Agenda item

Engagement with China

Graeme Harrower asked a question of the Chair of the Policy and Resources Committee concerning the City Corporation’s engagement with the People’s Republic of China, given ongoing human rights concerns, calling for a Motion to be brought to the Court’s next meeting for discussion.

Responding, the Chair suggested that it would be procedurally unusual for the Chair of a Committee to bring a matter to the Court in such a way and, in any event, felt it would be inappropriate to do so. She emphasised the condemnation of human rights abuses around the world, wherever they were found, observing that there were many countries with such concerns, including several with which the UK traded. The Chair stressed that it was the role of the national government to lead on foreign affairs and the role of City of London Corporation to support the City. As an organisation, the City Corporation had made clear for many years that this was one of its core purposes and, as part of that role, had engaged with many varied business partners across the world and throughout the years. It was a matter for Members to decide whether that role in standing up for the City should continue; however, it would reflect a radical change of direction were the Corporation to move from this position and would, she suggested, significantly limit its ability to play an impactful role. 

The Chair added that the City Corporation had a distinctive place on the international stage as a supporter of the jobs and growth that came from the Financial and Professional Services (FPS) industries and related sectors. In doing this, the City took its lead from the Government, which pointed to where the City should be focussing its efforts in order to support UK growth and jobs against a backdrop of strong domestic and international standards. In the case of China, the City Corporation had operated there for some 15 years and Government had made clear that it valued the Corporation’s role and supported continued engagement.

Graeme Harrower asked a supplementary question, through which he expressed concern that this position ran contrary to the will of Parliament, as well as to many Members’ concerns around the oppression of fellow humans. In particular, he sought assurances that the Chair would abide by the will of the Court, should it support a prospective Motion calling for a change in the City Corporation’s position.

The Chair disputed the suggestion that the City’s position was contrary to will of Parliament, observing that the Foreign Secretary had recently expressed the desire for a constructive and calibrated approach to engagement with China, which is what the City was doing. With reference to the question of a prospective Motion, the Chair expressed her firm agreement that the Court was sovereign in such matters but cautioned that any decision to change its direction of travel in supporting the business City should be considered very carefully, as this would amount to a radical change which would reduce the impact for positive change the City might have globally, including in China around green finance and climate matters.

Responding to a supplementary question from Alderman Alison Gowman, the Chair confirmed that the City Corporation was seeking to work with international partners, including China, on the global challenge of climate change. This was particularly important with COP26 now only a matter of months away. China currently accounted for 30% of global emissions and, over recent years, Chinese regulators and investors had begun to take more concrete actions on climate and environmental issues. This was, in part, in response to increasing engagement by international investors and collaborations with international organisations like the City Corporation, including through the UK-China Green Finance Taskforce. One of the Taskforce’s key achievements had been the Green Investment Principles, which had been recognised by People’s Bank of China as part of their green finance development roadmap and was a project which had now been expanded to other countries. Work also continued on projects such as the UK-China Climate and Environmental risk Disclosure pilot, established to advance climate disclosure practice in both countries, and the practitioner-led ESG Leaders Forum. Only with Chinese action could global efforts to combat climate change succeed and the City Corporation, alongside wider ongoing UK, EU, and US encouragement and engagement, had a valuable role to play.

Mark Wheatley posed a further supplementary question, suggesting that the City Corporation was providing credentials to nations with human rights abuses. In particular, he highlighted the City’s commitments to ESG and suggested that the City Corporation’s engagement with China amounted to a “green-washing” of human rights abuses. Responding, the Chair refuted this suggestion and stated that the Corporation’s activities consisted of engagement with Chinese businesses and regulators on relevant issues in order to support and promote trade, including a particular focus on climate and environmental issues, some of which had been commissioned by Government. With reference to more detailed questions circulated by email, the Chair acknowledged that her response had not addressed each question line-by-line but it did make clear that ESG remained a focus for the City. She argued that a focus on environmental and sustainability issues would achieve the most impact for the City Corporation, as it had a genuine locus to speak in that area.