Trial of Jimmy Lai
Catherine West Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
The ongoing detention of Jimmy Lai, a British citizen, is a stark symbol of the decline of Hong Kong’s freedoms and China’s flagrant disregard for the legally binding Sino-British agreement, which promised a high degree of autonomy for Hongkongers for 50 years. Jimmy Lai’s trial is a further chapter in the erosion of the liberties promised then to the people of Hong Kong.
My right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary and I have met Jimmy’s son, Sebastien, regularly and made unequivocally clear Labour’s position that Jimmy must be released immediately and that the national security law under which he is being charged is abhorrent. I welcome the intervention by the new Foreign Secretary as Mr Lai’s trial begins today, but there must be sustained interest by the Government, in a way that has been sorely lacking until now.
We cannot sit idly by while British citizens experience a politically motivated trial and the authorities attempt to stifle freedom of expression. I urge the Minister to give a firm commitment right here that the Foreign Secretary’s intervention will not be a one-off, and that the Government will follow Labour’s lead in sustained, consistent and full-throated support for Mr Lai and his legal counsel, and in putting the freedoms promised to the people of Hong Kong at the top of her agenda.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As the Minister both for the Indo-Pacific region—China and Hong Kong are in my purview—and for sanctions, the issues of Jimmy Lai and others held in this way are very much at the top of my agenda. They always have been and always will remain so.
I have met Sebastien Lai on a number of occasions this year, and have worked closely with him and his team to understand the situation and to look at the support that we can provide. The frustration is that we are not able to provide consular access, because we are not allowed to visit him in prison. The Foreign Secretary set out yesterday that he has called for Jimmy Lai’s release, and we will continue to sustain that throughout the trial. At the moment, we expect the trial to last some 80 days, so we expect to see it wrap up in the summer. We will be working very closely with like-minded partners—US, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, European and Swiss representatives were also in court today—to make it clear that we all have one view, which is that this is a trial from which Jimmy Lai needs to be released.
Persecution of Buddhists: Tibet
Catherine West Excerpts(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of the persecution of Buddhists in Tibet.
First, I thank hon. and right hon. Members for being here. I also want to put on record my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to this debate. We have some people in the Public Gallery today who have an interest in issues around persecution and in particular of Buddhists in Tibet. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) is here. In all the time I have known her—my time in the House is the same as hers—she has always had a particular interest in Nepal. I am very pleased to see her here to participate and to add her vast knowledge of the subject to the debate.
I am not yet quite sure who the Minister is. I am sure he is on his way. There may be other things happening and there may be a change of ministership as we sit here. Who knows? Whoever the Minister is, they will no doubt make a contribution shortly.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
On a point of order, Ms Vaz. What happens if the Minister is not in his or her place? This is the first time this has happened to me since I have been a Member, since 2015. Others may have experienced that dereliction of duty, but I have not—and not on such an important subject.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
If another Minister or Whip cannot be found in time, the Parliamentary Private Secretary should be advised to take notes and rise at the end to make apologies on the Minister’s behalf. They should inform hon. Members that the Minister will respond to the points made. PPSs cannot make specific speeches on behalf of the Government, but I am sure the hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew), who I know is very assiduous, will make an assiduous note.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I want to briefly put on the record my concern about the discourtesy of the Minister turning up late to today’s debate on such an important subject. There are people in the Public Gallery who wanted her to hear every single word of this important debate. I cannot help but notice that there is not a Scottish National party spokesperson either, so there is a bit of a sense of disarray today. I am not sure that you can do anything about that, Ms Vaz, but I hope things can be improved for next time.
The all-party group for international freedom of religion or belief is one of the most active in Parliament, and the two most active members of it are here. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing the debate, and on laying out his concerns in such clear terms. On a number of occasions, he has mentioned other issues associated with freedom of religion or belief that concern him, including the impact of blasphemy laws in Pakistan and the treatment of Muslim minorities in the Xinjiang region of the People’s Republic of China. That concern was recently highlighted in an excellent piece in the Financial Times outlining new satellite evidence of the destruction of mosques in the Xinjiang region. The hon Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) laid out details of the mass displacement of people in the Tibetan region, which is worrying, and talked about more than 1 million children being involved. Clearly, a programme of sinicisation is going on, in which individuals are not permitted to speak in their native tongue, which will, of course, cause a great barrier between children and their parents. It is worrying that 1 million children could be moved into dormitory-style accommodation, from as young as two, as she said.
In the past decade, we have seen video evidence of the destruction of Buddhist temples. The hon. Member for Strangford highlighted the repression that nuns and monks experience daily. He also emphasised under-representation in leadership positions in the PRC; the restrictions and the increasing state-sponsored surveillance; and cultural events that have been stopped by the Chinese Government. As the hon. Member for Congleton emphasised, China is ranked 176th worst for journalism and freedom of speech. In parenthesis, I wonder whether the House would mind my mentioning the other obvious freedom of speech issue: Jimmy Lai, who is in prison at the moment. He used to be the Apple Daily owner and publicist. I am sure the Minister will comment on that, because I am aware that the Foreign Secretary met Sebastien Lai, Jimmy’s son, just this week, and I am sure she would not mind doing a mini-detour in her wind-up to update the House on that meeting.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing that up. I tabled early-day motion 213 just yesterday on the imprisonment of Jimmy Lai. I urge all Members to note it. They might wish to sign it to raise awareness of Jimmy and how he is being suppressed. He has been in jail for some time, and any thoughts of his getting out are remote.
Catherine West
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. He is relentless in highlighting social injustice and, in this case, the lack of freedom of speech for Jimmy Lai and others; we know that similar things are going on in Tibet. However, as the three main speakers in this debate mentioned, because of the difficulty in monitoring what is happening in Tibet, we do not hear as much as we should from journalists there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) made an extremely important point about the climate and the vulnerable nature of Tibet. Having hot-footed her way back from COP28, she has given us her update on the environmental concerns about that fragile part of our beautiful planet, where third pole ice storage and permafrost is thawing, with dreadful consequences for the river system. We know that a lack of water can cause long-term problems, including social ones, and she has made an important point. She also highlights the potential for Indo-Chinese relations to sour, and makes the important point that when we speak to leaders from the PRC, we must consider the trade relationship, which is very important to the UK’s economy, but crucially must not leave our values at the door. Will the Minister say when she last raised the issue of freedom of religion or belief in Tibet with her counterpart in the PRC?
The Foreign Secretary is in the other place. What impact does the Minister think his previous business interests have? What is the impact of the clear speeches he was giving in Sri Lanka and other places in which China has an interest? Might that cloud the judgment of Ministers as they speak one to one with counterparts in the People’s Republic of China, or with those who represent the PRC in London? Can she also outline what representations are made to China, during trade talks, on the subject of Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Tibet? We should not have one box for trade and one for human rights; they should be part of the same dialogue. What reassurances can she give concerning the issues raised today?
In conclusion, we have heard valuable contributions from members of the APPG for international freedom of religion or belief, who speak out regularly about the lack of freedom for so many to practise their faith abroad. We also heard the cultural and environmental concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East has about the Tibetan plateau. On the specifics of how we do our diplomacy, what reassurances can the Minister give me and the House on the important subject of freedom of religion or belief in the People’s Republic of China, specifically as regards Tibetan Buddhists?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The hon. Lady highlights something important. One of the beauties of this extraordinarily peaceful religion is that it does not cause some of the violence and aggression that one sees in other clashes between religions or beliefs across the world.
The challenge in Tibet is that of access for foreign nationals, including accredited diplomats and journalists, and it remains highly restricted. British diplomats visited Tibetan areas of Sichuan province in June 2023, and we will continue to push for access to Tibet, including for the UN special rapporteurs, which China either has not responded to or indeed has refused. We are consistent in our calls for the necessity of greater access to Tibet for international observers.
On UK policy towards China more broadly, China of course has a significant role to play in almost every global issue. We want to have a strong and constructive relationship. As such, we continue to engage directly with China to create space for those open, constructive, predictable and stable relations that are important in, for example, areas of global challenge such as climate and health. Those are areas that we need and want to work together on, for the good of the whole of mankind.
We will, however, always condemn human rights violations, privately in our meetings with Chinese representatives and in public fora, as we have set out. The UK Government will continue to play a leading role in pressing China to improve its human rights and to get its record to a better place.
Catherine West
Does the Minister agree that, with the question mark over the Foreign Secretary’s business deals, it is correct for the House to ask whether the business deals or the human rights come first?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The China policy has not changed as the personnel in Government have. The policy remains entirely unchanged, but sadly the world has changed in how China is behaving, in particular through its coercive economic activities across a large area, but also through the increasing human rights violations. I hope that is clearly set out. The new Foreign Secretary is in absolutely the same place and is 100% supportive.
Catherine West
I asked the question because, in recent years and particularly since 2018, when Xi Jinping achieved his core leader status, which is when the internal repression and external aggression increased, the Foreign Secretary made positive speeches regarding the belt and road initiative in Sri Lanka. That is the specific business reference that I was making. The Minister may wish to write to me rather than put it on the record, but it is important, in an open and democratic system, that such things are out in the open.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I would not wish to speak on behalf of the Foreign Secretary about his activities when he was a private citizen. On some level, I think we all support and wish to see the direct success of some of the belt and road initiative. Without a doubt, those investments were in part an attempt by China to take their discovery about their way of investing long term in their own infrastructure, which saw their poverty levels drop dramatically, across the world. But there are other aspects to the initiative and some frustrations: where the impact has not been as well funded or followed through, it has left investees disappointed.
As the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green highlights, the challenge remains that there has been a shift in the way the CCP does its business. That now requires us to continue to lead—and, sadly, it requires more international effort—on holding China to account for what are, without a doubt, appalling human rights violations in a number of places, including Xinjiang, which a number of hon. Members referenced. We were the first country to lead a joint statement on Xinjiang at the UN, and our leadership has sustained pressure on China to change its behaviour and brought other countries’ voices with us. In October 2023, the UK led another joint statement on Xinjiang at the UN, calling China out for its human rights violations, and there were a record number of signatories. That relates to my earlier point about the challenge of continuing to build the evidence base and give other countries the chance to understand and see some of the violations for themselves. We will continue to lead that piece of work and bring UK diplomatic leadership across the world.
The hon. Member for Bristol East raised an interesting point. Ministers across Government do raise human rights concerns whenever they have discussions with the CCP or discussions on other Chinese issues. It was very interesting to hear about the policy work that was done in 2013, of which I was not aware. I will dig it out of the system and see whether the framework that we use now, or what was suggested, can ensure that we maximise our impact. It is very much on everyone’s agenda, but we are very comfortable with the fact that, when we talk about engaging with China, there are important economic relationships that we wish to continue to work on and grow. We have businesses that are keen to invest in what is, of course, an enormous market across the world.
To conclude, everyone, everywhere deserves to enjoy fundamental human rights, including the freedom of religion or belief. China should respect those rights in Tibet, in line with its own constitution and the international frameworks to which it is a party. Until it does so, the UK will continue to hold it to account—in public, in private and in concert with our international partners. We will continue to stand up for our values, and to promote and protect human rights in Tibet and around the world. Members’ concerns about the forcefulness of messaging about and criticism of suppression from Chinese authorities are well heard today. We shall continue to press for stronger language and the continued use of sanctions tools to express the disgust and righteous anger that colleagues have set out so eloquently today.
Oral Answers to Questions
Catherine West Excerpts(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Sri Lanka is a key member of the Commonwealth family and occupies a strategically vital position geographically. Warm relations are vital, but for far too long, those accused of brutal crimes in the past, including against the Tamil minority, have escaped justice. Will the Minister outline what steps she is taking to support the Tamils’ calls for justice, including, if necessary, by taking action against existing and former Sri Lankan Ministers? Will she outline the support for Sri Lankan democracy and human rights?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. We welcomed the recent written update on Sri Lanka by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and, in September, the UK Government issued statements that emphasised the importance of inclusive transitional justice and effective governance reforms in order to highlight the arbitrary use of laws to suppress dissent. As I said, we led UNHRC resolution 51/1 on Sri Lanka, providing the mandate for the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to report on Sri Lanka, and we continue to work with it.
Sri Lankan Tamils and Human Rights
Catherine West Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. It has been an excellent debate. We have heard from the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day); from those with extensive parliamentary experience, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn); and, of course, from the well known and very active all-party group, which works across different groupings and parties, including the outstanding contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who has done that casework day in, day out, since 2009 in particular. I also want to put on record the points that have been made by my hon. Friends the Members for Ilford South (Sam Tarry) and for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), particularly on the ongoing humanitarian situation in the north of Sri Lanka. That was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), who also talked about water quality, which is a very pressing concern today.
As friends of Sri Lankans, we know that, for the many in the diaspora in our communities who come to our advice surgeries with concerns about the ongoing lack of consideration of what happened during that terrible period, until this is fully looked at and considered, there will be no peace. My question to the Minister is on the wide-ranging relationship we have with Sri Lanka as a country. I will first put on record the importance of the economic work done by the High Commission for Sri Lanka with Members across the House to call for economic help for Sri Lanka in the 12 months since the sovereign debt crisis. However, we all want that to be married with a socially just solution for those who feel that the true horrors of the civil war have not fully been heard.
In the context of both the economic imperatives and the social justice concerns, will the Minister, in his concluding remarks, state his view of the role of the current Foreign Secretary, in particular his support for the port project in Sri Lanka, in which he had a financial interest? As the Minister represents the Government, what does he think the relationship is between a state-owned enterprise in the Communist party and the current Foreign Secretary? The House needs to know whether the current Foreign Secretary had a financial relationship with a state-owned enterprise that is basically a development company. Does the Minister think that was an acceptable relationship, and would he enlighten the Chamber?
There are a number of important questions from the past that need to be answered. We warmly welcome the announcement made in May of this year that the Sri Lankan Government will be undertaking a national unity and reconciliation commission. However, we are also listening to non-governmental organisations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, which was mentioned earlier. Those organisations say that there is a lack of genuine confidence in the milestones that need to be achieved so that we can all have confidence in that commission internationally.
I wonder whether the Minister might tell the House whether he thinks that the commission has achieved the milestones that would have be expected between May and December of this year so that we can all have confidence, and can give confidence to our constituents, when they come to see us in our advice surgeries, by reassuring them that the UK is playing its part in holding the Government in Sri Lanka to account and moving towards a process similar to that which led to the truth and reconciliation commission in South Africa, which is held up as a gold standard for this sort of work. I am very interested to hear the Minister’s assessment of where we are with that, given that eight months have gone by, and whether we have seen the sort of work that is needed to lead to the sort of outcome that was seen in South Africa.
The UN panel of experts has expressed a desire to see credible evidence of the war crimes and to see that justice is served. A number of Members have underlined the role that General Silva played during the conflict. Has the Minister made an assessment of whether this would fit into the Magnitsky sanctions framework? Post Brexit, that is our most important tool for holding certain individuals to account for their actions. We are all aware that the standard response from a Minister who is asked this question is, “We don’t comment on these things, because that would spoil the process of sanctions,” because they are supposed to be almost a surprise, but given our concern, could the Minister give us a hint of his views on that individual, whose name comes up in so many representations at the UN panel of experts?
Based on the Minister’s assessment of the evidence at the International Criminal Court, does he believe that there is a case to be answered? Does he think it will be sufficient to have the process of national reconciliation, or does he believe that there will be another step after that, which will then go into the ICC? What measures are being taken to support Sri Lanka’s pathway to becoming a pluralistic, multicultural democracy in which all of its people can flourish?
I recently had a wonderful briefing from a fantastic UK organisation called the HALO Trust. The Minister and other hon. Members will know of its great work. After a decade of sorting out land mines in the north of Sri Lanka, the trust’s work is coming to an end. I just hope that as that chapter ends, a new one will open for all of the diaspora and the individuals whose lives were destroyed by that dreadful civil war—a chapter in which truth and reconciliation are key. Is the Minister confident of that? If not, will he tell us what his concerns are, so that our Sri Lankan constituents of the diaspora and those who care deeply about human rights can have confidence that the UK Government are doing their part to uphold peace and democracy?
Leo Docherty
These are clearly profoundly difficult issues that will not be solved quickly, but our judgment is that we must continue with our diplomacy and our strong encouragement for the Government of Sri Lanka to come forward with detailed proposals about a truth and reconciliation commission. As unlikely as it may seem this afternoon, that is the intent of our diplomacy, and we will continue to do that. We will also continue closely to monitor human rights developments in Sri Lanka, including the marginalisation and repression faced by Tamil communities and other minorities.
Catherine West
Given the scepticism about yet another announcement of this sort of process, will the Minister pledge to continue more truthful and thorough approaches? For example, with regard to the question raised earlier in the debate about the role of the ICC for certain of the terrible events that happened during the civil war, is it the assessment of the FCDO that there is a case to answer in the ICC?
Leo Docherty
The hon. Lady will know that the ICC, being independent, will make its own judgments about the prospect of prosecution, but of course, candour and frank speaking are at the heart of the relationship that we have with the Sri Lankan Government, and we will continue to press the need for a truth and reconciliation commission.
Ahmadi Muslims: Pakistan
Catherine West Excerpts(8 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. It was also a pleasure to hear the opening speech from the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) and to hear about the work of the all-party group chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), which does such an excellent job of highlighting the discrimination against the Ahmadi community.
The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) is known in this place for raising the issue of freedom of religion or belief, which she carefully laid out today, and we in this Parliament hold such concepts of peace and democracy dear. In every country and every community, we firmly believe that people should be able to live their lives as they wish and to pray and worship in whichever way they feel most appropriate.
However, in many parts of the world, religion and belief can lead to persecution, and Pakistan is sadly among those places. In debates on freedom of religion, we have repeatedly raised concerns about blasphemy laws and the worrying situation for minorities in Pakistan. It is right that we are able to use this opportunity to shine a spotlight on the treatment of Ahmadi Muslims, which is so often overlooked. In fact, even the true figure for the population of Ahmadis is not really known. The House of Commons Library was unable to confirm it. It could be up to 4.5 million people, but because many people are not included in the census, it is difficult to know the exact number of people in the community.
We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) about the legal changes and the subsequent application of Pakistan’s penal code prohibiting Ahmadi Muslims from declaring their faith publicly, propagating their faith, printing or obtaining material related to their faith, building mosques or calling their places of worship mosques, and making the call for Muslim prayers. Virtually any public act of worship, devotion or propagation by an Ahmadi can be treated as blasphemy, a criminal offence punishable by a fine, imprisonment or death. That is a draconian and repressive approach to a minority group who, until relatively recently, were seen legally as Muslims.
According to the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, desecrations of Ahmadi gravestones, an appalling act of disrespect, are a regular occurrence. Such actions were described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who has been raising these issues in the House since before 2014. According to the community’s own records, in 2020 alone 164 Ahmadi gravestones were desecrated by anti-Ahmadi actors.
It is clear that the community is persecuted and it is of little surprise that the global Ahmadi community, some of whom are with us in the Gallery today, has moved its headquarters to the safety of London. However, as many Members have already said and I am sure the Minister will mention in his concluding remarks, we need to be aware of the cyber element. I am sure there are people who feel under attack, being a minority here in the UK. We must all be aware of that and the Government must be active on it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) mentioned the particular issue around the civil society groups in the UK, who educate others on the importance of the community but worry about the ongoing persecution in Pakistan and beyond.
I know that the Minister will wish to respond to the points made by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, who secured this debate, and the specific concerns raised by the community in his constituency, so I will keep my own questions for the Minister brief.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) said earlier in the debate that it is right that our Government should hold Pakistan to account because we have a lot to do with Pakistan in so many areas, whether that is through the diaspora or through our strong relationships with the country. We are in a very good position when we talk about things such as climate change, poverty, women’s rights and so on with colleagues in Pakistan. Is the Minister absolutely sure that no UK aid money is being used—perhaps unwittingly—to aid or abet any persecution of the Ahmadi community? Can he say what the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is doing to protect and promote tolerance, diversity and religious freedoms in Pakistan, specifically where we have that link-in with UK aid?
British Nationals Detained Overseas
Catherine West Excerpts(8 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a delight to contribute to this debate under your chairmanship, Ms Ali. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) on her excellent introductory speech.
For any British national, the idea of being wrongfully detained abroad or denied true legal processes is bone chilling. Kept away from friends and family, dealing with foreign laws and customs, in some cases subject to arbitrary processes, and with an uncertain outcome, it is a situation none of us would want for any of our loved ones. We saw how hard my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) worked, along with the family, on freeing Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. There are many of us who are also doing similar work in our constituencies. I had the case of Aras Amiri, who was in the same prison as Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe.
When someone is detained abroad, many people have the expectation that an official from the British high commission or embassy will provide advice and support until they are returned to the UK. It is a great credit to our hard-working officials that they put in the hours abroad, attending many visits to prisons and providing that important link back with home. I know that all Members will pay tribute to the important consular work that goes on day in, day out.
Sadly, however, that is not the case in every situation. We know from the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), who has talked about Jagtar Singh Johal, the opportunity that the UK has right now to be talking publicly about that case. We know from the work of the Foreign Affairs Committee—which my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) has sat on for quite some time, and that published a report about the shortcomings of the current offer for people who are in trouble abroad—that too often the Government’s efforts to secure the release of British nationals unjustly obtained abroad have been, according to the families, arbitrary, haphazard, uncoordinated, and lacking resource and transparency.
This week, we have seen a formal apology from the FCDO for its appalling handling of the case of Matthew Hedges. These ongoing individual cases have been raised many times by their respective constituency MPs. I wonder whether the Minister will outline what learning he has made as a result of the apology issued just this week.
We must remember that there are many others who do not share the same profile as Jagtar Singh Johal, Nazanin Zaghari-Radcliffe or others, but there is still no legal obligation for the UK Government to provide consular assistance to a British citizen, even in cases involving allegations of torture or arbitrary detention, leaving it entirely at the discretion of the Foreign Office and Ministers. That stands in contrast with a number of other countries that recognise there is a specific right to consular assistance. We have looked at examples from German consular outposts and Estonia; even smaller countries, in some cases, are doing a better job. Whether the case is high profile or not, British nationals deserve the support of the British Government, and I am proud that Labour’s commitment to legislate for a legal right to consular assistance for British nationals in trouble abroad, should we form the next Government, will be a keystone of our foreign policy. Until then, Ministers must do more to reassure British nationals that they will be supported.
Many Members in the debate have highlighted the cases that have been put on record in a number of cases. We share the concerns about Jimmy Lai. We have had meetings with the council and we have met Sebastian Lai; he is desperate about the situation of his father, who was wrongly imprisoned for freedom of the press. We also know that, with the G20 coming up in India, this is a great opportunity for the UK to highlight the case of Jagtar Singh Johal. We understand that Morad Tahbaz has been released into house arrest. Can the Minister give the House an update on that? I know that Mr Tahbaz is also a US citizen and the State Department has led negotiations, but can the Minister update us on the UK’s role and whether we can expect that he will be allowed to leave Iran soon?
Finally, for two years Egypt has continued to deny Alaa Abd El-Fattah his basic right to consular access as a British citizen and paid no diplomatic price for doing so; the Prime Minister raised this in person with President Sisi 10 months ago. Do the Government have any concrete plans or an update for the House to secure access beyond raising it in meetings? Have the Government considered amending their travel advice to warn British nationals about their inability to guarantee the provision of consular support to them in the event that they themselves are detained, particularly if they are dual nationals? I conclude my remarks here and note the cross-party consensus and commitment in the Chamber to seeing a better deal for Britons detained abroad.
Leo Docherty
Yes, indeed—we consider all these cases. If I may, I will come on to that case, because the hon. Gentleman has been a champion of it. Let me assure him—I am sure he knows this—the Government have raised concerns about Mr Johal’s case with the Government of India, including allegations of torture and his right to a fair trial, on over 100 occasions, and we will continue to do so. We take the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention’s opinion in this case very seriously. We have consistently raised concerns about Mr Johal directly with the Indian authorities and we will continue to do so, as I say. Having carefully considered the potential benefits and risks to Mr Johal of calling for his release, as well as the likely effectiveness of doing so, we do not believe this course of action would be in his best interests. But as I say, we will continue to raise his case with the Government of India.
Let me turn now to two cases mentioned by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) and the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston. The first is the case of Morad Tahbaz in Iran. We are pleased to see that British national Morad Tahbaz has been released on furlough. That is a first step, and we remain focused on his permanent release. Of course, the UK is not party to negotiations between the US and Iran; the details of any agreement are a bilateral matter for those two countries. But we do think that his release on furlough is a positive step.
I turn now to the case of Mehran Raoof, also in Iran. We are supporting the family of Mr Raoof, who is a British-Iranian national and has been detained in Iran since 2020. Of course, his welfare remains a top priority. It remains entirely within Iran’s gift to release any British national who has been unfairly detained and so we should urge Iran to stop this practice of unfairly detaining British and other foreign nationals and urge it to release Mr Raoof.
I turn now to the case of Mr Alaa Abd El-Fattah, in Egypt. Of course, we remain committed to securing consular access for dual British-Egyptian national and human rights defender Alaa Abd El-Fattah. We continue to raise Mr El-Fattah’s case at the highest levels with the Egyptian Government. We remain committed to supporting him and his family. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met family members on 6 February, and Lord Ahmad has met family members several times—most recently on 6 July. Our ambassador in Cairo and consular officials are in regular contact with family members and they met most recently on 5 April. Of course, we will continue to offer all the consular support that we can.
I was very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) for raising the case of his constituent Mr Saiful Chowdhury. Of course I give him my absolute assurance that we will be happy to correspond and raise this case. Perhaps we could exchange details after this debate. We look forward to corresponding on that case and we look forward to offering any support we can to Mr Chowdhury, so I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that case.
Turning to the case of Jimmy Lai, which was raised by several Members, let me be very clear that we are using our channels with the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities to raise Mr Lai’s detention and request consular access. The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, last met Mr Lai’s son and his international legal team on 24 April and officials continue to provide support. We continue to make our strong opposition to the national security law clear to the mainland Chinese and Hong Kong authorities. It is being used to curtail freedoms, punish dissent and shrink the space for opposition, free press and civil society. The Foreign Secretary raised Jimmy Lai’s detention with Chinese Vice-President Han Zheng on 5 May and in his opening statement at the 52nd session of the UN Human Rights Council on 22 February. We will continue to raise this case and others.
Catherine West
In the course of this debate, the question of whether the Foreign Office considers Mr Lai to be a British national has been raised. Could the Minister please elaborate on that because it is key to the sort of approach that we in this House take, but also which legally the Foreign Office should be taking? I have met the wonderful leader of the Hong Kong mission. I know he is doing his utmost but this has to be pushed at a much more senior level in order to get a result. I know that that is the view of the House.
Leo Docherty
I am grateful for the opportunity, and I will reiterate the language used by the Foreign Secretary and referred to by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith): Mr Lai is a dual British national born in China, and the reality of the matter is that Chinese nationality laws are very clear in that they do not recognise dual nationality and therefore have not allowed us consular access to Mr Lai. We are therefore using our channels with the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities to continue to raise his case.
Oral Answers to Questions
Catherine West Excerpts(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Jagtar Singh Johal, Alaa Abd El-Fattah, Morad Tahbaz, Mehran Raoof and Jimmy Lai are all high-profile British citizens detained abroad, whose families have severely criticised the Government’s weak, complacent and inconsistent record in supporting them. Does the Minister agree with us that consular assistance should be a right of British citizens, not based on the whims of Ministers?
David Rutley
We take all these cases incredibly seriously. They are very challenging. I do not really understand the tone of the question, because my interactions with Opposition Front-Bench and other colleagues reflect the sincere efforts, in extraordinarily difficult circumstances, to help in all the cases that the hon. Lady raises.
Illicit Finance: War in Ukraine
Catherine West Excerpts(10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for bringing this motion before the House. I also thank the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), who is currently travelling, and the Foreign Affairs Committee for their efforts in authoring the report, which shines a light on the scourge of illicit finance that continues to erode our economic and political institutions, the impacts of which have been made all the more apparent by Putin’s illegal and egregious war of aggression against Ukraine.
As was outlined in the integrated review of 2021 and reinforced in the refresh, Russia remains the UK’s most acute threat. Our national security and that of our closest allies is intrinsically linked to the outcome of the war in Ukraine, and it remains incontrovertible that assets laundered through London and the UK are having a direct impact on the Kremlin’s capacity to wage that war. Labour has been in lockstep with the Government all along on this question, and we will continue to be, should the Government bring forward further steps to strengthen the UK’s position. However, we consider it our duty as an Opposition to make clear where we believe the Government need to do more, and today is a good example.
I wanted to focus on the NATO question, but we went through it quite thoroughly this morning. In light of the Prime Minister’s challenge to us all to look back on what Mr Stoltenberg said at the conference and on page 4 of the report—I was making notes—perhaps collectively we should go back, look at the conference and its findings, and come back with a further strengthening of our position. I can guarantee that Labour will be in lockstep with the Government on this; I think both this debate and this morning’s statement have shown that.
Let me address very briefly the matters that have been raised in the debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) outlined a number of concerns. He watches this issue closely and has been involved—together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge)—in these questions for many years in this House. It is imperative that the Government come forward as quickly as possible with the measures that are needed.
I extend my thanks to the charity that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) mentioned. We all have examples of people who have come forward in the past couple of years and shown amazing compassion and strength. I know so many families in Hornsey and Wood Green who have opened their doors and had families stay, even beyond the six months. Even though the scheme was not perfect—we all knew that—it was fantastic to see our citizens come forward to help.
To move on to the substance of the FAC’s report, it is clear that if the Government had introduced the necessary legislation in time, they could have stemmed the flow of illicit finance prior to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. However, kleptocrats and oligarchs have been emboldened, believing fundamentally that their vast wealth will be safe in London and that their assets will flourish. To go further on that thought, perhaps we could do more on the question of property and China, rather than waiting until tensions develop in that particular relationship.
The Labour party has been pressing the Government for action for years, and has raised the issue of illicit finance several times on the Floor of the House. In January, the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), made it clear that when we are in Government we will answer calls from the US and beyond to establish a transatlantic anti-corruption council to co-ordinate the international fight against corruption, money laundering and illicit finance. In a speech just this week at the Bingham Centre, my right hon. Friend announced that Labour would join calls for the establishment of an international anti-corruption court designed to prosecute the most egregious acts of corruption across the globe.
The FAC report illustrates that the measures adopted in the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 did not go far enough to tackle to the problem. It states that the steps taken by the Government since February last year
“are not preventative but rather constitute damage limitation”—
damage brought about by years of apathy on the issue. The new Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill finally acts on some, but not all, of the promises in the Government’s 2019 economic crime plan. Indeed, the six-month delay between the two pieces of legislation has allowed thousands more illicit companies to register.
We welcome the Bill, but it must go much further to ensure not just that we keep up, but that when it comes to cracking down on illicit finance, Britain holds the gold standard. It was therefore profoundly disappointing that in Committee back in January there was little in the way of movement from the Government, even when they struggled to find fault with our amendments and new clauses. Every single effort by Opposition parties to strengthen the Bill was met by resistance from Ministers, and every Opposition amendment that was pressed to a vote was defeated. As a result, Committee stage amounted to little more than a litany of missed opportunities, forcing us to return to those arguments once again in this debate, as we will no doubt have to do again during the Bill’s remaining stages.
Although we welcome the fact that the Government have finally U-turned on introducing a corporate criminal liability offence, the Bill’s provisions on Companies House and the supervision of third-party enablers, especially trusted company service providers, are too weak and do not match international standards. The Bill also fails to set out a strategy to recoup assets seized through economic crime enforcement and to compensate the victims. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green mentioned righting a wrong—finding a remedy.
Indeed, although we also welcome the steps taken in the Bill on cryptocurrencies, what consideration is being given to sanctioning cryptocurrency mixers Tornado Cash and Blender? [Interruption.] It is not a cocktail! The US Treasury has sanctioned both; why have we not? Will the Government bring the UK into line with the US Treasury’s approach? Putin and his cronies are more than capable of exploiting such gaps in our regime, so why are we so slow and allowing that to persist? That example is illustrative of the Government’s strategy when it comes to tackling Russia here at home. The report outlines that well:
“Although Ministers have spoken eloquently in the House about the need to clamp down on kleptocrats, rhetoric has not been matched by constructive action. Meanwhile, corrupt money has continued to flow into the UK.”
More broadly, even the limited progress that the legislation offers is hampered by the fact that the Government are not sufficiently resourcing the bodies tasked with enforcing the changes. The hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) went into the question of resource in detail, so I will not repeat that point, but the report finds that 0.042% of GDP is spent on funding national-level economic crime and enforcement bodies. As a result, money laundering prosecutions have dropped by 35% in the past five years.
Liam Byrne
My hon. Friend is making a brilliant speech. On her point about enforcement, one thing the Government could commit to this afternoon is the Prime Minister appointing a new anti-corruption tsar, which would help. Many of us in the House are grateful for the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), who is not in her place. She has written to the Prime Minister asking him to make that appointment. Surely that is something that the Minister could give us some good news about.
Catherine West
I will allow that message to pass straight across the Dispatch Box to the Minister so that she can answer it. That query was going to be in my concluding remarks, so now I will not need to repeat it.
Spotlight on Corruption highlights that the Bill
“only funds the first two years of the plan”,
so we need to plan for more and more finance, particularly as this sort of crime and online crime become more complex. Will the Minister outline how the Government will ensure that the plan has necessary funding to ensure that public investment matches the scale of the challenge that we face? The National Crime Agency, the Serious Fraud Office and other bodies urgently need further resourcing to row back years of inactivity in this area and to protect legitimate business and safeguard our national security.
We must also do far more to oppose those who seek to use their wealth to avoid scrutiny, skirt the law and remain beyond the reach of those who enforce it. We therefore welcome the fact that the Government are, through amendments to the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, finally providing judges with greater powers to dismiss lawsuits designed purely to evade scrutiny and stifle freedom of speech. We in this House all followed the case of the excellent author Catherine Belton, who was taken to court on a frivolous basis, on one of those trumped-up charges, and suffered a great deal of distress as a result.
In January, revelations came to light that in 2021, the Treasury, which was then under the leadership of the current Prime Minister, issued special licences allowing Wagner Group warlord Yevgeny Prigozhin to circumvent sanctions issued before Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and to level legal proceedings against a UK journalist. That highlights fundamental problems in the Government’s competence—not only on SLAPPs, but in their seemingly flippant issuing of general licences and exemptions to our sanctions regime, with virtually no ministerial oversight. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking made clear in a letter to the Prime Minister, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill reminded us, it has now been 400 days since the Government’s anti-corruption champion resigned.
Labour will continue to push the Government on the full seizure and repurposing of Russian state assets. There has been little or no movement from the Government on that issue in more than 500 days, despite our Opposition day motion of three weeks ago setting out the means to do so, and despite the fact that our allies are finding the courage to forge ahead. We must keep up. When can we expect the Government to introduce legislation that would allow the repurposing of Russian state assets? The Canadians have already done it; when will the UK Government catch up?
That issue is coupled with the challenge of closing loopholes in our regime that still allow the prohibitions established in secondary legislation to be circumvented. I understand that the Minister will write to the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), after he raised at a statutory instrument Committee on Monday the question of the continued flow of Russian oil.
Fundamentally, the FAC report catalogues a litany of errors and shortfalls, and illustrates the extent of the Government’s sluggishness in bringing forward legislation fit to tackle the challenges that it outlines. We support the steps taken in the Economic Crime Act and the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, which has been in the other place, but changes in the law must be accompanied by a decisive shift in culture on tackling illicit finance, on Government proactiveness, and on authorities having the means, resources and focus to tackle the issues at their core.
I thank all colleagues for their contributions, and particularly the Foreign Affairs Committee for its forensic and fair appraisal of the UK’s performance in this area. Positive steps have been taken, and we welcome them. We have made it clear that we will support the Government where we believe they are getting it right, but progress cannot now beget apathy and complacency. There is a long way to go to expunge dirty money from this country entirely. We owe it to the people of Ukraine to tear such finances from our institutions root and stem.
I hope that the Minister has heard the views of colleagues and will provide assurances that the Government will not take their foot of the pedal when our priority must be to build on the progress that has been made.
Hong Kong Update
Catherine West Excerpts(10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement.
Once again, we are here in response to the actions of the Chinese Government in flagrant breach of the legally binding promises under the Sino-British agreement. The handover agreement promised Hong Kong certain liberties and freedoms, with a clear separation between the judicial systems of Hong Kong and the mainland, and the expectation of a move towards full democracy and universal suffrage for the election of a chief executive in the territory of Hong Kong. However, those freedoms have now been comprehensively eroded, with the system in Hong Kong barely distinguishable from that on the mainland and the levels of repression ever increasing.
The implementation of the national security law is only truly beginning to be felt. It is clear that Beijing is attempting to ensure that its writ is felt not just in Hong Kong but around the world. Just days after the announcement of arrest warrants for Hongkongers abroad—including some who have sought refuge here in the UK—the Chinese Government have again demonstrated their intent to harass and intimidate those who bravely resist their steady erosion of the rights promised to the people of Hong Kong in 1997.
This latest move is particularly chilling. Targeting activists’ families is a sinister step, and it is incumbent on us to renew our condemnation of those actions as one unified voice across this House. However, it is not a surprising move, given that the actions of the Chinese Government have been ratcheting up in the past year, including the beating of demonstrators outside the consulate in Manchester, the bellicose language used against the state’s opponents and growing accusations of Chinese espionage in the UK. The fear of the many thousands of Hongkongers who have come to this country to seek safety is growing. The knowledge that their families in Hong Kong are seen as fair game by the authorities there demands stringent and urgent action.
It is over a year since I first urged the Foreign Secretary to bring about cross-Government work to ensure the safety of Hong Kong dissidents here. We have had two further urgent questions on that point, but today I do not believe the House is satisfied by the Government’s actions. The complacency cannot continue, given the reports that a Chinese spy attended a briefing here in Parliament just this week. Could the Minister clarify her assessment of that urgent situation? Given the activities of the last week, will she outline what consideration she has given to a sanctioning regime that fits the ratcheting up of pressure on dissidents and those trying to live their lives here in the UK in safety?
There are steps that the Government should and could take today to send a clear signal to Beijing that those actions will not be tolerated. The Minister should take them. I said it last week and I will say it again: it is time for the Government to grow a backbone.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I thank the hon. Lady for her support. I think we are all in agreement in our condemnation of the behaviour we are seeing. On the security of individuals here, colleagues will understand that it is a matter of long-standing policy not to comment on the detail of any operational matters. We would not wish to compromise the integrity of arrangements being put into place, which might impact the security of those whose safety we are looking to provide. As the hon. Lady said, reports of political interference in the UK and here in Parliament are very concerning, and we take them seriously. Of course, the security of the parliamentary estate is a matter for Parliament, and I would not wish to try to answer that on behalf of Mr Speaker.
UK-Mongolian Relations
Catherine West Excerpts(10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) for securing this debate. The chair of the all-party group for Mongolia, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray), spoke fondly of his regard for Mongolia, and the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar) rightly called for responsible business practices around mining, particularly in relation to traditional nomadic populations.
It is particularly apt that this debate is taking place during the Naadam holiday. I want to pay my respects, and I wish all those celebrating a very happy Naadam. Although our relationship with Mongolia is not our oldest diplomatic relationship, it is one of the warmest. It was a privilege to represent the Labour party at the reception earlier this year on the anniversary of 60 years of diplomatic relations between our two countries, and it is a pleasure to stand here on behalf of the Labour party to celebrate that landmark.
I was also pleased to attend a Mongolian British chamber of commerce event led by John Grogan, the former Member of Parliament for Keighley, who is a great friend of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham and a great champion of Mongolia in the UK. In recent months, I have met His Majesty’s ambassador to Mongolia, Fiona Blyth, and Minister-Counsellor of Mongolia, Bolormaa Batsaikhan. They have both given me a good insight into the relationship and the opportunities between our two countries. I am confident that, through them and the committed team of diplomats in London and Mongolia, the relationship will continue to grow.
I want to put on the record Labour’s enduring thanks for Mongolia’s contribution to the NATO military mission in Afghanistan. There is no greater symbol of abiding friendship and co-operation than sending young men and women into danger to support allies, and Mongolia stepped up to the plate. The international contribution to the people of Afghanistan was truly global, and the 6,000 Mongolian soldiers proudly served shoulder to shoulder with our servicemen and women in Kabul.
I also applaud the growing trading relationship between Mongolia and the UK. There is ample room for it to continue to grow—admittedly, from a low bar—and I know there will be many opportunities for British business to visit the country and develop interests there. In particular, there seems to be an opportunity to share best practice on traffic management to reduce poor air quality, which was mentioned earlier.
I will end on that note, as this has been a particularly consensus-based debate, but I ask the Minister what steps the Government are taking to support the relationship. What measures are being considered to increase exports and cultural exposure here in the UK and in Mongolia? We should not forget that English is our best export, so I hope the Minister is promoting the British Council and the many wonderful things that it can offer in Mongolia. Our relationship is warm, and the opportunities are very real and can mutually benefit both countries. Here’s to 60 more years of a growing relationship.