Asked by: Jim Dobbin (Labour (Co-op) - Heywood and Middleton)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, to what use materials were put under research licence R0152 according to each of the research data sheets submitted to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority by centre 0017 since 2009.
Answered by Jane Ellison
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has advised that research licence R0152 was renewed in May 2014. The inspection report and minutes which set out the use to which materials were put under that licence are available on the HFEA’s website at:
http://guide.hfea.gov.uk/guide/ShowPDF.aspx?ID=5591&merge=1
Asked by: Jim Dobbin (Labour (Co-op) - Heywood and Middleton)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many eggs are required before the research to enable (a) pro-nuclear transfer and (b) maternal spindle transfer is considered safe for treatment in women.
Answered by Jane Ellison
There is no set number of eggs required for use before the research to enable pro-nuclear transfer and maternal spindle transfer can be considered safe for use in the treatment of women.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has advised that it has made no estimate of the number of eggs that would be required annually for pro-nuclear transfer and maternal spindle transfer.
Asked by: Jim Dobbin (Labour (Co-op) - Heywood and Middleton)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer to the hon Member for Congleton of 7 April 2014, Official Report, columns 42-3W, on in vitro fertilisation, what estimate he has made of the number of eggs that would be required annually for (a) pro-nuclear transfer and (b) maternal spindle transfer every year.
Answered by Jane Ellison
There is no set number of eggs required for use before the research to enable pro-nuclear transfer and maternal spindle transfer can be considered safe for use in the treatment of women.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has advised that it has made no estimate of the number of eggs that would be required annually for pro-nuclear transfer and maternal spindle transfer.
Asked by: Jim Dobbin (Labour (Co-op) - Heywood and Middleton)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 7 July 2014, Official Report, column 43W, on ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, what information the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) collects about the (a) identity of drugs used in treatment and (b) dosage used and the associated regimen for ovarian stimulation at each clinic; and what comparative assessment he has made of the collection of such data by the HFEA and by other countries that report data to the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.
Answered by Jane Ellison
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has advised that it does not collect information on the identity of drugs used in treatment, the dosage used and the associated regimen for ovarian stimulation at each licenced centre. As a result, no comparison has been made with data collected by countries submitting information to the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.
Asked by: Jim Dobbin (Labour (Co-op) - Heywood and Middleton)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps he is taking to ensure that drug retailers accurately describe the operations of their products; if he will require retailers of the drug Ulipristal acetate to detail accurately its abortifacient effects; and if he will make a statement.
Answered by Norman Lamb
Ulipristal acetate is the active ingredient in the emergency contraceptive known as EllaOne.
Following a High Court ruling in 2002, emergency contraception is defined as a method of contraception not abortion. The decision confirms the Government's long held position that a pregnancy begins at implantation and not fertilisation. This judgment means that this position is now established in law and is not a matter of policy
EllaOne is a contraceptive, it is not an abortifacient.It exerts its contraceptive action by preventing or delaying ovulation.
EllaOne is used to prevent pregnancy for up to five days after unprotected intercourse or contraceptive failure. It is specifically contraindicated for use during an existing or suspected pregnancy
The information provided in each pack of EllaOne clearly informs women and healthcare professionals that it should not be taken by a woman who knows or suspects she is pregnant.
Asked by: Jim Dobbin (Labour (Co-op) - Heywood and Middleton)
Question to the Department for International Development:
To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to the Answer of 7 July 2014, Official Report, column 1W, on abortion, if she will withdraw her Department's policy position paper entitled Safe and Unsafe Abortion pending a free vote in the House on the use of UK aid to (a) campaign for more liberal abortion laws in other countries and (b) provide abortion services in other countries.
Answered by Baroness Featherstone
The policy paper sets out how UK aid can be used to save the lives of women at risk from unsafe abortion, in accordance with the responsibilities that Parliament has given the Secretary of State.
Asked by: Jim Dobbin (Labour (Co-op) - Heywood and Middleton)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 24 June 2014, Official Report, columns 156-7W, on ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, what assessment he has made of the reasons for the reductions in the number and proportion of severe cases of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome reported to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority between 2009 and 2010 and between 2010 and 2011.
Answered by Jane Ellison
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has advised that it has made no assessment of the reason as to why there was a reduction in the number and proportion of severe cases of Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome reported to the Authority between 2009 and 2010 and between 2010 and 2011.
Asked by: Jim Dobbin (Labour (Co-op) - Heywood and Middleton)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 24 June 2014, Official Report, columns 156-7W, on ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, in how many licensable treatment cycles at least (a) 30 and (b) 40 eggs per cycle were collected in each of the last five years for which figures are available.
Answered by Jane Ellison
The information requested is shown in the attached table.
Asked by: Jim Dobbin (Labour (Co-op) - Heywood and Middleton)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if the Government will bring the conclusions relating to the genocidal extermination of Christianity in the report commissioned by Human Liberty entitled crimes against humanity published in May 2014 to the attention of the UN Security Council, the North Korean Government and HM Embassy in Pyongyang.
Answered by Lord Swire
We are aware of the report produced by Hogan Lovells on behalf of Human Liberty. However, we note that the UN Commission of Inquiry (COI) were unable to establish the crime of genocide on religious grounds, because the available evidence in this respect was ambiguous.
However, the COI did find that systematic and widespread human rights violations were taking place, and did find reasonable grounds to establish that crimes against humanity had been committed in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). The findings of the COI formed the basis of the core text of the subsequent UN Human Rights Council resolution on the DPRK, adopted in March 2014, which the UK cosponsored.
In April, the same month, the UK took part in a public ‘Arria-formula' briefing with other Security Council member states to consider DPRK human rights. In May, the UK raised DPRK human rights concerns during closed consultations between the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Security Council. In June, I visited Geneva, where I took part in an Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the DPRK, Mr Mazuki Darusman. I raised the importance of DPRK human rights with the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon and stressed the importance of UN action. The next step will be to ensure there is an appropriate focus on DPRK human rights at this autumn's UN General Assembly (UNGA) session and that there is a strong DPRK resolution, strongly supported, in the UNGA Third Committee.
Asked by: Jim Dobbin (Labour (Co-op) - Heywood and Middleton)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, whether the Government supports recommendation 1224 of the UN Human Rights Council's Report of the detailed findings of the commission of inquiry on human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), published in February 2014; and whether his Department has taken steps to support the work of human rights non-governmental organisations in their attempts to broadcast accessible information into the DPRK and to improve the human rights situation in that country.
Answered by Lord Swire
The UK does not currently provide financial support to any of the organisations making cross-border broadcasts into the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea (DPRK). Through our Embassy in Pyongyang however, the UK is one of the few countries who are able to engage directly with North Koreans, complementing the efforts of others, like the US, who support broadcasts into North Korea. The recent report of the UN Commission of Inquiry into human rights in North Korea recognised the importance of both approaches.
The UK continues to play an active role in raising human rights violations in the DPRK in other meaningful ways. For example, we pressed for a strong DPRK resolution at the March UN Human Rights Council, including a call for the UN General Assembly to submit the report of the Commission of Inquiry to the UN Security Council for its consideration and appropriate action. In April, we and other Security Council members took part in a public “Arria” briefing by the Commission and in May, we raised the need for a continued focus on human rights during a UN Security Council Sanctions Committee. Recently, I visited Geneva, where I took part in an Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the DPRK, Mr Mazuki Darusman. I raised the importance of DPRK human rights with the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon and stressed the importance of UN action. The next step will be to ensure there is an appropriate focus on DPRK human rights at this autumn's UN General Assembly session and that there is a strong DPRK resolution, strongly supported, in the UNGA Third Committee.