Asked by: Lord Avebury (Liberal Democrat - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
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>.
Answered by Baroness Anelay of St Johns
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.Asked by: Lord Avebury (Liberal Democrat - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
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.
Answered by Baroness Anelay of St Johns
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.Asked by: Lord Avebury (Liberal Democrat - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
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.
Answered by Baroness Anelay of St Johns
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.
Asked by: Lord Avebury (Liberal Democrat - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Department for Education:
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.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Shadow Chief Whip (Lords)
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.
Asked by: Lord Avebury (Liberal Democrat - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Department for Education:
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.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Shadow Chief Whip (Lords)
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.
Asked by: Lord Avebury (Liberal Democrat - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Department for Education:
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.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Shadow Chief Whip (Lords)
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.
Asked by: Lord Avebury (Liberal Democrat - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will amend the gov.uk website to reflect the changes made by the Immigration Act 2014 to the British Nationality Act 1981; and whether they will also cause legislation.gov.uk to be updated accordingly.
Answered by Lord Bates
Section 65 of the Immigration Act 2014 was commenced on 6 April 2015 and inserted new registration provisions into the British Nationality Act 1981 for persons born before 1 July 2006 to British fathers. Information about this is published on the Gov.UK website at: https://www.gov.uk/register-british-citizen/born-before-2006-british-father.
The National Archives is bringing all the primary legislation on legislation.gov.uk up to date. The British Nationality Act 1981 (c. 61) is up to date to the end of 2009. A further 50 subsequent amendments affecting this Act have been identified. A fully revised version, including the effects by the Immigration Act 2014 (c. 22), will be published and available by the end of 2015.
Asked by: Lord Avebury (Liberal Democrat - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
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.
Answered by Lord Prior of Brampton
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.
Asked by: Lord Avebury (Liberal Democrat - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
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.
Answered by Baroness Anelay of St Johns
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.
Asked by: Lord Avebury (Liberal Democrat - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
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.
Answered by Lord Prior of Brampton
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.