My Lords, we must not allow anxiety about America under Trump and Musk, particularly on tariffs and climate change, to drive us into an unhealthy economic relationship with China.

China is, of course, an economic powerhouse and our fourth-biggest trading partner, and there is more trade to be had, especially in financial services, to benefit both parties—but China is a very mixed blessing. It remains a cyber threat.

Without greater transparency and safeguards, it is a potential threat to the integrity of our national security. It does not challenge the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It does not share our commitment to human rights and to democracy in Taiwan and Hong Kong.

The imprisonment of Jimmy Lai is both a tragedy and a warning that our values are not respected. We on these Benches wish that the Chancellor had held firm and refused to go to China unless Jimmy Lai is released. China is a country that exploits weakness.

In light of these concerns, will the Government strengthen foreign direct investment screening and cyber defences, including increased data transparency requirements?

Will they cease research co-operation on technology with China, its companies and researchers if adequate reciprocity and transparency cannot be achieved?

Will they enact Magnitsky legislation to hold Hong Kong and Chinese officials responsible following gross breaches of human rights in Hong Kong and Xinjiang province?

Given the recent discovery of Chinese spying across several senior levels of the British establishment, do the Government agree that China should be placed in the enhanced tier for the foreign influence registration scheme?

My Lords, in welcoming this Statement, can I ask the Minister to elaborate on what bilateral agreements are being discussed on the governance of AI, which is becoming such a critical development globally?

It is a very good question; I am sorry that it is the first question that I do not have an answer to. I will write to the noble Lord on that point.

I commend the noble Earl for his efforts to try to portray the previous Government’s record on the economy as some kind of success, whereas everyone listening both in the Chamber and outside knows that it was 14 years of total catastrophe.

He mentioned inflation as if 33 months in a row above the Government’s target was something to be proud of, when we know that it hurt family finances dramatically over that time.

He tried to say that the previous Government did well on growth, when we know that growth was one of their biggest failures. They took investment out of the economy at a vital moment with their austerity programme.

They reduced GDP by 4% as a result of their Brexit deal, and then the Liz Truss mini-Budget crashed the economy, sending mortgage rates soaring by £300 a month, for which ordinary working people are still paying the price. I really reject the fundamental basis of the noble Earl’s question.

He asked about timing. He knows very well that it is very difficult to turn around 14 years of failure. We cannot do that in six months, but we are determined to do it and will do whatever it takes to turn around the British economy.

I am not sure I am supposed to speak, but I would just say that there was also something called Covid and an energy crisis and Ukraine. It would be good if the Minister sometimes mentioned those as well as some of the other factors.

I know the noble Baroness is desperate to find any scapegoat or excuse for her party’s total failure on the economy.

Of course, there are international factors at play, but perhaps she could tell us why the UK was worse affected than any other country in the G7 and any other European country as a result of those things.

It is because their austerity and their Brexit left this country more exposed and we therefore suffered far worse than any other country.

My Lords, this was an important visit. I welcome the Statement and endorse the importance of productive trade deals around the world leading to growth opportunities. I am pleased that the agritrade restrictions have been lifted.

The UK has enjoyed a beneficial relationship with Taiwan, especially with regard to its world-leading semiconductor industry. In the visit to China over the weekend, was the position of Taiwan part of the conversations?

Can the Minister assure the House regarding continuing trade relationships with Taiwan, against the background of the newly signed CPTPP deal and the pressures across the strait from Chinese challenges?

My Lords, in responding to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, just now, the Minister said that their austerity—referring to the Tory Government’s austerity—has left us worse off.

Can the Minister assure me that we will not see further damaging austerity of the kind that has already left us with a terrible level of public health, teetering Civil Service departments that cannot keep up with their responsibilities and local government in crisis?

Can he say that we are not going to see more of that from this Government?

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. I cannot remember what the Green Party’s position is on the national insurance increases that we have put in place.

I certainly hope that she is not opposing those increases but supporting the extra investment that we are putting into the National Health Service as a result, because that would not be terribly coherent. We are committed to investing in our public services.

The Budget we just had, in October, announced £100 billion more of capital investment. I certainly would not describe that as austerity.

Since the Minister came directly at me, I very much invite him to look at the Green Party manifesto from the recent election.

It remains our position to raise money from a range of sources to put vastly more investment into the NHS and many other government programmes, particularly through a wealth tax. I invite the Minister to look at it.

Since I am on my feet, the question that I was originally going to ask relates to the position of Jimmy Lai, as raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. Does the Minister agree that the situation of British citizen Jimmy Lai reflects the fact that there is no rule of law in China?

In encouraging British businesses to further invest and become involved in China, is there not a significant risk to both their capital and staff where there is no rule of law? I am concerned that the Statement speaks with praise of HSBC and Standard Chartered.

I do not know whether the Minister is aware of the situation where those companies have refused to hand over to Hong Kongers—BNO passport-holders who have come to the UK—their own money in pension funds.