Elections Bill (Fifth sitting)

Tom Randall Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Cat Smith]

The Minister is right to say that there is a lot of different research done on who holds what ID, and it appears that there is no central understanding in Government about who holds what. That leaves us, as a Committee, high and dry in terms of knowing what impact this policy will have on different communities.

The Committee heard evidence from Gavin Millar QC, who pointed out that if Tower Hamlets was the reason for introducing voter ID, it would be

“an example of a hard case making very bad law, and I would counsel against that.”––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 16 September 2021; c. 108, Q165.]

[Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

[Cat Smith]

I will give way, and I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he thinks the Government are using Tower Hamlets as justification to bring in a nationally damaging policy.

[Tom Randall]

I was going to ask the hon. Lady whether she accepts that Labour constituency associations that are in special measures should have special photo ID requirements. Would she at least support photo ID in those parts of the country that have particular problems with administering their elections?

[Cat Smith]

I look forward to the hon. Gentleman’s bringing forward an amendment to the Bill along those lines, and I am sure we would be interested in having conversations across the Committee Room about how we might be able to support him in amending his Government’s Bill in such a way. I look forward to speaking to him after the Committee to see whether I can be of any assistance to him on that matter.

It is quite clear from the evidence we heard that the voter ID requirements will make it disproportionately more difficult for some people with disabilities to vote. We heard evidence from the Royal National Institute of Blind People, and we realise that anyone who is blind or registered partially sighted is very unlikely to have a driving licence, which immediately rules out one kind of ID.

Because of the poverty disabled people face, they are also less likely to have a passport, and the Committee heard evidence of concerns that the Cabinet Office had not sufficiently engaged with disabled groups, charities and campaigns in drafting this legislation. There are issues further on in the Bill—I am sure we will come to them later, so I will not go into any detail—about the changes to accessibility having a double whammy effect on disabled voters’ access to elections.

Labour will reject clause 1, and that is consistent with the position we have taken since the first day that the Conservatives mooted this policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, because, of course, Richard Mawrey said in his evidence that the threshold for proving in electoral law as it currently stands is too high to really get over the bar. By bringing in an extra set of checks and balances, we hopefully get away from the point that we would have to try to prove these cases to get over what is a very high electoral bar.

[Tom Randall]

Following up on the point about Tower Hamlets, is it not also worth noting that that election petition was brought by a small group of volunteers, working on a cross-party basis, who put up their own money and used their own time to investigate the issue in Tower Hamlets? If they had not done so, that entire piece of work would not have been done. That helps to demonstrate how difficult it is to get a petition such as that off the ground.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because what we heard in evidence was that the financial threshold is exceptionally high for people to get over. We also heard in evidence that people did indeed risk their entire financial situation—they faced bankruptcy—to take that matter forward. There is an old phrase: criminal proceedings, or taking things to court, are free to everyone in this country just as everybody in this country is free to dine at the Ritz, but quite a lot of people are precluded when the bill arrives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O’Hara]

I absolutely will. My position is that there is no evidence whatsoever. Policy must be made on the basis of evidence. We have a limited time in this House in which to act and legislate. It is a waste of that precious time, I believe, for a Government to run around looking to create a problem to find a solution for. We should address the problems that we know exist, and those problems that have to be attacked.

Even Lord Pickles, in his evidence, said:

“I did not recommend photo ID”. ––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2021; c. 16, Q13.]

He also said that fraud

“is not endemic within the system”,––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2021; c. 8, Q5.]

However, somehow, Lord Pickles has now embraced this voter ID card with the zeal of a convert. It is further evidence of a Government with a solution looking for a problem.

Councillor Golds gave chapter and verse on the problems of postal voting in Tower Hamlets, and he was extremely convincing. Fair play to Peter Golds and the people who he has been working with—they have identified a serious problem—but to try to segue that into pretending that ID cards at polling stations will somehow solve what we saw at Tower Hamlets is frankly nonsense. It is not there.

[Tom Randall]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Brendan O’Hara]

I will in a moment. Ailsa Irvine, of the Electoral Commission, admitted that

“we are starting from a high base of public confidence.”––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2021; c. 46, Q64.]

There is confidence in this system—that the system works and is sufficiently robust.

[Brendan O’Hara]

I will in a moment. There is nothing perfect. There is no way on earth that we can stop every sort of crime, but this Government and this Committee should concentrate on identified problems, rather than seeking to find problems and then provide a solution as they see fit. Now, there were two hon. Gentlemen bobbing.

[Tom Randall]

Just briefly, on Councillor Golds’ evidence, he did make reference to the Jehovah’s Witnesses who had been marked as having voted on the register in the polling station when, of course, they would not have done. I appreciate that it was anecdotal evidence, but does that not go to the heart of how difficult it for someone to realise that they are a victim of electoral fraud? If a non-voter was a victim of personation, they would not go to look for it.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Nobody on this side of the room is saying that electoral fraud should not be punished. It absolutely should be punished. It should not be tolerated and should never be tolerated. Any victim of it deserves justice. However, that must be evidence-led and proportionate. This is neither.

--- Later in debate ---

For all those reasons, I support the whole Bill, but particularly this clause because it addresses a real problem. That problem has been minimised by the Opposition simply because it is a covert activity on which we do not necessarily have the data in terms of cases, but we know that there are so many; we heard that quite clearly in the evidence given.

[Tom Randall]

May I also welcome the Minister to her place. Given that time is short, I shall be brief and make four further points, two of which relate to the evidence.

I would like to recommend some additional reading to the Committee, if they have not read it, which is a report prepared for the Electoral Commission in January 2015 entitled “Understanding electoral fraud vulnerability in Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin communities in England: A view of local political activists”. The report was prepared by Maria Sobolewska, Eleanor Hill and Magda Borkowska of the University of Manchester and Stuart Wilks-Heeg of the University of Liverpool. Neither of those universities nor the Electoral Commission could be accused of being Tory shills.

The authors make some interesting points going into the detail of this problem, including on the question of personation that has been raised a number of times today. They spoke to witnesses and acknowledge that the risk of personation was thought to be significant, with vulnerabilities identified, given the habit that people have of asking others to cast a vote on their behalf and the complex naming systems used in those communities.

The report acknowledges that there must be a trade-off between accessibility to the electoral system and electoral integrity. That notwithstanding, one of a series of recommendations in the report is that some form of voter identification should be introduced. I do recommend that as additional reading.

To return to the point raised at the beginning by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood, I agree with her when she talks about being proud of our electoral system and its integrity. The Victorians gave us the secret ballot. While the idea that as a Briton I can walk into a polling station, simply proclaim who I am and then be given my vote—which is my right—is something that I approve of, it perhaps speaks to the system that the hon. Lady would like to exist rather than the system that actually exists.

[Cat Smith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because he is talking about rights and I think we both agree that there is something fundamental about that. We are both proud of our British democracy and we are both proud of that right that citizens have to cast a secret ballot, brought to us by the Victorians. On the issue of rights, the Government ran pilots on the voter ID trials, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission warned that if voters became disenfranchised as a result of particularly restrictive requirements, it could violate article 1 of protocol No. 1 to the European convention on human rights, which was incorporated into domestic law in the Human Rights Act 1998.

Given the representations to the Committee, particularly the evidence from Gavin Millar, who said that there would inevitably be challenges to voter ID as incompatible with the European convention on human rights if the Bill was introduced as it currently stands, does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that, proud as we are of our British democracy and human rights, there is a potential threat here that the Government should be taking more seriously, so they should be looking into expanding the list of relevant ID?

[Tom Randall]

That relates to the fourth point that I had planned to make. The hon. Lady also made remarks about these measures being Trumpian in nature, looking to voter suppression in the United States. However, she voted remain, and I know that our colleagues in the Scottish National party want Scotland to be an independent country at the heart of Europe. There are countries like Germany, the Netherlands, France and Italy that do require voter ID at polling stations. I am uncertain—

[Cat Smith]

rose—

[Tom Randall]

If I might just finish this point. I am uncertain as to how a measure that is commonplace on the continent will be a violation of the European convention on human rights. I suggest that, as good Europeans, we should support this measure.

[Cat Smith]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has moved on to the point about European comparisons because the countries that he referred to have national ID cards that are given out free by the state, and people are used to presenting them to access all kinds of things. In this country we do not have ID cards, we are not asked to produce ID cards, and I am pleased that that is the case. That is part of what makes us British. Does he not agree with me that the voter ID law threatens that proud British tradition? On the examples that he gives of states with ID cards, is that a potential back-door way of bringing in ID cards, and would he support that?

[Tom Randall]

An electoral card will be issued free of charge. I am sure that between the passage of this legislation and the introduction of that scheme there will be a lot of publicity surrounding it, to make sure that the new system that is to be introduced will be well understood. The Government are used to widespread publicity schemes. I see the point that the hon. Lady makes, but I am sure that can be addressed in the fullness of time.

The point was made that no significant election has been swung or affected by electoral fraud. I gently suggest that the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, a London authority only 18 minutes from here on the tube, which has a directly elected Mayor and a multi- million-pound budget, is not insignificant when it comes to elections—it is very significant.

For my final point, I declare an interest as a former chairman of Poplar and Limehouse Conservative Association. I know Councillor Golds personally. I speak to him as a friend as well as a witness to this Committee, and he made a point to me in writing afterwards. I will read the email from him, which stated:

“When we were preparing the grounds for the petition we investigated personation. We were a small, cross party group acting voluntarily and at our own expense. I was doing most of the legal digging and the amount of time required to prove personation would have been enormous. We had evidence via marked registers but quickly found canvassing and potentially obtaining statements would have been incredibly time consuming. People who are disengaged from politics and voting are unlikely to wish to make statements for submission to a court of law. We did refer to some of the worst cases in various statements but personation…was not one of the nine grounds that we concentrated on.”

Tower Hamlets has come up a lot in this debate so far. The absence of personation as the main ground in that case should not be interpreted as meaning that there was no personation in that election. The point is that investigating it is incredibly difficult. The fact that it was volunteers working on it, who stumped up their own money, which they have not got back, is perhaps one reason why that ground in that claim was not gone into in such detail.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it would have been helpful in his lengthy evidence session if Peter Golds had actually said that to the Committee, rather than saying it as an afterthought in a private letter? That is surely the whole point of holding an evidence session.

[Tom Randall]

I wish Councillor Golds had had a whole evidence session to himself, but unfortunately he had to share one and we had to listen to other witnesses, which I shall not go into now, but I think that was an unfortunate timetabling measure.

There is a fundamental weakness in the system as it stands. For that reason I will support this part of the Bill.

[Patrick Grady]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I echo the welcomes to the Minister and Members who have joined the Committee.

The phrase “voter ID is a solution in search of a problem” has been heard several times since the start of the Second Reading debate. That is a quote that my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute did not want to explicitly attribute to Baroness Davidson, who was once the coming thing in the Tory party. She was going to be the leader or a Minister. She was going to save them all and save the Union. Now that those future leaders of the Conservative party, the 2019 red-wallers, are here arrayed in front of us, demonstrating to the Whips, the Minister and everyone else their value, I am sure they will not be overlooked quite as much in the next reshuffle.

The previous Minister on the Committee made the pertinent point that we must be careful about the use of the word “disenfranchisement”. To disenfranchise someone is to actively take their vote away; where once they were previously eligible to vote, they are now no longer eligible. They made the point that we must be very careful about casually suggesting that voter suppression, which I will get on to later, is the same as disenfranchisement—which is fair enough. However, that also means that we must be quite careful when we use other terms—terms such as “voter fraud”, which has been bandied about on the other side of the House in reference to a whole range of electoral malpractices, some of which we heard about in the evidence sessions. In fact, voter fraud specifically refers to personation and the casting of the ballot.

As has been quoted back several times from the Committee session with Richard Mawrey:

“In Tower Hamlets, as I said, they virtually ticked every box of electoral offence. But for my being rather kind-hearted, they would have ticked the intimidation box as well—they ticked them all. Voter fraud played a very small part, funnily enough,”.––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2021; c. 14, Q13.]

That is the point about personation. It is a point that has been made repeatedly by hon. Members from Opposition parties, and that has not been challenged or proven false by Conservative Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute quoted another witness as saying that personation was an incredibly inefficient way of swinging an election and making oneself the victor. It carries with it an extremely high risk; someone only needs to do it once to be tapped on the shoulder and kicked out of the election campaign and into jail.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Randall]

On a small point of clarification, under proposed new paragraph (1H), “specified documents” include documents

“regardless of any expiry date”,

so the expired passport would be valid.

[Patrick Grady]

That is incredibly helpful. People across the country with expired passports will be breathing a sigh of relief, unlike the people across the country who, for whatever reason, do not have passports or who, for all kinds of reasons, find it difficult to make that approach.

We have heard about the pressure that there will be on electoral administrators to deal with the inevitable surge in applications. We have heard about some of the accessibility challenges that will be faced by people with different kinds of impairments when applying for photo documentation. There are all those kinds of barriers. Nobody is questioning the agency or ability of minority communities to apply for voter identification; the point is that many people are already disproportionately without existing forms of voter identification and so are already disincentivised from taking part in the democratic system.

Elections Bill (Sixth sitting)

Tom Randall Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Cat Smith]

Absolutely none whatsoever—[Laughter.] The purpose of the amendment is to make the point that the Bill is very prescriptive about the locations at which one can apply for a free electoral ID, but there are no requirements on when, and on what days of the week, that place would have to be open, or whether one would have to attend in person or could apply by post. There are so many gaping holes in the legislation. The purpose of my amendment is to provoke a discussion about whether we can make applications for free ID cards a little more accessible. It is somewhat murky at the moment.

Expanding the list of places where one could apply for an electoral ID would also widen the opportunities for a publicity or advertisement campaign to inform electors about the change in Government policy to require ID to vote, and potentially allow people to think about it before an election comes around. For instance, someone waiting for a GP appointment who sees a sign on the wall saying that this is a location at which they could apply for a voter ID card might think, “Well, I’ll do it now.” That might take pressure off the administration officers at local councils. We heard in evidence about the rush that happens just before elections take place.

[Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)]

I see that the Labour party’s amendment includes

“Member of Parliament’s constituency office”

as one of the locations. There is usually a distinction between party political resources and parliamentary resources. For example, some MPs share their office with their local Conservative association; I imagine there are similar arrangements with the Labour party. On the basis of her amendment, would the hon. Lady be happy for a member of the public to pick up their electoral ID card from the office of their local Conservative association? Surely that is a blurring of the lines, which is what the Opposition are trying to avoid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Trust in outsourcing has recently been shaken among the electorate and constituents. Building it into the Bill would be a mistake.

The voter ID card will be an individual’s ticket to democratic participation, which is their voice; it is sacrosanct. It is therefore a process that the Government and the public sector must retain control of. Otherwise, we risk undermining trust in the entire system.

[Tom Randall]

Is it not the case that we outsource some quite important documents, such as our passports and banknotes, which are produced by De La Rue? If we can trust those things to the private sector, why could something like an electoral document also not be outsourced, if necessary?

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Given recent examples, I just do not think we can trust this to external contracts. Why not build the best into our system? Why not learn from Northern Ireland, where that in-sourcing really worked? That is the closest example we have for this contract, so why not look to the experience there and learn from it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Cat Smith]

I thank the hon. Member. We are finding an awful lot of common ground on the legislation. In the 2018 and 2019 pilots, we found that when voters were asked for a restrictive form of ID, hundreds of people who did not have it and did not understand that it was needed were turned away. This is a safeguard to ensure that those legitimate voters who were turned away would get a chance to cast a ballot.

[Tom Randall]

rose—

[Cat Smith]

One of the witnesses in our evidence sessions—I cannot remember who it was; perhaps someone can intervene and share it with us—was very clear that no matter what legislation we bring in and how hard we try, bad actors will find a way around it to commit fraud. Even requiring ID at polling stations is not watertight. The hon. Member for Glasgow North made the point very clearly that if someone prints out a fake driving licence or passport, they can suddenly claim to be someone else because they have shown ID, even though it is a forgery. The legislation is not watertight against fraud, so it is about being proportionate.

I believe that the amendment is a proportionate safeguard to ensure that constituents who, for whatever reason on the day, are unable to provide ID are not denied the opportunity to cast a vote. It is used in many US states that have what I would call non-strict ID. It provides some level of protection, but not one that results in people being denied their vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cat Smith]

I beg to move amendment 47, in schedule 1, page 73, line 9, at end insert—

‘(1AA) The presiding officer or clerk must—

(a) deliver a provisional ballot paper to a voter who is unable to produce a specified document,

(b) take reasonable steps as may be prescribed by regulations to establish if the voter, had they been able to produce a specified document, would have been entitled to a ballot paper, and

(c) if the voter would have been so entitled, covert the provisional ballot paper to a ballot paper in a manner as may be prescribed by regulations.”

This amendment would allow a voter who does not have a specified ID with them to cast a provisional ballot pending checks on their identity.

The amendment would allow a voter who does not have the specified ID with them to cast a provisional ballot pending checks on their identity. It is another example of an approach used successfully in the United States to ensure that as many people as possible who are legitimate electors are able to cast their vote in an election. In some states, such as Colorado, Florida, Montana, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Utah and Vermont, voters who do not show required identification may vote on a provisional ballot, and after the close of election day, election officials will determine via a signature check or other verification whether the voter was eligible and registered, and whether the provisional ballot should be counted or be excluded. No action on the part of the voter is required.

[Tom Randall]

This is the same intervention that I was going to make earlier. The hon. Lady gives some good examples from the United States. I just wondered, as we are a European country, whether there are any examples from European countries that use voter ID. Do they have any of these measures that the Opposition are proposing?

[Cat Smith]

The reason why I draw examples from the United States is that it does not have a national ID card, in the same way that we do not, whereas the European examples tend to have a national ID card. In that sense, we are more similar to the United States than to the European countries that the hon. Gentleman tempts me to talk about.

In New Hampshire, election officials will send a letter to anyone who has signed a challenged voter affidavit because they did not show an ID. These voters must return the mailing confirming that they are indeed in residence as indicated on the affidavit.

That method has allowed many successful elections to take place without fraud becoming an issue. There have been so many inventive ways to ensure that people do not lose their right to vote under that legislation. I urge the Government to share that imagination and perhaps to listen to some of those examples of good practice from the United States and incorporate them into the UK legislation. I hope the Minister will consider looking at the proposals and at the ways in which some US states do that to support our attempts not only to stamp out fraud, but to ensure that no elector is disenfranchised unduly.

Human Rights in Hong Kong

Tom Randall Excerpts

Wednesday 9th June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered human rights in Hong Kong.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. This is the first Westminster Hall debate that I have initiated. It is a privilege to speak, and I am grateful that this debate has been selected. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will understand it when I say that I wish I was not here. I wish none of us was here today to discuss this matter. This debate was entirely avoidable had international obligations been met.

Let me say at the outset what this debate is not about. It is not about colonialism or interference by a former colonial power. In his final act as Governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten telegrammed London to announce,

“I have relinquished the administration of this government.”

The 156 years of British rule over Hong Kong ended on 1 July 1997, and we are not here to debate taking it back.

Hong Kong was handed over to China following an agreement that took the form of an international treaty lodged at the United Nations, which both the United Kingdom and the People’s Republic of China entered into freely. It is right that we consider whether that agreement—the Sino-British joint declaration on the question of Hong Kong—is being upheld and whether it meets our and Hongkongers’ legitimate expectations.

The joint declaration was signed in December 1984. The text sets out the basis on which Hong Kong would be returned to China. It states:

“The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will be vested with executive, legislative and independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication. The laws currently in force in Hong Kong will remain basically unchanged.”

It goes on to say:

“The current social and economic systems in Hong Kong will remain unchanged, and so will the life-style. Rights and freedoms, including those of the person, of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of travel, of movement, of correspondence, of strike, of choice of occupation, of academic research and of religious belief will be ensured by law in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.”

I submit to you, Ms Ghani, that all those rights and freedoms have been diminished in modern-day Hong Kong.

Last year, China passed a national security law for Hong Kong that created a number of chilling measures. A new security office with its own personnel has been established by China in Hong Kong, outside local jurisdiction. Some criminal cases can now be tried in mainland China. Hong Kong’s Chief Executive has the power to appoint judges to hear national security cases.

The law includes many broad-brush offences, including

“provoking by unlawful means hatred among Hong Kong residents towards the Central People’s Government or the Government of the Region, which is likely to cause serious consequences.”

Given the extraterritorial nature of the legislation, it might well apply to those of us participating in this debate.

However, this debate is not about history, rules or what might happen to Members of Parliament; it is about people such as Donna Kong, who has lived in Hong Kong her whole life but has decided to take the difficult decision to leave her family behind and move with her husband to Liverpool. She says:

“Nowadays, we have to be careful what we say on the streets.”

Her husband adds:

“Hong Kong is going from a free, international city to just another Chinese city.”

It is about people such as Jimmy Lai, who was jailed in April 2021 for his participation in a peaceful protest in 2019. In reality, it was because he has the temerity to publish a newspaper that criticises the Government. It is about people such as Martin Lee, a barrister and member of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong for over 20 years, who is regarded and revered as the father of democracy in Hong Kong. He has been silenced by the national security law. He has stopped his public activism and is no longer granting media interviews. He has also been sentenced for participating in an unlawful assembly, although his sentence was suspended.

The crackdown on human rights in Hong Kong has been all pervasive, and I will give some examples. The legislature has passed an immigration Bill to restrict freedom of movement in and out of Hong Kong. The police chief has floated the idea of a law to target so-called fake news, and he has called for the closure of Jimmy Lai’s Apple Daily, the last pro-democracy publication. Police have censored a website belonging to a Taiwanese church. The Government have attacked the Hong Kong Bar Association and fired 129 civil servants for refusing to sign an oath of allegiance. The local broadcaster, RTHK, has purged its online platform of any shows over a year old but given Hong Kong’s Chief Executive, Carrie Lam, her own television show, which is shown four times every day. So-called national security education is to be embedded across the curriculum in all secondary schools.

The examples I have given are from April 2021 alone—just one month in the life of Hongkongers—so I welcome the steps taken by the Government in response to China’s actions. The Government have suspended the UK’s extradition treaty with Hong Kong, and extended to Hong Kong the embargo on certain military items already imposed on mainland China. I particularly welcome the new visa route to people from Hong Kong who have British national overseas status and their close family members. It is a generous offer that befits a global Britain that takes this issue seriously, and I am pleased that the Home Office has announced that it has received 34,000 applications for visas in the first two months of operation.

The Government recognise that there is an ongoing breach of Chinese obligations, and I ask whether further measures might be taken. Is there scope to work with allies and partners to ensure a co-ordinated approach? I read recently that Germany will not accept BNO passports as identity documents, and it is important that democracies take a common line on such matters. We continue to have British judges sitting on Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal—a position that perhaps looks increasingly untenable as the current situation continues. As we are able to identify officials in Hong Kong who are guilty of human rights breaches, I ask whether it is time to consider targeted sanctions against them, or at least to assess their effectiveness. Previously, the Minister has kindly indicated that he would be willing to meet me and fellow members of the all-party parliamentary group on Hong Kong to discuss this subject, and I am very willing to take him up on that offer.

There is no dispute resolution clause in the Sino-British joint declaration, but it is a living document, and the United Kingdom is party to it. This country has a duty to protect the rights and freedoms of Hongkongers. Until such time as those freedoms are restored, I expect that the voices from this island will only get louder. I look forward to hearing some of those voices this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Randall]

I am grateful to all the hon. and right hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon. When I was preparing for this debate, I reread the Hansard debate on the joint declaration in December 1984. I was struck by the fact that although there were some concerns about immigration status, there was unanimity across the House that, at the time, that was the best deal that could have been obtained for Hong Kong.

As the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) and the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) have identified, there has been a similar unanimity today across the Chamber on this issue. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) observed, many other human rights abuses have been committed by China in the region. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said, this is the issue of the moment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) said, today we are discussing the decline of the most international of Asian cities.

The speeches we have heard today have illustrated the breadth of China’s actions in Hong Kong—brazen actions, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford). We have heard about the manipulation of election rules from the hon. Members for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) and for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi).

The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has spoken passionately about his comrades in the trade union movement who have been affected, and the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) has spoken about how even basic things like professing one’s faith have been hindered by the actions taken by the Chinese Government.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) spoke about media clampdowns. At one of the most interesting and distressing meetings that I attended while involved in this subject I listened to Hong Kong journalists who had to be identified as witnesses 1, 2 and 3 because of fear of persecution. They underlined well the issues that they faced.

As the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) observed, democracies have to put on a united front. I am grateful to the Minister for his statement and what he said, and we would be encouraged if this matter were raised at the G7 this week. It is a matter that needs to be raised, and I am grateful for the clarification.

I will conclude by quoting from the six-monthly report on Hong Kong that is produced by the Foreign Office. The latest one said:

“It is not too late for the authorities to reach out and start to heal divisions, however complicated and difficult that might be.”

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered human rights in Hong Kong.

Human Rights: Xinjiang

Tom Randall Excerpts

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)]

May I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) on securing the debate? There are clearly human rights violations taking place in Xinjiang province in China. They are taking place in an otherwise peaceful nation, perpetrated by a cold, calculating state.

We have seen in Xinjiang the dehumanisation of the Uyghurs. They are subject to mass-surveillance; information is collected from and about them, including by teams who visit their homes. Religious activity has been suppressed. They have died in police custody. Women have been forcibly sterilised. Children have been forcibly transferred to what are euphemistically called “child welfare guidance centres”. More than 1 million have been detained without trial. We have seen Uyghurs herded on to trains to be used as forced labour, and there are widespread claims of torture and rape in labour camps. All the while, the Chinese state has used its advanced propaganda techniques to play down events in an attempt to present a false picture of a happy and contented native population.

Those features of Chinese Government action have been compared to the events of Europe in the 1940s. While I hesitate to use words such as fascist, as they are so often used liberally and misleadingly in public discourse, I do not think such comparisons are too wide of the mark. Events in Xinjiang have been condemned by all right-thinking people, and I certainly join in that condemnation.

There is the question of whether that amounts to genocide. I agree that it probably does. My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) set out well and in detail the criteria under the 1948 convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide and how they might be fulfilled by what has been done. I slightly hesitate. This might appear pedantic, but it is a technical question that requires a technical answer. Genocide is a crime, and it has been described as the crime of all crimes—it is the most heinous act that man can do to man—but there are limits to a Member of Parliament answering that question with authority. It is a legal question. The genocides of the 1940s and the genocides in Bosnia and Rwanda were all adjudicated by courts. This House is not a court. As a Member of Parliament I can express a view on something, but I cannot adjudicate on a matter of genocide in the same way that I cannot adjudicate on, for example, a case of murder. However, I accept that passing a resolution in this House is an important symbolic move, and I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden on bringing the debate to the House.

We have seen action taken by the Government along with international allies to designate individuals responsible for violations and impose sanctions on them, including freezing their assets and travel bans. I appreciate that China’s role in the world makes action through the United Nations difficult, but I urge the Government to view the measures taken so far as the beginning, not the end, of those in this matter, to continue to put the maximum pressure on the Chinese Government, and to do everything we can to ensure that those who perpetrate these awful actions will never get away with it.

Hong Kong: Electoral Reforms

Tom Randall Excerpts

Wednesday 10th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before I call the next speaker, let me just say that I want to get everybody in on this urgent question, and we have two very well-subscribed debates later, so I ask for single questions, and I am sure the Minister will be succinct in his replies.

[Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) [V]]

The reported proposals in China’s National People’s Congress to change Hong Kong’s electoral system will break the promises that she has made and end democracy in Hong Kong. With almost every prominent leader in Hong Kong’s democracy movement now on trial, in exile or in jail, what steps are the Government taking in multilateral institutions to hold China to account for her actions?

[Nigel Adams]

One example of that was on 22 February, when the Foreign Secretary addressed the United Nations Human Rights Council calling out the systematic violation of the rights of the people of Hong Kong. We have made it clear that free and fair legislative elections must take place. The impact of our diplomacy is reflected in the growing number of countries supporting the statements that we have led or co-ordinated at the UN: we have gone from 23 countries to 39 within a year. This sends a powerful message to China about the breadth of international concern.

Hong Kong: Sentencing of Pro-democracy Activists

Tom Randall Excerpts

Monday 7th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Adams]

Again, the hon. Gentleman is no stranger to championing this cause. I do think we are fulfilling our moral and political obligation to ensure that China respects its obligations under the joint declaration. As he will be aware, this is in line with our new immigration path. We have suspended our extradition treaty with Hong Kong and extended our arms embargo on mainland China to Hong Kong.

[Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)]

In light of the long-standing close relations between this country and Hong Kong, will my hon. Friend assure me that he remains committed to welcoming the holders of British national overseas passports to our shores if China continues these assaults on Hong Kong’s freedom?

[Nigel Adams]

Very much so. My hon. Friend is correct. We will continue to welcome people from Hong Kong. In fact, the route will open on 31 January 2021 for BNOs. It is a new immigration route and a major change to the UK immigration system. It will afford all those with BNO status, and their immediate family dependents, the right to live, work or study in the UK, and give them a path to full citizenship.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Randall Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

ODA and our aid budget will remain at the absolute centre of the work we do as a force for good. I am afraid that we will have to wait for the spending review to hear what the Chancellor has to say on that.

[Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the aggressive language from the Chinese Foreign Ministry, saying that the west “should beware of their eyes being poked and blinded”,demonstrates that country’s contempt for freedom and democracy and that now is the time for stringent actions, including targeted sanctions? If the current sanctions regime does not allow for the targeting of those responsible for what is happening in Hong Kong, will the Government consider new regulations that target those authority figures who are truly guilty, not innocent Hongkongers?

[Dominic Raab]

I totally share my hon. Friend’s objective. With the Magnitsky sanctions, the key thing is to target those directly responsible. That requires evidence, and we work very closely with all our international partners to share our experience and compare notes in relation to that. The recent comments follow on from the solidarity that we as Five Eyes, alongside the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, have shown in relation to human rights, in particular in Hong Kong. It also follows on from the wider caucus of 39 countries that backed the UK in the UN Third Committee on not only Hong Kong but the issue of Xinjiang.

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

Tom Randall Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

We continue to have concerns about Iran’s human rights record and the treatment of minorities. Although that is an allied issue, it is separate to that of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and the other dual national detainees. We continue to work with Iran at all levels to encourage it to improve its human rights record.

[Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)]

I also commend the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for her efforts in this area. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that his Department is doing everything in its power to ensure that Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe receives all the necessary medical care during this difficult time?

[James Cleverly]

We regularly raise health and welfare concerns with the Iranian Government at the most senior levels. The Foreign Secretary continues to raise the UK’s concerns with his opposite number Foreign Minister Zarif. We will continue to raise such issues until these people are allowed home.

Hong Kong National Security Legislation

Tom Randall Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I certainly share the hon. Lady’s views on our responsibilities to the people of Hong Kong and our concern about their treatment. In relation Huawei, as I have already said to the House, given the US sanctions, it is currently under review by the National Cyber Security Centre. We will come forward with our response in due course.

[Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)]

This morning I read an English translation of this disgraceful law and saw that article 38 extends the law to any offences committed outside Hong Kong by non-Hong Kong residents. Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond), will my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary press the point with China that UK visitors to Hong Kong and China will not face prosecution for things that they may have said or acts that they may have done while in the UK?

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we are concerned about that provision and it is not entirely clear how it will be applied. It has already been raised with Carrie Lam by the consul general in the past 24 hours. We will be expressing our concern. It is, of course, something that the entire international community, and tourists and visitors from all around the world, will be concerned about, which is why it is so detrimental, not just to Hong Kong and the international community but to China itself.

Hong Kong National Security Legislation: UK Response

Tom Randall Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

We have called for a fully independent investigation in relation to police treatment of the protesters. We will introduce our mechanism for so-called Magnitsky legislation shortly. [Hon. Members: “When?”] We have been slightly disrupted because of coronavirus, but we will bring it forward shortly. I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who speaks from a sedentary position and has a long-standing position on the issue.

[Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)]

If the international security law is imposed on Hong Kong, will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will work with the Home Secretary to explore all options to support BNO passport holders?

[Dominic Raab]

I agree with the spirit of my hon. Friend’s question. The ideal thing would be for China to step back. If China does not step back, we will consider all the possible actions and measures that we might wish to take. Fundamentally, rather than just wait for international co-operation on the specific issue of what will happen to those who are not willing to stay in Hong Kong, we feel that we have a duty—as a matter of international law, moral responsibility and historical responsibility—to come out and lead. That is why we have said that we will allow the 300,000-plus passport holders, along with their dependants, to come to the UK in the way I described.