Amnesty International Offices in Hong Kong

Bob Seely Excerpts

Monday 15th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Rosindell]

The right hon. Gentleman pre-empts what I was going to say later, and he is entirely correct that we should not be giving any legitimacy to this regime any longer.

The crackdown is clearly undermining the business environment in the city and Hong Kong’s status as a global financial centre, as British-based banks and businesses fear the extension of Beijing’s foreign anti-sanctions law which would require them to ignore US sanctions, and new requirements under the national security law force them to become even more complicit in the crackdown by disclosing the property of suspects. The growing number of US firms reported to be leaving the city and the warnings about the Hong Kong Government’s dwindling surplus are key indicators of this contagion.

So, what should the UK as a co-signatory to the joint declaration do in response to what the former Foreign Secretary my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab) has labelled China’s “ongoing non-compliance” with upholding its international commitments to the people of Hong Kong?

First, the Government need to look at what more can be done to support civil society in Hong Kong, which is currently under dreadful assault. In particular, the Minister should outline what plans the Government have to ensure the flow of information and reporting on the human rights situation now that both Amnesty and Human Rights Watch have been forced to close down.

Secondly, Ministers must reconsider the participation of sitting UK judges on the Hong Kong court of final appeal. As the human rights situation continues to deteriorate at a worrying pace, it is clear that these judges are powerless to moderate Beijing’s behaviour. Instead, they are offering political cover for a Government in Hong Kong who have lost all legitimacy.

Thirdly, Ministers need to stop dragging their feet when it comes to using the Magnitsky sanctions against the Hong Kong and Chinese officials responsible for these abuses. What signal does it send to our closest allies and partners in the region when the UK is unwilling to sanction individuals who have violated an international treaty with the United Kingdom and are systematically abusing human rights?

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend, who serves on the Foreign Affairs Committee with me; he does a great job and it is wonderful to sit on that Committee with him. Sadly, I am one of the people named by the Chinese authorities in the course of some of the cases against democracy activists, which pains me greatly. Does my hon. Friend agree that what we need in relation to China, and indeed Russia, and which we are still slightly waiting for, is an integrated policy that does not turn a blind eye to these awful human rights abuses, but integrates them into the intelligent and balanced response that our state needs, including on human rights?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I am proud to serve with my hon. Friend on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and he speaks very wisely about this topic. I am sorry that his name has been published on this list; I am sure that after tonight mine will be on the list as well. I have twice been refused entry to Hong Kong, and the time has come for all Members of this House to be on that list, and to speak up against this totalitarian regime which is undermining the incredible freedoms, liberties and democracy that were left after the United Kingdom looked after Hong Kong as a Crown colony. The betrayal is unforgiveable, and this House must be united in its stand against the regime in Beijing and all the damage it is doing to the lives and freedoms of the people of Hong Kong.

Finally, the Government must look again at the question of young Hong Kongers who are currently barred from the British national overseas visa scheme. Like many Members, I fully supported the introduction of the scheme, but it cannot be right that nearly 200 Hong Kongers are now in the UK asylum system, many of whom have at least one parent who is BNO. This needs to be reviewed.

As the Minister may be aware, there is a new clause to the Borders and Nationality Bill, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) and also carries my name, that would require the Government to register a Hongkonger who can prove that they have one BNO parent for the BNO visa scheme. I hope that the Government will look favourably on that new clause and consider adopting it as we approach Report stage of the Bill.

In addition, there are 301 ex-Hong Kong servicemen seeking right of abode, which a further amendment to that Bill would grant. The Minister will know that I chair the parliamentary campaign for the right of abode for Hong Kong ex-servicemen, and I urge her please to look at this issue with some urgency. Justice needs to be done, and we have a duty to these loyal Hongkongers, who have served Queen and country and now look to Britain to give them the same loyalty in return. It is not much to ask, and I urge the Minister to take action immediately.

The human rights crisis in Hong Kong is far from over. In the next few weeks, we will see the national security trials of student activist Tony Chung and the former owner of Apple Daily, Jimmy Lai; further civil society groups will undoubtedly close; Legislative Council elections will take place under Beijing’s new system, and the threat of further national security legislation looms. The question on everyone’s minds is, what will the UK do about this? We cannot stand by in silence. We cannot watch it continue and take no action. I genuinely hope that the Minister will provide some of the answers to the questions I have posed. It is indeed Her Majesty’s Government’s duty to do so.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Vicky Ford)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) for securing this debate, and I pay tribute to his work on the Foreign Affairs Committee. I thank all those other hon. Members who have intervened tonight. The Minister for Asia, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling), would have been delighted to take part in the debate, but she is currently hosting the premiers of the overseas territories at a Joint Ministerial Council event, so I will respond on behalf of the Government. I will make some background points and then address some of the specific questions that my hon. Friend raised.

This continues to be the most concerning period in Hong Kong’s post-handover history. I acknowledge and share the deep concern of this House. The Chinese and Hong Kong authorities have taken a number of actions to stifle dissent and to suppress the expression of alternative political views in Hong Kong. Those include the imposition of the national security law in June last year, the mass arrest of politicians and activists, the disqualification of electoral candidates, and changes to Hong Kong’s own election processes.

On 25 October, Amnesty International announced that it would withdraw from Hong Kong by the end of this year. Amnesty says that the national security law is making it impossible to work freely without fear of Government reprisals. We have also seen the enforced closure of other non-governmental organisations and prosecution of their members under that law. Mainland Chinese and Hong Kong authorities have used the law to curtail freedoms, to punish dissent and to shrink the space for opposition, free press and civil society.

Since 2016, the UK has declared four breaches of the Sino-British joint declaration in response to Beijing’s actions. The joint declaration was registered with the UN on 12 June 1985. It is a legally binding international treaty that remains in force today. The joint declaration made it clear that Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy, rights and freedoms would remain unchanged for 50 years from 1997. China undertook to uphold those freedoms of speech, of the press and of assembly, but the mainland Chinese authorities have shown an increasing propensity to breach their obligations in relation to Hong Kong. The national security law imposed on Hong Kong by Beijing in June 2020 contains a slew of measures that directly undermine those rights and freedoms. China’s own basic law for Hong Kong makes it clear that the territory should put forward and enact its own security legislation, but the direct imposition of the national security law clearly contravenes that.

Last year, China’s National People’s Congress Standing Committee imposed new rules to disqualify elected legislators in Hong Kong. Last March, the National People’s Congress unilaterally decided to change Hong Kong’s election system. The changes give Chinese authorities greater control over who stands for elected office. Last month, 55 district councillors were disqualified and over 250 were pressured to resign for political reasons. This is a systematic and determined effort by Beijing to bring Hong Kong under its control, erasing the space for alternative political views and for legitimate political debate.

The UK Government are committed to holding China to account. We responded quickly and decisively to the enactment of the national security law. Following its introduction, the UK declared China to be in breach of the joint declaration, and we have declared two further breaches since then—that is three breaches in the space of just nine months. The UK now believes that China is in an ongoing state of non-compliance with the joint declaration.

[Bob Seely]

What realistic price is China paying for destroying democracy in Hong Kong?

[Vicky Ford]

China is paying a huge price for taking those actions against Hong Kong, not least China’s reputation on the international stage and let alone the impact it is having on the people of Hong Kong, which I will come on to now.

Last year, the UK introduced a bespoke immigration route for British nationals overseas and their dependants, providing a path to citizenship. The route opened on 31 January 2021. By 30 June, nearly 65,000 people had applied for the BNO route. We also suspended our extradition treaty with Hong Kong indefinitely and extended our arms embargo on mainland China to Hong Kong. All of that answers my hon. Friend’s question about what price China is paying.

We have led action in the international community through our G7 presidency. In June, 44 countries supported a joint statement on Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Tibet at the UN Human Rights Council. In July, we co-sponsored an event on Hong Kong during the UN Human Rights Council, speaking alongside a number of UN special rapporteurs. In October, we delivered a national statement during the United Nations Third Committee, reiterating our deep concerns about the deterioration of fundamental freedoms in Hong Kong under the national security law. The Chinese and Hong Kong authorities can be in no doubt about the seriousness of our concerns, and those of the international community.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Bob Seely Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. Specifically on EUFOR, as I said, the UK and the United States of America were vocal in our support of the mandate renewal and we are very pleased that that happened. Although we are not formally a member of EUFOR, we have seconded staff officers to support capability-building work and we have given direct support to the Bosnia and Herzegovina armed forces, which are an essential part of the security framework. As I said, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will speak at the upcoming NATO Foreign Ministers meeting and push for more focus and resource on Bosnia and Herzegovina, and for the collective need to push back against Russia’s actions in the area. With regard to what we might do next, that will need to be a collective decision by the international community, because working in accord with each other is the only way we will make meaningful progress. However, I can assure the hon. Lady that this is, and will remain, a very clear focus for UK foreign policy in the region.

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) for securing the urgent question. As someone who spent time in Yugoslavia during the wars of the 1990s, I do not underestimate how unpleasant this could get, and how violent and how quickly. I want to look at Russia. We know it has been selling arms to the ethnic Serbian police. We know it has form in handing out passports to people in conflict areas as a reason for intervention. We also know there is now significant potential for European Union forces to come into direct conflict with Russian proxies. Is the Minister aware of the true danger of that situation, and that it follows a pattern not only in the western Balkans, but in eastern Ukraine and, now, on the Belarus border? We, and NATO and the EU, are being significantly tested. Do we have a policy?

[James Cleverly]

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his points. I recognise the contribution he has made and his understanding of the issues in the region. He is right that those of us who remember the headlines and images that came out of the region not that long ago are horrified at the prospect that it might slip back into that level of violence. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) visited the region extensively earlier this year. She and our officials are well aware—well aware—of the circumstances on the ground. We will, as I say, continue to work with our international partners, both European partners and NATO partners, to do everything we can to prevent the region slipping back into the kind of horrific sectarian bloodshed we saw, sadly, only 26 years ago.

Afghanistan: FCDO Responses to Members

Bob Seely Excerpts

Thursday 9th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

Two hundred thousand emails were received. Although it is absolutely the case that the people in Afghanistan—whether they be British nationals, Afghans who worked for us or at-risk Afghans—are a priority, it is just not possible to open, analyse and respond to 200,000 emails in the same timescale that we would normally be able to.

The commitment made by my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister was discharged: every single MP received a response so that they knew that their email had been received and opened and would be worked on. The detail on where those emails have been triaged to and, in respect of cases that are being dealt with by the FCDO, the initial status of cases will be, as I said, provided to right hon. and hon. Member from all parties by 16 September. The commitment that was made was discharged. We will continue to work on behalf of British nationals and at-risk Afghans and we will ensure that any correspondence received directly by the FCDO is triaged and sent to the most appropriate Government Department for processing.

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I would like to thank all the officials who have been dealing with this matter, and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who has raised a really important subject. I will come straight to the point. How confident is the Minister that the UK will be able to reach and get out of Afghanistan those Afghan folks who worked with us, not so much in Kabul but in Helmand and Kandahar provinces, where they served alongside the UK military and took the greatest risks to their own safety and that of their families? What is the chance of getting hold of those people who are now trapped hundreds of miles from Kabul?

[James Cleverly]

The ministerial team at the FCDO, including the Foreign Secretary, have been liaising extensively with both neighbouring countries and countries in the region to facilitate the evacuation of Afghans who have worked with us. It is not possible—it is not possible—to make cast iron guarantees. There is no functioning Government in Afghanistan, but we are liaising intensively with neighbouring countries to give the Afghans the very best chance of escaping the Taliban regime.

Human Rights: Xinjiang

Bob Seely Excerpts

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) on securing this important debate. I pay tribute to the wonderful and important work that she has been doing on this issue. Human rights abuses in Xinjiang are abhorrent, and I listened painfully to what my hon. Friend said about the disgusting forced sterilisation, and to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said about the equally repugnant organ harvesting. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) spoke with perpetual eloquence on Tibet and other issues related to China.

In the time available, I would like to speak to three brief points: first, the importance of recognising what is happening; secondly, specifically for the Minister, the importance of developing a policy in an inconsistent world that is morally and practically defensible; and, thirdly, what the UK is often very good at, which is building alliances around the world to protect what one might call ethical sustainability for the 21st century.

On the first point—I will be wary of time, Mr Deputy Speaker—we need to recognise the systematic suffering of other human beings whose lives are being damaged because they are being targeted en masse. That is important in itself. As certain Members have already said, we do it for the same reason that we did it in the Balkans and in Syria in recent years. We have done it in past decades in the holocaust and now have started to do with the Ukrainian holodomor—the mass starvation of the Ukrainians in the 1930s by Stalin.

The painstaking recording of death, of lives cruelly ended and of human suffering speaks to a shared ethical core of humanity and our need to record what has happened to other human beings. We do that in memory of the dead, but we also do it in recognition of the living. In relation to Syria, for example, a lot of work done recently by good people tracing the deaths, the murders and the mass slaughters has been funded by the FCDO. I congratulate it on its foresight in that, but it prompts the question whether it will be doing the same in Xinjiang. Might it start doing the same in Tibet, too? That is the first point. We record these things because they need to be recorded.

Secondly, we need a practical policy towards China that is defensible in an inconsistent world. Many improvements have been made to our policy on China in recent years by this Government, and I give them credit. We have moved on from the embarrassment of George Osborne turning up in Xinjiang about 10 years ago—that was just awful. It is nice to have politicians with an ethical strain running through them.

Janus-like, we still have two conflicting policies. One from the Foreign Office pledges to put human rights at the heart of everything we do, but our trade policy seeks to trade without asking too many questions. We have Foreign Ministers, including the Secretary of State, eloquently criticising China while Trade Ministers in the other House ingratiate themselves and dismiss human rights. This is not consistent. We pontificate on Africa, but are strangely silent on central Asia and China. It makes us look foolish and as though our values are somewhat tradeable.

We have heard of the Confucius institutes problem, the endless issues we have with the universities, and the plying for covert influence that China and Russia do in this country. We need policy—domestically and in foreign affairs—that is practical and morally defensible. No one can unilaterally change the world, not even the United States or China and not the UK, but we do have influence, and we need to understand the importance of developing consistency. Okay, we trade with China, but we need to limit our dependency.

I did a report with the Henry Jackson Society. A quarter of our British supply chain is dominated by China. The problem is that if we go further down that route, we end up like New Zealand, in a hell of an ethical mess, with a Prime Minister who virtue-signals while crudely sucking up to China and backing out of the Five Eyes agreement, which is an appallingly short-sighted thing to be doing. On that point, we need to stand shoulder to shoulder with Australia. That is a tired cliché, but the Australians are calling out China, and doing so at trade risk. We need to make sure they do not pay an ethical price, and that brings me to the third point.

The one thing in our strategic culture that we are probably unique at—apart from being an island, which clearly shapes our geography and our outlook on the world—is that we have genuinely been better than any other nation on the planet at building alliances, whether that is from the colonial days or in the days of Europe and Protestants versus Catholics and all that. We need to build alliances for the 21st century. In the 21st century, there are two visions of humanity: there are open and free societies where political leaders are answerable to the people, and there are closed societies, which, through the use of artificial intelligence and big data, are becoming ever-more dominant and threatening to their people. We have to make sure our universal values survive, not only here but globally, so that, despite Russia, China and other regimes, they continue to be the go-to values for humanity for this century.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We have 10 speakers left and there are about 45 minutes, so Members have four and a half minutes. Particularly if Members are speaking remotely, could they please keep an eye on timing devices and bring it in below five minutes?

Treatment of Uyghur Women: Xinjiang Detention Camps

Bob Seely Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Adams]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. We are taking action. We have taken action with regard to Xinjiang. We have raised this directly with the Chinese authorities; the Foreign Secretary has raised it with his direct counterpart, and I have raised it with China’s ambassador—now the former ambassador—to the UK. We announced a series of measures in January, and we funded the research that helped build the evidence base for what is going on in Xinjiang. We will continue to work not just on our own but with our international partners to ensure that China is held to its international obligations.

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con) [V]]

First, I thank the Minister for his work. He is a good Minister; it is a difficult brief, and he does his job diligently. However, does the Foreign Office believe that it is ethically right to sign preferential treaties with states credibly accused of genocide? Systematic rape, sexual torture, forced sterilisation, re-education camps, forced labour, Orwellian surveillance—this is a tragedy happening in our time and it demands moral recognition, so why are the Government blocking our meaningful genocide amendment to the Trade Bill? Will they please work with us to introduce a meaningful amendment to that Bill that recognises the criticality—the moral imperative—of recognising genocide, and a genocide that is happening now, in our age?

[Nigel Adams]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments; I knew there was going to be a “however” or a “but” at some point. I know how passionate he is about this issue. To his first question, of course it is not right that we should be entering into these agreements with genocidal countries. I can again be absolutely clear that we understand the strength of his feeling on this matter, and that of other hon. and right hon. Members. We want to work, and we are working, with hon. and right hon. Members right across the House—work that will continue in the run-up to next Tuesday, when the Bill comes back to this place.

Hong Kong: Sentencing of Pro-democracy Activists

Bob Seely Excerpts

Monday 7th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Adams]

I thank the hon. Lady for visiting the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office last week to discuss this issue. That offer has been made available to other parties and is very much available to the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith). I would have been meeting the Opposition spokesman on Asia this afternoon had it not been for this urgent question, but I am sure we will be able to get that re-diarised.

We have made a very compassionate and generous offer in terms of BNOs, which has been broadly welcomed. The existing youth mobility scheme is open to people in Hong Kong aged between 18 and 30. There are currently 1,000 places available each year. Dependants of relevant BNO passport holders are allowed to come here, and youngsters aged between 18 and 30 will be eligible to apply for those 1,000 places. Individuals from Hong Kong will also be able to apply to come to the UK under the terms of the UK’s new points-based system.

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con) [V]]

First, does the Minister at least recognise that it is probably only a matter of time before we pull UK judges from Hong Kong courts? Secondly, will he at least condemn the actions of HSBC? Frankly, its directors should hang their heads in shame. HSBC is freezing the accounts of Hong Kong citizens fearing oppression, and this afternoon, it has started freezing the accounts of churches in Hong Kong. Thirdly, he said that the new national security law should not be used to oppress people. Maybe I misheard him, but is it not patently obvious that that is what it is now being used for?

[Nigel Adams]

There were quite a few questions there. Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to apply for a Westminster Hall debate or some such; given his expertise in this area, that is probably not a bad idea. As I said, British judges have played an important role in supporting the independence of Hong Kong’s judiciary for many years, and we want that to continue. If there were no independent judiciary in Hong Kong, that would naturally play into China’s hands.

China’s Policy on its Uyghur Population

Bob Seely Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I promise to keep my jacket on for the whole sitting, Mr Gray.

I am going to mention three things briefly, slightly echoing other Members: first, consistency; secondly, forced labour; and thirdly, China’s surveillance state. Before I begin, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on the work that IPAC has been doing to bring all these things to light. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) on her work. My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), the Chair of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, will lead an inquiry on the Uyghurs, and I look forward to participating in that.

Consistency is important. We lack capacity to change China’s policy, but recognition of what is happening is important in its own right. Not to recognise it and avoid it, and avoid discussing it, puts us in moral jeopardy. Recognising that something is happening—it may be an obvious statement—is the first step in actually being able to do something. That brings me on to forced labour. We can all be outraged, but outrage—there is an awful lot of it in Parliament, especially on foreign affairs questions—does not necessarily produce anything. What could produce something is some kind of work on forced labour. Freedom from oppression should be one of our new foreign policy goals.

I would love to know what the Government are doing on the issue of forced labour. Are they preparing a report on the issue of supply chains and forced labour? If not, why can we not do so? One hundred or 200 Members of Parliament, as the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) said, could highlight western firms that profited from forced labour, and we could write to all those people. I know of Huawei, as I have said, but there are many others, as she pointed out. If wrote to all those people and said, “Do you really want your customers to wear the product of slave labour?”, we would not necessarily need Government to act, because we could act ourselves. I wonder whether that is something that collectively we could do.

Finally, on China’s surveillance state, there are two models for the 21st century for humanity: first, there is the western liberal model, however tarnished and however much Google and Facebook try to privatise all our personal information. That is still the great hope for humanity: government under law; politicians under law; with people at least nominally sovereign, and hopefully supreme over them. The alternative is the model that we see in the new authoritarian states, primarily Russia, but also China, of a surveillance system that is made much more powerful by big data, artificial intelligence and politicians who want to engineer dissent out of humanity. That is what we are seeing in China—we are seeing the sharp edge of that not only in Tibet but in Xinjiang province, so there is much to play for in the 21st century.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bob Seely]

rose—

[Nigel Adams]

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

[Bob Seely]

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

[Nigel Adams]

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

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

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

China

Bob Seely Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I have already raised with Mike Pompeo, as well as with my other Five Eyes partners, not just the Magnitsky sanctions regime that we have put in place but the designations. We have also given due consideration to co-operation on future evidence. It is important that there is an evidence-based approach, although there is of course political accountability, and we will carefully gather and assess the evidence.

In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question about priorities, we have set out, through a policy note published in the Library of the House, the criteria that we will apply and the policy approach. That stresses the nature of the violations, their severity and our ability to hold to account the individuals at the right levels—sufficiently senior—so that we send the right message.

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I agree with so much of what the Secretary of State is saying about the need for balance, about the criticality of China and about respect for what it has achieved, but the signal truth is that the China we hoped for is not the China that we are now getting. We need a much more significant reset in our relationship in respect of not only Hong Kong but foreign lobbying, foreign investment, espionage—industrial or otherwise—human rights and our alliances and defence posture. Will the Secretary State confirm whether we are approaching all these issues piecemeal or whether there is a wider reset? If there is a wider reset, will he explain how the Government are interacting with parliamentarians and outside experts, and how that more comprehensive reset is going to be presented to Parliament so that we can all get to debate it and contribute to it?

Official Development Assistance

Bob Seely Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I start by making it absolutely clear that I regard the decision to dismantle DFID as a quite extraordinary mistake. First, it will destroy one of the most effective and respected engines of international development in the world. Secondly, many of the senior figures who are key to Britain’s role as a development superpower are likely to leave and work elsewhere in the international system, destroying at a stroke a key aspect of global Britain. Thirdly, it is completely unnecessary, as the Prime Minister exercises full control and line of sight over DFID’s strategy and priorities through the National Security Council. Churches, faith communities and hundreds—thousands—of supporters up and down the country of Oxfam, Save the Children, Christian Aid and CAFOD are dismayed, as are our many friends around the world, who are shaking their heads in disbelief at this extraordinary act.

Both the Foreign Office and DFID work ceaselessly in Britain’s national interest, but foreign affairs and development, while totally complementary, are not the same thing. I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to the 0.7%, but that involves both the money and the OECD rules on what constitutes legitimate aid and official development assistance, and I fear that we will shortly hear that the rules are not quite right for the United Kingdom and we need our own rules. With that, the 0,7% will go up in smoke as the stronger interests plunder the budget and Britain’s development effectiveness dissolves, and with it our international reputation as a world leader in the field.

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I absolutely respect my right hon. Friend’s experience. Does he accept that currently, including ODA and non-ODA, we spend nearly 0.8% funding overseas operations in Iraq?

[Mr Mitchell]

The House will understand why I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me an extra minute, but I have learned during my 30 years in Parliament that, in politics, there is limited point in spending one’s time howling at the moon. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the decision, it has been made, so I will turn now to how best it can be implemented, with the least damage to Britain’s brilliant work and reputation.

I draw the Minister’s attention to the excellent paper produced by Stefan Dercon, who was the chief economist in the Department when I was Secretary of State. I know the Foreign Secretary has had a chance to look at it. I hope the Foreign Office will bear in mind the constructive comments made in that wise and thoughtful paper on how to make the merger work. First It is important to ensure a whole-of-Government approach to the spending of development money. Different Departments spend it, but not consistently, and most of the spend that attracts hostile comment in the press—the spend in China, for example, or the Newton fund—is not spent by DFID. In my first hour as Secretary of State, I stopped all spending to China, unless it was legally incurred. There is a danger that mis-spending by other Departments brings the budget into disrepute with our constituents, and I urge the Government to focus on that point.

Secondly, to ensure an emphasis on the quality of the spend, the ICAI looks at all spending. Its annual report comes out tomorrow, and I urge colleagues to read it. ICAI was set up in the teeth of opposition from the development sector, but it is extremely important for holding to account the quality of spending. It is the taxpayers’ friend, and we must drive up the quality of ODA spend across Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on calling this debate. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess). I will try to make three or four points as briefly as possible.

The idea that foreign policy is separate from aid has been well and truly kicked into touch by my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts). Whether we like it or not, there is a link between them, and it is better to recognise that, to understand that foreign policy should be moral as well as aid and to understand their combination.

I would ask the Minister three things. First, can we look at strategy as part of global Britain? We have the National Security Council. However, I feel that since the end of the cold war we have been a little complacent in preparing for future problems.

We need a national strategy council to permanently look five and 10 years ahead, whether that is into pandemics, the behaviour of nation states such as China and Russia, or climate change. We are not forward-thinking enough, and that is one of the contributions I would like us to make to understand how we can bring strategy more into our forward-looking policy.

Secondly, when it comes to overseas spending, when I was writing the “Global Britain” document last year that the Prime Minister very kindly wrote the foreword for, we tried to understand where our overseas money was going. Some of it was being spent by the Department for International Development, some by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, some by the Home Office and some by the Foreign Office—quite badly, often. I can congratulate DFID on the quality of its spending, no doubt about it. We do not have an audit of our overseas spending, and I believe that we badly need one. There is no doubt in this House that poverty alleviation is critical—it is moral; it is right; it is good. Grassroots development is critical—it is moral, right and good.

My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) talked about gender-based violence. I was involved in the campaign against ISIS when we were trying to liberate Mosul and it haunts me still, and makes me deeply upset still, that we knew that we were trying to liberate a city where not only were people being tortured, but women were being raped until their internal organs were collapsing and dying. These things are deeply worrying, and we need strategy. We need DFID and the Foreign Office to be working together on this, but there is a lot of DFID spending that is not on priority areas and spending that is justifiably questionable, so can we please have an audit of overseas spending?

In the 30 seconds I have left, I say that we do need to look again at ODA. We are permanently trying to revise the rules on ODA and we should not be ashamed to do so. For example, we can fund a coal-fired power station but we cannot fund the BBC to develop civil society. I believe that the BBC World Service should be funded from ODA.

[Harriett Baldwin]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Bob Seely]

I would love to, but Madam Deputy Speaker, you are indicating that I should not—I have 10 seconds left. Peacekeeping—MOD peacekeeping—and the BBC should also be funded more than they are from ODA.

Hong Kong National Security Legislation

Bob Seely Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I share that sentiment, and that is exactly the policy and the measures that we have set out in the statement I have made today.

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con) [V]]

I thank the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary for their very welcome support for BNOs. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that this dreadful law is proof that China has changed? I hope he sees the clear agreement in the House that we need a new strategic approach to this communist dictatorship, not just the naive hope that China will change into what we want it to be. We were slow to prepare for the new authoritarianism in Russia and now in China. Will he take the feelings and sentiments that he has heard today from the House on Huawei and other issues onboard?

[Dominic Raab]

I certainly always pay very close attention to the remarks that my hon. Friend makes on China, which he follows very closely. He is right that we have special responsibilities to the BNOs. We look at the relationship right across the board—every aspect of it—through the National Security Council, in the Foreign Office and more broadly across Whitehall. I personally do not agree with the cold war analogy he has provided. I think that not only the opportunities, but the challenges that China presents in the 21st century are different, partly as a result of technology and such things as cyber and partly just because of the unique nature of China as a country. We want a positive relationship. I and the Government do not want a bad relationship to become a self-fulfilling prophecy, but what is equally clear—I can reassure my hon. Friend of this—is that we will not do anything that imperils our vital interests, and we will not lie down and sacrifice our values for the purposes of trade, commerce or anything like that.