Human Rights in Hong Kong

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and Tim Loughton

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.

British Nationals Detained Overseas

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and Tim Loughton

Tuesday 5th September 2023 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Ms Ali. Others wish to speak so I will try to keep my comments brief.

I congratulate the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) on securing this vital debate. We should hold such debates regularly because there is so much to be done in this policy area. British citizens carry British passports, and those British passports have a clear statement at the front that none should let or hinder those who hold that passport, yet too often we find ourselves apologising and running around that major statement at the front of the passport.

I want to focus carefully on the case of Jimmy Lai. I had the privilege of meeting the international team of lawyers who are attempting to defend him, even though they have now, appallingly, been barred from Hong Kong by the Chinese authorities, such is their approval. Nevertheless, I congratulate his team on the huge efforts they are making around the world to draw attention to the plight of a man whose only crime is to cry freedom for all those he lives with.

The point about Jimmy Lai’s case is the reality of the change in Hong Kong. The Chinese authorities have trashed the Sino-British agreement that protected people’s rights in Hong Kong as a special case, once it was all agreed. That agreement is an international treaty. The problem we have is that the authorities can now proceed against people such as Mr Lai for sedition and other appalling charges. He has already been forced to lose his company, and the assets of Apple Daily have been seized. It is unprecedented and could not happen here in the United Kingdom.

Here is the point: Hong Kong is still meant to be a common-law area, but it cannot be a common-law area if people can have their assets seized on charges that have not yet gone through the courts. It is a peculiarity that we go on pretending, as do some of our justices who serve out there. It is no longer really a common-law jurisdiction because it has the national security law over it. People such as Jimmy Lai will now suffer under the national security law without any redress or protection, as would normally be the case here in the United Kingdom, for example, where English common law protects our normal and natural rights. Those rights have been completely decimated in Hong Kong.

The interesting part is that Jimmy Lai has been prosecuted in four separate sets of criminal proceedings arising from his peaceful participation in the high-profile pro-democracy protests in 2019 and 2020, which were organised by civil liberties groups. His crime, therefore, is to have attended the protests; that alone, apparently, is the key. The thing is that he has already been prosecuted and found guilty. One of the charges against him was eventually dismissed on appeal—others were upheld—but he had already served his sentence when that happened. He now faces even more serious charges. He has faced spurious prosecution on charges of fraud, which is why his equipment was seized. He was convicted in October 2022, and in December 2022 he was sentenced to five years and nine months’ imprisonment.

The conviction has meant that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) said, Jimmy Lai has spent some 1,000 days incarcerated on trumped-up charges. But worse is to come. Those charges were all precursors, giving the authorities time to build a case that, under the national security law, will put him inside for a minimum of 10 years and a maximum of life.

The point that I want to make about Jimmy Lai, which is very important, is that he could have fled Hong Kong. He had made enough money to leave Hong Kong and go elsewhere, and complain about the Hong Kong authorities and the Chinese authorities from outside. But he did not. He chose to stay in Hong Kong, because he knew that if he fled then a lot of the hope about what they might eventually be able to achieve would also go. He is a beacon of freedom, and freedom of speech, in a way that no other that I know of globally is at present. I do not decry others; I simply say that he is remarkable.

Jimmy Lai’s choice to stay put in Hong Kong came with the full knowledge that he would not enjoy freedom for long. That has been realised, with these trumped-up charges, and now he faces a full prosecution—it has been delayed, but is likely to happen towards the end of this year, maybe in October—under the national security law.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend, I and indeed you, Ms Ali, attended a conference in Prague over the weekend that was full of parliamentarians from around the world, many of whom, including my right hon. Friend and I, have been sanctioned by the Chinese authorities. The whole subject of Jimmy Lai was very much the focus of that conference.

However, does my right hon. Friend agree that the issue of Jimmy Lai is not just about Jimmy Lai himself but about what this country stands for? In the case of Jimmy Lai, the Chinese Communist party has enacted two criminal acts, one of which is breaking the Anglo-Sino agreement over Hong Kong, an international treaty to which we are a signatory. As a result of its trashing of that treaty, all the protections under the rule of law that might have applied have been swept away. That is why Jimmy Lai, one of the most successful businessmen and whose company was the largest quoted on the Hong Kong stock exchange, is now facing this prosecution.

Jimmy Lai is a British citizen—there is no doubt about that—and therefore he is entitled to the full force of the British Government’s protection. Why has that not been shown and why have there been no consequences, despite the warm words from the Foreign Secretary and others, for the fact that my right hon. Friend and I, along with five other parliamentarians, remain sanctioned and Jimmy Lai continues to be denied the basic justice that we take for granted in this country?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am very grateful that my hon. Friend intervened, because I agree, of course, with everything he said. He and I are sanctioned; in our case, it is for raising the genocide in Xinjiang, which is another case altogether.

I agree with my hon. Friend about Jimmy Lai. I will come back to Jimmy Lai, but I want first to say something more widely about the many British citizens who languish abroad. I am afraid that we too often find reasons and excuses to believe that behind the scenes we can somehow do something that will help them without raising the fact that they are British citizens and therefore, under international law, they require full consular access and rights. I simply say that that is a mindset that we need to get out of. We need to say: “If you are a British passport holder—and, most importantly, a British citizen—then you have the protection of this United Kingdom, which is supposed to believe in human rights and freedom.”

Hong Kong National Security Law Anniversary

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and Tim Loughton

Wednesday 28th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing yet another debate on Chinese human rights abuse to this House. I think the accusations that he has quite rightly made are an underestimate: by my reckoning, the US Government have in fact sanctioned some 11 people—former Chief Executive Carrie Lam, Chief Executive John Lee and nine other Hong Kong officials—for their role in the crackdowns in the city. The Foreign Office has very clearly said that the security law is a clear breach of the joint declaration. At the last count, I think at least 18 journalists have been arrested, numerous free speech media organisations have been closed down, several opposition parties have been driven out of operation and democratically elected places have been reduced to no more than 20% in forthcoming elections. I am sure my right hon. Friend will get on to this, but what have the UK Government actually done to show the Chinese that that oppressive activity has consequences? Nobody has been sanctioned, but what other sanctions have been brought to bear? What are the consequences of what the Chinese are doing?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I stand corrected. My hon. Friend is quite right: it is 11, which makes it even worse. Foremost among them is the Catholic entrepreneur and—most importantly—journalist Jimmy Lai, who languishes in prison on a trumped-up charge. I will come back to that point, because I have further questions to ask the UK Government, but I hope that the Minister has taken note of my hon. Friend’s comments about the actions of the United States. Our words about the transgressions have remained words; they have not given rise to actions that I would have expected from the UK Government. I am sorry to say that. They are a Government I support, but a Government who at the moment I have to say are in deficit in this area. I want to point out a few more areas where I find our Government in deficit.

What assessment have the Government made of all those figures we have been chucking out, as young political prisoners, three quarters of whom are aged 30 or under, bear the brunt of this oppressive regime? It is deeply troubling that minors face the longest sentences of all, averaging something like 27 months, further exacerbating their plight. What also bothers me is that the Government, having not gone to Hong Kong officially, suddenly sent a Government Minister there a few weeks ago. As I understand it, now that his visits and meetings have been published, Lord Johnson met no democracy campaigners, said nothing officially or publicly about the Sino-British agreement, said nothing at all about the breach of human rights, said nothing at all about those sanctioned, and, to my knowledge, said nothing at all about the plight of the British citizen Jimmy Lai.

I want to stay on that point because, of all the things the Minister could have said, he could have said something about the bad behaviour with regard to a British passport holder and citizen. I want to say it again: Jimmy Lai is a British passport holder and citizen. As much as every one of us sitting in this room today, he has rights. At the front of the passport, it states “without let or hindrance”. What is the worth of the passport that I and everybody else in this room carry, if my Government will not call him a British citizen with rights under international law for consular access? America refers to him as a British citizen and passport holder. The European Union refers to him as a British citizen and passport holder. What country does not refer to him as a British citizen and passport holder publicly? Sadly, that would be my Government—our Government. For some reason, the British Government take it upon themselves to know, beyond any other family member or Jimmy Lai himself, what is good for him. What is good for him is what he wants.

Jimmy Lai did not flee Hong Kong after the trashing of the Sino-British agreement. Why? Because he is a brave man who believed that as long as he stayed, he could be the guarantor of some of the rights that might disappear. He wanted to be the icon who believed in democracy and human rights, so that those who were fearful and fleeing, and worried for their lives and the lives of their family, would look to him and see a brave man standing on the hill saying, “I’m not going anywhere. This is my home.”

A British citizen, a brave man, now languishes in prison on a trumped-up charge that has nothing to do with reality. He faces a second court case later this year, where he will almost certainly be charged under the new security laws for sedition. Jimmy Lai knows, and his family know, that it is unlikely he will ever see the light of day outside that prison. He knew that from the very word go; he made his choices on the basis that he knew that from the very word go. He did not flee.

Surely Jimmy Lai wants us to say that he is a proud British citizen and passport holder. He is not a dual national, by the way. I wish the British Government would stop referring to him as a dual national: it plays into the Chinese Government’s hands, because they declare that they do not recognise dual nationals. He is not a dual national; he is a British passport holder. I want that to be very clear. His family, who I have spoken to and who had to flee to Taiwan, say he wants to be pronounced a British citizen and passport holder. All I ask is that at the end of the debate my hon. Friend the Minister gets up and says, “He is a British citizen and passport holder, and we intend to pursue the Chinese Government publicly for consular rights. He is a political prisoner, and there is no question beyond that.”

I congratulate and applaud my Government on the generous BNO scheme and on extending it. To give credit where credit is due, the Government have done well on that. The trouble is that after everything that has been going on and the failure to recognise even a British passport holder, many BNO passport holders in the UK are now fearful about their own status. We know that many of them have been hunted down in the UK by those terrible Chinese police stations, which are quite illegal but have existed in the UK for an unnecessarily long time. We know that they have been threatened and bullied about their status. They worry about their protections under a BNO scheme, which are far fewer than those of having a British passport and being a British citizen. I would like the Government to consider that our failure to act in that way for Jimmy Lai has consequences for those we would wish to protect in a wider scheme. One need only talk to them to understand their concerns. We need to make those changes and announcements.

On the basis of what my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said, when will the UK Government put Hong Kong officials, who were responsible in the first place for many of those human rights abuses, under notice that they will be sanctioned? They should have been sanctioned by now. Is there a chance that the British Government are reviewing it? I know what the British Government and the Minister will say: “We never discuss sanctions.” I wish he would say at least that he will take note of what we have said.

For Hongkongers facing the plight of having to risk entering the Chinese consulate for the renewal of their Hong Kong passports, this policy places them in a vulnerable position. They are worried. What alternative procedures will the Government pursue to give those people a greater sense of certainty, such as by providing other things like travel documents or establishing a successful and secure passport renewal process that does not necessitate entering the grounds of a Chinese consulate? I remind everybody that the last person I knew of who entered a Chinese consulate’s grounds was dragged there by the consul general, was beaten up and had his hair torn out. I met him afterwards, and he was traumatised. The Chinese Government did not do anything, and the British Government talked about the law, but he quietly disappeared later on and no apology was made. It was a terrible act. I understand why BNO passport holders here are fearful of what will happen to them if they enter the consulate. The big concern and fear is about whether they will come out again. Will the Government look for other ways for them to establish their legitimacy, other than being forced into this damaging process?

The visit of Liu Jianchao last week also sent a signal to many people who are here under the BNO scheme. It is deeply regrettable that the Government chose, for some reason, to host him. This is a man deeply involved in China’s controversial fox hunt operations, which hunt down Chinese dissidents around the world and seek to get them back to China using techniques that include threatening their families, televising that threat, and eventual torture and arrest on re-arrival. It is an example of China’s disregard for international norms and human rights that it behaves in that way so publicly. By welcoming this individual—there is a photograph of a Minister sitting next to him; given the abuse of international norms and human rights, I am astonished that we would allow a Government Minister to meet him and sit with him—are we not sending a chilling message to everybody else that we place that relationship on a higher plane than people’s human rights and liberties?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

These are abuses of human rights and democracy. The hon. Gentleman is right: this is an appalling return to a time we thought had long passed. We now respect people’s human rights, but that is not the case in China, and it is now not the case in Hong Kong. The worst part about the situation in Hong Kong, which he is right to raise, is that we were one of the guarantors, but we seem to be shuffling away from that guarantee. Where other countries have acted on the abuse, we seem to be stepping back. I am concerned about that. I would love to know more about it from the Minister.

[Tim Loughton]

Going back to the visit by Liu Jianchao last week, a photograph was publicly promoted—through Government circles as well—with lots of smiling Chinese officials. I counted at least five parliamentary colleagues in that photo, including a senior Government Minister, sitting alongside a notorious senior Chinese Government official responsible for snatch-and-grab, effectively illegal, rendition. Given that my right hon. Friend and I and five other parliamentarians have been sanctioned by China, and that the Chinese ambassador and other Chinese Government officials are, quite rightly, banned from coming to this place as a result of the good work of the Speaker, does my right hon. Friend not think that no parliamentary colleagues should be seen sitting down with Chinese officials of this calibre and reputation? They should not be doing it, should they?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend knows very well that I agree completely with him. I was shocked to see that picture. I wrote to the Prime Minister on the Sunday, shortly before Liu Jianchao was due to come over. I also wrote to the Speaker, who was in agreement that the meeting would clearly not take place in the House of Commons or Parliament generally. When I wrote to the Prime Minister, I was told I would get a reply at some point—although the man is gone now, so the reply will come after the event, which is sad, but there we go.

The point is that I did not know at that stage that Liu Jianchao was going to meet any officials; I was told that he was not and that he was going to meet MPs. I then saw the picture the hon. Gentleman referred to, in which a Government Minister is sitting front and centre next to this man, whose reputation is so utterly appalling that it beggars belief that anybody would want to sit next to him, but everyone in that picture is grinning and happy. That our colleagues should then attend is another thing, and I simply say that there should be some solidarity in this place. If people are sanctioned for standing up for their beliefs, we do not want to undermine that by sitting next to these characters. I would therefore like to know what assessment the Government made before the meeting with Liu Jianchao.

After all, this place should be a beacon of freedom. I have the highest respect for the procedures, processes and nature of Government—I served in Government myself for some years—and I understand the difficulties, but there is a particular reason why this individual should not have been allowed to sit next to a Government Minister. When the deputy governor of Xinjiang was going to come over here, I and others went out to the protests with the Uyghurs, because he was part of the design of the terrible system that is now, essentially, genocide against them.

We campaigned outside the Foreign Office, which eventually said that it would not allow an official to see him, although one had been going to. I was happy that it came to its senses and said no. By the way, when people say that British foreign policy cannot persuade anybody any more, it is not true, because every other European country that was going to see him said no as a result. So we have some sway after all; we have some locus in this. I therefore want to ask the Minister what thought was given to this before this man arrived here.

I spoke earlier about Lord Johnson’s visit, and I was astonished to find that the problems or the plight of the people we have spoken about today, who have been attacked, arrested and trashed, were not raised particularly—it was all meetings with business. I can understand it if he meets with business, but meeting with business in Hong Kong is not the same as meeting with business in the United States or the UK, where people have freedom of expression and are covered by human rights and a workable law. That is not the case in Hong Kong, and we cannot detach ourselves from what is going on politically in Hong Kong if we choose to go to Hong Kong to make business arrangements.

As I say, the American Government have already warned their businesses that common law does not protect them in Hong Kong in the way that it would have done under the Sino-British agreement. That is a really important point. English common law is the finest legal system in the world, and it is being adopted by countries all over the world, particularly for business deals. It is straightforward and much easier to operate, and it runs under a system that has been tested through time, and many people welcome that. However, the freedoms and rights in it disappear when they clash with the new law that exists in Hong Kong. That problem did not go away, and things like countering foreign sanctions, and businesses getting trashed as a result of these new laws, do not seem to have been raised either.

However, I want to return to Jimmy Lai. Of all the things I have spoken about today, this man should be in our thoughts. He is a brave democrat and a decent man. He is a journalist. He speaks truth unto power. He was fearless in the way that, when he had to, he attacked the Legislative Council and the decisions it made. He was constant and convinced in the role that he played.

I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that we should take decisive action to uphold the promise of protecting our citizens. I want to know what steps the Government intend to take, not only on many of those who are languishing in jail but, importantly, on Jimmy Lai, because he is iconic. Are we going to say to the Chinese Government, “Enough is enough. There are consequences to your actions. We intend now to tell the world that this man is a British citizen and a British passport holder. We have responsibilities for him, and we intend to claim those under international law. We are not prepared any longer to do things quietly behind the scenes. If you choose to go on down this road, we will sanction all those responsible for the introduction of the new laws and the crackdown, as America has already done”? We should be telling China that that is where we are going. I know that we worry about losing business with China, but sometimes the price of business can be too high, and I think that that is the case here.

All that I want to know is that we recognise a British citizen, we recognise a British passport holder and we treat them the same, no matter where they live or where they are. That is the point of the passport. I carry my passport with pride, but I doubt its provenance now, as a result of our attitude and the attitude of those at the Foreign Office to Jimmy Lai. I ask them simply to examine their conscience and to ask themselves whether, if they had been incarcerated by a foreign Government that had broken an international agreement, they would not want the Government and the Foreign Office to stand up for them in the boldest and bravest ways, as they should?

I have two last points, and I will be brief. I understand that there is a lot of movement at the moment on the National Security Bill, which is providing the Government with some tools—for example, the enhanced tier of the foreign influence register scheme. However, we do not know yet whether China will be included in that enhanced tier. If my hon. Friend the Minister cannot respond to that point now, I ask him to take away the fact that we here in Westminster Hall, and more widely in the House, want China moved into that tier, because it poses a direct and constant threat.

The second thing, which I will finish on, is that an idea may be brewing in the Government that they want to do an energy trade deal with China. If that is the case, they need to rethink. The idea of rewarding China for its bad behaviour and becoming more dependent on an autocratic regime smacks of failed policy. I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to tell me at the end of the debate that there is no such discussion and that no such trade arrangement will be attempted.

In conclusion, this is a sad anniversary. These people, who have been arrested and incarcerated for the freedoms that we take for granted in the United Kingdom, need to be supported. Overall, the best thing we can do to show the Chinese Government that we shall not tolerate this is to say that Jimmy Lai is a British citizen—a British passport holder—and that we demand the rights that come with British citizenship, including consular access. I ask nothing more of my British Government than that they support a British passport holder.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I was not intending to speak in this debate, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and fellow sanctionee has spurred me on to fill the short gap that we might have in this debate. There is rarely a debate on China in this place that I am not chafing at the bit to participate in. I agree with everything that my right hon. Friends have said and I will not repeat it. Certainly the generosity and necessity of the BNO scheme has shown its worth. I fear that many more than the 160,000 former residents of Hong Kong here already will swell those numbers.

The rule of law, justice, free speech and anything resembling freedom were snuffed out over more than 60 years in Tibet. They have been snuffed out in recent years in Xinjiang and are now being aggressively snuffed out in Hong Kong. The rule of law, as any of us would recognise it, does not exist in China. I want to give two examples. We had a meeting of the Conservative human rights commission at the beginning of this week and heard testimony from two very brave men who have been the victims and fallen foul of—I will not call it the Chinese justice system, because there is no justice—the Chinese legal system.

One of them, Peter Humphrey, is a 67-year-old British citizen from Surrey who had 48 years of experience in China. He did a lot of work in China and was working for GlaxoSmithKline when in July 2013 he and his wife were arrested and imprisoned on charges of illegal information gathering after conducting an investigation for GSK. They spent two years in Chinese prisons during which time Peter developed advanced prostate cancer because medical treatment was deliberately withheld in a bid to coerce a false confession. He was the first prominent member of the foreign business community in China to be imprisoned by the Xi Jinping regime and the case attracted extensive media coverage. He was also the first foreigner to be paraded in a cage on Chinese television in a notorious broadcast of a false and forced TV confession.

In 2019 there was the case of the Tesco Christmas cards, which gained a lot of attention when a six-year-old girl from Tooting opened a box of Christmas cards bought in Tesco to find that one of them had already been filled out. The cards were made in China. On the front the card featured a kitten in a Santa hat. However, inside one of the cards was this message:

“We are foreign prisoners in Shanghai Qingpu prison China. Forced to work against our will. Please help us and notify human rights organization. Use the link to contact Mr Peter Humphrey.”

So Peter was specifically mentioned in that note. It was from a prisoner in the gulag—one of many millions who were being forced into labour and used by companies in China to sell their goods to an unsuspecting Tesco, which, to give it its due, ceased business with the company that provided the goods. The trouble is that it is almost impossible to source where many of these things come from. We know how so many things are made in China and disguised in various component parts.

The second person who we heard testimony from earlier this week was a 42-year-old Romanian citizen, Marius Balo. Many of the people in the room were in tears at the testimonies that the men gave about their experiences at the hands of the Chinese Government. In 2014, Marius was wrongfully arrested, along with all the staff of the Chinese company for which he worked as a part-time employee. The company was accused of contract fraud, which Marius had known absolutely nothing about. It was entirely trumped up. He spent the next two years in a 12 square-metre cage with no way to contact anyone in the outside world, and a further six years in the same Shanghai prison as Peter Humphrey.

This is going on all the time. Those two men have been exceedingly brave in not hiding their experiences, but speaking up. They have done so on behalf of the many thousands of people in similar situations in Chinese jails and in the Chinese legal system. We owe them a debt of gratitude as they continue to speak up. It is estimated that there are something like 5 million prisoners in Chinese jails, of whom over 5,000 are estimated to be overseas nationals. We do not know how many of them are British, and we do not know what support they are getting from British consular missions. Perhaps the Minister could tell us how many British nationals, in addition to Jimmy Lai, are in Chinese prisons at the moment and explain what support they are receiving.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend might be so bold as to ask the Minister how many have been in prison for longer than a year and are still awaiting trial. Many of these people have not even had the right to a trial.

[Tim Loughton]

That is entirely the point. It is not just a question of their having dodgy justice, but a question of their having to wait years and years, just like the 45 people who are still going through what is likely to be a six-month trial. They were in jail, restricted of their liberty, for many months before that.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green mentioned earlier, more than 100 people have been remanded in custody for an average of nearly two and a half years. Under trumped up charges, they are incarcerated in pretty grim conditions before they even have a chance to argue their case, if indeed they are given that chance. Often the defendants are not even allowed in court to argue their case. The jury system does not exist in many cases, and the verdict is predetermined. Something like 99.9% of all those prosecutions result in a conviction, and 99.9% of appeals against those convictions are turned down.

As I said, justice does not exist in Hong Kong and the whole of China. There have to be consequences when that specifically undermines British interests and when the British agreement has been, in the Foreign Office’s own words, flouted and breached. Other nations seem to be taking that breach more seriously than one of the co-signatories of that agreement, which has a duty of care to the many millions of citizens still in Hong Kong, let alone the increasing number escaping its borders.

There is no rule of law, and the cases that I cited predate the national security law, since when things have got much worse. We know that the Chinese do nothing when faced with just a war of words. The only time the Chinese take notice is when those allegations have consequences and Governments follow through on those consequences. Other nations, particularly the Americans, have followed through with legislation that has had direct consequences for the ability to trade, for people’s ability to travel, for investment and so on, and it is bizarre and completely unacceptable that we have not followed the Americans’ lead on even a fraction of those.

Procurement Bill [Lords]

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and Tim Loughton

Report stage
Tuesday 13th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. May I return him to the procurement point about what is national security and what is not? He will know, as I do, that if we go to Hong Kong we can see that HSBC, for instance, is already, in a way, in league with the authorities. The changes it is imposing include freezing the pension funds of people who are over here under British National (Overseas) passports and, at times, freezing their bank accounts. It says that it has to obey the Chinese Government. Is that not what we are saying? There is no particular definition. They are all operating, once these companies are in China, under the rule.

[Tim Loughton]

My right hon. Friend is, of course, right. He and I and others in this place who have been sanctioned in China and beyond have drawn attention to how effectively respectable global British companies are becoming complicit in the suffocation of the democratic principles, freedoms, liberties and rule of law that we all take for granted, and they need to answer for it. Are they on the side of the rule of law, of international freedoms and liberties in all the areas we have described, or have they thrown in their lot for a mess of pottage—or whatever we want to call it—with the Chinese Communist Government, notwithstanding their complete abrogation of any pretence to democratic accountability and freedoms for the individuals who not only happen to live within its borders but against whom they are increasingly able to extend their tentacles globally, not least in this country?

Hikvision and Dalua are both subject to China’s National Intelligence Law, which stipulates that

“any organisation or citizen shall support, assist, and cooperate with state intelligence work according to law”.

The law also permits authorities to detain or criminally punish those who “obstruct” intelligence activities. The presence of vendors who are subject to extrajudicial directions from a foreign Government which conflict with UK law may risk failure by the carrier to adequately protect networks from unauthorised access or interference.

In the UK, Uyghur people face a sustained campaign of transnational repression in the form of threats, harassment, cyberattacks, and online and in-person surveillance. LBC and the Financial Times have recently reported instances of Uyghur people seeking refuge in the UK being offered thousands of pounds a month and blackmailed by Chinese security officers to spy on Uyghur advocates. In that context, the Government must take seriously the threat posed by the presence of this equipment to British national security and the safety of exiled and dissident populations seeking refuge in the United Kingdom. Without urgent action, the UK risks facilitating a system of surveillance designed to extend Chinese domestic policy across borders.

The evidence, which is presented by reputable sources such as IVPM, Axios, The Intercept, The Guardian and the BBC, is deeply troubling. These and other reports paint a harrowing picture of the situation in Xinjiang and provide substantial evidence of Hikvision’s involvement. IVPM’s investigation reveals that Hikvision, a leading provider of surveillance technology, has actively contributed to the surveillance state in Xinjiang, where more than a million Uyghurs are estimated to be held in what we now know to be internment camps. Hikvision’s technology is reportedly used to monitor and control the Uyghur population, facilitating its repression. Worse, it is credibly accused of constructing the surveillance state in Xinjiang in close partnership with the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, a report corroborated by The Guardian, which published leaked documents outlining Hikvision’s close collaboration with Chinese authorities in developing and implementing surveillance technologies in Xinjiang. The evidence suggests a concerted effort by Hikvision to profit from this oppression.

Axios, in its comprehensive reporting, explains that Hikvision’s surveillance cameras are integrated with sophisticated artificial intelligence systems to track, profile and identify individuals in Xinjiang. Let me be clear: this technology is trained to recognise Uyghur-looking faces with a view to profiling them, flagging them when they are doing things of which the Chinese Government do not approve, and then facilitating their persecution through mass surveillance and control with the aim of suppressing their cultural, religious, and political freedoms.

The scale and sophistication of Hikvision’s surveillance technology exacerbate the already dire human rights situation in the region. The Intercept’s exposé provides damning evidence that Hikvision’s technology has been directly used in the internment camps, enabling the Chinese Government to monitor and suppress the Uyghur population. One source revealed that Hikvision’s cameras were installed throughout the camps, capturing every move and expression of the detainees. This raises alarming questions about the company’s complicity in the perpetration of human rights abuses that our own Government have described as

“torture…on an industrial scale”.

The evidence leaves no room for doubt. Hikvision’s involvement in the surveillance and control of the Uyghur population in Xinjiang is deeply troubling, and, even without the security concerns so ably highlighted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, would warrant the company’s removal from our supply chains, consistent with our modern-day slavery commitments. We cannot turn a blind eye to the suffering of millions of innocent people, and help those who persecute them fill their pockets with public money.

Relations with China: Xi Jinping Presidency

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and Tim Loughton

Thursday 16th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who said most of what I was going to say but I will give it a go anyway. Let me start with my declaration of interests—they are not at all financial, otherwise there would be a problem—as somebody who has been sanctioned by China. That is something I am very proud to shout about at every opportunity. I also declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Tibet, an association I have had for many years, and before this place, as the hon. Gentleman said.

Another day, yet another debate on China’s abuses of human rights. Earlier in the Chamber, there was another announcement relating to China, on TikTok, which I will come on to in a minute. This debate is about relations with China under the dictatorship of President Xi over the last 10 years, so it is worth starting by looking at some of the words he has said on the record and then putting some meat on the bones of how that has actually worked out in practice.

In March 2013, Xi Jinping started his first five-year term as the President of China. More consequentially, in November 2012 he first assumed the two most powerful positions in China: general secretary of the Chinese Communist party and the chairman of the party’s central military commission. Changes in leadership positions in China’s one-party state are made every five years and normally follow a two-step process: the first occurring in the CCP and the second involving the Government. At the CCP’s 20th party congress in October 2022, Xi was appointed general secretary for a third five-year term and once again as chair of the party’s CMC, confirming his dominance over the party and the country at large. That third term appointment broke the recent precedent of the country’s leadership serving only two terms.

More recently, on 11 March, he secured a precedent-breaking third term as President of China, as well as chairman of the CMC, with nearly 3,000 members of the National People’s Congress voting unanimously in the Great Hall of the People. Funnily enough, no other candidates ran. Effectively, he is becoming a dictator for life, the likes of which we have not really seen since the fall of the iron curtain and some of those potentates under the control of the Soviet empire in eastern European states before they were able to win their liberty and return to Europe, freedom and democracy.

In his speech in March to the National People’s Congress, Xi Jinping said:

“Since its founding, the Communist Party of China has closely united and led the Chinese people of all ethnic groups in working hard for a century to put an end to China’s national humiliation.”

Note that he mentioned working with “all ethnic groups” across China; I think there are 57 different ethnic groups. That does not really apply if someone is a Uyghur, Tibetan, a Hongkonger or of Mongolian ancestry. It has not really worked out well for them. He said:

“the Chinese nation has achieved the great transformation from standing up and growing prosperous to becoming strong, and China’s national rejuvenation has become a historical inevitability.”

On military and defence, he went on to say:

“We need to better”—

a split infinitive, I apologise—

“co-ordinate development and security. We should comprehensively promote the modernisation of our national defence and our armed forces, and build the people’s military into a great wall of steel that can effectively safeguard our nation’s sovereignty, security and the interests of our development.”

On Taiwan, he said:

“Realising China’s complete reunification is a shared aspiration of all the sons and daughters of the Chinese nation, as well as the essence of national rejuvenation…resolutely oppose foreign interference and separatist activities aimed at ‘Taiwan independence’ and unswervingly promote progress towards national reunification.”

Those words should not come as a surprise. Two years earlier, in a speech—I am quoting selectively, but I think you will get the gist, Sir Edward—marking the 100th anniversary of the Chinese Communist party, he said:

“We will never allow anyone to bully, oppress or subjugate China…Anyone who dares try to do that will have their heads bashed bloody against the Great Wall of Steel forged by over 1.4 billion Chinese people…Only socialism can save China, and only socialism with Chinese characteristics can develop China…No one should underestimate the Chinese people’s staunch determination, firm will, and strong ability to defend national sovereignty and territorial integrity…The historical task of the complete reunification of the motherland must be fulfilled, and will definitely be fulfilled.”

I watched a programme last night about the Nazis in the 1930s, and so much of President Xi’s language there was redolent of what was heard in the 1930s under Hitler. It is a shame that Gary Lineker did not refer to that as well, because that is where the real dangers lie. It is chilling when one listens to the very words that the people running China put into the public domain. We should take them exceedingly seriously. For previous Governments to refer to “golden ages” of relationships between the United Kingdom, the west and China, under the same dictator who expressed those words, is a complete fantasy—and a dangerous fantasy at that. We need to wake up to that.

I worry greatly about the threat that China poses. It is a threat, whatever language the Government might like to use. Let us touch on the China 2049 policy, which President Xi has been following. China 2049 in an overarching plan, set out by the President in October 2017, when he used a speech to describe a broad plan to achieve national rejuvenation by 2049. The date would mark the centenary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China by the CCP. It largely refers to the CCP’s plan to transform the Chinese army—the People’s Liberation Army—into a world-class military by 2049. A mid-term goal is to have completed the modernisation of the PLA by 2035.

According to an annual report from the Pentagon to the US Congress in November 2021:

“The PRC is increasingly clear in its ambitions and intentions. Beijing seeks to reshape the international order to better align with its authoritarian system and national interests, as a vital component of its strategy to achieve the ‘great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.’”

China seeks to achieve that by merging foreign policy, economic power, defence and military strategies, and its Government and political systems into one master plan. Everything is traduced to that. Everything China does has that long-term, great goal in mind.

China now has the world’s largest navy, with roughly 355 ships and submarines. The People’s Liberation Army has 975,000 active duty personnel in combat units, and has accelerated its training and fielding of equipment at a pace exceeding that of recent years. It is also expanding its nuclear weapon capabilities faster than previously predicted. The rapid acceleration of Beijing’s nuclear stockpile, which could top 1,000 deliverable warheads by 2030, is designed to match and even surpass the US global military might, according to the Pentagon. The US has 3,750 nuclear weapons in its stockpiles, and has no plans to increase that figure. The Chinese air force is the world’s third largest, with more than 2,800 aircraft in total, 2,250 of which consist of fighters, strategic bombers and attack aircraft. That expansion is part of the great Chinese plan to dominate the world economically and militarily, as well as in other areas that I will come to.

That is the context in which we have to judge the threat posed by the actions of President Xi and his Communist party cronies. We know how that has panned out in Xinjiang, Tibet, Hong Kong and elsewhere. Some of us have often been lone voices in the wilderness on the plight of the Tibetans. Since the early 1950s, and particularly since the invasion and takeover of Tibet in 1959, what has been playing out in Tibet—with the 1 million Tibetans who have lost their lives at the hands of the Chinese Communist party dictators—is a forerunner of what the CCP is capable of doing, and is doing, within the borders of China; and what it would like to do beyond the borders of what we recognise as China.

The hon. Member for Strangford fleshed out many of the horrors going on against the Uyghurs. It is estimated that several million Uyghurs are being held captive in concentration camps, where activities include mass surveillance, torture and repression of religion. They are interned for reasons that include communal religious activities, behaviour indicating “wrong thinking”—whatever that is—or for just no reason at all. The World Uyghur Congress observes that the camps operate as prisons, with no communication with family outside. The CCP regime is pursuing a campaign of forced sterilisation and forced abortion, along with the destruction of the Uyghur language. China is trying to erase the Uyghur people.

In 2021, Uyghur regions set an unprecedented near zero population growth, given the effects of sterilisation. According to Dr Joanne Smith Finley, a reader in Chinese studies at Newcastle University and a fellow sanctionee, when she interviewed a Uyghur man from Ürümqi, he said that some people were given medicine in those camps to change their thinking, only to become mentally ill. The CCP is aiming to wipe out three specific categories: intellectual Uyghurs, rich Uyghurs and religious Uyghurs.

A sub-committee in the Canadian Parliament has concluded that the acts carried out by China on the Uyghurs amount to genocide by the general accepted definition. That was the conclusion of the Uyghur tribunals, so well presided over by Sir Geoffrey Nice at the end of last year. That was the conclusion of a unanimous vote in Parliament at a debate we held last year on the subject. It is about time the British Government acknowledged that the Chinese are guilty of genocide and continue to wage that ghastly oppression against the Uyghur people. Many other Parliaments have acknowledged it. We must catch up.

This is not just about the Uyghurs within the borders of China. Uyghurs abroad have also been intimidated and spied on through apps such as WeChat by the Communist party, according to the Uyghur Human Rights Project. The late former Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks said,

“As a Jew, knowing our history, the sight of people being shaven headed, lined up, boarded onto trains, and sent to concentration camps is particularly harrowing.”

We all saw those grim images and have heard so much that the Communist party has developed multiple levels of surveillance in the forms of Skynet and the “Safe City” and “Sharp Eyes” projects to keep track of every movement of its citizens. Of course, it is also spying on us through devices made in China and deployed across the west, including in the United Kingdom. Virtually weekly, we find a new case of the Chinese being able to survey what is going on in sensitive institutions in the UK.

Xi Jinping’s Tibet policy has been the systematic eradication of any and all distinctive features of Tibetan identity, carried out unchecked despite blatant human rights abuses. It includes plans to control the next incarnation of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, the uprooting of Tibetan children as young as four from their families into colonial boarding schools, the resettlement of Tibetan nomads and farmers in unfamiliar environments, including the harsh and uninhabitable frontier areas of Tibet along the Indian border, and Government-imposed restrictions on studying Tibetan language and religion.

Free Tibet and Tibet Watch have noted that the CCP has introduced massive changes in the past five years, from forcibly relocating Tibetans to clamping down on all aspects of religion, culture and language. Anyone caught in possession of a simple photograph of His Holiness the Dalai Lama is subject to a minimum five-year jail sentence without any questions being asked. Recently, the new crackdowns have led Tibet to be ranked 176th out of 180 countries by the Reporters Without Borders foundation in its press freedom index and to be ranked among the worst for civil and political rights in the “Freedom in the World” report by Freedom House. There are more foreign journalists in North Korea than in Tibet, such is the closed society. Our ambassador has not been able to travel to Tibet for several years now, nor have any of her staff. Most notably, torture and mistreatment have increased dramatically without impunity.

Chinese culture and the Mandarin language has been deemed the correct way forward after the 11 January 2020 passage by the 11th National People’s Congress of the “Regulations on the Establishment of a Model Area for Ethnic Unity and Progress in the Tibet Autonomous Region”. They are meant to safeguard the one-ness of the motherland, but contain punitive measures to punish those defecting from this one-ness.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Does my hon. Friend recall that about a year and a half ago on the border of Tibet and India, Chinese troops aggressively tried to push the border back again, and a number of Indian soldiers were killed in that process? They have never once issued any kind of apology, and they continue to see the border as a moveable point to where they want it to be. There’s no diplomacy there.

[Tim Loughton]

That is the problem: the Chinese constantly test and push the parameters. They literally push the borders in that case to test the resolve of the west and those around them to stand up, take issue, object, call out and do something about their abuses of the international rule of law and the basic human rights that we all take for granted. That was one of many incidents. I am sure that many more have gone unreported.

The hon. Member for Strangford did a fine job of outlining Hong Kong as the latest hotspot for China’s oppression of all liberties. There are the ongoing 47 primary national security law cases. The trial of the 47 people charged with conspiracy to subvert state power in the Legislative Council, launched by Hong Kong’s pro-democracy campaign in 2020, officially began on Monday 6 February. The 47 people were charged with conspiracy to subvert state power and organising and planning acts to undermine the Government. That may well be what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and I are guilty of under the terms of our sanctions, but we have never actually been fully told. None of the very nice people in the Chinese Communist party head office have written to tell us why we have been sanctioned and on what basis we might be unsanctioned.

All 47 defendants were denied bail and have been held in custody for more than 700 days. The prospect of a fair trial is, of course, derisory. In August 2022, the Department of Justice directed that the case would be heard without a jury and would instead be adjudicated by a bench of three national security judges, who were appointed by Hong Kong authorities.

[Tim Loughton]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Hong Kong used to be a beacon of freedom, liberty, the rule of law, enterprise and entrepreneurialism in the far east. How quickly virtually all those characteristics have been snuffed out. There is not even a pretence that there is a fair trial any more. It is disgraceful that there were—and still are—some lawyers from the United Kingdom and other western countries sitting in the so-called courts in Hong Kong and overseeing the Mickey Mouse justice that the Chinese Communist party have imposed on previously free members of the community in Hong Kong.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I apologise for intervening on my hon. Friend again, but there is a further extension of that. I pointed out to the Government the other day—to no less a person than the Prime Minister—that, about a year and a half ago, the United States officially warned all their companies that they can no longer rely on the application of common law in Hong Kong as a protection of their business interests. The UK Government have yet to do anything of the sort. It is, of course, some Commonwealth and UK judges who still continue the farrago of saying that they somehow protect those interests.

[Tim Loughton]

My right hon. Friend is right again. Too often in this country, we seem to be playing catch up with some of the much more proactive and obvious measures taken by the US Administration, usually with unanimous support across all parties in Congress. Many of those laws are now having an impact on China and beginning to make it wake up to the fact that its actions have consequences. I fear that, too often, it is because people in this Chamber today and like-minded colleagues put pressure on the Government that, eventually, they might just catch up with some of the measures that should have been passed into our law at the same time as they were passed in the United States.

Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and Tim Loughton

Report stage
Monday 13th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

The hon. Lady is right that a lot of Hong Kong citizens have come to the UK, and I embrace them all. I set up the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, which has co-chairs on the left and right from 25 countries and many other members from Parliaments around the world, all of whom agree that the Confucius institutes pose a genuine threat. The fear factor means that many students of Chinese origin will not take part in debates because they genuinely fear the repercussions for themselves and their families when they go home. We cannot overestimate the power of organisations that represent a Government as intolerant and dictatorial as the Chinese Government. The UK Government have been slow to act on what is now clear evidence.

My right hon. Friend the Minister said the Bill will deal with the situation, and that the Office for Students will be able to take action where necessary, but I would like the Government to reserve that power to themselves as they understand the security issues in this narrow but very particular area.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend slightly understates the position in universities. He will be aware that Chinese students now account for some £2 billion of revenue for British universities, nine of which, mostly in the Russell Group, get 20% of their revenue from Chinese students.

There is now clear evidence that, through 30 Confucius institutes and beyond, undue influence is being exercised by Chinese students at the behest of China’s communist Government. The CGTN television station, which was fortunately taken off air by Ofcom, targeted British universities and offered students the chance to win thousands of pounds by becoming pro-Beijing social media influencers. Chinese students turned out to overturn freedom of speech and other motions in student union debates at China’s behest. Dangerous stuff is happening under our nose. We need complete transparency about exactly what is happening, and we need legislation to make sure it does not continue as it is.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. He and I are both members of IPAC, and we have seen all this ourselves. Colleagues on both sides of the House are involved in IPAC, and there is compelling evidence of the Chinese Government’s growing influence on British academia through various organisations. Many do not recognise it. We have had meetings with Russell Group universities and individual colleges—I will address one in particular—in which we have explained this. Many had not really thought about it but, on reflection, realised there was a problem and that they had to start diversifying. One or two arrogantly refused point blank to admit or even accept the situation.

Jesus College, Cambridge has been incredibly deliberate and arrogant, which is why the Government need to go further. The Jesus College Global Issues Dialogue Centre received a grant of £200,000 from the Chinese state in 2018 through its National Development and Reform Commission. The Jesus College China Centre also has close financial and organisational links with the Cambridge China Development Trust, which is funded by the Chinese state. The CCDT donated £80,000 to the Jesus College China Centre over three years, and they share the same director. CCDT funding has been used to fund the Jesus College China Centre’s doctorships, scholarships, administrative support and seminars.

Jesus College received £155,000 of funding from Huawei in 2018. We have banned Huawei from our telecoms system because it is a security risk, yet it has set up a huge centre in and around Cambridge. For what purpose? To get in through the back door.

The GIDC’s white paper on global technology governance claimed an equivalence between the Chinese Government’s mass online censorship regime and the UK Government’s attempts to eradicate child abuse online—that is the key. The same paper falsely claimed that Huawei had freely shared all its intellectual property on 5G technology, leading the college to be accused of “reputation laundering.”

To those who say that money does not have an impact, I say, “Oh yes it does.” When money is repeatedly on offer, it tends to bend institutions towards the idea of having that extra money. I understand their concerns and their need for financial support, but the Government need to take this seriously.

The Chinese Government are committing genocide and using slave labour to produce goods in Xinjiang, and technology derived from UK universities is being used to spy on those slave labour camps. China is also using slave labour in Tibet, and it is imposing itself and locking up peaceful democracy campaigners in Hong Kong.

We rightly talk of free speech and the importance of our young people developing an instinct for argument, debate and balance, but these are lost to China and Chinese students, who are fearful when they come here. I accept that the Government think they have this covered, but I wish they would look again.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton enormously on tabling new clause 3. If the Bill is not tightened up to that degree, many of us on the left and the right of politics will ensure in the other place that these abuses cannot happen. The lives of Chinese students and Chinese people more widely remain our responsibility. If freedom of speech is the subject of our debate, we should cry for how damaged and destroyed it is elsewhere.

Uyghur Tribunal Judgment

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and Tim Loughton

Thursday 20th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I am delighted to be able to speak in this debate—yet another on China’s abuse of human rights. They are virtually a weekly event in this place, which is good. It is also good that many hon. Members from all parties—a growing number—are here in support of this cause, although I am surprised not to see the hon. Members for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) and for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), who take such an interest in Chinese matters, as we recently learned.

Yesterday in the Lords, Lord Alton of Liverpool, a fellow sanctioned Member—perhaps I ought to declare an interest as a sanctioned Member of the House—made allegations that China has subverted our legislative programme by persuading Members of their lordships’ House to table amendments to an Act of Parliament. That was a serious allegation into which I hope the House authorities will now look, and it again underlines the danger that the Chinese state, the Chinese Communist party and its various tentacles pose even in the heart of democracy. We heard about that earlier in the week in the welcome urgent question granted by Mr Speaker and his welcome comments about ensuring the security of hon. Members in this place to protect them from the Chinese Government.

In the Minister’s response, I ask that she addresses the fact that we are still waiting for an answer to why the Government have given £80,000 of UK taxpayers’ money to an academic to produce a report on the China hawks—that is us—to lay bare some of the criticising parties who have given oxygen to all the horrendous things committed by China. That is being funded by UK taxpayers, which is outrageous and an insult to the freedom of speech which we cherish in this place and for which we have been sanctioned by the Chinese Government.

The incredible work of the Uyghur Tribunal is to be applauded, disseminated, publicised and spoken about at every opportunity. I repeat the praise by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) and congratulate her again on leading on the issue in the House. Sir Geoffrey Nice did a fantastic job and gave a moving and landmark judgment on 9 December.

The tribunal was carried out to the highest standard of proof with very qualified experts and witnesses from numerous fields giving valuable evidence. One might say that Sir Geoffrey Nice’s conclusions were quite timid or conservative compared with what they could have been, so in no way can the judgment be seen as sensationalist or unrealistic—quite the reverse. It was a finding of fact.



This House was right to move the motion, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden and passed on 22 April, that recognised the Chinese genocide against the Uyghurs. This House was right to pass unanimously my motion in favour of a diplomatic boycott, which I think we now have, although it is not entirely clear that it is a full diplomatic boycott, on 13 July. I welcome much of the Government’s action, as far as it goes, although those two motions were led by Back Benchers, not by the Government in Government time.

I congratulate the Government on some of their words of condemnation of what has been done by the Chinese Government, and I congratulate them on the sanctions that have been introduced, but there have not been nearly enough. The name of Chen Quanguo has been mentioned as the architect of repression in Tibet, which is now being repeated in Xinjiang. I welcome the business restrictions that have been brought in for those companies trading in Xinjiang to ensure that they are compliant with section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. I also welcome the measures recently introduced on the financing of infrastructure projects so that we do not have to rely on the deep pockets of China’s sovereign funds. In the UN, the UK has led on the condemnation of China human rights abuses. We have called for unfettered access to Xinjiang and other parts of China for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, which of course has been denied. Those measures do not go far enough.

The Chinese Government are in denial. What did the Chinese spokesman say about the “so-called” Uyghur Tribunal? They claimed it was funded by the “terrorist and separatist” organisation, the World Uyghur Congress, and nothing but a

“political tool used by a few anti-China and separatist elements to deceive and mislead the public…The ‘Tribunal’ and its so-called ‘conclusions’ are mere clumsy shows staged by anti-China elements for their self-entertainment. Anyone with conscience and reason will not be deceived or fooled”.

I do not call the revelations that we heard in the Uyghur Tribunal—from women who had been raped, tortured and abused, and people who had been imprisoned and had their lives completely ruined—self-entertainment. The response of the Chinese Government, who are constantly in denial, is absolutely disgraceful, which is why it is so important that we continue to call them out in this place and beyond, and that we act with other fair-minded democracies and free nations around the world and their Governments to continue calling it out. There have to be implications resulting from this. It is not enough just to call it out.

Let us look at what the tribunal came up with. It is worth mentioning a few of its findings, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden has already done.

“Hundreds of thousands of Uyghurs…have been detained by PRC authorities without any, or any remotely sufficient reason, and subjected to acts of unconscionable cruelty, depravity and inhumanity.”

It found that many had been “tortured for no reason”, “detained in cages” and

“shackled by heavy metal weights”.

It also found:

“Detained women—and men—have been raped and subjected to extreme sexual violence…Detainees were subjected to solitary confinement in cells…At ‘classes’ in detention centres, detainees were forced to learn and sing songs in praise of the CCP…Detainees were forced to take medicines by mouth or by injection that affected reproductive functioning of women and possibly of men”.

Pregnant women were forced to have abortions, as my hon. Friend mentioned. The report also found evidence of “intense monitoring” and “surveillance” of Uyghur people:

“Neighbours, members of families and other members of the community were incentivised or coerced in various ways to spy on each other.”

Many people have been disappeared. It is not just famous tennis players who get disappeared. They are the ones we know about, but so many others are just disappeared. The report also found:

“Children as young as a few months were separated from their families and placed in orphanages or state-run boarding schools.”

Such cruelty to family life. It goes on:

“A systematic programme of birth control measures had been established forcing women to endure removal against their will of wombs and to undergo effective sterilization by means of IUDs which were only removeable by surgical means…Uyghur women have been coerced into marrying Han men with refusal running them the risk of imprisonment for themselves or their families.

‘Family friends’—mostly Han men—have been imposed on Uyghur households for weeks at a time to monitor and report on the households’ thoughts and behaviours”—

of those Uyghur families, while:

“A large-scale enforced transfer of labour programme…emblems of Muslim faith were removed…acts of faith were punished…The use of the Uyghur language has been punished”

and restricted, while

“assets have been arbitrarily appropriated by”

the authorities, and there have been “relocation of occupiers”, or large-scale displacements, and intimidation of Uyghur families living outside China.

I was glad that the Home Secretary, in her response this week, agreed with the allegations about the intimidation of the diaspora of Chinese people and Uyghurs living around the world. The Foreign Office has also admitted to the harassment that has been going on in the UK, to intimidate people into silence. That, absolutely, needs to be reported to the police.

Those are all things that the tribunal found. President Xi Jinping is at the top of those who have the responsibility, the culpability, for what is going on. He bears the primary responsibility. Those things are the direct result of policies, language and speeches promoted by President Xi and others. Furthermore, those policies could not have happened in a country with such rigid hierarchies as the People’s Republic of China without implicit and explicit authority from the very top. Let us lay the blame where it belongs. We do not take issue with the Chinese people; we take issue with the Chinese Communist party Government, which is responsible for all the pain that they are causing and have caused to so many.

The tribunal decided:

“Torture of Uyghurs attributable to the”

Chinese Communist Government

“is established beyond reasonable doubt…Crimes against humanity attributable to the”

Chinese Communist Government

“is established beyond reasonable doubt”,

and,

“on the basis of evidence heard in public, the Tribunal is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the”

Chinese Communist Government

“by the imposition of measures to prevent births intended to destroy a significant part of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang as such, has committed genocide.”

There is no getting away from it—there is no denying it, as the Chinese Government would have us do.

It is therefore important that we take the step today to acknowledge the truth that the Uyghur tribunal has uncovered and that we redouble our pressure on our Government and other Governments to ensure that there are implications for those findings. Virtually every day—I have a clutch of press cuttings from the past few weeks—there are stories about the malign influence of the Chinese Government throughout the world: opposition who are disappeared, or people who just spoke out against sexual abuse; instances of Chinese agents spying on students in our universities; Beijing-backed students harassing pro-democracy activists on our university campuses; threats to Taiwan internationally; or building fake US battleships for war games and target practice.

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

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case, as many, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), have. Does he not think that, if the Government do not lead on that, they open the door to universities, businesses and others to fall away from doing anything and not taking a lead? For example, he mentioned universities. The key point there is that, when we speak to them, they all claim that they did not really think that it was up to them to do it; it was up to the leadership of the Government. The Government will set the terms, and we will start to clean the system once that happens.

[Tim Loughton]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Leadership from the Government is essential. All of us—certainly the three musketeers on the Conservative Benches who are sanctioned—have asked repeatedly for a proper audit of the tentacles of the Chinese Communist party, which extend into our boardrooms, our university campuses, our schools, our businesses and Parliament, as we saw with the exposé earlier this week. The Government must take a lead in the country and for other like-minded nations, which need to be able to act together. Through the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, which my right hon. Friend admirably co-chairs, bringing parliamentarians together who are now prepared to speak out and act in unison across the world will have and is having an impact.

We must redouble those efforts after all the revelations that we have heard about the malign influence of the Chinese Communist Government across the world, culminating in the recent speech by Richard Moore, the head of MI6, about the China threat that we all face.

What is to be done? Today, we need to get the Government to face up to, acknowledge and agree to our international obligations under the law of genocide. To repeat the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden made, the United Kingdom is a party to the genocide convention. All state parties to the genocide convention are under an obligation to refrain from taking an active part in the crime of genocide and, additionally, to prevent the commission of genocide by others, using all means reasonably available and within their power. That includes situations in which one state alone would be unable to prevent genocide but in which its actions in combination with the efforts of other states may do so.

The obligation to take concrete steps to prevent genocide is triggered

“at the instant that the State learns of, or should normally have learned of, the existence of a serious risk that genocide will be committed”

or is already being committed. The UK is on notice and has the requisite awareness of the serious risk that genocide is being committed or will be committed against the Uyghurs in the Xinjiang region of China and is therefore under an obligation to act to prevent that genocide. It could not be clearer.

Beijing Winter Olympics and Chinese Government Sanctions

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and Tim Loughton

Thursday 15th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Tim Loughton]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Furthermore, I remember mentioning in this House the fate of Tibetans who had been protesting in the Mall and were arrested and stuck behind crowds and, in some cases, had their homes raided by the police, and were arrested before they could go and protest. That is not the way we do things in this country, yet for some reason we kowtowed to the Chinese authorities at that stage. That must never be repeated, and we must not resile from calling out those sort of tactics, which the Chinese will use in their own country and wherever they can gain influence.

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

I was reflecting on my hon. Friend’s earlier comments about the Olympics in Beijing. We were told in 2008, as I recall, that the awarding of the Olympics would be a key moment in the movement to get China to acknowledge and uphold human rights to a greater degree. That was in 2008. Does he think that it has made much progress?

[Tim Loughton]

That is exactly the point that I have been labouring to make. It was all a sham, and we all know how human rights in China have gone from bad to worse.

Back ahead of 2008, the Chinese authorities also had to clean up the environment around Beijing, as it looked at one stage as if everyone would have to compete in masks. Thirteen years on, China remains the world’s largest polluter, responsible for some 26% of the planet’s greenhouse gas emissions. It has burnt more coal over the past 11 years than the rest of the world put together and now imperils the world’s third pole, the Tibetan plateau glaciers that service the water needs of billions of people. Of course, the energy needed to produce artificial snow in Beijing for the winter sports, as will be needed, will not exactly win any environmental awards.

Like it or not, China will make this global sporting event a global political spectacle. It is incredible, frankly, that the winter games were awarded to China in the first place, a sign of the much-too-cosy relationship between the Chinese Government, the IOC and its president, Thomas Bach, who during President Xi’s visit to the IOC headquarters in Lausanne back in 2017 claimed that he wanted to give the Chinese President a set of medals because

“he is the true Olympic champion for the youth”.

Yuck.

On virtually every level, the awarding of the games to China should never have happened. It flies in the face of the Olympic principles as encoded in the Olympics by the IOC, which states that

“Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy of effort, the educational value of good example, social responsibility and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles... The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of humankind, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity…sports organisations within the Olympic Movement shall apply political neutrality. They have the rights and obligations of autonomy, which include freely establishing and controlling the rules of sport, determining the structure and governance of their organisations, enjoying the right of elections free from any outside influence.”

Finally, it states:

“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Olympic Charter shall be secured without discrimination of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”

How on earth does a genocidal, industrial scale human rights abusing, free speech intolerant and planet vandalising regime square with those principles?

In 2017, Xi Jinping claimed the international Olympic movement, in its over 100 years, had played a positive role in enhancing all-round human development, deepening friendship between nations, and promoting peace, development and progress. Everything that China has done since then and is still doing makes a mockery of that claim if the Beijing Olympics are allowed to go ahead in the form that the Chinese Communist party wants, its behaviour is allowed to be normalised, and it is allowed to score the major soft power propaganda victory it craves.

That is why a motion passed by this House urging a diplomatic boycott is so important, emphasising again that we will not turn a blind eye to industrial scale human rights abuses, and hopefully impressing on the Government the need to enact such a boycott so that no Ministers, diplomats, royal family members and other VIPs dance to the tune of the Chinese Communist party. The loss of face it will suffer will show how serious the United Kingdom is.

To date, the Chinese Government have taken no notice. Just last week, the Chinese tech giant Tencent’s WeChat social media platform deleted dozens of LGBT accounts, sparking fears of a crackdown on gay content online and gay rights generally, again in defiance of Olympic principles and echoing the actions of Russia suppressing LGBT organisations ahead of the 2014 Sochi winter Olympics.

Human Rights: Xinjiang

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and Tim Loughton

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con) [V]]

Another day, another debate on the industrial scale of human rights abuses by the Chinese regime. Here we are again, and I am delighted that we are; I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), who has so championed the cause, and wholeheartedly endorse everything she said. Together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and the rest of the magnificent seven parliamentarians, she and I wear our sanctioning with a badge of honour.

I hope that the message has now got through that the productivity of the seven of us has increased sharply since that inept act by the Chinese regime of putting us on the arbitrary and ridiculous sanctions list. Let me tell the Chinese Government: they ain’t seen nothing yet, because this will go on every day of every week that we can possibly raise it in this place and on the platforms afforded to us as parliamentarians. They have really fired us up to make sure that that is a promise we will deliver.

I wholeheartedly support the motion, to which I have added my signature. Although Tibet is not within its strict scope, everything that has been said so far applies to Tibet and its people, who have been oppressed with similar tactics for the last 62 years, since the occupation of that peace-loving people in the Tibetan region of China back in 1959.

I absolutely take up the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green made about the environment. China is guilty of abusing not just its own people, but the planet, more than any other nation on this earth. Neither is acceptable; one is not a trade-off against the other, if that is the attitude that it wants to take when it comes to COP26. Both need to be called out, and on both it needs to mend its ways—they go hand in hand.

It is a shocking reality that genocides have never properly been called out and thwarted at the time that they happen—genocides against the Jews, genocides against the Muslims in Srebrenica, genocides in Rwanda, Cambodia and Darfur, and the many other genocides that go unnamed and are not properly detected, as the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) mentioned. I include in that list the Armenian genocide of 1915 and 1916, when 1 million to 1.5 million men, women and children died at the hands of the Ottomans. On Saturday, in Yerevan and around the world, tributes will be paid and flowers laid; I will do so on behalf of the all-party parliamentary group on Armenia at the Cenotaph tomorrow in commemoration of that terrible genocide, which this country needs to recognise, more than 100 years on.

We talk about debating the subject. Under article I of the UN convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, the United Kingdom is obliged, along with all other UN members,

“to prevent and to punish”

genocide—not just to talk about it, although it is good that we are doing that, but actually to do something about it.

We have heard all the clear evidence on what is going on in Xinjiang province; I will not repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden said. We know that China formally recognised the Uyghurs as an ethnic minority among its exhaustive list of the no fewer than 56 ethnic groups that comprise its population, along with the Tibetan people. Under China’s own constitution, those minorities and their cultures and identities should be protected, but they are being obliterated. China is trying to assimilate them within its main population, so whatever we may think in terms of international law, it is falling foul of its own constitution. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) said, the Chinese regime, in doing what it has done to suppress free speech, has committed an act against this Parliament and the privileges that we have in this Parliament. It is a naked act of aggression against free speech.

It is clear that what is happening is genocide. My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden put it starkly: if a state-orchestrated and race-targeted birth rate plunge of two thirds in two years is not genocide, what is? If mass internment, slave labour, systematic rape, torture and live organ harvesting, mass sterilisation, womb removal, forced abortion, secretly located orphan camps, brainwashing camps and the psychological trauma of these combined atrocities do not amount to genocide, under any of the definitions, what does? There is a saying, “If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and walks like a duck, it is a duck.” This sounds like, looks like and is genocide, and it needs to be called out loud and clear for what it is.

I urge the Minister again, who has been very supportive. We are very grateful for the very supportive words of the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister, who I am glad to see here again today, and of the Speaker and the Lord Speaker in support of the magnificent seven. But why, oh why, are we not going further in the sanctions against people who are clearly guilty of waging genocide on other Chinese citizens? Chen Quanguo absolutely needs to be on that list; he has been committing genocide against the Uyghurs since 2016, having learnt and plied his trade in Tibet against the Tibetans before that.

We need to do more to support those businesses that are being thrown out of Xinjiang and that are in some cases taking a stand. We need to have a proper audit of our universities and schools. I hear that the Prebendal School in Chichester, in my own diocese, is now under threat of being taken over by the Chinese, and this is on top of no fewer than 17 senior schools around the UK that are now under the control of senior Chinese figures in the Chinese communist party. This is happening in our country, on our watch. We need to flush it out; we need to put the spotlight on it.

The contacts the Chinese have within our military research and their activities within our infrastructure projects—we have to have a full and thorough audit of the tentacles of the Chinese regime in UK society up and down this country. There are still artificial intelligence firms with links to persecution of Uyghurs funding research at British universities. They are funding places at PhD and post-doctoral research positions at Surrey University, for example, despite having been placed on a US blacklist in 2019. I pay tribute to the University of Manchester, which cancelled an agreement with the Chinese electronic company CETC after warnings that it supplied the tech platforms and apps used by Beijing’s security forces in the mass surveillance of the Uyghurs. We need to do more to make sure we are not aiding and abetting these parts of the Chinese regime.

Last month, the Foreign Office admitted that the Uyghurs were being harassed and abused in the UK itself, so it is not just happening within China. As the Foreign Secretary said, this is being done to intimidate them into silence, and they are being urged to report on other Uyghurs to the police.

Rahima Mahmut, the UK director for the World Uyghur Congress, who has bravely stood up and is one of the mouthpieces for the Uyghur population here, was in Parliament Square earlier. In an article in The Telegraph, she gave some chilling examples of Uyghur exiles in this country being intimidated by the long tentacles of the Chinese regime while in the supposed safety of this country. Those exiles are ominously reminded that they have relatives back in China. A Uyghur woman received texts every day from the Chinese police urging her to spy on other Uyghurs in the UK and saying, “Remember, your mother and your sisters are with us.”

This regime does not stop at its own borders and we need to stand shoulder to shoulder and offer whatever support we can to protect those Uyghur refugees, Tibetan refugees and other victims of oppression by China who find themselves in this country. They deserve our safety and our succour, and we need to give them more to protect them from the dangers that they are going through.

I also urge the Minister: we should be encouraging our diplomats to speak out. Last week, I cited the example of the new British ambassador in Beijing who had been hauled over the coals for just mentioning the free press to the Chinese Government. John Sudworth, the BBC correspondent in Beijing, has had to flee from Beijing, after reporting on human rights abuses, because of fears for his own safety and the safety of his family. We must encourage these people to continue to speak out.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Given that list of people and organisations that have called things out, does my hon. Friend not find it strange that no UK university that is receiving funds from the Chinese has condemned any of the action that is going on publicly, or, for that matter, condemned the action of the Confucius Institutes, which spy on Chinese students in universities?

[Tim Loughton]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have long been calling out the Confucius Institutes, which are not only on the campuses of UK universities, stuffing gold into the mouths of vice-chancellors, but, increasingly, in our schools as well. When I visited a secondary school in my constituency, which teaches Mandarin, I was alarmed to see that it now has a Confucius Institute classroom sponsored by the Chinese. The Chinese are not doing this because they just like to be nice to our schools; they are doing it because they have an agenda and they are trying to control people around the world and suppress people who want to speak out against them.

I echo the closing words of my right hon. Friend. Today, we stand up in this place for those without any voice. That is an advantage of being a parliamentarian—we use our voice to stand up for, speak out for and protect those without a voice and those who are in danger. Let us, with that voice—loudly and clearly—make sure that this motion goes through today to show China once and for all that it has been called out, that there will be consequences, and that there are consequences, for its industrial scale abuse of human rights, and that, in this country at least, freedom and the freedom of speech, of faith and of worship count for something and it had better acknowledge that.

Trade Bill

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and Tim Loughton

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 22nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Tim Loughton]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is very difficult to see a position that the Minister would actually agree to, yet the Lords have changed and tried to compromise so often? Does he also agree that the Uyghurs do not come under the remit of the Government’s amendment to the Bill, and therefore would be given no protection by this House?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Yes; I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The problem is that this Lords amendment incorporates the original Neill amendment in its entirety and makes two adjustments. First, there are already trade arrangements with China, but they are pushed aside in this. It can only be an FTA, and it is a prospective one, which means that the Uyghurs are not going to get in front of the Select Committee at all. Secondly—this is very important—it opens the door, because of the definition, to any state activist who has nothing to do with the authority in that state. All QCs who have seen the amendment have accepted that this is a major problem, so we have dealt with that, made it a better arrangement and added the legal committee.

It seems to me that the Government simply do not want to have these judges involved. They say, “We’ll have a judge, if you want, on one of the Select Committees.” Does that not apparently make it another quasi-judicial committee? If the Minister does not mind me saying so, it is a bit sad that the Government could not have accepted this amendment. There was no need for us to be here today voting on it. This was a major compromise, and it would have settled everything.

My right hon. Friend the Minister knows that I have huge respect for him in the job that he has to do right now, but I simply say this. We have a chance tonight, following a very good statement by the Foreign Secretary, to send the message that we simply will not put up with this; we are not frightened of finding that this is genocide, and we are not frightened of saying it from the steepletops. We know that we have to stand up for those who have no voice. This Chamber has a history of doing that. It has an opportunity tonight to do that, and I am sorry that my Government, whom I hugely respect, do not think that they can do it. I urge Members to vote for this Lords amendment.

Trade Bill

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and Tim Loughton

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 9th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. That is a very short time, so I will do my level best to get my three points across.

I just want to say something about the procedure today. Of course, we would not be sitting here if it was not in order for these proceedings, but there are different ways to be in order, and the reality of bundling together all these things into one motion—an amendment tabled by the Government—means that of course there is no way we will get to vote on the Lords amendment on genocide. I simply point out that fact. It reminds me that this little dispute is a little bit like the Handforth parish council one, and it is always a good idea to read the Standing Orders. I have read them, and they tell me what has happened: the Government have deliberately blocked this. I am sorry, but that is what this is. No point of order on that one; that is the reality. I simply say to my hon. Friends that I have been here long enough, and this is beneath them. I wish they had thought again, and I hope they do not try this one again.

I respect my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade Policy enormously, as he knows, but I must pick up on a few points that he made, as I did table an amendment. First, he extols the virtues of the Government amendment and attacks the idea that the courts could make the judgment, as that would impinge on our position as a Parliament. Yet literally yesterday, in answer to a parliamentary question about whether genocide was a matter for the courts, the Foreign Office said:

“It is the policy of the UK Government that any judgment on whether genocide has occurred is a matter for competent courts rather than Governments or other non-judicial bodies.”

I ask my right hon. Friend: what is a Select Committee? Is it a judicial or a non-judicial body? If it is a non-judicial body, the Government amendment puts the power in the hands of a non-judicial body. What are we doing? We are running in circles just to avoid the reality.

My point is that we have been a little insulting about judges in the amendment that my right hon. Friend is talking about. I have my own differences with judges, but I remind the House that when we need an impartial taking of evidence and judgment—Savile, Grenfell, Hillsborough or any of the other cases—we turn not to Select Committees but to a judge. Why do we do that? First, because we assume that they are impartial and secondly, because they are trained to take and deal with evidence. We are not; we are partial—that is why we are here. We have Select Committees and we have prejudices, and that is the point.

[Tim Loughton]

Why does my right hon. Friend think that the Minister claims that a Select Committee, which already has the power to investigate all sorts of things in this House, is in some way superior to a judicial determination by a court? Only this week, Sir Geoffrey Nice, a distinguished QC who prosecuted Milošević, said that under the International Criminal Court Act 2001, UK courts are competent to prosecute the offence of genocide. The provision is there—we should surely be using it, not dismissing it.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

That is why, I say gently to my right hon. Friend the Minister, in my amendment I deliberately locked in the idea that if the Government want to sift this by looking at Select Committees first, that is fine, but I think they should have the power to refer it to a court if the evidence is overwhelming and they want that final impartial judgment. However, he did not mention that at all.

I come back to amendment 3B. We bent over backwards to answer every single question that the Government laid on the last time we debated this. Under the amendment, the courts cannot strike down trade deals anymore. The Government set the terms of the referral and the level of evidence required to pass the barrier. All that is handed back to Ministers. All the court will do is decide on genocide, and then it is up to Ministers and Parliament to decide what to do. We do not even tell Ministers in this amendment that they should do anything other than at some point come back and ask Parliament. That seems completely reasonable and puts the power in the hands of Parliament.

We have a very limited amount of time, and I am very sad today that the Government have chosen not to allow us to vote on the amendment. I am not voting on my amendment either. I oppose the Government’s amendment because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) suggested, I think it will lead to much more vexatious complaint and all sorts of human rights stuff piling through.

Today should have been a chance to stand tall—to send a signal to those without hope all over the world, whether the Uyghurs or the Rohingya. Instead of providing a beacon of light and hope, we have today gone into the dark corridors of procedural purdah. We need to emerge.

China: Labour Programme in Tibet

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and Tim Loughton

Wednesday 7th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for bringing this debate today. He started by saying that Tibet is something of a forgotten issue. Over 20 years, as a member of the all-party parliamentary group for Tibet, and as chair and co-chair for the last five years, I have been in this Chamber—a very lonely Chamber—raising the cause of Tibet, so it is good to see many more hon. Members from across the House here in support.

Last year, we marked 60 years since the invasion of Tibet. Since then, more than a million Tibetans have lost their lives at the hands of the Chinese. The regime has brought about the suppression of basic human rights, such as religion, cultural identity, free movement and assembly, as well as subjection to arbitrary arrest, detention, disappearances, torture and racial discrimination. It is also imposing an environmental catastrophe on the world with the degradation of the Tibetan plateau, which is responsible for the water sources that feed or refresh almost 40% of the world’s population. That must not be a forgotten or hidden disaster any more.

China is now widely recognised as a serial abuser of human rights and cultural identity. It has been doing it in Tibet for years, but now because of what is going on in Xinjiang province with the Uyghurs, with the suppression of the Mongolian minorities that we have seen more recently, and, of course, in Hong Kong, this human rights abuse is at last getting the attention that it so rightly deserves.

I am proud to be a member of IPAC, to which my right hon. Friend alluded, and very much welcome this report. A few days ago, when we marked the international global action day on China, I issued a statement on behalf of the all-party parliamentary group on Tibet, which I want to put on the record. I said:

“On the day that the Chinese Communist Party celebrates the National Day of the People’s Republic of China with a characteristic display of military might and global arrogance, we join the great majority of the free world in remembering the victims of Chinese oppression past and present. For over 60 years now, the peace-loving people of Tibet have seen their liberty, their culture and their heritage systematically suppressed and over one million have lost their lives upholding everyday freedoms that we take for granted in the free world. They continue to be persecuted within Tibet and increasingly amongst the widespread communities forced to live outside their homeland.

In the last few years, the suppression of minorities within Chinese borders has taken an even more sinister turn, as we see the latest assault on the liberties of the Uyghur people forced into concentration camps and subject to appalling sterilisation programmes that constitute genocide under UN definitions. In Hong Kong, which has for long been a beacon of freedom and creativity, China has thought nothing of reneging on international agreements to bring that population to heal and we stand shoulder to shoulder with the brave citizens who continue to take a stand against the world’s most oppressive superpower”.

I hope that all hon. Members concur with that.

The report contains the most extraordinary revelations. The labour transfer policy mandates that pastoralists and farmers are to be subjected to centralised, military-style vocational training which aims to reform backward thinking and includes training in work, discipline, law and the Chinese language. I gather that the Chinese authorities ordered Tibetan nomads to wipe out Tibetan goats. The Chinese authorities deemed that the goats were detrimental to the environment, which is rather ironic given the environmental carnage that the Chinese Communist party is waging in that region. Last year, all the goats in western Tibet, especially in the Tingri region, were wiped out. Tibetan nomads and farmers are now being turned into menial labourers and are concerned by the sudden change of their traditional nomadic or farming lives. This is the equivalent of the Westminster Government telling Welsh farmers to kill all their Welsh lambs and retrain as Ikea shop assistants, for example. It is extraordinary. Why can we not call this out for what it is? It is absolutely appalling.

In the last two years, more than 10,000 monks and nuns have forcefully been evicted from hundreds of destroyed monasteries and placed into internment camps for political re-education as part of the Sinicization of Tibetan Buddhism. Retired Tibetans are not allowed to go on pilgrimages to holy shrines. Tibetan children are not allowed to participate in religious activities during vacations. Possession of a photograph of the Dalai Lama is an imprisonable offence. The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law)—who, alas, cannot be here to today—and I went to Dharamshala and again had the honour of meeting his holiness the Dalai Lama. A more peace-loving group of people could not be found on this planet. The torture and the horrendous suppression that they have been through is quite extraordinary, yet they retain their dignity in the face of such adversity. They have seen their holy sites Disney-fied for Chinese tourists.

A new law passed by the Tibetan People’s Congress in January this year, “Regulations on the Establishment of a Model Area for Ethnic Unity and Progress in the Tibetan Autonomous Region”—I use “autonomous” loosely—is all part of the Sinicization programme, despite Tibet’s constitution supposedly guaranteeing the autonomy and cultural identity of those minorities within the Chinese border. The Tibetan language has been replaced by Mandarin in schools and is banned from being taught in monasteries, and Tibetans certainly have reduced job prospects if they continue to use it. Tibetans have to register and seek permission to travel across the Tibetan autonomous region. In contrast, Han Chinese do not need permits to travel anywhere they like in China or the whole Tibetan autonomous region. There is mass surveillance of the population. We have debated in Parliament what Huawei is up to; it is part of that surveillance, certainly in Xinjiang province and in the monitoring of mobile phones used by Tibetans.

On the minoritisation of Tibetans, we have seen a mass inflow into Tibet of Han Chinese and of Chinese companies that employ only Chinese-speaking migrants; they reluctantly employ Tibetans where they have to, because in the higher parts, only native Tibetans can withstand the altitude. There is no freedom of assembly. Escape routes through Nepal for Tibetans who cannot tolerate the oppression anymore have now been cut off because the communist Government in Nepal have done a deal with the Chinese. There is persecution of the Tibetan diaspora around the world, who live in fear of the long reach of the tentacles of the Chinese Communist party.

China denied what has been going on in Xinjiang province until satellite photographs of the concentration camps caught them out in the end. What should we do? I am pleased that the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) mentioned my Tibet (Reciprocal Access) Bill, which I reintroduced again in this Session. It is based on legislation passed in Congress unanimously, with cross-party support, which has been put into effect. It was backed by Marco Rubio from the Republicans and Jim McGovern from the Democrats, and as a result neither is allowed to go to China—a badge of honour, frankly. The Bill calls for reciprocal sanctions against officials who do not allow representatives of the British Government or others to visit Tibet to see the human rights abuses going on at first hand. We need this law to send out a strong signal from this country that Governments cannot abuse their own people in secret, because we will call it out. Human rights abuses of this magnitude, wherever they happen, must be called out. China has no divine right to immunity.

We need a UN special investigation into genocide and the use of slave labour. We remember the Tesco Christmas card incident last year, when somebody found a message from a slave labourer being used to produce Christmas cards in part of China. We must resist Huawei. We must resist the influence in UK boardrooms, with highly paid British directors taking the Chinese shilling.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Does my hon. Friend not agree that right now there must be a very public statement by the Government saying to those who take money from China and then promptly defend it that that has to cease?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and Tim Loughton

Monday 1st February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

T2. Can the Secretary of State give me some indication of when he will publish the draft regulations on housing benefits for 18 to 21-year-olds? Will he also look sympathetically at exempting from those regulations those who cannot live safely in their neighbourhood where their family home is because of sexual abuse, gang-related activity or overcrowded housing?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

We will publish the draft regulations shortly, although the Welfare Reform and Work Bill has to be passed first. I am very happy to discuss those elements. Of course, there are always exemptions for those who are most in need, and I am very happy to discuss that matter with my hon. Friend if he would like to come and see me.

Child Poverty

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and Tim Loughton

Thursday 25th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I have never believed that people want to be on benefits; I actually believe the vast majority of people on benefits want to do something about that and change their lives. Everything I do is about trying to do that: every policy we have is aimed at getting the economy right and helping people get back into work.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

The Secretary of State is right to stress that child poverty is a problem not just of income, but many families on low income need support—to make them work-ready, or those with mental health problems—and there are still many tens of thousands of children in this country with attachment problems. Although he rightly mentions the success of the troubled families programme, does he agree that we also need a pre-troubled families programme to tackle inherited problems at source, often involving attachment disorder?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I recognise and pay tribute to the huge work that my hon. Friend has done, and continues to do, to try to transform the lives of the most troubled families. The troubled families programme was a success but we are now extending it, and within that extension there is scope to do exactly what he wants to do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and Tim Loughton

Monday 1st September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I am not in a position to pre-guess what the Prime Minister will decide in his negotiations—he will make it altogether clear. But I hope that both sides of the House, including the hon. Gentleman, will recognise that a negotiation followed by trusting the people to vote on whether they wish to stay in the EU is a good plan rather than a bad plan.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

21. I congratulate the Secretary of State on the introduction of a much more robust test before people qualify for benefit, but what discussions has he had with his European partners on further steps to prevent benefit tourism and to get the message across that the UK is a place where people come to work, not to claim?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I have visited and talked to a number of my colleagues across Europe—in Germany, Holland, Spain and France—and I have also talked to the Danish Minister. Everyone to whom I have spoken so far and many more—I see that the Poles have also come to the same conclusion—have decided that there is something fundamentally wrong with the European Commission interpretation of people’s right to access benefits in a country where they do not have residency. Recently, the Germans have tightened up in almost exactly the same way as we have done. We had all those people saying that what we were doing was terrible, but now that the Germans are doing it, those people have gone quite quiet.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and Tim Loughton

Monday 20th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

T7. Ministers will be aware of the long-overdue changes to shared parenting in the current Children and Families Bill. Will they liaise with their hon. Friends in the Department for Education to ensure that non-resident fathers are not deterred from engaging in their children’s lives as much as possible because of welfare changes that might make it difficult for them to secure appropriate accommodation when their children come to stay?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

First, may I welcome the fantastic work my hon. Friend did when he was in that job? He is absolutely right, and I will ensure that we liaise with colleagues and make that argument strongly, but it is one that I think they already bear in mind strongly.