Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
To ask His Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the government of China to seek the release and return to the United Kingdom of Jimmy Lai, a British citizen.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I am delighted to be the first to be called by the new Lord Speaker to beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, the UK condemns in the strongest terms the politically motivated prosecution of British national Jimmy Lai. Mr Lai has been targeted for peacefully exercising his right to freedom of expression, and that is why we summoned the Chinese ambassador following his verdict and why we raise his case at every opportunity. The Prime Minister raised it directly with President Xi last week, calling on the Hong Kong authorities to release him on humanitarian grounds.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her Answer. She mentioned the Prime Minister’s visit to China, which followed the granting of planning permission for the Chinese embassy. It led to the lifting of sanctions against two of our Peers, but, alas, not to the far more important release of 78 year-old British citizen, Jimmy Lai, who, as on the 1,860 days he has already spent in solitary confinement, was confined for 23 hours a day throughout our Prime Minister’s visit. Can my noble friend urge the Prime Minister to meet Jimmy Lai’s son, Sebastien, to update him on any private conversations that took place while he was in China that might see his father brought safely and quickly to the UK?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. I confirm that the Prime Minister has met Sebastien Lai. I will convey to him the desire for further such meetings to relay any information, or the content of conversations, that may be of interest.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in affirming what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said, has the Minister seen what Sebastien Lai said last week in advance of the Prime Minister’s visit to Beijing? He said:
“Whether my father is freed or not is the ultimate test”.
When Sebastien comes here tomorrow night to speak to the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Arbitrary Detention and Hostage Affairs, what are we to say to him about this 78 year-old man who has spent some 1,800 days in solitary confinement and is likely to die there unless he is released soon? I am not opposed to us visiting China, but why did we go to Beijing with the title deeds to a mega-embassy in our back pocket without first extracting an assurance that there would be some reciprocity with the release of Jimmy Lai?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We agree that Jimmy Lai ought to be released immediately because he should not be imprisoned. It is right that the UK Government engage with China. After such a long time of the UK not having engaged in this way, this is not the sort of situation where we get everything we want with one visit. The relationship will improve. It is good that we are engaging and that we are clear on what we expect and want to happen for Jimmy Lai. Engagement and challenge are not mutually exclusive; they go hand in hand.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I think there is unanimity across the House on this matter. It is obviously good news that the Prime Minister raised the Jimmy Lai case, as well as the appalling treatment of the Uyghur population—we absolutely welcome that—but can the Minister give us a bit more detail? What responses were received and what happens next? How will they continue the campaign to get Jimmy released?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I advise noble Lords that the Prime Minister will make a Statement in the other place later this afternoon, in which more detail may well be discussed. I am not in a position to pre-empt that Statement now, but I note the Opposition Benches’ support for the Prime Minister raising the cases of Jimmy Lai and the Uyghurs.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am sure people would agree with the Minister that, when it comes to diplomacy, we do not get everything we want. However, we need to be clear in this House that the Prime Minister specifically asked for the release of Jimmy Lai, and that if that release is not very soon forthcoming that it should not be business as usual in the relationship between the UK and China and that there should be conditions. In the reporting of the Prime Minister’s visit, it has been hard to see what we have secured for our relationship with China, other than the welcome release of those in this House who have been sanctioned, or when it comes to Jimmy Lai. Did the Prime Minister explain to President Xi that, unless Jimmy Lai is released, there will be no business as usual between us and China?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is for the Prime Minister to state, this afternoon, the detail of the conversations he had with President Xi. It is not for me to say that now, just an hour or so before the Prime Minister is going to make his own Statement on this. The visit took place because it is the Government’s belief that to engage in this way is absolutely in the interest of the United Kingdom. Trade benefits were secured, as well as the opportunity to raise issues that I know mean so much to Members across this House.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I do not expect the Minister to tell us what the Prime Minister is about to say in the other place, but can she tell us whether the meeting with the Chinese ambassador at the Foreign Office was conducted by a Minister or by a member of the diplomatic corps, and whether the Chinese ambassador was invited to comment in terms that we would understand on the plight of Jimmy Lai, which everyone accepts is lamentable and inexcusable? What precisely did the Chinese ambassador say, and do the Government find what he said acceptable?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble and learned Lord is right that the Chinese ambassador was summoned to the Foreign Office, which, in diplomatic terms, is a serious thing. I do not know the contents of the conversation or indeed who was in the room, but I can confirm that this act took place in response to what happened with the sentencing of Jimmy Lai and to indicate the very firm belief of the UK Government that this should not have happened and that Jimmy Lai should be released immediately.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, in my dealings with the Chinese, I have found that very often the best thing is to make sure that they do not lose face. It is much better to talk quietly in the background and actually show that you could make them lose face if things are not done. I ask my noble friend the Minister whether that is not exactly what our Prime Minister has done in China.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Our Prime Minister has been very clear on where he stands on the issue of Jimmy Lai. Sometimes, as the noble Lord says, it is appropriate to do things discreetly and quietly, but, equally, sometimes it is important to be clear about what we want and believe. It is an art, as he indicates, but our interests are better served by taking an approach which rests upon engagement.