PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Pro-democracy Campaigners: Arrests - 7 January 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the Hong Kong police offering rewards for the arrest of pro-democracy campaigners, including British nationals overseas resident in the United Kingdom.

I thank the right hon. Lady for her question on this most important matter. I am glad to reassure her that the Foreign Secretary issued a statement on Christmas eve, immediately following the Hong Kong police’s issuing of arrest warrants for the six pro-democracy campaigners. As the Foreign Secretary said, those targeted on Christmas eve were merely exercising their right to freedom of expression. We will not tolerate any attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm their critics overseas, especially here in the UK.

We call on Beijing to repeal the national security law, including its extraterritorial reach, and on the Hong Kong authorities to end their targeting of individuals in the UK and elsewhere for seeking to exercise their basic rights. Let me reassure the right hon. Member that senior British diplomats immediately went out to reiterate the Foreign Secretary’s deep concerns directly in Hong Kong and Beijing over the Christmas period. Officials here in London immediately raised concerns with the Chinese embassy and the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office here in London.

China’s imposition of the national security law has clearly eroded the rights and freedoms of Hongkongers. I raised these concerns with the authorities during my visit to Hong Kong, as did the Foreign Secretary during his visit to Beijing. Following the latest arrest warrants issued by Hong Kong police, ensuring the continued safety of the pro-democracy campaigners remains a top priority for the Government. Let me assure hon. Members that the UK will always stand up for the people of Hong Kong. The Government are deeply committed to supporting all members of the Hong Kong community who have relocated to the UK, making such valuable contributions to life here.

I thank Mr Speaker for granting this urgent question. This is an incredibly serious matter. As the Minister and the House know, on Christmas eve we saw the Hong Kong police once again trying to give the national security law extraterritorial reach and threatening people on British soil. We unequivocally reject any attempt to apply the national security law in the UK. In government, the Conservative party were consistent and clear that it should be repealed.

Today, I want to press the Government on how they will respond to this latest attempt to clamp down on freedoms and dismantle the essence of what made Hong Kong such a special and successful place. Will the Minister explain what practical steps are being taken across the Government to protect those in the UK with bounties placed on their heads, and assess the security of the Hong Kong community in the UK? They have come to the UK under the BNO route established by the last Government when I was Home Secretary, to live in the UK free from fear of intimidation. We must have a zero-tolerance approach to such behaviours.

Has the Foreign Secretary raised this outrageous attempt to suffocate fundamental freedoms with his counterpart, Wang Yi? Once again, does this not show that this Government’s supposed reset with China is just one way? Before meeting President Xi, the Prime Minister said that he wanted a relationship that is consistent, durable and respectful, and stated that the pair agreed that there would be no more surprises. Does the Minister believe that trying to arrest BNOs in the UK is compatible with any of those comments? Did the Hong Kong or Chinese authorities notify Ministers in advance, or was this a surprise?

Will the Minister confirm, with a simple yes or no, whether the Chancellor will raise these bounties at the highest level when she jets off to China next week to beg for a quick investment to bail out her failing economic strategy? She cannot ignore human rights issues, whether in Hong Kong or Xinjiang, on her visit. Will the Government take this incident into account when considering the planning application for the new Chinese super-embassy in London?

I thank the right hon. Lady for raising a number of concerns. We are as one on the outrageous attempts to reach across the water to try to impose any intimidation on people based here in the UK. She mentions other human rights concerns, such as those in Xinjiang, and says that long-standing policies, such as the national health service not purchasing cotton equipment from the Xinjiang region, are the right policies. Of course, those policies were brought in following pressure from Members from her own party over previous Parliaments. She is also right to emphasise the importance of the welcome programme for BNO passport holders, which she brought in as Home Secretary, which provides an enormous contrast between a repressive regime and one that welcomes people newly arrived in the UK. Indeed, it is across our regions that the 12 hubs, which were created under her leadership of the Home Office, are going from strength to strength. They are giving people based in the UK the confidence to raise their voice, become active in their local communities, take English classes and all the rest.

The right hon. Lady mentions the Chancellor’s trip; I knew this would be one of her themes, so I have come prepared. As she is well aware, we are in a position where our economy is quite fragile. While we have clear national security concerns—today is a good example of those—we have to balance those concerns with being an outwardly facing and globally trading nation, where we need to sometimes be involved with countries whose values may not align completely with ours. I make no apologies for trying to support British business abroad—including in Hong Kong, where British businesses have said how lovely it is to see MPs visit them. I was able not only to be robust in my condemnation of these sorts of actions, but to support British business, our friends who are based in difficult places and undertaking hardship postings, and our diplomatic staff, who live our values day by day to uphold the strong framework of human rights abroad.

I will use this opportunity to ask the Minister whether she and the Chancellor on next week’s visit will raise the case of my Unite colleague Carol Ng, who became the general secretary of the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions, and who became involved in the democracy movement and has been imprisoned for four years now. During the last statement, I appealed to ensure she had family access. Could her case be raised again, both to secure her release and to at least secure her the opportunity of meeting her family?

I will, of course. Would my right hon. Friend write to me with the exact details and his most recent update? I have had the privilege of meeting trade union colleagues from Hong Kong, Taiwan and a number of other areas that are very exposed to the People’s Republic of China and some of the tactics we have seen there. I have been pleased that there has been great collaboration across not only the trade union movement here in the UK, but defenders of human rights—be they environmental, relating to freedom of religion or belief or across the great range of freedoms that we enjoy here, and which we want other countries to share, too.

I call the Lib Dem spokesperson.

The extraterritorial arrest warrants issued against Hong Kong pro-democracy activists are disgraceful. We must be clear: Hong Kong democracy campaigners such as Carmen Lau, a former district councillor in Hong Kong, are welcome and free to express their views here in the UK. This attempt by Beijing to interfere in our democracy is unacceptable. The previous Government did not do enough to counter this interference, and we urge this Government to go further than words with actions. Will the Minister meet me, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) and his constituent Carmen Lau to assure her of the Government’s support? Will the Government clarify that it is illegal to bounty hunt in the UK, and that anyone who does so can expect to be prosecuted? Will she use our Magnitsky sanctions regime against those in Hong Kong and Beijing responsible for the unacceptable targeting of Hong Kong pro-democracy activists? Finally, in the light of the continued detention of Jimmy Lai and these warrants, will the Government reconsider the Chancellor’s planned trip to Beijing?

I would be delighted to meet Ms Lau again; I believe I met her at an event with Dame Helena Kennedy in the previous Parliament, but it would be lovely to refresh that acquaintance and to hear from her following the traumatic experience she has had. I would be very happy to provide an update in writing, but I will also provide one here—as much as you will let me get away with, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have personally promised Mr Lai’s son, Sebastien, that whenever I have the opportunity, I will raise the case of his father, who remains on trial; in fact, the trial was due to restart on 6 January. I have as many briefings as possible from the consul general to Hong Kong and his team, who are very conscientious and diligent in attending all the trials they can get tickets for and who give me regular updates. I have promised the Lai family that I will continue to do that; I believe I have a meeting with them in the diary in the coming weeks.

On the Chancellor’s visit, I refer the hon. Gentleman to my earlier answer about balance. Unfortunately, because of our rather exposed position post Brexit, our economy has to be outward looking. If we want our constituents to get away from food banks, we need to have more import-export and to be pragmatic on the matter of having an economic relationship with our fourth biggest trading partner. It is hard to tell the House that, because I want to just talk about the other elements of the relationship. However, when I go to my constituency, and people tell me how hard their lives are and how, over the past 14 years, our economy has gone into decline, I know I have to stand up for our economic relationships as well.

I associate myself with the Minister’s comments about the contribution that Hongkongers have made to the UK, which is particularly true in East Renfrewshire. The Hongkongers in my constituency will welcome the strong comments from the Minister and the Foreign Secretary. However, we have heard those comments many times from the Front Bench, and the response from Beijing has been to imprison dozens more people, put more bounties on the heads of British people, escalate transnational repression and keep people like Jimmy Lai in prison. At what point do the consequences come for these actions? As other Members have asked, I ask not just when our senior Ministers will stop going there, but when we will stop welcoming Hong Kong officials here. I also ask whether the Government can and will meet the British nationals who have had bounties put on their heads, and whether they are being given specific security advice.

Perhaps I could encourage my hon. Friend to join the all-party parliamentary group on Hong Kong, which I know is very active in the House—I was a member before I became a Minister. It provides really regular updates, as does the Hong Kong committee on human rights, which writes a regular email newsletter to update us on the situation of the likes of Ms Lau, who was mentioned earlier in this debate, as well as what is happening across the globe, in the US, Canada, Australia and other places.

My hon. Friend asks how we can manage this most difficult of relationships, and I say that the opportunity we have with an exchange does not in any way take away from our position—in fact, I think it strengthens my arm. If I am in Hong Kong, I can eyeball the Beijing representative and tell him exactly what my views are, with the support of the consul general, who is an excellent representative of the UK, reinforcing that regularly. That is the element of engagement that we have, which we are looking through the audit to increase in order to give us the opportunity to lay our concerns at the door of those with whom we seek to have a dialogue.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) on securing this urgent question. The Minister should not take what I am about to say personally: no matter who is in government, I have been in opposition on this issue, and I continue to be so. I remind her that these seven pro-democracy campaigners, who now have a bounty on their heads, are just the latest act of a Chinese Communist party that does not care what countries like the UK say. Let us run through the examples: the freezing of all pension savings of those in the UK who fled Hong Kong, which was, outrageously, done by HSBC; Confucius Institutes continuing to spy on Chinese students in universities; illegal Chinese police stations; the bullying back in China of families of those who have fled for human rights reasons; and the brutal assault in Manchester by the consul general himself and others.

I say to the hon. Lady who speaks for the Government that I was at odds with the Foreign Secretary in the previous Government when he said he would do exactly what she says she will do: engage with the Chinese. It was after that that they continued the case against Jimmy Lai. America has sanctioned a large number of Chinese officials at the highest level in Hong Kong. No British Government have so far sanctioned a single person for any of the abuses that have taken place. Will she now say to the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister that we must sanction people for what they do to abuse British citizens and those we welcome here? Until we do that, we will not be taken seriously.

I fully accept that, as a sanctioned MP, the right hon. Gentleman is very concerned. I respect and admire his doggedness in raising these issues in the House. I hope he will reply to my invitation, from me and the Foreign Secretary, to visit me in the Foreign Office to discuss his ongoing concerns, including those he has raised today.

Specifically on the Mandatory Provident Fund, this is an ongoing dialogue. Both my predecessor, the former Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, and I raised the documentary requirements for withdrawing funds early. Basically, the Hong Kong authorities have a particular approach, but we are quite right to keep campaigning on that. Why should BNO passport holders not receive the funds to which they are entitled? He mentions HSBC. We will continue with any financial institution that is not being fair to its own investors. We will continue, with his support, to campaign for that. On sanctions, he is well aware that there are many sanctions against Chinese entities. I will write to him with the detail of where we are at with sanctions, but he is also aware of the Government’s long-standing position on sanctions, which is that we do not talk about them in the House because that could take away from their efficacy in future.

What representations have been made to the Chinese Communist party’s ambassador here in London on the consequences of a third round of bounties targeting democracy activists, including British nationals and BNOs, here on British shores?

My hon. Friend is quite right to raise that issue. He will be aware, from the Foreign Secretary’s statement, that it is being taken extremely seriously. We have raised through officials—this happened only on Christmas eve—the concerning example of transnational repression. That is an ongoing discussion. We have a high-profile visit next week. Our officials are in regular contact with Chinese officials who have their embassy here in the UK. In Hong Kong, our excellent consul general meets regularly not just with Hong Kong Ministers but with the Beijing official office in Hong Kong, to put on the record our concern, anger and ongoing human rights concerns wherever they may come from.

No one should be surprised, as I have said before, when a communist totalitarian state behaves like a communist totalitarian state. Does the Minister agree that there is a little pattern emerging here? Every time a senior British politician—be it the Prime Minister or the Chancellor—is going on a visit to the Chinese, something particularly egregious is done. That suggests to me that they are trying to rub our noses in it, and that they are not interested or concerned about anything we say on human rights abuses.

The right hon. Gentleman can obviously read his coffee cup granules or tea leaves better than I can. I do not know, but I am concerned about the increasing regularity of these sorts of issues. I share his view that we need to understand more. We need to be as robust as possible with representatives here in London and through our excellent diplomatic representation abroad, and join together with the like-minded—an area he has worked on through Congress and other Members. In the case of the US, which is always very robust in its response, I note that its export-import trade flows have increased rather than decreased.

I welcome the Minister’s statement and her robust words, and her outstanding disagreement when it comes to China’s approach to protecting UK people on our soil, in particular those with a bounty on their head or those subject to China’s national security laws. I also welcome her words on HSBC’s disgraceful behaviour in withholding pensions from people who have worked and saved all their lives. What can we do to protect people here on UK soil further? What discussions has she had with her Home Office counterparts to ensure that UK police forces fully understand the seriousness of the threats to Hongkongers’ safety on UK soil? How can we be assured that UK police forces are being adequately trained to understand the pressure from China?

I thank my hon. Friend for her thoughtful comments and her support for the cross-party campaign for financial freedom for BNO passport holders here in the UK. If I may, I will pick up on her point about training. On transnational repression, whether from the People’s Republic of China, Iran or other countries with whom we have such a significant disparity in values, it is very important that we continue to deepen our understanding of, and improve our training on, how cyber-crime works and the influence of social media. I am sure she agrees that another area is our learning institutes, including universities, where students report feelings of being watched and being under surveillance. We are wise to all those things. My hon. Friend the Minister for Security and I are working together closely on the challenge of transnational repression. It is much more difficult in this day of social media, but we will redouble our efforts to train law enforcement officers, local government and teachers, so that we can pick up on any fears that victims of transnational repression might be experiencing.

The right hon. Member asks two excellent questions. The first concerns training and capabilities, which feature in our audit of Government Departments and the extent of their preparedness for these increasingly different challenges and threats—they are part of what we are looking at. In response to the second question, I can tell the right hon. Member that BNO passport holders are safe because we keep them safe, and we ensure that there is adequate training and up-to-date knowledge on an ongoing basis. I think that we have the best intelligence services going, particularly when it comes to questions of this sort, but we can never be complacent. Instances such as those raised by the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) and others give us an opportunity to underline from Parliament the important and cross-party nature of cracking down on transnational repression.

Chloe Cheung, a resident of Leeds, has been subject to a £100,000 bounty simply for telling the truth about Jimmy Lai. At 19 years old, she is the youngest person to be subject to Hong Kong’s national security law. What reassurances can the Minister give Chloe and other Hongkongers that they will be protected from transnational repression while they reside within our borders?

I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent constituency work, and for knowing his constituents so well such a short time after being elected. I can reassure him that if he feels that the advice that his constituent has been given is in any way lacking, he can write to me so that I can secure a specially designed package of safety for that vulnerable 19-year-old.

How far are the Government prepared to go before the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland decides to push back in relation to this issue? I have heard many reports, in my constituency and across Northern Ireland, of the targeting of families and friends of mine by Chinese authorities. They feel vulnerable in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, all of which is now on the frontline. The Government must step up and protect our citizens.

I thank the hon. Member for relentlessly raising in the House the issue of human rights and the concerns of his constituents. May I refer them to the excellent welcome programme, which is run through local authorities? It was introduced by the last Government and is being continued by this Government. Its purpose is to provide a warm welcome and help people with employability and some of the softer skills—English language courses, for instance—but it has a hard edge to it as well: it is linked with community policing, so that we can be absolutely sure that no one here in the UK is afraid for their safety owing to intimidation from a Government many miles away.

I thank the Minister for coming here to give reassurance. Many thousands of people from Hong Kong have decided to settle in Milton Keynes, and we are very pleased that they are adding to our wonderful diversity. Some of those who contacted me over Christmas are quite concerned, and not just for themselves but for their families who remain in Hong Kong and are fervent believers in democracy and in their nation of Hong Kong, and who want to ensure that that is protected through their ability to campaign for it. The rise of transnational aggression continues. Also over Christmas, one of my constituents, Hazar Denli, who is a whistleblower, was issued with an arrest warrant from Vietnam. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can deal with something that is happening increasingly across the world?

I thank my hon. Friend for being such an involved constituency Member and for being so responsive over the Christmas period. A number of every active MPs are sitting behind me. Let me make a more serious point. These are the sort of constituency concerns that we want to jump to immediately. In the first place, could my hon. Friend approach her constituent and check that he has the required safety package and that the police in that wonderful city of Milton Keynes are aware of the case? Could she also send me some details about the other case that she mentioned, which I am happy to look at, so that I can write back to her with an informed answer?

I am fortunate enough to have a large community of Hongkongers in my constituency, who are extremely welcome, but they often speak to me about the limitations imposed on them by the conditions of the BNO visa under which they have arrived in this country. They cannot gain full access to healthcare, education or employment opportunities. Does the Minister agree that addressing some of the concerns felt by Hongkongers in Britain will send the Chinese Government a strong message about how much we value our Hong Kong citizens, and how hard this Government work to support their freedoms and their right to live in this country?

I have the pleasure of walking in Richmond Park, which is a lovely thing to do, and I thank the hon. Member for her concern for her constituents.

The scheme was designed by the last Government. There are now 293,000 BNO passport holders in the UK, and on the whole I think it is a success story, given the 12 hubs, the welcome programme, the English courses and so on, but there are always improvements to be made. Perhaps the hon. Member would direct her question to my colleagues in the Home Office in the first instance, but also copy me in. I am keen to know how we can be even more welcoming, so that we can provide the contrast of a society that values difference and values newcomers and what they bring, but that also makes everyone feel safe.

The British Hong Kong community, including those who have made their homes in my constituency, will welcome the Minister’s robust answers today. Will she confirm that Beijing’s actions against BNOs will be scrutinised as part of the Government’s China audit?

Yes, of course, but it is a fairly broad audit, so if there is anything specific that my hon. Friend would like our officials to look at, will he send me just a couple of paragraphs so that I can wind that into our response? We want an up-to-date audit and we are hoping to publish it in the coming months, so perhaps he could do that soonish.

We want to be robust on human rights and security, and we are concerned about cyber-security and other aspects of the transnational repression that appears to be growing, but this also has an edge to it, in that we are looking at our own national interest and at where we are exposed economically. This is a difficult thing that we have to do in foreign policy: to look to our own interests, as well as defending our broader human values and human rights.

The Minister was right to point out that Brexit has made us more vulnerable. I wonder whether the UK is fit for the increased challenges to democracy, be they from the Russian Federation, Iran or China; the Intelligence and Security Committee highlighted that some years ago. I also note that a foreign oligarch called for the unelected Head of State to get rid of the democratically elected Government, using his own social media channel.

On a serious note, will Ministers introduce updated measures showing how they see themselves defending democracy in the UK, including the rights of those who are already here, while also protecting us all from outside interference?

I will not be tempted down the particular track that the hon. Member has invited me to go down, involving oligarchs and so forth, but what I will say is that we live in a very uncertain time. There is a sense of “safety first” in foreign policy: we would like to close everything down and just operate within the UK, but that option is not available to us. What we therefore seek to do is bring ourselves into line with other interlocutors. Janet Yellen, a very robust interlocutor, has visited Beijing a number of times. The Australians, the Singaporeans and a number of others do not have to leave their values at the door if they want to have a discussion about a particular economic opportunity, or if they are worried about something; they say what they want to say in an engagement. I can promise the hon. Member that there will be no return to the golden era and a pint with Xi Jinping, but there will be a heightened awareness of our national security, and human rights will be paramount.

The Chinese Government respect one thing: strength. So long as they continue to perceive that we are cringing, they will treat us with the contempt they believe we deserve, so how many Hong Kong officials have we sanctioned?

As the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office is still functioning here in the UK. We are keeping a close watch on the situation, and we keep all these things under review. My visit to Hong Kong in November was instructive, and I can assure him that nobody was cringing when I met the representative from Beijing. If you think this Minister cringes, then you don’t know her.

If human rights are paramount, why should we allow our trade balance to determine how we respond to abuses of human rights?

The hon. Member asks a very important question. There is a three-legged approach in good foreign policy, with national security first, human rights as our duty, and an eye to our economy, because I do not think any of us wants the continuation of a situation where our economy is at the bottom of the league table, which is how it feels now.

The malign extraterritorial reach of the Chinese Communist party is being played out in very human terms, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) on bringing an example of that to the Floor of the House today. Why, then, are this Government potentially facilitating that reach by handing over the Chagos islands?

This urgent question is about Hong Kong, but I think it is very important that when international courts make decisions—be that on the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, or other international court judgments—we comply with them.

Does the Minister agree that the national security law for Hong Kong is in direct conflict with article 23 of the Basic Law for Hong Kong and a clear breach of the Sino-British joint declaration?

We have been relentless in pushing back on the erosion of freedoms in Hong Kong. When meeting civil society organisations in Hong Kong in November, I reassured people there of the values of this House. For those of us who were founding members of Hong Kong Watch, when the Prime Minister of the time was having a pint with Xi Jinping, we will never turn away from underlining the importance of those fundamental rights and what Hongkongers enjoyed in the past. It is terribly sad to see the erosion of those rights, but we cannot just give up and walk away. We have to have a dialogue, we have to keep pointing out our point of view, and we have to keep pushing back.

Hongkonger residents I represent in Sutton and Cheam are regularly in touch with me to outline their fears and uncertainty, living under the threat of the transnational repression operated by China. The news that China is now issuing arrest warrants and bounties for the identification of pro-democracy campaigners in the UK is another step in that fear and repression. They often wonder, will they be next? May I ask the Minister again to make it clear to China that these bounties are illegal and that any individuals who engage in the practice will be prosecuted? More broadly, will she start to stand up to China and its unacceptable persecution of British residents by applying Magnitsky sanctions to the Hong Kong officials responsible?

We will always maintain our flexibility on Magnitsky sanctions; that is the benefit of them, post Brexit, as we have our own sanctions programme now. The hon. Member will be aware of the important work we are doing to sanction certain Chinese companies that are facilitating Russia in the Ukrainian conflict. We will continue to look at what we can do within that regime, to ensure that we use any tools we have to strengthen international processes and procedures and to stand up again and again for what is right in the international arena of human rights.

What oversight is there by the Foreign Office of our devolved institutions’ connections with China? I ask because Simon Cheng, a pro-democracy Hong Kong activist who is in exile because he was tortured in China, has properly criticised the fact that when the First Ministers of Northern Ireland recently had contact with Chinese authorities, they refused to publish a record of those meetings. What oversight is there to ensure that we are presenting a united front across the United Kingdom to China?

I do not think the hon. and learned Member intended a pun with “united front”. Taking his point very seriously, I think we could be doing more, and if he could write to me with the example he mentioned—the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) has also mentioned a particular incident to me in Edinburgh that I was unaware of—I would like that, so that I can challenge our officials to come up with a more robust, joined-up approach. As he is aware, following the general election in July, the Prime Minister set out first to Edinburgh, then to Cardiff and then to Belfast to emphasise the importance of the devolved regions to a holistic way of looking at governance. This is a really good example of where we could be doing more.

I have listened carefully to the Minister’s answers on the Chancellor’s visit to Beijing, and I believe she has said that concerns will be raised. Concerns have been raised time and again, and it has got us nowhere, so is it not time to draw a line in the sand? Is it not the minimum we could do to raise our voices a little more loudly, demonstrate our anger a little more publicly and cancel the Chancellor’s visit to Beijing?

The hon. Member is quite right to say that it has been raised, not least by the Prime Minister when he met Xi Jinping; he is on film raising the Jimmy Lai case, which is in the courts right now. That is the nature of a dialogue—to raise it—but we will be robust in the way that we raise those cases, and we will continue to make a point. There will not be cancelling of trips, on the basis that there has to be an element of outward focus by the UK, particularly given the economic legacy and the position we find ourselves in. I will pass on the hon. Member’s concerns, and I will certainly listen to any further suggestions he has, but I believe that engagement is necessary.

Harrogate and Knaresborough is blessed to have a small but thriving group of Hongkongers who have made it their home and opened up a number of local businesses, adding to the fabric of our towns. My worry is that, with the latest arrest warrants and transnational repression, Hongkongers will not want to be visible in public, playing that part in our communities. What tangible steps will this Government take to get the message down to people on the ground that this is not something we will stand for and that we will stand by and support them?

I thank the hon. Member for his question and, with his permission, I will take it away to see which hub he is closest to. Twelve hubs were set up specifically for the welcome programme for BNO passport holders, so keen were we in 2021 to extend the hand of friendship to those who were so cruelly treated in Hong Kong and continue to be. I will write back to him; if he could email me with any specific constituency issues, it would mean a more informed reply.