Jimmy Lai Conviction

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Statement

20:02

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Monday 15 December.

“With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will first address the horrific attack that took place yesterday at Bondi Beach in Sydney. Across the UK, and across the world, people have been shocked and appalled by this vile antisemitic terrorist attack, targeting Jewish families who were celebrating on the beach on the first day of Hanukkah. New South Wales authorities have confirmed that 15 people have been killed, in addition to one of the two gunmen, and 27 people remain in hospital. It is a devastating loss of life, including a Holocaust survivor and a little girl just 10 years old. It has also now been confirmed that one of the victims of the Bondi attack was a British national, bringing this tragedy even closer to home. We have offered support to the family following their tragic loss. I have offered my Australian counterpart, Foreign Minister Penny Wong, the United Kingdom’s full support in Australia’s response, and the Prime Minister and His Majesty the King have both shared their condolences.

Hanukkah should be a time of celebration and joy, yet Jewish people are again confronted with vile acts of hatred simply for being Jews, with further distress for our British Jewish communities just a couple of months after the Manchester synagogue attack on Yom Kippur. We stand in solidarity with Australia’s Jewish communities and with Jewish communities here and across the world as they continue to mark Hanukkah, and we stand in solidarity with the Australian people. Our thoughts are with all those affected. We must continue and increase work to root out antisemitism in all its forms, here and abroad, because we will never let hatred win.

I will now turn to today’s verdict in the trial of Jimmy Lai. Today, Hong Kong’s courts ruled that Jimmy Lai was guilty of foreign collusion under the national security law, which Beijing imposed on the city five years ago. They also found him guilty of conspiring to publish seditious materials. Jimmy Lai is a British citizen. He has been targeted by the Chinese and Hong Kong Governments for peacefully exercising his right to freedom of expression. This was a politically motivated prosecution that I strongly condemn. Jimmy Lai now faces the prospect of a sentence that, for a man of 78 years, could mean spending the rest of his life in prison. I call again for Jimmy Lai’s immediate release. On my instruction, the Foreign Office has today summoned the Chinese ambassador to underline our position in the strongest terms. My acting consul-general was present at court today to bear witness.

For many in this House and for the large diaspora community living in the UK, it is heartbreaking that such a violation of a British man’s rights could occur in Hong Kong, because the Hong Kong of Jimmy Lai’s childhood was a city where a 12 year-old boy seeking opportunity could go on to build a business empire and then a media platform. It was a city of freedom, and that freedom brought great prosperity. When the joint declaration was signed by the United Kingdom and China in 1984, both nations declared their commitment to that prosperity. Our countries agreed that Hong Kong’s uniqueness—its high degree of autonomy; its executive, legislative and independent judicial power; and its rights and freedoms, including freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly and of association—was the foundation of its success, and that those things were to be enshrined in law.

For many years, Hong Kong was the embodiment of the commitments made in that joint declaration. The city, the economy and, most importantly, the people thrived. It was a remarkable, shining example to the world of what Hong Kong’s people, and co-operation between the UK and China, could achieve. Indeed, it is partly because of our important history with Hong Kong—economic as well as political—that China remains our third-largest trading partner today.

In 2020, however, China began to break the commitments in that declaration. Hong Kong’s free media spoke out, and they were punished for it. In June 2020 China breached the joint declaration by imposing its national security law on the city. It was a law imposed on Hong Kong to silence China’s critics, and one that undermined Hong Kong’s autonomy and threatened the rights that China had once freely committed to upholding. It was not long before the new law was applied and Jimmy Lai was arrested, along with other advocates of democracy, free speech and freedom of assembly.

This British citizen—this businessman and journalist; this father, husband and grandfather—has endured five years of incarceration. Meanwhile, his supporters around the world have campaigned tirelessly for justice. I pay particular tribute to Jimmy’s son, Sebastien Lai, who has endured such pain and shown such determination and dignity in fighting for his father and for the wider rights and principles at stake. I know that many honourable colleagues have had the privilege of meeting this determined man, who has endured so much to take on his father’s mantle, speaking up where his father cannot.

The Government have continually and repeatedly raised Jimmy Lai’s case with China at every opportunity, urging the authorities to agree his release, yet the Hong Kong authorities continue to refuse us consular access to our citizen—a 78-year-old man whose health is suffering. Jimmy Lai remains imprisoned, despite international calls for his release and concerns regarding his health; despite UK Ministers raising our concerns directly and privately with Hong Kong and Chinese officials; and despite our repeated requests for consular access, the most recent of which was submitted on Thursday. Once again, I call for Jimmy Lai to be granted full access to independent medical professionals to assess his health and ensure that he receives adequate treatment.

Today’s verdict is, sadly, not a surprise, but no state can bully and persecute the British people for exercising their basic rights. We have seen how the Hong Kong authorities have tried to use the national security law to target even those living on British soil for speaking up. The UK has repeatedly called for the national security law to be repealed, and for an end to the prosecution of all individuals charged under it. It remains imperative that the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities end the deliberate targeting of opposition voices through arrest warrants and bounties in the UK and elsewhere.

The safety of the Hong Kong community in the UK is a top priority for this Government and, as the Prime Minister has recently said, protecting our security is non-negotiable—it is our first duty. This Government are unequivocally clear that China poses a series of national security threats to the United Kingdom. That is why we have taken further steps and tougher measures to defend our democracy by disrupting and deterring threats from China and other state actors, including upgrading sovereign technology; removing Chinese-made surveillance equipment from sensitive sites; drawing up new legislation modelled on counterterrorism powers to tackle state threats; rolling out new training to police forces across the country on tackling state threats and protecting individuals from transnational repression; and continuing to support the Hong Kong British national (overseas) route, which has welcomed over 200,000 Hong Kongers to the UK. As part of the earned settlement consultation, the Home Office has confirmed that Hong Kongers will retain a five-year settlement route in the UK.

China has not upheld its commitments to the people of Hong Kong, but we will. Jimmy Lai chose to remain in Hong Kong to speak up for what was right, and he is currently paying the price. For the sake of Jimmy Lai and his family, but also for the people of Hong Kong, for the joint declaration we signed and for the rule of law, we will not relent on this. Joined by nations across the world, we call again for the immediate release of Jimmy Lai. I commend this Statement to the House”.

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, His Majesty’s Opposition echo calls for the immediate release of Jimmy Lai. Persecuted under the national security law, which is a breach of the 1984 Sino-British joint declaration, Lai’s verdict was made by politically appointed judges, and the trial was conducted without a jury.

Jimmy Lai’s courage and resilience is an inspiration. Born during the Chinese civil war, his mother was sent to a labour camp. At the age of 12, he arrived in Hong Kong and worked his way up to become one of Hong Kong’s success stories. As a British citizen, he could have come to the UK when the national security law came into force, but he chose to stay in Hong Kong out of solidarity with its people and commitment to his work. At the age of 78, he has spent the past five years in prison, mostly in solitary confinement.

As has been highlighted, requests for consular access have been repeatedly refused, as well as for Lai to have full access to independent medical professionals amid concerns for his health. Moreover, he has been refused access to the sacraments of the Catholic faith. The Chinese Communist Party’s treatment of him, and of Hong Kong, are further evidence that the Chinese Government cannot be trusted. Nor are these matters simply internal affairs for China. Lai is a British citizen. The national security law goes against the Sino-British joint declaration, which China signed, and which obliges the UK to guarantee rights and freedoms in Hong Kong. On the international world stage, the Chinese Government have proven themselves not to keep their word.

We know that the Chinese Communist Party cannot be trusted, and yet plans are progressing for a new super-embassy—the largest embassy in Europe and its largest diplomatic outpost globally. A spokesperson for the Chinese embassy has called for the planning application to be approved,

“to avoid further undermining the mutual trust and cooperation between the two sides”.

This is outrageous, when it is China that has breached the joint declaration, and that, even on British soil, continues to intimidate Hong Kongers. If the planning application for the new super-embassy is approved, at the heart of our capital city, what signal would that give? Can the Minister explain why the Government will not, at the very least, include China in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme?

Numerous civil society organisations, including Hong Kong Watch, have written a joint letter to the Prime Minister, asking him to do more in the case of Jimmy Lai and noting that Australia, Canada and Ireland have been able to secure the release of their citizens imprisoned in China. Yesterday, the President of the United States called directly on Xi Jinping to consider his release. Can the Minister clarify whether our own Prime Minister will follow suit and demand his release publicly? In addition, if the Prime Minister refuses to cancel his visit to China in January, will he raise the matter and call for Jimmy Lai’s release in-person with President Xi?

We all recognise the complexities and competing considerations involved in the UK’s relationship with China, but we cannot let these drown out or dilute the Government’s duty to its citizens or to national security. I urge the Government to do more, inspired by Jimmy Lai’s own courage, to stand up to the CCP’s narrative and for our own principles and citizens.

[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.

20:11

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I first draw attention to my roles as a vice-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong, as a patron of Hong Kong Watch and as chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which published a report on transnational repression earlier this year and specifically called for China to be included in the advanced higher tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Courtown. The noble Lord, Lord Oates, referred to Carmen Lau. One of the witnesses we had before that committee was Chloe Cheung, who came to this country as a young girl of 14 years of age, and at 19 years of age had a bounty of 1 million Hong Kong dollars placed on her head along with Carmen Lau and other British residents. This is a very serious situation, and I hope the Minister will respond to the point about FIRS when she comes to reply.

Jimmy Lai is a British citizen, and I know him and his family. I have immense admiration for his courage, honesty and integrity. I fear that unless he is released, this outrageous conviction will prove to be a death sentence. Jimmy Lai’s only crime has been to speak the truth, to believe in democracy, to champion freedom and to defend the British-China treaty, which guaranteed “one country, two systems” and has been broken again and again. What more are we doing to secure unhindered access to Jimmy Lai’s medics, pastor, consular officials and loved ones? Does the Minister agree that this sham trial has nothing to do with justice and resembles Lewis Carroll’s parody of nonsensical justice based on verdict first, trial later, with the outcome always a foregone conclusion?

Since Lenin introduced show trials in 1922, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung and today’s CCP leaders have perfected a technique of gross judicial theatre to spread terror and to inculcate fear. Does the Minister agree that the remaining British and Australian judges who lend respectability to these star chambers should follow Lord Sumption and remove themselves forthwith? In Hong Kong, rule of law has been replaced by rule by law. What are we doing to raise the cases of hundreds of pro-democracy supporters, such as Joshua Wong and Andy Li, who continue to languish in CCP prisons, many on national security charges that range from the draconian to the ludicrous? Will the Prime Minister please think again about going to China until Jimmy Lai has been released from these wretched prison conditions and allowed to leave and be reunited with his family?

[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.

20:25

Sitting suspended.