Standing with Hong Kongers

Hong Kong was promised a high degree of autonomy, an independent legal system and fundamental freedoms under the “one country, two systems” settlement.

Those promises have been steadily broken.

The National Security Law imposed by Beijing in 2020 has been used to criminalise dissent, silence independent journalism and dismantle political opposition. Further national security legislation introduced in 2024 expanded offences relating to sedition, external interference and state secrets.

The effect has been devastating. Political parties and civil-society organisations have closed. Peaceful campaigners have been imprisoned. Independent newspapers have been forced out of operation. Elections have been redesigned to exclude genuine opposition.

The UK Government’s latest six-monthly report recorded a further 69 national security arrests during 2025, including cases involving political slogans, peaceful protest and the organisation of petitions.

The cases of the 47 democracy campaigners prosecuted for taking part in an unofficial primary election demonstrated the scale of the crackdown. Elections and political organising should be central features of a free society. Treating participation in a democratic primary as subversion turns the rule of law into an instrument of political control.

I have repeatedly called on the Government to demand the repeal of the National Security Law and the release of those imprisoned under it. Britain must raise these cases consistently in every serious engagement with the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities.

Economic dialogue cannot be allowed to push human rights to the edge of the agenda.

Leaving Hong Kong has not freed everyone from fear.

Hong Kongers in Sutton have told me that they feel unable to show their faces at demonstrations. Some wear masks because they worry that photographs or facial-recognition technology could be used to identify them and place relatives in Hong Kong at risk.

Others fear online harassment, surveillance, threats and politically motivated bounties. Family members and friends can become targets when an activist speaks freely in Britain.

This is transnational repression: an overseas state attempting to silence, intimidate or punish people beyond its own borders.

I have seen the chilling effect in my own constituency. Former Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying publicly criticised a children’s event held by Hong Kongers at a local church in Sutton. The event involved the Sheep Village books, which teach children about justice, civil liberties and human rights.

A small community event thousands of miles from Hong Kong was noticed and denounced by a senior former official. That sent a deeply disturbing message to the people taking part: the authorities were still watching them.

Nobody living in Britain should have to look over their shoulder because they support democracy.

The UK has now formally recognised transnational repression as a national-security threat, and official guidance specifically identifies arrest warrants and bounties issued by the Hong Kong authorities. Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights has also called for a clearer and more coordinated national response.

I support:

• a formal and practical definition of transnational repression;
• consistent recording of reported incidents;
• a trusted route through which targeted people can seek help;
• improved training for police officers and other frontline services;
• greater protection for journalists, campaigners and community organisations;
• stronger action against foreign agents involved in threats, surveillance or intimidation;
• a review of the misuse of international policing systems to pursue political opponents.

The Government must also place China on the enhanced tier of the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme. Hong Kongers deserve to know who is acting on behalf of the Chinese state and what activities they are carrying out in Britain.

Police forces should work directly with diaspora organisations. People who understand the tactics being used are often best placed to help authorities recognise threats before they escalate.

The British National Overseas visa route gave Hongkongers a pathway to safety, settlement and citizenship.

It was a response to exceptional circumstances and a recognition of Britain’s historic responsibility. People made life-changing decisions based on the promise that they could apply for permanent settlement after five years.

When the Government proposed a standard 10-year settlement period, Hongkongers were understandably alarmed. Families had planned their careers, education and finances around the terms they had been offered.

I told Ministers that changing those terms would be catastrophically unfair. It would punish people who had acted in good faith and were already contributing enormously to British society.

I was therefore delighted when the Government confirmed that BN(O) visa holders would retain their five-year route to settlement.

That commitment must remain protected. Any future changes to income, language or contribution requirements must respect the humanitarian purpose of the route. Retired people, full-time students, unpaid carers and parents looking after young children contribute to their communities even when that contribution does not appear on a payslip.

The current route allows eligible BN(O) visa holders to apply for settlement after five years of continuous residence. The Government also expanded eligibility in 2026 so that adult children of BN(O) status holders born on or after 1 July 1979 can apply independently. This addresses an age gap that I had repeatedly raised in Parliament.

I welcome that progress.

The Government must now make the route affordable, accessible and secure for the long term. It should consult the Hong Kong community before making further changes and provide clear information early enough for families to plan.

The BN(O) scheme does not cover every person at risk.

Some younger democracy activists do not have BN(O) status through their parents. Others fled Hong Kong as visitors and later sought protection because declaring their intentions before departure could have exposed them to arrest or prevented them from leaving.

A conviction imposed under Hong Kong’s National Security Law must not automatically be treated like an ordinary criminal conviction. Democratic campaigning, peaceful protest, journalism and participation in a primary election are legitimate activities in Britain.

The recent case of former Democratic Party leader Wu Chi-wai highlighted this. He had spent more than five years in prison after being prosecuted over the unofficial pro-democracy primary.

When he travelled to Britain to reunite with his family in July 2026, he was initially given only seven days’ immigration bail and faced removal.

I said that returning a prominent democracy campaigner to the jurisdiction of the regime that had imprisoned him would fly in the face of Britain’s commitments to Hong Kongers.

I welcomed the Home Office’s subsequent decision to allow him to remain with his family as a visitor for six months - but his case is likely not to be the first and equally unlikely to be the last.

The Home Office needs clear guidance requiring decision-makers to examine whether an overseas conviction is politically motivated or relates to conduct that would be lawful in Britain.

Nobody should be refused entry, settlement or protection because an authoritarian system has labelled democratic participation a crime.

Many Hong Kongers in Britain remain unable to access money held in Hong Kong’s Mandatory Provident Fund.

These are compulsory retirement savings built up through years of work. They belong to the people who earned them.

But Hong Kong authorities have stopped recognising BN(O) passports as valid evidence for permanent departure. As a result, some BN(O) holders have been prevented from withdrawing savings that they need to buy homes, support their families or fund their retirement in Britain.

I have repeatedly raised this in Parliament and pressed Ministers to confront both the Hong Kong authorities and the financial institutions involved.

In June 2025, I used the fourth anniversary of the closure of Apple Daily to ask whether the Government’s promised response to transnational repression would include restoring access to these funds.

The problem remains unresolved. As recently as June 2026, the Government confirmed that BN(O) holders were still experiencing difficulties and that the issue continued to be raised with the Hong Kong Government and the Mandatory Provident Fund authorities.

Diplomatic representations alone have not delivered the necessary result.

The Government should increase pressure on the Hong Kong authorities, engage directly with the banks and trustees administering the schemes, and examine every regulatory or legal option available in Britain.

Withholding a person’s pension because they have used a British visa route is utterly wrong. It extends political repression into the daily lives of Hong Kongers who have already left.

I have consistently opposed the proposed Chinese super-embassy at Royal Mint Court.

The site is exceptionally large and close to important communications and financial infrastructure. It has raised serious questions about espionage, national security and the ability of the Chinese state to expand its surveillance operations in Britain.

Hong Kongers (as well as Uyghurs and Chinese dissidents from other communities) have warned me repeatedly that the development could become a centre for monitoring and intimidation.

I joined campaigners at Royal Mint Court in March 2025 and called on the Government to block the development. I subsequently challenged Ministers in Parliament as the application moved through the planning process.

The Government approved the application on 20 January 2026.

That decision was shameful. It sent a propaganda gift to the Chinese Communist Party and shattered the trust of Hong Kongers who came to Britain seeking protection from authoritarian rule.

The Government made that decision after the imprisonment of democracy campaigners, the targeting of people in Britain, the withholding of pension savings and the imposition of bounties on overseas activists. Rewarding that behaviour with a major expansion of China’s diplomatic estate was a profound mistake.

Approval should not end parliamentary scrutiny.

The Government must publish relevant security assessments wherever possible, explain how sensitive infrastructure will be protected and provide a clear account of the activities permitted at the site. It must also set out how the existing Chinese diplomatic premises will be managed if Royal Mint Court opens.

I will continue to challenge this decision and stand with the communities who fear its consequences.

I have consistently raised the cases of Hong Kong’s political prisoners.

British citizen Jimmy Lai founded the pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily. He has been detained since 2020 and was prosecuted under the National Security Law for his journalism and political advocacy.

In February 2026, he was sentenced to 20 years in prison following a prosecution the UK Government described as politically motivated. His age and deteriorating health make his continued imprisonment especially alarming.

I have met his son, Sebastien Lai, and paid tribute in Parliament to his tireless campaign for his father’s freedom.

I have urged successive Foreign Secretaries to raise Jimmy’s case at every meeting with Chinese officials, seek consular access and demand his immediate and unconditional release.

I have also raised the case of barrister and democracy campaigner Chow Hang-tung, who was imprisoned after helping to organise commemorations of the Tiananmen Square massacre.

In February 2026, I asked the Foreign Secretary what representations had been made for her release. The Government confirmed that it had called for an end to prosecutions under the National Security Law, including the case against Chow.

Britain should apply targeted sanctions to officials responsible for serious human-rights abuses and transnational repression. Those who issue bounties, direct political prosecutions or intimidate people in Britain should face meaningful consequences.

Silence helps the authorities turn prisoners into forgotten people. I will keep saying their names.

Britain must engage with China.

China is a major economic power and a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. Cooperation will often be necessary on trade, climate change, global health and international security.

But we must go into that relationship clear-eyed, as it requires honesty and strength.

A relationship built on avoiding difficult subjects gives the Chinese Government little reason to change its behaviour. Ministers should raise Hong Kong, political prisoners and transnational repression at every appropriate meeting and report clearly on the answers they receive.

The Government should coordinate with democratic allies, defend the integrity of the Sino-British Joint Declaration and use sanctions where serious abuses demand them.

Trade and investment must not be allowed to purchase British silence.

In Parliament, I have warned that repression in China has become increasingly systematic, legalised and exportable. Hong Kong shows how quickly independent institutions can be weakened when authoritarian power faces too little resistance.

Britain must remain willing to cooperate where such cooperation serves the public interest. But we must also defend our values, our national security and the people who trusted us to provide sanctuary.