Jimmy Lai Conviction
Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Lord Garnier
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.
US National Security Strategy
Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Lord Garnier
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is right that the world has changed, and it had changed before the most recent strategy was published. Decisions had already been taken by this Government and others to increase spending on defence and security more generally. Principally, that has of course been driven by Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, but we must also take into account the words of and decisions being made by other allies and partners.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, what work are the Government doing with the United States to secure the freedom of Jimmy Lai?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Jimmy Lai ought to be freed, and freed immediately—we are clear about that. We will take any diplomatic steps that we need to take to reinforce that message. The Foreign Secretary is clear about that; the Prime Minister is clear about that.
Corruption: Low and Middle-income Countries
Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Lord Garnier
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
As the noble Lord will appreciate, we speak to our friends in the United States about a range of issues all the time, and illicit finance is certainly one of those issues.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, in inviting the Minister to comment on the matter I am about to raise, I draw attention to my practice at the Bar, which involves some corruption cases overseas. One short suggestion that I make to her is that we could increase the failure to prevent regime under criminal law. We already have failure to prevent bribery, tax evasion and fraud offences, but it would be the work of a moment to increase the ambit of that to cover other forms of bribery, corruption, money laundering and so on. Could she discuss that with the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I understand that the noble Lord has a great deal of experience in these issues. I am very happy to take that suggestion back to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to discuss it with friends and colleagues at the Home Office, because this is an ever-changing situation and we need to use every tool at our disposal in order to combat this illegal activity.
Jailing of Hong Kong Pro-democracy Activists
Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Lord Garnier(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I will double-check, but I know of no such arrangement and I would be very surprised if that were the case. As he knows, we do not comment on sanction designations before they take place, and I would be very surprised if we would comment on something like that. I will check and get back to the noble Lord if I am wrong, but I would be very surprised if that report was in any way accurate.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, in the other place, the Minister’s right honourable friend said at the end of her Answer that the United Kingdom Government will always stand up for the people of Hong Kong. Could the Minister explain what she meant by that?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I was among the people in the other place who called for the BNO passport holders to be given the rights that they have, and we will continue to do that. That is one way in which we stand up for the people of Hong Kong. The other way is through using our voice when we can. The view that this Government take—and I appreciate that this is a different take on this from that which the previous Government had—is that, through some engagement, we might be better able to effect the kind of change that we would all wish to see.
China: Human Rights and Sanctions
Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Lord Garnier(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, we are concerned about surveillance and threats to, for instance, BNO passport holders or others here in the UK, and we monitor that extremely closely. We take our responsibilities towards human rights, compromises of freedom of religious belief and other issues of privacy very seriously.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of China’s intentions to act aggressively in a military sense in the western Pacific? Do they agree that it is highly likely to come very shortly? What are we doing about it?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, we take the issues of freedom of navigation on the high seas extremely seriously. These were raised with China by the Foreign Secretary, and we made our position on these issues very clear.