United Kingdom: Global Position

Lord Leong Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and I follow in every sense what the noble Lords, Lord Howard and Lord Waldegrave, have just said.

In this crisis we need to hope for the best, prepare for the worst and learn from the past. I hope that Putin buys the ceasefire compromise and comes to accept Ukraine as the legitimate sovereign state it is, but we need to prepare for a future in which his appetite for territorial gain has only been whetted. The analogy, I think, is Munich in 1938: Hitler settled for one-third and nine months later came back for the other two-thirds.

We need to contemplate a future in which America, perhaps in the hope of pulling apart the Beijing-Moscow relationship, finds itself closer to the autocrat in the Kremlin than to the democrats in western Europe. At Munich last month, Vance told us that the real threat to Europe was not Russia but the enemy within—our corrosive liberalism. Musk says that America should quit NATO and America has left planning for some NATO exercises. So far, Trump has said only that America will not defend NATO’s free riders, and for America to follow Musk’s advice would be remarkably quixotic. America is right to resent the free riders, but it is America that drives the bus.

The NATO supreme commanders have always been serving US officers reporting to their commander-in-chief, and Congress accepted the Washington treaty only when that was spelled out to it. The alliance has been, from the start, a very effective means of projecting US power—too effective for de Gaulle’s taste. The American military and the American arms industry would be horrified if Musk got his way, and we should work to see that he does not. We should work to strengthen Europe’s contribution to the alliance, as Peter Carrington and Helmut Schmidt did with their Eurogroup and European defence improvement programme when Congress first got stroppy about the free-rider problem. But we also need to prepare for the worst, as the noble Lords, Lord Howard and Lord Waldegrave, have been saying.

European security is our security and we need a new structure that we should be defining now—but not in a way which might precipitate the very eventuality that concerns us, so not too much of the performative strategic autonomy talk that we hear from Paris. The best analogy may be 1948 and Ernest Bevin’s Western Union treaty. What would Bevin do now? I will make three guesses. First, obviously, we rearm. Obviously, 2.5% of GDP will not be nearly enough; in the 1970s, we were at 5.5%. Secondly, we demonstrate commitment. In the 1970s, we were still honouring Bevin’s WU commitment to keep 55,000 troops forward-based in continental Europe. The Baltic states must feel now rather as the West Germans did then—and they were very glad to have our forces on the ground. Thirdly, we need to strike a security deal with the EU in May. With the continuing cold wind from the east and new blustery winds from the west, we Europeans need to huddle together.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)]

May I remind noble Lords that this is a timed debate and we have to finish it by 3.19 pm? I am gently reminding noble Lords that the advisory speaking time it is four minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD)]

My Lords, I too welcome the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, and hope that he enjoys his time here. We are in rather difficult times, so we look forward to further contributions.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for making possible this important debate. It is more than important. It is an extraordinary debate. It would have been inconceivable, months or even weeks ago, for the House to be united in saying the things that it has said about our position in the world, and particularly the position of the United States. Matters are changing fast—as we speak, even. These are unprecedented times, in which America has joined the autocracies and dictatorships of the world in a belief that might is right, abandoning the rule of law, abandoning international free trade, abandoning liberal democracies, attacking its own allies and clearly adopting the same expansionism as that of Xi and Putin. It is as if the America First movement in the 1930s had seized power just when the Americans in practice came behind us to defeat Hitler when those America First politicians had argued for them to abandon Europe to Hitler. The wrong side has taken control. It is unimaginable that this Chamber would be united in these concerns, yet that is obviously so.

I will touch on the two big issues. The first is trade. It is absolutely evident that there is nothing about what Trump has said—and he is saying it more today—that suggests that this country can expect a genuinely good trade agreement with the United States. If he has one, it will be based entirely on self-interest and on us surrendering any measure of our interests to do a deal. We have to recognise that we need to work with all countries that believe in the rule of law, free trade and international institutions to build an alliance around trade. We cannot compromise our position by thinking that we can somehow sit on both sides of the Atlantic—that is just not an opportunity now available to us.

My second point is on defence. People have often misunderstood what NATO is about. The most important element that NATO provided was, effectively, an anti-proliferation treaty that said a member state could rely on America to defend it and therefore did not need the bomb. France has a few bombs—independently. Britain has a smaller few, which are not independent of America in any event; we cannot in practice use them without it.

The truth is that the offer to Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Poland, the Baltics, Britain, Germany and France—all of those other democracies—was, “We will defend you and therefore you don’t need the bomb”. Even more importantly, not only do we need a defence alliance across Europe and other likeminded countries that has a nuclear deterrent—we are going to have to think about that now—but behind the nuclear deterrent was the promise that, if Russia or China used nuclear weapons at any point, the first response would be a non-nuclear one: an overwhelming shock and awe attack.

This was said to Russia when it threatened a nuclear attack at the start of the Ukraine war. Russia was told, “You will be taken out by a non-nuclear response”. But the only country in the world capable of providing that is America, and it is quite apparent that we cannot rely on it to do so; indeed, it is very unlikely that it would do so. Therefore, our defence now needs to work with our likeminded allies around the world to build a non-nuclear capability to respond to and stop these “might is right” countries, of which America now is one.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)]

My Lords, I remind all noble Lords that they must stick to their advisory speaking time of four minutes, because we have to finish the debate by 3.19 pm.

Ukraine

Lord Leong Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords—

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)]

May we hear from the Greens first?

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

Of course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, we will hear from the Conservative Benches next, after the Cross Benches.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, the sum of £3 billion per annum has been mentioned as our contribution to Ukraine, and that indeed is very commendable. I wonder whether it could be increased or whether it is limited in two ways: by the ability to produce new equipment and by the amount by which we have to withdraw from our own front line and munition stocks of our capability in order to support Ukraine.

China: Human Rights and Security

Lord Leong Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Motion agreed.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, on behalf of my Government Whip colleagues, I wish all noble Lords, the clerks and doorkeepers a very merry Christmas, a restful recess and a fabulous new year. With that, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Kennedy of Cradley) (Lab)]

That the House do now adjourn—with thanks and best wishes to our Mace carrier tonight, Mr Cameron-Wood.

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill

Lord Leong Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, with his staunch support of the Commonwealth. He is a former president of the Royal Commonwealth Society, of which I am a friend. I declare my interests as set out in the register, as the former chair of the Council for Education in the Commonwealth. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, for introducing this very important Bill in the Lords, and the right honourable Member for Basingstoke for her championing of the Bill in its legislative journey.

The Commonwealth of Nations, as a unique non-treaty organisation, is a voluntary association of 56 independent and equal countries. Its great value is its incredible diversity. If the Commonwealth has a superpower, I think it might be the rich insight that its diversity brings to its 2.6 billion citizens. Commonwealth nations comprise some of the world’s largest and smallest nations geographically; some of its richest and poorest countries economically; and some of its most populous nations and some countries with among the smallest populations in the world. Yet, despite these incredible differences in scale, history, climate and economy, they work together with common values in pursuit of shared goals. Its members are bound together by adherence to certain shared values and principles, as set out in the Commonwealth charter.

In my previous career as a publisher, I was privileged to visit more than 40 Commonwealth member states. I spoke at several conferences of Commonwealth Education Ministers, one of which happened just this week, as well as attending many of the important Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings. This experience has enabled me to see, first-hand, the fantastic work done and contributions made by many of the 87 Commonwealth-accredited organisations. This particular and important legal status is conferred on certain bodies by their being intergovernmental organisations; for example, the excellent Commonwealth Foundation and the Commonwealth of Learning.

This brings me, not too belatedly, I hope, to the purpose of the Bill. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—CPA—plays a pivotal role in the promotion of democratic governance across the Commonwealth of Nations. It is the glue that binds these diverse nations together and one of the oldest organisations within the Commonwealth. The CPA’s constitution requires it to pursue the positive ideals of parliamentary democracy, and the core values and principles of the Commonwealth on democracy, development, equality, gender, human rights and the protection of the environment, as declared by the Commonwealth charter. The CPA has played an essential role in promoting these values, and in training Commonwealth parliamentarians and their staff to embody and uphold them.

The CPA currently supports some 17,000 elected members and their staff. It operates in all the Commonwealth regions, across 180 branch legislatures and in nearly all the member nations. It is something of an anomaly, then, that the CPA does not have the status of an international organisation, because technically it is not intergovernmental. It is, in fact, a UK-registered charity, as mentioned by several noble Lords, headquartered here, within the Westminster Parliamentary Estate. The Bill seeks to resolve this issue. Changing the status of the CPA to make it an “international interparliamentary organisation” will strengthen the organisation and enable its staff to avail themselves of additional immunities and privileges, as several noble Lords have said, as they strive to uphold the values we all hold so dear, in sometimes challenging environments.

In our increasingly dangerous world, with autocracy on the rise, the CPA will play a vital role in supporting Commonwealth parliamentarians and the soft power of the Commonwealth in ensuring that we hold firm to the essential values of the charter. It will help keep the flame of hope alive, providing a beacon against the deepening political darkness and ensuring that we can light the way for our diverse family of nations, so that the next generation of politicians can continue fighting for our shared values: respect for all other states and peoples, concern for the vulnerable, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting the Bill.

Before I sit down, I just wish to say that, as a relatively new Member of this House, I have not had the pleasure of meeting the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, but I really look forward to hearing his valedictory speech, which I regret will be his last.

Hong Kong

Lord Leong Excerpts

Thursday 13th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I will start with the final point that my noble friend raised, about the UN Security Council. As my noble friend knows, there are various institutions of the United Nations, and I have become reasonably familiar with them over the last six years as the United Nations Minister, among other things, at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. That is why we chose the vehicle of the Human Rights Council, which was set up specifically for this matter. It was right that the issue and the statement were raised directly by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The mandate of the UN Security Council is important, covering security and conflict issues across the piece. Of course, any agenda item on China’s role on the UN Security Council will also be determined, in part, by its effectiveness within that particular structure. However, we are raising these issues quite directly with China on a bilateral basis, with the Hong Kong authorities directly and, as I illustrated, at the United Nations.

On the issue of judges, there is nothing further I can really add. Like anyone, I am sure that the judges who continue to serve—and I add again that they are retired judges—will rightly make decisions that are reflective of their own key principles. I am sure that they are looking at these things very carefully. It is essential that the Hong Kong judiciary and Hong Kong’s legal institutions can operate independently and free from political interference.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement. He will recall from a debate last week the serious concerns around the alarming authoritarian actions that the CCP is taking against those who speak out so bravely against the regime. I have three questions for the Minister. First, can he assure us that our security forces are ensuring the freedoms and safety of the three individuals currently in the United Kingdom who have enormous bounties placed on their heads? Are they safe from any clandestine activities, whether by criminal or foreign government actors?

Secondly, can the Minister clarify whether any of these eight individuals will now be flagged by Interpol if they travel through international passport controls? Finally, can he give us any further information about attempts by an alleged Chinese spy to infiltrate a meeting in this very building in which two of the three targeted individuals were speaking? That the Chinese security forces are attempting to operate at the heart of our democracy is shocking. It cannot and must not be tolerated.

All parliamentarians must continue to speak up, unintimidated, for those who fight for freedoms in Hong Kong, most especially on our Parliamentary Estate. The Intelligence and Security Committee report released today, as my noble friend Lord Collins mentioned earlier, is critical of the Government with regard to China, especially in their apparent willingness to trade off economic interests and security concerns. These concerns now have a very human face.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, there is little that I can disagree with in what the noble Lord has said. I put on record again that I think he adds a real insight and value to our discussions and debates, as he has illustrated in his observations and the questions that he has raised today, and I look forward to working with him on this important agenda. I assure him, as I have already said, that with regard to those nationals who are present in the United Kingdom—and this applies to every British citizen—it is the first duty of any responsible Government to look after the security of their citizens. We do not take that responsibility lightly in any shape or form. Previous Governments have also made this a priority, and I know that future Governments will as well. We will not tolerate any attempts to intimidate people simply for speaking out. We will always defend the universal right of freedom of expression and stand up for those who are targeted.

I recognise the challenge and the important issues that the noble Lord has posed on issues of security. He raised issues and concerns about the Parliamentary Estate. I praise the parliamentary authorities, which remain very vigilant and on the front foot—I have personal experience of such things. Indeed, if any threat is perceived to the estate or to a given individual, particularly a parliamentarian, they are very much on the front foot when it comes to ensuring the safety and security of the estate and the individual parliamentarians. I have no doubt that it is very much at the forefront of their minds.

On the issue of any heightened risk, we of course keep every assessment and monitor this closely. We are very much aware of the challenges posed by the Chinese Government and state, and indeed other actors—and also of the way in which the threat may emanate. We live in a very different world of the digital age, and we are very much seized of the challenges that we confront there. I assure the noble Lord that, in all these respects but particularly with regard to security—he mentioned the use of Interpol, which I have already talked to—these institutions are set up to protect, not to intimidate.

China

Lord Leong Excerpts

Thursday 6th July 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town for securing today’s debate. As has been referred to, 34 years ago, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of unarmed peaceful pro-democracy protesters were killed in Tiananmen Square. Tens of thousands of demonstrators in cities across China were arrested and imprisoned. We all remember the unknown man standing alone in front of a line of tanks and the journalists’ reports physically smuggled out in those pre-internet days.

Some 26 years ago, after 150 years of British rule, Hong Kong became a special administrative region under Chinese control. Through the principle of “one country, two systems”, China agreed to maintain for 50 years the human rights protections, democratic freedoms and economic prosperity enjoyed by 6.5 million Hong Kongers. However, an increasing authoritarianism crept from mainland China into the territory. This has driven tens of thousands to leave, many asserting their rights as British nationals overseas to settle in the United Kingdom.

Just three years ago, on 1 July 2020, the Chinese Government imposed the national security law on Hong Kong. This authoritarian charter enables the authorities to arrest, detain and imprison anyone for four vaguely defined crimes: secession, subversion, terrorism and “collusion with foreign forces”. No time has been wasted in exercising these repressive powers. As many noble Lords have brought to our attention, thousands of protesters, hundreds of activists and journalists and many influential individuals have been arrested, detained and intimidated into pleading guilty.

We even have examples of Chinese Government-supported activity on our own soil, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned, at the consulate in Manchester, at Mandarin schools across the United Kingdom and in some of our universities. Just four days ago, as we have all heard, the Hong Kong authorities issued arrest warrants and bounties under the national security law for eight activists who reside in the UK, Australia and the US. These bounties of 1 million Hong Kong dollars to lead to their arrests are just appalling.

China is extending its reach far beyond its capital city. Stretching through Hong Kong, its talons are probing into other countries and hovering around our shores, seeking to grab our own citizens. By seeking to supress reports on its actions within and outwith its borders—with worrying echoes of 1989—China is testing the willingness of the international community to hold it accountable to international standards. Unchallenged, China’s example will encourage like-minded authoritarian regimes in developing and developed countries. Their collective goal will be to destabilise democracies and make the world a less dangerous place for dictators.

Faced with this escalating situation, what should Britain do? England is, famously, the “mother of Parliaments”. I will for ever be honoured to have a place alongside your Lordships in the British legislature, one of the oldest democracies in the world. We must, as individuals and as a nation, be fearless to defend our values.

When I gave my maiden speech in the Chamber, I reflected on the complex nature of my dual national identity. For many years, I have been challenged and questioned on my loyalty to China. While I am proud of my Chinese heritage, my loyalty lies with Britain and the British values which make this country a beacon of democracy—values not shared by the current Chinese regime.

For too long, we have been cowed and indecisive. We have sometimes talked tough, but have baulked at taking effective action. My noble friend Lord Collins of Highbury last week called for a comprehensive audit of our UK-China relationship across the private sector and national and local government. China’s economic might is considerable but it can be overstated, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned, and we should not allow our democratic values to be held to ransom by an imperfect understanding of our economic relationship. With greater clarity, we can build a robust strategy to challenge, compete and co-operate with China—one which is aligned with our democratic principles and our commitment to freedom and fundamental human rights.

In closing, I will quote the opening verse of “Glory to Hong Kong”. It has become the anthem of their struggle. Brave individuals in Hong Kong have been arrested and detained for singing it. The Chinese Government are trying to remove all traces of the lyrics online. I know that if I say them here, in this Chamber at the heart of the mother of Parliaments, these words will be forever recorded in Hansard. This will, I hope, encourage those brave souls, by demonstrating that their voices are being heard on the other side of the world despite Beijing’s attempts to silence them:

“We pledge: No more tears on our land,

In wrath, doubts dispelled we make our stand.

Arise! Ye who would not be slaves again:

For Hong Kong, may freedom reign!”

Commonwealth: Zimbabwe

Lord Leong Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Oates, on securing this short debate. I declare an interest as chair of the Council for Education in the Commonwealth. In this role and others, I have worked on finding solutions to a range of issues within the complex political sensitivities of this unique international organisation.

Zimbabwe enjoys a special historical relationship with the Commonwealth. In 1991, it was in its capital city that the Commonwealth Heads of Government agreed the Harare Declaration, committing their countries to a set of core values including democracy, the rule of law and human rights. These values are reflected in Zimbabwe’s 2013 constitution. Although there have been some positive developments in recent years, they have not been as significant, rapid or numerous as many of us had hoped, especially post President Mugabe. The country retains the death penalty and the rights and freedoms of women and girls are unequal, as they are for the LGBT community.

However, with Zimbabwe holding general elections this year, I draw your Lordships’ attention to the democratic process in the country. Official observers were critical of how the last elections were conducted in 2018. A colleague of mine who served on a Commonwealth observer group told me that he

“personally witnessed scenes of violence and direct intimidation by government forces”

and noted that an

“unlevel playing field”

had been created, which

“the Government considers it to its benefit to maintain”.

Moreover, there are serious concerns about an escalation in enforced disappearances and intimidation, including the torture and sexual abuse of political opponents of the regime, journalists and student activists. They are compounded by concerns over government control of the media and political interference in the police and judiciary.

In the context of Zimbabwe’s application to rejoin the Commonwealth, the 2023 election could and should be an opportunity for the Government to demonstrate their democratic credentials. Sadly, the portents are not good. However, I am both a pragmatist and an optimist. I believe that Zimbabwe’s willingness to rejoin the Commonwealth and to engage with the first stages of the process demonstrates a desire to change for the better. That is where I would encourage your Lordships to consider this question: will continually blocking Zimbabwe’s readmission to the Commonwealth help to move it in the right direction?

The Commonwealth is an immense force for good in improving the lives of its 2.4 billion citizens—almost a third of the world’s population. However, that does not make me blind to the flaws and inconsistencies of the organisation and of its constituent nations. On the issue of capital punishment, for example, only 37% of Commonwealth countries have abolished the death penalty in law, compared with 57% of all countries internationally. Indeed, several Commonwealth nations have fervently defended their sovereign right to retain it. Although we should loudly condemn many of the atrocious abuses of power being enacted in Zimbabwe, let us be wary of making demands of a country that, sadly, some current members would not themselves meet.

The Commonwealth can more effectively influence and change hearts and minds, and ultimately national laws, by working with the countries within rather than outside our family of nations. If we are too intransigent, we risk driving Zimbabwe to look elsewhere for international allies. Do we think that the lives of Zimbabweans will be improved, or their human rights better protected, if the country becomes dependent on powerful countries that are extending their influence in the region, especially China?

Democracy is not a destination but a journey. The UK, as a mature democracy and an influential member of the Commonwealth family, should be prepared to be pragmatic and take the long-term view. We must not lose sight of the ultimate goal—improving the lives of the Zimbabwean people—by making the perfect the enemy of the good.