Lord Avebury

Liberal Democrat - Excepted Hereditary

Became Member: 20th September 1971

Left House: 14th February 2016 (Death)


Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee)
16th May 2013 - 18th Nov 2013
Intergovernmental Organisations Committee
15th Nov 2007 - 7th Jul 2008
Information Committee (Lords)
25th Nov 2002 - 7th May 2005
Committee On Religious Offences
15th May 2002 - 10th Apr 2003
Science and Technology Committee (Lords)
31st Jan 1980 - 28th Oct 1982
Science and Technology Committee
31st Jan 1980 - 28th Oct 1982
House of Lords Offices Committee
20th Nov 1975 - 22nd Nov 1976


Division Voting information

Lord Avebury has voted in 556 divisions, and 39 times against the majority of their Party.

11 Feb 2015 - Deregulation Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Avebury voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 7 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 50 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 197 Noes - 208
5 Feb 2015 - Deregulation Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Avebury voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 11 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 45 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 178 Noes - 175
21 Oct 2014 - Deregulation Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Avebury voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 1 Liberal Democrat No votes vs 59 Liberal Democrat Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 234 Noes - 194
20 Oct 2014 - Criminal Justice and Courts Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Avebury voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 9 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 46 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 80 Noes - 170
7 Apr 2014 - Immigration Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Avebury voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 11 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 51 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 282 Noes - 184
7 Apr 2014 - Immigration Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Avebury voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 23 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 39 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 242 Noes - 180
1 Apr 2014 - Immigration Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Avebury voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 12 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 45 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 54 Noes - 360
29 Jan 2014 - Children and Families Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Avebury voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 27 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 28 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 222 Noes - 197
17 Jul 2013 - Mesothelioma Bill [HL] - View Vote Context
Lord Avebury voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 6 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 54 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 192 Noes - 199
17 Jul 2013 - Mesothelioma Bill [HL] - View Vote Context
Lord Avebury voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 1 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 50 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 152 Noes - 187
22 Apr 2013 - Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Avebury voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 17 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 30 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 210 Noes - 180
22 Apr 2013 - Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Avebury voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 18 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 30 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 181 Noes - 168
26 Mar 2013 - Growth and Infrastructure Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Avebury voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 10 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 54 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 217 Noes - 211
26 Mar 2013 - Justice and Security Bill [HL] - View Vote Context
Lord Avebury voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 26 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 27 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 158 Noes - 174
4 Mar 2013 - Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Avebury voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 8 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 34 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 217 Noes - 166
4 Mar 2013 - Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Avebury voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 21 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 33 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 256 Noes - 153
4 Mar 2013 - Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Avebury voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 5 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 45 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 167 Noes - 179
10 Dec 2012 - Crime and Courts Bill [HL] - View Vote Context
Lord Avebury voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 5 Liberal Democrat No votes vs 54 Liberal Democrat Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 206 Noes - -1
19 Nov 2012 - Justice and Security Bill [HL] - View Vote Context
Lord Avebury voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 7 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 52 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 170 Noes - 200
22 Oct 2012 - Local Government Finance Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Avebury voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 16 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 28 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 203 Noes - 165
23 Apr 2012 - Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Avebury voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 2 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 63 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 214 Noes - 205
23 Apr 2012 - Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Avebury voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 2 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 64 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 159 Noes - 197
27 Mar 2012 - Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Avebury voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 5 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 27 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 26 Noes - 107
14 Mar 2012 - Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Avebury voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 2 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 47 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 189 Noes - 158
7 Mar 2012 - Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Avebury voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 3 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 60 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 237 Noes - 198
7 Mar 2012 - Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Avebury voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 3 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 59 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 222 Noes - 194
14 Feb 2012 - Welfare Reform Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Avebury voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 6 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 59 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 236 Noes - 226
31 Jan 2012 - Welfare Reform Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Avebury voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 7 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 58 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 246 Noes - 230
25 Jan 2012 - Welfare Reform Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Avebury voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 16 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 30 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 270 Noes - 128
23 Jan 2012 - Welfare Reform Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Avebury voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 17 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 41 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 222 Noes - 250
23 Jan 2012 - Welfare Reform Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Avebury voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 25 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 38 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 252 Noes - 237
11 Jan 2012 - Welfare Reform Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Avebury voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 4 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 41 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 222 Noes - 166
14 Dec 2011 - Welfare Reform Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Avebury voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 14 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 43 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 258 Noes - 190
15 Nov 2011 - Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Avebury voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 9 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 45 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 79 Noes - 273
15 Nov 2011 - Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Avebury voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 7 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 47 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 165 Noes - 168
8 Nov 2011 - Procedure of the House (Proposal 1) - View Vote Context
Lord Avebury voted No - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 27 Liberal Democrat No votes vs 29 Liberal Democrat Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 169 Noes - 233
15 Jun 2011 - Estates of Deceased Persons (Forfeiture Rule and Law of Succession) Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Avebury voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 18 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 47 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 209 Noes - 203
11 May 2011 - Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Avebury voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 13 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 35 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 188 Noes - 176
1 Jun 2009 - Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] - View Vote Context
Lord Avebury voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 3 Liberal Democrat Aye votes vs 32 Liberal Democrat No votes
Tally: Ayes - 71 Noes - 158
View All Lord Avebury Division Votes

All Debates

Speeches made during Parliamentary debates are recorded in Hansard. For ease of browsing we have grouped debates into individual, departmental and legislative categories.

Department Debates
Home Office
(145 debate contributions)
Ministry of Justice
(46 debate contributions)
Department for Work and Pensions
(33 debate contributions)
View All Department Debates
Legislation Debates
Lord Avebury has not made any spoken contributions to legislative debate
View all Lord Avebury's debates

Lords initiatives

These initiatives were driven by Lord Avebury, and are more likely to reflect personal policy preferences.


2 Bills introduced by Lord Avebury


None

Lords Completed

Last Event - 3rd Reading: House Of Lords
Monday 17th December 2012

A Bill to make provision to secure the establishment of caravan sites by local authorities in England for the use of Gypsies and Travellers.

Lords - 20%

Last Event - 1st Reading: House Of Lords
Thursday 1st December 2011

Lord Avebury has not co-sponsored any Bills in the current parliamentary sitting


Latest 50 Written Questions

(View all written questions)
Written Questions can be tabled by MPs and Lords to request specific information information on the work, policy and activities of a Government Department
3 Other Department Questions
12th Oct 2015
To ask the Chairman of Committees what plans he has to end the subsidy for catering services in the House of Lords.

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.

17th Dec 2014
To ask the Chairman of Committees what has been (1) the expenditure, and (2) the profit or deficit, for the years 2012–13 and 2013–14 of each catering outlet in the House of Lords.

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

4th Nov 2014
To ask the Leader of the House whether she will propose to the Procedure Committee a review of the system for tabling oral questions in the House of Lords in respect of the requirement for members to queue.

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.

16th Dec 2014
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many nominations for peerages by each political party have been blocked by the House of Lords Appointments Commission in each of the Parliaments since its formation in 2000.

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.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Liberal Democrat Lords Spokesperson (Cabinet Office)
12th Oct 2015
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the impact of reductions in the funding they provide to the British Library, and whether they will publish the details of this assessment.

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.



Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Shadow Minister (Cabinet Office)
9th Mar 2015
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Northover on 4 August 2014 (HL1061), when they received the report of the feasibility study commissioned by the Government Equalities Office; and why the report has not yet been published.

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.

3rd Mar 2015
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to seek advice from the Propriety and Ethics team in the Cabinet Office about launching the consultation on adding caste to the list of protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010 in a 12-week period that overlaps the general election.

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.

27th Nov 2014
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon on 6 May (HL6447) stating that the consultation on the implementation of the amendment to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 amending section 9(5) in the Equality Act 2010 adding caste to the list of protected characteristics, agreed by Parliament in April 2013, would begin in the autumn, whether they will now issue the consultation.

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

14th Jul 2014
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon on 6 May (WA 331–2) and the comments by Helen Grant, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities on 9 July (HC Deb, col 140 WH), how they intend to establish baseline data that can be used to determine whether caste legislation is stopping unlawful discrimination given their acceptance of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission’s statement that research for that purpose would not be possible; and what are the terms of reference of the feasibility study announced by Mrs Grant.

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:

  • Identify and critically assess the key issues which affect the feasibility of quantifying the extent of caste discrimination in Britain, and measuring changes over time;
  • Identify specific methodological approaches for realistically and feasibly quantifying the scale of caste discrimination in Britain and measuring changes over time;
  • Appraise the costs and benefits associated with each methodological option.

18th Nov 2015
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what further consideration they have given to whether amending the Equality Act 2010 to include the word "caste" would change or clarify the legal position, given the provisions already in place in section 9(5)(a) of that Act.

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.


Baroness Williams of Trafford
Shadow Chief Whip (Lords)
18th Nov 2015
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether it is now possible to establish baseline data that could be used to determine whether the law on caste discrimination is working effectively.

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.


Baroness Williams of Trafford
Shadow Chief Whip (Lords)
18th Nov 2015
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the compatibility of their decision to delay the publication of their feasibility study regarding establishing baseline data to evaluate the effectiveness of caste legislation with their commitment to open government.

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.


Baroness Williams of Trafford
Shadow Chief Whip (Lords)
7th Sep 2015
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what information they have about (1) the levels of malnutrition and disease among children in each of the camps for internally displaced people in Darfur, and (2) the plans of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs to deal with those problems.

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.

5th Nov 2014
To ask Her Majesty’s Government who will be representing the United Kingdom Government at the World Health Organisation Second International Conference on Nutrition in Rome from 19 to 21 November.

I will personally be attending the Second International Conference on Nutrition (ICN2) along with high level representatives from DFID and the Department of Health.

27th Oct 2014
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they plan to take to promote integrated healthcare structures and policy in the United Nations post-2015 development agenda.

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.

27th Oct 2014
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the outcomes arising from the Department for International Developments-sponsored product development partnerships.

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).

27th Oct 2014
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have held with international counterparts on including product development partnerships in the post-2015 development agenda.

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.

27th Oct 2014
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to promote innovative medical technologies and product development partnerships as part of the post-2015 development agenda.

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.

30th Jul 2014
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the decisions taken at the World Bank’s Executive Board meeting on 30 July 2014.

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.

30th Jul 2014
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have held with the World Bank about the Bank’s policies regarding safeguards for indigenous peoples.

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.

23rd Jul 2014
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment has been made at the Girl Summit 2014 of the role played by the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI) in safeguarding the health of women and girls, and in addressing gender-related barriers to accessing immunisation services; and what assessment they have made of the cost-effectiveness so far of the United Kingdom’s contribution towards GAVI’s programme, agreed in the Multilateral Aid Review of March 2011.

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.

5th Nov 2015
To ask Her Majesty’s Government which drugs have been delisted from the Cancer Drugs Fund; how many patients are currently being treated with each drug; and what steps they are taking to develop a new system for prescribing each drug.

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.

3rd Nov 2015
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress has been made in implementing the recommendations of the 2014 report of the UK Stem Cell Strategy Oversight Committee on the future of unrelated donor stem cell transplantation in the United Kingdom.

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.



7th Sep 2015
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of each of the recommendations to the Department of Health in the report <i>Bridging the Gap between Academics and Policy Makers</i> by researchers from Buckinghamshire New University and the University of Bristol, published on 20 April.

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.

23rd Mar 2015
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what were the dates of meetings ministers and officials from the Department of Health had with public health representatives to discuss the health impacts of potential cuts in alcohol duty between 1 November 2014 and 17 March 2015.

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.

Earl Howe
Shadow Deputy Leader of the House of Lords
23rd Mar 2015
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what were the dates of meetings ministers and officials from the Department of Health had with (1) the Portman Group, (2) Drinkaware, (3) Diageo, (4) the Wine and Spirits Trade Association, (5) the British Beer and Pub Association, and (6) SABMiller, between 1 November 2014 and 17 March 2015.

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.

Earl Howe
Shadow Deputy Leader of the House of Lords
10th Mar 2015
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, in the light of the containment of the ebola epidemic in West Africa, they intend to review the ebola screening arrangements at Heathrow.

Screening arrangements at London Heathrow and the other ports remain under constant review.

Earl Howe
Shadow Deputy Leader of the House of Lords
26th Jan 2015
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have plans to work with NHS England to ensure that a clinical audit is carried out into services for people with advanced liver disease from all causes.

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.

Earl Howe
Shadow Deputy Leader of the House of Lords
26th Jan 2015
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve care and treatment for patients with hepatic encephalopathy.

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.

Earl Howe
Shadow Deputy Leader of the House of Lords
21st Oct 2014
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reverse the rise in liver deaths in England between 2001 and 2012 shown by Public Health England’s report <i>Liver Disease Profiles</i>.

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.

Earl Howe
Shadow Deputy Leader of the House of Lords
20th Oct 2014
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, following the introduction of enhanced screening arrangements for ebola at the United Kingdom’s main ports of entry for people travelling from the affected regions, what advice they have received from the Chief Medical Inspector about arrangements at ports of entry for quarantining suspected ebola patients and for providing trained staff and equipment to move those patients to isolation units in hospitals.

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.

Earl Howe
Shadow Deputy Leader of the House of Lords
30th Nov 2015
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the recommendations to the UN Security Council members in the Human Rights Watch report of 26 November, <i>What Military Target Was in My Brother's House: Unlawful Coalition Airstrikes in Yemen</i>.

We are aware of the report released by Human Rights Watch on 26 November and its recommendations to the international community. The UN Security Council has made clear that sanctions will be applied to those individuals or entities who have been designated or listed for engaging in or providing support for acts that threaten the peace, security and stability of Yemen. We take all reports of alleged violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) in Yemen by any side to the conflict very seriously. We have raised our concerns with the Saudi Arabian government and have received assurances of IHL compliance and continue to engage with them on those assurances. We have also raised our concerns with the Houthis on the importance of compliance with IHL and international human rights law. We agree that all parties to the conflict have a responsibility to take all reasonable steps to allow and facilitate humanitarian access to facilitate immediate access to life-saving supplies both into and within Yemen. The Resolution on Yemen adopted at the September session of the Human Rights Council commits the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights to work with the Government of Yemen and produce an oral report on developments to be given at the next session in March 2016, and a written report to be published and presented to the Council in September 2016. We remain deeply concerned about the human rights situation in Yemen and will continue to work with all parties to find a political solution to the conflict.
30th Nov 2015
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have investigated claims by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International that weapons supplied by the UK, such as Paveway IV missiles, have been used by Saudi Arabia to attack civilian targets in Yemen; and whether they have taken legal advice about the UK's responsibility for such attacks under international humanitarian law.

The Ministry Of Defence monitors incidents of alleged international humanitarian law (IHL) violations using available information which in turn informs our overall assessment of IHL compliance in Yemen. We consider a range of evidence from government sources, foreign governments, the media and international non-governmental organisations. We are aware of reports, including from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, of alleged violations of IHL by the Saudi Arabian-led Coalition. We have received repeated assurances from the coalition that they are complying with IHL and we continue to engage with them on those assurances. The Saudi Arabian authorities have their own internal procedures for investigations and we encourage them to be open and transparent in this. The UK operates one of the most rigorous and transparent export control regimes in the world. All exports of arms and controlled military goods are assessed on a case-by-case basis against the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing, taking account of all relevant factors at the time of the application which include consideration of the risk of the goods being used to commit violations of human rights or international humanitarian law.
23rd Nov 2015
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the recommendation by Human Rights Watch in its report on the treatment of detainees in Bahrain, <i>The Blood of People Who Don't Cooperate</i>, that the UK should suspend funding, support and training for security service reform until Bahrain enacts listed reforms and issues a standing invitation to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture.

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.

9th Nov 2015
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, during the UK's Presidency of the UN Security Council this month, they will refer reports by Radio Dabanga of crimes against humanity in Darfur to the International Criminal Court for investigation.

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.

12th Oct 2015
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will invite the UN Security Council to refer the targeting and bombing by the Sudanese Air Force of civilian and humanitarian targets in South Kordofan, including Médécins sans Frontières’s hospital in Frandala, field hospitals and standing medical structures, to the International Criminal Court.

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.

9th Sep 2015
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to propose to the UN Secretary-General that he commission a study of the effects on the economies of Eritrea and Ethiopia if the latter gave their unequivocal approval to the boundary demarcation between the two states, as determined by the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission.

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.

7th Sep 2015
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what information they have about the alleged misappropriation of public funds involving United Kingdom companies cited in Annex 5 to the Somalia report of the United Nations Monitoring Group on Somalia and Eritrea published in October 2014 (S/2014/726).

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.

9th Jul 2015
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the answer by Baroness Anelay of St Johns on 11 June (HL Deb, col 890), what evidence they have regarding the level of popular support in Saudi Arabia for the sentence passed on Raif Badawi.

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.

4th Jun 2015
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking on the possible resettlement of the Chagos Islands; which departments are conducting this work; and whether they will publish any further conclusions they reach on the feasibility and costs of resettlement by those exiles and their descendants who wish to return.

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.

4th Jun 2015
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the arrest and imprisonment of Ms Zainab Al Khawaja whilst attempting to visit her father in prison in Bahrain; and whether they plan to hold discussions with the government of Bahrain about her imprisonment.

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.

1st Jun 2015
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have yet received confirmation that the amendment submitted to the Kuwait National Assembly allowing Kuwaiti women to sponsor their husbands and children to acquire Kuwaiti nationality provided they have been married for 10 years has been ratified.

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.

23rd Mar 2015
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they will meet commitments made before the 2010 election to arrive at a just and fair settlement of the issue of the exile of the Chagos Islanders in the light of the award of 18 March by the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in the case of Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration (<i>Mauritius v. United Kingdom</i>), and the conclusion by the KPMG report commissioned by the then Foreign Secretary that return by the islanders is feasible.

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.

16th Mar 2015
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to pursue the recommendations of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, Professor Heiner Bielefeldt, in his report A/HRC/28/66/Add.2 on freedom of religion and belief in Vietnam, at (1) the United Nations, (2) the United Nations Human Rights Council and (3) in their direct communications with the government of Vietnam.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right Hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), raised our human rights concerns at his recent visit to Vietnam, both during the Strategic Dialogue and in a meeting with Deputy Prime Minister Pham Binh Minh on 27 February. Our Embassy in Hanoi also works closely with Embassies of likeminded countries to ensure freedom of religion or belief is raised regularly with the Vietnamese authorities, for example at the EU-Vietnam human rights dialogue in January. In our annual Human Rights Report we highlighted our concerns about vague provisions within the current penal code of Vietnam, including the article highlighted in the Special Rapporteur’s recommendations, and encouraged the Vietnamese Ministry of Foreign Affairs to take appropriate steps. We also played a full role in the UN’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Vietnam in 2014. We will continue to champion the UN’s special procedure mechanisms and urge all UN member states to offer an open invitation to and cooperate with Rapporteurs on country visits.
12th Mar 2015
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the charges against the Bangladesh Leader of the Opposition Khaleda Zia announced by the Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in the Bangladesh Parliament on 11 March.

We are aware of the two corruption charges against the leader of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, Khaleda Zia, and we are monitoring the legal process closely. To promote confidence in democratic institutions and the rule of law, it is essential that the criminal justice system in Bangladesh is seen to be impartial. We therefore hope that any action taken is in accordance with Bangladesh’s due legal process and that Khaleda Zia is accorded the rights to which every citizen in Bangladesh is entitled.
23rd Feb 2015
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will propose to the United Nations Secretary-General that he suggest to the government and opposition in Bangladesh that they should invite him to appoint a mediator acceptable to both sides to help them reach an agreement that would put an end to the violence in Bangladesh and reach a political solution to their differences.

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.