Iran

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

Let me continue before taking further interventions.

Those who are arrested are copiously tortured, beaten by the police, refused medication and denied legal representation, and they have minimal access to food and water. Bail is nearly always refused; on the few occasions it is offered, huge sums are demanded that families cannot meet.

Since the protests began, more than 750 protesters have been killed by the regime. As has been said, more than 70 of them were children. I have no doubt that the House will agree that this abomination cannot continue. I urge the Foreign Secretary and Ministers to act as soon as possible to proscribe this merciless regime.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

Let me congratulate my hon. Friend on his leadership in this matter in the past few years and on his having obtained this debate.

On proscription—I am co-chair of the all-party group on Magnitsky sanctions—the United States and many other countries have already proscribed and sanctioned the republican guard in Iran, so why are the UK Government dragging their feet over what is clearly a required action, given that the republican guard is so heavily involved in the brutality and murder of people? Will my hon. Friend encourage the Government to move finally on this and do what they are supposed to?

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. Clearly, we have been constantly asking what else the IRGC must do before the Government proscribe it. There have been positive signs over the Christmas period, with Ministers suggesting that the Government may take the action we would like, and I hope we will get an announcement from the Minister in answer to this debate.

Anti-lockdown Protest in Shanghai: Arrest and Assault of Edward Lawrence

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley]

As always, my friend the hon. Gentleman raises important points, and he can be assured that when the Chinese ambassador is called in to the FCDO, they will be raised, particularly the immediate point about the arrest, its unacceptable manner and the justification, which as he highlighted is incredibly thin. In that meeting, we will also raise the wider point he has mentioned about the safety of journalists. He raises a number of other important points, including about Chinese police stations. As the Minister for Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), made clear in his statement to the House on 1 November, reports of undeclared police stations in the United Kingdom are extremely concerning and will be taken seriously. The Home Office is reviewing our approach to transnational repression, and the Minister for Security has committed to providing an update on that work to the House in due course. The hon. Gentleman rightly says that there are wider concerns about the increasing authoritarianism and muscular foreign policy of the Chinese, and the Prime Minister rightly set out a new era of robust pragmatism, which we have seen grow over recent years, but which was clearly articulated by the Prime Minister yesterday.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

May I congratulate our friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on successfully securing this urgent question? He raises a series of very important points. We all absolutely and rightly condemn the brutal treatment yesterday of Ed Lawrence, the BBC cameraman, that saw him dragged away and beaten. I have seen a text from him to a colleague saying that he was beaten hard during the course of his detention.

With all the other issues that have been raised—the chasing and incarceration of journalists in Hong Kong, the crackdowns and genocide on the Uyghur—there is now an endless litany of China’s bad behaviour, so I simply ask my hon. Friend the Minister this. How is it that yesterday the Prime Minister, who previously said that China posed a “systemic threat”, has now moved to saying it poses “a systemic challenge”, and that our strongest policy statement now, in terms of our reputation and relationship with China, is that we are going to be “robustly pragmatic”? Can he please explain to me how “robustly pragmatic” will worry the Chinese any one bit?

[David Rutley]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. He is a long-standing campaigner on these issues, and I listen keenly to what he says, as does the Foreign Secretary. What the Prime Minister set out yesterday was a co-ordinated and coherent approach in which we do more to adapt to China’s growing impact. As he knows, we will revise and update the integrated review, which will help us to invest in our alliances and in the serious capabilities that we need to counter the actions that we see in China’s foreign policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

rose—

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

It is a team effort.

[David Rutley]

It is indeed a team effort; we have seen our colleagues work together on these issues before, but it is good to be able to respond to both of them. The points the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) makes are important and we are updating the integrated review and our broader strategy. We are very committed to investing in the alliances and capabilities we need to counter the growing threats and challenges the right hon. Gentleman highlighted in his important contribution—even if it was a bit long.

Chinese Consul General: Manchester Protest

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs to make a statement on the role of the Chinese consul general, who it now appears took part in the assault of Bob Chan.

[The Minister for the Americas and the Overseas Territories (Jesse Norman)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question and deeply aware of the strength of feeling in this House and the other place about the scenes of violence at the consulate of the People’s Republic of China in Manchester on Sunday afternoon. I am happy to provide an update on our response. You have been kind enough, Mr Speaker, to indicate that you will allow me to speak for a couple more minutes to set out the position.

As the House will know, on Sunday afternoon officials were in touch with Greater Manchester police regarding the incident. On Monday, officials spoke to the Chinese embassy to express our very serious concerns at the reports and demand an explanation. FCDO officials were clear that all diplomats and consular staff based in the UK must respect UK laws and regulations. On Tuesday, I announced in this House that the Foreign Secretary had issued a summons to express His Majesty’s Government’s deep concern at the incident and demand an explanation for the apparent actions of the staff at the consulate general.

Following my statement, the Chinese chargé d’affaires attended a summons at the FCDO in his capacity as acting ambassador. For the avoidance of any doubt, I should say that the Chinese ambassador is currently out of the UK and it is standard practice in such circumstances to summon the chargé d’affaires. I should also be clear that receiving an official summons from the Foreign Secretary is not, as has been described, a light rap on the knuckles but the delivery of a stern message, well understood within the context of diplomatic protocol. It is customary for senior officials to deliver such messages. These summons are not an invitation for an ambassador to have an audience with the Foreign Secretary or Ministers; in any case, given that the chargé d’affaires was involved, it was doubly appropriate that they should be delivered by a senior official.

In the summons the official set out that peaceful protest is a fundamental part of British society and that everyone in the United Kingdom has the right to express their views peacefully and without fear of violence. He reiterated our clear expectation that diplomatic and consular staff should conduct themselves in accordance with UK law. We have made it absolutely clear to the Chinese embassy that the apparent behaviour of consulate general officials during the incident, as it appears from the footage—more of which is coming out, even as we discuss this—is completely unacceptable.

The independent police investigation is now under way. Greater Manchester police have been clear that there are many strands to what is a complex and sensitive inquiry and that it may take some time. As the Foreign Secretary has said, we await the details of the investigation, but in the meantime I have instructed our ambassador to deliver a clear message directly to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Beijing about the depth of concern at the apparent actions by consulate general staff. Let me be clear that if the police determine that there are grounds to charge any officials, we would expect the Chinese consulate to waive immunity for those officials. If it does not, diplomatic consequences will follow.

Finally, allow me to reiterate to the House the value that we place on the Hong Kong community in the UK. When the national security law was imposed on Hong Kong in 2020, this Government acted immediately in announcing the scheme for British national overseas status holders and their dependants. Since then, more than 100,000 people and their families have made the decision to move to the UK to live, work and make it their new home. I want to put on the record, here, now, again and officially, a reaffirmation of our unwavering support for them and our commitment to their safety. They are most welcome here. Recognising the interest that this issue has across the House, the Government will seek to update the House on this matter next week.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Mr Speaker, I am grateful to you for granting this urgent question, which follows Tuesday’s urgent question secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns).

It is worth reminding the House of what happened in the Chinese consulate’s grounds on Sunday, where there was an appalling attack on a peaceful protester. We saw appalling videos of Bob Chan being dragged into the consulate’s grounds and seriously abused, and it now appears that the consul general played a part in that physical attack.

Mr Chan is a Hong Kong refugee whom we have welcomed over here. I and others on both sides of the House are working together to help people get out of Hong Kong, and that community now feels very frightened by what the Chinese Government’s representatives are doing in the UK. Mr Chan gave a statement to the media for the first time yesterday. His wife and child were in the room, and it was a very moving statement. He spoke of how badly bruised and damaged he is, and how frightened he is. I thought it was very brave of him, because he now fears being targeted by the Chinese Communist party here in the United Kingdom.

Overnight, we discovered that the consul general has admitted that not only did he take part in the attack but that he was responsible for, in his own words, pulling Mr Chan’s hair and tearing his scalp. That is the consul general, let alone the others who were there.

I have worked with the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China and others in this House to help Hong Kong refugees, and I credit the Government for their work to get those with British national overseas passports over here. I now urge the Government to be much clearer than just using diplomatic language; I urge them to make it clear, in the light of this new evidence, that it is not just unacceptable that any consular individual should have taken part in anything like this, but that any consular individual who is proved to have been a perpetrator of this outrageous and violent attack on Mr Chan will immediately be made persona non grata and sent back to China. The Government have the diplomatic power to dismiss them. Whether or not there are criminal proceedings, the fact is we do not want them here in the UK and they must go.

I urge my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to come to the Dispatch Box and show the resolution that is necessary to send that message to China. He should ignore what other people and officials might say about being careful of tit for tat, get to the Dispatch Box and simply say, “They will leave the United Kingdom. Anyone involved in that attack is not welcome, and the ambassador will be informed of that forthwith.”

[Jesse Norman]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his further remarks. We should be absolutely clear that participating in an assault, if that is what is determined to have happened, is completely outside the expectations of our rule of law. If such a thing had taken place in front of the British consulate in Shanghai—that question was raised in the House only two days ago—we would, of course, refer the matter to the local policing authorities, as we would have expected in this case. I take his point, which he makes very strongly.

My right hon. Friend is also right to insist, as he insisted during Tuesday’s urgent question, that the diplomatic channel and the legal channel are distinct. I have seen the footage he describes, and I think it looks very black and very damning, but we are going through a process and we need to make a factual determination. Once that is done, and if the situation is found to be as we fear—that is to say there has been a criminal offence of some kind—diplomatic consequences will follow.

Chinese Consulate: Attack on Hong Kong Protesters

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. She asked about the treatment of consular officials. Of course, I would wish to be able to give the House details of my personal views on these matters, but the fact of the matter is that we are in a process of law. I would expect that process to be diligently and effectively carried out, but, for reasons that she will understand, I cannot comment on it.

As regards the treatment of Hong Kong visitors and arrivals to this country under the new scheme, my colleagues in the Home Office and the Levelling Up Department have taken great measures to put in place a welcome set of arrangements for them and to manage the processing in an effective and timely way. I am pleased that we have done that because we need to support Hong Kong in all the ways that I am sure she would welcome.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on getting the urgent question. I also congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on pursuing it, quite rightly. I do not understand why the Government could not have put forward a statement today, even if that was to say what they have said today. I am afraid it really does show a little bit the Government dancing away from this in the hope that something else will turn up.

We have spoken to the individual who was hauled in, and I want to mention a couple of points from the statement that he is giving the police. He confirms categorically that the guards at the gate hauled him in, tore his hands and his hair, and beat him. He said that at least four people were kicking him and, for one minute at least, tearing his hair. He said:

“My head, face, arm, body and back are hurt—especially my back. It is very painful.”

He said that he struggles at the moment even to sit down. That is happening on British soil. The Government has now got to step up and answer this simple question, asked earlier by my hon. Friend: has the Secretary of State not just called on the chargé d’affaires but hauled in the ambassador directly to see him? Will the Secretary of State now be prepared to expel the consul-general and any of those found to have been part of that punishment beating and vandalism? All I want is a simple, “Yes. If there is evidence, we will expel them.”

[Jesse Norman]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. I do not think that there is any suggestion of dancing away. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton, in her position as the recently elected Chair, put the question. We respect that, and we worked with the Speaker’s Office and with her to answer it. That is exactly what we are doing now, and rightly so.

As to my right hon. Friend’s question, it is of course a question of law as to what offences were committed on British soil, and it is absolutely right to have a legal procedure that goes through that and examines the question in all its aspects. As to summoning the ambassador, I thank my right hon. Friend for his input. We have already outlined the process of raising the matter formally with the Chinese embassy, and we will see where the legal and prosecutorial procedures may lead. At that point, we will take further action.

Mahsa Amini

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Gillian Keegan]

As I mentioned before, the UK has called for a full and transparent investigation of the murder of Mahsa Amini, and we continue to work with our international partners and others to explore all the options for addressing Iran’s human rights violations. As the hon. Lady knows, we never comment on possible future designations or on our future work, but we will continue to work closely with our international partners.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I think that the Government have somehow got themselves into a position of being conflicted over their stance on Iran. This terrible case—the murder of a young woman—calls into question all the actions of Iran, across a wide spectrum. We talk about the morality police, but it is not the morality police but the Iranian Government who have imposed this desperate situation on Iran. Will the Minister assure us that the Government will pursue full criminal actions against the appalling abuses that are taking place, and take this to the United Nations at once?

[Gillian Keegan]

I understand the request from my right hon. Friend, but at this point we cannot comment on any further actions that we will take. We have clearly condemned the human rights record, we have clearly condemned the murder and we have clearly asked for a full and transparent investigation.

Human Rights Abuses and Corruption: UK Sanctions

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered UK sanctions for human rights abuses and corruption.

The UK’s Magnitsky sanctions regime has, as many of us will accept, provided the UK Government with an important tool for tackling the most egregious cases of human rights violations and corruption committed around the world, but several problems undermining the effectiveness of our Magnitsky sanctions regime still exist. From a standing start, at a low base, in the first year of the regime the UK made good progress and sanctioned 102 perpetrators for human rights violations and corruption. Strangely, that number has fallen to only six perpetrators in the second year.

Let us contrast that with what has happened in the United States of America, which is a good benchmark. To mark international Human Rights Day and International Anti-Corruption Day in December 2021, the US announced sanctions on 108 perpetrators; 16 countries were targeted, including China, Myanmar, Bangladesh, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, South Sudan, Liberia, Iran, Syria and Ukraine. In the same week, the UK Government announced just one human rights designation under the Magnitsky regime and four designations under the Myanmar country regime—no sanctions were issued for corruption. That is surprising, because there is a lot of evidence out there about corruption and somehow we did not seem to get moving on it.

The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has said that it recognises that sanctions are most effective when imposed in concert, yet even as it says that the UK fails to keep pace with its allies, particularly the US, which, again, I come back to as a benchmark. The UK has sanctioned only 20% of the perpetrators sanctioned by the US. That is inexplicable; I have no idea what the US knows that we do not know and why it can act faster and more heavily than we can. We are allowing those sanctioned by the US and other jurisdictions to use the UK as a haven to enjoy much of their ill- gotten gains.

The belated lesson we learned from the international response to the Ukraine crisis shows that such co-ordination is possible, but only if there is sincere determination. That must be reflected in the Government’s effective use of these sanctions. In response to the Ukrainian crisis, the FCDO tripled the size of the sanctions taskforce, but that cannot be just for one country. It is surely vital that the increased organisation does not just focus on Russia; there is an awful lot going on around the world where people are getting away with corruption, brutality and criminality.

That brings us to enforcement. The effectiveness of sanctions is too often undermined by a complete lack of enforcement. Before the invasion of Ukraine, the total value of frozen assets in the UK had not changed significantly since the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation’s first full year of operations, starting at £12.7 billion in 2017-18 and dropping to £12.2 billion in 2020-21. That does not look to me like an awful lot of increased enforcement, although perhaps somebody knows something that we do not. If we look at the money, we see clearly that there was next to nothing happening.

For many parliamentarians, across all parts of the House, oversight of the Government’s use of sanctions has decreased due to amendments made by the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022. I say to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), who is on the Front Bench, that the UK Government must recommit to reporting to Parliament annually on their use of sanctions and their rationale. On 28 June, the Foreign Secretary told the Foreign Affairs Committee that the FCDO is working with the Home Office and Treasury on confiscating frozen Russian assets. No matter the result of the current leadership race, which I will park for the moment, the Government must surely remain committed to this issue. I want to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister exactly how committed they really are.

The UK has sanctioned over 1,000 individuals connected to the Russia regime, with a total global wealth, I am told, in excess of £150 billion, so we cannot miss this opportunity to finance reparations for the victims of Putin’s brutal invasion of Ukraine. During the Westminster Hall debate in December last year, members of the all-party parliamentary group on Magnitsky sanctions named 12 individuals and entities involved in some of the most egregious cases of human rights violations across the world. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and I named them to make sure it was clear and that there can be no excuse for the FCDO to suddenly say that it does not know who they are. We went out of our way to make sure it knew, and we have repeated their names consistently. The media have picked this up and repeated them, too. The names are known and these people are known.

There are a number of other cases where the UK also has to take action. All those involved with the all-party parliamentary group will be making recommendations relating to China, Russia, Iran, Sudan, Nicaragua, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Bangladesh and Nigeria. We will try to list many of them in the time available, without delaying the House any longer than we have to. I want to run through what has happened in China and why we have so signally failed to deal with the perpetrators of the brutality and crackdown in Xinjiang and Hong Kong—after all, we the guarantors of Hong Kong.

Those sanctioned here in the UK over Xinjiang include Zhu Hailun, former secretary of the political and legal affairs committee of the Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous region; Wang Junzheng, deputy secretary of the party committee and previous secretary of the political and legal affairs committee; and Wang Mingshan, secretary of the political and legal affairs committee; Chen Mingguo, vice chairman of the Government of the XUAR and the public security bureau of the Xinjiang production construction core. Many Chinese Government officials known to be directly involved in perpetrating abuses in the Uyghur region remain unsanctioned.

Let me compared that with the US, which sanctioned Chen Quanguo, the key architect of all that has been going in Xinjiang. He is a brutal and ghastly individual who is exercising his power to destroy lives. The US sanctioned the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, a state-owned paramilitary organisation that runs the region’s mass coercive labour transfer programme —slavery—which puts at least 1.6 million Uyghurs at risk of slavery in factories and in other locations. The UK sanctioned the XPCC public security bureau, the subsidiary responsible for running the prison camps, but for some strange and peculiar reason not the corporation as a whole. The US also sanctioned Peng Jiarui and Sun Jinlong, both senior officials in XPCC, and Huo Liujun, the former party secretary for the Xinjiang public security bureau. What is it that the US knows that we do not know?

The EU is also carrying out sanctions at a higher and faster rate than we are. I have four names of people who have been sanctioned by the EU and who remain unsanctioned here, including Zhao Kezhi, Guo Shengkun and Hu Lianhe. They are all sanctioned by the EU, but not by us.

On Hong Kong, we are a guarantor of one country, two systems, a signed international treaty, so we have a unique responsibility. The perpetrators of the crackdown in Hong Kong have arrested peaceful democracy campaigners and others, including even a cardinal, even for opening their mouths and saying anything against the regime. That is a brutal concept that we in this place are meant to stand against. We have still done very little compared to the US. I will leave it to the hon. Member for Rhondda to name them specifically, if he will.

With regard to Hong Kong, 11 people in the Administration have been sanctioned by the US Administration, not one of whom has been sanctioned by the UK Government. What is going on? I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that there is no dodging this. The reality is that we are not doing what we are supposed to do. The UK should sanction these officials because they have undermined the rule of law, dismantled Hong Kong’s democracy, cracked down on a free press—a thing we take for granted that is no longer in existence in Hong Kong—and allowed police brutality against protesters. In fact, I discovered quite recently that UK Government money had been going to a British company helping to train the Chinese police force in different methods. I now gather—my hon. Friend might confirm this—that that financing has stopped, but it should not have taken some of us to call for it to be checked and stopped for that to happen.

I want to touch on two other areas, Sudan and Nicaragua, because this is not just about China and Russia. There is more to come, as I say, with names on China. In Sudan, as has been highlighted before, the US has taken action against the Central Reserve police, who are responsible for the use of excessive and lethal force against protesters. The UK is yet to take action. The Foreign Secretary is committed to looking into this, and I welcome that, but that commitment must yield the force of the UK’s sanctions regime.

In Nicaragua, there have long been allegations against the Ortega regime for its use of torture against political opponents. I want to draw attention to one particular individual in this context—Sadrach Zeledón Rocha, mayor of the city of Matagalpa, who was sanctioned by the US for his involvement in violence inflicted against peaceful protesters. We also understand that the FCDO has received detailed evidence of his involvement in the physical torture of and sexual violence against political prisoners.

I say this to my hon. Friend the Minister: we should be a beacon of freedom, decency and anti-corruption in the world. People should look to the UK as the country that sits on a hill and shines its light of freedom everywhere, into every nook and cranny of the dirty, foul dealings of people who use their money and influence, often here in the UK. I ask him to commit the UK Government, at a minimum, to immediately doing all the sanctioning that the US Government have done. They have the evidence and we have the ability to do it. I simply ask that at the end of this debate he says, “Yes, we haven’t done enough, but now we are going to do all of it immediately.” If he can say that, then he will certainly please us, and he will send hope of freedom to many around the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I start by thanking Redress, which has been hugely influential and important. Without its data, we would not have been able to have this debate today.

My hon. Friend the Minister must not take this personally, but this is not good enough—I am sorry. He set out a very laudable list of people and countries, but the fact remains that we have sanctioned only 20% of what the US has sanctioned. There is no answer yet as to why the US knows more than we do, and why we have not asked it for what it knows that we do not know. As we go into recess, the Government now have a few weeks to get this sorted out and to come back with a list of all the people they will sanction just to get us level with the US. I would like to see us sanction more, but there we are.

I draw the House’s attention to the reality in Xinjiang, where the Uyghurs are being decimated. It is the crime of all crimes: genocide. How have we not sanctioned the architects of this brutal, foul crime? Will my hon. Friend please go back to his office and say, “Get the names of those the Americans have sanctioned, and let us now sanction them immediately.”

We should stand for freedom, human rights and the rule of law, which are features of what we do here. If we cannot spell out to the world that we will not allow these acts of brutality and corruption to take place anywhere in the world, and even in London, we are not worth that title. I believe we are, so can we please come back in September and sanction everyone we can?

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered UK sanctions for human rights abuses and corruption.

Hong Kong Anniversaries

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the anniversaries of the handover of Hong Kong and the implementation of the National Security Law.

It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Efford. I shall try to keep my remarks brief, but as a politician you know what that means.

Today’s debate is very important. It is important because we need to recall the plight of those in Hong Kong who were guaranteed under a treaty that their system would pay attention to the nature of how they had been previously governed under the UK, that their freedoms, to a greater or lesser extent, would be respected, and that there would be proper free and fair elections, yet that treaty, having been signed—fully agreed by both parties, China and the UK—has completely broken down.

A little background here is important. On 1 July 1997, Hong Kong was handed over to China by the UK, under the conditions set out in the 1984 Sino-British joint declaration. The joint declaration provides for fundamental rights, a high degree of autonomy, and one country, two systems in Hong Kong. The People’s Republic of China has stated since 2014, however, that the treaty has no further legal effect, while the document remains binding, in essence, in operation. The UK Government have declared the PRC as being

“in a state of ongoing non-compliance with the…Joint Declaration”.

As co-signatory to the treaty, the UK absolutely has the legal and moral responsibility to act in defence of a treaty that it signed and which was agreed.

The UK Government have declared there to be an ongoing breach of the Sino-British declaration, but we have not done much—we have not done enough—to hold China and the Chinese to account. I welcome some issues being resolved, such as the British national overseas passports scheme, which has opened a pathway for more than 100,000 Hongkongers to move to the UK and is a generous offer, but that is ultimately a humanitarian operation, not an accountability mechanism.

I welcome also the Government’s move to extend the BNO scheme to those born after 1 July 1997, following a campaign involving many who are here today. That means that many young pro-democracy activists will be eligible for the scheme. Many others around the Commonwealth—I think of Australia and a number of others—have opened their doors to those people should they wish to stay much closer to Hong Kong.

From 1 July 2020 to 28 March 2022, 183 individuals were arrested for alleged national security crimes. I have here a list of all those people. I am not going to read out all their names, but I might selectively look at a few, particularly Jimmy Lai and others, who have been appallingly treated.

Most of the arrests were related to the national security law, but some were for other crimes, such as so-called sedition. More than 50 civil society groups have been disbanded, and in June 2021 police arrested five senior executives from Apple Daily for alleged collusion with foreign forces. The media outlet, which was fair and free, was forced to close the same week. Prosecutors later affirmed that the arrests stemmed in part from apparent editorials published in Apple Daily calling on western countries to impose sanctions on Hong Kong officials.

In December 2021, the Hong Kong authorities arrested editorial staff of Stand News, citing conspiracy to publish seditious materials under the Crimes Ordinance. On the day of the arrests, Stand News announced its immediate closure. Prominent figures such as Jimmy Lai and Joshua Wong were arrested and charged under the national security law.

Arbitrary detention has taken place. Through the denial of bail in the vast majority of the related cases, the Hong Kong Government have created a system of de facto long-term detention without trial. On 28 February 2021, the authorities charged 47 politicians and activists over their role in organising a primary election in advance of Legislative Council elections in July 2020. Almost a year and a half later, most of those charged individuals remain in jail awaiting trial.

The truth is that the UK has a treaty responsibility to hold accountable those in power who are the perpetrators. That includes our own citizens who have aided and abetted the crackdown in Hong Kong. I am thinking in particular of senior British police officers who oversaw the use of indiscriminate tear gassing of peaceful pro-democracy protesters, and the same individuals who were in charge of detention facilities where violence and, we believe, even torture have been carried out against young Hongkongers. Think about that: British citizens involved in such levels of abuse.

Organisations campaigning on this issue have compiled an incredible dossier on the actions of the Hong Kong Government and the many abuses that have taken place. Once that dossier is complete, colleagues and I intend to submit it directly to the Government, with recommendations for further actions to be taken against those responsible. I expect that we will receive a very clear answer.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he share my concern that, unless the Government are forthright in showing how they will protect press freedom, all the content we have will disappear even further? We owe thanks to Hong Kong Watch and the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China for gathering that information. It is incredibly dangerous for people to speak the truth, in or outside Hong Kong, for fear of arrest and abuse.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our thanks go out to Hong Kong Watch, the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China and other groups that have facilitated this debate. My hon. Friend is sanctioned by the Chinese Government, as I am, for our concerns over the Uyghurs and the abuses in Xinjiang, and because of our complaints about what has happened in Hong Kong. She is right to raise the point that the Government need to do much more, which I want to come to in a minute.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making an excellent point about the individuals involved. Does he agree that HSBC, headquartered in London, is a business that regularly breaks the law? It is the money-laundering choice for a number of illegal operations and has been fined three times. HSBC is not only involved in Xinjiang, but in Hong Kong it has frozen the accounts of individual protesters—people who were trying to restore democracy in Hong Kong. Does he agree that the Government could do more to influence or control that dreadful bank?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because that is correct. I had clashes with HSBC when it froze the accounts of those who had fled Hong Kong under the Government schemes. The same applies to Standard Chartered. HSBC’s answer was that it has to obey the law. My answer to the bank is, “You are headquartered in London. You take advantage of the freedoms in London, yet you behave like a brutal part of the Government in Hong Kong in obeying their every whim. You cannot ride both horses.” Those who take advantage of our common law purpose and the rights that exist in London need also to obey the norms of how those things came about and how they are operated. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The abuses of those banks are shocking and the Government should pay attention. I was going to raise that appalling situation, but now he has done.

On other issues, I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s support for the withdrawal, finally, of serving UK judges from the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal. I was surprised that we had to campaign for that at all, and that judges, whose responsibility in the UK is to arbitrate fairly in disputes in a democratic country under the rule of law, should so position themselves in Hong Kong while arbitrary detention was taking place, and carry on earning a living while serving in the UK. I am enormously pleased that that has now come to an end.

The President of the Supreme Court, Lord Reed, has agreed that High Court judges will no longer act in Hong Kong, but retired judges continue to do so. He said:

“the judges of the Supreme Court cannot continue to sit in Hong Kong without appearing to endorse an administration which has departed from values of political freedom, and freedom of expression”.

We obviously welcomed that decision, even though it was overdue, but I would have thought that retired judges were bound by much the same principle. If the Supreme Court has reached the opinion that its judges can no longer appear to act with an Administration who have departed from the values of political freedom and freedom of expression, how is it that retired judges, who are meant to be bound by the same principles, can in all honestly look themselves in the mirror and say, “That’s all right, but we are different”? I appeal to them today, for the sake of all those who are being traduced, arrested, tortured and dealt brutally with: it is time for us to show the world that the legitimacy of the legal system in Hong Kong is no longer. I understand that they have defended their decision, and I am not going to go through the details, but we must now call time on it.

What should the UK be doing? This is important: we should implement individual sanctions against Hong Kong officials who are responsible for the crackdown on civil liberties in Hong Kong. The UK is yet to impose sanctions on any Hong Kong official, which is astonishing given the fact that we had a joint requirement to see fairness. We see it trashed, yet we have done nothing about those who are clearly and obviously guilty. Here is the irony: the USA has done exactly that, and it did not have the same responsibilities that the UK Government had. The outgoing Chief Executive, Carrie Lam—sanctioned. The incoming Chief Executive, John Lee—sanctioned. Seven officials of the Hong Kong special administrative regions—sanctioned. That is Teresa Cheng Yeuk-wah, Xia Baolong, Zhang Xiaoming, Luo Huining, Zheng Yanxiong, Chris Tang Ping-keung and Stephen Lo Wai-chung—they have all been sanctioned by the US Administration. I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister: why have we not done the same? Should we not be leading the USA and others, rather than be following them? Bold action and a bold answer are required.

The Government should conduct an audit of assets belonging to Chinese and Hong Kong officials held in the UK. A recent Hong Kong Watch report states that 11 Hong Kong officials and legislators own property in the UK. We have already established over time, and particularly since the Russians invaded Ukraine, the level of abuse that has taken place in the UK property market. We are now at last bearing down on that, and sanctions are moving, yet for Hong Kong, where people have been abusing the system for some time, we have still not carried out the audit that has been requested.

The Government should further scrutinise and limit the export of surveillance technology to Hong Kong. Following the outbreak of protests in 2019, I welcomed the announcement that the British Parliament would stop issuing export licences for crowd-control equipment to Hong Kong and announced the extension of the arms embargo on Hong Kong. However, technology that can be used for surveillance, such as facial recognition, closed circuit camera systems and technologies fuelled by the mass collection of personal data, can still be exported if they do not fall under the scope of existing legislation. That needs to be shut down immediately.

We must introduce “know your customer” and due diligence requirements for entities that produce surveillance technology. I understand that a local branch of the UK company Chubb has been providing surveillance products and services to detention facilities in Hong Kong that have been involved in the inhuman treatment of detainees. The reality is that it is in our power to act, and I do not understand why we are so resistant. Surely it is the decent thing to do.

[Ms Ghani]

My right hon. Friend is making an incredibly important point. Would he, like me, like to hear from the Minister about why we have not responded to the biometrics and surveillance camera commissioner, who has raised concerns about contracts not only here but in Hong Kong and mainland China, in particular about the contracts with Hikvision, which we know is involved and complicit in the abuse of Hongkongers and Uyghurs?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am grateful for that intervention because I was coming to that, and my hon. Friend is right to prompt me. The commissioner has made it very clear that Hikvision is a security risk. It is used for abuse not just in Hong Kong but in the wider region, for the detention, genocide and slave labour of the Uyghurs, and there are plans and applications for Tibetans, Christians and others. We have highlighted endlessly with the Government how Hikvision cameras are being implemented in many prisons and detention facilities around China, particularly in Hong Kong, so why in heaven’s name are Government Departments still using it?

I have here a list of my parliamentary questions to each Department about how many cameras each of them holds and whether they will get rid of them. Of all the Government Departments, two have responded openly. One is the Department of Health and Social Care, which says it will eradicate them, and the second is the Department for Work and Pensions, which responded in a similar way. Every other Department has fallen back on the same phrase, saying that they do not respond to matters that are security risks. Well, the only security risk is the Departments themselves and it is high time they responded. Today I am FOI-ing every single one of those Departments. They need to respond immediately to say what they are doing and why they have not done it yet.

I also want the Government to implement “know your customer” and due diligence requirements on entities that facilitate the violation of human rights. Joint ventures with Chinese entities that develop surveillance technology should stop. There are at least 18 research partnerships with Huawei and CloudWalk in the UK. Let us for a second touch on Huawei, a company involved in the surveillance of the Uyghurs in the Xinjiang arena. It has partnered with a number of UK academic institutions, including King’s College London, the University of Cambridge, Barking & Dagenham College, University College London, Queen Mary University, the University of London and the University of Edinburgh. I understand there are more, but I will not detain the House much longer on that.

Huawei was banned from our telecommunications systems because it was deemed a security risk, yet it has its headquarters in Cambridge, where it is busy funding all sorts of programmes, many of which have security links. Honestly—what other country in the world would allow that to happen? Good gracious me! Bits of Government need to start talking to each other and asking a simple question: why is Huawei still here if it is a security risk? What is it doing subverting our universities? I am deeply concerned about all the levels of security equipment—I have talked about Hikvision and others—that are busily working away not in the interests of the UK, and there are plenty more.

The UK Government now have to act. There is so much more that they could and should do. They should lead the rest of the world and not follow the actions of those who abuse human rights. They have a treaty obligation to uphold. I call on the Government today, as we commemorate the disaster that is taking place in Hong Kong now, to be bold and brave and to take action. That is what we owe those decent people that have put their trust in us. Sadly, it appears we have failed them.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Asia and the Middle East (Amanda Milling)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this timely debate and thank him for all the work he does to highlight the erosion of rights and freedoms in Hong Kong. I am grateful to all Members for their contributions, and I hope I will be able to address some of their questions.

The 25th anniversary of the handover of Hong Kong is a really important moment of reflection. On 30 June, 25 years ago, the UK and China both implemented their agreement to transfer sovereignty of Hong Kong peacefully. In that agreement—the Sino-British joint declaration—China promised to preserve Hong Kong’s distinct “social and economic systems” and “high degree of autonomy”, and the “rights and freedoms” of its people, for at least 50 years. Those included freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly. I will come on to talk about those.

For more than two decades following the handover, those rights and freedoms were broadly upheld, underpinning Hong Kong’s prosperity and way of life. Over the past three years, things have changed. China has disregarded its commitments under the joint declaration and Basic Law, and taken deliberate actions that undermine the rights and freedoms that it promised to uphold. The UK is clear that China remains in an ongoing state of non-compliance with the joint declaration.

Tomorrow is not only the 25th anniversary of the handover. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green said, it also marks two years since the imposition of the national security law on Hong Kong by Beijing. The national security law was imposed in 2020, following mass protests in Hong Kong. Those protests were in response to proposed extradition legislation, which was a move by Beijing to exert increasing control and erode promised rights and freedoms.

The national security law is sweeping in its nature and is a serious breach of the joint declaration. It has been used by the Hong Kong authorities, under the direction of Beijing, to stifle opposition and criminalise dissent. The crackdown that accompanied the national security law and its pervasive, chilling effect has meant that alternative voices in Hong Kong’s executive, legislature, civil society and media have been all but extinguished. Independent NGOs, trade unions and human rights organisations that have not been supportive of the Government’s agenda have been forced to disband or leave. Direct and unwarranted action against independent media outlets has continued to erode Hong Kong’s free press, as we have been hearing.

Most of the legislators who represented Hong Kong’s pro-democracy opposition have been detained or have chosen to leave Hong Kong. With Beijing assuming almost complete control of Hong Kong’s law-making process, the judiciary is now being required to enforce Beijing’s laws and the values they contain. It was against this backdrop that the President of the Supreme Court, in consultation with the Foreign Secretary and the Deputy Prime Minister, decided that it was no longer tenable for serving UK judges to sit on the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal. I have been asked by Members from across the House about the non-permanent judges who remain in the court of final appeal who are retired from judicial service. It is down to them to make their own personal decisions on their continued service in Hong Kong.

In terms of arrests—

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

My right hon. Friend just touched on the retired judges and then moved on. What is the Government’s opinion on the continued service in Hong Kong of those who are not serving judges here? Do the Government think they ought to step aside, or do they have no opinion on the matter?

[Amanda Milling]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention. As I have said, the decision of the President of the Supreme Court in relation to the serving judges was that it was no longer tenable. As for those retired judges, it is for them to make their own personal decisions as to whether they feel they can continue to serve.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

rose—

[Amanda Milling]

As I say, I think it is a decision for them; but for serving judges, the decision has been made that it is not tenable.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

All I am asking for is a view. I know that the Government cannot direct them, but it is important that Government have a view. The Government had a view about existing judges. Surely the same view must exist in this case, because the same principles are at risk. If that is the case, I urge my right hon. Friend to say when she gets back up: “We think that they ought not to serve, but it is their decision.” Could she possibly stretch herself to that?

[Amanda Milling]

I think, by virtue of the fact that the Government supported the decision that it was untenable for serving judges, that that is a clear position from the Government; but it is down to the retired judges to make their own decisions.

Individuals such as Jimmy Lai, Andy Li and Cardinal Zen have been arrested and are facing prosecution. We have spoken out against these arbitrary arrests and raised our concerns with the Hong Kong Government and Beijing authorities, and we will continue to do so.

Many colleagues have raised issues relating to media freedoms. Freedom of the press is explicitly guaranteed in the Sino-British joint declaration and the Hong Kong Basic Law, and is supposedly protected under article 4 of the national security law. We always defend media freedom and the right of journalists to do their job. As the House knows, the UK responded rapidly and decisively to the imposition of the national security law.

Within 20 days, we extended our arms embargo on mainland China to Hong Kong and indefinitely suspended our extradition treaty with it. We also launched the bespoke BNO immigration route, which many Members referred to, to enable British nationals to come to the UK. That reflects our historical and moral commitment to the people of Hong Kong who chose to retain their ties to the UK by taking BNO status at the point of handover in 1997.

I am very pleased to see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in his place—a Westminster Hall debate would not be quite the same if he were not present—and I will address his specific questions about numbers. Since the launch of the route, the UK Government have approved more than 110,000 applications from BNO passport holders to live in the UK. As of 31 March 2022, there have been 123,400 applications, and 113,742 have been granted. We have helped those who have moved here to integrate fully and feel safe in their communities, including by providing about £43 million of support through the welcome programme.

The hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) and others touched on international engagement. The UK has spearheaded international efforts to call out China’s systematic undermining of Hong Kong’s rights, freedoms and autonomy, and to raise wider human rights concerns. Yesterday’s G7 leaders’ communiqué called on China to honour its commitments made in the joint declaration and the Basic Law, which enshrine rights, freedoms and a high degree of autonomy for Hong Kong. That follows the selection of the new Hong Kong Chief Executive in May. Alongside G7 partners, we called on China to act in accordance with the joint declaration and other legal obligations. A global diplomatic effort by the UK helped to secure the support of 47 countries for a further critical joint statement on Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Tibet at the UN Human Rights Council. The Chinese and Hong Kong authorities can be in no doubt about the seriousness of our concerns and those of the international community.

Nearly everyone, if not all Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, mentioned sanctions. I noted the report issued by Hong Kong Watch in April, and I recognise the strength of feeling in this House about Hong Kong. Some Members believe that we should impose sanctions on those involved in the erosion of rights and freedoms in the city. The Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020, introduced by this Government, enable us to sanction individuals responsible for serious human rights violations, although it is not appropriate for me to speculate on who may be designated under the sanctions regime, as that could reduce the impact of the designations. I assure the House that we keep all potential designations under close review, and we are guided by the evidence and the objectives of our sanctions regime.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am grateful to the Minister for addressing that part of the debate. What does she believe the United States knows, and we do not, about the individuals it has sanctioned? Why is it that, as a co-guarantor of the treaty, we have not sanctioned a single person responsible for these abuses? Will she answer those two questions, even if she is not prepared to say whether we will sanction anybody?

[Amanda Milling]

I am aware of the US sanctions, and I assure the House that we keep the sanctions, the evidence and potential listings under review. I cannot speculate here today on future sanctions and designations, because that would reduce their impact.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

The reason for the debate was to commemorate the process and the destruction that has taken place since the original signing of the joint declaration, which, as the Minister has said, comes from our cultural, historic ties and our requirement to strengthen those ties. My problem today is that some of the questions have simply not been answered. What is the issue around Hikvision and Departments? Why are we still engaged with a company that has been declared a security risk? Why will we not get rid of these things? What is happening over Huawei? It is distorting universities by its constant presence and money—it is not alone in that. What about the selling of British-owned, strategic security companies to Chinese companies? Very little is being done about that.

Those are all background issues. The main issue, which simply cannot be answered, is that we are dealing with a Chinese Government that have invaded the South China sea, killed Indian soldiers on their border, and are carrying out a declared genocide in Xinjiang. They use forced labour; they have sold products to the world—which we have bought—made by slave labour. They are persecuting Christians and, as I now understand it, Inner Mongolians. They distort the global trading system, and they are guilty of enormous, as yet unprosecuted, human rights abuses.

That Government is responsible for Hong Kong. In what world would we think that our current complaints carry any weight whatsoever? The persecutions and arrests in Hong Kong of peaceful democracy campaigners are an abomination. However, my Government need to do much more. I simply cannot understand why America can sanction the people who are trashing the agreement, and my Government talk of keeping it under review. Sophistry is what we have got, and it is simply unacceptable. I am sorry that I should be saying this, but the Foreign Office’s failure to act is a damnation of its capability. Time and again we tiptoe around those issues instead of confronting them

Today was an opportunity for my Government to say, “Enough is enough. We are now going to sanction them.” There are people who own property here. We had to drag the Government kicking and screaming to start sanctioning over Ukraine—now we have to do it over Hong Kong. Let us stand up for freedom, democracy, the rule of law and human rights. Let us not spend our time worrying about whether we will get a trade contract from a country that is abusive and disgraceful. I did not hear enough today on that; I press the Government to act—and act soon.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the anniversaries of the handover of Hong Kong and the implementation of the National Security Law.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 27th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. and learned Lady knows that there is not a serious Queen’s Counsel in the country who would support the use of the doctrine of necessity in the way in which the Government have sought to use it, and I think that Conservative Members do as well.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

If I heard him aright, the right hon. Gentleman indicated earlier that the Government should have used article 16. He said, “They have not yet used article 16”, indicating that they should use it before going down this road. It was, however, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), who I think is the shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, who said that triggering article 16 would “prolong and deepen” uncertainty in Northern Ireland and pose another huge risk to stability there. Does this now mean that the Government should have triggered article 16, or that they should not—or maybe that there is a disagreement, or maybe that it will not be decided until after the passage of the Bill?

[Mr Lammy]

I think that the right hon. Gentleman is putting words in my mouth. Article 16 arises in relation to the defence that the Government suggest: the doctrine of necessity—that is, they have not used it and the point of using it is that, at the very least, it would be legal.

“Pacta sunt servanda”. Agreements must be kept. This is the essence of international law: the solemn promise of states acting in good faith and upholding their commitments to treaties that they have agreed. How would we react if a country we had renegotiated with did the same thing and simply disregarded the commitments we had mutually agreed on? I do not doubt that, if an authoritarian state used necessity to justify its actions in breaking a treaty in the manner the Government are proposing to do through this Bill, the Foreign Secretary and many of us across this House would condemn it.

Since the right hon. Lady became Foreign Secretary, the Foreign Office has issued countless statements and press releases urging others to meet their international obligations. They include Iran under the joint comprehensive plan of action; China under the joint declaration of Hong Kong; and Russia under the Budapest memorandum. In just the last fortnight, the Foreign Office under her leadership has publicly called on Bolivia, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Nicaragua, South Sudan, Eritrea and Ethiopia to meet their international obligations. Hypocrisy is corrosive to our foreign policy and I know that Members from across the House share these concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I am grateful to be called so early.

May I start by saying to the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) that I agree with all that stuff about the trade issues? They have been on the table for ages. I will just go over one small point. During the breakdown in negotiations when my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) was Prime Minister, I happened to take a delegation, including Lord Trimble, to see the then chief negotiator. I put to him the fact that the whole issue around trade across the border was easily settled, as long as we were able to trust each other on things like phytosanitary foods and veterinary checks, which the EU does with New Zealand. He completely agreed and said it would be possible, but then it came to another agreement and we have plunged ever since.

It is wholly feasible not to have these ludicrous checks and ludicrous requirements for customs codes to be banged across to the EU, or for the Court of Justice to sit to rule over what is going on in Northern Ireland. It would have been agreed then, under a thing called mutual enforcement, where both sides take complete responsibility for the enforcement of transgressions in the other’s area when it comes to Northern Ireland. That would have solved that problem straight.

Here is the problem: the EU has point blank refused to negotiate that. Here is the point about the protocol. I am not saying that the protocol should go completely. I am saying it should be changed—that is the whole point. When I read it before we originally voted on it, I read clearly what its main purpose was. Article 1, paragraphs (1) and (3) make it clear that the primacy in all this is the Good Friday/Belfast agreement. Upholding that is critical—of course it is.

I served in Northern Ireland. I never want anyone I know to go back to a thing like that again. I lost people in Northern Ireland. It is part of me as much as it is of those who live there. We do not want to go back there. Therefore, the Good Friday agreement must be prime; by the way, it is an international agreement. So we have a problem. We are talking about breaking international agreements, but we have a clash between international agreements. Which one is prime? Paragraphs (1) and (3) of article 1 make it clear that maintenance of the balance in the Good Friday/Belfast agreement is prime. If that is the case, I do not believe—I accept I am not a lawyer; I say to the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, who is on the Front Bench, that that is a badge of pride for me, although I am sure that others would argue differently—[Interruption.] Of course. I always hear him argue and I love it. I have read the text of this. I do not believe this legitimately will break international law. There is a good reason. If the Good Friday/Belfast agreement is so prime in the protocol, it was agreed from the word go that what affected that badly would make this thing fall.

The rest of the protocol is important. The protocol was never seen as permanent. First, it was negotiated under article 50, which means that it cannot be permanent of its own right. Secondly, article 13(8) of the protocol makes it clear that it can be changed in whole or in part. So what is the problem? It is not working—change it. It could have been changed ages ago. In fact, last year, I asked for article 16 to be triggered simply so we could start that process immediately.

The point that I want to make is that the Good Friday/Belfast agreement is critical. It is about safeguarding that first, and then there is no hard border, the EU single market and the UK’s territorial integrity. The last one has clearly been badly damaged and we cannot have that reign any further. Northern Ireland is clearly an important part of the United Kingdom, so it must be treated as an important part of the UK, as much as my constituency is. That is critical. Actually, the protocol specifies that that is one of the priorities. So here we go again: why would the EU not change the mandate? It set a narrow mandate that said that it would deal only with issues that affected the running of the protocol. It did not allow its negotiator to have a mandate that would change article 13(8) of the protocol in whole or in part. We are here today with this because we are only going to be able to force this to happen through this Bill.

There are those who say, “Negotiate, negotiate, negotiate.” Negotiation is not an end in itself. It has a purpose. At some point, you have to leave the room because it no longer works and, until the other side makes a change, you cannot simply go back. That is the real problem that we face. The only time the EU will sit up and look at this is when it realises that the British Government are determined to make this change come hell or high water. If the EU will not agree to the necessity for this, we will have to make it.

I believe that the Government are acting reluctantly. I have listened carefully to what the ex-Justice Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), has said about the efficacy of this in international law. He will speak shortly and we will want to hear what he has to say.

Quite simply, the most important thing is that the EU—including, I might say, Ireland—wakes up to what the challenge really is. The process at the border was wrongly and damagingly weaponised during the negotiations. We got locked down in the original negotiations and ended in this position because it was seen as a stick to beat the dog. The dog was Brexit Britain, and the EU was going to use it no matter what to ensure that it could not be clean. It is time to recognise that that has to stop. So I support the Bill tonight not on technicalities, but on the reality as it has turned out.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

I am surprised to see the right hon. Gentleman wanting to interfere further on “Brexit means Brexit.” Is he not the one who told the House in October 2019 that this matter had been

“debated and thrashed to death”

and said that if anything else needed debating about it, he

“would love to know what it is”?—[Official Report, 22 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 853.]

When was the epiphany?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I read the protocol—that is why. I do not know whether the hon. Member did. In the protocol, it is clear that if it does not work, it will be changed

“in whole or in part.”

He should have read it, and he would have understood. The whole point is that we can change it. The protocol has always been clear: the seeds for its own major change are in it. [Interruption.] I made no resolution on it. I was absolutely right to do so, and I would repeat that. [Interruption.] Whether he wants to hear what I have to say is another matter altogether. He had his moment in the sun and he lost, so I will move on.

I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that we are here out of necessity because of how the EU has behaved, and, I must say, because of how the Irish Government have behaved. Some people, such as the Irish Taoiseach, have been good—he has been much more reasonable—but quite recently the Irish Foreign Secretary celebrated the diversion of trade that was taking place. That contravenes article 16 and makes it clear that the protocol has to be changed. I read the treaty, but I do not think that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) did.

I do not believe that the Bill breaks international law. It is a clash of international treaties, and the most important international treaty is the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. Maintenance of that is critical. I want to see the DUP back in power sharing. I understood the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) to say that he would head in that direction and get back into power sharing once the Bill was through the Commons. I hope so, and I will hold him to that. Let us get the Bill done as quickly as possible, because only then will the EU realise that we mean business.

Xinjiang Internment Camps: Shoot-to-Kill Policy

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Milling]

Let us be really clear: genocide is a crime and, like other crimes, whether it has occurred should be decided after consideration of all the evidence available in the context of a credible judicial process. I am aware that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary met parliamentarians sanctioned by China, and the fact that that meeting took place demonstrates how seriously we take the issue.

On future policy, as I set out in my statement, we will continue to develop our domestic policy response, including introducing further measures to tackle forced labour and UK supply chains. On technology, we have a long-standing policy of not commenting about the detail of those arrangements. Finally, on sanctions, we have acted to hold to account senior officials and organisations responsible for egregious human rights violations taking place in Xinjiang. We keep all evidence and potential listings under close review, but it would not be appropriate to speculate about who may be designated in the future.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) on gaining the urgent question and you, Mr Speaker, on having the foresight to grant it. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that in essence this is really not good enough. We have been going on about this for some time. The Government still cannot decide whether there is genocide—we, alone among all the developed nations, are stuck on a ludicrous definition—and it is high time that they did. Is she aware that Alena Douhan, a UN human rights monitor, was in receipt of $200,000 from China in 2021? That was unheard of in the past. Meanwhile, a UN high representative is going to China. What faith can we have that the UN will not be used as apologists for China? It is time we called that out and said, “Enough is enough. Unless you get direct access, we will not listen to a single word you say. China is guilty of genocide”?

[Amanda Milling]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. I reiterate that the Foreign Secretary made it clear that the latest reports provide shocking details. She also made it clear in her statement this morning that it is essential that the Chinese authorities grant unfettered access for the high commissioner’s visit. If such access is not forthcoming, all that will do is serve to highlight China’s attempts to hide the truth of its actions in Xinjiang.

Northern Ireland Protocol

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

What we are proposing for Northern Ireland is a dual regulatory system that encompasses either EU or UK regulation as those businesses choose, which reflects its unique status of having a close relationship with the EU while being part of the UK single market.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. The powerful article by Lord Trimble, one of the architects of the Good Friday agreement, makes it very clear that the maintenance of that agreement overcomes everything else. To that extent, it would be helpful if Opposition Members who bang on about this read the protocol. Article 13.8 makes it absolutely clear that the protocol can, through negotiation, be changed in whole or in part. The point, therefore, is that my right hon. Friend is quite correct. The EU now needs to step up to its responsibilities in the protocol and do what article 13.8 tells it to do.

[Elizabeth Truss]

My right hon. Friend is right. The protocol was never designed to be set in stone. What we have seen are the very real consequences of the protocol, which has not yet been fully implemented, on the ground in Northern Ireland. It has caused political instability and an imbalance in the relationship between the communities in Northern Ireland, and we need to fix that. My strong preference is for the EU to secure a change in its mandate so we can find a negotiated settlement. I completely agree with Commissioner Šefčovič that there is a landing zone to be had, but we need to see flexibility so we can really make sure that there is a proper green channel operating into Northern Ireland, that the people of Northern Ireland benefit from the same tax benefits as the people of Great Britain, and that we can fix those problems in a sustainable way.