Foreign Affairs Committee (Hong Kong Visit)

Debate between Ann Clwyd and David Winnick

Tuesday 2nd December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

I hope that China will, even at this late stage, change its mind. I say that because 26 years ago, as a Member of this House, I went with a delegation to Hong Kong. We stayed there for a week, and then at the end of the week we booked through a tourist organisation a visit to mainland China. We got as far as Macau and got on a tourist bus ready to cross the border into China, but at the border three of us—three British MPs—were asked to get off the bus. We questioned at the time why we were asked to get off the bus when we had tickets for a three-day visit to China. The tour operator said he could not answer the question, but we were welcome to stay at their expense in Macau for the weekend. That, of course, was not the idea. It was not until we got back to London and I visited the Chinese ambassador that I was told what the reason was: it was that one of our MP members had “journalist” written in his passport. Because it was 26 years ago and around the time of Tiananmen square, the ambassador said they were afraid that if they let us into China we would create some bother. However, he then apologised and said it had all been a bad mistake, and offered us a visit to China at the expense of the Chinese Government, which we took him up on, and there followed a very interesting visit to China. I hope that, if the Chinese Government are listening to these speeches, there is still time for them to admit they have made a mistake and that we should be allowed in.

I support the views of the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway), who has eloquently presented the case.

While I have the opportunity, I want to talk about freedom of the press. The Chairman talked about the importance of freedom of speech and of the press. Under article 27 of the Basic Law, residents of Hong Kong

“shall have freedom of speech, of the press and publication; freedom of association, of assembly, of procession and demonstration”,

and the right to join trade unions and to strike.

In recent years, however, there has been an increasing number of complaints from Hong Kong that the freedom of the press, in particular, is being undermined in a number of different ways. For instance, this year, Hong Kong fell to a record low of 61st in the annual global ranking for press freedom complied by Reporters Without Borders. The 2014 annual report of the Hong Kong Journalists Association, entitled “Press Freedom Under Siege”, calls 2014

“the darkest year for press freedom for several decades, with the media coming under relentless assault from several directions.”

The report also argued that the suppression of press freedom was happening

“despite the existence of protection by law.”

Violence against journalists has also increased in Hong Kong as part of the growing intimidation of journalists. The most recent such incident was a knife attack carried out on 26 February against Kevin Lau, the former editor-in-chief of the popular daily, Ming Pao, which was often critical of Beijing. Mr Lau had been abruptly fired a month beforehand by the paper’s owner, a tycoon with major investments in China, and replaced by a new editor who was widely seen as more pro-Chinese. The attack drew widespread condemnation, including from the Hong Kong Government.

Attacks have also been carried out this year against senior figures in the Hong Kong Morning News Media Group and, in 2013, against the owner of the free newspaper am730, the publisher of iSun Affairs and the Next Media chairman Jimmy Lai. All the victims were connected with media outlets known for expressing critical views of Beijing.

Aside from the attacks, many of which have not been solved, other complaints about press freedom centre on issues such as self-censorship and personnel changes. Such complaints do not generally allege that the legal right to press freedom in Hong Kong is being challenged, but rather that journalists or media outlets that are known to criticise Beijing are increasingly facing problems such as the withdrawal of advertisers, the abrupt and unexplained sacking of outspoken management or editorial staff, and the denial of applications to renew broadcasting licences.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

I am listening with great attention to my right hon. Friend’s speech, and we all deplore the events that she has described. Would it not, however, be naive to believe that a China controlled by the Communist party and determined to maintain its dictatorship is going to allow freedom of expression and the democratic rights in Hong Kong that we all wish to see?

[Ann Clwyd]

The point that I was making earlier was that those rights are enshrined in law, and that the Chinese Government are therefore breaking the law if those rights are being violated.

These issues are creating a climate in which, although press freedom is respected according to the letter of the law, journalists are either being pressurised by advertisers and media owners to avoid criticising Beijing or being denied a platform from which to make such criticisms. The rise of the Chinese-owned media in Hong Kong, in tandem with China’s more general economic growth, also plays a role in debates over press freedom. Reporters Without Borders drew attention in its annual report to this fact, stating:

“China’s growing economic weight is allowing it to extend its influence over the media in Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan, which had largely been spared political censorship until recently. Media independence is now in jeopardy in these three territories, which are either ‘special administrative regions’ or claimed by Beijing.”

I would describe the situation for press and broadcasting freedom in Hong Kong as dire.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s six-monthly report on Hong Kong covering July to December 2013 included a section on press freedom and freedom of expression. It noted that there were “some concerns” that these freedoms were “under threat”. I think that is rather too mild. The report concluded that those rights were “generally well respected”, but detailed a number of controversies particularly relating to press freedom. It its six-monthly report covering January to June 2014, the FCO listed several similar incidents of controversy or demonstrations relating to concerns in Hong Kong about perceived infringements of press freedom. It noted that people in Hong Kong appeared to be increasingly worried about self-censorship. It also noted, however, that in April, the Chief Executive had spoken in support of press freedom because it was

“a cornerstone of a free society”.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office did not take a particular stand on the specific concerns it mentioned, stating:

“We believe that freedom of expression, including of the press, has played an important role in Hong Kong’s success. It is one of the fundamental freedoms protected by the Joint Declaration. As such, we take seriously concerns about press freedom, including fears about self-censorship. We welcome the Chief Executive’s clear statements on press freedom and we will continue to monitor the situation closely.”

As the Chairman of the Select Committee has said, our investigation is going to continue. I hope that the Chinese Government are listening to the points that are being made in this debate and that they will think again, as they did 26 years ago when they recognised that they had made a mistake by excluding three of us from China at that time.

Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

Debate between Ann Clwyd and David Winnick

Thursday 2nd December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Ann Clwyd]

I thank my hon. Friend. That is a very good point.

During the first few months of the new system’s operation, Members faced huge delays in getting any claims reimbursed. They accumulated large amounts of debt at the beginning of a new Parliament, and a great deal of time and manpower has been spent trying to balance the books ever since. This unnecessarily takes time away from other parliamentary duties, as has been pointed out. During the past six months, IPSA has twice lost or not received the receipts we have sent in the post. IPSA is adamant that all claims must be accompanied by original receipts, but no contingency plan has been put in place to deal with lost receipts. The old system allowed Members to send in photocopies of receipts, while we filed the originals for our own records. Members are now at risk if they do not take photocopies of all receipts before sending them to IPSA.

Communicating with or contacting IPSA is not easy. There is only one general phone number and e-mail address for Members to contact. We have all been put on hold for more than 45 minutes while waiting to discuss issues with IPSA staff and, due to a lack of replies, we have all but given up trying to contact IPSA via e-mail.

I am sure that there would have been many more Members here today if they were not still fearful of the press. We all know that whatever we say here today will be picked up and used in one way or another. Some Members who would have liked to be here to make similar points to the ones we are making are not here because of a certain amount of fear. It is ridiculous that elected Members of Parliament, who often have to stand up for their constituents, find it difficult to stand up for themselves.

[Mr Winnick]

It is quite possible that new Members fear the local press in particular, and worry that it might say that the moment that they are elected, they start complaining. Is there not therefore a greater responsibility on those of us who have been here some time to make this case today?

[Ann Clwyd]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, and I am glad that so many of us are here to make that case.

As a former journalist, I have been quite surprised at the many leaks that have appeared in the press on matters concerning MPs’ discussions with IPSA and what they have sent into IPSA. A headline in The Times yesterday read “Carry on claiming; MPs are already flouting new rules on expenses”. The article went on to give details. Now, I admire good journalists, and well done to them for getting the story, but how did they get it unless somebody at IPSA leaked it to them? This morning, a colleague told me that they had been talking to a member of the press who had been offered information by somebody at IPSA on certain “juicy” bits that had not yet emerged in the press about what certain Members had claimed for. The story in The Times said that one MP had had a claim for £338 for a shredder refused. Why on earth was he refused that for a shredder? We all use shredders; we often have to shred correspondence, for example. But that is not the point. How on earth did the newspaper get that story in the first place?

I have been told an allegation that I cannot personally prove, but the information has been given to me on very good authority. I make the allegation because it is doing the rounds—I apologise to the person about whom the allegation is made if it is not true, and she might like to deny it during the course of the day—and it is that the information is coming from the Director of Communications at IPSA, Anne Power. She can either refute that or, if it is the case, agree that it is true. I have every reason to believe my source and that that is the case. There must be an answer to why, every time we have a debate on IPSA, an anti-MP story appears the day before. The information must come from the only people with that knowledge, and that must be the people at IPSA. Today, they must deny or otherwise admit that that person has offered that information to a member of the press.

Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

Debate between Ann Clwyd and David Winnick

Wednesday 16th June 2010 Westminster Hall

[Ann Clwyd]

That is disgraceful. It puts unfair pressure on those people. We expect answers and if we do not get answers we obviously feel frustrated. I have not yet screamed or shouted at anyone, or banged the table, but I am getting to the point of saying that I would not have come back to Parliament if I had realised what a hassle the system would be for me and my staff. I would not have returned. That is a shocking thing to have to say, because throughout my time here I have enjoyed being a Member of Parliament; to spend my time now having to do this kind of thing irritates me beyond explanation.

I note that the Leader of the House is here. He will know that a few weeks ago in business questions I raised this matter in response to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North. My hon. Friend did not receive an answer to his questions; he was told that no one was responsible for answering on behalf of IPSA. I then discovered that the Deputy Prime Minister would have policy responsibility for IPSA; the Leader of the House told me that in reply to my question. If the Deputy Prime Minister is responsible for IPSA policy, he should be here listening to this debate. I am sorry he had to send his right hon. Friend to take the flak on his behalf. I would like to know what “policy” means. If answering questions on IPSA is not part of policy, what is?

[Mr Winnick]

The reply to the questions I tabled to the Leader of the House was that no responsibility falls on the Government for what are basically day-to-day matters. Downing street then said that it was the responsibility of the Deputy Prime Minister. I put the same questions to him, but got the same response. It is not its fault, but the Table Office now blocks all questions on the workings of IPSA. The organisation is a law unto itself; it is impossible, except at business questions, to raise issues by way of parliamentary questions. That in itself is pretty disgraceful.

[Ann Clwyd]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that we allow enough time for the poor man who has to answer the debate to give a comprehensive reply.

I read again in the paper this morning that MPs will be given face-to-face advice surgeries with officials, starting in September. At the moment, advice is given largely via telephone helpline and e-mail. None the less, despite the complaints of MPs, Sir Ian said that it is not a complicated expenses system. Who is he kidding? It is complicated, and I object very strongly on behalf of my fellow Members that the system has been imposed upon us and that nobody seems to be accountable.