China

Christina Rees Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2024 Westminster Hall

[Bob Seely]

I agree very much with the points that the hon. Gentleman makes. We need to increase our pace, which is one of things that I would like to argue today. What the Chinese Communist party wants is no secret. It does not want to live in harmony with the west; it wants to dominate it. Western nations are viewed in CCP literature as hostile foreign forces intent on damaging Beijing. In Document No. 9, for example, the CCP describes democracy as one of nine false ideological trends. The full list includes: promoting western constitutional democracy; promoting universal values, which would be an attempt to weaken the theoretical foundations of the party’s leadership; promoting civil society, to dismantle the ruling party’s social foundations; promoting neoliberalism, which would challenge China’s basic economic system; promoting the western ideal of free journalism, which would challenge the communist party’s grip on power; promoting historical nihilism, or rather a different interpretation of the communist party’s history; and questioning the socialist nature of socialism with Chinese characteristics. All those things are seen as false historical trends, and there are many other documents, which I will not go into.

The challenges—I use the Government word, “challenges”—from this potentially adversarial state are arising on many fronts. On cyber, just this week GCHQ has said that there is an increased threat; indeed, I was one of the unfortunate servicemen and women whose details were found potentially not to be as secure as we would have liked. I think it was last week when we were told that our details had been stolen or were potentially vulnerable to theft. Trade dumping is an absolutely critical element of this. China’s developing country status at the World Trade Organisation means that the rules on dumping do not apply to it. As we are slow off the mark here, and because the Americans have put a 100% tariff on electric vehicles, on which the European Union may follow suit, I worry that we will become a dumping ground for Chinese goods. That is not an accident. The destruction of our own industries is not happening because the Chinese are necessarily good at them—although some are and, in a free state, arguably more would be. It is a deliberate state policy of intellectual property theft that is happening now, but which was also happening 10 to 20 years ago.

Then there is the long-term planning to buy up resources, the super-cheap communist state loans, the over-production as a matter of policy, and the dumping of goods on international markets to bankrupt western firms. Huawei was an instructional lesson on that. It originally partnered with Nortel, a Canadian company that suddenly found its intellectual property in Beijing. Nortel then collapsed and its place was taken by Huawei, whose state agenda was to undercut western firms and dominate the 5G market. That creation of dependence is one of the things that is most dangerous—I will explain why in a couple of minutes.

There is also the transitional repression—the spying on and intimidation of not only China’s own people abroad, but Hong Kong activists, which is a growing problem that we seem reluctant to tackle robustly. Then there is the question of covid and its origins. If covid had come out of a laboratory in France or the United Kingdom, or the United States especially, we would never have heard the end of it from political parties in this country or the media; and yet I am staggered by the lack of interest shown in the likelihood that covid came out of the Wuhan virus laboratory. I am also staggered at the lack of interest in whether it had been genetically altered before it was, presumably, accidentally leaked. As Lord Ridley said:

“The UK security and scientific establishment refused to look at the evidence for a lab leak.”

That is an extraordinary claim from somebody who is a considerable expert on that. If nothing else, it is astonishing that we seem to be so uninterested in biosecurity standards in other countries, given the potential hazard not only to ourselves but to humanity.

The united front, the malign influence of which we have potentially seen in Parliament, is a long-term, whole-of-state strategy used by the Chinese Communist Party to further its interests within and outside China through multiple organs of the Chinese state and a range of activities—overt and covert; legal and illegal. It encompasses not only espionage but forms of malign influence that are sometimes overt, but sometimes covert. We know from our Intelligence and Security Committee that the united front has “achieved low-level penetration” across “most sectors of UK business and civil society”. What does the Deputy Foreign Secretary have to say about that? Is he concerned about that penetration across most sectors of UK business and civil society by the united front?

I will spend a couple of minutes on the domination of DNA research and on cellular modules, which are so little known, but potentially so important. China believes that its own biomedical data is a

“foundational strategic state resource.”

Yet, at the same time, it is hoovering up DNA data and genomic data from around the world. Western security officials, including those identified in the ISC report, see DNA biotech as another major concern. The Pentagon in the United States listed the BGI group, otherwise known as the Beijing Genomics Institute, as a Chinese military company, and the US Government have twice blacklisted the group’s subsidiaries for their role in the collection and analysis of DNA that has enabled China’s repression of its own ethnic minorities.

That is a really creepy and unpleasant policy that the CCP and the BGI group have been accused of: collecting DNA research for the repression of their own minorities. Needless to say, not only have we not done the same thing as the US, but BGI Tech Solutions was awarded a £10.8 million contract in this country for genomic testing of covid samples. Not only that, but in 2021, Reuters revealed that the company was selling prenatal tests to millions of women globally in order to collect their DNA data, using biotech methods developed with the Chinese military.

A top counter-intelligence official from the US Government has said that BGI is

“no different than Huawei…It’s this legitimate business that’s also masking intelligence gathering for nefarious purposes.”

I wonder if we are again sleepwalking dangerously and somewhat naively into another ethical crisis—the kind that we had with Huawei, and which we could now be seeing with BGI.

I have not had time to show the Minister my speech, because I only finished it about half an hour before the debate, so I will happily write to him on these questions, and perhaps he could give me a written answer. What are the Government planning to do on genomic research and protecting the United Kingdom, which does not only mean our DNA data—unless he thinks we can share it with the rest of the world; maybe we should or could be—and what do we think BGI and China are trying to do with our DNA?

I will talk a little bit about cellular modules because, again, it is an obscure, but important, topic. The internet of things refers to internet devices that talk to each other, from alarm systems, video recorders and fridges, to aeroplanes, boats and, maybe one day, nuclear weapon system launching programmes—and even the lights in our living room. Those gadgets rely on modules—groups of chips—that connect the equipment to the internet and talk to each other. China supplies the west with more than 60% of those modules. But because they are updated remotely by the manufacturer, it is practically impossible to ensure that they are not spying on us and sending back data flows to their source. If that sounds a bit paranoid, let us remember that TikTok is currently under investigation by the FBI after its parent company used the app to monitor journalists in the United States. Let us also remember that a Government car was allegedly compounded—I cannot remember if that was last year or a few months ago—because a cellular module in it might have been pinging back eavesdropped conversations. China aims to dominate the market, as it has with Huawei and BGI, for cellular modules. Do the Government have an opinion on whether that is a threat to our economy, to our people and to our national security?

I am not even going to bother touching on the military threat, because it is complex and detailed, though my fear is not only the slow domination. Sun Tzu, a great man and a philosopher of conflict, said:

“The greatest victory is that which requires no battle.”

That seems to be President Xi’s aim. Arguably, it should also be our aim. That idea should inspire us that we need to defend ourselves now, and that we need to take the short-to-medium and the long-term decisions to defend ourselves, not to aggressively wave fingers at people, but to be able to defend ourselves. The reason I say that is that the most dangerous outcome is that we become so dependent on China in the next five years, for everything from vehicles to fridges to cellular modules to our DNA, that when Taiwan is attacked, if we took out sanctions on China we would effectively collapse the global economy. It would cause chaos and collapse in Europe and our own country that would make the energy crisis for the Ukraine war look like a picnic, with rioting on the streets and destabilised western societies—or we can stand by and say, “Fair enough.”

The other, potentially even greater, threat is that we break the alliance between the United States and ourselves and the United States and Europe, which is undoubtedly China’s strategic aim. That will be a catastrophe for western civilisation. We need to deepen our alliances with the US and Oz and many other states in that part of the world, including South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and Indonesia.

Finally, I have two more points. On TikTok, for young people in China the algorithm is different from that in the UK. In China, it is used to promote science, education and history, including the history of China. In our countries, it makes citizens watch

“stupid dance videos with the main goal of making us imbeciles”.

That quotation is from the former chief software officer of the US Air Force and Space Force. In China, TikTok is about entertaining education; here it is just about entertainment. It is not only cyber-addiction, but real addiction, that is an issue. Do the Government have a position on the large-scale illicit supply of fentanyl by China to the United States, which I understand is now also becoming a problem in this country? I will wind up in two to three minutes; I said I would stick to 20 minutes, which I am trying to do.

What are we going to do about this issue? The real aim of the immediate policy is to insulate ourselves. In no particular order, here are some ideas. Let us add science to human rights. We can DNA test where cotton comes from. Should we not be mandating that, in supply chains that go anywhere near China, we DNA test cotton so that we can see whether it comes from Xinjiang and is made by slave labour, so that we can outlaw it? That is an important thing to do for fair trade, and to help jobs not only in this country, but in Bangladesh, India and places where they do not use slave labour. It is also important for human rights: taking a consistent approach to the human rights agenda and giving it the respect it needs.

We need to diversify as a matter of urgency. As a national priority, we need to diversify our supply chains, so that if there is war in the Pacific or around Taiwan, we are not going to destroy our standard of living, economy or people’s jobs in order to put sanctions on China, or to support the United States or Taiwan.

We need longer-term planning over rare earth minerals—something I have not even brought up due to time considerations. We are beginning to act but we are two or three decades behind China.

We should tell Confucius Institute centres to stop spying on their citizens, or shut them down and kick out the people in them. The same should apply to Hong Kong economic offices, which are now also being used to intimidate Chinese people in this country.

As for the military, we need a permanent western presence in disputed waters and more money spent.

On WTO and dumping, we need to work together; we need to treat China as a developed economy, even if in WTO terms it is not.

I also suggest that we need to have faith in ourselves. There is no inevitability about China’s future victory. It is a very powerful country, but like Russia, it lacks few actual friends. Its one formal alliance is with the basket case of North Korea, although the basket case of Russia is also a pretty close ally. We have many friends and allies, as do the United States and France, and we need to be working with those allies and with our partners in the Pacific for a new, subtle but thoughtful, determined and robust containment programme. That means spending on hard power, but it also means a much more assertive defence of our interests, as well as understanding how decades of subversive conflict across culture, business, sport and science can damage our national interest and threaten our people. Whether it is the use of artificial intelligence, big data, DNA sequencing, advanced propaganda techniques or cellular modules, we need to do more to understand the modern world that we inhabit.

We are in a battle for the future of humanity, between democracies and authoritarian states. At the moment, that conflict is being lost by us. It is also being conducted in myriad subtle ways. We need to grasp the extent of it and do more to react robustly to defend ourselves.

[Christina Rees (in the Chair)]

May I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate? I would be grateful if Members do not refer to cases where charges have been brought, because they are sub judice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Christina Rees (in the Chair)]

Order. If Members can speak for eight or nine minutes, we will get everyone in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Logan]

The hon. Member raises a fantastic point explicitly on Hong Kong. What has happened in Hong Kong in recent years is unfortunate. I think it is a strategic mistake in terms of the governance of Hong Kong, so I hope the Deputy Foreign Secretary comes to that.

I will finish by saying that for us, it is about the whole idea of soul searching and asking what the UK’s role in the world is and how we can slightly push back against the tone. We do not want to push China into the arms of the axis of authoritarian regimes, as we talked about, because there are many things the Chinese people care about that show their values are very similar to ours. It is not just the paranoia of 200,000 Chinese students in the UK who are all doing these bad things; actually, it shows a society that is striving to do better, and those are values that we share and hold dearly in this country as well.

[Christina Rees (in the Chair)]

I really enjoyed the Mandarin, but we are supposed to use English in debates. If I lapse into Welsh, please forgive me now.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

I am grateful for that guidance, Ms Rees. You will find no attempt at Mandarin, Welsh or anything else in my remarks this afternoon. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on securing the debate. He is a good friend with whom I was privileged to serve on the Foreign Affairs Committee. The only thing wrong is that we do not have longer or, indeed, more hon. Members taking part. We would not know from the acres of empty green seats that surround us that this is the defining challenge of our time, which is too often thought of as a complicated and faraway foreign policy issue, when in actual fact the challenge of China is where domestic and foreign policy are so intertwined.

This is an issue of foreign policy and of domestic policy that manifests itself in many different policy areas and it is of concern to people up and down the UK, whether in Glasgow, Kilmarnock, Edinburgh, Cardiff, London, the Isle of Wight or wherever. It is indeed a domestic issue as much as a foreign policy issue. The nature of the challenge that China presents manifests itself right across a whole sphere of policy areas, many of which have been mentioned. It is an economic challenge, a security challenge and a technology challenge. It is a challenge to our democratic values, our open society and way of life, our energy security and our national resilience.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight described too much of the Government’s approach as “piecemeal”, and I believe we would be wrong to try to compartmentalise any response to that challenge into individual policy areas. The challenge that China presents us with is so complex that I do not believe it can ever really be won or lost; it needs to be constantly revisited.

Notwithstanding what was said by the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Mark Logan), could anyone imagine our having this debate 12 to 15 years ago, at the height of the so-called golden era of relations? I rather think not. China will constantly evolve and produce new challenges. There will also be new opportunities and a whole tonne—a whole series—of contradictions in between. The pace of change we have seen since the golden era speaks to that.

I want to do something that Members will expect me to do: the Scotland bit of the debate, or indeed the devolution bit. It is good to have a Welsh Member of Parliament in the Chair, Ms Rees, and you will, I am sure, well understand some of these remarks. Devolution is well understood in Beijing, probably better understood than it is by most Members of this House. My goodness, do they have a strategy to deal with the fact that huge swathes of financial and legislative power sit not here in London but in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. Do the UK Government or any of the devolved Governments have a strategy to deal with that? No, none of them do.

I want to focus on three Es: exports, education and energy. If we do the good bit first, as far as Scotland is concerned that is exports. Scotland’s exports to China stand at about £800 million, the exact same as our exports to Norway and Singapore. It is a relatively healthy position for Scotland to be in. That figure is from 2023, the year of the integrated review refresh in which China is written up as an “epoch-defining challenge” and the year of the major speech from European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen calling on countries to de-risk their exports to China. I would argue that Scotland is already in that place and has a healthy level of exports.

When it comes to education and energy, there is a massive risk surface that no Government of any stripe should be content with. The risk of universities being dependent on Chinese funding is far higher in Scottish universities than in universities anywhere else in the UK. Bear in mind, education is entirely devolved. No Minister across the road can do a single thing about education policy in Scotland. The University of Glasgow gets 42% of its fee income from students from China. It would be a problem if 42% of the fee income came from students from France, but we are dealing with a very different issue with China. That is not to say that Chinese students are not welcome in the University of Glasgow or in universities anywhere else across the UK, because they absolutely are, but why have we allowed these fine institutions of higher education to create massive surfaces of risk that would not stand the test of any kind of geopolitical shock—a shock in the strait of Taiwan, for example?

In February of this year, the Scottish Government produced their international education strategy, which says that they wish to diversify the “international student population”. There is at least an understanding that there is an issue and a problem. What there is not, I am sorry to say, is a strategy to turn that around. There is no strategy of working with higher education institutes, industry and others to globalise the international student population that exists in Scotland.

If we look at research funding, £12 million has flown into UK universities from bodies with links to, for example, the repression of Uyghurs, espionage, cyber-hacking and much else. The Government know about that problem, but they dare not speak about it, never mind have a strategy to deal with it.

Then there is energy. I am sure that the Deputy Foreign Secretary will know about my recent problems, for example, with Minyang Smart Energy building the largest European turbine manufacturing project in Scotland. How on earth is it in the UK or Scotland’s interests to put such a critical part of our national energy infrastructure into the hands of an entity from a hostile foreign power just weeks after the Norwegian Government declined the same entity, and in the same month that the European Commission started its anti-trust investigation into unfair competition practices by Chinese turbine manufacturers?

To summarise, the point I make to the Deputy Foreign Secretary this afternoon is that devolution is a back door for hostile foreign states. That is well understood in the Chinese consulates in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. I am not looking for Ministers in London to override anybody in the other capitals of the UK. I want a joined-up strategy between devolved Government and state-level Government to help us de-risk key parts of our economy and infrastructure and ensure that we are not overly dependent on a foreign power that is hostile to our values and way of life, and certainly does not have our national interests in mind as far as energy security, education or much else are concerned. My appeal to the Deputy Foreign Secretary is to understand that and work with Ministers in Edinburgh and elsewhere to start to unpick those dependencies, diversify our institutions and ensure that the risk is being driven down.

[Christina Rees (in the Chair)]

I will call the Opposition spokespersons at 3.28 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate under your chairmanship, Ms Rees.

I was going to begin by saying that I thought I was one of the few Members of this House who had lived in China and spoke Mandarin, but I see that others have turned out in great numbers, including the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Mark Logan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle). Many of us taught English to begin with, as I did in Nanjing in the 1990s. All of us agree that the Chinese people gave us enormous amounts of hospitality, and a warm and friendly experience, and showed so much pride in a 5,000-year-old civilisation, a passion to modernise China, and a desire to provide for more Chinese people to no longer live in poverty.

As the years have gone by, the tone coming from the Chinese Government has changed. Undoubtedly, 30 years of economic progress has catapulted China to become the world’s second largest economy by some measure, with a newly enriched middle class enjoying lives a world away from most Chinese people in the 1980s. However, the more authoritarian and even belligerent look and feel to foreign relations has increasingly caused us to be concerned about the risk to a rules-based international order.

In Hong Kong, the rule of law, under which its economy and society flourished for generations, has been worn down, and journalists such as Jimmy Lai—who has already been mentioned—continue to be detained on politically motivated charges. Hundreds of thousands of Hongkongers have fled for a better life overseas, with less repression and more freedoms. I pay tribute to the cross-party group Hong Kong Watch—of which I am a founder; I declare an interest—and to the well-known campaigner Ben Rogers, who is a great stalwart for that campaign. I know that he enjoys the respect of all Members of the House.

In Xinjiang, which has been mentioned in the debate, the Uyghur minority are subjected to brutal repression and horrific human rights abuses, including wholesale attempts to eliminate their culture and religion. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is quite right to emphasise the importance of freedom of religion or belief in anything that we talk about in relation to foreign policy.

In the South China sea—I know that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) has a background in defence—Chinese vessels and aircraft repeatedly test the boundaries of international law, destabilising regional security and threatening some of the world’s most important shipping lanes. Of course, the increasing military activity in the Taiwan strait, particularly in the last three years, is troubling many of us.

No foreign policy question is more fundamental than how the west manages its relationship with China in the years ahead, and it is obvious, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight said at the start of the debate, that that starts with our multilateral approach and friends in the US and, of course, in Australia and down in that part of the world. It goes to the question of identity and closed and open societies. For the UK, as a UN Security Council permanent member and a G20 partner, that is particularly the case, and it is a question that we must address head-on, with seriousness, consistency and rigour. But it is a question that is rightly linked to our wider approach to the Indo-Pacific. We cannot have a sustained and serious approach to China without having a wider-ranging British approach to the Indo-Pacific. Without a doubt, the AUKUS relationship with the US and Australia is at the cornerstone of that regional approach.

Labour is of course committed to further strengthening our co-operation with the US and Australia in the Indo-Pacific through AUKUS and particularly through delivery of the second pillar of the agreement. We are equally committed to deepening our increasingly close relationships with ASEAN—the Association of Southeast Asian Nations—through our trade arrangements there, and with Japan and South Korea. We welcome the moves that have been made in that regard over the past few years, but that work must be encased within a wider and more sustained strategy towards the region as a whole, including China.

Sadly, for most of the past 14 years the UK Government’s approach has basically been the opposite to what we need, which is stability and predictability. We have lurched 180 degrees from embracing a “golden era” of bilateral relations and having a pint down the pub with Xi Jinping under the then Prime Minister, who is now Foreign Secretary; indeed, some of the questions as to his financial arrangements prior to his becoming Foreign Secretary also bring questions to this debate. This is simply not good enough. China thinks in generational terms, and we require a foreign policy that is capable of considering the bilateral relationship over a far longer timeframe and that aims above all for consistency.

Earlier this year, I travelled to Beijing as part of a cross-party delegation and met senior members of the Chinese leadership, having been approached to do by the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). I made it clear that Labour would pursue a more sustainable and coherent relationship. Such a relationship must begin with addressing our concerns about national security and standing up for our principles on human rights, but it must also set out avenues for co-operation, both bilaterally and within the multilateral system, and allow our country’s businesses to have the certainty and stability to make the long-term investment decisions that they deserve. The shadow Foreign Secretary has been clear that that relationship will be centred on a framework to “challenge, compete and co-operate” with China, which we will develop through a comprehensive and long-overdue audit of the bilateral relationship—an element mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark.

However, even in advance of the audit, some of the changes that we need to see are obvious, and I hope that the Minister will have some answers for us today. He will be aware that the issue of the threat posed to Hongkongers has been raised many times in the House. Indeed, just this week Amnesty International has brought out a report called “On my campus, I am afraid”. I wonder what recommendations on a cross-Government approach to that issue the Minister will take back to the Government.

In addition to that, we have an excellent question from the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) about whether there has been a back door that gives access to various projects that could have national security implications, through devolved nations. Furthermore, what is the industrial strategy on which the Government are deciding on important projects such as the new electric vehicles being sold at Ellesmere Port, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) spoke so eloquently? He knows his patch so well and stands up for not just his workforce but the businesses there, as well as for the importance of a vibrant operation in the north-west, with own vehicles, which of course involves international collaboration but it is not dominated by another party. Will the Minister speak to that important question of an industrial strategy?

There are so many challenges here, but it is in our national interest to have a cohesive and comprehensive approach to our relationship with China, addressing the most complex of countries and relationships in their entirety. The issues at stake go to the heart of our security and prosperity, and we cannot just muddle along as we have been. Labour will have a new approach. We will do our audit. We will be clear-eyed, consistent, and guided, above all, by the national interest.

[Christina Rees (in the Chair)]

Will the Minister leave a couple of minutes at the end of his speech so that Bob Seely can wind up?