Asked by: Baroness Northover (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the fairness of the trial of Mohammed Ramadhan and Hussain Moosa in Bahrain, following the statement by the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa that he is “deeply concerned” by the reimposition of death sentences against them.
Answered by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon - Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)
We are deeply concerned that the death penalty has been issued. The Government of Bahrain are fully aware that the UK is firmly opposed to the death penalty, in all circumstances. The UK has and will continue to monitor the cases closely and raise concerns with senior members of the Bahraini Government when we have them.
Asked by: Baroness Northover (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they have taken since the joint statement by the UK High Commissioner, the United States Ambassador, and the EU Ambassador, to Guyana, published on 19 September, calling on the President of Guyana “to set an elections date immediately in full compliance with Guyana’s constitution”; and what plans they have to support such an election to be held in an open and transparent manner.
Answered by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon - Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)
We note the President of The Cooperative Republic of Guyana's announcement of a firm election date of 2 March 2020.
The UK continues to work with the Guyanese authorities, our international partners, multilateral bodies and local stakeholders to ensure free and fair elections, through elections assistance and monitoring.
Asked by: Baroness Northover (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the remarks by the Minister for Asia and the Pacific on 26 March (HC Deb, col 61WH) on forced live organ extraction that they "need to properly and fully investigate such reports and allegations, and establish the facts”, what steps they have taken to investigate forced live organ extraction in China.
Answered by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon - Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)
I set out the Government’s position in Parliament on 25 July in response to an Oral Question. I noted the time and energy that the International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China has dedicated to this issue. The evidence presented at the hearings they organised provided disturbing details about the mistreatment of Falun Gong practitioners, and raised worrying questions about China’s transplant system. Officials have reviewed the evidence thoroughly. While the evidence is not incontrovertible, we take these allegations seriously and have consulted the World Health Organization (WHO), NGOs and international partners. The WHO’s view is that China is implementing an ethical, voluntary organ transplant system in accordance with international standards, though they do have concerns about overall transparency.
We currently do not have any plans to make representations to the Chinese Government on allegations of systematic, state-sponsored organ harvesting, nor raise the allegations at the UN Human Rights Council (UN HRC). However, we regularly raise concerns about the treatment of religious and ethnic minorities, both directly with Chinese officials and at the UN HRC.
Asked by: Baroness Northover (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the remarks by the Minister for Asia and the Pacific on 26 March (HC Deb, col 61WH) on forced live organ extraction, what conclusions they drew from the report by the Independent Tribunal into Forced Organ Harvesting from Prisoners of Conscience in China Final Judgement and Summary Report, published on 17 June; and what steps they intend to take in response.
Answered by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon - Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)
I set out the Government’s position in Parliament on 25 July in response to an Oral Question. I noted the time and energy that the International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China has dedicated to this issue. The evidence presented at the hearings they organised provided disturbing details about the mistreatment of Falun Gong practitioners, and raised worrying questions about China’s transplant system. Officials have reviewed the evidence thoroughly. While the evidence is not incontrovertible, we take these allegations seriously and have consulted the World Health Organization (WHO), NGOs and international partners. The WHO’s view is that China is implementing an ethical, voluntary organ transplant system in accordance with international standards, though they do have concerns about overall transparency.
We currently do not have any plans to make representations to the Chinese Government on allegations of systematic, state-sponsored organ harvesting, nor raise the allegations at the UN Human Rights Council (UN HRC). However, we regularly raise concerns about the treatment of religious and ethnic minorities, both directly with Chinese officials and at the UN HRC.
Asked by: Baroness Northover (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what representations they intend to make, if any, to the government of China about reports of forced organ extraction in that country; and what work is being undertaken, or is proposed, at the UN Human Rights Council on that issue.
Answered by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon - Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)
I set out the Government’s position in Parliament on 25 July in response to an Oral Question. I noted the time and energy that the International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China has dedicated to this issue. The evidence presented at the hearings they organised provided disturbing details about the mistreatment of Falun Gong practitioners, and raised worrying questions about China’s transplant system. Officials have reviewed the evidence thoroughly. While the evidence is not incontrovertible, we take these allegations seriously and have consulted the World Health Organization (WHO), NGOs and international partners. The WHO’s view is that China is implementing an ethical, voluntary organ transplant system in accordance with international standards, though they do have concerns about overall transparency.
We currently do not have any plans to make representations to the Chinese Government on allegations of systematic, state-sponsored organ harvesting, nor raise the allegations at the UN Human Rights Council (UN HRC). However, we regularly raise concerns about the treatment of religious and ethnic minorities, both directly with Chinese officials and at the UN HRC.
Asked by: Baroness Northover (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the answer by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon on 25 July (HL Deb, col 816), whether the Minister has met Sir Geoffrey Nice, Chair of the Independent Tribunal into Forced Organ Harvesting from Prisoners of Conscience in China; if not, why not; and if so, what (1) progress has been made, and (2) steps they intend to take.
Answered by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon - Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)
I have not met with Sir Geoffrey Nice. However, as I said during an Oral Question in the House of Lords on 29 July, I would welcome a meeting with him.
Asked by: Baroness Northover (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of the human rights guarantees in the Sino-British Joint Declaration, what assessment they have made of the implications for (1) human rights, and (2) the independence of the judiciary, in Hong Kong of the government of Hong Kong's proposals to amend its extradition law.
Answered by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon - Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)
We have noted the concerns voiced by legal and business representative organisations and civil society groups in Hong Kong about both the content and the short consultation period allowed for the proposed changes to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Ordinance.
We have raised a number of issues relating to the proposals with the Hong Kong Government at senior levels. These include potential implications for both our joint security cooperation and our bilateral extradition treaty and the potential consequences for the UK business community and for UK citizens living in or travelling through Hong Kong. We will continue to seek clarity from the authorities on these points.
The Foreign Secretary and Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Chrystia Freeland, issued a Joint Statement on 30 May, which noted concern for the potential effect of the proposals on the large number of UK and Canadian citizens in Hong Kong, on business confidence and on Hong Kong’s international reputation. They made clear that any extradition arrangements in Hong Kong should be in line with ‘One Country, Two Systems’ and fully respect Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy. They also urged the Hong Kong Government to engage meaningfully with Hong Kong’s broad range of local and international stakeholders in order to ensure their concerns are fully considered.
Asked by: Baroness Northover (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of implications for the UK’s extradition treaty with Hong Kong of that government's proposals to amend its extradition law.
Answered by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon - Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)
We have noted the concerns voiced by legal and business representative organisations and civil society groups in Hong Kong about both the content and the short consultation period allowed for the proposed changes to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Ordinance.
We have raised a number of issues relating to the proposals with the Hong Kong Government at senior levels. These include potential implications for both our joint security cooperation and our bilateral extradition treaty and the potential consequences for the UK business community and for UK citizens living in or travelling through Hong Kong. We will continue to seek clarity from the authorities on these points.
The Foreign Secretary and Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Chrystia Freeland, issued a Joint Statement on 30 May, which noted concern for the potential effect of the proposals on the large number of UK and Canadian citizens in Hong Kong, on business confidence and on Hong Kong’s international reputation. They made clear that any extradition arrangements in Hong Kong should be in line with ‘One Country, Two Systems’ and fully respect Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy. They also urged the Hong Kong Government to engage meaningfully with Hong Kong’s broad range of local and international stakeholders in order to ensure their concerns are fully considered.
Asked by: Baroness Northover (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what representations they have made to the government of Russia about any attacks on the democratic opposition in Russia and on free speech.
Answered by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon - Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)
We are concerned about continued restrictions on the opposition and free speech in Russia. The Minister for Europe and the Americas made several public statements last year calling for the release or fair trial of dozens of political prisoners held by Russian authorities, including historian Oyub Titiev in Chechnya and filmmaker Oleg Sentsov in Ukraine. The interests of the Russian people would be best served by a political system based on strong institutions, such as an independent judiciary and a free press, together with a safe political space for dissenting views to be heard and free and fair elections.
Asked by: Baroness Northover (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of reports (1) that Lev Shlosberg and the Pskov branch of the Russian opposition party Yabloko were subjected to a search and seizure of documents and a computer hard disk in their office on 13 February; (2) that Lev Shlosberg has allegedly suffered beatings for his reporting of the "unknown" graves of Russian soldiers sent to East Ukraine; and (3) that the journalist Svetlana Prokopyeva was arrested and interrogated after her criticism of state policies.
Answered by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon - Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)
We have not made specific assessments of each of these cases, but we do see all three as further signs of the continuing harassment facing opposition political parties and journalists in Russia. The interests of the Russian people would be best served by a free press and safe political spaces for dissenting views to be heard.