Political Prisoners

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the detention of Jimmy Lai and other political prisoners internationally.

It is a real honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I speak today on behalf of my constituent Jimmy Lai, who has been detained abroad since December 2020. Mr Lai was on trial for alleged offences against national security and alleged sedition through his work as a newspaper publisher. The offence has been ruled unlawful and arbitrary by the United Nations working group on arbitrary detention. I called for this debate to draw attention to what Mr Lai has suffered over the course of his detention and to bring together parliamentarians from across the House to speak with one voice on the matter of his detention and the detention of other political prisoners abroad.

Mr Lai is a much-loved father and grandfather, and a British citizen. He is 77 years of age, and is being held in solitary confinement in the blistering Hong Kong heat. This will be his fourth summer suffering temperatures that regularly reach 40°.

I make this intervention with your indulgence, Mr Western, because I am engaged in another debate in the main Chamber, and I apologise to the hon. Lady because my intervention deals with another individual, although I fully support her and congratulate her on raising the Jimmy Lai case, which I have argued many times. I hope she makes her case, and I am sure she will—it is a terrible thing.

However, there are other cases, and the person I want to mention, who is often forgotten, is Ryan Cornelius. He has been incarcerated for 17 years in the United Arab Emirates. The UN has said exactly the same: this is an illegal incarceration for which there is no legal basis. He has often been in solitary confinement. The British Government—not this one, necessarily, but all Governments—have too often failed to raise his case in the way they should. I mention the case because the Foreign Office needs to do its duty in raising it, regardless of the business deals that it wants to make.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support for our task today and for raising that important case.

Despite Mr Lai’s being told that his trial would last only 80 days, today marks the 1,630th day of his detention. Every day that he is detained, his health deteriorates further and his family rightly worry about his chances of survival in prison. The detention of Mr Lai is a human tragedy that undermines the very principles of democracy, freedom and the rule of law on which our international order relies. The idea that a British citizen can be detained by a foreign Government for standing up and expressing the British values of democracy and freedom of speech is an affront to all of us in this House, and across the country, who hold those principles dear.

Mr Lai’s son Sebastien has campaigned tirelessly and admirably for his father’s release; I know that many hon. Members here have had the honour of hearing directly from him and Mr Lai’s legal counsel. At this very moment, Sebastien is addressing the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, and recently he has been in the United States and Canada to meet senior officials and lawmakers in both countries. Next week, he travels to Brussels to meet European parliamentarians and the European External Action Service.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. She has just mentioned Canada; I understand that the Canadians are considering granting honorary citizenship to Jimmy Lai, as a small but significant contribution to demonstrating their commitment to him. Does she agree that that is something that the British Government could consider?[Official Report, 19 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 2WC.] (Correction)

I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention; later in my remarks, I will come on to using all possible levers to secure Mr Lai’s freedom.

When Sebastien is at home, he is my constituent—a man deeply concerned about his father’s welfare. That is the position in which I speak to the Chamber today: as a Member of Parliament standing up for my constituents in the face of unbelievable, state-sanctioned cruelty.

I am grateful for the work of this Government and Members across the House to secure Mr Lai’s freedom. Already, Sebastien has met people across Government, and it has been encouraging to see the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister call for Mr Lai’s immediate and unconditional release. We cannot stay silent while Mr Lai remains detained. The Government calls for his release are welcome, but I want to see those included urgently in any trade negotiations and international meetings that Ministers of all Departments conduct with their Chinese counterparts.

I also support the calls for the Prime Minister to meet Sebastien to discuss his father’s case. We must use every lever at our disposal to make the case for Mr Lai’s safe return. The attention and time of our most senior politicians represent a clear signal from our Government that we will not let the international spotlight shift from Mr Lai’s arbitrary and illegal detention.

Mr Lai is not the only British person to be detained politically overseas. He was not the first and he will not be the last, and this debate is about the wider issue of unlawful detention. We cannot forget Craig and Lindsay Foreman or Alaa Abd el-Fattah, British citizens who remain imprisoned in Iran and Egypt, respectively. The events of the past few weeks, months and years have shown that inter-state relations have significant potential to get more tense, not less, and with that comes the potential for more political imprisonment of British nationals. We need to ensure that all British citizens imprisoned overseas have the same support and advocacy that Jimmy Lai has had.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) on securing this important debate. It is heartening—at least, I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of this debate, but I think there will be cross-party unity on this issue, and an important statement from the UK Parliament not only to our Government, but to the world that we stand united behind the need to free Jimmy Lai. I am honoured to speak on his behalf.

Recently, I met Sebastien Lai and his legal team in Parliament. I was struck by the determination that Jimmy Lai’s son is demonstrating, not just here in the UK, but around the world, to galvanise international diplomatic support. There are expressions of support from the US Congress, other international organisations and Parliaments around the world. I am afraid it feels as though the UK Government are lagging behind, particularly when we remember that we are talking about a British citizen.

As the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster said, Jimmy has now been imprisoned for more than four years. He has been imprisoned under the Chinese state’s Hong Kong national security law, which effectively criminalises democracy and citizens’ freedom of speech against the Communist dictatorship. He has been denied his choice of legal representation and refused access to independent specialist medical treatment in prison. In October last year, Amnesty International recognised Mr Lai as a prisoner of conscience, and in November the UN working group on arbitrary detention published its opinion that Jimmy Lai is unlawfully and arbitrarily detained, and called for his immediate release.

As I said, the call for Jimmy’s release is backed by not just the United States of America, but Australia, the Canadian Parliament and the European Parliament. I learned from my meeting with Sebastien and the legal team that his trial has been the victim of an abuse of process; it was originally set for a date earlier this year, but it was pushed back and adjourned and we now have a trial date for 14 August this year. Procedural rules have been perverted and twisted against Mr Lai’s legal team. We can see this for what it is: a perversion of justice and a distortion of human rights.

As the right hon. Lady is posing her questions to the Minister, perhaps she will come to this one, but if she does not, will she agree to add that the Government need to get together a coalition of international Governments who are on our side—she has already named some—to put significant pressure on the Chinese authorities to do the right thing and release Jimmy Lai?

Absolutely. The irony cannot be lost on us that this is a clear case of human rights violations. I note that the legal team representing Mr Lai hails from Doughty Street Chambers—a renowned human rights chambers in London and the old stomping-ground of our very own Prime Minister. If there were ever a human rights case for the Prime Minister to work on and be an advocate for, this is it. I can imagine that many years ago, he might well have taken up this case, had it come through the doors of Doughty Street Chambers. We have our very own human rights lawyer in Downing Street; if there were ever a time for him to deploy his legal skills, his human rights zeal and his passion for civil liberties, it is here and now, on behalf of our British citizen Jimmy Lai. I thank the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) for his comments.

I will finish by recalling my experience at the Home Office and by asking the Minister some further questions on the broader issue of China. We are supposed to be challenging China, not appeasing it. At the Home Office, I saw the impact of Chinese bellicosity in the UK. The list is too long for this Chamber, but in recent years we have been on the receiving end of prolific and malicious cyber-activity by APT10—one of the best known hacking groups—on behalf of the Ministry of State Security and the People’s Liberation Army; the targeting of UK parliamentarians and diplomats; vulnerable policing and security services due to the prevalence of the digital asbestos of Chinese technology; transnational repression of Chinese dissidents in the UK through “Chinese police stations”; Confucius Institutes throughout UK academia, many of which are run effectively by the Chinese Communist party under the guise of their “Chinese talent programmes”; covert and unlawful acquisition of data; espionage; supply chain disruption and control of critical national infrastructure disguised as investment.

As Home Secretary, I enacted the National Security Act 2023, which set about injecting more transparency into how China does business and carries out activities in the UK. I have been urging the Government to list China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. They still have not done that, and they seem to be refusing to. I ask the Minister: on what grounds, particularly in the light of the human rights violations of Jimmy Lai, can the Government possibly justify not listing China on the enhanced tier of that scheme, if we are to take the threat posed by China seriously for the grave one it is? In conclusion, Jimmy Lai is an elderly man, a British citizen and the victim of grotesque human rights abuses. If we, in this House—and this Government—cannot stand up for him, then we do not deserve to be here.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) and congratulate and commend her on all she is doing to help secure the release of Jimmy Lai, and her tireless work to keep his case high on the political agenda of this House, the media and the public.

Today’s debate references other political prisoners. I would like to highlight the current ongoing arbitrary detention of my West Dunbartonshire constituent, Jagtar Singh Johal. Jagtar is a British national, who has been arbitrarily detained in India since 2017 on political charges carrying the death penalty, based on a confession extracted under torture. On 4 March 2025, Jagtar was acquitted of all charges in a case at the district and sessions court in Moga, Punjab, after the court rejected the allegations against him made by Indian authorities. Prosecutors had seven years to present credible evidence against Jagtar and failed to do so.

However, Jagtar has not been released because he is facing eight other cases, which are essentially duplicates—all are based on the same so-called “confession”: his name signed on a blank piece of paper after police tortured him with electricity and brought petrol into his cell and threatened to burn him alive. For Jagtar to remain imprisoned after his acquittal while standing trial in other cases based on the same facts, torture confession and inadmissible and unreliable witness evidence, would be a mockery of justice. Under the double jeopardy principle, which protects people from being put on trial twice for the same crime—and is enshrined in both international law and India’s constitution—the remaining cases against him should be dropped.

Following his acquittal, Jagtar’s conditions in prison have deteriorated significantly, and he has been placed in a solitary cell. Speaking to the all-party parliamentary group on arbitrary detention and hostage affairs on 2 April 2025, Jagtar’s brother Gurpreet said:

Order. I would like to get everyone in with about equal amounts of time. Hopefully, we can do so with four minutes each.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I commend the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) for setting the scene so well. I have spoken about the imprisonment of Jimmy Lai on many other occasions in Westminster Hall and asked questions about it in the Chamber. I declare an interest as the chair of the APPG for international freedom of religion or belief, because I want to mention the human rights that have been denied to him.

Democracy has been ignored. The hard hand of China and the Hong Kong authorities has come down strongly on democrats, of which Jimmy Lai is one, whose only crime was to speak up for democracy, liberty and freedom. It seems to me that those democrats did that without violence, but with a verbal strength, and I commend them for it. Hong Kong was once a bastion of western principles. I have supported many debates on it and sponsored pro-Hong Kong democracy events in this House to highlight Jimmy Lai and others.

The Chinese Communist party has denied Jimmy Lai his right to worship his God with freedom. He is a practising Roman Catholic. He is not able to have the mass he wants or the freedom of religious worship that he had before he was put in prison—for some 1,630 days, let us remember. His health has deteriorated and he is in a worsened condition.

Jimmy Lai is a British citizen. I say this circumspectly and with great respect to the Minister and the Government: there was a time when a British passport meant more than it perhaps means today. There was a gunboat diplomacy in that. If a UK citizen was under threat, they could expect the full weight of British authority to be used on their behalf. That does not happen today. But what we do, or try to do—the Minister and the Government do this all the time—is exercise the diplomacy that we need to.

Jimmy Lai’s staunch criticism of the Chinese Government led to his arrest in 2020. His story is a rallying point for those defending democratic values and human rights in the face of increasing authoritarianism. His trial began in December 2023, with his son Sebastien fighting for his release. Jimmy Lai testified for 52 days. Closing arguments were scheduled for August 2025. The 77-year-old has lived in Hong Kong since he was 12 years old. Having stowed away on a fishing boat from China and worked as a child labourer in a garment factory, he built up a fashion empire. He has been an advocate for democracy since the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre in China. He set up a magazine in Hong Kong.

Order. We will now formally make speeches four minutes long.