Freedom of Religion or Belief in China

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) for securing this important debate. Engagement without condition is not diplomacy; it is complicity. Promoting the values of democracy, respect for the rule of law and protection of religious freedoms must be the cornerstone of any serious British foreign policy, particularly foreign policy with a country that has outright rejected the values of democracy. Yes, China is a major global power, and yes, Britain must engage with it on trade, climate change and the great shared challenges of our time, but engagement cannot come at the cost of our principles, because when we trade away our values, we diminish not only ourselves but the very idea of Britain as a force for good in the world—an idea that has already taken a solid beating in recent years after the last Government’s cuts to the Department for International Development and this Government’s refusal to reverse them.

We have accepted that the people of China will not have democracy—a decision that will weaken their society from top to bottom—but turning a blind eye to the Chinese Communist party’s human rights abuses requires some mental gymnastics, because they sit in plain sight. The CCP’s actions in Hong Kong are openly intended to snuff out any remaining hope of a return to democracy, and its openly autocratic ambitions for Taiwan are clearly in breach of an international order that is grounded in sovereignty and freedom, revealing a fear of the accountability that democracy enables. Most disturbingly of all, we have seen years of coverage, research and evidence on what is clearly a genocide against the Uyghurs.

It is true to say that some degree of realism holds water in the practice of international relations, but we on the Liberal Democrat Benches are clear about where the red lines are. We are clear that freedom of belief should not be reclassified as a western luxury. It is a universal human right that is set out in the UN charter, and which has been established as a principle in the hearts and minds of conscientious people the world over, yet religion exists in China only at the pleasure of the state. China operates a centrally directed system of ideological control to stifle hearts as much as it stifles minds. It is clear that China operates a centrally directed, ideological and coercive policy of assimilation that is rooted in ethnic nationalism, intolerance and the regime’s demand for absolute authority.

China’s economic rise is undeniable. It has lifted millions of people out of poverty and reshaped the global economy. Under President Xi, China has become an even bolder systemic rival to the open and democratic rules-based order that we believe in, leading some in the west to argue that China’s economic success warrants a rethink of the kinds of values that we are willing to tolerate in the global order. But let me be clear: we must not follow that path to its logical and awful conclusion—a world where the liberal values that built not just strong economies, but flourishing and vibrant societies, are jettisoned in favour of nihilism and a belief that “might makes right” and that independence of thought is worth trading for raw economic output.

Britain faces a choice—not about whether to engage, as we must, but about how we engage. Silence in the face of oppression is not neutrality, but weakness at the very least and acquiescence at worst. I fear that this Labour Government risk drifting into that silence through their pursuit of closer economic ties, with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor appearing willing to turn the other cheek to abuses not just in China, but here in our own country. In my constituency of Sutton, Cheam and Worcester Park, I represent many Hongkongers who came to this country because they believed that Britain would stand for their freedoms when others would not—a belief encouraged by the introduction of the British national overseas visa scheme, which is one of the few positive things that the former Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip ever did as Prime Minister. It is a belief that mattered urgently, following the imposition of the national security law.

We have all seen that law unfold before our eyes. Independent media have been silenced in Hong Kong, democratic voices have been imprisoned, and academic and artistic voices that speak out against the CCP have been chillingly dismantled. Thousands of people have been arrested as political prisoners, including the British national Jimmy Lai, who now faces the rest of his life in prison for daring to exercise his freedom of speech. China has banned Jimmy Lai from receiving the sacrament from the priests who occasionally visit him—a gross violation of his religious freedom.

Instead of making the case of Jimmy Lai a priority, the Prime Minister has followed a strategy of kowtowing to Beijing, which has already compromised the UK’s security. Frankly, his greenlighting of the Chinese embassy in the heart of London is his biggest national security mistake to date, and presents an open door for the ramping up of Chinese spying in our country. He has also sent the utterly shameful message to Hongkongers—many of whom have already been targeted, intimidated and coerced by the CCP on our own streets—that he prioritises trade deals over their safety.

It is time for the Prime Minister to show some backbone in his dealings with President Xi. He must call louder for the release of Jimmy Lai and challenge Xi personally on the bounties that have been raised against Hong Kong activists in the UK. He recently spoke about putting the national interest first in his foreign policy. I invite the Minister to confirm whether the Prime Minister will take that approach when he next meets the Chinese Government, because it is clearly not the case today. I would also like to take the opportunity to ask the Minister to confirm that nobody who is here through the British national overseas scheme because they wish to live freely in a democracy will be forcibly sent back into the CCP’s arms if they fail to pass something as arbitrary as an English-language test to qualify for indefinite leave to remain.

There are other critical things that the Government must not shy away from discussing with Beijing. Let us be clear that the Chinese state has constructed a system of control against the Uyghur Muslim population so intrusive and calculated that it cannot be dismissed as anything other than co-ordinated genocide. We see mass internment camps, forced labour and relentless surveillance operating at an incredible scale. At the heart of the human rights abuses in Xinjiang, we see an attempt to erase the Uyghur identity itself. Faith, language and culture are being stripped away in the name of CCP control. This is a genocide. The Labour party in opposition was willing to call it that, and Parliament voted in 2021 to recognise it as such, but the Government have yet to confirm their position.

I will ask the Minister several questions in closing, each of which I hope he will address, because my constituents, British nationals and people around the world want to hear his answers. Will he tell us candidly whether economic calculations have led the Government to reverse their position on whether a genocide has taken place? If he argues that they have not, I invite him—without compromising classified information—to present evidence to the House to support that claim. I also ask him to confirm whether sanctions are still under review for individuals and entities complicit in infringements of the freedom of speech, region or belief, or any other manner of human rights abuses. On trade and supply chains, will the Minister commit to a ban on imports from regions where there is documented evidence of forced labour? If not, why not? If so, can he confirm that these will be Magnitsky-style sanctions that make use of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018?

I really hope the Minister will answer those questions because the British public deserve to know ahead of the next China visit, whenever it may occur, which path the Government have chosen—silent acquiescence and weakness, or a Britain that has the courage of its convictions and is not afraid to call out injustice on the world stage once more.