🚨 Hong Kong Democracy Activists

• The session addressed the serious concern over bounties placed on Hong Kong democracy activists living in the UK by the Chinese Communist Party and Hong Kong authorities.
• The UK Government strongly condemned these actions, emphasizing the activists’ rights to freedom of expression and calling for the repeal of Hong Kong’s national security law.
• The Minister for Security, Dan Jarvis, confirmed that the UK has raised these issues with Chinese and Hong Kong officials during recent diplomatic engagements.
• Specific measures are in place to protect the activists, including counter-terrorism policing measures and guidance under the National Security Act 2023.
• Concerns were raised about the intimidation tactics used, such as posters near activists’ homes and letters to neighbours offering rewards for their capture.
• There was discussion about the proposed Chinese embassy in London, with concerns about its potential use for spying and transnational repression. A decision on the embassy is pending.
• The Government is reviewing the UK’s approach to transnational repression through the Defending Democracy Taskforce, with updates expected soon.
• The BNO visa route continues to be supported, with over 209,000 visas granted since 2021, aiding Hong Kongers’ integration into UK communities.
• The session highlighted broader issues of Chinese interference in the UK, including the closure of covert Chinese police stations and the need for a stronger response to these threats.
• There was a call for concrete actions and consequences against China for these acts of intimidation, including potential sanctions and pausing high-profile visits between the UK and Chinese officials.

The session displays a moderate level of disagreement, primarily centered around the urgency and effectiveness of the government’s response to the issues raised by various Members of Parliament. The disagreements are not overtly confrontational but reflect a spectrum of concern and urgency regarding the actions against Hong Kong democracy activists in the UK. Here’s a detailed explanation of the disagreements and their context:

1. Chris Philp’s questions and concerns: Chris Philp expresses strong concern over the Chinese Communist party’s actions, particularly the bounties on activists in the UK. He questions the government’s response, asking if the Chinese ambassador has been summoned, and criticizes the perceived inadequacy of police responses to the threats. His tone and persistent questioning indicate a disagreement with the government’s approach and urgency in addressing these issues.

   • Example: “It is completely unacceptable that harassment and intimidation takes place now on British soil… My understanding is that no such summons has been issued, which is unacceptable.”

2. Dan Jarvis’s responses: The Minister for Security, Dan Jarvis, repeatedly assures the House that the government takes these matters seriously and has raised concerns with Chinese authorities. However, his answers often focus on existing actions and plans without directly addressing the specific actions demanded by MPs, such as summoning the ambassador or explicitly rejecting the embassy expansion.

   • Example: “We take these matters incredibly seriously… We will continue to do everything that we can to protect the public in our country.”

3. James Naish and the embassy issue: James Naish directly questions whether the proposed Chinese super-embassy would contribute to transnational repression, indicating concern over the government’s approach to national security in the context of the embassy application.

   • Example: “At 700,000 square feet, it would be China’s largest embassy in Europe… Have the Government made an assessment of whether this new super-embassy would contribute to transnational repression?”

4. Bob Blackman’s push for a review: Bob Blackman pushes for a reassessment of the letter sent to the Deputy Prime Minister regarding the embassy, suggesting that the government’s current stance may need to be updated in light of new evidence.

   • Example: “In the light of the new information that has become available, will the Minister review that letter?… to recommend that the planning application is refused?”

5. Joe Powell on practical measures: Joe Powell’s question about practical measures to protect activists with bounties on their heads and their families in Hong Kong reflects frustration with the government’s lack of immediate action and specificity in its responses.

   • Example: “Could he give us a bit more detail on the practical measures that can be put in place now to better protect those in the UK with a bounty on their head?”

6. Sir Iain Duncan Smith’s call for action: Sir Iain Duncan Smith expresses frustration and impatience with the government’s approach, demanding direct action against the embassy and the individuals involved in these threats.

   • Example: “What will the Minister do about the embassy?… Will he now reject that and start arresting the people responsible and kicking them out of the country?”

Overall, the disagreements are characterized by a call for more decisive and immediate action from the government, reflected through probing questions and expressions of concern over the efficacy of current responses. The rating of 3 reflects a session where disagreements are present and significant enough to shape the dialogue but are handled with a level of professionalism and are not deeply contentious.