Chinese Consul General: Manchester Protest

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2022 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs to make a statement on the role of the Chinese consul general, who it now appears took part in the assault of Bob Chan.

[The Minister for the Americas and the Overseas Territories (Jesse Norman)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question and deeply aware of the strength of feeling in this House and the other place about the scenes of violence at the consulate of the People’s Republic of China in Manchester on Sunday afternoon. I am happy to provide an update on our response. You have been kind enough, Mr Speaker, to indicate that you will allow me to speak for a couple more minutes to set out the position.

As the House will know, on Sunday afternoon officials were in touch with Greater Manchester police regarding the incident. On Monday, officials spoke to the Chinese embassy to express our very serious concerns at the reports and demand an explanation. FCDO officials were clear that all diplomats and consular staff based in the UK must respect UK laws and regulations. On Tuesday, I announced in this House that the Foreign Secretary had issued a summons to express His Majesty’s Government’s deep concern at the incident and demand an explanation for the apparent actions of the staff at the consulate general.

Following my statement, the Chinese chargé d’affaires attended a summons at the FCDO in his capacity as acting ambassador. For the avoidance of any doubt, I should say that the Chinese ambassador is currently out of the UK and it is standard practice in such circumstances to summon the chargé d’affaires. I should also be clear that receiving an official summons from the Foreign Secretary is not, as has been described, a light rap on the knuckles but the delivery of a stern message, well understood within the context of diplomatic protocol. It is customary for senior officials to deliver such messages. These summons are not an invitation for an ambassador to have an audience with the Foreign Secretary or Ministers; in any case, given that the chargé d’affaires was involved, it was doubly appropriate that they should be delivered by a senior official.

In the summons the official set out that peaceful protest is a fundamental part of British society and that everyone in the United Kingdom has the right to express their views peacefully and without fear of violence. He reiterated our clear expectation that diplomatic and consular staff should conduct themselves in accordance with UK law. We have made it absolutely clear to the Chinese embassy that the apparent behaviour of consulate general officials during the incident, as it appears from the footage—more of which is coming out, even as we discuss this—is completely unacceptable.

The independent police investigation is now under way. Greater Manchester police have been clear that there are many strands to what is a complex and sensitive inquiry and that it may take some time. As the Foreign Secretary has said, we await the details of the investigation, but in the meantime I have instructed our ambassador to deliver a clear message directly to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Beijing about the depth of concern at the apparent actions by consulate general staff. Let me be clear that if the police determine that there are grounds to charge any officials, we would expect the Chinese consulate to waive immunity for those officials. If it does not, diplomatic consequences will follow.

Finally, allow me to reiterate to the House the value that we place on the Hong Kong community in the UK. When the national security law was imposed on Hong Kong in 2020, this Government acted immediately in announcing the scheme for British national overseas status holders and their dependants. Since then, more than 100,000 people and their families have made the decision to move to the UK to live, work and make it their new home. I want to put on the record, here, now, again and officially, a reaffirmation of our unwavering support for them and our commitment to their safety. They are most welcome here. Recognising the interest that this issue has across the House, the Government will seek to update the House on this matter next week.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Mr Speaker, I am grateful to you for granting this urgent question, which follows Tuesday’s urgent question secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns).

It is worth reminding the House of what happened in the Chinese consulate’s grounds on Sunday, where there was an appalling attack on a peaceful protester. We saw appalling videos of Bob Chan being dragged into the consulate’s grounds and seriously abused, and it now appears that the consul general played a part in that physical attack.

Mr Chan is a Hong Kong refugee whom we have welcomed over here. I and others on both sides of the House are working together to help people get out of Hong Kong, and that community now feels very frightened by what the Chinese Government’s representatives are doing in the UK. Mr Chan gave a statement to the media for the first time yesterday. His wife and child were in the room, and it was a very moving statement. He spoke of how badly bruised and damaged he is, and how frightened he is. I thought it was very brave of him, because he now fears being targeted by the Chinese Communist party here in the United Kingdom.

Overnight, we discovered that the consul general has admitted that not only did he take part in the attack but that he was responsible for, in his own words, pulling Mr Chan’s hair and tearing his scalp. That is the consul general, let alone the others who were there.

I have worked with the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China and others in this House to help Hong Kong refugees, and I credit the Government for their work to get those with British national overseas passports over here. I now urge the Government to be much clearer than just using diplomatic language; I urge them to make it clear, in the light of this new evidence, that it is not just unacceptable that any consular individual should have taken part in anything like this, but that any consular individual who is proved to have been a perpetrator of this outrageous and violent attack on Mr Chan will immediately be made persona non grata and sent back to China. The Government have the diplomatic power to dismiss them. Whether or not there are criminal proceedings, the fact is we do not want them here in the UK and they must go.

I urge my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to come to the Dispatch Box and show the resolution that is necessary to send that message to China. He should ignore what other people and officials might say about being careful of tit for tat, get to the Dispatch Box and simply say, “They will leave the United Kingdom. Anyone involved in that attack is not welcome, and the ambassador will be informed of that forthwith.”

[Jesse Norman]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his further remarks. We should be absolutely clear that participating in an assault, if that is what is determined to have happened, is completely outside the expectations of our rule of law. If such a thing had taken place in front of the British consulate in Shanghai—that question was raised in the House only two days ago—we would, of course, refer the matter to the local policing authorities, as we would have expected in this case. I take his point, which he makes very strongly.

My right hon. Friend is also right to insist, as he insisted during Tuesday’s urgent question, that the diplomatic channel and the legal channel are distinct. I have seen the footage he describes, and I think it looks very black and very damning, but we are going through a process and we need to make a factual determination. Once that is done, and if the situation is found to be as we fear—that is to say there has been a criminal offence of some kind—diplomatic consequences will follow.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the shadow Minister, Catherine West.

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

I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this urgent question, for yesterday’s interview with Mr Chan and for his work on this matter.

This is yet another complete failure by the Government. Instead of making a statement to this House, which would be the normal way of carrying on, Members have had to secure a second urgent question. What is more concerning is the outrageous admission of the Chinese consul general that he did, in fact, assault Hong Kong democracy protesters in Manchester, which he described as his duty.

The Government’s handling of this issue has been a complete mess. The Minister will know that Labour called for the Chinese ambassador to be summoned so that an explanation could be demanded, but a Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office statement confirmed that, in a stunning abdication of the Government’s duties, a civil servant held the meeting with Minister Yang, rather than the Foreign Secretary or a responsible Minister. Although I have the upmost confidence in the abilities of FCDO officials to fulfil their responsibilities, there are moments in foreign policy when only an elected Minister will do. Sadly, it appears that what this chaotic Government have unleashed upon the country through their failed economic agenda is now hampering Ministers’ ability to stand up for the most basic rights we hold dear.

The Minister has the chance to send a clear message not only to the Chinese Government, but to the Government in Myanmar and any other country that might have a repressive regime and where refugees fear for their safety in this country. He will know that on 12 May, from this Dispatch Box, we challenged the Government to come forward with a comprehensive safety plan for Hong Kong nationals and others, so I have two questions. Will he meet those from the embassy without any delay to communicate the strong message from MPs about the importance of peaceful protest in this country? Is it the case that Greater Manchester police have not yet received the CCTV footage because the consul general is refusing to hand it over?

What will the Minister do to tackle this problem? Is it possible for him to expel the individual and then for that individual to apply to return? If it were that way round, we would at least know that the Government had taken the strongest action possible.

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. She is right to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for his interview with Mr Chan. It was an important moment and my right hon. Friend deserves congratulation from across this House on that. As for what the hon. Lady said, I do not think she can have listened to what I said, which is a pity. The ambassador is not in the UK and has not been since before the beginning of this week, so he is not available for any kind of diplomatic interaction. In any case, the chargé d’affaires is the appropriate person for this kind of exchange. The last time an ambassador was summonsed to a meeting with a Minister—indeed, the Foreign Minister —was following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. That gives a sense of the way in which the diplomatic niceties work out.

On CCTV and the Greater Manchester police, I cannot comment on that as it is a matter outside the purview of the Government. However, if the Chinese consulate is not giving up any CCTV that it has, I would certainly encourage it to do so.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee, Alicia Kearns.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

I welcome this urgent question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. It is clear that the House is unhappy with the course that the Government have taken and I must challenge the Minister on some of the comments he has made this morning. It is not “apparent” involvement; there are no ifs or buts here. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green has said, the consul general has not only admitted that he is responsible, but praised his own role in these actions and said that he would do it again. It is a political decision to expel, not a policing one. Will the Minister therefore confirm that, as he suggested from the Dispatch Box just now, his preference is to prosecute these individuals and see them in British prisons? Secondly, what are the diplomatic consequences that he references? Are they expulsion? We need plain speaking at this time. The House is clearly united in its position and I urge the Government to listen to it.

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for that. She has made clear her view that a crime was committed, and that is the view that many others have taken, but it is not a determination of fact at the level we would need. She may have missed the portion of what I said earlier to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green about the fact that we recognise that the diplomatic channel and the legal are separate, but they are not separate as regards a determination of fact. Those are the proper grounds for us to make a determination as a Government. As regards the political desire, we will be looking at the fact situation as it is brought forward and at the options. She may have missed this too, but I said that I would expect there to be an update to the House next week, as further events play themselves out. We will make a judgment in due course on that basis.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

This is a serious diplomatic incident. As others have said, the violent clash between pro-democracy protesters and officials at the Chinese consulate is disturbing and goes directly against the tenets of diplomacy, freedom of speech and protest. Bob Chan, who fled Hong Kong for his life, was pulled through the gates into the consulate and beaten by staff. He was left with cuts and bruises to his face, and video footage shows his hair being pulled by the Chinese consul general, who has already asserted that that was his “duty”.

The SNP condemns in the strongest terms this violence against peaceful protesters and calls for an urgent investigation. If the individuals responsible for such violence cannot be criminally prosecuted due to diplomatic immunity, they must be formally expelled from the UK. What action will the Minister commit to taking to hold the consul general to account, in both domestic law and international law?

[Jesse Norman]

I have set out the actions that we are proposing to take at the moment. Of course, as I have said in terms, we recognise the seriousness of this matter. We also recognise the seriousness with which the House takes the matter. As to the consul general’s remarks about it being his “duty”, I think they are sufficiently absurd not to require comment from the Dispatch Box.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the steadfast support that you have continued to show those of us sanctioned by China.

The consul general seems to have forgotten that he was in Manchester, where we allow free speech, rather than Lhasa, Hong Kong or Xinjiang, where peaceful demonstration is routinely met by violence from the authorities. This does not require “clear” messages “in due course” as the Minister has just said; it requires strong action now. That involves chucking out some of these people and posting additional police outside every Chinese Government establishment in this country to make sure that no more peaceful demonstrators are attacked in this way. Many Uyghur and Tibetan families already feel intimidated; now they can be dragged into Chinese premises and beaten up, or worse.

[Jesse Norman]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the contrast between our own rule of law and the deplorable, despicable experience that has been meted out to the Uyghurs in Xinjiang. He will know that only last week the UN Human Rights Council debated this matter on the back of an extraordinarily damning report by former President Bachelet of Chile, and that is now in the public domain.

As regards police support, I think it is a fact that the demonstration was notified to Greater Manchester police and it was on hand at the time, so it is not absolutely clear that police support, as such, is what is required. There clearly has been some kind of failure in this case, and we need to work out—if there was—what it was.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

Yesterday, I joined Bob Chan in a press conference in which he bravely detailed his awful ordeal in my constituency. In an interview with Sky News reporter Inzy Rashid, the Chinese consul general in Manchester confirmed that the footage did show him destroying banners and assaulting a protester, which he argued was his “duty”. The hubris and above-the-law attitude of the consul general is sickening. Will the Government stop dragging their feet and take immediate action by declaring the consul general persona non grata?

[Jesse Norman]

Of course, the hon. Gentleman too has engaged very closely with Mr Chan, and very welcome that is too. I am sure that everyone around the House would congratulate him and thank him for his support on that. He revisits questions that I have already answered at some length. I have announced that we have put in place a series of measures, which we are going through now. In due course, we will expect to update the House on progress in this developing situation.

[Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your continued efforts in helping us to hold the Chinese to account in this House.

There is another protest this weekend in Manchester. Has the Minister contacted Greater Manchester police to ensure that those protesters will have their protection, which they clearly have not had to date?

[Jesse Norman]

I personally was not aware of any further demonstrations, but the House has now been made aware of them. I will ensure that officials make some notification of that. This is a Home Office matter, so it will go through the Home Office. Even within the Home Office network of relationships, our police are independent of Government, and rightly so for the best rule-of-law reasons, so we will respect that. I am not sure yet that what happened here necessarily was a failure of policing. In this case, it certainly appears that way, and we expect the Greater Manchester police to be able to do whatever they can the next time round.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

Frankly, this is now just ridiculous. I hope the Minister can see the force of the will of the House and that it helps him in what he needs to do next. Article 41 of the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations states that diplomats need to

“respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State.”

Article 9 states that the receiving state has the right to declare that person “persona non grata” at any time with no explanation. The Crown Prosecution Service then says that that is done when the police have sufficient evidence to justify court proceedings. Given the video and the admission, the lack of action by the Government is frankly laughable at this point. This is now a political decision. Can the Minister explain why he is not making them persona non grata now?

[Jesse Norman]

The hon. Lady quotes the convention, and it is very interesting, but she skated over the key phrase, which is when police have “sufficient” evidence, and we are not in that position yet. When we are, as I have assured the House, there will be consequences if that evidence proves to be dispositive.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I understand that my right hon. Friend is a diplomat, but does he not understand that if this assault took place on the streets of this country, the individuals responsible would be in prison cells and before magistrates? The situation is therefore very simple: every single day that those responsible remain on these shores is a disgrace and a stain on our society. Can we not take the decision now to encourage my right hon. Friend and his colleagues to expel the people responsible today?

[Jesse Norman]

I fully recognise that the House has a very strong view of this, but if this apparent offence had taken place elsewhere on the streets of the United Kingdom, it would be subject to the same kind of police investigation and determination and, potentially, a prosecution as a result.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister to his post, because I know him to be a decent, intelligent and honourable man. He talks of diplomatic niceties, but the time for diplomatic niceties is long, long past. Does he think that the Chinese Government care about diplomatic niceties? Of course, what the Minister should be doing is saying to the ambassador, “Get yourself back to Britain, so that you can meet with the Minister. If you don’t get back, it will be a Minister who will be meeting with the chargé d’affaires on Monday morning, or preferably tomorrow, and, for that matter, we will be expelling the consul general tomorrow because he has clearly been engaged in something that would have got him arrested if it had happened on the streets of the United Kingdom.”

[Jesse Norman]

The fact of the matter is that we have already laid out an approach to this. As I said, the last time an ambassador was summoned to the Foreign Secretary was in the context of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. There are diplomatic channels through which these things occur, and we need to respect them. As regards the question of arrest, an individual might have been arrested, or they might not have been; that is at the discretion of the police. That remains the case whether they are outside the embassy or on any other parts of our streets.

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

Can the Minister outline what tangible steps have been taken to protect the Hong Kong community, Tibetans and Uyghurs from intimidation, threats and actual use of violence from the Chinese state on UK soil—tangible steps?

[Jesse Norman]

The hon. Gentleman knows that we have opened the British national overseas channel. We have offered support from the Home Office and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and those individuals remain under the rule of law and therefore the purview of the police, as would any other residents in this country.

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

The right to protest is a British value that stems from 1819 and the Peterloo massacre in our great city, which is why this Government’s inaction is gnawing at our moral core. Powerlessness corrupts, and absolute powerlessness corrupts absolutely; the Government are being sclerotic in this case, if that is not part of the wider malaise. However, I too know the Minister to be an honourable man, so in that spirit can he tell us what discussions he has had with either the Mayor of Greater Manchester, the leader of Manchester City Council or Greater Manchester police to reassure the people in our great city that action will be taken?

[Jesse Norman]

The hon. Gentleman is a Manchester MP and I respect the force of his passion on this issue. As with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), there is nothing more deadly than when a member of the Opposition is kind about the gentleman at the Dispatch Box, so I am aware of the danger there. I would correct the hon. Gentleman on the issue of the rule of law and due process in this country; it goes back way before Peterloo, and one would think of the codification or formalisation of legal changes in the 17th century, if not earlier. He also brilliantly misquotes Lord Acton. On Greater Manchester police, that is a matter for the Home Office, but I can be absolutely certain, as can he, that they will be following the debate with considerable interest.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

A few moments ago, the Minister characterised the consul general’s comment that it was his “duty” to commit an act of violence as absurd. With the greatest of respect to the Minister, whom I like very much, I think it was sinister and menacing. It is not just that this House cares about seeing the consul general and others involved in this incident facing immediate diplomatic consequences, as he calls them. Hong Kong nationals now obtaining refuge in my constituency also need reassurance that the Government take their security seriously. As long as those people remain in Manchester and in this country, they do not have that reassurance.

[Jesse Norman]

If I may say so, I do not think the hon. Lady is right about the position I have taken. We have been perfectly clear about the concern felt across interested bodies, parties and groups in the UK, particularly Hong Kong residents here and people who have come from Hong Kong. That is why I ended my statement with a very specific message of support to them. I have also outlined to the House the measures that we have put in place in the other Departments focused on those people. It is true that they too would expect to live under the rule of law and our police, and in general Greater Manchester police do a sterling job, as I am sure any Manchester MP would say, of protecting the wellbeing of the people of Manchester. I am sure that they will continue to extend that privilege, courtesy and protection to Hong Kong residents.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I was not going to intervene until I listened to the Minister’s responses. There can be no question here of a failure of the Manchester police. No one would have expected a bunch of thugs to come running out of an embassy and beat people up on the streets of Britain. Will the Minister think for a minute about how that appears and how his answers make our country look? We look supine and weak. The evidence is absolutely clear, and he should be stating that and making it clear that the Government will act, and act swiftly. I get no urgency from the Minister.

[Jesse Norman]

I am afraid that is hopelessly untrue. We take this matter extremely seriously: we are acting on it, we have had two urgent questions on the matter and we have different Departments engaged and involved. I have also now had it confirmed to me that officials have been in touch with Greater Manchester police and will remain so. Of course I mean no criticism of anyone in that fine, august body of policemen and policewomen; we continue to look to them to maintain the kinds of standards of policing that they always have done in that city.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

It strikes me that there is no dubiety in this House about the appalling scenes we have all witnessed. As a signatory to the Sino-British joint declaration, the UK has not only a diplomatic but a moral responsibility to the people of Hong Kong, especially the large numbers who came to the UK under the new visa scheme. Does the Minister not accept that there is a need for clear action to make sure that Hong Kong people, Uyghurs and Tibetans feel safe and valued here?

[Jesse Norman]

Of course I do. The hon. Lady may recall that on Tuesday, I announced that the British national overseas channel had been extended to include adult relatives of those who are already entitled to its benefits. I have also outlined to the House not just our very warm and enthusiastic embrace of the people of Hong Kong through that channel, but the measures and Departments responsible for protecting those people in this country. Again, I send a very strong message to Hongkongers in this country: we massively respect and warmly embrace you, and will of course continue to protect and look to your safety.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It has been quite difficult to listen to these answers—I say that with great respect for the Minister—because we do not really feel that the issue is being dealt with strongly enough. The Minister will be aware that this latest travesty is one in a long list of despicable attacks on innocent people that have arguably taken place at the hands of those in power in China. Will he commit to meet the ambassador and highlight the fact that taking someone from British soil into the Chinese consulate to physically and violently abuse them is disgraceful and will not be tolerated, and that those involved—including the ambassador—will be sent home immediately?

[Jesse Norman]

I am an enormous fan and admirer of the hon. Gentleman, but we have covered that question quite closely on several occasions during this urgent question. We will take the measures I have outlined, which are a clear extension of the work we are already doing, both in this country and in Beijing. We will await the factual determination on the evidence, and will then take action, if that is required.

FIFA World Cup 2022

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for the Americas and the Overseas Territories (Jesse Norman)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) for securing this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), who I know is a keen football fan, for his contribution—I hope we have cause to put into practice his suggestion for Enfield, Southgate.

I start by doing something that I am sure we will all agree with, but we have not done yet, which is to pay tribute to Sir David Amess as we pass the first anniversary of his absolutely tragic death—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] He was a corridor friend of mine for a long period as neighbours, and a friend throughout my parliamentary career; I absolutely cherish his memory—I know everyone in this Chamber who knew him does too. I also cherish the tireless dedication that he showed to his constituents and his country. He was a passionate advocate for UK-Qatar relations. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan, and the entire APPG, carry on his ethos. I thank them for pressing the issues constructively, but not unsparingly, with an ally. These are very important matters.

We have covered a gamut of matters, and I am going to talk about all of them. In the two contributions we have had so far we have had the question of the treatment of LGBT+ people, as well as the question of mental health, raised by the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron). There have been issues raised about the price of alcohol, public displays of affection and the level of UK support.

[David Mundell]

When I had the opportunity to travel to Qatar with Sir David Amess, he was at the forefront of raising those issues. The points that the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) has made about the Guardian article and the concerns about the LGBT+ people—Sir David was raising those issues at the highest level. There was no holding back; he wanted to be a critical friend because we want Qatar to move forward on those issues, not sweep them under the carpet.

[Jesse Norman]

That is exactly right. It was very much in his nature to be warm and friendly, but also to tell people hard messages that they did not necessarily want to hear—albeit in his extremely engaging way.

This debate is timely for two reasons, and it demonstrates the cross-party interest there is in the forthcoming World cup. In the Foreign Office, our lead Minister for the middle east is Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon. I am acting as his proxy, but it is a great pleasure for me to respond on behalf of the Government and pick up all of the points that have been raised.

Of course, our priority is the safety and security of all British nationals who will be travelling to the tournament. I weep that the Scots are not involved and I am very sad that the Northern Irish are not involved, but I am thrilled and delighted that the Welsh are after 68 years. What a moment; it is absolutely fantastic. That safety and security emphasis includes, of course, working closely with the Qatari authorities that are ultimately responsible for that, and for ensuring British nationals know what to expect, what is expected of them when they visit and how to get assistance. Of course, there is a lot of good practice already in place from previous major tournaments, particularly Russia in 2018. That includes the importance of close co-operation with partners, such as the football associations and supporters’ representatives.

Every event is unique, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan is right to say that this will be the first-ever World cup held in the middle east. It is also the first-ever hosted by a Muslim nation and the first to be largely city based—in what is our winter but a more temperate time for them—so the Government have adapted our plans accordingly.

There has been close engagement on security with Qatari authorities, as the House might imagine, on various aspects of the preparation—particularly in supporting the delivery of a safe and secure championship. The UK police are offering support and advice in relation to fans, and have travelled to Qatar to build relationships and share their professional experience and knowledge. Many Members will be aware that the UK has a lot of experience in football-related policing, and our police typically deploy to overseas tournaments for that reason. At the same time, the Ministry of Defence will be supporting Qatar with military capabilities in relation not just to the much-travelled and advertised joint Typhoon squadron but to counter-terrorism, even more relevantly, which remains a threat—particularly at an event of this magnitude and profile.

Consular preparations are going on, as one might expect. The UK Government recognise that aspects of such tournaments can pose problems for fans—we have had several mentioned already, such as public displays of affection—from local laws and customs to geography and travel requirements. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is therefore implementing a range of targeted communications to provide England and Wales fans with practical advice and keep problems to a minimum. There is a dedicated World cup section in the travel advice we offer for Qatar, and the Government advise anyone attending to read that and sign up for email alerts so they can stay on top of developments.

Hon. Friends and colleagues will be pleased to know that the UK Government have today announced their six top tips for travelling fans to follow, supported by both the England and Wales managers. At the same time, there has been close engagement with Qatar on topics relating to the fans themselves. The one that has been first and foremost in the comments of all those who have spoken is the issue of LGBT+ visitors. I reassure colleagues that Ministers and senior officials have raised those issues at all levels, and continue to do so. The authorities are quite clear that their commitment is that everybody is welcome, and that they will respect that, but on our side we need to continue to encourage and press for the equal treatment of all fans and respect for individual rights not just in words, but in the action and the specific context of the matches as they take place, so that anyone of any background can go out and enjoy themselves.

When it comes to consular assistance, the FCDO will be offering an enhanced consular presence in Qatar throughout the tournament, and British nationals will have a 24/7 capacity to call the FCDO if they need help or advice. Of course, there are appropriate parallel plans in place for the wider region, because the Government are aware that many fans hope to base themselves elsewhere and travel into Qatar for matchdays. That is an important further preparation.

In terms of the legacy, which was raised by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate, the World cup has allowed the UK Government to engage across much wider bilateral areas in recent years—on trade and culture, but also rights. One would expect engagement not merely in the more historically relevant areas of trade and culture, but in the one that is so salient now, which is rights. Qatar is a close partner and we must use this opportunity to strengthen that bilateral relationship, to broaden it in the way that has been described, and to make it more enduring. Lots of British companies on the trade side have played a notable role in World cup preparations, including in relation to football stadiums and many other aspects of them, and NGOs have been collaborating on legacy and inclusion themes. Only last week, Street Child United successfully hosted the fourth street child world cup in Doha. There will likewise be opportunities during the event to showcase what the UK has to offer.

As I say, I am rooting at one remove—and, tragically, only after the three lions— for Wales. My right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan can tell me whether “Ymlaen, Cymru!” is the correct Welsh for saying, “Come on, Wales!” But I can say that we will be pressing this on behalf of the nation as a whole, provided that the matches do not yield any kind of contest between England and Wales until the final.

Of course, the other thing that has been rightly mentioned is workers’ rights, which must continue to be an important part of the picture. As I think colleagues will know, the UK absolutely welcomes the concrete steps rightly highlighted by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate hitherto, including the introduction of a non-discriminatory minimum wage. But the priority, as he rightly says, must be the implementation and enforcement of those reforms—not just when the attention of the world is on Qatar, but even once those workers move off the radar and in future years to come. He may be aware that the UK’s migration and modern slavery envoy visited earlier this month for a range of meetings to discuss precisely how the UK can partner with Qatar and the International Labour Organisation to support further progress in 2023 as part of the legacy of the World cup.

In conclusion, we are in regular dialogue with host authorities and continue to ramp up the plans that have been set out. I hope, and I know all colleagues will hope, that come 18 December we will celebrate a safe and successful World cup, with a home nation picking up that trophy.

Chinese Consulate: Attack on Hong Kong Protesters

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on what representations he has made to the Chinese Communist party following the attack on Hong Kong protesters at the Chinese consulate in Manchester.

[The Minister for the Americas and the Overseas Territories (Jesse Norman)]

Top of the morning to you, Mr Speaker, and thank you very much indeed for allowing us to have this urgent question on a topic of enormous importance. May I start by recognising, thanking and welcoming my hon. Friend to her position as Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee?

As the House will know, His Majesty’s Government are extremely concerned at the apparent scenes of violence at the consulate of the People’s Republic of China in Manchester on Sunday afternoon. Greater Manchester police had been pre-notified of the demonstration and intervened to restore order; we are grateful to them for their action. I understand that Greater Manchester police have launched an investigation to establish the facts of the incident.

The Foreign Secretary has issued a summons to the Chinese chargé d’affaires at the Chinese embassy in London to express His Majesty’s Government’s deep concern at the incident and to demand an explanation for the actions of the consulate staff. It would be inappropriate to go into further detail until the investigation has concluded, but let me be clear that, as this House has always recognised, peaceful protest is a fundamental part of British society and our way of life. All those on our soil have the right to express their views peacefully without fear of violence. FCDO officials expressed that clearly to the Chinese embassy yesterday. We will continue to work with the Home Office and Greater Manchester police colleagues to decide on appropriate next steps.

[Alicia Kearns]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this UQ and for the personal interest you have taken in this over the last few days.

On Sunday, peaceful protesters gathered outside the Chinese consulate to campaign for human rights in Hong Kong. What we saw was the Chinese consul-general then ripping down posters during a peaceful protest. There soon followed grievous bodily harm against Hong Kongers, one of whom was hospitalised for taking part in that peaceful protest. Some were then dragged on to consulate territory for a further beating by officials who have been recognised to be members of the Chinese Communist party. We cannot allow the CCP to import its beating of protesters and silencing of free speech, and its utter failure time and again to allow protest on British soil.

This is a chilling escalation. We have seen continued persecution of the Uyghur, Tibetans, Hong Kongers and all those who come to our country to seek refuge. What took place on Sunday suggests they cannot seek refuge here and have their voices heard, and our job is to make sure their voices are not silenced.

I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that the ambassador has been summoned. I am surprised the meeting has not taken place so far. Will he please confirm when it will be taking place and that he will update the House thereafter? Will he also confirm that any Chinese official involved in the beatings will be prosecuted and that, if they cannot be prosecuted, they will be expelled from this country within the week, and what the Government are doing to protect protests? That is a fundamental right and we must uphold it at home if we are to have any chance of upholding it abroad.

[Jesse Norman]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. On the point of the summons, my understanding is that the chargé d’affaires will meet with officials this afternoon, there having already been an informal exchange of concern between the two sides. My hon. Friend will know that, precisely because of the belief in this House in the rule of law, it is up to our independent police and Crown Prosecution Service to decide first on the facts of the matter and then on whether a prosecution should be brought. But, like her, I witnessed what took place in the video on Sunday and I am sure every Member of this House feels the same level of concern as she does.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister, Catherine West.

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

I am so pleased that there is consensus across this House that freedom of expression is an important principle which we hold dear in our democracy, and it is testament to our freedoms that on countless occasions in recent years protesters have been able to express their views, whether on China, Russia, Myanmar or countless other countries.

What we saw at the weekend in Manchester was, as the Mayor of Manchester has said, a sharp departure from this established pillar of our liberal democracy. The sight of suspected Chinese consular officials destroying posters, using violence and intimidation, and dragging a protester into the grounds of the consulate and assaulting him is deeply shocking. We all want to be clear that that behaviour is not and never will be acceptable and deserves condemnation in the strongest possible terms. We simply cannot tolerate the type of action we have seen. The principle of free expression is so important, as is the protection of Hong Kongers and others who have fled Beijing’s repression, although I note with irony that later today we will be debating a Government Bill that discusses some of the same themes.

Labour has been consistently warning about the need to protect newly arrived Hong Kong people. May I press the Minister on what exactly will happen to consular officials who have been properly identified as involved in this incident? Can this House expect that they will be expelled from the UK?

What discussions has the Minister had with the Home Office and Levelling Up Secretaries on a proper plan for robust and extensive support for Hong Kong people across the country to ensure that they are protected and supported in the face of ongoing surveillance and oppression? What steps will he take to ensure that the sanctity of our freedoms—specifically, the freedom of expression—is protected outside all foreign embassies and consulate grounds in the UK to avoid a repeat of this shocking behaviour? Mr Speaker, as you said yesterday, the Hong Kong community in the UK is watching, and actions must match words.

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. She asked about the treatment of consular officials. Of course, I would wish to be able to give the House details of my personal views on these matters, but the fact of the matter is that we are in a process of law. I would expect that process to be diligently and effectively carried out, but, for reasons that she will understand, I cannot comment on it.

As regards the treatment of Hong Kong visitors and arrivals to this country under the new scheme, my colleagues in the Home Office and the Levelling Up Department have taken great measures to put in place a welcome set of arrangements for them and to manage the processing in an effective and timely way. I am pleased that we have done that because we need to support Hong Kong in all the ways that I am sure she would welcome.

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

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on getting the urgent question. I also congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on pursuing it, quite rightly. I do not understand why the Government could not have put forward a statement today, even if that was to say what they have said today. I am afraid it really does show a little bit the Government dancing away from this in the hope that something else will turn up.

We have spoken to the individual who was hauled in, and I want to mention a couple of points from the statement that he is giving the police. He confirms categorically that the guards at the gate hauled him in, tore his hands and his hair, and beat him. He said that at least four people were kicking him and, for one minute at least, tearing his hair. He said:

“My head, face, arm, body and back are hurt—especially my back. It is very painful.”

He said that he struggles at the moment even to sit down. That is happening on British soil. The Government has now got to step up and answer this simple question, asked earlier by my hon. Friend: has the Secretary of State not just called on the chargé d’affaires but hauled in the ambassador directly to see him? Will the Secretary of State now be prepared to expel the consul-general and any of those found to have been part of that punishment beating and vandalism? All I want is a simple, “Yes. If there is evidence, we will expel them.”

[Jesse Norman]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. I do not think that there is any suggestion of dancing away. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton, in her position as the recently elected Chair, put the question. We respect that, and we worked with the Speaker’s Office and with her to answer it. That is exactly what we are doing now, and rightly so.

As to my right hon. Friend’s question, it is of course a question of law as to what offences were committed on British soil, and it is absolutely right to have a legal procedure that goes through that and examines the question in all its aspects. As to summoning the ambassador, I thank my right hon. Friend for his input. We have already outlined the process of raising the matter formally with the Chinese embassy, and we will see where the legal and prosecutorial procedures may lead. At that point, we will take further action.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)]

I commend the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee for bringing forward the urgent question and, you, Mr Speaker, for granting it. This is an important thing for us all to take stock of. I take at face value the Minister’s assurance of consequence once the independent investigation has completed. I invite him to come back to the House and make a statement once that investigation is concluded, because we need to maintain our interest in it.

There has been concern for many years about the networks of coercion and control that the Chinese state has over Chinese nationals in the UK. Will the Minister add to his efforts and bring Confucius Institutes into his thinking? There are networks that need a lot more scrutiny than they have had. If Manchester proves to be what we fear it was, it was a considerable escalation of the Chinese networks of coercion and control, and the Confucius Institutes need to be part of the investigation.

[Jesse Norman]

Of course, there is enormous interest in this topic, and not just on the specifics of particular events but on the wider geo-strategic question of the relationship between China and the rest of the world, and its respect for the rules-based order. Of course, I understand that. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill will apply to Confucius Institutes and has within it some important new measures to track foreign influence and to ensure that it is publicly held to account. As I wrote the original amendment as a Back Bencher on which they are based, I must say that I feel a certain degree of pride in that area. It was not aimed at any particular country, but it can absolutely be used in relation to the Confucius Institutes.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

My constituents will be alarmed at what they saw happen in Manchester. I recognise that the Government will have to maintain a constructive dialogue amidst a complicated relationship with China, but let us be really clear that the Chinese regime have shifted in their behaviours in recent years. The behaviour on the streets of Manchester demonstrates that shift. I urge my right hon. Friend not to hold back in facing up to the reality of the new dynamics of the relationship with China. We must remain constructive, but we must also face up to the fact that we now have very different values from those in China.

[Jesse Norman]

I thank my hon. Friend very much for his intervention. He is absolutely right. The point of constructive engagement is to do what we can to retain China’s respect for the international rules-based order, while also noting and concerting with allies to exercise influence where we can on any breaches in that area. He is absolutely right to point that out. Let me say one other quick thing. The many overlapping areas in which we and our allies interact with China require a nuanced and constructive approach, but the point about doubling down is absolutely right. Let me remind him that although the integrated review is not about any specific country or region, it is going through a refresh at the moment, and it will take account of emerging, current and expected future threats.

--- Later in debate ---

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

I have joined peaceful protests outside the consulate countless times and I am sickened that such an event took place in my own constituency. The scenes, which are reminiscent of the aggressive intimidating tactics of the Chinese Communist party, have no place on the streets of my city or our country. The UK stands for freedom, the rule of law and democracy. The crushing of peaceful protest will never be tolerated on British soil. The Minister knows that the consul general has diplomatic immunity, so he cannot be prosecuted. Will the Minister take immediate action and declare the consul general as a persona non grata, and what steps will he take to protect pro-democracy activists here in the UK?

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for his question. I completely understand the personal constituency interest he has in this set of events and in previous events and activities around the consulate. He is right, of course, to say that the UK stands for freedom, the rule of law and democracy. I could not have put it better myself and that is exactly right. He is also right to ask the question about persona non grata. We cannot anticipate the results of a legal process, but I have already told the House that we will take action once we have a full understanding of the facts and the prosecutorial decision—[Interruption]—allowing chuntering from all sides if necessary, from a sedentary position. Let me just say, finally—[Interruption.]—if I may, that he is also right to focus on the victim. That is a crucial aspect—my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) mentioned it—and it is something we expect local government, as well as central Government, to be supportive of, to the extent that we possibly can be.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

Yesterday, as patron of Hong Kong Watch, I had the privilege to meet about 50 admirable and mainly young people who have moved here from Hong Kong and are keen to engage in community life and, in some cases, political life in the UK. They deserve our support and encouragement, so will the Minister confirm what steps are being taken to address concerns of the Hong Kong community about potential intimidation and threats from the Chinese state apparatus on UK soil in respect of those who wish to engage in this way?

[Jesse Norman]

My hon. Friend will be aware that, in relation to Hong Kong, we have ended the extradition treaty and taken a number of other steps designed to recognise the seriousness of the issues. Of course, we have also, vitally, opened the British national overseas route to Hong Kong residents, and more than 100,000 people have applied for that; that is an incredible infusion of energy and genius into our polity and we should absolutely welcome it. We have extended that, in part in response to concerns in this House, via an amendment to be tabled today, to the adult children of BNO-eligible people, so that they, too, can feel that warm welcome we should be extending to those people.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

China has no respect for the rule of law and its attitude is aggressive; it thinks it can do whatever it wants and get away with it—this House needs to say that it cannot. Reports suggest that one of the consulate staff who assaulted the pro-democracy protestor was the consul general, Zheng Xiyuan. Does the Minister agree with me and others in this House that if the consul general is found to have led the attack, he should be declared persona non grata by His Majesty’s Government and sent, along with the others involved, back to China, where he belongs?

[Jesse Norman]

The hon. Gentleman asks whether action will follow “if” what he sets out is found to be the case. I am not going to comment on a hypothetical, but he is right to recognise that there has to be a process of determination before any action can follow. Let me say one other thing that relates to the point raised earlier about the rule of law, human rights, freedom and democracy. There is an ideological clash here and we should be aware of it. We should not be shy in recognising it and we should do what we can to insist on the importance of the rules-based order that we have always stood for as a nation. We should encourage allies to be talking in those terms, rather than to be ceding ideological ground, whoever may be on the other side of the argument—there are various parts of the world in which different arguments are being made against this. That is ultimately the core of what this institution of Parliament is about.

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

The concern is ultimately that China is taking the same attitude to human rights in this country as it is taking at home. Many of us have raised that concern and it is not my understanding that we need to follow through a legal process prior to expelling people who are involved in this. Will the Minister say why he believes we need to follow that process?

[Jesse Norman]

I think my hon. Friend has misunderstood me, as I have not said that there needs to be a legal process; I have said that there has to be a process of determining what the facts are. That has already been conceded by Members from across this House, and it is important that we have not only our private views as to what may or may not have been on video, however well founded they may be, but an official view based on proper scrutiny.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

As the Minister is hiding behind process on a number of these issues, I will try a different tack. What steps is he taking to work with colleagues in the Home Office to ensure that police officers are adequately trained and aware of the cultural and political sensitivities when protecting the thousands of Hongkongers who are seeking safety in our country, especially when people have been attacked by Chinese communist party agents or suspected CCP agents? We know that what we saw outside the consulate is not an isolated incident.

[Jesse Norman]

As you will be aware, Mr Speaker, there is no question of hiding behind process; we have a rule of law in this country and we allow legal processes to go through. We allow processes of fact and determination before action is taken. That is entirely appropriate, and it is what one would expect from a country that professes to be the home of the rule of law, as has been rightly said. However, it is important to say that police forces are extremely concerned about and sensitive to the kinds of issues that the hon. Lady raises. Indeed, I do not need to tell the House that the Greater Manchester police deal with a very wide range of ethnicities and concerns, and have specific training in order to manage those issues in a sensitive and engaged way.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

I welcome the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) and the fact that a proper investigation into this will be held. But even before these incredibly worrying scenes that we have all seen, concerns were being raised in both the British and Irish press about an informal network of Chinese overseas police service stations. Constituents of mine who are deeply worried about that have contacted me and asked me to seek ministerial action on it. Will the Minister confirm that there is no legal standing for such organisations? If we are summoning Chinese diplomats and officials, may we ask them for an explanation of these stories about such networks?

[Jesse Norman]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important point. My understanding is that such organisations have no formal status of any kind in this country. The concerns of this House are understood and very much reflected in the concerns that my officials and those in the respective parts of the Home Office and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities have.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on securing this urgent question and I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting it. Had these incidents happened on the streets of Hong Kong, there would rightly have been outrage from the British Government. They happened on the streets of Manchester, in this United Kingdom, yet the Minister is basically sending a memo to the Chinese embassy and an offer of a cup of tea and a chat with the ambassador. We want the ambassador to be brought to the Foreign Office and told in no uncertain terms that these actions are against the rule of law and against human rights in this country. Any Chinese agent found responsible for the disgraceful actions in Manchester should be on the first plane back to Beijing.

[Jesse Norman]

There is a massive difference between this country and the situation in Hong Kong: in Hong Kong there are genuine, proper concerns about whether there is anything approximating the rule of law, in the sense that we would understand it. So when we express anger as individuals, as parliamentarians and as concerned citizens about this, that is, in part, what we have a concern about. I do not think, however things may appear in the short term, that this is a question in this country. We will pursue this situation and these people according to the rule of law, and we will follow up on that basis.

[Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)]

I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) to her new position; it is great to see a member of the ’29 intake taking on that role. I also welcome the Government’s statement so far, although I just hope they can go a bit further and faster. Does the Minister agree that this might be the most visible and violent manifestation of the long arm of the CCP? Will he also ensure that more underground and less visible bullying and intimidation by CCP agents, such as on university campuses in this country, will also be exposed and challenged at every opportunity?

[Jesse Norman]

Young, youthful and vigorous as the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee is, the intake of ’29 might not be quite the right one for her. Of course I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) and it is wonderful to see that 2019 generation coming into positions of great authority in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) raised the point about covert activity and he is right to double down on that and discuss it in the context of universities. He will also understand that we have rules now on foreign influence coming into play, in terms of registration, that are, in part, precisely designed to identify those people and institutions and bring them within a more explicit and transparent framework.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) for securing the urgent question on this shocking incident. It was a flagrant breach of human rights on British soil, but we should not allow ourselves to think that it was an isolated one, because we know that it is not. My constituency houses the Chinese consulate in Scotland, and I am regularly contacted by young Hongkongers in Edinburgh who are concerned about the level of surveillance and intimidation. I have experienced it myself when speaking at a Hong Kong protest in Edinburgh, where we were filmed by a drone operated be a gentleman sitting nearby. It is not acceptable that this is happening on UK soil. For young Hongkongers who were born after 1997 and do not hold BNO passports, having to travel to consulates to have their special passports renewed is a particular fear for many of them. So will the Minister find a way of issuing travel documents so that they do not have to go on to the grounds of the consulate, where they now, rightly, might fear that their safety is jeopardised?

[Jesse Norman]

The hon. Lady raises two interesting points. There are aspects of our open democratic society—such as the use of drones—that can be used in a very intimidating way. She is absolutely right to point to that, and it raises a longer-term issue for our security and wellbeing. On the consulates, I thank her for her suggestion, which needs to be taken very seriously; I am grateful for it.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

At a time when relationships with China were improving, I was a guest at the consulate in Manchester on a number of occasions. It struck me then that the consulate is huge—by far the biggest consulate of the many in Manchester. At a time when détente has finished and relationships with China are getting worse, because it is not respecting international law or the laws of this country, the size of that consulate indicates to me that it is being used to control and police members of the Chinese community in Manchester. When the Minister has had the results of the investigations—whatever they turn out to be—will he consider reducing the size of that consulate and any other consulates that the Chinese have, because they are being used not for the normal business of consulates, but as an extension of the Beijing Government in this country?

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I do not think that I should comment on the activities of the consulate, with which I am not personally familiar, but he is right that the fundamental consular activity is extremely straightforward, in terms of the support of one’s own people in a foreign country. One would not think that an enormous infrastructure is needed to do that. His point could be applied not just to consulates, but to other potential institutions around the country and around the world, and I thank him for that.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Trafford has been pleased to welcome many Hong Kong BNO families and we are very proud in my constituency to be the new home of the Manchester Taiwanese Association. Those communities will need considerable reassurance from the Government that they will be safe and secure in our country. Will the Minister give an assurance that if, as reports suggest, some of the activity—the abuse and violence—was conducted on consular premises, that will not preclude full investigation and full consequences being waged against those who conducted such activity?

[Jesse Norman]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise that question. We would expect the independent police and other authorities to make as thorough an investigation as they can, given the circumstances, and we would expect to be sensitive to areas where they have not been permitted to undertake the level of scrutiny that we would expect under such circumstances.

[Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)]

The footage from Manchester was chilling to all of us who value human rights and non-violence, but it resonated particularly with many of my constituents in south Belfast—which is where the Northern Ireland Chinese consulate is located—who have seen up front the approach that the CCP take not just to international law, but respecting local law. In our case, that relates to developing its premises and enforcing security at them. South Belfast is also very proudly home to many people from Hong Kong who are creating a new life away from risk and repression. Will the Minister advise the House what guidance he will give to local authorities that are dealing with consulates and what his Government will do to protect the right to peaceful protest?

[Jesse Norman]

I am not sure that I fully caught the final sentence of the hon. Lady’s question, but it is of course an aspect of a UK-wide support network that we should be able to provide a welcome for visitors from Hong Kong. We have 12 virtual welcome hubs across the UK and funding for organisations to deliver UK-wide and regional projects, as well as other forms of welcome and support. I can encourage colleagues from the Home Office and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to come forward if further things need to be put in place to address the issues that she raises.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

There we are—I call the Minister.

[Jesse Norman]

It is absolutely right to highlight the change in the position that China has taken over the past seven years. I do not think there is any doubt that it has changed, and we have had to evolve and change our response to that. The hon. Member is also right to talk about the importance of resolute action. However, this is in the context of the kind of constructive, multi-layered relationship that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) mentioned. We therefore have to try all the measures in our power to retain a respect for the rules-based order, not just in this country, but around the world with our allies, and we are doing that.

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

My constituents in south Manchester were really shocked by the scenes that we saw on the video. With the greatest respect to the Minister, who I like a lot, we need not an explanation, but condemnation of that behaviour. I understand that he has to couch things in diplomatic terms, but as a matter of principle, if it was the case that senior officials of a foreign consulate were involved in an attack on peaceful protesters on the streets of Manchester, surely the only way to deal with that is to expel them.

[Jesse Norman]

The hon. Member may have missed the point in my statement where I said—and let me go further—that His Majesty’s Government are not only deeply concerned, but actively condemn the apparent scenes of violence that we saw at the consulate. I do not think there is any doubt about that. More widely, the position, as I have described it, is that we will await a factual determination and then take a decision based on that.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

The export of China’s brutal, authoritarian, democracy-crushing behaviours is what we saw in Manchester. It is completely and utterly unacceptable. It is clear not just that there is the intimidation of Hongkongers and others, but that, in so many other areas, there is covert influence and attempts to subvert our democracy and education system. It is clear that we need an in-depth, comprehensive, strategic audit of every aspect of the relationship between the UK and China, from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to defence and education—right across Whitehall.

However, may I press the Minister on the specific point about the behaviour of the consul general? Will he make it absolutely clear from the Government Dispatch Box that there is no connection between a police decision and a decision to expel? The decision to expel is a political decision. It is plain as the nose on our face that the consul general was involved in those violent scenes. He should be expelled immediately. Will the Minister confirm that there is no connection to a police investigation? It is a political decision to expel.

[Jesse Norman]

I have already made that clear to the House, but let me do so again. I am not suggesting—as I said earlier—that there is a direct connection, or indeed, any connection, between that decision and a police investigation, but we need to establish the facts in a way that is official and not just, as it were, the presentation of a personal view. That process is continuing and when we have the answer to that, we will take action. That is entirely appropriate. One should, in these contexts, seek an absolutely objective basis on which to act, which takes in all the information that may be available. That is what I think the police and the prosecuting authorities, to the extent that they take an interest, will do.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the Minister back to the Front Bench. I know he has always had a laid-back style, but I really think he should get a little angrier about the disgraceful thing that happened in Manchester.

I have many friends from and in Hong Kong, who tell me that when they come to this country now, they feel intimidated. The Chinese influence is in our universities, in our major companies and everywhere. That has not just happened; it is part of a serious effort by China to infiltrate this country at every level. As I have said before in the House, the electricity supply to all of London and the south of England is owned by a Chinese company. Has this not gone too far?

[Jesse Norman]

The hon. Gentleman will know that there are plenty of ways in which this country has economic relationships with Chinese companies. In the normal course of trade, that has been to mutual benefit, but he is right that there is a need for concern about where there may be infiltration, coercion and the rest of it. That is a very live matter for the Government, which we have talked about it in the context of Confucius institutes and covert policing operations—as they may be—and I have drawn the House’s attention, and do so again, to the foreign influence registration scheme that is being introduced under the National Security Bill. That scheme has been created specifically to tackle covert influence in the UK.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

What discussions has the Minister had with his counterparts in the USA, Canada, Australia and the EU about co-ordinated sanctions against the individuals responsible for the ongoing crackdown in Hong Kong?

[Jesse Norman]

The hon. Lady will be aware that the sanctions regime in question relates to the UN, which is a very effective international co-ordinating body. As I have touched on, we have taken lots of action short of that in responding to the coercion of Hongkongers in Hong Kong. I can also confirm that my officials remain in very close contact with similarly high-ranking staff of our allies around the world.

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

Reflecting on what we saw over the weekend, the Chinese consulate general justified it by saying that the activists had

“hung an insulting portrait of the Chinese president at the main entrance”.

A spokesperson for the consulate general claimed:

“This would be intolerable and unacceptable for any diplomatic and consular missions of any country.”

I have looked at an image of the portrait and, although I accept that it would be regarded as offensive, I disagree with the Chinese consulate’s spokesperson. Does the Minister agree that if there had been such a demonstration outside the British consulate in Shanghai, we might not have liked the protest—we might even have found the portrait a little insulting—but we would have tolerated it? Is that difference in values being communicated to the Chinese ambassador?

[Jesse Norman]

I think it fair to say that the Chinese ambassador is fully aware of the spectrum of our concerns in relation to Chinese behaviour, whether that is in relation to victims of internationally condemned crimes in Xinjiang, whether it is in Hong Kong or whether it is in this country.

Draft Sanctions (Damages Cap) Regulations 2022

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2022 General Committees

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Jesse Norman)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Sanctions (Damages Cap) Regulations 2022.

What a delight it is to see you in the Chair, Mr Stringer; a sagacious and calming presence on a late autumn morning.

The instrument, which is subject to the affirmative procedure, was laid before Parliament in draft on 20 July 2022 under section 55(5) of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, otherwise known as the Sanctions Act. It will be made once it is approved by both Houses.

The instrument represents further action to strengthen the UK’s sanctions regime in response to President Putin’s illegal and abhorrent war against the people of Ukraine. Since the invasion, the UK has worked with international partners to deliver an unprecedented package of sanctions against Putin’s regime and his allies who are complicit in its brutality.

As the Committee will be aware, the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 proceeded quickly through Parliament following Russia’s invasion and received Royal Assent on 15 March. That Act amended the Sanctions Act to reform how sanctions are imposed and reviewed, and how challenges to them are dealt with. Those amendments received cross-party support, including across the Benches in the House. The Act created a power for the Government to set a limit on the amount of damages a court can award for designations made in bad faith. In exercise of that power, the instrument before us now introduces a cap of £10,000. That cap will apply to any proceedings challenging the Government’s use of designation powers under the Sanctions Act, issued on or after 4 March 2022.

The instrument is designed to minimise the risks to His Majesty’s Government of spurious or vexatious litigation from deep-pocketed oligarchs and others, in particular as the UK continues to rachet up the pressure on President Putin. It is right and proper that the Government protect public funds in that way. To be clear, it will not affect the right of a designated person to challenge their designation in a court, nor, if appropriate, to have that designation lifted. Furthermore, the courts will have the power to disapply the damages cap to avoid any potential breaches of human rights where necessary in individual cases. But the cap is designed to send a strong signal that Putin’s oligarchs and kleptocrats cannot draw on the public purse in this country to boost their coffers, that the UK will not be distracted from the task in hand by endless litigation and that this Government will not be knocked off course by the risk of damages claims.

Let there be no mistake: this is not about protecting the Government from acting in bad faith; it is about sending a clear message to friends of Putin who are tempted to bring claims without merit.

The Government will not hesitate in bringing forward further sanctions to target those who participate in or facilitate Putin’s illegal war of choice. On 26 September, the UK announced further sanctions targeting those responsible for Putin’s sham referenda. They included four Russian Government officials, four further oligarchs, 55 state oil executives and 29 individuals and organisations working for illegitimate proxy groups in Donetsk, Luhansk and Zaporizhzia. On 30 September, the Foreign Secretary announced a new set of sanctions that further limited Russia’s access to the foreign services on which it depends. Taken alongside previous action, the UK is now preventing Russian access to UK advertising, architectural, auditing, engineering and IT consultancy services, as well as to various commercial legal services. The announcement included a new ban on the export of nearly 700 goods deemed to be crucial to Russia’s industrial and technological capabilities. It also included new sanctions on Elvira Nabiullina, the Governor of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, who has been instrumental in managing the Russian economy throughout the war and instrumental in the rouble being imposed on Ukrainian territories that have been seized by Russia.

I trust the Committee will support the instrument. It strengthens the UK’s ability to sanction those responsible for this illegal and brutal war. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

I am very grateful to both hon. Gentlemen who have spoken. Let us be clear that there has been a very broad sense of unanimity across the House on the issue. We very much welcome that support and the scrutiny offered by the Opposition parties, which can only make the legislation better and keep Government properly on our toes.

Let me start by thanking the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute who pointed out the importance of closing loopholes—he is absolutely right about that. As the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth said on behalf of the official Opposition, there has been a constant process of introducing measures and then infilling, in response to a dynamic and evolving situation, precisely to address those loopholes. The regulations we are talking about in relation to Russia and Belarus apply to conduct by UK persons including not just anyone in the UK but UK nationals outside the UK and businesses incorporated or constituted under the law of any part of the UK. Of course, it is Government policy for those measures also to be given effect in overseas territories and Crown dependencies. As the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute will he aware, a lot of work has been done in relation to Companies House to track asset movements and give the enforcement authorities extra powers and speed to crack down on some of the loopholes he mentioned.

The hon. Gentleman said that the regulations are not before time, but if I may say so, I think that is incorrect. The Government brought forward this legislation before the summer recess, and the present cap that we are discussing will apply to all proceedings brought from 4 March. There has been a staggering level of sanctions introduction over the past few months, and I could show him four or five pages of specific measures that we have introduced. Those are targeted at a large number of individuals.

The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth was absolutely right to ask about the question whether this was just about Russia. Of course not; he is absolutely right—it applies across the board. But even in relation to Russia we are talking about sanctioning more than 1,200 individuals and more than 120 entities. As my remarks about Elvira Nabiullina made clear, we are continuing to push down on designations in order to pick up people who have emerged as significant actors, or who are otherwise culpable and complicit in this dreadful invasion.

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments on behalf of the official Opposition. He is absolutely right that the recent use of unmanned drones is abhorrent and he will know that the Government and their allies are doing everything they can to support Ukraine militarily and in the field. I thank him for the questions he raised to which I responded in respect of the previous debate conducted by my colleague, the Minister for Europe. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman understands, I cannot comment, however one would like to, on specific entities, but the points he raised are absolutely well taken. His energy in pressing them is a constant source of active encouragement and support for the work we are doing and that which we have in hand.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government will look at wider measures in relation to SLAPP suits. He is absolutely right to target that question, and of course we are reviewing the matter very closely. He also asked about the question of legal architecture. He will understand that the measures we have brought in are moving towards quite a calibrated restraint on the use of legal services for commercial purposes by oligarchs and other designated persons. But it is important to preserve access to rights legal advice, because however individuals might dislike the fact, it has always been our way in this country for hundreds of years that people are allowed to have, subject to law, their day in court, and proper representation. The cap seeks to limit the effects of that, but the principle is clear.

[Stephen Doughty]

I spoke about the scope of individuals to take legal action across the EU against their designation. Can he tell me, or write to me, about the numbers involved who have attempted to take action against the UK Government for being sanctioned? That would give us an idea of the scale of attempts to undermine the sanctions regime.

[Jesse Norman]

If I may, I will discuss and consider with officials whether we can properly respond, or whether, for reasons he will understand, that information has to be retained for present purposes. I can assure him that we are not seeing a large amount of litigation at the moment, but there obviously is the potential, and that is why it is prudent to introduce a cap. As I have said, that cap is backdated. I take the point that he has raised, and let me consider it with my officials.

Unless there are any other questions, I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Sanctions

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Jesse Norman)]

I beg to move,

That the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 11) Regulations 2022 (SI, 2022, No. 792), a copy of which was laid before this House on 14 July, be approved.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this we shall consider the following motions:

That the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 12) Regulations 2022 (SI, 2022, No. 801), dated 14 July 2022, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18 July, be approved.

That the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 13) Regulations 2022 (SI, 2022, No. 814), dated 14 July 2022, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18 July, be approved.

That the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 14) Regulations 2022 (SI, 2022, No. 850), dated 18 July 2022, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20 July, be approved.

[Jesse Norman]

The instruments before us were laid between 14 and 20 July under powers provided by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. They make amendments to the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

As the last debate demonstrated, this House stands absolutely resolute in its opposition to the illegal and aggressive invasion of Ukraine by Russia. In co-ordination with our allies, the United Kingdom continues to play a leading role in introducing the largest and most severe economic sanctions package that Russia has ever faced. The measures that we are debating are designed to isolate Russia’s economy still further and target key industries that support President Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine. The measures are somewhat technical, so I hope that the House will forgive me if I go through them in a little detail.

The No. 11 regulations ban the export of goods and technologies related to the defence, security and maritime sectors. They also prohibit the export of jet fuel, maritime goods and technologies, certain energy-related goods, and sterling and European Union banknotes. In addition, they ban the import of goods such as fertiliser, metals, chemicals and wood, depriving Russia of a key export market. Together, those markets were worth some £585 million last year.

The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments concluded that three provisions in the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 10) Regulations 2022 would not be inside the powers conferred by the Sanctions Act. His Majesty’s Government have resolved that by revoking the 10th amendment and replacing it with the 11th. I thank the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for its continued engagement as we introduce further secondary legislation rapidly in response to this abhorrent war.

The No. 12 regulations place fresh restrictions on investments and services in Russia. They are designed to hit revenue streams of critical important to the Russian economy. The new measures prohibit persons from being involved directly or indirectly in acquiring land and entities with a place of business in Russia, in establishing joint ventures with persons and entities connected with Russia, and in opening representative offices or establishing branches or subsidiaries in Russia. The measures also restrict the provision of investment services related to these activities. There are some exceptions to the provisions to prevent overlap with existing regulations as well as licensing and enforcement powers.

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is talking about services. Will His Majesty’s Government take further action to prevent Russian state entities such as Gazprom and VTB Bank, and the legal firms that support them in this country, from continuing to use the UK courts? I have written to the Secretary of State for Justice about the matter, because there is a long list of cases that the Russian state and Russian proxy entities are taking in the UK courts, and that money ends up back in the coffers of the Russian Government.

[Jesse Norman]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, and the House recognises his great expertise in this area. He will understand that I am not going to comment on the future sanctions policy of this Government, but he can take it as read that we are looking extremely closely not just at ways of further extending this escalating programme of sanctions that has elaborated itself over the last few months, but at closing some of the loopholes. If he wishes, I will make certain that my officials have sight of the letter he has written and will write to him on the matter specifically.

I turn to the No. 13 regulations, which widen the definition of scope of activities for which a person can be designated. His Majesty’s Government have expanded the definition of destabilising, undermining or threatening Ukraine and supporting or obtaining a benefit from the Russian regime. This brings into scope many individuals and entities in the Russian Government, its agencies and its armed forces. The regulations make minor amendments to the definitions of being involved in, obtaining a benefit from or supporting the Government of Russia. These have the effect of broadening the interpretation of being associated with a designated person to include immediate family members who may, and often do, hold assets on their behalf. The regulations also provide an exception from trade sanctions for humanitarian assistance actively delivered in non-Government controlled areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. Finally, they expand the definition of ownership in relation to ships and aircraft, and they correct errors and omissions in previous regulations.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place. He mentions family members who are associated with sanctioned individuals. He will probably be aware of, but unable to comment on, the case of Alisher Usmanov, who is sanctioned by the UK, the EU and the US but has passed on some of his wealth—£2.1 billion, I think—to his sister, who is outside the scope of our current sanctions regimes. Will my right hon. Friend’s tightening up of sanctions, which I welcome, mean that we can go after people such as Alisher Usmanov’s sister and the assets she holds on his behalf?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

As my hon. Friend has brilliantly anticipated, I am not in a position to comment on any individual case, but I can say that these powers of designation as to travel bans and asset freezes now have a significantly wider scope to include family members. I take the point he has made in relation to that specific individual—I am sure my officials will have noted it—and I thank him for his intervention.

The fourth and final set of regulations are the No. 14 regulations, which introduce further trade sanctions. The regulations prohibit the export, supply, delivery and making available of a comprehensive list of critical goods, energy-related goods and related ancillary services—services that Russia had relied on G7 nations to supply. These goods had a combined market value to Russia of £365 million last year. The instrument also bans the import, acquisition, supply and delivery of Russian coal; that measure entered into force on 10 August.

That is on top of prohibitions on the import, acquisition, supply and delivery of Russian oil, which will come into force before the end of this year; and on the import of gold that directly or indirectly originates in Russia, which entered into force on 21 July. Ancillary products and services on coal, oil and gold exported from Russia are also prohibited. A further ban covers the provision of business and management consulting services, public relations and accounting services to persons connected with Russia.

These hard-hitting new measures continue the Government’s project of ratcheting up the pressure on Russia. We will continue to do this in close concert with our allies until Putin ends his illegal invasion of Ukraine. I commend these regulations to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

I thank all hon. Members who have spoken in this very interesting debate. It is a testament to the intense interest and passion that the Russian invasion of Ukraine has raised in this House that, even on topics as apparently technical as this one, we could have such a vigorous and energetic debate.

Let me pick up as many as I can of the points that have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) spoke truly about how highly effective sanctions have been so far, as evidenced by the Treasury Committee. I would say that it is more like turning off a light, but the danger is that the dimmer switch may be activated the other way. That is one thing that we are constantly dealing with. I will say a little about it more generally, partly in response to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), because this is an evolving situation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton mentioned Bill Browder, a very interesting and brilliant man whom I have met. The idea about opening books is a very interesting one. We have a lot of interesting ideas in this House; one of the strengths of the open parliamentary debate that makes our system so much stronger than the Russian alternative is that we are willing rapidly to evolve our response to public opinion and to such suggestions, for which I thank my hon. Friend.

My hon. Friend also made a point about crypto that I think was right. It is important to say that crypto-assets are treated in exactly the same way as any financial asset. We therefore expect these measures to be as widely respected by entities, even if enforcement proves to require further work.

[Stephen Doughty]

I have just received notice that on 11 October we will be debating another set of amending regulations on sanctions—not only against Russia, but against a whole bunch of regimes—to deal with the very fact that crypto-assets are not treated in the same way as other financial assets for the purposes of sanctions. In fact, there appear to be a whole series of loopholes that the Government are only getting around to dealing with on 11 October. We really need to move a lot faster. We need to be up to speed with what is actually happening and with how people are using these markets.

[Jesse Norman]

If I may say so, I do not think that it is possible to move faster than having a debate within two days—in fact, a day and a half—of Parliament’s resumption after the interval following the unfortunate passing of Her late Majesty the Queen. The rules apply. As a further rebuttal to the shadow Minister’s point, my reply to the suggestion that something can somehow be made perfect, as though it were set in stone forever, is “Of course not.” This is a rapidly evolving situation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) talked about lawfare. He is exactly right that some very well-heeled and well-resourced individuals are using all their resources, as corporates and as individuals, to try to thwart us. That is why the response must continue to evolve, and it will.

On the point raised by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord), the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation in the Treasury has more than doubled in this financial year. The response that is being made is being taken very seriously, and there is a continuous effort to build sanctions capability across Government.

I take the point that the hon. Gentleman made about advice for the higher education sector. I can also tell him that a very effective team in the Department for International Trade is helping businesses in this country to deal with this issue, which, again, we take extremely seriously.

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, when referring to lawfare, mentioned Freshfields. I was sorry to hear the name mentioned, given the respect in which that firm is held across the country. I wish it were not true, if it is—I hope it is not—but it was interesting that my hon. Friend mentioned it.

[Bob Seely]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jesse Norman]

I would rather not, because I have not much time, but let me just say this. My hon. Friend talked about the extension of designation, and this makes the point about the evolving nature of the threat. It is important to get the sanctions in quickly, but as the response evolves, so we must evolve it, and that is what we have done. Being associated with a designated person now includes obtaining financial benefit or other material benefit, or being an immediate family member, which means a wife, a husband, a civil partner, a parent or step-parent, a child or stepchild, a sibling or step-sibling, a niece or nephew, an aunt or uncle, or a grandparent or a grandchild. That is an example of the response evolving as my hon. Friend would have wished.

The hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) rightly drew attention to the slippery nature of what we are dealing with. I have been highlighting that in my speech. He talked about the danger of laundering energy. There are technically difficult questions to address about how that is to be characterised, especially when, as it were, forms of energy are changed.

The hon. Gentleman talked about proper tracking through the overseas territories. He will be aware that these rules apply in the overseas territories by Order in Council, in the same way that we would apply them here. I think he erred slightly in talking about the legitimacy of sanctions in part depending on the assets seized; the legitimacy of sanctions lies in the fact that we are fighting an aggressive nation that is seeking to overturn our way of life and the foundations of liberal democracy, and I do not think any further legitimacy is required for that to be a worthwhile thing for us to do.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mark Eastwood) raised the important issue of Alunet, in his constituency. I thank him for doing so, and I thank him for writing to me in advance with the details. I understand the sense of those at Alunet of the loss that they appear to have incurred, and also the concern that they are feeling. I will be writing to my hon. Friend specifically about that issue.

Let me now come to the questions raised by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth. He asked why so many changes and amendments were needed. It is, of course, because the first instinct in a war situation is to get sanctions on the books as quickly as possible. We know that they have been effective because the Treasury Committee has reminded us of that, and we have plenty of other evidence that it is the case. As I have said, however, as the situation evolves so we need to evolve the response, and as the concerns about the humanitarian impact and unfairness evolve, the sanctions picture inevitably becomes not merely more widespread and more expensive, but more complex—and it is right that that should be so.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned a letter that he had written. Obviously the process has been disturbed by the abeyance of Government and the funeral of Her Majesty, but I will ensure that that letter is sent. He also talked about resourcing. I have referred to the increase in the size of OFSI, and that is matched by the seriousness with which this issue is taken across Government. The hon. Gentleman raised a series of other, more technical issues, and I shall be happy to write to him about those in more detail.

I invite the House to support these motions.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 11) Regulations 2022 (SI, 2022, No. 792), a copy of which was laid before this House on 14 July, be approved.

Resolved,

That the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 12) Regulations 2022 (SI, 2022, No. 801), dated 14 July 2022, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18 July, be approved.—(Jesse Norman.)

That the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 13) Regulations 2022 (SI, 2022, No. 814), dated 14 July 2022, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18 July, be approved.— (Jesse Norman.)

Exiting the European Union (Sanctions)

Resolved,

That the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 14) Regulations 2022 (SI, 2022, No. 850), dated 18 July 2022, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20 July, be approved.— (Jesse Norman.)

Common Foreign and Security Policy

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2016 General Committees

[Mr Lidington]

It is part of the Lisbon treaty and permits the Council to entrust the conduct of a CSDP mission to a willing group of member states smaller than the entire EU membership, allowing those without an interest in the mission to give it their political blessing without actually having to participate. Under article 44, a coalition of the willing could therefore take on a mission under the EU banner with the support of EU infrastructure and spending programmes. Italy and a number of southern member states are particularly keen on that at the moment because they are talking about a further CSDP mission in the Mediterranean.

The article has the potential to be useful because it would provide a way to reflect the reality that it is inevitable in a diverse EU membership that member states have different levels of interest in particular crises. It will be no shock to the Committee if I say that Malta is concerned about what is happening in Libya and that Lithuania is concerned about the situation vis-à-vis Russia and Ukraine. Article 44 will add value only if it has some different rules that allow for greater flexibility of action. By definition, the article is likely to be used when not all member states want to be fully engaged in a mission and therefore use of the article should not come with an automatic expectation of common funding from member states that have chosen not to participate. Those who want to take part should pay for it.

We can delegate a mission to a particular group of member states, but we are very reluctant to support the idea of delegating responsibility for that mission’s conduct, even if it is being conducted by only a minority of willing member states. In any use of article 44, we would want to insist that standards of planning, organisation, governance and spending oversight in the conduct of a mission remained just as high if it took place under article 44 as it would for any other EU mission.

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

The Minister’s responses have raised a question in my mind about what the Government’s policy actually is; I hope he does not mind if I ask him about that in the context of this motion. Is the Government’s policy with regard to the EU to withdraw powers wherever possible in line with the doctrine of subsidiarity? Is it never to remit any further powers to the European Union? Is it to contemplate remitting powers to institutions of the EU where policy, and in particular, British policy goals are served by such a remission of power? Or is it to remit such powers if—and only if—such remission is purely temporary? I would be very grateful if the Minister clarified the policy.

[Mr Lidington]

To a large extent, one would need to look at the detail of the subject area being addressed. On my hon. Friend’s first question, it is certainly the Government’s position that in all areas of EU activity, the cardinal principle ought to be “Europe where necessary, national where possible”, and that action should be taken at a European level where we believe that will give genuine value added. We therefore want to see subsidiarity applied rigorously in areas of activity that fall within EU competence under the treaties.

When it comes to new powers, as my hon. Friend will know, we set out very significant checks in the European Union Act 2011 in the form of requirements for parliamentary agreement, primary legislation and in many cases, a referendum in this country before this or any future British Government could agree to the transfer of additional competences to the EU by way of treaty amendment or a new treaty.

I think there is certainly deep scepticism on the Government’s part towards the idea that EU competences need to be expanded. The Lisbon treaty already gives very significant competences to the EU. It is dangerous in politics ever to say “never”, and we do not know what the world will look like in five, 10 or 25 years’ time, but I think it is good that we have those checks in place on the statute book to ensure that if any future Government were tempted to agree to an expansion of EU competences, they could do so only with the full support of Parliament, and in most cases, of the British public in a referendum.

When it comes to the additional exercise of powers within an existing competence—for example, with the proposal for a new justice and home affairs measure—we will, in that particular case, make a judgment, based on our assessment of the national interest, as to whether it is in our interest to participate or not participate in that measure. Where the matter falls within the EU’s treaty competence already and where we do not have the opt-out—for example, single-market matters—part of our negotiating approach would be to press for the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality to be observed fully.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 11083/15, Main aspects and basic choices of the CFSP (part II, point E, paragraph 25 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 2 December 2013)—2014: Draft Annual Report from the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to the European Parliament; and welcomes the constructive coordination between EU Member States and Institutions to achieve a range of positive foreign policy outcomes.— (Mr Lidington.)

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I thank the Minister for his answers; he has shown once again that he has a full understanding of this issue and a comprehensive, encyclopaedic knowledge. There is a “but” coming, which I know he anticipates, and I am afraid to say that it is this: he is defending business as normal, which is a complete contradiction of the Government’s renegotiation strategy. On the one hand, in the next major area for Europeanisation of British competence and power, the Government are allowing things to move steadily in the direction of more Europe, while they are arguing for minor returns of power in the renegotiation. The two just do not go together.

The overwhelming majority of what is happening in the European Union is leading to ever-closer union, and Her Majesty’s Government are doing essentially a synthetic renegotiation to pretend that they are serious about returning powers. All the pages in front of us are about developing increasing competence over foreign affairs and defence for the European Union, and things have been moving in that direction for some time. The Government go along with that and have not been enthusiastic about scrutiny because they do not want it shown up that that is the direction of travel. That fits in with the overall picture of a steadily growing single European state.

[Jesse Norman]

I am interested in the line of thought my hon. Friend is developing. Does he think there is a potential tension between the drift he describes in the area of foreign security policy and the European Union Act 2011, which attempts to constrain what the Government can do in terms of granting, if not new competences, at least things that amount to new competences?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The 2011 Act is a good Act as far as it goes, but wide areas are not covered by it and do not require a referendum.

We have the steady move of powers to the EU, and we have the good manners of the Government in the Councils of Europe not wanting to cause a fuss. When it is a question of whether we should upset our friends in Europe or stand up for proper scrutiny in this House, the choice is easy for the Minister: he does not want to offend our friends in Europe, so he does not veto a report that is extremely late, where the High Representative has been slow, lazy and tardy, regardless of the fact that it offends the House of Commons. Why? Because he is a good European and because he wants to go along with it.

It is not so much about the formal side of things, which is indeed protected at the highest level by a referendum, but the steady day-by-day accretion of powers, allowing more things to happen under the competences that already exist and pushing those competences to the edges. My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire is the distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport—an area where there is almost no EU competence, but the European Scrutiny Committee still receives documents in that area, where the EU is beginning to evolve an interest.

That is where the Government are not being strong enough. They are not showing the backbone that I have called for them to develop over the past few years. They are allowing this to go through because they do not want to stand up to it; they probably believe in it, but they know that the British people do not like it, so we get a little bit of a renegotiation on the edges. This document is symptomatic of what is going wrong, and I urge my very civilised right hon. Friend the Minister to be a little less civilised in the Councils of Europe and a little more robust.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

My right hon. Friend is right to remind the House of our responsibilities towards the Chagossians, and as I said earlier, the actions of the ’60s and ’70s were clearly wrong and substantial compensation was rightly paid. It is worth pointing out that the British High Court in 2008, and the European Court in 2012, ruled that the compensation was a full and final settlement of the Chagossians’ claims.

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

4. What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Turkey.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

Turkey is an important security partner for the UK in NATO and in actions against terrorism. She faces major challenges because of the conflicts in Syria and Iraq, and we value the Turkish humanitarian contribution and her support for coalition activities against ISIL.

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the Minister for that reply. The security situation in Turkey remains extraordinarily delicate. What support have the Government given to assist Turkey with those serious security concerns while also respecting the rights and freedoms of its citizens?

Oral Answers to Questions

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Tuesday 30th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

Yes, I can indeed commend the hon. Gentleman for his work with that group, which we know and think very well of. Its members do a difficult job trying to bring together people from both sides of the divide through their grief. I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and members of the group when it is convenient for both of us.

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

T3. Like many others in the House, I welcome the Government’s efforts to keep the EU budget in check. Will my right hon. Friend be taking any lessons on that from the past example or present policy of the Labour party?

[Mr Hague]

That would be a strange thing to take any lessons from, because when the shadow Foreign Secretary was Minister for Europe, the Labour Government signed away £7 billion of the British rebate with nothing in return. It is notable that last year Labour MEPs voted against a budget freeze in Europe because they wanted an increase instead. It is also notable that in the time that the shadow Chancellor was a Treasury adviser and in the Cabinet, the annual EU budget increased by no less than 47%.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I will, of course, be doing that, and the Prime Minister has already spoken to the Prime Minister of Turkey since the Turkish election results on Sunday night. Turkey plays a strong leading regional role, and, despite its own election campaign, has made many efforts in recent weeks to persuade the Assad regime to adopt a different course. I am sure it will want to redouble its efforts now, given the worsening situation on its border, and I will strongly encourage it to do so, as well as take its advice about the wider international handling of Syria.

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

T5. The whole House will share the concern felt by many British nationals at the spread of violence and unrest in the Sudan. Will the Minister therefore update us on the current situation?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham)]

I certainly share my hon. Friend’s concern about what is happening in Abyei, South Kordofan and Unity state. To add to what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, we are keen to see action at P5—the permanent five—level and for the issue to be raised at the United Nations Security Council in the very near future, hopefully this week.

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

I would like to update the House about the progress on a subject that has become something of a preoccupation of mine of late: the private finance initiative. Members will be familiar with the details of the PFI, including its cost, complexity and lack of transparency and the level of advisory fees involved. The issue affects almost every constituency in the land and therefore almost every Member of the House.

As hon. Members will be aware, there have been far too many scandals for comfort over the years. Let me refresh our collective memory with a few choice examples. The Ministry of Defence pays £22 for each of its 100 W light bulbs. The Public Accounts Committee recently found that the project to widen the M25 took nine years simply to procure, that the cost was likely to be in the region of £1 billion too much and that the advisory fees alone were in the order of £80 million. It is an interesting fact that under the Building Schools for the Future programme, secondary schools were required to have atriums, as though they were multinational corporations, at colossal cost. One might ask why that should be so, but so it was.

Members can take their pick as to their preferred PFI scandal, so it is little wonder that the campaign to secure savings on the PFI now has 70 Members from across all major parties in the House. The campaign is not about tearing up contracts, but about renegotiating them, locating savings without a loss of services and sharing future rewards more equally with the taxpayer. Since the campaign was launched last year, we have made huge progress. The Department of Health is looking very hard, through what it has referred to as its “deep dive”, at its costs at Romford hospital, from which it hopes to infer a programme of cost savings that can run across the entire PFI hospital network. The MOD has reopened contracts at Corsham and two other facilities. The Public Accounts Committee is holding a hearing next month with key players in the industry to find out what has gone wrong, and I am pleased to say that the Treasury Committee—my own Committee—has held an inquiry and is holding a hearing on that inquiry’s findings, focusing on alternatives to the PFI.

In recent months I have had extensive meetings with industry, with Ministers and officials at the Treasury and Cabinet Office, and with the National Audit Office. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) for his intervention in that regard. I have had meetings extensively with the different players in the industry—the contractors, the developers, the banks, the service providers and the advisers—and I have been surprised by the positive response from those organisations. There is clearly a high level of interest in working with the Government to remedy some of the evils of PFI over recent years and setting the stage for the much improved use of private finance in the future.

However, it is important for colleagues to note that some firms remain outside the process. I will mention some in particular. Innisfree, which has been a very big PFI provider, has decided to bury its head in the sand. That organisation has been associated with some of the most lucrative deals for the private sector. It had a profit last year of 53% of its turnover. Sodexho is a very large national service provider, whose exorbitant costs I drew to the attention of the House last year, in relation to Hereford hospital in my constituency.

I draw the attention of the House to the performance of the advisers as a group—the law and accountancy firms, which have not participated so far in the process. It is striking that no matter how many transactions are done, the advisory fees on PFI deals have not fallen at all over the past 15 years.

I shall be approaching the Backbench Business Committee on 7 June for a full debate on the subject of PFI. I very much hope that as many Members as possible will join the campaign if they have not already done so, support my approach to the Committee, and speak in that debate.