Pakistan: Freedom of Religion

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I congratulate my friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this vital debate in the Chamber and on continuing the noble work of his predecessor, our former colleague Fiona Bruce, as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate. It is a privilege to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition.

Pakistan is a Commonwealth partner, and our paths have been intertwined for an important part of our shared history. The UK and Pakistan have a close and long-standing relationship underpinned by strong links between our peoples, especially through the Commonwealth of Nations.

I have been intrigued—and pleased, to be honest—to hear the passion with which Members from both sides of the House have spoken. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) spoke passionately about the persecution of the Ahmadi people. While the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and I rarely agree on things, he spoke passionately about his own community and quoted what the Ahmadi community says: “Love for all, hate for none.” Could a single Member of the House ever disagree with that?

The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) represents a large community with the mosque in Morden— I know the mosque he referred to—which I think is part of his constituency. I have learned a lot about the Ahmadi community this afternoon. It is deeply distressing to hear about some of the incidents that have occurred. The hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) spoke from experience, having represented the Government— I assume Her Majesty’s Government—in Islamabad as a diplomat; I thank him for his service. He relayed his experience and gave examples of some of the horrendous persecution that has taken place. I went to Pakistan as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee some years ago. I think that we are united in the House in standing up for freedom of religion and wanting to see a change. Some of the incidents and persecutions in Pakistan that we have heard about are completely wrong.

The 1956 constitution of Pakistan included liberties for people to profess their religion “freely”. However, today, freedom of self-expression is subject to article 19 of the constitution. According to this year’s Open Doors world watch list, Pakistan is the seventh most dangerous nation in the world to reside in as a Christian. Churches have endured regular attacks, and those with strong community outreach have faced severe rights violations. There is also concern about career prospects being more limited for Christians than for others.

The Minister will be aware that the previous Government established the Coalition for Religious Equality and Inclusive Development, a British Government-funded multi-country programme that has implemented a project in Pakistan to protect minorities who work as sewage and sanitation workers. Can this House have the Minister’s assurance that the work of that organisation will continue under the new Government?

Since the 1980s, Pakistan’s blasphemy laws have become more and more severe and oppressive. Ahmadis have been subject to blasphemy laws that carry the punishment of three years imprisonment and severe fines, the most notable of which is ordinance XX, which prohibits Ahmadis from publicly practising their Islamic faith and forbids them from using sacred texts for prayer. That simply cannot be right. Ahmadis have been denied identity cards and are coerced into signing faith-related documents.

Ministers in previous Governments have raised the issue of the Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan and with Pakistan’s Foreign Minister and high commissioner. Given that there have been several cases of brutal extrajudicial killings of Ahmadi Muslims in recent months, some being high profile members of their community, I hope that we will receive the Minister’s reassurance that that will remain the case, and that Ministers continue to press our counterparts in Islamabad and the high commissioner here in London about the issues raised in today’s debate.

Despite making up only 2% of the Pakistani population, Christians are subject to roughly a quarter of all accusations of blasphemy. Anyone openly calling for reform of blasphemy laws is openly threatened by radicals. According to Associated Press News on 5 September 2023, in August last year at least 17 churches were set on fire in Jaranwala. Hundreds of houses were attacked and hundreds of Christians fled from their homes, subsequent to inaccurate accusations of blasphemy. I was pleased that the Foreign Secretary at that time raised these attacks against Christians in Jaranwala with Pakistan’s Prime Minister last September. Additionally, that August, Lord Ahmad, the then Foreign Office Minister, wrote to Pakistan’s caretaker Foreign Minister urging the Government to ensure the safety of the Christian community following these atrocious attacks.

Such reprisals are not restricted to Christians and Ahmadi Muslims. Unfortunately, Hindus too have been subjected to increasing violence. In July 2023, a Hindu temple in the Sindh province of Pakistan was attacked, and in June 2022, a Hindu temple in Karachi was destroyed. According to the National Council of Churches in Pakistan, not just since the adoption of the 1973 constitution nor since the turn of this century but annually, as many as 1,000 Christian and Hindu girls are kidnapped. There are also reports of Christian children being obligated to attend Islamic lessons at their local madrassahs, while Christian teaching is restricted to the home. I hope that the Government are once again raising these concerns with our counterparts in the Pakistani Government.

Article 4 of the Commonwealth charter, which I am sure the Minister will know, states the need to promote religious freedom. Whether it is women who have been snatched from their homes and forced to profess a religion that they do not follow, or men who are targeted through blasphemy charges, there are clearly issues that need to be addressed most urgently. Religion has provided a bedrock for the Pakistani people and serves as a source of motivation for the betterment of society, and all must be free to pursue their beliefs without fear.

While I have the opportunity, I will commend the work of my friend—a friend to many in this House—Fiona Bruce, the former Member for Congleton, whom I mentioned earlier. She dedicated many years of her time in this place to fighting for freedom of religion or belief and against the persecution of minorities who wish to worship freely. One of the towering achievements of the previous Government was to appoint the United Kingdom’s first ever special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. I therefore ask the Minister to assure the House that His Majesty’s Government will be doing the same, and that an appointment to this position will be announced very soon.

Two years ago, the Conservative Government brought together 800 faith and belief leaders and human rights activists and 100 Government delegations for the international ministerial conference on freedom of religion to agree a plan to encourage and defend those fundamental inalienable rights. The outcome of the conference bore witness to the pledges of 47 Governments, international organisations and other entities to take action in support of freedom of religion or belief. Through the soft power of our diplomatic network, the previous Government were able to solidify coalitions of support to protect freedom of religion or belief for all within international bodies and through the multilateral framework, hardening obligations for states to uphold their human rights obligations. Once again, I sincerely hope that the Government will continue the work of the Conservative Government in the previous Parliament.

On a separate note, earlier this year, the Conservative Government put on record their serious concerns about the fairness and lack of inclusivity of Pakistan’s recent election. We were clear we regretted that not all parties were allowed to contest the elections, and that legal processes were used to prevent some political leaders from participation and the use of recognisable party symbols. I am sure the House is also aware that restrictions were imposed on internet access on polling day and that there were significant delays to the reporting of results and claims of irregularities in the counting process. The new Labour Government need to urge the authorities in Pakistan to uphold fundamental human rights, including those I and many other Members have touched on, as well as other important freedoms including free access to information.

The rule of law must be unflinchingly upheld. To be crystal clear, that includes the right to a fair trial, which, for the avoidance of doubt, means adherence to due process within an independent, transparent judicial system, free from interference. To that end, will the Minister say what discussions on those issues the new Government have had with the Government of Pakistan? Will he say what Labour’s position is on the imprisonment and general treatment of former Prime Minister Imran Khan? As he will know, that has caused huge divisions within the Pakistani community.

To conclude, I believe the United Kingdom has been at the vanguard of defending freedom of religion and belief, civil liberties and human rights. We urge His Majesty’s Government to continue this important work to protect all those who choose to practise their faith, and who have the right—and must continue to have the right—to do so without fear and in freedom. As the hon. Member for Strangford said, there can be no turning back in our defence of freedom of liberties, the rule of law and the right of peoples throughout our world to share and practise a religion without fear. I hope His Majesty’s Government will follow that tradition.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I welcome the shadow Minister.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

The Government appear to be in a complete tailspin over whether they will release the costs that will fall to the British taxpayer as a result of the rushed deal to give away the British Chagos islands. Given the reported trip to Mauritius by the special envoy, Jonathan Powell, can the Minister at least confirm today which budget the costs will come from, including whether they intend to use the aid budget? Will she tell the House how much it will cost each year and in total, and if the British Chagossians will actually have a genuine say? Would it not make more sense to keep these strategically important islands under the Crown, rather than the secretive deal negotiated? No deal is better than a bad deal.

[Anneliese Dodds]

My understanding is that there were actually 10 rounds of negotiations under the Conservatives, but we did not see the UK reaching the necessary agreements. This is a frankly bizarre argument coming from the Opposition. All the details of the situation are in the public domain, and quite rightly so. This is part of the UK ensuring that we follow international law.

St Helena: UK Immigration

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Fundamentally, as a result of this agreement, St Helena has agreed to take responsibility for any theoretical migrants who arrive, but I draw him back to what I said earlier: Mauritius would take responsibility for any migrants who arrived after the agreement of the treaty, which we will seek to finalise following parliamentary scrutiny.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

The Minister really should understand that the British overseas territories are self-governing democracies, and they must make decisions about their own islands’ governance. Has the Legislative Council of St Helena voted in favour of this agreement? Have the people of St Helena been consulted? What impact will the influx of people potentially have on this small island territory of only 4,500 people, and will the agreement have any impact on Tristan da Cunha and Ascension Island, which, as the Minister knows, form part of the overall British overseas territories?

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question; I know he takes a very keen interest in this matter. We have discussed the overseas territories on many occasions, and he knows how seriously I take their democracy and autonomy. That is why it is important to reiterate to the House that this agreement was freely entered into by the Government of St Helena. They have publicly welcomed it profusely and explained why it is beneficial. Obviously, they are responsible for their internal processes within St Helena. We will continue to work with the Government of St Helena, their representatives and, indeed, their Attorney General as we move forward with the agreement. If I may, I will come back to the hon. Gentleman on the point he raises about Tristan da Cunha and Ascension, but the agreement is primarily about St Helena because of the facilities that are available there.

British Indian Ocean Territory: Negotiations

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Defence Committee. In relation to the global south, he will have seen that the Government of India welcomed the agreement, and that India committed to continued work with Mauritius and like-minded partners, including the United Kingdom—that was important. The agreement that has been struck can be extended upon completion of the lease. As I said before, we are committed to working with the Chagossians —that is why we have a trust fund set up. Of course, now that Mauritius will effectively be in charge upon completion of the treaty, it is saying that it will work with the Chagossians on resettlements—not on Diego Garcia, but on some of the other islands in the surrounds.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

This is a shameful day for British democracy and a dark moment for human rights in the United Kingdom. Already, the people of the Chagos islands have been forcibly removed from their homeland; today, this Government are handing their home over to a foreign country that is in cahoots with a hostile nation. The Foreign Secretary must commit to allowing the British Chagossian people the right of self-determination—the same right we afford to every other British overseas territory. Are the people of the Chagos islands of less worth than the Falkland Islanders, the Gibraltarians or the people of any other British overseas territory? Will he commit to allowing the people of the Chagos islands to decide their own destiny?

[Mr Lammy]

I think the hon. Gentleman knows better than that, having chaired the all-party parliamentary group on Mauritius. He knows that these discussions began under the last Government; he will also have read the ICJ judgment and will know it is important that this deal was struck. The last Government left it to us to do it; we did it, and we are proud of it.

Conflict in Sudan: El Fasher

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

The hon. Lady asks an incredibly important question. Of course, a long-standing UK arms embargo is in place for the whole of Sudan, as well as a UN arms embargo on Darfur, and we will continue, as I say, to use all our diplomatic tools at the UN Security Council and with international partners to highlight that. As the Deputy Foreign Secretary has said, there are now clear signs of ethnic cleansing in Darfur, and the continued flow of weapons allows that threat to continue for longer than we want, so we will continue to press in that area.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

Our heart goes all out to all those who are, tragically, being ethnically cleansed from parts of Sudan. Bearing in mind our historical connections with that part of the world, what direct action will His Majesty’s Government take, working with the United States, the United Nations, the African Union and others, to ensure the safety of Christians, who are being murdered and forced out of their homes? Surely it is time for Britain to show leadership.

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

The challenge that my hon. Friend has raised is such an important and difficult one. We continue to work closely with a wide range of non-governmental organisations and UN partners on conflict and atrocity prevention, and on these really important questions around losses of religious freedom. We are systematically prioritising atrocity monitoring and reporting, and are continuing to increase our capacity when it comes to human rights and atrocity prevention investment. We want to complete that assessment in-country in order to inform how we can continue to expand the strategy and be very clear that all those who are committing these terrible crimes will be held to account.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

9. What steps he is taking to support effective governance in the British overseas territories.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (David Rutley)]

It is good to see my hon. Friend in his place, and continuing with his strong interest in our overseas territories. The UK is committed to ensuring the security and good governance of the overseas territories and their peoples. We support improvements in institutions to ensure greater accountability and transparency, and fairer societies.

[Andrew Rosindell]

The Minister will know that the 16 British overseas territories are cherished parts of the British family, and we rightly expect good governance from them in return for their being part of our British family. However, is it not time that they were given some form of representation—not necessarily here in the British Parliament, but in institutions such as a Committee of the House, where they could actually have a voice? At the moment, they have no representation in any sense; they are not even allowed to be members of the Commonwealth—not even associate members. Will he look at that, and see whether the Government can come up with a new approach to ensure that our British overseas territories are fully represented?

[David Rutley]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point, which he makes with characteristic conviction. The Foreign Affairs Committee is setting up a Sub-Committee that will engage the overseas territories more. Of course, I am a strong voice, along with many other people here, for the overseas territories and will continue to be so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mitchell]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. He will have heard the five key priorities that the British Government have put on the table, and I am grateful to him for his agreement. Cross-party support is extremely helpful in driving forward an imperative about which Britain feels very strongly.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

Will His Majesty’s Government make the strongest possible diplomatic protest against the draconian new national security laws being imposed on the good people of Hong Kong, and does the Minister accept that Britain still has a moral responsibility to the people of Hong Kong, who have been loyal to this country for so many years?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

My hon. Friend raises an important point, and we continue to raise our concerns about breaches of the Sino-British joint declaration that we see, and about this new layer of legislation coming through. We consider that that continues to be in breach, and we continue to ask for those laws to be removed.

UK-Taiwan Friendship and Co-operation

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Thursday 10th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alicia Kearns]

We know there are partners across the world who wish to support us in upholding the rights and opportunities of our democratic partners. We should be forming constellations of alliances in every multilateral organisation and zone, where we lobby and work together, whether that is ensuring that we get the right president of Interpol, or ensuring that we have friends such as the Taiwanese at the table or with observer status. Those are things that the UK can lead on, because no nation in the world is better at convening other nations than the UK. If we put our mind to it, we can achieve it.

We must be careful to avoid an unnecessary clash with China in which Taiwan is caught in the middle and becomes collateral damage. The current settlement has maintained peace for 40 years, and we should never underestimate the importance and value of peace. We must therefore be careful in the framing of our relationship and duties to Taiwan. The emergence of full-blown US-China or UK-China strategic rivalry risks increasing Taiwan’s place in political rhetoric between our nations, or it becoming a lightning rod for international agitation and a signal, or a de facto signal, of how strongly a country is or is not standing up to the Chinese Communist party. While that might be easy, or even attractive, to fall into, our Taiwanese friends deserve more meaningful engagement from all of us in this place; it should not be because Taiwan is a useful pawn in our wider competition or debates. I urge the Minister to ensure that we pursue meaningful engagement with Taiwan and that we act tactfully. When I call for Taiwan to have greater international recognition, it is on account of its democracy, its expertise and its status as a free-market friend; not as a tool in a wider struggle.

There are things we can learn from Taiwan, and we must, as we establish this new constellation of alliances around the world. We must also be alert to the risk of framing Taiwan as the smaller cousin of a great beast. It deserves better than that. The Taiwanese are not an embattled people withstanding increasing pressure from the authoritarian communist mainland, which sits waiting to launch an invasion. Taiwan is a strong, thriving economy and society, and a friend, and we must support it in the measured and diplomatic manner that it deserves.

Our first step would be a round of ministerial visits, and I hope the Minister can arrange reciprocal visits, particularly with a Minister at Cabinet level who could represent all of Government, given that we recognise the restrictions on the engagement of particular Departments. I also call for formal recognition to be given to the Taipei representative office, and for meaningful political dialogue. Indeed, His Excellency—I call him that on purpose—the ambassador of Taiwan is observing this debate today; he joins us in the Chamber, and I am sure we all wish to extend our welcome to him. What a gesture it would be if we were to consider granting his office, which serves Taiwan with great distinction, legal diplomatic status.

I have already spoken about the strength of Taiwan’s democracy, the unique culture of its people, and the immense contribution it can and wants to make internationally. But all that is at risk. The 40 years of peace preserved under the principle that Taiwan is a part of China, which we recognise but do not necessarily believe in fully, is being tested. Xi Jinping has committed himself to the political reunification, or “the great rejuvenation” as he calls it, of Taiwan and China, including through the use of force. Already in 2022, in just 27 days, Taiwan has suffered over 148 threatening flights by Chinese aircraft into the air defence identification zone, threatening the Taiwanese air force through a concerted campaign to erode its confidence, as well as grievous aggravations in the Taiwan strait.

The UK is committed to the international rules-based order and I welcome that the Royal Navy’s flagship, the Queen Elizabeth, went to the Taiwan strait last year. I praise the Government for getting Taiwan on the agenda of the recent G7 meeting under our presidency. This is the sort of forward-thinking engagement that we need, but we must do more.

We cannot sit back and wait for any tragedies, such as those in Hong Kong, to occur again. We must act, and we must act now. I ask the Minister to work with our allies around the world, to engage with those nations that respect freedom and have the same concerns that we do, to set in place deterrents and diplomacy to protect our Taiwanese friends, and to ensure we are monitoring, perhaps in the conflict zone that was recently established, the increasing grey-zone hostilities against Taiwan, so that we can measure the incremental and subtle escalations that are taking place.

We also need to look at resilience building with our Taiwanese friends, whether helping them counter disinformation campaigns, developing supply chain resilience or ensuring they can retain access to markets worldwide, which will surely be one the first places that China will seek to hurt them. We have all been impressed by the swift actions of this Government in Ukraine, but now we must show that we are truly a global Britain and will act worldwide.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, which is long overdue. On that point, the Foreign Secretary has been in Russia this week, showing steely determination to stand up to Russia about the way it is behaving with Ukraine. Do we need the same kind of steely determination shown towards Beijing over its attitude towards Taiwan and Hong Kong, and its general behaviour in that part of the world?

[Alicia Kearns]

My hon. Friend has long been an advocate and friend of the Taiwanese people. The issue is that for too long autocratic countries around the world have seen no cost when they escalate, escalate and escalate. Whether is it Dodik in Bosnia, Putin in Ukraine and around our near neighbourhood, or China in Hong Kong, and whether domestically or in the countries around them, I fear greatly that we fail to bring costs to bear that matter, at our own peril.

Let us look at the situation in Ukraine. Putin has achieved much in the past few weeks. We have given him the world status that he has been craving, with America, France and England all going to Moscow to be called equal to him on the world stage. We have given tacit agreement to him that those borders that he has already occupied are now his to keep. “Just don’t go any further,” we say. That is not enough. That is not a cost. Putin has won greatly in the past few weeks.

While we all recognise the threats facing democracy today, how we in this place respond matters, because it will define the future of the United Kingdom. Around the world, Parliaments are watching us and listening to us. How we respond now will define the rest of this century, and our children’s children’s future. We are proud of our country for its role in protecting democracy in the past, and we must channel that pride into action. I urge all Members to raise their voices in support of Taiwan.

Let us strike a trade deal that benefits our economy and supports our ally; support their democratic values and their strength in being the No.1 democracy in Asia; and give Taiwan’s representatives in the UK the legal status they need. I call for Taiwan to be given a voice internationally, and to be readmitted to both the World Health Organisation and the International Civil Aviation Organisation.

Most importantly, let us ensure that everyone knows that we in this place stand clearly behind the US, as the main guarantor of Taiwan’s security, and our allies in the preservation of peace and stability in the Taiwan strait. We know that Taiwan has much to offer to the world. As our friend, it is our duty to ensure that its contribution is heard, accepted and embraced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on leading this debate today to discuss British-Taiwanese relations. It is a true friend to our country, and it is high time that we discussed it on the Floor of the House. Taiwan is a beacon of liberty, freedom and democracy in a region of the world overshadowed by a larger neighbour that has demonstrated, time and again, total disregard for human rights and freedoms.

The United Kingdom shares a deep and enduring relationship with Taiwan. Taiwan is a true friend to the United Kingdom. We share the same values. We enjoy close bilateral co-operation, and Taiwan is one of our most significant trading partners. Taiwan is exactly the kind of sovereign, forward-looking, collaborative nation that global Britain should be forging stronger ties with. Now that Britain is free of the constraints of the European Union, I urge the Minister for Asia, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling), to make it one of her priorities.

From its exemplary response to the handling of the coronavirus pandemic, to its pioneering work in technology, Taiwan is a country to emulate and one that the United Kingdom should certainly be working together with much more closely. In contrast, the People’s Republic of China is, to be clear, a totalitarian, anti-democratic, communist state that continues its threatening campaign of fear and intimidation against the people of Taiwan.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

I agree completely with what my hon. Friend is saying. Taiwan is one of the great success stories of the far east. It has a multicultural liberal democracy, a growing economy, fantastic trade and many political freedoms and press freedoms. It is superbly championed worldwide, not least by the excellent Taipei representative in London. Does my hon. Friend agree that Taiwan should be celebrated and not threatened?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Taiwan is a model of a country that has succeeded against all the odds. It is a nation that should be upheld as a great example of what can be achieved in a part of the world where there are so many failing countries. Taiwan has bucked the trend and proved that it can be successful, so I hope that in this House today we will celebrate Taiwan and all its achievements.

In 2022, the behaviour by the People’s Republic of China, and how it threatens Taiwan, is completely unacceptable, and the United Kingdom must stand shoulder to shoulder with Taiwan. I hope that today in this House we can restate our strong friendship and commitment to Taiwan and the magnificent Taiwanese people. For me, it has always felt wrong that the United Kingdom does not have any formal diplomatic ties with Taiwan and no official embassy while, at the same time, China can use economic leverage to bludgeon other states to cut ties with Taiwan.

It was our former Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, who visited Taiwan in 1992 and hailed Taiwan’s rapid democratisation and the Taiwanese miracle. She recognised Taiwan for what it still is: an example of how freedom has triumphed. Some years later, in 2013, the Taiwanese ambassador’s exclusion from Lady Thatcher’s funeral at St Paul’s Cathedral—decided by the Cabinet Office, I have to say, and despite my personal efforts and appeals to Ministers at that time—was a stark demonstration of the vindictive effect of China’s insistence that Taiwan should be completely excluded from any kind of diplomatic representation.

The Chinese Communist party operates indirectly, cutting off Taiwan’s support networks and isolating it diplomatically. It cannot be right to force a country such as Taiwan, which, to all intents and purposes, is an independent, democratic, sovereign state, to operate permanently under the terms of another hostile country. The CCP should not be able to dictate Taiwan’s bilateral relations with any other state in a world where self-determination of peoples is something that we all expect, or so I thought. It is a right. It is time that the western democracies looked afresh at the policy of not allowing Taiwan the diplomatic presence it needs and truly deserves.

I pay tribute to the work of His Excellency Ambassador Kelly, and his incredible and dedicated team who operate the Taipei representative office in London, for building ever stronger relations with the United Kingdom. If ever there was an example of an ambassador who works extremely hard to build a relationship with our country, it is Ambassador Kelly. I thank him for all he does to build those friendships and relationships with the peoples of this United Kingdom. I thank his staff for all their work with parliamentarians on both sides of the House, particularly the British-Taiwanese all-party group; they do a magnificent job. As vice-chairman of the all-party group, and indeed president of Conservative Friends of Taiwan, I am proud to have worked with Ambassador Kelly and all his predecessors for around three decades, ever since the Free Chinese Centre existed in London way back in the 1980s. My friendship with Taiwan goes back all that way, and I am very proud of it.

I have had the honour of visiting Taiwan on many occasions. My first visit was in 1998, when I was there as chairman of the International Young Democrat Union, the global right-of-centre youth organisation. I worked closely with the Kuomintang, which was then in power. More recently, in 2017, I led a delegation of the UK Parliament to Taiwan through the all-party group. I was privileged to meet President Tsai Ing-wen, Taiwan’s very own Iron Lady, who takes no nonsense from Beijing, and rightly so. I also recently met the Deputy Foreign Minister of Taiwan during his visit to London just prior to Christmas.

It is clear that dialogue and diplomacy are the greatest tools in our arsenal to support the people of Taiwan, and it is essential that we continue these exchanges. I commend and support my colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Committee—so ably led by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), who spoke earlier in this debate—and I wish them Godspeed as they visit Taiwan in a couple of weeks. I am only sorry that I will not be joining them on this occasion, but I have visited many times and hope to do so again.

Today, China casts a long red shadow over Taiwan. I believe it is our duty to stand with Taiwan alongside the United States of America, our European allies and our friends in the Asia-Pacific region, India, Australia and Japan, to defend the freedom of the Taiwanese people against any possible aggression that threatens Taiwan’s democratic way of life. The crackdown in Hong Kong shows China’s willingness to repudiate democracy and install its own authoritarian rule, despite international condemnation and opposition, so we must treat any assault on Taiwan as a direct assault on our own liberal democracy. We cannot walk by on the other side; we must stand with Taiwan. We must also ensure that the light of democracy shines through. Indeed, the white sun of the Taiwanese flag reminds us that the ideals of liberty and freedom must always prevail.

Strengthening our relationship further will send an unambiguous signal to China that aggression will not be tolerated. In this vein, I ask the Minister: why should Taiwan not be allowed to participate in the World Health Organisation, Interpol and the different bodies within the United Nations, including the International Civil Aviation Organisation? I hope that Taiwan, together with us, will be joining the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership—two great free trading nations joining together—and why not observer membership of the Commonwealth? We have heard already about English becoming a dual common language of Taiwan, so why not at least observer status in the Commonwealth? Would that not be a great symbol of friendship between Britain, the Commonwealth and the people of Taiwan?

This is the 21st century, and Taiwan’s exclusion is shocking and, quite frankly, dangerous. Taiwan demonstrated its value early in 2020. It raised concerns that covid-19 could be spread through person-to-person transmission before the People’s Republic of China did, yet that is where the virus originated. The implementation of a virus screening programme for international arrivals meant that the coronavirus was contained without resorting to full lockdowns. The world should have learnt from Taiwan in those early days of the pandemic, but not being part of the WHO, its early warning was downplayed. This example illustrates that these are crucial organisations that Taiwan should be involved in, for the benefit of its own people, for their safety and security, and the rest of the world, too. Why should it not be there, participating as a player in that organisation?

We need Taiwan to play its part in the exchange of ideas and to share its technical knowledge and expertise. The people of Taiwan also demonstrated their commitment to the friendship with the United Kingdom when they donated 1 million surgical masks to our NHS at a time of critical need. They have our gratitude, which demonstrates the character and virtue of the close ties with Taiwan.

The United Kingdom must now focus on developing a free exchange of goods and ideas, technological innovation, mutual support and co-operation with our Taiwanese friends. There should be no reason why Britain should not also quickly pursue a free trade agreement with Taiwan, so let us make that a priority in the coming years. Free trade and democracy will continue to bind us together and strengthen a dynamic, forward-looking relationship with Taiwan, as we seize the new opportunities for collaboration that I believe lie before us.

Let me conclude by wishing the people of Taiwan good fortune, good health and prosperity for the lunar new year. In this the year of the tiger, let us this day send the people of Taiwan a clear and unambiguous message that they have and will continue to have the steadfast and unwavering support of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell]

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman’s views about self-determination, but would he accept that both the Falkland Islands and Scotland have had referendums in recent years? The people of Taiwan have never had a referendum, but perhaps they should. If they had a referendum, they could determine their own destiny.

[Owen Thompson]

Where I would agree with the hon. Gentleman is that if the people of Taiwan wanted to have a referendum—and it is entirely a matter for the people of Taiwan—I would be 100% behind it. I think people would be astonished to find any disagreement about that among SNP Members. However, self-determination is not a one-time event, one vote and that is the end of it; self-determination is an ongoing process. That is why the SNP believes that an important consideration in determining how Taiwan is governed is what the people of Taiwan want, and how they express those desires at the ballot box.

Viewers in Scotland will already be well acquainted with the double standards of the UK Government when it comes to Scottish self-determination, but at times the Government also fall short of honouring that important principle when it comes to Taiwan. The UK does not recognise Taiwan enough and, as we have heard, there are no formal diplomatic relations with the island. That is something that could be simply looked at and corrected.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Milling]

We have regularly engaged with the United States and other partners on issues relating to Sri Lanka. The UK Government keep all evidence and potential designations under the UK global human rights sanctions regime under close review, guided by the objectives of the sanctions regime. We would not normally speculate about future sanctions targets, as to do so would reduce their impact.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

The Chinese Communist party is expanding its grip over the people of Hong Kong, destroying the freedoms and liberties defended by the British Crown for 100 years. Will the Foreign Secretary join me in condemning China for its flagrant misuse of power and its undermining of the rule of law?

[Amanda Milling]

We continue to make clear to mainland Chinese and Hong Kong authorities our strong opposition to the national security law, which is being used to curtail freedoms, punish dissent and shrink the space for opposition, free press and civil society. As a co-signatory to the joint declaration, we will continue to stand up for the people of Hong Kong.

Amnesty International Offices in Hong Kong

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Monday 15th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

We in the United Kingdom cannot divorce ourselves from the deteriorating human rights situation in Hong Kong; nor can we ignore the legal, moral and historical responsibility that the UK has for the people of Hong Kong and their right to live in a free, democratic and autonomous city. Yet I fear that the prevailing view in government and among those with commercial interests in Hong Kong is not to challenge China as strongly as we should and almost to turn a blind eye to the ongoing crackdown on the pro-democracy movement, on the free press and on civil society in this once proud possession of the British Crown.

The announcement by Amnesty International on 25 October that it intends to close its two offices in Hong Kong as a result of the national security law should concern us all. It is further evidence of the shrinking space for civil society in a city that once boasted to be an open international financial centre. Sadly, Amnesty International is not alone: at least 35 civil society organisations have disbanded since the introduction of the national security law.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for all that he does and for this debate in particular. Does he not agree that the closure of not only Amnesty International’s offices in Hong Kong but those of all human rights organisations that are highly—and rightly—critical of the horrific human rights abuses still taking place in China typifies the disregard that China has shown to the 1984 Sino-British joint declaration and the 1992 United States-Hong Kong Policy Act? Does he agree that through this debate and the Minister’s response we must make it clear that the House stands with Hong Kong’s citizens and those who fight for freedom in a democratic, peaceful way?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and I of course agree with everything he said.

I was going to go on to say that other organisations have been forced to close as well, including Human Rights Watch. In the last few months, I believe that Beijing has weaponised this draconian law to force the disbanding of the Hong Kong Professional Teachers Union, the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions, the civil society group that organised the annual Tiananmen Square massacre vigil, and the 612 Humanitarian Relief Fund, which provided the financial assistance and paid the legal fees of protesters.

[Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this Adjournment debate on such an important subject. Would he agree with me that civil society organisations play a very important role in modern democracies? We do not of course always agree with what civil society organisations say, but they play their role and have their function. This removal, in effect, of organisations such as Amnesty International from Hong Kong is further evidence, if any further evidence is required, that Hong Kong is no longer functioning as a modern democracy or an open society in any meaningful sense of the words.

[Andrew Rosindell]

My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. I believe that the way China has treated Hong Kong is a betrayal of everything we thought we had agreed with China. My hon. Friend makes the point very clearly, and I intend to emphasise this still further as the debate progresses.

Let us make no mistake about this: the dismantling of civil society organisations is another step in the Chinese Government’s relentless pursuit of the destruction of Hong Kong’s autonomy and the freedoms that were previously guaranteed by the one country, two systems model and the Sino-British joint declaration that underpinned it. Despite previous claims that the national security law would be used sparingly, would not be applied retrospectively and would not impact on the rule of law, we have seen the Chinese Communist party use the smokescreen of state security to arrest journalists, former pro-democracy lawmakers, activists, students, trade unionists, lawyers and even speech therapists.

This month alone, Beijing and the Hong Kong Government warned the Foreign Correspondents Club that it risked closure and possibly violated the national security law for publishing a survey of its members on press freedom. The Justice Secretary stated that gestures, words and signs could lead to convictions, and the Security Minister cautioned that Hong Kongers who cast blank ballots or boycott the upcoming Legislative Council elections could be violating this draconian law.

No one looking at these developments can be under any illusion whatsoever that the old Hong Kong that guaranteed freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of association and freedom of religion or belief, and upheld the rule of law, exists today: that has gone. The two trials we have seen under the national security law have already demonstrated the export and establishment of China’s judicial system in Hong Kong, with suspects denied bail on spurious grounds, judges hand-picked by Beijing and one individual receiving a sentence of six and a half years in jail simply for carrying a flag with a pro-democracy slogan on it.

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

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, as recently as Saturday, a judgment was handed down that dealt with the question of joint enterprise, which shows that the national security law is actually building a significant body of jurisprudence. In these circumstances, does he agree that it is now wholly inappropriate that United Kingdom lawyers and especially judges should be party to this sham of democracy?

[Andrew Rosindell]

The right hon. Gentleman pre-empts what I was going to say later, and he is entirely correct that we should not be giving any legitimacy to this regime any longer.

The crackdown is clearly undermining the business environment in the city and Hong Kong’s status as a global financial centre, as British-based banks and businesses fear the extension of Beijing’s foreign anti-sanctions law which would require them to ignore US sanctions, and new requirements under the national security law force them to become even more complicit in the crackdown by disclosing the property of suspects. The growing number of US firms reported to be leaving the city and the warnings about the Hong Kong Government’s dwindling surplus are key indicators of this contagion.

So, what should the UK as a co-signatory to the joint declaration do in response to what the former Foreign Secretary my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab) has labelled China’s “ongoing non-compliance” with upholding its international commitments to the people of Hong Kong?

First, the Government need to look at what more can be done to support civil society in Hong Kong, which is currently under dreadful assault. In particular, the Minister should outline what plans the Government have to ensure the flow of information and reporting on the human rights situation now that both Amnesty and Human Rights Watch have been forced to close down.

Secondly, Ministers must reconsider the participation of sitting UK judges on the Hong Kong court of final appeal. As the human rights situation continues to deteriorate at a worrying pace, it is clear that these judges are powerless to moderate Beijing’s behaviour. Instead, they are offering political cover for a Government in Hong Kong who have lost all legitimacy.

Thirdly, Ministers need to stop dragging their feet when it comes to using the Magnitsky sanctions against the Hong Kong and Chinese officials responsible for these abuses. What signal does it send to our closest allies and partners in the region when the UK is unwilling to sanction individuals who have violated an international treaty with the United Kingdom and are systematically abusing human rights?

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend, who serves on the Foreign Affairs Committee with me; he does a great job and it is wonderful to sit on that Committee with him. Sadly, I am one of the people named by the Chinese authorities in the course of some of the cases against democracy activists, which pains me greatly. Does my hon. Friend agree that what we need in relation to China, and indeed Russia, and which we are still slightly waiting for, is an integrated policy that does not turn a blind eye to these awful human rights abuses, but integrates them into the intelligent and balanced response that our state needs, including on human rights?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I am proud to serve with my hon. Friend on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and he speaks very wisely about this topic. I am sorry that his name has been published on this list; I am sure that after tonight mine will be on the list as well. I have twice been refused entry to Hong Kong, and the time has come for all Members of this House to be on that list, and to speak up against this totalitarian regime which is undermining the incredible freedoms, liberties and democracy that were left after the United Kingdom looked after Hong Kong as a Crown colony. The betrayal is unforgiveable, and this House must be united in its stand against the regime in Beijing and all the damage it is doing to the lives and freedoms of the people of Hong Kong.

Finally, the Government must look again at the question of young Hong Kongers who are currently barred from the British national overseas visa scheme. Like many Members, I fully supported the introduction of the scheme, but it cannot be right that nearly 200 Hong Kongers are now in the UK asylum system, many of whom have at least one parent who is BNO. This needs to be reviewed.

As the Minister may be aware, there is a new clause to the Borders and Nationality Bill, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) and also carries my name, that would require the Government to register a Hongkonger who can prove that they have one BNO parent for the BNO visa scheme. I hope that the Government will look favourably on that new clause and consider adopting it as we approach Report stage of the Bill.

In addition, there are 301 ex-Hong Kong servicemen seeking right of abode, which a further amendment to that Bill would grant. The Minister will know that I chair the parliamentary campaign for the right of abode for Hong Kong ex-servicemen, and I urge her please to look at this issue with some urgency. Justice needs to be done, and we have a duty to these loyal Hongkongers, who have served Queen and country and now look to Britain to give them the same loyalty in return. It is not much to ask, and I urge the Minister to take action immediately.

The human rights crisis in Hong Kong is far from over. In the next few weeks, we will see the national security trials of student activist Tony Chung and the former owner of Apple Daily, Jimmy Lai; further civil society groups will undoubtedly close; Legislative Council elections will take place under Beijing’s new system, and the threat of further national security legislation looms. The question on everyone’s minds is, what will the UK do about this? We cannot stand by in silence. We cannot watch it continue and take no action. I genuinely hope that the Minister will provide some of the answers to the questions I have posed. It is indeed Her Majesty’s Government’s duty to do so.

Human Rights in Hong Kong

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Wednesday 9th June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani? I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Tom Randall) for securing this important and timely debate on Hong Kong and add my voice in support of the arguments he made so powerfully this afternoon.

Last Friday marked the 32nd anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, when the Chinese Communist party brutally repressed pro-democracy protests in 1989, killing thousands and causing panic among Hongkongers, many of whom were refugees from Chairman Mao’s purges and feared authoritarian communist rule. That was five years after Margaret Thatcher had signed the Sino-British joint declaration with Deng Xiaoping, agreeing to hand over Hong Kong to China in 1987. In 1982, Deng told Mrs Thatcher that he could

“walk in and take the whole lot this afternoon”

if he wanted to, to which she replied, if he did,

“the eyes of the world would now know what China is like.”

Well, the Tiananmen Square massacre showed the world what China was really like, and its disregard for the rights of its own citizens.

The Sino-British joint declaration was supposed to guarantee Hong Kong’s freedom, the rule of law and a way of life unchanged for a period of 50 years. It was a legally binding treaty, lodged at the United Nations, underpinning Hong Kong’s mini- constitution and provided the Basic Law with freedom of expression, a free press and an independent judiciary, and the right of Hongkongers to participate in free elections. However, the national security law introduced by Beijing is nothing less than an all-out assault on the autonomy of Hong Kong and its freedoms and a complete violation of that treaty. The pace of the decline of one of the most open and international cities in Asia is shocking and should alarm each and every one of us.

As the co-signatory of the joint declaration and the guarantor of Hong Kong’s autonomy, Her Majesty’s Government must take more determined action. First, there must be a punitive cost for the Hong Kong and Chinese officials who are guilty of dismantling the city’s autonomy and are engaged in cracking down on the pro-democracy movement. All individuals involved in the destruction of democracy in Hong Kong should be subject to co-ordinated Magnitsky sanctions, with the Government working in tandem with our allies.

Secondly, we must do more to support those brave young protesters, many of whom face the prospect of arrest under the draconian law but do not qualify for the Government’s BNO visa scheme. We should make an exception for those born after 1997 who cannot come over as dependants. Thirdly, the Government must stand up for the pro-democracy activists in jail who have British citizenship. The British Government have a duty and responsibility to defend British citizens from Chinese Government oppression. Finally, the Government should not allow the United Kingdom’s chairmanship of this week’s G7 summit to go to waste. Hong Kong must be on the agenda, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) made clear. It is both the right time and the right forum to press for co-ordinated action from the world’s leading democracies. That should include the creation of a UN special rapporteur for Hong Kong.

The crisis in Hong Kong represents a substantial challenge to the idea of global Britain. The people of Hong Kong look to the United Kingdom, as a once-proud Crown colony, to lead the international response. Her Majesty’s Government simply cannot let them down.