European Convention on Human Rights: 75th Anniversary

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

To move that this House takes note of the 75th anniversary of the European Convention on Human Rights.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, as we mark the 75th anniversary of the European Convention on Human Rights, I thank my noble friends on the Cross Benches for selecting the Motion and express my gratitude to the many distinguished Members from all parts of your Lordships’ House who are participating in this debate. I also thank the Library and the many organisations which have sent briefing material, from the Law Society to the International Bar Association to Policy Exchange.

The Danish philosopher and theologian Søren Kierkegaard said:

“Life must be understood backwards; but … it must be lived forwards”.


Following Kierkegaard’s advice, I will begin by looking back and recalling the convention’s genesis and achievements, and then I will say something about its future.

In 2013, I opened another Cross-Bench debate marking the 65th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, recalling that it grew out of the egregious disregard and contempt for human rights that had resulted in barbarous acts and outraged the conscience of mankind. Eleanor Roosevelt, a key figure in crafting the 1948 universal declaration, described it as a “Magna Carta for all” people. It helped to inspire the European convention; both are foundation stones intended to be for all people and not available for selective enforcement according to culture, tradition or convenience. They should be seen as much as a declaration of human dignity as a declaration of human rights.

In the aftermath of the two world wars, which both began in Europe and which claimed the lives of some 77 million people—and in the same continent where another war rages today—a formidable array of political leaders showed extraordinary zeal and exemplary commitment in creating architecture to uphold the rule of law. Intrinsic to that were international covenants, many of which focused on human rights. In 1946, those barbarous acts which had outraged the conscience of the world prompted Winston Churchill to set out the case for a new international order based on the rule of law and human rights. Outraged consciences led to practical actions.

Lawyers such as Raphael Lemkin, 49 of whose relatives were murdered in the Holocaust, bequeathed the 1948 genocide convention, while Sir Hersch Lauterpacht developed the legal concept of crimes against humanity. At Nuremberg, Lauterpacht helped draft the speech of the British prosecutor Hartley Shawcross—the Labour Member of Parliament for St Helens and later Lord Shawcross—who in turn collaborated with Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, the Conservative Member of Parliament for Liverpool West Derby and later the first Earl of Kilmuir—in the prosecution of Nazi war crimes after World War II. He played a significant role too in drafting the European Convention on Human Rights.

The agenda had been set in Missouri, by Winston Churchill in March 1946, where, flanked by President Truman, he famously remarked that an iron curtain had descended across Europe. He insisted:

“We must never cease to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man”.


Two years later, speaking in The Hague, he presided at a grand congress of 800 delegates and said:

“In the centre of our movement stands the idea of a Charter of Human Rights, guarded by freedom and sustained by law”.


The congress issued a message to Europeans calling for a charter of human rights and

“a Court of Justice with adequate sanctions for the implementation of this Charter”,

leading, in 1950, to 15 European nations signing the convention, with Britain the first to ratify it in 1951.

The text was crafted largely by a team of Oxford and Cambridge professors headed by Maxwell Fyfe. Other British politicians involved in the drafting of the ECHR included Harold Macmillan, Samuel Hoare and Ernest Bevin. The signatories described their convention as a mechanism for

“enforcement of certain of the rights stated in the Universal Declaration”.

Churchill wanted

“moral concepts … able to win the respect and recognition of mankind”,

urging lawmakers:

“Let there be justice, mercy, and freedom”.


Churchill envisaged a Strasbourg court before which violations

“in our own body of … nations might be brought to the judgment of the civilised world”.

In a ringing endorsement, the Daily Telegraph said the convention was

“the turning point when the free peoples of Europe rejected enslavement in the communist system and defeated all attempts to poison and destroy their democratic traditions from within”.

The Times described it as

“a crucial step towards safeguarding fundamental freedoms and promoting a common European heritage of justice and the rule of law”.

The convention has created a common legal space for over 700 million citizens, prohibiting, among other things, torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, slavery and forced labour, and arbitrary or unlawful detention. Its 14 articles protect basic rights, from the right to life to the rights to privacy, conscience and religion, freedom of expression, a fair trial, family life, and more.

The UK subsequently ratified protocols to the convention on the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances, and three additional rights: the right to free enjoyment of property, the right to education and the right to free and fair elections. Parties to the convention undertake to secure convention rights and freedoms to everyone within their jurisdiction, underpinned by the creation of the European Court of Human Rights, which deals with individual and interstate relations.

During the years following its creation, the convention commanded widespread cross-party support. Lord Chancellors such as Viscount Hailsham described it as part of the

“armoury of weapons against elective dictatorship”.

Another Member of your Lordships’ House, the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, said that pulling out of the convention was “xenophobic and legal nonsense”. On the Liberal SDP benches, notably Lords Wade, Grimond and Jenkins of Hillhead, and Baroness Williams of Crosby were lifelong supporters of the ECHR.

Margaret Thatcher declared that the UK was

“committed to, and supported, the principles of human rights”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/7/1989; col. 252.]

in the ECHR. Sir John Major reiterated this commitment, and in 1998, Tony Blair incorporated the rights and liberties enshrined in the convention in the Human Rights Act. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, told this House that the Act

“does not create new human rights or take any existing human rights away. It provides better and easier access to rights which already exist”.—[Official Report, 5/2/1998; col. 755.]

The 1998 Act was described simply as “bringing rights home”. Beyond our home, the ECHR provides reassurance to everyone living and travelling in the Council of Europe area, that we share similar, enforceable human rights standards.

Notwithstanding recent calls to leave the ECHR, last November, this Government said they remained “fully committed” to the ECHR and to

“the important role that multilateral organisations like the Council of Europe play in upholding it”.

Of course, the Council of Europe pre-dates the European Union and has no connection to it. Some 19 member states of the Council of Europe, including the United Kingdom, are not members of the European Union; Russia was expelled because of its illegal invasion of Ukraine.

The ECHR and the Council of Europe are inextricably bound together. Leaving the convention clearly means leaving the Council of Europe. Sir Jonathan Jones KC, a former Treasury solicitor and Permanent Secretary of the Government Legal Department, says that ECHR withdrawal would

“involve leaving the Council of Europe, which is responsible for the convention”.

A resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe states that

“accession to the Council of Europe must go together with becoming a party to the European Convention on Human Rights”,

while the European Court of Human Rights insists:

“Today more than ever the Convention is the cornerstone of the Council of Europe, and any State wishing to become a member of the organisation must sign and ratify it”.


Last month, Theodoros Rousopoulos, the current president of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, gave a Lord Speaker’s Lecture. We heard him pay tribute to the commitment and high-level contribution of the United Kingdom parliamentary delegation led by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig. To those who today will demand that we leave the ECHR, and therefore the Council of Europe, I would simply ask them to tell us which rights in the convention they object to. Do we really want to join Belarus and Russia as the only countries not part of any pan-European body?

In 2001, Parliament created the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I have the honour to chair—although today, I speak for myself and not the committee. The committee has a remit to examine matters relating to human rights in the UK and it has functioned historically as a champion for convention rights.

The JCHR pays close attention to the cases before the European court, the judges of which are elected by the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly. We have noted the role of the convention and the court; for example, in ending the ban on gay people in the military, and homosexual criminalisation in Northern Ireland; in prohibiting the retention for life of DNA samples of innocent people; on indiscriminate phone tapping; on the plight of the Sunday Times, which was prohibited from publishing information about thalidomide; on the protection of vulnerable victims of domestic violence; on the combating of racism; and on the degrading punishment of a teenager in the Isle of Man.

Among our current JCHR inquiries, we are examining the failure to prosecute UK nationals who took part in the genocide in Iraq, and transnational repression and forced labour in supply chains. Previous inquiries have included reform of the Human Rights Act and the right to family life. Last week, we held a round table on the Mental Health Bill, where we heard stories of detention and incarceration. Earlier this week, I met Volker Türk, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, to discuss what we actually mean by human rights and how deeply they are connected to the laws we proclaim, the conventions we have signed, and the traditions of liberty and freedom represented by this place. The European Convention on Human Rights is an essential part of that tradition. Malcolm Bishop KC, writing in the New Law Journal, says that

“the Convention is now firmly embedded in the common law and an impressive corpus of jurisprudence has emerged, which, in my opinion, has made this country a better place”.

I agree.

To its detractors, and for the record, in 2024 the court gave just two judgments on the merits of cases involving the United Kingdom. A violation was found in one case and no violation was found in the other. In a commentary earlier this week, Joshua Rozenberg forensically addressed the caricatures and misattributions which are often wrongly laid at the door of the ECHR. By population, the UK has the lowest number of applications of all member states: three per million people, while for all states combined it was 47.4 per million. Of course, the reason there are so few UK cases is that we broadly obey the ECHR.

Those who want to reduce UK legal standards—some even want to tear up the Human Rights Act—would vandalise our constitutional settlement. This and leaving the convention in a fit of pique, rather than engaging with and reforming it, is not worthy of this country or those who entrusted this extraordinary legacy to us.

At the outset, I recalled Kierkegaard’s thought that life can only be understood backwards but it must be lived forwards. Institutions and conventions are not set in stone. There is always scope for political debate and greater definition of the respective roles of parliaments and judges around controversial issues such as border control, which the JCHR will examine. However, to throw away all the gains would make no sense and merely play into the hands of dictators and enemies of democracy. We are experiencing war in Europe, along with contempt and disregard for international law and institutions, including despicable attacks on the International Criminal Court. We see the rise of autocracies with global reach, even with reach into the UK through transnational repression by hostile states. Rights and freedoms are under assault from within and without.

In this context, we are therefore right to recall the spirit which, 75 years ago, animated remarkable leaders. We are entitled to have pride in the significant British contribution to creating both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights and genuine pride in the development of human rights, international law and the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms. To defend this legacy, we must become far more robust in the public domain—in our schools and universities—in setting out the patriotic case for these shared fundamental values.

In this 75th anniversary year of the European Convention on Human Rights, we are entitled to look back on what was achieved in the ruins of Europe and out of the ashes of Auschwitz. We must insist that those concerns remain vitally relevant to this day and that they are crucial to our future. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, referred to his childhood, when I was his family’s constituency Member of Parliament in Liverpool. The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, in her reply to the debate referred to something which deeply affected me during my time as a Member of Parliament; I never expected to have to visit families whose children had died at a football match, as they had done at Hillsborough.

So I have been enormously grateful for the effect of the European convention in helping to shift the law, and to the Government for the commitment they gave at the general election to enact the so-called Hillsborough law. It is an issue the Joint Committee on Human Rights has engaged with. Indeed, we recently published correspondence between the committee and the Government on the duty of candour. It is a good example of how events that take place here in our own jurisdiction can have implications elsewhere, and of how they can be affected from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and from person to person.

Some very kind words have been said by noble Lords today, not least about my longevity. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, and to the noble Lord, Lord Rook, who said that he hoped one day to grow up to be like me. I do not wish that on him or anybody else. I feel a bit like Methuselah at the end of today’s debate.

The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, for whom I have great fondness and admiration, made a very good speech about why we should keep our feet firmly on the ground and never lose sight of the human impact of the decisions that we make. He told us that he had been to the Supreme Court and felt as though he had been surrounded by stars in the galaxy. You do not need to go all the way to the Supreme Court to feel as though you are surrounded by stars in the galaxy. I pay particular tribute to some of the distinguished and celebrated Peers who have spoken in today’s debate. These have been wise voices, and we would be foolish not to study carefully what has been said to us from all sides of the argument. This debate has been worthy of the anniversary, but also worthy of your Lordships’ House.

Obviously, I will not try to respond to every speech, so I will be brief. Reference was made to Article 3. My noble friend Lord Carter was right that even if we did not have the ECHR, the 1951 convention on the treatment of refugees would still be in place. We were also cautioned by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and others about the dangers of building a whole argument on one or two cases—such as the so-called chicken nuggets case, which was referred to. Noble Lords should go away and read Joshua Rozenberg’s article this week, where he reminds us that in that case, a lower-tier tribunal got it wrong and an upper-tier tribunal got it right. He writes that the argument presented in that case will not prevent the deportation of someone who may be here illegally and therefore should not be resident in the United Kingdom. So let us not build a case for total deconstruction on cases such as that one. Again, a noble Lord reminded us—I think it was my noble friend Lord Hannay—that hard cases make bad law.

When you start to unravel and disrupt, it carries consequences, but that is not an argument against reform. I take the arguments that have been made today, particularly from the Conservative Benches, that this is not a static instrument which is incapable of reform. Things such as the Swiss case are for the Joint Committee on Human Rights to go back and look at and take evidence over. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Murray, and I will agree on that, and will find ways for us to look at that kind of judgment and decide whether we are going too far in some circumstances—but that should not become an argument for the destruction of the European Convention on Human Rights. Confronted in our own generation by a new breed of dictators who again threaten the foundations of democracy, it would be sheer defeatism and an act of vandalism to abandon the legacy that has been entrusted to us.

I renew my thanks to everyone who has participated in today’s debate and, in closing this Cross-Bench debate marking the 75th anniversary of the European Convention on Human Rights, I thank all those who have made such excellent contributions in your Lordships’ House.

Motion agreed.

Syria

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome the Government’s Statement. On justice and accountability, following what the charity Aid to the Church in Need has described as a “black and painful day” for Syria, with entire families killed in the violence, does the Minister welcome the importance of the decision by Syria to appoint an independent commission of inquiry into the horrific atrocities committed in the coastal areas against ethnic and religious communities, including Druze, Christians, Alawites and Ismailis, and welcome the arrest of some of the perpetrators? Can we give direct support to this holding to account, the collecting of evidence, reporting mechanisms, transparency and measures necessary to prevent similar incidents in the future? Might we be able to work with others to create a route through which the UK can monitor the situation of egregious human rights violations and religious freedom, making UK aid to Syria and the lifting of any sanctions conditional on introducing measurable improvements in the situation of human rights in Syria, which, as we have heard, are crucial to its future?

Can the Minister also say a word about Turkish bombing of civilian areas in northern Syria and the continuing danger posed by ISIS operatives in camps in Syria, some of whom are UK nationals and the subject of a current inquiry by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I hope the Minister will agree to engage with and whose proceedings I hope she will follow with care?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, on northern Syria, of course we are acutely aware of the fragility of that situation and want to make sure that we do not see a vacuum created that is filled by Daesh and others. The noble Lord is right in what he says about Aid to the Church in Need and its work, and we commend it for it. We have encouraged the Government in Syria on the commission, the investigations and the collection of evidence, for the reasons that he gave. We can, we should, and we will continue to do that.

On the conditionality of humanitarian aid, that is a difficult situation. There are around 16 million people in need of humanitarian aid in Syria, and I think it is important that we continue to play the best possible part that we can in supporting those people, but I take the point that he makes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Confidence is a very difficult thing to measure in situations such as this, but perhaps the best thing to do is to say that we are mindful of the dangers that the noble Lord outlines. It is still right for this Government to have clarity and high ambition for the people of Syria, because they have suffered so much and desperately need a Government with the qualities that we outlined in the Statement.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, before we leave this Statement, may I pursue the Minister on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, raised? I referred in my earlier question to the presence in Syria of the camps, which are of course held together by the Kurds, without whom the people who were responsible for genocide in northern Iraq and northern Syria would be free and on the loose all over again. What are we doing to ensure that they are brought to justice, as has happened in some cases in Germany and Holland but not in the United Kingdom?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We are working with our partners and allies on this. As the noble Lord knows, decisions have been made, particularly on the citizenship of certain individuals, which I think is what he is getting at. Those decisions have been made; I do not have anything further to add today.

Belarus: Elections

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, given what the Minister said about the importance of reaching out to the people of Belarus and over the heads of the dictatorship, can she tell us what broadcasts are made by the BBC World Service into Belarus and assure us that there is no limitation on the funding required to maintain them?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The World Service is a tremendous asset and I am pleased that, this year, we have been able to secure additional funding for it. We work with it incredibly closely, although it is and will always be fully independent in its decisions about how it operates and its content. It is important that we remember that. It is good to highlight just how vital the work of the World Service is in countering some of the disinformation and misinformation that we see in Belarus and in other parts of the world.

Sudan: US Determination of Genocide

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The best thing I can do is to repeat what I have already said: the most important thing is to get those parties around the negotiating table and get that humanitarian aid where it is needed. Anybody or any state, with any influence over any party, must use that influence for good and to bring this conflict to an end as soon as possible.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, there is no disagreement in the House about the importance of dealing with all atrocity crimes. In the previous Parliament, the noble Baroness’s party kindly supported amendments from the Front Bench to enable the High Court of England and Wales to determine whether a genocide is being committed. She touched on the problem of the International Criminal Court and the use of vetoes by countries such as China and Sudan never to allow these issues to get to the ICC.

Will the noble Baroness go back and look at the way that we determine genocides? Will she accept that, as long as 20 years ago, the ICC announced a genocide in Darfur? Some 2 million people were displaced and 300,000 people died; and 18 months ago, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Sudan and South Sudan, in an inquiry that I chaired, warned that signs of genocide were emerging again. Under the 1948 convention, we have a duty to predict, prevent, protect and punish. The truth is that we are not doing any of them.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I remember the events of 20 years ago very well. I remember Colin Powell saying that it was genocide and being astonished by the continuation of atrocities, given that declaration. It is why our focus should not be on whether we use a particular term—that will come and words are important—as that determination must be made by a competent court in possession of the relevant evidence. Quite how that is done and which courts are deemed competent is an interesting question, and one that I am happy to take away. I think that we should re-examine that.

I am very glad that this has come before the House, because one of the things that has concerned me is that the famine taking place in Sudan is causing the death of more people than in Mali, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Gaza put together, and it is receiving far too little attention from the world.

China: Human Rights and Security

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

That this House takes note of government policy towards China especially in relation to human rights and security issues arising from China’s actions in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Tibet, and the South China Sea, and against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, in opening this last debate of the year, which will focus on human rights and security issues arising from China’s actions in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Xinjiang, Tibet and the South China Sea, I begin by thanking everyone who will speak in the debate, along with the House of Lords Library for its excellent briefing note and the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China for its critical role and for its support and assistance. I declare interests as an officer of the all-party groups on Hong Kong, the Uighurs, and Freedom of Religion or Belief, and as a patron of Hong Kong Watch. I also note that today has symbolic significance, because on this day 40 years ago, the Sino-British treaty was signed by Margaret Thatcher and Zhao Ziyang.

China’s human rights violations and the growing security challenges posed by Beijing’s international posture are well documented and will raise profound questions during this debate about our principles, security and strategic resilience. In this week of all weeks, we have seen more evidence of the threats to our domestic security and institutions. Commenting on the activities of the 40,000 agents of the United Front Work Department, our Intelligence and Security Committee says that the UFWD has penetrated

“every sector of the United Kingdom economy”.

MI5’s head, Ken McCallum, says infiltration is on an “epic scale”. It is extraordinary, then, in those circumstances for the Prime Minister to be pressing for closer ties with the Chinese Communist Party regime and to say that we should no longer describe it as a threat.

This may not be Maclean and Burgess, Philby and Blunt, but subversion of our state and its institutions involves manipulation and entrapment, influencing and cyberattacks, and intimidation, threats and transnational repression. Not long ago, the Foreign Secretary wanted this regime prosecuted for genocide.

In setting the scene for the debate today, let me begin in Hong Kong. In 2019, it was a privilege to be one of the international team which monitored the last fair and free election in a city that was once a bastion of freedom in Asia. Since 2020 and the enactment of the draconian national security law, it has seen every vestige of democracy dismantled.

The consequences are stark: over 1,200 political prisoners languish in jails, including prominent figures such as the British citizen, Jimmy Lai, with exiled legislators such as Nathan Law facing bounties placed on their heads simply for advocating democracy. Recent Human Rights Watch analysis has highlighted increasing transnational repression aimed at British national (overseas)—BNO—passport holders and their families and even at non-Hong Kong residents, threatening critics abroad with extradition. Recalling the attacks on protesters outside the Manchester consulate, which the Foreign Affairs Select Committee described as a

“brazen violation of diplomatic norms”,

we can see where this has taken us.

In a letter to the Security Minister, I recently requested a dedicated email address to be set up so that victims of CCP overseas intimidation could guarantee getting through to someone adequately trained in this very specialised crime. When the Minister comes to reply, can she say when a response might be forthcoming? Can she also say a word to those UK Hong Kongers still denied access to mandatory provident funds—an estimated £3 billion? What progress have the Government made in securing the release of this money, and what does she have to say about the role of HSBC and Standard Chartered? Did Minister West raise this matter when she recently visited Hong Kong, and, if so, what response did she receive?

Perhaps I may take the opportunity to say a word or two more about Jimmy Lai, although I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and others will do so too. Mr Lai is currently on the stand, being asked spurious questions about his involvement with British nationals, including people he never met or even heard of. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found multiple violations of his freedom. For a British national who has never held a Chinese passport to be held in solitary confinement, with no consular access, to be denied access to the sacraments and to be dragged out to court to respond to an entirely fabricated narrative is simply outrageous. It certainly makes a mockery of the Sino-British joint declaration.

Does the Minister support the request by the British nationals cited during the proceedings on the case to be heard in the Hong Kong court? Will she place on record her view of the absurdity of this show trial, as well as the spurious charade of dragging foreign legislators into it? Will she also roundly condemn the recent jailing of 45 Hong Kong pro-democracy leaders, including Joshua Wong and Benny Tai, who were sentenced to years in jail for so-called subversion? It is shocking.

I turn to the atrocities in Xinjiang and Tibet. In Tibet, the CCP continues its campaign of cultural erasure. There are systematic efforts to suppress the Tibetan language, dismantle monasteries and impose sinicisation policies. The Dalai Lama remains exiled and religious freedoms are virtually non-existent. Freedom House has ranked Tibet among the least free regions in the world, highlighting the CCP’s use of surveillance, mass arrests and propaganda to suppress Tibetan identity. Tibet’s plight and world silence are mirrored by the persecution of China’s religious believers, such as the young woman Zhang Zhan, a journalist jailed in Wuhan for seeking the truth about the origins of Covid.

Let us note the atrocities against Falun Gong practitioners and the industrial-scale repression of Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang. Over 1 million of the latter have been detained in camps, subjected to forced labour, indoctrination and even sterilisation. The United Nations Human Rights Office has described potential crimes against humanity, while the House of Commons, with 11 other global Parliaments and the United States Government, called it by its proper name—genocide. By virtue of the CCP’s intentional aim to prevent the births of Uighurs through forced sterilisation, it certainly meets the criteria set out in the 1948 genocide convention.

Canada has just sanctioned Chen Quanguo and Tuniyaz Erkin, two key officials responsible for Xinjiang atrocities. The UK failed to do so in 2021. Will we do so now?

What about Uighur forced labour embedded in global supply chains? The House will have seen reports on this in the Financial Times and on BBC’s “Panorama”. I have been raising this during the proceedings on the energy Bill and will have more say about it in due course. I name again Canadian Solar, a huge beneficiary, and ask: how precisely do the Government intend to root out slavery in the renewables industry? Will the Minister take this opportunity to reiterate the Business Secretary’s clear statement that he absolutely expects there to be

“no slavery in any part of the supply chain”?

How will that commitment be honoured? What will we do to prioritise supply chain resilience by diversifying imports and supporting domestic industries?

In the light of breaches of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the Proceeds of Crime Act, I am glad that the Joint Committee on Human Rights will make this the subject of an in-depth inquiry in the new year. To help that inquiry, will the Minister ask for an audit of dependency on authoritarian regimes across UK critical infrastructure? Can she update the House on whether Project Defend, which was supposed to build UK resilience, has been entirely dropped? With a trade deficit of over £23.7 billion with China, and British workers losing their jobs in the car industry—undercut by slave labour—this immoral trade is also a threat to our economy and security, undercutting resilience and deepening dependency, points often made by the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Purvis, from whom we will hear later.

That leads me to Taiwan and the South China Sea. In May, with my noble friend Lady D’Souza and the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, I attended the inauguration of President Lai in the vibrant democracy of Taiwan, home to 23 million free people. Taiwan’s Ministry of Defense reported over 1,700 military incursions into its airspace in 2023 alone, a 40% increase from the previous year. Meanwhile, as noted in Jane’s Defence Weekly, Beijing continues to hold large-scale military drills around the island.

A conflict over Taiwan would be catastrophic, with consequences extending far beyond the region. A recent Bloomberg report estimated that a war over Taiwan could shave $10 trillion from the global economy. That is five times worse even than the impact that the horrific war in Ukraine has had. As Taiwan produces over 60% of the world’s semiconductors and 90% of advanced chips, the disruption to supply chains would be unparalleled. Of course, without these chips, nothing works. Our critical infrastructure depends on them and the devices in our pockets cannot run without them. Have the Government assessed the UK’s economic exposure to various scenarios in the Taiwan Strait, and will that be part of the China audit?

Our headaches in the South China Sea do not end there. With China’s militarisation of artificial islands in defiance of the 2016 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, undermining international maritime law, we must recognise these changed circumstances, deepen military and economic ties with Taiwan, expand freedom of navigation operations and further bolster alliances with like-minded partners in the Indo-Pacific, including Japan, Australia and ASEAN nations. AUKUS is of course a promising step in this direction, but we must commit further resources and political will. We should support Taiwan’s accession to the CPTPP.

We must also be far more aware of China’s military heft. Note the support that China has given to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It has provided Moscow with dual-use technology, expanded trade in sanctioned goods and offered diplomatic cover in multilateral forums. President Zelensky’s own adviser says that China provides over 60% of the components used to prosecute Putin’s illegal war—and that is without the supply of weaponised drones, in violation of sanctions.

A deadly quartet now led by China poses a direct challenge to the rules-based international order. As the European Council on Foreign Relations notes, the Sino-Russian alignment extends beyond Ukraine; it is aiming to reshape global norms in its favour. Russia’s war is China’s war. The CCP knows that depleted war chests make it harder to deter escalation over Taiwan. Meanwhile, China is engaged in what the former Foreign Secretary called the

“biggest military build-up in … history”.

I have sent the noble Baroness the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and Sir Julian Lewis MP a disturbing report given to me alleging an illicit bio-weapons programme, along with a separate report on imagination technologies and China reform, which has deep connections to China’s military-industrial complex and national security establishment. I hope the noble Baroness will promise a full written reply in due course. What is clear enough is that this is a hostile state. It is ludicrous and worse to try to justify deepening business links, pouring public and private money into China’s coffers, while it is making possible an illegal war in Europe.

There is also of course an enemy within. Chinese companies dominate critical infrastructure sectors, from energy to technology—I know we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on this—including the millions of China-made surveillance cameras right across Britain. RUSI speculates that over 80% of foreign direct investment into the UK from China comes from Chinese state-owned enterprises: heavily subsidised companies operating under the direction of a one-party state.

Universities, too, are entangled in partnerships with Chinese institutions linked to the People’s Liberation Army. Note the examples in the 2023 Civitas report, including work on artificial intelligence and quantum computing. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what we are doing to assist universities to become less reliant on CCP money—and what we did to challenge UCL, an illustrious university, when Professor Michelle Shipworth was removed from teaching a course on China, with the university saying that it conflicted with its “commercial interests”. Professor Shipworth had highlighted data from the Global Slavery Index which suggested that China had the second-highest prevalence of modern slavery in the world.

Such examples, and this debate, underline what the International Relations and Defence Committee of this House said was the need for a coherent strategy, filling what was referred to as “a strategic void”. How will the China audit attempt to fill that void, and how will it connect to the strategic defence review by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson?

To conclude, a coherent strategy would face the multifaceted challenges posed by China, strengthening our alliances, protecting national security, reducing economic dependencies and exposing authoritarian collaboration. We ought not to be persuaded by those who seek to talk down Britain by making out that we have no international clout. Capitulating now will cause greater pain later. By aligning our policies with our principles, we can safeguard our security, support those who suffer under oppression and lead by example in defending democracy on the global stage. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for both the content and tone of the response to what has been, as she said, an outstanding debate. I thank all noble Lords who have participated today. In parentheses, I also add the name of the noble Lord, Lord Leong, who has sat patiently throughout the whole debate. We know that because of other ministerial duties he is unable to speak and has taken Trappist vows—but on other occasions he has spoken powerfully and eloquently on behalf of people in Hong Kong. At the time when sanctions were imposed on the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and myself, he gave me enormous encouragement, and I have always been grateful to him for that.

Many speakers have made the distinction between the Chinese Communist Party and the people of China. Nobody suffers more at the hands of the CCP than the Chinese people themselves. I often think about “Tank Man”, the solitary figure who in 1989 stood in Tiananmen Square in front of the tanks as they rolled in. I think of Rahima Mahmut, who will be known to some noble Lords here, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, who is a Uighur activist who speaks eloquently and powerfully and whose family have been intimidated and suffered through transnational repression as a result of the things that she has done. I think of Zhang Zhan, whom I mentioned in my opening remarks, who was put in a prison in Wuhan because as a citizen journalist she went to try to find the origins of the Covid pandemic.

And I think, of course, of my friend Jimmy Lai, mentioned by several noble Lords, who is standing trial in Hong Kong. One piece of evidence placed before the trial was that he once came to your Lordships’ House to have tea, which I gave him and his wife—as though this was some terrible, subversive act. I was grateful to the noble Baroness for mentioning people whom he has never even met, as well as people has met, including Luke de Pulford from the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, who were named in these proceedings as co-conspirators. Bill Browder, known to many noble Lords here, has never met Jimmy Lai but has also been mentioned in those proceedings. This is a sham and a charade and it is right that this House has called it out.

I know and understand the points about the importance of engaging with China on things such as zero emissions, but one-third of all emissions come out of the People’s Republic of China, which has never kept to any of the targets—just as it did not keep to the promises made 40 years ago today in the Sino-British accord. I was struck in 1979, when Margaret Thatcher negotiated with Deng Xiaoping about Hong Kong’s future, that she was told by him, “We could walk in and take the whole lot this afternoon”. In a characteristic reply, she said, “Yes, but the eyes of the world would now know what China is like”. That was true then and it is true now—and that is the point of a place such as this and the point of our democracy: for us to give voice to people who do not have a voice and show that our eyes continue to remain on what is happening in China.

Let me give the last word to the Intelligence and Security Committee, which said last year that China had penetrated “every sector” of the UK economy in a “whole-of-state” assault, to which the government response has been “completely inadequate”. Without swift, decisive actions, we face “the nightmare scenario” where China could pose “an existential threat”. Britain has a proud tradition of standing up to tyranny. I hope that we will continue to do that.

I know that all who have been present on this last day for this last session before Christmas have probably given up time with their families and friends to be here for this debate. I am particularly indebted to everyone who has participated, but I also know that the eyes of the world are on this British Parliament, that we speak out when others are silent and that notice will be taken of the eloquent speeches that have been made here today.

All that remains now is for me to join others in wishing everyone present a very happy Christmas and a peaceful and prosperous new year, and to wait as the Mace is carried out, as we were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, earlier on, by Mr Cameron-Wood in his last act before he now goes to what we hope will be a well-merited and wonderful retirement.

Motion agreed.

Taipei Representative Office in the United Kingdom

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, we support Taiwan’s participation in multilateral bodies, particularly when statehood is not a prerequisite, such as at the World Health Assembly, and we have supported its participation as an observer in other ways, including at the WHO.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome what the Minister has just said about the World Health Organization. Is it not particularly reprehensible that China, the place of origin of Covid-19, should have blocked Taiwan from becoming a member of the World Health Organization? Given that we can do more, at the Human Rights Council, in the General Assembly and elsewhere, to influence these events, should we not be pointing out to others that those who fund the WHO feel some anger, having provided money to that wonderful organisation, that a country of 23 million people is excluded from its membership?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, we value the work of the WHO and the contribution that Taiwan has made through the World Health Assembly. We will continue to support its participation, because we believe that everyone who has something to contribute to this important organisation and its work should be supported in doing so.

COP 29: United Kingdom Delegation

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

What the noble Lord highlights is the importance to many of our global partners of action on the climate, whether that is prevention of climate change through the work that we do, not just here in the UK but internationally, on reducing carbon, or whether it is on loss and damage mitigation or resilience against extreme weather events. Many of the countries that the noble Lord refers to are very low emitters but are on the front line of this. That is why I am proud of the leadership that this country takes on this issue.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, in welcoming the presence of the Prime Minister in Baku, does the Minister recall that, in 2023, 120,000 Armenians were driven out of Nagorno-Karabakh in ethnic cleansing, when Azerbaijan cut off electricity, medicine and food? During this conference, even on its margins, did the Prime Minister have the opportunity to raise with President Aliyev the continuing failure to create a peace agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia and provide for the return of prisoners?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The UK has been consistent in seeking a peaceful resolution. We take every opportunity that we can to move that forward.

Jailing of Hong Kong Pro-democracy Activists

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

As the noble Lord knows, we keep these things under constant review. We are deeply concerned about what has happened, not just in recent days in Hong Kong with the sentencing but about wider issues that I know he and my noble friend Lord Collins will have worked on together in the past. We have made quite strong statements at ministerial level in the last few days on these issues, and we will continue to do so as appropriate.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, 1,800 pro- democracy activists are in prison in Hong Kong, including the British national, Jimmy Lai. Even yesterday, he was interrogated in the Hong Kong courts, including being asked about a visit to your Lordships’ House. Given the situation that they find themselves in, why did the Prime Minister decline, according to a Guardian report this morning, on two occasions during the G20 summit to condemn the decision to extend the sentences on the 45?

Will the noble Baroness repudiate reports that a deal has been offered between the British Government and Xi Jinping to remove the sanctions on British parliamentarians—there are seven of us—in exchange for removing sanctions on those responsible for genocide in Xinjiang? Surely that would be morally reprehensible and something that we should never countenance.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I will double-check, but I know of no such arrangement and I would be very surprised if that were the case. As he knows, we do not comment on sanction designations before they take place, and I would be very surprised if we would comment on something like that. I will check and get back to the noble Lord if I am wrong, but I would be very surprised if that report was in any way accurate.

Journalists Detained or Killed Overseas

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his supplementary question, and he is absolutely right to draw attention to this issue. We recognise the criticisms about the report that he outlined. We want to know what happened. When you lose a member of your family in such circumstances, in the conduct of their work in a dangerous situation, the family is entitled to know what happened. Sadly, I am afraid that I do not have a great deal of optimism about getting another investigation that would be any more credible or shed any more light on what happened. However, I thank the noble Lord for again bringing the House’s attention to Christopher Allen’s case, and we send our deepest sympathies again to his family.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, in the second part of the noble Baroness’s very welcome reply to the Question that has been put to her, she referred to providing assistance in cases of human rights violation. I welcome the fact that it was a manifesto commitment to do that. Considering the recent meetings that the Foreign Secretary has had with his Chinese and Egyptian counterparts, can the Minister outline what concrete steps His Majesty’s Government have taken to secure consular access to Jimmy Lai, a British publisher who was unjustly jailed in Hong Kong, and Alaa Abd el-Fattah, a British blogger who has been arbitrarily imprisoned in Egypt for the past 10 years?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

As the noble Lord knows, I believe that we have answered questions on Jimmy Lai very recently, but we continue to raise these cases at ministerial level with the relevant Governments, and we remain deeply concerned that we have been unable to gain the access that we would wish.

Ukraine: North Korean Troops

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Everything we have done has been with a view to avoiding escalation, because that is the last thing we want to see. However, the reports we have had in recent days are a significant step, and we are deeply concerned. So, our approach will be to discuss the implications of this closely with our partners, as noble Lords would expect.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

Will the Minister please reflect on two points made this week at the All-Party Parliamentary Group on North Korea, which I co-chair? The first was that the young soldier who walked across a minefield in August is representative of many North Koreans who would like to escape from that tyranny. Can we reach over the heads of their armed forces commanders and make sure that they receive messages in Korean, so they know that they are entitled to take up Korean citizenship in the Republic of Korea should they defect? The second point concerns the United Nations commission of inquiry report 10 years ago. It found crimes against humanity by the North Korean regime and called for a referral to the International Criminal Court. That has never been done. When is the United Kingdom going to raise this?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I will give consideration to the last point the noble Lord raised, which is very important. On his point about the young Korean soldier, we have known for a long time that the people of North Korea are not masters of their own destiny and do not make their choices freely and willingly. It is desperately sad that we now seem likely to see further decisions made on their behalf, but not in their interests.