China: Human Rights and UK National Security

Private Notice Question

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government what recent discussions concerning human rights and threats to UK national security they have had with the government of China.

My Lords, human rights are a non-negotiable part of this Government’s approach to China. During his recent visit, the Prime Minister raised human rights and the case of Jimmy Lai with President Xi. The Government will continue to press China on human rights and work with international partners to ensure that China is held to account for its human rights violations. Upholding national security is the first duty of this Government and underpins all our international relationships.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, given that no discussions with the sanctioned parliamentarians have taken place, either before the visit or since, can she give us greater clarity on what was and was not agreed? Thus far, it remains unclear whether the sanctions on my family and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, have been lifted. Perhaps more importantly, no mention has been made of the sanctions on Sir Geoffrey Nice KC, Dr Jo Smith Finley, Essex Court Chambers, the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission and Tim Loughton, one of the parliamentarians who are no longer Members of the House of Commons.

Neither the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, nor I sought or wanted any kind of preferential treatment. We wanted justice for those who have suffered at the hands of the CCP, whether they are the hundreds of pro-democracy advocates who are incarcerated alongside Jimmy Lai in prisons in Hong Kong, or those who have suffered as a result of the genocide in Xinjiang.

In 2021, I moved an amendment to the Trade Bill to outlaw free trade agreements with countries perpetrating genocide. The Minister will recall that we had China and the appalling treatment of the Uyghurs in mind. The Prime Minister himself voted for the amendment three times. On this visit, the Prime Minister said that the previous Government had pursued an “ice age” in their relations with China. Yet those amendments were right then; why are they wrong now? Was the House of Commons wrong to vote for a declaration of genocide against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang? Can the Minister please assure us that the UK’s sanctions against the four Chinese Communist Party officials responsible for the genocide in Xinjiang remain in place, and that no new state visit by Xi Jinping will take place until the genocide ends?

I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I admire hugely the consistency with which he raises these issues. He is absolutely right to say that, although there is clearly some progress on the measures that have affected our parliamentarians and, as he says, former parliamentarians such as Tim Loughton, those measures should obviously be lifted immediately. We are continuing conversations to get absolute clarity on which measures and which people, and to make sure that that is complete.

On the things that we voted for in opposition, when you are in opposition and have a Government who took the position that they did, there are only certain things that you can do to highlight these issues. The approach that this Government are taking is based far more upon engagement and dialogue and attempting to rebuild the relationship in order to get the progress that everybody here would like to see. We have more options at our disposal now, so we are attempting to approach these important matters in a different way. As the noble Lord knows, I cannot comment on sanctions, but I note what he says.

My Lords, although I trust the Minister both expressly and implicitly, she is tied by the problems of being a Government Minister. I am now in opposition, so I have greater freedom to speak and to complain. I complain because the responses that we get from the Government are little more than vague generalisations. That breeds suspicion that nothing much is being done and that the dialogue between the Government and China is no more than formulaic.

Can the Minister please do her best to reassure us—she may well know what the Prime Minister is about to say, or has already said, in the other place—that the fate of Jimmy Lai and our relations with China are not just diplomatic boxes to be ticked with nothing more to be said, and that genuinely positive, concrete discussions, with force behind them, are being conducted by her department and the Government as a whole?

I appreciate the way in which the noble and learned Lord put that question, although I assure him that I do not find this in any way awkward. It is important that I am here and fully accountable to this House, above all. The Prime Minister is, I believe, on his feet right now, so the noble and learned Lord will not have very much longer to wait to hear what he has to say, and I expect—although I do not know—that the Statement may well be repeated in this House in the usual way, so there will be further opportunities to make these points.

I assure the noble and learned Lord that there is no sense in which the fate of Jimmy Lai is in any way a tick-box exercise for this Government. We are clear and consistent, and have been for some time, that Jimmy Lai should be released with immediate effect.

My Lords, I declare an interest as a new member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, chaired so ably and fearlessly by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. Could my noble friend the Minister say something in the light of her comments on the earlier question about Mr Lai? What can she tell us about his condition, given his age and the length of his solitary confinement? Are His Majesty’s Government satisfied with the consular access and support that he has been given?

The short answer to that is no, we are not satisfied, and we have not been able to get the consular access that we would like and which Mr Lai needs. We are concerned about the access to medical care that he needs, and we will continue to raise the issue—not just that he should be released, because he ought to be released immediately, but, short of that, he needs access to consular support and medical attention.

My Lords, with respect to the Minister, when we all voted on a number of occasions for trade agreements to have human rights clauses, we did so because we wanted that to be the law applying to all Governments. It is a great sadness to hear the Minister say that the Labour Party took that position then simply to make a point rather than thinking that that was how our trade agreements should be framed.

Can the Minister confirm that, when the Government announce that there is to be a feasibility study on a free trade agreement on services with China, that feasibility study will take into account human rights? If it does not, a Labour Government putting in train a trade agreement whereby MI5 and our security services have indicated that there is an ongoing national security risk will be opening up an area of deep regret. The agreement also indicated that education and skills will be opened up for China. Equally, we know that MI5 has warned us all that that is the source of a major part of China’s influence, so why are the Government refusing to put China on the foreign influence registration scheme, as it should be?

Obviously, national security is the principal concern in everything we do. The noble Lord mentioned trade, and I am pleased to be able to confirm that export deals of £2.2 billion were secured. AstraZeneca committed to £15 billion investment, which will underpin approximately 10,000 UK jobs. China agreed to cut tariffs on scotch whisky from 10% to 5%, in a deal worth £250 million to the UK. Removal of market access barriers, unlocking around £2.3 billion for the UK economy, was secured, along with a financial services package, including the first UK-China financial regulators working group. We committed to a feasibility study for a binding UK-China services agreement.

The conversations we are having, and the engagement, are absolutely in the interests of the United Kingdom and its people, but, as the noble Lord would want us to do, of course, our national security underpins everything.

My Lords, the latter part of the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, refers to national security. Given the now acknowledged interest by China in Mauritius and China’s desire to have closer engagement with Mauritius, how concerned are the Government that Mauritius does not have the military capability to police the seascape surrounding the Chagos Archipelago in order to detect and disrupt malign activity?

It is never long before we get to Chagos in these exchanges. We are confident that the deal that we have agreed with Mauritius is in the very best interests of the United Kingdom and our security, and we will continue to have conversations with the relevant partners and allies to achieve the only deal possible to secure the base on Diego Garcia and give the legal certainty that is needed to continue, jointly with the United States, with the base, which does so much to keep our citizens safe.

My Lords, in conducting international negotiations, it is always worth reflecting on the probable strategic objective of the other side. In the case of China, I doubt very much that it is about increasing trade with the United Kingdom. It is much more likely to be about dividing those who are trying to contest China’s attempts to make the world safe for autocracy. Have the Government been keeping this at the forefront of their mind in their recent negotiations?

Of course, we keep a whole range of factors in mind. These are complex situations and negotiations, and we do not underestimate that. But it would be very wrong for us to deny ourselves the opportunity to have these conversations, because you do not get a chance to secure the trade that I have mentioned or the discussions on security or human rights, or any of the other issues that we need to discuss with the second-largest economy on the planet, if you do not engage.