Hong Kong

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government’s response to yesterday’s protests in Hong Kong.

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)]

For a number of weeks now, the world has been watching massive yet largely peaceful protests in Hong Kong in opposition to the proposed extradition legislation. Unfortunately, a small number of protesters chose to vandalise the premises of the Legislative Council yesterday. Her Majesty’s Government strongly condemn any such violence but also understand the deep-seated concerns that people in Hong Kong have about their rights and freedoms. The vast majority of the hundreds of thousands of people who took part in the 1 July march yesterday did so in a peaceful and lawful manner.

The UK is fully committed to upholding Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy and rights and freedoms under the One country, two systems principle, which is guaranteed by the legally binding joint declaration of 1984. We reject the Chinese Government’s assertion that the joint declaration is an “historic document”, by which they mean that it is no longer valid, and that our rights and obligations under that treaty have ended. Our clear view is that the Sino-British joint declaration of 1984 obliges the Chinese Government to uphold Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy, and its rights and freedoms, and we call on the Chinese Government to do so. In respect of the recent demonstrations, the main responsibility for addressing this tension rests with the Government of Hong Kong, including the Chief Executive.

[Mr Carmichael]

I thank the Minister for that statement. May I also thank you, Mr Speaker, for again allowing an urgent question on this ever-increasing and serious matter, which is heard not just in this country, but throughout the world? Last night, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) organised a meeting in the House under the auspices of Hong Kong Watch, and she and I co-chaired it. It was a very well attended and, sadly, timely meeting, with more than 100 people, mostly Hong Kongers, present. The message from that meeting, especially from activists such as Tommy Cheung and Willis Ho, was clear: they worry that the Government of the People’s Republic of China will see yesterday’s events as an excuse for ever more direct intervention in Hong Kong’s affairs. They want to hear that this country will continue to stand with them against that threat.

Unfortunately, the images that dominated our television screens yesterday were those of the occupation of the Legislative Council building. There was much less coverage of the fact that on Monday, half a million families, young children and older people marched down major roads in peaceful protests. In his representations to Carrie Lam’s Administration, will the Minister make it as clear as possible that any consequences for the actions of the hundreds of protesters in the LegCo building should not be visited on the many thousands—in fact, millions—of people who have protested on Hong Kong’s streets in recent weeks?

The images broadcast around the world yesterday were ones of violence and vandalism, but they were also images of fear and frustration from people who are increasingly desperate that the world looks on at their plight and will do no more than wring its hands. Will the Minister make it clear to Carrie Lam that there is much more that she and her Administration can do to reassure her own population? It is surely clear to all that a suspension—even a suspension sine die—of the Bill to allow for the amendment of the extradition arrangements is not enough. The people of Hong Kong need to hear that the Bill has been abandoned completely.

The Hong Kong police have described the victims of police violence in recent weeks as rioters, when we know that they were peaceful protesters. Will the Minister impress on the Executive that such use of language must be withdrawn? Will the Executive instigate an independent inquiry into the police violence on 12 June?

Finally, the Chinese Foreign Ministry yesterday declared the Sino-British joint declaration to be meaningless. I welcome the Minister’s repudiation of that from the Dispatch Box, but will the Government now consider all meaningful sanctions at our disposal, including the possible use of Magnitsky powers, to ensure that those who infringe the human rights of the people of Hong Kong will have no hiding place in the United Kingdom?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

First, I genuinely acknowledge and recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s interest in and deep knowledge of this issue, and I commend him for the activity that he generates in the House, which is shared in by so many other Members from all parties. I thank him for his analysis and for what I consider to be a measured series of questions that go very much to the point. We all agree with him that any actions taken in response to the vandalism that took place should be proportionate and within the rule of law, and should not be taken against larger numbers than those who were actually involved in that vandalism.

As the right hon. Gentleman recognises, and as I said in my opening remarks, a lot of the ability to address the tension rests with the Government of Hong Kong and the Chief Executive Carrie Lam, in respect of the extradition legislation that has generated so much protest. Whereas we fully agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the joint declaration remains valid—again, I said that in my opening remarks—we are not here to dictate and instruct either the Chinese Government, or that of Hong Kong itself, to do what we believe they should be doing within the autonomy that has properly been granted to them. I am sure the House will appreciate the delicacy of our wanting to uphold the rule of law while having to be careful not to instruct either Government about what they should do in specific detail.

Hong Kong

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the subject of democracy and protests in Hong Kong.

[The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)]

The huge protest march this weekend was a further demonstration of the passionate strength of feeling among the people of Hong Kong about the proposed amendments to extradition laws. The people of Hong Kong have peacefully exercised their rights in recent days to freedom of speech, assembly and expression, all of which are guaranteed by the Sino-British joint declaration of 1984 and enshrined in Hong Kong Basic Law.

The most recent march was, thankfully, free of the scenes of violence witnessed during protests on 12 June. I note the allegations of inappropriate use of force by the Hong Kong police, which should, of course, be fully investigated by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government.

It is positive that, on 15 June, the Government committed to pause, reflect and consult widely before taking further action. However, it is clear that this commitment did not fully address the concerns of the people of Hong Kong. I welcome Chief Executive Carrie Lam’s statement today, in which she said that she would not proceed with the Second Reading of the Bill if the fears and anxieties of the people of Hong Kong could not now be addressed.

In considering the way forward, it is vital that Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy and the rights and freedoms set out in the joint declaration are respected in full. Those principles, along with the commitment to one country, two systems underpin Hong Kong’s future success and prosperity. As a guarantor of the joint declaration, the UK has a responsibility to monitor its implementation. This is a responsibility that we all take very seriously.

The joint declaration is a legally binding international treaty between the United Kingdom and China, and it remains in force. It is as relevant today as it was at the time of the handover in 1997. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer both raised the situation in Hong Kong and the importance of upholding the joint declaration with Chinese Vice Premier Hu during the UK-China economic and financial dialogue that took place in London yesterday.

The permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office also held a meeting in the Foreign Office with the Chinese ambassador yesterday, reinforcing our view that the joint declaration is an extant document underpinning one country, two systems and it is guaranteed until 2047. It must be upheld. I can assure the House that the UK Government are, and will remain, fully committed to the preservation of Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy.

I am delighted that, in addressing this matter on the Floor of the House for the fourth time in six sitting days, there is such widespread support from all corners of Parliament for the rule of law, independence of the judiciary and the freedoms for the people of Hong Kong.

[Mr Carmichael]

I thank the Minister for that answer and I thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing this urgent question. There are literally millions of people in Hong Kong who follow the proceedings in this House and who look to us for support in their fight to protect their human rights. It matters to them there that we here remember their position, and it is right that we should recognise your role, Mr Speaker, in getting this issue ventilated in the House.

The news that the Executive in Hong Kong had suspended the legislation for the extradition amendments was welcome as far as it went, but the message should go out from this House that it did not go far enough. We in this House stand with the 2 million people who took again to the streets in Hong Kong on Sunday to say that suspension is not enough. That legislation must be withdrawn for good. Will the Minister make it clear to the chief executive that that is the position of this country and that that is what her Administration must now do?

In recent weeks, the Chinese Foreign Ministry declared that the Sino-British joint declaration was meaningless and that it no longer had any realistic meaning. I welcome what the Minister has said on this today, but will he assure us that that will continue to be put forcefully to the Chinese Government at every opportunity, because for a fellow permanent member of the UN Security Council to take this view undermines the very idea of a rules-based international order. Will the Government now demand of the Chinese Government that they should resile from the view that they have previously expressed in relation to the joint declaration? It is a binding bilateral treaty registered with the United Nations. China cannot be allowed to pick and choose the obligations in international law that it will observe and honour.

People across the world were shocked to witness the violence used against peaceful protesters in Hong Kong last week. Legitimate democratic Governments do not use tear gas and rubber bullets against their own people when they choose to exercise their democratic right to protest. We hear that the Chief Executive is due to make an apology today to the people of Hong Kong for her handling of the affair. Does the Minister agree with me that that apology should extend to those who were harassed and injured as a result of what was done, and can we in this House send the message that we continue to watch what happens in Hong Kong and we will not sit mute as those who protested then are prosecuted when the spotlight of world attention has moved on?

The events of recent weeks in Hong Kong have been horrifying, but they should not have been surprising. For years now, the People’s Republic of China has been salami slicing the commitments it gave under the joint declaration. Sadly, the Executive Council has too often been complicit in that, but the commitments that have been broken are commitments to which this country has been a party. Will our Government now send the strongest possible message that we will not stand by and allow that process of salami slicing to continue?

Hong Kong

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 13th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we will do our level best and do whatever we can from our side to calm some of the passions, not least because of our 300,000 UK nationals there. We are not aware at present of any British nationals being caught up in the violence of the past 48 hours. The question of British nationals overseas was brought up by my hon. Friend’s constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), and we do have some ongoing obligations in that regard.

We are concerned about the potential detrimental impact of these extradition proposals on the rights and freedoms of all people resident in and travelling through Hong Kong. At present the FCO is not providing specific advice relating to the proposed extradition Bill as it affects British nationals overseas, particularly as this legislation is still under consideration. However, we do believe that it is of the utmost importance that any extradition arrangements respect the high degree of autonomy and the rights and freedoms of the Basic Law. The arrangements will of course apply to all citizens, but we particularly have British nationals overseas and UK nationals very much in our heart, and will ensure our consul general does all he can to deal with any of the concerns raised.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Yesterday a young Hong Kong woman came to my office and showed me pictures of what had happened to friends of hers who had been protesting in Hong Kong. She showed me videos of tear gas being used and the injuries they had sustained as a result of rubber bullets being used. These things happen because the authorities that employ these methods think they can get away with it. She understood, as I think we should all understand, that the joint declaration is now under attack not just from the People’s Republic of China but from Carrie Lam’s Administration in Hong Kong itself.

As the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) said, the question is what signals we send, and I have to say to the Minister that the signal that he sends today in saying that the UK Government do not see the extradition changes as a breach of the joint declaration is fundamentally wrong and has to change. The purpose of that joint declaration is to protect the human rights of the people of Hong Kong. The legislation proposed by Carrie Lam’s Government is a fundamental attack on these human rights, and if we are to stand by the joint declaration we should be opposing these changes unambiguously and vigorously at every turn. I have to say to the Minister that it is not good enough to hide behind a question of legal construction when this is actually about our political determination.

[Mark Field]

I think that is a rather unfair characterisation of our position, if I may say so. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has a long-standing interest in Hong Kong—this has been our third exchange at the Dispatch Box over the course of this week—but I was merely making the point that the joint declaration was silent on the issue of extradition. We very much feel that the spirit of the joint declaration is fundamental, for the reasons I have set out about the high degree of autonomy, freedom of expression and the like, but I was just making the narrow point that extradition was not raised in the joint declaration of 35 years ago.

The right hon. Gentleman touched on the use of tear gas and rubber bullets, and I would therefore like to talk a bit about export licences; I know this has been brought up in the pages of The Guardian today. The last export licence from the UK for tear gas hand grenades and tear gas cartridges used for training purposes by the Hong Kong police was in July 2018. The last export licence for rubber bullets was in July 2015. We rejected an open licence for riot shields as recently as April 2019. The issue of export licences is close to all our hearts, and it comes up time and again in our work overseas. We are monitoring the situation very closely and will of course undertake to review all current export licences. We will have no qualms in revoking any licences found no longer to be consistent with the consolidated criteria, including criterion 2, which I think the right hon. Gentleman will be aware of, dealing with respect for human rights.

Hong Kong

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He is absolutely right that we have significant obligations to British national (overseas) passport holders. He will be aware that the right of abode in the UK was defined by the Immigration Act 1971, so there are immigration controls to which BN(O) passport holders are subject. The rights they have are not the full rights of British citizens. None the less, they are British nationals from Hong Kong. It is something that we do take very seriously. I hope that he will forgive me if say that I will write to him in due course to try to answer his specific issues, with particular regard to any changes to the rights of such individuals since 1997.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

The Second Reading of the Bill to implement these changes will take place on Wednesday. Legislators in Hong Kong have told me today that they anticipate that, thereafter, the remaining stages of the Bill could be completed as early as the middle of the week after next. If that happens, clearly the Minister’s aspiration for more consultation will be dead in the water. What will he do then?

[Mark Field]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he says. It would clearly be of grave concern. There is an almost universal view, and not just from those who were on the streets of Hong Kong yesterday. Increasingly, business organisations based in Hong Kong and, indeed, around the world are asking for greater consultation. I would rather not speculate as to where we might be if the path he describes is taken over the next 10 days, and I sincerely hope that will not come to pass.

Mr Speaker, you may be aware that the right hon. Gentleman has the Adjournment debate, in which we will be covering a little of this ground. I hope he will forgive me—I will want to talk more generally later about the relations between the UK, Hong Kong and China.

UK Foreign Policy: China and Hong Kong

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I am delighted to have the opportunity to bring this matter to the House for what has turned out to be a more topical debate than we had realised at the point when I was successful in obtaining it. I do not want to detain the House unnecessarily, but it is worth reminding ourselves about the particular, special legal and moral obligations that we in the United Kingdom have towards Hong Kong and its people. I will précis those briefly, and I do that not to insult the intelligence of the House, which will be well acquainted with them, as will those who are following our proceedings, but because it is sadly no longer universally accepted that these legal obligations subsist. The message should go from this Chamber that we in this House are very much of the view that they are continuing and subsisting legal obligations.

The Sino-British joint declaration enshrines the principle of one country, two systems. That was intended to guarantee a 50-year period, from the ending of colonial rule in 1997 to 2047, when the way of life of the people of Hong Kong would not change. As the Minister himself said today, it is a legally binding treaty which is registered with the United Nations and continues to be in force. The sad truth is that we in the United Kingdom have not always been as vigorous as we ought to be in the fulfilling of our obligations, legal or moral, towards the people of Hong Kong. For a second, I should pause to reflect on what view on this matter would be taken by the late Lord Ashdown, a man who was a doughty fighter in the cause for the people of Hong Kong.

As I was going over my notes in anticipation of tonight’s debate, an email dropped into my inbox. It does not come from a constituent so I shall not name the sender—in fact, it is addressed to another Member—but it highlights and articulates very well sentiments that I have seen expressed by many others in a similar position. The author writes:

“Before this Bill was tabled, as a BN(O)”—

British national overseas passport—

“holder residing in the UK and planning to naturalise in the near future, I thought I could go back to the country of my birth to see my family, especially my old parents. Once this Bill is passed, which the HKSAR and Chinese governments fully intend to do, I fear that I will not be able to visit my natal land and return to Britain because I took part in the Umbrella Revolution in 2014 and because of my active involvement in activist work in the past.”

He goes on to say:

“The handover has been done, and I fully understand that Her Majesty’s government does not have the power to undo this mistake. At the very least, the British government should start considering the possibility of rectifying the status of BN(O) holders—we are British subjects who are treated worse than any British subjects and other non-British nationals.”

He continues:

“I would like to share my personal experiences in this regard, if I may: The number of times I made myself clear to the immigration officers at Heathrow airport that I am British, the attitude I received from these officers was universally humiliating and soul-destroying. I was born British, and my British status was stripped away from me and my fate was left in the hands of a notoriously authoritarian regime, the PRC”—

the People’s Republic of China. That is the very human cost and the very human face of the matter that I bring to the House this evening.

Of course, this is not the first time that we have dealt with this issue today, and I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) the urgent question on the extradition arrangements that are up for amendment. At the end of his comments to the House earlier this afternoon, the Minister said in relation to this debate that he would want to speak

“more generally later about the relations between the UK, Hong Kong and China.”

I confess that that was very much what I had anticipated this debate would be about.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that China is a member of the UN P5 and of the World Trade Organisation and therefore does believe in an international rules-based system? Hong Kong has one of the strongest independent legal systems in the world and the extradition Bill is described as one of the worst threats to that legal system of any Bill introduced so far. As such, the Chinese Government would do well to heed the large number of protestors on the streets in the past few hours.

[Mr Carmichael]

I differ from the hon. Gentleman only in the smallest grammatical sense, in that as a member of all those various international bodies, the Chinese Government ought to believe in, adhere to and demonstrate respect for international law. In this particular care, they are manifestly failing to do that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The one country, two systems agreement between China and Britain is under threat. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the real need to balance our global human rights obligations with the need to secure a trade deal does not mean that we forget those obligations? Furthermore, does he agree that we can attempt to use our influence and trade to seek the better understanding of acceptable human rights standards throughout the world, and that the two can and must go hand in hand?

[Mr Carmichael]

I absolutely agree with that. I am a strong advocate of human rights and often preach the gospel of their universality, but I am not starry-eyed about it, especially when it comes to working with countries that do not reach or have not yet reached the standards that we adhere to in this country. I will always engage with countries where I think there is an opportunity for improvement, but we have to see that improvement. As far as the People’s Republic of China is concerned, we are not seeing an improvement. In fact, if anything, we are going backwards: I think of the treatment of the Uyghur Muslims in the Xinjiang province; I think of the treatment of the people of Tibet; and I think of the treatment of religious minorities right across the People’s Republic of China and of the people of Hong Kong.

As I have said, I had anticipated that our debate tonight would rehearse a number of the areas that we have spoken about in the past. I was thinking about the treatment of the Umbrella Movement protesters; the closure of political parties; the expulsion of the Financial Times journalist, Victor Mallet; the creation of the new offence of insulting China’s national anthem without any effort to define what that insult might be and how it would be constituted; and the abduction of booksellers. In fact, when we consider all these things, it is impossible now, especially given the demonstration of support that we saw in Hong Kong at the weekend, to consider any of these things without considering the position in relation to the extradition arrangements and the Bill, which is currently coming towards the Legislative Council. These issues all tie in to this question of extradition.

You spoke earlier, Mr Speaker, about our mutual friend Benedict Rogers. In fact, in preparing for my debate tonight, I had recourse to an opinion piece that he had recently published. I want to read just a bit of it for the benefit of the House, because it illustrates perfectly how the position of the booksellers in particular and the other causes that I have mentioned all tie into this question of the extradition legislation. He wrote:

“‘If the extradition law is passed, it is a death sentence for Hong Kong,’ said Lam Wing-kee in a crowded coffee shop in Taipei. ‘Beijing will use this law to control Hong Kong completely. Freedom of speech will be lost. In the past, the regime kidnapped its critics like me illegally. With this law, they will abduct their critics legally.’

Yet Lam Wing-kee, 63, knows from first-hand experience what the consequences of this change to the extradition law could be, and how the Chinese Communist party behaves. On 24 October 2015, Lam, who managed a bookshop and publishing business in Causeway Bay that sold books critical of China’s leadership, was arrested as he crossed the border into mainland China in Shenzhen. There then followed an eight-month nightmare in which he was first imprisoned in Ningbo and then moved to Shaoguan, a small mountain town in Guangdong province where he was assigned to work in a library—better off than in prison, but still not free and completely cut off from the outside world.

‘I was not physically tortured, but mentally I was threatened and subjected to brainwashing,’ he said.

When he was first arrested, Lam was forced to sign two statements: surrendering his right to inform his family of his whereabouts and his right to a lawyer. Over the eight months he was held in China, he was forced to write confessions more than 20 times. Several times he was filmed, with an interrogator behind him whom he could not see, and these were then broadcast on national television—one of many forced televised confessions that have become a feature of Xi Jinping’s regime.

‘I didn’t write what they wanted me to write, they would write it for me,’ Lam said. ‘If my confession was not satisfactory, they would tell me what to write.’”

That is the reality of the criminal justice system to which we now countenance, or see Hong Kong countenancing, returning people from Hong Kong. That is exactly why it was decided, back at the time of the creation of the joint declaration, that matters such as this should be excluded from it, and that surely is why it is now wrong that we should sit back and just watch the People’s Republic of China ride roughshod over that agreement and the legal obligations into which it entered in 1984.

This afternoon, I was privileged to speak by telephone to Dennis Kwok from the Hong Kong Legislative Council, and he said to me that the Second Reading of this Bill will be on Wednesday—the Minister knows that. He accepts that the remaining stages will be done over the course of possibly the next two weeks at most. When I asked the Minister today what that would mean for the consultation to which our Government aspired, he declined to answer—unsurprisingly, perhaps—so let me ask him again. If the Hong Kong Executive go down this road and the Bill passes all its stages by, say, a week or a fortnight on Wednesday, what is the Government’s position going to be? How on earth will they possibly get the wider, longer, more meaningful consultation on which they have pinned so many hopes thus far? I just do not see it happening.

If the Minister will not answer that question, will he at least give the House some assurance that there is a plan B, that we are taking steps and that the message is going to the Chinese Government now that if that situation comes to pass, our Government will not just sit by and watch this tragedy—that is exactly what it would be—unfolding? Our Government need to do more. We need to assert the rights of the people of Hong Kong that we undertook to guarantee when we left in 1997.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I really appreciate the fact that we are having this debate because it is a pressing issue, as I know the Minister is aware. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me on two points. First, does he agree that we have a duty of care to the people of Hong Kong until 2047? Secondly—this is a very selfish concern, but I wonder if the Minister also shares it—does he agree that we have extradition treaties with Hong Kong, so it is possible that we could extradite someone for a fair trial in Hong Kong but that they could end up being tried in China?

[Mr Carmichael]

That is absolutely the case. I hope that our Government would take assurances that that would not happen if they were to extradite anyone to Hong Kong. But, frankly, if the Government of Hong Kong are able to disregard the joint declaration in the way that they do, I am afraid that I do not set any great store by their willingness to abide by the assurances of the sort that we might expect in the normal course of things. It comes back to the point about adherence to and respect for the international rule of law and a rules-based order system.

There is a great deal more that I could say, but I know that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) wants to speak for a couple of minutes and I am keen to ensure that the Minister has every opportunity to give the fullest explanation of the Government’s position, especially given the number of hon. Members who have stayed behind for this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for initiating this debate and for continually highlighting developments in Hong Kong. I also express my gratitude for the contributions and sincere interest—perhaps silent interest in some cases—expressed by a number of hon. Members here, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). Clarifying with the Hong Kong Government what these proposals will mean is clearly something that I intend to do in very quick order.

This was billed as a slightly more general debate, and given that we had an urgent question earlier, I do not wish to spend this time entirely by simply covering the same old ground, important though that ground is, but let me start with a few words about the UK’s relationship with China. We believe that we have a constructive relationship based on a strong economic partnership but also our position as leading nations of the world. The UK and China are both, of course, P5 nations of the United Nations. Trade and investment links are at record levels, and people-to-people links, particularly among Chinese students—the largest single cohort in the UK—are thriving.

The UK’s approach to China is pragmatic. It maximises the benefits of co-operation while doing its best to protect our national security. As G20 members with seats on the UN Security Council, the UK and China can do more than most to address a range of global challenges. From medical research to sustainable development, we have co-operated, and will continue to do so, for our mutual benefit in ways that support global prosperity, security and stability.

Of course, this partnership has its challenges. China’s growing influence is putting pressure on the global rules-based system, and we regularly express our very real concerns about issues, including its stance on human rights, its respect for certain international agreements and its failure fully to protect intellectual property. But we work with China where doing so is in line with our values and protects our national interests, including the security of our people and businesses. We are clear and direct where we believe that China’s actions are incompatible with those values.

The UK Government are acutely and continually aware of our historical responsibility towards Hong Kong, specifically as one of the joint signatories of the 1984 joint declaration that established the principle of one country, two systems. That joint declaration is a legally binding treaty registered, as I said, with the UN. Its objectives clearly apply to both signatories—the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the UK. It remains in force and remains relevant to the conduct of life in Hong Kong. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that it remains faithfully implemented for the period up to 2047, as the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) rightly mentioned.

The one country, two systems principle provides Hong Kong with the foundations for success as a truly global financial centre and prosperous world city, as touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). It safeguards Hong Kong’s capitalist economic system, its high degree of autonomy, its system of common law, its independent judiciary, and the rights and freedoms of its people and those who are lawfully residing there. However, as the Government’s most recent six-monthly reports have made clear, we believe that important areas of the one country, two systems framework are coming under increasing pressure. I take this opportunity to reassure the House that we engage in an ongoing and frank dialogue—a sometimes private, but frank dialogue—with the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities about the implementation of the joint declaration.

Turning to our relationship with the Hong Kong Government, I want to stress that we have warm, constructive and positive links across a wide range of other issues. As an example, just last month, I joined the start of the inaugural UK-Hong Kong Government-to-Government financial dialogue, led on our side by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. This involved the two Governments discussing co-operation between our globally leading financial services centres, building on rich industry-to-industry links. I welcome the decision for the UK to be the partner country for Hong Kong’s Business of Design Week this year. It is the largest design festival in Asia and it is our pleasure to support Hong Kong in this area. It is also a great opportunity to showcase the global reputation of the UK’s creative sector.

It is also right that we take the opportunity to turn our minds collectively to the ramifications of the Hong Kong Government’s contentious proposals to change their extradition laws, following a highly publicised homicide in Taiwan, allegedly carried out by a Hong Kong national. Civil society groups, including organisations that represent legal professionals and businessfolk in Hong Kong, have aired deep concerns about both the content of the proposals and the short consultation period. They fear above all that Hong Kong nationals and residents risk being pulled into China’s legal system, which can, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland pointed out, involve lengthy pre-trial detentions, televised confessions and an absence of many of the judicial safeguards that we see in Hong Kong.

[Mr Carmichael]

The element of the two systems arrangements that I think most people consider most important is the existence of an independent judiciary in Hong Kong. That is why, when people hear about so-called concessions being made on human rights protections, they insist that those protections are written into law, because they are then judicially enforceable. Is the Minister prepared to take that message back to the Executive?

[Mark Field]

Absolutely, and I entirely endorse what the right hon. Gentleman says.

We note that the Hong Kong Government have tried to provide reassurance that no one will be transferred to China for political, religious or ethnic reasons and welcome their recent efforts to react to the unprecedented level of public concern—we understand that roughly one seventh of the population of Hong Kong was on the streets, peacefully during much of yesterday afternoon. However, we are clear that those reassurances and the changes proposed fail to address fully a number of core issues that we have raised.

We have been and will remain unequivocal about our concerns. The Foreign Secretary recently issued a joint statement with his Canadian counterpart, setting out our concerns about the potential impact of the proposals on the large number of UK and Canadian citizens in Hong Kong, on business confidence and on Hong Kong’s international reputation, but of course it also applies to the many other non-Hong Kong nationals who are living and working on the island and the New Territories. The joint UK-Canadian statement noted that the proposals risk undermining the rights and freedoms set out in the joint declaration and are at odds with the spirit of one country, two systems.

Our consul general in Hong Kong, Andy Heyn, has made statements on this issue locally over recent months, including in a TV interview, where he set out our concerns. UK officials have had a number of conversations with the Hong Kong Government and other interested parties about the proposals at working, technical and senior levels. We have had full and detailed discussions with Chief Executive Carrie Lam, both bilaterally and as part of an EU démarche, and we will continue to have such discussions.

We have had a dialogue with a number of members of the Hong Kong Legislative Council and Executive Council. The issues we have raised include the potential implications for our bilateral extradition treaty with Hong Kong and the potential consequences for the UK business community and other British citizens living in Hong Kong. We have urged the Hong Kong Government to allow for a longer consultation period, given the fundamental importance of the issues raised. We believe that the proposals must undergo full and proper scrutiny, including in the Legislative Council, and I am as concerned as the right hon. Gentleman about the notion that they could be rushed through within the next fortnight or so.

I believe that Hong Kong’s lawmakers and members of civil society have put forward a number of alternative solutions, including the additional human rights safeguards, which must now be included in the proposed legislation. We believe that proper consideration must be given to all those alternative solutions as part of a comprehensive, ongoing consultation.

Despite those concerns, we do not assess that the proposals in themselves breach the joint declaration, although we will clearly keep that in mind, as the treaty did not explicitly deal with extradition arrangements. Nevertheless, the proposals undoubtedly would reduce the separation between the justice systems in Hong Kong and on the mainland and, therefore, would provide a very worrying precedent.

As the House will be aware, the operation of the court system in mainland China is very different from the one that applies in Hong Kong. Voices from within Hong Kong and the wider international community have expressed concern that fear of extradition to China could cause a chilling effect on Hong Kong’s rights and freedoms and, more insidiously, might result in increased self-censorship. Most recently, the Hong Kong chamber of commerce has called for wide-ranging protections in the legislation.

As Members have rightly pointed out, the rule of law is the absolute cornerstone of one country, two systems, and confidence in it is essential for sustaining and maintaining Hong Kong’s reputation as a global financial and professional services hub. That has been made abundantly clear to me in my two visits to Hong Kong as a Minister. I am hoping obviously to visit the island at some point later this year for a third time. Ultimately, I believe it is imperative that any changes to the extradition arrangements from Hong Kong to mainland China respect Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy and will not impact on the rights and freedoms set down in the joint declaration.

It is now, as many of us will know, almost 22 years on from the handover of Hong Kong to China and the UK Government’s commitment to the joint declaration remains as robust as ever. We do issue six-monthly reports and, in the two years I have been a Minister, we have expressed concern, at each and every six-monthly report, that there has been a diminution in the exercise of one country, two systems, at least as far as too many political rights are concerned. We are committed to playing a rightful part in helping Hong Kong to prosper to go forward. Where we identify risks to Hong Kong’s continued success and autonomy, we will have no qualms in raising them. We shall continue to stress to the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities that, for confidence in that system to be maintained, Hong Kong must continue to enjoy a full measure of the high degree of autonomy and the rule of law as set out in the joint declaration.

I am grateful to all Members of the House, and particularly to the right hon. Gentleman, for the opportunity to state the Government’s position on this very important issue.

Question put and agreed to.

Saudi Arabia: Mass Executions

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I am always happy to be repentant to my right hon. Friend. I am not familiar with the exact details of what he refers to, but I maintain the position that we will make our views on these issues clear in a very robust way to the Saudi Government.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I remind the House that I chair the all-party parliamentary British-Qatar group and am an officer of the all-party group on Kuwait, so I hope the Minister will accept that he does not need to persuade me of the importance of creating good relations with our friends in the Gulf. But when I read about the use of not only capital punishment but torture to obtain confessions, on the basis of which the executions were carried out—including the torture of Munir al-Adam, who was beaten so badly that he lost his hearing in one ear—I find myself asking, why do the Government of my country want to regard these people as our friends? Surely this is the time for a fundamental reappraisal of our relationship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

We unreservedly condemn torture in all circumstances. I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is asking for. We have to look at the broader picture of the entire Gulf and the dangers around it. That is always taken into consideration when looking at who we work with across the world.

Hong Kong: Pro-Democracy Activists

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Wednesday 10th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the conviction of pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Minister Mark Field. We are very accustomed to seeing the right hon. Gentleman at the Dispatch Box recently. He is well and truly earning his keep.

[The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seem to be here to discuss either this area, the middle east or, indeed, Turkey, a debate to which I was responding in Westminster Hall earlier today.

I emphasise at the outset both to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House that the UK Government are acutely aware of our enduring responsibilities to Hong Kong. We were a joint signatory to upholding the joint declaration between the UK and China some 35 years ago, and the joint declaration is of course lodged with the United Nations. As such, we remain absolutely committed to monitoring and ensuring the faithful implementation of the joint declaration and the principle of one country, two systems. I reassure the House that we clearly and consistently raise our concerns with the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities. Parliament is updated on developments in Hong Kong through our six-monthly reports submitted by the Foreign Secretary, the most recent of which was published on 27 March. We always stand ready to comment publicly and robustly when appropriate.

Yesterday, the Hong Kong courts gave their verdict on the nine key figures in the Hong Kong Occupy movement. The protesters were arrested after large-scale protests in 2014. Each was found guilty of at least one public nuisance offence, and such offences carry a maximum sentence of seven years in prison. We shall have a better understanding of the severity of the sentence, and therefore the signal that the decision purports to send to others who choose to exercise their rights under Hong Kong’s Basic Law and Bill of Rights, once sentences have been handed down. Sentencing is due on 24 April, and the defendants have the right to appeal. It would therefore not be appropriate to comment further or in detail on the ongoing legal cases, but suffice it to say that this is a potentially protracted legal process that may take years rather than months.

I have visited Hong Kong twice as a Foreign Office Minister and have held meetings with a number of senior legal figures. On my most recent visit in November, I raised the issue of the rule of law directly with the deputy chief justice, as well as with representatives from the legal, political and business communities. All staunchly defended the independence of the judiciary and it remains our position that Hong Kong’s rule of law remains robust, largely thanks to its world-class independent judiciary. Many Members will know that Baroness Hale, Lord Hoffmann and others are part and parcel of the panel that is based in Hong Kong.

Hong Kong citizens are guaranteed the right to freedom of assembly and demonstration under the Sino-British joint declaration of 1984 and the Basic Law, and it is essential that those rights are properly respected in a democracy. Hong Kong’s success and stability depend on its high degree of enduring autonomy and its respect for the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the joint declaration and the Basic Law. The Foreign Secretary recently pronounced that he was

“concerned that on civil and political freedoms, Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy is being reduced.”

It would be deeply concerning if the ruling discourages legitimate protest in future or discourages Hong Kong citizens from engaging in political activity.

[Mr Carmichael]

I thank the Minister for that answer. I hope that he will be as robust in his tone when speaking to the Chinese Government as he has been in his remarks to the House today.

The prosecution and now conviction of nine leaders of the Umbrella movement is the latest in a series of egregious human rights abuses by the Government in China. Using the criminal justice system and public order offences in this way is an abuse of fundamental and internationally protected human rights. Amnesty International points out that the convictions all stem solely from non-violent direct actions in largely peaceful protests. As the Minister’s noble friend Lord Patten said, it is

“appallingly divisive to use anachronistic common law charges in a vengeful pursuit of political events which took place in 2014”.

Will the Minister make the strongest possible representations to the Chinese Government that these convictions are an abuse not just of the activists’ human rights but of China’s treaty obligations? This country has both a moral and a legal responsibility to pursue this matter with all vigour. We made commitments to the people of Hong Kong at the time of the handover to China and we still have those commitments under the Sino-British joint declaration.

The one country, two systems framework promised the people of Hong Kong progress towards democracy, but these convictions are not an isolated incident. Over the past five years, we have seen the abduction of Hong Kong booksellers who published titles critical of China’s rulers; a political party banned; a senior Financial Times journalist, Victor Mallet, expelled from the city; and, now, proposals to change Hong Kong’s extradition laws to enable suspected criminals to be extradited from Hong Kong to mainland China, which is something that not only political activists but businesspeople fear, as they believe they could be in danger if the change goes ahead.

Will the Government stand by the people of Hong Kong and their human rights, and will the Minister ensure that we in this country do not allow the Chinese Government to break the promises that this country made to the people of Hong Kong?

[Mark Field]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his considered comments, and I fully accept and agree with the concerns he has raised. We take very seriously our responsibilities under one country, two systems, and we have expressed concerns in consecutive six-monthly reports that there has been a tightening of individual rights. We also feel that commerce and the independence of the judicial system have remained true to one country, two systems.

It is in China’s interest that Hong Kong continues to succeed under the framework. The joint declaration must remain as valid today as it was when it was signed three and a half decades ago. It is a legally binding treaty that is registered with the United Nations. I have raised this, and will continue to raise it, with my Chinese counterparts. Some criticism has been addressed to the FCO in relation to the idea of having a six-monthly report, which we feel is a particularly important foundation for ongoing confidence within Hong Kong that we take very seriously the responsibilities to which we have signed up.

The right hon. Gentleman raised the change to the extradition laws. We are aware that the Hong Kong Government have proposed changes to legislation. We are seriously considering the potential implications of those changes, including how the proposals might affect UK citizens and, indeed, our current extradition arrangements with Hong Kong.

The British consul general to Hong Kong, the very talented Andy Heyn, has spoken to senior figures in Hong Kong’s Administration to seek clarity on what the proposals will mean for UK citizens, for our law enforcement co-operation and for the current extradition arraignments. He has raised the potential impact of the proposals on business confidence in Hong Kong and has explained our concern that, given the sensitivity of the issues raised by these extradition proposals, considerably more time should be given for a full and wide consultation with interested parties before the Hong Kong authorities seek to put it into law.

Libya

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Monday 8th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

My right hon. Friend, I know, feels strongly about these matters. They are backing different sides. All sides have, in a quite disparate way, elements of Islamic State or other extremist Islamist groups. This is the nub of the problem. Faustian bargains have been made by most of those who would either be warlords or would run Libya. They are building very unstable coalitions, which I think are very destructive for the reasons he alludes to.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

There is significant evidence that the United Arab Emirates is supporting Haftar’s efforts in east Libya. Surely we, as candid friends of the Emiratis, should make it clear to them that that is unacceptable. Does that take us to a point where, as candid friends, we may need to be a bit more candid and a bit less friendly?

[Mark Field]

There is little doubt that the influence of the United States only last year in the Benghazi region was profound. At that point, when it looked as though Haftar was going to move forward, it was made clear that the US would not just be unsupportive but would prevent such efforts. As I have said, the situation is now very fluid. We will make strong representations to those from the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Russia who have essentially backed the Haftar efforts in east and south Libya. We also very much hope that they use whatever diplomatic efforts they can to bring him to the negotiating table.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin]

My hon. Friend states the UK’s policy aim to be an ambitious investor in African economies, and I can confirm that there are UK companies that invest in Cameroon; businesses are absolutely free to choose to do so. In terms of the political track, though, we are trying to engage with the Government of Cameroon—I spoke to the Prime Minister there recently—to encourage them to find a way forward in a political and inclusive dialogue that can address some of the concerns being raised.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I spent time in Cameroon in 2013 as a political volunteer with Voluntary Service Overseas, and it breaks my heart to see what is happening to that beautiful country today. It seems to me that there is a potent mix of contemporary challenges and the long tail of our own and, indeed, French colonial history. Can we take a two-pronged approach? Will our colleagues in the Department for International Development tackle the urgent crises involving displaced peoples and conflict, and will the Minister’s own office make a proper effort to secure a diplomatic solution?

[Harriett Baldwin]

As the right hon. Gentleman says, there is an ongoing humanitarian crisis. Earlier this year I authorised work by us, through UNICEF, to provide immediate humanitarian assistance. More than 400,000 people have been displaced in the crisis, and more than 30,000 have fled to Nigeria. DFID is doing programming work, and we are urging the Cameroon Government to allow humanitarian actors access to all parts of the country.

Human Rights: Xinjiang

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered human rights in Xinjiang.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. I am delighted to have the opportunity to discuss this issue. I am also pleased to see a good number of other MPs in the Chamber, given the importance of business elsewhere in the Palace. I am grateful for their support. I place on the record my appreciation of the work in this area of various non-governmental organisations, including Amnesty International, Christian Solidarity Worldwide—CSW—Human Rights Watch and the World Uyghur Congress.

I also add the BBC to that list. It was a remarkable 10-minute report by John Sweeney on “Newsnight” in August 2018 that first brought this issue to my attention; I am ashamed to say that I knew nothing about it until that point. In that 10 minutes he described very graphically the scale of what is happening in Xinjiang province and well illustrated the human cost. Even if the BBC does nothing else worth watching over the next 12 months—I do not completely discount that possibility—that 10 minutes alone justifies the licence fee.

The concerns that I and, I hope, others will raise are all supported by evidence, although there are other concerns that are not so well evidenced. However, even on those concerns for which evidence exists it is impossible to be entirely accurate, as we shall see when looking at the numbers affected. That is principally a consequence of the secrecy and surveillance of the government of the Xinjiang province, which is said to extend not only within the province but outside it as well. Uyghur Muslims living in this country feel very much under the same pressure as those who live in Xinjiang. Parenthetically, I hear anecdotal reports that the Chinese secret service has been recruiting Chinese students at British universities to spy on other Chinese students, thus continuing and worsening the climate of secrecy and fear.

However, thanks to the evidence of “Newsnight” and the efforts of Amnesty, CSW and Human Rights Watch, we have an emerging picture on an epic scale. What is being done in Xinjiang is also happening in Tibet, where mass detention camps have been a feature of the landscape since 2014. The so-called re-education camps, officially known as centres for transformation through education, are principally, but not exclusively, targeted at the Muslim community.

CSW lists reasons for detention in the camps including, among other things: someone having WhatsApp on their phone; having relatives who live abroad; accessing religious materials online; having visited certain “sensitive” countries; participation in communal religious activities; and behaviour indicating “wrong thinking” or “religious extremism”. Indeed, sometimes no reason is given at all.

Amnesty gives some useful context, stating:

“China’s Constitution, laws and ethnic policies all stress ethnic unity and prohibit discrimination against ethnic groups…But China’s expressed determination to eradicate the ‘forces of terrorism, separatism and extremism’ leads officials to pursue discriminatory policies that target members of ethnic groups merely for exercising their rights to freedom of religion and belief, thought, peaceful assembly, association, movement, opinion, expression and access to information.”

Quite incredibly, the Chinese Government continue to deny the existence of these camps. However, eyewitness accounts, documentation relating to the construction and procurement of the camps, and satellite imagery all contradict that denial. The number of detainees is said to be between several hundred thousand and just over 1 million, with CSW saying that it may be as high as 3 million. We can be certain that that number is rising.

What goes on within these detention facilities has been described as Orwellian, which I think, because of what we know, does some injustice to George Orwell. If George Orwell was commissioned to write in the style of Franz Kafka, that might come close. Inmates are required to chant Communist party slogans, recite party thought and take part in self-incrimination sessions.

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. I thank the Minister for his help in answering several of my questions on this issue. Does the right hon. Gentleman share the concern of many in my constituency, most importantly Mohammed Haroun, representing the Uxbridge Street mosque, who wrote to me to say that the scale of Muslim persecution in China makes what is happening in Myanmar pale into insignificance, and that we must act?

[Mr Carmichael]

I always think it invidious to try to compare persecution in one country with that in another. However, the hon. Gentleman’s point is a good one. I suspect that we do not hear more about this issue because of the difficulty in getting reliable information out of the province. I will return to that point.

To give a bit more of a human flavour of what goes on in the camps, I will share with the House, and place on the record, a couple of the testimonies from that “Newsnight” report in August. The first is from Azat, whose family are detained in the camp. He describes having been allowed to visit his family, saying:

“It was dinner time. There were at least 1,200 people holding empty plastic bowls in their hands. They had to sing pro-Chinese songs to get food. I never dreamt the place was so huge. The cell windows were barred. From the lights, I knew there were many more people inside as well. I estimate that there were at least 3,500 people in there.”

He describes them, saying:

“They were like robots. They seemed to have lost their souls. I knew many of them well—we used to sit and eat together—but now they didn’t look normal to me. They behaved as if they weren’t aware of what they were doing. They were like someone who’d lost their memory after a car crash.”

There was a further interview with a re-education centre survivor called Omir, who said:

“They have a chair called the tiger. My ankles were shackled, my hands locked into the chair, I couldn’t move. They wouldn’t let me sleep. They also hung me up for hours and they beat me. They had thick wooden and rubber batons, whips made from twisted wire, needles to pierce the skin, pliers for pulling out your nails. All these tools were displayed on the table in front of me, ready for use at any time. You could hear other people screaming as well.

You have no freedom at all. You must do everything according to the rules set by the Communist party: recite what they say, sing red songs, thank the party, think like a robot. You do whatever you are told.”

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

It is hard to listen to some of those descriptions of the situation in the camps and the psychological pressures placed on people. Has the right hon. Gentleman heard evidence, as I have, that DNA samples and biometric data are also being obtained from Uyghurs in the camps, perhaps for the possibility of organ harvesting? That issue has been raised in relation to China before.

[Mr Carmichael]

I have heard that suggested. The evidence around the purpose of the use of DNA harvesting—I think, clearly the fact that it is suggested demands proper investigation. I think it is something that we as a country could do, and that we should lead on exerting pressure for such an investigation; but whether or not that is actually happening, I do not honestly know and I am careful not to overstate the case. What we know, and what is evidenced already, is certainly bad enough.

The human rights report produced by the Minister’s own Department, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in June 2018 said of Xinjiang that

“the authorities introduced intrusive security and surveillance measures and cultural restrictions targeted at the Uyghur Muslim population. Thousands of Uyghurs were held in re-education camps after returning from abroad.”

I would suggest, on the basis of what we know now—what has come to light since then—that if anything, that is something of an understatement. I will look with interest to see how that statement is revised in this year’s human rights report.

I am conscious of the shortage of time and am grateful for the support of colleagues who have turned up for the debate. I could say a lot more, but I will focus now on why this matter should concern us and what my asks are of the Minister. First, it should concern us because the United Kingdom is a party to several declarations of human rights, including the universal declaration. The defining characteristic of human rights is surely their universality. An abuse or denial of human rights anywhere is a denial that affects us all.

The issue affects a number of Uyghur Muslims living in this country. “Newsnight” spoke of one case in which a family member had lost contact with up to 20 members of her family, who had possibly been taken into detention. What we know about the threats to the Muslim population in Xinjiang province raises serious questions for our own asylum policy. We know that there are some 10 Uyghur Muslims with active asylum claims at the moment. I know that this is not directly within the Minister’s responsibilities, but the Government should consider following the example of Sweden and Germany and introducing a moratorium on returns to China of Muslims from the Uyghur province.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter to the Chamber for us to debate. The issue is not only the need for pressure in relation to asylum applications and so on. Other authoritarian states are copying that example and piling in and persecuting citizens in a similar way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

That is absolutely the case. It is the contagion of the abuse of human rights. We have seen it times without number in different parts of the world down the decades.

What consideration have the Government given to the use of section 13 of the Criminal Finances Act 2017 in response to gross human rights abuses? This could be a good first test of that section. Most importantly of all, what will the Government in this country do to see that an independent investigation is carried out into what is happening in Xinjiang province? The Chinese Government have said that they would be prepared to co-operate with a UN-led investigation. As a permanent member of the Security Council and as an advocate and strong promoter and defender of human rights, our country could take an important lead in making that sort of investigation happen. We should not be relying on groups such as Amnesty, Christian Solidarity Worldwide and Human Rights Watch to find out what is going on.

Human rights are to be defended wherever they are challenged. The right to religious belief should be defended, and everyone has a right to due process. None of these things features in the way in which Uyghur Muslims and others in Xinjiang province are treated. We have a direct interest at play also. It is obvious that the treatment of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang is now acting as a recruiting sergeant for Daesh, for IS. As that happens, yes, of course its primary focus will be in relation to China, but we know from our own experience that Daesh, IS, does not confine its activities to any single country, so Britain has a very direct interest in ensuring that the rights of Muslims and others of religious faith in Xinjiang province are protected, and that the abuses are brought into the public domain so that their human rights and those of others can be protected.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

Thank you very much, Mr Wilson, for calling me to speak again.

I thank the Minister for that response. We should not fool ourselves that we will probably be the main focus of the world’s attention in Parliament today. However, in many ways that is unfortunate, because the debate we have had here today illustrates what is possible in this place when we manage to put aside differences, and find areas of common concern and work together.

In that regard, I hope that today is not just an event itself but the start of a process by which we might take forward our concerns on an ongoing basis, because a very clear message has been sent out from here today, which I hope will be heard not only in this country but in China itself. It is that we know what is going on in Xinjiang and we are not just going to sit back and be bystanders, watching it happen.

I had hoped that today I would be in my constituency, which was confirmed this weekend—in the latest in a long line of similar reports—as the happiest and best place to live in the country, as today is Up Helly Aa day in Shetland, when we celebrate our Viking heritage through a fire festival and burning a boat. Unfortunately, I have to be here, not just for this debate but for other business. So, I thank you, Mr Wilson, for chairing the debate and I thank everybody else who has taken part in it. I wish you all a very happy Up Helly Aa day.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered human rights in Xinjiang.