Pro-democracy Campaigners: Arrests

Commons Urgent Question

The following Answer to an Urgent Question was given in the House of Commons on Tuesday 7 January.

“I thank the right honourable Lady for her Question on this most important matter. I am glad to reassure her that the Foreign Secretary issued a Statement on Christmas Eve, immediately following the Hong Kong police’s issuing of arrest warrants for the six pro-democracy campaigners. As the Foreign Secretary said, those targeted on Christmas Eve were merely exercising their right to freedom of expression. We will not tolerate any attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm their critics overseas, especially here in the UK.

We call on Beijing to repeal the national security law, including its extraterritorial reach, and on the Hong Kong authorities to end their targeting of individuals in the UK and elsewhere for seeking to exercise their basic rights. Let me reassure the right honourable Member that senior British diplomats immediately went out to reiterate the Foreign Secretary’s deep concerns directly in Hong Kong and Beijing over the Christmas period. Officials here in London immediately raised concerns with the Chinese embassy and the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office here in London.

China’s imposition of the national security law has clearly eroded the rights and freedoms of Hong Kongers. I raised these concerns with the authorities during my visit to Hong Kong, as did the Foreign Secretary during his visit to Beijing. Following the latest arrest warrants issued by Hong Kong police, ensuring the continued safety of the pro-democracy campaigners remains a top priority for the Government. Let me assure honourable Members that the UK will always stand up for the people of Hong Kong. The Government are deeply committed to supporting all members of the Hong Kong community who have relocated to the UK, making such valuable contributions to life here.”

My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will agree that this news is very worrying, particularly for those from Hong Kong who have BNO status. Given that the noble Lord’s ministerial friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is visiting China next week, can he ensure that she will raise these human rights issues, and the multitude of other human rights violations, during this cosy little tete-a-tete with the Chinese Communists? Will she also raise, again, the case of Jimmy Lai?

Our approach to China is not to pivot between a golden era and a deep denial of any contact. We are taking a consistent approach that is rooted in the United Kingdom’s interests and global interests. We will co-operate where we can, compete where we need to and challenge where we must. Let me reassure the noble Lord that, at every opportunity, the Prime Minister and other Ministers have made it absolutely clear to the Chinese Communist Party and its leadership that they should release Jimmy Lai. We have made representations on that and have strongly condemned the recent announcement of Hong Kong police targeting individuals who are exercising their right to freedom of expression. We have called on Beijing to repeal the national security law. We do not tolerate any attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm their critics overseas, especially in the United Kingdom.

My Lords, the wholly unacceptable issuing of bounties for the arrest of innocent British residents and citizens is contrary to the promotion of and respect for democracy, the rule of law and good governance in the United Kingdom. That is one of the criteria for Magnitsky sanctions. Will the Government act and ensure that those who issued those bounties will now be sanctioned by this Parliament as a statement and signal of that being completely unacceptable behaviour? In the light of these actions just before Christmas, will the Government now move with pace on the designation of China under national security legislation for the enhanced mechanisms, so that it cannot interfere in our democratic processes?

I think the noble Lord knows I am obliged to say that I am not going to respond by predicting future sanctions. To come back to his point about FIRS, we have not yet made any decisions on which foreign powers or foreign power-controlled entities will be specified on the enhanced tier. The Foreign Influence Registration Scheme will further strengthen our national security, while maintaining the UK as an international hub for business. Announcements will be made after due consideration. Certainly, we have been clear, and we believe that our approach of engaging directly and robustly with China where it is in the UK’s national interest is the right one. It is firmly in line with our G7 and Five Eyes partners.

My Lords, in another place yesterday, the Minister, Catherine West, said that we have to “balance” national security with the need to be

“an outwardly facing … trading nation”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/1/25; col. 760.]

Can the Minister explain what that means in the context of the 19 year-old young woman, Chloe Cheung, who now has a £1 million bounty on her head, along with several other young people, including Nathan Law, a former legislator in Hong Kong, whose own family have been threatened regularly, as he is now here in exile in the United Kingdom? Chloe said:

“Fear cannot restrain me. Suppression cannot silence me”.

Can the Minister tell us what more the Government will do to support people in her position? As the Joint Committee on Human Rights has decided to hold an inquiry into transnational repression, I hope the Minister will agree that that is an inquiry to which he will make a significant contribution as the Human Rights Minister.

I am certainly willing to do that. Let me reassure the noble Lord that our position is quite clear. China is our fourth-biggest trading partner and the second-biggest economy. Trade between these countries has existed for some time. The United Kingdom Government, under both parties, have been very clear and robust about these breaches of international law. To suggest that we have done nothing that the Chinese Communist Party has been annoyed about is not true. The noble Lord can grimace, but the fact that we have given BNOs the right to come here was very much a concern of the Chinese Communist Party. We have acted—this has included sanctions for four Chinese officials and one entity for serious systematic human rights violations—and we continue to act. The idea that we can simply conflate our very strong condemnation of human rights abuses and then say that therefore we are not going to have any economic ties is simply not in the interests of this country or of the global economy.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that last answer. He is quite right that we should not be pivoting on the basis of headlines; we should have the closest relationship compatible with our national security and the principles that we uphold. None the less, I am sure the Minister will recognise that there was a substantive change in Chinese policy towards Hong Kong from 2020. Until then, the letter, if not always the spirit, of the Sino-British declaration had been honoured. With the national security law and the cancellation of the LegCo elections and change in the rules, China is now blatantly in violation of the “one country, two systems” deal, which was the basis on which the transfer of sovereignty was made. Whether it is by the kind of targeted sanctions suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, or by some other mechanism, surely there must be some response from the British Government when we see such an overt violation of a treaty to which we are one of the two parties.

Ongoing breaches of that agreement have been registered with the United Nations. As I have said, one of the biggest consequences of those was the United Kingdom Government’s actions in facilitating BNOs being able to come to this country—a very successful operation, on which I congratulate the previous Government. It was the right decision. It certainly annoyed the Chinese Communist Party, which saw it as a breach of the agreement, whereas it was a reaction to its ongoing breaches of the agreement. We are taking every possible step to raise our concerns about human rights violations, not only the introduction of the security legislation in Hong Kong but the ongoing breaches of human rights in other parts of China.

My Lords, will the Minister accept that there are consequences for not upholding international law and not sticking by treaty obligations? I remind him that our capitulation in the light of the violation of the Budapest memorandum vis-à-vis Ukraine led to certain inevitable actions. I suggest to him that exactly the same may happen if the Government appear to be so relaxed about signing up only to bits of international law that they rather like and not enforcing obligations internationally elsewhere, particularly as a UN Security Council member.

I totally refute the noble Baroness’s suggestion that we are not being robust in our response in defending human rights. The actions of the United Kingdom Government have been very clear. I repeat that the biggest response to the introduction of this law in Hong Kong was the facilitation of BNOs coming here, and we are making the strongest possible representations. I also refute the idea that we have not used sanctions; we have, and I could go into examples of upholding international humanitarian law and human rights. I do not accept for one moment that we failed to show a robust response. But we are living in a global world and we face global challenges, not least as one of the biggest economies in the world. We have to co-operate with China to address our biggest threat, which is climate change. That is what I hear from people when I attend international fora. I refute the noble Baroness’s suggestion.