(6 days, 10 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered UK-China relations.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I welcome the opportunity to raise in this House the opportunities and implications of our relationship with China. I declare an interest as a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, alongside other colleagues in attendance today, who have consistently raised concerns over the UK’s relationship with China.
Since Brexit, the UK has rightly sought to establish new economic and trade relationships beyond Europe, aiming to diversify access to key commodities. As a result, China has become the UK’s third largest trading partner. This economic interdependence presents both an opportunity and a risk, which we must navigate carefully to uphold security, human rights and our fundamental values. Yet we have already seen how economic leverage can be misused. The UK-China economic and financial dialogue in January resulted in a rather uninspiring £600 million deal—hardly the sign of a robust, or indeed equitable, economic relationship. This is not a partnership; it is dependency, and dependency makes us vulnerable.
Take the UK’s reliance on China for renewable energy components, for example. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made it clear in her policy renewal speech last Tuesday that the best way to deliver clear energy and a better environment is with the markets. However, the reality is that much of our push for net zero is built on Chinese supply chains, particularly in solar panels, wind farms and electric vehicles. A long-term net zero strategy cannot mean long-term reliance on China.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
If the mechanisms and safeguards were robust enough to ensure that there is not slave labour in supply chains, would that address the hon. Member’s concern?
Gregory Stafford
I will come on to slave labour almost immediately, but to answer the hon. Member directly, I think the security concerns are too great. I welcome safeguards to remove slave labour, but there are still concerns beyond that that we should be looking at.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Of course, that is a wish, not a reality. We have no way of ascertaining whether suppliers are buying from slave labour, and there is no punishment available should they be doing so. The situation is quite the opposite in the United States, which sanctions companies that have been using slave labour. That has made a big difference. The Government have to get their head around this, otherwise we are just going to get slave labour-made products all over.
Gregory Stafford
My right hon. Friend, who has considerable and lengthy experience of dealing with China, makes a crucial point. There is no point in having a wish list if there is no sanction or enforcement to back it up.
Trade with China is tainted by human rights abuses. I will give an example. Over 1 million Uyghur Muslims are imprisoned in a vast network of forced labour camps in Xinjiang; it is the largest mass arbitrary detention since the second world war. Despite China’s denials, we know that UK industries, from textiles to electronics, remain dependent on materials from that region. Xinjiang produces between 20% and 25% of the world’s cotton and polysilicon, which is a critical component in solar panels. That is why Lord Alton’s amendment 18 to the Great British Energy Bill, which secured cross-party support, was so significant in ensuring that our supply chains align with human rights standards.
On 25 March 1807, the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act received Royal Assent, yet 218 years later, Labour MPs blocked a ban on buying solar panels from China.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
My hon. Friend is making a very good speech, but this is not just about human rights abuses. There is a reason that China uses slave labour—and it came from nowhere 10 or 12 years ago to now be the dominant player in the business. It is because it does not pay salaries, which makes the arrays cheaper. British companies go rushing over to get them because they are cheaper, and the Government do not mind too much because they do not have to pay so much. The key is that it has to be proper and functional.
Gregory Stafford
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. I will make similar remarks later in my speech, but that is key. Not only is it the use of slave labour, which should be enough to get the Government to start thinking seriously, but it is a complete undercutting of our market.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) almost took the words out of my mouth. Is it not critical to exclude slave labour from the supply chain for solar panels, in particular, not only on moral grounds, but in order to enable alternative producers in Europe, South America and North America to compete on a fair playing field?
Gregory Stafford
The hon. Member is entirely right. I would be very surprised if anyone in the Chamber did not agree with him. The key point is how we move from what I think is relatively universal agreement to actual sanctions and enforcement, to make sure that our manufacturers are competing on a level playing field.
As an example of that, a 2023 report from the Helena Kennedy Centre for International Justice at Sheffield Hallam University noted that in 2020, China produced 75% of the global supply of solar grade polysilicon, and 45% of that was manufactured in Xinjiang. That is why the amendment that I alluded to earlier was crucial to cleaning up the supply chains and preventing the UK from becoming core to Chinese consumption.
Gregory Stafford
I will in a minute; I just want to make a bit of progress.
On Times Radio, the Housing Minister gave his “absolute” guarantee that solar panels for GB Energy projects on hospitals and schools will not include slave labour. But without legal requirements for companies to comply, will the Minister outline how she can be sure that such labour will not be involved?
China’s dominance in trade also extends to industrial production. The Intelligence and Security Committee report in July 2023 warned that the Chinese Communist party had penetrated “every sector” of the UK economy, leaving us with a £32 billion trade deficit. The consequences of this economic entanglement are already apparent. When a recent shipment from Xinjiang entered UK airports via European Cargo, neither Border Force nor the responsible Government Departments took the necessary steps to intervene. The failure to act leaves our economy exposed and less competitive.
Meanwhile, China remains the world’s largest carbon emitter: it emits 15 billion tonnes of CO2 annually and powers industries with coal while exporting steel and electric vehicles at artificially low prices. What is the UK doing? I urge the Minister to clarify whether the Government are considering measures similar to those that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) pointed out, the US is taking.
Tony Vaughan
Does the hon. Member not agree that the correct characterisation of the amendment to the Great British Energy Bill that he mentioned is that it was about restricting how the Government spend money on GB Energy? If it had been about a whole of industry approach, and stopping both private companies and the Government purchasing solar panels tainted by slave labour, that might have made sense.
Gregory Stafford
I fear that the hon. Member is dancing on the head of a pin there. To be frank, I do not agree with him on that. I think the Government should be really clear about what they are actually going to do to—
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I need to deal with this point through my hon. Friend. The reality is that the Government already accept something on which I worked with them when they were in opposition, which is to get to exactly the same position as in the Health and Care Act 2022. The NHS is not allowed to buy anything made by slave labour—it encompasses everything. The amendment to the Great British Energy Bill would have done the same. To those who say, “It’s too narrow because it’s only one sector of the economy,” I say that we have already done it with health and care, and Labour voted for that at the time. I was rather proud of that.
Gregory Stafford
My right hon. Friend should be very proud of that and everything that he has done to stand up to Chinese aggression, on trade and on a number of the other issues that we will touch on during the debate.
Let me move on to the security and rule of law elements that I have concerns about. Economic interdependence is only one dimension of our vulnerability. The UK must also confront China’s growing efforts to exert influence and repress dissidents on British soil. The proposed Chinese mega-embassy at Royal Mint Court epitomises that threat. Despite being firmly opposed by the previous Conservative Government, it is now likely to proceed, apparently due to lobbying by the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and even the Prime Minister. Housing 700 diplomatic staff, the complex could become a hub for transnational repression and espionage, putting at risk Hongkongers, Tibetans, Uyghurs and Taiwanese individuals who have sought refuge in the UK. The brutal 2022 assault on Hong Kong protester Bob Chan in Manchester, perpetrated by Chinese diplomats who escaped justice under diplomatic immunity, should serve as a stark warning to us all.
Beyond our borders, China continues its assault on democracy and human rights. Some 2,000 political prisoners remain in arbitrary detention under Hong Kong’s draconian national security law. One such prisoner, with whom I am sure we are all familiar—Jimmy Lai, a British citizen—has spent more than 1,500 days in solitary confinement without access to British consular support. The Government’s failure to assist him speaks of a broader pattern of weakness in standing up to the Chinese regime.
I therefore support the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall), which would legally enforce stronger consular protections for British journalists detained abroad. I hope that the Government will start to support it as well.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the scale of fear in the Hong Kong community in this country is extremely concerning? Every aggressive act by the Chinese state, whether sanctions, violence against protesters or bounties, only increases the fear of the long arm of the Chinese state and of transnational repression, including among the Hong Kong diaspora I am fortunate to represent.
Gregory Stafford
The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct. The more the British Government and British agencies allow this to continue, the more China will believe it can get away with. As he says, that will put further fear into Hongkongers and others who are trying to escape the repression of China.
As China’s domestic repression intensifies, so does its global influence. Its growing control over international institutions, use of economic coercion and unchecked expansion of surveillance technologies all undermine democratic norms worldwide. The UK must be proactive in countering that. Our commitment to democratic values and ethical trade should serve as a counterweight to Chinese authoritarianism. Yet, despite our growing presence in international forums, we have been hesitant to challenge China directly. The Minister must clarify what discussions have taken place with Beijing regarding its blatant contradictions on freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and political rights, in China and abroad.
The pattern is clear: the UK is being drawn into China’s orbit economically, politically and strategically, while turning a blind eye, I am afraid, to its human rights abuses and security threats. We are facing not merely complacency from this Government, but complicity. Whether it is the approval of the Chinese mega-embassy, the failure to act on forced labour supply chains, or the refusal to stand up for British citizens unjustly imprisoned, this Labour Government have consistently chosen appeasement over action. The United States, and indeed the European Union, have already taken decisive steps to protect their economies, their security and their values. I ask the Minister, why is Britain lagging behind?
Luke Taylor
The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time. Yesterday, I was lucky enough to meet Sebastien Lai, son of Jimmy Lai, who is still being held in Hong Kong by the Chinese authorities. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must take every opportunity available to them—every visit, every meeting with Chinese authorities—to raise the case of Jimmy Lai and demand that he is released as soon as possible?
Gregory Stafford
The hon. Gentleman is right. I met Sebastien Lai myself a few weeks ago and he made similar points to me, which I entirely agree with. To put it at its mildest, it is regrettable that the Prime Minister has not made this a priority. I hope that the Government’s decision not to engage with Sebastien Lai on this changes rapidly, because if it does not, it will send a dreadful message to others who are in similar situations and—as I said to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand)—will allow China to continue without check.
We must wake up. The CCP does not seek partnership with us: it seeks control. The UK must take urgent steps to decouple from economic dependency, to strengthen our national security and to reclaim our sovereignty before it is too late. I look forward to the Minister’s response and, more importantly, to seeing real action from the Government.
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members to bob if they wish to be called in the debate.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing the debate. It is a pleasure to follow him, because I want to expand on some of the points he made about the dependence of our industry and economy on China.
I have worked in China and have friends there. I am certainly no Sinophobe, but I do think we need to be clear-eyed about the fact that we are in economic competition with China. The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon described it as a relationship of dependency, and I fear that that is the position. An inter-dependent relationship would be fine, but we are in more of a dependent relationship.
I remember being in China in 2015, at the launch of the 13th five-year plan. I was shocked at what I saw as a big competitive threat to the UK. At that time, President Xi was in London—we had done a bit of a swap—and was meeting the Prime Minister here. The Prime Minister said he was enthused by President Xi’s plan for the belt and road initiative, and he directed the City of London to fund it. From where I was sitting, that seemed like an extremely bad idea.
I was talking to British engineering companies that had been told they would get three contracts in China. In the first contract they would deliver a machine, in the second contract they would deliver the drawing, and in the third contract they would supervise the Chinese company that would do the installation on their behalf. Many of those companies no longer exist because they have been competed out of the market by China.
It is the job of the UK Government to make sure that we site jobs in south Wales rather than Wuhan, and in Teesside rather than Tianjin. I fear that over the past couple of decades we have been too keen to pursue lower-cost goods rather than invest in our own industries.
The industry that I know best is materials. Some of the critical raw materials we need for our future are gallium, germanium and neodymium—I apologise to Hansard reporters for sounding like a Tom Lehrer song. Those are incredibly serious minerals that are essential for our future. For most of them, China either dominates the mining or has the materials processing capability for about 90% of the global market. It is important for us to consider how we can secure materials processing in future.
Just this week Richard Holtum, the chief executive of Trafigura, the world’s biggest private metals trading company, recommended that Governments nationalise their metals-processing industries in order to compete with China.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
The hon. Member is talking about a critical area for us all. Those minerals are best described as the oil of the 21st century: who controls them controls the way we live our lives. Surely we cannot consider that China is benign in this market. Quite recently—about two years ago—China blocked Japan from access to the market, so Japan then set up its own position. That attitude shows us what the Chinese intend to use this for if they have to deal with countries like the UK. If they blocked us off, it would cause us chaos.
Chris McDonald
The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right. We heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer say a few hours ago that economic security was national security. The two cannot be divided. Because of our belief in the free market, we thought that as long as we have a trading partner we can buy goods from, we are left in a secure position. But we must why—why does China choose to dominate these markets? Because it is an extension of Chinese foreign policy. The same is true of trade. The Chinese belt and road initiative seems to me to be a deliberate policy to bypass the traditional trading ports of Goa, Aden and Hong Kong, where the UK has historically had a strong foothold, to ensure that China dominates trade routes.
The real question is what we do about this. The mindset we need to have is that China has the first-mover advantage in this new industrial revolution. We had the first-mover advantage in the last industrial revolution. How could a country have competed with us in the late 19th century? That mindset means investing in our own industries, and using our own market to do so. We can learn from China in this sense: we can use our own public procurement and invest in our industries. We have a great nickel producer at Clydach; the Chinese tried to copy that process but were unable to do so. Our Lochaber aluminium plant was set up to serve the nation in the late 1920s, and it still exists and is worthy of further investment. The UK also has one of the six cobalt refineries in Europe.
But what of copper? We cannot achieve anything without copper, yet we have no copper-refining capacity in the UK, despite being the fifth largest exporter of copper in the world. These are the issues that we need to take seriously to ensure that we can have an independent economic policy and an independent foreign policy when it comes to China. That is important for our industries and our foreign policy, but it is also important for the communities like the one I represent, where people have relied on good jobs in these industries. We should prize those jobs being in the UK.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on setting the scene so well. Those who have intervened have undermined the issue.
I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. I want to address one of the pressing moral imperatives of our time: the systematic persecution of religious minorities in China and its implication for the right to freedom of religion or belief. The Minister understands these issues incredibly well, and I know that her answers will encapsulate our thoughts, and particularly mine, in relation to freedom of religion or belief.
The human right to freedom of religion or belief is enshrined in international law, but China continues to trample on it with impunity. If we as a nation truly stand for these freedoms for all mankind—as we should and, I believe, as we do—we must take a firmer stance against China’s systematic campaign to erase religious identity.
The United Kingdom Government champion FORB through their envoy and through their position at the UN, the G7 and other multilateral bodies. The UK Government have a firm stance on human rights, including the right to freedom of religion or belief. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor and, indeed, the Minister have all raised human rights issues with their Chinese counterparts, and those concerns must be amplified when discussing the blatant violation of religious freedoms in China. On behalf of all those persecuted and forgotten, I thank them for their efforts.
Today, I speak for those who have no voice—there are a great many in China at this moment. The Uyghur population in Xinjiang continue to face relentless oppression for their religious identity, and this targeting is part of a broader state-sponsored campaign against religious communities across China, Tibet, Hong Kong, Taiwan and, indeed, any other area that potentially interests the Chinese Government. It is my hope that the international community will not allow such blatant violations of religious freedom to continue unchecked.
China has continued to crack down on any form of free expression in Hong Kong. Journalists, activists and religious leaders have been silenced, arrested and forced into exile. Churches and religious organisations have been pressured to align with the Communist party’s ideology, which is completely alien to, for instance, being a Christian—it just does not work out.
The systematic erosion of religious freedom and civil liberties in Hong Kong is yet another sign of the Chinese Communist party’s wider goal of imposing absolute ideological control over every aspect of life in China. There are confirmed reports that hundreds of thousands—possibly more—have been forced to renounce their faith in so-called re-education camps. Some Uyghur Muslims have been instructed to re-educate themselves, and forced to pledge loyalty to the Communist party and endure physical and psychological abuse.
If we in this House stand for FORB, and I believe we do, we must unequivocally condemn this assault on not only the Uyghur people’s right to worship freely, but everyone’s right to worship freely. It is a direct attack on mankind’s faculty of free agency. It is not just the Uyghur Muslims but Christians, Buddhists and the Falun Gong. It is any person who does not happen to conform to what the Chinese Communist party wants them to conform to.
The Chinese Communist party has moved from a nominal acceptance of ethnic diversity to an active campaign of assimilation in Tibet and Xinjiang, where religion is central to culture and national identity. The CCP aims to bring religious practice under total party control, replacing spiritual and personal beliefs with loyalty to Chinese cultural nationalism. The state is not merely supressing faith: it is attempting to supplant it with devotion to the great Communist party—or they say it is anyway. The Bible tells us very clearly that the great will fall and the mighty will be struck down, and their day is coming.
The right to freedom of religion or belief is the bedrock of a just society and transcends political and economic interests. The UK cannot stand by as an authoritarian hand passes over what was once a peaceful society, turning every community neighbouring China into an ideological machine, as we see operating in North Korea. Should we allow it to continue, we will have not only failed those who suffer under the regime but emboldened the CCP to expand its repression even further. The time for stronger action is now.
The UK has long championed the right to FORB on the world stage, but our response to these abuses must be stronger. The UK Government have consistently raised issues and concerns about religious freedom in China with their counterparts, as the Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary and others have made clear. However, it is now time for stronger, more decisive action.
I conclude by calling on the Government to take steps to impose sanctions on all individuals and entities—the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) has said it on numerous occasions—responsible for FORB violations in China. I also call on them to strengthen UK import regulations to ensure that goods produced through forced labour linked to religious persecution, whether in Xinjiang or elsewhere, do not ever enter our markets.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on securing this important debate. I acknowledge my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary China group. I pay tribute to the Minister for her role in improving the UK-China relationship and the UK’s bilateral relationships with other Asian nations such as the Philippines and Thailand. These are the fastest-growing economies in the world, and we need to trade and invest where the economic action is.
I participated in a cross-party delegation trip to Beijing at the start of this year. During the trip, it was clear to me—with my eyes wide open—that there is much that the UK and China can co-operate on. The focus of the delegation was on how the UK and China can strengthen global artificial intelligence safety regulations, and what learning we should share regarding our domestic approaches to that issue. It was clear that the UK and China can also increase co-operation on trade, especially by increasing trade in agrifood, life sciences, pharmaceuticals, education and professional services. There is also more we can do together to tackle climate change, promote biodiversity and strengthen global pandemic preparedness.
Gregory Stafford
I am fascinated by the argument the hon. Member is developing. Could he point to anything significant that China is doing to reduce its footprint?
Tony Vaughan
It is difficult to see how we are going to address these huge global challenges without involving China. I am not advocating for China, but relevant to the hon. Member’s question is the fact that it has a hugely fast-growing green energy technology sector. Of course China has huge carbon omissions as well, and that is another issue.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
To answer the question from the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon, 35% of China’s energy is renewable energy, which is up from 0% 15 years ago. By the end of this decade, given the rate at which it is expanding, China will be responsible for 60% of the globe’s renewable energy production.
Tony Vaughan
I am grateful for the hon. Member’s intervention; he is more on top of the statistics than I am.
With China being a member of the G20 and the UN Security Council, and the third-largest trading partner for the UK—if one includes Hong Kong—it is entirely logical that the Government should aspire to a more stable and consistent relationship. To do anything different would not be in the UK’s national interests.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
There are well-documented links between Russia and China. It is publicised and well-known that China buys Russia’s oil and all the rest of it. We are fighting Russia at the moment in Europe; it is our primary adversary. Why on earth would we want to have a close and stable relationship with China?
Tony Vaughan
As I said, I am not advocating for China; I am saying that, as the third-largest trading partner with Hong Kong, we cannot pretend that it does not exist. We cannot pretend that there is no role for building dialogue and engagement. The reality is that, given the way the tectonic plates of global affairs are moving, it is in China’s interests to have a stable Europe. Who else will buy its electric cars, for example? There is an evolution in the way we should look at these things, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s general point.
Over the last 14 years, British foreign policy towards China resembled a rollercoaster. We had the golden era under the Cameron Government, when President Xi enjoyed a state visit and, as the Foreign Secretary recently reminded us, had a beer in a pub with the Prime Minister. We had the May Government’s justified scepticism about China General Nuclear Power Corporation’s involvement in Hinkley, and then the Johnson Government’s confused China policy, culminating in Liz Truss’s cold war 2.0-style policy. No serious nation should aim to have a bilateral relationship with the world’s second-largest economy that resembles a fairground ride. The Chancellor’s trip to China for the economic and financial dialogue in January, concluding agreements of up to £1 billion for the UK economy over five years, is an example of how taking a grown-up relationship to China is in our national interest.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Intelligence and Security Committee published a report on China in 2023. The public version said that it is China’s
“ambition at a global level—to become a technological and economic superpower, on which other countries are reliant—that poses a national security threat to the UK.”
How does the hon. Gentleman see it?
Tony Vaughan
I completely agree that a national security-first approach to China must be the position. As I understand it, that is the position of the Government. That is why the position taken on the embassy is a national security issue; I know that there has been some debate about that, but I am not in a position to second-guess MI6, MI5 and the security services, and that has to be the lens through which we look at these issues.
I have referred to the EFD outcomes. Critics of engagement overlook the fact that some nations who took a robust approach to China were still engaging in the background. If we step back while competitors—including the United States, which has also taken a robust approach to China—are engaging, we are missing a trick. The UK had not sent a Prime Minister to China in many years. I am pleased that the Government aim to have a relationship with China based on what I understand to be a national security approach, while also co-operating with, competing with and challenging China where appropriate. Engaging with does not, of course, meaning agreeing with.
Jim Shannon
I have listened to what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am conscious of what he is putting forward, but I do not hear anything in his speech to do with human rights or religious persecution. We must make that central to our economic business with China. That is the Minister’s mission, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will come on to that shortly and reassure us that those are also his thoughts.
Tony Vaughan
That is exactly what I am now moving on to. As I said, engaging with does not mean agreeing with. Part of our stable and consistent relationship with China involves raising human rights concerns with it, stably and consistently, as the Prime Minister did with the case of Jimmy Lai when he met President Xi last year. I recently met Jimmy Lai’s son Sebastien and the barristers representing his father and I was very concerned to hear of Jimmy Lai’s deteriorating medical situation. I urge the Prime Minister to meet his team to discuss what the British Government can do to effect his release.
Another example is the compelling evidence of the use of forced labour in energy supply chains in China, especially polysilicon. I do not believe our green energy transition should be built from solar panels built using forced labour. We must take a whole-of-industry approach, with robust safeguards against the import of solar panels when it cannot be shown that they are free from forced labour. In the long term, our country needs to become self-sufficient in our industrial supply chains, such as renewable technology production. I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) said about protecting UK domestic industries and jobs, which must be prioritised.
A grown-up relationship with China means believing that we should work with China on areas that do not impact national security and human rights, while also putting our foot down in areas that do. It will always be a highly complex bilateral relationship, with tricky trade-offs and tensions, and I fully accept that there is a role for pressing China extremely hard, as some in this Chamber have done. I am pleased to see the Government’s success so far in bringing stability and pragmatism to that relationship.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing this important debate. On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I concur with the view expressed in the integrated review refresh 2023 that China represents a strategic challenge to the UK,
“across almost every aspect of national life and government policy.”
This debate has been a chance to consider how the Government are focusing on meeting that challenge. Suffice to say, from my and my party’s perspective, at this stage it is disappointing. I accept that it is not easy, as the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) just set out; the Conservative party lurched from sharing pints with the President of China to in 2021 designating China as,
“the biggest state-based threat to the UK’s economic security”.
Xi is able to think strategically over many years, now that he has such great control of the Chinese apparatus, so the UK needs to do better and be more constant.
First, we need to be more clear-sighted about the threat that China poses. Secondly, we need to make use of the full apparatus available to us. Thirdly, we must set out some red lines, and show the Chinese Government that breaching them will have consequences. The hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe is right to highlight the scale that China has when it comes to the global economy, but the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) is also right to point out, from his position of experience, the importance that that has for UK industry. However, we must balance those economic interests with the threat, and it is my view that, at the moment, the Government’s position is too accommodating and not sufficiently robust.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
We may disagree about what we heard earlier on today in the spring statement about whether the economy is growing, but we are certain that this Government will grasp ever more desperately at the will-o’-the-wisp of growth in the months and years to come. Does he agree that—unlike the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe, who said he went to China with his eyes wide open—we might as a country end up turning a Nelsonian eye to human rights abuse, to the fact we are exporting our net zero to a highly carbonised economy and to the cyber-attacks we experience daily from China in order to chase after growth that is not coming?
Calum Miller
I agree with the hon. Member on two fronts. First, he and I agree more on our disappointment with today’s growth figure than he gives me credit for. Secondly, the Government have set out that they wish at times to challenge, at times to co-operate and at other times to compete with China, but it is my contention that, as he set out, they are too intent on co-operation and not sufficiently intent on challenge.
I will briefly set out three areas of threat, starting with security and echoing the comments made by others. We face direct threats in the form of cyber-attacks, the threat of China as an ally to our enemies and see China threatening some of our own allies, including Taiwan, South Korea and Japan. Secondly, we face threats in terms of economic vulnerability. Many other Members have spoken about our dependency. In addition, the Government’s regrettable decision to cut the UK’s overseas aid budget creates an opening space for China in the global south, through its belt and road initiative, to increase the debt dependency of countries on itself, and therefore to increase its influence in the world. On the economic side, there are credible reports of China’s attempts to steal intellectual property from the United Kingdom’s university and tech sectors, and I am concerned that the Government are not doing enough to stop that.
Chris McDonald
The hon. Member mentions Chinese theft of intellectual property. Does he agree that it is also concerning when we give it away, such as when UK universities set up campuses in China to train Chinese technicians to outcompete British industry?
Calum Miller
It is a delicate balancing act, as the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have articulated. If we want collaboration and co-operation then information will inevitably flow, but it is important that there is transparency about that and that the right economic benefit is derived from any intellectual property, if it is transferred.
The third, and perhaps most important, area of threat is around human rights and political interference—other hon. Members have spoken about this, so I shall be brief. I too have met with the team supporting Jimmy Lai and his son Sebastien and I call on the Government to reassure us that his case is being upheld. I also had the opportunity to meet with two of those people in the United Kingdom who, in return for campaigning for real democracy in Hong Kong, have suffered being placed under bounties by the Hong Kong authorities— I know that one such person, Carmen Lau, is in the Public Gallery.
The fact that the Hong Kong authorities see fit to distribute posters and letters on UK soil to neighbours, in order to intimidate those who have stood up for political rights in Hong Kong, is appalling. I would like reassurance from the Government that much more is being done, including through our police forces, to identify who, within the allegedly diplomatic team from China, has done that. It is critical that we take these items together, see them as part of one entity and take a holistic approach to China. Too often, the Government have treated such things in compartments, spoken briefly about human rights and then failed to address other issues.
To conclude, I call on the Government to use the apparatus available to them, to generate a human rights and democracy report, to conduct the audit on China that they have promised, to fully introduce the foreign influence registration scheme and place China in the enhanced tier, and to ensure that China is fully considered in the strategic defence review. We cannot allow China to dominate our relationship with it. The Government must be prepared to set out red lines, and to demonstrate the consequences if China does not observe them.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing this important debate. UK-China relations will be increasingly important as we progress, and as the threat of China becomes more evident. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. It seems there is a consensus about the threat that China poses, although it is not entirely unanimous; the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) seems to have a slightly different approach. I believe that China is one of the greatest threats—if not the greatest threat—to our freedom and security, which is why it is vital to address this issue.
China is a nation with a proud history and a rich civilisation, deserving of respect—but that respect cannot come at the expense of turning a blind eye to aggression, human rights abuses and attempts to undermine the international order. The Government have announced that they are conducting a China audit, but we are yet to hear what that actually entails. It is not enough for Ministers to review our policy towards China behind closed doors; the British people deserve transparency and Parliament deserves answers.
Andrew Rosindell
I will make some progress, then come to the hon. Member if there is time.
I begin with the issue of Taiwan-Republic of China. Beijing’s increasingly assertive behaviour towards Taiwan—including military activity around the island, airspace incursions and naval operations—is a cause of growing concern. I ask the Minister: does the UK remain committed to the One China policy? If so, how do the Government intend to balance that position with our strong interest in supporting Taiwan’s democracy and the principle that the future of Taiwan should be determined peacefully and without coercion? The people of Taiwan should have the freedom to shape their own future without the threat of force. What steps are the Government taking, alongside the United States, Japan and Australia, to reduce tensions and deter any escalation in the Taiwan strait? Taiwan is a proud democracy and deserves to have its freedom. It should not be coerced—and, as an ally of Taiwan, we should certainly be standing shoulder to shoulder with it.
Next, I would like to say a few words about the belt and road initiative. Beijing claims that that programme is about infrastructure and development, but in reality it serves as a tool for strategic dominance and debt entrapment across Africa, Asia, and even parts of Europe. We have seen the consequences of that so-called investment: developing nations find themselves shackled by unsustainable debt, forced to hand over key infrastructure and strategic assets when they cannot meet Beijing’s demands. What is the Government’s strategy to counter that growing influence? How are we supporting our Commonwealth partners and other vulnerable nations to resist that economic model, and will the Minister tell us what alternative we are offering to the developing world, to avoid those nations being trapped in Beijing’s orbit?
Turning to Hong Kong, the Chinese Communist party’s flagrant violation of the Sino-British joint declaration is seriously jeopardising the “one nation, two systems” framework. Beijing has crushed political opposition, tried to silence the free press, and criminalised dissent. In light of that, I ask the Minister what our long-term strategy is for holding Beijing accountable for breaking its treaty obligations. How are we supporting British nationals overseas who have made the courageous decision to leave Hong Kong and settle in the United Kingdom, and who may be at risk of transitional repression?
The case of Jimmy Lai stands as a stark symbol of Beijing’s assault on press freedom and political dissent in Hong Kong. Lai, a British citizen and a founder of Apple Daily, has been targeted under Hong Kong’s draconian national security law for the so-called crime of defending democracy. His prosecution is not just an attack on an individual, but an attempt to silence independent journalism and intimidate anyone who dares to criticise the CCP’s actions in Hong Kong. What steps are the Government taking to protect the rights of British citizens such as Jimmy Lai who are facing politically motivated prosecutions in Hong Kong? Does the Minister agree that this politically motivated trial must end and that Jimmy Lai must be released, and what is the Government’s strategy for making the case that the national security law should be replaced?
The CCP’s human rights abuses in Xinjiang are well documented, with forced labour, mass internment, and systematic persecution of the Uyghur population. It is therefore deeply concerning that the Government appear to be resisting efforts to block the procurement of Chinese solar panels linked to forced labour through the Great British Energy Bill. I ask the Government directly: what assurances can Ministers provide that the UK’s transition to net zero will not come at the cost of complicity in modern slavery? How will the Government ensure that supply chains for renewable energy infrastructure are free from forced labour and other human rights abuses?
As the Leader of the Opposition rightly pointed out in her recent speech, the idea of achieving net zero by 2050 while relying heavily on Chinese technology and supply chains is “fantasy politics”. We cannot afford an over-reliance on China, as should have become clear following the pandemic. What steps are the Government taking to reduce strategic dependence on China, particularly in critical industries such as energy, telecommunications and rare earth minerals?
The proposed Chinese super-embassy in London raises concerns about Beijing’s growing influence in the UK. The unprecedented size and scope of that facility has prompted worries about potential security risks and pressure on Chinese dissidents. Reports of covert Chinese police stations in the UK add to those fears. Have the Government assessed the national security risks involved, and will they consider restricting or scaling down that proposal? More broadly, what steps are the Government taking to prevent foreign powers from using British soil for covert operations or political intimidation? I want to make the case again—as my party has said before—that China should be on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme.
Finally, I must raise the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s recent visit to China. What, if any, assurances did the Chancellor seek on human rights during her visit on Hong Kong, the Uyghurs or Taiwan and how do the Government intend to ensure that any future economic engagement with China does not compromise our strategic interests? China presents one of the big geopolitical challenges of our age, not just to Britain, but to the entire free world; we cannot afford to be naive. Engagement must be grounded in realism, not wishful thinking. We must work with our allies to check aggression and defend our democratic values. The British people deserve to know where their Government stand, and the Government must be prepared to act and not just talk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell, in such a crucial debate. I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing it and all hon. Members for their valuable contributions. I will try to respond to the points raised after setting out the Government’s strategic approach to China.
The Government will always put the UK national interest first. Our approach will be consistent, long term and pragmatic. In an ever changing geopolitical context, our relations are critical in ensuring the UK’s resilient growth, maintaining our position as a responsible global actor and defending our security and values. That means co-operating where we can on issues including net zero, health and trade, competing where our interests differ and challenging where we must to protect our national security and values.
Engaging with China is both pragmatic and necessary to support our domestic and international priorities, not least because we are both global players with large economies and permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council. We must engage regularly to advance our national interests, whether it is on issues of co-operation such as the global green transition or issues where we firmly disagree, such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. That is why the Prime Minister met President Xi at the G20 last year, and the Foreign Secretary held meetings with Foreign Minister Wang Yi in the UK last month and in Beijing last year.
The Chancellor and Energy Secretary have also visited China, and I visited Hong Kong in November of last year. Across all these meetings, the Government have pressed, and will continue to press, the Chinese Government on issues which matter to us and this House, such as calling for the unacceptable sanctions on our parliamentarians to be lifted and demanding British national Jimmy Lai’s immediate release. I have been meeting with Jimmy Lai’s family since before the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon was elected to this House, and we remain robust in the defence of his freedom of speech and defend his family as British citizens.
We consistently raise human rights concerns, including on Xinjiang cotton production and solar panels, which have been mentioned, have called for the repeal of the national security law and sanctioned Chinese companies over their supply of dual-use and military goods to Russia’s military-industrial complex. The stark truth is that under the previous Government, we did not have the channels in place to pursue and protect UK interests sufficiently and to raise these important issues at the highest levels in the Chinese Government.
Calum Miller
I am very grateful to the Minister for bringing her expertise to the topic. She has highlighted the way in which the Government is trying to deepen that relationship with China, in the belief that by having a better relationship, we can better serve UK interests. However, I think she will recognise that whether it is in the case of Jimmy Lai or in the bounties placed on Hong Kong activists, the relationship goes only one way. Could she say a little bit more about the sticks that the Government are prepared to use if they do not get the outcomes that we are looking for?
Catherine West
National security is paramount, and any engagement will be encased in that metal case of national security.
Turning to the Government’s China audit, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) has said, under the last Government, our China policy was inconsistent, swinging back and forth—from David Cameron’s golden era to Liz Truss’s confrontational approach—as often as they changed Prime Minister. That is why a team in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has been conducting the China audit. It has consulted widely across Government and with a wide range of external stakeholders, including with some hon. Members in this room, who have been to see the Foreign Secretary to discuss their concerns. That is already proving valuable in developing policies and planning engagement.
Edward Morello
The China audit was due to be published earlier this year. I understand it is now slated for the summer. Will the Minister take this opportunity to confirm when it will be published? Will she also, moreover, confirm that the Foreign Secretary will appear before the Foreign Affairs Committee to answer questions about it?
Catherine West
I can certainly confirm that the audit will be made public before the end of the spring. Dates in the diary with the Foreign Affairs Committee are a matter for the Chair of that Committee, and anyone who dares to go against that Chair will be a very frightened individual indeed! I am sure that at any invitation, the Foreign Secretary will appear before the Committee, to speak on any topic. The House will have seen the marked difference between this Government, who are working hard to protect and pursue our interests, and the previous Government, who failed to stand up for British interests by having the difficult conversations with China that are so necessary.
I turn to national security. Any Government’s first duty is to keep the country safe, and we remain fully committed to that mission. We have taken strong action through the National Security Act 2023, which gives us robust powers to protect our industries and institutions. The UK is clear that attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm their critics overseas, undermining democracy and the rule of law, are utterly unacceptable. That is why we invited some of the British national overseas passport holders who have personally been put at risk by those sorts of disgraceful actions. That is why our defending democracy taskforce is driving a robust and co-ordinated response across Government and law enforcement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand), who is a doughty campaigner for British national overseas passport holders, made a very important point. The Government are taking a reasonable and proportionate approach to creating secure and resilient growth for the UK. With careful handling, national security and growth can be mutually reinforcing. We will continue to bolster resilience to economic shocks and tackle economic-based threats to national security. I ask anybody who has personal experiences and is concerned about any BNO passport holder in their constituency to write to me or to the Minister for Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), immediately.
Growth and economic security, of course, are crucial and we cannot ignore China, given that it is the world’s second-largest economy and our fourth-largest trading partner, worth over £110 billion per annum. That shows why the partnership is so crucial for UK and global growth. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) said, it is so important that that growth must be secure and resilient. He was quite right to point out a number of threats to that growth—including questions about public procurement, intellectual property and tech—and how it dovetails with our domestic industrial strategy. As he is aware through the role that he has here in Parliament, the domestic industrial strategy will be developed in concert with the China audit. I welcome his experience in understanding the depth of complexity around materials, in particular, and I look forward to hearing more about his expertise in that area.
On climate, in particular, and net zero, it is also essential that we engage China on global challenges. As the world’s largest investor in sustainable energy, the largest emitter of greenhouse gases and the largest producer of coal, the choices that China makes are critical to global efforts to tackle climate change, not just in China but across the world.
On human rights, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised issues on which we need to challenge China. He is aware that it is our duty, as the Government, to hold China to account on its human rights record, including its repression of people in Xinjiang and Tibet. I refer him to the item 4 statement at the Human Rights Council in Geneva, fresh off the press, which reflects his concerns about freedom of religion or belief, which he has raised in this House on a number of occasions.
I turn to the UK’s long and historic relationship with Hong Kong. Forgive me if I run out of time, Ms Lewell. I hardly need to tell the House how deep and strong our people-to-people and trade links with Hong Kong are. That is why the Government will continue to stand with the people of Hong Kong. Since the launch of the British national overseas visa route, we have granted more than 219,000 applications, and we will continue to welcome and protect all Hongkongers who have made the UK their home in recent years. The Government recognise the ongoing erosion of rights and freedoms that are threatening Hong Kong’s way of life.
I briefly turn to Taiwan, which the Opposition spokesman raised. The UK—