British and Overseas Judges: Hong Kong

I remind Members that Erskine May states:

“Reflections on the judge’s character or motives cannot be made except on a—

substantive—

motion.”

I hope Members will bear that in mind when making their contributions. I call Sir Iain Duncan Smith to move the motion.

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the role of British and overseas judges in Hong Kong.

It is a pleasure and a privilege to serve under your stewardship, Ms Rees. Today’s debate was meant to be a demand from across parties that the Government should intervene and that British judges now serving in Hong Hong’s courts should withdraw. We have known for some time that the very presence of those judges has lent legitimacy to a brutal, totalitarian regime that has been prosecuting in Hong Kong against the Sino-British agreement terms and has been prosecuting people in Hong Kong whose only crime has been to cry out for freedom—the kind of freedom that we in this Chamber and in this country have taken for granted for years, and that we see the people in Ukraine fighting for. Meanwhile, in Hong Kong, British judges and lawyers have been serving in and around those courts and aiding them—not that they were setting out to do so, but their very presence has lent legitimacy.

However, just before I came in for this debate, I discovered that the Government have now agreed with us and wish the British judges to withdraw. Although that is not in the Government’s power, we have heard some interesting statements subsequently from the President of the Supreme Court. Will the Minister take this opportunity to intervene and make it clear what exactly the Government have said?

I thank my right hon. Friend for calling us all together on this very important issue and for inviting me to update colleagues by way of an intervention on the decision that has been made. It was laid in a written ministerial statement last night and published this morning. The statement is as follows:

“British judges have played an important role in supporting the judiciary in Hong Kong for many years. Since 1997 judges from other common law jurisdictions, including the UK, have sat on the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal as part of the continuing commitment to safeguarding the rule of law.

However, since Beijing’s imposition of the National Security Law in 2020, our assessment of the legal environment in Hong Kong has been increasingly finely balanced. China has continued to use the National Security Law and its related institutions to undermine the fundamental rights and freedoms promised in the Joint Declaration. As National Security Law cases proceed through the Courts, we are seeing the implications of this sweeping legislation, including the chilling effect on freedom of expression, the stifling of opposition voices, and the criminalising of dissent.

Given this concerning downward trajectory, the Foreign Secretary has agreed with the Deputy Prime Minister and Lord Chancellor and the President of the UK Supreme Court Lord Reed, that the political and legal situation in Hong Kong has reached the point at which it is no longer tenable for serving UK judges to participate on the Court of Final Appeal. As such Lord Reed and Lord Hodge submitted their resignations to the Hong Kong authorities today. We are grateful for their service, and that of their predecessors.

The UK remains committed to stand up for the people of Hong Kong, to call out the violation of their rights and freedoms, and to hold China to their international obligations.”

I am grateful to the Minister for intervening on my opening remarks to make it clear what the Government have said, and I welcome that. We set up an organisation, the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, a few years ago. It takes parliamentarians around the world from the left and right. There are 22 or 23 countries involved, from Japan to America, and we have all—as one voice throughout, and from all sides and from different parties—cried out for this for some time, so I unreservedly welcome today’s statement. I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), who was himself Lord Chancellor, wants to intervene.

I am grateful for the work that my right hon. Friend has done. When I was Lord Chancellor, I worked with the then Foreign Secretary, who is now my successor, to agree a set of objective parameters that would be used in order to assess the situation in Hong Kong. That was done because we, unlike China, respect the independence of our judiciary. We respect judges’ right to sit in courts where they are not providing a veneer of respectability, but importantly, at the end of it all, the politics of the situation demanded that sort of objective test. It is a sad moment, but it is one that I am glad the Government have not flinched from, which is why I wholeheartedly support the decision made today. It is not just an important decision in legal terms; it is the United Kingdom sending a very clear message that we will not be party to giving regimes that are sliding into tyranny any shred of respectability whatever. That is why I welcome the statement today.

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. I know that he has privately been a big supporter of what we have been trying to do, so I appreciate his coming here now that he is no longer Lord Chancellor.

I simply say that this is a momentous decision, because right now in Ukraine—I referred to this earlier—we are seeing a totalitarian regime try to stamp out democracy and freedom in another country. In a funny sort of way, maybe we are seeing that the fight for freedom in Ukraine influences all of us to ensure that, whatever we do from the peaceful area that we live in, it does not allow other totalitarian regimes to have the legitimacy that would be given to them by our independent judiciary playing a part in Hong Kong and letting everybody believe that there is nothing wrong.

The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have argued for this move for some time now. I am particularly pleased to welcome it, not least because the Lord President of the Supreme Court, Lord Reed, is somebody whom I have known and respected for many years. I never felt comfortable being on the other side of the argument to him, and we seem to have resolved that.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this now requires a response not just here, but from all those who have perhaps taken some comfort from the presence of the British judiciary in Hong Kong? I think it was the Hong Kong Bar Association that said the presence of British judges was a “canary in the mineshaft.” That canary has well and truly fallen off its perch today, and those in Hong Kong who care about the rule of law have a responsibility to respond.

I am grateful for that intervention, because I had a meeting with the Bar Council about this issue. To be fair, its members understood the dilemma that they had. Bear in mind that Essex Court Chambers have been sanctioned by the Chinese Government, as have I and others present. I do not understand how it is viable any longer for those at the Bar to argue that they are not somehow changing, influencing or moderating what may be going on in Hong Kong.

I have in front of me the statement from the Lord President. I will not read it out, as that is for others to do. Now that he has made that statement—he was one of those who actually did service in Hong Kong, so it is an extra-powerful statement on that point—I would call on the Bar Council, barristers and other lawyers who work in corporate law, and who now have all their offices in Hong Kong, to very carefully think about their position. If the judiciary are moving, and if the Bar does too, what price their ability to lend legitimacy to an area that is essentially no longer operating seriously under common law?

That is a finely tuned decision on the Government’s part. Labour’s position has been clear for more than a year, since my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), made it clear that British judges were giving a sheen of legitimacy to what was going on in Hong Kong. I am an original member of Hong Kong Watch—like many other right hon. and hon. Members in this Chamber—and we have been worried for a number of years.

Despite being the shadow Minister, I do not intend to gloat over a U-turn or the Government caving in, but to put across a hint of sadness, because there is a sense that the withdrawal closes the door on a very civilised legal system that we consider to be the best in the world—it is shared by Australia, Canada and other places. It is sad to close the door on that level of standards and trust, and that will have a knock-on effect on the business community.

On balance, in the light of the Ukraine invasion in the last month, the judgment call is that this is no time to abstain, turn the other cheek or be neutral on things. We have to force partners and friends across the globe to make decisions. That may help to inch China towards making decisions on how it relates to Russia, and partners in the Indo-Pacific on how they approach this difficult time. The violence on our screens means that we cannot but make a decision; we cannot sit on the fence in these crucial days.

The hon. Lady is quite right. As I said earlier, the shockwaves from what is going on in Ukraine will wash around the world. Most of all, the important thing that that teaches us—and why I am doubly pleased that the Foreign Secretary has made the statement today—is that democracy, human rights and the rule of law are delicate. They do not exist by right; they exist only by human endeavour.

Underpinning those freedoms is our concept of independent judicial oversight. We may argue with judges, and we may get angry with them here in Parliament, but an independent judiciary is required to oversee the very workings of a democracy, as well as its freedoms, which will sometimes be taken away from people. That is why it is so important today that we send out the signal that when a Government dismisses those freedoms and natural rights, what is left is oppression and brutality. I believe that our judiciary has finally recognised that operating in isolation from the terrible new laws bearing down on people’s human rights in such countries is not feasible.

I had prepared a speech calling on the Government to do exactly what they did just before I began speaking. As a politician, that would not normally stop me making the speech for the sake of it, but I will restrain myself.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his tireless work on human rights throughout this period. Although I welcome the Government’s statement, I think it has come a little late; the Labour party has been calling for action for more than a year. The fact remains that the deterioration of Hong Kong’s legal system means that lending it a false veneer of respectability is just not acceptable. China shows no signs of slowing down its blatant attacks on human rights and freedoms, be it in Hong Kong or in its genocidal campaign in Xinjiang.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should show more commitment by sanctioning the Chinese officials who are responsible for such human rights abuses, including Carrie Lam and Chen Quanguo? Will the Minister, when she speaks, confirm the precise amount of remuneration the UK Supreme Court has received in the last year for serving there?

In this very Chamber, I and others from the APPG on Magnitsky sanctions called on the Government to sanction more people. The hon. Gentleman has listed two people who are responsible for the abuses now in Xinjiang and what I believe to be a genocide. He will note that I have tabled an amendment, which has been signed by many Conservative Members, to today’s Health and Care Bill—the only reason I did so was to send a signal to the Government—saying that we want the NHS no longer to procure a single item that could possibly come from an area that uses forced or slave labour. The fact that we say we are doing that, and now know from reports that we are buying such equipment, is anathema, and we need to end that as well.

I agree with him that there is more to be done but steps by Government are welcome. This is one step in the right direction; the President of the Supreme Court has made a matching step. I hope to hear from the Bar Council and others that they will step up.

I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for all he has done. Today has been another step in the programme of how to combat Chinese aggression. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I concur with the right hon. Gentleman and understand, as we all do, the importance of freedom of religious views in China, for the Falun Gong, the Christians and the Uyghurs.

I noted that the right hon. Gentleman had tabled that amendment. I have asked questions on that matter before, because it is wrong that the NHS should buy any product of slave labour. We welcome the process, and I see what the Minister has said today as a proactive response. The Government have responded to the hard work. Let us be thankful for where we are going and that we are now on the same page working together. That is the message we should send, and the House should endorse that. I am sorry I was longer in my intervention than I wished to be. I just want to commend the right hon. Gentleman.

The length of the intervention matches the exceptional nature of where we are. Normally, one would make a speech asking for the Government to do something, but they have done it before I asked for it. To that extent, I am sure the Chair will give leeway to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

I conclude by saying that I unreservedly welcome the statement from the Government and the action today. I unreservedly welcome the statement from the President of the Supreme Court. I hope that others involved in the oversight of law, such as the Bar Council and the Law Society, will respond in terms to what is happening, not stay as outliers, and recognise the important and vital position of independence of the courts and those who practise in them and ply their trade. I say that as someone with a son who is a criminal barrister. The job is to represent people in a free and liberal society that understands the human rights of those who may be prosecuted.

I end by saying that, in a way, this is an emotional moment, because we have campaigned for this for so long. We have taken testimony in the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China and Hong Kong Watch from so many who have fled Hong Kong and are now here, because they are unable to live in freedom in Hong Kong, under the rules of an international treaty signed by the British and Chinese Governments at the time. The trashing of that, the ending of those rights, the disabusing nature of the Government’s behaviour, prompts us to ask, how can common law exist in a country that does not believe in the rights and freedoms of individuals? What Ukraine shows us is that freedom has to be fought for, nurtured and protected. Today, I believe, is a step in that direction, and I congratulate the Government.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. You must be finding this an interesting debate; it is veering in slightly different directions from the form that Westminster Hall debates normally take, but we can adapt. It is good that the Government are keeping us on our toes with statements; I think the U-turn was announced a full 15 minutes before the debate started. I will abandon my speech and instead make just one or two brief points, which probably means I will go on for longer than I would have otherwise done.

I would say a word on behalf of the judges—not that they need me to say a word on their behalf, but they have been put in a difficult position. Two statements were issued—on 17 July 2020 and 27 August 2021—by the President of the UK Supreme Court. The first ended by saying:

“Whether judges of the Supreme Court can continue to serve as judges in Hong Kong will depend on whether such service remains compatible with judicial independence and the rule of law.”

The 2021 statement made the judgment that:

“At this time, our shared assessment is that the judiciary in Hong Kong continues to act largely independently of government and their decisions continue to be consistent with the rule of law.”

Members may have disagreed with that assessment at that time, and I think we all disagree with it now—the actions of the Beijing Government have been something of a moving target—but the sitting Supreme Court judges have been placed in a difficult position. They have been waiting for a steer from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office for some time. I say a steer; this is about the independence of the judiciary, and it is not for the Foreign Office to tell senior judges what to do. None the less, the opinion of the Government has been lacking for some time.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) said, the Labour party has made its position clear, not just in debates, but in the statement made by the then shadow Foreign Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), and the shadow Attorney General, Lord Falconer. The Government could perhaps have not left the decision until the eleventh hour.

The hon. Gentleman is making an important point about the need for the Government not to direct judges, which would play entirely into the hands of China. We have an independent judiciary. Frankly, China does not respect the rule of law. That is why the Government’s position has been very carefully calibrated. Gently but firmly, I reject the contention that there was somehow benign neglect here. There was a very careful monitoring of the situation by me and the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab)—precisely calibrated on respect for the independence of the judiciary, but also making sure there was a very clear political hand on the tiller when it came to the overall evidence and assessment of the situation, month by month.

I entirely respect the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s opinion and his record as Lord Chancellor, but the issue could have been handled a little better. There were signals in those statements, at least on knowing the opinion. I entirely agree with him, obviously, that the last thing we want, either in relation to China or of itself, is for the Government to be banging the table and telling judges what to do, although they do seem to do that rather a lot—presumptions seem to be finding their way into legislation rather too often, in my view. Nevertheless, let us maintain today’s harmonious spirit. We will endeavour to do that.

I think it will be something of a relief to the Supreme Court that this statement has been made today. The question, as other hon. Members have already raised, is what the consequences will be. The Minister may want to clarify. As far as retired judges and practitioners are concerned, it will still be for them to make an individual decision. There may be views expressed by the Bar or other professional bodies, but I wonder whether the Government are going to go further and say what they would wish to see—there is no element of direction there; none is possible. Former Presidents of the Supreme Court and former judges of the Supreme Court sit. There are judges from other Commonwealth jurisdictions who are even more remote, but who I suspect would also take note of the decision that has been taken here. That will be an interesting point to look at.

I think that this situation is an exception and it is right that it is judged on the individual and particular facts as to the conduct of the Beijing Government. Generally speaking, however, the ability of senior UK judges to sit in other jurisdictions is something that we should be very proud of and, indeed, encourage. I suspect that the Government will wish to see more of that happening. It does happen in many circumstances that are controversial. I am thinking of judges sitting as the final court of appeal on capital cases from the Caribbean and other very controversial matters. No doubt some people would say that they should not do that and should not associate in that way, or that British judges have no locus in doing it. I think that, whether one looks at it in terms of soft power and the reputation of Britain abroad, or whether one looks at the experience that is gained by both sides, it is a positive thing, and the situation that we are discussing is, one hopes, the exception that proves that rule. There are particular circumstances in this situation that mean that it is right that certainly the President and Deputy President of the Supreme Court no longer sit in the court of final appeal.