Minister urges explanation for ‘concerning' decision to bar UK MP from Hong Kong
A UK trade minister has urged Hong Kong authorities to explain the 'deeply concerning' decision to hold and turn away a Liberal Democrat MP, as she tried to visit her baby grandson.
On a visit to China, Douglas Alexander has demanded that interlocutors explain why Wera Hobhouse was blocked from entering the Chinese region, and a Government spokesperson warned the incident risked to 'further undermine Hong Kong's international reputation'.
Ms Hobhouse, the MP for Bath, earlier said she feared a 'hidden blacklist' might exist, and suggested the UK risked 'falling into the arms of false friends' without scrutiny of London's relationship with Beijing.
A Government spokesman said: 'During his visit to mainland China and Hong Kong, minister for trade policy and economic security Douglas Alexander relayed our immediate and deep concern regarding MP Wera Hobhouse's denial of entry into Hong Kong.
'Minister Alexander raised our concerns and demanded an explanation with senior Chinese and Hong Kong interlocutors, including Hong Kong's chief secretary for administration, to understand why the Hong Kong authorities refused access to a British MP.
'It is deeply concerning that a UK MP was refused permission to enter Hong Kong last week.
'Unjustified restrictions on the freedom of movement for UK citizens into Hong Kong only serves to further undermine Hong Kong's international reputation and the important people-to-people connections between the UK and Hong Kong.
'As the Foreign Secretary (David Lammy) has made clear and Minister Alexander relayed in person, it would be unacceptable for any MP to be denied entry for simply expressing their views.'
The Hong Kong government said it would not comment on individual cases but that its immigration officers are duty-bound to question those arriving on the purpose of any visit.
'The person concerned knows best what he or she has done. It will be unhelpful to the person's case if the person refuses to answer questions put to him or her for that purpose,' it said in a statement.
It also said that Chief Secretary Eric Chan discussed the matter with the Mr Alexander.
Ms Hobhouse travelled to Hong Kong on Thursday to visit her son, who has lived there since 2019, and new grandson.
She was detained at the airport, questioned and then put back on a flight to the UK.
Ms Hobhouse is a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (Ipac), which scrutinises British and Chinese relations.
Speaking to LBC, she said that while some MPs had been banned from entering China, her experience came as 'a real shock'.
She added: 'There must be some sort of hidden blacklist and this is of course why people want to get to the bottom of it.
'We want to know, and this is where me and the Foreign Office should really ask the ambassador and the Chinese authorities to give us an explanation.'
Ms Hobhouse later continued: 'China is not a strategic ally, in fact in some cases it could be argued it's the opposite. And they're not a democracy, the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) are only interested to expand their influence over countries like the UK. We should be pretty clear eyed about that.'
She said: 'There is such a thing as a UK-China audit, where we should really look at the risks to some of our strategic national interests, and make sure that we are not in some sort (of a) way, falling into the arms of false friends.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Feds vow to continue immigration enforcement 'every day in L.A.' Here are your rights
As the number of immigration raids has increased across Southern California over the last week, there are more questions than ever about how to handle an interaction with federal agents. Agents with Immigration and Customs Enforcement made arrests in the garment district, specifically at Ambiance Apparel, where immigration authorities detained employees inside the clothing wholesaler, and other locations on Friday. Protests followed into the weekend, prompting the deployment of National Guard troops in downtown Los Angeles by the Trump administration. The raids are the latest in a string of high-profile immigration enforcement actions over the last week, part of President Trump's deportation crackdown. A few days ago, immigration agents raided a popular San Diego restaurant and made arrests, sparking a standoff with outraged residents. Agents also arrested Chinese and Taiwanese nationals at an underground nightclub in the Los Angeles area. Officials suggest that many more raids are coming. 'I'm telling you what, we're going to keep enforcing law every day in L.A.,' Trump's "border czar," Tom Homan, told NBC News. 'Every day in L.A., we're going to enforce immigration law. I don't care if they like it or not.' Read more: What really happened outside the Paramount Home Depot? The reality on the ground vs. the rhetoric Officials have not said how long the raids will last or described the larger operation. But in the deployment memo sending the National Guard to L.A., officials said 'the duration of duty shall be for 60 days or at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense. In addition, the Secretary of Defense may employ any other members of the regular Armed Forces as necessary to augment and support the protection of Federal functions and property in any number determined appropriate in his discretion.' Over the last few months, The Times has asked experts for guidance for employees and employers who find themselves in the crosshairs. Here is a summary of what we found: If you're home alone or with family members and you hear a knock at the door, check the window, security camera or peephole so you can identify whether ICE agents are outside. When you find yourself in this situation, the first step is to keep your door closed and locked, advised advocacy groups and legal experts. You must open your door and allow agents inside your home if they present a valid search warrant. Advocates say agents must identify themselves and show you the warrant by putting it against the window or slipping it under your door. A valid warrant must be: issued by a court; have the correct name and address of the person being seized; signed by a judge or magistrate judge. This can be an overwhelming and scary situation. All those emotions are valid, said Pedro Trujillo, director of organizing for the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights. Take a moment to gather yourself, he suggests, because there isn't a time limit on the visit. If you need help verbalizing your rights, show the agent a Red Card that helps explain your rights. Read more: The National Guard comes to Los Angeles: What's going to happen next? Red Cards can be downloaded from the website for the Immigration Legal Resource Center. By showing this card, you're affirming that you want to remain silent and wish to speak to a lawyer. The card states that the person ICE agents are inquiring about has the right to decline answering questions and signing or handing over documents based on their 5th Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution. You can present this card to agents, whether it's a physical copy or a photo on your phone, by displaying it through the window. If ICE agents enter your home without consent, you have the right to say: 'I do not consent to this entry or search," according to advocates. Don't physically resist. Instead, you have the right to document what happens, including: getting officers' names and badge numbers; documenting details of their actions; and gathering contact information for any present witnesses. After agents have left, you have the right to reach out to and consult with a legal representative. You have the right to remain silent. For example, if you're asked about your immigration status, where you were born or how you entered the United States, you may refuse to answer or remain silent, according to the National Immigration Law Center. You can simply say, 'I want to remain silent' or 'I am exercising my right to remain silent.' Experts advise that you are not required to sign documents or provide personal information. If ICE agents are present when you're on public transportation: You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions. If agents want to conduct a search of you and your belongings, you have the right to refuse the search by saying you do not consent. An agent may 'pat down' your clothes if he or she suspects you have a weapon. You can ask, 'Am I free to leave?' If the agent says yes, calmly walk away. You may record interactions to document any violations of your rights. If ICE agents approach you while you're in the car: Pull over safely if stopped by law enforcement. Ask the law enforcement officers to identify if they are highway patrol, police or ICE agents by showing their badge. If it is an ICE agent, you have the right to remain silent and not offer any information, said Shiu-Ming Cheer, California Immigration Policy Center's deputy director of immigrant and racial justice. Keep your hands visible on the steering wheel and provide law enforcement or highway patrol officers requested documents such as your license and registration. If you can identify they're ICE agents, remain silent and do not provide any information. You can say, 'I do not consent to a search,' if they ask to search your car. Officers may still conduct a search if they believe it contains evidence of a crime. If you are detained or taken into custody, you have the right to reach out to an attorney and receive a phone call from an attorney. You can prove you have a lawyer by giving the officer your signed Form G-28, a federal document that details your lawyer's information and your consent to their legal representation. Read more: Immigration raids roil L.A., dozens of people detained. What we know so far Don't have a lawyer? You can ask the ICE official for a list of pro-bono lawyers. You can also ask to contact the consulate, which may be able to assist you in finding a lawyer. Get familiar with the rules of the detention center you've been placed in. You can do so by asking for a copy of the Detainee Handbook to understand the detention center's rules, your rights and how you can communicate with loved ones. The book is available in 19 languages, including English, Spanish, Arabic, Bengali, French, Haitian Creole, Hindi, K'iche' (Quiché)/Kxlantzij, Mam, Portuguese, Pulaar, Punjabi, Q'eqchi' (Kekchí), Romanian, Russian, Simplified Chinese, Turkish, Vietnamese and Wolof. A raid is when ICE agents arrive at a work site without warning the employer. They can be accompanied by other agencies or appear in large numbers, according to the California Employers Assn. ICE agents can go to a business to try to find a particular person, or people, according to the National Immigration Law Center. The California Employers Assn. recommends creating a four-step response plan that should address the following: Who needs to be alerted if ICE shows up or a notice is received? Who is authorized to speak to law enforcement agents on behalf of the company? What information can be gathered from the agents? Is there a designated place for agents to wait? Who should be alerted: Alerting management and employee/union representatives within an organization can help reduce workplace disruption and keep employees calm, said Giuliana Gabriel, vice president of human resources at the California Employers Assn. 'Rumors and misinformation tend to create panic amongst a workforce, and some employees may even try to flee or confront agents,' she said. 'Running could give the agents reason to detain or arrest someone, so having an employee representative or member of management to maintain order and keep employees calm is advisable.' Legal counsel should immediately be notified when ICE shows up because they can help 'protect your organization and your employees from agents overstepping their boundaries or taking liberties as far as what they are authorized to do at your workplace,' she added. Authorized speakers: Examples of people who can be designated to speak with agents include the business owner or a member of the management team, such as a general manager or human resources representative. 'Ideally it would be someone familiar with your response plan, if you have one, and authorized to speak on behalf of the company,' Gabriel said. The identified person or people should be able to communicate confidently, clearly and remain composed 'while protecting the privacy of your organization and its employees,' she said. Gathering ICE agent information: You have the right to ask immigration officials which agency they represent as well as for their names, badge numbers and business cards. 'There have been reports of citizens impersonating ICE agents to target, detain and harass others,' Gabriel said. Designated waiting area: Find a conference room or office where agents can wait. This can limit workplace disruptions. Businesses should enact their response plan immediately when immigration officials arrive. Before ICE agents can enter private areas of your business (public areas are parking lots or lobbies), they must present a valid warrant to conduct their search. As when a warrant is presented at a private home, at the workplace a valid warrant must be issued by a court, have the correct name and address of the person being seized and be signed by a judge or magistrate judge. Businesses should ensure that employees know their rights and that they should refrain from engaging with ICE officials, according to the National Employment Law Project. If ICE agents have questions or requests, workers should not respond and instead direct the officials to speak with their employer. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Campaigners join national walk against solar farms
Campaigners have taken part in a walk to protest against plans to install thousands of solar panels on prime agricultural land. The Claydons Solar Action Group organised the event near Winslow and The Claydons in Buckinghamshire as part of a national community walk day on Sunday to highlight the issue of rural solar farm development. Developers say the Rosefield Solar Farm would provide enough clean energy to power more than 57,000 homes - and would have a shelf life of 40 years. The Conservative Mid Buckinghamshire MP, Greg Smith, described the plan as "inefficient technology that trashes the countryside and damages our food security". A government spokesperson said projects were "subject to a rigorous planning process, in which the views and interests of the local community and impacts on the local environment, including any impact on amenities, landscapes and land use, are considered." The walk at Botolph Claydon was one of 25 taking place nationally against solar farm developments, with others planned in Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire, Norfolk and Bedfordshire. Geography teacher Lorraine Campbell, who has lived in the area for 15 years, said: "The whole reason people come to live in the countryside is because they want to be able to enjoy the wildlife and the landscape. "It's being taken away from us. "This is not the place for solar panels. This is agricultural grade land, it's full of biodiversity. "Solar panels should be put on the roofs of warehouses, of distribution centres. There are hundreds of those." Local councillor Frank Mahon said the plan was a "ridiculous proposal". "North Buckinghamshire has become a dumping ground for major infrastructure, HS2, East West Rail, a mega prison, not to mention three solar farms. "Nobody is taking into consideration the beautiful countryside we have and the amount of farmers that will lose their livelihoods." MP Mr Smith said constituents were "absolutely opposed to the dearth of solar farms, battery storage, substation rebuilds that we're seeing in our beautiful Buckinghamshire countryside". "Two thousand acres of solar panels to produce enough energy for 50,000 homes - a tiny tiny fraction of our energy need." A government spokesperson said: "Solar is at the heart of our mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower, and just this week the government confirmed that new build homes will have solar panels by default. "As of September last year, solar farms covered around 0.1 per cent of the total land area of the UK, while bringing huge benefits for the British public and our energy security." A consultation on the Rosefield plan took place between 18 September and 5 December 2024 and the planning process was ongoing. Follow Beds, Herts and Bucks news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X. Campaigners join national walk against solar farms Solar farm size reduced after public consultation Rosefield Solar Farm
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Consultation to consider extending ban on destructive bottom trawling fishing
Destructive bottom trawling fishing, which involves dragging large nets along the seafloor, could be banned across more vulnerable areas of English seas under new Government proposals. Marine and fisheries stakeholders are being asked to take part in a consultation on the prohibition of destructive bottom-towed fishing gear that could affect approximately 30,000 km2 across 41 marine protected areas (MPAs). Environment Secretary Steve Reed says 'urgent action' is needed to protect seabeds and nature before irreversible damage is caused. The UK is under pressure to step up marine protections as the third UN Ocean Conference begins in France on Monday. Governments, business leaders, scientists and campaigners are gathering for the environmental summit in Nice where the spotlight will be on the commitments individual governments make to reduce the impact on their territorial waters, such as banning the damaging fishing practice of bottom trawling in MPAs. The consultation, led by the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) and Defra, runs for 12 weeks from Monday to September 1. The proposed measures would add to the approximately 18,000 km2 of English seabed already protected from bottom-towed fishing gear. MPAs are areas of the ocean established to protect habitats and species essential for healthy marine ecosystems, allowing vulnerable, rare and important marine life to recover from damaging human activities. Bottom trawling and other forms of destructive fishing are permitted in UK waters but conservationists have long been campaigning for a full ban across all marine protected areas. There are 181 MPAs, including three highly protected marine areas (HPMAs), covering 93,000km² or 40% of English waters. The measures aim to protect marine habitats ranging from subtidal sandbanks to gravels to muds, and support important marine species such as lobster, clams, soft corals and langoustines. A ban on bottom trawling in these areas could help conserve valuable and rare marine life, and allow seabeds to recover from damage caused by destructive fishing practices. It could lead to healthier marine ecosystems across English waters, support greater biodiversity and help preserve vulnerable underwater life. New management measures for fishing in 42 MPAs in English waters – a ban on bottom-towed fishing in 41, and the prohibition of fishing using traps in a specified area – are among the proposals. Mr Reed said: 'Bottom trawling is damaging our precious marine wildlife and habitats. 'Without urgent action, our oceans will be irreversibly destroyed – depriving us, and generations to come, of the sea life on which we all enjoy. 'The Government is taking decisive action to ban destructive bottom trawling where appropriate.' Ariana Densham, head of oceans at Greenpeace UK, said the consultation is 'ultimately a long-overdue completion of a process started by the previous government' and added that bottom-trawling in the protected sea areas is 'like bulldozing national parks'. She said: 'The Government should now strengthen the ban to cover all parts of our marine protected areas, and other types of destructive industrial fishing like supertrawlers and fly-shooters. 'Only this will ensure our marine ecosystems are protected in reality – not only on paper. 'The goal to protect at least 30% of the ocean by 2030 is global, and while the UK must do its part at home it also has a critical role to play in protecting the high seas far from our shores.' Tom Brook, ocean conservation specialist at WWF, said 'done right, these protections can be a win for people, nature and the climate' and 'this is exactly the kind of leadership we need if the UK is to deliver on its promise to protect 30% of the ocean by 2030'. Joan Edwards, The Wildlife Trusts policy and public affairs director, hoped the consultation would see the measures introduced 'rapidly to enable recovery of these sites, a win-win for both nature and the climate.' Oceana UK executive director Hugo Tagholm described the proposals as 'a golden opportunity to safeguard these vital marine sanctuaries from the most damaging fishing practices.' He added: 'If these whole-site bans are fully implemented, this could provide an invaluable and urgently needed lifeline for England's seas, which are so crucial for wildlife and climate resilience.' The consultation comes after Ocean With David Attenborough, released in cinemas to mark the renowned naturalist and TV presenter's 99th birthday last month, showed new footage of a bottom trawling net blasting through silt on the seafloor and scooping up species indiscriminately. The world will also be watching at the summit in Nice to see which countries ratify the UN High Seas Treaty – a pact to establish protected areas across international waters. The ocean treaty, which was agreed by 193 countries two years ago, will not come into force until ratification by 60 countries but just over half of that number have done so. The UK Government is among those that have been criticised by environmentalists for not yet ratifying the treaty or at the very least announcing a timetable to introduce the legislation required. Asked last week whether there has been any progress, nature minister Mary Creagh told the PA news agency: 'We need a legislative slot in Parliament's timetable. 'Any international treaty has to be done by the Foreign Office. We have had discussions with Foreign Office ministers. 'I am confident the treaty will be ratified but it will be ratified in due course.'
