Taiwan: International Status

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House, recalling that United Nations Resolution 2758 of 25 October 1971, which established the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as the only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations (UN), does not mention Taiwan, notes that UN Resolution 2758 does not address the political status of Taiwan or establish PRC sovereignty over Taiwan and is silent both on the status of Taiwan in the UN and on Taiwanese participation in UN agencies; and calls on the Government to clarify its position that UN Resolution 2758 does not establish the One China Principle as a matter of international law, to state clearly that nothing in law prevents the participation of Taiwan in international organisations and to condemn efforts made by representatives of the PRC to distort the meaning of UN Resolution 2758 in support of Beijing’s One China Principle and the alteration of historic documents by representatives of the PRC, changing the name of the country from Taiwan to Taiwan, province of China.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate. This is the first time I have stood in the Chamber to back the democratic rights of the people of Taiwan, and I want to acknowledge those who have worked on this issue over many years, in particular the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and my former neighbouring MP Stewart McDonald. I also recognise the Minister’s long-standing commitment to the human rights of people in the region, and indeed your commitment, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome to Parliament the deputy representative, director and assistant director of the political division from the Taiwanese Representative Office. They are in the Gallery to observe this debate, which carries an important bearing on our strong and vibrant relationship with Taiwan.

The detail in the motion may seem esoteric, but diplomatic technicalities on an issue as fraught as the status of Taiwan could have far-reaching consequences for the entire world, and we must have this debate now rather than later. I think back to the frenetic last-minute activity ahead of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, with emergency flights full of anti-tank weapons, hastily drafted sanctions regimes and fruitless shuttle diplomacy. Ukraine stands as a reminder that it is best to form policy on a crisis before the crisis emerges. Incremental changes to the status quo made by authoritarian regimes are likely a prelude to more overt measures, and the best time to deter an aggressor is before their confidence grows.

It is not possible to overstate the risks of a conflict over Taiwan. Leaving aside the humanitarian costs and geopolitical consequences of another democracy being attacked by a larger authoritarian neighbour, the economic pain would be felt in every household in this country. Around 90% of the world’s large container ships pass through the Taiwan strait once a year. Taiwan produces two thirds of all semiconductors, and well over 90% of all advanced microchips. It is estimated that a conflict would cost the global economy not less than $2.5 trillion, but that estimate is calculated by the Rhodium Group using only shipping data. Bloomberg puts the figure at a massive $10 trillion—about 10% of global GDP—and it regards that to be a conservative estimate.

The scale of the risk is why this debate is taking place not only in this Chamber but in Parliaments around the world, and I put on record my thanks to the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China for its assistance. Through its work, Parliaments in Australia, the Netherlands and Canada and the European Parliament have all expressed their opposition to the distortion of UN resolution 2758.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate and for giving way. The comparison point is important. The figures he has given for what would happen should Taiwan be blockaded or even invaded are worth relating back to the Ukraine effect from when Russia invaded Ukraine. We had a hit of about $1 trillion to the global economy. The hon. Gentleman is talking about nine or 10 times that effect on the global economy—this is our neighbour, rather than a far and distant land.

[Blair McDougall]

Absolutely. Although first and foremost in our minds should be the impact on people in Taiwan of any crisis, it would also be felt by our constituents in their cost of living and everything that happens in this country.

It is right that this is a worldwide debate, given the military incursions into Taiwanese territory, cyber-attacks, disinformation, interference with shipping and aircraft—all the things that make the headlines—and I welcome the new Government’s expressions of concern about aggressive moves in the strait. However, this needs to be a global conversation, because the People’s Republic of China is involved in an aggressive worldwide diplomatic strategy, especially across the global south. The strategy aims to secure international acceptance for its expansionist One China principle, which is to say that Taiwan is part of a single China and the PRC is the only legitimate Government of Taiwan, denying Taiwan’s democracy any distinctive international status.

Of course, resolution 2758 does not mention Taiwan at all, and it does not address in any way the political status of Taiwan. It does not establish the PRC’s sovereignty over Taiwan, and it is silent on the participation of Taiwan in the United Nations and its agencies. Importantly, it has no force of impact on us as sovereign nations and the relationships we choose to have with Taiwan. The current strategy by Beijing is a distortion of international law, but it is also at odds with the long-standing policy of the United Kingdom. It is essential that that is contested, and this debate offers the Minister and the new Government the opportunity to make it clear that the UK opposes that effort by the communist Government to rewrite history, or to unilaterally decide the future of Taiwan.

Debates about Taiwan are famously full of symbolism: which flag is flown, what nomenclature is used, and which seemingly synonymic words cause offence. It would be easy to write off discussions about the interpretation of resolution 2758 as yet another finer detail that distracts from a bigger picture, but that would be a mistake. This is not pedantry from Beijing; this is predation. Chairman Xi watched the near-unanimous diplomatic disapproval of Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine, and he is seeking to reduce the chances of a similar chorus of condemnation towards any move against Taiwan.

If the PRC’s position that the UN resolution endorses its sovereignty over Taiwan were accepted, it would later use that consensus to argue that any future coercion of Taiwan through arms or other means—whether blockade or annexation—would be legal. Similarly, any acceptance of Beijing’s interpretation would be used to argue that moves to prevent such coercion by Taiwan’s democratic supporters were unlawful. This is not a technical issue but another source of increased risk for conflict across the Taiwan strait.

Will the Minister confirm today whether, as has been reported, any assurances have been given to the PRC that the UK will not seek to counter internationally its efforts on the One China principle, and whether promises have been made privately that we will not make the case with third-party nations for UK policy, namely our position that Taiwan’s status is undetermined? Does she recognise that any UK Government acquiescence with the idea that the status of Taiwan is an internal matter for the PRC alone risks giving legal cover to any future aggressive acts? Does she recognise that distorting resolution 2758 to pursue the exclusion from international organisations of Taiwan—a democratic, self-governing people—undermines the legitimacy of the international rules-based order, not least as it appears to be inconsistent with the treatment of other disputed territories? Will the UK advocate for meaningful Taiwanese participation in all international organisations for which statehood is not a prerequisite?

Past moments of crisis in the strait of Taiwan have flared up and subsided—in particular in 1996 and 2000 after presidential elections—but three things that have changed since then should make us more concerned. First, China is far more heavily armed. Already possessed of the largest naval fleet in the world, Beijing has been adding to it the equivalent of the entire Royal Navy every two years. It will soon have the largest air force in the world.

Secondly, people on both sides of the strait have grown apart. The Taiwanese now have more of a sense of their own identity, and their democracy is deeply embedded, while China’s populist nationalism has grown, and the PRC, which was hardly ever a free and open society, has moved even further in an authoritarian direction, from Xinjiang to Tibet and Hong Kong. Chairman Xi previously proposed to apply the “one country, two systems” approach to Taiwan. However, the systematic removal of Hongkongers’ civil liberties means that any promise from the mainland to maintain the freedoms that Taiwan enjoys could not be trusted. We know that Beijing does not keep its promises.

Thirdly, if we are honest, the west has been found wanting. We have been less than united and less than determined in our defence of democratic allies and democracy around the world. Xi has learned from Putin’s years of slowly boiling the frog, dividing western opponents from each other, manipulating our populations and operating in the grey zone where a gradual increase in aggressive acts avoids a strong strategic response from the west.

That mixture of Chinese armament, growing nationalism, increasing authoritarianism and western weakness is a potentially deadly combination. Indeed, the military exercises and provocations around Taiwan are a recipe for unintentional disaster. Last year, there were more than 1,700 occasions when PRC military aircraft deliberately entered the air defence identification zone of Taiwan. PRC jets turn away when they are just minutes from Taipei. During exercises, we see Taiwanese and PRC vessels in stand-offs on the edge of Taiwan’s nautical buffer zone. Meanwhile, we do not have agreed red lines around Taiwan with other like-minded countries, and worrying ambiguities remain. For example, a maritime and air blockade is normally classed as an act of war, but that is not clear in this case because of Taiwan’s ambiguous state.

Will the Minister assure the House that the legal status of a blockade around Taiwan is being looked at? I worry that we could have a situation where Governments use that ambiguity as an excuse for inertia in the event of a crisis. Will she take the opportunity to say that a maritime and air blockade around Taiwan would be a red line for the Government?

On so many occasions during the cold war, catastrophe was avoided due to essential de-escalation protocols that prevented the misinterpretation of either side’s intentions. I would be interested in the Minister’s assessment of whether there are sufficient procedures of the kind between the military commands of Taipei and Beijing, as in such a febrile and nationalistic atmosphere, a mistake could easily be misunderstood as deliberate escalation, and control of volatile public opinion could easily be lost.

As was said earlier, let us not forget who paid the price for the collective failure of the international community to deter Putin’s aggression. It was first and foremost the Ukrainian people, but ordinary working people around the world also found themselves with unaffordable bills. If Bloomberg is correct, escalation across the strait would be, as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green said, five times worse than the economic contraction post Ukraine. We simply cannot allow that to happen.

When we discuss Taiwan, we talk a lot about protecting the status quo, but we must recognise that the PRC is already actively working to change that status quo. Beijing has not paid any price for that. Xi’s diplomatic offensive has not been met with a commensurate effort from western democracies. As the PRC isolates Taiwan within international institutions, we have not increased our engagement in response. Above all, there has been no sanction for the constant military intimidation or grey zone attacks.

I recognise, of course, that careful diplomatic language is needed on this issue, but we live in a world where free and open societies are retreating in the face of authoritarian regimes who no longer recognise the old order or even international boundaries, and who are seeking to recreate the world in their image. I do not expect the Minister to depart from the delicate, long-established language that has defined the UK’s position towards Taiwan since diplomatic relations were established with the PRC, and the motion does not ask for such a departure. I ask the Minister to put on record the Government’s concern about Beijing’s distortion of the international law around Taiwan, and about the editing of historic UN documents by Chinese officials. I hope that is seen not as an outlandish or hawkish request, but merely as the least we can do when confronted with such troubling behaviour.

Finally, putting all diplomatic language aside, the debate is an opportunity to acknowledge the truth: Taiwan is not China in one important way that no amount of economic, military or diplomatic bullying by Beijing can obscure. It is this: the people of Taiwan are free and the people of China are not. Now more than ever, we must stand with democracies and against dictatorships. We must stand up for freedoms that we claim are universal, regardless of where people live in the world, and we should stand with the democracy of Taiwan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I will see what I can do to speak on your behalf—even though you have no opinion on this matter.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Absolutely not.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

We will see if we can ascertain one in passing. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) on securing the debate. That is not easy, as he knows, and it is really good to see so many hon. Members in attendance. As you pointed out, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am one of nine political sanctionees, and it is always worth reminding ourselves that there are two others outside Parliament who are also sanctioned. They spoke to me the other day and said, “We’re often forgotten in this matter, but we can’t do business. It’s very difficult.” I wish to remember them, while we are at it; they were unnecessarily sanctioned.

Everything that the hon. Gentleman said is absolutely correct. The problem is that we are dealing with a power that is growing in potency and totalitarianism while it also grows in other ways. Let me add something on the size of the growth in its military capability. He mentioned China’s naval capacity; right now, China has 230 times the capacity for naval shipbuilding of the United States. Any one shipyard in China outbuilds the whole of the United States in naval shipbuilding. Someone please tell me that that is for a peaceful purpose. I have no conception of why it would need that many naval ships if its purpose was peaceful. The answer is that it is not.

This whole business of Taiwan has been obscured constantly by refusals from Administrations from both sides of the House. I say to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), who will respond to this debate, that I am not having a go at this Government; I have been having a go at every Government for a long time. It seems that whoever is elected, I am in opposition. She should not take personally the point I am about to make gently to her. Politicians are elected to take decisions based on the principles that we govern by. Our principles are simple: we believe in free speech, base freedom, the rule of law and human rights. We may debate the elements and range of that, but we believe in the fundamental right to decent treatment.

I was sanctioned, along with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and others, for raising the then undiscovered genocide that was going on in Xinjiang, which has now become public knowledge. This Parliament—Members on both sides—voted to agree that the genocide was taking place, although the Government said that they could not vote to agree with that, or do anything about it, because that action would need to be taken at the UN, through the International Court of Justice. That is never going to happen, because it gets vetoed, straight off. The Labour party, in opposition, agreed that genocide was taking place, and agreed on many occasions with those of us who had real problems with China’s treatment of people and of human rights; the Labour party was constantly in support of our position. I simply say that as a base reminder, because this is really about what we believe.

From one Government to the next, we have genuinely, deliberately obscured the question of Taiwan’s status. People have argued with me that the question was settled by resolution 2758, which is often misquoted. They say that it somehow settled the status of Taiwan. They have argued that it was clear from that resolution, now that the PRC was responsible for China at the UN, that Taiwan was a part of China. It said no such thing, as the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire said. In fact, it was deliberately obscure about that idea; it was not settled.

Under the whole reign of the Communist party in China, Taiwan has never been a part of a Chinese Administration or a Chinese Government. Taiwan right now is a democracy and an upholder of human rights. It has an agreement, as we do, that the freedom of individuals to speak out without let or hindrance, and without fear of arrest—we see such arrests in Hong Kong—remains important. The Government should speak out in Taiwan’s defence and argue that China has no right to extinguish that, unless there is a deliberate indication that Taiwan wishes to be part of China. Taiwan has never wished that, and the last election demonstrates that is still not the case. Taiwan does not wish to join China, as it has never been part of China.

This military build-up is not for a general purpose. It is ultimately to try to displace the US’s position in the Pacific, so that it will be unable to act, should China decide at some point to blockade or invade. The incursions that are taking place would not be tolerated anywhere else in the world. There are huge numbers of planes overflying Taiwan. Ships are threatening it by coming right up close, past the border of Taiwan. They are deliberately provoking, in the hope that action will take place that allows the Chinese to take action themselves.

If we move our gaze slightly further south, we come to the South China sea. China has occupied it and declared it to be a historical part of China. The UN has said that that is not the case, and has told China categorically that it has no right to occupy or build military fortifications in the South China sea. What has China’s reaction been to that? Nothing. It said that the UN has no right to interfere, and now it is trying to blockade. In fact, US navy ships still sail through there, but every other ship, including recently the Philippines coastguard, has been hounded out of the area. Ships have been rammed and threatened, and military naval vessels from China now occupy that space.

We know what China thinks of these things. We know what it plans to do, because it has already done it. We wonder: if we do not say very much, will that obscurity allow China to back away? The Chinese have no intention whatsoever of backing off. That is part of their absolute creed now. In fact, it is clear even from China’s constitution that it sees Taiwan as part of China. I do not know how many more indications the Foreign Office needs of China’s direction of travel.

What do the Government plan to do about this? To what degree will the Government challenge the misinterpretation of resolution 2758 publicly, and recognise that Taiwan has a right to self-determination, as we and all other democratic nations do? Will the Minister take the opportunity to state Government policy clearly from the Dispatch Box? Will she agree to make a public statement to the House about what is going on in Taiwan? The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire asked for that, and I back him up. We would love clarity from the Government on the fact that what is taking place in and around Taiwan is utterly unacceptable; we should even think about moving to a sanction at the Security Council. China will veto that, we know, but it is important for the world to understand China’s position.

To return to covid, we remember when all that happened as a result of a failure in China, but we were unable to get any figures about what Taiwan was doing—and that was rather important, because it had advanced methods of dealing with covid that we could have learned a lot from. We were not allowed to get those figures; they all had to come through China. China refused to let us know what was going on as it embarrassed China, because it had taken very little action early on, and the result was millions dying around the world. My point is that when we acquiesce and give way, as we did at the World Health Organisation, where we no longer insist on these things, that weakness is seen as a success for China. The Chinese take that and move on. How do we know that? Because back in the 1930s, every time we acquiesced to a new demand by Hitler’s Germany, it took that and moved on.

We do not appease communist or fascist dictators by saying, “Well, if we are reasonable, in due course they will be reasonable.” By definition, a dictatorship is not reasonable. Fascist Germany told us what it was going to do, and China tells us categorically all the time what it will do. We in the west do not want to believe that. We think that if we are reasonable, the Chinese will be reasonable. They are not reasonable. They intend to take Taiwan back one way or the other.

Today and going forward, the question for us and for the Foreign Office, the unelected body that sits across the road, is: why do not we get serious about this, understand it, and say all this? If we do not tell the Chinese that there are limits, they assume that we do not believe that there are any, and they go ahead. The financial chaos that would ensue from merely a blockade—not even an invasion of Taiwan—would be devastating to our economies.

I had an argument the other day with one of my colleagues, who shall remain nameless—[Interruption.] There we go; he is not in the Chamber. That individual said to me that Taiwan has nothing to do with us; it is a long way from us, and we have no arrangements with it. When I made the point to him that the whack to our economy would be enormous, I added one other figure, which is that 72% of everything made in the world is made in the area around the South China sea, including China. I said to my colleague that it is not far away; it is our neighbour. Without Taiwan—if anything happens to Taiwan—we go down, too.

The real point of this important debate is to try to persuade the Government to be much bolder about this matter and to recognise the threat, to recognise the need for a British Government to say enough is enough, and to recognise that what happens to Taiwan is not just a matter of interest to us, but a matter of vital importance. Many Members were at the conference in Taipei recently, where we heard about all the terrible problems that Taiwan now faces as a result of China’s actions. One only has to be there to realise just how devastating this situation is to many Taiwanese people, whose lives are genuinely threatened by it.

With this huge build-up, the clear threat that China poses, the brutality it has already demonstrated in the South China sea and the illegality of its actions, and its complete failure to take any actions other than those it wishes to take, it is important for us to demonstrate stage by stage, at every moment and at every opportunity, that we regard China’s behaviour as unacceptable and that we will oppose it. One way this Government could start doing that would be to go back and look again at the risk register that we started under the previous Government. We should now move China on to the higher tier of that risk register. That would send a very strong signal to the Chinese Government that we are serious about our behaviour.

I will end simply by saying the following to the Minister. I know the Government want to increase and improve trade with China, and I understand why they want to do that. My concern, at the end of it all, is that we cannot detach our desire for commercial engagement from the real engagement, which is about the way a state treats the people who live there and the way it behaves to its neighbours. We did so in the past, and look what happened: 60 million people died because we ignored what was going to happen. They told us what was going to happen, but we wanted to do business with them. This time we have to learn that appeasement does not work. There is no chance it will work this time. We need to be clear to China, as America is and as others are, and say that this shall not stand, that we in the UK will stand for the freedom of those people whose self-determination is always a matter of high concern to us, and that we will defend it at whatever cost.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Select Committee Chair.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) on securing the debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor) on making her maiden speech. It is wonderful to have two MPs from Scotland bringing so much knowledge and understanding of international issues to the House. It really is enriching, and I have been in this place for 10 years.

All the contributions today have been full of different aspects—economic, public health, dictatorship, the Communist party and filthy politics—but I will stick to some basics. I have been to Taiwan a number of times, and I think I am still getting over my last trip, which was to the conference that has been mentioned. I do not know how many hours of travelling we did, but it really knocked me out for six and we did not have many hours between the business over there. If anyone thinks that Members going on trips to Taiwan are on holiday, they are wrong.

Taiwan is a wonderful place. I will not go on too much about it, but it must be way up there in the rankings for demonstrating actual democracy. Believe me, this Parliament has much to learn from Taiwan about how to conduct its business. On my first visit to Taiwan, I thought I was going to the third world, but I came back to somewhere that resembled the third world by comparison with Taiwan.

Only last month, the People’s Republic of China conducted one of its largest ever military drills off the coast of Taiwan, in an attempt to intimidate it. The drill involved 34 naval vessels and at least 125 aircraft. The tactic of intimidation is part of today’s debate, and it shows what China is about. China is attempting to intimidate Taiwan and isolate it by insisting that the One China principle means that Taiwan can play no role in international bodies. Nothing in UN resolution 2758 states that Taiwan cannot be part of international organisations, and the exclusion of Taiwan comes with dangerous consequences for the world. A number of Members have explicitly stated that today, so I do not need to repeat what they have said. The opening speech of my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) was magnificent; he covered every aspect of this matter, and I congratulate him on doing so.

During the covid-19 pandemic, Taiwan deployed one of the world’s most effective strategies against the disease, despite its close proximity to China. However, Taiwan was excluded from the World Health Organisation, and it remains excluded today. It is worth mentioning the forced organ harvesting system. Who determined that China has an ethical organ transplant system? China itself did, yet the WHO still admitted it. According to the WHO, China operates an ethical organ harvesting system.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

The hon. Lady raises a really important point. Practitioners of Falun Gong talk about arrests, incarceration and illegal organ harvesting from people who are still alive, and about the high levels of state-based attacks and murders. It is quite staggering that China exports more organs than any other country in the world, and I wonder where it gets them from.

[Ms Rimmer]

I do not want to go on too much about organ harvesting, because it gives me sleepless nights. China takes organs from 28-year-olds because it gets more for them, as there are better chances of succeeding if the organs are taken fresh from people who are still alive. People can order a kidney and so on, because there is a database of the people going to “re-education schools”. China says to the world, “Don’t worry; we can get what you need. You can have it in days.” How many people have been prosecuted? We know there has been one prosecution in the UK, but how many people have come back from China having received an organ? Is the law being enforced?

The exclusion of Taiwan from international bodies meant that it could not share with the world its successful methods of dealing with covid when we needed them the most. The World Health Organisation is only one example of an international body from which Taiwan has been excluded. China has consistently blocked attempts by Taiwan to join the UN, including in 2009, which means that over 23 million people in one of the finest democracies in the world have been blocked from being heard at the United Nations. In the event of a conflict breaking out across the Taiwan strait, only one side would be able to put forward their case at the United Nations. That is not how the United Nations was intended to operate. Why is it like that? I shivered when Putin’s Russia was allowed to use its veto at the United Nations. People thought I was mad, but we are seeing the consequences now.

There are troubling reports that former Taiwanese President Tsai was blocked from visiting this place to address MPs and peers last month. President Tsai has had successful visits to Canada, Brussels and Czechia, yet apparently she was not allowed here. That is despite Taiwan being an important strategic partner for the United Kingdom in the Indo-Pacific. Sadly, it seems as though China’s intimidation campaign continues to work.

One of the best ways to push back against the People’s Republic of China’s intimidation campaign is to elevate the status of the Taiwanese Representative Office here in London, in a similar way to the action taken in the United States and Lithuania. Right now, the Taiwanese Representative Office is not afforded the protection it clearly needs. It cannot even get a bank account. Elevating Taiwan’s diplomatic status would send a clear message that the British Government do not accept an enforced One China principle, and instead consider both Taiwan and China to be individual partners.

The People’s Republic of China was founded 75 years ago, and Taiwan has never been part of it. Taiwan is a thriving and successful democracy that shares our values. As the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said, what is happening in Taiwan is just part of China’s plan. Look at what is happening in Hong Kong. Instead of waiting 50 years to review everything, China smashed it and moved on to the next one: Taiwan. The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise that point today.

It is time to show our strength by throwing off the shackles of intimidation and giving Taiwan diplomatic status. If the British Government lead with our allies, other nations will follow suit. Taiwan is a self-governing democracy that has succeeded despite not being allowed into the UN and other international organisations. It is a shining light of democracy in an uncertain region, and this world is desperately short of such shining lights of true democracy in operation. The world is in desperate need.

I urge Members to vote for the motion today, to send a clear message that this House believes Taiwan has every right to be part of international organisations in its own right. That is what resolution 2758 was about.

Some people would have me be ashamed of my religion, but I am not. I am a Roman Catholic, but not holier than thou. A shudder went through me when, last year or the year before—time seems to go very quickly now—Roman Catholics in China were required to register as Roman Catholics, and our Pope accepted it. What did Hitler do? This is how he started. I thought, “Dear Lord, this sleeping tiger has not half woken up, and it is going to cause harm.” It is about time that other nations, not just ours, got their act together. It is about time that so-called democratic countries sorted this out.

China is to be feared more than Russia. It is part of the evil axis that would take over this world if we do not all stand up for democracy and for people.

--- Later in debate ---

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

May I say how apt it is that you are in the Chair this afternoon, Madam Deputy Speaker? I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) for securing this important debate and for his first-class speech. I thank hon. Members for their insightful contributions. I will try to respond to all the questions in the course of my speech.

As two thriving democracies, the UK and Taiwan share a unique relationship which is rooted in our shared democratic values, cultural links and deep ties. Despite not having formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan, we have strong unofficial links across a range of issues such as trade, education, science and cultural exchange. In that regard, I must commend my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for her adept chairing of the British-Taiwanese all-party parliamentary group, which continues to play a fundamental role in fostering those ties and encouraging greater parliamentary links and friendship—and, indeed, visits—between the peoples of the UK and Taiwan. On that point, we had questions on visits from the two Opposition spokespersons, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) and the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), and I will say that the best visits are the ones that are organised by the friendship groups, without too much interference from Governments.

Those links are driven by common interests such as security and prosperity, trade, innovation, climate action and global health, and in the first three quarters of this year, there were more British visitors to Taiwan than from any other European country. Taiwan-UK trade was worth £8.3 billion in the four quarters to the end of the second quarter of 2024, and Taiwan remains a key destination for UK enterprises in clean energy and professional services. The British Office Taipei and the Taipei Representative Offices in London and Edinburgh support the partnership, in the absence of diplomatic relations.

Members of this House are familiar with recent tensions in the Taiwan strait. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) laid them out in his introductory speech and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was very clear on that point. Our long-standing position is clear: the issue should be resolved peacefully by people on both sides of the strait, without the threat or use of force or coercion. Peace and stability in the strait matters, not just for the UK but for the wider world. As the FCDO statement in October outlined, recent Chinese military exercises around Taiwan increased tensions and risked dangerous escalation.

The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green is correct to carefully monitor the increased spending on the People’s Liberation Army, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) is right to warn of the damaging elements of cyber-warfare. A conflict across the strait would, of course, be a human tragedy, or as my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) said, would have “dangerous consequences”. It would also be devastating to the global economy, with the study by Bloomberg Economics from January 2024, which I think we have all read, estimating that it would cost the global economy $10 trillion, or 10% of global GDP. No country with a high, middle or low income would be shielded from the repercussions of such a crisis. That is why the UK does not support any unilateral attempt to change the status quo across the Taiwan strait.

Taiwan is not just facing pressure in the strait; it is being prevented from participating meaningfully in large sections of the international system. We believe that the people of Taiwan make an invaluable contribution to areas of global concern and that the exclusion of Taiwanese expertise is a loss both to the people of Taiwan and to the people of the UK. I therefore reply to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire in his excellent speech about the importance of Taiwan’s meaningful participation in international organisations, as a member where statehood is not a prerequisite and as an observer or guest where it is.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

The Minister has mentioned the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire and his excellent opening speech. He posed a question that I hope she can answer at some point. Do His Majesty’s Government now believe that a blockade of Taiwan would be considered an act of war?

Oral Answers to Questions

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I look forward to meeting Mr el-Fattah’s mother later on today. I reassure my hon. Friend personally that I share his determination and resolve to see Alaa reunited with his family, and I think their love and dedication to him is obvious to many parliamentarians whom they have met and campaigned with. My hon. Friend will understand that with the terrible situation in Gaza, it is important that this Government continue to speak to our Egyptian friends, who obviously have real proximity to Gaza. I understand the strength of feeling, and that is why the Prime Minister has raised this and I have raised this on successive occasions. Alaa is a dual national, and we will continue to lobby on his behalf.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I fully support the call for Mr el-Fattah’s release, but in the same area, Ryan Cornelius has spent 16 years illegally held by the United Arab Emirates, much of it in solitary confinement. The Secretary of State says that he will pursue these cases rigorously, but when he went to the UAE recently, he did not raise the case of Ryan Cornelius.

[Mr Lammy]

I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that the situation of Ryan Cornelius has been raised with the UAE, and officials continue to provide consular access to Mr Cornelius and Mr Ridley and are in contact with their families at this time. It is a serious case; we are absolutely aware of it, and the UAE knows that we are very concerned.

Chagos Islands

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

Absolutely. The importance of national security to this Government is at the heart of the missions set out by the Prime Minister, which have been put into practice by the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Secretary and me, along with others across the Government. We would never take decisions that compromised the national security of this country, or indeed that of our allies, and that is why I am confident that this decision is the right one. Let us remember that this process was begun under the last Administration, because they recognised the challenge and recognised that something needed to be done about it.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

Given that the Mauritian Government, with whom the Minister was dealing, have failed and are no longer in power, is this not a case of a deal with the wrong people at the wrong time for the wrong reasons, which has abandoned the Chagossians? The Chagossians made it very clear throughout—the fact cannot be misrepresented—that the vast majority wanted to go back, but they also wanted to remain British citizens. Now that we have an incoming Government in America and a new Government in Mauritius, what is the point of continuing with this agreement? We should start again, and recognise that the Chagossians do not want to be Mauritian. They want us to give them their property back, so why do we not just do that, and simplify the whole thing?

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that the national security interests of this country and, indeed, those of our allies transcend Administrations. We have just had an election as well; his Government started this process, and we are the ones who got it done. As for Mauritius, we welcome Dr Ramgoolam’s election. I understand that he and his Government are to be sworn in over the next few days, and we look forward to working with them to take forward this agreement. He is a friend of the UK and has deep professional and personal connections with it, having studied and worked here. I should also point out that his party, in opposition, made clear that it in no way wanted to contend with the operation of our base on Diego Garcia. We are looking forward to engaging with the new Government in the days to come.

Middle East

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I reminded the Israeli Government that 42,000 people have now been killed; that more than 90% of the population have been displaced, many of them repeatedly since 2023; that as we head towards winter we have been unable to ensure effective and safe distribution of aid across Gaza; that we need to increase the volumes of the types of goods that are reaching Gaza, and we must stop restricting the aid flows; and that there is a responsibility under international humanitarian law to protect a civilian population, to minimise harm to civilians and civilian infrastructure, and to ensure that aid workers can go about their business free and unfettered.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

May I return the right hon. Gentleman to the specific issue of Iran? We used to agree with each other on this matter a great deal when he was in opposition, so, if he does not mind, I will probe him a bit further.

Back in 2023, the right hon. Gentleman and the Opposition rightly called for Iran not just to be sanctioned but to be ruled out legally when it came to any actions at all, with all actions and involvement with Iran made illegal: proscribed. I supported him at that time, and was not supportive of my own Government. Given all the billions that Iran has spent that could have gone towards health, building and quality of life but instead went towards tunnels, missiles and violence all over the region, is it not time, in the right hon. Gentleman’s mind, to follow through and, along with our allies, proscribe Iran completely, and to say that this must never happen again?

China: Human Rights and Sanctions

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent visit to China, on China’s reported human rights abuses in Xinjiang, on the case of Jimmy Lai and on sanctions on British parliamentarians.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. On China, this Government are clear that the UK’s national interests will always come first. Pragmatic engagement matters, not only to co-operate on shared challenges but to make progress in areas where we disagree. On my visit I made it clear that Chinese companies must stop supplying equipment to Russia that is being used in Ukraine. I also highlighted North Korean recklessness in stepping up its support for Putin—a threat to European security and stability in the Korean peninsula. I was robust on human rights, including in Xinjiang. I raised our serious concerns—which the right hon. Gentleman has also raised on many occasions—about the implementation of the national security law in Hong Kong and called for the immediate release of British national Jimmy Lai. I called on Beijing to lift its unwarranted sanctions against parliamentarians, including the right hon. Gentleman. This was a matter that I raised with you, Mr Speaker, before attending. I raised Taiwan, and warned that cyber-activity or interference in our democracy is unacceptable and will always be met by a strong response.

I also covered areas of mutual interest. China is the world’s biggest emitter, so we need to co-operate on the global green transition. It is also the world’s second-largest economy, and our trade with China is worth almost £100 billion. China has the second- largest number of AI unicorns of any country worldwide. Like the last Government, we will work with China to create rules to keep the public safe. This is grown-up diplomacy. After 14 years of inconsistency under the Conservatives, this Government will set a long-term, consistent and strategic approach to China. With Foreign Minister Wang Yi, I agreed to maintain channels of communication at ministerial level. This brings us up to speed with the United States, whose Secretary of State and Treasury Secretary have both made two visits in the past 18 months, as well as with partners including Australia, France and Germany. This Government are currently carrying out a China audit to improve our response to the challenges and opportunities that China presents to the UK. Once it is completed, I will gladly update the House again.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. China is even now carrying out military exercises threatening Taiwan and threatening to blockade it, which would damage all our economies, yet I see in the Foreign Office’s readout after the visit to China that there was absolutely no discussion of that issue. Why not? On human rights in Xinjiang, the House of Commons, including the Labour party in opposition, voted that genocide was taking place in Xinjiang, yet the Foreign Office readout simply said: “Human rights were discussed”. This is a genocide taking place, with slave labour. Why is there not more robust condemnation from the Government to China?

In Jimmy Lai’s case, he is a British citizen and a prisoner in Hong Kong for committing no crime whatever. Did the Foreign Secretary not only call for his release, as he just said, but demand full consular rights of access? On sanctions on British parliamentarians, the week before last, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister whether the Foreign Secretary would tell the Chinese Government to lift the sanctions on parliamentarians. The Prime Minister said that he would. However, I see from the Foreign Office read-out that the Foreign Secretary did not even raise that, let alone call on the Chinese Government to lift those sanctions. Given your brave support, Mr Speaker, for those of us who are sanctioned, I simply ask why the Government cannot follow suit and demand that from the Chinese?

I have just heard—this is my final point—that there is a move in the Foreign Office to lift British sanctions on Chinese officials responsible for the brutal genocide in Xinjiang as a deal to lift the sanctions on parliamentarians here. I must tell the Foreign Secretary that I, for one, would never accept such a shameful deal at any price, and I hope that he will stamp on that straightaway. Will he make it clear what our real position is on what is becoming a clear and massive threat to our freedoms?

[Mr Lammy]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman again for his interest in my travels, but I have to correct him on a few points. I did, of course, raise Xinjiang in the context of human rights. I absolutely raised, as I assured you, Mr Speaker, that I would, the position of parliamentarians—of course I did—not just with the Foreign Minister but with the foreign affairs spokesperson for the Chinese Communist party. I raised that as a matter of huge concern. I also raised the threats and aggression that we are now seeing in the South China sea. Jimmy Lai, I raised; Members of this House, I raised; Xinjiang, I raised; Hong Kong, I raised. It would be totally unacceptable for any UK Foreign Minister to go to China and not raise those issues of tremendous concern.

The right hon. Gentleman knows that the previous Government bounced around on China. They had a golden era—he was part of the Government who had that golden era and were drinking pints with President Xi. A former Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary were found to be lobbying on behalf of Chinese belt-and-road initiatives, so I am not going to take any lessons from the Opposition on how to handle China.

British Indian Ocean Territory: Negotiations

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, and of course I agree with him wholeheartedly.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

Can I say to the right hon. Gentleman that even when I was on the Government Benches, I was opposed to what my Government were doing, even when they were only going to go halfway? He supported my position then; why has he now turned around?

The one point I want to make to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Government Front Bench is that the Mauritian Government are guilty of vast human rights abuses, locking up other politicians who are independent, and that the black Creole Mauritians were traduced by that Government. We have handed that Government rights that the Chagossians have never agreed to, so my question is this: why was this done in a rush, just before their election? The Mauritian Government will now use this agreement to benefit themselves in the re-election process. Why are we doing that to support a disgusting Government who are in league with the Chinese?

[Mr Lammy]

The right hon. Gentleman has immense experience in this House. As Members of this House know, sometimes one is able to strike up friendships across the Floor—we are fellow Spurs supporters—but Mauritius is a country that is part of our Commonwealth, so I cannot possibly associate myself with the remarks that the right hon. Gentleman has just made.

Let us be clear: what was done to the Chagossians back in the 1960s is a matter of regret. It is a sore that has run through our relations with Mauritius, but also with substantial parts of the global south. That is why we continued the negotiations and struck this agreement—the right hon. Gentleman may well have disagreed with the last Government, but I remind him that they undertook 11 rounds of negotiations.

Human Rights: Consular Services

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 16th April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Dame Caroline. I commend the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) for setting the scene so well. She has been a spokesperson for those in difficulties and always outlines those cases. Perhaps her journalistic history has given her a flavour for those things. It does not matter—the main thing is that the hon. Lady presents the case very well and I am pleased to support her.

Why is this issue so important for me? It is as important to me as it is to the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), when it comes to issues of human rights and freedom of religious belief and the necessity of consular services being involved. I chair the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief and have spoken on the subject many times.

I see that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) is here to speak on behalf of those detained in Hong Kong, who have their human rights and religious beliefs restricted, and who are in prison even though they are British passport holders. Jimmy Lai is one who comes to mind. We had a Westminster Hall debate when each of us who participated specifically outlined the case for that gentleman. I will speak for him again today, as I know the right hon. Gentleman will.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) on obtaining this debate. I do not intend to speak; I just want to make a couple of quick points.

As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will recall, one problem we discovered with the Jimmy Lai case is that until literally the past few weeks, the Government refused to accept that Jimmy Lai was a British citizen, even though he had never held a Chinese passport, and they adopted the Chinese Government’s position that he was a dual national, which he was not. That meant that our Government did not claim consular access rights to a British citizen, which was a pretty appalling state of affairs. We did have those debates—therefore, yes to British citizen; but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the British Government must first always stand by those who believe and have the right documents to say that they are British citizens?

[Jim Shannon]

I certainly do, and I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman intervened to underline that issue. I was going to mention Jimmy Lai; the key issue is that he is a British passport holder and does not hold a Chinese passport. He deserves and should get the consular assistance that all British citizens would get, including any one of us who holds a British passport.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh West referred to Richard and Nazanin Ratcliffe, whose MP used to come to speak at Westminster Hall; I cannot recall her constituency, though I used to support her every time. There was great joy when the British Government and others were able to gain Nazanin’s freedom and bring her home. I saw a lovely wee story about her in the press last week, as she tries to adjust again to normal life, which could never be easy after all the trauma and the separation from her husband and child.

As an MP who has had many constituents needing help from consulates, I was not surprised to see the level of consular assistance granted to people each year. In any given year, we support 20,000 to 25,000 British nationals and their families, including almost 7,000 detained or arrested abroad. There are occasions whenever we have to intervene or approach the consulate to ask for help. I am not saying it is always the case, but those who contacted me were either guilty of a minor misdemeanour or were unfortunately targets for untrue allegations.

Some 4,500 people from here die abroad each year. I think of one in particular, although I can think of three or four. I cannot remember what it is called, but I commend the organisation that we have back home in Northern Ireland—I think it is in the UK as well. If someone dies abroad, it supports the family with financial help to try to get the deceased back home. That is such a key role to play for families who grieve and do not know what to do next. That organisation has been very helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Caroline. I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) on securing the debate, and I commend her strong interest in supporting British nationals abroad. I note her work on the private Member’s Bill, which is also related to consular services, and will seek to address some of the concerns that she and others have raised. I reply as the Minister responsible for consular policy. I am grateful for the contributions of other hon. Members and acknowledge the strength of feeling on this important topic, both in the room and across the House more widely.

Let me begin by providing a brief overview of our consular services in human rights cases before moving on to details on some of the individual issues raised and some of the individual cases, which are important. A number of hon. Members raised points and concerns, including the hon. Members for Edinburgh West, for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin), for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) and for Livingston (Hannah Bardell). When we are talking about consular services, it is really important to highlight that these are genuinely complex cases—everybody recognises that—and, as a result, they are not simple. I review our complex cases very regularly, as do other Ministers; they are extraordinarily challenging.

I note gently to the hon. Member for Glasgow North, who I respect enormously on this subject, that we are now living in a world in which there is an increasing number of challenging and complex situations, and that makes this all the more challenging. We can have a debate about resources, but there is also a debate to be had about the demand and the challenges of the world that we are currently living in, which no doubt will be a debate that we continue to work through.

As others have done, I thank the amazing work of our consular officers and their extraordinary and dedicated service, particularly in some extraordinarily challenging situations. Our support for British nationals in difficulty overseas is right at the heart of the work of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Our staff are contactable 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and they offer empathetic, professional advice, tailored to each individual case. In the last 12 months, consular staff opened over 3,000 new arrest and detention cases and are currently providing assistance in over 1,800 cases. Detainees’ welfare and human rights are our top priorities. Our support can include seeking consular access, monitoring prisoners’ welfare and helping them gain access to local justice processes. We provide tailored information for each country on the local prison and judicial systems for detained British nationals about what to expect, and we also raise specific consular cases with foreign authorities and support the families of those who are detained. We will come on to some of those cases in just a minute.

We take allegations of torture and mistreatment incredibly seriously. When we receive such an allegation, we will consider approaching local authorities to support the welfare of the person affected, such as by lobbying for them to receive medical treatment or be moved to a different facility. Our approach is informed by our specialist human rights advisers, who provide expertise on human rights concerns and every allegation of torture and mistreatment. Where we hear of an allegation over the phone or from a third party, we prioritise actually visiting the detainee to check on them and, where safe to do so, ask about the allegation.

We are not able to carry out investigations in other countries. However, we can and do raise allegations of torture and mistreatment with local authorities, requesting an effective investigation as required under international human rights law where we have the consent of the individual to do so.

Last year, the FCDO received 189 new allegations of torture and mistreatment from British nationals overseas. Each year, our human rights advisers conduct a review of all such cases to identify trends and develop strategies to engage with relevant countries. For transparency, we publish consular data on torture and mistreatment as part of our annual human rights report. The Government take a taskforce approach to the most serious and complex cases. That ensures that we harness the right expertise across the FCDO and across Government, and the appropriate senior engagement to drive progress. My ministerial colleagues and I are consulted from the outset, receive regular updates on the cases and are involved throughout.

Arbitrary detention has also been raised. The UK deplores and condemns the practice in all circumstances; it is a clear breach of human rights and is contrary to international law. The FCDO is not a fact-finding or judicial body and is therefore not best placed to determine whether an individual’s circumstances could amount to arbitrary detention. Nevertheless, where the United Nations says that is the case or where there is supporting evidence, our expert advisers will form an assessment based on all available information, which will be put to Ministers to decide our approach.

We will never accept our nationals being detained as a means of diplomatic leverage and we are determined to combat the practice. In the very rare instances in which that is the case, a senior official such as that country’s director will lead case handling until the person is released. In that way, we have secured the release of British nationals across the globe, including in Iran, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Myanmar and Libya. We also work with like-minded states—for example, Canada—to end the use of arbitrary detention, to support those who have been arbitrarily detained and to demand accountability.

In all that, our ability to support British nationals overseas depends on the co-operation of the state in question. The UK is a party to the Vienna convention on consular relations, which is clear that we cannot interfere in foreign legal processes, with the detaining authority having jurisdiction over British nationals. The convention provides for consular visits to British detainees but is silent on dual nationality. Many states interpret that as meaning that it does not cover dual nationals in their other home country, which is a complicating factor, as many colleagues are aware. Where we have human rights concerns, we will also lobby to have access to detained British dual nationals. However, the host state’s national law and interpretation of the convention are key in determining whether we are able to gain consular access. That frequently hampers our efforts to support dual nationals, especially in cases that are politicised.

Before coming on to cases, it is important to note that in carrying out this important and complex work, we collaborate closely with partners who provide specialist support. Some of them have already been mentioned in the debate. The charity Prisoners Abroad does wonderful work to support British nationals detained abroad, to help their families and, on their release, to help them settle back into the United Kingdom. In cases where British and dual nationals face the death penalty, our partners Reprieve and the Death Penalty Project can offer support. We are assisting 10 British people sentenced to death around the world. We do all we can to prevent the execution of British nationals and we continue to campaign for capital punishment to be abolished.

A number of sensitive and challenging cases were raised at the start by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West, including that of Jagtar Singh Johal, which other speakers also mentioned. We have consistently raised our concerns about Mr Johal’s case directly with the Government of India, including his allegations regarding torture and mistreatment and his right to a fair trial. The Foreign Secretary met Mr Johal’s brother and the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) on 12 February. The Foreign Secretary is currently reviewing our approach to Mr Johal’s case, which he discussed with Mr Johal’s brother and the hon. Member when they met. Mr Johal’s family and hon. Members will be updated when that review is complete. Our approach will always be guided by our assessment of Mr Johal’s best interests.

The hon. Members for Edinburgh West and for Cardiff North mentioned the very sensitive case of Vladimir Kara-Murza. The politically motivated conviction of Mr Kara-Murza is absolutely deplorable. To answer some of the questions put by the hon. Member for Cardiff North, the Foreign Secretary met Mr Kara-Murza’s wife and mother on 1 March, and our officials continue to support his family.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am concerned, because rather than run away, Kara-Murza went back to Russia to make the case against the brutality of the war on Ukraine, rather like Jimmy Lai did in his case. He is now incarcerated on trumped-up charges, which we have known for a long time. He is very ill, and his likely death is very much at the forefront of our mind because of the murder of Navalny when he became the main target. To that end, I note that the Minister’s predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), said that

“we do not and would not countenance a policy of prisoner swaps.”—[Official Report, 19 February 2024; Vol. 745, c. 495.]

I ask the Minister to review that, because I do not think it is correct. That process has been used to obtain the release of British citizens in the past, including Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, and, I remind him, Natan Sharansky and Vladimir Bukovsky during the Soviet period. I am concerned that it will come down to that, as the only method we have available. He may not survive long if we do not do something about it. I would be grateful if the Minister took that away and asked his officials whether we will engage on this, if necessary, with a prisoner swap.

[David Rutley]

I understand my right hon. Friend’s point. I have always enjoyed his contributions, which are very thoughtful. I respect him enormously, having been his Parliamentary Private Secretary for more than a year. I can say that, as a result of what has happened to Mr Kara-Murza, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office sanctioned 11 individuals in response to his sentencing and appeal, as well as two individuals involved with his earlier poisoning. I understand the points my right hon. Friend makes; I think he understands that we do not normally engage in prisoner swaps, and they are not part of our policy, but I will take his points away and talk to officials.

Other hon. Members have mentioned the case of Mr Alaa Abd El-Fattah. We remain committed to securing consular access and release for this dual British-Egyptian national and human rights defender. The Foreign Secretary and Lord Ahmad have met family members, most recently on 20 December 2023. I hope that hon. Members can see that these sensitive cases that have been raised are being tackled and engaged in at the highest level in the FCDO.

That brings me to the Jimmy Lai case, which has been mentioned by many hon. Members including the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). Mr Lai’s prosecution is highly politicised, and the Foreign Secretary recently reiterated his call for Mr Lai’s release with Foreign Minister Wang Yi at the Munich security conference on 16 February. There has been some debate about Mr Lai’s citizenship. He is a British citizen but Chinese nationality laws are clear: China considers anyone born in Hong Kong to be a Chinese national. They do not recognise dual nationality, as I highlighted earlier in my remarks. Hong Kong authorities therefore consider Mr Lai to be a Chinese national.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[David Rutley]

In one second, because I have not quite finished. We have not been granted consular access. The UK Government are equally clear that Mr Lai is a British citizen and we continue to request consular access.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but I have to ask why it took so long for the British Government to claim him as a British citizen. The Chinese position is hypocrisy, because not that long ago the Chinese authorities did not recognise someone who was in Hong Kong as a Chinese citizen. They reversed that only a few years ago, to claim them if they were born in China as Chinese nationals or dual nationals, which they then did not respect.

The problem is that the Foreign Office has got itself into a complete mess over Jimmy Lai, and it must never do that again. We should stand clearly on the basis that we recognise British citizenship and the individual’s passport. It is not for us to allow ourselves to repeat what the other nation says, in this case China, which is a disputed position from start to finish. Why we got into that, I have no idea at all.

[David Rutley]

I thank my right hon. Gentleman for his comments, but I would like to restate that the Foreign Secretary reiterated his call for Mr Lai’s release on 16 February. That is the Government’s policy. I think my right hon. Friend is pleased that that is the stance and that we continue to push for access to him.

I would like to respond briefly to the point from the hon. Member for Strangford about freedom of religion or belief. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) are the two champions of this vital human right. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for raising it repeatedly and in most debates of this nature. We are committed to defending freedom of religion or belief for all and promoting respect between different religious and non-religious communities. With all the many other rights we have that we obviously need to uphold and support, we must not lose sight of the importance of religion to so many people in this world and how much it means to them. We must respect that. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that we continue to hold close this important human right. Most recently I have been focusing on the appalling human rights abuses around freedom of religion or belief in Nicaragua. I know that is an area he feels very strongly about too.

I should also mention the important case of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, which has been raised by a number of Members, including the hon. Member for Edinburgh West at the start of her powerful speech. Nazanin, her husband Richard and their family were put through unimaginable torment by the Iranian authorities, and we are glad that that is over. FCDO officials and Ministers worked tirelessly to secure the release and return of Nazanin and other detainees from Iran. The Foreign Secretary met Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and Richard Ratcliffe on 15 March.

We should recognise that the Foreign Affairs Committee has issued a report and a follow-up report on what it calls “combating state hostage taking”. We do not recognise that term. However, the Foreign Secretary has fully read the FAC follow-up report and informed the Committee during his appearance before it on 9 January that he is taking more time to fully consider the recommendations before responding in full. These are important issues that require a lot of thought, and we need to pull our actions together.

It is vital to highlight that lessons have been learned from these cases, and we continue to learn as we deal with very challenging circumstances. Following the publication of the Committee’s initial report and having consulted with external trauma experts, FCDO has formalised arrangements to ensure that ongoing psychosocial support is made available to returning detainees—something I think the hon. Member for Livingston would approve of. That is very important. They will also have a named point of contact on return to the United Kingdom, and we have reinforced our partnership with Hostage International, so these lessons are being learned.

We heard from the hon. Member for Edinburgh West and the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Cardiff North, about how we can best support British nationals abroad. While we all have that as an aim, the Government have a different view on the case for legislating to support that aim. We believe that a legal right would not change the course and outcome of most complex cases. The Vienna convention on consular relations requires us to provide assistance without interfering in the internal affairs of the host state, so our ability to offer some kind of assistance would continue to remain dependent on co-operation from the host state. A law in the UK would not change that.

Most of our international partners do not offer a legal right to consular assistance to their citizens. That includes our Five Eyes partners: the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Most countries, like us, have discretion in the provision of consular services and have a published policy or charter that sets out what services citizens can expect. There are some exceptions in Europe that have provisions for this legal right—Germany, Sweden and Belgium. It is important to highlight that we are aware of only three of the more than 190 countries in the world that have provisions for some form of legal right, and their laws are specific about the limitations.

Consular assistance is wholly dependent on what the receiving state—the foreign country where the consular services are offered—will allow. Sweden also charges for all consular services and makes having appropriate insurance compulsory. There are some important issues to think through in this area, notwithstanding the fact that we all recognise that consular services are an important way to support British nationals overseas.

I thank all hon. Members for their valuable contributions. We will continue our efforts to support detained British nationals and tailor our approach to specific cases, within the parameters of international law. I thank the families of detainees who help to support their loved ones. I also thank our specialist partners, including Prisoners Abroad, Reprieve and the Death Penalty Project, for their expertise, and the other organisations that hon. Members highlighted. Last but by no means least, I pay tribute to our consular officers, who put huge effort into helping people in the most difficult circumstances. They do important work, and we are very grateful for all that they do.

Sri Lanka: Human Rights

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2024 Westminster Hall

[Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered human rights in Sri Lanka.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria. Sri Lanka’s 2009 conflict ended in a horrific bloodbath. Tens of thousands of Tamils were killed in the final months, with accusations pointing to intentional targeting of civilians by the Sri Lankan military. That dark chapter remains open, with an estimated 70,000 to 170,000 Tamils unaccounted for and presumed dead. The Government’s continued denial of war crimes, crimes against humanity and even genocide fuels anger and blocks the path towards healing. The situation for Tamils, and indeed other minority groups, such as Muslims, in Sri Lanka remains precarious. Impunity reigns, human rights violations persist and heavy militarisation casts a long shadow. Sri Lanka’s failure to address accountability and pursue transitional justice mechanisms hinders any hope for lasting peace and reconciliation.

The international community’s call for accountability has not translated into concrete action, and the United Nations Human Rights Council rightly identifies the lack of accountability as the critical missing piece to Sri Lanka moving forward. We have seen decades of ineffective governance and policies driven by nationalism, which was a root cause of the conflict, continue to plague the nation, contributing to its current political and economic crises. It is vital that the international community continues to hold Sri Lanka accountable for past and present human rights violations, because only through the effective mechanisms for international investigation and prosecution can Sri Lanka achieve meaningful justice and reconciliation and finally turn a page on this dark chapter.

Sri Lanka has witnessed a chilling escalation in a suppression of Tamil remembrance this past year. As Tamils prepared to commemorate Maaveerar Naal remembrance day, and even during the ceremonies that took place, police actively disrupted events, physically blocked people from attending, destroyed memorials with violence and arrested participants. That is not a new tactic—Tamils in the north-east have historically faced harassment leading up to Maaveerar Naal—but last year, crackdowns intensified despite court orders permitting the commemorations.

Since the memorial, fear and injustice have gripped the Tamil community. The notorious Prevention of Terrorism Act was once again wielded, leading to arrests of Tamils simply for carrying decorations or attending remembrance ceremonies. Even those providing logistical support with vehicles or generators faced arbitrary detention. That draconian law, which is a stain on the country’s human rights record, has fuelled decades of abuse: prolonged detentions, disappearances and torture, particularly against Tamils and Muslims. Those are the horrific realities of the PTA. Stronger action from the UK is crucial to abolish that Act.

The shadow of militarisation looms over Sri Lanka’s Tamil north-east population. Despite Sri Lanka boasting one of the world’s largest militaries, a staggering 18 of its 20 military divisions occupy the north-east region, with 14 concentrated solely in the north. That overwhelming presence comes at a steep cost: Sri Lanka spends more on its defence than it does on healthcare and education combined. There have been recent claims of de-escalation and demilitarisation, but that has not occurred, so concrete action is needed. The UK must continue to push with its international partners for the de-militarisation of the north-east, dismantling the intrusive presence and allowing Tamils to rebuild their lives free from the constant shadow of the military.

As Sri Lanka tackles its economic woes, the UK must acknowledge the lack of political will to protect Tamil livelihoods and urge an end to the land grabs of Tamil land. Frustration continues within the Tamil community in Sri Lanka and overseas, which has long demanded a lasting solution that tackles the root cause of conflict. Years of empty promises and unmet aspirations from successive Governments have only fuelled those demands.

In February 2023, Tamil protestors defied intimidation and surveillance to stage a four-day protest across the north-east, in a powerful rejection of the 75th anniversary of independence day. That served to symbolically reclaim Tamil homeland and issue a clear set of demands, including the end to military occupation, justice for the Tamil genocide and uncovering the truth about those who disappeared.

President Wickremesinghe pledged to solve the ethnic crisis and hold talks with Tamil parties, but those efforts have proven fruitless: the Tamil community awaits concrete action, not empty words. The country is clinging to a troubling legacy; those accused of war crimes against Tamils continue to enjoy protection, with some even receiving pardons and diplomatic postings. That blatant disregard for accountability exposes the shortcomings in the justice system and underscores the current administration’s tolerance for impunity.

There is a clear lack of political will to deliver justice for Tamil victims, and that is evident even in high profile cases. The unresolved Trinco 5 killings, which were high- lighted both by the UN Human Rights Council and during recent Generalised Scheme of Preferences Plus trade discussions, stand as a stark example. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has aptly noted that not a single emblematic case has resulted in conviction. Sri Lanka’s path forward hinges on genuine commitment to accountability—a path they have yet to take.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I very much support what my hon. Friend has been saying. I agree that settling this issue and getting the right human rights for those Tamils who are suffering—many of whom have fled over here into many of our constituencies—is important.

However, there is also another side of this. The need for the Sri Lankan Government, as a result of not resolving this issue, to station so many army divisions and spend so much on the military is one of the reasons why the Chinese were able to secure a 99-year lease on the Hambantota port. The Chinese are able to have their ships in that port because the Sri Lankan Government is bankrupt. That has a very big impact on the UK’s wider views on the far east.

Hong Kong Security Legislation

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Foreign Secretary if he will make a statement on the security and human rights implications of Article 23 in Hong Kong.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his urgent question. Yesterday, Hong Kong’s Legislative Council passed new national security legislation unanimously under article 23 of the Basic Law. The Bill, which rushed through the legislative process, and is likely incompatible with international human rights law, will come into force on Saturday. Since 2020, we have seen Hongkongers’ rights and freedoms deliberately eroded as a result of the Beijing-imposed national security law, and this law continues that pattern.

Yesterday, His Majesty’s Government made it clear that the law’s overall impact will be to further damage the rights and freedoms enjoyed throughout Hong Kong. It will enable the authorities to continue their clampdown on freedoms, including freedom of speech, assembly and the media. It will further entrench the culture of self-censorship dominating Hong Kong’s social and political landscape. It fails to provide certainty for international organisations, including diplomatic missions, operating there. Broad definitions will negatively affect those who live, work and do business there.

Although Britain recognises the right of all jurisdictions to implement national security legislation, Hong Kong is also required to ensure that laws align with international standards, rights and norms as set out in UN treaties, the Sino-British joint declaration and its Basic Law. Hong Kong is an international city. Respect for the rule of law, its high degree of autonomy and the independence of its well-respected institutions have always been critical to its success. The British Government have urged the Hong Kong authorities to respect rights and freedoms, uphold Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy and the rule of law, and act in accordance with its international commitments and legal obligations.

Let me conclude by welcoming the contribution our growing Hong Kong diaspora make to life in the UK; they are safe to live here, and exercise the rights and freedoms that all other British residents enjoy. We will not tolerate any attempt by any foreign power to intimidate, harass or harm individuals or communities in the UK. This law has no effect in the UK, and we have no active extradition treaty with Hong Kong.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I welcome the Government’s statement, but it does not go far enough. Article 23 allows sentences of up to 14 years’ imprisonment if an individual fails to disclose that another person indicated an “intention to commit treason”, which includes peaceful protest or voicing discontent. If a journalist discloses information deemed to be a “national secret”, they will be jailed for 10 years. Since the passage of the national security law in 2020, the people of Hong Kong have endured relentless oppression, in contravention of the Sino-British agreement, yet the UK has done very little to hold those responsible to account. I remind my right hon. Friend that the United States, which did not sign that agreement, has sanctioned 42 people, including senior individuals, in Hong Kong, whereas the UK has sanctioned none.

I have two questions as a result. This legislation harmonises Hong Kong’s and China’s national security systems, with devastating consequences for human rights; it also changes business and legal arrangements. Last year, the US Government warned US businesses that they can no longer rely on the protection that the rule of English common law affords in Hong Kong. Why have the UK Government not done the same for our businesses? Secondly, we now know that Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office internal documents show that the Department paused targeted sanctions against Chinese officials in November 2023. One document states:

“FCDO has paused consideration of this work indefinitely”.

As one of the parliamentarians whom China has sanctioned, I must say that that is a terrible decision, and it flies in the face of the evidence. Will the Government publish those documents, and make a statement explaining why they no longer wish to sanction Chinese officials?

[Mr Mitchell]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments, which I will deal with as best I can. He indicated just two or three of the defects in this appalling legislation. He was right to identify them. He did not ask me whether the legislation is in breach of the Sino-British joint declaration. In fact, it is not; the Hong Kong Government are legislating for themselves. The British Government declared in 2021 that China is in ongoing breach of the Sino-British joint declaration.

My right hon. Friend asked about the rule of English common law and the warnings given by the Government of the United States. The British business community is extremely experienced and well able to reach conclusions for itself, but if ever the British Government’s advice were sought, we would always give it. He talked about targeted sanctions. I know that he is sanctioned; I hope that he will bear that with the necessary fortitude. It is outrageous that he and others should be sanctioned in that way. We do not discuss our approach to sanctions on the Floor of the House, but my right hon. Friend may rest assured that we are keeping all such matters under regular review.

Human Rights in Hong Kong

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Tim Loughton]

I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point entirely. He has done so much through the all-party parliamentary group on Hong Kong to flag up the outrages going on there. On the British judges who have been brought up, and have trained and practised in one of the most respected legal domains in the world and who have then gone out to Hong Kong for semi-retirement jobs: that they can continue to practise in a place that has so blatantly snuffed out all the basic tenets of international law and freedoms that we all take for granted is extraordinary. If they have not been banned from doing so, out of a sense of decency for their own profession and the values that they are able to practise in this country but not in Hong Kong, they should come back as a matter of urgency.

I return to the matter of the democratic process. Voting has become something of a pantomime, declining hugely with new rules that only allow for patriots-only elections—however the Chinese Communist Government may define that. The new rules led to a collapse in voter turnout to just 27.5% in 2023, in stark contrast with the pre-national security law days when that figure was typically well into the seventies.

Religious persecution has also become commonplace. There are more than 1 million followers of Taoism and more than 1 million Buddhists in the country. Yet, according to 18 pastors and religious experts interviewed by the Washington Post,

“churches have been pushed into censoring themselves and avoiding appointing pastors deemed to have political views, and at least one major church is restructuring itself in case the government freezes its assets.”

Fears around the national security law have led to widespread self-censorship by clergy in their sermons, just as it has in Tibet and Xinjiang. In Tibet, for instance, simply to possess a photograph of His Holiness the Dalai Lama is instantly punishable with a prison sentence—typically of five years. That shows absolutely extraordinary intolerance.

Businesses are in decline and leaving Hong Kong. More than 50% of Hong Kong professionals have considered leaving the city, according to one recent survey. Democracy has been snuffed out in Hong Kong and the right to oppose politically has effectively been snuffed out there too. Scrutineers of free speech and liberty have been closed down and either forced to flee Hong Kong all together or incarcerated. Press freedom has certainly been completely snuffed out, which also explains why the Hong Kong Government plan to install no fewer than 2,000 additional CCTV cameras in public places so they can spy on the population to make sure it is doing what it is told by its Chinese Communist Government masters.

The number of political prisoners has gone through the roof. For those members of the Hong Kong population who have not been able to join the mass exodus, China has killed the golden goose that used to be Hong Kong, previously a bastion of liberty, opportunity, democracy and entrepreneurialism.

I will touch on the Jimmy Lai trial, which opened on 18 December 2023. He is a British citizen, as the Government have at last acknowledged, who founded the now defunct Apple Daily—the largest pro-democracy newspaper in Hong Kong at the time. He is now facing three charges under Hong Kong’s Beijing-imposed National Security Law, carrying a maximum punishment of life in prison, and a charge of conspiracy to publish seditious publications.

On 2 January, Jimmy Lai pleaded not guilty to conspiring to collude with foreign forces in publishing allegedly seditious materials at his trial under Hong Kong’s national security law, after multiple delays before the trial actually started.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. Since the first group of British citizens he referred to was named, the British ex-consul general to Hong Kong has also been named in this process. Unless I have missed something, I have not heard the Foreign Office say anything about the naming of its ex-consul general in those terms. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is rather strange that an ex-employee of the Foreign Office, who represented it in Hong Kong, has been named in a trial, but somehow the Foreign Office has not said a word about it?

[Tim Loughton]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and fellow China sanctionee. I am not sure whether I should have declared that at the beginning; it is not a quite a registered interest, but it is certainly an interest that many people register these days. We remain censored for, I think, coming up to three years. I agree absolutely with my right hon. Friend, because this trial has gone beyond just Jimmy Lai, as I will mention. There are other people mentioned who are closer to home physically.

The prosecution rapidly named several foreign politicians and human rights activists, including the former consul general mentioned by my right hon. Friend, with whom Mr Lai had been in contact in recent years, and showed headshots of them. Among them are Hong Kong Watch co-founder and chief executive, Benedict Rogers, and the executive director of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China—IPAC—Luke de Pulford, both of whom I call friends. They have done so much for the cause of liberty for those people within China.

Also named are the US consul general to Hong Kong, Ambassador James Cunningham, who chairs the board of the Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong; Bill Browder, the human rights campaigner, with whom we are all familiar as the pioneer of the introduction of Magnitsky sanctions worldwide; the former member of the Japanese Parliament, Shiori Kanno; and the former British consul general, as my right hon. Friend mentioned.

[Tim Loughton]

The hon. Lady is leaping ahead. If she will exercise a little patience, I will come to endorse entirely that point, and beef it up a bit.

In response to those being named in the trial, six patrons of Hong Kong Watch—including other fellow sanctionees Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws and Lord Alton of Liverpool—wrote to the Foreign Secretary, urging him to take action, and calling on the UK Government to implement Magnitsky-style sanctions on the Hong Kong Chief Executive, John Lee, including asset freezes and a travel ban; the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) was very prescient. To quote Lord Alton,

“It is simply an assertion of Chinese Communist Party authoritarianism. It makes a mockery of the rule of law. The only conspiracy is that which is being organised by opponents of justice, democracy and human rights. This show trial should be ended forthwith, and the UK Government should say so loud and clear.”

To add to that, the Minister will know that two British citizens are named conspirators with Jimmy Lai on his third charge of colluding with foreign forces to undermine national security. Those citizens are Bill Browder and Luke de Pulford. To my knowledge, this is the first time that foreign citizens have been formally connected to a national security law offence in Hong Kong. Legal advice that I have seen is that this means the prosecution in Jimmy Lai’s case wish to make those British nationals criminally culpable. That being the case, why has the UK not said anything about it yet? Perhaps when she comes to respond, the Minister can specifically address that point.

I have several asks of the Government, as put forward by some of those who have briefed us. First, we call on the Government to continue to reaffirm their support for Jimmy Lai and urge the Prime Minister to call for Jimmy Lai’s immediate and unconditional release. It would be nice for the Prime Minister to say that loudly and openly in reference specifically to Jimmy Lai. Secondly, the UK Government should swiftly issue a strong statement in response to the Hong Kong Government’s targeting those three British citizens—Benedict Rogers, Luke de Pulford and Bill Browder—during the trial. Thirdly, the UK Government should implement Magnitsky-style targeted sanctions on Hong Kong Chief Executive John Lee, including asset freezes and a travel ban to protect Hongkongers in Britain and around the world. Fourthly, the British Government should urge like-minded Governments to specifically mention the case of Jimmy Lai in their recommendations to China at today’s periodic review.

There has been another outrage that completely undermines all the principles of international law involving those who have fled to the UK for safe haven from Hong Kong: the use of bounties on pro-democracy activists—a particular affront to international law. On 14 December 2023, the Hong Kong Government issued arrest warrants for five exiled Hong Kongers who now live and advocate for democracy in the US or the UK, with bounties of 1 million Hong Kong dollars. Among those five is 33-year-old Simon Cheng, who founded Hongkongers in Britain, the largest UK-wide Hong Kong diaspora organisation. He is charged with allegedly inciting secession and collusion between August 2020 and June 2022. Those five arrest warrants followed the arrest warrants and bounties issued for eight overseas Hong Kong pro-democracy activists in July 2023. Those warrants were condemned by Hong Kong Watch, as were the many instances of the Hong Kong Government targeting their families and colleagues in Hong Kong. They also target families beyond the borders of China and Hong Kong, which is particularly chilling. We have seen examples where they freely intimidate families of those people who have escaped from Hong Kong, even on the streets of the United Kingdom.

In response to the issuance of the arrest warrants and bounties in December 2023, the Foreign Secretary said:

“I have instructed officials in Hong Kong, Beijing and London to raise this issue as a matter of urgency with the Hong Kong and Chinese authorities.

We will not tolerate any attempt by any foreign power to intimidate, harass or harm individuals or communities in the UK. This is a threat to our democracy and fundamental human rights.”

Hear, hear! I entirely welcome those words, but what is being done about it? The Chinese understand only the threat of actions with consequences, and that is the problem. Tough words do not usually cut the mustard with China, unless there is a reasonable expectation that those tough words will lead to consequences, and we need to see consequences.

I again have some asks of the British Government. Following the welcome statements that I have just quoted, the British Government should press the Hong Kong authorities to withdraw immediately the 13 arrest warrants with bounties on Hongkongers in the UK, the US and Australia. Secondly, will the Government introduce measures to protect the rights and freedoms of Hong Kong activists in exile, particularly those who have been granted asylum and have faced past and current threats from Beijing? Thirdly, will the Government urge like-minded Governments to suspend the remaining extradition treaties between democracies and the Hong Kong and Chinese Governments, and work towards co-ordinating an Interpol early warning system to protect Hongkongers and other dissidents abroad who may fall within the tentacles of the Chinese authorities? Fourthly, will the British Government urge like-minded Governments to raise these arrest warrants and bounties again at the periodic review, which is happening today?

Again, we have seen no sign of sanctions against any Hong Kong officials, while seven parliamentary colleagues, including myself and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, remain sanctioned. We now hear that the Foreign Secretary wants to visit Hong Kong. The last Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Braintree (James Cleverly), went to China and took up the case of Jimmy Lai, and the case of those of us who are sanctioned, but I am afraid came back with nothing. So quite why the new Foreign Secretary thinks that he wants to go to China—and presumably will take up the case again—and can come back with something, I do not know. Surely there are other platforms available to him, where he can make those calls on China without having to go and be seen to be paying court to the Chinese Communist Government in Beijing.

The Hong Kong Government’s Security Bureau recently put forward article 23 of the Basic Law to be discussed by the Legislative Council within its 2024 session. It is highly likely that that locally legislated national security provision will be passed and implemented by the end of this year. Article 23 aims to

“prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People's Government, or theft of state secrets, to prohibit foreign political organisations or bodies from conducting political activities in the Region, and to prohibit political organisations or bodies of the Region from establishing ties with foreign political organisations or bodies.”

Since the enactment of the Hong Kong national security law, which was passed by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of China in 2020, these draconian laws have devastated the civil society and caused widespread chilling effects among the people of Hong Kong. This will only make that worse and embed it in the tyranny that is now engulfing Hong Kong.

I will briefly touch on the question of the financial pressures that the Chinese Government are bringing on Hongkongers. The Mandatory Provident Fund is a compulsory retirement savings scheme for the people of Hong Kong. For most Hongkongers it is their main pension pot, as the state pension is very low. Hongkongers can withdraw their entire MPF savings only if they make a declaration that they have departed Hong Kong permanently, with no intention of returning.

However, the Mandatory Provident Fund Authority, which governs the MPF, stated in 2021 that, because the BNO—or British national overseas—passport was no longer recognised as a valid travel document, those trying to withdraw MPF funds early could not use the BNO passport as proof of identity. As a result, BNO visa holders who leave Hong Kong continue to be denied access to their pension savings.

That is a punitive action by the Hong Kong Government, and Hong Kong Watch estimates that Hongkongers who fled to the UK on the BNO visa are being denied access to some £2.2 billion in savings. HSBC, headquartered in London, holds around 30% of the total value of all MPF schemes, and it is estimated that HSBC is currently withholding £660 million in savings from Hongkongers with BNO status who now live in the UK.

That is an official status recognised by the UK Government for those legitimately coming to seek safe refuge in the UK, and a company that is headquartered in the UK, and is subject to UK corporate and other laws, is withholding money from its rightful pensioners. The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation needs to decide which side it is on—freedom and liberty and the international rule of law, or kowtowing to the tyrants who now have their footprints all over Hong Kong. Therefore, financial measures are just another way that the Chinese Communist Government are imprinting their tyranny on Hong Kong.

You will be relieved to hear that I have almost come to an end, Mr Twigg, but I have just some other examples of where we really must stand up to what the Chinese Government are doing. Yesterday, Ms Choi Yuk-lin, the Secretary for Education in Hong Kong, began her official visit to the United Kingdom and Finland. That official trip comes despite the UK Government’s acknowledgment that Hong Kong’s national security law, passed in 2020, is a direct violation of the 1984 Sino-British joint declarations—fine for the words, but again, where are the consequences?

Ms Choi Yuk-lin is known for her public support of the national security law. She has consistently asserted that post-secondary education institutions, including their staff and students, are bound by the law. However, under her watch the Hong Kong Professional Teachers’ Union—Hong Kong’s largest teachers’ union, with more than 95,000 members and representing 90% of the profession—was disbanded in 2021 after coming under fire in the Chinese state media. Mark Sabah, the director of the Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation, said:

“This is yet another example of the British Government seemingly ignoring all the violations of the Sino-British Declaration and all the attacks on free speech in Hong Kong and inviting a Hong Kong Government official to the UK, while a British citizen, Jimmy Lai, still sits in jail on spurious National Security Law charges”

and we remain sanctioned. He went on to say:

“There is no chance that Ms Choi is here to support Hong Kong students when she is personally responsible for tearing down academic freedom in Hong Kong across schools and university Campuses.”

She is not the first representative of the Chinese Government to be welcomed here in London, I am afraid, with the acquiescence of Ministers. I will not embarrass the Minister responding today by mentioning another photo opportunity, which she was involved with, by a particularly dodgy member of the Chinese Government responsible effectively for kidnapping the protesters and dissidents and taking them back to China to face unfair trials.

As we speak and as I have said, the universal periodic review of China is happening. However, the point is, will China take any notice? This is the first time it has happened since 2018. It is a unique process at the United Nations, whereby every single member state is scrutinised for its human rights record every four to five years. China’s last UPR was in 2018 and, as we know, a lot has happened since then; the problem is that it is not good. Since the last UPR, no region of the People’s Republic of China has changed more dramatically, significantly or rapidly for the worse than Hong Kong. Since 2018, it has transformed from one of Asia’s most open societies to one of its most repressive police states. It has gone from having a legislature with a significant number of elected pro-democracy members to a place where many of those legislators are now in jail; the entire pro-democracy camp is completely excluded from contesting any elections and both the legislature and the district councils are filled with pro-Beijing quislings, making them nothing more than puppet rubber stamps that are subsidiaries of the National People’s Congress. We have had the “Strike Hard Campaign against Violent Terrorism” against the Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims since the last review. We have had the huge roll-out of surveillance technology since the last review. It has not responded to the criticisms in 2018 on women’s rights, where China failed to stem the trafficking of women and girls, including those from neighbouring countries. There has been a crackdown on freedom of expression, as we have heard. China received 346 recommendations from 150 countries back in 2018. It accepted 284 of them, but questionably many were just noted as accepted and already implemented—of course they were not.

Last week, the Minister responding today sent all colleagues a letter marked, “Dear colleague…A Year in Sanctions”. She started by saying:

“This Government has broken new ground on sanctions in 2023, continuing to lead the international effort to ratchet up pressure on Putin’s war machine, whilst deploying the UK’s autonomous powers in response to serious human rights violations and abuses, cyber attacks and serious corruption across the world.”

It is a good record. It talks about Russia; it talks about sanctions for metals and diamonds and for oil; it talks about reconstruction efforts in Ukraine and who will pay for them. It talks about Hamas, Iran and cyber. Nowhere in this four-page letter does it mention the subject of China or Hong Kong or any possibility of sanctions against that country.

Many petitions to this place have been responded to by the Government. On 7 June 2021, there was a petition to sanction Hong Kong officials responsible for human rights violations, to which the official Government response was:

“We carefully consider sanctions designations. It is not appropriate to speculate who may be designated in the future or we risk reducing the impact of the designations.”

In January 2022, there was a petition urging Hong Kong to release all political prisoners. The Government responded:

“As a co-signatory to the Joint Declaration, we will continue to stand up for the people of Hong Kong, to call out the violation of their freedoms, and to hold China to their international obligations.”

How exactly? In August 2023 there was a petition to sanction individuals responsible for Sino-British joint declaration breaches in Hong Kong. The response sounds familiar:

“We keep all sanctions designations under close and regular review. We do not speculate about future sanctions designations, as to do so could reduce their impact.”

The problem is: there are no consequences. I started my rather too lengthy words speaking about our particular interest and obligation to defend the liberties and lives of the people in Hong Kong that we once had responsibility for directly. We have sanctioned people from across the world, most notably Russia, for their blatant warmongering, corruption and other issues. All of the crimes against humanity, the international rule of law, freedom, liberty and democracy are being waged in Hong Kong as we speak, yet not a single person in the Chinese Government in Hong Kong has been subject to any sanction by the Government.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Does my hon. Friend not also find it peculiar that Britain, which is the co-signatory of the agreement, has not sanctioned any of the officials responsible for the national security law, which he referred to, whereas the United States, which is not a signatory and has no historical link to Hong Kong, has sanctioned 10 of the most senior people? Does that not seem peculiar?

[Tim Loughton]

It is not just peculiar; it is outrageous. We have good examples of where the States has not only talked tough but followed it through with consequences and I think gets greater respect from the Chinese authorities because it is likely to do something about it. There is no excuse for us not taking an equally robust stance against the Chinese Communist party Government if we share those values and ideals of liberty, democracy and freedom that those brave people in Hong Kong have had to stand up for in the most outrageous of circumstances.

The future of human rights in Hong Kong is not bright. We have a duty not just to point that out, but to make it clear to China that if they do not get their act together there will be consequences, and the British Government will make sure that they are made to pay and are called out for this outrageous intimidation of the citizens of Hong Kong and their flouting of the international legal obligations that we all take for granted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I will certainly pay attention to your time limit. So much has already been said. In the past that would not stop us repeating it, but I will underline it rather than repeat it. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) has made an excellent contribution.

I want to make two or three points. I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. It seems rather depressing that we have been here so many times in this Chamber and the main Chamber to debate this subject. It is worth underlining my hon. Friend’s point that in all the debates until today we have struggled to get the British Government to recognise that Jimmy Lai is a British citizen. He has never held a Chinese passport and arrived in Hong Kong as a minor. The Chinese Government shifted its policy around and claimed that he held dual nationality. Up until the last two or three weeks, the British Government went along with the Chinese charade of calling him a dual citizen. He has never been a dual citizen. He was proud of his British passport. He stayed in Hong Kong rather than fleeing, proud, as he said, that he would have the protections of his British passport. Sadly, he was badly let down. I just want to underline what my hon. Friend said on that.

I want to talk about the human rights abuses in Hong Kong, particularly what has happened in the last few weeks. The naming of British citizens as co-conspirators marks the first time that the Hong Kong authorities have sought to incriminate foreign nationals under the national security law. I intervened on that, but it is worth stressing again. I simply cannot understand why, after the former British consul general was named, the Foreign Office has said nothing about this individual, nor has it said to China that it had no right to do that, as he was going about his lawful business as a diplomat. Nothing has been said by the Foreign Office. I have even asked the Foreign Secretary to come out and say something strong in defence of the employee—the consul general—but we have had no statement or attack on the Chinese Government about him being named in this case. I find that astonishing. I urge the Minister to make it clear now that the Chinese Government have no right to do as they have.

The second point relates to the naming of those who have worked with us, from Luke de Pulford, Benedict Rogers, IPAC Hong Kong and the Japanese politician Shiori Yamao to Bill Browder, who has never had any contact with Jimmy Lai, so that is astonishing. I will not go into the details, as I am sure that will come out later on. The reality is that these people have been named on the basis of spurious links, and that is a problem. Thanks to The Washington Post, we know now that Andy Li, one of the individuals who is to give testimony—against Jimmy Lai, sadly—did voluntary work for IPAC on building a website. The Washington Post has been very clear about his mistreatment in Shenzhen prison, including credible allegations of torture. We can therefore understand that what he may or will say should almost certainly be expunged, for the simple reason that he was under duress.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, I apologise for not being present at the beginning, Mr Twigg. As I explained to you, I was paying tribute to Tony Lloyd in the main Chamber and I could not get here in time.

Jimmy Lai is not just a high-profile person, but a high-profile Roman Catholic. His religion and beliefs are important to him. Whenever there are attacks on Jimmy Lai, there are also attacks on his religious belief, as with Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we cannot ignore the suppression of religious freedom in Hong Kong?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I completely agree. The hon. Gentleman knows well that the Chinese Government have been oppressive of Christian Churches and the Falun Gong, and we know what is going on with the genocide among the Uyghur, a Muslim Turkic group. All of this is dangerous. I come back to the simple question that I put to the Catholic Church: what is its arrangement with the Chinese Government, which it has refused to publish, and why, as a senior Christian Church, did it not offer more protections to the other Christian Churches? That is a big question, which the Vatican could answer by publishing its agreement, which it refuses to do.

I know that the Minister will not want to speculate about sanctions. I simply note that the US Government, who have no real historical links with Hong Kong, have sanctioned a significant number of people, whereas the reality is that we have sanctioned nobody in Hong Kong—none of the officials who we know have trashed the Sino-British agreement and upturned the whole idea of democracy, and are persecuting peaceful democracy campaigners. All that, yet there are still no sanctions in place for any of the officials who exercised that power and continue to do so.

I now wish to ask a question of the Minister. I say this very carefully: I have heard that the UK Government may be going further backwards on this matter, and that it may now be British Government policy that the Foreign Office of the UK Government has taken the decision neither to nominate nor to further sanction any Chinese officials. I will be grateful if the Minister, from the Dispatch Box, makes it very clear whether that is correct. Have we now an official policy that there will be no further pressure on China over sanctions of officials, or is that untrue and incorrect? I would be grateful if she made that very clear to us all.

The other element, which is wholly relevant and a real problem, is whether the Government have made representations with regard to the mistreatment of the witnesses in this case, leading also to torture. Have they made any representations at all about the way they have been treated, other than the statement made by the Minister for Security with regard to the naming of British citizens?

Finally, will the Minister state clearly that, if Interpol came under pressure from the Chinese Government to do something under Interpol’s rules in relation to the British citizens China has named—to require their presence, or to require the British Government or others to secure them themselves pending any expedition arrangements, or to do whatever China wishes—the British Government would refuse any co-operation whatsoever with Interpol, because those citizens were named incorrectly? I would like that to be clear, because many of them are now worried that if the British Government do not make that clear, here and now, they may face other pressures that would be insurmountable and unsupportable.

In line with what you said, Mr Twigg, I will come to a close and let others speak. I want to say one thing very clearly: we have banged on and on about the failure in Hong Kong, the terrible abuses, and the British judges now working under the ridiculous farrago of the national security law but pretending that common law somehow still rules. Other countries have done far more to make things clear. America has even issued a booklet to all its businesses to say that, now that the national security law is here, the English common law that now exists in Hong Kong will no longer protect them in any way. We have done nothing on that. I have urged the Government to tell British businesses to be very careful when they do business through Hong Kong, but we have not done that yet. I would be grateful if the Government did that now, after all the arbitrary detentions and the final attempt to get Jimmy Lai named as a British citizen, which at last we have done.

This is a terrible problem. China is determined to take on the rest of the democratic world. It believes its form of government and its abuses are the right way to run a country. It is now in league with North Korea, Russia, and Iran. We see its hand and those of its allies undermining democracy and peace all over the world now. If we do not face up to that and recognise that it is just the beginning of what we will have to deal with, that will be an abject failure of British foreign policy.