Persecution of Ahmadis

Nigel Adams Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)]

It is a real pleasure to respond to this debate. I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan) for securing it, and for his passionate, thoughtful and considered speech. I pay tribute to his work on freedom of religion and belief, including in promoting and protecting the rights of Ahmadi Muslims, and his work as a member of the all-party parliamentary group for the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. I am also grateful for the contributions and interventions of other hon. Members.

I thank the APPG for the Ahmadiyya Muslim community for its recent report. On 21 July, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, who is Minister for South Asia, spoke at the launch event for the report, and expressed the UK Government’s deep concerns about discrimination and violence against the Ahmadiyya Muslim community, including in Pakistan. Today we have heard of the appalling discrimination suffered by Ahmadi Muslims in many countries. Hon. Members have mentioned Pakistan in particular, but, as we have heard, the UK is not immune from such religious intolerance—I think particularly of the horrendous case of the gentleman in Glasgow. That is why this Government work tirelessly to promote and defend the rights of people of all faiths and none around the world. People must be able to practise their faith and express their beliefs without fear or discrimination. I will address some of the specific issues raised by my hon. Friend.

[John Spellar]

The Minister has rightly drawn the attention of the House to the appalling incidents that take place at the extremes of the spectrum, but are there not also lower-level activities—for example, attempts to organise boycotts against businesses owned by Ahmadis and general lower-level harassment? Should not the authorities be cracking down on such activity and saying, “This is unacceptable in this country”?

[Nigel Adams]

The right hon. Gentleman is bang on; of course we should be calling out this behaviour. Many of these activities take place on social media. We will be bringing forward an online harms Bill, and we hope some of these issues will be addressed. In this country, we pride ourselves on people’s ability to practise freedom of religion or belief. He makes an incredibly important point.

We have heard about recent incidents of discrimination, including violence, against the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in Pakistan. Its constitution does not allow Ahmadiyya Muslims to call themselves Muslims. Ahmadiyya Muslims face violence, killings and attacks on their places of worship and, as I have said, social media hate campaigns and discrimination in employment and education. There have been recent horrifying examples of this discrimination. Lord Ahmad publicly condemned the murder of Mr Mahboob Ahmad Khan in Peshawar in November. Everything points to Mr Khan having been murdered for his faith, as an Ahmadiyya Muslim. We have heard from the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) about the tragic killing of an Ahmadiyya Muslim, Dr Tahir Ahmad, in Nankana Sahib in Pakistan during Friday prayers last week. I extend my personal condolences to the families of Mr Khan and Dr Ahmad, and to members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community.

Those are not isolated incidents; as we have heard, there have been other abhorrent murders in Pakistan of Ahmadiyya Muslims and other apparently religiously motivated killings. We condemn all these murders in the strongest possible terms. My ministerial colleague Lord Ahmad also raised the UK Government’s concern about these murders with Pakistan’s human rights Minister, Dr Shireen Mazari, as recently as 16 November. We have pressed for full, transparent investigations into these killings that result in the identification and prosecution of those responsible.

[Matt Western]

I am interested in these points. The Minister was saying that the Government are working tirelessly. I appreciate that and I welcome it, as everyone else does. Given that the Prime Minister of Pakistan was formerly of this country—he lived here for many years—do we not have a special relationship with him? Is there some way of encouraging, through that special relationship and good understanding, a repeal of those laws, so that the Ahmadiyya people can be reinstated as citizens and be able to practise their faith, like any other in Pakistan?

[Nigel Adams]

The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. We regularly communicate our concern about these issues. People should be able to practise their religion and belief freely, without persecution. We regularly raise this matter with the Pakistan authorities. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister knows the Ahmadiyya community well and knows his holiness Mirza Masroor Ahmad, the spiritual head of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. The Prime Minister made it clear in this House, on 11 November, that we frequently raise our concerns about freedom of region or belief in relation to the Ahmadiyya Muslim community with the Pakistan Government.

I can also attest to my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield’s love for all, hatred for none maxim by which the Ahmadiyya community lives. In my constituency, we had horrendous floods in 2015. The town of Tadcaster had its bridge destroyed and the town was separated. Many people came to support that community, not least members of the Ahmadiyya community, who came all the way up from London, at their own expense, and provided a fantastic resource for the community in bringing succour and support to families who had been flooded. I am incredibly grateful for all the support that the Ahmadiyya Muslim Youth Association provided to the people of my constituency, and I was more than happy to visit them at their mosque in south London shortly afterwards.

Earlier this month, officials from the British high commission in Islamabad visited Rabwah in Punjab province to meet representatives of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. They were able to hear at first hand about the community’s experiences and challenges, as well as the concerning rise of persecution and the tragic rise of killings of members of that community. We also provide support to civil society organisations working on freedom of religion or belief issues in Pakistan. Our Aawaz II inclusion, accountability and reducing modern slavery programme will spend £39.5 million over five years in the provinces of Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. It is worth pointing out that followers of other religions, including Christians and Shi’a Muslims, also suffer discrimination and violence in Pakistan.

Let me take this opportunity to underline the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s due diligence in providing funding. We ensure that all organisations that receive funding have procedures in place to tackle any discrimination, including against religious minorities such as Ahmadi Muslims. We continue to urge the Pakistani Government to guarantee the fundamental rights of all their citizens and strengthen the protection of minorities in accordance with international standards. As part of that, we continue to raise our concerns about the implementation of blasphemy legislation and the misuse of anti-terror laws to discriminate.

My hon. Friend rightly raised the issue of trade. The EU’s generalised scheme of preferences plus tier includes provisions that make preferential market access conditional on compliance with human and labour rights, environmental standards and good governance. On 1 January 2021, the UK will introduce its own generalised scheme of preferences. We are committed to securing Pakistani businesses’ ability to trade freely with the UK through an independent unilateral preferences scheme that will offer the same level of tariff-free access as the EU’s generalised scheme of preferences plus. The UK’s trade preferences scheme will replicate the EU conditions for the enhanced framework, similar to the EU’s generalised scheme of preferences plus tier, of which Pakistan is a beneficiary.

We work closely with United Nations agencies and civil society organisations to ensure that the immediate needs of any displaced refugees are met. We raise issues of Ahmadi Muslim persecution regularly with other Governments, including in Algeria, Thailand and Malaysia, and we engage with representatives in those countries.

My hon. Friend raised sanctions. Our global human rights sanctions regime is a powerful tool to hold to account those involved in serious human rights violations and abuses. That could potentially include those who target individuals on the grounds of their religion or belief. As he will understand, we do not speculate on who may be designated, as to do so might reduce the impact of those designations. To return to the issue of aid, our relationship with any Government is based on an assessment of commitment to our partnership principles, including human rights.

I turn to our counter-extremism work at home. We are committed to tackling those who sow hatred and division against any community in this country. Our counter-extremism strategy seeks to address all forms of extremism by challenging those who spread extremist propaganda. We need to strengthen communities and disrupt the most dangerous extremists. As the House will be aware, policy on this issue is being led by the Home Office.

My hon. Friend mentioned the media and how they can play a negative role in propagating harmful views, as can social media. Propaganda also finds its way into more traditional channels. We are working to tackle that by using existing legislation, and we are countering those damaging narratives with a range of civil society groups, including overseas groups. We are working with tech companies, law enforcement and our international partners to tackle the abhorrent exploitation of online platforms. As I said earlier, our online harms White Paper sets out plans for world-leading legislation to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online. It will also introduce a new duty of care on companies and will be overseen by an independent regulator.

This has been a timely debate on an incredibly important issue, and I thank my hon. Friend for bringing it to the House.

[Fiona Bruce]

Before the Minister draws his remarks to a close, can I ask whether officials are raising concerns about an issue that the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) touched on—the fact that Ahmadis do not have an equal right to vote in Pakistan or to stand in elections as candidates, and that there is a separate electoral list kept of Ahmadis, which can unfortunately be used as a source of intimidation or harassment?

[Nigel Adams]

My hon. Friend, who is a long-time champion on issues of freedom of religion and belief, raises an incredible point. We see that issue in other parts of the world too, including with the Rohingya population in Myanmar. I struggle to see how any election could be called free and fair when large sections of society are denied the opportunity to participate.

[Imran Ahmad Khan]

Following on from the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), what consideration will be given to the point that I made about establishing structured engagement at a senior level between Pakistan and Her Majesty’s Government? I imagine that it may not be particularly popular with our high commission in Islamabad, but it may produce some good outcomes and enable us to discuss things issue by issue and find some common ground in a structured way. Will the Minister undertake to give it thorough consideration?

[Nigel Adams]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this debate to the House, and I can assure him that we will obviously continue to stand up for the rights of all religious communities, including the Ahmadiyya Muslim community, around the world. We will protect our communities here in the UK from hatred and discrimination. My colleague Lord Ahmad, who I understand is an Ahmadiyya Muslim, continues to raise this issue at the highest level with Pakistani Government officials.

It is without question that the Government will continue to defend the right to freedom of religion and belief for everyone, everywhere.

Question put and agreed to.

Hong Kong

Nigel Adams Excerpts

Thursday 12th November 2020 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the disqualification of pro-democracy lawmakers in Hong Kong.

[The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)]

Yesterday was another sad day for the people of Hong Kong. China’s National People’s Congress Standing Committee imposed new restrictions that mean that any Hong Kong legislator who is deemed to support independence, refuse to recognise China’s sovereignty, seek foreign forces’ interference or endanger national security should be disqualified from membership of Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. This decision led to the immediate removal of four elected Members of the Legislative Council, who were, at that moment, sitting in the Chamber.

It is my unfortunate duty to report to the House our judgment that that decision breaches the legally binding Sino-British joint declaration. It breaches both China’s commitment that Hong Kong will enjoy a high degree of autonomy and the right to freedom of speech, guaranteed under paragraph 3 of the declaration. This is the third time that the Government have called a breach of the joint declaration since 1997, but the second time that we have been forced to do so in the last six months.

This decision is part of a pattern designed to harass and stifle all voices critical of China’s policies. The new rules for disqualification provide a further tool in that campaign, with vague criteria open to wide-ranging interpretation. Hong Kong’s people are left now with a neutered legislature, and 15 pan-democratic legislators have already resigned en masse in protest.

China has yet again broken its promise to the people of Hong Kong. Its actions tarnish China’s international reputation and undermine Hong Kong’s long-term stability. The UK has already offered a new immigration path for British nationals overseas, suspended our extradition treaty with Hong Kong and extended our arms embargo on mainland China to Hong Kong. The permanent under-secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has today summoned the Chinese ambassador to register our deep concern at this latest action by his Government.

Hong Kong’s prosperity and way of life rely on respect for fundamental freedoms, an independent judiciary and the rule of law. China’s actions are putting at risk Hong Kong’s success. The UK will stand up for our values. We will stand up for the people of Hong Kong. We will call out violations of their rights and freedoms. With our international partners, we will continue to hold China to its international obligations.

[Layla Moran]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, and I thank the Minister for his words. Today I have a very simple question. What are the Government going to do as “one country, two systems” disappears before our eyes? The disqualification of pro-democracy lawmakers from the Legislative Council of Hong Kong means it has effectively been reduced to a rubber-stamp Parliament and democracy on the peninsula is now in mortal peril.

Although the previous actions of this Government are to be commended, it is time to do more. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary told the House in July that the Government

“will hold China to its international obligations.”—[Official Report, 20 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 1832.]

Yet here we are again. Through these actions, the Chinese Government are making a mockery of the joint declaration. I ask the Minister what legal routes to defend the joint declaration are being considered. What has the Minister done to co-ordinate a response with our allies internationally, in particular the USA, including President-elect Biden, and the European Union? Will the UK finally impose Magnitsky-style sanctions on those individuals in Hong Kong and China who are responsible for human rights abuses, and, if not that model, will he look at a sanctions register, as used by the US?

The BNO citizenship scheme excludes those who need it, particularly young people who have so bravely protested in the best traditions of democracy. We must protect them. The estimated true cost for a Hongkonger to come here for five years is £3,000, and that is before living costs. Many simply cannot afford it. Will the Minister confirm how many applications have been made under the scheme and how many have been granted? Will he consider introducing a bursary scheme for those unable to pay, and will he introduce a lifeboat policy for all Hong Kong citizens regardless of age and, if not, will he agree to meet me to discuss this matter further?

In 1996, John Major underlined our commitment to Hong Kong when he said:

“If there were to be any suggestion of a breach of the Joint Declaration we would have a duty to pursue every legal and other avenue available to us.”

He concluded:

“Hong Kong will never have to walk alone.”

It is time for actions, not just words. It is time to make good on our promise.

[Nigel Adams]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising this urgent question. One of her points was about whether I would meet her; of course, I am more than happy to meet her. I know how important this issue is to her and other Members of this House, and my door is always open for conversations with me and my team. I can tell her that we have already seen statements from our partners thus far on this particular issue. Australia, the USA, Canada and Germany have all made statements on the matter and we will continue to work with all our Five Eyes partners to hold China to account. The actions we have taken at the UN over the last few months are testament to that and proof of our leading diplomatic role in this regard.

The hon. Lady asked about sanctions and we will continue to consider designations under our Magnitsky-style sanctions regime. She will appreciate it is not entirely appropriate to speculate on who may be designated under the sanctions regime in the future, as that could reduce the impact, but we are carefully considering further designations under the scheme.

She was right to mention the action we have taken on British nationals overseas. The Home Secretary issued a statement on 22 July on the new route for BNOs, which states that

“in compelling and compassionate circumstances, and where applications are made as a family unit, we will use discretion to grant a visa to the children”

of BNO status-holders

“who fall into this category…the existing youth mobility scheme is open to people in Hong Kong aged between 18 and 30, with 1,000 places currently available each year. Individuals from Hong Kong will also be able to apply to come to the UK under the terms of the UK’s new points-based system”.—[Official Report, 22 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 115WS.]

The hon. Lady asked about the number of BNOs. From July 2020, BNO citizens and their dependants have been eligible to be granted six months’ leave outside the rules at the border to the UK, and from 15 July to 14 October 2020, a total of 2,116 BNO citizens and their dependants have been granted that. That data is not a reliable proxy for the number of people who may apply for the visa when it opens in January, but it does suggest that the number of BNO citizens seeking to come to the UK in the short term is unlikely to be at the high end of the scale.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s designation that this is the third breach of the Sino-British joint declaration, and I do not think that anybody in this House disagrees with him. After all, we are now seeing that China really does believe in “one man, one vote”, and that man, of course, is Chairman Xi. We now need Her Majesty’s Government to respond not just, as my hon. Friend quite rightly said, by looking at our own laws and Magnitsky sanctions, or, indeed, by seeking to work with others, but by working on the international trade platform as well. What conversations has my hon. Friend had with the Department for International Trade, partners at the World Trade Organisation and others around the world to make sure that Hong Kong is designated correctly as a part of China and that it no longer has a separate status for customs or, indeed, any other form of commerce?

[Nigel Adams]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs for his question and for his ongoing leadership on this particular issue. Trade with China is absolutely pivotal and crucial to the UK. Figures over the last six months show that China is only one of two countries where our exports have actually grown over a very difficult period. We have a high level of ambition for our trade partnership. We want to work with it to increase trade, but as we strive for that positive relationship we will not sacrifice our values or our security. We are very clear-sighted about the challenges. As we continue to engage, we will always protect our national interests. Absolutely and imperatively, as the Foreign Secretary has said at this Dispatch Box on many occasions, we will continue to hold China to its international commitments and its promises.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab) [V]]

This assault on democracy represents not only a clear breach of the Basic Law and the joint declaration; it also confirms that the Chinese Government and the Hong Kong Executive are committed to the removal of dissenting voices from the democratic process, and to the repression of the rights of the people of Hong Kong. The Labour party stands in solidarity with the four pro-democracy representatives who have been removed from the Legislative Council, and with the 15 additional Opposition Members who have resigned in protest. Their departure leaves Hong Kong without an Opposition in the legislature, removing one of the vital checks on the Hong Kong Executive and effectively denying the people of Hong Kong the right to choose their own representatives.

The UK Opposition welcomed the Government’s recent announcement regarding BNO passport holders, but it would be unacceptable for the UK Government now to conclude that they have done all they can for the people of Hong Kong. With that in mind, I ask the Minister the following questions.

First, does the Minister agree that the British Government are legally obliged, through the joint declaration, to defend human rights in Hong Kong, and that failure to do so, to the utmost of their abilities, would put the UK in default of its treaty obligations? Secondly, when will we see details of what the UK Government are offering by way of support to Hongkongers born after 1997? Thirdly, will senior Hong Kong Executive officials now be added to the Magnitsky list? The Minister has been asked this question many times and he has consistently declined to give a definitive answer. Who in Government is holding this up? Fourthly, the Foreign Secretary has rightly condemned the likes of HSBC and Standard Chartered bank for their stance on Hong Kong, but could the Minister please update the House on what action, if any, has actually been taken against those two banks?

[Nigel Adams]

I thank the Opposition spokesman for his questions. On sanctions, he will be fully aware that it is not appropriate to speculate on who exactly will come under the radar of our new sanctions regime. We are considering further designations constantly. In terms of HSBC and Standard Chartered in Hong Kong, I have had previous conversations with HSBC, and I am very happy to have more. I am also more than happy to write to the hon. Gentleman on that particular issue.

As I said to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), our door is always open. Our offer to British nationals overseas of a pathway to UK citizenship is compelling and compassionate, and as I said in my previous answer, the youth mobility scheme is open to people in Hong Kong aged between 18 and 30. I am more than happy to flesh this out with the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) when he is next in the Chamber or in London.

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) on her position. She is a friend, because she is part of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, and of alliances on many other countries around the world.

I fully understand the issues for my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government, but the reality is that we face an arrogant country, led by an arrogant leadership that has trashed the Sino-British agreement and is guilty of huge human rights abuses and dangerous confrontations with its neighbours. The British Government must lead in this matter, not wait. It is time for us to let the Chinese Government know that these actions come with serious repercussions. Does he accept that we need to sanction individuals responsible for any of these actions? Let us start with Carrie Lam in Hong Kong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Adams]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his continued efforts on this issue, and for working positively with the Government. We will continue to consider designations under the sanctions regulations. I fear I am repeating myself, but he will know, given his background, that it is not appropriate to speculate on who may be designated in the future, as putting that on the record may well reduce the impact of the designations. I completely agree with his opening comments, but we have offered a new immigration path for BNOs; we have suspended our extradition treaty with Hong Kong; we have extended our arms embargo on mainland China to cover Hong Kong; and we have led international efforts to hold China to its international obligations. Gaining 39 signatures at the UN is no mean feat. We have also, rightly, consistently raised our concern with the Chinese authorities.

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) [V]]

I try to be fair, and I have much respect for the Minister. I listened to his statement carefully, and anyone would accept that there are limited things that the UK Government can do about the internal workings of the Chinese state. It would be unfair to say that the UK Government have done nothing on this, but it would be fair to say that they have not done much of any consequence—certainly nothing that has elicited a change of heart from Beijing. I reiterate colleagues’ calls for Magnitsky sanctions. We are not looking for speculation; we are looking for announcements, which are overdue. I appreciate that it is difficult, but we need to take that forward.

There are things that the Government can do, and that are in their control. I would be interested to hear plans for an audit of Chinese engagement with our academic infrastructure, and particularly of Confucius institutes and their activities in the UK. We are overdue an audit of Chinese involvement in the UK’s physical, and data and communications, infrastructure, big chunks of which are being bought up by Chinese companies that are emanations of the Chinese state. We should also look at audits of UK companies engaged in trade in Hong Kong to make sure that they are not benefiting from slave labour. There are things that the UK Government can do domestically now, and I support calls for, and moves towards, our taking those steps.

[Nigel Adams]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his considered question. He is absolutely right to raise the issue of academic interference. UK universities are international at their core, and we warmly welcome overseas students, including from China, and the valuable contribution that they make, but we will not tolerate any attempt to interfere with academic freedom, or freedom of speech. As I have said before in the House, if any universities experience any attempts to undermine free debate, we encourage them to get in touch with the Government.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned data infrastructure. The long-term security and enduring resilience of our telecoms network are incredibly important, and we are taking difficult decisions to protect those interests. The position in January on high-risk vendors was based on the need to balance security with the need for us to level up and be a world leader in our digital infrastructure. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I am more than happy to have a direct meeting with him when he returns to London, as I have said to the Lib Dem and Labour spokespeople, the hon. Members for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) and for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock).

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

First, the Minister says that our Government continue to hold China to account. Has the Chinese ambassador been summoned to meet the Foreign Secretary following the most recent developments? If so, with what results, and, if not, will the ambassador be summoned? Secondly, it is clear that human rights safeguards have effectively collapsed now in Hong Kong. One of those, of course—a key human right—is freedom of religion. We have seen what has happened with the attacks on freedom of religion in China. Have the Government considered how that can be protected in Hong Kong? What calls have they made to ensure that the right to worship remains there?

[Nigel Adams]

I can confirm that the Chinese ambassador has been summoned to the Foreign Office this morning. Freedom of religion or belief is a key issue for this Government. My hon. Friend has spoken on this matter on many occasions, and I have had the pleasure to be in such debates. We are very concerned by what has been going on in mainland China—particularly in Xinjiang—but we are concerned by all restrictions placed on freedom of religion or belief in China.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) [V]]

It started with the disappearance of a bookseller. Then there was state-sanctioned violence against protesters and health workers, university lecturers were sacked and the free press challenged. Twelve Hong Kong youths have been detained for over 80 days, and now we see the disqualification of four moderate legislators. Things are clearly escalating. What will the Minister actually do to hold China to account for the breach of the joint declaration and international treaties, and what consular support is he providing to Hongkongers?

[Nigel Adams]

As I have laid out in previous answers, we are working with international partners and have summoned the Chinese ambassador. We have done an immense amount of work at the United Nations whenever we believe that China is transgressing, particularly on human rights. We could not be any clearer; our assessment is that this action is a breach of the joint declaration. This is a subject on which we have been incredibly robust over the past 12 months, as the hon. Lady will know. The joint declaration is in force and the policies contained within it should remain unchanged for 50 years. It is a legally binding international agreement that is registered with the UN, and we are fully committed to upholding Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy, rights and freedoms.

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

Just last year I had the privilege of meeting, here in Parliament, one of the legislators who has now been disqualified, and we had extensive discussions about the rights of British national overseas passports. It is now clear that our very generous offer to BNO passport holders is a critical lifeline to Hongkongers, but there is concern that those in positions of power in Hong Kong with links to Beijing may seek to use the BNO route to come to this country and enjoy the very democratic liberties that they are seeking to oppress. What discussions has the Minister had with the Home Office on this matter, and will the Government do everything possible to ensure that those who seek to undermine democracy and violate human rights are not able to come to this country and enjoy the benefits of BNO passport holders?

[Nigel Adams]

We have a duty to uphold our promise to the people of Hong Kong to protect their rights and autonomy. I am pleased that my hon. Friend realises that the offer that we are making to BNO citizens and their dependants is a generous one. In turn, they will be expected to be self-sufficient and contribute to UK society. We look forward to welcoming applications under this new immigration route. However, he raises a good point, and I can tell him that the existing provisions in the immigration rules will apply in relation to criminality and other adverse behaviour.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]]

Under the national security law, individuals and companies outside Hong Kong and China can be prosecuted for offences that pertain to that law. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that Hongkongers in the UK or British-based businesses with operations in Hong Kong will not be targeted by this repressive law?

[Nigel Adams]

We have made our position very clear on the national security law—the second occasion that we called out a breach of the joint declaration. That certainly should not be the case, but as the hon. Lady would expect, we are in contact with firms that have investments both ways between China and the UK. It is key that we do not agree with the principal tenet of this national security law. We believe it is vague and far-reaching and could have very damaging consequences. I appreciate the question, and we do have communication lines open with those firms.

[Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) [V]]

Yesterday the world witnessed the ousting of elected lawmakers in Hong Kong by the Chinese Government, and over the past week the world has witnessed the outgoing President of the US fail to concede defeat, despite the outcome of the election being clear. It is in everybody’s interests—especially here in the free world—for the benefits of democracy not to be undermined. Will the Minister join me in condemning these blatant attacks on democracy, and does he recognise that continual attempts to deny the will of the Scottish people in relation to our own constitutional question will also be viewed by the watching world as an attack on democracy?

[Nigel Adams]

That is the one of the cleverest ways I have seen of segueing from an urgent question on the actions in Hong Kong to a question about Scottish independence—the hon. Member should be applauded for his gall. Of course, we object in the strongest terms to the actions that have been taken in the last 48 hours.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran)—she is my hon. Friend, because we are both members of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China—on securing this urgent question, and I welcome the Minister’s robust language. He stated that China’s policy is to “stifle all voices critical” of it and that China has failed to meet its international obligations. I want to ask about the Magnitsky sanctions; I am not asking the Minister to speculate, but to explain. If our friends and allies can gather enough evidence on Chinese officials’ abuses of the Uyghur, what is stalling the Minister’s Department in doing the same?

[Nigel Adams]

As I have said in previous responses, it is not appropriate to speculate on sanctions or individuals. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will consider any evidence that is put forward, and if my hon. Friend has such evidence, I urge her to get in touch with that Department.

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

The sleeping giant is most certainly not sleeping anymore, and Hong Kong is shaking. The new legislation passed this week is not just illegal but, frankly, tyrannous. Are the Government actively considering compiling a case to take China to the International Court of Justice for breaching the Sino-British treaty for the third time, as well as the Vienna convention on the law of treaties?

[Nigel Adams]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and for her continued interest in China and her work at the FCO previous to her work in this place. The simple answer is that we cannot submit a case to the ICJ without the consent of China. In my judgment, and I would imagine that of anybody of sound mind, it is very clear that China would not accept that. There is no easy adjudicative route, I am afraid.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) [V]]

What progress has the Minister made in identifying the senior Chinese Government officials who have committed serious human rights violations in Hong Kong, and also those who have persecuted Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang? We are not asking for speculation: when will the Government do more than just consider Magnitsky sanctions and actually use them?

[Nigel Adams]

The hon. Lady is right to raise this issue. We are deeply concerned about the extrajudicial detention of over 1 million Uyghur Muslims and other minorities in so-called political re-education camps. We have made our case very clear to the Chinese authorities in this regard—that invasive surveillance targeting techniques and suppression of freedom of religion and belief are unacceptable. I am sorry to have to refer to my previous answers in terms of sanctions. We are constantly considering designations under our Magnitsky-style regime, but it would not be helpful to speculate on the names of the people that are being considered at the moment.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con) [V]]

I thank the Minister for his response and the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for the urgent question. On Monday, the United States State Department announced that it was to impose further sanctions on four more Chinese officials over their alleged role in recent crackdowns on democracy in Hong Kong, and that is further to its sanctions on officials with regard to the actions in Xinjiang and the unacceptable treatment of the Uyghur Muslims. My question is on sanctions, but it is slightly different to the questions being put by others. Can the Minister explain the difference in terms of why emergency Magnitsky-style sanctions were rightly imposed in Belarus and why they are not being imposed on Chinese officials with regard to their behaviour in Hong Kong or their behaviour in Xinjiang on the treatment of Muslims?

[Nigel Adams]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for all his work as the Prime Minister’s special envoy on freedom of religion and belief. We are aware of the designations by the US, and we will continue to consider designations under our regulations. I am more than happy to write to him to try to clear up the point he has made. Again, I apologise for repeating this, but it is important to emphasise that it really is not appropriate to speculate on who may be designated under the sanctions regime in future.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Depressingly, I think we know where all this will end, and it is not pretty. We are therefore into mitigation. Does my hon. Friend agree that, not least out of a sense of enlightened self-interest, we should encourage and welcome Hongkongers who wish to leave Hong Kong for the UK, as those from other countries have also done, noting, for example, those we welcomed from Hungary in 1956, as well as Iranians in 1979 and Chinese after Tiananmen Square in 1989?

[Nigel Adams]

My right hon. Friend is very highly skilled in this area, having served in a similar role to me at the FCO, and he is absolutely right. Hongkongers are highly skilled and highly educated individuals, and we very much look forward to welcoming applications under our new immigration route.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I listened to the answer that the Minister gave to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). I can understand the logic of it and I can understand his caution, but, in practical terms, the idea that the likes of Carrie Lam might at some stage be subject to Magnitsky sanctions is something for which we may now have lost that element of surprise. Therefore, the practical consequences of the Government’s position are probably not that significant, but the political consequences of a more robust answer to the hon. right Gentleman and others could be immense, especially if we were to pursue this through our membership of the UN Human Rights Council, to which we have now been elected for the next two years. What will the Minister do with that very useful tool?

[Nigel Adams]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, my former ministerial colleague, on his question and also on the interest that he takes in this particular issue, but he will have to forgive me when I say that, as tempting as it may be, it is absolutely inappropriate and not right for us to speculate on our sanctions regime. We do not want a situation where the effect of our regime is diminished, and speculation could very much do that. We are working very closely and very hard with the EU, as he will be aware.

[David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)]

I hope that every self-respecting member of the international community will condemn this action by China. I also hope that the businesses that have tried to shut their eyes to what has been going on now open them and realise that this affects them, too. This is the latest attempt to try to crush the spirit of the people of Hong Kong and my friends from there are understandably anxious. What is the Minister’s message to the people of Hong Kong?

[Nigel Adams]

We will always stand by Hong Kong. That is why we have taken the actions that we have. We believe that there have been three breaches of the joint declaration. Our offer to BNOs is generous, compassionate and widely welcomed. We have a duty to the people of Hong Kong, clearly, given our history there and we will not stop speaking up on behalf of the people of Hong Kong when we believe that there have been these serious breaches.

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

In October this year, the Government confirmed that a new immigration route for BNOs from Hong Kong will open in January. Unfortunately, under the current plans, BNOs will still be subject to an expensive immigration health surcharge of £1,560 per 30 months and £3,120 for five years. Will the Government consider abolishing the immigration health surcharge for BNO applicants?

[Nigel Adams]

We have been generous with regard to BNOs, and rightly so, given the duty that we owe to them. We have developed proposals for a bespoke immigration route for them and their dependants with five years’ limited leave to remain, with the right to work or study. The issue to which the hon. Lady refers is a matter, of course, for the Home Office. It is entirely appropriate for her to write to the Home Office and see whether she can get a response that gives her the satisfaction that she requires.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for confirming to the House this morning that this is the third breach of the Sino-British agreement, which was registered at the UN. As a friend of China for 25 years, I say that this is unacceptable. He and the Foreign Secretary must now show the  Chinese that this sort of breaking of international norms has consequences. Will he therefore build as wide a coalition of the free world as possible to act in unison on things such as the Magnitsky sanctions? If he does that, they will be much more effective.

[Nigel Adams]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this. We have already seen statements from four of our partners earlier today. I understand there may very well be a statement from the European Union later. In response to these developments, we have, as I say, offered this new immigration path, suspended the extradition treaty and extended our arms embargo on mainland China to Hong Kong. We have summoned the Chinese ambassador. We will continue to raise our concerns internationally at the UN. We will continue to lead the international community in calling on China to live up to its obligations under the joint declaration.

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

One country, two systems was supposed to be a magic formula, but it has turned out to be nothing more than a mirage. Democracy and free speech are as good as dead in Hong Kong. The British Government are bound by their obligations through the joint declaration to defend human rights in Hong Kong. The offer to BNO passport holders is welcome, though it does nothing to hold the Hong Kong Executive to account for the human rights violations they are carrying out against their own people. Does the Minister not run the risk of allowing the UK to default in its treaty obligations if it fails to do more to hold the Hong Kong Executive and the Chinese Government to account on this?

[Nigel Adams]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise his question. I do not necessarily agree with his last point. On the one country, two systems point that he raises, these actions by China have had an incredibly detrimental impact on many areas of one country, two systems. We will do everything possible to uphold Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy and, most importantly, the rights and freedoms under the joint declaration.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s clear statements in relation to the violations of freedom and democracy in Hong Kong. Will he assure me that he will continue to speak out against any violations of the one country, two systems protocol that we have and take up in every international institution, including the United Nations Security Council, this clear abuse of democracy in Hong Kong?

[Nigel Adams]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Again, I would like to thank him for his continued work on this issue. We have played a leading role in the international community in holding China to account. On 6 October, 39 countries joined a statement at the UN General Assembly Third Committee, in which we expressed our deep concern at the situation in Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Tibet. We will continue, as I have said, to bring together our international partners to stand up for the people of Hong Kong, to call out the violation of their freedoms and, importantly, to hold China to account for its international obligations.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I am sorry to say that it feels as if the Government have given up on this, to be honest. They did not choose to make a statement on this; they had to be dragged to the House by an urgent question. Frequently, it is Back Benchers in this House who are dragging the Government to make more categorical statements and to stand up to the cross words, which is so far all we have had. They have devoted next to no energy to pursuing this in the vast majority of international forums. The one thing that they could do they repeatedly refuse to do, which is to implement Magnitsky-style sanctions against Carrie Lam and others. I do not know what more the Minister needs to know. We have a country that has millions of people in concentration camps. We have people who are being refused the right to their own religion, and women who are having forced abortion and sterilisation. We have the whole of democratic systems being suppressed, and, frankly, communism today looks remarkably like fascism. Every single time he says, “I can’t speculate,” he is actually announcing that he is not implementing sanctions. Please, please take the whole of the House seriously on this. We must not give up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Adams]

I have got an awful lot of time for the hon. Gentleman, but to accuse this Government of sitting idly by on this issue, frankly, is nonsense. We have led the international community in this regard, and we have made incredibly generous offers in terms of the BNOs. I applaud him for harrying and hassling the Foreign Secretary in terms of making sure the sanctions regime has been delivered; it has been delivered. I appreciate that we are in the theatre of the Chamber, but the hon. Gentleman will know in his heart that it is not right to speculate publicly about individuals and sanctions before there are any designations—he will know that—but I would just ask him to reflect on the actions that we have taken, particularly internationally, where we have led the way.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)]

I am afraid that history teaches us what happens if regimes like this are not stood up to, but we cannot act alone, so what engagement has the Foreign Office had—at an early stage, I know—with the incoming American Administration, because their support on these issues will be key?

Also, I recognise that we have a healthy and robust debate in this Chamber about matters such as Scottish independence, and I know we proceed with good humour, but does the Minister agree that to link in any way, shape or form what is happening in Hong Kong, with the absolute destruction of people’s rights and fundamental freedoms, with the healthy debate that we have around Scottish independence is disrespectful to the people of that country making that fight?

[Nigel Adams]

My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point. I will not use the term disrespectful to describe the comments of the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar) from the SNP, but I would say that he has more front than Scarborough in trying to link the two issues during this urgent question.

I can tell my hon. Friend that we have seen this morning the United States make its statement on these latest moves to disqualify the four legislators. The Prime Minister has had conversations with the President-elect, and I am sure that Hong Kong will feature in future conversations. I would add that we have consistently led the international community with regard to the response to breaches of the joint declaration and the events in Hong Kong.

[Mr Speaker]

We have a technical problem with question 25, so I call Bob Stewart.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

The Security Council is hamstrung because of China’s veto and the General Assembly is largely supportive of Chinese policy. May I ask my hon. Friend the Minister what sort of feel he gets from the forum of the world, the United Nations, in support of what we are trying to do against China?

[Nigel Adams]

What I can tell my hon. Friend is that we work very closely with our international partners, and to have 39 countries sign up to our statement at the UN on this single issue was quite the achievement. People internationally do realise that China has yet again broken its promise to the people of Hong Kong, and its actions tarnish its international reputation and, more importantly, undermine Hong Kong’s long-term stability.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for securing this urgent question and the Minister for his answer. As MPs in this House, we stand side by side with the MPs in Hong Kong; they need to know that, and we are doing that today. Will the Minister outline whether any support can be offered to these MPs who have taken a stand, specifically in regard to their families, who are often the ones left trebling in the background, fearing for their very lives? Can any support of a practical nature be offered, and what form might that take?

[Nigel Adams]

I have laid out the terms and the offer that has been made to BNOs over the past couple of months. We completely understand the issue for Hongkongers and MPs advocating in particular for the families left behind. If the hon. Gentleman has any specific cases that he wants to bring to my attention, I am more than happy to discuss them.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

A great many of us have little faith in the processes at the United Nations when it comes to defending liberties in Hong Kong, precisely because of the influence of China at that body. Aside from the 39 signatures at the UN that the Minister has mentioned, will he please tell the House what precisely we are doing as a Government to build the international coalition of support that he talks about, specifically in putting together an international contact group or using the G7 as a forum for bringing together a coalition of democracies, to really show China that the international community is serious about defending the rights of Hong Kong people?

[Nigel Adams]

As I say, and as my right hon. Friend will have seen this morning, we are working closely with our international partners. Australia, the US, Canada and Germany have all joined us with their statements this morning. We will of course continue to work with our partners—our Five Eyes partners in particular—to hold China to account. My right hon. Friend is right to point this out. There is a growing caucus of support at the UN that is very much behind the UK’s leading diplomatic role on the issue of Hong Kong.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

After the ethnic cleansing of Buddhists in Tibet, the cold, calculated genocide of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang and the mistreatment of Christians and other minorities, the authoritarian Chinese Communist party regime has now turned its tyranny on to pro-democracy Hongkongers. What concrete steps is the Minister taking to mobilise our international partners so that the world’s democracies act against this human rights crisis in an effective and co-ordinated manner?

[Nigel Adams]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this, and I know that he has a deep interest in freedom of religion and belief. We are very concerned about the reports coming out of Tibet. We had a debate in Westminster Hall on this very issue. I believe that our growing caucus at the UN is bearing fruit. Thirty-nine countries is no small achievement. The Foreign Secretary should be congratulated for his work in this regard, and Lord Ahmad, a fellow FCDO Minister, has delivered several statements at the UN on this issue. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, with the Foreign Secretary and the FCDO taking a leading role on this issue, we are getting purchase internationally, and China will have heard the remarks today and countries’ abhorrence at the actions in Hong Kong.

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)]

The legally binding joint declaration signed by China as well as the UK sets out that Hong Kong will have a high degree of autonomy. China must respect that. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he will continue to work with our international partners to condemn these attacks on democracy in every possible way?

[Nigel Adams]

My hon. Friend is 100% correct in every word he has just said. I can assure him that we will continue to lead this international effort against the violations and the breaches of the joint declaration. We are in constant touch with our international partners on this, not least Australia, Canada, Germany and the US, which, I reiterate, have all issued statements today condemning this action by China.

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) [V]]

Given the latest brutal attack by China on Hong Kong democracy and freedom of speech, will the Minister undertake to increase the number of visas available to Hong Kong citizens, tell us what he will do if they are not recognised by China and reassure those who may need them that they will have access and recourse, in the short term at least, to public funds in the UK if they need to flee?

[Nigel Adams]

It is a very generous offer that we have laid out to British national overseas citizens. We will expect them to be self-sufficient and contribute to UK society. We look forward to welcoming those applications. As I have said, the new route that the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary have hammered out is compelling and compassionate, particularly, as the hon. Gentleman will welcome, with regard to applications that are made as a family unit. We will use discretion in issuing a grant to children of BNO status holders who fall into this category.

[Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)]

The United Kingdom, a stalwart champion of democracy, pluralism and liberty, has demonstrated its purpose to defend those values with all available tools, including Magnitsky-style sanctions. The disqualification of four Hong Kong pro-democracy lawmakers from the Legislative Council is another case in an ever-growing list of intrusions by the Chinese Communist party into the rights and freedoms of Hong Kong. Will my hon. Friend outline what efforts the Government are making to ensure a co-ordinated approach among our international partners to the crisis in Hong Kong and ensure that the Chinese Communist party is held responsible for its violations of both its international treaty obligations and fundamental human rights?

[Nigel Adams]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and his continued leading voice on these matters. We are focused on giving voice to the widespread international concerns, basically in order to protect Hong Kong’s rights and freedoms. As I have said, the increasing number of countries supporting joint statements in the UN’s various human rights bodies underscores, we believe, the success of our approach. There are elections next September, and there not being an effective Opposition voice in them when half of the Legislative Council is appointed does make a bit of a mockery of the situation. We will continue, however, to call on China to uphold the contents of the joint declaration and, most importantly, live up to its responsibilities.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) [V]]

Extending the right to apply for BNO status has been very welcome and indeed is a lifeline to many Hongkongers. However, the CCP is likely to do its utmost to obstruct the process. Will the Government consider giving diplomatic assistance to legitimate applicants who are still in the process of applying but might get arrested under the draconian new security laws?

[Nigel Adams]

We are very much opposed to, and have called out, the new national security law. We welcome applications under our new immigration system, which has been broadly welcomed in the House and beyond for Hongkongers. Of course, the Home Office will work with applicants on visas. On the specific point the hon. Lady makes, if she writes to the Home Office, it will hopefully be able to give her the satisfaction she is looking for.

[Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this latest step really does indicate that we have seen the end of the one country, two systems approach?

[Nigel Adams]

My hon. Friend raises a good point that has been made previously. These latest actions by China have had an incredible impact on many areas of the one country, two systems approach. However, I assure her and all right hon. and hon. Members of the House that we will continue to do everything possible to uphold Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy, rights and freedoms under the joint declaration.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) [V]]

The world has watched aghast as President Trump desperately tries to suppress domestic democracy. Thankfully, his successor President-elect Biden has promised to fully enforce the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. Ironically, even the Trump Administration have imposed sanctions on four more Chinese officials in Hong Kong over their role in crushing dissent. What concrete action will the Minister’s Government take to uphold the Sino-British joint declaration and the Hong Kong Basic Law, which were supposed to grant a high degree of autonomy to Hongkongers until 2047?

[Nigel Adams]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this issue. This should have been a 50-year agreement. We continue to call out breaches of the joint declaration. The actions we have taken at the UN have been almost unprecedented, having 39 co-signatories. We will continue to call out China on its actions with regard to Hong Kong, and, as we speak, the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has summoned the Chinese ambassador to make our points incredibly clear to him directly.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]]

The anti-democratic national security law shows that China is willing to break the Sino-British joint agreement, and that puts religious freedom under threat. Religious leaders in Hong Kong are already fearful for their safety, with some scared to read certain scriptures in case they are accused of subversion by the Government. What conversations is the Secretary of State having with the authorities internationally on the dangerous experience of people of faith in Hong Kong, and what will he do if the situation worsens?

[Nigel Adams]

It is absolutely the case that all countries, China included, must comply with their international obligations. Freedom of religion and belief is incredibly important, and this UK Government take that incredibly seriously. We will continue to make the case that individuals should have the ability to practise their religion, and whatever they believe in, in a free way. We will continue to call out any transgressions of that where people are being oppressed, not least in mainland China.

[Mr Speaker]

In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.

Draft Sanctions (EU Exit) (Consequential Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations 2020

Nigel Adams Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2020 General Committees

[The Chair]

Before we begin, I remind Members about social distancing. Spaces available to Members are already clearly marked. Members can sit in the Public Gallery, but cannot speak from the Public Gallery, and there are some spaces available on the Opposition Benches. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if you sent any speaking notes to [e-mail].

[The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Sanctions (EU Exit) (Consequential Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations 2020.

The instrument before us was laid on 16 September, under the powers provided by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. It will aid the investigation and prevention of terrorist financing; prevent designated persons from acting as charity trustees and from managing or operating sensitive financial enterprises; and enable effective implementation of legal, operational and regulatory measures for combating terrorist financing. Alongside this draft instrument, we have also laid a section 46 report, which is required when new regulations are made under section 45 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act to amend sanctions regulations made for a discretionary purpose under section 1 of that Act. The report details why Ministers consider that the relevant conditions set out in section 45 for the use of this power to make amending regulations are met.

The purpose of this instrument is to add new provisions to three existing 2019 regulations relating to counter-terrorism and sanctions. These new provisions in the 2019 regulations will, in turn, make amendments to several other pieces of primary and secondary legislation to replace and update references to counter-terrorism sanctions legislation. This needs to be done to ensure the new counter-terrorism sanctions framework established by the 2019 sanctions regulations delivers substantially the same policy effects as the existing sanctions regime after the end of the transition period.

The three regulations amended by this instrument, collectively known as the 2019 regulations, are the ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida (United Nations Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, made on 5 March of that year; the Counter-Terrorism (International Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, made on 14 March of that year; and the Counter-Terrorism (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, also made on 14 March of that year. The provisions of primary legislation that will ultimately be amended by the 2019 regulations as a result of this instrument are section 49(3) of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act and section 178 of the Charities Act 2011.

To provide further detail for hon. colleagues, section 49 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act confers power on an “appropriate Minister” to make regulations for the purpose of

“enabling or facilitating the detection or investigation of terrorist financing, or preventing terrorist financing”.

This will, for example, enable the Government to amend or update the existing money laundering, terrorist financing and transfer of funds information in the Income Tax (Pay As You Earn) (Amendment) Regulations 2017, which currently include measures to tackle terrorist financing. Section 49(3) of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act defines “terrorist financing” by references to other pieces of legislation.

The amendments made by this instrument will remove references to offences under regulations being revoked by the 2019 regulations, and add references to new offences under those regulations. This is a technical update to ensure regulation on charities and financial services can continue to deliver the same policy effects after the end of the transition period. That will ensure that the definition of terrorist financing is up to date and can be used in reference to current legislation. It also means that the Government can use the power in section 49 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act to facilitate the prevention, detection or investigation of terrorist financing, following the revocation of a number of the current offences by the 2019 regulations.

Sadly, charities are sometimes abused for terrorist financing purposes. To mitigate the risk of such abuse, section 178 of the Charities Act disqualifies individuals who present a known risk from serving as a charity trustee or charity senior manager. “Senior manager” means chief executive or finance director or their equivalent.

The amendments made by this instrument will remove references to persons designated under regulations being revoked and add references to persons designated under any of the 2019 regulations. That will prevent those who are designated under the sanctions regulations from being able to act as charity trustees or charity senior managers. This is a technical update to ensure that legislation on charities and financial services can continue to deliver the same policy effect after the end of the transition period.

The amendments to the Electronic Money Regulations 2011 and the Payment Services Regulations 2017 prevent the registration of a small electronic money institution or a small payment institution, where any of the individuals responsible for the management or operation of the business have been convicted of an offence under the Counter-Terrorism (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

The consequential amendment to the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 provides that the definition of terrorist financing used in those regulations refers to the new offences in the Counter-Terrorism (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. That amendment will ensure that the Government can continue to promote effective implementation of legal, operational and regulatory measures for combating terrorist financing once the 2019 regulations are in force.

The instrument represents the first use of the powers under sections 54(3) and 54(4) of the sanctions Act to amend the definition of terrorist financing in section 49(3) of the sanctions Act. The instrument will not come into force until a later date or dates to be appointed separately. The instrument forms a necessary part of the programme of work being undertaken by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in conjunction with other Whitehall Departments to construct an effective and robust UK sanctions framework under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018.

Targeted sanctions have the power to bring about a change in unacceptable behaviour by coercing, constraining and sending a signal. They therefore have a vital role to play in the disruption of terrorism. That is why we are putting in place the necessary legislation to maintain the effect of this framework after the end of the transition period. We will continue to work closely with our Five Eyes and other international partners to help combat threats to the international financial system and charity sector. The UK is working closely with the financial action task force, the G20, G7 and EU partners to disrupt terrorist financing. We are focusing on reducing domestic terrorist fundraising; the movement of terrorist finance across borders; and the fundraising for and movement of terrorist finance overseas.

International counter-terrorism sanctions regimes are a key practical measure in disrupting terrorism and demonstrating international resolve against it. The United Kingdom has a strong reputation for tackling terrorism and that is supported by our robust legislative framework. We will continue to strengthen our approach to countering terrorism by ensuring we have the correct range of disruptive tools and capabilities at our disposal, including our sanctions and counter-terrorist financing frameworks. This instrument will ensure that they remain functional and effective. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

[The Chair]

Members will be pleased to know that the debate can continue until 1 o’clock. I call Stephen Kinnock.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Adams]

I am grateful to the Opposition spokesman for his contribution and his support for this exercise in tidying-up the regime. I will try to address a couple of his points. We have plenty of time, and I am sure that Members are keen to hang around and listen to my responses to the points the hon. Member raised.

The hon. Member asked whether we are working alongside the EU. Of course, these sanctions and this legislation cannot be enacted on our own. We are working very closely together, although we will pursue our independent sanctions policies in the future, driven by our respective foreign policy agendas. On the basis of friendly co-operation between sovereign equals, we will continue to work with the EU and our international partners to tackle these shared challenges. We expect that co-operation to be significant, as it is with many of our international partners.

The hon. Member mentioned widening the scope of our sanctions regime to include corruption. As he knows, that work is ongoing. I am sorry that I cannot give an update, other than to say that we are looking at that closely. We are constantly reviewing our sanctions regime, and he is right to push the Government on the Magnitsky-style sanctions regime that we have introduced. As I have said to him before, it is inappropriate to speculate on individuals that we are likely to bring into scope because it might lessen the effect of the sanctions. I am grateful for his support on the terrorist financing measures. He asked about the timing, which I am happy to write to him on. There is probably a very good reason why it was not done in 2019, but I will happily confirm that.

As I outlined in my opening remarks, the instrument underlines our support for protecting the UK, the international financial system and, importantly, the charity sector. It will ensure that the range of disruptive tools and capabilities at our disposal, including our sanctions and counter-terrorist financing frameworks, remain effective. That will aid the global fight against terrorism and contribute to the UK playing its part as a force for good in the world. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

FCDO Services

Nigel Adams Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2020 Written Statements

[The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)]

My hon. Friend the Minister of State for South Asia and the Commonwealth (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) has made the following written statement:

FCDO Services operates as a trading fund of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO). Notwithstanding covid-19, I have set the following ambitious performance targets for 2020-21:

Achievement of the return on capital employed (ROCE) of at least 3.5% (weighted average before accounting for costs directly associated with covid-19);

A productivity ratio of at least 80%, measuring actual billable hours versus available billable hours (Q3 and Q4 only—normalised for the impact of covid-19);

An in-year customer satisfaction rating average at least of 80% (Q3 and Q4 only normalised for the impact of covid-19); and

An average Your Say score for “My Manager” measuring 63%.

In addition to the performance targets, FCDO Services will continue to maintain high levels of staff engagement for 2020-21 throughout the period.

FCDO Services will report to Parliament on its success against these targets through its annual report and accounts for 2020-21.

FCDO Services is a trading fund of the FCDO. It provides a range of integrated, secure services worldwide to the FCDO and other UK Government Departments, supporting the delivery of Government agendas. Services include protective security, estates and construction, cloud computing, communications and monitoring, logistics, translation and interpreting. This is combined with a portfolio of global maintenance work. FCDO Services also manages the UK National Authority for Counter Eavesdropping (UK NACE), helping protect UK assets from physical, electronic and cyber-attack.

[HCWS556]

Rohingya Humanitarian Crisis: Covid-19

Nigel Adams Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)]

I will start, Mr Twigg, by thanking your predecessor in the Chair this morning for filling in. I am grateful to  the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) for securing this important debate on what is a critical issue. I am also grateful to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), for the way in which we have collaborated on many issues previously. Her concluding remarks were testament to that work. I think we are all on the same page on this issue, and my door at the FCDO is very much open to right hon. and hon. Members to discuss this issue in more detail. We do not get a lot of time to dig into all the issues and respond to all the questions, but I will do my best in the time available.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

In thanking the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to the debate—it had originally suggested that we might be able to have it in the Chamber, but needs must in the circumstances—I would like to put on the record that there would have been more participation had my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) not been due to take part in a Westminster Hall debate later today, which I think is why he is not speaking now.

[Nigel Adams]

That is absolutely right. We did get advance notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) would not be able to participate in this morning’s debate.

On 25 August, we marked three years of the Rohingya crisis. The scale of the violence and discrimination against the Rohingya is shocking. I pay tribute to the resilience, courage and tenacity of the Rohingya people in the face of extreme adversity, violence and oppression. I also pay tribute to the generosity of the Government and people of Bangladesh for hosting the refugees in Cox’s Bazar, a point already referred to by hon. Members today.

The UK will not sit, and has not sat, idly by. Very recently, on 22 October, the United Kingdom co-hosted a donor conference on the Rohingya refugee crisis, alongside the US, the EU and the UNHCR. The conference brought together leading donors, Rohingya-hosting countries, international organisations and Rohingya representatives to keep attention on the crisis and demonstrate global commitment to the Rohingya people.

A total of $600 million in new and existing funding was announced at the conference. The United Kingdom announced a further £37.5 million for the Rohingya refugees and local communities in Bangladesh. That brings the total UK commitment to the Rohingya in Bangladesh thus far close to £300 million since 2017, when they had to flee their homes in Myanmar. That makes us the second largest single donor globally in assistance for the Rohingya people in Bangladesh.

[Jim Shannon]

That has been very helpful and underlines the commitment of Her Majesty’s Government, which we appreciate. Is there any follow-up to monitor and regulate where that money is going, to make sure that it actually goes where it should, which is to help the people? If people are living in dilapidated shelters and do not have toilet facilities, it makes me wonder where the money is going.

[Nigel Adams]

It is absolutely crucial that we keep a trail and manage to do due diligence before the money is handed over. We work with third parties—non-governmental organisations—to make sure that the money does get to the correct place, where it is needed most. That is absolutely crucial when we are talking about such huge sums and we need to monitor that constantly as we deliver the cash. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise that point.

The new funding announced last week will provide improved education for more than 50,000 children and young people from the refugee and surrounding local Bangladeshi community, something I know is close to the heart of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston and was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum). It will also provide food for 290,000 refugees for four months, and provide cash and food assistance for 10,000 of the most vulnerable members of the local economy to cope with the economic impact of the covid-19 crisis.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) rightly asked about humanitarian support and access to those services. Since March, we have committed £11 million to help prepare the refugees for the impact of covid-19. We have backed major deployments to Cox’s Bazar by the UK emergency medical team to offer clinical expertise and set up isolation and treatment centres. United Kingdom aid has created capacity for more than 600 beds for treating refugees and locals alike suffering from severe respiratory infections. More than 2,400 hand-washing facilities have been added to the camps and public health information has been widely shared across communities.

I had the pleasure of a virtual day visit to Myanmar, where I saw at first hand—albeit over the internet—the work that our aid is delivering. If hon. Members would like to see what the UK is doing on the ground in these camps in Myanmar and Bangladesh, I would be more than happy to facilitate access to some of that information and perhaps give a presentation. Meanwhile, we have continued to fund critical services, such as food, regular medical services, clean water, sanitation and protection.

Thankfully, the number of confirmed covid cases in the Bangladeshi camps is much lower than anticipated. The WHO and health agencies are seeking a better understanding of transmission levels and expanding the reach of community health workers in the camps.

[Jim Shannon]

The Minister is being generous and most gracious in giving way. My question is on the data. There is some concern among many hon. Members and non-governmental organisations that the data was perhaps not as accurate as it could be, simply because they had no access to it. Has he had a chance to look at that?

[Nigel Adams]

It is important that the data is accurate and I will follow that up with my team. I know that more work is being done on the ground to assess the data and ensure that the information gathered on transmission rates is as accurate as possible. Thus far, thankfully, we are seeing a relatively low infection rate. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that point—collecting information and getting an in-depth, detailed analysis is crucial.

We have also continued to support local Bangladeshi communities, for example by bolstering the local economy and giving 50,000 local Bangladeshi people access to safe water. However, we know that, three years on, this is a protracted crisis and the Rohingya and local communities will need long-term support—I know that one or two colleagues have asked about that this morning. We are working with the Bangladeshi Government, the United Nations and the World Bank on a development strategy for the Cox’s Bazar district. As hon. Members will know, this was an incredibly poor area even before the influx of refugees, so we continue to encourage the Bangladeshi Government to help the Rohingya lead safe and full lives by improving education and offering access to jobs. That is crucial if we are to prevent despair setting in.

The Bangladeshi Government agreed earlier this year that Rohingya children could have access to the Myanmar curriculum. On the other side of the border, in conflict-afflicted Rakhine state in Myanmar, the UK has provided over £44 million to all communities since 2017—the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston raised this point. This includes over £25 million for Rohingya communities for education, nutrition, water, health, sanitation and general livelihood support. As I saw on my virtual visit in June, our partners are doing some life-saving work. There are 128,000 Rohingya and 88,000 ethnic Rakhine in internally displaced person camps. Our priority is to reach those IDPs and the conflict-affected populations.

Covid has only exacerbated the problems. The number of covid cases is increasing across Rakhine state and testing is not widespread in those camps or villages. The Myanmar Government have implemented lockdowns and curfews, the impact of which we are closely monitoring.

We are also working closely with the Myanmar Ministry of Health on equipping facilities, protecting health workers, and reducing the cost of accessing healthcare for the most vulnerable patients. We are enabling the life-saving work that the crisis threatens to end. The importance of childhood immunisation and ensuring safe, high-quality maternal health services are also crucial, and our assistance is helping to deliver that. We are the largest donor of water, hygiene and sanitation in IDP camps and displacement sites, which also supports work on protection and livelihoods. Most of the IDP camps are based in central Rakhine, and the UK funds all of those camps. We also provide significant food support in northern Rakhine and have reached 200,000 people.

Turning to the points raised by right hon. and hon. Members, we heard a thoughtful speech from the right hon. Member for Islington North, who talked about the history of the Rohingya in Myanmar. We are clear that the Rohingya who have lived in Myanmar for generations should be granted full citizenship and the associated rights. We continue to call for the reform of the 1982 citizenship law, which is deeply flawed. The Rohingya should not be excluded from Myanmar elections. On 23 June I spoke to the Myanmar Government and raised my concerns in the strongest terms about how the Rohingya are denied citizenship and have been stripped of the right to vote.

The right hon. Member for Islington North also talked about sanctions and raised the point about companies owned by the military. The hon. Member for Strangford also mentioned sanctions. It is clear that the Myanmar military has vast and complex interests across the economy, on both an institutional and an individual level. The military economic institutions grew up under sanctions and are opaque. Thankfully, they have limited exposure to the UK economy. However, we encourage UK companies to conduct thorough due diligence, but it will not be possible for credible investors to ensure that investments have no exposure whatever to the holding companies. We have applied direct sanctions to the perpetrators of the atrocities against the Rohingya people. In total, 16 people in Myanmar have been sanctioned. We will continue to use this tool as a force for good in Myanmar. We will also continue—one or two Members have raised this—to review options for targeted actions that impact on the military but do not harm poor people in Myanmar.

The right hon. Member for Islington North mentioned Aung San Suu Kyi. We are clear that the military are responsible for the atrocities against the Rohingya. The President is the elected leader of Myanmar, and it is vital that we continue to engage with her to help Myanmar make progress on the very serious challenges that it faces. We also had a thoughtful speech from the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse. In an intervention on the right hon. Member for Islington North, she mentioned the UN inspections at Bhasan Char in the Bay of Bengal, which was also mentioned by the hon. Members for Birmingham, Edgbaston and for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald). The inspection should happen urgently. There are 306 refugees on the island. Full and detailed assessments are urgently needed to evaluate the situation on that island, which is something we will continually support and call for. We continue to work with the Bangladeshi Government on that issue.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston also mentioned, as did other Members, the ICJ case brought by The Gambia. We have publicly welcomed the case and the ICJ’s provisional measures, and we continue to call on the Myanmar Government to abide by this ruling.

The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse mentioned education, as did the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire, and I agree that education and skills training are absolutely fundamental. Our latest funding of £37.5 million will support a safe return to quality education for those people. She also mentioned gender-based violence, as did the hon. Members for East Renfrewshire and for Birmingham, Edgbaston, and she was absolutely right to do so. This is a priority area, and we are prioritising the protection and safeguarding of women and girls in our humanitarian response to this crisis. The latest funding I referred to will help improve support and protection, especially for women and girls. Our aid will prevent, mitigate and respond to violence, exploitation and abuse, including gender-based violence, and will also help child survivors of abduction and trafficking, as was referred to by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston. Our aid has already provided lighting and padlocks for home shelters, and sanitation and infrastructure to improve women’s safety.

I appreciate that I have to allow some time for the right hon. Member for Islington North to conclude this debate, so in the time available I will say that we must work to create the conditions that will allow the Rohingya to return safely, voluntarily and with dignity to Myanmar,. The conflict between the Arakan army and the Myanmar military has made this so much harder. A commitment to civilian protection will be key to any bilateral ceasefire, and we continue to call for de-escalation and for dialogue, including at the UN Security Council. We convened the Council in September and called for a cessation of hostilities in Rakhine and Chin states.

However, this is not just about providing humanitarian assistance, essential though that is; accountability is also vital, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston said. The Myanmar military has committed atrocities against the Rohingya and other minorities, yet there has been no tangible progress on accountability. We support the ICJ process and those provisional measures, and we are putting pressure on Myanmar to protect the Rohingya. The Foreign Secretary has raised the issue of impunity in the Myanmar military with Myanmar’s Minister for International Cooperation. We will not pass by on the other side. This terrible crisis demands our full attention. We will build on the recent donor conference and do everything we can to help the Rohingya, and I know the whole House and the constituents we represent want nothing less.

Rohingya Donor Conference and Funding

Nigel Adams Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Written Statements

[The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)]

My hon. Friend the Minister of State for South Asia and the Commonwealth (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) has made the following written statement:

The UK is co-hosting a donor conference today for the Rohingya refugee response, alongside the United States, European Union and UN refugee agency (UNHCR).

Bringing together donor countries and partners from the region, this conference will rally international support for the Rohingya humanitarian response in Bangladesh, Myanmar and other countries hosting Rohingya refugees in the region. Our aim is to ensure sustained support for Rohingya refugees and displaced populations, while working towards long-term durable solutions.

Maintaining international funding will become increasingly difficult over time—yet three years on from the terrible violence that erupted in August 2017, the Rohingya remain one of the world’s most vulnerable populations. I pay tribute to the resilience, courage and tenacity of the Rohingya people. I also express our gratitude to the Government and people of Bangladesh for hosting the 860,000 refugees currently living in Cox’s Bazar district.

The UK continues to support the Rohingya on both sides of the Myanmar-Bangladesh border while we push for a long-term solution that enables their voluntary, safe, and dignified return to Myanmar. This includes advocating for the implementation of the Rakhine Advisory Commission recommendations, including reform of citizenship laws and freedom of movement. The UK is clear that there must be accountability for atrocities. This will be fundamental to give the Rohingya people confidence that it is safe to return.

The UK is already one of the biggest donors supporting the Rohingya. The crisis remains a priority and we have worked hard to prioritise resources to maintain assistance in Myanmar and Bangladesh.

I am therefore pleased to announce that this Government are committing a further £37.5 million to the Rohingya response operation in Bangladesh to continue our life-saving support, a total of £293.5 million committed to the crisis since 2017. This funding supports refugees in Cox’s Bazar with protection, food, healthcare, water and sanitation, counselling, and will help mitigate the impact of natural disasters and disease, in addition to supporting local communities.

Covid-19 has created an additional dimension to the adversity Rohingya communities have faced. So far, UK aid has added more than 2,400 handwashing facilities in the camps and created capacity for over 600 beds for treating refugees and locals alike suffering from severe respiratory infections. I am happy to announce that we are also committing £10 million support for Bangladesh to help the country respond to coronavirus and natural disasters nationally.

In the meantime, providing education for Rohingya children and livelihood opportunities for adults is fundamental to equipping Rohingya with the essential knowledge and skills for their future in Myanmar and to prevent a lost generation. It is also the best guard against rising domestic violence, criminality and tensions between the refugee and host communities. Significant material support will be needed for the foreseeable future to uphold basic standards of living.

The UK also provides significant support to the Rohingya in conflict-affected Rakhine state in Myanmar. This includes over £25 million since 2017 for Rohingya communities for nutrition, water, health and sanitation, protection, skills and livelihoods support. UK aid is also working hard to respond to the additional health and humanitarian needs brought on by covid-19, amidst access restrictions.

We hope that the international community will continue to demonstrate its strong commitment to the humanitarian response and find solutions for the Rohingya that will enable them to return home voluntarily, safely and with dignity. We will continue to push for regional and international attention and support in helping manage and resolve the crisis.

[HCWS532]

Persecution of Christians and Freedom of Religion or Belief

Nigel Adams Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2020 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I not only congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) on securing this debate, but commend him for his long-standing commitment to freedom of religion or belief. I also thank him for his incredibly hard work over the last year as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. He gave us a fantastic run-through of his work over the last year—an exhausting year, by the sounds of it—and it was well worth the over-run on his time, Mr Hollobone, to be able to hear about all the work that he has done. There sure are big boots to fill in that regard. My hon. Friend’s commitment to this agenda has contributed hugely to the Government’s work in this area. It has been instrumental in the implementation of more than half the Bishop of Truro’s recommendations.

I also extend my gratitude to colleagues for their impassioned speeches today. I will try to respond to all the points raised, although I suspect, given the time, that that is wishful thinking. But I do have, to coin a phrase, an open-door policy at the FCDO and I will be more than happy to meet individual colleagues to go through some of the issues that I am not able to respond on today. We have a great team there, working on this agenda, and we will be more than happy to work with everyone collaboratively where we are all on the same page.

I can start by reaffirming the Government’s unwavering commitment to freedom of religion or belief. The commitment was further underlined by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s appointment last year of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham, who succeeded my ministerial colleague Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, who continues to champion this cause in his capacity as FCDO Minister responsible for human rights, in the House of Lords.

The Prime Minister is resolute in his commitment to freedom of religion or belief, and I can confirm that a new special envoy will be appointed in due course. I thought that the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) was making a fantastic pitch for the job until he pivoted and gave a great reference for the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I ask colleagues to “bear with”, as my kids say. An appointment will be made by the Prime Minister shortly; he is absolutely committed to there being that role. Diplomacy and development go hand in hand. Religious intolerance and persecution are often at the heart of foreign and development policy challenges. Where freedom of religion or belief is under attack, other human rights are often threatened too. The newly merged FCDO is using all its diplomatic tools to ensure that no one suffers because of their conscience.

As the House is aware, the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), commissioned an independent review into the scale of Christian persecution globally. It produced a set of challenging recommendations on what more the Government could do to support people of all faiths and none everywhere around the world. So far, as we have heard, we have implemented, or are in the process of implementing, 17 of the recommendations. I will run through just some of them.

Recommendation 11 focuses on the religious literacy of our officials. I am pleased that work is under way to ensure that British diplomats and officials have access to enhanced religious literacy training to help them understand the role that religion plays in many people’s lives and in the decisions that they make. That training will help us to develop more religiously literate policies and to engage more effectively.

Recommendation 9 is about the establishment of a John Bunyan fund. In August last year, we launched the fund successfully. In the first year alone, we funded 15 research projects looking at the challenges faced by different communities, including Christians, Yazidis and humanists, as well as at cross-cutting issues such as migration and the double vulnerability experienced by women from minority faith backgrounds.

Recommendation 20 encourages us to use our position as a permanent member of the UN Security Council to seek a resolution calling on Governments in the middle east and north Africa to ensure protection of Christians and other faith minorities. The Foreign Secretary remains absolutely committed to delivering that recommendation, recognising freedom of religion or belief as a force for good. Lord Ahmad has been working tirelessly on this and met our mission in New York a fortnight ago to review the opportunities presented by our presidency of the Security Council in 2021. We are working harder than ever to support those who are persecuted on account of their religion or belief and to implement the recommendations of the Bishop of Truro.

Today’s debate highlights why our efforts are so urgently needed. We have stepped up our work internationally as one of the founding members of the new international religious freedom or belief alliance—we have stood together alongside 31 other states to protect freedom of religion or belief. Again, I have to extend my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham for his leadership on that. We have heard about some of the excellent work that the alliance has delivered.

We will continue to use our influential voice to raise FORB at the United Nations, including urging the international community to work together—we have heard today how important that is—to face the challenges presented by covid-19. It is particularly important at this time to ensure that the most vulnerable and disadvantaged members of society are actively included in response and recovery efforts.

Turing to some of the references made by right hon. and hon. Members, we heard an excellent opening speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham, as I said. He asked whether we would host the inter-ministerial global conference on FORB in 2022. We will announce a date for that conference in the coming months.

My hon. Friend also talked about sanctions. One or two other Members mentioned our sanctions regime and asked why we are not already implementing it against certain individuals who are oppressing the Uyghur population. We introduced the sanctions regime in July. It gives us a powerful tool to hold to account those involved in serious human rights violations. We are constantly considering further designations under the regime but, as hon. Members will appreciate, it would be wrong to speculate exactly who may be designated, because to do so at this stage reduces the impact of any sanctions.

The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) referred to the excellent work of Open Doors, as did the spokesperson for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who has worked with that organisation himself. He and other hon. Members also referred to what is going on in Nigeria. We are aware of the reports of recent human rights violations involving the Special Anti-Robbery Squad, and recent incidents have prompted serious and widespread protests. Our high commissioner in Abuja has raised that with the Nigerian Government. We condemn all incidents of inter-communal violence in Nigeria, which continue to have a devastating effect on communities of all faiths.

The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow also referred to Pakistan, and I very much look forward to receiving her letter. As I said earlier, I am happy to meet her with my team to go through that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) is a constant champion on this issue, and we thank her for all her work on it. She rightly mentioned the genocide definition. Genocide has a specific definition in international law, and any judgment about whether genocide has occurred is a matter for a judicial decision, but I thank her for rightly referring to it again.

[Fiona Bruce]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nigel Adams]

I will, but I will probably end up not covering everybody’s points.

[Fiona Bruce]

Will the Minister reassure us that he will consider the amendment to the Trade Bill, to which more than one Member referred?

[Nigel Adams]

Yes. With regard to the Trade Bill, we have a strong history of safeguarding human rights and promoting our values globally. Strong economic relationships with our partners allow us to have open discussions on a range of important issues, including human rights. We continue to encourage all states to uphold their international human rights obligations.

The hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) spoke passionately about her personal experiences of meeting constituents who have been discriminated against. I thank her for welcoming the pace at which the recommendations are being implemented. I can assure her that the full set of recommendations will be implemented by July 2022. We are very concerned about reports that some communities are being denied access to aid. My colleague the Minister for human rights raised that issue during the UK’s closing statement at the 44th session of the UN Human Rights Council.

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford and my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan) for their passionate contributions. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford on the birth of his grandson. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford), who is no longer in his place, rightly raised the issue of Pakistan and China. The hon. Member for Glasgow East made a well-thought-out and passionate speech, which was almost a great pitch for the special envoy’s role.

Before handing back to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham, I want to assure the House that the Government will continue to be a long-standing champion of human rights and freedoms. We have a duty to promote and defend our values of equality, inclusion and respect at home and abroad. We will continue to stand up for the rights of minority communities around the world and defend the right to freedom of religion or belief for everyone everywhere.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nigel Adams Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

What assessment he has made of the effect of the national security law on the people of Hong Kong.

[The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)]

We have been clear that the national security law has had a chilling effect on society and that it constitutes a clear and serious breach of the Sino-British joint declaration. It contains a range of measures that directly threaten the freedoms and rights protected by the joint declaration. In response to the national security law, the UK has offered a new immigration path for British nationals, suspended our extradition treaty and extended our arms embargo on mainland China to Hong Kong. We urge the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities to abide by their international human rights obligations.

[Robbie Moore]

In July, books by pro-democracy figures were removed from public libraries, and just last week Hong Kong’s leader, Carrie Lam, said that it was important to

“weed out the bad apples”

from the education system in response to a teacher “promoting Hong Kong independence”. Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK reserves the right to take further action to safeguard the rights of those in Hong Kong, especially if the human rights situation continues to deteriorate further?

[Nigel Adams]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have taken clear action in response to the national security law, including, as I said, offering a new immigration path for British national overseas passport holders, suspending our extradition treaty and extending our arms embargo on mainland China to Hong Kong. We will continue to bring together our international partners to ensure that we stand up for the people of Hong Kong, to call out the violation of their freedoms and to hold China to its international obligations.

[Andrew Rosindell]

Does the Minister agree that the national security law in Hong Kong has infringed the rights of many Hongkongers and broken international law by breaching the joint declaration? Will he now either urgently review his Magnitsky sanctions regime or outline how he intends to target those who instigate such appalling human rights abuses against this once proud British Crown colony?

[Nigel Adams]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. As he will know, on 6 July we established our global human rights Magnitsky sanctions regime, and it is under constant review. However, he will be aware that it is not appropriate to speculate on who may be designated under any future sanctions regime, because to do so would reduce the impact of those designations.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

Successive Conservative Governments since 2010 have been naive and complacent in their dealings with the Chinese Government. The resulting combination of over-dependence on China-based supply chains and the breaking of important international alliances has diminished our ability to exert influence on Beijing. Yet, despite these failings, there is clearly more that the UK could be doing for the people of Hong Kong. Will the Minister specify what the Government plan to do regarding citizenship for Hongkongers born after 1997? What consular support can he provide to the four BNO passport holders who are now detained in mainland China after attempting to flee? Will he commit to sanctioning the senior mainland Chinese Communist party and Hong Kong Executive officials who have been committing human rights abuses? It took the Government just days to sanction Belarusian officials. What, or who, is causing this delay?

[Nigel Adams]

We are working closely with the Home Office on our response for the BNOs, and there will be much more detail coming out in due course.

With regard to the cases that the hon. Member raises, we have raised the cases of the people detained in Shenzhen with the Chinese authorities in Hong Kong, and we have made it clear that due process should be followed. The rights and freedoms of people in Hong Kong, including their rights to freedom of speech and assembly, are expressly guaranteed in the joint declaration, and rights committed to under the declaration must be upheld. Under the memoranda to the joint declaration, BNOs are entitled to consular assistance in third countries, but not in Hong Kong, Macau or mainland China. The Chinese authorities do not recognise dual nationality, and absolutely would not grant UK consular access for those individuals. On sanctions, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell).

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

What steps he is taking to assist the authorities in Trinidad and Tobago to repatriate their citizens stranded in the UK as a result of the closure of that country’s borders in response to the covid-19 pandemic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

What the Government's policy is on promoting human rights, democracy building and the rule of law internationally, following the merger of his Department and the Department for International Development.

[The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)]

The UK is committed to the promotion and protection of human rights, democracy and the rule of law acting as a force for good in the world. The UK is one of the longest standing members of the Human Rights Council, and we are aiming to maintain that record at today’s election. Another good example is our recent activity at the UN on China, which shows our commitment to defending human rights in Xinjiang.

[Tony Lloyd [V]]

I welcome the Minister’s words, but may I refer him and his words to the situation in Colombia where, since the signing of the peace deal in 2016, we have seen hundreds of human rights defenders, civic leaders, trade unionists and former FARC—Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia—members murdered, and where the fragile democratic process saw the FARC move from the armed struggle to the political process. Will the Minister commit to making Colombia a priority for this Government and will he or one of his colleagues commit to meeting a small delegation of MPs who are concerned about Colombia?

[Nigel Adams]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He is absolutely right to raise this matter. We believe that democracy, human rights and the rule of law are the absolute foundations on which open, stable and prosperous societies thrive. I am more than happy to commit on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss this issue.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) [V]]

The International Development Committee is currently holding an inquiry into sexual abuse and exploitation by aid workers of the beneficiaries, and I am ashamed to report that we are finding that it is rife. I welcome the fact that the new Department has brought forward a safeguarding document as one of its first publications. However, will the Minister please comment on why the FCDO’s terms and conditions for staff say:

“Sexual relations with beneficiaries are strongly discouraged”?

Why is this not gross misconduct when there is an obvious power imbalance, and what will the Minister do to remedy this immediately?

[Nigel Adams]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising a very important issue. I do not have those terms and conditions in front of me, but I am more than happy to meet her to discuss what sounds like an incredibly serious point that she has raised.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Of course, what the Minister forgets is that the reason we are getting a seat on the UN Human Rights Council today is that the seat is uncontested. We actually have no representatives—a historic low—on any of the main committees of the 10 United Nations human rights treaty bodies and we have already failed to get elected to the International Court of Justice for the first time since world war two. Human rights barrister Amal Clooney resigned as a UK envoy, saying that it was untenable for her to urge other states to respect and enforce international obligations when the UK declares that it does not intend to do so itself. With so many crucial human rights abuses that we should be rightly taking leadership on, does the Minister accept that we undermine our position when his fellow Ministers undermine the rule of law and our commitment to human rights?

[Nigel Adams]

No, I do not accept that whatsoever. We have clearly set out our reasons for introducing the measures related to the Northern Ireland protocol. We need to create a legal safety net to protect the integrity of our internal market and ensure that we can deliver on our obligations. The UK Internal Market Bill is a defensive, precautionary and proportionate measure to safeguard the integrity of the United Kingdom.

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

What recent representations he has made to his Brazilian counterpart on climate change and protection of the Amazon rain forest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)]

What recent assessment he has made of the effect on regional security of China’s actions in the South China sea.

[The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)]

On 3 September, I reiterated our concern about reports of militarisation, coercion and intimidation in the South China sea, and I called on all parties to refrain from activity likely to raise tensions. Given the importance we attach to the UN convention on the law of the sea, I also put our comprehensive legal position on the SCS on public record for the first time.

[Scott Mann]

China’s brazen human rights abuses and its increasingly assertive behaviour internationally are both deeply disturbing issues. In the light of this behaviour, what consideration has the Department given to the integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy to safeguard British friends and interests in south-east Asia?

[Nigel Adams]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this. I would remind him that, on 6 October, 39 countries joined in a statement at the UN Third Committee expressing deep concern at the human rights situation in Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Tibet. This growing caucus willing to speak out reflects the UK’s diplomatic leadership. The tilt to the Indo-Pacific is a key ambition for our integrated review. It will outline the UK’s intention to become a long-term partner to south Asian and Asia-Pacific countries. We are already working to develop closer partnerships with the region through our bid to achieve Association of Southeast Asian Nations dialogue partnership status. The Foreign Secretary visited Hanoi recently, and that was high on our agenda. We are also keen to pursue our accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

What comparative assessment he has made of the ability of the (a) UK and (b) EU to impose sanctions on the President of Belarus.

China’s Policy on its Uyghur Population

Nigel Adams Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)]

I am grateful to the Petitions Committee for this debate, to the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) for introducing it and to all colleagues for their contributions. There is, rightly, deep public concern about the issue, so I am also grateful to the 146,000 members of the public who signed the petition and enabled this debate to take place. We have heard the strength of feeling in the House about Xinjiang, and I will respond to as many as possible of the points that have been made.

I assure the House that we closely and constantly monitor the situation in Xinjiang. As we have heard and read, and as we acknowledge, there have been harrowing reports and evidence of gross human rights violations. Analysis of satellite images suggests that the Chinese authorities continue to construct internment camps and demolish mosques and other religious sites. Those are systematic restrictions on Uyghur culture and religion. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) about the extensive and invasive surveillance operation that targets minorities. We have also seen credible evidence of forced labour —that was raised by most Members this afternoon—and the Chinese Government’s own figures show a dramatic decrease in population growth in Xinjiang over the past three years.

I will now set out the Government’s position on global human rights sanctions. On 6 July, as right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, we established the global human rights sanctions regime. In a statement to Parliament, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary set out the full scope of the UK’s new global human rights sanctions regime. He was clear, and I reiterate this today, that it is not appropriate to speculate on future designations under that regime. As I have said before and as the Foreign Secretary made clear, to do so could reduce the impact of such designations. However, I make it absolutely clear that that is under constant review.

On 9 September, during an Adjournment debate on Xinjiang, I stated that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is carefully considering further designations under the sanctions regime. We will keep all the evidence and the potential listings under close review. Our position on that remains unchanged.

Let me be clear that we are committed to responding robustly to all human rights violations in Xinjiang. We have played a leading role within the international community to hold China to account. We have led two joint statements at the UN in the past year, including a statement at the UN Human Rights Council in June that was supported by 28 countries. Last week, on 6 October, 39 countries joined our statement at the UN third committee in New York, expressing deep concern at the situation not just in Xinjiang, but in Tibet and Hong Kong. We believe this growing caucus reflects our diplomatic leadership, including the personal involvement of our Foreign Secretary.

Outside the UN, we have lobbied around the world to raise awareness of the issue and underlined the critical need for an international response. We have supported that by funding third-party research to increase the evidence base and international awareness, and by sharing our analysis of the situation on the ground, although Members will appreciate that getting access to Xinjiang is incredibly difficult. On 25 September, the UK dedicated its entire national statement at the UN Human Rights Council to human rights violations in China. That is only the second time the UK has dedicated its national statement to a single country, the first being about Russia in 2018 following the poisonings in Salisbury.

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has raised our serious concerns about Xinjiang directly with his Chinese counterpart on a number of occasions, most recently on 28 July, and I have raised them directly with the Chinese ambassador in recent months. We continue to raise awareness of the human rights violations in Xinjiang with UK businesses. We impress upon them the need to act in line with the expectations set out in the UK national action plan on business and human rights. That means conducting due diligence to make sure that they are not contributing to any human rights violations, including the use of forced labour in their supply chains.

Several right hon. and hon. Members have raised the question of genocide. The term genocide has a specific definition in international law, and it is the long-standing policy of the UK Government that any judgment as to whether war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide have occurred is a matter for judicial decision.

In the time I have left, I will turn to remarks and comments made by right hon. and hon. Members. The hon. Member for Islwyn introduced the debate in his typically eloquent style, raising many of the concerns that we all share about the plight of the Uyghur people. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on the work he does with IPAC and his persistent championing of this cause.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) was absolutely right to raise the points that she did, but I politely suggest that it is not correct to say that we are no further on. Our actions at the UN last week, alongside 38 other countries, are an example of that. She raised the issue of forced labour, as did most Members. The reports are credible. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute report, which the FCO part-funded, estimated that 80,000 Uyghurs were transferred out of Xinjiang to work.

We are committed to eradicating modern slavery and forced labour. The Modern Slavery Act 2015 made the UK the first country to require businesses to report how they identify and address modern slavery risks in their operations and supply chains, as hon. Members have mentioned. Businesses with an annual turnover of more than £36 million are required to publish an annual modern slavery statement, and we are developing a registry of modern slavery statements.

[Bob Seely]

rose—

[Nigel Adams]

I will take my hon. Friend’s intervention, but there is a slight risk that I will not have time to cover all the contributions made by other hon. Members.

[Bob Seely]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I have a very quick question. Are companies actually abiding by the law? We have this great law, but a lot of forced labour seems to be taking place.

[Nigel Adams]

It is absolutely the case that companies need to abide by the law. More can be done in this area, and we are developing further measures. The Home Office announced on 22 September a series of new measures to strengthen the Modern Slavery Act. These measures require legislative change, which will be brought forward as soon as parliamentary time allows.

There were some excellent contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat)—the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee—for Henley (John Howell), for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan), for Isle of Wight and for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan), and from the hon. Members for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali). The hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) referred eloquently to genocide. Again, any judgment as to whether war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide have occurred has to be a judicial matter.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield referred to strategic cultural cleansing. The freedom to practise, change or share one’s faith or beliefs without discrimination or violent opposition is a human right that all people should be able to enjoy. He was also right to highlight the lack of condemnation from predominantly Muslim countries of the oppression of the Uyghurs. I am sure that his powerful voice will have been heard today.

[Rushanara Ali]

The Minister mentions genocide. A clear-cut International Court of Justice case is currently ongoing, but the UK Government refuse to back it. What test has to be passed before our Government—a penholder in the UN on Burma—are likely to act? That is the problem: constant excuses.

[Nigel Adams]

I know how powerfully the hon. Lady feels about this issue, but, as I say, there is a specific definition in international law, and any decision has to be judicial. I am sure that this will come up in the future, and I am more than happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss it.

The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) asked whether we would publicly oppose China’s election to the United Nations Human Rights Council this week. He will be aware that we never comment on voting in UN elections, which are conducted by secret ballot. The UK has been absolutely clear with China about our grave concerns in relation to Xinjiang. As I said, on 6 October we joined 38 other countries to call on China to allow immediate and unfettered access for independent UN observers.

I know that I have to give the hon. Member for Islwyn a couple of minutes, so I will wrap up. I reiterate that we cannot speculate on future designations under our sanctions regime. China must immediately end extrajudicial detention in Xinjiang and uphold the principles of freedom of religion or belief, freedom of speech and freedom of association for every single one of its citizens. As the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have made clear, we want a positive relationship with China, but we will always act to uphold our values, our interests and our national security. We are crystal clear with China when we disagree with its approach.

China: Labour Programme in Tibet

Nigel Adams Excerpts

Wednesday 7th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)]

Thank you, Mr Hollobone. It is a great pleasure to be back in this Chamber. I start by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for initiating this very important debate. I am also grateful to others for their contributions and strong views, including the hon. Member for Bath (Vera Hobhouse), my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock).

Promoting and protecting human rights are incredibly important to this Government, no matter where those violations and abuses occur. As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, on 22 September the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China published a report alleging that the Chinese Government had expanded a large-scale mandatory vocational training programme in Tibet. The reported nature of this programme is deeply concerning to the UK Government and we take these allegations extremely seriously.

As we have heard, the report alleges coercive vocational training and the transfer of labour. It describes a large-scale campaign to retrain and transfer some rural labourers within Tibet and elsewhere in China. Those allegations bear similarities with the reported system of forced labour in Xinjiang, including the military-style vocational training; a focus, as we have heard today, on Chinese language training; and local middlemen receiving financial incentives to transfer labour throughout Tibet and beyond.

It is worth noting, however, as brought up by the hon. Member for Bristol East, that we do not have clear evidence that the very worst abuses taking place in Xinjiang are being replicated as yet in Tibet. There is no evidence of mass extrajudicial internment or of workers being kept in closed and securitised environments, like in Xinjiang. But of course we are working very closely with the report’s author. We are scrutinising the report, which has been out for two weeks. We are also working with other experts on Tibet and our international partners, so that we can get a clear and thorough understanding of the situation.

As is evident from our track record, we pay very close attention to the human rights situation not only in Tibet but right across China. We have called on the Chinese authorities to lift the severe and unjustified restriction on access for foreigners to Tibet. That has been raised by virtually every right hon. and hon. Member in the Chamber. Our officials at the British embassy in Beijing were last able to visit Lhasa in July 2019. We are consistent in our calls that that access needs to change.

We have consistently urged China to respect all the fundamental rights, in line with its own constitution and the international frameworks to which China is a party. The right to freedom of religion or belief applies to the people of Tibet just as it does to the people of Chingford and Woodford Green and elsewhere in the UK.

His Holiness the Dalai Lama was mentioned by Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. The UK views the Dalai Lama very much as a respected spiritual leader, and as such he has visited the UK on a number of occasions. We continue to do all we can to encourage freedoms for religious and cultural expression in Tibet and across China.

I think that the hon. Member for Bath made the point about the succession. The appointment of a new Dalai Lama is clearly a religious matter, and one for the relevant religious authorities to decide, in line with freedom of religion or belief. It is worth pointing out that we have also raised the case of the Panchen Lama with the Chinese authorities. We have demanded confirmation of his welfare and that he enjoys freedom of movement.

This Government have therefore shown time and again that when allegations are substantiated, we will speak out and act to hold China to account. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and First Secretary of State, supported by his ministerial team, has repeatedly set out our grave concerns about the human rights violations perpetrated against the people of Hong Kong and against Uyghur Muslims and other minorities in Xinjiang. I have done so myself in many parliamentary debates, the most recent being last month. We have raised those concerns directly with the Foreign Secretary’s counterpart, Wang Yi, on a number of occasions.

We have also played a leading role within the international community to hold China to account, with two unprecedented joint statements at the UN in the past year. Twenty-eight countries joined the UK-led statement at the Human Rights Council in June, and right hon. and hon. Members will have seen that yesterday 39 countries joined a statement at the UN General Assembly in New York expressing our deep concern at the situation in Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Tibet. I believe that that growing coalition reflects UK diplomatic leadership. I have an awful lot of respect for the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Aberavon, but I rather disagree that we have been ineffective in that regard. We have shown diplomatic leadership, as those statements in the UN demonstrate. The personal involvement of the Foreign Secretary is testament to that situation.

At the UN Human Rights Council, we used China’s most recent universal periodic human rights review to challenge its record publicly and encourage improved compliance with all its international human rights commitments. Last month, we dedicated our entire national statement at the council to the human rights violations taking place in China. That is only the second time that the UK has dedicated a national statement to a single country, with the first being in 2018 on Russia, following the poisonings in Salisbury. As the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have made clear, we want a positive relationship with China. China is a leading member of the international community with which we want to have a strong and constructive relationship in many areas.

I turn to points raised by right. hon. and hon. Members. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green raised sanctions, as did virtually every other Member. We are carefully considering further designations under our newly introduced sanctions regime. It is essential that sanctions are developed accurately and with the correct evidence. My right hon. Friend will know that it is not appropriate to speculate on who may be designated, but it is absolutely right to say that we are constantly reviewing this within the FCDO.

Members have mentioned supply chains, responsibility and amendment 68 to the Trade Bill. It is crucial that all businesses conduct the appropriate due diligence to ensure that their supply chains are free of forced labour. All Members referenced how there should be reciprocal access, and that is absolutely the Government’s position in terms of unfettered access to these regions. I will come shortly to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green also referenced judges in Hong Kong. An independent judiciary is a cornerstone of Hong Kong’s economic success and way of life. Sadly, the new national security law provides Hong Kong’s Chief Executive, rather than the Chief Justice, with the power to appoint judges. That risks undermining the independence of Hong Kong’s judiciary. We will monitor that closely, including the implications for the role of UK judges in the Hong Kong justice system.

My right hon. Friend also mentioned the Olympics, which he has also mentioned publicly. As the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, we are focused on working closely with our international partners to hold the Chinese authorities to account. We need to build the evidence base on which future action should be taken. While we have no current plans to boycott the Olympics—that is a matter for the sporting authorities—we have been clear throughout that we will not look the other way when faced with egregious human rights abuses in Xinjiang or violations of the freedoms of the Hong Kong people.

The hon. Member for Bath mentioned the Tibet (Reciprocal Access) Bill, promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. I thank my hon. Friend for his work on the APPG for Tibet and all he has done to bring Parliament’s attention to what is happening in Tibet. We are very much aware of his Bill, which has its Second Reading in March 2021. We will continue to call, at the UN and directly with the Chinese authorities, for unfettered access to the region, and obviously we will work with my hon. Friend and closely monitor his private Member’s Bill.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland raised the issue of Inner Mongolia, which he and I have discussed separately. We will continue to monitor that situation and engage on that. He also referred to unfettered access to those regions, which we will continue to call for; all the Opposition spokesmen also made that point clearly. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton mentioned, as have others, the call for a UN special rapporteur. We have repeatedly called in the UN for China to allow unfettered access to observers, including the High Commissioner for Human Rights. It is vital that that should include access to Tibet. She also mentioned the work of Confucius institutes. It is simple: any attempt to interfere with academic freedom or freedom of speech will not be tolerated. If any universities or research institutions experience attempts to undermine free debate, we encourage them to come forward and speak to the Government.

I have a few seconds left before I hand back to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. We will always act to uphold our values, our interests and our national security. We are crystal clear with China when we disagree with its approach. We urge the Chinese Government to respect all fundamental rights across the People’s Republic of China, including in Tibet. We are examining the latest reports of coercive training and transfer of labour in Tibet, and we take them seriously.

I thank my right hon. Friend for bringing this issue to the attention of the House today. We are working to establish a full picture of the situation. We have repeatedly held China to account for its human rights violations, and we will continue to do so. We will continue to stand up for our values and act as a force for good in the world.