Human Rights in Hong Kong

Catherine West Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this important debate, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) not just on his work on Hong Kong but on his important work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Tibet and for highlighting the issues of freedom of religion or belief there. I must also reference my position as a founding member and ongoing patron of Hong Kong Watch and pay tribute, as many others have today, to the important work of Benedict Rogers and the team.

As I have said each time we have debated this subject in the House, the situation in Hong Kong is far removed from the liberties promised to the people of Hong Kong in the legally binding Sino-British agreement on the return of Chinese sovereignty in 1997. Back then, China was emerging as a global economic power with dreams of a more hopeful century ahead, and the enshrined rights and liberties that Hong Kong was to enjoy for a full 50 years were the bedrock upon which the territory’s success would be built. Many Hongkongers understood, with the handing back of Hong Kong, that these vital freedoms they had under British rule would continue. A vibrant free press, the right of assembly and the promise of a more democratic electoral system were all in the minds of Hongkongers as the safeguard through which they could continue living their lives much as they had before. Sadly, as hon. Members have said today, that is no longer the case. It is sobering to hear that Hong Kong, like Myanmar, has dropped down Freedom House’s list of countries in relation to freedoms across the board.

I will dig into some of those matters. The Minister has received a letter from a number of Members of Parliament. What assessment has the FCDO made of the bounty on the heads of, and the threats made against, people just carrying out their conscience here in the UK and asking questions about human rights? I have written to the Minister on that question, as have many in the House, and I look forward to her reply, both verbally and in writing when her officials have time to pull up that draft. It is important we follow each and every one of the developments on the crucial question of freedoms for Hongkongers.

The Foreign Office ought to be doing important work with the Home Office. We were all extremely concerned when we saw the attack outside the consulate in Manchester in the autumn of 2022. Following that, allegations were made against dissidents here in the UK, and now allies of Hongkongers are being attacked. What assessment has the Minister made, together with the Security Minister at the Home Office, of the important work that Whitehall should be doing across Departments?

I thank the Minister and her officials for the reply to my recent written question about BNO passport holders being denied mandatory provident funds—in effect, a pension. I am grateful to her for confirming that the matter has previously been raised with Chinese and Hong Kong officials, but has she raised it since May 2023? That is the most recent date on which she raised it, and it is quite a long time ago. Is she continuing to raise it and being relentless? This is a very long-term relationship and it is important that we do not give up.

There also remains a key need for the UK to engage with partners on the global stage to provide sanctuary for Hongkongers. Will the Minister outline what specific discussions she has had on Hong Kong with her US, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and European counterparts? For those who remain in Hong Kong and for the city itself, there is more that we can do.

The case of Jimmy Lai and the questions around freedom of expression have been given a thorough going-over by the first speaker, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, and it was mentioned by all others. I was very pleased that, in today’s statement from Geneva, the key official mentioned Jimmy Lai, this time in dispatches, which I am very pleased about. Even Lord Cameron has mentioned this important case. This is a key moment because the case is before the courts. Could the Minister tell me whether the Prime Minister will now raise it? It is a matter of sending this up the hierarchical tree and, now that we seem to have won the argument with the Foreign Office and the new Foreign Secretary, it would be good if we could get the Prime Minister to mention it as part of his important foreign policy work. It was great to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) raising the case of Jimmy Lai because it would really help if many Members met his son Sebastien and continue to raise the case.

I will now conclude my remarks and give the Minister time to wind up. I want to ask the Minister for her views on some of the points raised in this debate. What assessment has the Foreign Office made of restrictions on trade union membership, including the teachers’ union? What assessment has the Foreign Office made of the particular impact on women and girls? Of the 17,000 political prisoners—a frightening number—how many are women? What issues does the Minister believe we need to be aware of in relation to those political prisoners? Finally, what is her assessment of the periodic review of human rights in relation to China, which is ongoing in Geneva right now? Does she believe that it has been a very good conversation at the UN today, and what actions will come out of the periodic review?

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

We are tight on time, but it would be helpful if the Minister could leave a minute or so at the end for Mr Loughton to wind up. [Interruption.] He says he is happy not to wind up, so you have a free rein, Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

I absolutely hear my hon. Friend’s point, but I will continue to reiterate that line, for very good reason. I hope that we can, as we have many times before, discuss in the Lobby the practical reasons for that. We will continue to do that, and nothing is off the table.

Jimmy Lai’s name has been raised many times today. That extraordinary prominent publisher and journalist, an incredibly brave man, is on trial accused of foreign collusion and sedition under the national security law, which we have repeatedly called to be repealed. Mr Lai has been targeted in a clear attempt to stop him peacefully exercising his right to freedom of expression and association. He is a British national, and the UK Government stand alongside him at this difficult time. I know that colleagues are frustrated by the Chinese refusal to accept Jimmy’s British nationality due to China’s own nationality legislation; it is not alone in that. As my hon. Friend has said, that does not stop my officials continuing to demand consular rights for Jimmy in prison. The Foreign Secretary has called on the Hong Kong authorities to end the prosecution, and to release Mr Lai. We will continue to press for that.

[Catherine West]

I am very pleased, as I am sure other Members are, about the change of heart and language on the citizenship question. What assessment has the Minister personally made of the Prime Minister’s role in this? We have won the battle with the Foreign Secretary; what about the Prime Minister?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

I thank the shadow Minister for her question, but I do not speak for the Prime Minister. I think it was made clear in the Foreign Secretary’s comments a few weeks ago—he had the opportunity to meet Sebastien Lai shortly after he took up his post—that our commitment and continuing resolve will continue.

On the ongoing trial, as Members have mentioned, British and other foreign nationals have been named in the prosecution. That is unacceptable, and we have made clear to the Chinese authorities, through officials in the UK, our concern that British nationals, including the former British consul-general to Hong Kong, Andrew Heyn, have been named in the prosecution. British nationals named—they have been highlighted already—include Lord Alton, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), Ben Rogers, Luke de Pulford, Bill Browder and Andy Heyn; they have all been listed in various forms. I recently met a number of those people, who are bravely speaking out on freedom of speech and human rights concerns, despite threats against them. We continue to work with them and support them. In my private conversations with them, I continue to share the message about the support that the UK Government can provide, as they may need it.

Since the trial began, our diplomats in Hong Kong have attended Mr Lai’s court proceedings daily, and will continue to do so. As noted in our latest six-monthly report, Hong Kong’s legal and judicial systems are at a critical juncture. The courts are having to adjudicate on an opaque law that we think should be repealed, and which places the authority of the Chief Executive above that of the courts on security matters. Hong Kong’s national security trials are dominating current perceptions of Hong Kong. They are damaging the city’s international reputation and status as a financial centre. Thousands who were arrested during the protests in 2019 are still waiting to learn if they will face trial. We urge the authorities to provide certainty to those individuals.

Last year, we saw a new pattern of behaviour emerging: arrest warrants were issued and bounties were placed on individuals based overseas, as a number of colleagues have mentioned. We have been clear that we will not tolerate any attempts to intimidate, harass or harm individuals or communities in the UK. That is a threat to our democracy and to our fundamental human rights. We formally démarched the Chinese ambassador in July 2023, following that first wave, and we have continued to raise the issue at senior level with Chinese and Hong Kong officials. Let me be clear: the national security law has no extraterritorial authority in the UK. The UK has no active extradition agreement with Hong Kong or China. This Government will always protect the right of individuals peacefully to exercise freedom of speech. We will provide police support if individuals have particular concerns.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green raised questions about Interpol and an early warning system around extradition issues. I will take that away to discuss more fully with Ministers across Government, but I can confirm that the UK Government take any misuse of Interpol very seriously. Article 3 of Interpol’s constitution forbids the organisation from making any intervention or undertaking activities of a political, military, religious or racial character. I hope that gives a little reassurance in the meantime.

Conscious of time, I will pick up on the point made by the shadow Minister and others about the universal periodic review of China, which is, as they say, ongoing. I will put on record the statement the UK has made, thanking colleagues for taking note. It was important to us that we set out clearly the issues of concern.

There were four calls: cease the persecution and arbitrary detention of Uyghurs and Tibetans, allow genuine freedom of religion or belief and cultural expression, without fear of surveillance, torture, forced labour or sexual violence, and implement the recommendations on Xinjiang by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights; guarantee an impartial judiciary and cease the harassment of lawyers, the use of the death penalty and residential surveillance in a designated location; cease the restriction of civil society and independent media, end forced repatriations, and stop targeting human rights defenders; and repeal the law on safeguarding national security in Hong Kong, as recommended by the UN, and cease prosecutions, including of Jimmy Lai.

To conclude, we will continue to stand against the deterioration of rights and freedoms in Hong Kong. There is a reputational cost to China undermining international values, as it is doing. We are clear that it must protect what remains of Hong Kong’s unique social and political character, as well as its distinct economic system. We must see the repeal of the national security law, the ending of the prosecution of all individuals charged under it, and the restoration of the rights and freedoms promised to the people of Hong Kong under the Sino-British declaration.

Afghanistan: UK Government Policy

Catherine West Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2024 Westminster Hall

On resuming—

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I thank the right hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) for securing the debate, and for the tone and words he used. The minimum requirement for Members of Parliament is to care, and that was very much summed up in his words. We all enjoyed the story about his brother and the impact of his legacy, after he lost him tragically in the Bali bombings. The legacy of a teacher is always crucial, particularly in foreign policy, so I thank him very much for that.

Since the fall of Kabul to the Taliban in that heartbreaking summer of 2021, the House has not often debated a more general Government position on Afghanistan, so this debate is timely, necessary and very welcome. We all remember the optics as Kabul fell: a sunburnt right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab) lying on a sunbed in Corfu, and an absent senior member of Foreign Office staff. I do not think any of us will forget that sense of a dereliction of duty. It is certainly not something that could be levelled at the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East who brought forward this debate but, sadly, that is how I remember that period of time. The most critical Foreign Affairs Committee report I have ever read examined the way in which the Foreign Office failed to support the basic functions of a Government at that crucial time. I would suggest it as recommended reading to anybody interested in this area.

As Labour’s shadow Asia Minister, I pay tribute to the 457 British servicemen and women who made the ultimate sacrifice during our engagement in Afghanistan, and the countless others who remain mentally or physically scarred by their service. Labour is, and always will be, in eternal debt to and have admiration for our armed forces and the work they do in the most challenging circumstances. War has untold consequences, and the war in Afghanistan—a 20-year, multinational engagement —is among the conflicts with the most profound effect on our armed forces, veterans and society that Britain has known for decades.

Many people still say that the effort failed when the Taliban retook Kabul that summer, and that has been reflected in today’s debate. However, although that simple statement is true in many respects, I believe it does a disservice to the work of our armed forces, civil servants, development personnel, allies and, indeed, Afghans themselves, who so clearly came together to transform Afghanistan during the 20 years of NATO involvement. The Afghanistan that the Taliban took control of in 2021 was a world away from the Afghanistan before the western forces first liberated it from their control. Two generations of children had access to education, the country developed its business and an emerging economy—although many of us accept that not enough was done on the economy to ensure a lasting legacy—and women enjoyed many of the same rights and opportunities as their male friends and family members.

Despite the change in Government, much of that legacy is still alive. Afghans are more educated, more connected and more attuned to the world around them than the Taliban allowed them to be in the 1990s, and some Taliban wish them to be now. We should hold on to and celebrate that legacy, but we must also take stock of the Afghanistan of 2024, which is not the Afghanistan of 2021. Women’s rights have been essentially eliminated, the economy is in a dire situation, malnutrition and famine are the reality for millions, and all notions of a Taliban 2.0 have been proven false as human and civil rights are not even considered by the power brokers in Kandahar. We cannot simply pretend that this is the way it should be.

No British, western or neighbouring country should forgive the Taliban’s treatment of the Afghan people, and particularly, as the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) said, women and girls. If we do that, the collective legacy we left behind—that more hopeful Afghanistan that many worked hard to create and that I firmly believe exists there, certainly if the emails I receive from Afghan people are to be believed—and that spirit and resilience will continue, but we must come up with a strategy now to deal with that country of 40 million people that has been all but shut off from the world, barring occasional references to the humanitarian crisis unfolding. The question is emotive and controversial for obvious and deeply held reasons, but we owe it to Afghans to have this conversation.

In June 2022, the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), became the first senior British politician to visit Afghanistan since the return of the Taliban. He demanded that the UK set out a comprehensive strategy for re-engaging with Afghanistan to help support the people who have been left behind. Despite his demands, very little appears to have changed, so will the Minister outline what conditions he believes are the basic minimum for us to re-engage? Do they include the freedom of religion or belief, which has been mentioned, and basics around human rights safeguarding and the treatment of women? What basics should be upheld in advance of a genuine restart of the UK mission there? Will the Minister please outline that long-term thinking?

I urge the Minister to use this opportunity to outline what further humanitarian response the UK will provide to the people of Afghanistan. As has been said, £100 million is a very small amount compared with what was spent previously, and is much less than what is desperately needed. I also urge the Minister to outline what the Government are doing to support at-risk Afghans who face deportation from Pakistan to Afghanistan. Will he say a bit about the cross-departmental work that the FCDO, the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office—an interesting threesome—are doing for the applicants we have heard about today via their MPs, including the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), and for my constituents who are stuck on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan? It was only when Pakistan decided to start deporting people to Afghanistan that the international community restarted the process of applications. I understand that the British Council is aware of 100 outstanding applicants. Will the Minister tell us what is happening about that on the domestic front?

Many thousands of former members of the armed forces, civil servants and civil society activists that the UK supported remain in danger, and we have been woefully slow in supporting them. I firmly believe that no one in this House supports a full recognition of the Taliban, but there is space for a pragmatic, measured and reasonable middle ground to ensure we are there for the people of Afghanistan. Cutting them off for evermore is not what thousands of British, allied and Afghan forces fought and died for.

I will conclude with a couple of points that came out of the debate. First, I mentioned the domestic element, so will the Minister say a bit about the threat of radicalisation? Does he feel that it is still as serious as it was, particularly given the lack of stability in Pakistan? Secondly, what budgetary implications might his strategy have? As I said, the £100 million does not seem to be as much as may be required. If he were to do this, what would he have to cut to put in place more funding? Does he agree that the BBC World Service is really well placed to provide educational programmes such as BBC Bitesize, which was so effective during the pandemic and which, with our language experts at the BBC World Service, could put in place some wonderful programmes for women stuck at home who are not able even to go out and do a basic bureaucratic task without having to be accompanied by their brother or husband? What is his assessment of the current picture of corruption? Would more money simply be at risk from corruption?

Finally, I thank the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East for securing this debate, for caring, and for giving us a lesson on the dangers of group-think.

Malaria and Neglected Tropical Diseases

Catherine West Excerpts

Tuesday 9th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) on securing this debate; he has a proud record of work, both in his constituency, with the University of Glasgow, and in Malawi itself. I also refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

As hon. Members have said, we remain at a critical point in tackling malaria and neglected tropical diseases due to the pandemic; humanitarian crises as a result of conflicts, flooding and famine; rising biological threats such as insecticide and drug resistance; a decline in the effectiveness of core tools; a widening funding gap and resource constraints; and disruptions to already fragile health systems. We really must act now. Global malaria progress has stalled in recent years, with malaria incidence and mortality currently above pre-pandemic levels. In 2022, 5 million more people were infected than in 2021, and 16 million more than in 2019.

Despite malaria being preventable and treatable, nearly half the world’s population remains at risk—particularly in African countries, as the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) said. The global burden of neglected tropical diseases also remains significant and, as with malaria, continues to be a barrier to health equity, prosperity and development, with devastating health, social and economic consequences to 1.65 billion people worldwide, including over 600 million people in Africa.

[Mr Dhesi]

As a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on malaria and neglected tropical diseases, I thank my hon. Friend for her leadership as chair of our APPG. I also thank her and Martha Varney of Malaria No More for their leadership in orchestrating our recent visit to Malawi. Their insights and the dedication of partners such as the Wellcome Trust have significantly deepened my understanding of the challenges at hand. Does the shadow Minister agree that malaria is a relentless barrier to development, thwarting educational progress, disproportionately impacting women and girls, and perpetuating cycles of poverty?

[Catherine West]

Indeed, and my hon. Friend pre-empts my point about the impact on women and girls. I know that you will be particularly interested, Mrs Harris, in the relevance of tackling what seems to be the disproportionate impact on women and girls, due to various biological, social, economic and cultural factors. Limited financial resources, time constraints, diminished autonomy, and stigma and discrimination create barriers that prevent women from gaining access to timely healthcare, education and employment opportunities. Due to their responsibility for home and family care, they often miss out on crucial treatments. Through close contact with children, women are two to four times more likely to develop trachoma, which is a neglected tropical disease, and are blinded up to four times as often as men.

It was particularly exciting, in the visit mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) and the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), to see old women, who are often neglected in developing countries, receiving crucial treatments and being enabled to feel that they were not a burden on their children. It was particularly special to learn that trachoma has been eliminated in Malawi. The World Health Organisation has signed that off, which is a really exciting development. Sometimes, these things feel very overwhelming, but when we see that trachoma has been eliminated in Malawi, it really is wonderful and encouraging.

The “Ending Preventable Deaths” strategy recognised malaria as a major cause of child deaths, and important tools such as bed nets and intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy as examples of evidence-based health intervention and best buys. It was also welcome that the strategy recognised the critical importance of clean water, sanitation and hygiene. However, there is no way of ending these epidemics and meeting the sustainable development goals without working to empower and enable women and girls to succeed. I know that is very much at the heart of your work in Parliament, Mrs Harris.

[James Sunderland]

The shadow Minister and I, and many others here, went to Malawi, as we heard earlier, and we share many of the same views on the way forward. In fact, it is quite nice to have cross-party support on such a key issue. We have sought a Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Rwanda. Does the shadow Minister agree that it is important for the league tables to be published, so that African nations can take a lead and have responsibility for a particular NTD? In Malawi, we have eliminated trachoma, and I welcome that noma has now been added to the list of approved—if that is the right word—diseases that the WHO is looking at and investing in. Does the shadow Minister agree that empowering African nations and ensuring that the UK can take a lead in thought leadership and education is really important?

[Catherine West]

Indeed, and it has been estimated that 500 million more people, rising to a billion by 2080, could become exposed to chikungunya and dengue, as these diseases spread to new geographies due to warmer climates—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough. As an example, the impact of flooding in Pakistan has also been mentioned, and in 2022 there was a 900% increase in dengue and a fivefold increase in the number of malaria cases. The Minister might be quite creative and see whether there is money in the climate funds to join up the health inequalities with the climate funding that will eventually become available through the COP28 process.

While countries in the global south will of course carry a disproportionate burden, tropical diseases are now becoming a growing concern in non-endemic countries. Will the Minister update the House on Government efforts to mitigate the impact of climate change on malaria and NTDs, and what steps they are taking to support lower-income countries to address climate-sensitive infectious diseases? Conflict and humanitarian crises are considerable threats to progress. Many countries have seen increases in malaria cases and deaths, and a few experienced malaria epidemics. Ethiopia saw an increase of 1.3 million cases between 2021 and 2022, and political instability in Myanmar led to a surge in cases, from 78,000 in 2019 to 584,000 in 2022, with a knock-on effect in neighbouring Thailand.

Last June, mycetoma services in Sudan were suspended due to a lack of safety, resulting in patients not receiving vital medication. We know that in refugee camps—as I am sure the Minister also knows from visiting refugee or internally-displaced persons camps—there is a particularly high risk of scabies due to overcrowding. Can the Minister reassure us that the UK is working to support countries affected by conflict and other humanitarian crises to ensure the safe delivery of medical supplies, which are the basics?

Despite the difficulties in surmounting the challenges we face, the elimination of these diseases is possible. Both malaria and neglected tropical diseases can be beaten, as we have seen. Azerbaijan, Belize and Tajikistan have been declared malaria-free by the World Health Organisation recently, and 50 countries, including 21 in Africa, have eliminated at least one neglected tropical disease, marking the halfway point toward the target of 100 countries set for 2030. As a result, 600 million fewer people globally require interventions against neglected tropical diseases than in 2010. Bangladesh, supported by the UK and other partners, is the first country in the world to be validated for the elimination of visceral leishmaniasis, which is the very complicated form of the disease that is fatal in over 95% of cases and has devastating impacts, particularly on women.

The Labour party is proud of the UK’s contribution to date in this global effort, and of the legacy of Department for International Development, one of our proudest achievements of the last Labour Government. As part of that commitment, the last Labour Government helped to found the Global Fund in 2002. It is an incredible fund, and we saw the important work it does when visiting Blantyre. The results are staggering, with the malaria incidence rate decreasing from 164 positive cases four years ago to 36 at the time of our visit last autumn.

I know that you want me to wind up, Mrs Harris, but I have one final anecdote. I met Mirriam, an inspiring midwife and primary healthcare provider working in rural Zambia, when she visited the UK Parliament. She said that she encounters disease every day at her health centre, and spoke to me about her harrowing experience of caring for and losing pregnant women and young children with malaria. However, over the past few years the availability of high-quality, inexpensive, rapid diagnostic tests, insecticide-treated bed nets and preventive treatment for pregnant women, all provided by the Global Fund, are transforming how Mirriam and her midwife colleagues diagnose and manage cases of malaria. She also mentioned the important work being done on tuberculosis and HIV.

Many of the tools and medicines we need to beat malaria were also developed here in the UK, and a number of Members have outlined the important connection with our excellence in research—for example, at the University of Dundee, which the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) mentioned in his speech, and other important UK research institutions. It is important that we listen to what they say about what we need to keep that research going and maintain this country’s leadership in research and development.

We have already talked about the Vaccine Alliance, Unitaid and the Global Fund, so I will not go into the detail. However, we have one specialism that I need to mention: the crucial research into snakebite. Many who may be watching parliamentlive.tv will not be aware that snakebite kills so many people in Africa, or aware of the important work being done at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine—I declare an interest as an unpaid trustee there. That work is very special and niche, but it is crucial to keep it going.

I will conclude on the important work that we need to do this month, given that World Neglected Tropical Disease Day is on 30 January. Can the Minister assure me that the UK is doing all it can to support the development of new medicines for neglected tropical diseases and look at re-committing to multi-year funding for product development partnership models? What is her view on manufacturing in Africa? If we look at the map, we see that expensive medicines are produced here in Europe or America and then sent to Africa and so on, so it would be wonderful to see more manufacturing, perhaps through the Serum Institute of India, for example, which did so much important work during covid. What is her thinking about collaborations there that we could lead and push different parties towards? Finally, as 30 January 2024 approaches—World Neglected Tropical Disease Day—the World Health Organisation argues that, for malaria, “business as usual” will simply not be enough. I hope that the Minister agrees that we now need to act, because there is no more time for us to lose.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)]

I apologise for the cough—I am apparently enjoying a three-month winter cough, so apologies to all for that. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) for securing this important debate and thank the all-party parliamentary group on malaria and neglected tropical diseases for its really thoughtful contributions today and, more importantly, for its long-standing advocacy in this whole arena. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions.

Members will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) is the Minister in FCDO with responsibility for global health. He is unfortunately unable to be here, hence my presence. I am happy to respond; this is an area of both policy and personal interest anyway. When I was the Secretary of State for International Development before the merger, we spent a lot of time on this policy area, so I am pleased to be able to respond on behalf of the Government. If I miss any questions, for which I apologise, I will ensure that my right hon. Friend picks up on them.

On the point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), a number of colleagues touched on the wider question of the UK’s focus on climate change, the impacts more broadly, and how the UK can assist, and is assisting, on the wider question of resilience and adaptation to the changing nature of communities, landscapes and healthcare. All the work that we do has health impacts at its heart. Women and girls are at the centre of every single piece of programming work that the FCDO does, but I will ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield to set out a few examples in his reply to help colleagues to see the broader picture, beyond the issue we are discussing today.

As colleagues have pointed out, we are at a critical point for the sustainable development goals. With COP’s focus on the impact of climate change on global health, and with World Neglected Tropical Disease Day at the end of the month, this is a really important opportunity to consider the UK’s role in helping to end those diseases. We know that the covid pandemic has taken a toll in so many ways on the pathway to the 2030 SDGs, and I can safely say that, across the world, we are all focused on trying to get back on track and thinking about how we can do that, using all the tools at our disposal.

As many colleagues have set out, the burden that malaria and NTDs place on so many countries is not geographical; it is about families and people. It is perhaps concentrated in some countries, not only by virtue of their geography and their landscapes, but because of the state of their health systems. As colleagues have said, malaria is still killing a child every minute of every day, and NTDs are causing devastating health, social and economic consequences for more than 1 billion people. We know that they fall most heavily on the poorest and the most marginalised.

In November, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield set out the Government’s White Paper on development, which has at its heart the principles underpinning the UK’s ongoing contribution towards ending extreme poverty and combating climate change. A key focus of getting the world back on track to meet the 2030 SDGs includes targets to end the epidemic of malaria and NTDs. The White Paper reaffirms our commitment to ending the preventable deaths of mothers, newborns and children under five, which we cannot achieve without a particular focus on malaria. As I have mentioned, however, the White Paper also underlines the importance of helping countries to build health systems by working with them in mutually respectful partnerships and harnessing innovation and new technologies to help them to solve some of these problems.

On malaria, we are at a critical juncture in our fight against the disease. As a number of colleagues have set out, this year’s World Malaria Report showed once again that progress has stalled. We are facing a perfect storm of challenges, including rising drug and insecticide resistance, the climate impacts we have talked about, the spread of urban mosquitoes, conflict and humanitarian crises, rising prices and funding shortfalls. This is, of course, a complex mix to try to get ahead of, but the UK continues to provide global leadership. We will continue to make the limited resources that we have go further and to think about how we can adapt our approaches to fit local contexts more closely, because it is not the same everywhere. How can we help countries to focus in a more targeted way on tackling their most difficult health problems?

The UK has long been a leader in the fight against malaria. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) mentioned, we have been the third largest contributor to the Global Fund over its lifetime, investing over £4.5 billion. It has three specific focuses—to eradicate malaria, TB and AIDS—which has enabled it to channel global energies into tackling those diseases. We provided £1 billion towards the seventh replenishment of the fund, and the mission to eradicate those diseases remains absolutely at the heart of the UK Government. The latest investment will help to fund 86 million mosquito nets and 450,000 seasonal malaria chemoprevention treatments, and provide treatment and care for 18 million people. Our funding continues to help drive scientific advancement—for example, the next generation of malaria bed nets, which were developed with funding from the UK and which the Global Fund is now rolling out. We have also long funded the Medicines for Malaria Venture, whose anti-malarial drugs are estimated to have averted nearly 14 million deaths since 2009.

There is further cause for optimism from new vaccines. As colleagues have mentioned, in October the WHO recommended the second ever malaria vaccine, R21. In November, just before Christmas, the first consignment of the RTS,S vaccine was delivered to Cameroon to begin roll-out across Africa. Both vaccines were developed through British scientific expertise, including the long-term commitments that we have seen from GSK, whose RTS,S vaccine has now been given to over 1.5 million children in Ghana, Kenya and Malawi. A further nine countries will receive the vaccine over the next two years, and the UK will continue to support roll-out through our £1.65 billion funding for Gavi and by further funding clinical trials.

Colleagues might not be aware that the UK led the replenishment of Gavi back in 2020, at the height of the covid pandemic, when its funding had never been more urgently needed. Gavi is the organisation that delivers vaccines to many hard-to-reach corners of the globe. It is an incredibly important organisation that is respected and welcomed in pretty much every country in the world. We were proud to bring $8 billion-worth of global commitments to Gavi, despite the challenges that everyone faced during the ongoing covid epidemic. The UK’s commitment was the largest of all those made to that replenishment.

Of course, time goes quickly, and Gavi’s replenishment for next year is coming round again; I know that the UK will continue to provide leadership on that. Gavi is one of the many parts of the machine that enables us to deliver. It does such important work to ensure that, whichever brilliant new technologies brilliant scientists come up with, they get to the places they need to be. That is so important. Indeed, through covid Gavi demonstrated—sadly, more urgently than ever—how effective it can be.

Colleagues have set out the impact of neglected tropical diseases across the globe. We have seen incredible progress, which has been due in part to the UK’s contribution. It is encouraging that 50 countries have eliminated at least one NTD, in line with the WHO’s ambitious target for 100 countries by 2030. Last year saw Iraq, Benin and Mali eliminate trachoma, Ghana eliminate a key strain of sleeping sickness, and Bangladesh and Laos eliminate lymphatic filariasis. In October, Bangladesh became the first country in the world to eliminate visceral leishmaniasis, which would not have happened without long-standing UK support.

Here, again, we face major challenges: climate change threatens to unravel so much of the progress that we have seen, and global funding falls short of what is needed to achieve our overall ambitions. The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) highlighted the rise of dengue, which causes real concern and impacts too many places. The UK was pleased to sign the Kigali declaration on neglected tropical diseases at the 2022 CHOGM meeting, and towards that goal we committed to continued investment in research and development. Each signatory makes a unique contribution towards ending NTDs; it is very open and was designed to encourage countries, however small or large, to push on with tackling the challenges.

We are delivering on our commitment with our ongoing funding to the Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative, or DNDi—I apologise for all the acronyms; there are lots of them—in which we have invested over £80 million so far. Through our and others’ support, DNDi has developed 13 treatments for six deadly diseases, and those are already saving millions of lives. They include a first oral-only treatment for both chronic and acute sleeping sickness, which recently received regulatory approval; a treatment for mycetoma, an infectious flesh-and-bone disease that leads to amputations; new short-course treatments for deadly visceral leishmaniasis, which I mentioned earlier, that can replace treatments with severe side effects and growing drug resistance, which is a continuing challenge in this space; and the first paediatric treatment for Chagas disease, a complex tropical parasitic disease that can result in heart failure.

Some of the DNDi’s incredible work takes place in the UK, where it has over 40 partners across industry and academia. To name but a few, we have the incredible leadership of global companies such as AstraZeneca UK and GSK, which are well known and based across the world, through to some of the smaller developing companies such as BenevolentAI, DeepMind and AMG Consultants. Those smaller companies are using other modern technologies—not pharmaceutical technologies but wider technologies—to think about how we can solve these challenges. It is worth remembering that many UK industry partners threw their technical expertise into the scientific ring when covid-19 hit the world, for instance through the COVID Moonshot work. Continuing to focus on the incredible investments made by our world-leading life sciences, tech and pharma companies is part of the whole solution.

[Catherine West]

The Minister is being very generous in giving way. What assessment has she made of the possibility of promoting more African leadership in manufacturing? Developing really good partnerships may require investment at the beginning, but it could be a very effective way to work. How do we strengthen in-country leadership in Africa while avoiding a top-down approach?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

I said earlier that the Government are focusing not only on how we spend our development budget but on how we invest in and give space to the private sector to use its research and development investment as effectively as possible in areas where there can be global solutions. The shadow Minister raises a really important point, and I spent a lot of time at the World Trade Organisation in 2022 discussing how patents and investment in expensive production facilities can be done more globally. The issue was not resolved at the WTO, but it is at the heart of the conversation, which is, as has been said, about trade. We must understand how to empower the countries that will potentially get the most immediate benefit from production domestically, which will then be able to export to their neighbours, and ensure that investment flows work securely for the pharmaceutical companies that are investing billions of pounds to solve these challenges. We must ensure that production is secure and that the vaccines and other medications reach those they need to. A lot of discussion is going on globally around those issues, and some of our largest pharmaceutical companies are already doing these things around the world. Particularly in South Africa, there has been a real shift in investments, and that country can be a hub from which to export to neighbouring countries. That ongoing area of global policy development sits within the world trade discussions, and it is really important to keep pushing it.

Trial of Jimmy Lai

Catherine West Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

The ongoing detention of Jimmy Lai, a British citizen, is a stark symbol of the decline of Hong Kong’s freedoms and China’s flagrant disregard for the legally binding Sino-British agreement, which promised a high degree of autonomy for Hongkongers for 50 years. Jimmy Lai’s trial is a further chapter in the erosion of the liberties promised then to the people of Hong Kong.

My right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary and I have met Jimmy’s son, Sebastien, regularly and made unequivocally clear Labour’s position that Jimmy must be released immediately and that the national security law under which he is being charged is abhorrent. I welcome the intervention by the new Foreign Secretary as Mr Lai’s trial begins today, but there must be sustained interest by the Government, in a way that has been sorely lacking until now.

We cannot sit idly by while British citizens experience a politically motivated trial and the authorities attempt to stifle freedom of expression. I urge the Minister to give a firm commitment right here that the Foreign Secretary’s intervention will not be a one-off, and that the Government will follow Labour’s lead in sustained, consistent and full-throated support for Mr Lai and his legal counsel, and in putting the freedoms promised to the people of Hong Kong at the top of her agenda.

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

As the Minister both for the Indo-Pacific region—China and Hong Kong are in my purview—and for sanctions, the issues of Jimmy Lai and others held in this way are very much at the top of my agenda. They always have been and always will remain so.

I have met Sebastien Lai on a number of occasions this year, and have worked closely with him and his team to understand the situation and to look at the support that we can provide. The frustration is that we are not able to provide consular access, because we are not allowed to visit him in prison. The Foreign Secretary set out yesterday that he has called for Jimmy Lai’s release, and we will continue to sustain that throughout the trial. At the moment, we expect the trial to last some 80 days, so we expect to see it wrap up in the summer. We will be working very closely with like-minded partners—US, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, European and Swiss representatives were also in court today—to make it clear that we all have one view, which is that this is a trial from which Jimmy Lai needs to be released.

Persecution of Buddhists: Tibet

Catherine West Excerpts

Thursday 14th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of the persecution of Buddhists in Tibet.

First, I thank hon. and right hon. Members for being here. I also want to put on record my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to this debate. We have some people in the Public Gallery today who have an interest in issues around persecution and in particular of Buddhists in Tibet. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) is here. In all the time I have known her—my time in the House is the same as hers—she has always had a particular interest in Nepal. I am very pleased to see her here to participate and to add her vast knowledge of the subject to the debate.

I am not yet quite sure who the Minister is. I am sure he is on his way. There may be other things happening and there may be a change of ministership as we sit here. Who knows? Whoever the Minister is, they will no doubt make a contribution shortly.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Ms Vaz. What happens if the Minister is not in his or her place? This is the first time this has happened to me since I have been a Member, since 2015. Others may have experienced that dereliction of duty, but I have not—and not on such an important subject.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

If another Minister or Whip cannot be found in time, the Parliamentary Private Secretary should be advised to take notes and rise at the end to make apologies on the Minister’s behalf. They should inform hon. Members that the Minister will respond to the points made. PPSs cannot make specific speeches on behalf of the Government, but I am sure the hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew), who I know is very assiduous, will make an assiduous note.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I want to briefly put on the record my concern about the discourtesy of the Minister turning up late to today’s debate on such an important subject. There are people in the Public Gallery who wanted her to hear every single word of this important debate. I cannot help but notice that there is not a Scottish National party spokesperson either, so there is a bit of a sense of disarray today. I am not sure that you can do anything about that, Ms Vaz, but I hope things can be improved for next time.

The all-party group for international freedom of religion or belief is one of the most active in Parliament, and the two most active members of it are here. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing the debate, and on laying out his concerns in such clear terms. On a number of occasions, he has mentioned other issues associated with freedom of religion or belief that concern him, including the impact of blasphemy laws in Pakistan and the treatment of Muslim minorities in the Xinjiang region of the People’s Republic of China. That concern was recently highlighted in an excellent piece in the Financial Times outlining new satellite evidence of the destruction of mosques in the Xinjiang region. The hon Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) laid out details of the mass displacement of people in the Tibetan region, which is worrying, and talked about more than 1 million children being involved. Clearly, a programme of sinicisation is going on, in which individuals are not permitted to speak in their native tongue, which will, of course, cause a great barrier between children and their parents. It is worrying that 1 million children could be moved into dormitory-style accommodation, from as young as two, as she said.

In the past decade, we have seen video evidence of the destruction of Buddhist temples. The hon. Member for Strangford highlighted the repression that nuns and monks experience daily. He also emphasised under-representation in leadership positions in the PRC; the restrictions and the increasing state-sponsored surveillance; and cultural events that have been stopped by the Chinese Government. As the hon. Member for Congleton emphasised, China is ranked 176th worst for journalism and freedom of speech. In parenthesis, I wonder whether the House would mind my mentioning the other obvious freedom of speech issue: Jimmy Lai, who is in prison at the moment. He used to be the Apple Daily owner and publicist. I am sure the Minister will comment on that, because I am aware that the Foreign Secretary met Sebastien Lai, Jimmy’s son, just this week, and I am sure she would not mind doing a mini-detour in her wind-up to update the House on that meeting.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for bringing that up. I tabled early-day motion 213 just yesterday on the imprisonment of Jimmy Lai. I urge all Members to note it. They might wish to sign it to raise awareness of Jimmy and how he is being suppressed. He has been in jail for some time, and any thoughts of his getting out are remote.

[Catherine West]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. He is relentless in highlighting social injustice and, in this case, the lack of freedom of speech for Jimmy Lai and others; we know that similar things are going on in Tibet. However, as the three main speakers in this debate mentioned, because of the difficulty in monitoring what is happening in Tibet, we do not hear as much as we should from journalists there.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) made an extremely important point about the climate and the vulnerable nature of Tibet. Having hot-footed her way back from COP28, she has given us her update on the environmental concerns about that fragile part of our beautiful planet, where third pole ice storage and permafrost is thawing, with dreadful consequences for the river system. We know that a lack of water can cause long-term problems, including social ones, and she has made an important point. She also highlights the potential for Indo-Chinese relations to sour, and makes the important point that when we speak to leaders from the PRC, we must consider the trade relationship, which is very important to the UK’s economy, but crucially must not leave our values at the door. Will the Minister say when she last raised the issue of freedom of religion or belief in Tibet with her counterpart in the PRC?

The Foreign Secretary is in the other place. What impact does the Minister think his previous business interests have? What is the impact of the clear speeches he was giving in Sri Lanka and other places in which China has an interest? Might that cloud the judgment of Ministers as they speak one to one with counterparts in the People’s Republic of China, or with those who represent the PRC in London? Can she also outline what representations are made to China, during trade talks, on the subject of Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Tibet? We should not have one box for trade and one for human rights; they should be part of the same dialogue. What reassurances can she give concerning the issues raised today?

In conclusion, we have heard valuable contributions from members of the APPG for international freedom of religion or belief, who speak out regularly about the lack of freedom for so many to practise their faith abroad. We also heard the cultural and environmental concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East has about the Tibetan plateau. On the specifics of how we do our diplomacy, what reassurances can the Minister give me and the House on the important subject of freedom of religion or belief in the People’s Republic of China, specifically as regards Tibetan Buddhists?

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

The hon. Lady highlights something important. One of the beauties of this extraordinarily peaceful religion is that it does not cause some of the violence and aggression that one sees in other clashes between religions or beliefs across the world.

The challenge in Tibet is that of access for foreign nationals, including accredited diplomats and journalists, and it remains highly restricted. British diplomats visited Tibetan areas of Sichuan province in June 2023, and we will continue to push for access to Tibet, including for the UN special rapporteurs, which China either has not responded to or indeed has refused. We are consistent in our calls for the necessity of greater access to Tibet for international observers.

On UK policy towards China more broadly, China of course has a significant role to play in almost every global issue. We want to have a strong and constructive relationship. As such, we continue to engage directly with China to create space for those open, constructive, predictable and stable relations that are important in, for example, areas of global challenge such as climate and health. Those are areas that we need and want to work together on, for the good of the whole of mankind.

We will, however, always condemn human rights violations, privately in our meetings with Chinese representatives and in public fora, as we have set out. The UK Government will continue to play a leading role in pressing China to improve its human rights and to get its record to a better place.

[Catherine West]

Does the Minister agree that, with the question mark over the Foreign Secretary’s business deals, it is correct for the House to ask whether the business deals or the human rights come first?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

The China policy has not changed as the personnel in Government have. The policy remains entirely unchanged, but sadly the world has changed in how China is behaving, in particular through its coercive economic activities across a large area, but also through the increasing human rights violations. I hope that is clearly set out. The new Foreign Secretary is in absolutely the same place and is 100% supportive.

[Catherine West]

I asked the question because, in recent years and particularly since 2018, when Xi Jinping achieved his core leader status, which is when the internal repression and external aggression increased, the Foreign Secretary made positive speeches regarding the belt and road initiative in Sri Lanka. That is the specific business reference that I was making. The Minister may wish to write to me rather than put it on the record, but it is important, in an open and democratic system, that such things are out in the open.

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

I would not wish to speak on behalf of the Foreign Secretary about his activities when he was a private citizen. On some level, I think we all support and wish to see the direct success of some of the belt and road initiative. Without a doubt, those investments were in part an attempt by China to take their discovery about their way of investing long term in their own infrastructure, which saw their poverty levels drop dramatically, across the world. But there are other aspects to the initiative and some frustrations: where the impact has not been as well funded or followed through, it has left investees disappointed.

As the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green highlights, the challenge remains that there has been a shift in the way the CCP does its business. That now requires us to continue to lead—and, sadly, it requires more international effort—on holding China to account for what are, without a doubt, appalling human rights violations in a number of places, including Xinjiang, which a number of hon. Members referenced. We were the first country to lead a joint statement on Xinjiang at the UN, and our leadership has sustained pressure on China to change its behaviour and brought other countries’ voices with us. In October 2023, the UK led another joint statement on Xinjiang at the UN, calling China out for its human rights violations, and there were a record number of signatories. That relates to my earlier point about the challenge of continuing to build the evidence base and give other countries the chance to understand and see some of the violations for themselves. We will continue to lead that piece of work and bring UK diplomatic leadership across the world.

The hon. Member for Bristol East raised an interesting point. Ministers across Government do raise human rights concerns whenever they have discussions with the CCP or discussions on other Chinese issues. It was very interesting to hear about the policy work that was done in 2013, of which I was not aware. I will dig it out of the system and see whether the framework that we use now, or what was suggested, can ensure that we maximise our impact. It is very much on everyone’s agenda, but we are very comfortable with the fact that, when we talk about engaging with China, there are important economic relationships that we wish to continue to work on and grow. We have businesses that are keen to invest in what is, of course, an enormous market across the world.

To conclude, everyone, everywhere deserves to enjoy fundamental human rights, including the freedom of religion or belief. China should respect those rights in Tibet, in line with its own constitution and the international frameworks to which it is a party. Until it does so, the UK will continue to hold it to account—in public, in private and in concert with our international partners. We will continue to stand up for our values, and to promote and protect human rights in Tibet and around the world. Members’ concerns about the forcefulness of messaging about and criticism of suppression from Chinese authorities are well heard today. We shall continue to press for stronger language and the continued use of sanctions tools to express the disgust and righteous anger that colleagues have set out so eloquently today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Catherine West Excerpts

Tuesday 12th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Sri Lanka is a key member of the Commonwealth family and occupies a strategically vital position geographically. Warm relations are vital, but for far too long, those accused of brutal crimes in the past, including against the Tamil minority, have escaped justice. Will the Minister outline what steps she is taking to support the Tamils’ calls for justice, including, if necessary, by taking action against existing and former Sri Lankan Ministers? Will she outline the support for Sri Lankan democracy and human rights?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. We welcomed the recent written update on Sri Lanka by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and, in September, the UK Government issued statements that emphasised the importance of inclusive transitional justice and effective governance reforms in order to highlight the arbitrary use of laws to suppress dissent. As I said, we led UNHRC resolution 51/1 on Sri Lanka, providing the mandate for the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to report on Sri Lanka, and we continue to work with it.

Sri Lankan Tamils and Human Rights

Catherine West Excerpts

Tuesday 5th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. It has been an excellent debate. We have heard from the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day); from those with extensive parliamentary experience, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn); and, of course, from the well known and very active all-party group, which works across different groupings and parties, including the outstanding contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who has done that casework day in, day out, since 2009 in particular. I also want to put on record the points that have been made by my hon. Friends the Members for Ilford South (Sam Tarry) and for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), particularly on the ongoing humanitarian situation in the north of Sri Lanka. That was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), who also talked about water quality, which is a very pressing concern today.

As friends of Sri Lankans, we know that, for the many in the diaspora in our communities who come to our advice surgeries with concerns about the ongoing lack of consideration of what happened during that terrible period, until this is fully looked at and considered, there will be no peace. My question to the Minister is on the wide-ranging relationship we have with Sri Lanka as a country. I will first put on record the importance of the economic work done by the High Commission for Sri Lanka with Members across the House to call for economic help for Sri Lanka in the 12 months since the sovereign debt crisis. However, we all want that to be married with a socially just solution for those who feel that the true horrors of the civil war have not fully been heard.

In the context of both the economic imperatives and the social justice concerns, will the Minister, in his concluding remarks, state his view of the role of the current Foreign Secretary, in particular his support for the port project in Sri Lanka, in which he had a financial interest? As the Minister represents the Government, what does he think the relationship is between a state-owned enterprise in the Communist party and the current Foreign Secretary? The House needs to know whether the current Foreign Secretary had a financial relationship with a state-owned enterprise that is basically a development company. Does the Minister think that was an acceptable relationship, and would he enlighten the Chamber?

There are a number of important questions from the past that need to be answered. We warmly welcome the announcement made in May of this year that the Sri Lankan Government will be undertaking a national unity and reconciliation commission. However, we are also listening to non-governmental organisations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, which was mentioned earlier. Those organisations say that there is a lack of genuine confidence in the milestones that need to be achieved so that we can all have confidence in that commission internationally.

I wonder whether the Minister might tell the House whether he thinks that the commission has achieved the milestones that would have be expected between May and December of this year so that we can all have confidence, and can give confidence to our constituents, when they come to see us in our advice surgeries, by reassuring them that the UK is playing its part in holding the Government in Sri Lanka to account and moving towards a process similar to that which led to the truth and reconciliation commission in South Africa, which is held up as a gold standard for this sort of work. I am very interested to hear the Minister’s assessment of where we are with that, given that eight months have gone by, and whether we have seen the sort of work that is needed to lead to the sort of outcome that was seen in South Africa.

The UN panel of experts has expressed a desire to see credible evidence of the war crimes and to see that justice is served. A number of Members have underlined the role that General Silva played during the conflict. Has the Minister made an assessment of whether this would fit into the Magnitsky sanctions framework? Post Brexit, that is our most important tool for holding certain individuals to account for their actions. We are all aware that the standard response from a Minister who is asked this question is, “We don’t comment on these things, because that would spoil the process of sanctions,” because they are supposed to be almost a surprise, but given our concern, could the Minister give us a hint of his views on that individual, whose name comes up in so many representations at the UN panel of experts?

Based on the Minister’s assessment of the evidence at the International Criminal Court, does he believe that there is a case to be answered? Does he think it will be sufficient to have the process of national reconciliation, or does he believe that there will be another step after that, which will then go into the ICC? What measures are being taken to support Sri Lanka’s pathway to becoming a pluralistic, multicultural democracy in which all of its people can flourish?

I recently had a wonderful briefing from a fantastic UK organisation called the HALO Trust. The Minister and other hon. Members will know of its great work. After a decade of sorting out land mines in the north of Sri Lanka, the trust’s work is coming to an end. I just hope that as that chapter ends, a new one will open for all of the diaspora and the individuals whose lives were destroyed by that dreadful civil war—a chapter in which truth and reconciliation are key. Is the Minister confident of that? If not, will he tell us what his concerns are, so that our Sri Lankan constituents of the diaspora and those who care deeply about human rights can have confidence that the UK Government are doing their part to uphold peace and democracy?

--- Later in debate ---

[Leo Docherty]

These are clearly profoundly difficult issues that will not be solved quickly, but our judgment is that we must continue with our diplomacy and our strong encouragement for the Government of Sri Lanka to come forward with detailed proposals about a truth and reconciliation commission. As unlikely as it may seem this afternoon, that is the intent of our diplomacy, and we will continue to do that. We will also continue closely to monitor human rights developments in Sri Lanka, including the marginalisation and repression faced by Tamil communities and other minorities.

[Catherine West]

Given the scepticism about yet another announcement of this sort of process, will the Minister pledge to continue more truthful and thorough approaches? For example, with regard to the question raised earlier in the debate about the role of the ICC for certain of the terrible events that happened during the civil war, is it the assessment of the FCDO that there is a case to answer in the ICC?

[Leo Docherty]

The hon. Lady will know that the ICC, being independent, will make its own judgments about the prospect of prosecution, but of course, candour and frank speaking are at the heart of the relationship that we have with the Sri Lankan Government, and we will continue to press the need for a truth and reconciliation commission.

Ahmadi Muslims: Pakistan

Catherine West Excerpts

Wednesday 6th September 2023 Westminster Hall

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. It was also a pleasure to hear the opening speech from the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) and to hear about the work of the all-party group chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), which does such an excellent job of highlighting the discrimination against the Ahmadi community.

The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) is known in this place for raising the issue of freedom of religion or belief, which she carefully laid out today, and we in this Parliament hold such concepts of peace and democracy dear. In every country and every community, we firmly believe that people should be able to live their lives as they wish and to pray and worship in whichever way they feel most appropriate.

However, in many parts of the world, religion and belief can lead to persecution, and Pakistan is sadly among those places. In debates on freedom of religion, we have repeatedly raised concerns about blasphemy laws and the worrying situation for minorities in Pakistan. It is right that we are able to use this opportunity to shine a spotlight on the treatment of Ahmadi Muslims, which is so often overlooked. In fact, even the true figure for the population of Ahmadis is not really known. The House of Commons Library was unable to confirm it. It could be up to 4.5 million people, but because many people are not included in the census, it is difficult to know the exact number of people in the community.

We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) about the legal changes and the subsequent application of Pakistan’s penal code prohibiting Ahmadi Muslims from declaring their faith publicly, propagating their faith, printing or obtaining material related to their faith, building mosques or calling their places of worship mosques, and making the call for Muslim prayers. Virtually any public act of worship, devotion or propagation by an Ahmadi can be treated as blasphemy, a criminal offence punishable by a fine, imprisonment or death. That is a draconian and repressive approach to a minority group who, until relatively recently, were seen legally as Muslims.

According to the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, desecrations of Ahmadi gravestones, an appalling act of disrespect, are a regular occurrence. Such actions were described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who has been raising these issues in the House since before 2014. According to the community’s own records, in 2020 alone 164 Ahmadi gravestones were desecrated by anti-Ahmadi actors.

It is clear that the community is persecuted and it is of little surprise that the global Ahmadi community, some of whom are with us in the Gallery today, has moved its headquarters to the safety of London. However, as many Members have already said and I am sure the Minister will mention in his concluding remarks, we need to be aware of the cyber element. I am sure there are people who feel under attack, being a minority here in the UK. We must all be aware of that and the Government must be active on it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) mentioned the particular issue around the civil society groups in the UK, who educate others on the importance of the community but worry about the ongoing persecution in Pakistan and beyond.

I know that the Minister will wish to respond to the points made by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, who secured this debate, and the specific concerns raised by the community in his constituency, so I will keep my own questions for the Minister brief.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) said earlier in the debate that it is right that our Government should hold Pakistan to account because we have a lot to do with Pakistan in so many areas, whether that is through the diaspora or through our strong relationships with the country. We are in a very good position when we talk about things such as climate change, poverty, women’s rights and so on with colleagues in Pakistan. Is the Minister absolutely sure that no UK aid money is being used—perhaps unwittingly—to aid or abet any persecution of the Ahmadi community? Can he say what the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is doing to protect and promote tolerance, diversity and religious freedoms in Pakistan, specifically where we have that link-in with UK aid?

British Nationals Detained Overseas

Catherine West Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2023 Westminster Hall

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

It is a delight to contribute to this debate under your chairmanship, Ms Ali. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) on her excellent introductory speech.

For any British national, the idea of being wrongfully detained abroad or denied true legal processes is bone chilling. Kept away from friends and family, dealing with foreign laws and customs, in some cases subject to arbitrary processes, and with an uncertain outcome, it is a situation none of us would want for any of our loved ones. We saw how hard my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) worked, along with the family, on freeing Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. There are many of us who are also doing similar work in our constituencies. I had the case of Aras Amiri, who was in the same prison as Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe.

When someone is detained abroad, many people have the expectation that an official from the British high commission or embassy will provide advice and support until they are returned to the UK. It is a great credit to our hard-working officials that they put in the hours abroad, attending many visits to prisons and providing that important link back with home. I know that all Members will pay tribute to the important consular work that goes on day in, day out.

Sadly, however, that is not the case in every situation. We know from the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), who has talked about Jagtar Singh Johal, the opportunity that the UK has right now to be talking publicly about that case. We know from the work of the Foreign Affairs Committee—which my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) has sat on for quite some time, and that published a report about the shortcomings of the current offer for people who are in trouble abroad—that too often the Government’s efforts to secure the release of British nationals unjustly obtained abroad have been, according to the families, arbitrary, haphazard, uncoordinated, and lacking resource and transparency.

This week, we have seen a formal apology from the FCDO for its appalling handling of the case of Matthew Hedges. These ongoing individual cases have been raised many times by their respective constituency MPs. I wonder whether the Minister will outline what learning he has made as a result of the apology issued just this week.

We must remember that there are many others who do not share the same profile as Jagtar Singh Johal, Nazanin Zaghari-Radcliffe or others, but there is still no legal obligation for the UK Government to provide consular assistance to a British citizen, even in cases involving allegations of torture or arbitrary detention, leaving it entirely at the discretion of the Foreign Office and Ministers. That stands in contrast with a number of other countries that recognise there is a specific right to consular assistance. We have looked at examples from German consular outposts and Estonia; even smaller countries, in some cases, are doing a better job. Whether the case is high profile or not, British nationals deserve the support of the British Government, and I am proud that Labour’s commitment to legislate for a legal right to consular assistance for British nationals in trouble abroad, should we form the next Government, will be a keystone of our foreign policy. Until then, Ministers must do more to reassure British nationals that they will be supported.

Many Members in the debate have highlighted the cases that have been put on record in a number of cases. We share the concerns about Jimmy Lai. We have had meetings with the council and we have met Sebastian Lai; he is desperate about the situation of his father, who was wrongly imprisoned for freedom of the press. We also know that, with the G20 coming up in India, this is a great opportunity for the UK to highlight the case of Jagtar Singh Johal. We understand that Morad Tahbaz has been released into house arrest. Can the Minister give the House an update on that? I know that Mr Tahbaz is also a US citizen and the State Department has led negotiations, but can the Minister update us on the UK’s role and whether we can expect that he will be allowed to leave Iran soon?

Finally, for two years Egypt has continued to deny Alaa Abd El-Fattah his basic right to consular access as a British citizen and paid no diplomatic price for doing so; the Prime Minister raised this in person with President Sisi 10 months ago. Do the Government have any concrete plans or an update for the House to secure access beyond raising it in meetings? Have the Government considered amending their travel advice to warn British nationals about their inability to guarantee the provision of consular support to them in the event that they themselves are detained, particularly if they are dual nationals? I conclude my remarks here and note the cross-party consensus and commitment in the Chamber to seeing a better deal for Britons detained abroad.

--- Later in debate ---

[Leo Docherty]

Yes, indeed—we consider all these cases. If I may, I will come on to that case, because the hon. Gentleman has been a champion of it. Let me assure him—I am sure he knows this—the Government have raised concerns about Mr Johal’s case with the Government of India, including allegations of torture and his right to a fair trial, on over 100 occasions, and we will continue to do so. We take the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention’s opinion in this case very seriously. We have consistently raised concerns about Mr Johal directly with the Indian authorities and we will continue to do so, as I say. Having carefully considered the potential benefits and risks to Mr Johal of calling for his release, as well as the likely effectiveness of doing so, we do not believe this course of action would be in his best interests. But as I say, we will continue to raise his case with the Government of India.

Let me turn now to two cases mentioned by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) and the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston. The first is the case of Morad Tahbaz in Iran. We are pleased to see that British national Morad Tahbaz has been released on furlough. That is a first step, and we remain focused on his permanent release. Of course, the UK is not party to negotiations between the US and Iran; the details of any agreement are a bilateral matter for those two countries. But we do think that his release on furlough is a positive step.

I turn now to the case of Mehran Raoof, also in Iran. We are supporting the family of Mr Raoof, who is a British-Iranian national and has been detained in Iran since 2020. Of course, his welfare remains a top priority. It remains entirely within Iran’s gift to release any British national who has been unfairly detained and so we should urge Iran to stop this practice of unfairly detaining British and other foreign nationals and urge it to release Mr Raoof.

I turn now to the case of Mr Alaa Abd El-Fattah, in Egypt. Of course, we remain committed to securing consular access for dual British-Egyptian national and human rights defender Alaa Abd El-Fattah. We continue to raise Mr El-Fattah’s case at the highest levels with the Egyptian Government. We remain committed to supporting him and his family. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met family members on 6 February, and Lord Ahmad has met family members several times—most recently on 6 July. Our ambassador in Cairo and consular officials are in regular contact with family members and they met most recently on 5 April. Of course, we will continue to offer all the consular support that we can.

I was very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) for raising the case of his constituent Mr Saiful Chowdhury. Of course I give him my absolute assurance that we will be happy to correspond and raise this case. Perhaps we could exchange details after this debate. We look forward to corresponding on that case and we look forward to offering any support we can to Mr Chowdhury, so I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that case.

Turning to the case of Jimmy Lai, which was raised by several Members, let me be very clear that we are using our channels with the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities to raise Mr Lai’s detention and request consular access. The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, last met Mr Lai’s son and his international legal team on 24 April and officials continue to provide support. We continue to make our strong opposition to the national security law clear to the mainland Chinese and Hong Kong authorities. It is being used to curtail freedoms, punish dissent and shrink the space for opposition, free press and civil society. The Foreign Secretary raised Jimmy Lai’s detention with Chinese Vice-President Han Zheng on 5 May and in his opening statement at the 52nd session of the UN Human Rights Council on 22 February. We will continue to raise this case and others.

[Catherine West]

In the course of this debate, the question of whether the Foreign Office considers Mr Lai to be a British national has been raised. Could the Minister please elaborate on that because it is key to the sort of approach that we in this House take, but also which legally the Foreign Office should be taking? I have met the wonderful leader of the Hong Kong mission. I know he is doing his utmost but this has to be pushed at a much more senior level in order to get a result. I know that that is the view of the House.

[Leo Docherty]

I am grateful for the opportunity, and I will reiterate the language used by the Foreign Secretary and referred to by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith): Mr Lai is a dual British national born in China, and the reality of the matter is that Chinese nationality laws are very clear in that they do not recognise dual nationality and therefore have not allowed us consular access to Mr Lai. We are therefore using our channels with the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities to continue to raise his case.

Oral Answers to Questions

Catherine West Excerpts

Tuesday 18th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Jagtar Singh Johal, Alaa Abd El-Fattah, Morad Tahbaz, Mehran Raoof and Jimmy Lai are all high-profile British citizens detained abroad, whose families have severely criticised the Government’s weak, complacent and inconsistent record in supporting them. Does the Minister agree with us that consular assistance should be a right of British citizens, not based on the whims of Ministers?

[David Rutley]

We take all these cases incredibly seriously. They are very challenging. I do not really understand the tone of the question, because my interactions with Opposition Front-Bench and other colleagues reflect the sincere efforts, in extraordinarily difficult circumstances, to help in all the cases that the hon. Lady raises.