Jimmy Lai Conviction

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I associate the Liberal Democrats with the Government’s strong condemnation of Jimmy Lai’s political conviction and of the Chinese Government for engineering it. I join the noble Earl in saluting the courage of Jimmy Lai, who, instead of choosing the easy life available to him, decided at great personal cost to stand up for democracy and freedom.

I have had the privilege of knowing some of those who have made similar sacrifices in other parts of the world. Every time I have met them, I have been humbled by the price they have been prepared to pay, knowing full well in advance of the potential consequences of their actions. That extraordinary and humbling courage requires a commensurate response from our Government in defence of not only an international hero of democracy but a British citizen.

Jimmy Lai is not alone. Many Hong Kongers continue to advocate for democracy despite the consequences, while the CCP continues to seek to undermine Hong Kong’s agreed status. Hong Kongers in the UK are subject to threats and intimidation from the Chinese state, including Carmen Lau, who just last week was subjected to a renewed campaign of intimidation against her.

Can the Minister tell us what assurance the Government can provide to Hong Kongers in the UK that they will be better protected from the outrageous actions of the CCP in our country? Will the Government sanction the CCP officials responsible for extraterritorial intimidation? Will the FCDO update its submission to the Housing Secretary about the risks of the super-embassy in the light of the actions of the Chinese state? Finally, what action will the Government take to signal, beyond any doubt, that the treatment of Jimmy Lai is wholly unacceptable and that they will continue to seek his release, vocally and with concrete action?

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

I thank both noble Lords for what they have said, particularly about Jimmy Lai himself—he truly is a remarkable person. I have not had the privilege of meeting him, but I know that many in this House have done so and consider him a very dear friend. What he has done throughout his life is truly extraordinary. The fact that, at 78 years of age, he finds himself in this terrible situation, for doing nothing other than standing up for democracy, is shocking. The Government are clear that he should be released immediately because his detention is politically motivated and there is no just reason to detain him in prison for a single minute longer.

The Government summoned the Chinese ambassador when the verdict was given. We have demanded that Jimmy Lai is released immediately. We are continuing to demand consular access, which has not been provided to date. We had senior officials attend the trial in order to make the point that the UK Government are watching this very closely. We raise this with partners, including the United States. We have raised this at every level with the Chinese as well.

On the issue of the embassy, clearly, the decision to allow China to use the former Royal Mint was made under the previous Government. Now, it is subject to decisions to be made by MHCLG, and that process is ongoing. The Prime Minister has raised this personally, and he will continue to do so.

In addition to those questions, the noble Lord, Lord Oates, asked about transnational repression, and that is clearly of deep concern to the Government. We are committed to supporting all members of the Hong Kong community who have used their right to relocate here to the UK. We are clear that any attempts by any foreign Governments, and that includes China, to coerce, intimidate or harm their critics here are completely unacceptable. Freedom of speech and other fundamental rights of all people in the UK are protected under our domestic laws.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

It does have a feeling of a Second Reading debate, but that is because the noble Lord is so knowledgeable about these issues and the case of his friend Jimmy Lai in particular.

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for putting his position in the way that he did. I agree with much of what he said, particularly about Jimmy Lai personally. I will try to respond to the questions in as straightforward a way as I possibly can, because I know that is what he would want. I do not have anything to tell him about FIRS designations. We have not made decisions on that yet, but as soon as that decision is made, I am sure it will be communicated in the usual way.

The noble Lord is absolutely right, and I could not agree with him more, about the nature of this trial, if we can call it that. It was politically motivated. There is no circumstance in which Jimmy Lai should be detained. He should have access to consulate officials, his family, medical treatment and people who can help him with his faith, but he should not need those things because he should not be imprisoned in the first place.

On the issue of judges, we all have our professional regulations and codes that we need to stick to in this place and in any professional walk of life, but we also have our own consciences that guide the decisions we make. It is good that in this country our judiciary is independent and makes its own decisions and choices about what it does. I noted the decision made by Lord Sumption and his reasons for making it, and I think people can make their own conclusions on that.

On the issue of prime ministerial travel to China, I do not know what the Prime Minister’s plans are regarding going to China. This is not a comment in relation to the specific question about the Prime Minister’s travel, but a more general observation: I think it would be a mistake to cut off all ties with China at this point, because there was no leader-level interaction for the previous six years under the previous Government, and it did not get us very far. We may be more successful if we have that degree of engagement and, when we have that engagement, we use it well to make these cases. As the noble Lord said, Jimmy Lai’s case is surely one of the most abhorrent, but there are others too. He is right to remind us of that.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I appreciate that we are no longer the superpower that we used to be, but none the less if we were to speak firmly to the Government of China, it would be internationally noticed.

The Chinese Government have no respect for the rule of law, as we can see from the recent trial of Jimmy Lai. The Government occasionally resort to saying that the decision about the embassy in the City of London is at a quasi-judicial stage. Why not treat that with the same degree of seriousness with which the Chinese treat the trial of Jimmy Lai and make a public political decision that until the Jimmy Lai case is resolved in a civilised way, there is no question of the embassy decision being progressed in the favour of the Chinese Government? They will respect hard bargaining. They want the embassy and it is ours to give, so let us refuse it.

Although we disagree with the United States in regard to its attitude towards President Putin and the behaviour that he has exhibited over the last several years, we can agree with the United States on the danger that the Chinese Government pose and should therefore use our alliance with the United States to apply real economic and diplomatic pressure on Beijing, enhanced by our alliance with the United States, in relation to the Jimmy Lai case. I know from the press that President Trump is not happy with the Jimmy Lai case. Nobody here is. Let us use that and what strength we have, in alliance with others, to bring the Chinese to understand that this sort of behaviour is utterly intolerable and will not enhance their own interests in the West.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble and learned Lord is right to suggest that we speak to our allies and partners about this and try to elicit support from others in securing his release. We are doing that and will continue to do that, including with the United States.

He asks why we do not just disregard the quasi-judicial process, override it and make a politically driven decision in relation to the application for the former Royal Mint. Quite simply, it is because we are better than that, and we do not do that. Having an embassy is not a reward for like-minded partners in this country. That is not how we make these choices. A decision will be made in the right way, taking into account all the issues that are relevant to that decision by MHCLG.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I have been involved with the arrest and subsequent trial of Jimmy Lai. I too am a patron of Hong Kong Watch. I am also on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and members of my chambers have been acting for Jimmy Lai in his case internationally.

I want to raise a number of things that have not yet been mentioned. The first is the extent to which Jimmy Lai is being used as an example. The prosecution of Jimmy Lai is to silence those who are advocating for real democracy. That is what it is really about. The chilling effect is very real when you speak to lawyers there and interact with people who have been major pro-democracy advocates. The difficulty for people such as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and me, having been sanctioned by the Chinese because of our criticism, is that we often cannot be in touch with people in Hong Kong with whom we have had long-term relationships. To do so would endanger them. If you look at the judgment, I appear as a collaborator in Jimmy Lai’s crimes. Actually, although I am a very close friend of his son and his daughter-in-law, I have never met Jimmy Lai. Yet I am supposed to be one of the people with whom he was conspiring to undermine national security.

He is a man of 78. He has been in custody for six years in solitary confinement. He is suffering serious ill health and Sebastien Lai, his son, only two days ago was here in this House and described in some detail the state of his health and how concerned the family is. Could our Prime Minister not be asking for clemency on that basis? The children of Jimmy Lai are based in this country. They were educated in this country. Jimmy Lai has a British passport. He has never had any other passport. He is a British citizen, a British subject, and has always maintained that of himself. The period between now and the visit to China by the Prime Minister is an opportunity to negotiate for clemency and for him to be returned to Britain, where he could be with his children and live out the last part of his life.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We are clear that Jimmy Lai is British. He should be released because there was no need for him to be detained in the first place. This whole situation has been politically driven from the very beginning, not least for the reasons that my noble friend describes about wanting to make an example and to induce this chilling effect that has occurred. Our Prime Minister will do whatever he needs to do and will make the argument in the way that he thinks is most impactful, as I know my noble friend would expect, to argue for and demand the immediate release of Jimmy Lai.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

Returning to the question of the judges, will the Minister be a little bolder in the light of the clear death of the rule of law in Hong Kong? The continued membership of six Commonwealth senior retired judges on the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal—four Australian and two British—is used as support by the Chinese regime for how it is behaving. In that light, will the Government not be a little bolder and advise those judges that now is the time for them to resign on the basis of a clear principle, which they must well understand, however long they have been on the Bench?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I can have a view about that. Others might have a view if the Government were to attempt to instruct judges about what they should do. My comments in response to the earlier question are probably as far as I am going to go this evening, but I hear what the noble Lord says and his reasons for saying it. His words are on the record. Perhaps those judges may want to consider the points that he has made.