Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government when post-selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors sexual dysfunction (PSSD) was added as a yellow card reporting option; who requested it and why; and whether the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency plans to update PSSD reports made before the addition of that option with the MedDRA code 10086208.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is responsible for ensuring medicines, medical devices, and blood components for transfusion meet applicable standards of safety, quality, and efficacy. The MHRA rigorously assesses available data, including from the Yellow Card scheme, and seeks advice from their independent advisory committee, the Commission on Human Medicines, where appropriate to inform regulatory decisions.
The MHRA uses the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) to code suspected adverse drug reactions reported by patients and healthcare professionals via the Yellow Card scheme. MedDRA is an international, clinically validated medical terminology used by regulatory authorities and the biopharmaceutical industry throughout the entire regulatory process, from pre-marketing to post-marketing safety monitoring. MedDRA is updated twice annually, and new terms can be proposed by any MedDRA users. The term Post Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor Sexual Dysfunction (PSSD) was added to MedDRA as a lower-level term in version 24.1 which was and implemented by the MHRA as a term available to users of the Yellow Card website in February 2022 as part of routine updates.
As part of current routine MHRA processes, Yellow Card reports are not recoded to reflect the changes in the reaction terms available but remain as reported with the terms selected by the original reporter.
As a lower-level term in MedDRA, PSSD is recorded if the reporter has specifically used this term at the time of the report, and since this term can include a wide range of symptoms it would not be appropriate to recode cases not reporting this specific term received prior to 2021. All Yellow Card reports received prior to the availability of PSSD as a MedDRA term will have the individual symptoms reported coded as MedDRA terms and available for signal detection and assessment processes.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government when and how they intend to respond to the report by the Children's Commissioner "A production line of pointlessness": Children on custodial remand, published on 11 November.
Answered by Lord Timpson - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Government recognises the importance of the Children’s Commissioner’s report and shares concerns about the number of children remanded to custody. We have taken steps to address this, including publishing the Youth Remand Concordat earlier this year to help all partners meet their statutory responsibilities and work effectively together throughout the bail and remand process. We are also supporting local authorities to tackle this issue, for example, by continuing to fund the Greater Manchester remand pilot to enable regional pooling of remand funding, supporting the development of alternatives to custodial remand. Reducing unnecessary remands to custody remains a priority, and we will set out further plans in due course.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what recent representations they have made to the government of Nigeria on ensuring protection of Christians, especially in the middle belt and north of Nigeria; what response they have received; and whether they plan to review extant UK arms export licences to Nigeria.
Answered by Baroness Chapman of Darlington - Minister of State (Development)
I refer the Noble Lord to the answer I provided on 24 November to Question HL11756.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what support they provide to civil-society and faith-based organisations in Nigeria working to address religiously-targeted violence.
Answered by Baroness Chapman of Darlington - Minister of State (Development)
I refer the Noble Lord to the answer I provided on 24 November to Question HL11756.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask His Majesty's Government what redress is available to any academic whose university has failed in its free speech duties in the absence of the free speech complaints scheme under the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023.
Answered by Baroness Smith of Malvern - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
The complaints scheme in the Higher Education (HE) (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 needs to be fit for purpose, and that means making changes via primary legislation. In the meantime, the HE sector has new duties in place, as well as requirements to promote freedom of speech, and to put in place Codes of Practice.
This government is seeking a suitable legislative vehicle to amend the provisions in relation to the complaints scheme in due course. These amendments will give the Office for Students (OfS) a power, rather than a duty, to consider complaints from staff and speakers.
There are routes of redress in place for staff, students and external speakers where they believe that an HE provider has breached its duties. For students, this is via the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, whose service is free at the point of use. For staff, it is open to them to bring a judicial review or to make a claim in an employment tribunal. In addition, the OfS already regulates providers in relation to free speech and academic freedom through their existing conditions of registration.
The Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom continues to work with the sector, to offer advice and to share best practice, so providers themselves are more effectively protecting free speech and academic freedom.
No assessment has been made of this report by the Committee for Academic Freedom. The free speech complaints scheme must be effective and workable once it is implemented, and that is why government is working to amend the scheme via primary legislation, to address concerns regarding this scheme, and to provide clear and efficient routes of redress.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask His Majesty's Government, following their statement on 1 August that the overseas transparency provisions of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 “will remain under review while the government assesses the impact of the recently-introduced Foreign Influence Registration Scheme” (FIRS), what assessment they have made of whether FIRS provides sufficient safeguards against undue overseas influence on academic freedom.
Answered by Baroness Smith of Malvern - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
The government is clear that foreign interference is unacceptable, and providers are already required to ensure that decisions are taken without direction, coercion or covert influence. Universities are already required by the Office for Students (OfS) to resist any external state threats to academic freedom, and the regulator already has the power to access funding records and take robust action, where it is relevant.
Earlier this year the government strengthened responsibilities for universities on free speech and academic freedom. OfS guidance supporting these requirements published in June made it explicitly clear that universities must resist external state threats to academic freedom, and that suppression of research because of the disapproval of a foreign government is unacceptable in practically any circumstances.
The department is supporting higher education providers to improve international due diligence and raise sector awareness of both foreign interference risks and relevant best practice. This work is underway, alongside evaluation of the implementation of the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme, a new scheme which fully came into effect on the 1 October 2025.
We will keep the overseas funding provisions under review and will act in the event that evidence indicates further transparency reporting is necessary.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to bring into force the overseas transparency provisions of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, and what plans they have to review whether the uncommenced provisions are still necessary.
Answered by Baroness Smith of Malvern - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
The department currently assesses that the overseas funding provisions may duplicate existing information gathering powers and create burden, without the benefit of setting clearer expectations for higher education (HE) providers around appropriate risk mitigation for international partnerships. Providers are already required by the Office for Students to resist any external state threats to academic freedom, and the regulator already has the power to access funding records and take robust action, where it is relevant.
We are seeking to enhance approaches to tackling foreign interference in the sector by engaging with the regulator on setting clearer expectations with providers on due diligence of arrangements, promoting a code of practice for international risk management and cultivating greater expertise on foreign interference in HE.
These are important issues, and it is crucial we support HE providers to maximise international opportunities whilst appropriately mitigating risk. We will keep the overseas funding provisions under review and will act in the event that evidence indicates further transparency reporting is necessary.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the free speech complaints scheme under the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 not being in force on academics seeking redress when universities fail to meet their statutory free speech duties, in particular in the case of Professor Laura Murphy at Sheffield Hallam University.
Answered by Baroness Smith of Malvern - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
The complaints scheme in the Higher Education (HE) (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 needs to be fit for purpose, and that means making changes via primary legislation. In the meantime, the HE sector has new duties in place, as well as requirements to promote freedom of speech, and to put in place Codes of Practice.
This government is seeking a suitable legislative vehicle to amend the provisions in relation to the complaints scheme in due course. These amendments will give the Office for Students (OfS) a power, rather than a duty, to consider complaints from staff and speakers.
There are routes of redress in place for staff, students and external speakers where they believe that an HE provider has breached its duties. For students, this is via the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, whose service is free at the point of use. For staff, it is open to them to bring a judicial review or to make a claim in an employment tribunal. In addition, the OfS already regulates providers in relation to free speech and academic freedom through their existing conditions of registration.
The Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom continues to work with the sector, to offer advice and to share best practice, so providers themselves are more effectively protecting free speech and academic freedom.
No assessment has been made of this report by the Committee for Academic Freedom. The free speech complaints scheme must be effective and workable once it is implemented, and that is why government is working to amend the scheme via primary legislation, to address concerns regarding this scheme, and to provide clear and efficient routes of redress.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of a report by the Committee for Academic Freedom on 31 October that the free speech complaints scheme under the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 may not operate until 2030; and whether such a delay would be acceptable to them.
Answered by Baroness Smith of Malvern - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
The complaints scheme in the Higher Education (HE) (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 needs to be fit for purpose, and that means making changes via primary legislation. In the meantime, the HE sector has new duties in place, as well as requirements to promote freedom of speech, and to put in place Codes of Practice.
This government is seeking a suitable legislative vehicle to amend the provisions in relation to the complaints scheme in due course. These amendments will give the Office for Students (OfS) a power, rather than a duty, to consider complaints from staff and speakers.
There are routes of redress in place for staff, students and external speakers where they believe that an HE provider has breached its duties. For students, this is via the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, whose service is free at the point of use. For staff, it is open to them to bring a judicial review or to make a claim in an employment tribunal. In addition, the OfS already regulates providers in relation to free speech and academic freedom through their existing conditions of registration.
The Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom continues to work with the sector, to offer advice and to share best practice, so providers themselves are more effectively protecting free speech and academic freedom.
No assessment has been made of this report by the Committee for Academic Freedom. The free speech complaints scheme must be effective and workable once it is implemented, and that is why government is working to amend the scheme via primary legislation, to address concerns regarding this scheme, and to provide clear and efficient routes of redress.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask His Majesty's Government when they intend to bring into force the free speech complaints scheme under the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023.
Answered by Baroness Smith of Malvern - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
The complaints scheme in the Higher Education (HE) (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 needs to be fit for purpose, and that means making changes via primary legislation. In the meantime, the HE sector has new duties in place, as well as requirements to promote freedom of speech, and to put in place Codes of Practice.
This government is seeking a suitable legislative vehicle to amend the provisions in relation to the complaints scheme in due course. These amendments will give the Office for Students (OfS) a power, rather than a duty, to consider complaints from staff and speakers.
There are routes of redress in place for staff, students and external speakers where they believe that an HE provider has breached its duties. For students, this is via the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, whose service is free at the point of use. For staff, it is open to them to bring a judicial review or to make a claim in an employment tribunal. In addition, the OfS already regulates providers in relation to free speech and academic freedom through their existing conditions of registration.
The Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom continues to work with the sector, to offer advice and to share best practice, so providers themselves are more effectively protecting free speech and academic freedom.
No assessment has been made of this report by the Committee for Academic Freedom. The free speech complaints scheme must be effective and workable once it is implemented, and that is why government is working to amend the scheme via primary legislation, to address concerns regarding this scheme, and to provide clear and efficient routes of redress.