PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Jimmy Lai: Prison Sentence - 9 February 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on the 20-year sentence imposed on our brave British citizen, Jimmy Lai.

I thank the right hon. Member for his question on this serious matter. He will know that the UK condemns in the strongest terms the politically motivated prosecution of British national Jimmy Lai. As the Foreign Secretary said this morning, 20 years is tantamount to a life sentence for a 78-year-old man. We remain deeply concerned for Mr Lai’s health. We call on the Hong Kong authorities to release him on humanitarian grounds, so that he may be reunited with his family.

Sadly, this sentence is not a surprise. The national security law was imposed on Hong Kong by Beijing precisely to silence China’s critics. That is why the Government have long called for the repeal of the national security law, and for an end to the persecution of all individuals charged under it. It is also why the Prime Minister raised Jimmy Lai’s case with President Xi on his recent visit to Beijing. The Prime Minister’s visit allowed us to open up discussion with China. Making our case directly to the Chinese President is an approach being taken by the USA, Canada, France, Ireland and many other allies. In relation to private conversations that have happened, the Foreign Secretary has been in touch with Mr Lai’s family, and I know that many in this House will want to express their support for the family. We recognise their fortitude at this incredibly difficult time.

This Government remain steadfast in our support for the people of Hong Kong. That is why today the Home Secretary has announced the expansion of eligibility for the British national overseas visa route. The UK has welcomed around 200,000 Hongkongers since 2021, and we will unequivocally continue to uphold our commitments to them.

This Government’s utmost priority is to secure the release of Jimmy Lai, an elderly and unwell British citizen. He has endured an extraordinary ordeal for five years, and we call for it to end now. That is why we are focused on the action that will help him the most: sustained engagement with China, so that we can make our case consistently and directly. As the right hon. Member knows, we should not sit outside the room, refusing to engage and unable even to have that conversation. I am grateful for this opportunity to reiterate the Government’s call for Jimmy Lai’s immediate release.

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.

Today, as the Minister said, Jimmy Lai, a British citizen, has been sentenced to a further 20 years in prison. Given his poor health and the fact that he sat for five years in solitary confinement, that is not a sentence; it is a death sentence for that brave man. The authorities have trashed everything that we would consider reasonable in law. For example, like others, I was named—nine times—in the prosecution case, and I have never even met Mr Lai, or spoken to him, sadly.

I simply ask the Minister why the statement that the UK Government released today refers to Jimmy Lai as a “British National”. Lord Cameron finally changed that, and made it clear that Mr Lai was a British citizen. Will the Minister change the statement and refer to him as a British citizen, which is what he is?

Why do the Government constantly refer to Hong Kong and the national security law? The reality is that the British Government have sanctioned absolutely nobody in the Chinese Government for trashing the Sino-British agreement and installing the Chinese national security law, which is the reason why Jimmy Lai was arrested. He has been convicted and sentenced for nothing more than standing up for freedom of speech and peaceful protest for democracy.

The Government went on a visit to China recently. Before doing so, they granted full planning permission for the huge and ghastly Chinese embassy in London. Why did they not at least hold back on planning permission, so that they could say to the Chinese Government, “You must release Jimmy Lai now and cancel the prosecution altogether, or you will not get your embassy”? Instead, we have given them the embassy for nothing, and the Prime Minister was treated like dirt while he was out there.

Sebastien and Claire Lai, Jimmy Lai’s children, have fought for him. I feel sorry for them, and my thoughts go to them. Surely, this is a sad day for anybody who believes in freedom, justice, and the legitimate rule of democratically made law. Will the Government now call for a humanitarian parole?

The right hon. Member may have missed my earlier reference to Jimmy Lai as a British citizen, but I reiterate it. It is also important to reiterate our call on the Hong Kong authorities to release Jimmy Lai immediately on humanitarian grounds, so that he may be reunited with his family and receive all necessary medical treatment, and have full access to independent medical professionals.

The right hon. Member will know that the Prime Minister raised Jimmy Lai’s case with President Xi on 29 January in Beijing. Since the visit, the Foreign Secretary has been in contact with Mr Lai’s family. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is also in close contact with Mr Lai’s international legal team at Doughty Street Chambers, and with his son and daughter, Sebastien and Claire, whom the Foreign Secretary last met on 8 January.[Official Report, 10 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 8WC.] (Correction)

On the Chinese embassy, national security is our first duty. The planning decision was taken independently by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. It was the conclusion of a process that the right hon. Gentleman may remember began in 2018, when the then Foreign Secretary provided formal diplomatic consent for the plans. It is also important to say today that we stand with the people of Hong Kong. We will always honour the historic commitments made under the legally binding Sino-British joint declaration, and China must do the same.

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Jimmy Lai is 78. He has rotting teeth. He has diabetes, heart issues, and recently he has visibly been losing weight. He has now been sentenced to 20 years. It is effectively not a life sentence, but a death sentence. I urge the Chinese authorities to end this elderly man’s appalling ordeal, and I would ask that they exercise clemency, and allow him to be reunited with his family. Does the Minister agree that concern for the suffering of Jimmy Lai extends far beyond his family, and touches the hearts of so many British people?

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. She is right to say that the situation Jimmy Lai is in, and the urgent need to release him on humanitarian grounds so that he may be reunited with his family and receive the independent medical treatment that he must have, goes beyond his family and touches the hearts of Members across the House and this country. He has been sentenced to 20 years in prison for peacefully exercising his right to freedom of expression. My right hon. Friend will know that his case remains a priority for this Government and the Prime Minister.

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this important urgent question. Today Jimmy Lai, and the democracy and freedom that he has campaigned for in Hong Kong, has been sentenced to 20 years. As his son Sebastien has said, Jimmy

“dedicated his life to defending the freedoms of Hong Kong. For that heroism, he’s being punished; he’s essentially getting a death sentence for that.”

Jimmy is a hero and deserves to be back home with his family, not hauled in chains before the courts and languishing in a prison cell. We call for his release. The fact that Jimmy Lai has been sentenced to 20 years—the longest sentence ever under the national security law—is not only a reflection of the cruelty inflicted by the Chinese Communist party, but it is a monumental diplomatic failure of this feeble and gullible Prime Minister. Just over a week ago, he was with President Xi defending engagement with the CCP. He gave China permission for its super-embassy spy hub, but failed to secure Jimmy’s release. Will the Minister now have some backbone and tell us exactly what details were discussed between the Prime Minister and Xi? Did the Prime Minister call for Jimmy to come back home, or demand that he gets access to the healthcare he needs?

The official readout of the meeting published on the Downing Street website did not even mention Jimmy Lai’s name. We need answers, Mr Speaker. Jimmy’s family, and the whole country, want to know when this weak and pathetic Labour Government will finally stand up to China and show some backbone. Will the Foreign Secretary actually do something, such as summon the Chinese ambassador and prepare a list of diplomats to expel in response to China’s refusal to free Jimmy Lai? Will the Government revoke the planning permission granted for the super-embassy spy hub, and will China now be placed on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme at long last? With the UK holding the presidency of the UN Security Council, what diplomatic steps will be taken to escalate this case, put some pressure on China for once, and secure global support for Jimmy’s release? Jimmy must be freed now, and this is a day of shame for this weak Labour Government and their failure to stand up to China.

I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her comments. She will know that this situation has been ongoing since before we were in government, and that we continue to seek the release of Jimmy Lai immediately. We assess Jimmy Lai’s prosecution to be politically motivated, but in order to have a conversation with the Chinese Government, we need to be in the same room. That is why the Prime Minister raised the matter during his visit, and we continue to raise it at every level of Government and at every opportunity.

The right hon. Lady will know that on the instruction of the Foreign Secretary, the British Consul General attended the sentencing, and that we continue to keep in regular touch with the family. We continue to do all that we can, publicly and privately, to secure the release of Jimmy Lai, and we will continue to do so.

The whole House is angered by the sentencing, but no one is more devastated than Jimmy Lai’s family. Jimmy is a British citizen: every single international pressure must be put on the Chinese Government to secure a humanitarian response to the situation. Will the Minister tell us how we will build an international coalition to put on that pressure and secure a humanitarian response?

I thank my hon. Friend for her comments and for her work on behalf of her constituent, Jimmy Lai. I can confirm that we are in discussions with our allies, including the United States, Australia, Canada and the European Union, about what we can do internationally to continue to advocate for and to secure the immediate release of Jimmy Lai.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

The whole House shares my horror and disgust at the politically motivated imprisonment, conviction and sentencing of Jimmy Lai. Last week, following his trip to Beijing, the Prime Minister suggested that he could change outcomes for Jimmy Lai and Hong Kongers by speaking softly with President Xi. It is clear now that the Prime Minister’s trip to Beijing failed spectacularly to secure Mr Lai’s release. Have the Government summoned the Chinese ambassador to make clear this House’s shared outrage? Jimmy Lai’s experience is the most visible example of Beijing’s efforts to supress any and all criticism of the Chinese Communist party, but it is far from the only example. Pro-democracy Hong Kong activists living in the UK continue to face intimidation, repression and threats from Beijing. Can the Minister provide any guarantees to those Hong Kongers that they will not face further persecution or intimidation at the hands of the CCP?

We continue to raise Jimmy Lai’s case with the Chinese Government, publicly and privately. In December, when the verdict of the trial was announced, senior officials in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office summoned the Chinese ambassador to condemn the development in the strongest terms. There is a public readout of the representations made during that meeting. It continues to be the case that any attempt by any foreign state to intimidate, harass or harm individuals in the United Kingdom will not be tolerated. We have taken action to do more to support law enforcement and training in this country to ensure that that is the case.

Many members of Jimmy Lai’s family, including his son Sebastien, are my constituents. They are devastated by today’s sentence, which risks being a death sentence for a 78-year-old British citizen. It is a much longer sentence than that given to any of the co-defendants and the longest ever given under the national security law. Will the Minister assure the House that now this sham trial is over, the Government’s position is that there are no more phoney procedural reasons for us not to work with our international allies to negotiate Jimmy’s release?

I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he has done to support the family. Let me be clear that we see this as a politically motivated prosecution, and we believe and continue to state that Jimmy Lai should be released immediately. We will continue to work directly with the Chinese Government, raising our concerns and views in public and in private. We will continue to engage closely with the family and to work with our allies, as I have mentioned. My hon. Friend will know that the Foreign Secretary has discussed this case with Secretary Rubio, and officials are in regular contact on the matter with the US Government.

Many of us in this House were sanctioned by China, and the Prime Minister went over and somehow managed to sell the partial un-sanctioning of a few of us as a victory. I would have welcomed a victory that was the release of Jimmy Lai, but sadly the Prime Minister conceded all his cards before getting on the plane, leaving himself nothing to negotiate with. Can the Minister find anything else that China wants that the Prime Minister could negotiate with? Maybe he could offer them the Isle of Wight or the Outer Hebrides—he is trying to give away everything else anyway. At least the job of the Prime Minister would then be to protect a British citizen—one who, as we all recognise, has been given a death sentence by the Chinese, not the Hong Kong authorities.

Perhaps I can answer the substance of that question with a more serious response. It was important to see the progress that was made in lifting the ban on parliamentarians being free to travel to China, and what the Prime Minister said last week is absolutely right. There is more to do, and it is important to get clarity on how we move forward where those bans have not been lifted. It is very important that we continue to see that progress.

It is really disappointing to see those on the Opposition Front Bench treating this as if it is some kind of party political issue. They do not have a monopoly on outrage about this; it really should be a cross-party issue. I will ask my hon. Friend the Minister about a specific element. As she and the Government work for the release of Jimmy Lai in this outrage, can she keep in consideration his freedom of religion or belief? I understand that he has been denied access to the Eucharist. As we are making representations on his behalf, as all of us should, can we keep that in mind?

I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he does as our special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. We certainly continue to keep in mind and advocate for that matter on his behalf.

Now is the time not to lambast the Chinese Government for the wider issues between us, but to focus 100% on securing clemency for Jimmy Lai. Surely the granting of clemency and a one-way ticket back to the UK and to his family would be a win for everyone, including the Chinese.

Perhaps we can agree on this matter. We want to see an immediate release on humanitarian grounds so that Jimmy Lai can be reunited with his family. He must be supported to receive vital independent medical treatment to support his health and wellbeing right now.

Last year, the UN working group on arbitrary detention ruled that Mr Lai has been unlawfully and arbitrarily detained. In 2022, the same UN working group concluded the same thing about Jagtar Johal. Today, Jagtar turns 39, but instead of celebrating, he is languishing in a foreign prison like Jimmy Lai. I caution the Government that if we do not stand up for our citizens unlawfully imprisoned abroad, we risk becoming beholden to the whims of others, rather than standing on firm principles. How are the Government making meaningful representations to our Indian and Chinese counterparts to bring these British citizens home?

I think that question has been woven in well.

We take the UN working group’s opinion on Jimmy Lai incredibly seriously, which is why we continue to call for his immediate release. My hon. Friend will also know the work that we continue to do in relation to Jagtar Singh Johal.

In December, I asked the Prime Minister to make it clear that his visit to Beijing could go ahead only if Jimmy Lai was released. He responded:

“It is important that we continue to engage, so that we can raise this issue”.—[Official Report, 17 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 910.]

That clearly achieved nothing. Will the Minister also bear in mind the fact that, alongside Jimmy Lai, six other senior members of Apple Daily received lengthy prison sentences in what Reporters Sans Frontières has described as

“the complete collapse of press freedom in Hong Kong”?

What action will the Government take during the two-week period in which an appeal has to be lodged to ensure the release of not just Jimmy Lai but all of them?

The right hon. Gentleman will know that the appeal is a matter for Jimmy Lai, his family and his legal team, but he is right that it is important that we continue to call for an end to the national security law, and for the release of all those being held or prosecuted under it. That is our position, and it will continue to be.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Hong Kong, I want to say on my behalf and that of many of its members how we horrified we are. This case exemplifies the systematic dismantling of Hong Kong’s judicial independence. The proceedings under the national security law do not operate within the independent or impartial judicial framework, and judges are designated by the Executive of the Hong Kong special administrative region. Trials are conducted without juries, evidential thresholds are lowered and the fundamental principle of the presumption of innocence is gone. How will the Government ensure that, on behalf of not just Jimmy Lai but all Hongkongers who live in the UK, we protect them from nefarious activity and this illegal law?

We absolutely continue to be concerned about the erosion of freedoms, and my hon. Friend will have seen that expressed in the six-monthly reports published by the Foreign Office. We continue to, and always will, stand with the people of Hong Kong. It is essential that we continue to honour historic commitments made under the legally binding Sino-British joint declaration, and it is absolutely clear that China must do the same.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) said, Jimmy Lai’s conviction is a massive failure for the Prime Minister, who said that he could change outcomes. This sends a worrying signal to Hongkongers living in Wokingham and across the UK, many of whom face intimidation from China when they are simply standing up for their civil liberties. What steps are the Government taking to protect pro-democracy Hongkongers in Wokingham and across the UK, who feel themselves to be under threat from Chinese authorities in our country? These residents are very concerned, and many of them fear for their lives.

I thank the hon. Member for his important question. It is essential that any attempt by a foreign state to harass, intimidate or harm individuals in the UK must not be tolerated. That is why we support increased training and support for law enforcement in these matters, so that they can respond with the required urgency, as well as with important intelligence sharing.

In relation to Jimmy Lai and the Prime Minister’s visit, let me also say that I disagree with Members of this House who are seeking to make this a party political matter. Jimmy Lai has been imprisoned since before this Government came into power, and we continue to work—as we should—across the House to do all we can to make sure we are not just advocating for his release, but that it remains a priority for the Government. We continue to work to have him released immediately on humanitarian grounds.

I thank the Minister for her answers, but I think it is fair to say that when the sentence was handed down, the CCP baked in that our reaction would be to reiterate calls for Jimmy Lai’s release and put out warm words and demands regarding his wellbeing. Of course, there are now concerns that he may be transferred to a prison inside China, where access to legal representation will be even more difficult. What practical and tangible changes will be made today as a result of this shift in the relationship with China, now that it has sentenced a British citizen to 20 years, and is the Minister able to say a bit about what actions her Department is going to take in the weeks ahead to give practical support to Jimmy Lai, so that we do not have another statement or question in a few weeks’ time lamenting an appeal that was unsuccessful?

I reiterate that we continue to work with our allies and to speak directly with China, both publicly and privately, as part of the work we continue to do to secure Jimmy Lai’s release. The Government also remain in close contact with Mr Lai’s family to discuss the actions we are taking. We will continue to do that, because securing Mr Lai’s release remains a priority for this Government and for the Prime Minister.

I say to the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) and to the Minister that this is not party political—the last Government were as bad, if not worse.

The Minister spoke about condemnation in the strongest terms. That is a complete waste of breath; the Chinese Government understand one thing, which is that there has to be a cost. Will the Minister sanction those responsible?

The right hon. Member will perhaps disagree, but the key point is that we cannot move forward unless we are in dialogue. That is why what the Prime Minister did in going to China and raising this matter directly has opened the doors to further conversation. It is important to say that we continue to advocate in public and in private for Mr Lai’s release, and that we remain in close contact with Mr Lai’s family on the steps we are taking.

The Government have been pretty generous to the Chinese Government—first the embassy, then the Prime Minister’s visit to China and trade concessions. In return, the Chinese Government have conferred a death sentence on Jimmy Lai. Will those in Hong Kong’s Administration and judiciary who undertook this politically motivated sham trial be welcome in the United Kingdom, or will they be sanctioned?

My hon. Friend will know how important it is that the Sino-British declaration is upheld. We expect the standards established by the declaration to be upheld, and not just in relation to historic commitments by Britain—we expect China to do the same.

As the Minister is aware, there is cross-party consensus that we are horrified by the jailing of Jimmy Lai. She will also be aware that there are consequences when a UK Government are perceived as being weak, including for British citizens. The Minister said that the Prime Minister spoke softly; he also spoke ineffectively, so will she tell us what is next?

Perhaps I will just say again what I have shared with the House today. In relation to the announcement, we continue to advocate publicly and privately for Jimmy Lai’s release. We have not hidden our view over his imprisonment. We have not hidden that we see it as politically motivated. We have said clearly and unequivocally that he should be released on humanitarian grounds. That remains a priority for this Government, and it remains a priority for the Prime Minister. The hon. Member will know that.

Parallel to the terrible injustice inflicted on Jimmy Lai, my constituent Chloe Cheung still has to live with a £100,000 bounty on her head. I spoke with her this weekend, and her resolve has never been stronger, despite knowing that anyone in the UK can claim that bounty. In the spirit of keeping the conversation going, can I ask the Minister to use everything in her power to convince the CCP to lift that bounty from Chloe and, indeed, all the other UK residents who have bounties placed on them under Hong Kong’s national security law? The only crime these people have committed is telling the truth about the repressive regime in Hong Kong.

I agree with my hon. Friend. We will not tolerate this harassment and intimidation in the UK. The safety of Hongkongers in the UK is of the utmost importance for the Government. He will know that training and guidance on state threats activity is now offered by counter-terrorism policing to all 45 territorial police forces across the United Kingdom. That includes upskilling dedicated 999 call handlers on transnational repression. [Interruption.] Perhaps the last Government did as much of that—I do not know. This new package of training allows frontline police officers and staff to increase their understanding of the threats that foreign powers present, and we will continue to work with my hon. Friend in relation to his constituents.

I am sorry, but this is really hopeless. I mean no disrespect to this particular Minister, but I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, have noticed, as I have, that whenever something indefensible comes up, the Government always put middle-ranking or junior Ministers on the frontline. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary is abroad or perhaps she is in her sick bed, but otherwise, why is she not voluntarily making a statement, rather than sending someone else to take the flak? This is really not fitting for the outrage that hon. Members—there are hon. Members on both sides of the House—feel about the fate of Jimmy Lai.

I am not sure whether to take not being directly targeted by the right hon. Gentleman as a compliment, but as the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, I take great interest in this case. It is important that we are in front of the House today.

I do not know whether the Minister has read Confucius, the Chinese philosopher of 2,500 years ago, and his “Silver Rule”, which talks about mercy and compassion. While all of us in this House will continue to campaign for Jimmy Lai’s release, can the Minister at least confirm whether there is consular access to Jimmy Lai, and not just consular communication? Will she call upon President Xi, who no doubt has studied Confucius, to revisit compassion and mercy and at least allow Jimmy Lai medical treatment, the correct diet and to be released from solitary confinement?

The right hon. Member may already be aware that we continue to seek consular access. It is important that we continue to advocate for the release of Jimmy Lai on humanitarian grounds. I am sure that that message is going out loud and clear from this House.

The Trump Administration are not known for their record on human rights, yet the United States has been perfectly prepared to sanction Chinese Communist party officials who have been abusive, whereas the United Kingdom has sanctioned no one. Why is that, and when will the judges and prosecutors involved in Jimmy Lai’s sham trial be sanctioned by this Government?

What I will say, in relation to what we expect to see in Hong Kong, is that it is unacceptable that we have not seen the upholding of the historic commitments made at the time of the Sino-British joint declaration. It remains a matter of concern that the national security law was brought in at all, and it remains a matter of concern that people are being prosecuted under it. We seek an end to the national security law, and we seek the immediate release of Jimmy Lai.

Strong words of condemnation are appropriate and necessary, but when will the Government’s actions match those words of condemnation?

The hon. and learned Member will know that this case is a priority for the Government and is raised at every opportunity and at every level of government, and that we continue to work on it publicly and privately. I know that it is a matter of great concern to the House and to the country. People want to see all of us working as much as we can and wherever we can to bring about the release of Jimmy Lai, and that is our priority.

The Prime Minister was happy to trot back from China heralding the successes of the visit without having secured the release of Jimmy Lai, and now we see Jimmy facing a 20-year prison sentence—in effect, a life sentence. Does the Minister think that was a price worth paying?

I reiterate that the most important thing is that we focus on doing everything we can to secure the release of Jimmy Lai. That is our priority. We will continue to raise this matter, publicly and privately, and we will remain in close contact with the family on the steps that we are taking.

The Minister appears to have come to the Chamber today with absolutely nothing to say. The recent visit to China was an absolute disaster, with people taking burner phones and a burner plane—we even appear to have taken a burner Prime Minister. The Minister referred earlier to progress being made in these discussions, so can she outline exactly what progress has been made, and what was the response from the Chinese Government when the Prime Minister raised the case of Jimmy Lai with them directly?

The Prime Minister’s recent visit allowed us to open up discussion and dialogue directly with the Chinese Government at the highest level. The Conservatives seem to have forgotten that it is actually quite important to engage in such discussions and dialogue with other Governments, including on incredibly difficult issues. There is absolutely no point in trying to call for something when you are shouting into a void, and the Conservatives should know better. It is much better to have a relationship that allows us to make our case directly to the Chinese President, rather than talking to ourselves. As the Prime Minister has said, the purpose of engaging is to seize the opportunities that open up as a result of engagement, but also to provide an opportunity for those discussions. If you sit outside the room, if you refuse to engage, you cannot even have the conversation. I come back to the point that I have made a number of times in the Chamber today: we continue those discussions, publicly and privately, to secure the release of Jimmy Lai, which is this Government’s priority.

The Minister will have heard me ask numerous times over a number of years for interventions on behalf of Jimmy Lai, who is a British citizen, as other Members of this House have done—indeed, we have been very strong collectively. His sham trial has now ended and, unsurprisingly, Jimmy will be held in unknown conditions for 20 years until he is 98, if he lives that long. He will be denied his religious beliefs, with no mass, and will be unable to worship his God, as he so wishes to do. This surely cannot be acceptable to this Government, whose Prime Minister and Attorney General have been at the forefront of using human rights as a panacea for every decision. Are we in this House truly to believe that Government abandonment of Hong Kong has meant that there are no options for those who are British in Hong Kong and whose only crime is not agreeing with Beijing?

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate the importance of seeing progress in this case. He is right to say that the sentence of 20 years—tantamount to a life sentence or, as has been said in this House, a death sentence—is unacceptable. That is why we continue to call for the release of Jimmy Lai, and it is important that we see that release on humanitarian grounds.