turnover (£) | Expenditure (£) | Profit/loss (£) |
Peers' Dining Room | 554,236 | 1,441,232 | -886,996 |
Barry Room | 204,882 | 466,362 | -261,480 |
Home Room | 29,503 | 163,502 | -133,999 |
River Restaurant | 258,457 | 703,978 | -445,521 |
Bishops Bar | 60,090 | 125,399 | -65,310 |
Peers Guest Room | 60,045 | 75,335 | -15,290 |
Lords Bar | 106,561 | 102,746 | 3,815 |
Millbank House | 91,430 | 240,236 | -148,806 |
The process for tabling oral questions was considered in detail in the 2012-13 session. In response to concerns raised about the current “first-come-first-served” system - including a concern about the requirement to queue raised by my Noble Friend, Lady Sharples - the Procedure Committee proposed the introduction of a ballot in its place (Procedure Committee, 3rd Report, Session 2012-13). The House remitted the issue back to the Procedure Committee for further consideration (HL Deb 9 Jan 2013, cols 145-172).
That further review did not identify a clear consensus as to whether a ballot was preferred to the “first-come-first-served” system (see Procedure Committee, 5th Report, Session 2012-13; see also HL Deb 24 April 2013, cols 1406-1417).
I know that strong views persist on both sides of the argument about this issue. I will write to the Chairman of the Procedure Committee on my Noble Friend’s behalf to suggest that the matter might be discussed at a future meeting of the Procedure Committee.
The government does not hold information on nominations blocked by the House of Lords Appointments Commission. This is a matter for the House of Lords Appointment Commission who are an independent, advisory, non-departmental public body.
The Government is committed todelivering further savings to eliminate the deficit in public expenditure in order to secure Britain’s long term economic security. DCMS is working closely with all of its arm’s length bodies, including the British Library, as part of the current spending review to understand the impacts of public funding decisions. The outcome of this will be announced by the Chancellor on 25 November 2015.
We received a final copy of the report in January 2015, and its findings are currently under consideration. We will publish it as soon as we are in a position to do so.
General election guidance for Government Departments published by the Cabinet Office includes advice on carrying out public consultations.
That guidance primarily covers situations where an election is called once a public consultation is already under way, rather than any consideration that would be necessary about whether to launch a consultation when an election is known to be imminent.
In the case of caste, that consultation has been delayed because of legal developments in a caste-related case – Chandhok v Tirkey. The Employment Appeal Tribunal issued a judgment in December 2014 opening the possibility that claims of caste-associated discrimination may already have a legal remedy under existing legislation, namely the “ethnic origins” element of Section 9 of the Equality Act 2010.
We are now carefully considering the judgment’s implications for discrimination law in respect of caste in order to ensure the appropriate level of protection against caste-associated discrimination exists.
We are currently considering the form and timing of the public consultation in the light of ongoing caste discrimination litigation in the Employment Appeal Tribunal. We will await the outcome of the judgment before deciding in what form to issue the public consultation
The Government has accepted that the Equality and Human Rights Commission will not be undertaking further research in the area outlined in the question. However, in their respective statements neither Lord Ahmad nor Helen Grant accepted that such research cannot be done, which is why we are commissioning the feasibility study to which the Noble Lord refers.
The key objectives for this study, which form its terms of reference, are to:
This Government has been giving consideration to the legal position on caste discrimination in light of the Tirkey v Chandhok Employment Appeal Tribunal judgment which suggests there is an existing legal remedy for claims of caste-associated discrimination under the ‘ethnic origins’ element of Section 9 of the Equality Act 2010.
Our consideration of the research report commissioned by the coalition Government, designed to determine the feasibility of conducting a national survey to quantify the extent of caste discrimination in Britain, is part of this process.
We remain mindful of the Open Government Action Plan published by the Coalition Government in 2013, to the extent that this concerns the results of commissioned research.
This Government has been giving consideration to the legal position on caste discrimination in light of the Tirkey v Chandhok Employment Appeal Tribunal judgment which suggests there is an existing legal remedy for claims of caste-associated discrimination under the ‘ethnic origins’ element of Section 9 of the Equality Act 2010.
Our consideration of the research report commissioned by the coalition Government, designed to determine the feasibility of conducting a national survey to quantify the extent of caste discrimination in Britain, is part of this process.
We remain mindful of the Open Government Action Plan published by the Coalition Government in 2013, to the extent that this concerns the results of commissioned research.
This Government has been giving consideration to the legal position on caste discrimination in light of the Tirkey v Chandhok Employment Appeal Tribunal judgment which suggests there is an existing legal remedy for claims of caste-associated discrimination under the ‘ethnic origins’ element of Section 9 of the Equality Act 2010.
Our consideration of the research report commissioned by the coalition Government, designed to determine the feasibility of conducting a national survey to quantify the extent of caste discrimination in Britain, is part of this process.
We remain mindful of the Open Government Action Plan published by the Coalition Government in 2013, to the extent that this concerns the results of commissioned research.
The executive summary of the comprehensive survey undertaken by UNICEF of nutrition and health indicators in camps for internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Darfur, funded by DFID at the end of 2013, is available online. This survey confirms that overall levels of nutrition and health in Darfur IDP camps continue to be of concern, for example 44% of children in Zamzam camp in North Darfur were recorded as suffering from stunting. Indicators for camps in North and Central Darfur are generally worse than camps in other areas; however the health and nutrition situation for IDPs located in camps tends to be better than the situation for resident and displaced populations in other parts of Darfur located outside of camps. A follow up survey, to be partially funded by DFID, is planned to take place in mid-2016.
The United Nations (UN) Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) has played a central role in developing the Sudan 2015 Humanitarian Response Plan which aims to address the humanitarian needs of up to 5.4 million vulnerable people in Darfur and other parts of Sudan and appeals for funding of £650 million to achieve this. In line with agreed strategic objectives, OCHA coordinates the activities of in country partners, including other UN agencies and national and international non-governmental organisations and allocates funding received through the appeal to humanitarian projects across Sudan, such as those to tackle disease and malnutrition. DFID is the third largest humanitarian donor in support of this appeal.
I will personally be attending the Second International Conference on Nutrition (ICN2) along with high level representatives from DFID and the Department of Health.
The UK government supports the inclusion of integrated approaches to healthcare in a post 2015 agenda, as shown through the emphasis on Universal Health Coverage in the Report of the High-Level Panel, chaired by the Prime Minister, and its inclusion as a target in the proposal of the Open Working Group for Sustainable Development Goals.
Public private product development partnerships (PDPs) have been shown to expedite the development of new drugs, vaccines and diagnostic tests, achieving results faster than either the public or private sectors alone.
Prior to the creation of PDPs, only 20 drugs were developed for neglected diseases between 1975 and 2000. Since 2000, UK Government funded PDPs have developed 19 new products including drugs for malaria, TB, neglected tropical diseases (such as sleeping sickness and visceral leishmaniasis), one vaccine for diarrhoea (rotavirus) and six new diagnostic tests (5 for TB and the first ever rapid diagnostic test for sleeping sickness).
Officials from my Department regularly discuss the importance of product development partnerships (PDPs) and the continued important role for technology development in the post-2015 development agenda. The UK currently chairs the international Product Development Funders’ Group, including both bilateral and multilateral agencies as well as private foundations. Officials also participate in the annual Product Development Forum arranged by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
The UK Government recognises the important role of new health technologies and product development partnerships (PDPs) in achieving the Millennium Development Goals and in the post-2015 agenda. The UK is the second largest government supporter of this research and will continue to promote it along with international partners.
We welcome the draft framework as an important step forward in updating the Bank’s approach to safeguards and as a good basis for further consultation. We will continue to engage with World Bank management as the framework is developed further during the second consultation stage.
We welcome the draft framework as an important step forward in updating the Bank’s approach to safeguards and as a good basis for further consultation. We will continue to engage with World Bank management as the framework is developed further during the second consultation stage.
The focus of Girl Summit 2014 was on ending female genital mutilation and child, early and forced marriage. No specific assessment was made at the Summit on the role of the GAVI Alliance in safeguarding the health of women and girls or addressing gender-related barriers to accessing immunisation services. However, GAVI is rolling-out two vaccines that will directly benefit girls and women: rubella vaccine, which protects against a disease damaging to unborn children; and Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccine, which helps prevent cervical cancer, one of the leading causes of death in young women in sub-Saharan Africa. GAVI will immunise over 30 million girls with HPV vaccines during 2013-2020 which will prevent over 150,000 women dying each year. GAVI is working to overcome the barriers to introducing the HPV vaccine in developing countries by reducing the high cost of the vaccine and tackling the challenges of immunising girls aged nine to thirteen years by integrating HPV immunisation with wider health interventions targeted at adolescent girls.
The UK’s support to GAVI remains a highly cost effective way to achieve childhood immunisation results at scale. The 2011 UK Multilateral Aid Review (MAR) ranked GAVI as being very good value for money. The 2013 MAR Update confirmed that GAVI is continuing to make reasonable progress. An example of this is that GAVI helped to secure a reduction in price of 35% between 2010-2012 of the three vaccines it spends the most money on.
Details of the drugs removed from the national Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) list following re-prioritisation are shown in tables 1 and 2. The latest version of the list is available on NHS England’s website at: www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/pe/cdf/. A copy is attached.
Table 1: Confirmation of previously notified drugs and indications delisted on 12 March 2015 | |
Drug | Indication removed |
Aflibercept | 2nd line in combination with irinotecan-based combination chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer |
Bendamustine | Treatment of patients with indolent non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma who are refractory to rituximab |
Bevacizumab | 1st line in combination with oxaliplatin–based combination chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer |
Bevacizumab | 1st line in combination with irinotecan–based combination chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer |
Bevacizumab | 1st line in combination with single agent fluoropyrimidine–based chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. |
Bevacizumab | In combination with carboplatin and gemcitabine chemotherapy for recurrent platinum sensitive ovarian cancer |
Bortezomib | Re-treatment in patients with relapsed myeloma |
Bortezomib | Treatment of patients with relapsed Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinaemia |
Bortezomib | Treatment of patients with relapsed mantle cell lymphoma |
Bosutinib | Treatment of blast phase chronic myeloid leukaemia |
Cetuximab | 2nd line in combination with irinotecan chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer in patients with RAS wild type (non-mutated) tumours |
Dasatinib | Treatment of the lymphoid blast phase of chronic myeloid leukaemia |
Everolimus | Treatment of progressive unresectable or metastatic well differentiated neuroendocrine tumour of the pancreas |
Lapatinib | In combination with capecitabine chemotherapy for HER-2 receptor positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer |
Ofatumumab | Treatment of relapsed or refractory chronic lymphatic leukaemia |
Pazopanib | Treatment of previously treated metastatic non-adipocytic soft tissue sarcomas |
Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin | 1st or 2nd line chemotherapy of angiosarcoma |
Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin | Chemotherapy of primary malignant sarcomas of the heart and great vessels |
Source: National Cancer Drugs Fund List Ver 6.0 | |
Table 2: Confirmation of previously notified drugs and indications delisted on 4 November 2015 | |
Drug | Indication removed |
Albumin bound Paclitaxel | First line treatment of advanced adenocarcinoma of the pancreas in combination with Gemcitabine |
Bendamustine | 2nd or subsequent line treatment of chronic lymphatic leukaemia for patients whom fludarabine combination therapy is not a therapeutic option |
Bendamustine | 2nd and subsequent line of treatment of mantle cell lymphoma in patients who have not received previous Bendamustine |
Bevacizumab | Treatment of patients with triple negative metastatic breast cancer and/or prior Taxane therapy |
Bevacizumab | 2nd or 3rd line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in combination with standard chemotherapy in patients who have not previously received Bevacizumab |
Bosutinib | Treatment of chronic phase CML refractory to Nilotinib or Dasatinib |
Bosutinib | Treatment of accelerated phase CML refractory to Nilotinib or Dasatinib |
Bosutinib | Treatment of accelerated phase CML where there is significant intolerance to Dasatinib and Nilotinib. |
Cetuximab | 3rd and subsequent line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer as a single agent |
Cetuximab | 3rd and subsequent line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer as a single agent in patients not treated to progression under NICE TA176 |
Dasatinib | Treatment of adults with Philadelphia chromosome positive (Ph+) acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy including Imatinib |
Everolimus | 2nd or 3rd line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma where disease has progressed on or after treatment with VEGF-targeted therapy |
Lenalidomide | 2nd line treatment of multiple myeloma in patients who have contraindications to the use of Bortezomib |
Panitumumab | 3rd and subsequent line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer as a single agent |
Panitumumab | 3rd and subsequent line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer as a single agent in patients not treated to progression under NICE TA176 |
Pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin | 2nd line treatment of Fibromatosis |
Peptide Receptor Radionucleotide Therapy (Lutetium177 Octreotate or Yttrium90 Octreotide/Octreotate) | Treatment of advanced neuro-endocrine tumours i.e. for pNETS after Sunitinib/chemotherapy, for mid-gut carcinoid, after octreotide/somatostatin therapies. |
Pomalidomide | Treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma in patients who have received at least 2 prior treatment regimens, including both lenalidomide and bortezomib, and have demonstrated disease progression on the last therapy |
Source: National Cancer Drugs Fund List Ver 6.0 | |
NHS England publishes information on the number of patient applications for particular drugs/indications contained on the national CDF list on a quarterly basis. This information also includes the number of applications approved through the individual CDF request process. The latest information isattached as it is too long to be included in this answer. It is also available at:
www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/pe/cdf/ and a copy of this is also attached.
The Government is committed to the CDF and is working with NHS England and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence on the future arrangements for the Fund.
The Government continues to take forward work to deliver the recommendations in the 2014 report. We remain committed to improving stem cell transplantation services and doing all we can to help those in need of a transplant to find a suitable donor.
Since 2011, the Department has provided its delivery partners, NHS Blood and Transplant and the Anthony Nolan, a total of £16 million in additional, new funding to improve stem cell transplantation services in the United Kingdom. A further £3 million investment was announced in March 2015.
This funding has led to a tangible improvement in the availability of stem cells in the UK and the achievements include:
- More UK patients received a stem cell transplant in 2014 than ever before;
- Over 60% of black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) patients are now able to find a well matched donor compared to only 40% in 2010;
- A single unified bone marrow donor registry has been created streamlining the provision of stem cells and reducing the time to provide cells from adult donors;
- The proportion of patients receiving cord blood from UK donors has significantly increased; and
- An increase in UK patients receiving a transplant from 802 in 2010/11 to 1,060 in 1013/14. The increased use of UK-sourced stem cells has meant that more donors than ever are available to donate leading to a significant cost saving by reducing the need to import stem cells.
We have made no assessment.
NHS England, and all National Health Service organisations, have a duty to have due regard to the need to reduce health inequalities in access to health services and health outcomes achieved, as well as having regard to the different needs of groups with characteristics protected under the Equality Act 2010.
As part of its contractual arrangements for provision of healthcare in prisons, NHS England expects that care planning and delivery of services must be equitable for all prisoners and take into consideration the diversity of the prison population. This would include Gypsies, Travellers and the Roma communities.
The Equality Delivery System (EDS) for the NHS helps all NHS organisations, in discussion with local partners and patients, to review and improve their performance for people with characteristics protected under the Equality Act. By using the EDS, NHS organisations can ensure they are delivering on the public sector Equality Duty.
Every person entering a place of detention will have an initial health screen at reception where health needs are assessed and where appropriate referrals are made to other services, including substance misuse services.
Ministers and officials in the alcohol policy team meet with public health representatives and experts on a regular basis in the course of their normal activities. Discussions on the general evidence base for the impacts of changes in alcohol duty may have been raised during these meetings. There have been no discussions on specific changes in alcohol duty.
Dates of meetings attended by the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Public Health and officials from the Department:
- 5 November 2014 – Responsibility Deal alcohol network meeting, attendance included the Portman Group, Diageo, the Wine and Spirits Trade Association, the British Beer and Pub Association and SABMiller;
- 18 November 2014 – Responsibility Deal Plenary Group meeting, attendance included the Portman Group; and
- 3 March 2015 – The All-Party Parliamentary Beer Group reception promoting lower alcohol beers and wines. Attendance included Portman Group, the Wine and Spirits Trade Association, the British Beer and Pub Association and SABMiller.
Details of meetings held by Ministers and the Permanent Secretary with external organisations are also published quarterly in arrears and can be found at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/ministerial-gifts-hospitality-overseas-travel-and-meetings
Dates of meetings attended by officials from the Department only:
- 14 November 2014 – Meeting with industry on the EU alcohol strategy, attendance included the Wine and Spirits Trade Association, the British Beer and Pub Association and the Portman Group;
- 4 December 2014 – Drinkaware medical panel meeting;
- 21 January 2015 – Meeting with the Portman Group;
- 3 February 2015 – Drinkaware Board meeting;
- 5 February 2015 – Meeting with the Wine and Spirits Trade Association;
- 16 February 2015 – Meeting with the Portman Group;
- 17 February 2015 – Meeting with the Portman Group;
- 19 February 2015 – Meeting with SABMiller;
- 25 February 2015 – Meeting with the Portman Group;
- 26 February 2015 – Meeting with SABMiller; and
- 26 February 2015 – Meeting with Drinkaware.
Screening arrangements at London Heathrow and the other ports remain under constant review.
NHS England, Public Health England (PHE) and the Department of Health are working jointly with stakeholders to make sure that patients with liver disease, including those who may develop hepatic encephalopathy, are supported. PHE is also working with stakeholders to develop a liver disease framework.
There are currently no plans to carry out a clinical audit into services for people with advanced liver disease for all causes. However, liver cancer outcomes for the specialised services which NHS England commissions are currently audited and a national audit of outcome dimensions for the treatment of hepatitis C will be established by NHS England in due course. In addition, PHE is working with the Lancet Commission on Liver Disease to use routine data to investigate elements of care for people with advanced liver disease.
We are also taking action to prevent people developing liver disease in the first place by tackling two of the main causes of liver disease – obesity and alcohol misuse. This includes:
- our Call to Action on Obesity, which sets out two national ambitions for a downward trend in level of excess weight in children and adults by 2020; and
- our Alcohol Strategy, which aims to cut the number of people drinking above the lower-risk guidelines.
NHS England, Public Health England (PHE) and the Department of Health are working jointly with stakeholders to make sure that patients with liver disease, including those who may develop hepatic encephalopathy, are supported. PHE is also working with stakeholders to develop a liver disease framework.
There are currently no plans to carry out a clinical audit into services for people with advanced liver disease for all causes. However, liver cancer outcomes for the specialised services which NHS England commissions are currently audited and a national audit of outcome dimensions for the treatment of hepatitis C will be established by NHS England in due course. In addition, PHE is working with the Lancet Commission on Liver Disease to use routine data to investigate elements of care for people with advanced liver disease.
We are also taking action to prevent people developing liver disease in the first place by tackling two of the main causes of liver disease – obesity and alcohol misuse. This includes:
- our Call to Action on Obesity, which sets out two national ambitions for a downward trend in level of excess weight in children and adults by 2020; and
- our Alcohol Strategy, which aims to cut the number of people drinking above the lower-risk guidelines.
Public Health England (PHE) has a comprehensive range of action aimed at reducing the incidence and mortality from liver disease. It monitors the incidence, mortality and outcomes of treatment for liver disease and the risk factors: alcohol obesity and Hepatitis B and C. PHE has a wide range of action to tackle unhealthy alcohol consumption, obesity and viral hepatitis through strengthening local action, promoting healthy choices, and giving appropriate information to support healthier lives.
In response to the All Party Parliamentary Hepatology Group report PHE has committed to producing a PHE Liver Disease Framework. This will focus on public health action to tackle risk factors for liver disease and inequalities in relation to liver disease. Work has already begun to bring together expertise within PHE on the major risk factors for liver disease (alcohol, hepatitis B and C and obesity), data on liver disease and its risk factors and on death and dying from liver disease. Many of the actions to tackle the major risk factors require a coordinated approach between PHE and NHS England.
NHS England is responsible for delivering improvements in outcomes against the NHS Mandate and in line with the NHS Outcomes Framework. NHS England are adopting a broad strategy for delivering improvements in relation to premature mortality, working with commissioners and PHE to support clinical commissioning groups in understanding where local challenges lie and in identifying the evidence in relation to the priorities for reducing mortality at a national level.
Public Health England (PHE) is leading on arrangements for enhanced screening for Ebola which is being rolled out at Heathrow, Gatwick and St Pancras (Eurostar), and Birmingham and Manchester airports thereafter. This screening will be for passengers that Border Force officers identify as having travelled from Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia or for those passengers who identify themselves to staff.
Screening is being implemented by PHE staff, who follow official protocols. PHE has issued guidance to its staff and for professionals across other sectors, about how to deal with a suspected case of Ebola. There are established and tested procedures for transporting patients with highly infectious diseases to hospitals when required.
The British Government consistently and unreservedly condemns torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and it is a priority for us to combat it wherever and whenever it occurs. We are aware of ongoing allegations against Ministry of Interior personnel, and we have expressed our concerns to the authorities. The Government of Bahrain has previously committed to consider ratifying the Optional Protocol of the Convention Against Torture. The UK strongly supports this and we have been working with the authorities to share best practice on torture prevention measures. We also continue to ask the Government of Bahrain to allow a visit of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture.
We welcome the progress made by Bahrain on their reform programme particularly in the areas of youth justice, the establishment and increasing effectiveness of the Ombudsman’s office, the Prisoner and Detainees’ Rights Commission and the reformed National Institute of Human Rights. We continue to work with the Government of Bahrain to ensure momentum and progress on its reforms, for the benefit of all Bahrainis.
The Government of Bahrain has asked the international community for their assistance in implementing the reforms necessary to improve the human rights situation, including in the security services. We strongly support them in their efforts and that is why we will continue to offer bilateral assistance for Bahrain’s reform programmes. In August, following a meeting with His Majesty King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), reiterated the UK’s support for ongoing political reform in Bahrain but encouraged His Majesty to continue to demonstrate substantive progress in all areas. Our package of technical assistance is focused on strengthening human rights and the rule of law, in line with the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry and the Universal Periodic Review.
The situation in Darfur has already been referred to the International Criminal Court (ICC) by the UN Security Council under UN Security Council Resolution 1593 (2005). As the prosecutor’s investigation is still ongoing, it could encompass any new allegations. However, such a decision would be for the Office of the Prosecutor of the Court to take. The UK remains a strong supporter of the ICC.
We have repeatedly raised our concerns at the UN Security Council over the reported bombing of hospitals in South Kordofan. Any decision to refer to the International Criminal Court must be made on the basis of what will be the most effective means to bring those responsible to account. We will therefore continue to look at every available option to ensure accountability, and to work with our international partners on what can be done to both assist the victims and to bring those responsible to justice. We will also continue to urge the Government of Sudan to cooperate fully with the UN Independent Expert, whose mandate was renewed at the recent Human Rights Council in September and allows him to assess, verify and report on the human rights situation throughout Sudan.
We have no plans at present to propose to the UN Secretary-General that he commission such a study.
Resolving the ongoing Ethiopia-Eritrea border dispute requires both countries to engage in political dialogue. We believe this would be in the economic interests of both countries, and contribute to reducing instability in the Horn of Africa.
We have consistently urged both Eritrea and Ethiopia to engage bilaterally and with international partners, such as the EU and the UN, to overcome the current stalemate. The UK, along with our partners in the international community, has underlined that the decision by the Ethiopia-Eritrea Boundary Commission is final and binding. We urge both governments to respect the commitment they made in the Algiers peace agreement of December 2000.
There were no specific allegations of misappropriation of public funds involving UK companies in the UN Monitoring Group’s October 2014 report. However, the report notes the phenomenon of “secret contracting” involving Somali natural resources and national assets. The rise of this phenomenon is particularly concerning. The British Government works in close partnership with the Somali authorities and other international partners, such as the World Bank, to improve the overall transparency and accountability of public financial management in Somalia. We recognise that much has been done over the last two years to improve the very poor financial management systems that the Federal Government of Somalia inherited in 2012. We welcome in particular the introduction of an automated financial management information system and the establishment of a “Financial Governance Committee (FGC)”, a forum which has enabled the International Financial Institutions to give advice on reform of asset management, public sector procurement, and public financial management. The FGC also reviews government contracts, which has resulted in the termination and renegotiation of some major contracts. We continue to monitor closely and support efforts to improve Somalia’s public financial management.
It is clear from social media that there is considerable, though not universal, support in Saudi Arabia for the sentence imposed on Raif Badawi. More broadly, a substantial proportion of the Saudi population hold conservative views and support the implementation of Shariah law. We continue to raise our concerns with the Saudi Arabian authorities about Raif Badawi’s case and wider human rights issues.
I refer the noble Lord to the Written Ministerial Statement of 24 March 2015 made by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (James Duddridge), which I repeated the same day in the House of Lords, (HLWS440).
Further work building on the independent KPMG Feasibility Study is now underway to seek to clarify fundamental uncertainties around the likely costs, ongoing liabilities and potential demand for resettlement. This is being led by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in close collaboration with the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development, and we will explain our conclusions to interested parties in due course.
This case against Zainab Al Khawaja follows an incident in Jau prison when her father, Abdulhadi Al Khawaja, was on hunger strike. We understand Ms Al Khawaja attempted to enter an area of the prison closed to the public and stage a sit-in, and as a result, was forcibly removed from the facility. She has the right to appeal. Our Embassy in Bahrain will continue to monitor the case closely.
We have had no confirmation that the Kuwaiti Parliament has approved any change to the Nationality Law which would confer upon women the right to pass nationality to their children. Our Ambassador and other senior officials frequently raise the issue of nationality and equal rights with the relevant Kuwaiti authorities, and the UK noted concerns about gender equality during Kuwait’s Universal Periodic Review at the UN Human Rights Council in January.
I refer the noble Lord to the Written Ministerial Statement I made on 24 March on Progress in reviewing policy on resettlement of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), (HLWS440). In relation to the Arbitral Tribunal, it remains the case that there is no question about the UK’s sovereignty of BIOT and we have always maintained that the Marine Protected Area is not a bar to resettlement.
We welcome the news that the United Nations Secretary General has written to Prime Minister Hasina and the leader of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and we continue to encourage the UN to maintain their engagement in Bangladesh. It is important that the political parties do all they can to build confidence with each other, put an end to the violence and defuse the tension across the country.