Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
To ask His Majesty’s Government what representations they plan to make to the government of China to seek the release of British citizen Jimmy Lai, following his sentence this morning to 20 years in prison.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, the UK condemns the prosecution of British citizen Jimmy Lai. As the Foreign Secretary said, 20 years is tantamount to a life sentence for a 78 year-old man. The Prime Minister raised this case with President Xi on his recent visit to Beijing. Following the sentencing, we will rapidly engage further. We are focusing on the action that will help Jimmy Lai the most: sustained engagement with China, making our case consistently and directly.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. As she says, Jimmy Lai is 78 years of age, which means either he is going to die in prison or he will be virtually 100 by the time he comes out—not for terrorism, violence or killing people but for defending freedom of speech and indeed the democratic undertakings that we thought were given in 1997. Will my noble friend ensure that the Government of China know that there will be consequences for this imprisonment?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Yes. I thank my noble friend for putting it in that way, and I agree with her. The UK will continue to stand up for the people of Hong Kong. That is why the Home Secretary today announced an expansion of eligibility for the Hong Kong BNO route. Jimmy Lai should never have been imprisoned in the first place and he should be released immediately.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the Chinese courts are totally under the control of the Chinese Communist Party, so I do not believe this timing to be accidental. It comes after the Government have gifted them their shiny new embassy, which then allowed the PM’s visit last week. He quite rightly raised Jimmy’s case during that trip, and this is now the response of the Chinese Government: a 20-year sentence, which I think represents a massive slap in the face. In response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, on whether there will be consequences, the Minister replied yes. Can she tell us what those consequences will be?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I explained just now about the BNO passport holders—if the noble Lord knew anything about this at all, he would understand that that will be absolutely opposed by China—so we have already done that. We will continue to make the case, and we now have a better ability to do that than we had previously. I reiterate that the issue around the embassy was completely unconnected from this issue, and I remind him that formal diplomatic consent for the embassy was given in 2018 by the former Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, Sebastien Lai, Jimmy Lai’s son, whom many in the House know, said this morning that he had not spoken to his father for five years and that he regarded this sentence—20 years, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has said—on a 78 year-old British citizen as a death sentence. As we think about Jimmy Lai and the other pro-democracy advocates who are also incarcerated in CCP prisons inside Hong Kong, our thoughts and prayers will be with them and with his family. His only crime is journalism; his only crime is a belief in democracy; his only crime is free speech. Can the Minister tell us how we intend to co-ordinate international pressure among like-minded democracies to ensure that this travesty, which has been committed in the name of justice, is exposed for what it is and put right?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is outrageous that Jimmy Lai has not had contact from his family—that is inhumane. We continue to argue that he should have that contact and consular assistance. The Foreign Secretary has spoken to Secretary Rubio about this, and noble Lords will know that President Trump intends to visit China later this year, so we will continue to raise this with all our allies and partners.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness said that the Government are focusing on the action that will help Jimmy Lai the most; I have to say it is not easy to feel optimistic, given the progress made so far. Can the Minister bear in mind that we are a huge market for the Chinese? There is a trade deficit of over £40 billion for its goods, which are being sold virtually frictionless into our country. That is an area we should be much closer to leveraging, because all else seems to have failed.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
How we use our trade relationship to exert this kind of pressure needs really careful consideration. It would be very easy to take measures that harm us but have no impact at all. We need to deploy those levers that we think will be most effective. This is a devastating day, with Jimmy Lai having been sentenced in the way that he has, but I can assure the noble Lord that we will consider every means that we need to.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, while I share the outrage expressed across the House about the prosecution and now the sentence, will my noble friend the Minister consider the possibility of a prisoner transfer? I understand we have some prison transfer arrangements with Hong Kong. Obviously, that is a transfer of a sentenced prisoner, but the priority must surely be to bring Mr Lai to the UK.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Our position is that Jimmy Lai should be released, and I would not want to make any comments on an issue as sensitive as that without knowing his family’s position. I understand why the noble Baroness makes that suggestion, but it really is up to his family to determine whether they think that is something they would like the Government to pursue. He should be released.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I want to pick up on the strand of questioning from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about concerted and collaborative international action. The noble Baroness will know that the previous Government set up the Media Freedom Coalition with 51 members, including the likes of Canada as a co-chair. Surely, now is the time not just to inject new energy into that coalition to issue a statement from those 51 countries collectively but also to recognise that representations individually from each of the 51 countries would be a very powerful diplomatic tool to exercise at this time.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is an excellent suggestion. We are committed to the coalition, and I will take that back to the department. I thank the noble Lord for his continued constructive engagement with this.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Can the Minister assure us that the Government will send a message to the Chinese authorities that no senior Chinese officeholder will be welcome in this country until conditions for Jimmy Lai are improved or, preferably, until he is released?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
He should be released and we should not have to take the steps that the noble Baroness suggests. On those sorts of issues we need to take a judgment based on our best understanding at the time of what would be in Jimmy Lai’s best interest. I do not think stopping all engagement would be conducive to release. My sense is that we have only just started engaging with the Chinese. We need perhaps to use the relationship we have already started to build and exert that. I understand why the noble Baroness makes that suggestion; we all want to see him released and are all considering every lever that we have in order to secure that.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, the Minister said that the decision on the Chinese embassy was an unrelated issue. Does this not reveal a gulf in understanding, about which we should be very worried? Nothing, in the eyes of the Chinese Communist Party, is unrelated and if we are to negotiate successfully on the world stage, it is crucial that we understand the world as seen through the eyes of our adversaries. It does not sound at the moment as if we do.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I understand the way the CCP might see planning decisions in this country, but we operate under a legal framework and have to stick to the law. We cannot make exceptions just because it happens to be an application by a foreign Government.
Lord Swire (Con)
The Minister is quite right to be sensitive in the way she is talking this afternoon. These things are listened into carefully by China. When I was the Minister with responsibility for that part of the world, we supported the continuation of British judges on the Hong Kong circuit while there was a vestige of democracy in that place. Is it the case, though, that there are still two remaining non-permanent judges on the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Neuberger and Lord Hoffman? Are they still serving there, and what pressure can the Government bring to bear on them to let them know that, on a black day such as this, it sends a very mixed message to Beijing that we still have two British judges operating over there, if we do?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
As far as I understand it, they are still serving and there is a clear view taken by this House and others about that decision to continue to serve. The Government have not put pressure on them, because that is not the way we treat judges, but given the view that comes from this House and has been expressed and explained here, I think they could do worse than to listen to what the noble Lord just said.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, given that Jimmy Lai is a British citizen and that the Chinese have refused any consular visits for well over two years, was this raised in China last week when the Prime Minister was there, and will the Government redouble their efforts to get consular visits following the announcement of the result?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Yes, Jimmy Lai should have consular visits. He should have access to the ability to practise his religious beliefs; he should also have medical access and access to his family. Yes, we did raise this and will continue to.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on her measured response to the real concern shown by this House, which should be conveyed to the Chinese authorities. Does that not make all the more regrettable the intervention from the Opposition Front Bench seeking once again to breathe life into this ridiculous campaign about the size of the Chinese embassy? Diplomatic relations do not ever imply approval. Countries have embassies; big countries have big embassies. That is just a fact and we ought to get on with it, and therefore not get diverted from the important issues being raised here today.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I think that is right. My noble friend has a great deal of experience. I think he was a Minister at the department previously and at the MoD as well. He knows what he is talking about, and I take his contribution in the manner that he gives it.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the director of the Free Speech Union. In light of this outrageous sentence, will the Government get on with activating Section 9 of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act? I remind the Minister that that section requires English universities to declare their dependency on foreign funding, and was included in the Act to enable the Office for Students to monitor foreign funding in light of free speech concerns. This section, which was not activated by the Education Secretary when she entered office—she revoked the commencement order—seems particularly urgent in light of not only this outrageous sentence but the recent remarks by the head of MI6 about the extent of Chinese influence in British universities.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We have recently introduced many measures around higher education that would be relevant to that which the noble Lord outlined to us. I do not know whether we need to activate that particular section in the Act, but we are alive to the concerns that he raises and the Department for Education is working with the higher education sector to address them.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, two weeks ago the Minister’s colleagues in the Foreign Office summoned the Chinese ambassador for a discussion. She was not able to tell us what happened, because she was not in the room; will she ensure that the Chinese ambassador is summoned first thing tomorrow morning to a meeting that she will be able to attend? Can she then report back on what was said, how the Chinese ambassador reacted and what this Government are going to do if that reaction is unsatisfactory?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I have good news for the noble and learned Lord. Since he asked that question—and he is right that I did not answer him at the time, because I was not at that meeting—a read-out has since been published, and he can read it at his leisure.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, before the Prime Minister went, many of us felt that this had been discussed in the back channels somehow, and that he would succeed in obtaining the release of Jimmy Lai. The Prime Minister is now apologising for many things, but has he apologised to the family? He went to China and we spent all this money and we had all those resources out there, but we did not bring back the one British citizen who is being held in solitary confinement.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is not how it works: I wish that we could secure everything that we want, and give nothing that anybody else wants, ahead of any diplomatic engagement. For many years there has been no engagement and we are playing catch up: we must start building a relationship now in order to get the things that we need for this country, one of them being the release of Jimmy Lai. We will not give up. The fact that there has been one visit does not set us back. We continue to make the case and we continue to argue for his release. That, I believe, is the right way to go about this.