Detained British Nationals Abroad

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Iain Duncan Smith

Thursday 5th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I could not agree more with the right hon. Lady, and I welcome her to the debate as Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. She is absolutely right, but the problem in this case is that dual nationality was used as an excuse for why the Government did not want to raise the matter, because China did not recognise that British citizenship. She is right that if someone is a British citizen, they are a British citizen, and the inside of the passport tells us why that is important. It seems to be ignored too often.

We know that sanctions are a vital tool for deterring and punishing state actors involved in arbitrary detention, yet that tool is often underutilised by UK Governments. I will touch on that later, because compared with the Americans, we fail to utilise it as a possible way to leverage changes to what is going on outside.

Another area of concern is the inconsistent application of Government policy regarding international legal standards. When the Minister comes to the Dispatch Box, will he confirm the Government’s official definition of arbitrary detention? How does it align with international legal standards, such as those established by the United Nations working group on arbitrary detention? I have never been able to get an answer out of any Foreign Minister yet, but I ask him, given his experience in the Department, to kindly find out the definition for us and let us know.

I said I would raise specific cases, so I will run through some of the list. Ryan Cornelius is a British citizen unjustly detained in Dubai for more than 16 years, originally in isolation. His case represents an egregious violation of human rights and, importantly, of due process. He was arrested in 2008 on false fraud allegations relating to a $500 million Dubai Islamic Bank loan, and his 10-year sentence was extended by 20 years in 2018 through retroactive application of a new law without proper legal proceedings. The bank seized assets worth $1.6 billion from Mr Cornelius, far exceeding the original loan amount. The UN working group on arbitrary detention has ruled categorically that Ryan’s detention is arbitrary and in violation of international law, calling for his immediate release and compensation. However, there still appears to be FCDO resistance.

Mohammed Ibrahim Al Shaibani became DIB chairman shortly before Mr Cornelius’s arrest. He appears to have orchestrated Mr Cornelius’s continued detention and the asset seizure. Mr Al Shaibani holds influential positions in Dubai’s Government, indicating an abuse of power. Mr Cornelius is now 70 and has suffered severe health issues in prison, including tuberculosis that went untreated for 18 months. Meanwhile, his seized property, originally claimed to be “worthless” by the bank, is now being redeveloped as a luxury project called The Acres, worth, strangely, $3 billion.

Under the last Government, I raised Mr Cornelius’s case finally with the former Prime Minister Lord Cameron while he was Foreign Secretary. Subsequently, he engaged personally in seeking clemency for Mr Cornelius. He met the family, raised the case with the UAE Foreign Minister and wrote personally to the ruler of Dubai. That was a first, because everybody else seemed to have shied away from this one, not wanting to upset the UAE, it appears.

To be fair to Lord Cameron, he got the issue and he started to tackle it, and that was important. The present Foreign Secretary, who replaced Lord Cameron in July, failed to raise Mr Cornelius’s case in his recent visit to the UAE in September, which perplexes me, given that it had already been raised. That just encourages a country like the UAE to carry on and to double down. I do not understand why.

In response to my written question to the Foreign Secretary, I received this answer:

“The Foreign Secretary raised the importance of consular issues, although not this specific case, during his visit to the UAE on 5 September and first meeting with Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed.”

I understand that on Sunday, the Prime Minister is expected to visit the UAE and, I think, Saudi Arabia. Will the Minister make it clear to the Prime Minister— I believe this is the view that will be expressed in this debate—that he must not only raise the case, which is important, but demand categorically that Ryan Cornelius is released into the hands of his family without delay? I hope that whatever is summarised from his meetings, that specific issue is there in black and white for this House to record.

The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) raised Mr Cornelius’s case several weeks ago in an Adjournment debate, when he was reassured by the Minister for Development, the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), that:

“the case will continue to be raised with the UAE authorities”,—[Official Report, 19 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 241.]

and yet it was not. If Ministers give assurances in this House, Madam Deputy Speaker, do you not agree that they should actually back up those assurances? I wonder if the Minister present will explain why that was the case.

Although individual cases are raised with international counterparts, often no concrete action follows. I hope the Minister agrees that once a case is raised, it will be followed up. In Mr Cornelius’s case, I believe the path could culminate in sanctions, so there is a process. It is clear that raising the case with the UAE authorities has yet to produce a result. What we want is a real record that the authorities are now being warned that should they fail to take action, individual sanctions under the Magnitsky rules will follow.

Will the Minister therefore now look to imposing targeted Magnitsky sanctions on those responsible for Mr Cornelius’s arbitrary detention and asset seizures? There are a number of them: His Excellency Mohammed Al Shaibani, who was the chairman of the DIB; Yahya Saeed Ahmad Nasser Lootah, the vice chairman of the board of directors; Hamad Abdulla Rashed Obaid Al Shamsi, who was a board member; Ahmad Mohammad Saeed Bin Humaidan, a board member; Abdul Aziz Ahmed Rahma Mohamed Al Muhairi, a board member; Dr Hamad Buamim, a board member; Javier Marin Romano, a board member; Bader Saeed Abdulla Hareb Al Mheiri, a board member; and Dr Cigdem Kogar, a board member. All were involved in this case; all are eligible for Magnitsky sanctions. Mr Cornelius should now be released immediately, or sanctions, I believe, should follow.

I will deal reasonably quickly with the case of Jimmy Lai, and then I will give way to others in the debate. Jimmy Lai is a renowned pro-democracy campaigner, journalist and media owner. I wear the badge to free him with pride. This man has been treated abominably—he is a hero, and we should recognise that. He is 77 and a proud British citizen. He is also a Catholic, and has been denied the normal communion that he would expect as a believer in Catholicism; it has been shut off from him for a long time, which matters a great deal to him. He is a prisoner of conscience. He could have fled Hong Kong after the Sino-British agreement was trashed, but he chose to stay. Why? He wanted to set an example for the many who could not flee and who were going to be arrested—that he was not going to run away just because he had money. This is a brave man.

Mr Lai is currently on trial in Hong Kong for alleged offences against national security and alleged sedition, said to arise out of his work as a newspaper publisher and his pro-democracy activism. His case is emblematic of the crackdown on the media in Hong Kong, civil society and the rule of law. On 15 November 2024, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention published its opinion that Jimmy Lai is being unlawfully and arbitrarily detained and called for his immediate release. The working group found multiple violations of Mr Lai’s rights and freedoms, expressed alarm at his prolonged detention in solitary confinement and stressed that he should not be on trial at all.

This case, I say to the Minister, is very urgent. Mr Lai has been arbitrarily detained in prolonged solitary confinement for nearly four years, often in insufferable heat during the summer months. Securing Jimmy Lai’s release requires effective action across the Government to bring him home and reunite him with his family in London. At the moment, he is bravely giving evidence in his trial—at which, by the way, a number of Members present have been named. I have been apparently named. I am already sanctioned by the Chinese, but I have also been named as being party to the case being brought against him. I have to say publicly that I have, sadly, never met Jimmy Lai or corresponded with him. I wish that I had. I wish that I could tell him what a brave man he really is. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Will the Minister outline today what urgent steps the Foreign Office is taking to secure Jimmy Lai’s release?

I remind the Minister and others that what we see in front of us now is a rise in hostage taking by nation states. The biggest abuser of this process is, of course, Iran. I worry about this abuse growing more and more in Iran. In January 2023—we must not forget about this—Iran executed British-Iranian national Alireza Akbari, who was arrested, charged and executed on spying charges, which he denied and which were totally untrue. It was the first execution of a dual national since the 1980s. Only four months later, the Iranian authorities executed a second dual national, Swedish-Iranian Habib Chaab. In October 2024, it executed a third dual national, German-Iranian Jamshid Sharmahd. At least one more dual national, Swedish-Iranian Ahmad Reza Djalia, has been sentenced to death since 2023.

I conclude on the simple basis, as I raised at the beginning, that we can no longer go along with the idea that we somehow lose influence if we raise these cases publicly. We can no longer go on with this idea that we can manage a generalist approach to this in the Foreign Office. As has already been raised, we need a much more professional, deliberate and permanent status in the Department to deal with this matter.

Finally, we have in our hands the Magnitsky sanctions legislation. With the case of Ryan Cornelius and others, it is high time that those who were party to the arrest and incarceration of innocent British citizens find themselves facing Magnitsky sanctions, unless they recant and that individual is released. That at least gives us a tool. I ask the Government to get to the Dispatch Box, when the time comes, and commit to that process.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Taiwan: International Status

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Iain Duncan Smith

Thursday 28th November 2024 Commons Chamber

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Absolutely not.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Select Committee Chair.

Countering Iran’s Hostile Activities

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Iain Duncan Smith

Wednesday 8th May 2024 Westminster Hall

[Ms Ghani]

I am not sure what the process is, but because the right hon. Lady raised the issue with me and I am responding in the debate, I will ensure that correspondence is sent to tell the FCA what was said today, and that we would like a response to the issues raised, which are concerning.

I have a few more points to make, which I think are the most important. We have talked about some of the major macro issues, but there are other issues that Iranians have to deal with day in, day out—in particular the human rights abuses that are mostly meted out to women and young girls. The case of Mahsa Amini was raised earlier. She was 22 years old and was arrested simply for refusing to wear a hijab. In the widespread protests that followed her death, women removed their headscarves and chanted, “Women, life, freedom.” The protests were crushed violently by the IRGC. I am a Muslim woman myself, and it should not be a privilege to choose to show my hair or life-threatening for me not to cover it up, but unfortunately that is the case for many women in Iran.

In any debate on Iran, we have to take into account its terrible human rights abuses at home—the repression of women and girls; the uninhibited use of the death penalty; violent crackdowns on dissenting voices—which will not go unchallenged. Just last week, we saw more reports of the regime’s appalling treatment of protesters, journalists and those expressing their right to freedom of expression, including the fearless artist Toomaj Salehi.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend in her flow, but I want to check something. As I understand it, Iran is not specified as a threat in the integrated review; I think it is described as a “persistent destabilising” influence in the middle east. Does she agree with that?

[Ms Ghani]

I assume that my right hon. Friend was reading exactly from the integrated review. Obviously, I would agree with the exact words of the integrated review, or the integrated review refresh.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Worth a try.

Hong Kong Anniversaries

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Iain Duncan Smith

Wednesday 29th June 2022 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the anniversaries of the handover of Hong Kong and the implementation of the National Security Law.

It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Efford. I shall try to keep my remarks brief, but as a politician you know what that means.

Today’s debate is very important. It is important because we need to recall the plight of those in Hong Kong who were guaranteed under a treaty that their system would pay attention to the nature of how they had been previously governed under the UK, that their freedoms, to a greater or lesser extent, would be respected, and that there would be proper free and fair elections, yet that treaty, having been signed—fully agreed by both parties, China and the UK—has completely broken down.

A little background here is important. On 1 July 1997, Hong Kong was handed over to China by the UK, under the conditions set out in the 1984 Sino-British joint declaration. The joint declaration provides for fundamental rights, a high degree of autonomy, and one country, two systems in Hong Kong. The People’s Republic of China has stated since 2014, however, that the treaty has no further legal effect, while the document remains binding, in essence, in operation. The UK Government have declared the PRC as being

“in a state of ongoing non-compliance with the…Joint Declaration”.

As co-signatory to the treaty, the UK absolutely has the legal and moral responsibility to act in defence of a treaty that it signed and which was agreed.

The UK Government have declared there to be an ongoing breach of the Sino-British declaration, but we have not done much—we have not done enough—to hold China and the Chinese to account. I welcome some issues being resolved, such as the British national overseas passports scheme, which has opened a pathway for more than 100,000 Hongkongers to move to the UK and is a generous offer, but that is ultimately a humanitarian operation, not an accountability mechanism.

I welcome also the Government’s move to extend the BNO scheme to those born after 1 July 1997, following a campaign involving many who are here today. That means that many young pro-democracy activists will be eligible for the scheme. Many others around the Commonwealth—I think of Australia and a number of others—have opened their doors to those people should they wish to stay much closer to Hong Kong.

From 1 July 2020 to 28 March 2022, 183 individuals were arrested for alleged national security crimes. I have here a list of all those people. I am not going to read out all their names, but I might selectively look at a few, particularly Jimmy Lai and others, who have been appallingly treated.

Most of the arrests were related to the national security law, but some were for other crimes, such as so-called sedition. More than 50 civil society groups have been disbanded, and in June 2021 police arrested five senior executives from Apple Daily for alleged collusion with foreign forces. The media outlet, which was fair and free, was forced to close the same week. Prosecutors later affirmed that the arrests stemmed in part from apparent editorials published in Apple Daily calling on western countries to impose sanctions on Hong Kong officials.

In December 2021, the Hong Kong authorities arrested editorial staff of Stand News, citing conspiracy to publish seditious materials under the Crimes Ordinance. On the day of the arrests, Stand News announced its immediate closure. Prominent figures such as Jimmy Lai and Joshua Wong were arrested and charged under the national security law.

Arbitrary detention has taken place. Through the denial of bail in the vast majority of the related cases, the Hong Kong Government have created a system of de facto long-term detention without trial. On 28 February 2021, the authorities charged 47 politicians and activists over their role in organising a primary election in advance of Legislative Council elections in July 2020. Almost a year and a half later, most of those charged individuals remain in jail awaiting trial.

The truth is that the UK has a treaty responsibility to hold accountable those in power who are the perpetrators. That includes our own citizens who have aided and abetted the crackdown in Hong Kong. I am thinking in particular of senior British police officers who oversaw the use of indiscriminate tear gassing of peaceful pro-democracy protesters, and the same individuals who were in charge of detention facilities where violence and, we believe, even torture have been carried out against young Hongkongers. Think about that: British citizens involved in such levels of abuse.

Organisations campaigning on this issue have compiled an incredible dossier on the actions of the Hong Kong Government and the many abuses that have taken place. Once that dossier is complete, colleagues and I intend to submit it directly to the Government, with recommendations for further actions to be taken against those responsible. I expect that we will receive a very clear answer.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he share my concern that, unless the Government are forthright in showing how they will protect press freedom, all the content we have will disappear even further? We owe thanks to Hong Kong Watch and the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China for gathering that information. It is incredibly dangerous for people to speak the truth, in or outside Hong Kong, for fear of arrest and abuse.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our thanks go out to Hong Kong Watch, the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China and other groups that have facilitated this debate. My hon. Friend is sanctioned by the Chinese Government, as I am, for our concerns over the Uyghurs and the abuses in Xinjiang, and because of our complaints about what has happened in Hong Kong. She is right to raise the point that the Government need to do much more, which I want to come to in a minute.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because that is correct. I had clashes with HSBC when it froze the accounts of those who had fled Hong Kong under the Government schemes. The same applies to Standard Chartered. HSBC’s answer was that it has to obey the law. My answer to the bank is, “You are headquartered in London. You take advantage of the freedoms in London, yet you behave like a brutal part of the Government in Hong Kong in obeying their every whim. You cannot ride both horses.” Those who take advantage of our common law purpose and the rights that exist in London need also to obey the norms of how those things came about and how they are operated. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The abuses of those banks are shocking and the Government should pay attention. I was going to raise that appalling situation, but now he has done.

On other issues, I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s support for the withdrawal, finally, of serving UK judges from the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal. I was surprised that we had to campaign for that at all, and that judges, whose responsibility in the UK is to arbitrate fairly in disputes in a democratic country under the rule of law, should so position themselves in Hong Kong while arbitrary detention was taking place, and carry on earning a living while serving in the UK. I am enormously pleased that that has now come to an end.

The President of the Supreme Court, Lord Reed, has agreed that High Court judges will no longer act in Hong Kong, but retired judges continue to do so. He said:

“the judges of the Supreme Court cannot continue to sit in Hong Kong without appearing to endorse an administration which has departed from values of political freedom, and freedom of expression”.

We obviously welcomed that decision, even though it was overdue, but I would have thought that retired judges were bound by much the same principle. If the Supreme Court has reached the opinion that its judges can no longer appear to act with an Administration who have departed from the values of political freedom and freedom of expression, how is it that retired judges, who are meant to be bound by the same principles, can in all honestly look themselves in the mirror and say, “That’s all right, but we are different”? I appeal to them today, for the sake of all those who are being traduced, arrested, tortured and dealt brutally with: it is time for us to show the world that the legitimacy of the legal system in Hong Kong is no longer. I understand that they have defended their decision, and I am not going to go through the details, but we must now call time on it.

What should the UK be doing? This is important: we should implement individual sanctions against Hong Kong officials who are responsible for the crackdown on civil liberties in Hong Kong. The UK is yet to impose sanctions on any Hong Kong official, which is astonishing given the fact that we had a joint requirement to see fairness. We see it trashed, yet we have done nothing about those who are clearly and obviously guilty. Here is the irony: the USA has done exactly that, and it did not have the same responsibilities that the UK Government had. The outgoing Chief Executive, Carrie Lam—sanctioned. The incoming Chief Executive, John Lee—sanctioned. Seven officials of the Hong Kong special administrative regions—sanctioned. That is Teresa Cheng Yeuk-wah, Xia Baolong, Zhang Xiaoming, Luo Huining, Zheng Yanxiong, Chris Tang Ping-keung and Stephen Lo Wai-chung—they have all been sanctioned by the US Administration. I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister: why have we not done the same? Should we not be leading the USA and others, rather than be following them? Bold action and a bold answer are required.

The Government should conduct an audit of assets belonging to Chinese and Hong Kong officials held in the UK. A recent Hong Kong Watch report states that 11 Hong Kong officials and legislators own property in the UK. We have already established over time, and particularly since the Russians invaded Ukraine, the level of abuse that has taken place in the UK property market. We are now at last bearing down on that, and sanctions are moving, yet for Hong Kong, where people have been abusing the system for some time, we have still not carried out the audit that has been requested.

The Government should further scrutinise and limit the export of surveillance technology to Hong Kong. Following the outbreak of protests in 2019, I welcomed the announcement that the British Parliament would stop issuing export licences for crowd-control equipment to Hong Kong and announced the extension of the arms embargo on Hong Kong. However, technology that can be used for surveillance, such as facial recognition, closed circuit camera systems and technologies fuelled by the mass collection of personal data, can still be exported if they do not fall under the scope of existing legislation. That needs to be shut down immediately.

We must introduce “know your customer” and due diligence requirements for entities that produce surveillance technology. I understand that a local branch of the UK company Chubb has been providing surveillance products and services to detention facilities in Hong Kong that have been involved in the inhuman treatment of detainees. The reality is that it is in our power to act, and I do not understand why we are so resistant. Surely it is the decent thing to do.

[Ms Ghani]

My right hon. Friend is making an incredibly important point. Would he, like me, like to hear from the Minister about why we have not responded to the biometrics and surveillance camera commissioner, who has raised concerns about contracts not only here but in Hong Kong and mainland China, in particular about the contracts with Hikvision, which we know is involved and complicit in the abuse of Hongkongers and Uyghurs?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am grateful for that intervention because I was coming to that, and my hon. Friend is right to prompt me. The commissioner has made it very clear that Hikvision is a security risk. It is used for abuse not just in Hong Kong but in the wider region, for the detention, genocide and slave labour of the Uyghurs, and there are plans and applications for Tibetans, Christians and others. We have highlighted endlessly with the Government how Hikvision cameras are being implemented in many prisons and detention facilities around China, particularly in Hong Kong, so why in heaven’s name are Government Departments still using it?

I have here a list of my parliamentary questions to each Department about how many cameras each of them holds and whether they will get rid of them. Of all the Government Departments, two have responded openly. One is the Department of Health and Social Care, which says it will eradicate them, and the second is the Department for Work and Pensions, which responded in a similar way. Every other Department has fallen back on the same phrase, saying that they do not respond to matters that are security risks. Well, the only security risk is the Departments themselves and it is high time they responded. Today I am FOI-ing every single one of those Departments. They need to respond immediately to say what they are doing and why they have not done it yet.

I also want the Government to implement “know your customer” and due diligence requirements on entities that facilitate the violation of human rights. Joint ventures with Chinese entities that develop surveillance technology should stop. There are at least 18 research partnerships with Huawei and CloudWalk in the UK. Let us for a second touch on Huawei, a company involved in the surveillance of the Uyghurs in the Xinjiang arena. It has partnered with a number of UK academic institutions, including King’s College London, the University of Cambridge, Barking & Dagenham College, University College London, Queen Mary University, the University of London and the University of Edinburgh. I understand there are more, but I will not detain the House much longer on that.

Huawei was banned from our telecommunications systems because it was deemed a security risk, yet it has its headquarters in Cambridge, where it is busy funding all sorts of programmes, many of which have security links. Honestly—what other country in the world would allow that to happen? Good gracious me! Bits of Government need to start talking to each other and asking a simple question: why is Huawei still here if it is a security risk? What is it doing subverting our universities? I am deeply concerned about all the levels of security equipment—I have talked about Hikvision and others—that are busily working away not in the interests of the UK, and there are plenty more.

The UK Government now have to act. There is so much more that they could and should do. They should lead the rest of the world and not follow the actions of those who abuse human rights. They have a treaty obligation to uphold. I call on the Government today, as we commemorate the disaster that is taking place in Hong Kong now, to be bold and brave and to take action. That is what we owe those decent people that have put their trust in us. Sadly, it appears we have failed them.

Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Iain Duncan Smith

Committee stage
Monday 7th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. I always bow to him in the knowledge of the law, as of course I would. I thought he was an excellent Justice Secretary—I will just slip that one in, gratis, and I am sure he can dine out on it. I agree with him wholeheartedly, because what he says is right. I will come back to the flexibility that is required, but I come to the principle of what we are saying. We are seeking to strike out that little lacuna that results from the words “knowingly or recklessly”. That would make this about the responsibility of the person concerned and that would be it—there would be no let-outs, no issues and no quibbling. This is the key. Everything in the other amendments is relevant to it; they merely backfill various areas, and it is important that they should refer to clause 31. They make it clear that responsibility rests with the individual—the entity, should I say—in this particular case.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)]

It is important to note that these amendments in my right hon. Friend’s name, my name and those of others do not set us apart from is happening in the rest of Europe and in America. America is applying the same principles. Although the Bill closes the front door on much of Putin’s dirty money, we must ensure that no back door is open. We should therefore be working in line with our NATO allies, and with many other European colleagues as well.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

That is exactly correct. All we are doing is asking for the UK to be at the same level as the United States, and I do not think that that is asking too much. I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Magnitsky sanctions, and this is very much what we are driving at. In fact, I love the idea that an individual who is sanctioned in the United States should be sanctioned here, and that if we sanction individuals the United States should sanction them as well, and that the same should happen in Europe. We would have this common purpose: there is nowhere for those people to go. They are sanctioned, full stop, and they cannot use their ill-gotten money anywhere.

Uyghur Tribunal Judgment

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Iain Duncan Smith

Thursday 20th January 2022 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) on securing this debate. She spoke brilliantly about what the issues were and laid them out in some detail. I will touch on a few of those but many others will deal with them in more detail.

I say from the outset that the whole issue and the plight of the Uyghurs should trouble us not just because people are now being persecuted, executed, put into forced labour and sterilised. Those alone are enough to make us in this House, of all Houses around the world, stand up and say, “Enough.” But this is also about the wider concept: the more that China—the Chinese Government—gets away with doing this and the more that Governments turn their heads when confronted with the problems of calling it out, the more the Chinese Government extend their reach and form of despotic government around the world. We have seen what their purpose is: to countermand the idea of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. They have made that very clear. At every stage, they think that what we do, what we believe in, is weakness and therefore they sell their concept to and impose it on others.

What is happening to the Uyghurs is a huge wake-up call to those of us in the free world who believe substantially in the concept of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, because it is being eroded even as we hold this debate. We cannot assume, as we legitimately did early after the end of the cold war, that we had somehow won this battle and that it was therefore likely that every other country would have to embrace these principles. They do not. We have to fight for them.

The point about the debate—this is why I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden so much on having managed to secure it—is that we need to be able to say to our Government, my Government, that they need to be at the forefront and leading on tackling this challenge, not dragged along behind. To be fair to the Government on the Uyghur problem and China in general, they are not alone. Countries across Europe also simply will not admit that there is a problem; Germany has been dragging its feet on this for ages. However, that does not excuse us, because other countries, such as Australia, Canada and the United States, have now all decided that the issue is clear.

If we cannot decide on this, what can we decide? As my hon. Friend pointed out, the tribunal made it very clear. It was a properly constituted tribunal. The Government say it has to be a proper court. It is not a court of law, but the tribunal was constituted correctly and as would be done at the UN. The phrase it used, which is critical, is that it found “beyond reasonable doubt” that the Chinese Government are perpetrating genocide, crimes against humanity and torture against the Uyghurs. It is surely only reasonable that we urge the Government to do the next thing. Instead of arguing about whether the tribunal is a proper court, if the Government themselves suspect at any stage that such things are happening, it is essentially inherent on them, given the 1948 issue, to pursue this and to urgently assess whether they consider the Uyghurs to be at serious risk of genocide. I am happy to take an intervention from my hon. Friend the Minister on this, because we may need to satisfy ourselves that it is within the power of the Government to do that. It is. The Government can do anything that this House wishes them to, and this is also internationally legal.

Will the Minister respond on why the Government simply do not want to do this? We had debates here and tried to amend the Bill three or four times, and we came pretty close, I have to say. However, the reality is that I am not even asking the Government to declare this a genocide. I simply ask them to make this urgent assessment and to follow the evidence of what they find, following the tribunal and all the other areas of information. I ask the Government to start that process, that is all. I am not asking them to reach a conclusion at this particular point. I just want them to start the process. That seems very small.

[Ms Ghani]

One issue we are trying to raise is that the Government are refusing to undertake their legal obligations. On what grounds have they decided that all the evidence presented to the Uyghur Tribunal does not stand up in court?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The truth is that the Government have not said anything, so we do not know whether they think the tribunal makes sense or what it says is a reality. We do not know that they disagree with it. It would be great if the Minister would get up and tell us whether they think the tribunal is reasonable, has reached reasonable grounds and has come up with good evidence, and whether they actually believe that a genocide may well be being perpetrated. That is all I ask—whether it may well be being perpetrated. If so, we may then start the ball rolling.

The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) mentioned that trade with China had doubled. In all this, we now discover that the country is so out of control that it does not report that it has a desperate virus breaking out to the World Health Organisation in time for it to get control measures in place. That has now led to millions of people dying all over the world. That is what happens when we refuse to bring such a country to book.

That is the problem that we have right now. China is committing genocide and hounding the Taiwanese. It has broken an international treaty over Hong Kong. It is persecuting and incarcerating ordinary, peaceful democracy campaigners in Hong Kong, persecuting Christians, Falun Gong and others, and smashing churches. It has killed Indian soldiers on its border and militarily occupied the South China seas. How much more are we prepared to stand by and watch, and all for the sake of cheaper goods? Do we say nothing? Shame on us! Shame on us that that plastic thing that we bought last week was 10p cheaper than it might have been had it been made somewhere else. Is that a reason to turn our backs on the suffering and persecution of the people who deserve us to stand up for them?

All I ask is for my Government to take a lead. We have a list of people who should be sanctioned—I am also co-chair of the all-party group on Magnitsky sanctions—and they are: Chen Quanguo, the architect not just of the Uyghur suppression, but of Tibet; Peng Jiarui, the deputy party secretary and commander of the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps; Sun Jinlong, former political commissioner of the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps; and Huo Liujun, former leader of the Xinjiang public security bureau. We have called for all of them to be sanctioned. They are being sanctioned by the United States. It is not as though, by suddenly standing up, we would be alone; those people have already been sanctioned.

[Ms Ghani]

A number of colleagues in this House have been sanctioned. The Uyghur Tribunal was sanctioned. Individuals who gave evidence to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee were intimidated and sanctioned. When will the Government stand up and sanction those who are undertaking the genocide and when will they have the confidence to back not only the House and the Select Committees, but sanctioned colleagues?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

The truth is that, ironically, nothing stops the Chinese Government from sanctioning absolutely everybody who speaks up against them. We here have been sanctioned. In fact, I noticed the other day that the Chinese embassy devoted a whole page to telling the world that I was a liar and a cheat and somebody who basically misled everybody about China. Okay, I am fine with that, if that is what it wants to say. The point is that our Government can now make it clear to everybody else that the problem lies at the heart of the nature of that Government. This is a despotic, brutal, dictatorial regime that cares nothing for human rights, nothing for the rule of law, and, at the end of the day, nothing for the lives of ordinary people.

I end by simply saying that, today, we see through a glass darkly. We are looking at history repeating itself. Because we chose not to speak out, because we chose to appease a despotic, brutal, dictatorial and murderous regime in the 1930s, the situation got worse and worse and we ended up with 60 million people dying. We must speak out now. The Government must lead on this and learn the lessons of the past. The Uyghur Tribunal was absolutely clear that it is almost certain that genocide is taking place. Please, will my Government stand up, broaden their shoulders and say that we will no longer turn our heads away no matter what the consequences are? It is time to make the case for Uyghurs to be represented, supported and helped against this terrible genocide.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

rose—

[Ms Ghani]

rose—

Telecommunications (Security) Bill

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Iain Duncan Smith

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 25th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)]

No, but I will never waste an opportunity, as it is obviously a joy to intervene on my right hon. Friend, who was asking how much deeper our relationship can go with a country that has sanctioned parliamentarians in this House for basically raising human rights abuses and security concerns.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am getting so used to just doing what I am told by my hon. Friend when it is necessary that she only has to look in this direction and I give way to her—my apologies.

What I was really trying to get to the bottom of is that I do not think that this is feasible any longer. The Bill illustrates the dichotomy that lies at the heart of the Government’s position. We are trying constantly to talk about these trade relationships, but at the same time we recognise that the country that we are discussing them with is a totalitarian state that is guilty of what many, including myself, believe is a genocide of a whole ethnic group—more than one ethnic group. It is a state that is intolerant, that is suppressing democracy and free speech in Hong Kong, that is threatening Taiwan and India, and that has said that it is in possession of the South China sea. I could go on with that list. We can recognise the compilation of all those things and that there is a security risk, and yet at the same time in the other place we are told, “Don’t worry. We are still trying to do trade deals.”

It is quite interesting that we have reopened an economic and financial dialogue under a JETCO—a joint economic and trade committee—which was originally paused because of the imposition of the national security law in Hong Kong. The discussions have now restarted, although we did not hear much fanfare. We sort of discovered that they had restarted, but there was no announcement from the Dispatch Box that we were restarting them. There are no dates involved, but the discussions are restarting, despite the sanctions against individuals and so on, and despite our sanctions against Chinese officials—although I still wish that we could do more.

I note also that the European Union was heading in the same direction with its agreement, only now, because of the sanctions on its MEPs and so on, it has decided that it is not going to do that. I simply raise the question: if we think that this country and this Government —the Chinese Communist party, the Government of China—are such a potential threat, should we really be trying to reopen those doors, despite the sanctions that we have in place, the sanctions that they have put in place, and the very clear threat that they now pose to our security?

I simply say to my hon. Friend the Minister that I was going to move my amendment, which would have said that the Government should immediately declare many of these companies high-risk vendors by the very nature of the security law that exists in China. However, I would also say, in support of what has been said already, that the Government need to use the internal possibilities in our Parliament. We have a Committee that is cleared to the highest level of security in these areas, and it is important that we use that Committee. If the Government get private advice from the Committee about what it thinks is going wrong with their position, I think that will benefit and improve them.

I therefore ask my hon. Friend to take my amendment into consideration and to answer that point, to think seriously about how we can strengthen the Bill further and, if he can, to make the reservations of this place felt to his colleagues in Government. We are deeply concerned about trying to ride two bicycles at the same time: recognising a deep and growing threat to democracy not just here but around the world from the Chinese Communist party, while trying to beg China to do trade deals with us, notwithstanding the fact that it behaves so badly.

Trade Bill

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Iain Duncan Smith

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 9th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)]

Today was intended to be a historic vote on a simple question: can we give effect to the Government’s own policy that genocide determination is a judicial matter, allowing us to assess whether our trading partners are committing that most heinous of crimes? Yet that most serious question—the destruction, rape, sterilisation, brainwashing and killing of an entire group of people from the face of the Earth —cannot be answered today. We have been denied a vote on the genocide amendment, which was improved to meet the Government’s objections—an amendment so powerful that it secured a majority of 171 in the other Chamber—and was on course to win the backing of the House today.

I am appalled at the parliamentary games played over such a grave issue, but we will not let the principle go away. We will do everything we can to ensure that we are not trading with genocidal states. Let us remember that it is the Government’s position, not mine, that genocide is for the courts. The Foreign Secretary said last month, “Whether or not it amounts to genocide is a matter for the courts”. The Prime Minister, last month, said that

“the attribution of genocide is a judicial matter”.—[Official Report, 20 January 2021; Vol. 687, c. 959.]

Why, then, is a meaningless amendment being backed that demotes this to the level of a Select Committee—and it has been rejected by a Select Committee—and deliberately excludes the Uyghurs and China? We are outsourcing genocide determination to the UN, which is handcuffed by China and Russia. Why not bring that back home? Why not take back control, in line with the Government’s own policy?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Will my hon. Friend reflect that the Government’s complaints that the previous amendment was flawed were taken into consideration such that under the current amendment the court would make a preliminary determination only, and it would be for the Government and Parliament to decide what to do about it at any stage?

[Ms Ghani]

Indeed. Some colleagues have said that we have bent over too much and that there is too much power with the Executive, but we have separated the power: the courts determine genocide, Parliament opines and the Executive are in charge.

We are unsure what the objections are now. I tabled a question to the Government to ask who determines genocide, and the response was:

“The determination as to whether a situation constitutes genocide is factually and legally complex and should only be made by a competent court following a careful and detailed examination.”

That means that any Select Committee paper would be rubbished.

The values of our country do not include enriching ourselves on the back of slave labour or using our new-found post-Brexit freedom to trade with states that commit and profit from genocide. Britain is better than that. Last week, the Board of Deputies of British Jews highlighted the plight of the Uyghurs and the chilling similarity to Nazi Germany: 2 million Uyghurs are in prison camps. The late Rabbi Sacks was once asked where God was when the holocaust took place. He responded that the real question was: where was man?

Let the record show that, on this day, men and women in this House were ready to vote on the genocide amendment, to lead the world in standing up to tyrannical regimes that commit genocide, to honour our vow of “never again”, to ensure that we are never complicit in genocidal trade, and to put Britain on the right side of history. Today, we were denied that vote, and this House was denied its say.

National Security and Investment Bill

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Iain Duncan Smith

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 17th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I agree with my hon. Friend and I agree that this is not the Bill to discuss industrial strategy. The right hon. Member for Doncaster North made wider points which I think are worthy of discussion, but I am not sure that that discussion should take place in relation to this Bill and I want to keep this narrow.

First, in China something very special is taking place: the idea of civil-military fusion, which is now infecting every single enterprise and company in China. The Chinese military, as we have already heard, uses this concept and strategy to acquire intellectual property, technologies and research for civilian use and for military use. An external investment screening body, therefore, should be set up under this legislation, to establish and investigate cases where this may now affect UK investments. This is very important, because the rules are very strictly applied in China: you co-operate with the intelligence services or you are out of business. You may be out of not just your livelihood but your freedoms.

[Ms Ghani]

Is it not even more dangerous in that, under the national security law in China, not only do people have to hand over data, but if asked by a foreign state they have to deny they are handing over data? If that is the case, should we not have a bigger debate about social media companies based in this country harvesting our data and our children’s data and where that data might end up down the line?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I of course completely agree with my hon. Friend and I was just going to come on to the data harvesting point, because it is caught in this. She is right that China’s national intelligence law requires all Chinese firms to assist with state intelligence work and to deny that if they are asked. Let us say the Secretary of State wants to investigate and says he has strong penalties for non-compliance. By law in China they are not allowed to comply with that process at all, so there is already a national conflict in this. TikTok is owned by ByteDance, which is a very dodgy company set up in China that has huge links with the Chinese Communist Government. So we need to be very careful about where we go with this because UK nationals might get caught up and get punished for what is essentially a refusal by the Chinese Government to allow others to do this.

I am also slightly concerned about some of the things that happened in the past not being caught by the Bill. The Henry Jackson Society has today announced that, having looked through the Bill, only 23 of the 117 Chinese acquisitions over the last decade would have actually been caught. The areas that are outside of this include pharmaceuticals. The Chinese takeover of Bio Products Laboratory, which has a very significant technology with regard to blood products, would not have been caught. In education, 10 universities have many thousands of obligations to Chinese investors, where they get a trade-off on technology, some linked to defence firms. That would not have been caught. Interestingly, Thames Water and Veolia Water have significant share ownership from Chinese firms, but that certainly would not have been called into question.