PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
China and Japan - 2 February 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

With permission, I will update the House on my visit last week to China and Japan, where we delivered for the British people.

With events overseas directly impacting on our security and the cost of living, I made it a founding principle of this Government that, after years of isolationism, Britain would face outwards once again. This was an 18-month strategy to rebuild our standing and we have delivered: strengthening our US relationship with our world-first trade deal; resetting our relationship with the EU; striking a groundbreaking free trade agreement with India; and now, thawing our ties with China to put this relationship on a more stable footing for the long term.

China is the second biggest economy in the world. Including Hong Kong, it is our third biggest trading partner, supporting 370,000 British jobs. It is also an undeniable presence in global affairs. It would be impossible to safeguard our national interests without engaging with this geopolitical reality. Yet we inherited a policy from the previous Government not of engagement with China, but of hiding away and sticking their heads in the sand. While our allies developed a more sophisticated approach, they let the UK fall behind. We became an outlier. Of my three predecessors, none held a single meeting with President Xi. For eight years, no British Prime Minister visited China—eight years of missed opportunities. Meanwhile over that period, President Macron visited China three times, German leaders four times, the Canadian Prime Minister was there a few weeks ago, and Chancellor Merz and President Trump are both due to visit shortly.

They went on their feet, not on their knees. [Laughter.]

Order! Mr Tugendhat, you will withdraw that remark.

I am sorry, Mr Speaker. I withdraw it.

Thank you. Can we calm it down? I am sure you will want to catch my eye and I would like to hear what you have to say, so let us not ruin the opportunity.

In this context, refusing to engage would be a dereliction of duty, leaving British interests on the sidelines. Incredibly, some in this House still advocate that approach. But leaders do not hide. Instead, we engage and we do so on our own terms, because, like our allies, we understand that engagement makes us stronger.

Protecting our national security is non-negotiable. We are clear-eyed about the threats coming from China in that regard, and we will never waver in our efforts to keep the British people safe. That is why we have given our security services the updated powers and tools they need to tackle foreign espionage activity wherever they find it, and to tackle malicious cyber-activity as well. The fact is that we can do two things at once: we can protect ourselves, while also finding ways to co-operate. It was in that spirit that we made this visit.

I had extensive discussions, over many hours, with President Xi, Premier Li and other senior leaders. The discussions were positive and constructive. We covered the full range of issues, from strategic stability to trade and investment, opening a direct channel of communication to deliver in the national interest, enabling us to raise frank concerns about activities that impact our national security at the most senior levels of the Chinese system. We agreed to intensify dialogue on cyber issues and agreed a new partnership on climate and nature, providing much-needed global leadership on this vital issue.

I raised a number of areas of difference that matter deeply to this country. I raised the case of Jimmy Lai and called for his release, making clear the strength of feeling in this House. Those discussions will continue. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in touch with Mr Lai’s family to provide further briefing.

I raised our human rights concerns in Xinjiang and Tibet. We discussed Taiwan, wider regional stability, Iran and the middle east. I called on China to end economic support for Russia’s war effort, including the companies providing dual-use technologies, and urged it to use its influence on Putin to push for the much-needed ceasefire in Ukraine.

I also raised the fact that Members of this House have been sanctioned by the Chinese authorities. In response, the Chinese have now made it clear that all such restrictions on parliamentarians no longer apply. I want to be clear: this was not the result of a trade. Yes, Members will want to see more—I understand that—but that is precisely the point: ignoring China for eight years achieved nothing. This step is an early indication, not the sum total, of the kind of progress that this sort of engagement can achieve through leader-to-leader discussion of sensitive issues, in standing up for British interests.

My visit was also about creating new opportunities for British businesses to deliver jobs and growth for the British people. We took with us a brilliant delegation of nearly 60 businesses and cultural powerhouses—the very best of British—as an embodiment of what this country has to offer. If anyone is in doubt as to why this matters, I urge them to spend a few minutes with any one of those businesses; they will describe the incredible potential there and the importance of getting out there and accessing the market.

We made significant progress, paving the way to open the Chinese market for British exports, including in our world-leading services sector. We secured 30-day visa-free travel for all Brits, including business travellers. We secured China’s agreement to halve whisky tariffs from 10% to 5%, which is worth £250 million to the UK over the next five years—a significant win for our iconic whisky industry, particularly in Scotland. That lower tariff comes into force today. In total, we secured £2.3 billion in market access wins, including for financial services, £2.2 billion in export deals for British companies and hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of new investments.

In addition, we agreed to work together in some key areas of law enforcement. Last year, around 60% of all small boat engines used by smuggling gangs came from China, so we struck a border security pact to enable joint law enforcement action to disrupt that supply at source. We also agreed to scale up removals of those with no right to be in the UK and to work together to crack down on the supply of synthetic opioids.

We will continue to develop our work across all these areas, because this is the start of the process, not the end of it. My visit was not just about coming back with these agreements, but about the wider question of setting this relationship on a better path—one that allows us to deal with issues and seize opportunities in a way that the previous Government failed to do.

Finally, I will say a word about my meetings in Tokyo. Japan remains one of our closest allies; together, we are the leading economies in the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, and we are partners in the G7, the G20 and the coalition of the willing. Japan is the UK’s largest inward investor outside the United States and Europe.

I had an extremely productive meeting with the Prime Minister of Japan, where we set out our shared priorities to build an even deeper partnership in the years to come. Those include working together for peace and security, supporting Ukraine as we work for a just and lasting peace, and deepening our co-operation in cutting-edge defence production, including through the global combat air programme. We discussed how we can boost growth and economic resilience by developing our co-operation: first, in tech and innovation, where we are both leaders; secondly, in energy, where Japan is a major investor in the UK; and, thirdly, in trade, where we are working together to maintain the openness and stability that our businesses depend on. That includes expanding the CPTPP and deepening its co-operation with the EU. We will take all of that forward when I welcome the Prime Minister to Chequers later this year.

This is Britain back at the top table at last. We are facing outward, replacing incoherence and isolationism with pragmatic engagement, and naive posturing with the national interest. In dangerous times, we are using our full strength and reach on the world stage to deliver growth and security for the British people. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement, but it is utterly reprehensible that he began it by accusing the previous Government of isolationism—the same Conservative Government who—[Interruption.] The Business and Trade Secretary is laughing, but let me tell him this. That same Conservative Government led the world in our response to the invasion of Ukraine and signed the vital strategic alliance of AUKUS—[Interruption.] The Business Secretary asks how many free trade agreements we did. We signed Britain’s biggest post-Brexit trade deal—the CPTPP—bringing us closer to the 11 Indo-Pacific nations, including Japan. I know about that deal because I signed it myself.

I welcome the Prime Minister’s efforts to collaborate more with our long-standing ally Japan, but let me turn to China. Of course Britain should engage with China. Even though the Chancellor was not allowed to go, even though it is an authoritarian state that seeks to undermine our interest, even though it spies on us—sometimes within the walls of this building—and even though it funds regimes around the world that are hostile to our country, China is a fact of life, a global power and an economic reality. Let me be clear: it is not the Prime Minister engaging with China that we take issue with. What we are criticising is his supine and short-termist approach.

I am sure that the Prime Minister means well, but his negotiating tactic has always been to give everything away in the hope that people will be nice to him in return. Before the Prime Minister had even got on the plane, he had already shown that he would do anything to demonstrate his good relationship with China. China, however, uses every interaction to improve its own position. The Prime Minister looked like he enjoyed his trip—in fact, it looked like a dream come true for a man who was virtually a communist most of his life.

Apart from the Labubu doll in his suitcase—which I hope he has checked for bugs—the Prime Minister has come back with next to nothing. We all want cheaper tariffs for Scotch whisky, but if the Prime Minister had bothered to speak to the whisky industry, as I did two weeks ago, he would know that what it really needs is cheaper energy and lower taxes. The Prime Minister also got us visa-free travel, but China already offers that to other countries. It is not big enough for a prime ministerial visit.

The worst thing was the Prime Minister claiming a glorious triumph with the lifting of sanctions on four Conservative MPs, as if he had done us a favour. Let me tell him this: those MPs were sanctioned because they stood up to China. They stood up against human rights abuses, and they stood up against a country that is spying on our MPs in a way that the Prime Minister would not dare to do. Those Members do not want to go to China. The Chinese know that. They know that they are giving him something that costs absolutely nothing. Why can the British Prime Minister not see that?

I say to you, Mr Speaker, and to the whole House that, like with the Chagos islands, the Prime Minister has been played. China is about to build an enormous spy hub in the centre of London—a ransom he had to pay before he could even get on the plane. I would never allow Britain to be held over a barrel like that. Yet again, the Prime Minister has negotiated our country into a weaker position in the world. His entire economic policy is to tax businesses more, regulate them harder and make energy so expensive that we deindustrialise, and then we can import Chinese wind turbines, solar panels and batteries for electric vehicles—all manufactured in a country that builds a coal-fired power station every other week. Did he speak to the Chinese about that?

What did the Prime Minister’s trip achieve for Jimmy Lai? Nothing. Did China promise to stop fuelling Putin’s war machine in Ukraine? It does not sound like it. What did this trip achieve for the Uyghurs who are being enslaved? Absolutely nothing. Has China agreed to stop its relentless cyber-attacks? We all know the answer to that. The reality is that China showed its strength, and Britain was pushed around, literally. It is no wonder that President Xi praised the Labour party; the Conservatives stood up for Britain—we do not get pushed around.

Britain is a great trading nation. Of course we should engage with other countries, even hostile ones—[Interruption.]

Order. Mr Kyle, you said to me when you were going to China how well you would behave and how you owe me a big thank you. You are not showing it today!

Mr Speaker, I am not worried about the Business Secretary; the entire business community thinks he is a joke and does not know what he is talking about.

As I was saying, of course we should engage with other countries, even hostile ones, but we need to do so with our eyes open and from a position of strength. That requires a Prime Minister and a Government who put our national interest first.

Let me see if I understand the right hon. Lady’s position. This is the Leader of the Opposition who said we should empty-chair the most important NATO summit for years, who would not turn up to the G7 and who would rip up our valuable trade deals with the US, India and the EU. This is the Leader of the Opposition who characterised Greenland as a “second-order issue”, and then undermined the Government’s position on sovereignty. When it comes to China, her policy is to stick her head in the sand, unable to influence anything. In a volatile world, that is not policy; that is an abdication of responsibility—no wonder members on her Front Bench are leaving in droves.

The Leader of the Opposition talks of the embassy. China has had an embassy in the UK since 1877. It is currently spread across seven sites. She is so busy trying to hold her party together that she has clearly not read the letter from the security and intelligence services. She claims great interest in the China embassy. She was offered an invite for a Privy Council briefing on the issue. What did she do? She chose not to attend. That is a dereliction of duty. Even worse, she sent in her place the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp)—that is a double dereliction of duty. Instead of taking up a Privy Council briefing, she took up a megaphone on the streets outside the embassy. I changed my party from a party of protest to a party of power. She is rapidly going in the opposite direction. Her reply this afternoon seems to be that we should engage with China, but not engage with China, and that, instead of leader-to-leader discussions where we raise all the opportunities and the difficult issues, each and every one of them, she would get a bag of sand and put her head in it and influence absolutely nothing. The Conservatives are so unserious about world affairs.

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and I am pleased to see that his trip went so well. This morning, I was in touch with the Scotch Whisky Association, which wants me to convey its congratulations to the Prime Minister on securing reduced tariffs on exports to China. There is, of course, more work needed, however—a Prime Minister’s job is never done. The biggest overseas market for whisky is, of course, the US, where the tariff is still too high. Will the Prime Minister confirm that this will not be the end of his support for the Scotch whisky industry and that he will continue to be an advocate for it?

Yes, I can confirm that we are continuing to work with the US. Of course, the India deal we secured will also have an impact on whisky tariffs.

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I start by paying tribute to my friend Jim Wallace, one of the great Scottish Liberals. I offer our thoughts and prayers to his family and many friends. Jim devoted his life to public service, his Christian faith and the cause of liberalism. But his judgment was not always impeccable, for it was Jim who gave me my first job in politics. We will miss him.

I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of the statement. I listened to the Conservative leader, whose position now seems to be to oppose trade with the world’s biggest economies—so much for global Britain. With President Trump threatening tariffs again, just because of the Prime Minister’s trip, and with Vladimir Putin still murdering civilians in Ukraine, now more than ever the United Kingdom must forge much closer alliances with nations that share our values, our belief in free trade and our commitment to mutual defence. China shares none of those.

The Prime Minister’s main focus should be on the closest possible ties with our European neighbours, our Commonwealth allies and our friends such as Japan and Korea. Once again, he has made the wrong choice. However, unlike the Conservative party, we think he was right to go and engage. But just like with President Trump, he approached President Xi from a position of weakness instead of a position of strength, promising him a super-embassy here in London in return for relatively meagre offers from China.

The Prime Minister rightly raised the case of Jimmy Lai, whose children fear for his health after five years held in captivity, so will he tell us what Xi said to give him confidence that Mr Lai is now more likely to be released? Did he also challenge Xi on the bounties on the heads of innocent Hongkongers here in the United Kingdom, or the revelation that China hacked the phones of No. 10 officials for years? In other words, did he stand up for Britain this time?

Yet again, the Prime Minister had to spend time on a foreign trip responding to revelations about the vile paedophile and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein’s relationship with Lord Mandelson. The Prime Minister has rightly said that Mandelson should resign from the other place, but since he has not, will he back a simple piece of legislation to strip him of his peerage? Surely this House could pass it tomorrow.

I start by offering my deep condolences on behalf of the Government in relation to Lord Wallace. He was a kind and decent man, and I know he will be sorely missed on the Liberal Democrat Benches. May he rest in peace.

Of course we need to build stronger alliances with our key partners, and that is what we have been doing, particularly with the EU. But the right hon. Gentleman is wrong: it is not a choice between doing that and engaging with China. One can do both, and that is what we are doing. Where there are opportunities, and where there are sensitive and really important disagreements, I think it is more important to have a meeting to discuss them.

The House is violently agreeing that there are issues that need to be discussed. The difference between us is that we think that having a leader-to-leader meeting to discuss those big issues is better than sticking our head in the sand, if we really want to influence them. So we can do both.

Yes, I raised the case of Jimmy Lai, and we have now spoken to his family about that discussion. Yes, I raised the case of Hong Kong. I raised a number of human rights issues, as I listed. The point is that, by being in the room and having the debate one to one, at leader-to-leader level, it was possible to raise those issues. There is frankly no point standing in this House shouting and screaming about issues if you are not prepared to get in the room to discuss them. It gets you absolutely nowhere.

I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.

I want to welcome the Prime Minister’s serious engagement with serious power: it is essential to safeguarding our national interest. The complexities of China require from Britain a whole-of-society approach, which is completely impossible until the Government publish a clear China strategy to explain what is off limits and how we are going to rebalance competition with Chinese industry that is six times over-subsidised compared with our firms. Last week in Europe, I heard very clearly from our partners that they are worried that the lackadaisical approach to policing Chinese competition risks deeper integration with Europe. The EU has 143 trade measures in place against China; we have none. So will the Prime Minister now follow up his meetings last week and publish a strategy, co-ordinated with our allies, so we can take out the guesswork and put in place the guardrails for this important relationship?

Obviously, the general approach was set out in the Lady Mayor’s banquet speech I gave just before Christmas. My right hon. Friend made a really important point about Europe. As I mentioned, President Macron went to China just a few weeks ago and Chancellor Merz is due to go very shortly, and my right hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that the three of us, as the E3, discussed in advance the approach we would take and agreed to discuss during our visits and afterwards the outcomes and how we go forward as a group of European nations.

I call the Father of the House.

What absolutely unites everybody in this place is absolute outrage at the treatment of Jimmy Lai, a British citizen whose only crime is to campaign for democracy and to ask the Chinese to obey the spirit and letter of the solemn agreement that we made with them before the 1997 takeover. The Prime Minister said at the weekend that he had raised the case of Jimmy Lai “respectfully” with the latest Chinese emperor —“respectfully”? Does the Prime Minister not realise that the Chinese only accept strength—that everything is a deal—so why did he not say to them, “There will be no Chinese embassy until you stop spying on us in this House, you give an absolute assurance to us on Diego Garcia, and, above all, you free Jimmy Lai now”?

I raised the case of Jimmy Lai in terms with the President, as in fact I did, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, at the G20 when I met the President for the first time, and we have updated the family in relation to the progress we have made. But the position of the Conservative party seems to be that we should raise the case of Jimmy Lai by not going to China and raising the case of Jimmy Lai.

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

We must engage pragmatically with our allies and with others around the world when it serves the national interest. That is why I welcome the Prime Minister’s engagement with our close ally, Japan, as well as with our major trading partner, China. I also welcome his commitment to the global combat air programme, which, as the Defence Committee illustrated, is of vital strategic importance as we develop the next generation of fighter jets. But our Japanese and Italian friends are understandably nervous, because we have as yet not put pen to paper on the full contract for Tempest, as was planned last year. Can the Prime Minister clarify when that fully formalised contract on GCAP will be penned, and can he also confirm that the timeline and programme will slide sideways?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this very important programme. He will be pleased to know I did discuss it with the Prime Minister in Japan, and we will be publishing our defence investment plan shortly.

Mr Speaker, you have been stalwart in standing with those of us who were sanctioned by the People’s Republic of China all those years ago, and you have been very clear that we stand as one in this House. Do you not find it as surprising as I do that the Prime Minister has come back with a deal that lifts the sanctions on those six of us who are still in this House, but not the one who is not, nor the lawyers, advisers and academics who support the work of this House? Is this not a direct affront to the democracy of this place, and an attempt to divide and conquer that we have seen China play against the European Parliament and that, sadly, has tricked our Government too?

I thank the right hon. Member for raising this point—I know how much it matters personally to him and to the others that he referenced. I raised this point directly, and the response was that restrictions do not apply to parliamentarians. I accept the challenge and the point that we need to go further, but that does not mean that what we have achieved should be put to one side. I accept that we must go further, and I will work with colleagues across the House to do so. In order to go further, we have to engage, and we have to engage at the leader level.

Can I thank the Prime Minister on his grown-up approach to the UK’s engagement with China? Can I also congratulate him on the agreement for a crackdown on manufacturers of small boat engines and parts, which directly impacts my constituency? Given that the Conservative party would not have even gone to China, does the Prime Minister agree that the choice is between a Labour Government doing the hard yards to shut down the smuggler supply chains, and a Tory party that prefers posturing and permanent failure in the channel?

Sixty per cent of motors used to cross the channel are coming from China, so of course it is right to engage appropriately in China on this issue, and to get this agreement on information sharing and working to ensure that those engines cannot make their way from China to the north coast of France.

As I have told the House, I raised the case of Jimmy Lai in terms. I will not go into the details of the discussions, save to say that we have subsequently spoken to Jimmy Lai’s family about that. In relation to the wider issues that the hon. Gentleman raises, including Hong Kong: yes, all those issues were raised.

I want to thank the Prime Minister for his incredible leadership on an international scale, which has a direct benefit to us domestically, not least through the disruption of the supply chain for small boat engines. I just wonder, because it is not a silver bullet to solve the challenge with immigration through illegal routes, whether the conversation came up about TikTok being used as a platform to share disinformation and misinformation to encourage people to make dangerous journeys.

We raised a number of issues in relation to smuggling. The focus was very much on the engines for small boats because of the fact that 60% of them are coming from China, and we need to stop that supply chain if we are going to deal with the crossings.

In spite of the somewhat thin economic gruel with which the Prime Minister has returned, he was absolutely right to visit China. If I may return to the issue of human rights, particularly Jimmy Lai, did the Prime Minister say, as the whole House would have wished, that this British citizen—nearly 80 years old, held in solitary confinement and denied the chance to practice his religion—should surely receive clemency and be returned to the United Kingdom? Or did the Prime Minister merely deliver a written note?

No, I did not deliver a written note. I engaged seriously on the issue, as the right hon. Member would have expected me to, and I went into the details of the case that I was making in the way that he would have expected me to.

My constituent, the journalist and democracy campaigner Jimmy Lai, was convicted under Hong Kong’s draconian national security law. I have listened carefully to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister has said, and we have heard that he raised the issue on his visit. Jimmy Lai is now desperately unwell—his health is failing. I have heard what the Prime Minister has to say, and I am grateful that the Foreign Secretary will be speaking to Jimmy’s family. Can the Prime Minister share with us his assessment of whether we will see Jimmy Lai free in 2026?

I thank my hon. Friend for all the work she does on behalf of her constituents. Yes, I raised this issue in detail and made it clear that we were calling for Jimmy Lai’s release, plus other details of his health and the situation he is being held in. I believe it is the right thing to engage at the highest level on issues of such concern and to have that conversation—I believe that is a far better strategy than putting your head in the sand, which is apparently the policy of the Conservative party.

As you will be aware, Mr Speaker, when the Prime Minister was in China and Japan, he gave comment that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor should testify before Congress in the United States. What the Prime Minister chose not to do was to offer an unreserved apology to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein for appointing his other friend, Peter Mandelson, as the ambassador to the United States of America. Now that he is back from China and Japan, will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to do just that, and does he agree with me that Peter Mandelson should be subject to a police investigation for potential criminality while in public office?

There is a statement to come.

Only the SNP could go about this in this way—instead of welcoming the halving of tariffs on Scottish whisky, the right hon. Gentleman raises things that have absolutely nothing to do with China or Japan. Only the SNP has no interest at all in delivering for Scotland.

Does the Prime Minister recall that during the time of Brexit negotiations, the Tories told us that we had more to gain outside of the EU than inside it and that, within days of Brexit, we would be signing trade deals with the US and China that would be bigger than the trade deals that existed with the EU? What we got was a botched Brexit that isolated us from our European neighbours, and now the Tories want to extend that isolation to a global scale. Does the Prime Minister agree that Britain would not be treated decently or with any confidence by our global neighbours and friends if we had adopted such an approach?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that period in our history, because of course, this was 2015 and 2016. The Conservative party had a manifesto in 2015 that dealt with the question of a referendum in relation to Brexit and also set out its position on China. I had a look at that very manifesto this morning; the Conservatives’ position was to

“strengthen our economic links with China”,

including seeking a free trade agreement. That used to be their position, then they veered to the other side of the road, and now they stick their head in the sand and pretend that they can influence events.

The Prime Minister’s position seems to be that if a bully is big enough, rich enough and powerful enough, the pragmatic thing to do is to pay into his protection racket. Can he at least show some sign of moral compass by accepting the fact that China is a repressive, brutal, communist, totalitarian state that dishonoured all the provisions of the Hong Kong agreement?

The Conservatives’ position seems to be that if one has concerns in relation to China, the pragmatic thing to do is to buy a bag of sand and put your head in it. I do not think that is going to influence anything—nothing said here has any influence if you do not have a meeting.

I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on last week’s handsome wins, including on visas in China—I just wondered whether the same issue arose in Japan. I did a brilliant visit to the Japan London school in my seat the other day, but that school is finding the dogmatic visa changes made by the Conservative Government burdensome. Will my right hon. and learned Friend look into that, and also praise the contribution of the Japanese in Acton, from sushi to bilingual education?

We had very productive meetings in Japan. Among the discussions was how we open up to more trade between our two economies.

The Prime Minister has said that this visit to China was good for British jobs. Having wrongly granted consent to the Chinese super-embassy, can he confirm that it will be built with brilliant British steel from Lincolnshire, as opposed to Chinese steel?

It was this Government who took the action on Scunthorpe to ensure we had British Steel at Scunthorpe—it is one of the proudest things I have done.

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, which faces into the world as it is. Des Browne, Baron Browne of Ladyton, is retiring from the other place after decades of distinguished public service as the Labour MP for Kilmarnock and the Defence Secretary and in his work on the prevention of the spread of nuclear weapons. China is a significant and growing nuclear power, with more than 600 warheads, and this week the US-Russia new START treaty comes to an end. Can the Prime Minister tell me if the UK is engaging with China at the highest levels to prevent the risk of nuclear weapons and combat nuclear proliferation?

I pay tribute to the contribution that Lord Browne has made. I assure my hon. Friend that our discussions with China did include how we derisk the risk in relation to nuclear weapons.

When John Major went to Beijing, he spoke clearly and said, “We will not forget Tiananmen Square.” In contrast, the Prime Minister refused to say Jimmy Lai’s name until he was wheels up. I have never said that we should not engage with Beijing; I have said that we should not give it a propaganda visit. It is extraordinary to abrogate the responsibility of the Chinese Communist party, whose actions we had to respond to, therefore pausing trade talks, as if it has done nothing wrong. Finally, the Prime Minister met with Cai Qi, the man responsible for running two spies who were undermining this Parliament, but he excluded that from his statement. Why doesn’t he tell us why he thought it was acceptable to meet this man and what he got out of it in the British interest?

This is so pathetic. At the highest level and one to one, I raised each of the issues of difference between our two countries—each and every one of them—in the way that the House would expect, and that is what the Opposition are criticising. They seem genuinely to believe that these issues can be progressed or influenced by doing nothing about them. You have to be in the room to have a discussion, and that is what we did.

It is right that the Prime Minister goes to China if he is acting in the best interests of all those living here. Last year, the Joint Committee on Human Rights undertook an inquiry into transnational repression. In front of us, we had Chloe Cheung, a young Hongkonger from Leeds who had a $HK1 million bounty put on her head. She told us about how she had been intimidated and harassed. Did the Prime Minister speak up for all the Hongkongers in the UK who have had bounties on their heads and who have been intimidated and harassed? Will he ensure that people living in the United Kingdom are safe from the Chinese regime?

That is exactly why we raised the issues of human rights at numerous levels on the visit.

I noticed that the mention of Japan took the Prime Minister one minute—the last minute—of a 10-minute speech on China and Japan. Japan is not only the largest inward investor into the UK, apart from the EU and US, but a vital liberal democracy in the Indo-Pacific and a key security partner in maintaining regional stability in the face of growing Chinese assertiveness. Given the growing security risks and strategic instability across the region, can the Prime Minister assure the House that engagement with Beijing will not weaken the UK’s alignment with Japan, which is one of our most important democratic partners?

Yes, I can assure the hon. Lady of that.

With respect to the statement following the Prime Minister’s visit to China and Japan, I thank him for being in the room and challenging China on its appalling human rights record and for fighting for British jobs. With respect to his visit to Japan, did the issue of Toyota come up? Toyota is a significant employer in Derbyshire and worth more than £5.5 billion to the local economy. Can we do more with Toyota, because it is really good for jobs here?

Yes, we did discuss the car manufacturing going on at the moment and the potential for further work in that regard, along with other issues of trade broadening between our two countries.

The Prime Minister will be aware that some 80% of the sanctioned dual-use items that Russia needs for the drones and missiles it is firing at civilians and children on a daily basis come from China. He says that he raised that matter. Did he get any assurance that China will stop supplying Russia?

The right hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to this issue. That is precisely why I raised it again in terms. I will not go into the details of the discussion, but I did raise it, for the very reasons that he sets out. Across this House, we are committed to a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. This has been an issue of concern for a considerable period, which is why I raised it.

I welcome the Prime Minister’s recent engagement in Tokyo and the strengthening of our relations with Japan as a key economic and strategic partner. Will he explain how small and medium-sized enterprises in Portsmouth, particularly those in maritime and defence such as Griffon Marine, alongside the creative industries, will benefit from deeper UK-Japan co-operation? My 18-year-old son Archie Cole is a professional wrestler, currently competing on Tokyo TV in “Magic Monday”, so I know at first hand how international engagement can open doors for individuals and Portsmouth’s local businesses alike.

I congratulate my hon. Friend’s son on his achievements. On SMEs and businesses, yes, we discussed how we can enhance our engagement and enhance growth and jobs right across all our constituencies, including my hon. Friend’s.

Does the Prime Minister accept that in his rush to hoover up economic crumbs from President Xi because of his appalling handling of our economy, he is having to increase strategic dependence on Beijing? The public see the risks the Prime Minister is taking with UK security; does he?

The Conservatives crashed the economy, so lectures from them on the economy are not welcome. As I said in my statement, national security is at the heart of our approach to China, as it is to every issue that we take up. It is quite possible to have a discussion about the opportunities available to our country while also safeguarding our national security. That is what we are doing in a grown-up, mature way.

Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), the anti-dumping measures that we impose on Chinese goods coming into this country protect hundreds of jobs in Stoke-on-Trent, whether in the ceramic tableware manufacturing sector or in the retreading of tyres at the Michelin factory. Can the Prime Minister give a guarantee that as the economic work with China continues, those measures will not be junked? The anti-dumping measures are not abstract: they protect hundreds of jobs in the part of the country that most needs them.

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue and I can give him that assurance. I know how much it matters, and that is the approach we have taken.

Over the past weeks, thousands of Chinese fishing boats have been trapped, creating a blockage up to 300 miles long in the east China sea off Japan. This is seen by many as a strategy for a future blockade. Given the huge reliance on that route for trade, such action would cause a global economic shock, threaten thousands of jobs in Scotland and dramatically increase the cost of living. What explanation did the Prime Minister’s Chinese counterpart give for this behaviour? What subsequent discussions did he have with the Japanese Prime Minister about maintaining maritime security in the region?

That issue was raised in both China and Japan, because it is obviously a cause of concern. Regional instability matters not just in the region but globally, so I discussed it in both China and Japan.

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, but will he tell the House what steps the Government are taking to protect parliamentarians and others in public life against foreign influence?

We have taken a number of measures, including the further powers and tools we have given to our security and intelligence services.

I echo the tributes to Jim Wallace. He was one of the most significant Scottish politicians of his generation and it was a privilege both to know him and to work with him.

We have established that the Prime Minister was in the room, but what difference will it make for people who were not in the room in Ukraine?

It will make a huge difference, which is why I discussed it with Volodymyr Zelensky before I went, in terms, and why I will discuss it with him again in the coming days, in terms.

I welcome the Prime Minister’s leadership on his trip, including his words in Japan about the value of the global combat air programme, which is not only strategically important for global security and autonomy, but important for businesses that have grown out of my constituency, including BAE Systems and QinetiQ. Will the Prime Minister highlight the work he is doing to ensure that this critical endeavour makes progress?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, because Japan is a key colleague and partner when it comes to defence and security, which is why, across a range of issues, we discussed what more we can do, including on GCAP.

In an earlier answer, the Prime Minister mentioned Scunthorpe steelworks, where hundreds of my constituents are employed. We welcome the Government’s support to date. Was he able to discuss Jingye’s ownership with his Chinese opposite number, and can he give any positive assurances to my constituents about their long-term future?

May I give this assurance to the hon. Member’s constituents? We absolutely believe in the importance of steel being made in this country, and that is why we took the necessary measures, on a Saturday, as he knows, in relation to steel production in his constituency.

The Prime Minister will know that many excellent west midlands businesses export to China, including great car makers such as Jaguar Land Rover, the Morgan Motor Company and Aston Martin. Collectively, those car exports are worth more than those from any other region in the UK, I would say. Can the Prime Minister outline how the results of his trip to China, including the agreement on 30-day visa-free travel, will benefit those businesses and drive jobs and exports in our region?

My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that JLR was there with us on the delegation in China, and it is acutely aware of the difference that better trade and economic measures with China will make to its business, and to jobs in his constituency.

In 2023, the Intelligence and Security Committee reported:

“The UK’s academic institutions provide a rich feeding ground for China to achieve both political influence and economic advantage”.

Was interference in UK universities raised with President Xi?

I raised a wide range of issues of concern to this House with President Xi, as the hon. Member would expect.

Growing our relationship with China could boost our motor manufacturing industry. The Prime Minister will know only too well that small businesses in this sector are the engine of economic growth in my constituency and right across the west midlands. Can he set out how his visit will help small businesses in North Warwickshire and Bedworth?

This issue is so important, in terms of the opportunities that we have. That is why we had representatives from motor manufacturing with us. They are only too well aware of the great benefits that taking full advantage of the opportunities will have for her constituents and others.

The Prime Minister’s friend, Baroness Helena Kennedy, a sanctioned person, clearly believes that the juice was not worth the squeeze or, indeed, the price of the plane tickets, because she has described the returns the Prime Minister has secured as “meagre”. She is right, is she not?

I have known Helena for many years. We shared a room when we worked together in chambers. We agree on many things, but not everything.

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and for what he said about calling on China to end support for Russia’s illegal war effort. We cannot ignore the threat to our shores from Russia, as we know very well in Wales. Nathan Gill, the former Reform UK leader in Wales, is serving 10 and a half years in prison for taking bribes from Russia. Will the Prime Minister join me in condemning that treacherous activity, and reassure me that he will continue to push China on that important point?

Yes, I will, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the shocking case of Nathan Gill. As my hon. Friend rightly says, Nathan Gill got 10 and a half years for taking bribes in relation to Russia. The leader of Reform is not even interested enough to start an investigation to see whether that is the extent—which it will not be—of Russian influence in his party.

I just want clarification on the Members of this House who were formally sanctioned. The Prime Minister said:

“President Xi said to me that means all parliamentarians are free to travel to China”.

Does that mean that they are no longer legally sanctioned, and did he get that in writing?

That is my understanding in relation to all parliamentarians. I accept that in relation to others, we need to see how much further we can go.

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. Does he agree that the security of this country is the Government’s first and foremost priority at all times?

Yes, I do. It is front and centre of everything we do, whenever we are acting on the world stage.

I want to follow up on the questions from the Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), and from the hon. Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker), on the global combat air programme. The funding for the next round of GCAP is going to run out in a matter of months. That will affect Edgewing and the British phase of the programme. It has been reported that contract for the next phase of GCAP has been delayed, due to the delay to the defence investment plan. Will the contract be signed before the defence investment plan is published?

The hon. Member will be pleased to know that this was a matter of discussion in Japan, and the defence investment plan will be published very soon.

Mark Carney rightly challenged fellow middle powers to stop “living within a lie”, and to recognise the changes in the geopolitical landscape, because comfortable assumptions about the international order are no longer true, and the system that we once benefited from cannot become the source of our subordination. It was therefore important to hear the Prime Minister’s firm commitment to GCAP in Japan. Does he agree that investment in programmes such as GCAP is essential if we are to address this geopolitical challenge?

Yes, I do, and my hon. Friend is right to emphasise the changes in the geopolitical landscape; we have approached our relationship to the US, Europe, India and China accordingly.

In the Prime Minister’s discussions on what he somewhat mildly describes as “areas of difference”, did he raise the discovery of kill switches and hidden comms devices in Chinese-manufactured solar panels? If he did, can he assure us that, rather than politely asking for this practice to stop, he demanded that it stop?

We raised all the sensitive issues, and we did it in direct terms, and in the room. That, to my mind, is the right way to try to make progress on these very important issues.

It was a privilege to serve with Jim Wallace in Holyrood, and I associate myself with the tributes to him.

We have had trade deals with Europe, China and India worth hundreds of millions of pounds to Scottish businesses, and defence contracts that secure thousands of jobs. Can the Prime Minister tell us how he will build on this success for Scotland? Does he agree that it is about time the Scottish Government showed the same ambition for Scottish businesses?

It is astonishing that the Scottish National party is simply not interested in the progress that we have made on the India trade deal, which is hugely beneficial to Scottish businesses, or in the halving of tariffs that comes into effect today in relation to China. Businesses in Scotland know exactly what that means to them, which is why they are celebrating. SNP Members cannot bring themselves to even welcome it.

I certainly acknowledge the tariff easement for Scottish whisky, and for the apparently superior Bushmills whiskey from my constituency, but will the Prime Minister’s visit do anything to address the proliferation of heavily subsidised Chinese vehicles, which are flooding our nation, particularly in the bus sector? We have 500 subsidised Chinese vehicles on the streets of our capital city, courtesy of Transport for London, whereas in Scotland and in my constituency, we build the highest-quality buses. Will there be any action to support British buses as a result of what the Prime Minister is seeking to do?

I see that we have opened a whisky competition, but the hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right: it is really important that we champion the building of buses and so much else in the United Kingdom. We have great examples of that, and we will always put the national interest first.

I welcome the Prime Minister’s report back from his visit to China and Japan. Previous Tory Governments refused to make such reports for many years. He says that the issues discussed included human rights, trade and security. I am particularly interested in what he had to say about the border security pact, because my constituents in Stevenage are very concerned about the small boats crisis. We already have international agreements with France and Germany, and this is a new one with China. How can I learn more about how this will work?

My hon. Friend is right to put this as one package, because what we are doing on small boats with China is looking at the source of the engines; what we are doing with Germany involves the transport of those parts through Europe; and what we are doing in France is working with the French to tackle the crossings.

The whole House can see with its own eyes what is happening here. The Prime Minister, on paper, has the support of more than 400 MPs. If they want to show their support, they can fill every single seat on the Government Benches, as far as the double doors, but they are all drifting away as these exchanges proceed. Even at the start of his statement, the Prime Minister did not have the authority to command that they fill two or three Benches behind him. He is clearly on his way out. The problem is that in his desperation to shore up his position, he is trading away our national interests. Can he name a single tangible benefit that he has secured in respect of the rights of Hongkongers?

Yes, we raised the issues of Hongkongers. [Interruption.] We raised the issues. I find the Conservatives’ position astonishing. They say that they take these issues seriously. They say that these issues are “of great concern”. They stay here and raise these issues, notwithstanding the fact that no one else is listening, and then they say, “This is so important to me, but the one thing I do not want you to do is go to China and have a discussion about it at the highest level.” It is a pathetic, unserious approach to foreign policy.

The Prime Minister may have noticed that the Japanese ambassador to the United Kingdom, Hiroshi Suzuki, was in Manchester recently, trying Boddingtons bitter. The Prime Minister will be aware of the importance of brewing to my constituency, and perhaps, in celebration of these trade deals, he would like to encourage the ambassador to come and sample some of the best beer in the brewing capital of Burton-on-Trent.

Yes, I certainly encourage that, and I will take the first opportunity to do so.

I am glad that the Prime Minister enjoys a dram as much as I do. For the record, I did welcome the Indian trade deal very publicly, so he may wish to correct the record on that. However, I want to focus on an issue that is important to employment in my constituency: the Ardersier site, part of the Cromarty Green freeport, in which Mingyang has expressed a significant investment interest. I fully understand the national security concerns that need to be addressed, but a decision is long overdue. The issue has been with the Government for a long time, and there is investor jitteriness. The supply chain is vexed about this, and the issue is certainly not helping with the just transition. It is putting important job opportunities at risk. When will the decision be made either to let Mingyang get on with it or to move on to another opportunity?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue, which is of concern to his constituents across Scotland, and indeed the United Kingdom. No decision has yet been made, and I will update the House as soon as I can.

Last Thursday, I held a public meeting with the Hong Kong community in Bishop’s Stortford. We met to discuss the proposed changes to indefinite leave to remain, but there was real strength of feeling about the case of Jimmy Lai and democratic freedoms in Hong Kong, so I was very pleased to hear the Prime Minister raise the issue. Will he take this opportunity, for the benefit of my constituents, to set out the details of those discussions again? Will he also assure my constituents of this country’s commitment to those from Hong Kong who have made their home here, and reassure them that this Government will listen carefully to their views in the Home Office’s consultation on earned settlement?

Let me give my hon. Friend that reassurance for those from Hong Kong, in his constituency and throughout the country, on the support that we will put in for them.

The SNP Scottish Government undertook a secretive trip to Beijing last year, and caught a case of renminbi fever while they were there. They are now blundering around on the world stage, desperate for Mingyang to put money into Ardersier. Notwithstanding the jobs issue, will the Prime Minister assure the House that he will take cognisance of national security issues? We do not want jobs at any cost, and we cannot allow wind farms to have Chinese kill switches fitted.

As the hon. Gentleman will have heard me say a moment ago, no decision has been made yet, but as I explained in my report back to the House, the overarching approach that we take to all matters involving China is that national security always comes first.

On behalf of the all-party parliamentary group on Japan, may I say arigato gozaimasu to the Prime Minister for his visit? I hope that he had a sugoi time.

I think that all of us in the House are proud of the global combat air programme, which holds great opportunities not only for global, regional and UK security but for British jobs. The Prime Minister mentioned that Japan is already one of the main investors in the UK; does he share my hope that this programme, just like the Concorde programme with France all those years ago, will have knock-on benefits for British jobs and innovations in our economy?

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and for his message over the weekend. Japan is a key NATO ally, is a member of the G7 and, of course, the coalition of the willing, and, as he rightly points out, has key investments in the United Kingdom. That is why we discussed all those matters, and the GCAP, when we were there.

The Prime Minister mentioned his previous meeting with the Chinese President at the G20 in Brazil. One day later, 45 pro-democracy Hongkongers were sentenced. Uyghurs, Falun Gong, Tibetans, unregistered religious groups, human rights lawyers, pro-democracy campaigners, Hongkongers in this country and Jimmy Lai—what single, tangible difference has the Prime Minister made for their safety and security?

Of course there are concerns; they are aired in this House. The difference between our parties is that our position is that the mature and serious thing to do is to have leader-to-leader discussions about them, engaging with the issues. The Conservatives’ approach is to shout about the issues, get a bag of sand and put their head in it, and influence absolutely no one. It is so unserious. They will not be fit for government for many, many years to come.

As the Prime Minister will know, many Japanese companies have their British home in my constituency of Bracknell, so I welcome his visit to Japan. Could he set out a little more about how we can further strengthen our relationship with our Japanese friends and allies, and what that will mean for my constituents?

I pay tribute to all those businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency, of which there are very many, as he rightly says. Enhancing our trade and economic ties with Japan is in the interests of both countries, and that is precisely what we are focused on.

The Prime Minister has failed to stand up for Britain’s interests. From what we have seen, he could not even make it across Beijing’s red carpet without being guided along the way. What did the Prime Minister expect to receive in return for approving the Chinese super-embassy, and did the Chinese give it to him?

We have had a Chinese embassy in this country since 1877. It is currently over seven sites; it is now going to be on one. The security and intelligence services published a letter the day after the decision was made to say that it was better for security in this country, and I think that is the right approach.

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for his continued international leadership. I know, however, that wherever he goes in the world, he is always thinking about Harlow, so what difference will a productive relationship with the second-largest economy and our third-biggest trading partner make to businesses in my constituency?

My hon. Friend is a champion for Harlow, and it has been so good to visit it so many times. We had 60 businesses in the delegation with us. They were enthusiastic about the opportunities that this visit would open up for them and for all the associated businesses—including in his constituency—that will be able to work with them on projects in the future.

It is widely reported in the media that the Prime Minister and his entourage had burner phones when they went to China. Could he confirm that? If so, was the reason that he was worried he was being spied upon?

We took appropriate precautions, as we do whichever country we visit.

Like the Prime Minister, I am a musician and a strong advocate for the creative arts sector. Could he set out to the House a little more about why he took so many creative arts and cultural organisations with him to China? Does he agree that Britain is the best in the world at the creative arts, that they are good for trade, good for jobs and good for our young people in particular, and that the kind of visit he has been on will help with that, as will investment at home and abroad?

I agree with my hon. Friend; we are the best in the world. The people from the creative sector and the cultural institutions were with us on the visit because they could see the great advantage in better relations and better engagement, and not only in relation to the cultural aspects but because, of course, they are themselves really important businesses.

The Prime Minister is very full of the abstract virtue of engaging with China and getting in the room with them. He used to say that Britain should not even sign a trade deal with China because of the persecution of the Uyghur people. Having now got into the room with the Chinese leader, can he tell the House a single thing that he achieved on behalf of the Uyghurs, or indeed on behalf of the security of this country?

Yes. Engaging is really important for the security of this country. Just for clarity, we did not sign a trade deal on the visit; we simply looked at the ways in which we can open the opportunities for businesses. There were 60 big businesses with us on the visit, and they are absolutely clear about the advantages to them. I would much rather take their view on the advantages than the nonsense that is being spouted on the other side of this House.

China is helping to fund Russia’s war on Ukraine via the shadow fleet and Russian oil. First, can the Prime Minister unambiguously confirm that he brought up Russian oil and the shadow fleet, because they are not mentioned specifically in the statement? Secondly, what steps will China now take to end its importation of Russian oil, which is funding death and destruction across Ukraine?

This is a really important issue, which that is why I had a phone call with Volodymyr Zelensky the day before I left, and I will have a further discussion with him now that I am back. I raised the issue in terms during the course of the visit.

Further to that point, Russia has been able to triple its ballistic missile production because it has access to Chinese rocket fuel, Chinese machine tools and Chinese microprocessors. In return, China is receiving vast quantities of discounted oil, gas, aluminium and other natural resources. China is quite literally fuelling the war in Ukraine, so I ask the Prime Minister once again: what specific guarantees did he receive from the Chinese Government that they will work to de-escalate the conflict in Ukraine?

The reason I spoke to Volodymyr Zelensky was to have a discussion in advance on the precise terms in which we would approach this issue. I then followed through on that, and I will talk to President Zelensky about this again in the coming days. We are working hand in glove with the Ukrainians for the outcome that we all want: a just and lasting peace.

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and I welcome his successful trade missions to China and Japan. In particular, I am heartened by the strides made in Japanese co-operation. However, what steps forward remain in terms of the Chinese treatment of Christians, Uyghur Muslims, Falun Gong and other religious minorities? Was the Prime Minister able to use diplomatic soft power to bring about the changes required to provide human rights protection, to stop religious persecution and to enable successful trade between the two nations?

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise these really important issues. I raised them myself during the course of the visit, and I thank him.