Uyghur Tribunal: London

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Monday 14th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Adams]

I thank my right hon. Friend yet again for his work in this area and for bringing this important issue to the House’s attention. As I said in my opening remarks, we welcome any rigorous and balanced initiative that raises awareness of the situation faced by Uyghurs and other minorities in China. We will follow the tribunal closely and study any resulting report carefully.

Of course, my right hon. Friend knows that it is the policy of successive UK Governments that any determination of genocide or crimes against humanity is a matter for a competent court. We are therefore not in a position to provide evidence, testimony or other official support to the tribunal.

My right hon. Friend is right to mention the press conference held by Chinese authorities. We are disturbed by reports of attempts to intimidate those appearing at the hearing. We have previously made it clear that any attempt by China to silence its critics is unwarranted and completely unacceptable. As I have said, we have engaged with Sir Geoffrey Nice. We have pointed him to some open-source information to be of assistance, which is some of the most compelling evidence on what is going on in Xinjiang.

With regard to the Select Committee report that my right hon. Friend referenced, we announced on 12 January that we will work with the Cabinet Office to provide guidance and support to UK public bodies to exclude suppliers where there is evidence of human rights abuses in any of their supply chains. That work is continuing. As he will appreciate, that is a BEIS-led approach.

All our policy towards China is agreed by the National Security Council, and detailed implementation is co-ordinated by the National Strategy Implementation Group for China. These are senior officials across Whitehall. These governance structures are kept under review to ensure that effective co-ordination at all levels is always upheld.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

I have lost count of the number of times that I have stood at this Dispatch Box and urged the Government to take stronger and more robust action against the atrocities of the Chinese state as it relentlessly persecutes the Uyghur people. I have also lost count of the number of times that the Government’s response has been woefully inadequate. From the blocking of the genocide amendment, to the failure to sanction Chen Quanguo, to last week’s rejection of many of the recommendations in the BEIS Select Committee’s report on forced labour, the reality is that the Government’s response to the genocide that is taking place in Xinjiang has fallen miserably short of befitting any credible definition of global Britain, so far amounting only to sanctions on a few lower-level Chinese officials.

Five days ago in Xinjiang, we had the chilling spectacle of relatives and friends of witnesses who have so bravely testified to the Uyghur tribunal being paraded in front of Chinese TV cameras, clearly under duress, and made to discredit the evidence that their family members had presented. Having attended the tribunal myself, I can tell the House that the evidence is truly harrowing. I therefore ask the Minister: what assessment have the Government made of the credibility of the evidence presented to the tribunal? Will the Government be testifying at the tribunal and will the Minister himself be attending the tribunal? When will we see the changes to the Modern Slavery Act promised by the Foreign Secretary in his statement to the House on 12 January? How is, in the Foreign Secretary’s word, the “urgent” export control review progressing, which also began on 12 January? Do the Government support the opening of an ICC investigation into the international crimes of the Chinese officials who are orchestrating these abuses? Why are the Government not doing more in the UN to get independent human rights observers into Xinjiang? What steps are the Government taking to protect Uyghurs living in the UK from harassment and intimidation by the Chinese authorities?

The witnesses who have testified at the tribunal have shown huge courage and leadership. Let us hope that the Government will at some point start to follow in their footsteps.

[Nigel Adams]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I disagree on a large part of his thesis that this Government have taken no action. This Government led the first two statements on Xinjiang at the UN. We have used our diplomatic network to raise the issue up the international agenda. We will continue to work with our partners across the world to build an international caucus of those willing to speak out against these human rights violations, and we have seen that caucus raised from 23 countries to 39. We will increase the pressure on China to change its behaviour.

We have backed up our international action with robust domestic measures: on 22 March, under the UK’s global human rights sanctions regime, we imposed asset freezes and travel bans on four senior Chinese Government officials and an asset freeze on one entity. On 12 January, the Foreign Secretary announced measures to help to ensure that businesses are not complicit in violations or abuses in Xinjiang. Of course, we are continuously keeping our sanctions regime under review.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the intimidation of the Uyghur diaspora. We are absolutely aware of this. We are very concerned about members of the Uyghur diaspora, including in the UK, being harassed by the Chinese authorities. This is an effort to intimidate them into silence, force them to return to China or co-opt them into providing information on other Uyghurs. This activity is unacceptable. We have raised our concerns directly with the Chinese embassy in London.

In my answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), I mentioned that we are not in a position to provide evidence, testimony or official support to the tribunal, but we have engaged: I have engaged personally with Sir Geoffrey Nice on this measure, and I understand that my noble Friend the Minister for human rights in the other place has spoken with him on no fewer than four occasions. We are following the tribunal’s work closely, and clearly we will be studying any resulting report.

Human Rights in Hong Kong

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Wednesday 9th June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Ghani. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Gedling (Tom Randall) on securing this extremely important debate, and I pay tribute to all those who have contributed. It is striking to see how united we are across the Chamber in our condemnation of the behaviour and activities of Beijing. I hope that the Minister will note the united message that he is hearing. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) and for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for their powerful and passionate contributions.

The Chinese Government’s assault on Hong Kong’s democratic institutions and their ongoing persecution of pro-democracy activists is a scar on the conscience of the world, but it is of particular importance to our country. Beijing’s actions represent a flagrant violation of international law via the multiple breaches of the Sino-British declaration, including the introduction and application of the national security law. They show contempt for the Hong Kong Basic Law, riding roughshod over the one country, two systems framework, and represent a relentless crackdown on established universal rights and freedoms, such as the right to free speech, media freedom, judicial independence and the right to peaceful protest.

We have seen opposition lawmakers being forced out of office and then a new law being imposed to prevent critics of Beijing from standing for office. We have seen Lee Cheuk-yan, the trade union activist, sentenced to 18 months in prison, simply for attending democratic protests, and others like him have also been targeted. And we have seen Jimmy Lai, the media owner, being jailed for more than a year on spurious charges, while Radio Television Hong Kong’s independence has been compromised, and BBC world radio has been taken off the air following the banning of BBC News in China, which itself came as a result of the BBC’s outstanding and important investigation into the persecution of the Uyghur people in Xinjiang.

Perhaps most tragically of all in Hong Kong, we have seen the arrests and sentencing of scores of liberal pro-democracy activists, including brave young leaders such as Joshua Wong, Ivan Lam and Agnes Chow, and the Hong Kong eight. Increasingly, trials take place in secret and without a jury, utterly undermining the basic foundation of judicial independence upon which Hong Kong’s rule of law is built. In short, the Chinese Government are doing all they can to crush the democratic rights of the Hong Kong people and to assert their own authoritarian and despotic system.

Let me be clear that the Labour party will stand up for democracy, human rights and the rule of law everywhere, and will call out violations wherever they take place. We apply these principles without fear or favour, and we will always encourage the Government to work in partnership with our international allies to defend the values that we cherish.

It is, therefore, a matter of real regret that the UK Government have at times left us in a position of weakness. Consecutive Conservative Governments since 2010 have been naive and complacent in their dealings with the Chinese Communist party leadership. These successive Conservative Governments have eroded the UK’s leverage and influence: first, by leaving the British economy over-reliant on Chinese imports and supply chains, as, shockingly, 57 of our critical national infrastructure supply chains are now reliant on China; and secondly, by failing to form or maintain the alliances on the world stage to defend our values and interests.

In 2015, David Cameron and George Osborne, with enthusiastic support from Boris Johnson, who was then London Mayor, proclaimed a “golden era” of UK-China relations, a strategy designed to open up UK markets to Chinese business and investment, in the expectation that China would fall in line with international norms on trade and human rights. The opposite has happened. Uncompetitive market behaviour by state-backed Chinese firms has contributed to the £19 billion deficit that we are still running with China and, in short, the Chinese Government have failed to align themselves with any of the values or norms that the “golden era” was supposed to be based on.

We have seen the compromising of national and economic security by increased reliance on China, and we have also seen a concerning tendency towards lack of consistency across Government. Of course, we saw the divisions on the genocide amendment to the Trade Act 2021. The UK Government chose to block it, which was a matter of profound regret to the Labour party.

We therefore need a long-term strategy. The Prime Minister has a unique opportunity to deliver this at the G7. It means rebuilding our strategic independence by reducing our exposure to Chinese investment in supply chains. It means addressing the national security issues, particularly around Taiwan. And it really does mean looking at areas where China holds a de facto global monopoly, particularly around rare earth metals, for example.

In the shorter term, we must do more to support the people of Hong Kong. We need more Government support for British nationals overseas, including language support and access to GPs and to housing. We must see a clear route to citizenship for Hongkongers born after 1997 and we must not give up on those who are still campaigning. We need the Magnitsky-type sanctions that have been mentioned by many hon. Members. We need a judge-led inquiry into police brutality, and we need—as the Labour party is calling for—British judges to leave Hong Kong.

British judges are simply lending a veneer of credibility to the undemocratic, broken system. Have the UK Government made an assessment of whether UK judges are protecting the rule of law in Hong Kong or simply legitimising an authoritarian regime? Will the UK Government join the Opposition in taking a clear and principled position? We also need to see action on banks such as HSBC, which, as hon. Members have said, appear to be doing the dirty work of the Chinese Government.

There are so many important actions that the Government can and should take. We should bear in mind that democracy is in retreat across the world. A recent report showed that, for the first time since 2001, authoritarian regimes outnumber democracies. We should take very careful note of that. Hong Kong needs the free world, and the free world needs Hong Kong. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on these important issues.

[The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Tom Randall) for securing this debate and to right hon. and hon. Members for their passionate and well-informed contributions on this subject, which we have had an opportunity to debate several times. I am sure this will not be the last time that the issue of Hong Kong is brought to the House. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work on the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

I will try to respond to as many as possible of the points raised. As I have said during previous debates on this issue, and as I have written to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and other members of the all-party parliamentary group, my door and the offices of my officials at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office are always open. We are very keen to discuss the issues on a one-to-one basis. We have a depth of experience and knowledge on King Charles Street and we are more than happy to share it, so I hope we will be able to follow up on that.

As has rightly been said, this has been and continues to be the most concerning period in Hong Kong’s post-handover history. As Minister for Asia, I deeply regret not having had the opportunity to visit Hong Kong in better circumstances—some of my predecessors have been able to do so. In saying that, I share the deep concern of this House. That is why we have taken clear and decisive action. We have extended the existing arms embargo on mainland China to include Hong Kong. Right hon. and hon. Members will know that we have suspended the extradition treaty with Hong Kong and are creating a new visa route for British nationals overseas, which I will come on to shortly.

As colleagues will know, the Sino-British joint declaration was registered with the United Nations on 12 June 1985. They will also know that the declaration is a legally binding international treaty that remains in force today. This agreement between the United Kingdom and China made clear that Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy, rights and freedoms would remain unchanged for 50 years from 1997, a point that has already been made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi).

In the agreement, China undertook to uphold the freedoms of speech, of the press and of assembly. It also agreed to keep in force the international covenant on civil and political rights and to maintain the independent judiciary and rule of law. For more than two decades after the handover, those rights and freedoms underpinned Hong Kong’s prosperity and way of life.

Right hon. and hon. Members will also be aware that in 2019 and the early part of 2020, Hong Kong experienced a period of deep turmoil and widespread unrest, triggered by proposals that would have allowed extradition to mainland China. We were clear from the outset that the solution to that unrest must come from within Hong Kong and must not be imposed from mainland China. Instead, the Chinese authorities have shown an increasing propensity to breach their obligations in relation to Hong Kong. I think that on that, we are all agreed.

Since last June, Beijing’s actions have led us to declare three breaches of the joint declaration, including significant erosions of Hong Kong’s autonomy and the rights and freedoms of its people. The national security law imposed on Hong Kong by Beijing last June contains a slew of measures that directly undermine those rights and freedoms. China’s own Basic Law for Hong Kong makes it clear that the territory should put forward and enact its own security legislation, so the direct imposition of the national security law is in clear contravention of that.

Senior Chinese Government figures claimed at the time that this law would target a “tiny number” of criminals who seriously endanger national security, but everybody in this room and watching this debate realises that the law has been used systematically to restrict freedom of expression. It has been brought up today by just about every Member present. We see in the courts the ongoing trials of 47 pro-democracy politicians and activists for their alleged roles in unofficial political primaries last year. Those cases and others demonstrate, in the starkest way, that the national security law is being used to stifle political dissent.

[Stephen Kinnock]

As the Minister is clearly on the section of his speech relating to legal and judicial matters, does he agree with me and, I think, many other Members here today that the continuing presence of British judges in the Hong Kong judicial system is simply lending a veneer of credibility to a completely broken system, and will he today give us a guarantee that the British Government will be using whatever means necessary to bring that practice to an end?

[Nigel Adams]

The hon. Gentleman rightly raised that in his remarks, as did many other right hon. and hon. Members. British judges have played an important role in supporting the independence of Hong Kong’s judiciary for many years. We really hope that that can continue. However, the national security law poses real questions for the rule of law in Hong Kong—basically, the fundamental protection of fundamental rights and freedoms, which were promised by China in the joint declaration. It is therefore right that the Supreme Court continues to assess the situation in Hong Kong, and that will be done in discussion with the Government.

I am conscious that I have to give my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling a few minutes to speak at the end, so I will try to get through my points and the rest of my remarks in order to allow him to do so. It is clear that the authorities are pursuing politically motivated prosecutions under other laws and against a range of pro-democracy figures. We have heard today about the cases of Joshua Wong and Jimmy Lai. On 11 November, China’s Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress imposed new rules to disqualify elected legislators in Hong Kong; those rules contain vague criteria, allowing a wide interpretation. On 30 March, we declared this to be another breach of the joint declaration as it undermined Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy and the right to freedom of speech, guaranteed under paragraph 3 and annexe 1 of the declaration.

On 11 March this year, the National People’s Congress unilaterally decided to change Hong Kong’s electoral system without prior consent from Hong Kong’s Legislative Council, giving Chinese authorities greater control over who stands for elected office and over the removal of elected politicians whom the authorities deem unpatriotic. They also reverse China’s promise to Hong Kong, in its own Basic Law, of gradual progress towards universal suffrage and hollow out the Legislative Council even further. As several right hon. and hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Aberavon, pointed out, these developments amount to a systematic and determined effort by Beijing to bring Hong Kong under its control. They erase the space for alternative political views and legitimate political debate.

British Council

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 8th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Adams]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have a great deal of time for my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), who does a great job chairing the all-party group. I am sure he is fully aware that, given the challenging position in which we find ourselves, many arm’s length bodies would be thrilled with a 26% increase in funding for next year.

Obviously, plans for the British Council’s global presence are still being finalised. It is a matter for the British Council to comment on the plans, and if they involve changes in country, I think my hon. Friend would appreciate that it is only right that the British Council is given the opportunity to consult its employees, trade unions and so on. Of course, any final decisions will be communicated in due course.

We will continue to support the council to ensure that it plays a leading role in enhancing UK soft power. My hon. Friend briefly mentioned global Britain before he was chopped off at the knees, and our commitment to it is clear. It is clear in the fact that we are hosting the G7 this week, as well as securing a deal on global tax reform. We also rank exceedingly well in the leading soft power indices and rankings. I, too, am getting the stare from Mr Speaker, so I shall sit down.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

I would first like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) for his tireless work as chair of the APPG. Secondly, I declare an interest: I worked for the British Council from 1996 until 2008, during which time I was posted to Brussels, St Petersburg and Sierra Leone.

The council’s core purpose is to build long-term, trust-based relationships between the UK and other countries—and my goodness, it delivers. From its global network of world-leading English language teaching centres, to its outstanding arts and culture programmes, its work on democracy and good governance, its education reform and media freedom projects, and its scientific exchange and promotion of the UK’s higher education sector, the British Council provides us with an object lesson in how to win friends and influence people.

The council also provides excellent value for money for the British taxpayer, with the success of its commercial operations gradually reducing reliance on Government financing, but those operations have of course been hit hard by the pandemic, meaning that the council requires UK Government support to weather the storm. It is therefore deeply disappointing that the Government are refusing to make good the shortfall, which in turn is forcing the council to look at closing down offices in up to 20 countries. The Government’s position represents the very definition of a false economy. It is short-sighted and would inflict profound damage on Britain’s status as a soft power superpower.

On the eve of the G7 summit, I urge the Minister to think again. Will he please tell me how he intends to support the British Council to fulfil its integral role in making Britain a force for good in the world—an ambition set by the Government in their integrated review? Does he understand fears that the Government’s abandonment of their 0.7% manifesto commitment on foreign aid, combined with their ambivalence towards the council, sends a signal that Britain is withdrawing from the world stage, rather than offering leadership? Will he therefore return to this House before the summer recess with a plan that secures the British Council’s entire global network?

[Nigel Adams]

May I praise the hon. Gentleman for the work he has done with the British Council— 12 years is a very long stint working for a fantastic organisation—but also prod him gently for talking about our “ambivalence” towards the British Council? I politely remind him that we will be providing £149 million in grant in aid this year and £189 million in grant in aid next year. That is an increase of 26%. We have provided the British Council with a £145 million covid loan and are providing a £100 million loan to help it to restructure. In March 2020, we provided £26 million. Madam Deputy Speaker, £609 million of British taxpayers’ money since the pandemic hit does not sound like ambivalence to me. The hon. Gentleman is right: the integrated review made it clear that we value the influence of the council—of course we do—and we will continue to support the British Council in playing its leading role in enhancing the UK’s soft power throughout its work overseas.

The Myanmar (Sanctions) Regulations 2021

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Thursday 27th May 2021 General Committees

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the Minister for setting out the need for this secondary legislation. It is of course absolutely critical that we as a country get the legalities around sanctions frameworks correct so that we can act with speed to apply sanctions against those who seek to repress the population of Myanmar or who break international law.

Sanctions play a critical role in holding Governments to account, not least in Myanmar. Recent events in the country, as the Minister has said, have been absolutely appalling and devastating, with more than 800 deaths of protesters at the hands of the tyranny of the Tatmadaw. The Labour party will always speak up for universal rights and freedoms, the rule of law, and democracy across the world, including in Myanmar.

Few with knowledge of Aung San Suu Kyi’s Myanmar would claim that the country’s democracy was in rude health. Her failure to stand up for the Rohingya people in the face of the military has been deeply troubling, but the fact remains that her party secured a landslide victory in the November election. It is clear that Myanmar’s fragile democracy must be respected and protected. Elected politicians should not be languishing in prison cells; protesters should not be lying dead on the streets. The military coup is a flagrant breach of the constitution of Myanmar, and it must be condemned in the strongest terms. The army’s claims of voter fraud are utterly spurious: this is a naked power grab. The barbaric killing of more than 800 protesters is a scar on the conscience of the world.

But words are not enough. We need international action, and a functioning sanctions regime is a good start. We are pleased that the Government are seeking to make the scope for sanctions less restrictive than under the previous legislation. However, the sanctioning of Myanmar officials and military-owned companies has been too slow across the board. For example, the sanctioning of Myanmar Economic Holdings Ltd and Myanmar Economic Corporation did not come until after the 1 February coup, despite the fact that we on the Labour Benches had been asking for those sanctions for well over six months before then in relation to the Myanmar Government’s appalling persecution of the Rohingya.

It is also clear that the Government should have seen the 1 February coup coming. For decades, the power-hungry Myanmar military have oppressed and persecuted the Burmese people, committing countless atrocities—most notably the apparent genocide against the Rohingya—without meaningful consequence. If you give a bully an inch, he will take a mile, and the 1 February coup is testament to that fact.

While the Gambia has shown real leadership by taking Myanmar to the International Court of Justice on allegations of genocide, the wider response from the international community—including, unfortunately, the UK Government—has been somewhat lethargic. We do not understand why the Government continue to drag their feet on this point. Experts who observe what is happening in Myanmar, and have done for many years, note that the military were emboldened by the weak international response on the Rohingya and, of course, have been further emboldened by the tacit support that they have received from China. It was telling that the Chinese Government simply “noted” the 1 February coup without condemning it, while the main state news agency in China described the coup as merely a “cabinet reshuffle”.

Now is the time for the UK and the wider international community to stand up for the Burmese people, so I would like to press the Minister on some of the actions that the UK Government must take. First, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office must seek to apply further sanctions where appropriate. Ministers should work with NGOs such as Burma Campaign UK and Justice for Myanmar on getting the designations right so that they have a laser-like focus on the Burmese military. I would be grateful for the Minister’s assurance that that is happening.

On the specifics of this legislation, will the Minister make something clear? Part 6 of the regulations

“provides for certain exceptions to this sanctions regime, in particular in relation to financial sanctions (for example to allow for frozen accounts to be credited with interest or other earnings)”.

Will he say a little more about what the exceptions are, when they might be needed and where the situations might occur, so that we can get a bit more flesh on the bones? For instance, in what situation would it be important for a bank account to accrue interest if it had been frozen because its owner had committed serious human rights abuses?

Secondly, aside from sanctions, the Government should use their international influence to seek to extend the arms embargo against Myanmar. Clearly, Russia and China will not be participating in that, but we must still seek to build the broadest possible international coalition. The Chinese Government may just be opposed to having a failed state on their doorstep. What steps are the UK Government taking in that regard?

Thirdly, the UK Government should think carefully about whether they recognise the military junta as the legitimate Government of Myanmar. There are legal and practical challenges here; we on the Labour Benches fully understand that. But we also feel that we should be standing in full support of the Myanmar ambassador Kyaw Zwar Minn in refusing to recognise new appointments by the junta to the embassy here in London. Will the Minister set out the Government’s position on that?

Fourthly, when the moment is right the UK Government should publicly declare that it is time to refer Burmese officials to the International Criminal Court via the United Nations and call on other countries to follow suit. Just because Russia and China can block the referral in the UN Security Council does not mean that the UK should be prevented from doing what is right.

Finally, the UK must now finally join the Netherlands and Canada in formally supporting the Gambia in its International Court of Justice case against Myanmar. Myanmar’s first report has now been submitted. The FCDO must ask for that report to be made public so that the international community can scrutinise the contents.

The Opposition support the legislation in front of us today, but the people of Myanmar need a stronger response from the UK Government and the international community—and they need it now. The UK must stand up for its values and interests, and those include the rule of law, democracy and human rights in Myanmar.

Human Rights: Xinjiang

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

I first want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) for securing this vital debate and for her willingness to work across this House to ensure that, today, Parliament will speak with one voice. May I also pay tribute to the courage that she has shown in standing up to the bullying and intimidation of the Chinese Government? The fact that she and other hon. Members, who are also present in this House and elsewhere, have been sanctioned by Beijing for simply doing their jobs is an affront to our democracy and to this House. We on these Benches stand in solidarity with all those who have been targeted. Indeed, as the hon. Lady and others have so rightly put it, an attack on one of us in this House is an attack on us all, and authoritarian regimes the world over should take careful note.

I also want to thank contributors to the debate, including the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Mark Logan), my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan), the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies), my hon. Friends the Members for York Central (Rachael Maskell), for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and for Putney (Fleur Anderson), each of whom made a powerful speech.

The Labour party stands in solidarity with the Uyghur population and the other Turkic Muslims in Xinjiang who have been suffering oppression at the hands of the Chinese Government. The accounts are harrowing and the evidence is clear: the mass surveillance and arbitrary detention of more than 1 million Uyghur and other minority groups; the torture and the brutality; the rape; the abuse; the forced sterilisation of women; the enforced separation of children from their parents; and the denial of the Uyghurs’ right to practise their religion or to speak their language. We have seen the first-hand footage of shaven-headed, bound Uyghur men being led into trains at gun point. We have seen the video bravely recorded by Merdan Ghappar from inside the forced labour camps. We have heard the first-hand accounts from Uyghur women of their treatment, and we have read the reports by Adrian Zenz and others, which are based on the Chinese Government’s own data and directives.

Ideally, a competent international court would examine this evidence, but there is no prospect that either the ICC or the International Court of Justice will be able to do so, as this would require the consent of China. Beijing will also continue to prevent the United Nations from conducting a proper investigation in Xinjiang. Through amendments to the Trade Bill, we, along with Members from across the House, sought to create a route to genocide determination through the UK’s courts, or through a panel of senior law lords, but those cross-party efforts were shamefully defeated by the Government. With the international route to legal determination of genocide blocked by China and the domestic route to legal determination blocked by the Government, it falls to Parliament to take action.

In February this year, an opinion by barristers at Essex Court Chambers led by Alison Macdonald QC provided a detailed legal assessment of all the available evidence. It concluded that there is a very credible case that the Chinese Government’s actions constitute genocide. In response, the chambers were sanctioned by China. In March this year, the Newlines Institute of Strategy and Policy in Washington also published a legal analysis that concluded that a genocide is taking place in Xinjiang. Importantly, given that the crime of genocide requires proof of intent, both opinions concluded that the atrocities that are being perpetrated against the Uyghur are not the random acts of rogue individuals, but the result of a conscious and carefully orchestrated campaign of oppression and persecution that is being conducted by the Chinese Government.

As a signatory to the 1948 genocide convention, the United Kingdom is legally bound to take all reasonable steps to both punish and prevent genocide. By passing this motion today, the House would be instructing the British Government to carry out those legal duties in relation to events in Xinjiang. So it is time for us in this House to take a stand and to support this motion. Today, we can speak with one voice. Today, we move forward with our eyes open and our shoulders broad. Today, we send a clear and unambiguous message that genocide can never be met with indifference or inaction, and that attempts to bully us into silence will only strengthen our resolve. Today, we shall offer the Uyghur people our unequivocal support.

The question, then, is what should be done. Unfortunately, the Government’s actions thus far, fall far short not just of the strength of feeling in this House, but also of their own rhetoric about the situation in Xinjiang. They have shamelessly prioritised their ability to enter into trade negotiations with China over a process to assess genocide. They were too slow in bringing forward the Magnitsky sanctions and they continue to skirt around the edges of reforming supply chain legislation and human rights due diligence. This dither and delay must now end, and the Government must take the following steps.

First, the Government should widen the Magnitsky sanctions, so they cover a broader range of senior Chinese Communist party officials and entities responsible for serious human rights violations in Xinjiang, including Chen Quanguo, already sanctioned by our allies in the United States. Secondly, they must support the work of the Uyghur people’s tribunal, which is hearing evidence from those affected. Thirdly, they must engage diplomatically to build wider support for the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to gain access to Xinjiang, and in particular work to engage countries, many of which are friends and partners of the UK, which to date have regrettably been sheltering China from international scrutiny.

Fourthly, the Government must continue to explore legal routes to justice through international courts and mechanisms. The Foreign Secretary should seek to introduce a General Assembly resolution requesting an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the question of genocide. We should also explore legal avenues via other international treaties and conventions, such as the convention against torture to which China is a signatory. We must do what we can to seek justice and accountability.

Fifthly, there must be consequences for the bilateral economic relationship. Will the Minister make that commitment today by confirming the continued suspension of the joint economic trade commission and the economic and financial dialogue? Sixthly, we all recognise that British businesses should not be supporting slave labour in Xinjiang. When will this House be presented with legislation strengthening the Modern Slavery Act 2015, so that companies have a responsibility to demonstrate that their supply chains are free of forced labour and that there would be meaningful sanctions for non-compliance?

Successive Conservative Governments since 2010 have been profoundly naive and complacent in their dealings with China. The so-called golden era policy was the very definition of a sell-out, with Conservative leaders turning a blind eye to human rights abuses and sacrificing our national security on the altar of narrow commercial interests. A more coherent and clear strategy is urgently required, yet we see, unfortunately, division on the Government Benches, with a caucus of Conservative Members taking a principled stance, while the Foreign Secretary says one thing in public and something entirely different in private, and No. 10 appears to be desperate to do a trade deal with China at literally any price.



We need to lead by example when it comes to international law, not undermine our country’s authority and credibility by breaking international law ourselves. And we need to be building bridges with our partners and allies in Europe and elsewhere, who face the same challenges in their relationship with China, rather than constantly losing friends and alienating people. Because the Chinese Communist party respects strength, consistency and unity, and it is contemptuous of weakness and division.

Democracy around the world is in retreat. Authoritarian regimes are in the ascendancy and the rules-based international order is under threat. So it is all the more important that we in this House stand united today. I therefore call on the Minister to support the motion, to implement the actions that I have set out, and to urge the Government to do all they can to prevent, and to punish, those who are committing genocide against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 20th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Adams]

We have been clear that we are completely steadfast in our opposition to the coup. What is happening to innocent civilians in Myanmar is obscene. We have demonstrated our strong international leadership, including at the UN Security Council and the G7. We are clear that there should be accountability for the military’s acts, both historic and recent, and that all options, including referral to the International Criminal Court, should be on the table.

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

The Labour party stands with the pro-democracy protesters in Myanmar, who have shown extraordinary courage in resisting the barbaric brutality of the military junta. The UK Government’s response has lacked both strength and urgency. The Minister mentioned the ASEAN conference, but the tweet put out by the Foreign Secretary shortly after that conference made no mention whatsoever of what has been happening in Myanmar; will the Minister say a little more about why? Also, 42 nations have an arms embargo against Myanmar; will the Government commit today to writing to every other UN nation asking them to join that arms embargo? Will the Foreign Secretary publicly call for the orchestrators of the atrocities that we are witnessing in Myanmar—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We cannot carry on: it should be one question.

Chinese Government Sanctions on UK Citizens

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 13th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Adams]

I thank my hon. Friend for his questions and for his bravery in the work that he and other right hon. and hon. Members have done, which led to these extraordinary measures by China.

We have been absolutely clear with China that its sanctioning of UK individuals and entities is unwarranted and unacceptable. My hon. Friend is right to shine a light on these measures. We will not allow this action by China—neither will our diplomats—to distract attention from the gross human rights violations in Xinjiang. We will continue to work alongside our partners to send the clearest possible signal of the international community’s serious concerns and our collective willingness to act.

My hon. Friend mentioned Jo Smith Finley, who is another of the individuals named. Academic freedom and freedom of speech are fundamental UK values and a cornerstone of the world-class UK higher education system. The attempt to silence those highlighting human rights violations in Xinjiang in academia is absolutely unwarranted and unacceptable. We are offering support to Jo Smith Finley, as we will and have for all those impacted by these sanctions.

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

The Labour party stands in solidarity with the nine British citizens, including Members of both Houses, who have been sanctioned by the Chinese Government solely for calling out Beijing’s appalling human rights abuses against the Uyghur people in Xinjiang. We welcome the Prime Minister’s invitation to those who were sanctioned to meet him, and we hope that the Government are providing those individuals with adequate advice and support. However, we are deeply concerned about the rank hypocrisy and inconsistency in the Government’s actions regarding China.

When Beijing introduced the Hong Kong national security law last summer, the UK withdrew from two UK-China Government investment forums: the joint trade and economic commission and the economic and financial dialogue. However, it is reported that those forums are now reopening. Will the Minister confirm that?

On Hong Kong, does the Minister now agree with the Opposition that British judges who serve in Hong Kong are only lending a veneer of credibility to a broken system and that they should therefore withdraw? Lord Reed’s review was announced in November. When will its conclusions be published? Where are the Magnitsky sanctions against Carrie Lam and the human rights violators in Hong Kong?

In January, the Foreign Secretary said that “we shouldn’t be” doing trade deals with countries committing human rights abuses

“well below the level of genocide”,

yet the Government whipped their MPs against the genocide amendment to the Trade Bill. Will the Minister explain that rank hypocrisy and why the Foreign Secretary says one thing in public and something else altogether in private? The Government claim to be alive to the threat that Chinese state-backed investment poses to Britain’s economic security and prosperity, so why on earth is the Business Secretary weakening our defences by watering down the National Security and Investment Bill? Today, Taiwan suffered the biggest Chinese military incursion into its airspace to date of 25 planes. What conversations is the Minister having with his counterparts about that worrying development?

It is clear that the Government have no strategy on China at home and no strategy on China abroad. Will they now commit to an audit of every aspect of the UK-China relationship so that we can finally call time on the Conservatives’ failed golden era strategy and replace weakness, division and inconsistency with an approach that is instead based on strength, unity and consistency?

[Nigel Adams]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. The reality is that the UK has always wanted a mature, positive relationship with China. That has to be based on mutual respect and trust. There is still considerable scope for constructive engagement and co-operation, but we will not sacrifice our values or our security. It is worth getting it on the record that China is an authoritarian state with different values from the UK. We continually act on matters on which we do not agree, including human rights and Hong Kong.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Hong Kong. The prosperity and way of life for Hongkongers relies on respect for fundamental freedoms, which includes an independent judiciary and the rule of law. We are fully committed to upholding Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy and rights and freedoms under the joint declaration. On the national security law, the imposition of the new rules including disqualifying elected legislators and changes to election processes, clearly constitutes a serious breach of the joint declaration. We consider Beijing to be in a state of ongoing non-compliance with the Sino-British joint declaration.

On Taiwan, yes, we are clearly concerned by any action that raises tensions in the Taiwan strait and risks destabilising the status quo. We have a long-standing policy that the Taiwan issue needs to be settled peacefully by the people on both sides of the Taiwan strait through constructive dialogue. We continue to work with Taiwan constructively on economic trade, education and cultural ties, and I think our relationship brings huge benefits to both the United Kingdom and Taiwan.

Sri Lanka

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Thursday 18th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on securing this vital debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), for Slough (Mr Dhesi), for Ilford South (Sam Tarry) and for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi), who made truly powerful, moving contributions to the debate. The really strong showing from the Labour Benches shows the central importance of this issue to our party.

The Labour party puts the rule of law, democracy and universal human rights at the very heart of our foreign policy. We expect those principles to be upheld consistently in every country throughout the world, including Sri Lanka. We will always stand up for the universal rights and freedoms of all citizens when national Governments refuse to live up to their international obligations.

In 2009, in the final few months of Sri Lanka’s long, brutal civil war, tens of thousands of civilians, mostly from the Tamil community, lost their lives. It is a scar on the conscience of the world that no one has been held accountable for those crimes, which include the deliberate shelling of civilian targets, sexual violence, and extrajudicial executions. The shocking lack of accountability for past atrocities is compounded by the fact that the human rights violations in Sri Lanka continue to this day. Respected non-governmental organisation Freedom from Torture has forensically documented more than 300 cases of torture by the Sri Lankan state since the war ended, and it continues to receive referrals for Sri Lankan individuals today.

The people of Sri Lanka, regardless of their ethnicity or religion, deserve justice. Those responsible must be held accountable, and peace and freedom must be secured for future generations. The Labour party is therefore deeply troubled by what has been taking place in Sri Lanka since the election of Gotabaya Rajapaksa in December 2019.

First, he has militarised his Government by appointing former soldiers such as Shavendra Silva and Kamal Gunaratne, who both stand accused of crimes against humanity, to key positions in his Cabinet. Secondly, he has done huge damage to his Government’s credibility in the eyes of the international community by withdrawing from UN Human Rights Council resolution 30/1, which sets out a process for delivering accountability for war crimes. Thirdly, we are profoundly concerned by reports of the forced cremation of victims of covid-19, including those of Muslim and Christian faith, for whom burial rituals and traditions are sacred. The World Health Organisation has issued guidance stating that the burial of covid-19 dead poses no danger to public health.

On the UNHRC resolution, in recent weeks and months I have written to the Minister twice about these issues and made it clear that, as the penholder on Sri Lanka at the UN Human Rights Council, the UK has a crucial and unique responsibility to show moral and political leadership in its approach to co-ordinating the international response. The final version of the draft resolution, which is set to replace 30/1, is certainly an improvement on the zero draft. However, we continue to have real concerns about key aspects of it. Therefore, I have the following questions for the Minister.

First, the draft resolution fails to incorporate the recommendations made by the high commissioner in her report of 27 January regarding universal or extraterritorial jurisdiction. We should be supporting the high commissioner’s view that the principles of universal or extraterritorial jurisdiction should apply, and that states should pursue investigations and prosecutions in their national courts. Why have the Government failed to include an explicit commitment to that in the resolution?

Secondly, the suggested evidence-gathering mechanism is clearly a step in the right direction, but it stops short of recommending the establishment of a fully fledged international, independent investigative mechanism. Why have the Government failed to include in their final draft a commitment to IIIM?

Thirdly, it is clear that there is a strong basis for referring a number of senior members of the Sri Lankan military and Government to the International Criminal Court. Why have the Government failed to include such a recommendation in the resolution? We know that two of the permanent members of the UN will likely block such action, but should the position of the Government really be shaped by the veto-wielding intentions of China and Russia?

Fourthly, there is nothing in the resolution about prevention. Why does not the resolution include explicit reference to protecting human rights defenders? Are British diplomats travelling regularly to the north and east of Sri Lanka to assess the situation on the ground?

Fifthly, the draft resolution requests a report on accountability options in 18 months. This is an unacceptably long timeline, given the evidence already available, and it will give the Sri Lankan Government yet more time to obstruct and obfuscate. Why have the Government failed to ensure that the resolution is based on a far shorter report-back timeline of six months, as I recommended in my recent letter to the Minister?

Moving beyond the UN resolution, there are a number of bilateral steps that the Government should be taking. In my 11 December letter to the Minister, I suggested that a number of Sri Lankan officials should be sanctioned under the Government’s global human rights sanctions regime, yet not a single Sri Lankan Government Minister, official or military officer has been designated. Could the Minister please explain why it is taking so long when the evidence is already widely available?

In my letter, I also raised the issue of the UK defence adviser’s engagement with the Sri Lankan military. Since arriving in Colombo in January 2020, he has met at least four senior commanders of the Sri Lankan military who stand accused of gross human rights violations. Could the Minister please explain how the activities of the defence adviser will lead to greater accountability for the Sri Lankan military? Are the UK Government vetting who the adviser meets? Is the adviser’s defence engagement delivering tangible results, or is it simply lending a veneer of legitimacy to a military that is committing human rights abuses?

Thanks to the recent leaking of comments made by the Foreign Secretary, we know that he is perfectly happy to pursue trade deals with Governments who are committing human rights abuses. Are the UK Government pursuing a trade deal with Sri Lanka? Will human rights conditions be applied? As an EU member state, the UK was party to trading arrangements that offered a preferential tariff to Sri Lanka under the general scheme of preferences enhanced framework known as GSP+ because the Sri Lankan Government were supposedly living up to their human rights obligations. Now that the UK has left the EU, will the Government be reassessing their trading relationship with Sri Lanka?

Here’s one for the SNP spokesperson—to be answered at another time, I guess—if she is still tuned in. Police Scotland has made 90 deployments of officers to Sri Lanka over the past 15 years. Have these deployments achieved tangible results, or are they just lending a veneer of credibility? Finally, what assessment has the Minister made of Sri Lankan soldiers continuing to be deployed in UN peacekeeping missions despite the human rights record of the Sri Lankan military?

The integrated review is full of snappy slogans and rhetoric, but all it really achieved was to expose the chasm between the stated ambitions and the actual, tangible actions of this Government. If global Britain is to mean anything, it must surely mean consistently standing up for democracy, for the rule of law and for universal rights and values—not just with words, but with deeds. That must start today, and it must start with Sri Lanka.

Hong Kong: Electoral Reforms

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Wednesday 10th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Adams]

I thank the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, in particular for his work on this issue and his support for our excellent ambassador, Caroline Wilson. He mentions sanctions. As he will know, we do not speculate on who may be designated. They are just one tool in our arsenal. The UK has already offered a new immigration path for BNOs, which my hon. Friend raised. We have suspended our extradition treaty with Hong Kong and extended our arms embargo on mainland China to Hong Kong, and that is all in response to Beijing’s behaviour.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

Beijing’s assault on Hong Kong’s electoral system is the latest breach of the Sino-British declaration and is viewed by experts as the final nail in the coffin of Hong Kong’s democracy. It follows the arrest and charging of 47 opposition politicians, 32 of whom were refused bail. As a signatory to the Sino-British declaration, the UK has not only a legal duty but a moral responsibility to stand up for the democratic rights and freedoms of the people of Hong Kong. As parliamentarians, we will feel a sense of profound sadness as we witness this steady suffocation of democracy. For the past few months, the UK Government have just been going through the motions, so may I ask the Minister these questions?

Labour welcomes the BNO offer, but there appears to have been very little planning, and a family of four need £16,000 up front. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the scheme is accessible to all BNOs, and what steps are the Government taking to support their integration into British society?

Hong Kong Watch’s latest report describes Hong Kong as being a “canary in the coalmine” of China’s expansionism, so what assessment have the UK Government made of the threats facing Taiwan, given that Chinese fighter jets and bombers buzzed Taiwanese airspace more than 300 times last year?

China’s growing presence in the UK’s critical national infrastructure clearly has implications for our own national security. What assessment has the Minister made of the role of the China General Nuclear Power group, which owns one third of Hinkley Point, but has been blacklisted in the US for stealing nuclear secrets?

The Conservative party is deeply divided over China, but we cannot afford any more dither and delay. Will the Minister work across Government to undertake an audit of the UK’s relationship with China and come back with a clear strategy to replace their failed golden era policy? What steps has the Minister taken to deliver a co-ordinated international response to China’s assaults on democracy and human rights and, finally, where on earth are those Magnitsky sanctions?

[Nigel Adams]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. He will have heard the response that I gave to the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), on Magnitsky sanctions. With regard to CGN’s involvement in our nuclear sector, obviously, investment involving critical infrastructure is subject to thorough scrutiny and needs to satisfy our robust legal, regulatory and national security requirements, and all projects of this nature are conducted under that regulation to ensure that our interests are protected.

As with all foreign policy priorities, the FCDO recognises the importance of cross-Whitehall collaboration, particularly on Hong Kong. The Foreign Secretary regularly chairs a ministerial group meeting attended by Ministers from across Whitehall and a number of Departments. We obviously take any threat to the joint declaration very seriously, but we need to wait and see what comes out of the National People’s Congress before making an assessment. We have already called a breach twice last year, but the hon. Gentleman will need to wait until we have seen what comes out of the NPC.

On BNOs and the integration of BNO passport holders, that is a really important question. We are working across Government and alongside civil society groups and others to support the integration of those thousands of people who will be taking up that route and arriving here. We encourage and look forward to welcoming applications from those who wish to make the United Kingdom their home. The Foreign Secretary has met the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to discuss exactly this issue. I know that the hon. Gentleman has been in contact with one of the Ministers at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and we look forward to seeing the outcome of those discussions, because it is absolutely crucial that we support those individuals who are coming here from Hong Kong.

Press Freedom and Safety of Protesters: India

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Monday 8th March 2021 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the Petitions Committee and the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for opening this debate. I pay tribute to the many tens of thousands who secured the debate through the petition process—what a great example of democracy in action.

We have heard many memorable and passionate contributions. I look forward to the Minister setting out what actions the Government will be taking. I particularly thank the other contributors to the debate, not least my 11 hon. Friends who made some truly compelling arguments. The fact that the overwhelming majority of contributions to the debate have come from the Labour Benches shows how hugely important this issue is to our party.

The farmers’ protests taking place in Delhi relate to three new agricultural laws that affect farmers. Taken together, they loosen the rules relating to the sale, pricing and storage of farm produce, allow private buyers to stockpile essential commodities for future sale, and set out rules for contract farming. The legislation is deeply controversial, and Opposition figures and the protesting farmers have complained that there was insufficient consultation. The ongoing protests on the outskirts of Delhi illustrate the strength of feeling and the level of anger that so many members of the farming community feel. Prime Minister Modi will by now be acutely aware of the backlash against his policies, but India is a sovereign, democratic nation, and its agricultural laws are a domestic matter.

In a democracy, there will always be different views on the right course of action to take. We acknowledge and fully respect that those views are held passionately by many British Indians and those who retain close ties to India, but as it is a domestic issue it would not be appropriate for the UK Labour party to comment on the specifics of the legislation itself, so I will not do so today. However, since the first worrying evidence of escalating violence emerged, the Opposition have been urging the Indian authorities to protect and defend the universal human rights of all those protesting in India. I assure hon. Members present that we shall continue to do so without fear or favour.

The Labour party’s foreign policy puts the rule of law, democracy and universal human rights and freedoms at the very heart of our global agenda, and we call for those principles to be upheld consistently in every country across the world. Let me stress in absolute terms that the Labour Front Bench stands firmly behind the rights of Indian farmers to exercise their right to freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and the right to peaceful protest.

That is why on 1 February I issued a statement in which I drew attention to the escalating violence and the clashes between the farmers and police, and the threat to essential democratic rights. I called on both sides to show restraint, but made it clear that the onus is on the Indian authorities to protect the farmers’ right to peaceful protest, to respect their right of freedom of assembly and expression, and to respond to any incidents of civil disobedience in a proportionate and appropriate manner. For instance, we are deeply concerned about reports of live ammunition being used by the police. We of course call on demonstrators to keep their protests peaceful and within the constraints of the law. The Red Fort incident on 26 January is an example of where both sides must understand the limits of what is acceptable, and that certain actions are likely to provoke outrage and escalation.

In recent weeks, campaigners have been particularly concerned about the Indian authorities’ disregard for freedom of expression, and specifically for media freedoms. Human Rights Watch has stated that during the protests the authorities have introduced politically motivated charges against activists, and charged journalists and Opposition politicians with sedition simply for reporting on claims made by the family of a dead protester.

Following the Red Fort clashes between protesters and police, the Indian Government shut off the internet as a way of curbing the protest, suspending 4G mobile internet services in three areas around Delhi, where tens of thousands of protesting farmers are camping. Services were restored, but it is clear that bans of that sort violate basic freedoms. The Labour party therefore calls on the Indian authorities to recognise the vital role that independent journalism plays within a democracy, and to protect its journalists from reprisals.

[Mr Dhesi]

In terms of independence, and the link between the Government and certain celebrities, the farcical manner in which some Indian actors and cricketers copy-pasted the official Government line simultaneously on to their social media accounts not only exposed to a global audience the 2019 Cobrapost cash for tweets sting operation, but severely dented their credibility of conscience. Does my hon. Friend agree that if our Government had issued such an edict, they would have been laughed out of our country, and subsequently celebrities with a conscience would have tweeted out the exact opposite in defiance?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I agree that the media and social media should never be manipulated for such political purposes, speaking through others in such a way that it is not clear where the originator of the message is coming from. It is important that the media is used as a neutral source of information rather than one that is loaded with a particular agenda.

Another universal human right is that of religious freedom. Prime Minister Modi will be aware of the deep concern about how protests by farmers on economic issues, which is what this is about, have resulted in a significant backlash against Sikhs. He will have seen Government supporters holding rallies outside Sikh places of worship and the fear that that will have engendered. Mr Modi must recognise his responsibility in line with international law to keep—

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend will be aware of the car rallies that targeted Southall, Leicester and Birmingham two weeks ago. They caused great concern, and I pay tribute to the Home Office and the police. Does he agree that this is why it is so important that inter-faith communities such as Southall Faiths Forum and Hounslow Friends of Faith come together, as they did at that time, to say that they stand firm against right-wing groups that want to harm our community? It is vital that across the world we defend our democracies and freedoms and protect our communities from attempts at division.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. Let us be clear that this issue must be seen be as an economic and political one. It must never be allowed to tip into prejudice around people’s faith or ethnicity. It is vital that we keep focused on the issue that the protesters are protesting about. Mr Modi needs to recognise that the world is watching and that what happens in India resonates here in our country. He must recognise his responsibility, in line with international law, to keep the Sikh community safe and confident in India’s law enforcement. Such recognition is important for the individuals and families affected, and also for those of us who are keen to see India flourish as the great, successful, multicultural nation that we know it to be.

The UK Government naturally and rightly value their trade relationship with India, which stands at more than £18 billion annually, but the UK-India relationship must be broader and deeper than just trade. It should be based on working in partnership on issues of security and climate change. Critically, it must be about the joint promotion of democracy, human rights and upholding international law.

On 1 February, I asked the Foreign Secretary to raise the issue of human rights with the Indian Government, and today I urge the UK Government to engage more actively and more urgently with New Delhi. What steps has the Minister taken to engage proactively with his counterparts in New Delhi to ensure that the right to peaceful protest is upheld? Secondly, what representations has he made to his Indian counterpart about the need to resolve the situation peacefully by working with all parts of Indian society, including trade unions, and the need to advance the negotiations that have stalled? Thirdly, will he publish a broader strategy to defend internet and media freedom, not only in India, but in other places such as Belarus, Hong Kong and Uganda? Fourthly, what steps have the UK Government taken to support the rights of Amnesty International, which was recently forced to discontinue its operations in India?

Finally, the invitation to join the G7 in Cornwall represents a significant development in India’s role as a leading nation in global politics. Will the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister will take this opportunity to stress to Mr Modi the need for India to adhere to the high standards that are expected within the international community, particularly with regard to universal human rights and the rule of law?