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.

Covid-19: Freedom of Religion or Belief

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that they should sanitise their microphones using the cleaning materials provided before they use them, and dispose of the materials as they leave the Chamber. Members are also asked to respect the one-way system around the room. They should speak only from the horseshoe. Members can speak only if they are on the call list. That applies even if debates are under-subscribed. Members cannot join the debate if they are not on the call list.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effect of the covid-19 pandemic on freedom of religion or belief.

It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. Yesterday, 25 November, the world marked Red Wednesday, whose purpose is to draw attention to the plight of those who are persecuted for their religion and beliefs, and the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. To mark them, the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief tabled early day motion 1179. I thank colleagues who have already signed it, and I ask others please to do so. In that EDM, we urge the Government and the international community to act to mitigate the impact that covid-19 has had on vulnerable minority communities globally and on women and girls from them, who are doubly discriminated against because of their gender and their beliefs.

The chair of our all-party parliamentary group, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) led the call along with the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) to secure this debate. We thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving us time. The hon. Member for Strangford is unable to be with us today, and his compassionate voice will be much missed during this debate. As a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group, I am sure I speak on behalf of many of us when I express the most sincere thanks to him for his dedicated work for the persecuted.

I aim to highlight with examples from around the world how, tragically, both Government and non-state actors have exploited this global health crisis to violate human rights, and in particular the right to freedom of religion or belief. I will show how living conditions have worsened for those who are detained, whether in prison or as refugees, on account of their conscience. I aim to illustrate that the distribution of aid and humanitarian relief is often biased or withheld from those with minority beliefs, and I will speak of the spread of misinformation targeting minority religious or belief communities. There is clear evidence of an increase in violence, both domestic and more widely, affecting those with particular beliefs. I will demonstrate how, in other ways, the right to worship and manifest faith or belief has been curtailed.

All that illustrates how important it is for our Government to be vigilant in pressing others to uphold human rights and fundamental freedoms during this pandemic, including in particular the freedom of religion or belief. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in particular is doing so.

In countries around the world, many marginalised religious and belief communities have faced intensified discrimination since the outbreak of covid-19. According to the UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief,

“Antisemitic hate speech has risen alarmingly since the outbreak of the COVID-19 crisis”.

Many faith communities have even been blamed for the virus. The BBC reported that in Somalia, the Islamic extremist group al-Shabaab is warning Muslims that Christians are transmitters of the disease. Such messaging is terrifying for the handful of Christians there who are already forced to practise their faith in secrecy for fear of their lives.

In India, Muslims faced accusations that they were deliberately spreading the virus and a campaign of Islamophobia, in which Muslims were labelled bio-terrorists and corona-jihadists ensued, leading to many instances of violence and discrimination against Muslims. For Christians in India, too, life has become more difficult during the pandemic, on top of a serious increase in anti-Christian violence over the last few years—I see the hon. Member for Glasgow East nodding—particularly but not exclusively in Uttar Pradesh.

We hear of problems in India of mob vigilantism, violence and surveillance of home churches by non-state actors. I thank the Backbench Business Committee, which has already approved a separate debate on the persecution of Muslims, Christians and other minority groups in India. I hope that parliamentary time will be found for that much-needed debate very soon.

The scapegoating of minorities during this pandemic is a truly global problem. According to the Institute of Development Studies:

“In a significant amount of the nations which have encountered outbreaks of the novel coronavirus, politicians and opinion leaders have openly condemned religious minority populations under the guise of epidemiological containment, through hateful messages on social media, public speeches and official policies.”

That scapegoating has contributed to the many reports of individuals from these communities around the world being attacked, denied aid or otherwise prevented from accessing life-saving humanitarian interventions.

Accounts of discrimination in food distribution and the biased distribution of humanitarian relief materials are widespread. Alliance Defending Freedom International reports from the Gulf region that people have become so desperate that they are forced to trade their religion for food—they are forced to convert to Islam for just one sack of flour.

In Iraq, there are reports of Christian communities being the last to get necessary food and medical supplies. In Pakistan, there have been reports of non-governmental organisations denying food and aid to Hindus and Christians, or serving only them after Muslims have been served. Some members of the ethnic and religious minority Hazara group in Pakistan have claimed that they need to disguise themselves if they hope to receive medical treatment or testing.

One of the problems is that where national Government aid is being distributed by local groups or where foreign organisations use local staff at the frontline of aid distribution, discrimination against minorities can occur at that point, regardless of the foreign organisation’s central anti-discrimination policies. It is important that our Government do what they can to call for mechanisms to be put in place to ensure that religious minorities at the frontline of aid distribution, particularly UK aid distribution, do not face additional discrimination because of their faith.

Certain states have also utilised the covid-19 outbreak as an excuse to intensify persecution of marginalised communities, and not only through church closures. In Uganda, there are reports that the Government’s response to covid-19 has systematically excluded religious minority groups, by allowing only certain major religions to attend consultative meetings on the coronavirus response.

China has increased its interference and surveillance of Tibetan Buddhists, under the pretence of attempting to tackle the coronavirus, even using contact tracing apps to monitor every movement of Tibetan citizens. Also in China, where the clampdown on freedom of worship over recent years has been alarming, the pandemic has sadly given an opportunity for state surveillance of religious worship by minorities to increase. Some church members who tried to meet for online worship were detained and had police stationed at their homes to prevent them from joining online services.

I turn to the plight of refugees and internally displaced persons. Many already live in overcrowded conditions, rendering them particularly vulnerable in the event of an outbreak of covid-19. Many are from religious communities who have experienced rights violations that occasioned their displacement and internment in the first place, such as the ethnic minorities who fled Burma’s decades-long years of conflict.

Covid-19 has reached the Rohingya refugee camps on the Bangladesh-Burma border, leading aid organisations to warn of an impending humanitarian disaster. First-hand observations by CSW—Christian Solidarity Worldwide—in the Rohingya refugee camps confirm that social distancing, self-isolation and even regular handwashing are an impossibility.

Elsewhere, the pandemic has highlighted failings in legal systems and criminal proceedings, and has underlined the degree to which religious discrimination can be institutionalised in some legal systems. In Sudan, for example, the legal system all but ground to a halt on account of the virus. Cases involving church leaders and church property, which were already proceeding slowly, faced further delays. Overcrowding in prisons during the pandemic has posed an additional threat to the welfare of inmates. A large number of prisoners are in Evin prison in Tehran, where conditions are overcrowded and unsanitary, and where prisoners have contracted the virus.

Eritrea is of particular concern; there, a stringent covid-19-related lockdown, enforced with violence by the armed forces, has provided the Government with an additional means of curtailing freedom of movement, which was already restricted. Tens of thousands of prisoners of conscience there, including long-standing Jehovah’s Witness detainees, are held in unsanitary, ill-equipped and life-threatening conditions, where insufficient access to water, food or medical facilities makes their plight desperate. An appeal by the UN special rapporteur for Eritrea for low-risk offenders and vulnerable prisoners to be released was rebuffed.

Although information from North Korea is difficult to obtain—I have the privilege of having been co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on North Korea for some years now—last week there were disturbing reports about North Koreans with covid-19 being left to die in so-called quarantine camps. The full impact of covid in North Korea remains unknown, but we should not underestimate it, given that country’s virtually complete lack of respect for human rights, its limited health system and its concentration camps housing thousands of prisoners of conscience—all of which coincides with North Korea’s having suffered substantial food shortages this year.

The all-party group is currently conducting an inquiry into human rights violations in North Korea as a follow-up to the UN commission of inquiry of 2014. There is an opportunity to contribute to it through our website, appgnorthkoreainquiry.com, and submissions would be most welcome, particularly in the light of the limited information on the impact of the pandemic in North Korea.

Elsewhere across the world, it is clear that the pandemic has led to discrimination in employment. Open Doors reports having been told of Christian nurses being deliberately assigned coronavirus cases. When India went into lockdown to combat the coronavirus crisis, hundreds of thousands lost their jobs overnight. Many usually work as daily labourers and earn each day what they need to survive; without the day’s income they have no money to buy food.

Many work as sanitation workers. They are often from the Dalit community, which is the most neglected and marginalised in India—indeed, I would say, virtually in the world; it is heart-rending to hear how some of them can only come out at night. Their work involves great health risks, collecting waste, emptying sewage and cleaning the streets. We hear via Open Doors from Hyderabad how these people face a serious predicament and are putting their lives at risk, with even women sanitation workers performing these sanitation tasks without gloves, protective masks or even shoes, and often working by hand.

There is no financial safety net or furloughing scheme in India. Official aid is nowhere near enough for the people who need it and, sadly, Christians are often last in line for essential covid aid and food because of their faith. However difficult the pandemic has been in this country, these reports—I thank in particular CSW and Open Doors for their reliable and often first-hand accounts—show that the difficulties in other countries are further exacerbated for the vulnerable, minorities and women.

There is a second debate this afternoon on international development and gender-based violence, so I will not take any further time from other colleagues in this debate by focusing on it now. Suffice it to say that reports in The Lancet indicate that domestic violence against women and girls has increased by as much as 30% in some countries during the pandemic. This huge increase in domestic violence has led to several reports of women from minority communities, such as Yazidis, taking their lives.

Tragically, that increase in violence is by no means restricted to domestic situations during the lockdown. In Nigeria, villagers in Kaduna state and Plateau state were obeying state directives to stay in their homes to prevent the spread of the virus. Sadly, that made them even more vulnerable targets for attack than they were before the pandemic, because they effectively became sitting targets. Fulani militants have carried out multiple raids on villages, and there are reports that Christians have been killed. Christians believe that the militants are taking advantage of the pandemic to uproot them from the area, and although they have made efforts to alert security agents to the attacks, nothing has been done to prevent them. Once again, I call on the Government actively to address the concerns and recommendations of our all-party group’s report “Nigeria: Unfolding Genocide”, which was published earlier this year.

I look forward to colleagues’ contributions. Before I conclude, in the light of this debate, I ask the Minister to reflect on recommendation 21 of the Bishop of Truro’s report, about which I have spoken in a number of debates over recent years. The report highlights the importance of recognising the negative consequences of what he refers to as a “need not creed” mantra; of rejecting that mantra; and of the negative consequences of our aid being “religion-blind”.

Will the Minister consider the importance of challenging international partners to ensure that disinformation is combated; that there is access to justice; that where religious communities are attacked, there is accountability; that any emergency powers are proportionate; and—during this unprecedented crisis, now more than ever—that the needs of, and pressures on, religious minorities are taken into account, not ignored?

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

What assessment he has made of the effect of the National Security Law on the people of Hong Kong.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

What assessment he has made of the effect of the national security law on the people of Hong Kong.

[The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)]

We have been clear that the national security law has had a chilling effect on society and that it constitutes a clear and serious breach of the Sino-British joint declaration. It contains a range of measures that directly threaten the freedoms and rights protected by the joint declaration. In response to the national security law, the UK has offered a new immigration path for British nationals, suspended our extradition treaty and extended our arms embargo on mainland China to Hong Kong. We urge the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities to abide by their international human rights obligations.

[Nigel Adams]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have taken clear action in response to the national security law, including, as I said, offering a new immigration path for British national overseas passport holders, suspending our extradition treaty and extending our arms embargo on mainland China to Hong Kong. We will continue to bring together our international partners to ensure that we stand up for the people of Hong Kong, to call out the violation of their freedoms and to hold China to its international obligations.

[Andrew Rosindell]

Does the Minister agree that the national security law in Hong Kong has infringed the rights of many Hongkongers and broken international law by breaching the joint declaration? Will he now either urgently review his Magnitsky sanctions regime or outline how he intends to target those who instigate such appalling human rights abuses against this once proud British Crown colony?

[Nigel Adams]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. As he will know, on 6 July we established our global human rights Magnitsky sanctions regime, and it is under constant review. However, he will be aware that it is not appropriate to speculate on who may be designated under any future sanctions regime, because to do so would reduce the impact of those designations.