The following Answer to an Urgent Question was given in the House of Commons on Monday 16 December.
“The first duty of any Government is national security, and we therefore welcome the court’s decision to uphold the Home Office’s position with regard to the exclusion of H6, who can now be named as Yang Tengbo. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission concluded that there was a ‘basis for the conclusion’ that H6
‘had been in a position to generate relationships with prominent UK figures which could be leveraged for political interference purposes by the CCP (including the UFWD) or the Chinese State’.
Where there are individuals who pose a threat to our national security, we are absolutely committed to using the full range of powers available to disrupt them. When we encounter foreign interference or espionage, whether it stems from the United Front Work Department or from any other state-linked actor, we will be swift in using all available tools, including prosecutions, exclusions, sanctions and diplomacy, to keep our country safe.
Given the potential for further litigation, it would be inappropriate for me to say any more, but it is important to recognise that this case does not exist in a vacuum. As the director-general of MI5 made clear in October, we are in the most complex threat environment that he has ever seen. Alongside the threat from terrorism, we face ongoing efforts by a number of states, including China, Russia and Iran, to harm the UK’s security. Our response is among the most robust and sophisticated anywhere in the world.
The National Security Act 2023, which was supported by Members on both sides of the House and which strengthened our powers to protect the UK, is central to our protection against states that seek to conduct hostile acts. To date, six individuals have been charged under the new Act, and the Government have been working hard on the rollout of a crucial part of it: the foreign influence registration scheme, or FIRS. We will say more about that soon, but we intend to lay regulations in the new year and commence the scheme in the summer.
The Government have also set out our approach to China, which will be consistent and strategic. We will challenge where we must in order to keep our country safe, compete where we need to, and co-operate where we can—for example, on matters such as climate change. That is acting in the national interest, as the Prime Minister reiterated earlier today. However, the threats we face from foreign states are pernicious and complex. The work of our intelligence agencies is unrivalled in mitigating them, and I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to them for the amazing work that they do to keep our country safe. Today, as ever, they will be pursuing those who wish to do us harm, including those from foreign states. We support our intelligence agencies in their efforts, and we always will—and they will know that at any point when the UK’s national security is at risk, we will not hesitate to use every tool at our disposal to keep our country safe”.
My Lords, the Government have recently decided to pivot back towards closer ties with China, with the Prime Minister saying he intends to pursue a “pragmatic” relationship with it. The advice from the security services has been clear: the foreign influence registration scheme, which has been delayed by this Government until next year, will deter Chinese spying only if China is designated in the enhanced list of threats to the UK. First, will His Majesty’s Government commit to placing China on the enhanced list of threats when that scheme arrives next year? Secondly, will they do so regardless of the new Prime Minister’s increasing desire to have close relationships with China?
The first answer is that the Government will take a long-term, consistent approach to China and the dealings we have with it. It is important that we co-operate where we can on international matters such as climate change, and compete where we need to on business and on trade. When UK national security is at stake, it is really important that we challenge robustly any influence or actions by the Chinese Government on security matters. This House needs to understand that.
The noble Lord mentioned FIRS. We inherited the Act that passed in 2023, which was jointly supported by the then Official Opposition and His Majesty’s Government. That scheme is under development now. We anticipate having it in place by summer next year. Within that, we will take action accordingly to designate specific countries if the United Kingdom’s security is threatened. We will make decisions on that and announce them to the House in due course. I hope I can reassure the noble Lord that the United Kingdom takes all threats seriously and will be robust in its actions on those threats, including from any nation state that seeks to advance its aims in a subversive way versus the interests of the United Kingdom.
My Lords, both the intelligence services and the courts have decided that the individual in the news recently has acted against
“the safety or interests of the United Kingdom”.
This is the legal test in Section 66 of the National Security Act 2023, which the Minister’s noble friend Lord Coaker and I and others scrutinised in great detail in this House. Surely the Government will apply this test not on economic grounds but only on the safety and security interests of the United Kingdom. Can the Minister assure me that the timing of any decisions about placing countries on that list will not be affected by the visit of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to Beijing? This is a legislative process, so it is not simply a case of announcing the Government’s view to Parliament. It is for Parliament to legislate, so all information should be provided with regard to those countries. Clearly, China should be part of that. When will we receive the orders for consideration with regard to the enhanced list?
The enhanced list will be brought forward, as will FIRS, for summer next year. If there are issues that we wish to bring forward on an enhanced list, we will do that but not announce it strictly in advance. I anticipate early in the new year looking at some of those issues in more detail. The noble Lord asked whether we take economic factors and visits by British Ministers into consideration. We do not. The most important issue is the security of this United Kingdom, and if there are threats we will take action. A pragmatic approach is still necessary, however. There are areas of co-operation with countries of all types that have difficult records and which potentially seek harm to the United Kingdom. There are areas where we need to examine those, and we will take a pragmatic approach. As the Prime Minister has said, we will co-operate where we can, challenge where we can, and do business where we can, but national security is paramount.
My Lords, FIRS came out of a recommendation from the Intelligence and Security Committee in its Russia report in 2020, and whether the enhanced tier was workable was questioned by many of us on the ISC, including myself. Does my noble friend agree that, irrespective of whether a country is designated into that second tier, individuals will still have to register if they are promoting the interests of a foreign nation? Does he also agree that our security services have an extensive network of monitoring Chinese activity in this country, which is outlined in the ISC’s report in 2023?
I declare my interest that I was on the Intelligence and Security Committee at the time; I was one of the authors of the Russia report that my noble friend mentions. It is extremely important that we examine the issues that he has raised. We know about this matter because the security services notified the Home Secretary in the previous Government that the individual in the news this week following the court case was a person of interest to the security services and that we should designate him accordingly. That is why it is coming to the public domain. The question of tiers and the question of actions are ones that we will consider, and we will make announcements in the interests of the security of the United Kingdom when those matters are ready to be announced. I hope that assists my noble friend.
My Lords, we are all aware how complicated it is trying both to maintain our defence and security and to continue to trade. At the same time, there are some profound human rights issues going on. Reports have just emerged that the Chinese Government have demolished an important centre—the Rebiya Kadeer Trade Center—in Urumqi, Xinjiang. What representations have His Majesty’s Government made to support the people there, whom the other place has claimed have been subject to genocide?
I assure the right reverend Prelate that the UK Government take human rights seriously and will, when necessary, make representations and consider action against a regime, be it China or otherwise, that abuses those rights as a matter of course. That is part of domestic foreign policy, and it will be taken into account in all our dealings. The question raised was predominately around the security interests of the United Kingdom, which we keep under consistent review, and we will take action if information is brought to our attention. I go back to my noble friend Lord Beamish; the security services are across this in every way, shape and form. They have warned about this publicly and are providing information constantly to Ministers about performance on these issues. We will take their advice about when the UK faces a specific threat and take into account human rights issues at the same time.
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the work he did on the Intelligence and Security Committee. Will he reiterate to your Lordships’ House the findings of that committee that 40,000 members of the United Front Work Department had penetrated
“every sector of the United Kingdom economy”,
including our universities? Why then does the Prime Minister still refuse to officially declare China a threat, while Ken McCallum as head of MI5 says that infiltration is on an “epic scale”?
The Prime Minister is taking an approach that is in the interests of the United Kingdom. That approach is about challenging where necessary and referring strongly when we have security information, as we have done this week, but looking at where there are areas of potential co-operation, because we cannot avoid the fact that China is a major player in a number of areas of influence and we have to look at how we can co-operate with it on areas where we have mutual interests. However, I take the point. The noble Lord knows, because it is in the report that I was party to with my noble friend Lord Beamish, that a significant number of states have offensive opportunities towards the United Kingdom. We need to take cognisance of that. That is what the security services are doing each and every day. When information comes to light, we will take action. In the next few months, we will complete FIRS and bring proposals to both Houses to meet those threats.
My Lords, I have heard that the Government intend to take a pragmatic approach on this, but the issue regarding FIRS extends to a number of other legislative vehicles, such as the National Security and Investment Act and the forthcoming cyber resilience Bill. For those who work in the public sector, as I do with genomics, or in the private sector, this can cause confusion. What does the Minister intend to do to create clarity about how those working in this area can navigate this pragmatism?