Global Britain

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend, who has been a tireless champion of not just Gibraltar but all the overseas territories. We are absolutely clear: the UK will not exclude Gibraltar from our negotiations with the EU. We will negotiate on behalf of the whole United Kingdom family, and that includes Gibraltar.

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

If the concept of a global Britain is to have any meaning and value, surely it must have respect for human rights and an international rules-based order at its heart. With that in mind, will the Foreign Secretary reconsider the unqualified support he gave to President Trump last week in respect of the so-called peace plan for Palestine? Will the right hon. Gentleman repudiate the proposed annexation of the west bank and at long last support the recognition of a Palestinian state?

[Dominic Raab]

I gently say to the right hon. Gentleman that I do not think he has read the detail of this. Whatever else he may disagree with, the one thing that the plan put forward by the US included was a recognition of and commitment to a two-state solution. We have been absolutely clear that that is the only way in which the conflict can be resolved.

We support a plan and a mechanism to get the parties out of the destabilising vacuum and void that there has been of late, and around the table. The plan is only the point of departure. I share some of the concerns expressed around settlements; I think there is also a question around the status of Jerusalem. But above all, rather than just rejecting the plan, it is important that we try to bring the parties together around the negotiating table. That is the only path to peace and to a two-state solution.

Iran

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course we will be fully plugged in and, indeed, a driving force in the international effort to make sure we get the right answers in terms of the investigation. This point is even stronger now that the Government of Iran have accepted at least a measure of responsibility, but it is crucial that the investigation is fully independent and has an international component so that people can feel confidence in the outcome and the answers. We will work with all our international partners on all the issues he raises, and I certainly want to see justice for the incredible number of people who are still mourning and grieving this terrible loss.

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

The Foreign Secretary will have seen reports of the demonstrations across Iran this weekend, illustrating the profound and widespread unhappiness among the people of Iran about the recent actions of their Government. That may in itself be the start of an opportunity to see a shift in Iran’s foreign policy, but if we are to maximise that opportunity, we need to engage those interlocutors in the Gulf and the wider middle east with whom we have good relations in order to see that shift executed in Iran.

[Dominic Raab]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that watching the change in the public mood in Tehran and more broadly in Iran is very striking. He is also right to say that we need to work with all our partners. In fact, I would go further and say that, beyond our partners in the middle east, we also need to work with China, Russia and those closest to them to enhance and reinforce the solidarity and clarity of the message that we are sending to the regime in Tehran.

Britain in the World

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2020 Commons Chamber

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

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that nowhere in the world at the moment are these values under greater attack than in Hong Kong, and will he join me in condemning the refusal of the Hong Kong authorities to allow the director of Human Rights Watch entry at the weekend?

[Dominic Raab]

I do join with the right hon. Gentleman in making the following point. The international principles and norms and the rule of law in relation to freedom of peaceful protest and freedom of expression apply as a matter of customary international law; it also applies directly because of the joint Sino-UK declaration in relation to Hong Kong. Of course we want China as a leading member of the international community to live up to those responsibilities, and the case the right hon. Gentleman highlights is a very good example of that.

We will continue to be standing up for those values. We will continue to be a leading member of NATO, ensuring that that alliance can rise to the new challenges ahead. We will hold Iran accountable for its destabilising and dangerous actions in the region, but we will also, as we made clear in the response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) earlier, encourage it to de-escalate and to seek a path to an alternative future through diplomatic dialogue.

We will call out those who flout international law, like the Russian Government, from its illegal annexation in Crimea and its chemical weapons attack in Salisbury to its cyber-attacks and its propensity for spreading fake news.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is an enormous pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond), who has made her non-maiden speech, and to welcome her back to the House. When she was here representing the interests of constituents in Portsmouth South, she had a reputation for bringing an intelligent and thoughtful analysis to the debate. It is clear that her time away from the House has, if anything, served to improve that ability, so she is very welcome back.

I am also particularly pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), who made an alarmingly accomplished maiden speech. I suspect that following her in the speaking order is something that I will just have to get used to. I confess that I did not know that St Albans was as well provided with licensed premises as we now know it is. I am my hon. Friend’s mentor, and it strikes me that perhaps my duties might extend beyond Westminster and may require me to spend some time mentoring her in her constituency.

The hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) made the important point that in many or, indeed, most parts of the world, the United Kingdom is still seen as a force for good on the world stage, as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and also because we have a long and distinguished history of standing up for the values of democracy and human rights. We do not always meet the standards that we might reasonably set ourselves, but, taken as a whole, we are seen in a positive light, and I think that is going to matter more now than ever.

The recent assassination of Soleimani in Iraq has definitely raised the temperature in what is an already febrile region. I do not mourn Soleimani at all. The man was a butcher, make no mistake about that. Others have said that he doubtless had the blood of British service personnel on his hands, and I think that is almost certainly the case. The difficulty is that once we start to use that as the rationale for actions of that sort, where do we go next and where do we stop? The same accusation could ultimately have been made against parliamentarians in different conflicts in different parts of the world down the years, most recently, possibly, even against some of those who have sat in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I therefore urge some caution in using that as a justification for the assassination of Soleimani.

The lack of an early response from the Prime Minister was, I would suggest, a mistake. It was not a catastrophic error, but it is one from which we must learn, and it brings into question the ever-changing nature of our special relationship with the United States. I say that it is ever changing because it is clear that different Presidents of the United States bring different aspects to that relationship. It is important to remember that our special relationship is with the United States and her people, not with any Administration that happens to be in the White House at any given time. We need to be alive to the possibility that this is perhaps one of those moments in that relationship when we have to be more prepared than previously to plough our own furrow in foreign affairs. It is not the first time that we find ourselves in that position.

I am a lot more optimistic than I was this time last week. What has happened has brought us to the brink. We looked into the abyss, we saw what the consequences of that sort of conflagration would be and now, when even the Saudi Arabians are saying that we have to de-escalate tensions, there is a willingness to find a way back from the brink. I would suggest that, from that situation of confusion and some folly, some opportunities may be found. It is important that we as a country should clarify what our objectives are now in relation to Iran and, I would add, Iraq. I think it would be good if we could identify as an ultimate, aspirational goal the demilitarisation of foreign powers in Iraq. That, if we were to achieve it, would represent significant progress.

The objectives that I would identify for the United Kingdom, however, are a renewed approach to nuclear non-proliferation and progress on human rights in Iran, particularly in relation to religious freedom. I have worked for many years with the small Baha’í community in my constituency, and for many years I have been a member of the all-party parliamentary group on the Baha’í faith. The persecution of the Baha’ís and the use of capital punishment in Iran are a stain on that country’s reputation; and, of course, this is a moment when we should be renewing our effort to see the return of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and other dual nationals.

When we have identified those objectives, the next question we should ask ourselves in this essay is “How do we achieve them?” I do not think that we can achieve them through some sort of neo-imperial lecture tour. I think it would be much more sensible for us to work with our many allies and friends in the region—to work with our friends in Qatar, Oman, Kuwait, and elsewhere in the middle east. They, I suggest, would be heard much more sympathetically as interlocutors when it came to advancing those objectives.

I was grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his response to my intervention about the situation in Hong Kong. Those who were in the last Parliament will have heard me speak about the subject many times, and I make absolutely no apology for that. For several months we have seen running protests, with an escalating level of violence in all of them. Just last week the all-party parliamentary group on Hong Kong heard remarkable testimony from Dr Darren Mann of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, who described his experience of arrest as a result of offering medical aid to those who had been injured while protesting against the Government. When your Government are prepared to arrest medics off the street, you realise that things have taken a serious turn for the worse.

[Catherine West]

Does the right hon. Member agree that until there is a full inquiry into police brutality, we will not really know the answers? Should not we in this House, and those in many other Parliaments, press for the facts about the police brutality in Hong Kong?

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Lady and I have worked on this issue in the past, so she will not be surprised to hear that I agree with her absolutely. That pressure is what is needed. It was shocking enough to hear about the arrest of medics—doctors and nurses—who were offering help to injured protesters in the streets, but the really shocking thing that we heard from Dr Mann last week was that when he took his testimony to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the International Committee of the Red Cross, they said, “There is not much that we can do: we have to stay neutral in this matter.” You cannot stay neutral when you are faced with that sort of brutality, and when the most fundamental human rights are at stake.

We have seen China renege on the joint declaration. It is surely time for the United Kingdom to respond, and that response must go beyond the hand-wringing that we have seen so far. We have witnessed the massive concern that now exists among the Hong Kongers about the British National (Overseas) passport scheme. It was always a messy compromise, and it was never going to be anything better than that, but I think we have reached a point at which that messy compromise is simply no longer sustainable. Surely Hong Kongers with BNO passport status should now be given the right of abode.

As I said to the Foreign Secretary, it is shocking that the global head of Human Rights Watch, Kenneth Roth, should have been denied entry to Hong Kong this weekend. That must be proof, if proof were needed, that what is going on there is something of which China is ashamed, and something on which the House should be prepared to shine the light of scrutiny, because scrutiny and accountability are what will bring the change that is needed there.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

It is a great pleasure to ask Theo Clarke to make her maiden speech.

Australian Bushfires

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Wheeler]

I am really pleased to say that no UK nationals have been killed and we are not aware of any who have been injured. In fact, only one British national has been in touch to ask for advice and support. We ask everybody—visitors and people living there—to pay close attention to the updated advice from local authorities.

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

When the fires are extinguished, there is going to have to be a moment for learning lessons and drawing the links between these incidents and climate change. Our Government should take a leading role, but we would be better able to do so if we had not ourselves just announced that a review of the net zero carbon target had been put off until autumn. Will the Minister speak to her colleagues in the Treasury about bringing that review forward?

[Mrs Wheeler]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, and I will of course do that.

Human Rights in Saudi Arabia

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2019 Westminster Hall

On resuming—

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered human rights in Saudi Arabia and the detention of opponents of the regime.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for giving us time in Parliament to debate our relations with one of the most important operators in one of the most important regions in the world. Saudi Arabia is a dominant force in the Gulf—an area of significant importance to this country—a significant trading partner, and a significant partner in security and intelligence matters.

I am not naive about how we should approach these matters; I am aware of how politics in the Gulf works. I chair the all-party British-Qatar group, and last year I was a guest of the Kuwaiti Government in that country. Those matters are fully disclosed in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is right that we recognise, applaud and encourage progress on standards of governance and human rights. I approach human rights in that region in a spirit of humility. I am aware that many of the things for which we criticise Gulf regimes were part of our society and law just a few decades ago, or are even part of it today. On workers’ rights and standards, for example, let us not forget that for all the legislative and regulatory standards that we have in this country, not long ago several dozen cockle pickers perished in Morecambe bay as a result of the fact that they had been engaged illicitly.

Even with all those caveats, when I look at Saudi Arabia today I see a bad human rights situation, and I regret to say that it is getting worse. This is an area where the United Kingdom Government, as a partner of the Saudi Arabian Government in commercial and security and intelligence matters, can do more. They should be looking at some of their current actions.

I will focus on people being held as political detainees following the mass arrests on 4 November 2017, others who remain in detention subject to capital punishment, and our assistance to and engagement with Saudi Arabia. It is well known that on 4 November 2017, Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman arrested several hundred of his political opponents, as he probably saw them. It was a mass arrest, and those arrested and detained were rounded up and taken to the Ritz-Carlton Hotel. I have to say that of all the accommodation that could be afforded to those who get on the wrong side of the regimes under which they live, the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Riyadh is probably not the worst. None the less, it remains a serious matter, not least because it highlights one of my main concerns: the lack of proper regard for the basic norms of international and domestic law. As a consequence of that arrest programme, there was a process of forced transfer of assets totalling approximately $100 billion, we believe. Many of those held have been tortured, and there have been fatalities. We understand that approximately 200 detainees remain in custody as a consequence of the Crown Prince’s move.

Those who remain in detention without clear legal status include Prince Turki bin Abdullah, the former governor of Riyadh and son of the late King Abdullah. He is obviously seen as a key political rival of the current Crown Prince. He remains in detention without charge. His associate, Faisal al-Jarba, is also in detention without charge. The Washington Post reported in June that Jordanian authorities detained him in Oman, where he had fled to seek safety; they eventually drove him to the Saudi border and handed him over to the Saudi authorities. Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz bin Salman and his father, Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman bin Mohammad—both businessmen—have remained in detention since January 2018 without charge or trial. Their arrest was believed to be in retaliation for their representations and advocacy on behalf of detained family members. Beyond that there is no clear basis for their continuing detention. The Government have not frozen any of their assets or asked for financial settlements.

My requests of the Government and the Foreign Office are fourfold. We should ask, first, for proof of life of those who were detained. On 12 March 2018, the New York Times report said that Ritz-Carlton detainees required hospitalisation for physical abuse. Major General Ali al-Qahtani, an aide to Prince Turki, later died in custody. Reports suggest that his

“neck was twisted unnaturally as though it had been broken”

and his body had burn marks that appeared to be the result of electric shocks. To this day, Saudi Arabia has not offered any official explanation of how al-Qahtani died, although it is interesting to note that on 7 November the President of the United States tweeted:

“I have great confidence in King Salman and the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, they know exactly what they are doing....”.

Sometimes, when he takes to Twitter, the President manages to say so much more than I suspect he intended.

Secondly, we should ask for clarification from the Saudi authorities about the specific charges on which those who remain in detention are being held. That is a basic norm of international law: a person should know the basis on which they are being held and the charges should be for recognisable crimes. As an absolute minimum, they should be given the specific grounds for their arrest and be able to contest their detention fairly and promptly before an independent and impartial judge, with appropriate legal representation, and there should be periodic reviews of their case. Those who are detained in the Ritz-Carlton and elsewhere in Saudi Arabia receive none of that most basic legal entitlement.

Thirdly, we should ask that people who are not charged with a crime be released. Again, that is a basic principle of international human rights law. In its general comment on article 7 of the international covenant on civil and political rights, the United Nations Human Rights Committee stated that

“provisions should be made for detainees to be held in places officially recognized as places of detention”—

presumably not normally including five-star hotels—

“and for their names and places of detention, as well as for the names of persons responsible for their detention, to be kept in registers readily available and accessible to those concerned, including relatives and friends.”

Fourthly and finally, we should ask the Saudi Arabian Government for the release of frozen assets that are currently held illegally. If the assets have been frozen without any proper legal basis, surely we should be saying that they should be returned, unless formal charges can be brought. These are not extravagant requests, and they are the very least that we should be taking to the Saudi Government if the relationship we have is meaningful and not one-sided.

As the House is aware, on 23 April this year there was a programme of 37 executions, including, we understand, one by crucifixion, following two mass trials: the Qatif 24 case and the Iran spy case. This matter was ventilated fully as a result of Mr Speaker granting an urgent question, so I will not rehearse the detail at this time, but there is one aspect I want to remind the House about: three of the detainees who were executed were children at the time of their detention and charge. Capital punishment for children is absolutely forbidden under international law.

That remains relevant today, because, according to Reprieve, there are currently at least three detainees in Saudi Arabia who are subject to conviction awaiting execution. Ali al-Nimr, Abdullah al-Zaher and Dawoud al-Marhoon were all arrested in 2012 following anti-regime demonstrations held in the Qatif region of Saudi Arabia’s eastern province. All were under 18 at the time of the alleged offences. In international law that makes them children and makes their execution illegal. All were tortured extensively while they were detained and forced to sign false confessions to serious crimes, punishable by death, on which the trial courts later relied to convict them.

The three men were not informed of their charges or presented with an arrest warrant. All were held in solitary confinement for long periods, during which time they were given no access to legal representation. Their families did not know where they were and they could not contact them. All were tried at the specialised criminal court, which has been widely criticised for failing to meet the basic standards of a fair trial and for its use as a tool of political repression. Despite widespread international condemnation, the Saudi authorities have never investigated the serious allegations of torture. Having exhausted all domestic legal remedies, the three now await execution, unless they can receive pardons from King Salman.

The United Kingdom has a long-standing and distinguished policy of opposing the use of the death penalty in all circumstances. Surely, if that policy remains meaningful, it demands that representations of the strongest and most public sort be made to the Saudi Arabian Government on behalf of these three young men. That is a common theme in all the representations I have received from organisations that provided briefings for today’s debate. Yes, the Government will say the right things in this country, but they say them privately and they do not say them loudly and publicly enough when it comes to their dealings with the Saudi Government. In relation to the Khashoggi killing, we have seen that the Saudi Arabian Government will take heed and will respond to international pressure and criticism. Surely we should not be leaving it until the executions have happened to criticise them. We should be doing that while there is still a prospect of bringing these three young men relief and mercy.

That raises the question why all this should matter to us in the United Kingdom. We know there are many regimes across the world that are similarly despotic and, in some cases—although probably not many—even worse in their human rights abuse and their use of capital punishment than Saudi Arabia. I do not want this debate to be an exercise in hand-wringing on the international stage and saying, “Isn’t this dreadful.” It has to be an open and honest examination of how we see these issues and what we, as a commercial and security intelligence partner of Saudi Arabia, are prepared to do to help to effect meaningful change.

The Government are often criticised for not being active enough. I have heard other concerns and received from Reprieve a compelling briefing, which argues that the problem is not just that we are not saying enough, but that sometimes what we do aids and abets the conduct I have described. Reprieve has brought it to my attention that the UK College of Policing has provided forensics training to the Saudi Ministry of the Interior since 2009; I have commented publicly in the House about this before. In 2016, Reprieve obtained documents from a proposal by the College of Policing to extend its training of Saudi police to areas including cyber-security, mobile phone analysis and IT digital forensics, including data decryption and the retrieval of deleted files. These documents show that the college accepted that there was a risk that

“the skills being trained are used to identify individuals who later go on to be tortured or subjected to other human rights abuses.”

They decided that these risks could be “mitigated” by the college, in conjunction with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, preparing a press statement emphasising that the forensics training is part of a wider programme to assist the Saudi authorities move to democratic policing methods. That was a thin defence in 2016. Having seen the events in 2017 and the mass execution of 37 people earlier this year, I am afraid that that defence simply does not stand anymore. Will the Minister tell us what attitude the Government now take to the relationship between the UK College of Policing and Saudi Arabia?

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are going to assist the Saudis on technology in this way, at the very least our Government should in response press for the immediate release of all political prisoners and, pending that happening, seek proof of life of those who have been detained?

[Mr Carmichael]

I did not realise that my right hon. Friend was behind me, so I do not know whether he was in the Chamber when I made exactly that point about those who are detained in the Ritz-Carlton in Riyadh. Getting proof of life is crucial. That is something that we should not have to demand; it is something that should be provided routinely. If Saudi Arabia wishes to move among the developed nations of the world as an equal partner, that is something it should wish to take on board for itself.

An investigation by The Daily Telegraph this year revealed that hundreds of Saudi police officers were trained in Britain in 2018, despite the risk that the skills acquired here could be used by the regime to commit human rights abuses. With no transparency about the training taking place, it remains entirely unclear what safeguards have been placed on this assistance to ensure that it does not contribute to severe human rights abuses.

Furthermore, real questions hang over continued UK funding in Saudi Arabia through cross-departmental funds such as the integrated activity fund. The IAF is a cross-departmental fund earmarked exclusively for co-operation with Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, on security and justice assistance. Under the auspices of the Foreign Office, the IAF is overseen by the Gulf national security secretariat implementation group, which consists of representatives from Departments responsible for delivering the Gulf strategy, including the FCO, the Home Office, the Department for International Development, the Department for International Trade, the Ministry of Defence, the Treasury and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

We know, because the Foreign Office has confirmed it, that the IAF’s allocation is £80 million over the current spending review period. What we have not heard from the Government is any detail on how the programme uses its funds. I would like at least an explanation for that basic lack of transparency. For a fund that covers only six countries, unlike the 90 countries covered by the conflict, stability and security fund, for example, the Government refuse to provide any details of the breakdown of spending across the country or within the region, claiming that no breakdown is possible, since:

“Many of the projects and programme activity are delivered regionally”.

In any circumstance, that would be a pretty thin defence, but in the context of everything that we know and see to be going on in Saudi Arabia, if that is where the British taxpayers’ money is being spent, at the very least we should be given a proper explanation of the spending and not some obfuscation according to accounting practices.

The Government continue to refuse to provide any information to parliamentarians about the use of IAF funds in Saudi Arabia. That, of course, raises real questions about why the Government refuse to provide that information in this age. If there is to be a bid for the IAF to continue beyond 2020, which we understand is already under consideration, surely it is critical that Members of this House get answers on just what the funds are being used for and what safeguards exist to ensure that they will not lead to further and more egregious abuses of human rights.

I have three final questions for the Minister. First, will the Government confirm that the Foreign Office will make urgent representations to its Saudi counterparts to ensure that the three individuals currently on death row in Saudi Arabia will have their sentences commuted and receive a full pardon? Given the inadequacies of the process that has brought them to this point, if the Government are serious about a policy of opposing the death penalty in all circumstances, that is the very least we should do.

Secondly, will the Government commit to publishing information on all programmes currently engaging with Saudi Arabia, including the programme documentation and assessment frameworks, and assessments under the overseas security and justice assistance guidance? Thirdly, will the Government commit to providing full breakdowns of all projects funded under the integrated activity fund, including the countries and institutions receiving funds under that programme, and details of each project’s human rights assessment under the overseas security and justice assistance guidance?

It is all very well to stand here, in the comfort of the House of Commons, and criticise Saudi Arabia for its human rights, but I am pretty sure that, if we were to go out and ask anybody we stopped on the street here what they thought of the treatment of detainees and citizens in Saudi Arabia, they would be pretty appalled. I think they would actually be angry if they knew that money paid by taxpayers in this country was being used in such a way that it could contribute to and abet those human rights abuses, and that no explanation for that would be forthcoming. That is why I think it is important that the House debates this subject today. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing the time, and I hope that we will have time to hear the fullest possible answers from the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the register, not least because I chair a detention review panel examining the cases of Saudi activists for women’s rights. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this debate. Saudi Arabia is an important ally, so it is important that, where she falls short of the standards we expect from countries we strategically stand alongside, we hold her to account.

It is also important to put the question of how we advance and support human rights in Saudi Arabia into the wider strategic context. By most measurable economic and social indicators, the world is improving for the majority of its citizens. Global poverty and child mortality are down. Vaccinations, basic education and democracy are going up. Those are trends over the past couple of centuries. We live in a liberal-democratic-inspired, rules-based international world order, underpinned by NATO, the United States security umbrella and the United Nations, based on those structures established at the end of the second world war.

Overall, we expect those structures to advance human rights, but we now have to recognise that those structures are under immense strain. First, there was the missed opportunity of the fall of the Soviet Union, which has been replaced over the past 30 years by an increasingly like-for-like security structure in Putin’s Russia. Additionally, in the middle east we witnessed the failure of the Arab spring to advance the political and human rights of those on the wrong end of governance in the pre-2011 middle east, except perhaps in Tunisia and Morocco.

Strategically, the main challenge we face is the rise of China. If we fail to secure China’s place in the rules-based international order, it will be to our peril, and it will not only have implications for the nation states who immediately abut Chinese regional power in east Asia, but have a direct effect on basic questions of advancing human rights in countries such as Saudi Arabia. If our policy serves to drive our allies into the open arms of China and Russia to provide for their hard security, we will do nothing to advance and support human rights, collective political rights and government accountability in countries such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain, which have also been mentioned. It could seriously damage accountable progress.

This is a perilous time for human rights. This debate rightly highlights that Saudi Arabia is a human rights priority country for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and has been for several years. Disengaging from its political development and security will only help more authoritarian countries, which place less value on the rule of law, to become the dominant paradigm in the world.

I profoundly disagree with the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter). I believe the cancellation of the Just Solutions International contracts, which engaged in the Saudi justice system, particularly in the management of offenders, is profoundly to be regretted. I believe in the merits of interdependence. I believe that the police and justice training that we support should be delivered as far as possible. If we can do that, and sell to countries our experience—particularly the experience of the Ministry of Justice’s retired senior prison governors and probation officers—at economic advantage to the United Kingdom, so that they can improve their systems and import some of the human rights accountability, which we take for granted, it is likely to be of significant benefit overall, both financially for the United Kingdom and, more importantly, for the values we want to promote in those societies.

[Mr Carmichael]

I said in my speech that I am pragmatic about these things and where progress is seen, it should be applauded and rewarded. The difficulty is that where there is no accountability, it is difficult for us to know how effectively our money is being spent. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the refusal to account for the money that is being spent, as I referred to in my speech, is not good enough for the taxpayers of this country?

[Crispin Blunt]

I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It does not only apply in this area. When I chaired the Foreign Affairs Committee, I served on the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, which made a report about the inadequacy of accountability in the conflict, stability and security fund, for example, and the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the integrated activity fund. We ought to have accountability for public money; it is a basic requirement of our responsibility as we levy taxes on our constituents.

Having made the case for co-operation with Saudi Arabia, I recognise the flipside. As vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Saudi Arabia, I feel particularly pained by the current situation. In my 22 years as a Member of this House, I have defended the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s important relationship with the United Kingdom. A few years ago, I had hoped that the Kingdom was taking a bold new step forward when Mohammed bin Salman—first as Deputy Crown Prince and then as Crown Prince—effectively assumed the majority of the Executive power in Saudi Arabia.

The moves of the Crown Prince towards economic reform, with Vision 2030, were accompanied by wider apparent social reform: the removal of arrest powers from the religious police, the formal preparation of legislation to ease male guardianship laws and granting women the right to drive. There is genuine potential for modernisation under that programme. However, if the price turns out to be the closure of any emerging political space, any overall societal gain will be heavily reduced, if not negatived altogether.

We must be beyond disappointed by the series of events over the past two years that have led to where we are today. There is a wretched contradiction between the recent societal liberalisation in Saudi Arabia and the detention of the people who campaigned for those changes. Saudi Arabia has been commended for allowing women the right to drive, for the opening of cinemas and other entertainment places and, as I said, for ending the religious police’s power of arrest. They were all immensely important to the freedom one has to conduct one’s life in Saudi Arabia, but if in parallel the activists who for years had advocated those changes are arrested, such incredible detention and this disastrous series of events must be challenged, not least by the friends of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia who recognise the importance of that nation as a regional ally. Pushing for successful reform should not lead to prison. The Crown Prince would be well advised to recognise the truth of the aphorism used by President Ronald Reagan that there is no limit to what we can achieve if we do not mind who gets the credit.

This year, I have worked with the hon. Members for Stockton South (Dr Williams) and for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) on a detention review panel for the female human rights activists in Saudi Arabia. I accepted the task because I believed that I would command the confidence both of Saudi Arabia and of its critics for fairness. I am trying to demonstrate in this speech that I hope to see both sides of the question. However, I was disappointed that the Saudi Government did not welcome independent oversight of the detainees’ conditions in detention when, by all measures, the Crown Prince ought to be proud of his fellow countrywomen for sharing his desire to advance reform in Saudi Arabia. I am sure the Saudi Government wish to resolve the issue. I can at least record my pleasure that, to date, the Saudi Arabian authorities appear, temporarily at least, to have released four out of the 11 women detained last year. Hopefully more will follow, as the Saudi Government must realise that the decisions leading to the activists’ detentions and the appalling circumstances and death of Jamal Khashoggi must be rectified to save the country from itself. If the lessons are to be learnt and we are to honour Jamal Khashoggi’s life’s work by ensuring a more open society in Saudi Arabia where criticism is seen as an asset to good policy making, and where there is a more open press to report criticism, it can come only if there is a change of approach from the very top. Such disasters must be used to learn lessons on the necessary limitations on Executive power.

The enrichment of Saudi Arabia has led to the education of its citizens, particularly women, which inevitably has led to and will lead to a desire for progressive change. Western nations, particularly the United Kingdom, have to stand by the current constitutional framework, which must find within it the capacity for progressive change in respect of the growing role and responsibility of Saudi citizens in their influence on policy. Of course, that means the United Kingdom faces a difficult situation.

We could choose to ostracise the kingdom, as implied by the policy proposals supported by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, with the cancellation of the Just Solutions contract. I ought to declare an interest as I was the junior Minister most enthusiastically in support of setting up Just Solutions in order to get its methodology away, so I treated the cancellation of that contract as disastrous and an immense personal disappointment. If we followed the prescription of the hon. Gentleman, we could turn the kingdom into a pariah and push it into the arms of Russia and/or China which, incidentally, are two other human rights priority countries for the United Kingdom. Populist diplomacy and noisy condemnation will always be heard, humiliating the key decision makers at the top. Cynically, if its target audience is just the domestic media and NGOs in the United Kingdom, in those terms it would be successful. But in terms of effecting support for human rights and advancing them in Saudi Arabia, and advancing and securing the position of Saudi Arabia within those nations committed to the current rules-based international order, I suspect the policy advocated by the hon. Gentleman might not be quite so successful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Lady cited something from the United States that happened fairly recently, but I do not accept her position. I understand her concerns. She did not cite the recent Court of Appeal case, but we could discuss that in relation to some of the businesses that I think are in her mind. The fact of the matter is, as the 2017 judgment made clear, that the people exercising these judgments are full of anxiety and anguish—those words are used in that judgment. On my part, as well as that of my predecessors and my officials and advisers, I have to say how much I resent the implication that those decisions are made lightly. We are human beings, and sometimes we will get decisions wrong, but the consolidated criteria on which we and our allies depend are rigorous and robust, and even the appellate court was good enough to acknowledge that.

I remain convinced that the standards we apply in this country are among the best in the world and are a beacon for others to follow. That does not detract in any way from the fact that, in a complex situation where our intelligence is—from time to time, if not most of the time—inevitably partial, we can get things wrong. That is inevitable, but we have to weigh things up.

Returning to the points I made earlier, it is my view that our engagement with Saudi Arabia is, in general, positive. It is more likely to engage Saudi Arabia and procure what we would see as good behaviour on its part than the alternative, which is disengagement. I will come on to some further points on defence and security, but ultimately as politicians we have to decide which we choose. I am pleased that the United Kingdom has historically been and remains in the company of those who choose engagement and influence rather than distance.

I am concerned, as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Reigate clearly are, that if we changed tack and policy direction, we would isolate the regime in Riyadh. The consequences are very difficult to predict. It is an extraordinarily dangerous region. A change in direction could pose a real and present threat to this country and the people the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) and I represent. I would tread warily before dramatically changing Government policy in the way that I think she would tempt us to do, along with the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and, I suspect, the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). I disagree with that point. There is a choice to be made; it is a fairly clearcut difference of approach. I respect those who take a different view, but there it is.

[Mr Carmichael]

The debate is now essentially not about whether we intervene, but about how we intervene and with what force. The asks I made of the Minister in relation to those who were detained in November 2017 were four very basic, modest asks: the right for someone to be told what they are charged with; their right to be released if they are not charged; their right to have their assets given back if there is no legal basis for taking them; and, most fundamentally, the request for proof of life. Surely those requests are at one end of the spectrum, and the Government should have no difficulty in making them forcibly and publicly.

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman because he brings me on to my next remarks. I will try hard not to be diverted by some of the broader issues in addressing what I think are the guts of his thesis, which relate to those who have been detained, imprisoned and misused.

Of course, the big headline figure in all this is Jamal Khashoggi, whose brutal murder and dismemberment truly sickened the world. There cannot be any of us who are not revolted by that story. It is a stain on the reputation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and I look forward to details of what happened being made public and explicit very soon. It would be appalling if Saudi Arabia decided to obfuscate or obscure that terrible episode. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia must make it very clear what remedial action will be taken in respect of those who are responsible and to prevent such events from happening in future.

The lack of transparency around the anti-corruption campaign, including the Ritz-Carlton detentions, mainly of Ministers, princes and businessmen, gives the international community cause for concern. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will know that, in February last year, those remaining at the Ritz were released following a number of court settlements, or transferred to prison pending prosecution. Let us be clear: those remaining in prison must be brought to trial or released. Their assets must be unfrozen if it is not the intention of the Saudi authorities to bring charges against those individuals.

The right hon. Gentleman can be sure that the Foreign Secretary and the ambassador in Riyadh lose no opportunity to raise the plight of those individuals, and to insist that their cases must be brought to a conclusion. They must be either charged with the corruption with which they have been associated, or released and their assets unfrozen. I will ensure that we continue to apply what pressure we can on KSA in order to achieve that end. However, it is not just about the 50 who are imprisoned, about whom we remain concerned; it is also about the mechanism within the Saudi state that allows such circumstances to arise, and the judicial process that Saudi uses to apprehend and manage that case load.

The hon. Member for Leeds North East mentioned the specialised criminal court, which is used to try cases that our peers among the international community would not regard as terrorist cases at all. There have been allusions in the debate to the kinds of things that Saudi Arabia might imagine constitute terrorism. I have to say that the same practice is found in a number of states within the Gulf region—it is not unique to Saudi Arabia. It is a source of frustration for many of us who deal with consular issues to try to work out why individuals have been apprehended on particular charges that look, on the face of it, outrageous and ridiculous, but that is because we are judging by our own standards and mores.

The way that many countries in the region regard such things as terrorism and offences against the state can be very different from our own. That is in no way to justify it, but it is to begin to try to understand it. I share the concerns expressed by the hon. about the SCC, and those concerns are shared with our interlocuters on a regular basis. More generally, we believe that civil and political rights strengthen a nation. I think we all believe that—otherwise we would not be here. Those rights make the state more resilient and more stable, and it is in all our interests to see a secure, stable and moderate Saudi Arabia playing a constructive role in a highly volatile region.

Free expression allows innovation to thrive and ideas to develop—an essential foundation for economic development and social cohesion. I was particularly interested in the remarks made by my hon. Friends on the nature of that cohesion, and the implicit threat to it if Saudi Arabia’s friends in the west behave in a way that isolates it and distances it from our norms and values. In our conversations with Saudi leaders and officials, we consistently underline the importance of respecting freedom of expression and the right to peaceful protest. In a country wedded to social media, that includes online activity. We make the case that such issues are the guarantors of long-term stability in the region.

The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have spoken to the Saudi Government about a number of the cases mentioned today. They are listed in my briefing notes, and do not make for easy reading. Some of it has been articulated in the course of the debate, but not all of it. We have raised our concerns at the most senior levels about the increasing number of people detained for crimes relating to freedom of expression, as well as allegations of torture in detention and the lack of transparency in the aforementioned judicial process.

During the UN universal periodic review of Saudi Arabia’s human rights record in November, and the UN human rights council in March, we made clear our concerns about the constrained political environment. Right hon. and hon. Members are right to say that we believe that it is getting worse rather than better. The Government utterly condemned Jamal Khashoggi’s killing in the strongest possible terms. At the UN human rights council in June, we set out our expectation for a transparent judicial process and urged Saudi Arabia to take steps to ensure that such crimes will not happen again.

I will address the questions raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland as fully as I can. If he feels that I have not addressed them fully, I am more than happy to exchange correspondence with him. I agree with him about the appalling spectacle of 37 mainly Shi’a men executed in April. That was an appalling, ghastly spectacle, and I have no doubt that the leadership in Saudi Arabia want to ensure that the good reputation of their country is not besmirched and stained again in the way that it undoubtedly was.

One hon. Member talked about shaming Saudi Arabia. Shaming is dangerous in respect of many of the countries in the Gulf region. Shaming is perhaps a bit of a challenge, but certainly the reputation of our interlocutors is important to them. In our discourse with them, it is important to point out in clear terms, as their embassies in London most certainly will, that such things put the relationship between the UK, and the west in general, and the country in question back many years. It is vital that those countries give full thought and consideration to what such things do in terms of their reputation with those that they wish to influence and, in many cases, to emulate.

Diplomats from our embassy in Riyadh attempt to observe all trials of international concern, with varying effectiveness. We have lobbied at the highest levels for the diplomatic observation of human rights trials to be reinstated as a matter of routine. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland rightly said that the UK condemns the death penalty in all countries and in all circumstances. I think the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West said something slightly different—that the Government say that they condemn capital punishment.

The Government do not just say that they condemn capital punishment; they really mean it. Implicit in the word “say” is, perhaps, an element of doubt. I would like to use this opportunity to expunge that doubt completely and irrevocably. Let me say it again: the United Kingdom condemns capital punishment in all countries and in all circumstances. On that, I think the great majority—an almost overwhelming majority —of right hon. and hon. Members in this House would agree.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

Thank you, Sir Henry, and Mr Evans before you, for chairing our proceedings. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to this excellent and thoughtful debate. I thank the Minister for his very substantial reply. I had not realised that he had been a Minister in this post for two months, which by contemporary standards is a record of durability and longevity. I wish him well in the weeks ahead.

I will take up the Minister’s kind offer of further correspondence regarding the force required in relation to the detainees, especially those from November 2017, and to the detail of the IAF funding and the College of Policing. I was perhaps remiss in not giving him advance notice of what I was going to say about that. Rest assured, if the correspondence is not fruitful, I suspect that we will be back here at some point in the future.

In particular, I thank the Minister for his clear and strong reaffirmation of the policy on the use of the death penalty. I suspect this was no accident. I say that because I have been on this beat for quite a few years. I set up the all-party parliamentary group on the abolition of the death penalty more years ago than I care to remember. I have campaigned against it in different parts of the world including the United States, South Korea and Japan. Most recently, I was in Japan at the end of February, working with the bar association there on its policy for the abolition of the death penalty in Japan. The embassy staff in Tokyo engaged on that issue in an absolutely exemplary manner. I could not have asked for better, more committed or more energetic support than I got during my time there. That has been my experience wherever I have gone, working with embassies and consulates in any part of the world in relation to this issue. To hear the Minister reaffirm that policy in the strongest possible terms is welcome and I commend him for it.

The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) referred to this issue as a moral maze. I think that is absolutely correct. The hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) spoke of the danger of pushing Saudi Arabia into the hands of other global powers, most notably China and Russia. I completely understand the tensions at play there. There is an element of competition when we consider not just human rights records, but our trading aspirations. We have to deal with that tension all the time. The Minister dealt with that in some detail.

I will leave the House with this thought. As we know, the G20 is heading to Saudi Arabia. Before that happens, there is time for this country to give a lead in talking to other members of the G20, so that we can all go to Saudi Arabia ahead of that meeting and say, “Here are our concerns. These are the matters that will be in our newspapers and television stations when the media of the world come to Saudi Arabia for the G20. You have time on your hands now and the opportunity to do something about it.” It strikes me that that would be a useful multilateral initiative that we could take, which would avoid some of the other tensions that come into play. I hope that is the sort of approach that our Government, which are committed in a meaningful way to human rights in other parts of the world, could take.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered human rights in Saudi Arabia and the detention of opponents of the regime.

Hong Kong

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government’s response to yesterday’s protests in Hong Kong.

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)]

For a number of weeks now, the world has been watching massive yet largely peaceful protests in Hong Kong in opposition to the proposed extradition legislation. Unfortunately, a small number of protesters chose to vandalise the premises of the Legislative Council yesterday. Her Majesty’s Government strongly condemn any such violence but also understand the deep-seated concerns that people in Hong Kong have about their rights and freedoms. The vast majority of the hundreds of thousands of people who took part in the 1 July march yesterday did so in a peaceful and lawful manner.

The UK is fully committed to upholding Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy and rights and freedoms under the One country, two systems principle, which is guaranteed by the legally binding joint declaration of 1984. We reject the Chinese Government’s assertion that the joint declaration is an “historic document”, by which they mean that it is no longer valid, and that our rights and obligations under that treaty have ended. Our clear view is that the Sino-British joint declaration of 1984 obliges the Chinese Government to uphold Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy, and its rights and freedoms, and we call on the Chinese Government to do so. In respect of the recent demonstrations, the main responsibility for addressing this tension rests with the Government of Hong Kong, including the Chief Executive.

[Mr Carmichael]

I thank the Minister for that statement. May I also thank you, Mr Speaker, for again allowing an urgent question on this ever-increasing and serious matter, which is heard not just in this country, but throughout the world? Last night, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) organised a meeting in the House under the auspices of Hong Kong Watch, and she and I co-chaired it. It was a very well attended and, sadly, timely meeting, with more than 100 people, mostly Hong Kongers, present. The message from that meeting, especially from activists such as Tommy Cheung and Willis Ho, was clear: they worry that the Government of the People’s Republic of China will see yesterday’s events as an excuse for ever more direct intervention in Hong Kong’s affairs. They want to hear that this country will continue to stand with them against that threat.

Unfortunately, the images that dominated our television screens yesterday were those of the occupation of the Legislative Council building. There was much less coverage of the fact that on Monday, half a million families, young children and older people marched down major roads in peaceful protests. In his representations to Carrie Lam’s Administration, will the Minister make it as clear as possible that any consequences for the actions of the hundreds of protesters in the LegCo building should not be visited on the many thousands—in fact, millions—of people who have protested on Hong Kong’s streets in recent weeks?

The images broadcast around the world yesterday were ones of violence and vandalism, but they were also images of fear and frustration from people who are increasingly desperate that the world looks on at their plight and will do no more than wring its hands. Will the Minister make it clear to Carrie Lam that there is much more that she and her Administration can do to reassure her own population? It is surely clear to all that a suspension—even a suspension sine die—of the Bill to allow for the amendment of the extradition arrangements is not enough. The people of Hong Kong need to hear that the Bill has been abandoned completely.

The Hong Kong police have described the victims of police violence in recent weeks as rioters, when we know that they were peaceful protesters. Will the Minister impress on the Executive that such use of language must be withdrawn? Will the Executive instigate an independent inquiry into the police violence on 12 June?

Finally, the Chinese Foreign Ministry yesterday declared the Sino-British joint declaration to be meaningless. I welcome the Minister’s repudiation of that from the Dispatch Box, but will the Government now consider all meaningful sanctions at our disposal, including the possible use of Magnitsky powers, to ensure that those who infringe the human rights of the people of Hong Kong will have no hiding place in the United Kingdom?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

First, I genuinely acknowledge and recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s interest in and deep knowledge of this issue, and I commend him for the activity that he generates in the House, which is shared in by so many other Members from all parties. I thank him for his analysis and for what I consider to be a measured series of questions that go very much to the point. We all agree with him that any actions taken in response to the vandalism that took place should be proportionate and within the rule of law, and should not be taken against larger numbers than those who were actually involved in that vandalism.

As the right hon. Gentleman recognises, and as I said in my opening remarks, a lot of the ability to address the tension rests with the Government of Hong Kong and the Chief Executive Carrie Lam, in respect of the extradition legislation that has generated so much protest. Whereas we fully agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the joint declaration remains valid—again, I said that in my opening remarks—we are not here to dictate and instruct either the Chinese Government, or that of Hong Kong itself, to do what we believe they should be doing within the autonomy that has properly been granted to them. I am sure the House will appreciate the delicacy of our wanting to uphold the rule of law while having to be careful not to instruct either Government about what they should do in specific detail.

Hong Kong

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2019 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the subject of democracy and protests in Hong Kong.

[The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)]

The huge protest march this weekend was a further demonstration of the passionate strength of feeling among the people of Hong Kong about the proposed amendments to extradition laws. The people of Hong Kong have peacefully exercised their rights in recent days to freedom of speech, assembly and expression, all of which are guaranteed by the Sino-British joint declaration of 1984 and enshrined in Hong Kong Basic Law.

The most recent march was, thankfully, free of the scenes of violence witnessed during protests on 12 June. I note the allegations of inappropriate use of force by the Hong Kong police, which should, of course, be fully investigated by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government.

It is positive that, on 15 June, the Government committed to pause, reflect and consult widely before taking further action. However, it is clear that this commitment did not fully address the concerns of the people of Hong Kong. I welcome Chief Executive Carrie Lam’s statement today, in which she said that she would not proceed with the Second Reading of the Bill if the fears and anxieties of the people of Hong Kong could not now be addressed.

In considering the way forward, it is vital that Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy and the rights and freedoms set out in the joint declaration are respected in full. Those principles, along with the commitment to one country, two systems underpin Hong Kong’s future success and prosperity. As a guarantor of the joint declaration, the UK has a responsibility to monitor its implementation. This is a responsibility that we all take very seriously.

The joint declaration is a legally binding international treaty between the United Kingdom and China, and it remains in force. It is as relevant today as it was at the time of the handover in 1997. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer both raised the situation in Hong Kong and the importance of upholding the joint declaration with Chinese Vice Premier Hu during the UK-China economic and financial dialogue that took place in London yesterday.

The permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office also held a meeting in the Foreign Office with the Chinese ambassador yesterday, reinforcing our view that the joint declaration is an extant document underpinning one country, two systems and it is guaranteed until 2047. It must be upheld. I can assure the House that the UK Government are, and will remain, fully committed to the preservation of Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy.

I am delighted that, in addressing this matter on the Floor of the House for the fourth time in six sitting days, there is such widespread support from all corners of Parliament for the rule of law, independence of the judiciary and the freedoms for the people of Hong Kong.

[Mr Carmichael]

I thank the Minister for that answer and I thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing this urgent question. There are literally millions of people in Hong Kong who follow the proceedings in this House and who look to us for support in their fight to protect their human rights. It matters to them there that we here remember their position, and it is right that we should recognise your role, Mr Speaker, in getting this issue ventilated in the House.

The news that the Executive in Hong Kong had suspended the legislation for the extradition amendments was welcome as far as it went, but the message should go out from this House that it did not go far enough. We in this House stand with the 2 million people who took again to the streets in Hong Kong on Sunday to say that suspension is not enough. That legislation must be withdrawn for good. Will the Minister make it clear to the chief executive that that is the position of this country and that that is what her Administration must now do?

In recent weeks, the Chinese Foreign Ministry declared that the Sino-British joint declaration was meaningless and that it no longer had any realistic meaning. I welcome what the Minister has said on this today, but will he assure us that that will continue to be put forcefully to the Chinese Government at every opportunity, because for a fellow permanent member of the UN Security Council to take this view undermines the very idea of a rules-based international order. Will the Government now demand of the Chinese Government that they should resile from the view that they have previously expressed in relation to the joint declaration? It is a binding bilateral treaty registered with the United Nations. China cannot be allowed to pick and choose the obligations in international law that it will observe and honour.

People across the world were shocked to witness the violence used against peaceful protesters in Hong Kong last week. Legitimate democratic Governments do not use tear gas and rubber bullets against their own people when they choose to exercise their democratic right to protest. We hear that the Chief Executive is due to make an apology today to the people of Hong Kong for her handling of the affair. Does the Minister agree with me that that apology should extend to those who were harassed and injured as a result of what was done, and can we in this House send the message that we continue to watch what happens in Hong Kong and we will not sit mute as those who protested then are prosecuted when the spotlight of world attention has moved on?

The events of recent weeks in Hong Kong have been horrifying, but they should not have been surprising. For years now, the People’s Republic of China has been salami slicing the commitments it gave under the joint declaration. Sadly, the Executive Council has too often been complicit in that, but the commitments that have been broken are commitments to which this country has been a party. Will our Government now send the strongest possible message that we will not stand by and allow that process of salami slicing to continue?

Hong Kong

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 13th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we will do our level best and do whatever we can from our side to calm some of the passions, not least because of our 300,000 UK nationals there. We are not aware at present of any British nationals being caught up in the violence of the past 48 hours. The question of British nationals overseas was brought up by my hon. Friend’s constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), and we do have some ongoing obligations in that regard.

We are concerned about the potential detrimental impact of these extradition proposals on the rights and freedoms of all people resident in and travelling through Hong Kong. At present the FCO is not providing specific advice relating to the proposed extradition Bill as it affects British nationals overseas, particularly as this legislation is still under consideration. However, we do believe that it is of the utmost importance that any extradition arrangements respect the high degree of autonomy and the rights and freedoms of the Basic Law. The arrangements will of course apply to all citizens, but we particularly have British nationals overseas and UK nationals very much in our heart, and will ensure our consul general does all he can to deal with any of the concerns raised.

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

Yesterday a young Hong Kong woman came to my office and showed me pictures of what had happened to friends of hers who had been protesting in Hong Kong. She showed me videos of tear gas being used and the injuries they had sustained as a result of rubber bullets being used. These things happen because the authorities that employ these methods think they can get away with it. She understood, as I think we should all understand, that the joint declaration is now under attack not just from the People’s Republic of China but from Carrie Lam’s Administration in Hong Kong itself.

As the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) said, the question is what signals we send, and I have to say to the Minister that the signal that he sends today in saying that the UK Government do not see the extradition changes as a breach of the joint declaration is fundamentally wrong and has to change. The purpose of that joint declaration is to protect the human rights of the people of Hong Kong. The legislation proposed by Carrie Lam’s Government is a fundamental attack on these human rights, and if we are to stand by the joint declaration we should be opposing these changes unambiguously and vigorously at every turn. I have to say to the Minister that it is not good enough to hide behind a question of legal construction when this is actually about our political determination.

[Mark Field]

I think that is a rather unfair characterisation of our position, if I may say so. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has a long-standing interest in Hong Kong—this has been our third exchange at the Dispatch Box over the course of this week—but I was merely making the point that the joint declaration was silent on the issue of extradition. We very much feel that the spirit of the joint declaration is fundamental, for the reasons I have set out about the high degree of autonomy, freedom of expression and the like, but I was just making the narrow point that extradition was not raised in the joint declaration of 35 years ago.

The right hon. Gentleman touched on the use of tear gas and rubber bullets, and I would therefore like to talk a bit about export licences; I know this has been brought up in the pages of The Guardian today. The last export licence from the UK for tear gas hand grenades and tear gas cartridges used for training purposes by the Hong Kong police was in July 2018. The last export licence for rubber bullets was in July 2015. We rejected an open licence for riot shields as recently as April 2019. The issue of export licences is close to all our hearts, and it comes up time and again in our work overseas. We are monitoring the situation very closely and will of course undertake to review all current export licences. We will have no qualms in revoking any licences found no longer to be consistent with the consolidated criteria, including criterion 2, which I think the right hon. Gentleman will be aware of, dealing with respect for human rights.

Hong Kong

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He is absolutely right that we have significant obligations to British national (overseas) passport holders. He will be aware that the right of abode in the UK was defined by the Immigration Act 1971, so there are immigration controls to which BN(O) passport holders are subject. The rights they have are not the full rights of British citizens. None the less, they are British nationals from Hong Kong. It is something that we do take very seriously. I hope that he will forgive me if say that I will write to him in due course to try to answer his specific issues, with particular regard to any changes to the rights of such individuals since 1997.

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

The Second Reading of the Bill to implement these changes will take place on Wednesday. Legislators in Hong Kong have told me today that they anticipate that, thereafter, the remaining stages of the Bill could be completed as early as the middle of the week after next. If that happens, clearly the Minister’s aspiration for more consultation will be dead in the water. What will he do then?

[Mark Field]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he says. It would clearly be of grave concern. There is an almost universal view, and not just from those who were on the streets of Hong Kong yesterday. Increasingly, business organisations based in Hong Kong and, indeed, around the world are asking for greater consultation. I would rather not speculate as to where we might be if the path he describes is taken over the next 10 days, and I sincerely hope that will not come to pass.

Mr Speaker, you may be aware that the right hon. Gentleman has the Adjournment debate, in which we will be covering a little of this ground. I hope he will forgive me—I will want to talk more generally later about the relations between the UK, Hong Kong and China.

UK Foreign Policy: China and Hong Kong

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I am delighted to have the opportunity to bring this matter to the House for what has turned out to be a more topical debate than we had realised at the point when I was successful in obtaining it. I do not want to detain the House unnecessarily, but it is worth reminding ourselves about the particular, special legal and moral obligations that we in the United Kingdom have towards Hong Kong and its people. I will précis those briefly, and I do that not to insult the intelligence of the House, which will be well acquainted with them, as will those who are following our proceedings, but because it is sadly no longer universally accepted that these legal obligations subsist. The message should go from this Chamber that we in this House are very much of the view that they are continuing and subsisting legal obligations.

The Sino-British joint declaration enshrines the principle of one country, two systems. That was intended to guarantee a 50-year period, from the ending of colonial rule in 1997 to 2047, when the way of life of the people of Hong Kong would not change. As the Minister himself said today, it is a legally binding treaty which is registered with the United Nations and continues to be in force. The sad truth is that we in the United Kingdom have not always been as vigorous as we ought to be in the fulfilling of our obligations, legal or moral, towards the people of Hong Kong. For a second, I should pause to reflect on what view on this matter would be taken by the late Lord Ashdown, a man who was a doughty fighter in the cause for the people of Hong Kong.

As I was going over my notes in anticipation of tonight’s debate, an email dropped into my inbox. It does not come from a constituent so I shall not name the sender—in fact, it is addressed to another Member—but it highlights and articulates very well sentiments that I have seen expressed by many others in a similar position. The author writes:

“Before this Bill was tabled, as a BN(O)”—

British national overseas passport—

“holder residing in the UK and planning to naturalise in the near future, I thought I could go back to the country of my birth to see my family, especially my old parents. Once this Bill is passed, which the HKSAR and Chinese governments fully intend to do, I fear that I will not be able to visit my natal land and return to Britain because I took part in the Umbrella Revolution in 2014 and because of my active involvement in activist work in the past.”

He goes on to say:

“The handover has been done, and I fully understand that Her Majesty’s government does not have the power to undo this mistake. At the very least, the British government should start considering the possibility of rectifying the status of BN(O) holders—we are British subjects who are treated worse than any British subjects and other non-British nationals.”

He continues:

“I would like to share my personal experiences in this regard, if I may: The number of times I made myself clear to the immigration officers at Heathrow airport that I am British, the attitude I received from these officers was universally humiliating and soul-destroying. I was born British, and my British status was stripped away from me and my fate was left in the hands of a notoriously authoritarian regime, the PRC”—

the People’s Republic of China. That is the very human cost and the very human face of the matter that I bring to the House this evening.

Of course, this is not the first time that we have dealt with this issue today, and I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) the urgent question on the extradition arrangements that are up for amendment. At the end of his comments to the House earlier this afternoon, the Minister said in relation to this debate that he would want to speak

“more generally later about the relations between the UK, Hong Kong and China.”

I confess that that was very much what I had anticipated this debate would be about.

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

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that China is a member of the UN P5 and of the World Trade Organisation and therefore does believe in an international rules-based system? Hong Kong has one of the strongest independent legal systems in the world and the extradition Bill is described as one of the worst threats to that legal system of any Bill introduced so far. As such, the Chinese Government would do well to heed the large number of protestors on the streets in the past few hours.

[Mr Carmichael]

I differ from the hon. Gentleman only in the smallest grammatical sense, in that as a member of all those various international bodies, the Chinese Government ought to believe in, adhere to and demonstrate respect for international law. In this particular care, they are manifestly failing to do that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The one country, two systems agreement between China and Britain is under threat. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the real need to balance our global human rights obligations with the need to secure a trade deal does not mean that we forget those obligations? Furthermore, does he agree that we can attempt to use our influence and trade to seek the better understanding of acceptable human rights standards throughout the world, and that the two can and must go hand in hand?

[Mr Carmichael]

I absolutely agree with that. I am a strong advocate of human rights and often preach the gospel of their universality, but I am not starry-eyed about it, especially when it comes to working with countries that do not reach or have not yet reached the standards that we adhere to in this country. I will always engage with countries where I think there is an opportunity for improvement, but we have to see that improvement. As far as the People’s Republic of China is concerned, we are not seeing an improvement. In fact, if anything, we are going backwards: I think of the treatment of the Uyghur Muslims in the Xinjiang province; I think of the treatment of the people of Tibet; and I think of the treatment of religious minorities right across the People’s Republic of China and of the people of Hong Kong.

As I have said, I had anticipated that our debate tonight would rehearse a number of the areas that we have spoken about in the past. I was thinking about the treatment of the Umbrella Movement protesters; the closure of political parties; the expulsion of the Financial Times journalist, Victor Mallet; the creation of the new offence of insulting China’s national anthem without any effort to define what that insult might be and how it would be constituted; and the abduction of booksellers. In fact, when we consider all these things, it is impossible now, especially given the demonstration of support that we saw in Hong Kong at the weekend, to consider any of these things without considering the position in relation to the extradition arrangements and the Bill, which is currently coming towards the Legislative Council. These issues all tie in to this question of extradition.

You spoke earlier, Mr Speaker, about our mutual friend Benedict Rogers. In fact, in preparing for my debate tonight, I had recourse to an opinion piece that he had recently published. I want to read just a bit of it for the benefit of the House, because it illustrates perfectly how the position of the booksellers in particular and the other causes that I have mentioned all tie into this question of the extradition legislation. He wrote:

“‘If the extradition law is passed, it is a death sentence for Hong Kong,’ said Lam Wing-kee in a crowded coffee shop in Taipei. ‘Beijing will use this law to control Hong Kong completely. Freedom of speech will be lost. In the past, the regime kidnapped its critics like me illegally. With this law, they will abduct their critics legally.’

Yet Lam Wing-kee, 63, knows from first-hand experience what the consequences of this change to the extradition law could be, and how the Chinese Communist party behaves. On 24 October 2015, Lam, who managed a bookshop and publishing business in Causeway Bay that sold books critical of China’s leadership, was arrested as he crossed the border into mainland China in Shenzhen. There then followed an eight-month nightmare in which he was first imprisoned in Ningbo and then moved to Shaoguan, a small mountain town in Guangdong province where he was assigned to work in a library—better off than in prison, but still not free and completely cut off from the outside world.

‘I was not physically tortured, but mentally I was threatened and subjected to brainwashing,’ he said.

When he was first arrested, Lam was forced to sign two statements: surrendering his right to inform his family of his whereabouts and his right to a lawyer. Over the eight months he was held in China, he was forced to write confessions more than 20 times. Several times he was filmed, with an interrogator behind him whom he could not see, and these were then broadcast on national television—one of many forced televised confessions that have become a feature of Xi Jinping’s regime.

‘I didn’t write what they wanted me to write, they would write it for me,’ Lam said. ‘If my confession was not satisfactory, they would tell me what to write.’”

That is the reality of the criminal justice system to which we now countenance, or see Hong Kong countenancing, returning people from Hong Kong. That is exactly why it was decided, back at the time of the creation of the joint declaration, that matters such as this should be excluded from it, and that surely is why it is now wrong that we should sit back and just watch the People’s Republic of China ride roughshod over that agreement and the legal obligations into which it entered in 1984.

This afternoon, I was privileged to speak by telephone to Dennis Kwok from the Hong Kong Legislative Council, and he said to me that the Second Reading of this Bill will be on Wednesday—the Minister knows that. He accepts that the remaining stages will be done over the course of possibly the next two weeks at most. When I asked the Minister today what that would mean for the consultation to which our Government aspired, he declined to answer—unsurprisingly, perhaps—so let me ask him again. If the Hong Kong Executive go down this road and the Bill passes all its stages by, say, a week or a fortnight on Wednesday, what is the Government’s position going to be? How on earth will they possibly get the wider, longer, more meaningful consultation on which they have pinned so many hopes thus far? I just do not see it happening.

If the Minister will not answer that question, will he at least give the House some assurance that there is a plan B, that we are taking steps and that the message is going to the Chinese Government now that if that situation comes to pass, our Government will not just sit by and watch this tragedy—that is exactly what it would be—unfolding? Our Government need to do more. We need to assert the rights of the people of Hong Kong that we undertook to guarantee when we left in 1997.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I really appreciate the fact that we are having this debate because it is a pressing issue, as I know the Minister is aware. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me on two points. First, does he agree that we have a duty of care to the people of Hong Kong until 2047? Secondly—this is a very selfish concern, but I wonder if the Minister also shares it—does he agree that we have extradition treaties with Hong Kong, so it is possible that we could extradite someone for a fair trial in Hong Kong but that they could end up being tried in China?

[Mr Carmichael]

That is absolutely the case. I hope that our Government would take assurances that that would not happen if they were to extradite anyone to Hong Kong. But, frankly, if the Government of Hong Kong are able to disregard the joint declaration in the way that they do, I am afraid that I do not set any great store by their willingness to abide by the assurances of the sort that we might expect in the normal course of things. It comes back to the point about adherence to and respect for the international rule of law and a rules-based order system.

There is a great deal more that I could say, but I know that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) wants to speak for a couple of minutes and I am keen to ensure that the Minister has every opportunity to give the fullest explanation of the Government’s position, especially given the number of hon. Members who have stayed behind for this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for initiating this debate and for continually highlighting developments in Hong Kong. I also express my gratitude for the contributions and sincere interest—perhaps silent interest in some cases—expressed by a number of hon. Members here, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). Clarifying with the Hong Kong Government what these proposals will mean is clearly something that I intend to do in very quick order.

This was billed as a slightly more general debate, and given that we had an urgent question earlier, I do not wish to spend this time entirely by simply covering the same old ground, important though that ground is, but let me start with a few words about the UK’s relationship with China. We believe that we have a constructive relationship based on a strong economic partnership but also our position as leading nations of the world. The UK and China are both, of course, P5 nations of the United Nations. Trade and investment links are at record levels, and people-to-people links, particularly among Chinese students—the largest single cohort in the UK—are thriving.

The UK’s approach to China is pragmatic. It maximises the benefits of co-operation while doing its best to protect our national security. As G20 members with seats on the UN Security Council, the UK and China can do more than most to address a range of global challenges. From medical research to sustainable development, we have co-operated, and will continue to do so, for our mutual benefit in ways that support global prosperity, security and stability.

Of course, this partnership has its challenges. China’s growing influence is putting pressure on the global rules-based system, and we regularly express our very real concerns about issues, including its stance on human rights, its respect for certain international agreements and its failure fully to protect intellectual property. But we work with China where doing so is in line with our values and protects our national interests, including the security of our people and businesses. We are clear and direct where we believe that China’s actions are incompatible with those values.

The UK Government are acutely and continually aware of our historical responsibility towards Hong Kong, specifically as one of the joint signatories of the 1984 joint declaration that established the principle of one country, two systems. That joint declaration is a legally binding treaty registered, as I said, with the UN. Its objectives clearly apply to both signatories—the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the UK. It remains in force and remains relevant to the conduct of life in Hong Kong. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that it remains faithfully implemented for the period up to 2047, as the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) rightly mentioned.

The one country, two systems principle provides Hong Kong with the foundations for success as a truly global financial centre and prosperous world city, as touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). It safeguards Hong Kong’s capitalist economic system, its high degree of autonomy, its system of common law, its independent judiciary, and the rights and freedoms of its people and those who are lawfully residing there. However, as the Government’s most recent six-monthly reports have made clear, we believe that important areas of the one country, two systems framework are coming under increasing pressure. I take this opportunity to reassure the House that we engage in an ongoing and frank dialogue—a sometimes private, but frank dialogue—with the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities about the implementation of the joint declaration.

Turning to our relationship with the Hong Kong Government, I want to stress that we have warm, constructive and positive links across a wide range of other issues. As an example, just last month, I joined the start of the inaugural UK-Hong Kong Government-to-Government financial dialogue, led on our side by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. This involved the two Governments discussing co-operation between our globally leading financial services centres, building on rich industry-to-industry links. I welcome the decision for the UK to be the partner country for Hong Kong’s Business of Design Week this year. It is the largest design festival in Asia and it is our pleasure to support Hong Kong in this area. It is also a great opportunity to showcase the global reputation of the UK’s creative sector.

It is also right that we take the opportunity to turn our minds collectively to the ramifications of the Hong Kong Government’s contentious proposals to change their extradition laws, following a highly publicised homicide in Taiwan, allegedly carried out by a Hong Kong national. Civil society groups, including organisations that represent legal professionals and businessfolk in Hong Kong, have aired deep concerns about both the content of the proposals and the short consultation period. They fear above all that Hong Kong nationals and residents risk being pulled into China’s legal system, which can, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland pointed out, involve lengthy pre-trial detentions, televised confessions and an absence of many of the judicial safeguards that we see in Hong Kong.

[Mr Carmichael]

The element of the two systems arrangements that I think most people consider most important is the existence of an independent judiciary in Hong Kong. That is why, when people hear about so-called concessions being made on human rights protections, they insist that those protections are written into law, because they are then judicially enforceable. Is the Minister prepared to take that message back to the Executive?

[Mark Field]

Absolutely, and I entirely endorse what the right hon. Gentleman says.

We note that the Hong Kong Government have tried to provide reassurance that no one will be transferred to China for political, religious or ethnic reasons and welcome their recent efforts to react to the unprecedented level of public concern—we understand that roughly one seventh of the population of Hong Kong was on the streets, peacefully during much of yesterday afternoon. However, we are clear that those reassurances and the changes proposed fail to address fully a number of core issues that we have raised.

We have been and will remain unequivocal about our concerns. The Foreign Secretary recently issued a joint statement with his Canadian counterpart, setting out our concerns about the potential impact of the proposals on the large number of UK and Canadian citizens in Hong Kong, on business confidence and on Hong Kong’s international reputation, but of course it also applies to the many other non-Hong Kong nationals who are living and working on the island and the New Territories. The joint UK-Canadian statement noted that the proposals risk undermining the rights and freedoms set out in the joint declaration and are at odds with the spirit of one country, two systems.

Our consul general in Hong Kong, Andy Heyn, has made statements on this issue locally over recent months, including in a TV interview, where he set out our concerns. UK officials have had a number of conversations with the Hong Kong Government and other interested parties about the proposals at working, technical and senior levels. We have had full and detailed discussions with Chief Executive Carrie Lam, both bilaterally and as part of an EU démarche, and we will continue to have such discussions.

We have had a dialogue with a number of members of the Hong Kong Legislative Council and Executive Council. The issues we have raised include the potential implications for our bilateral extradition treaty with Hong Kong and the potential consequences for the UK business community and other British citizens living in Hong Kong. We have urged the Hong Kong Government to allow for a longer consultation period, given the fundamental importance of the issues raised. We believe that the proposals must undergo full and proper scrutiny, including in the Legislative Council, and I am as concerned as the right hon. Gentleman about the notion that they could be rushed through within the next fortnight or so.

I believe that Hong Kong’s lawmakers and members of civil society have put forward a number of alternative solutions, including the additional human rights safeguards, which must now be included in the proposed legislation. We believe that proper consideration must be given to all those alternative solutions as part of a comprehensive, ongoing consultation.

Despite those concerns, we do not assess that the proposals in themselves breach the joint declaration, although we will clearly keep that in mind, as the treaty did not explicitly deal with extradition arrangements. Nevertheless, the proposals undoubtedly would reduce the separation between the justice systems in Hong Kong and on the mainland and, therefore, would provide a very worrying precedent.

As the House will be aware, the operation of the court system in mainland China is very different from the one that applies in Hong Kong. Voices from within Hong Kong and the wider international community have expressed concern that fear of extradition to China could cause a chilling effect on Hong Kong’s rights and freedoms and, more insidiously, might result in increased self-censorship. Most recently, the Hong Kong chamber of commerce has called for wide-ranging protections in the legislation.

As Members have rightly pointed out, the rule of law is the absolute cornerstone of one country, two systems, and confidence in it is essential for sustaining and maintaining Hong Kong’s reputation as a global financial and professional services hub. That has been made abundantly clear to me in my two visits to Hong Kong as a Minister. I am hoping obviously to visit the island at some point later this year for a third time. Ultimately, I believe it is imperative that any changes to the extradition arrangements from Hong Kong to mainland China respect Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy and will not impact on the rights and freedoms set down in the joint declaration.

It is now, as many of us will know, almost 22 years on from the handover of Hong Kong to China and the UK Government’s commitment to the joint declaration remains as robust as ever. We do issue six-monthly reports and, in the two years I have been a Minister, we have expressed concern, at each and every six-monthly report, that there has been a diminution in the exercise of one country, two systems, at least as far as too many political rights are concerned. We are committed to playing a rightful part in helping Hong Kong to prosper to go forward. Where we identify risks to Hong Kong’s continued success and autonomy, we will have no qualms in raising them. We shall continue to stress to the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities that, for confidence in that system to be maintained, Hong Kong must continue to enjoy a full measure of the high degree of autonomy and the rule of law as set out in the joint declaration.

I am grateful to all Members of the House, and particularly to the right hon. Gentleman, for the opportunity to state the Government’s position on this very important issue.

Question put and agreed to.