No specific answer provided.

Responding to criticism, the Minister denied briefing media earlier and emphasised that only one other country has applied Magnitsky sanctions in relation to China specifically regarding Xinjiang. He stated that all measures announced are new and defended the government’s approach towards trade policy amendments.

Acknowledging the work done by the MP, the Minister emphasised the importance of targeting money to prevent financial support for harmful actions. He also stated that legislative measures would be taken to protect academic freedoms and research integrity from coercion.

The Foreign Secretary addressed Alyn Smith's points regarding Magnitsky sanctions, academic freedom, supply chain audits, fines, and government procurement. He confirmed that the measures will target those profiting from forced labour and emphasised the importance of due diligence in business engagement.

Dominic Raab thanked Iain Duncan Smith and acknowledged the importance of addressing human rights abuses. He stated that while they keep Magnitsky sanctions under review, the measures taken today are more targeted towards finance involved with forced labour camps.

Dominic Raab thanked Layla Moran, noting that while courts determine genocide under international law, it is important to engage with countries below this level of human rights abuse in terms of executive decisions.

Dominic Raab thanked Nusrat Ghani, acknowledging that the definition of genocide is high under international law, and suggested securing an authoritative third body like the UN human rights commissioner to review Xinjiang.

Acknowledged concerns regarding Tibet and the lack of well-documented evidence compared to Xinjiang, emphasised transparency requirements under the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

Stated clear stance against profiting from forced labour or torture, highlighted need for third-party review and international pressure.

Acknowledged use of Magnitsky sanctions, emphasised need for international support to ensure accountability.

Emphasised commitment to security and values, stated willingness to use Magnitsky sanctions based on evidence.

Acknowledged commitment to accountability, highlighted need for international pressure to secure UN Human Rights Commissioner access.

Reassured leader role in UN and commitment to international partnerships, including with Muslim countries.

Dominic Raab responded that prioritising one category of asylum claims over another would be problematic, as the system is based on individual suffering and persecution.

Dominic Raab agreed that the mechanisms would be key, but also emphasised the need to work with international partners for effective measures.

Dominic Raab responded that anyone with an asylum claim could not be deported, and welcomed collaboration with devolved administrations to send out a coherent message.

Dominic Raab pointed to the work done in the Human Rights Council and UN General Assembly, where over 30 countries supported statements on human rights in Hong Kong and Xinjiang.

Dominic Raab responded that they would not take diktats from any government and would protect national security and values while promoting international action.

Dominic Raab thanked Fiona Bruce for her appointment and emphasised targeted measures and international collaboration.

Dominic Raab responded that targeted measures like export controls and transparency requirements are more effective than judicial determinations.

Dominic Raab agreed that this would be essential for accountability and suggested the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights as an authoritative figure.

Dominic Raab responded that through transparency requirements, fines, export controls, and other measures, they are increasing targeted pressure on China.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford). I think that we have shown precisely the international leadership that he has cited. The reality is that we gained, I think, 35-plus countries in support of our statement in the United Nations General Assembly Third Committee, but a lot of countries around the world either do not wish to take the measures that he described or are understandably nervous, given their proximity to China or their economic size, about the reprisals that China would take. We need to proceed carefully and sensitively with our international partners—on that point, he is absolutely right.

The hon. Gentleman raises a really interesting matter, and I know that he has raised it before. The challenge is that we know that China would block efforts to appoint a special rapporteur or envoy. He would agree that we do not want to give that, if you like, PR coup or failed initiative to our detractors. The one thing we can and should do, as I have said several times to the House, is focus on getting the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights some kind of access to Xinjiang. That will keep it on the agenda—I do not think that anyone can accuse the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights of being anything other than objective and impartial.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is right as a matter of human rights, but he is also right as a matter of trust. One of the issues on this and in relation to the joint declaration in the context of Hong Kong, as we have said, is that these are obligations freely assumed. These are basic obligations that come with being a responsible and, as he says, leading member of the international community. Ultimately, if China cannot live up to those responsibilities and obligations, that raises a much broader issue of trust and confidence.

We certainly want to see the human rights, freedoms and basic liberties of the people of Tibet, Hong Kong and Xinjiang respected. We are taking a series of measures, and are in the vanguard internationally with the measures that we have taken. It is important to try to keep clusters of like-minded partners with us to have the maximum effect precisely to provide redress and accountability for the violations of human rights that the hon. Gentleman and I rightly deplore.

I absolutely agree with the spirit, but also the practical advice and warning that my hon. Friend is giving. What we are trying to do is set out clear guidance for businesses, to which she refers, to make sure they are warned of the risks, because of course conducting due diligence on supply chains emanating from Xinjiang is quite tricky.

My right hon. Friend will know—I pay tribute to his time at the Foreign Office, where he was an exceptional Minister—the challenges we face. He asks about belt and road. The truth is that China is a massive investor all over the world. We can see, with the EU investment agreement right the way through to what the Chinese Government are doing in Africa, that there is a huge amount of money at stake.

I share the outrage of the hon. Lady’s constituents and I thank her for her support. We have laid out a suite of measures. I have explained what we are doing in the Human Rights Council, the United Nations General Assembly Third Committee.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work as special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. I can assure him, without divulging too much of the agenda in advance, that human rights will be at the forefront of our leadership this year—our presidency of the UN Security Council, our G7 presidency and more generally—because we believe that the UK has a crucial role to play in promoting open societies, including on human rights, but also in defending public goods in areas such as climate change and covid response.

We would certainly welcome such a special envoy, but, as I said in answer to a previous question, the reality is that China will block that if we formally propose it. That is why, as I have said repeatedly, what really matters is that an authoritative, independent, non-partisan individual or body can have access to Xinjiang. The UN human rights commissioner would seem to me to be one such individual who could perform that role—there are others—which is why we have raised it with our international partners and I have raised it with the UN Secretary-General.

I thank my hon. Friend for his support for the measures that we have taken. I understand that he wants us to go even further. He knows—he is an expert in this area—the challenges in cajoling and carrying an international coalition to advance those goals. He is right to say that scrutiny and accountability are key. That is why we want to see an authoritative third party such as the UN human rights commissioner have access to Xinjiang. I will await with great interest his Bill, and I am sure Members will scrutinise it very carefully when it comes before the House.

The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting and insightful comment on genocide. Of course, I was in The Hague when the Bosnia judgment was being considered. The reality is that, in order to secure authoritative assessment and conclusions in relation to those widespread reports, which we think are tenable, plausible and credible, we need access to the camps. In a sense, throughout this statement, we are redefining the question. However, we come back to the point that we need to try to secure access to Xinjiang, and we will not be able to do that without sufficient and widespread pressure on the Chinese Government. The best vehicle for that is an authoritative, independent body or individual entrusted by the United Nations, of which China is a leading member through the Security Council. The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights seems to me the right place and the right individual to support in that regard.