(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
That this House takes note of government policy towards China especially in relation to human rights and security issues arising from China’s actions in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Tibet, and the South China Sea, and against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in opening this last debate of the year, which will focus on human rights and security issues arising from China’s actions in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Xinjiang, Tibet and the South China Sea, I begin by thanking everyone who will speak in the debate, along with the House of Lords Library for its excellent briefing note and the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China for its critical role and for its support and assistance. I declare interests as an officer of the all-party groups on Hong Kong, the Uighurs, and Freedom of Religion or Belief, and as a patron of Hong Kong Watch. I also note that today has symbolic significance, because on this day 40 years ago, the Sino-British treaty was signed by Margaret Thatcher and Zhao Ziyang.
China’s human rights violations and the growing security challenges posed by Beijing’s international posture are well documented and will raise profound questions during this debate about our principles, security and strategic resilience. In this week of all weeks, we have seen more evidence of the threats to our domestic security and institutions. Commenting on the activities of the 40,000 agents of the United Front Work Department, our Intelligence and Security Committee says that the UFWD has penetrated
“every sector of the United Kingdom economy”.
MI5’s head, Ken McCallum, says infiltration is on an “epic scale”. It is extraordinary, then, in those circumstances for the Prime Minister to be pressing for closer ties with the Chinese Communist Party regime and to say that we should no longer describe it as a threat.
This may not be Maclean and Burgess, Philby and Blunt, but subversion of our state and its institutions involves manipulation and entrapment, influencing and cyberattacks, and intimidation, threats and transnational repression. Not long ago, the Foreign Secretary wanted this regime prosecuted for genocide.
In setting the scene for the debate today, let me begin in Hong Kong. In 2019, it was a privilege to be one of the international team which monitored the last fair and free election in a city that was once a bastion of freedom in Asia. Since 2020 and the enactment of the draconian national security law, it has seen every vestige of democracy dismantled.
The consequences are stark: over 1,200 political prisoners languish in jails, including prominent figures such as the British citizen, Jimmy Lai, with exiled legislators such as Nathan Law facing bounties placed on their heads simply for advocating democracy. Recent Human Rights Watch analysis has highlighted increasing transnational repression aimed at British national (overseas)—BNO—passport holders and their families and even at non-Hong Kong residents, threatening critics abroad with extradition. Recalling the attacks on protesters outside the Manchester consulate, which the Foreign Affairs Select Committee described as a
“brazen violation of diplomatic norms”,
we can see where this has taken us.
In a letter to the Security Minister, I recently requested a dedicated email address to be set up so that victims of CCP overseas intimidation could guarantee getting through to someone adequately trained in this very specialised crime. When the Minister comes to reply, can she say when a response might be forthcoming? Can she also say a word to those UK Hong Kongers still denied access to mandatory provident funds—an estimated £3 billion? What progress have the Government made in securing the release of this money, and what does she have to say about the role of HSBC and Standard Chartered? Did Minister West raise this matter when she recently visited Hong Kong, and, if so, what response did she receive?
Perhaps I may take the opportunity to say a word or two more about Jimmy Lai, although I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and others will do so too. Mr Lai is currently on the stand, being asked spurious questions about his involvement with British nationals, including people he never met or even heard of. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found multiple violations of his freedom. For a British national who has never held a Chinese passport to be held in solitary confinement, with no consular access, to be denied access to the sacraments and to be dragged out to court to respond to an entirely fabricated narrative is simply outrageous. It certainly makes a mockery of the Sino-British joint declaration.
Does the Minister support the request by the British nationals cited during the proceedings on the case to be heard in the Hong Kong court? Will she place on record her view of the absurdity of this show trial, as well as the spurious charade of dragging foreign legislators into it? Will she also roundly condemn the recent jailing of 45 Hong Kong pro-democracy leaders, including Joshua Wong and Benny Tai, who were sentenced to years in jail for so-called subversion? It is shocking.
I turn to the atrocities in Xinjiang and Tibet. In Tibet, the CCP continues its campaign of cultural erasure. There are systematic efforts to suppress the Tibetan language, dismantle monasteries and impose sinicisation policies. The Dalai Lama remains exiled and religious freedoms are virtually non-existent. Freedom House has ranked Tibet among the least free regions in the world, highlighting the CCP’s use of surveillance, mass arrests and propaganda to suppress Tibetan identity. Tibet’s plight and world silence are mirrored by the persecution of China’s religious believers, such as the young woman Zhang Zhan, a journalist jailed in Wuhan for seeking the truth about the origins of Covid.
Let us note the atrocities against Falun Gong practitioners and the industrial-scale repression of Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang. Over 1 million of the latter have been detained in camps, subjected to forced labour, indoctrination and even sterilisation. The United Nations Human Rights Office has described potential crimes against humanity, while the House of Commons, with 11 other global Parliaments and the United States Government, called it by its proper name—genocide. By virtue of the CCP’s intentional aim to prevent the births of Uighurs through forced sterilisation, it certainly meets the criteria set out in the 1948 genocide convention.
Canada has just sanctioned Chen Quanguo and Tuniyaz Erkin, two key officials responsible for Xinjiang atrocities. The UK failed to do so in 2021. Will we do so now?
What about Uighur forced labour embedded in global supply chains? The House will have seen reports on this in the Financial Times and on BBC’s “Panorama”. I have been raising this during the proceedings on the energy Bill and will have more say about it in due course. I name again Canadian Solar, a huge beneficiary, and ask: how precisely do the Government intend to root out slavery in the renewables industry? Will the Minister take this opportunity to reiterate the Business Secretary’s clear statement that he absolutely expects there to be
“no slavery in any part of the supply chain”?
How will that commitment be honoured? What will we do to prioritise supply chain resilience by diversifying imports and supporting domestic industries?
In the light of breaches of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the Proceeds of Crime Act, I am glad that the Joint Committee on Human Rights will make this the subject of an in-depth inquiry in the new year. To help that inquiry, will the Minister ask for an audit of dependency on authoritarian regimes across UK critical infrastructure? Can she update the House on whether Project Defend, which was supposed to build UK resilience, has been entirely dropped? With a trade deficit of over £23.7 billion with China, and British workers losing their jobs in the car industry—undercut by slave labour—this immoral trade is also a threat to our economy and security, undercutting resilience and deepening dependency, points often made by the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Purvis, from whom we will hear later.
That leads me to Taiwan and the South China Sea. In May, with my noble friend Lady D’Souza and the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, I attended the inauguration of President Lai in the vibrant democracy of Taiwan, home to 23 million free people. Taiwan’s Ministry of Defense reported over 1,700 military incursions into its airspace in 2023 alone, a 40% increase from the previous year. Meanwhile, as noted in Jane’s Defence Weekly, Beijing continues to hold large-scale military drills around the island.
A conflict over Taiwan would be catastrophic, with consequences extending far beyond the region. A recent Bloomberg report estimated that a war over Taiwan could shave $10 trillion from the global economy. That is five times worse even than the impact that the horrific war in Ukraine has had. As Taiwan produces over 60% of the world’s semiconductors and 90% of advanced chips, the disruption to supply chains would be unparalleled. Of course, without these chips, nothing works. Our critical infrastructure depends on them and the devices in our pockets cannot run without them. Have the Government assessed the UK’s economic exposure to various scenarios in the Taiwan Strait, and will that be part of the China audit?
Our headaches in the South China Sea do not end there. With China’s militarisation of artificial islands in defiance of the 2016 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, undermining international maritime law, we must recognise these changed circumstances, deepen military and economic ties with Taiwan, expand freedom of navigation operations and further bolster alliances with like-minded partners in the Indo-Pacific, including Japan, Australia and ASEAN nations. AUKUS is of course a promising step in this direction, but we must commit further resources and political will. We should support Taiwan’s accession to the CPTPP.
We must also be far more aware of China’s military heft. Note the support that China has given to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It has provided Moscow with dual-use technology, expanded trade in sanctioned goods and offered diplomatic cover in multilateral forums. President Zelensky’s own adviser says that China provides over 60% of the components used to prosecute Putin’s illegal war—and that is without the supply of weaponised drones, in violation of sanctions.
A deadly quartet now led by China poses a direct challenge to the rules-based international order. As the European Council on Foreign Relations notes, the Sino-Russian alignment extends beyond Ukraine; it is aiming to reshape global norms in its favour. Russia’s war is China’s war. The CCP knows that depleted war chests make it harder to deter escalation over Taiwan. Meanwhile, China is engaged in what the former Foreign Secretary called the
“biggest military build-up in … history”.
I have sent the noble Baroness the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and Sir Julian Lewis MP a disturbing report given to me alleging an illicit bio-weapons programme, along with a separate report on imagination technologies and China reform, which has deep connections to China’s military-industrial complex and national security establishment. I hope the noble Baroness will promise a full written reply in due course. What is clear enough is that this is a hostile state. It is ludicrous and worse to try to justify deepening business links, pouring public and private money into China’s coffers, while it is making possible an illegal war in Europe.
There is also of course an enemy within. Chinese companies dominate critical infrastructure sectors, from energy to technology—I know we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on this—including the millions of China-made surveillance cameras right across Britain. RUSI speculates that over 80% of foreign direct investment into the UK from China comes from Chinese state-owned enterprises: heavily subsidised companies operating under the direction of a one-party state.
Universities, too, are entangled in partnerships with Chinese institutions linked to the People’s Liberation Army. Note the examples in the 2023 Civitas report, including work on artificial intelligence and quantum computing. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what we are doing to assist universities to become less reliant on CCP money—and what we did to challenge UCL, an illustrious university, when Professor Michelle Shipworth was removed from teaching a course on China, with the university saying that it conflicted with its “commercial interests”. Professor Shipworth had highlighted data from the Global Slavery Index which suggested that China had the second-highest prevalence of modern slavery in the world.
Such examples, and this debate, underline what the International Relations and Defence Committee of this House said was the need for a coherent strategy, filling what was referred to as “a strategic void”. How will the China audit attempt to fill that void, and how will it connect to the strategic defence review by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson?
To conclude, a coherent strategy would face the multifaceted challenges posed by China, strengthening our alliances, protecting national security, reducing economic dependencies and exposing authoritarian collaboration. We ought not to be persuaded by those who seek to talk down Britain by making out that we have no international clout. Capitulating now will cause greater pain later. By aligning our policies with our principles, we can safeguard our security, support those who suffer under oppression and lead by example in defending democracy on the global stage. I beg to move.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this debate and for all that he said in his opening remarks. His speech was a devastating analysis of the real world. If this Government and this House fail to pay attention to what he said, we are doing ourselves and our fellow countrymen a disservice. This important debate is timely, and I hope it will be influential in shaping our own Government’s thinking, even if we will have little effect on the Government of China.
It would have been a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, whose reputation as a campaigner for human rights is well known, but she apologises, and has asked me to apologise for her, as she has a pressing family engagement that she cannot avoid.
I have two interests relevant to this debate to declare. The first is that I am a trustee of the China Oxford Scholarship Fund, a small charity founded by my friend, the late Tim Beardson, about 25 years ago. He set up the fund to provide postgraduate scholarships at the University of Oxford to students from China, Hong Kong and Macau. Up to 15 scholarships are awarded annually. Preference is given to those who are studying in the United Kingdom for the first time. Successful candidates are those of the highest calibre, studying in any subject. They are chosen for their academic excellence, financial need, leadership qualities and commitment to contributing to the development of China.
Charlie Parton is a former diplomat who spent 22 years working in China and is now a senior associate fellow at RUSI. The Times reports that, at a recent conference, he
“said that on the face of it there was nothing wrong with collaboration and co-operation between British and Chinese universities. A roundtable on education was fine with the right safeguards”,
but he
“warned that the issue was over science and technology, where ‘the distinction between civil uses, military uses and repression uses just melts away’ … ‘That’s where British universities have to be extra careful on co-operation.’ … Ken McCallum, the director-general of MI5, has previously warned that universities are ‘magnetic targets for espionage and manipulation’ and that China and other hostile states are stealing intellectual property from them with ‘dispiriting regularity’. He said he had no issue with co-operation but said it needed to be done with safeguards and the right level of awareness”.
At the COSF, we are realists and more than aware of the dangers, but we are also not so naive as to think that wringing our hands will release Jimmy Lai.
That brings me to my second interest. I am a member of the Bar who specialises in media law cases and has advised plaintiffs and defendants in Hong Kong, both before and after 1997, on freedom of expression questions. But what is happening in Hong King now concerns me not just as a lawyer but as someone who believes in the rule of law, open justice and the right to say what one thinks and believes within the rule of law.
Those concepts, which we take for granted in this jurisdiction, are all under threat in Hong Kong, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, so powerfully pointed out. That of itself is fundamentally wrong and in breach of all the principles that this Parliament stands for and any United Kingdom Government should stand for, but it is also in breach of the joint declaration made by this country and China exactly 40 years ago today, in 1984, in preparation for the handover of Hong Kong to China in 1997. That treaty has a 50-year life with 20 years to run. That it will become time-expired does not permit us to let it wither, be ignored or be undermined.
It is not just the national security law, inflicted on Hong Kong in 2000, that evidences the erosion of civil liberties and human rights but the daily conduct of the authorities in Hong Kong in attacking their own citizens and expatriate Hong Kong-UK citizens, making extraterritorial arrests and locking up anyone they find inconvenient or tiresome. House of Lords Library staff—I thank them for their research—tell us that some 304 people have been arrested under the NSL for
“suspected acts or activities that endanger national security”.
As we know and have seen in the press, 45 others have been jailed for “conspiring to commit subversion”. These are all ridiculous and absurd allegations. None the less, this is the daily working of the Chinese and Hong Kong Governments’ way of doing justice.
We know from open source information, and from what we can see and hear for ourselves, that the Chinese Government pay no attention to human rights or the rule of law. They pay no attention to complaints, no matter how politely delivered, by western leaders. The recent statements issued by UK Ministers and the interventions made by the Prime Minister directly with President Xi—I applaud them for making them—must be more than mere formulaic verbiage. With interlocutors who have no regard for, and perhaps do not even understand or still less care about, the concepts we are worried about, we need to use commercial leverage with our allies and be ready to cause China actual economic harm to get our message home. If that costs us as well, it will be a price worth paying, but a China that sees no diplomatic, military or monetary disadvantage in ignoring us and our allies is a China that will continue to push outwards, crush domestic dissent and assert itself at our expense. We have a choice: to act or simply to watch.
Jimmy Lai, an elderly UK citizen incarcerated in Hong Kong for simply expressing his opinion and allowing others to do so through his newspaper, not only suffers as an individual human being but stands as a representative of all those in Hong Kong under its authoritarian and unjust regime. I urge the Government not just to issue statements but to take retaliatory action to ensure that his case is dealt with properly, justly and speedily. He should be released and permitted, if he chooses, to leave Hong Kong with his wife. He should not be in prison for his thoughts and his words. Now is the time. Let us choose to act, not just to watch.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, rather like Christmas, which seems to come around faster every year, so the opportunity to change British policy on China seems to come around rapidly. Under the coalition but particularly, one sensed, when George Osborne was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, there was a great opening up to China and a great interest in having investment. We then saw a pivot to thinking that China was perhaps a threat and a country with which we should not necessarily work closely—although we never stopped doing business with it. We are waiting for His Majesty’s Government’s China audit, but at the moment we have the Foreign Secretary David Lammy’s three Cs: competition, challenge and co-operation.
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Alton of Liverpool for bringing this very important debate this afternoon. It is indeed timely, not just because of the 40th anniversary of the Sino-British Hong Kong agreement, but precisely because there is an audit and we have very recently seen the Foreign Secretary meet his Chinese opposite number and the Prime Minister meet President Xi—the first time, as I understand it, that a British Minister met the president in six years.
In that time, many things have changed in the United Kingdom—Prime Ministers have changed almost as often as the calendar—but in China, very little has changed. If you have a president for life, long-term policy-making can be very different, so Chinese planning for security and Chinese actions against Tibetans and Uighurs persist. At this point I must briefly mention an interest, in that I have recently become a trustee of the Parliamentary Human Rights Trust. I do not think it directly affects this debate, but I thought I should mention it because clearly, one of the concerns that this House, the International Relations and Defence Committee and committees in the other place have long had is precisely human rights issues in Hong Kong, Tibet and Xinjiang.
What assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the situation in Xinjiang? The excellent report from the House of Lords Library suggests that Ministers have been talking about possible forced labour in the supply chain. Shadow Minister Mike Wood responded:
“As we move forward, all UK businesses must conduct thorough due diligence to ensure that their supply chains are free from forced labour”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6 November 2024; col. 66WH.]”
Excellent, and that is exactly what should be happening, but what mechanism is there to ensure that it does? While we absolutely should be calling on the largest companies named in various reports—companies such as Rolls-Royce, which clearly have every opportunity to ask the right questions—what about the smaller companies? Do they really have the opportunity to engage in that due diligence, which is vital but also very difficult, and yet another imposition on small and medium-sized companies?
Apart from human rights concerns, which we have already heard thoroughly outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, there are significant security issues that are not necessarily talked about very frequently. What assessment are His Majesty’s Government making of Chinese interests in the Arctic and Antarctic? China sees itself as a near neighbour of the Arctic—one that clearly has business interests, in that, the more navigable the Arctic Sea region becomes, the greater the interest. President Xi suggested on meeting Prime Minister Starmer that we could co-operate and that there are areas of common interest in trade and investment. Where are those trade and investment interests coming from? Do they benefit the United Kingdom, or do they benefit only China?
There is a final question I want to ask, about higher education. I very briefly declare my other interest, as professor of European politics at Cambridge University. This is an issue that affects universities across this country and in the United States: the Chinese Students and Scholars Association. A quick internet search suggests that universities in the UK and the US have active Chinese Students and Scholars Associations. It is not entirely clear who funds them, but they appear to be intended partly to allow host communities to find out more about China and to allow Chinese students to have full feedback to China. Are His Majesty’s Government reassured that these are entirely neutral organisations simply serving the mutual benefit of the host university and the students; or are they also an opportunity for China to look for students to investigate, spy on—to use a word that is perhaps unfortunate—and feedback on fellow students, particularly students from Hong Kong, perhaps, who may feel vulnerable?
The Lord Bishop of Winchester
I am very grateful to my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for securing this vital and urgent debate. I congratulate him on his election as chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. There is no one better qualified to fulfil that role.
If we are to understand China from the perspective of human rights, security or trade, or indeed from any other perspective, we must see the country in its own terms and as it sees itself rather than simply through western lenses. To understand China as she understands herself, it will not do to look at her in terms of Marxism or indeed Maoism. If once it was said of the Labour Party that it was more Methodist than Marxist, it can be fairly said of the Chinese Communist Party that it is at least as Confucianist as it is communist. At the heart of China’s concept of itself lies the concept of tianxia, a word that means “all under heaven”—and that I almost certainly mispronounce. Even in those three words, you can grasp a sense of its import. It is an ancient concept, dating at least to the start of the first millennium BC, describing a system of relations across Asia, with China as the centre of the civilised world and the apex of culture, the heart of a sage empire, spreading material benefits and wisdom to all mankind—a geopolitical system with China at the centre and the Emperor at the centre of the centre.
When Lord Macartney visited the Emperor in 1793 to discuss trade terms, the Emperor stated that China was the foremost and most divine nation on earth and had no need of foreign goods. That was a pure expression of tianxia. In subsequent decades, with the opium wars, the collapse of the empire, the disaster of the Second World War and Maoism, the concept took quite a battering, only to reassert itself now under President Xi, just as neo-tsarism has in Russia.
In contemporary China, tianxia manifests itself in the ideology of “one country, one people, one party, one leader”, and it has global implications too. In the words of Steve Tsang, the director of the SOAS China Institute, President Xi is undeterred by western objections because he believes in the moral righteousness and inevitability of Chinese global leadership. Of course he does because he believes in tianxia and, as we can see and as has been outlined in this debate, it manifests itself in Tibet, Xinjiang and Hong Kong, in the South China Sea, in aggression towards Taiwan, in transnational repression and in malign influence such as we have seen here in recent days. The belt and road initiative is just another manifestation of it. It is seen specifically in violations of religion or belief. Religious minorities—Muslims in Xinjiang, Buddhists in Tibet, Falun Gong and Christians across China—must be repressed because they do not accept that ultimate authority rests with the one at the heart of the system, as tianxia dictates.
So how do we address it? Not by assuming that China believes in the international rules-based system but by understanding, ideologically and indeed theologically, where China is coming from. China simply does not see itself as one nation state among many; tianxia will not allow for that. A religiously illiterate approach that relies on western secular assumptions simply will not do, and we cannot counter a three millennia-old concept by appeal to a Universal Declaration of Human Rights that was drawn up only in 1948, deeply as I believe in it.
We must take a religiously informed approach to such a concept. In that light, I warmly welcome the announcement of the new freedom of religion or belief special envoy, the Member for North Northumberland, David Smith MP. He is very well equipped to take on this role, not only to advocate for marginalised communities but to help us understand these big-picture issues as they relate to increased authoritarianism and repression in the world today. I very much hope that, despite reports to the contrary, his office will be properly resourced, both financially and with staff, so that he can make the fullest impact possible in his role. There is no doubt that with Senator Rubio in post as Secretary of State—I note that he is currently under a Chinese travel ban—the incoming Trump Administration will foreground freedom of religion or belief in foreign policy. Mr Smith’s appointment gives us the perfect opportunity to make common cause with the United States on this issue, and we must grasp it.
Only a robust approach to China will do. It is not my place to suggest what that approach might be, though the implementation of the foreign influence registration scheme seems a good place to start, but we are not powerless in this. The UK and our allies are not without influence and we must use our seat on the Security Council. Despite what the Emperor said to Lord Macartney, China needs our trade—but we cannot trade at any price and must not leave this too late.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate. There was much in his reflections; he was looking at things from having a lens on a country he knows. From the various discussions we have had, I agree with him in totality.
I thank my dear friend, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for tabling this debate. I must admit that I am no longer the target of his daily emails and phone calls as a Minister. That is missed, I think, in some shape or form, but I am sure that the new Government are receiving them with welcoming arms. I pay tribute to the noble Lord for his perseverance on a whole raft of human rights issues—despite, let us be clear, the many personal challenges and attacks that he faces, including sanctions, in standing up for the oppressed and persecuted around the world.
I turn first, though, to governance. We hear that in early 2025, the Government will provide an audit. What exactly will be its format and the presentation to Parliament? I am sure that the Minister will cover this in her concluding remarks, but I request that, once that is done, she facilitates a meeting with Members of your Lordships’ House on this important element.
Linked to this, however, I have an equally relevant question on the material difference between the Government’s approach and that of the previous Government. Noble Lords will know that the Integrated Review Refresh 2023 built our approach to China at that time. It was cross-government and focused on three pillars. The first was “Protect”. The UK would
“strengthen our national security protections in those areas where the actions of the CCP pose a threat to our people, prosperity and security”.
We would prioritise cybersecurity and defensive capabilities, while strengthening
“protections for academic freedom and university research”.
Do the Government believe that approach is correct?
Secondly was “Align”. The UK would deepen co-operation and alignment with key allies and partners to
“shape the broader strategic environment”.
The Government said that the UK aimed to work collectively with allies and partners to encourage China to contribute transparently and proportionately to financial stability and economic development around the world but, equally, to
“push back against behaviours that undermine international law, violate human rights, or seek to coerce or create dependencies”.
Again, do the Government agree with this approach?
Finally, there was “Engage”: the UK would engage directly with China through bilateral channels and international fora, including the UN Security Council, seeking
“to preserve and create space for open, constructive … and stable relations”
that reflect China’s global significance, which is an undeniable fact. The Government also stated that they believed in the potential benefits of positive trade and investment relationships with China, while safeguarding critical supply chains and national security. Does the Minister agree with that? If the answer to all three questions is yes, we need to move forward and start motoring.
In the multilateral sphere, what engagement is taking place on co-operation and conflict resolution? On the G20 meeting between the Prime Minister and President Xi, what has happened subsequently? On the Human Rights Council—I have raised this before—and the UN Third Committee, what has happened specifically in these areas on issues such as Xinjiang and the Uighur Muslims?
I know that during my over seven years as the UK Human Rights Minister, we led on bringing together an ever-growing number of nations to highlight the plight of the community and other minorities. What steps are the Government taking to build on the work of the previous Government in strengthening this coalition of almost 50 nations? I welcome the appointment of the new FoRB envoy; indeed, I am personally invested, as I was the first envoy and helped create the role. How is the international alliance, where my dear friend Fiona Bruce played such a pivotal role, being utilised in this respect?
Issues of contention and profound disagreements remain between the UK and China, some of which have been amplified in recent days and remain at the core of this relationship. Our colleagues, including the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, remain under sanction by the Chinese authorities. Previous Prime Ministers had direct meetings with those sanctioned; I ask the Minister, through her good offices, to ensure that that continues.
I have already mentioned Hong Kong and the national security law, and Xinjiang, but, in the spirit of the season, if we are to move forward in turning a page in this relationship—perhaps even writing a new chapter—we need to bear in mind, as the right reverend Prelate reminded us, that China itself recognises the need for collective action. President Xi is focused on a revival of the teachings and philosophy of Confucius. It is to that philosophy I turn, in the spirit of building a bridge and moving forward, to lay the foundations for addressing serious human rights concerns and related freedoms. It was Confucius who said:
“To be able under all circumstances to practice five things constitutes perfect virtue; these five things are gravity, generosity of soul, sincerity, earnestness and kindness”.
I therefore reach out to the Chinese authorities—I trust that the Minister will agree with me. Let us move forward in that spirit, in this season, with some immediate practical steps: remove the sanctions from our colleagues in Parliament and beyond as a first step, and let us build a new dialogue; recognise that the major challenges of the world, be they a resolution to the war in Ukraine or peace in the Middle East, require collaboration; build on the experience of recent history and the fact that, when a pandemic engulfed the world, co-operation between nations was the bedrock of a new dawn after the tragedy that impacted us all; and release those who are held in detention for calling for freedom of expression. As my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier expressed so powerfully, Jimmy Lai is a man who has suffered for far too long and whose health is deteriorating. China should show compassion and clemency to him and his family, reflective of the season of good will but also of the central Confucian tenets of generosity and kindness—end his trial now and return our citizen. Finally, with the Sino-British treaty, China must revive freedom of expression and end acts of suppression.
China is important to the UK but the UK is equally important to China. We have differences and profound disagreements, with different governance systems, yet the links between our two nations are deep-rooted, in business and education, and from science and corporation to culture and cuisine, underpinned and defined by our people-to-people links. We are at a crossroads at this time. I have sought to outline some simple, practical steps that can be taken and which in my view may, I hope and pray, turn the trajectory of travel towards a more positive space.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford
My Lords, as the grandson of former medical missionaries in south-west China, I take great interest in this debate. As others have expressed, I am really grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his remarkable and indefatigable commitment to human rights and freedom of religion or belief all around the world. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad—it is a privilege to speak after him—for his huge commitment in this area over many years.
I share with my forebears a deep respect for the Chinese people, their culture, their discipline and their character, but I have been horrified by stories of the oppression and maltreatment of religious minorities and critics of the regime over very many years. I have paid several illuminating visits to China to witness that for myself. This afternoon, like others, I wish to highlight the desperate situation of Uighur Muslims in the north-western region of Xinjiang, whom the other place has declared as being subject to genocide. Specifically, I urge His Majesty’s Government to ensure that the screening of goods made in forced labour camps—everything from solar panels to tomatoes—prevents them being imported into this country.
The challenges faced by Uighur Muslims are now well-documented. They are herded into so-called vocational skills, education and training centres, surrounded by guards who operate a shoot-to-kill policy on those who would try to escape. Subjected to mass indoctrination, forced labour and coercive sterilisation. it is hard to imagine a more egregious example of modern slavery in the world today. It was hugely encouraging that the Labour Party in opposition gave such an unwavering commitment to the call to designate these atrocities as genocide, pure and simple—or, as we might say, impure and simple.
The response of other western allies has been similarly forceful but supported by actions which His Majesty’s Government have thus far failed to match. The Uyghur Forced Labour Prevention Act in the USA and the EU’s forced labour investment screening mechanism already work to prevent goods from the region reaching the US and European markets. In the EU, there is a legal requirement for border officials to screen goods coming into their respective countries, while the USA has reversed the burden of proof on businesses to guarantee, so far as possible, that their supply chains are not tainted by Uighur Muslim forced labour. No such mechanism exists in the UK today, demonstrating a serious lack of alignment with our allies in an area where we should be joined at the hip.
In the last six months, two direct cargo routes have been established from Urumqi, the capital of the Xinjiang province, to airports in Bournemouth and Cardiff. Media reports state that European Cargo, a UK company registered in Hertfordshire, is ferrying goods to this country from an area declared to be the subject of an ongoing genocide. Meanwhile, Ministers have informed a colleague that UK Border Force currently has no power or legal obligation to search those flights, which creates a gaping loophole for those who would seek to profit from the current atrocities being experienced.
In an Answer to a recent Written Question asking His Majesty’s Government what plans they had, if any, to suspend cargo routes from Xinjiang to UK airports, the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, replied:
“His Majesty’s Government have no plans to restrict cargo operations between Xinjiang and UK airports. The decision to operate particular routes is a commercial decision for airlines”.
His Majesty’s Government previously made commitments to tackle the scourge of modern slavery but, until this loophole is closed, the UK will effectively become the dumping ground for goods produced in such horrendous circumstances. Indeed, it may well be that already.
I therefore ask the Government to develop policies similar to those of the US and EU, to ensure that this debate leads beyond rhetoric and good intentions to the solid action which is so urgently needed.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on securing this debate on government policy towards China and for highlighting these grave issues. I pay tribute to him, along with other noble Lords, for dedicating his immense knowledge, experience and wisdom to the service of people and causes which can often be buried beneath the rhetoric and power of the overbearing and tyrannical state.
Noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Alton, have spoken about China’s conduct of affairs backed by a show of force. There have been violations of agreements, such as our own 1984 Sino-British joint declaration on Hong Kong, under which it was pledged to “one country, two systems” for 50 years, and the horrid violations and imprisonments that have taken place there. Taiwan has been threatened by President Xi’s refusal to rule out force for what he calls reunification, and this is to say nothing of the persecution of religious and ethnic minorities in Tibet and of the Uighurs in the western Xinjiang province, to which noble Lords have drawn attention.
As we have heard, the UK Government have set out their approach: to co-operate cautiously, to trade and to challenge. But can there really be UK co-operation as equal partners on trade and economic matters with China? Trading as equals can be the only true basis on which a western democracy such as the UK can co-operate, given China’s economic power, which is now the second-largest globally. That is based on its vast wealth, its imperviousness to WTO trade rules—on state subsidies, for example—and its untrustworthy record on IP and cyberespionage, prompting action by the US, as well as its bid for regional strategic and military dominance.
Although China is not the UK’s first trading partner but our fifth largest, we do have a trade deficit with it. Given the strategic and sensitive nature of Chinese imports into the UK and its foreign direct investment—FDI—in the UK, it has already achieved great leverage on our economy. The figures vary, but Chinese investors have around £134 billion of assets in UK industries. It is no secret, and we know openly, that these range from a large share in Hinkley Point C nuclear power station—China General Nuclear Power holds a 33.5% stake in the plant, which is owned by EDF—to a 10% share in Heathrow. It has interests in breweries that Chinese individuals have, such as Greene King, and retail outlets such as Superdrug, as well as utilities such as Northumbrian Water. Around 200 companies are in the hands of Chinese individuals from China or Hong Kong, including state-run organisations and the China Investment Corporation. What precautionary measures do the Government intend to protect the UK strategically and its vital security in power plants, energy companies, IT and electronics, against dominance by Chinese investors, state or otherwise?
Rather than go ever deeper into trading arrangements with China, with all their drawbacks, my view is that Britain should concentrate on the benefits from developing trade and economic ties with other trading partners—to make common cause, for instance, with the incoming US regime, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester suggested. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Leong, will forgive me for returning to this theme, but I recommend that we develop and are alert to what can be done as a leading global partner now that we are members of the CPTPP. I recommend that we are alert to how we can not only develop our own trade with this dynamic and ever-growing alliance but help our new partners in the CPTPP against predatory or hegemonic Chinese economic moves, given the wide area of influence that China already commands not just in the Indo-Pacific but with individual CPTPP countries. Already, 20% of Chinese goods are destined for CPTPP countries, and 50% of them are intermediate products. Of those countries, Malaysia, Vietnam and Mexico have the highest level of imports from China. In the UK, that figure is 13% of our imports, given the nature of our imports from China.
Will the UK Government commit to ensuring that they do everything possible to lead and strengthen the CPTPP as a free-trading bloc and an alternative to our trading partners, and indeed ourselves, being dependent on the Chinese economy? To return to a subject we have been debating in a Committee, will they ensure that no measure is taken under the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill that would undermine the UK’s ability both to exploit the opportunities of the CPTPP and to act as a beacon of global free trade with our new partners?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this timely debate, particularly in the context of the history of Hong Kong, and for his typically powerful introduction, which is only what your Lordships’ House would expect.
I begin this final debate of 2024 with a big-picture overview of the state of the world. Geopolitically, we are an unstable, dangerous mess. The climate is running out of control, overheating visibly and obviously, and nature and biodiversity are in a state of collapse. Human lives are going backwards, in terms of poverty, hunger and inequality. We are not doing well, and that is not because we have been derailed from some ongoing train of so-called development and progress. It is a product of the nature of politics around the world in recent decades, particularly in the hugely influential United States—and us, with our own UK influences. It is a legacy of colonialism and neocolonialism, extractivism and exploitation, the enriching of the few at the expense of the many.
That is not to say that there has not been real progress in the decades since World War II—progress driven by civil society, which has developed a framework of international norms, or what we generally call human rights. They were not given over to us by states but driven by campaigners who forced us forward. Civil society action has got us to that point, but it is dependent on government action really to put it into effect—and that means that Governments have to apply these frameworks of norms and human rights, applying the judgments without fear or favour, not using them as a stick with which to beat people we dislike while quietly ignoring what we see our friends and allies doing. I would love to see a debate in your Lordships’ House similar to this one but focused on the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia, which is every bit as bad as China.
Noble Lords have talked here, as I have in other contexts, about the situation with the horrendous genocide against the Uighurs and the situations in Tibet and Hong Kong, as well as the threats to Taiwan and in the South China Sea. I am not going to go back over that ground, because it has been covered well already. I want to take two different angles here. One is to say, as no one has yet said, that in this complex world, facing the threat of the planetary boundaries being exceeded, we have to talk to China. On the climate emergency and nature crisis, it is a crucially important actor. Of course, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out, it makes many of the products that we use every day; that is the trade to which the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, was just referring. We have to acknowledge that the responsibility for the environmental impacts of those objects that we use rests with us, as well as with China. We shall see in the coming year a real focus on a duty to prevent human rights abuses and environmental damage for our companies or supply chains. That is important to consider in this context. But it is really important to say that business interests, or indeed the need to talk about the climate and nature crisis, should not stop us from raising, at every opportunity, human rights in conversation with the Chinese regime. It should not stop us from deciding on sanctions or providing refuge to those seeking asylum from the Chinese regime.
It is important to note that this afternoon the Prime Minister in the Liaison Committee referred to safe and legal routes for people to find asylum in the UK. He said that he was happy with what we had now with Afghanistan, Ukraine and Hong Kong. I have a direct question to the Minister: surely we also want to provide safe and legal routes for people from other parts of China who might be seeking asylum in the UK to be able to come here. Hong Kong is enormously important, but it should not just be Hong Kong.
My second point is that the noble Lord’s Motion refers to China’s actions and government policy towards China. That may have been what the Table Office was happy to have, but I urge all noble Lords not to regard China as a single entity. China is not the Chinese regime. It is really important that we do not make ahistorical, orientalising assumptions about China as some unchanging, monolithic entity. I note that Human Rights Watch, for example, has a whole series of reports about how there have been protests within China, with terribly brave actions by people within China at great risk to themselves. Let us not talk about China but about the Chinese regime, and acknowledge that there are Chinese people, not just within the parts of China that we have identified but in other parts as well, who are taking action. I note that there are really brave feminist LGBTIQA+ activists in China who have paid a hideous price for taking actions in those areas.
Finally, I will change tone. Given that this is the final Green speech of the year, I offer thanks particularly to the staff who keep us going through these long and strange hours in which we work. I wish them and all noble Lords a merry Christmas and a happy new year.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, like others, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this debate. Unlike others, I also praise him for the propitious timing that he managed to secure for this debate. We will leave this as the last message of the year.
We have already heard important speeches on human rights, and I am sure that we will hear more. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, intimated, I want to change gear. I want to take a, let us say, secular approach, perhaps a utilitarian approach, to the issue of technology and the threat of Chinese technology to our security. I will use the specific to illustrate the general.
My first specific is lidar: light detection and ranging technology. It is used for mapping and sensing in autonomous vehicles, drones, trains and airports; and utility providers and infrastructure operators use lidar to monitor pipelines, power lines and rail networks. As your Lordships will understand, these are all important areas. In 2020, Chinese firms had a 58% share of the global automotive lidar market. I do not have later stats, but I expect that the share will now have risen due to the copious use of subsidies, market protections, procurement preference and the systematic acquisition of foreign intellectual property. Chinese lidar poses a danger because it collects sensitive data and can receive over-the-air updates enabling potentially undetectable changes to systems, which could compromise operation.
Next, we have cellular IoT—internet of things—modules. These are what connect everything to the internet. They are used in a vast array of critical infrastructure applications: energy, logistics, manufacturing, transport, health, and security, to name but some. They remotely monitor and control complex systems and collect vast amounts of data and metadata for analysis, processing and response management. Chinese pricing is often up to 25% below manufacturing cost, helping China to gain a 70% share of the world market—already. Quite apart from the leverage that can be applied via this dominant position, China has potential access to very large amounts of data and can remotely interfere with devices, switching off or degrading critical national infrastructure.
Domination of key markets is a Chinese strategy across many technologies. Photovoltaics is one example, and China’s share of all manufacturing stages for solar panels exceeds 80%. Once again, this has happened by the use of very low price levels that are supported by subsidy, with China having crushed most of its international opposition.
Lithium-ion batteries are another example. China dominates the whole battery supply chain, producing well over 80% of all key components. Graphite, copper, nickel and cobalt are the raw materials needed for batteries and their use will rise staggeringly. For example, by 2040, estimates point to a ninefold increase in lithium requirements above current use. While US and European companies play significant roles in some areas of lithium and copper asset ownership, China invested $10 billion in overseas mining in the first half of 2023 alone. China dominates nickel and cobalt production, notably in Indonesia and Congo, and it controls 93% of battery-grade graphite refining.
Rare earth minerals, vital for manufacturing not just batteries but wind turbines, phone displays and fibre-optic cables, will see a surge in demand. Again, China dominates refining and production, and is expected to increase its share above the current 80%. In AI and quantum computing, the Chinese effort is currently somewhat behind that of the US and the West, but we have already seen that if China decides to move forward, it moves forward at pace. Chips are key to this and China continues to grow its domestic chip industry: a $47.5 billion investment fund was announced this year, and the West has been slow to respond. Delays applying sanctions allowed China to buy time and stockpile, while an increase in its chip purchases now indicates that it is still stockpiling for future problems.
Meanwhile, quantum computing has the potential to completely change the way our computers and devices work, and poses significant security risks. At the moment, China and the US lead, but China is certainly further ahead in moves to try to deploy this technology, with infrastructure and two satellites with quantum communication capability.
Thanks to the tireless work of some of the people speaking in this debate, the last Government began to wake up to the dangers. In October 2022, work started on removing Huawei from UK telecoms infrastructure, but this is due to be completed only in 2027, and there have been partial moves regarding Hikvision’s surveillance cameras, but not even scratching the surface of this problem. Where is our co-ordinated approach to this? The pattern in the UK is piecemeal, slow and, I would say, largely ineffective.
To conclude, this is not paranoia: the danger is there and the Government need to be honest in their audit. China has a predatory pricing strategy based on massive subsidies, and sometimes slave labour, designed to eliminate its western rivals. It has acquired global dominance in key raw materials and their processing. It has launched programmes to gather IP from across the world by any means, as we heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. Perhaps most worryingly, it has established deep penetration of our critical infrastructure and key equipment, with the capacity for detailed covert surveillance and remote control. This is not the half of it, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor. It is clear to all who look that China’s technology strategy is a serious threat to our security and an existential threat to our capacity to deliver manufacturing when we need it. I ask the Minister to confirm that she too recognises this threat and that the audit will take this on board.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, that was another excellent speech by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and a brilliant peroration as he concluded, building on eight other excellent speeches we have heard in this debate, following its superb launch by my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, who has campaigned on this issue for many years. How wonderful it was to hear two robust speeches from Church of England Bishops rather than the usual fence-sitting stuff. I particularly liked what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester had to say. I think he is right: it is not just this tianxia culture. Is there not a deeply ingrained racist element, in that they believe that those of the Han ethnicity are the only real people and every other ethnic race are just vermin or infidels to be destroyed? I am grateful that the right reverend Prelate is nodding: I got at least something right in my speech today.
So what is China doing—the country described by the FCDO as a “strategic partner” with which this Government are determined to have a “pragmatic” relationship? Well, it is oppressing its own people, both directly through an extensive network of black jails and indirectly with no free press. This House and 11 other countries have said that the Chinese state is committing genocide in Xinjiang province and, in Tibet, it is seeking to deny a people their culture and identity. It is running what has been described as the
“world’s largest contemporary system of state-imposed forced labor”,
with up to 2.5 million Uighurs and members of other ethnic groups at risk of coerced work.
In Hong Kong, it has reneged on an internationally registered treaty with the UK, in order to deny the city’s residents their civil and political rights. It is stealing islands, building military bases and deploying paramilitary forces to bully its neighbours in the South China Sea, despite an international ruling that its claims are unfounded. It is engaged in the largest military build-up since World War II, adding the equivalent of the entire Royal Navy every two years. Its programme of civil-military fusion subserviates its economy to military needs. It is increasing its military exercises and incursions into Taiwan’s airspace and escalating the use of grey-zone activities to undermine both Taiwan’s will to resist and that of the international community to stand firm against aggression.
It is also waging a non-military war against Taiwan, by trying to eradicate its right to exist. Taiwan cannot get into the United Nations, nor any of its agencies. China has banned it from the World Health Organization, even though it was Taiwan that raised the alarm about Covid while China covered it up, and China has banned Taiwan from Interpol. China constantly seeks to change the wording of United Nations agreements to freeze out Taiwan.
Our own Intelligence and Security Committee has said that China runs the largest state intelligence service in the world and that it is a threat to our British industry and technology. Let us be clear that when I say China, I of course mean the Communist Party of China, not the whole of the Chinese people. It lied about the origins of Covid, lied to the World Health Organization, lied about the efficacy of its vaccines and spread conspiracy theories when seeking to divert responsibility and blame. It destroyed evidence and continues to withhold information on what it knows. It also launched a trade war against Australia, Norway and Lithuania when these countries asked questions about the Covid cover-up.
That is what is happening around the world. What about the UK? There is a long list of hostile Chinese aggressive acts against our United Kingdom; against individuals, the state and companies. On a daily basis, it is mounting massive cyberattacks against the UK, including one in March of this year targeting Members of Parliament and the Electoral Commission. A former UK Foreign Secretary said that torture on an industrial scale was happening in Xinjiang province. How can we have as a strategic partner a country committing genocide?
China blatantly steals our technologies, has infiltrated all our universities—often helped by craven university chancellors more interested in Chinese cash than freedom of speech. More recently, have we not seen just how high their spies can penetrate? This was not a one-off quirk but the result of many years of assiduous penetration of all our top institutions, and many thousands more are still beavering away in our companies, universities and institutions, seeking to undermine our will to resist Chinese aggression.
These are not the actions of a strategic partner with whom we should be having a pragmatic relationship. These are the actions of a hostile state. Why will the Government—and the last Government, too—not listen to our own top security experts? The current head of MI5, Ken McCallum, has said that China is engaged in espionage on an “epic scale”. He gives us that message every few months—let us listen to him. Of course China is a massive trading entity from which we cannot cut ourselves off. Trade with China? Yes. Trust China? No.
The Henry Jackson Society published a large report in 2020 showing that the UK was strategically dependent on China for 229 categories of goods, of which 57 had applications in critical national infrastructure. This must not continue. We have let China get a stranglehold over some of our vital commodities: parts and components which could cripple us economically, and possibly militarily, as a country if China turned off the tap. So we must accelerate onshoring and taking back to the UK things we should be making here—or we should have various suppliers from other friendly countries around the world.
China is a hostile country. It is a clear and present danger to the West. It seeks to dominate us economically, militarily and politically. China is not a strategic partner; it is just a ruthless commercial competitor, and we should treat it as such. We must open our eyes and acknowledge the nature of the threat posed to us; then we can plan to combat it. Only from a position of security and strength can we then consider being “pragmatic”.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I too thank my noble friend Lord Alton for never letting up on China. All of us are very grateful, and this being the last debate of this year is very fitting.
This House is becoming louder in its warnings about the threat that the People’s Republic of China poses to the UK’s security and economy. The actual and perceived threats help to shape UK foreign policy with regard to China, yet many commentators argue that the UK, despite some welcome announcements from the Government, still does not have a viable political strategy on China and therefore remains vulnerable to events as they occur. As so many have said, what is urgently needed is a clear statement of red lines with regard to PRC suppression of minorities and a policy incorporating concerns about and action on cyber and other attacks, and the aggressive threatening of international shipping lanes and trading relations in the event of severe tariffs imposed by the USA.
The question of Chinese technology and its inroads into the UK has been very ably covered by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, but I would like to underline that the PRC, as we know, is intent on achieving a world monopoly of electronic communications technology. As we have heard, cellular modules of the “internet of things” are crucial to almost all aspects of infrastructure, such as logistics, power grids, water supplies or the ability to paralyse financial payment systems.
Chinese companies currently own about 70% of the world market in cellular modules, as we have heard. Other countries struggle to compete with subsidised Chinese manufacture, which has a protected domestic market and seeks to gain a monopoly by means of supply of parts, favourable regulation, financing at competitive rates, access to key materials and products such as semiconductors at below cost. And let us not forget that the PRC is ever vigilant in taking over potentially failing companies around the world. The consequences of anything approaching a monopoly of PRC-supplied parts, and the access to data that this would facilitate, are severe, and would for example bring the UK defence forces to a standstill.
My predominant interest remains the democratic independence of Taiwan, a country of great strategic importance to China and expressly targeted by President Xi as ripe for integration with the mainland of China. This intention has been repeated too often to be ignored. Although expert opinion doubts that there is an imminent possibility of invasion, the so-called “grey attacks” are increasing in number and severity. Frequent military exercises are intended to disrupt and intimidate the Taiwanese, as are efforts to undermine Taiwan’s economy and democratic institutions.
Taiwan, as we all know, is the world’s largest producer of superior semiconductors. Despite competition from China and the USA to build semiconductor facilities, the technological skills and environment required are considerable and unlikely to surpass Taiwanese production rates. Although this is a great strength for Taiwan, it is also a liability, making integration with China all the more desirable for the PRC. Any interruption to the supply of raw materials, clean water or labour would have an immediate effect on production and compromise the global market for consumer electronics, currently valued at $1 trillion. The top 20 clients of the semiconductor manufacturing companies are worth in excess of $7 trillion.
Why does Taiwan’s continued existence as a separate entity matter? Apart from the democratic view that freedom is preferable to repression, the possibility of a China-controlled region encompassing international shipping lanes is ominous. China is intent not only on returning to an imperial grandness but on surpassing the USA as the world’s dominant political and economic force. The ability to control world shipping trade would represent a major step towards its grand plan.
The Government have committed to a thorough audit of PRC efforts to destabilise UK defence and security, which is eagerly awaited. Meanwhile, several suggestions for further protection have been put forward by China experts. These include ensuring that the FCDO maintains Mandarin-speaking specialists on China, and establishing a China-focused expert committee, preferably at Cabinet level, with a range of Ministers, particularly in the technological field, to monitor relations with the PRC. Such a committee would assess the national security risks offered by imported technology; arrive at a clear definition of national security for all government departments; set out priorities for defending critical national infrastructure; build up lists of trusted suppliers of electronic modules and chips, and other electronic manufacturers; and identify opportunities to work with international partners and allies to counter Chinese imperialism.
I suggest that our thinking and actions on China should not be dictated by the PRC. With the PRC’s largest military build-up since the end of the Second World War, deepening relations with Russia and increasing incursions into Taiwan and surrounding territories, it is clear that China is laying the ground for future domination beyond the south and south-east Asian regions. We ignore this at our peril.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, I refer to my interests as set out in the register, including as co-chair of the British-Taiwanese All-Party Parliamentary Group. I thank my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this very important debate and for giving a remarkable speech this afternoon.
China is back in the headlines once again, and, true to form, not for good reasons. The relationship between Prince Andrew and an individual spying for China has grabbed the headlines. However, much more important is the fact that Yang Tengbo is one of tens of thousands of members of the United Front Work Department, which Chairman Mao famously described as one of the three “magic weapons” of the Chinese Communist Party. Despite its somewhat innocuous name, the UFWD is a deeply sinister organisation that specialises in clandestine activities to advance the Chinese Communist Party’s interests at home and abroad.
The UFWD is believed to have significantly expanded its activities under President Xi. This is the same President Xi whose hand our own Prime Minister was so keen to shake last month. However, it seems that Sir Keir Starmer’s charm offensive on behalf of our United Kingdom Government is only the beginning, with at least three senior Ministers set to travel to China early next year, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As a consequence of these trips, it has been reported that the Government’s planned review of Sino-UK relations has been placed on ice.
In the meantime, Beijing continues to bully, harass and threaten the peace-loving people of Taiwan, in full public view. As we know, President Xi has reportedly pledged to achieve what he has described as reunification with Taiwan, despite China never having controlled it. As the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, said, hardly a day goes by without Chinese fighter jets and military vessels encroaching on Taiwanese space. In recent days, a stop-over in Hawaii by the Taiwanese President prompted Beijing to deploy its largest navy fleet in nearly three decades to waters near Taiwan. While some may put this down to mere scaremongering, there is a view among US defence experts that China is readying itself to seize Taiwan by military force in 2027. I find it baffling that the United Kingdom Government—a new United Kingdom Government—maintain their refusal to recognise Taiwan as an independent state and establish diplomatic relations.
I have been a businessman all my life, and I understand the need for economic growth to get our country back on a firm footing. I can even accept that, sometimes in business, you have to deal with people whose view of the world is a little different from your own. However, I will not accept what seems to be the Government’s view: that the only way to attract much-needed inward investment is to bow down to an authoritarian regime in Beijing. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester said, one should not do business at any price.
Earlier this week, in another place, the Security Minister, Dan Jarvis, said that the foreign influence registration scheme, or FIRS, which is designed to protect the UK from covert foreign influence, will not come into force this year as originally planned but will instead be introduced at some point next summer. In the light of what we are learning almost every day about Chinese espionage in this country, I ask the Minister what plausible reason there could be for this delay. I trust it was not a fear that it might upset Xi and those who sign the cheques. Can the Minister give us a guarantee that, when the FIRS finally comes into force, and should China not be placed in the advanced tier—which it certainly should be—she will return to this House to explain why?
I do not accept that His Majesty’s Government are being duplicitous in dealing with China—I want to make that clear. But I believe that they are being incredibly naive, with consequences that could be profoundly serious for our nation.
Lord Godson (Con)
As the last Back-Bench speaker of the year, I take pleasure in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on securing this debate and on the longevity of his interest in the subject and keeping the flag flying on this during very unpropitious circumstances, as it has been for the longest period. I thank him for his part in shifting the consensus in this House and beyond on the threat of the CCP and its institutions. It must have indeed seemed a lonely thing at times when the coalition was prioritising economic relations—and a short-term interpretation of economic relations, perhaps—above all other considerations.
I am not the only one who fears that we may be seeing a revival of aspects of the coalition’s approach to these matters in the policies of the current Government, or at least the early intimations thereof, prior to the publication of the audit and other reviews. One fears also a certain strategic incoherence in those early intimations. As I say, this partly is connected with its prioritisation of economic growth over all else. The danger is that we are trading tomorrow’s resilience and straining our alliances for short-term trade with the Chinese currency today—a kind of Back to the Future approach that many of us had hoped we had seen the back of.
Our allies seem to understand much more clearly than us that it is a fool’s game to separate economic and security relationships with Beijing. President Xi has collapsed the distinction between those two matters, viewing trade relations as entirely integral to the Chinese grand strategy. Pandering to Beijing is not necessary for maintaining economic relations. On the contrary, UK-China trade in the post-golden era has increased by 20% each year, even as successive Conservative Governments openly criticised Beijing for its transgressions in Xinjiang and Hong Kong—not often enough, perhaps, but, none the less, it has not sunk our trade with China.
Can this Government therefore be certain that kowtowing to Beijing will result in the flow of inward investment which they so crave? The Prime Minister, rightly, must engage with President Xi, as he did at the G20 summit, but should a growing list of Secretaries of State rush to Beijing now before the publication of the forthcoming China audit? Too often it appears that No. 10’s rationale is to front-load the cosmetic quick wins above everything else.
This confusion is compounded by the Government’s flurry of reviews: there are seven by my count, all of which should have a considerable China component. We have the China audit, of course; the FCDO’s three reviews, of the UK’s global impact, of development diplomacy and of economic diplomacy; the strategic defence review, to which noble Lord, Lord Alton, has already referred; the AUKUS review; and the Treasury’s own spending review. Are these linked together by a core strategic diagnosis of China? Who is now responsible for this? We seem in some ways to have disintegrated our national security approach, with multiple reviews reflecting different departmental agendas, absent a guiding hand to ensure coherence.
Before July, as my noble friend Lord Ahmad and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, pointed out, the UK pursued a China policy of align, protect and engage. It also pursued a policy of aligning with the China policies of our allies; protecting ourselves from espionage, economic malpractice and coercion; and engaging where prudent. This hierarchy of priorities was in keeping with the 2023 refresh of the integrated review, which assessed that China was
“an epoch-defining and systemic challenge”.
The current Government, now, at least—as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, and others have noted—apparently favour a three-Cs approach: co-operate where possible, compete where important and challenge where necessary. However, this is not a strategy but a statement, absent the necessary prioritisation vis-à-vis Beijing.
Most worryingly, the Government’s three Cs no longer refer to alignment with partners. We are thus at risk of becoming out of kilter with the Chinese policies of our allies. This was one of the major gaps that the last Government rightly sought to correct. Whatever the reason for this shift, it is causing concern among our key allies in the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific regions.
Perhaps the shift to ambiguity is not entirely accidental, but rather represents a conscious decision. For example, are the Government now fast-tracking engagement with Beijing to hedge against the incoming Trump Administration’s apparently more hawkish approach? The policy of hedging while the new US Administration seeks to remain engaged in European security could risk undermining the special relationship with the Administration, which is otherwise very favourably disposed to us. Our friends in places such as Australia urge us to consider their experience, where they withstood similar bullying from China and in fact ended up stronger in the long term, including under the present Australian Labor Government.
Even the EU now looks set to pursue a tougher line on China than us. The Commission’s new foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, former Prime Minister of Estonia, recently dropped the definition of Beijing as a
“partner, competitor and systemic rival”,
electing instead to refer to it only by the latter point, as a systemic rival. The Secretary of State for Business and Trade, Jonathan Reynolds, has stated that we have no plans to allow the EU’s tariffs on Chinese vehicles. The Government have dropped even the notion of systemic competition, something shared by every single British ally.
We should be in no doubt that the China challenge demands a co-ordinated approach across Whitehall and our alliances. Previously, we articulated what we needed to do in an explicitly integrated approach. Now, our approach appears to be departmentally balkanised to the extent of literally being disintegrated. Who will bring those disparate reviews together?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, this has been a debate of fitting quality at the end of this calendar year. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for bringing it to us. In some respects, I hope this final debate of 2024 might frame some of the early debates we have in 2025, when we look at the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s visit to Beijing and other Ministers’ visits to China. I hope they will be able to take the contributions from this debate into consideration when they form their views, because we have served a challenge function and reflected on some of the subjects we need to debate.
As my noble friend Lady Smith said, tis the season of another government approach to China. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, outlined the previous Administration’s approach, so we can see the word salad of “protect”, “co-operate”, “prioritise”, “challenge”, “align”, “compete” and “engage”. The word that is missing is “strategy”, and you could add “published” in front of that. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Fox, because he outlined in such clear terms why we need to have one.
I say this with great respect, because I both understood and agreed with much of the speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, but I felt there was a contradiction, to some extent, in seeking to move away from trade dependency on China towards other trading partners in the CPTPP who also predominantly have seen growth as a result of trade with China and are now basically a vehicle for us to have enhanced trade with China. This seems to be the Government’s adopted approach for trade. It seems that “European Union” are the two words that dared not speak their name in the debate. If we seek to diversify away from trade dependency on China, it might be that we should have stronger trade links with our European neighbours.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
Just to clarify, my proposal, which was not clear at all, was that we should help and encourage those countries that have a trade dependency with China—that is, those CPTPP partners—to move away from that trade dependency and use our role to do that.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I can understand that as a theoretical approach, but of all the current CPTPP members, it is the United Kingdom—the newest country —that has the largest trade deficit of them all with China. Those members would look to us to diversify away from China, so the whole ambition is the other way around. We hope, if the Government are doing a strategic audit, that their analysis will come to the fore, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, indicated, there are worrying signs that the audit may not be published or that it may be delayed until the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been in Beijing. We may not even have it presented for debate in Parliament, so I am starting to be quite concerned.
As my noble friend Lord Fox indicated, we need this because of the industrial-scale economic surveillance, and the scraping and capture of data from the UK economy, as a tool for industrial espionage, for state advantage, and for state enterprises to strategically undercut and underprice in certain key sectors of our economy. As my noble friend Lord Fox’s work on other elements of our key technology and infrastructure says, we need to enhance our resilience, especially now when we see what China is doing globally in seeking software and hardware for global ports of entry systems, for shipping and for telecommunications.
China is not a passive global actor. I acknowledge that neither are we, and nor is it a criticism that it is not, but the strategic aim for China is to have a sphere of influence in a multipolar world. That is distinct from how we see the world, which we feel should be based on a liberal, international order of rules. There are differences in how we see global diplomatic and development interactions. The UK—working with partners, of course—should be clear that our perspective of the world is distinct.
In previous Questions and Statements, the Minister has been honest with us and said that she did not know whether the new Government’s approach to this will work. She has said that in this Chamber. However, she said that it was worth trying. It is worth trying if we are seeking to grow our economy, but the cost of the growth of our economy, while being a supplicant at a trade deficit in key sectors, means that we are unlikely to see a level of sustainable growth, or the protection of human rights and national security. Of course we should be partnering in certain areas, but we should not do it blind.
That is why the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, and others have said, as I did in my question to the Minister just this week with regard to the National Security Act—on which the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and I worked very hard—that the approach should be evidence-based, taking into account national security considerations and threats. It should not be subservient to economic development or to one perception of economic development. That is why we need to look at elements of our relationship with Taiwan, as the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, said; we have a strategic economic partnership with Taiwan, which is a liberal, open democracy that does represent our thinking.
With regard to China, there are further actions that this Government can take, which the previous Government did not take, when they look at auditing UK-based assets owned by the CCP and at the potential use of Magnitsky sanctions against those responsible for the erosion of Hong Kong’s freedoms. We can pursue further areas of human rights, and I hope that the Government will not set them aside as a result of the Treasury’s approach.
Last weekend, on a fascinating visit to the Doha Forum, I saw the approach that many developing nations and economies are taking to China. I sat in a session with President Kagame of Rwanda, Prime Minister Mottley of Barbados and a Chinese operative. What was fascinating was that President Kagame said that, when he speaks to potential western investors, “We get tons of lectures, not goods”, but Prime Minister Motley said that all her interactions and developing nations’ interactions should be based on “global principles”. There was a contradiction that I heard from them. I pointed out that when it comes to China and Africa, for example, the UK is a bigger investor in Africa than China at the moment. We can assert ourselves with the values of Barbados on global principles and not accept the narrative that there are lectures, but we should be an active participant in this area.
I close by coming back to what my noble friend Lady Smith indicated when it comes to the need for there to be a coherent approach, and perhaps this is referencing the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Godson. It seems that the new Government’s approach is to
“find a way of engaging with China in a more meaningful and deeper relationship that recognised the threat, but also sought to try to co-opt China into the international order”;
an approach that understands
“that many of the world’s biggest challenges like climate change or biodiversity loss were not going to be solved without engagement with China”.
That is a direct quote from George Osborne’s evidence to our International Relations and Defence Select Committee, which my noble friend and I had the pleasure of serving on, when we concluded our report in September 2021.
That report’s title was The UK and China’s Security and Trade Relationship: A Strategic Void. It called for the Government to
“produce a single, coherent China strategy, as recommended by the Foreign Affairs Committee in April 2019, and a plan for how it will execute that strategy”.
We still need that. If the Government believe that they will have a 10-year period in office rather than five years, the need for a single, coherent, published China strategy is vital, and I hope the Minister may agree to it.
As I sit down, I wish all Members a happy Christmas and a merry New Year. He is not in the Chamber at the moment, but this will be the last occasion when Mr Cameron-Wood, the Deputy Principal Doorkeeper, will carry the Mace out as the House rises, after 13 years of sterling service to this House. I wish him and all the staff a very happy Christmas and New Year.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, this has indeed been an excellent debate. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing it in the first place, for his excellent sense of timing and for his tireless and—to quote the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford —“indefatigable” campaigning against the Chinese Communist Party, with all the troubles that it has caused him. He should have all our support and respect in the work that he does.
As Members will know, I do not often agree with the Lords spiritual, but I agree with my noble friend Lord Blencathra about the outstanding contribution of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, with his explanation of the, frankly, truly evil nature of the current Chinese leadership. That was a particularly good contribution in a sea of very good speeches that we have heard this evening.
I completely agree with the concerns—I would put it no more highly than that—of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and other noble Lords about the current Government’s policy towards China, particularly in light of some of the grave human rights abuses and security challenges that emanate from Beijing’s increasingly assertive actions. The news this week that dominated the headlines that Yang Tenbo had access to public officials while being an alleged spy is deeply worrying—though I cast no aspersions on the Members who were in contact with him; it could all have been done deeply innocently. Can the Minister explain how she squares the Foreign Secretary’s increasing friendliness with his Chinese counterparts with the threat that they are proven to pose to our national security?
Let me start with Hong Kong. Many Members have mentioned that the Sino-British joint declaration—an international treaty, I remind noble Lords, that was lodged with the United Nations—has been, and there is no other way of putting this, flagrantly violated by China. The complete destruction of the “one country, two systems” principle has been swift and brutal. The imposition of the national security law has led to the silencing of dissent, the imprisonment of pro-democracy activists and, frankly, the suppression of free speech and the free press.
As many noble Lords have observed, this month marks four years since 77 year-old Jimmy Lai was placed behind bars in Hong Kong. He is a British citizen who founded Apple Daily, the largest pro-democracy newspaper in Hong Kong. We cannot allow Beijing to continue to trample on its international commitments with impunity. I hope—and I am sure they are—the Government are using every opportunity to continue to raise his case and to help him in being freed to join his family.
I turn to Taiwan, where the spectre of military aggression looms large. The People’s Republic of China continues to engage in provocative military manoeuvres, with economic coercion and with the attempted diplomatic isolation of Taiwan. I was delighted to join the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and a number of other noble Lords in proudly celebrating Taiwan’s national day in October; it is important that we do that. The people of Taiwan have proudly built a thriving democracy and a dynamic economy in the face of these constant threats, and it is imperative that we all stand with them, not only because it is right but because the security of the Indo-Pacific is inextricably linked to our own.
On Tibet, the Chinese Communist Party’s decades-long campaign to erase Tibetan culture, religion and identity is a stain on the conscience of the international community. Let us not forget that, not that long ago, Tibet was an independent country, but nobody now refers to it as that; it has in effect been absorbed into China, and the Tibetan people have been slowly eradicated. I had the honour a few years ago of meeting the Dalai Lama in his exile home in Dharamsala. I do not share his religion, but he is an inspirational character, continuing to preach non-violence in the face of all the threats and indeed genocides that the Tibetan people have faced.
In Xinjiang, as mentioned by a number of other noble Lords, the situation is nothing short of a human rights disaster. The evidence of atrocities against the Uighurs is overwhelming, with reports of mass detentions, forced labour, systematic surveillance and a form of cultural genocide. These paint a harrowing picture.
In the South China Sea, China’s aggressive militarisation and territorial expansion violates international law. They threaten the free passage of goods that underpins global trade. The UK has a vested interest in upholding freedom of navigation; the Royal Navy’s presence in the Indo-Pacific is a vital demonstration of that commitment to a free and open maritime order. I hope that the Government will continue to do that.
Of course, I recognise that our relationship with China is complex. There are areas where engagement is, unfortunately, necessary but engagement must not come at the expense of our values or of our security. We cannot allow ourselves to become overly dependent on a regime that routinely undermines the principles that we hold dear, and I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on that.
In conclusion, I ask the Government the following questions. On Hong Kong, what further steps will the Government take to hold China accountable for its breaches of the Sino-British joint declaration and how will we continue to support those brave souls fighting for democracy in Hong Kong? On Taiwan, what is the Government’s strategy to support it in the face of the aggression that I just mentioned, and how are we working with allies to safeguard stability in the Indo-Pacific? On Xinjiang, will the Government expand the Magnitsky sanctions to target more Chinese officials involved in the persecution of Uighurs, and what efforts are being made to ensure that UK supply chains are free of forced labour from Xinjiang?
On trade and investment, how do the Government intend to balance economic engagement with China with helping to reduce our strategic vulnerabilities in many of the key sectors that noble Lords have mentioned, such as energy, technology and infrastructure? Finally, on security, what measures are being taken to counter Chinese espionage and interference in the UK, particularly in our university sector, research institutions and telecommunications networks?
These are all pressing questions that demand clear and decisive answers. I hope that the Government will bear them in mind when pursuing their new reset of China policies. The stakes are too high for ambiguity, and I urge the Government to lead with the resolve and moral clarity that the people of this nation expect and deserve.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, I convey my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this debate. I pay tribute to his work on China, as vice-chair of the Hong Kong APPG and as a member of the APPG on Uighurs. I thank all noble Lords for their insightful contributions to this, the last debate of 2024. The quality of the contributions has been first class, as might be expected.
Across the board, the Government are clear that the UK’s approach to China means co-operating, where we can, on issues such as net zero, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, and, as some said, on health and trade. It means that we compete where our interests differ—I will say a little more about that later—and that we challenge, as we have to, where that is what we must do to protect our national security, as many noble Lords have asked us to say, but also our values, as has rightly been said.
As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, indicated, we need to reset and recalibrate our relationship with China, as we do with the EU, and to be a full and active participant in the CPTPP. All these things are closely interconnected, but we also need a relationship with China that is consistent and long term—and, yes, one that is pragmatic and rooted in UK and global interests.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, suggested that we need to be clear-eyed about this at all times. Whether it is on stopping Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine or tackling the causes of climate change, there will be times when we have to speak candidly and robustly not just on areas of co-operation in the UK’s national interest but on areas of contention as well.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made the important point that our concerns about Chinese state activity should not be interpreted as extending to the Chinese people themselves, and I thank her for that. As the world’s second-largest economy, our fourth-largest trading partner and a major economic power that is the largest driver of global growth this decade, we are not going to—and should not try to—ignore China. We must recognise that China, including Hong Kong, presents significant opportunities for growth that can benefit Britain and help other countries grow their economies right around the world.
In pursuit of these opportunities and a renewed partnership, we must be clear-sighted and honest—not shying away from difficult discussions over practices that harm the sort of secure and resilient growth we want to see, and, where our wider values do not align, making that absolutely clear. In doing so, we must build a platform for a relationship that works squarely in our national interest, helps grow our economy sustainably and makes working people in every corner of Britain better off, while rightly putting our national security and resilience first, recognising that the UK-China relationship exists in an increasingly challenging and unstable geopolitical context.
We recognise the importance of the UK’s robust export control system. We will continue to make sure that it has an impact. We continue to use the powers that we have through the National Security and Investment Act to scrutinise investments and other acquisitions, no matter where they come from, and to intervene where that is what is needed to protect our national security.
Of course, the UK and China share many interests—including helping the world achieve a just transition to green energy, as well as our economic links—yet we have significant differences, including on democratic values and freedoms, on Hong Kong and on Russia’s war in Ukraine, where Chinese companies continue to supply significant quantities of dual-use goods and components to Russia. So we must recognise that the UK and China by no means always agree. As a responsible global player, we must engage frankly where we have different perspectives and co-operate where that is possible.
That is why it was important for the Prime Minister to meet President Xi at the G20—the first leader-to-leader meeting in six years—and why it was right both for the Foreign Secretary to visit China in October and for my colleague, the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, to visit Hong Kong last month. As noble Lords know, we are examining the UK’s interests with respect to China through the Government’s China audit, in order to improve our understanding of the challenges and opportunities posed by China and to meet them more effectively.
I was asked about FIRS. I can say today that we have not yet made any decisions on which foreign-power and foreign power-controlled entities will be subject to the enhanced tier. The foreign influence registration scheme will further strengthen our national security while maintaining the UK as an international hub for business. Announcements will be made in due course; I knew I would have to say that at some point today.
The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, asked about the China audit, including whether I might undertake to facilitate the engagement of the House. I would be happy to do that at the appropriate time. I join the noble Lord and others in their call for the removal of sanctions on parliamentarians. These measures are wrong and should end immediately.
We have a long, shared history with Hong Kong, and, like others, I have family links. My grandfather and father lived there while the first airport was being built. We have strong links between people and strong links on trade. I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others over many years. We are now, as many have said, 40 years on from the signing of the joint declaration. We will always stand up for the people of Hong Kong and we remain committed to Hong Kong’s future as an open, dynamic and vibrant city.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and others correctly highlighted the situation in Hong Kong. Like him, we are deeply concerned to see the erosion of the rights and freedoms of Hong Kongers following China’s imposition of the national security law in 2020. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked me about the activists. The recent sentencing of the 45 pro-democracy activists is another demonstration of the Hong Kong authorities’ use of the national security law to criminalise political dissent. Those sentenced were exercising their rights to freedom of speech, assembly and political participation. These rights are guaranteed under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of basic law.
The Jimmy Lai case remains of deepest concern. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and many others spoke movingly on his behalf and I thank them for that. He should be released. He is a British national. He stood up for freedom and it is vital that he is released. It is a priority for the Government and we raise it at every opportunity that we can. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, I say that the UK will of course continue to call on the Hong Kong authorities to end their politically motivated prosecution. We will continue to seek consular access for Jimmy Lai, including to enable us to verify his health and welfare. I assure noble Lords that UK diplomats in Hong Kong continue to attend Jimmy Lai’s court proceedings—as they should.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked about British nationals named in the trial and he is right to highlight this. All I can say is that attempts by foreign Governments to coerce or intimidate through the mechanism of this trial and to harm critics overseas are completely unacceptable and, just like the trial itself, they should stop.
I share the concerns that many speakers have raised on human rights in China. Across China, people face restrictions and violations of human rights and other fundamental freedoms. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford explained powerfully, in Xinjiang China continues to persecute and arbitrarily detain Uighurs and other predominantly Muslim minorities.
We raise these concerns with the Chinese Government when we can. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary raised human rights with their counterparts, President Xi and Foreign Minister Wang. I am glad that they have been able to have those meetings in order to raise those concerns. I know that Members opposite will say, “But you haven’t got a solution to this yet; nothing has changed”. I do not think that one single engagement gets you that. It is about consistency, continuing to raise issues and being firm in our beliefs and articulating those beliefs at every opportunity we get.
The Government conduct independent visits to areas of major concern whenever possible, and we are supporting NGOs in exposing and reacting to human rights violations. We will continue to co-ordinate efforts with our international partners, which is why we joined Australia’s statement on Xinjiang and Tibet on 22 October at the UN General Assembly. We also joined the US’s statement on Xinjiang at the human rights court on 24 September.
The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, asked about sanctions. He will know what I am about to say. We do not comment on designations ahead of time for reasons that he will understand, but I thank him for raising that none the less.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, was right to raise our eradication of the use of forced labour in global supply chains. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, made a really thoughtful and well-informed speech about this. No company in the UK should have forced labour in its supply chain; it just should not.
The approach we are taking is that the Government will work with businesses and international partners, so that they properly understand what they need to do to combat forced labour so that they have an impact in tackling this. We understand that it is all very well making statements but we want to see the impact. We have been working closely with business to make sure that we achieve that.
I commit to discussing Chinese student associations with the Security Minister at the earliest opportunity.
As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, China’s repression of the people of Tibet is utterly unacceptable, as it restricts freedom of religion or belief and the right to assemble and associate freely. The Government stand firm on human rights, and we champion freedom of religion or belief for all. We recently appointed our FoRB envoy, and we wish him well in his work. We champion this both in our bilateral relations with China and through the UN, the G7 and other multilateral groups.
Members of this House are familiar with recent tensions in the Taiwan Strait. Our long-standing position, and that of the previous Government, remains that this issue should and must be resolved peacefully by people on both sides of the strait, without the threat or the use of force or coercion. Peace and stability in the strait matter immensely, for not just the UK but the wider world. As we outlined in a statement in October, recent Chinese military exercises around Taiwan increase tensions and risk dangerous escalation.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, for the helpful suggestions in her speech, particularly on language training for officials, which she was right to raise. I assure her that that is happening.
A conflict across the strait would be a tragedy for the people there, and it would be devastating for the wider global economy. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, reminded the House of a study by Bloomberg Economics at the start of 2024, which estimated that it could cost the global economy some $10 trillion—roughly 10% of global GDP. That is why the UK does not support any unilateral attempt to change the status quo across the Taiwan Strait, and we have made our views on this clear to China. We are working with our partners to make sure that they are doing the same.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised an interesting point about polar regions. China has an interest in natural resource exploitation. Increasingly, China is attempting to undermine existing protections and multilateral co-operation, such as through the Antarctic Treaty, to further its own interests. Its increasing use of the Northern Sea Route as a transportation link poses threats to this pristine environment. We think that there is a risk here if this is mishandled.
The Foreign Secretary set out the UK’s concerns over China’s aggressive activity in the South China Sea in conversations with the Chinese Government during his visit to China in October. The UK is committed to international law, to the primacy of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and to freedom of navigation in and overflight of the South China Sea. We take no sides in sovereignty disputes, but we oppose any action that raises tensions or the risk of miscalculation.
The speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, focused on technology—they were both interesting and sobering. We will continue to work on improving this country’s cyber protections.
Critical minerals are a really important point. We will shortly publish a UK critical minerals strategy, because our energy security depends on it, frankly, and it is the responsible thing to do. But I take the important point of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about how we must not be seen to lecture partner nations on whom they should and should not do business with. We are a good partner when it comes to extractive industries: we work responsibly, environmentally and with the local workforce in country. We would like to be more strategic in our thinking about this—so, when that strategy is published, I look forward to the response of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in particular.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Indeed—I think that was an invitation that I did not need to make.
Lastly, I underline that this Government’s re-engagement with China aims to enable a consistent, long-term and pragmatic relationship through which we can pursue the UK’s interests on security and growth. We will challenge and compete where that is the right thing to do, and the smart thing to do, and we will be ambitious on areas of co-operation. That is our duty to the British people and as a responsible global actor, and that is at the heart of our commitment to re-engage, including through the long-overdue leader-level meeting, the Foreign Secretary’s successful visit to China and the Minister for the Indo-Pacific’s visit to Hong Kong. Indeed, in the new year my right honourable friend the Chancellor plans to visit China as well.
In all our engagement, from the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea, where any escalation, or deterioration in stability, would have a significant impact on UK and global growth, to Hong Kong, to the completely unwarranted and unacceptable sanctions against UK parliamentarians and others, the Prime Minister has set us all a clear direction: to co-operate with China wherever we can, to take action to protect our interests and at all times to stand up for our values.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for both the content and tone of the response to what has been, as she said, an outstanding debate. I thank all noble Lords who have participated today. In parentheses, I also add the name of the noble Lord, Lord Leong, who has sat patiently throughout the whole debate. We know that because of other ministerial duties he is unable to speak and has taken Trappist vows—but on other occasions he has spoken powerfully and eloquently on behalf of people in Hong Kong. At the time when sanctions were imposed on the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and myself, he gave me enormous encouragement, and I have always been grateful to him for that.
Many speakers have made the distinction between the Chinese Communist Party and the people of China. Nobody suffers more at the hands of the CCP than the Chinese people themselves. I often think about “Tank Man”, the solitary figure who in 1989 stood in Tiananmen Square in front of the tanks as they rolled in. I think of Rahima Mahmut, who will be known to some noble Lords here, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, who is a Uighur activist who speaks eloquently and powerfully and whose family have been intimidated and suffered through transnational repression as a result of the things that she has done. I think of Zhang Zhan, whom I mentioned in my opening remarks, who was put in a prison in Wuhan because as a citizen journalist she went to try to find the origins of the Covid pandemic.
And I think, of course, of my friend Jimmy Lai, mentioned by several noble Lords, who is standing trial in Hong Kong. One piece of evidence placed before the trial was that he once came to your Lordships’ House to have tea, which I gave him and his wife—as though this was some terrible, subversive act. I was grateful to the noble Baroness for mentioning people whom he has never even met, as well as people has met, including Luke de Pulford from the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, who were named in these proceedings as co-conspirators. Bill Browder, known to many noble Lords here, has never met Jimmy Lai but has also been mentioned in those proceedings. This is a sham and a charade and it is right that this House has called it out.
I know and understand the points about the importance of engaging with China on things such as zero emissions, but one-third of all emissions come out of the People’s Republic of China, which has never kept to any of the targets—just as it did not keep to the promises made 40 years ago today in the Sino-British accord. I was struck in 1979, when Margaret Thatcher negotiated with Deng Xiaoping about Hong Kong’s future, that she was told by him, “We could walk in and take the whole lot this afternoon”. In a characteristic reply, she said, “Yes, but the eyes of the world would now know what China is like”. That was true then and it is true now—and that is the point of a place such as this and the point of our democracy: for us to give voice to people who do not have a voice and show that our eyes continue to remain on what is happening in China.
Let me give the last word to the Intelligence and Security Committee, which said last year that China had penetrated “every sector” of the UK economy in a “whole-of-state” assault, to which the government response has been “completely inadequate”. Without swift, decisive actions, we face “the nightmare scenario” where China could pose “an existential threat”. Britain has a proud tradition of standing up to tyranny. I hope that we will continue to do that.
I know that all who have been present on this last day for this last session before Christmas have probably given up time with their families and friends to be here for this debate. I am particularly indebted to everyone who has participated, but I also know that the eyes of the world are on this British Parliament, that we speak out when others are silent and that notice will be taken of the eloquent speeches that have been made here today.
All that remains now is for me to join others in wishing everyone present a very happy Christmas and a peaceful and prosperous new year, and to wait as the Mace is carried out, as we were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, earlier on, by Mr Cameron-Wood in his last act before he now goes to what we hope will be a well-merited and wonderful retirement.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, on behalf of my Government Whip colleagues, I wish all noble Lords, the clerks and doorkeepers a very merry Christmas, a restful recess and a fabulous new year. With that, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Kennedy of Cradley) (Lab)
That the House do now adjourn—with thanks and best wishes to our Mace carrier tonight, Mr Cameron-Wood.