Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her Question. I assure her that any attempt by any foreign power to intimidate, harass or harm individuals or communities in the United Kingdom will not be tolerated. This trial has shown that anyone working to assist a foreign state to undermine our security will face the full force of the law. The Foreign Secretary has also made it clear to the Chinese Government and directly to the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office that this activity is unacceptable and clearly counterproductive to our relationship.

I thank my noble friend for that Answer, but given that one of those convicted under the National Security Act for spying on pro-democracy activists was an immigration officer and special constable, himself sentenced to 10 years, can my noble friend assure me that his Government will take greater steps to ensure that no such agents are working under such a guise? Can he also assure me that the Government are taking all possible action to protect Hong Kong citizens living in the UK, especially those with a bounty on their head, from harassment or even worse from the Chinese Government?

As my noble friend indicated, the two individuals concerned received significant prison sentences of eight years and 10 years for their offences. Immediately following the arrest, officials in the Home Office took steps to bolster protections across Home Office systems. This has included further strengthening access management and monitoring of systems, expanding the use of enhanced integrity checks and reviewing conflicts of interest policies. In addition, the Prime Minister set out to the House in April that Sir Adrian Fulford will undertake a review of national security vetting, which will report in due course. My noble friend asked about Hong Kongers generally and transnational repression. The Government take the safety of individuals who may be at risk from transnational repression extremely seriously. We have recently updated GOV.UK guidance on transnational repression for individuals, and counterterrorism policing in particular has rolled out training across all UK police forces, including upskilling of 999 call handlers to improve front-line identification and response.

I welcome what the Minister just said about the updating of some of the guidelines but will he return to the report that the Joint Committee on Human Rights published exactly 10 months ago, which called for the highest enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme to apply to the Chinese Communist Party regime, along with Russia and Iran, but also raised concerns about people such as Chloe Cheung, a young woman from Hong Kong who has a 1 million Hong Kong dollar bounty on her head? Surely, given what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said about the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office, this is a relic from the past and it is high time that this spy hub was simply closed down.

The noble Lord has raised the foreign influence registration scheme. That was introduced less than a year ago. As he knows, we have designated initial nations accordingly. It is still a relatively new tool. We have not made any final decisions as to whether we will place other countries on the enhanced tier, but we keep that under close review at all times. The noble Lord would not expect me to announce any further reviews to this House at this time, but we will announce any changes to Parliament in the usual way. It is not acceptable for individuals to have bounties placed on their heads, and the Government, as I said, take the safety of individuals who may be at risk extremely seriously, and there is always support when there are threats tailored to specific circumstances, such as those that the noble Lord mentions. The noble Lord has looked at the Hong Kong trade office. The purpose of that office is to promote trade with the Hong Kong special administrative region. It is a legitimate activity, which may continue. However, as has been shown in this case, where people conduct state threat activity we will hold them to account. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary summoned the Chinese ambassador on 8 May and explained that the behaviour was unacceptable, and we will continue to take action when required.

My Lords, I hear what the Minister says. However, these convictions do not come in isolation; they follow a series of recent incidents involving alleged Chinese state-linked activity in the UK, including espionage prosecutions and reports of surveillance directed at dissidents and members of the Hong Kong community. At what point do the Government conclude that these incidents represent not isolated events but a systematic challenge to the United Kingdom’s national security, requiring perhaps a more robust response than has so far been forthcoming?

With due respect to the noble Lord, we will take action, where required, against the Chinese authorities. We assess that China poses a significant threat in a number of areas, from cyber attacks to foreign interference, espionage targeting our democratic institutions and transnational repression, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Hayter and the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. We are also alive to the fact that there are common areas of interest with the Chinese Government on the international stage. China still presents the UK with opportunities as the world’s second-largest economy and the UK’s current third-largest trading partner. It is not inconsistent to challenge at the same time as examining where British interests lie as a whole.

My Lords—

My Lords—

We will hear from the Lib Dem Benches then the Conservative Benches.

My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, Peter Wai was a UK Border Force officer and a special constable, but it has also been reported that he was a director of a private security company. A third defendant, Matthew Trickett, who died before the trial, was an immigration officer and a director of a different security company. It seems to me that it is a conflict of interest to be both an immigration officer and running a private security company. Can the Minister explain what is now going on to make sure that we do not have these conflicts of interest in our important Border Force employees?

The noble Lord has mentioned an important point. The former Security Minister, my right honourable friend Dan Jarvis—who held the post until he was appointed Defence Secretary a couple of weeks ago—commissioned Home Office officials to undertake a thorough examination of whether there is a case for further regulation of the sector under the Private Security Industry Act. Those working in private investigation do important work, but their specialist skill sets make them attractive targets for foreign states to exploit. As I mentioned, we have bolstered our robust security vetting regime, which will protect assets and information as a top priority for government, and we have commissioned Sir Adrian Fulford to undertake a review of the vetting issues. I await his recommendations; it is important we have consideration of those things. I say again that eight- and 10-year sentences show that the National Security Act is working and that there are significant penalties for those who dare cross the legitimate line of their employment.

My Lords, will the Minister agree that the Question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, reveals the other side of the coin in relation to a resident of Hong Kong who is a United Kingdom citizen, who has been “convicted” under the Chinese national security legislation—namely, Jimmy Lai? When was the last time that either the Minister’s department, or, if more relevant, the Foreign Office, let the Chinese ambassador in London or the Chinese Government in Beijing know that his improper incarceration is offensive and will have some bearing on the status of the Hong Kong trade office here in London?

I am grateful for the question. As I mentioned in my initial replies, to my knowledge, the Foreign Secretary last had contact with the Chinese authorities through the embassy on 8 May, when she made significant representations. It is the role of the Foreign Secretary to make representations in relation to prisoners elsewhere. I will go back to the Foreign Office to inquire whether there has been further contact since 8 May, but that is my understanding of the last contact.

My Lords, while I am not aware that there was any religious element to the incidents referred to, we know that many Hong Kongers have come to this country seeking religious freedom and, indeed, many thousands have joined our churches. Can the Minister give reassurance to those people that the freedom of religion and belief will be honoured here?

I certainly will give the right reverend Prelate the assurance that freedom of religion and expression is essential in the United Kingdom. Residents of this country should know that, whatever nationality they have, the Government take the safety of individuals extremely seriously; that we will not tolerate transnational repression; that we will use legislation to take action where it has surfaced; that the prison sentences, in this case for espionage, of eight and 10 years are significant; and that we keep all matters, such as the foreign influence registration scheme and all the other measures we have, under continuous review.

My Lords, the Minister talks about things that are unacceptable and will not be tolerated, but the Chinese Communist Party is using the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office as a tool for its repressive activities. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to it as a relic of a time when it was a valid trade and economic office. The two front men have recently been caught, but there is a whole apparatus behind them. Why is the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office still being allowed to exist as a smokescreen for those repressive activities?

The Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office exists to promote trade with the Hong Kong special administrative region, and that is a legitimate activity. If there are allegations of criminality, or where there is proven criminality, the Government will take action, as has been the case with the two individuals who are now serving time in prison for their crimes. I can only reiterate that we take this matter seriously. The Foreign Secretary summoned the Chinese ambassador on 8 May. She explained quite clearly that that behaviour is unacceptable. We will continue to monitor it and, if need be, take action.

My Lords, I raised the issue of the new proposed Japanese super-embassy—

Oh!

—sorry, the Chinese super-embassy—on 29 January 2025 and articulated the very serious concerns that a number of us had about the efficacy of the decision to let that go ahead. The Minister will know that since then, there are still very considerable concerns about the impact of the embassy with respect to financial infrastructure near the City of London. Despite that, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Steve Reed, allowed it. Is the Minister in a position to tell the House whether his view is that the Government will now resile from contesting the judicial review brought by the Royal Mint Court Residents’ Association and scrap the decision to build the new super-embassy, which is a threat to our national security?

The security services were involved throughout in the advice given to independent authorities on the development of the embassy. The Secretary of State has taken his decision. The decision stands, but we are confident that the merger of embassies into one super-embassy and the advice we have taken from the security services mitigate against the threats that the noble Lord is concerned about.

When it came to recent so-called spyware lawsuits, various Governments tried to claim state immunity. Can the Minister just update the House on the Government’s view on this?

If proof is given and the state is taking action, the Government will consider what action we will take against that state. We have a number of potential tools at our disposal. The FIRS is one tool, which we can always examine and keep under review. The state threats Bill will be before the House tomorrow. When that is passed in due course, we will consider what action we can take. Our security services advise Ministers on every occasion about what the threats are and what action we can take. As has been proved in this case, the National Security Act provides a vehicle to take action against individuals who have committed offences. The two individuals are spending eight and 10 years in prison as a result of that action. We will not take any action that undermines the security of the United Kingdom.

My Lords, I have not yet heard an answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on conflict of interest. Is it acceptable for a Crown servant—an immigration officer, a Border Force employee—to be a director of a private security firm? If not, will it now be stopped?

I appreciate the way in which the noble Lord has put that question. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, we are keeping all matters under review. We have commissioned Sir Adrian Fulford to look at vetting. Let us wait for the responses to that review. They are very important points. We will reflect on them at all times, but I have set out to the House what I can today in response to my noble friend’s Private Notice Question.

My Lords, I sit on the Joint Committee on Human Rights with the noble Lord, Lord Alton. In our report on transnational repression, published some 10 months ago, one of the recommendations was that those perceiving themselves to be the victims of transnational repression should have access to a dedicated reporting mechanism. The Government indicated that they were favourable to that, but we have not heard any further on what progress has been made. Perhaps the Minister could update the House.

We have had a number of requests on that matter. We have considered carefully, in conjunction with counterterrorism police, how best to encourage reporting and ensure that reports are received and treated seriously. The existing functions have been found by the counterterrorism police to be effective and efficient. We are looking at how we can improve the training and support of call handlers and particularly trained officers dealing with crime reporting on a 24/7 basis. Translators and language support are embedded within the existing reporting mechanisms. We will keep things under review but, in essence, we are meeting the objectives of the review that the noble Lord and the noble Lord, Alton of Liverpool, requested. Built Environment Committee Communications and Digital Committee Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee Deputy Chairmen of Committees Environment and Climate Change Committee European Affairs Committee Finance Committee Hybrid Instruments Committee Industry and Regulators Committee Justice and Home Affairs Committee National Resilience Committee Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology Procedure and Privileges Committee Public Services Committee Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee Services Committee Membership Motions