China Audit

13:35:00

With permission, I will make a statement on the China audit. China’s rise has shaped the geopolitical landscape. Over the past decade, its military expenditure doubled. Its armed forces became the world’s largest. It established dominance over critical mineral supply chains. It pursued relentless innovation in electric vehicles, artificial intelligence and even space travel. Over the same period, China has delivered a third of global economic growth, becoming the world’s second largest economy and, together with Hong Kong, the UK’s third largest trading partner. Not engaging with China is therefore no choice at all. China’s power is an inescapable fact. After what the Intelligence and Security Committee in 2023 described as a “completely inadequate” approach over the past decade to deal with China’s “size, ambition and capability”, we must now look at the facts. Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton attempted a golden era. Boris Johnson let Huawei into our critical national infrastructure before U-turning. Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak decided that China was a threat but failed to devise any policy response, instead burying their heads in the sand. This Government conducted an audit of our most complex bilateral relationship to deliver a long-term strategy, moving beyond cheap rhetoric to a data-driven, cross-Government approach. I would like to thank the hundreds who contributed to it, including hon. Members, of course, and experts, businesses, diaspora communities, devolved Governments and close allies. The audit is less a single act than an ongoing exercise that will continue to guide the UK’s approach to China. It informed the Government’s strategic defence review, which assessed that China was a “sophisticated and persistent challenge”. It informed the national security strategy, published today, which sets out China’s impacts on each strategic pillar of UK national security. It has steered our trade and industrial strategies, which analysed where greater engagement is possible, given the important role China can play in delivering UK growth. Hon. Members will understand that much of the audit was conducted at a high classification and that most of the detail is not disclosable without damaging our national interests. I am therefore providing a broad summary of its recommendations today in a manner consistent with that of our Five Eyes partners. On security, the audit described a full spectrum of threats, from espionage and cyber-attacks to the repression of Hongkongers and attacks on the rules-based order. It made clear that our protections must extend more widely than they currently do—from the security of this House to our critical national infrastructure. Hon. Members will again recognise that disclosing the detail of the responses to those threats would undermine their effectiveness. However, I can confirm that following the audit we are investing £600 million in our intelligence services; updating our state threats legislation following Jonathan Hall’s review; strengthening our response to transnational repression; introducing training for police and launching more online guidance to support victims; launching, as announced in the industrial strategy, a 12-week consultation on updating the definitions covering the 17 sensitive areas under the National Security and Investment Act 2021; and working bilaterally with China to enhance intelligence flows related to illicit finance specifically, organised immigration crime and scam centres, using new National Crime Agency capabilities. On global security, the audit underlined the extent of Beijing’s support for the Kremlin. The Government have already tripled the number of Chinese entities sanctioned for equipping Russia’s illegal war, and we will continue to confront that. The audit reiterated that our approach to China must stay rooted in both international law and deterrence. We will continue to confront China’s dangerous and destabilising activity in the South China sea, which I saw for myself when I visited the Philippines. We will continue to work with our regional partners to support freedom of navigation and call out China’s abuses. We will double down on AUKUS. We will not change our long-standing position on Taiwan, while sustaining unofficial but vibrant ties with Taiwan on trade, education and innovation. We will also never shy away from shining a spotlight on human rights—notably the situations in Xinjiang and Tibet—while on Hong Kong we will insist that China honours its commitments under the Sino-British joint declaration, including by repealing the national security law and releasing Jimmy Lai. The audit made it clear that our approach will always be guided by the UK’s long-term economic growth priorities. It provided ample evidence of the extent to which our economies are intertwined. China is our third biggest trading partner and our universities’ second largest source of international students. China will continue to play a vital role in supporting the UK’s secure growth, but over the past decade we have not had the structures either to take the opportunities or to protect us from the risks that those deep links demand. Businesses have told us time and again that they have lacked senior political engagement and adequate Government guidance. We have already begun to develop new structures, including regular economic and financial dialogues with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, setting us on course to unlock £1 billion of economic value for the UK economy and positioning the UK’s world-leading financial sector to reflect China’s importance to the global economy; joint economic and trade commissions; and joint commission meetings on science. We will also launch a new online hub, bringing together detailed and specific business advice. The forthcoming trade strategy will set out how we will support British firms to enhance links with China’s vast and growing consumer market as well as assess new tools to keep goods made by forced labour anywhere in the world off Britain’s high streets. The audit recognised that China’s global role does not fit into simple stereotypes. China is the world’s biggest emitter but also the biggest producer of renewables. It offers $80 billion towards development annually. It is also the UK’s second largest research collaborator: 11% of British research output included Chinese authors. So the audit was clear: the UK must develop new dialogues with China on issues such as climate, development, global health and science, as well as on trade. In doing so, we are driving our long-term interests and creating secure opportunities for UK plc. We cannot deal with China’s complexity unless we improve our capability to understand it, for our national security and for secure trade and growth. The audit showed that under the last Government there was a profound lack of confidence in how to deal with China and a profound lack of knowledge regarding China’s culture, history and—most importantly—language. Over the past year, I have found that far too few mandarins speak Mandarin. We are already taking action to address that by introducing a new China fast stream in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, creating an FCDO global China network and training over 1,000 civil servants on China policy in the past year. Enhancing those capabilities still further will be a core focus for the £290 million FCDO transformation fund announced in the national security strategy by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster a short time ago. The new strategy, which proceeds from the audit, will ensure that the Government examine the full spectrum of interests in their decision-making processes and deliver the consistent approach that was so sorely lacking. Anyone expecting a simple prescription on China is not living in the real world. The audit has painted a complex picture, but it has provided us with a clear way forward. The UK’s approach to China will be founded on progressive realism, taking the world as it is, not as we would wish it to be. Like our closest allies, we will co-operate where we can and challenge where we must. Never compromising on our national security, recognising the complexity of the world as it is, engaging confidently, carefully and pragmatically, and delivering secure growth—those are the hallmarks of grown-up government, acting in the long-term national interest.

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

13:45:00

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement, and I look forward to reading the audit and receiving the detailed briefings that clearly cannot be put in the public domain. Let us be clear: China thinks that its way is the best and only way, and its leaders are on an international quest for global governance and for its frightening authoritarian model to supersede ours. Ours is one of democracy, openness and standing up for freedom and values. China has been ramping up its military with alarming conviction, including conventional nuclear and space capabilities, and it is a critical enabler of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine—we saw President Xi standing side by side with Putin in Moscow just weeks ago—so be in no doubt that China and Russia are collaborating across all domains to undermine our very democratic freedoms and the west. Beijing tramples on the Sino-British declaration in Hong Kong, threatens British national overseas passport holders on British soil and has imprisoned Jimmy Lai—a British national—through an awful, politically motivated trial. Beijing’s unjustified aggression in the South China sea is dangerous, and it unacceptably intimidates and challenges the sovereignty of its neighbours in the Indo-Pacific. It is consistently and constantly threatening the peace-seeking democracy of Taiwan while committing the most appalling human rights abuses in Xinjiang. It also applies hybrid and grey-zone techniques against Britain, including malign cyber-activity directed at our democratic institutions and sanctioning our very own Members of Parliament, all the while exploiting vulnerable countries through its belt and road initiative. China also flagrantly brushes aside economic rules and steals intellectual property. It has developed sophisticated models to acquire strategic assets around the world. Despite all of that, it has taken the Government a year to produce this audit, which seemingly fails to set out any kind of serious strategic framework. I think it is fair to say that we know why: it is because the Government—in fact, the Foreign Secretary touched on this—have gone cap in hand to China to bail out their terrible handling of the British economy. They are setting up closer economic ties with China while knowing very well that British businesses are struggling not just in competing against China, but to absorb the weight of Labour’s own regulatory costs. We have not heard it in the statement, but can the Foreign Secretary name a single area where measurable, tangible progress has been made in advancing critical British interests with China, whether on national security, economic practices, climate or human rights? He failed to mention that Members of this House have been sanctioned by China. We have seen signs of naivety from the Government—consistently, if I may say so. [Interruption.] Within one day of the Prime Minister meeting President Xi, he effectively held that as an opportunity to bring about a strong and consistent relationship in which surprises would be avoided. Within the following few days, 45 pro-democracy campaigners were jailed in Hong Kong, following a very harsh application of the draconian national security law. That is completely unacceptable. What is the Foreign Secretary’s actual strategy to deter China from systematically extinguishing freedoms in Hong Kong? Will he commit to using the full weight of the Government machine to do more to protect BNOs and Hongkongers who suffer outrageous transnational repression in the UK, rather than just issuing guidance and training? The Government have constantly and suspiciously backed the application for China’s new super-embassy in London. Why are the Foreign Secretary and the Government not showing the same backbone that their Irish and Australian counterparts showed when they saw fit to block embassy planning applications from Russia, which they deemed too risky for national security? Do the Government have a practical strategy to deter Chinese efforts to capture Taiwan by military means or by stealth, or to oppose the human rights abuses in Xinjiang? What is the Foreign Secretary’s end goal and what are the means of getting there? What will he do to find new critical minerals supply chains in order to reduce reliance on Chinese trade? With that, what will the Government do now to move Jimmy Lai’s case on to an urgent footing, away from the complex consular case handling that it seems to have in the Foreign Office? The Government need to urgently sort out some of the grave contradictions mentioned in the Foreign Secretary’s statement, and I will highlight a few. We heard him speak about the China audit underlining “the extent of Beijing’s support for the Kremlin.” We do not question or doubt that, but some action is needed. The statement also says that the audit “reiterated that our approach to China must stay rooted both in international law and deterrence.” How does that help Jimmy Lai at this particular moment? We will always support the security and the defence of our country, so the Government must do much more when it comes to keeping Britain safe from China.

I know that the right hon. Lady can be pretty brazen, but a lecture from her about China policy should make even her blush. The Conservative party oversaw more than a decade of division, inconsistency and complacency towards China. There was no strategy, there was no plan and there was no sense of a national interest. The Intelligence and Security Committee, which was chaired by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), from her party, said that the actions on China had left Britain “severely handicapped” in managing our future security. The truth is that the right hon. Lady was at the centre of it. Where was she during the ill-judged Cameron-Osborne golden age? She was the Minister for the Treasury. Where was she during the humiliating Huawei U-turn? She was Home Secretary. The Tories had their heads in the sand. Under them, Britain’s defences were weakened and our armed services hollowed out. It is a Labour Government who are investing £600 million in our intelligence services to deal with those threats; it is a Labour Government who are investing £290 million extra a year in our diplomatic capabilities in this area; it is a Labour Government who are delivering the biggest increase in defence spending since the cold war; and it is a Labour Government who are making Britain secure at home and strong abroad. I refer the right hon. Lady to page 28 of the strategic defence review—she clearly has not bothered to read it—which makes it clear that we of course understand that China is a “sophisticated and persistent” threat. She talks about the embassy, but she should know, as a former Home Secretary, that it is a quasi-judicial decision that has been properly made by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. The right hon. Lady talks about Jimmy Lai. I met Sebastien Lai last week, and we have been raising the issue on every single occasion. A trial is ongoing, so let us see how it will complete. She raises transnational aggression. We are the ones updating our state threats legislation because the Conservatives left the gaps and did nothing when in power. She raises the situation in Russia and the Chinese supplying Russia with dual-use goods. Who has done the sanctions? There have been five rounds of sanctions under me as Foreign Secretary. What did the Conservatives do? I will take no lectures on this subject from them, who know that, as a Government, they were found wanting on the question of threats from the Chinese.

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Our relationship with China is most definitely a difficult one. On the one hand, it is our third biggest trading partner, but on the other hand, the national security strategy, on page 35, says that there is an increase in espionage, China is undermining our economic security and interfering in our democracy, and that has increased over recent years. The Foreign Office needs to hold the ring. The China audit needs to be wide-ranging. It is an important piece of work. We were looking forward to seeing it published and to the Foreign Secretary coming to talk to us—he said that he would—but instead we are looking through a glass darkly, we do not know and we will not be able to see it. We want to be able to do our job properly and scrutinise this important piece of work. May I therefore suggest that the Foreign Secretary makes available a reading room at the FCDO for Foreign Affairs Committee members and staff before his appearance on 8 July so that we can study the audit properly and hold him to account?

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the interest that she has taken with the China audit. I did say that I would update the Committee, and I look forward to appearing before it and taking questions on this subject. In completing the audit, it has been important to remain consistent with our Five Eyes partners. She will recognise why much of the audit has led to a high level of classification. She will note, when she looks across the G7 and other Five Eyes partners, that many of them have handled their approach to China in the way that I have set out. I refer her to the strategic defence review and its contents on China. I refer her to the national security strategy, which has just been published, and its references to China. I also refer her to the UK’s industrial strategy and its references to China, alongside the statement that I have just made.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. For years, UK Governments have failed to take seriously the challenge posed by China. The Conservatives failed to deliver even the semblance of a coherent approach to dealing with Beijing. Today, after months of waiting for this audit, the Government’s failure to publish a stand-alone document is immensely disappointing. Will the Foreign Secretary set out how Members of this House, including those on the Intelligence and Security Committee and those on the Front Benches with responsibility for foreign affairs, defence and security, can be briefed on the more sensitive elements of the audit? We on the Liberal Democrat Benches recognise China for what it is: a threat to our values and interests. The Foreign Secretary is right that our approach must confront the facts as they are. They include China’s hostility to the UK’s allies and support for our adversaries, its abuse of human rights in Xinjiang and Hong Kong, the theft of intellectual property and its efforts at transnational repression. Instead of trying to establish warm relations with President Xi, the Government should commit to clear red lines on what they will not accept. For example, we have yet to receive a satisfactory explanation for why my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) was denied entry to Hong Kong when on a private visit to see her family. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm what steps he will take if Beijing refuses to give an assurance that MPs will not be blocked from visiting Hong Kong or China? We now hear reports that the Deputy Prime Minister is preparing to wave through Beijing’s application for a proposed mega-embassy in the heart of London. That is not a technical planning matter to be cloaked in the veil of quasi-judicial powers; it is a matter of national security. Opposition has been expressed by the United States and by pro-democracy Chinese and Hong Kong activists living in the UK, who already face Chinese Communist party-sponsored bounties. Has the Foreign Secretary met those activists, and will he formally request that the mega-embassy application be blocked?

As I have said, this was a comprehensive audit of our relations with China, and for reasons that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have raised consistently, there are important sections of that audit that must remain classified. He mentioned the Intelligence and Security Committee; as he would expect, mechanisms are in place to allow that Committee to understand some of the details, and to scrutinise them in the usual way. He mentioned the experience of the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). I want to make it clear that when I recently met the Chinese International Minister and member of the Communist party, Mr Liu Jianchao, I raised that case, and our huge concerns about its implications for the free travel of British citizens and democratically elected Members of Parliament, not just in this country but across the world. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the embassy and had questions about security. Those issues are precisely why the Home Secretary and I, advised by our security agencies, wrote a letter on the issue of the embassy, raising the concerns that would need to be addressed if the proposal was to move forward. And yes, of course I have met activists who are campaigning, particularly on the issue of transnational repression, and so has the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), who deals with this issue and the Indo-Pacific.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary groups on Uyghurs and on Hong Kong, I have lost count of the number of responses I have had from Ministers that have referred to today’s audit. I hope the Foreign Secretary will forgive me if I take today as the start of a conversation, rather than the last word on these matters. He has again used his three Cs mantra: competing and co-operating with China, and challenging it when needed. I wonder if he understands that many Hongkongers, Uyghurs and others who are fighting for freedom from or within the People’s Republic of China worry that the order of that is deliberate, and that the “challenging” part is a lower priority. What reassurance can he give to those groups that commercial interests will not trump the responsibility to protect freedoms and security, particularly of British Hongkongers? Can he confirm that the threats identified in the audit, and the national security challenge, will be fed into the decision making on whether to allow the embassy?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his championing on the APPGs, and for pressing these issues. I said in my statement that we will co-operate where we can but challenge where we must. I have consistently raised the situation of the Uyghur Muslims in meetings with counterparts, and I have encouraged them to implement the recommendations on Xinjiang from the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Genocide is a matter for the international courts, but it is something that I and our allies in the G7 take very seriously indeed, and we will press this issue with the Government of China on every single occasion.

First of all, before we go to the political knockabout, let me say that I have spoken critically on this issue no matter who was in government; let us settle that before we go on. I want to give the Foreign Secretary a quick audit of exactly what should have been said. China threatens Taiwan, has invaded the South China seas and is having massive disputes with the Philippines. There is genocide, slave labour, organ harvesting and transnational repression. There have been attacks on Hong Kong dissidents here, and Hong Kong dissidents are constantly under threat. There have been cyber-attacks on the UK. China supports Myanmar’s repressive military regime and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It also supports North Korea and Iran. It has trashed the Sino-British treaty on Hong Kong, arrested Jemmy Lai and placed sanctions on UK MPs, and it thieves all the intellectual property from private companies. What a record! And what would we balance against that? Some potential trade? This question has already been asked, in a way, but it is worth repeating. On the embassy decision, it was said clearly in the media that China would not apply again after the refusal from Tower Hamlets unless it received assurances from the UK Government. Can the Foreign Secretary tell me that China has not received any assurances? Or has it received private assurances from the Government that it will get what it wants, and will get this embassy?

Let me express my respect for the right hon. Gentleman’s expertise on the China threat. I acknowledge that he is subject to sanctions; I have consistently raised that point with China, noting that it recently lifted sanctions against Members of the European Parliament. I pressed it recently to do the same for Members here. Let me assure him that there are no grubby deals on any issues, and certainly not on the embassy; I reject any suggestion to the contrary. He describes the context on China. I refer him to page 28 of the strategic defence review, which summarises the challenge better than he did. It states that China is “a sophisticated and persistent challenge. China is increasingly leveraging its economic, technological, and military capabilities, seeking to establish dominance in the Indo-Pacific, erode US influence, and put pressure on the rules-based international order.” We agree.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I am the first to recognise, along with him, the need for pragmatism on this issue. He speaks of our closest allies. In Washington a couple of weeks ago, I heard about the Americans’ real concerns about the super-embassy in London. They are banning Chinese electric vehicles because of their autonomous and connected nature, which is an extraordinary move to consider making. I recognise that there is an economic need, but there is obviously political pressure as well. Can members of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, which I chair, have access to the confidential documents, so that we can be clear-eyed about what we face?

I am grateful for the work that my hon. Friend does in this area, but I must maintain that there has not been that access under any Government, other than for those on the Intelligence and Security Committee, who have access to high-classification documents, and for Privy Counsellors, who have access to conversations with the Government and officials that they pledge to keep secret. The Government cannot abandon those principles, which have consistently served us well for many years under many Governments.

On page 39, the “National Security Strategy 2025” states: “Instances of China’s espionage, interference in our democracy and the undermining of our economic security have increased in recent years.” Just three pages later, it talks about the importance of “creating the basis for a reciprocal and balanced economic relationship” with China. Does the Foreign Secretary recognise the inherent conflict between this Government’s desire for closer economic relations, and the Chinese Government’s desire to undermine our economy?

The paradox is important, but let me be clear that £600 million-worth of new investment in our intelligence services is an important development. Investment in our capabilities, including new powers and capabilities for the National Cyber Security Centre, is an important development, but being able to unlock £1 billion-worth of trade with our third biggest trading partner must also be central to our undertaking at this time.

I welcome this statement, particularly as it has become clearer that the Conservatives badly mismanaged not just their policies towards China but our relationship with it over successive years. China offers economic opportunities, but also poses threats, as we have been hearing. We also heard earlier in the statement on the national security strategy about the importance of partnership and alliances, including with key allies in the Indo-Pacific. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Boris Johnson’s 2019 embracing of China’s belt and road initiative was a serious diversion from the position of many of our democratic allies, many of whom saw the belt and road initiative as a threat?

Prime Minister Johnson’s record on China is shocking. It led to the grave embarrassment of having to do a U-turn on Huawei, which would have been able to get into the most delicate of our telecommunications infrastructure. It is because of that that we undertook, while in opposition, to do a full audit. That audit is constantly ongoing, but I hope that my hon. Friend will see its results reflected in the industrial strategy, the national security strategy and, of course, the SDR, which was published recently.

I enjoyed playing buzzword bingo when the right hon. Member presented his statement. I remind him that the rebellion on Huawei was actually led by Conservative Members, not Labour. May I question the right hon. Gentleman about a meeting, which he referred to with a little more pride than I would have done? It was the meeting with Liu Jianchao, who is personally responsible for Operations Fox Hunt and Sky Net, which, of course, concern transnational repression, the kidnapping of Chinese citizens and their repatriation by force to mainland China. He did not seem quite as ashamed of that as I would have been. Why has he still not made it clear that the first scheme, which the Conservatives left intact and ready to go, will not yet be introduced for the whole of the Chinese state, as it should be? That is what it was designed for. For all the words that we have heard, there is not a single practical outcome. It is all still waffle.

I recognise, and it is right to put on the record, that Conservative Members, the right hon. Gentleman among them, have raised significant issues over the past decade or so about the approach to China. That is why, in opposition, we said that we would do a full audit. He will recognise and welcome, I suspect, the extra investment in the intelligence services, and particularly in our national cyber capability. I see him nodding. Those are tangible outcomes. That cannot, on any analysis, be described as waffle.

Before coming to Parliament, I worked in a buying department for a large international retailer. In my career, I saw a move to sourcing from China, and a rise in the popularity of retailers based in China. How will the audit work with the Department for Business and Trade to level the playing field for UK manufacturers, given the imports from China, particularly in the light of unfair trading practices, to protect our economic security and UK supply chains?

It is a good question, and I refer my hon. Friend to the industrial strategy and the further work that we have to do on supply chains. From day one, this Government have taken a big interest in global supply chains in critical minerals. Together with many partners across the world, we are working with the Global Clean Power Alliance to create new supply chains, in order to deal with the issues that she has raised.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his efforts in raising the issue of my being refused entry to Hong Kong. I look forward to reassurances that no UK MP will be refused entry to any Chinese territories. The Foreign Secretary’s statement mentioned that China is our universities’ second largest source of international students, and that includes my university, the University of Bath. Global academic exchange and the free flow of ideas is at the heart of our liberal values and should be welcomed, but should the Government not be aware of the fine balance that must be kept? We should not allow young researchers and students access to certain knowledge that could ultimately be used against the UK.

The hon. Member is absolutely right that it is a fine balance. We need to invest more in our police capability, and that is an outcome of this audit. We need to continue to work with our universities, so that they understand the threats in this area, as well as the opportunities.

Order. Members will be aware that we have three debates this afternoon, so I aim to finish this statement by 2.35 pm.

May I say to the Foreign Secretary how much I welcome this China audit? I would like to highlight one aspect in particular. As someone who studied Chinese at university and lived there for a year, I know how complex and different China can be, and the many misconceptions and ignorance around China have been a source of frustration for me. Whatever anybody thinks of our relationship with China, it is absolutely vital that we have clear communication and that we deal with China from a position of knowledge. Does the Foreign Secretary agree how important it is that the FCDO is upskilled to ensure that we have that knowledge of Chinese culture and language skills, so we are fully prepared for the years ahead?

My hon. Friend’s question goes to the heart of capabilities. We must have more diplomats with a fine understanding of China and more Mandarin speakers, and we are doing that. Sadly, the last Government cut the number of diplomats with that capability and understanding. We need to invest in the Great Britain-China Centre so that understanding of the culture is across our country, and she is absolutely right on that point.

Order. I also remind Members that it would be helpful to have short questions and answers.

On the one hand, the Defence Secretary has told the world that the UK will increase offensive cyber operations against China. On the other hand, the Deputy Prime Minister is pushing for a Chinese super-embassy in London, which will be furnished with secret data cabling. Does the Foreign Secretary see any inconsistencies in his Government’s approach to China?

What I see is naivety on the behalf of the hon. Gentleman. First, to be clear, the Deputy Prime Minister has not made her quasi-judicial decision. It is wrong, and he should correct the record of the House because the decision has not been made. Secondly, why would we want a situation in which the United States, under both Governments, can take the hardest approach on China, but trade is up, and in which our G7 partners understand the risks and threats of China, but all their trade is up, when under the last Government, we were in a situation where trade was down only for the UK? That cannot be right.

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the Secretary of State for his pragmatic approach. Opposition is easy, but Opposition Members know that if they were in his shoes, they would be doing exactly the same thing. Huawei has been mentioned a couple of times in passing. The reality is the guddle over it delayed the roll-out of 5G by three years and cost the economy £7 billion, which is just incredible and shameful, actually. I welcome the emphasis placed on improving cultural links between the UK and China and, of course, our universities are a key part of that. Will the Foreign Secretary commit to ensuring that our universities have a say in how we establish better relationships between China and the UK?

I reassure my hon. Friend that our universities were able to contribute to our China audit.

As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Tibet, I welcome the fact that the Government have responded to human rights situations in Xinjiang and Tibet. I would like to have seen more about religious freedoms, which includes next week’s birthday of the Dalai Lama—probably the most well-known Tibetan in the world. His future reincarnation should be for the people of Tibet, both inside and the diaspora. Given the Tibetan diaspora, the Uyghur diaspora and Hong Kong nationals are under constant surveillance here by the Chinese Communist party, how do the Government plan to take the recently agreed G7 definition of transnational repression and translate it into domestic law?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that, in December, we appointed my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) as the special envoy for freedom of religion and belief. He is right to raise the issues that we are aware of in Tibet. On transnational repression, we have a broad range of powers to counter foreign interference and transnational repression, particularly under the National Security Act 2023, which we will update.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and that answer. He will know that in Bracknell and the wider Berkshire area we have a large Hong Kong community, who have been terrified at the threat of national repression from the Hong Kong Government. What message can he share with my constituents about the protections available for them to enjoy the democracy and freedom of speech that we so value here in the UK?

The Minister for the Indo-Pacific has met some of my hon. Friend’s constituents on this issue. Because of the concerns he rightly raises, I hope he will welcome the training for our police right across the nation on these issues.

Will the Government publish a list of sectors considered overly dependent on Chinese input, starting with critical minerals and clean energy components, to promote transparency? Will the Foreign Secretary outline any clear Government targets for reducing those dependencies?

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the powers to counter foreign interference and transnational repression under the National Security Act.

The Foreign Secretary mentioned Hong Kong in his statement. Would he consider speaking to colleagues in the Home Office about rethinking the changes to indefinite leave to remain, to ensure BNO passport holders do not end up facing questions about their status?

That issue is still subject to consultation and will be announced by the Home Secretary in the usual way.

The UK Government are still considering Mingyang as a credible supplier for turbines for the Green Volt offshore wind project, and the SNP Scottish Government have given Mingyang priority status for a factory to build turbines based in Scotland under their strategic investment plan. Both say to me that neither Government are taking seriously the threat that China poses to our energy supplies. China is, at best, unreliable and, at worst, hostile and should be nowhere near our critical national infrastructure. Will the Secretary of State finally rule out Mingyang being a permitted supplier for energy infrastructure in the future or at least give us a date for when we will hear a decision?

Through the National Security and Investment Act 2021, we have a robust framework to make individual decisions such as the one on Mingyang. As the hon. Lady knows, energy is one of 17 priority sectors under the NSIA in which Government can block any potential acquisitions on security grounds, and that remains under consideration.

It is four years today since the Apple Daily ceased publication, and Jimmy Lai still languishes in Hong Kong’s Stanley Prison. It is worth noting his name and encouraging the Foreign Secretary to raise his case as often as he can. It is welcome to see in the statement that we are “strengthening our response to transnational repression”. Can the Minister confirm that that includes restoring access to the Mandatory Provident Fund, which is another way the Hong Kong Government are spreading their chilling impacts on BNO visa holders here in the UK?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that. May I also name-check the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) on this issue? The issue is under consideration, and we have been discussing with communities these very important pension issues.

In his statement, the Foreign Secretary says that “our approach will always be guided by the UK’s long-term economic growth priorities”. As an example of that, he refers to our universities’ second largest source of international students being China, yet the Intelligence and Security Committee stated in the press notice for its report on China, of which he approves: “China is similarly aggressive in its interference activities… China oversteps the boundary. It has been particularly effective at using its money and influence to penetrate or buy Academia in order to ensure its international narrative is advanced and criticism suppressed.” In answer to the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), he said that we look to the universities to take precautions. Given the financial incentive to universities, I would rather look to someone else to take the precautions.

The right hon. Gentleman is right: we do have to be vigilant. As I said, sitting behind this audit is a lot of work at high classification. He will know that the Intelligence and Security Committee understands the nature of that work, particularly the work that sits behind the strategic defence review and the national security strategy. That is ongoing, and I am happy to ensure that he is aware of the work we are doing with universities.

The Foreign Secretary has referred to protections in terms of energy companies, but when it comes to Mingyang and Orient Cable in the highlands and the North sea, the concern is not their ability to produce but their ability to switch off and on the network and our energy security and, as a result, national security. Can he tell us what mitigating measures will be put in place if those contracts are won?

I recognise the sensitivity and the import of what the hon. Lady says. That is central to the considerations and discussions that are under way within Government as we look at these issues and balance them against our national security.

For weeks, some questions on China have been deflected on the basis that we should wait for the audit, so it is rather disappointing that the insight we get today is very opaque. In the Foreign Secretary’s statement, he reveals that China is the UK’s second largest research collaborator. Has he done an audit of the nature of that research? Are there economic and intelligence risks from that research, and are the Government minded to take any steps either to monitor or to control the extent of that research?

The hon. and learned Gentleman says that he would have liked to hear more and the statement was opaque, but the other side of that coin is that it might be reassuring that the Government are not making all of our intelligence capability and understanding available to China and the outside world. He will recognise that the biggest academic partner in that research is the United States, and given the way the economy of China has grown, certainly over my two decades in Parliament, it is not surprising that it has emerged as our second largest. I want to reassure him that, of course, the agencies are able to offer full advice to universities and examine sensitivities, and we are very aware of the threats he has conveyed to the House.

For an example of a quick question, I call Sir Desmond Swayne.

It was proper and lawful to send HMS Spey through the Taiwan strait in pursuit of vital international freedom of navigation in the South China sea, was it not, and can we see more like it?

Yes, and yes.

I want to remind the Foreign Secretary that the Government that invited Huawei into our telecommunications network was actually the last Labour Government between 2003 and 2006. [Interruption.] Well, he has tried to be partisan about it. The ebb and flow of these issues and the mistakes go back quite a long time, and he should acknowledge that. What assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of China’s dominance of the world market for cellular internet modules, which are subsidised and sold internationally below the cost of manufacture? What assessment in particular has he made of the insertion of kill switches in Chinese-made wind turbines and PV cells, and will he rule out any Chinese involvement in our energy infrastructure?

I will take no lectures from the hon. Gentleman, whose advice to former Prime Minister May led to the possibility of nuclear information being revealed. He should be embarrassed, and I am surprised he came to this statement this afternoon.

Given that China represents one of the defining geopolitical challenges of our age, I am somewhat sceptical about reports this morning that this much-touted, long-awaited year-long audit has significantly downgraded that challenge. Under this Government, there has been a significant increase in ministerial engagement and visits with China, a policy that is at best incoherent and at worst incompetent. Given that actions speak louder than words, can the Foreign Secretary confirm that the Prime Minister will no longer be making his proposed trip to China?

The audit is a lot of work, and we have not even been in government for a year. We pledged to undertake an audit, we have undertaken that audit and what I have set out is comprehensive. There can be no no-go areas for the UK Prime Minister.

The audit received responses from the devolved Governments. Last month, the Northern Ireland Finance Minister met the Chinese consul general in Belfast. The meeting was described as a formal diplomatic engagement with views exchanged on deepening co-operation. Significantly, there were no press interviews, publicly released minutes or full attendee list; no specific sectors or agreements were referenced. Northern Ireland’s foreign policy is not devolved, so does the Foreign Secretary know what was discussed or agreed? Does he think he should know and will he ask? As a response to the audit, did the Northern Ireland Executive include what was discussed in that meeting or previous meetings between the Chinese Government and the First and Deputy First Ministers?

The hon. Gentleman has put his views on the record, and I will consult my officials about what he has revealed.

I call Jim Shannon to ask the final question.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. It is essential that we have a fuller understanding of the reach of China, as well as of our goals. British citizens have contacted me about the human rights violations, not only against those in China but those who live on our shores. Will the Foreign Secretary ensure that China understands that its reach stops before our shores, and that our people are entitled to think and have freedom of speech whenever they desire, without any fear of reprisal?

The hon. Gentleman is right. We will always fight and press for our democratic norms. We cannot accept repression, oppression and criminal acts committed in our own country. We will stand up to them, and I have made representations to my Chinese interlocutors to make that completely clear.