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.

Proposed Chinese Embassy

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

The Liberal Democrats have made it clear from the beginning of this saga that the approval of China’s super-embassy would be a terrible betrayal of Hongkongers who moved to the UK to escape the very repression that the Government are now inviting to their doorstep. The Government must halt the application and summon the Chinese ambassador to make it clear that we will not accept Beijing’s efforts to spy on our Parliament or to intimidate and harass Hongkongers in our community.

On the specifics of the application, in a 2018 letter the then Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson granted diplomatic status to Royal Mint Court. That letter made no mention of a condition relating to planning permission and, under section 1 of the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, represents a fulfilment of the condition to provide express consent. Eight years later, we are now being told that consent was somehow conditional on planning permission, based on a secret note verbale from May 2018 that has not been published. Will the Government release that note verbale, which is the only evidence that diplomatic status was provided conditional on planning permission and, therefore, that the application was not prejudged by the Government?

[Seema Malhotra]

It is important to agree that the decision to provide China with consent to use the Royal Mint as diplomatic premises was made in 2018 by the previous Government under the former Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, and was subject to planning permission. China purchased the site on that basis. That is what my colleague Baroness Chapman has also shared. It is important to recognise that the decision will be an independent one made by MHCLG through a quasi-judicial process.

Arctic Security

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. The 1951 agreement has huge flexibility and provides for considerable joint working between the US, Denmark and Greenland on strengthening security in that part of the Arctic. I know that many countries will be keen to work with them on exactly that, which is why we think the talks that began last week between the Danish Foreign Minister and the US Secretary of State and Vice-President were an important opportunity to explore the 1951 treaty.

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

Diplomacy relies on rational actors, yet even in the last fortnight we have seen Donald Trump declare that he is not bound by international law, only by his “own morality”. He has deployed paramilitary forces against his own people, and he speaks of cancelling elections. How apt! We have also seen the unilateral kidnapping of the President of an independent country. We are not dealing with a rational man; he responds only to shiny baubles, as we have seen with the incredible saga of the Nobel peace prize. I agree with the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and ask the following question: will the Government consider removing the King’s visit to the United States and boycotting the world cup? The only thing to which Donald Trump responds is his own pride.

[Yvette Cooper]

We have long had deep interests and partnerships with the US that go back many years. The engagement the Prime Minister has led with the US Administration and the President has led to important results, including billions of pounds of tech investment in the UK and crucial security co-operation—for example, on Ukraine, with the development of security guarantees in support of the work of the coalition of the willing. However, this is an issue on which we strongly disagree, and the Prime Minister has made that absolutely clear. We will be very direct about the areas on which we disagree, and we will set those out. We will also work intensively with our allies to address them, because the sovereignty of Greenland is a vital principle that we will defend.

Jimmy Lai Conviction

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member is right to raise that issue. There is a real concern. I am sorry about the difficulties that I know she has had. She will know that they have been raised with the Chinese authorities. She is also right to raise the concerns of Hongkongers who live here but who still have family back home, and who, as a result, do not feel that they can visit them. Even where they have British citizenship, the Chinese authorities do not recognise dual nationality. Therefore, there are real concerns for anyone visiting family, either in Hong Kong or more widely in China, that that dual citizenship or their British citizenship simply will not be recognised. That is what has happened with Jimmy Lai and it is why we continue to raise this issue. This issue is about British citizens, and we will stand up for British citizens.

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

I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Sebastien Lai, whom I and a number of colleagues met earlier, and who has shown courage and fortitude throughout this process. Ever since the verdict was announced I have been inundated with the concerns of Hongkongers in my constituency about what this might means for their safety under the programme of transnational repression and persecution being conducted by the Chinese. They say that diplomacy works until it doesn’t, and now we can see that it has not worked, so there must be consequences. May I press again for an answer on why China has not been placed in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme? I understand that, as Home Secretary, the right hon. Lady submitted evidence to the Housing Secretary regarding the security implications of the super-embassy. Has she updated that advice since new risks and threats have been identified?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member will know that the Security Minister has updated the House several times on the FIRS process and our continuous work to keep countries under review in that respect. As for the security considerations raised as part of the planning process, I again assure him that not only the Home Office and the Foreign Office, but the security and intelligence agencies take these issues immensely seriously and have been involved in the consideration. As part of that, further information provided to the planning process relates to the consolidation of the diplomatic premises, as well as wider security considerations.

Ambassador to the United States

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ed Davey]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I pay tribute to her for the work she has done to protect vulnerable women during her career. We salute her for that work.

As we remember the victims, how must it have felt for them to see Donald Trump, one of Epstein’s closest friends and a man found liable for sexual abuse himself, become President of the United States? How must it have felt for the victims to see another of Epstein’s closest friends made British ambassador to the United States? How must it have felt for the victims to hear the Prime Minister defend Lord Mandelson last week, even after he had seen those appalling messages? How must it have felt for them to hear Ministers say, even after Mandelson was sacked, that his appointment was a risk worth taking? I think that is quite shocking.

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

My right hon. Friend has turned down the opportunity to dine with Donald Trump in the next couple of days, and he has been roundly criticised for that by some people who may well still attend. Does he agree that it is an ample opportunity for those people to ask President Trump about his entry in that horrific book of birthday wishes for Mr Epstein? Will my right hon. Friend ask them to report back to us about what President Trump said?

[Ed Davey]

The truth is that at such state banquets very few people get to speak to the visiting Head of State. However, the Prime Minister does, so I wonder if he will ask the President about his friendship with Epstein. I think he should and I think this House thinks he should.

For decades, the victims and their families have seen powerful men escape responsibility for what they did and what they knew. It should be a source of deep shame to Ministers that the British Government are now part of that story.

China Audit

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

Through the National Security and Investment Act 2021, we have a robust framework to make individual decisions such as the one on Mingyang. As the hon. Lady knows, energy is one of 17 priority sectors under the NSIA in which Government can block any potential acquisitions on security grounds, and that remains under consideration.

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

It is four years today since the Apple Daily ceased publication, and Jimmy Lai still languishes in Hong Kong’s Stanley Prison. It is worth noting his name and encouraging the Foreign Secretary to raise his case as often as he can. It is welcome to see in the statement that we are

“strengthening our response to transnational repression”.

Can the Minister confirm that that includes restoring access to the Mandatory Provident Fund, which is another way the Hong Kong Government are spreading their chilling impacts on BNO visa holders here in the UK?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that. May I also name-check the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) on this issue? The issue is under consideration, and we have been discussing with communities these very important pension issues.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Friday 16th May 2025 Commons Chamber

The current system is clearly inadequate, unsafe, and lacks any compassionate and dignified options for end-of-life patients. I do not consider assisted dying to be any alternative to end-of-life care, and I will continue to campaign for better funding and resources for palliative care hospices, as will many other Members. The two must go hand in hand.

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

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Cat Eccles]

I will keep going, because of time.

Other countries that have implemented an assisted dying law have in turn increased funding and access to palliative care significantly, ensuring a fairer and more equitable range of options for patients. I believe that the safeguards in the Bill are more than adequate, and it is important to remember that doctors and healthcare professionals are constantly looking out for consent, competence and possible coercion in medical and social care settings.

Kashmir: Increasing Tension

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

We are focused on holding the perpetrators to account. I am familiar with the issues facing Pakistan in relation to acute natural disaster: I was there during the disastrous floods in 2010, and I recognise the importance of the Indus river system in both India and Pakistan and of co-operation between the two states to manage that vital system. There is a great deal of speculation about what has been decided and what has been agreed, but we understand that diplomatic treaties are being held in abeyance and that there is still space for a long-term answer to some of these questions.

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

As an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on British Hindus, and with a constituency that contains a considerable Indian and Pakistani community, I was especially shocked and saddened by the news of the horrific murder of 26 people last Tuesday, and I have received many emails from constituents raising their own concerns. Of particular concern are reports of the targeting of Hindus and Christians: such race-based terror is unacceptable anywhere in the world. What steps are the Government taking to encourage both India and Pakistan to investigate these terrible crimes, and to ensure that lines of communication are kept open to avoid a further escalation of the conflict?

[Mr Falconer]

We are encouraging direct lines of communication, and we are of course encouraging Pakistan to provide all possible assistance with the investigation of these horrific crimes.

UK-China Relations

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Gregory Stafford]

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. I will make similar remarks later in my speech, but that is key. Not only is it the use of slave labour, which should be enough to get the Government to start thinking seriously, but it is a complete undercutting of our market.

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

The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) almost took the words out of my mouth. Is it not critical to exclude slave labour from the supply chain for solar panels, in particular, not only on moral grounds, but in order to enable alternative producers in Europe, South America and North America to compete on a fair playing field?

[Gregory Stafford]

The hon. Member is entirely right. I would be very surprised if anyone in the Chamber did not agree with him. The key point is how we move from what I think is relatively universal agreement to actual sanctions and enforcement, to make sure that our manufacturers are competing on a level playing field.

As an example of that, a 2023 report from the Helena Kennedy Centre for International Justice at Sheffield Hallam University noted that in 2020, China produced 75% of the global supply of solar grade polysilicon, and 45% of that was manufactured in Xinjiang. That is why the amendment that I alluded to earlier was crucial to cleaning up the supply chains and preventing the UK from becoming core to Chinese consumption.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct. The more the British Government and British agencies allow this to continue, the more China will believe it can get away with. As he says, that will put further fear into Hongkongers and others who are trying to escape the repression of China.

As China’s domestic repression intensifies, so does its global influence. Its growing control over international institutions, use of economic coercion and unchecked expansion of surveillance technologies all undermine democratic norms worldwide. The UK must be proactive in countering that. Our commitment to democratic values and ethical trade should serve as a counterweight to Chinese authoritarianism. Yet, despite our growing presence in international forums, we have been hesitant to challenge China directly. The Minister must clarify what discussions have taken place with Beijing regarding its blatant contradictions on freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and political rights, in China and abroad.

The pattern is clear: the UK is being drawn into China’s orbit economically, politically and strategically, while turning a blind eye, I am afraid, to its human rights abuses and security threats. We are facing not merely complacency from this Government, but complicity. Whether it is the approval of the Chinese mega-embassy, the failure to act on forced labour supply chains, or the refusal to stand up for British citizens unjustly imprisoned, this Labour Government have consistently chosen appeasement over action. The United States, and indeed the European Union, have already taken decisive steps to protect their economies, their security and their values. I ask the Minister, why is Britain lagging behind?

[Luke Taylor]

The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time. Yesterday, I was lucky enough to meet Sebastien Lai, son of Jimmy Lai, who is still being held in Hong Kong by the Chinese authorities. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must take every opportunity available to them—every visit, every meeting with Chinese authorities—to raise the case of Jimmy Lai and demand that he is released as soon as possible?

[Gregory Stafford]

The hon. Gentleman is right. I met Sebastien Lai myself a few weeks ago and he made similar points to me, which I entirely agree with. To put it at its mildest, it is regrettable that the Prime Minister has not made this a priority. I hope that the Government’s decision not to engage with Sebastien Lai on this changes rapidly, because if it does not, it will send a dreadful message to others who are in similar situations and—as I said to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand)—will allow China to continue without check.

We must wake up. The CCP does not seek partnership with us: it seeks control. The UK must take urgent steps to decouple from economic dependency, to strengthen our national security and to reclaim our sovereignty before it is too late. I look forward to the Minister’s response and, more importantly, to seeing real action from the Government.

Pro-democracy Campaigners: Arrests

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Catherine West]

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.

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

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?

[Catherine West]

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.