Jimmy Lai Conviction

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will first address the horrific attack that took place yesterday at Bondi Beach in Sydney. Across the UK, and across the world, people have been shocked and appalled by this vile antisemitic terrorist attack, targeting Jewish families who were celebrating on the beach on the first day of Hanukkah. New South Wales authorities have confirmed that 15 people have been killed, in addition to one of the two gunmen, and 27 people remain in hospital. It is a devastating loss of life, including a Holocaust survivor and a little girl just 10 years old. It has also now been confirmed that one of the victims of the Bondi attack was a British national, bringing this tragedy even closer to home. We have offered support to the family following their tragic loss. I have offered my Australian counterpart, Foreign Minister Penny Wong, the United Kingdom’s full support in Australia’s response, and the Prime Minister and His Majesty the King have both shared their condolences.

Hanukkah should be a time of celebration and joy, yet Jewish people are again confronted with vile acts of hatred simply for being Jews, with further distress for our British Jewish communities just a couple of months after the Manchester synagogue attack on Yom Kippur. We stand in solidarity with Australia’s Jewish communities and with Jewish communities here and across the world as they continue to mark Hanukkah, and we stand in solidarity with the Australian people. Our thoughts are with all those affected. We must continue and increase work to root out antisemitism in all its forms, here and abroad, because we will never let hatred win.

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will now turn to today’s verdict in the trial of Jimmy Lai. Today, Hong Kong’s courts ruled that Jimmy Lai was guilty of foreign collusion under the national security law, which Beijing imposed on the city five years ago. They also found him guilty of conspiring to publish seditious materials. Jimmy Lai is a British citizen. He has been targeted by the Chinese and Hong Kong Governments for peacefully exercising his right to freedom of expression. This was a politically motivated prosecution that I strongly condemn. Jimmy Lai now faces the prospect of a sentence that, for a man of 78 years, could mean the rest of his life in prison. I call again for Jimmy Lai’s immediate release. On my instruction, the Foreign Office has today summoned the Chinese ambassador to underline our position in the strongest terms. My acting consul-general was present at court today to bear witness.

For many in this House and for the large diaspora community living in the UK, it is heartbreaking that such a violation of a British man’s rights could occur in Hong Kong, because the Hong Kong of Jimmy Lai’s childhood was a city where a 12-year-old boy seeking opportunity could go on to build a business empire and then a media platform. It was a city of freedom, and that freedom brought great prosperity. When the joint declaration was signed by the United Kingdom and China in 1984, both nations declared their commitment to that prosperity. Our countries agreed that Hong Kong’s uniqueness—its high degree of autonomy; its executive, legislative and independent judicial power; and its rights and freedoms, including freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly and of association—was the foundation of its success, and that those things were to be enshrined in law.

For many years, Hong Kong was the embodiment of the commitments made in that joint declaration. The city, the economy and, most importantly, the people thrived. It was a remarkable, shining example to the world of what Hong Kong’s people, and co-operation between the UK and China, could achieve. Indeed, it is partly because of our important history with Hong Kong—economic as well as political—that China remains our third largest trading partner today.

In 2020, however, China began to break the commitments in that declaration. Hong Kong’s free media spoke out, and they were punished for it. In June 2020 China breached the joint declaration by imposing its national security law on the city. It was a law imposed on Hong Kong to silence China’s critics, and one that undermined Hong Kong’s autonomy and threatened the rights that China had once freely committed to upholding. It was not long before the new law was applied and Jimmy Lai was arrested, along with other advocates of democracy, free speech and freedom of assembly.

This British citizen—this businessman and journalist; this father, husband and grandfather—has endured five years of incarceration. Meanwhile, his supporters around the world have campaigned tirelessly for justice. I pay particular tribute to Jimmy’s son, Sebastien Lai, who has endured such pain and shown such determination and dignity in fighting for his father and for the wider rights and principles at stake. I know that many honourable colleagues have had the privilege of meeting this determined man, who has endured so much to take on his father’s mantle, speaking up where his father cannot.

The Government have continually and repeatedly raised Jimmy Lai’s case with China at every opportunity, urging the authorities to agree his release, yet the Hong Kong authorities continue to refuse us consular access to our citizen—a 78-year-old man whose health is suffering. Jimmy Lai remains imprisoned, despite international calls for his release and concerns regarding his health; despite UK Ministers raising our concerns directly and privately with Hong Kong and Chinese officials; and despite our repeated requests for consular access, the most recent of which was submitted on Thursday. Once again, I call for Jimmy Lai to be granted full access to independent medical professionals to assess his health and ensure that he receives adequate treatment.

Today’s verdict is sadly not a surprise, but no state can bully and persecute the British people for exercising their basic rights. We have seen how the Hong Kong authorities have tried to use the national security law to target even those living on British soil for speaking up. The UK has repeatedly called for the national security law to be repealed, and for an end to the prosecution of all individuals charged under it. It remains imperative that the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities end the deliberate targeting of opposition voices through arrest warrants and bounties in the UK and elsewhere.

The safety of the Hong Kong community in the UK is a top priority for this Government and, as the Prime Minister has recently said, protecting our security is non-negotiable—it is our first duty. This Government are unequivocally clear that China poses a series of national security threats to the United Kingdom. That is why we have taken further steps and tougher measures to defend our democracy by disrupting and deterring threats from China and other state actors, including upgrading sovereign technology; removing Chinese-made surveillance equipment from sensitive sites; drawing up new legislation modelled on counter-terrorism powers to tackle state threats; rolling out new training to police forces across the country on tackling state threats and protecting individuals from transnational repression; and continuing to support the Hong Kong British national overseas route, which has welcomed over 200,000 Hongkongers to the UK. As part of the earned settlement consultation, the Home Office has confirmed that Hongkongers will retain a five-year settlement route in the UK.

China has not upheld its commitments to the people of Hong Kong, but we will. Jimmy Lai chose to remain in Hong Kong to speak up for what was right, and he is currently paying the price. For the sake of Jimmy Lai and his family, but also for the people of Hong Kong, for the joint declaration we signed and for the rule of law, we will not relent on this. Joined by nations across the world, we call again for the immediate release of Jimmy Lai. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition and with your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to give our condolences following the antisemitic targeted murder of 15 people from the Jewish community in the shooting in Bondi Beach yesterday. This atrocity was absolutely appalling, and as the Jewish community comes together this Hanukkah, we honour a tradition that symbolises resilience, faith and the triumph of light over darkness.

In the early hours of this morning, Jimmy Lai was convicted, following a shameful show trial under the repressive national security law imposed on Hong Kong in breach of the Sino-British joint declaration. Jimmy Lai’s imprisonment, trial and conviction mark a new low in the Chinese Communist party’s shameful attempts to extinguish freedom, democracy and the rule of law in Hong Kong. They are yet more serious violations of the Sino-British joint declaration. The scenes of Jimmy, a 78-year-old man, being paraded around in chains are disturbing, but his defiance stands as a source of hope for those who still believe in freedom, democracy and human rights.

Despite all the pain and suffering, despite being persecuted at the hands of the Chinese Communist party, despite being held in solitary confinement for more than 1,800 days, and despite his health deteriorating, Jimmy’s spirit remains unbroken. Throughout the last few years, his son Sebastien, his family and supporters have fought hard for his freedom and to raise awareness of his appalling treatment. I pay tribute to them. The whole House will stand behind them as their fight to free Jimmy continues.

Jimmy should be freed and allowed to come home to the United Kingdom to be with his family. We need to know what action the Government will now take to do everything possible to secure his release and to seriously ratchet up the pressure to end the disgraceful and draconian national security law. What will the consequences be if Beijing does not change its position?

When was the last time the Prime Minister raised Jimmy Lai’s imprisonment directly with President Xi? Has he called President Xi today, in the aftermath of the conviction, to demand Jimmy’s release and to demand that Jimmy be free to come home to the UK? How often has the Prime Minister raised this case directly since July 2024? What was President Xi’s response to him on the occasions that the case was raised, either publicly or in private?

I thank the right hon. Lady for her support for the victims of the appalling terrorist attack in Bondi Beach in Sydney. I also welcome her support for the release of Jimmy Lai. That should be something that unites the entire House, and the whole House should support the calls for his freedom.

The right hon. Lady asks what action the Government are taking and have continued to take. The Foreign Office has today summoned the Chinese ambassador to convey the full strength of our feeling about this decision and about the politically motivated prosecution under the national security law. Not only has the Prime Minister raised this, and not only have I recently raised it directly with Foreign Minister Wang Yi, but a whole succession of Government Ministers have raised it with their counterparts in the Chinese Government. We see this not simply as a foreign policy matter, but as a matter that affects the entire Government relationship.

The right hon. Lady seems to suggest that we should then have no further engagement, but actually the opposite is true: we need to ensure that we are conveying the strength of our feeling, exactly because this is so important. We have been engaging with our international counterparts. The EU has today said that it “deplores the conviction”, and that this prosecution

“is politically motivated and emblematic of the erosion of democracy and fundamental freedoms in Hong Kong since the imposition of the National Security Law in 2020.”

I have raised this matter at the G7, including with my G7 counterparts. She will know the strength of feeling on this issue in the US, where I have discussed it with counterparts. We will continue to raise this issue not just directly in our relationship with China, but in international discussions, to maintain pressure on China.

Chinese authorities have said that they want China to be a country that respects the international rule of law. Well, we need to hold them to that, then. At the heart of international law are the legal requirements, which they signed up to and which still stand in international law, as a result of the 1984 declaration. However, the declaration is not being respected, and it is being repeatedly violated. If China wants to uphold international law on the world stage, it should uphold those commitments in Hong Kong, it should uphold the rights and the freedoms of the people of Hong Kong, and it should release Jimmy Lai.

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

May I associate myself with the remarks from both Front Benchers in relation to the appalling attack in Australia?

I am greatly encouraged to hear the Government state that they want to have a whole-of-Government approach to the issue of Jimmy Lai. Jimmy Lai is a British citizen. He could have chosen to leave Hong Kong at any time during the years up to his arrest. He could have left in 2014, but he joined the umbrella movement. He could have left in 2019, but he joined the protests against the proposed extradition law. He could have fled in 2020, when he was given bail, but he stayed because, he said, he wanted to stand up for the city that had given him everything. Despite his great age and his health difficulties, he has been held in solitary confinement for 1,800 days. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Jimmy Lai is an inspirational example of bravery and patriotism for all those fighting for democracy, wherever they are in the world?

I strongly welcome my right hon. Friend’s tribute to Jimmy Lai, his bravery and his strength in the face of the most difficult circumstances, and to the way in which he has spoken up for freedom and for values, as well as for his city and communities. She is right to pay tribute to him, and I think the whole House would join in that tribute and in recognising what he has stood up for. We also recognise that others have been forced to leave Hong Kong as a result of that repression. That is why the BNO route that the Government provide is so important.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of her strong statement. I associate my party with her remarks about the appalling attack at Bondi Beach. We stand united against all anti-Jewish hatred.

I share the Foreign Secretary’s utter condemnation of Jimmy Lai’s politically motivated conviction. The trumped-up charges and sham trial show how desperate the Beijing regime is to silence its critics. I agree with Jimmy’s son, Sebastien, that it is now up to the UK Government to ensure Jimmy’s welfare and secure his release. I welcome the summoning of the Chinese ambassador today. What was the outcome? Has Jimmy Lai’s access to medical treatment been assured? What further steps are the Government taking to secure his immediate release?

The Foreign Secretary is right to say that China poses national security threats to the UK, so can she explain why it is not on the enhanced tier of FIRS? Jimmy Lai is not alone in the fight for civil liberties and the rule of law in Hong Kong. Countless brave Hongkongers continue to advocate for democracy and freedom, even as the CCP works relentlessly to erode the city’s independence.

For speaking out, many Hongkongers living in the UK face daily intimidation and threats from Beijing. Just last week, pro-democracy campaigner Carmen Lau was subjected to a renewed campaign of intrusive and distressing intimidation and misinformation. What reassurances can the Foreign Secretary provide today to Carmen and other Hongkongers living in the UK that they will be better protected in the future against Beijing’s predations? Has she updated her submission to the Housing Secretary about the risks posed by the new super-embassy? Will the Government look to sanction all those CCP officials who are responsible for extraterritorial intimidation of pro-democracy activists?

Finally, the Government like to say that they will challenge China when they must. Can the Foreign Secretary indicate one thing that the Government will not do for China, in order to signal that the treatment of Jimmy Lai is unacceptable?

I thank the hon. Member for his support for Jimmy Lai and his release. Unfortunately, China has not currently agreed either to consular access or to health access, but let me be clear that we will not relent. We will continue to raise this issue with our international partners as well as directly with China, including in international forums. I join him in condemning the targeting of Carmen Lau and others who have been targeted in the UK. It is why we are strengthening the training for all police forces across the UK on how to deal with state threats and transnational repression. We increased investment in our intelligence and security agencies, so that they can deal with state threats as well as traditional counter-terrorism threats. We are increasingly using new measures, such as sanctions, on issues around cyber-threats. He will be aware that we have recently sanctioned two Chinese entities around cyber-threats and cyber-challenges to the UK.

The hon. Member also raised the embassy. As he will know, it remains a planning decision for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government under its independent processes, but security considerations have been taken immensely seriously, not only by the Home Office and the Foreign Office, but by the agencies throughout.

The Hong Kong national security law and the conviction of Jimmy Lai are a breach of the 1984 Sino-British joint declaration. It is a politically motivated attack on freedom. Can the Foreign Secretary reassure this House that all possible actions are being pursued, first to ensure that Jimmy Lai obtains his legal access to British consular support, and secondly to push for his immediate release?

I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to do everything we can to provide consular support for all those affected by the national security law, and in particular Jimmy Lai. May I also reiterate the tributes to Sebastien Lai, who I know is in the Gallery today?

I agree with the right hon. Lady in her comments about the terrible attacks in Bondi, and I congratulate her on raising that now, but I rise to express the view again that this case is not only about Hong Kong, but about this Chamber. I have been named nine times in the prosecution case against Jimmy Lai. Others have been named more than that. It is appalling. I would have loved to have met him and spoken to him, but I never have done. It is trumped-up nonsense from the CCP.

The second thing I say to the Foreign Secretary is that I agree with the strength of her statement about the appalling nature of the Government in China over this issue, but it is no good just meeting people to say they are wrong or calling in the ambassadors. Surely what we have to do is show them a ratcheting up in the things that we will do. First, we need to tell them that there will be no visit in January by our Prime Minister to an organisation that is so corrupt and indecent. Secondly, we should surely start imposing sanctions on those members in Hong Kong who run the place. We have done none of that. Every other country has sanctioned them, but we have not. Finally, there is the idea of allowing this regime to have a huge embassy with 200 extra spies brought in. At this point, they surely need to be told that it will not happen until they release Jimmy Lai.

I know that the right hon. Member has campaigned and spoken out on this area for a long time, so let me recognise his continued speaking out, not just for Jimmy Lai, but more widely on issues around China and national security concerns. Let me be clear that we will continue to pursue this issue through international routes, as well as directly with China. He raises issues around sanctions. As he will know, we never talk about sanctions in advance, but we have expanded the sanctions not just around cyber-threats, but on issues such as support for Russia and the war on Ukraine.

I have addressed the question of the planning process for the embassy, but let me be clear that the UK continues to have strong restrictions on the numbers of people who can come to the UK and on the visa arrangements. All of that continues and does not change at all as a result of any planning decision. No state can bully and persecute the British people for exercising their basic rights. That is why we have been clear in our strong condemnation of this politically motivated prosecution and in calling for the release of Jimmy Lai.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for her tribute to Sebastien Lai, who, as she says, has joined us in the Gallery. This afternoon, Members from across the House heard from Sebastien—Jimmy’s son and a constituent of mine—and the international legal team supporting him and the family. Jimmy is now 78. A British citizen in failing health after five years in solitary confinement, he now faces a fifth Christmas away from his family, including a granddaughter he has never met, Sebastien’s first child. What message does the Foreign Secretary specifically have for Jimmy’s family, and can she assure them that everything will be on the table in what the Government decide to do next?

We send our wholehearted support to Jimmy Lai’s family, who face the most difficult of circumstances, and to Jimmy Lai himself, who is a British citizen and has our strong support. We will continue to raise this issue in every forum that we can. The priority must be to draw on those humanitarian grounds, if nothing else, to get the immediate release of a man who is 78 and who has already been incarcerated for far too many years.

Jimmy Lai’s so-called crime was simply being a journalist expressing his views. As the Foreign Secretary has said, he is 78, and we heard this afternoon from Sebastien and his legal team that his health is deteriorating rapidly and he is likely to die in prison unless he is released soon. Will the Foreign Secretary meet Sebastien, with his legal advisers from Doughty Street Chambers, to discuss what additional pressure can be put on the Chinese Government to obtain Jimmy Lai’s release?

I have met Sebastien Lai previously, and I will certainly meet him again in order to talk to him about what more support we can provide.

A constituent of mine suffered a terrible rape in Hong Kong which was not properly investigated. Her statement was made with the use of Google Translate, and no rape kit was taken. She then found herself being accused of something else as a result, and will have been in the system for two years in January. She trusted that the legal system in Hong Kong would support her, but in taking on the case of a black British woman, her lawyers have taken a risk. Does the Foreign Secretary have confidence in the legal system in Hong Kong, and is there anything that we can do to support my constituent?

I am very sorry to hear the circumstances of my hon. Friend’s constituent, and I am happy to discuss them further with my hon. Friend. As she will know, we have raised our concerns repeatedly, especially in relation to the national security law and the way in which that law does not respect the circumstances and the commitments that were agreed. It has been a crucial part of Hong Kong’s identity for so many years, and what was embodied in the declaration was that it was about respect for the rule of law.

Carmen Lau is a Hong Kong democracy campaigner, and a constituent of mine. Earlier this year, her neighbours received letters asking them to take her to the Chinese embassy in exchange for £100,000. Last month her neighbours also received fake sexually explicit photographs of her, with a Macao postage stamp. May I ask the Foreign Secretary when she last met Carmen to discuss those concerns, and how she can reassure Hongkongers living in Britain that they will be safe?

I thank the hon. Member for standing up for his constituent. Obviously, I have seen the most recent reports of the circumstances that she has faced. I have not met her since then to discuss them and hear from her about them, but I think the whole House will be totally appalled by the experiences that she has had. I can assure the hon. Member that our counter-terrorism police, who cover both state threats and terrorism threats, take this immensely seriously and pursue every possible investigation, which it is why we as a Government have expanded their work in relation to state threats.

The use of foreign lawyers by both prosecution and defence is a long-established tradition in Hong Kong, yet Jimmy Lai has been denied that right, even as judgment has been passed. This is about justice, not rigged justice. This verdict is not only devastating for one British citizen and his family; it represents a brutal attack on free speech and the rule of law in Hong Kong. It confirms that the national security law is being used to silence critics, to destroy independent media, and to dismantle the freedoms that were promised to the people of Hong Kong. According to the Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation,

“Jimmy Lai is guilty only of his unwavering belief in freedom for the people of Hong Kong. Contrary to Beijing’s intentions, the verdict today highlights Jimmy Lai’s courage and integrity and sends a clear message around the world that Hong Kong’s once proud judicial system is severely tarnished and under Beijing’s authoritarian control.”

The Foreign Secretary, and many Ministers whom she has quoted today, have raised the case of Mr Lai and spoken to people including our international colleagues, and we must continue to do so, but it is evident that that is no longer sufficient. The Prime Minister must raise the case with the Chinese regime at the highest possible level. Jimmy Lai is a British citizen, and I ask our Prime Minister to consider carefully what action we will now take to protect this citizen and many, many more. After all, the British Government’s first duty is to protect their citizens at home and abroad.

I welcome my hon. Friend’s championing of Jimmy Lai. She is right: this is about some of the most basic freedoms of all. It is about freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly—freedom to gather—and also the fundamental freedoms in relation to journalism that are so important and have been such an important part of Hong Kong’s identity and history for so long. They were embodied in the declaration to recognise that uniqueness about Hong Kong, which is why we will continue to maintain them. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Prime Minister has already raised this directly with his counterparts, as have many other Ministers, and we will continue to do so.

Let me start by saying that I greatly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s words about the horrific antisemitic murders in Australia. To those who died, let us all just say, “May their memories be a blessing.”

When we talk about Hong Kong and when we talk about Jimmy Lai, we should remember that the attack on Jimmy Lai—the arrest of Jimmy Lai—is not just a punishment against his family or against him, but part of the repression from the Chinese state. It is being used deliberately to threaten and intimidate Hongkongers here in the United Kingdom. When we talk about standing up for Jimmy Lai, we are actually talking about standing up for ourselves. We are talking about defending our own freedoms and defending the liberties that British people have the right to expect, both at home and abroad.

Will the Foreign Secretary forgive me—I recognise that she been in the role for only a matter of months—when I say that what we are hearing, again, is the bureaucratisation of process and not the leadership that politics is supposed to offer? When we do not hear that decisions about, for instance, the embassy or the visit are potentially on the line, Beijing hears that it can just continue as normal. Let us not pretend that a fundamentally strategic decision such as the siting of an embassy is the mere duty of a bureaucrat. It is not. It is the role of a Government to offer leadership and direction, and I am afraid that at the moment this Government are offering none.

Having been Home Secretary before becoming Foreign Secretary, I am very clear about the nature of the security threats that China poses. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that this is not simply about the threat to Jimmy Lai, and not simply about this particular prosecution. In itself it is used more widely as part of transnational repression, which is something I take immensely seriously, because this is not just about British citizens in Hong Kong but about residents here on UK soil. It is because we take that so seriously that we have strengthened our state threat response.

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the sentencing is expected to take place in the new year. We are clear about the fact that we need the Chinese Government to hear the condemnation, not just from the UK but from partners around the world, of what has happened in respect of the politically motivated prosecution in this case, and to recognise the urgent humanitarian circumstances relating to Jimmy Lai. We will continue to make that a central issue in all our discussions with the Chinese Government. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are separate processes for different things, and, given his background and experience, he will also be aware of the importance of recognising independent processes.

Let me first associate myself with the Front-Bench comments about the horrific antisemitic murders on Bondi Beach.

The result in the case of Jimmy Lai was obvious from the point when the national security laws were passed. We have been descending down this road for many years with the Chinese Government and the Hong Kong authorities. The sentencing of Jimmy Lai will start on 12 January. May I ask the Foreign Secretary, and also the National Security Adviser, to meet Jimmy’s legal team, who briefed us today, as a matter of urgency, before the sentencing starts? Can the Foreign Secretary reassure me that there will be no positive signals towards Beijing during that time, and after that time if Jimmy is indeed sentenced for a long period? We are sending the wrong signals to the Chinese Government if we keep bending towards their will.

I thank my hon. Friend for his words about the appalling attack on Bondi Beach, and also for championing the case of Jimmy Lai. Both the Prime Minister and I have met Sebastien Lai previously, and I will very happily do so again.

The whole House will welcome the Foreign Secretary’s words on the terrorist attack on Bondi Beach.

Without seeking to interfere directly in matters before the court in Hong Kong, we note that Jimmy Lai is 78, he is held in solitary confinement, his health is in sharp decline, he is unable to practise his religious beliefs and he is a British citizen. Surely this case cries out, at the least, for clemency. In view Jimmy Lai’s British citizenship, will the Foreign Secretary directly engage afresh with her opposite number, Foreign Minister Wang Yi, and the Chinese state to mount the very strong case for clemency for Jimmy Lai?

I agree with the right hon. Member that, given the immediate circumstances for a 78-year-old man in poor health, there is an urgent need for clemency and humanitarian recognition of those circumstances. We of course have strong differences on the national security law, which we are very clear is a breach of the declaration, but we surely have a shared humanity. We urge the Chinese authorities to recognise that shared humanity and release Jimmy Lai immediately.

Given that the Chinese Communist party has clearly broken its promise in the joint declaration to protect freedom and the rule of law in Hong Kong, and that this judgment was handed down by a politically appointed judge in a sham or show trial, does the Foreign Secretary agree that those Members of the House of Lords who still serve on the Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong should step down from that role, so as not to lend their credibility to a system that has clearly abandoned the rule of law?

My hon. Friend will recognise that we have independent processes for the judiciary, but he is right to say that the rule of law is really important. It is an important issue for the UK, and we stand up for those values in all their dimensions. The Chinese authorities have increasingly spoken about the importance of the international rule of law, saying that major countries ought to provide leadership on the international rule of law. Again, our strong message to them is that, to show international leadership on the rule of law, they need to recognise their legal obligations, which are still present, to implement the declaration. That means ending the national security law and releasing Jimmy Lai.

There is a legitimate and necessary debate to be had on our wider foreign policy towards China, but surely the most important thing today is that this House should speak with one voice in condemning this sham trial and demanding the immediate release of Jimmy Lai, and I thank the Foreign Secretary for doing that. I am told that the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, of which I am a member, is cited no fewer than 500 times in the judgment on Jimmy Lai. It has had no contact from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, despite having initiated a correspondence. When the Foreign Secretary returns to the Department, can she investigate that and ensure that it is given the proper level of engagement that it requires and deserves?

I will certainly do so. I will follow that up, and get back to the right hon. Member. I agree with him that it is immensely important that we speak with one powerful voice, with all of us calling for the release of Jimmy Lai.

I associate myself with the condolences to the Jewish community in Australia that were eloquently expressed by both the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary.

In the representations on Jimmy Lai, can I ask again that the case of Lee Cheuk-yan be raised? Lee, who is a trade union colleague of mine, was the general secretary of the Confederation of Trade Unions in Hong Kong. He has been in prison since April 2021. His trial was postponed twice this year, and we have now been given the date of 22 January. We are fearful that the trial may be delayed again, but also that he will receive a long sentence. All he did was to participate in the campaign for democracy in Hong Kong and for trade union rights. The whole campaign would be grateful for any representations that can be made.

My right hon. Friend is right to say that many other people are facing prosecution or have already been charged and been through a process under the national security law. We are very clear that the national security law should be repealed. It directly contradicts the declaration and the legal obligations on the Chinese authorities under that declaration. I will follow up the case he raises.

Like every other communist regime that has ever existed, the Chinese Government behave with ruthlessness, impunity and unmitigated mendacity. I therefore welcome the strong words in the statement from the Foreign Secretary, but what Members on both sides of the House wish to see is stronger actions. It is not so much a case of one country, two systems, as of one Government and two faces. If our Government cannot even say that a country that poses so many strategic threats is itself a threat, we have an awfully long way to go.

I note that the right hon. Member obviously shares the concerns about, and joins the calls for the release of, Jimmy Lai. On the wider issues, I have been very clear about the national security threats posed by China—for example, transnational oppression, support for Russia in the war on Ukraine and cyber-threats, on which we have recently introduced more sanctions. However, because of our strong history—our economic history as well as our political history—with Hong Kong, China is the UK’s third largest trading partner. Those are not things we can trade off. We do not trade off them, as the Prime Minister made very clear in his speech a few weeks ago. National security is always the first duty of any Government, but alongside pursuing threats and human rights issues, we must recognise that trading relationship. We should ensure that we pursue both, but that we pursue national security issues as the first duty.

I thank the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary for their powerful words on the horrific antisemitic attack in Australia.

Jimmy Lai has been persecuted for standing up for human rights and democracy, and I know that the Bracknell Forest Hong Kong community shares my utter horror at this cowardly act by the Chinese and Hong Kong Governments. As many Members from across the House have said, such communities face their own security threats from the long arm of the Chinese state. In the light of that, I thank the Foreign Secretary for recognising the importance of the 5+1 British national overseas settlement route. It is really important that we have recommitted to that. However, will she share with Home Office Ministers my constituents’ concerns about changes to the language and income requirements for that route? It is right that we stand by Hongkongers with that settlement route and that we recognise our historical commitment to the Hong Kong community.

I welcome my hon. Friend’s highlighting of the Hongkongers in his constituency and other local communities. He will know that over 200,000 Hongkongers have been welcomed to the UK through the BNO route. I will pass on the points he has raised to the Home Office, but the route has played an important part in Hongkongers arriving and being part of our economy, our communities and our joint respect for human rights and the commitments we made in 1984.

I associate myself and the SNP with the Foreign Secretary’s comments on the appalling attack on Bondi Beach.

I welcome the statement condemning what the CCP has done with the political sham of a trial, simply for Jimmy Lai expressing his belief in democracy and freedom. However, the statement does not go far enough. I would like to ask two very short questions. First, the US, Canada and Australia are able to secure the release of their nationals. Why is it that the UK has not been able to secure a release from China in this case? Secondly, what message does the inability to secure the release of Jimmy Lai send to other British citizens who may be held in arbitrary detention by regimes who do not respect the rule of law, democracy or freedom of speech and assembly?

There is a deep, long-standing change that we have seen in the Chinese authorities’ approach over the last five years. Successive Governments have raised that with China, but we continue to do so because the national security law is deeply damaging, undermines the declaration and undermines the international rule of law. We will continue to raise that, just as we will continue to provide consular support for people across the world where there are British citizens who need our help and where we have work we can do to assist them.

The Government’s dealings with China are proving to be almost as lamentable as those of their predecessor. We have summoned the ambassador to tell him just how cross we are, but I bet we will give him his embassy, won’t we?

I note the right hon. Member’s lack of support for the previous Government. That Government were led by his party and, in theory, he voted and campaigned for them over many years. Nevertheless, I can probably agree with him about his disagreements with the previous Government, who managed to say things but actually did not engage in the way that we as a country need to in order to pursue Britain’s interests.

Following the appalling show trial of Jimmy Lai, I have already had correspondence from members of the strong and growing community of Hongkongers in Woking. They are terrified about the signal this will send to people from Hong Kong who now live in the UK. People are facing intimidation in the UK for standing up to Beijing on civil liberties issues. As well as continuing to demand the immediate release of Jimmy Lai, will the Foreign Secretary please consider the use of targeted sanctions against Chinese Communist party officials involved in that decision and in issuing bounties and other intimidation across the world?

It is exactly because of that transnational repression—threats to people resident on UK soil, including Hongkongers whom we have welcomed into our communities as a result of the repression they have faced—that we have strengthened the work of the counter-terrorism police and intelligence agencies on targeting state threats. We will continue to do so, because it is immensely important that we support not just residents here, but the freedoms and traditions of the people of Hong Kong.

I, too, pay tribute to the bravery of Jimmy Lai and his family. The reality is that we are engaged in a battle over what form of state will dominate in the coming decades: states like ours that try, imperfectly, to balance the rights of individuals and the state, or authoritarian regimes such as China, which want unfettered state power. Those sorts of regimes respond to strength. The Foreign Secretary has talked about how we feel and said that the Government feel upset and angry, but those sorts of regimes respond to strength. Given that, does she agree with me that it would be a disastrous decision to allow the super-embassy to go ahead?

As the hon. Gentleman well knows, it is an independent planning process and it has long been so. This is not just about the UK’s direct engagement with China, but about our engagement through international forums. That is why I have raised Jimmy Lai’s case directly in the G7 and with other Foreign Ministers across the world. It is why we have seen international condemnation of what has happened today. It is also why we are seeking international support for our call for the urgent release of Jimmy Lai, which I think should be the priority for all of us now.

I associate myself with the comments about yesterday’s horror in Sydney. I, too, welcome the Foreign Secretary’s clear and unequivocal call for the release of Jimmy Lai, and her condemnation of a politically motivated act that, as others have said, can only cause great fear among the Hong Kong community in this country. She said that a cross-Government approach would be taken. Will she make it clear to China that it cannot just be business as usual from now on, that it cannot expect the super-embassy simply to go ahead, that there will be sanctions, and that we will also protect our energy and national security by imposing mitigating circumstances on any contracts in which it might be involved in the North sea, in wind farms?

I think many of the points the hon. Lady raises I have already addressed, but she raises an important further point about our economic security, for example in relation to critical minerals and energy infrastructure. I take those issues immensely seriously. There is more we need to do, working with the G7 countries and other countries around the world, on how we retain our energy security and our wider economic security, and recognise the ways in which China is operating across the world that can cause real challenges to that economic security.

I listened to the Foreign Secretary really closely, and I have to say that, without real action, even the strongest condemnation she may issue is not strong enough. Calling the ambassador will just be taken as words, because that has all been done before. The Chinese are not listening, as the conviction of Jimmy Lai proves. One show of strength she could make, of course, is to withdraw her support for the Chinese super-embassy in the heart of London. By doing so, I am sure that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government would listen, and the independent process. What the Chinese would hear is that the protection of British citizens is of paramount interest to us and that it will not be without consequence if they are maltreated.

The hon. Member will be aware that there is an independent process around the planning system, and he will have seen the agreement that if the planning agreement were reached, then the Chinese diplomatic premises would shrink from the current eight as a result. It is important to recognise that that is an independent planning process. Alongside whatever embassy arrangements are in place, it is crucial that we have a strong response to state threats to national security in this country and that we continue to press for the urgent release of Jimmy Lai. I hope he will agree that that should be a humanitarian priority for everyone, as some of his colleagues have said.

The politically motivated conviction of Jimmy Lai is yet another chilling sign of the breakdown of human rights and freedom of speech in Hong Kong. The Foreign Secretary will know that I was refused entry into Hong Kong to visit our son and his young family, and I never got any explanation why. Where does this recent development leave British citizens still in Hong Kong and their families who are here? I am thinking particularly about the many BNOs in my constituency who are deeply worried, and I know what that feels like.

The hon. Member is right to raise that issue. There is a real concern. I am sorry about the difficulties that I know she has had. She will know that they have been raised with the Chinese authorities. She is also right to raise the concerns of Hongkongers who live here but who still have family back home, and who, as a result, do not feel that they can visit them. Even where they have British citizenship, the Chinese authorities do not recognise dual nationality. Therefore, there are real concerns for anyone visiting family, either in Hong Kong or more widely in China, that that dual citizenship or their British citizenship simply will not be recognised. That is what has happened with Jimmy Lai and it is why we continue to raise this issue. This issue is about British citizens, and we will stand up for British citizens.

I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Sebastien Lai, whom I and a number of colleagues met earlier, and who has shown courage and fortitude throughout this process. Ever since the verdict was announced I have been inundated with the concerns of Hongkongers in my constituency about what this might means for their safety under the programme of transnational repression and persecution being conducted by the Chinese. They say that diplomacy works until it doesn’t, and now we can see that it has not worked, so there must be consequences. May I press again for an answer on why China has not been placed in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme? I understand that, as Home Secretary, the right hon. Lady submitted evidence to the Housing Secretary regarding the security implications of the super-embassy. Has she updated that advice since new risks and threats have been identified?

The hon. Member will know that the Security Minister has updated the House several times on the FIRS process and our continuous work to keep countries under review in that respect. As for the security considerations raised as part of the planning process, I again assure him that not only the Home Office and the Foreign Office, but the security and intelligence agencies take these issues immensely seriously and have been involved in the consideration. As part of that, further information provided to the planning process relates to the consolidation of the diplomatic premises, as well as wider security considerations.

First, I associate myself with the Foreign Secretary’s comments and send my and my party’s sympathies to those affected by the murders on Bondi Beach this weekend. They are very much in our thoughts and prayers. I believe the Government should also support the Australian Prime Minister and Government in the action they take against the terrorists now in that country.

To be honest, the verdict was not unexpected. We have all read the character of the Governments and officials involved in this travesty, and this was always going to be the result of China being permitted to rule with an iron fist. But what cannot be forgotten is that this is not a Chinese-only issue; Jimmy Lai is a British national and, as such, should have had his Government protecting him. I am old enough to remember when holding a British passport gave one protection. Where is that protection? What steps will the British Government take to enable this elderly British national to secure a just result, rather than the theatre we have watched? With respect, Foreign Secretary, the time for watching has ended. Will the Government finally take action?

I can confirm that we will not relent in our calls for Jimmy Lai to be released; we will continue to do so with other countries across the world. We need to draw on the international support for Jimmy Lai to get an urgent humanitarian release for him. I also welcome the points the hon. Gentleman made about Bondi Beach and assure him that we continue to offer our full support to the Australian Government through the Five Eyes and more broadly in their action against terrorism.