Ukraine

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Should not Putin’s weaponisation of food be a wake-up call to those African countries, many of them Commonwealth countries, that have perhaps inadvertently bought into Putin’s false narrative on the war and recently abstained rather than voting for the UN resolution? They should understand that Russia and Putin are an unreliable partner for Africa.

[James Cleverly]

The whole world, including the Commonwealth nations and our friends in Africa and other parts of the global south, should recognise that Vladimir Putin is no friend of theirs. He is using their hunger as leverage in his war against Ukraine, and they should be able to see what is happening. We will continue helping to get grain out of Ukraine, to help them put food on their tables.

Global Food Security

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mrs Hamilton) for securing this hugely important debate, which is an existential matter for many of our constituents and millions around the globe.

I also thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who cares about our role in the world and speaks up for the most marginalised at home and abroad. I also thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) for his contribution, which made the link between food insecurity at home and abroad. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) for making a powerful case on the impact of aid cuts and the decimation of the Department for International Development.

At a time of converging global crises, I look forward to working with the new Minister for Development, who is not in his place, in the interests of the world’s poorest and most marginalised, and those of the British people, who expect us to play a leading role in building a fairer, safer world, which is in our national interest. Global food security is national security. The UK imports almost half the food it consumes, exposing us to fluctuations in global prices. In the year to September, food and non-alcohol beverage prices rose nearly 15%—the highest rate in 40 years. For many basics, the rise was even higher.

For our poorest constituents, the impact stings all the more, as more of their disposable income is siphoned away on the essentials. At this point, we can all cite shocking tales from our constituency mailbag. I spoke to a headteacher from my constituency recently, who told me they have children turning up to school nervous wrecks, unable to concentrate. They have seen their parents skipping meals, and are often hungry themselves. One boy she spoke of was so hungry that they caught him trying to eat from a pot of PVA glue.

This not just a national crisis, but an international crisis that we have an interest in solving. Globally, food prices have soared over the past year. Despite dropping over the summer with harvests rolling in, the Food and Agriculture Organisation shows that prices remain high, at 8% above last year’s levels. Global wheat prices remain 10.6% above values in August last year. According to the World Food Programme, 345 million people are experiencing acute food insecurity.

The causes are multifaceted, but the consequences are invariably stark, as many hon. Members have highlighted. Putin’s barbaric war of aggression with Ukraine has poured fuel on the fire of inflation. Earlier this year, the Russian block on grain exports from Ukraine contributed to an international humanitarian crisis. Across the House, we are united in standing up for Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression. We welcome the UN-backed Black sea grain initiative between Ukraine, Russia and Turkey, which has been essential to get shipments out of Ukraine and to combat rising food prices. The UK has to put its diplomatic weight behind extending the agreement beyond November. Russia must continue to meet its commitment under the agreement in full. I hope that the Minister will continue to provide support to the EU solidarity lanes programme, which is helping to ship millions of tonnes of grain from Ukraine via land and river borders each month.

Let us be clear: Ukraine is only one factor in the global hunger crisis. Even before Russia’s invasion, food, fuel and fertiliser prices were rising, and 70% of those facing acute levels of food insecurity in 2021 were in conflict-affected countries. Ukraine-related food price spikes are only the latest evidence that the global agriculture system is broken. That reinforces the global need to diversify our food sources and support developing countries with a bottom-up approach to food security. Households’ right to food is put under increased pressure when they experience extreme events that are out of their control. The hungry have few choices: they can migrate in search of food, take food from others by force or die of starvation. The question for us is how to work with partners to stabilise and build resilient local food environments.

Rising global food prices are being felt by people from Nugaal to Northfield. Like the pandemic before it, this crisis is a reminder that island though we are, the greatest challenges facing the world will also reach our shores. In these difficult times, there is cause for solidarity and international co-operation between allies and nations. It is a call that, in times past, Britain has answered proudly.

As many colleagues have said today, the suffering across the world is enormous. Labour has been ringing the alarm about the hunger crisis for the best part of a year. From Afghanistan to Yemen to sub-Saharan Africa, conflict, inflation and accelerating climate change are creating a perfect storm. In June, the World Food Programme warned that the number of people at risk of succumbing to famine or famine-like conditions could rise to 323 million this year. The former Minister, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), travelled to east Africa last week, where she will have seen the human consequence of the crisis at first hand. It is a shame that she cannot now turn that into action.

Extreme hunger is driving mass displacement and conflict, and putting hundreds of thousands of lives at risk. According to Oxfam, more than 13 million people across Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia were displaced in search of water and pasture in just the first quarter of 2022, while the UN warned that 350,000 children could die by the end of the summer in Somalia alone.

After the catastrophic famine of 2011, which killed 260,000 people—half of them children—the UK and the international community vowed “never again”. The UK learned lessons with a much stronger response to the famine of 2017, when it succeeded in saving thousands upon thousands of lives. However, despite the current crisis outstripping those of five and 11 years ago, the UK’s response this year has paled in comparison. The World Food Programme director, David Beasley, said that it has put aid workers in the unimaginable position of having to take food from the mouths of the hungry to give to the starving.

At a time when we should be fortifying our alliances and building international co-operation, the UK, under this Government, has gone missing. Successive cuts to overseas aid and the chaotic block on spending this summer, just weeks after the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office budget was signed off, have left the UK isolated. Repurposing aid away from poverty has not gone unnoticed. In June, Samantha Power, chief of the United States Agency for International Development —USAID—expressed disbelief at this Government’s decision to strip back support from east Africa:

“at just the time of this, arguably, unprecedented food crisis, you’re actually seeing a lot of the key donors scaling back, if you can believe it…assistance in places like sub-Saharan Africa. And that comes on the heels of the British government…making significant cuts”.

Last week, Abdirahman Abdishakur Warsame, the presidential envoy for Somalia’s drought response, made these chastening remarks:

“In the 2017 drought, the UK and its leadership was vital, its advocacy and energy was great, and it encouraged people like me to match that commitment. Britain was a great ally to Somalia but that is all gone. The UK is still an ally, and they help with security, but when it comes to humanitarian response they are not there, not in leadership or in aid. It’s all gone.”

He is right to speak out because the situation is so grave. Some 700,000 people are now on the brink of famine in east Africa, and many millions more are suffering from acute malnutrition.

Let me be as clear as I can. When I say famine, I mean mass death. Under the integrated food security phase classification system, that means two in every 10,000 adults or four in every 10,000 children dying every single day. Oxfam has warned that across the region, someone is now dying of hunger every 36 seconds. By the time this debate finishes, that will be 150 people more.

The urgency of this crisis could barely be more stark. However, earlier this month, when the Minister in the other place, Lord Goldsmith, was asked how much of the £156 million allocated to this crisis had been disbursed to date, he said that less than half had been allocated. Let me impress on the Minister that when 260,000 people died in the famine of 2011, more than half died before the official declaration of famine was made. What are we waiting for? We cannot wait until a formal announcement to act.

On the steps of Downing Street, our new Prime Minister tried to claim the mandate of the 2019 general election and recommitted to delivering on that manifesto. In the context of this debate, I remind the Minister what that manifesto said:

“Building on this Government’s existing efforts, we will end the preventable deaths of mothers, new-born babies and children by 2030”.

Given that malnutrition plays a role in 45% of all deaths of under-fives, and that in a food crisis it is women and girls who eat less and eat last, we would expect food security to be a top priority for this Conservative Government. Why was food mentioned only three times in the Government’s 10-year international development strategy? Why did Ministers turn up empty-handed to the Nutrition for Growth summit in December and take two years to renew its pledge? Why did an estimated 11.7 million women and children lose out on nutrition support last year due to the cuts?

I will finish by referring to the single greatest long-term challenge to global food security: the climate emergency. This summer, droughts, floods and wildfires wreaked havoc in the UK and across the world. In Pakistan, devastating floods left a third of the country—equivalent to the size of the United Kingdom—underwater. Acres of rice fields were lost. In India, extreme heat decimated crop yields in Punjab and Uttar Pradesh, leading to a domestic grain export ban. In the horn of Africa, we face an unprecedented fifth failed rainy season in a row.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned of the impact of global warming on food security—not only from the wanton destruction of extreme weather events, but as soil health progressively weakens and ecosystems collapse, pests and diseases become more common and marine animal biomass depletes. This is a disaster for the world, including for us in the United Kingdom. The Climate Change Committee has warned that global warming could lead to a 20% rise in food prices by 2050. That is a reminder why international co-operation and development is essential to protect people at home and across the world.

The truth is that the UK has a unique role to play, but under this Government we are falling woefully short. Our international development expertise, decimated with the destruction of DFID, is sorely missed here and abroad. Our research institutions and universities have an incredible role to play in unlocking long-term solutions to the global food security crisis, such as their role in developing drought-resistant crops.

In the crises of years past, we stepped up as leaders on the world stage to galvanise action and co-operation on the challenges that we have in common, helping to develop early warning systems so we can act decisively before tragedies strike. What happened to that ambition? Will the Minister tell us why his Government continue to invest in fossil fuels overseas? Why were central projects for adaptation and mitigation indefinitely paused this summer? When will the UK finally deliver on the international climate finance that it promised as host of COP26 last year?

The Opposition know where we stand. We cannot keep lurching from crisis to crisis. It is only long-term development that will help us turn the tide on the greatest global challenges, and rebuild trust based on our shared values and common interests. Global crises demand global solutions. I hope that the new Minister for Development will recognise that and will fight to return the UK to the global stage.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

There is usually a time limit of 10 minutes for Front Benchers. Given that we have a little more time, I allowed the shadow Minister to speak for a bit longer. In the spirit of fairness, if the Minister wants an extra two minutes, that would be in perfect order.

British Nationals Detained Overseas

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Wednesday 20th April 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

I will call Kevin Brennan to move the motion and I will then call the Minister to respond. Unfortunately, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge—Mr Brennan—to wind up the debate, given the convention for 30-minute debates, which I am sure hon. Members are aware of.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered British nationals detained overseas.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, and I welcome the Minister to her new position. I hope she will bring some real energy and intent to the job.

The broad subject of today’s debate—British nationals detained overseas—has received substantial focus over recent weeks, both in this place and in the media. I thought that it was important to seek an opportunity to highlight the stories of constituents detained overseas, and to keep their names at the forefront of Ministers’ and the media’s minds.

Like all colleagues across the House, I was delighted to see Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and Anoosheh Ashoori reunited with their families. Their hard-fought return to the UK is testament to the unwavering love and untiring efforts of their families, and I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) that such cases deserve proper scrutiny, so that lessons for the future can be learned from the handling of cases of arbitrary detention by authoritarian regimes across the world. On that basis, I am pleased that the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs has launched an inquiry into hostage taking. I hope that during its hearings, it will look at cases other than those we have heard about.

Sanctions

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 28th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it does not dissuade me when people send me letters; it encourages me when people send me letters, and they are on our list.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

The armed forces and the people of Ukraine are fighting hard and fighting brave, and their courage is an inspiration to us and to all freedom-loving peoples around the world. On financial sanctions, I commend the Government for taking a lead in the west on those sanctions. Following on from the comments of the shadow Secretary of State on Visa, Mastercard and Diners Club, which are of course American companies, I have been on the phone this weekend to the US Congress, as the Foreign Secretary might expect. Can I ask her to get on the phone to Secretary Blinken to put pressure on him for perhaps a temporary ban in order that we have not only external pressure but internal pressure?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his leadership of the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine. We will be doing more with our friendship group for the Ukrainians to raise international support behind the Ukrainian cause. I can tell him that I have been on the phone to Tony Blinken on many occasions in the last few weeks. He is going to travel to Europe this week, and I will be meeting him. I will also be in the United States the following week. The UK does all it can to ensure that the G7 is moving forward in all these areas of sanctions, including financial services, and we will not rest until we have completely cut the Russian economy off, and cut it off from its supply of oil and gas money to ensure that Putin does not have the money to fund his war machine.

Russia: Sanctions

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 31st January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

The legislation we are putting forward is about being able to target entities and individuals that are of strategic or economic interest in the Russian state. We are broadening it out much more widely than before, when we would have been able to apply sanctions only to those who were actively destabilising Ukraine. We can target asset freezing, and we can target the ability to enter the UK of those individuals and entities. The register of interests that the hon. Lady is talking about is part of the economic crime Bill that is being brought forward by the Treasury, and the Prime Minister has committed to that happening this year.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement today, and the announcement of new powers. They are long overdue, but I am glad that it is this Government who are delivering them, and doing so by 10 February. That will also be welcomed by the Rada in Kyiv and by the Government of Ukraine. Is it not the case that Ukraine is not NATO’s border and not the EU’s border, but that it is democracy’s border, which is why Ukraine matters? I thank her for her good offices in working hard to galvanise opinion in Washington and across EU capitals to ensure that we have that strong defence, strong deterrence and strong diplomacy.

Ukraine

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Tuesday 7th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Vicky Ford]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for demonstrating the united front in this country in supporting the people of Ukraine—we are absolutely united in standing by Ukraine at this time. To demonstrate Ukraine’s resilience, we need a co-ordinated, increased approach not just defensively but economically, and we especially need support for Ukraine on the energy front. That is precisely why we are working with our NATO partners and other leading allies and why the Prime Minister spoke to not only President Biden but the leaders of France, Germany and Italy yesterday.

We have repeatedly aired our concerns about the construction of Nord Stream 2 and its implications for European security, and we will continue to do so. The right hon. Gentleman will also know that we have already put in place a number of sanctions, and we always stand ready to put in place sanctions against those responsible for human rights and other abuses. We have put in place sanctions against those who led the illegal annexation of Crimea, and we will continue to work with international partners on that front.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I recently visited Ukraine with Foreign Office Ministers as part of the Crimea forum, as set out in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the current situation is not only an early foreign policy challenge but an opportunity for the new German Government to set out their future policy with regards to Russian aggression? Does she also agree, as she mentioned in her statement, that it is through unity that we send a message to Russia? The United States, the United Kingdom and the whole European Union—particularly France and Germany—need to send a united, robust, clear and unequivocal message to Putin that any aggression will be met with severe penalties.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Wednesday 29th April 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. As he will know, because it has been made clear by the Government and clarified when it was not clear, the original issue was a failure of communication—we did not get the original invitation to tender. It is clear to us that the schemes in relation to the first batch of EU-wide procurement would not have made any significant extra difference or added any value to what we are doing here. I can tell him that we will look at any future EU-wide procurement initiatives, for example, on therapeutics. I can also reassure him that one thing we are doing is working very closely with our European partners on returns and repatriations. That is somewhere we have taken advantage of EU-wide schemes if they can help us to share costs. That is the collaborative, internationalist approach that the UK Government take.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

The horticultural sector is vital to Shropshire’s economy, employing thousands of people. Notwithstanding the First Secretary’s earlier response, may I ask that in phase 1 of any unlock, the garden centres and seasonal nurseries will be allowed to open, albeit with careful and considered strict guidelines

[Dominic Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend for that second plea for garden centres and nurseries. This is absolutely right, and I understand entirely why it is so important, both economically and socially, particularly for certain members of our community, for whom it will be an important means of getting outdoors and getting out of the lockdown. SAGE has already considered this once, and I know it will consider garden centres and nurseries again. I know that he will expect us to continue to be guided by the evidence, but he has made his point in a powerful way and it is firmly registered that this is an important area to look at for the future.

British Citizens Abroad: FCO Help to Return Home

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The Transport Secretary is already engaged in those discussions with individual airlines. There is a practical, legal question of whether those airlines can get into the relevant countries and jurisdictions, and that is why I will be raising the matter at G7 level tomorrow.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

The Foreign Secretary has mentioned thousands, and in one reply he said that hundreds of thousands of UK citizens are currently abroad. Could he provide the House with a more definitive estimate of the number of UK citizens abroad? He will recall that last week I pressed him on the use of the Royal Air Force in extremis. What further discussions has he had with Defence Ministers on deploying the RAF when required?

Covid-19

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I agree with the Foreign Secretary that we cannot repatriate everybody; it is just physically impossible. Following on from the very good question asked by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) about exceptional circumstances, may I ask about those who are most vulnerable? Given that we have been told by our own Prime Minister that we are at war with an invisible enemy—the covid-19 virus—what discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with the Ministry of Defence about deploying the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy, and even about using bases around the world as staging posts if need be, when the international airlines further restrict flights, to repatriate the most vulnerable—not everybody, but the most vulnerable?

[Dominic Raab]

Obviously I have engaged very closely with the Defence Secretary on this, but something like that would be a last resort. We do not rule anything out at this stage, but our focus—I think this is the point that the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) and others have made—has been on making sure that we are working very closely with not just the international airlines, but other countries. This is happening with some of the cruise shops we are dealing with from which we have not yet repatriated, because we can work together as an international team to try to get UK nationals back. That partnership will definitely involve Governments around the world, and also airlines around the world.

China’s Policy on its Uighur Population

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2020 Westminster Hall

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered China’s policy on its Uighur population.

I am grateful to the Speaker for allowing the House time to discuss this important and timely issue. Officially, according to the Chinese state, Uighurs have been resident in China since the ninth century; in fact, historians suggest that Uighurs have been around for about 4,000 years, since before the Islamic period. They have certainly experienced trials and tribulations over the centuries, but today, in a so-called industrial nation and a member of the G8, they find themselves in arguably their cruellest moment in history, with the Chinese state undertaking a systematic security, political and cultural assault on their very existence as a people.

Over the past four years, at least 1 million people, mostly Uighur Muslims, out of a Uighur population of about 10 million have been detained without trial in the Xinjiang autonomous region of China. In recent years, a vast network of so-called re-education centres has emerged. The first of these detention centres emerged following the Chinese Government’s “Strike Hard Campaign against Violent Terrorism”. The stated aim of the campaign was to bring political stability to Xinjiang after terrorist attacks and unrest that killed 1,000 people and injured 1,700 between 2007 and 2014. I will come back to that later. The current Chinese ambassador to London praised the campaign for creating

“social stability and unity among ethnic groups”,

citing the absence of terrorist attacks in the region in recent years as proof of the campaign’s success. However, the definition of terrorism applied in the region is troublingly vague. It does not allow peaceful protest, human rights activism or even routine religious practice.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend think that the individual arrested for terrorism in China after unintentionally clicking on to an international website—that was his only crime—is a good example of a terrorist?

[Mark Pritchard]

My hon. Friend raises a good point. A troubling aspect of this is that people are being detained for—intentionally or even unintentionally—visiting foreign websites. That has to stop. People should be free to surf the internet as they wish.

The definition of terrorism is worrying, as my hon. Friend points out. Uighurs should be allowed to undertake peaceful protest, human rights activism and religious practice without fear of the Chinese state coming after them. The Chinese Government should not conflate those peaceful activities with acts of terrorism or violent extremism. With mass surveillance and ethnic and religious profiling, leaked Chinese Government documents show that Uighurs are detained for exercising basic human rights and freedoms such as praying, attending a mosque or studying the Koran, applying for a passport, wearing religious dress such as a veil, or simply for being deemed “untrustworthy”—whatever that is—for unspecified reasons by the Chinese state.

The Chinese Government claim that the detention centres are voluntary re-education centres focused on teaching Mandarin, the law and vocational skills, all supposedly to eliminate extremism and improve the prospects of the Uighur minority, but China allows no monitoring of these facilities by the UN or international human rights organisations. For clarity, leaked Chinese Government cables demonstrate that the camps operate as high-security prisons, with intrusive video surveillance, harsh punishments and compulsory Mandarin classes, to supposedly achieve the “ideological transformation” of Uighurs. Surveillance from satellites reveals that the so-called voluntary re-education centres have watch towers, double perimeter walls topped with razor wire and armed guards. Former detainees describe detention of the elderly and seriously ill, forced confessions, rapes and beatings, severe overcrowding and unsanitary conditions, Muslim detainees being force-fed pork and alcohol, the administering of unknown pills and injections, and detainees being forced to repeat slogans such as “I love China”, and “Thank you to the Communist party”. Tragically, there are reports of significant numbers of suicides among detainees.

On 9 December last year, Governor Zakir of the Xinjiang region claimed that all Uighur detainees had been released, but there has been no independent proof to verify that claim. Indeed, many Uighurs living outside China believe that their relatives are still being detained, while satellite imagery reveals new detention centres being built and existing detention centres being extended. Even those Uighurs who have been transferred from detention centres might not be free as we would define it. Leaked Chinese Government documents show Uighurs released to so-called industrial park employment—in effect, forced labour camps. Perhaps the Chinese are learning bad lessons from their neighbours in North Korea.

A stark report published earlier this month by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute estimates that, between 2017 and 2019, approximately 80,000 Uighurs were transferred from detention centres in Xinjiang to factories throughout the whole of China. Once again, Uighur communities have been separated and families torn apart. Worryingly, the same report claims that some of these factories form part of the direct and indirect supply chains to dozens of global brands, including Apple, Nike, BMW, Samsung and Sony—something that these tech companies, many of them suppliers to Her Majesty’s Government, need to explain or convincingly refute. I had the privilege of chairing sittings of the Modern Slavery Public Bill Committee some five years ago. Making profit on the back of slave labour is a criminal offence and has to stop.

In addition to monitoring the activities of Uighurs at home, Chinese authorities have made foreign ties a punishable offence. Uighurs who have been abroad, have families overseas or who communicate with people outside China have been interrogated, detained and imprisoned. Particularly targeted have been those Uighurs with connections to so-called sensitive countries. There are 26 in total, including Kazakhstan, Turkey, Malaysia and Indonesia. As a result, many Uighurs living outside China say they have lost contact with relatives back home, including young children, for months at a time. The sudden tightening of passport controls and border crossings has left Uighur families divided, with children often trapped in China and their parents abroad, or vice versa.

What is more, the actions of the Chinese Government are clear violations not only of international human rights laws but of China’s own constitution, domestic laws and judicial processes. The Chinese constitution is clear: it forbids discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity or religious belief. Political re-education camps have no basis in Chinese law. My hon. Friend the Minister will know that China is bound by the universal declaration of human rights and is a signatory of the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, which China signed in 1997 and ratified in 2001. It is also bound by the international convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination, which it acceded to in 1981; and the convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, which China signed in 1986 and ratified in 1992. All those international agreements create a duty to guarantee freedom of thought and expression, freedom of religion and association, freedom from discrimination, a prohibition on torture, and the right to a fair trial.

Even if we accept that the Chinese Government are responding to a real and ongoing terrorist threat in Xinjiang, multiple UN resolutions make it clear that in tackling terrorism and violent extremism, all states must still comply with their obligations under international law. In response to reports of human rights abuses, the UN has condemned China’s criminalisation of fundamental rights in Xinjiang and called for it to

“Halt the practice of detaining individuals who have not been lawfully charged, tried and convicted”.

Last summer, at a US Government-hosted conference in Washington DC on religious freedom, the US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, called China’s treatment of Uighurs the “stain of the century”—pretty strong words. I was pleased when, in December, the US House of Representatives passed a bipartisan Bill that condemns the

“arbitrary detention, torture, and harassment”

of Uighurs. I pay particular tribute to Senator Markey, a Democrat, and Senator Rick Scott, a Republican, for that rare bipartisan approach in the US Congress on a foreign policy issue. Amnesty International has demanded that UN inspectors be able to verify Chinese Government claims that Uighur detainees have been released. I certainly call for that today as well.

The purpose of the detention of Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang is, I think, becoming alarmingly clear. It is a misplaced counter-violent extremism counter-narrative and, in my view, erroneous counter-terrorism policy, which will inevitably create more terrorists than it will detain or ever re-educate. That is not to deny that Chinese nationals from the Xinjiang region have previously fought in Afghanistan, or previously or currently fought in Syria, with jihadis from other parts of the world, but just like in the UK, those numbers are small compared with each nation’s Muslim population, who predominantly want to live in peace and without conflict.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an exceptionally powerful speech. I feel confident that the Government will agree with him, and with me, that individual criminal acts can never be used to justify the systematic persecution of ethnic or religious groups, in this case the persecution of Muslims, but the Government will need to set out in considerable detail how they intend to do something about that. It is easy to utter warm words, but we will need to use our connections to international institutions with great robustness if we are to act and satisfy my hon. Friend on this matter.

[Mark Pritchard]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. He is absolutely right. There have clearly been, as I referenced earlier, acts of terrorism within China, but those have been committed by a small minority of people. Claims were made by organisations regarding the Beijing attacks, but China said that in fact they were not responsible. A variety of domestic and international groups want to cause harm to Chinese nationals. We would stand with the Government of China and with the people of China against such groups, but my hon. Friend is right to point out that the Muslim population in China want to live in peace and get on with their lives in freedom, like most people around the world. We are talking about a very small minority compared with the 10 million population that I referenced earlier.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

I have my own experience of staying with the Uighurs, having spent some weeks in that part of the world. It is clear to anyone who has lived there what a noble civilisation they represent. To cast an entire population as terrorist sympathisers is an absolute travesty and does not in any way justify the Chinese Government’s undertaking population-level oppression and their wholly disproportionate response to a small terrorist incursion.

[Mark Pritchard]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. I was not aware of his personal experience, but he adds real value to the debate by sharing that. He is absolutely right. A one-size-fits-all policy is not right, and I will elaborate on why I think that.

Notwithstanding this debate and what might be perceived as criticism by some in the embassy here, or those in China, it is not criticism. It is what I call critical appreciation, or being a candid friend. China is a strategic partner and a key ally on so many levels internationally. To make this speech and have this debate is not to deny that there is a domestic terrorist threat in China; it is not a denial that, for example, the Turkistan Islamic party is a real threat to the Chinese nation. However, it does appear that the detention and forced labour camps policy is at best a clumsy attempt to reduce the threat of home-grown terrorism and at worst an illegal attempt to eradicate Uighur culture, language and religious practice. I think that either attempt will ultimately fail.

The short-term outcome might be a decline in the number of protests, and reduced Uighur gatherings, but the acts of state-led oppression are, I fear, laying the foundations of the very radicalisation and future home-grown terrorism that the Chinese Government are seeking to avert. It is a tragic irony that, in carrying out these policies, the Chinese state itself is in danger of becoming a recruiting sergeant for its own domestic terrorist threat in the coming years.

Last November, the United Nations issued a report agreeing with that analysis. It stated that

“disproportionate emphasis placed by the authorities on the repression of rights of minorities risks worsening any security risk”

and that such practices

“deeply erode the foundations for the viable social, economic and political development of society as a whole.”

Today, I am calling on the Chinese Government to end the extrajudicial detention of Uighurs and other minority groups in the Xinjiang region; to allow religious minorities to practise their religion peacefully and without state interference; and to heed the UK Government’s call to allow the United Nations to send in observers with unrestricted access to the detention or re-education centres. I urge Ministers to keep diplomatic pressure on their Chinese counterparts, both in bilateral discussions and through the United Nations.

Finally, I say to the Chinese authorities, as a friend—a candid friend—recognising the great and long history of China, China’s huge economic success and its astonishing and positive sociological transformation, that in sowing the seeds of oppression and repression in its own Uighur population, China’s leadership runs the very high risk of reaping a harvest of significant home-grown terrorism in the years that lie ahead.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It always changes just before I start, Mr Sharma. I do not take it personally, of course.

I want to start off on a slightly different tack. In March 1936, the Conservative MP for Chelmsford was a man called Jack Macnamara. He travelled to Germany to celebrate the remilitarisation of the Rhineland. Perhaps we might think that unusual today, but many people at the time thought that Germany should be allowed to stand on its own two feet again, after the Versailles treaty.

What changed his mind about Germany was visiting Dachau. The Germans showed it off. Most of the people in there at the time were political prisoners. They were members of the Communist and Social Democratic parties, or freemasons. Some were dissident clergy of various different Churches, and some were Jews. A significant number of them were homosexuals. The Nazi regime said they were there for their own protective custody—their re-education. They were kept in camps where they had to work hard every day. They were told what they had to do. They were told what they had to listen to. They were shown antisemitic magazines and horrible material that they had to inwardly digest. If they ever told anyone what was going on there, whether they told the truth or not, they were subjected to even harsher punishment. On top of that, it was felt that many of those people were being deliberately driven towards suicide.

Every one of those elements is present in what is going on in Xinjiang province in China at the moment. I want to say to Chinese friends that, just as that British MP in 1936 went to the new Germany as its friend and came back a harsh critic of Hitler’s regime—he ended up fighting and losing his life in the second world war to protect the freedoms of the kinds of people who were in Dachau—there is a danger that so too will China completely alienate the whole world community because of its actions in Xinjiang province and its treatment of the Uighurs. In many ways, some of what is happening to the Uighurs is even worse. There is the religious oppression, the refusal to allow people to have their own thoughts, the re-education, the deliberate reculturation and the attempt to destroy a whole community, but it is also applied to children. At least there were not children in Dachau.

[Mark Pritchard]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and happy to give him an extra minute by intervening on him. He mentioned alienating the whole world, but does he agree that it is not just about that—whether it happens or not—because, clearly, if China is breeding a counter-terrorism problem for itself, that will also be a counter-terrorism problem for the whole world, including the United Kingdom? Terrorists do not abide by national borders, so that is another incentive for the British Government to be slightly more robust on the issue than they probably have been to date.

[Chris Bryant]

There is a patent injustice, and injustice tends to lead to people taking some form of action. We would always want it to be legitimate and peaceful. The danger is, as the hon. Gentleman says, that the action being taken will be entirely counterproductive. China says that what is happening is meant to prevent terrorism, but it is far more likely to create it, in China and other parts of the world. Many people see their brothers and sisters on the other side of the world and feel that they are being hard done by, and want to do something about it.

What angers me is that the situation is all of a piece with the creation of a security state. I thought that the whole point of communism was to create a welfare state, but a security state is being created—exactly the opposite. I would also make the point to China that it has done extraordinarily well in the last 20, 30 or 40 years out of the international rule of law. It has served it well and China has managed to make enormous advances economically and culturally. Now it stands, having previously tended to sit to the side in the international community, wanting to take a much more central part in the world—hence all the various initiatives it has come up with around the world. It will not be able to do that if it does not abide by the international rule of law in its own country. On those two points its actions are utterly counterproductive—even if one were to accept the moral outrage that is what is happening to the Uighurs.

I want to end with a point about the Magnitsky Act. It is about time we had such legislation on the statute book. It has been promised repeatedly by the Foreign Secretary and I hope that the Minister will update us on when it will be published, when it will be able to go through, and when we will be able to use it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Pritchard]

I am sorry to put the Minister on the spot, but we are not here to play games. These are serious issues. As I am on my feet, there are currently men, women and children illegally incarcerated in China. Will he commit today that the Government, through their procurement office, will write to all the suppliers to Her Majesty’s Government that I have referenced today in this Chamber, to seek assurances that they are not using slave labour or forced labour to manufacture their goods?

[Nigel Adams]

Our concerns about this area and the report that my hon. Friend refers to are very well known. The research in the report, and the potential use of forced labour, gives us a better understanding of the situation. We contributed a small part of the overall funding to that research, although we did not play a part in the drafting of the report. It helps to inform us, and my hon. Friend raises a very good point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Pritchard]

I always valued and admired the approach of Kim Howells, a former Labour Member of Parliament and Minister at the Foreign Office. He was driven with moral purpose and always gave clear responses, certainly in my experience. I think today is the first time in my 15 years here that I have heard a Minister from the Foreign Office, notwithstanding Mr Howells, be prepared to say on record that he condemns the action of China. I applaud him for his clarity and candour, which will bring huge encouragement to the Uighur population of China.

In our discussion about China’s policy on its Uighur population and the illegal detention of Uighurs, the Minister—this may be the quickest that he has ever heard quotes back from his own speech—used the words “indiscriminate”, “disproportionate” and “counterproductive”. As friends of China in this Chamber, we call upon the Chinese Government to think again about the policy, to end it and to abide by its international obligations and by international human rights and humanitarian laws. They are stoking up a terrorism problem for the future, which will be not only China’s problem but that of the region and then an international problem, affecting the United Kingdom. I applaud the Minister for his response and for his clarity. I hope that China is listening.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered China’s policy on its Uighur population.