Jailing of Hong Kong Pro-democracy Activists

12:38:00

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government’s response to the jailing of pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong.

I thank the right hon. Member for her question on this important matter, and I welcome her to her new role. It is a real pleasure to be across the Chamber from her this morning. I am glad to reassure the right hon. Lady that my colleague the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), has issued a statement on the verdict. She makes clear that China’s imposition of the national security law in Hong Kong has eroded the rights and freedoms of Hongkongers. She makes clear that the sentencing decision was a clear demonstration of the Hong Kong authority’s use of the NSL to criminalise political dissent. As she says, the so-called NSL45 were guilty only of exercising their rights as guaranteed under the international covenant on civil and political rights and basic law, and of exercising their right to freedom of speech, assembly and political participation. China’s imposition of the NSL in Hong Kong has eroded the rights and freedoms of Hongkongers, and the UK Government will always stand up for the people of Hong Kong.

The jailing of 45 pro-democracy campaigners in Hong Kong under the draconian national security law is appalling. It is a serious blow to freedoms in Hong Kong. The harsh application of this disturbing law to suppress people in Hong Kong cannot go unanswered. In government, my party consistently championed for that law to be repealed, and we gave safe routes for British nationals overseas in need of protection. I am proud to have established that scheme as the then Home Secretary. We also published reports twice a year on the situation in Hong Kong to raise our grave concerns about the erosion of freedoms with the Chinese authorities and at the United Nations. Yesterday, the Prime Minister met President Xi and said he wanted a respectful relationship where both countries tried to avoid surprises. He even confirmed that he had called in the application for the new Chinese embassy. But less than 24 hours later, the Sino-British declaration has been trampled on yet again, with the sentencing of 45 pro-democracy campaigners. Where does that leave the Government’s reset with Beijing? Did the Prime Minister actually secure any commitments on Hong Kong yesterday? Will the Prime Minister now be holding further conversations with President Xi to convey his concerns about this appalling jailing? Why did the Minister for the Indo-Pacific this morning not call, in her statement, for the repeal of the national security law? The official No. 10 read-out of the Prime Minister’s meeting with President Xi failed to mention Jimmy Lai’s case. We understand the Prime Minister did raise concerns, but that is not enough. Did he call for Jimmy Lai to be released and for an end to his politically motivated trial? A yes or no answer is needed, because there is an important distinction between the two. The UK has an historic and moral commitment to the people of Hong Kong. We must stand up for their rights under the international covenant on civil and political rights and basic law. The Government must provide the mettle needed to handle the relationship with China, to stand up for the freedoms and democracy of Hong Kong, and to raise their game.

The Government absolutely agree about the historic relationship between the UK and Hong Kong and the current incredibly strong and important relationship. In opposition, my party rightly supported the measures for British nationals overseas. We have been crystal clear in our view on yesterday’s sentencing. I repeat that it was a clear demonstration of the Hong Kong authority’s use of the NSL to criminalise political dissent. Respectfully, I have to say to the right hon. Lady that when she seeks to lecture the new Government on our approach to China she should be aware of what we saw over the past 14 years: a wild oscillation in policy towards China that went from the golden era period right through, finally, to a complete lack of engagement that was out of step with our partners, including the US, France and Germany, which were having those conversations. The new Government have been determined to have those conversations. The right hon. Lady referred to the Prime Minister’s meeting, where he made very clear his concerns about human rights issues. He did raise Jimmy Lai’s case. That is very clear from the footage of that meeting. If she has not seen it, I respectfully encourage her to look at it. We will continue to raise human rights issues as part of our consistent approach to China.

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

The verdicts and sentences of the 45 are, like the 2020 national security law itself and the treatment of Jimmy Lai, clear violations of the Sino-British joint declaration on Hong Kong. Following the meeting between President Xi and the Prime Minister, will my right hon. Friend please share with the House what steps the Government plan to take to ensure that the joint declaration is adhered to?

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the work that she is undertaking on this matter through her leadership of the Select Committee. The UK Government have been very clear about these issues. The right hon. Lady rightly mentioned the case of the British national Jimmy Lai, whose trial will resume tomorrow and whose case is a priority for the UK Government. The Foreign Secretary raised it during his first meeting with China’s Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, at the summit of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations on 26 July, and, as I have said, the Prime Minister also raised it during his engagement a few days ago. We will continue to call on the Hong Kong authorities to end their politically motivated prosecution and release Jimmy Lai immediately, and we will continue to press for consular access and, indeed, exert pressure in relation to the other human rights issues that are of such concern to everyone in the House.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

We are deeply concerned by the sentencing of the NSL45. Beijing’s assault on fundamental liberties in Hong Kong—liberties that it is obliged to preserve under the joint declaration—continues. We have a moral duty to stand with Hongkongers, not least Jimmy Lai. I met his son Sebastian last week. His father has been held for in solitary confinement for more than four years, despite a serious health condition. Does the Minister understand that meeting Chinese Ministers, as the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have in the last month, without setting out any consequences gives China the green light to continue? We saw under the Conservatives that this passive approach yielded no results, so does the Minister agree that there should be no further ministerial meetings until these human rights abuses are addressed, and specifically, does she agree that there should be no visit by the Chancellor to Beijing until Jimmy Lai is released?

The Foreign Secretary has also met the family of Jimmy Lai and, like all of us on this side of the House, is deeply concerned about his situation. Jimmy Lai is, of course, 76 years old, and there are deep concerns about his welfare. The UK is absolutely clear about the fact that he must be released immediately. I have to say, however, that I do not agree in any way with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the current UK Government’s approach. During the latter years of the previous Government we saw what was arguably a passive approach and a lack of engagement, with no meetings and visits, and that was not the right approach to take. It followed the golden era when there was a very different approach—an approach, some would say, that was not clear-eyed. The current Government are instead being consistent. We are engaging where it is necessary to challenge as well as engaging where it is necessary to compete and, indeed, to co-operate. That is the right approach when it comes to these matters of human rights, as well as our relationship with China more broadly.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Hong Kong, I thank Ministers for their efforts and recognise the efforts of the Prime Minister. However, after nearly four years in solitary confinement for Jimmy Lai and with a trial beginning in a court that we know will only ever find him guilty, at what point does the delicate diplomacy have to give way to something more like a demand for his freedom?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his recognition of that engagement. As I mentioned a few moments ago, the UK Government are deeply concerned about Jimmy Lai’s situation, but we have been crystal clear—and that includes the clarity provided by the Prime Minister, which, in respect of this issue as well as others, was very much in evidence during his meeting at the G20.

I have sat watching both Governments on this one, and I do not think that any Government have the right to accuse the party that was formerly in power and talk about what it got wrong, because that Government got it all wrong and this one are getting it all wrong as well. The key point is this. The Minister has referred to all those who have been incarcerated but particularly to Jimmy Lai, who is in solitary confinement. Yesterday, when the Prime Minister rightly started to raise the issue of Jimmy Lai and human rights, all the journalists were cleared out of the room straightaway because the Chinese Government did not want them to hear what he was saying. Just before that meeting, President Xi said that China would “brook no interference” when it came to democracy and human rights, and that is one of his four red lines. I put this question simply to the Minister: does she not think that without some kind of sanction, China will go on and on? America has sanctioned many senior officials in Hong Kong for these abuses, and we have sanctioned none. Does she not think it is time for us to say, “We will sanction someone if you do not stop”?

I believe it is appropriate to make relative judgments so that we can assess the right way forward for the UK’s relationship with China. That is why the UK Government are conducting an audit of our relationship with China so that we can have a consistent approach. We believe that is incredibly important, so I am afraid that I respectfully do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I had a ringside seat for some of the actions of the previous Government during the golden era, and for what was suggested then around trade protections. We need to move forward with a more clear-eyed approach, and the UK Government could not have been clearer on these matters of human rights, including the Prime Minister himself, as the right hon. Gentleman just acknowledged. On sanctions, he will understand, of course, that I will not speculate on future designations, as to do so could reduce their impact, but I can reassure him that the FCDO continues to keep potential sanctions designations under close review.

Over 5,000 Hong Kong families have settled in Reading over the past few years, including in my constituency, and I have stood alongside Hong Kong activists in peaceful demonstrations here in the UK. The onerous sentencing of pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong will give people a broad reason to fear transnational repression and continued harassment here in the UK. Can the Minister assure us that she will work to upkeep not only the BNO visa programme and the path to citizenship, but the civil liberties of Hongkongers here in the UK who may be at risk of transnational repression?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. I have read her fascinating book, which covers human rights in China, and she is clearly an expert on these matters, as well as having constituency experience. The UK Government’s view is that any form of harassment is unacceptable and that political freedoms must be retained, including in the UK and, above all, for BNOs. We will continue to ensure that that is the case.

In 2023 the Hong Kong police issued arrest warrants for eight overseas activists under the national security law. What are Ministers doing to challenge the extraterritorial reach of the national security law?

We were very clear, as were the previous Government, at the time of the passage of that law. We believe it is incredibly important that people in Hong Kong and beyond are able to exercise political rights and, indeed, to participate politically. All that the group of individuals who have just been sentenced were doing was exercising their right to political participation. We will resolutely defend that right, including in the UK and elsewhere.

I look forward to the Minister’s report on the audit of the relationship with China and of the continuum of actions, from sanctions onwards, that the Government are looking at. In the meantime, may I ask the Minister to raise with the Chinese Government the case of Carol Ng Man-yee, who is a colleague of mine in Unite and a Labour party member? She was involved in organising for Unite in the disputes with British Airways over the years, and she became president of the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions. She stood in the primaries and lost, but then took no further action. She was sentenced to four years and five months. May I ask the Government to raise her case, and particularly the need for her to have visits from her family and her trade union rep, so that we can impress upon the Chinese Government that, in addition to our lobbying for her release, we need to ensure that there is humanitarian treatment of such prisoners?

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support for the Government’s ongoing audit of our relationship with China, and for the information that he has provided about one of the individuals who has been sentenced in China. I am aware that an Australian citizen is among those who have been sentenced, but I was not aware of the information provided by my right hon. Friend about his colleague who has been sentenced for her work in the UK. It is very helpful to be aware of that, and I would be grateful if he sent me more information about this matter.

Today I brought together 118 parliamentarians from 24 countries and the EU to call for the Chinese Communist party to immediately release Jimmy Lai. It is extraordinary for the Prime Minister to meet Xi Jinping in the same week that Jimmy’s sham trial resumes, yet the Prime Minister used just 13 words in support of Jimmy’s cause in his meeting with Xi—and no, he did not call for Jimmy’s release; he just mentioned his poor health. What we learned was that the Government have called in plans for a new Chinese Communist party mega-embassy as a favour to Xi, and at his request. Why?

I am sure that the hon. Lady, with her considerable experience, will be well aware of the fact that the Prime Minister was at the G20 leaders’ summit, which every member of the G20 attended. I am sure that she will be aware of how these meetings work. On the embassy to which she refers, it is standard for applications to be called in if they affect other Governments. Calling in the application should not be taken as any indication of our views on the merits of the scheme. As this case will be determined by Ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further.

I was pleased to sign the letter from parliamentarians of 24 countries that the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) just mentioned, and I thank the Minister for confirming that a meeting took place with Sebastien and the Foreign Secretary. Can the Minister outline how we will work with other countries in a concerted, co-ordinated effort? As we have heard, many of them have individuals in arbitrary detention in Hong Kong. How can we co-ordinate across those countries to get the release of activists such as Jimmy Lai?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the need for co-ordination. Obviously, there has been co-ordination among parliamentarians, which has been very positive to see, and the UK Government will continue to co-operate with others on these issues. We have also worked with other countries’ Governments on cases involving dual nationals.

I thank the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) for organising a powerful letter, and I was glad to be able to put my name on it. Given the concessions that were given to China by the Prime Minister and the particular responsibility that we have to Hong Kong, what did the Prime Minister get out of the meeting? Can the Minister tell us the read-out from the Prime Minister, and when will she publish her audit? Following the question from the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), will the audit include the option of sanctions?

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his question. The read-out can be easily accessed. I will not read out all of it, but I will underline the fact that it makes it very clear that the Prime Minister said that he wanted to engage “honestly and frankly” on those areas where we have different perspectives, including Hong Kong, human rights and Russia’s war in Ukraine. That is taken directly from the read-out of the meeting. As I said, there is also footage of it, which the hon. Gentleman can easily access. On sanctions, I refer him to my previous response.

So long as we are limited to saying how cross we all are about our different perspectives and the Minister keeps sanctions under review, China will take not a blind bit of notice, will it?

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware, I hope, that going into detail about sanctions in advance is extremely problematic for the entire sanctions system—it would reduce its effectiveness—which is why Governments of all complexions do not comment on future designations.

This is a bad day for human rights, but for the Hongkongers living in my constituency it is a frightening day. Beyond the broad reassurances that the Minister has already given, what specific action will the Government take to protect Hongkongers living in the UK from state surveillance?

I recognise the concern that will be caused by this matter, as articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang). The UK Government are absolutely resolute in our determination to ensure that BNOs are able to live their lives freely, and without prejudice or fear, in our country. We remain absolutely committed to upholding their human rights, and we will continue to do so. If there are specific instances of concern, I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman informed me of them.

My constituent and friend, Sir Henry Keswick, who died earlier this month, was for many years the chairman of Jardine Matheson. He was a great believer in the opportunity for good relations between this country and China. There is an awful inevitability in the fact that, the day after the Prime Minister met the Chinese President and declared a new era of positive relations, the Sino-British declaration was comprehensively breached. Does the pragmatic relationship that the Prime Minister thinks he can have with China include getting assurances that the national security law will not jeopardise the interests and welfare of British businesses and employees working in Hong Kong?

I would like to communicate my regret at the passing of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, who seems to have had great expertise and engagement on these issues. The Prime Minister was very clear that while the UK will seek to co-operate with China on areas of mutual interest, we will also compete, and indeed challenge, where we must. That was explicit in his message, as it has been from day one of the new Government. That is why we are conducting the audit—to ensure consistency towards China on all issues across Government.

It is clear that any Hongkonger who crosses the Chinese Communist party faces grave risks. Will the Government update the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office guidelines on overseas business risks to include more detailed information on the risk posed to businesses by the Hong Kong national security laws, particularly article 23?

My Department keeps all forms of guidance continuously under review. That includes guidance for business people and, of course, for travellers. That is the case for Hong Kong, as for every other location where Brits might be operating. In those determinations, we will ensure that we look at a whole range of factors covering personal safety and legal risk.

I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. Like other speakers in this Chamber, I have a large Hong Kong community in my constituency, in Colindale, and that community is very worried about transnational repression. Will the Minister meet me and other MPs to discuss this issue?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the concerns of his constituents. Such concerns have indeed been articulated by others in this Chamber. Either the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), or I would be delighted to meet him to discuss this.

Last month, the Foreign Secretary told the House that he had made the release of Jimmy Lai his priority, yet the official Downing Street read-out of the Prime Minister’s meeting with President Xi just says that they discussed “different perspectives” on human rights, and does not even mention Jimmy Lai by name. How can the release of Jimmy Lai be a Government priority if, on the eve of his show trial, the Prime Minister’s official read-out cannot even mention his name, after he met the man responsible for his arbitrary detention?

I would respectfully refer the hon. Gentleman to the footage, which is widely available and which makes the point extremely clear.

I am sure that the right hon. Lady will gather the frustration that we all have, on both sides of the House, about what is going on; she probably shares it. What steps can she take with the Chinese Government to address what can only be seen as political lawfare, given that our Prime Minister seems to have some access to the Chinese President? Does the Minister agree that we cannot sit back while 47 people are found guilty of nothing more than proposing candidates for a democratic election, and that we are watching the death of any pretence of democracy in Hong Kong?

The UK Government are not sitting back. We are standing up, and we are being very clear indeed about our position. I mentioned earlier the clarity with which the Minister for the Indo-Pacific has stated the UK Government’s position. That follows engagement on these questions from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who is now beside me on the Front Bench, and of course from the Prime Minister. It is incredibly important that we have a Government who raise these matters directly with the Chinese Government. It is arguable that we had a bit of a vacuum in that respect over the few months prior to the election, but that is something we were determined to rectify.