Jimmy Lai Conviction

Debate between Baroness Kennedy of Shaws and Baroness Chapman of Darlington

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

[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.

G7

Debate between Baroness Kennedy of Shaws and Baroness Chapman of Darlington

Thursday 20th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. Many things keep me awake at night, but the fate of those children is one that frequently comes to mind. We do discuss those children and the necessity of their safe and immediate return to their families. What has happened is unimaginable. He is completely right, and I can assure him that we take every opportunity to discuss that.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

I co-chair the taskforce for the return of the children who have been taken into Russia. The evidence is really shocking and quite scandalous. It is interesting that no one from the Government has ever asked me to come and speak to them about the evidence. I draw that to the attention of the Front Bench; perhaps it will find its way down to the other end of this House. I suspect that no one in this House knows more about it than I do, and yet I have never been asked.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I would like the noble Baroness to consider herself invited. I would be very keen to hear what she has to say, to consider the evidence she has and to discuss ways in which she may be able to assist in efforts to have those children returned.

British Council

Debate between Baroness Kennedy of Shaws and Baroness Chapman of Darlington

Thursday 13th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Nobody is saying we are where we are and let us leave it at that, but we are where we are. This is not where I would wish to be, for all the reasons that the noble Lord says. We must protect the British Council, and enhance and strengthen it. I am very pleased to say that the British Council is a full participant of the Soft Power Council. I have spoken to the chief executive to get some advice on how we might go about setting it up and how to take that forward. He is fully involved, and quite right too It is our determination that the British Council is strong and grows, and is able to do more of what it has done for decades. As the noble Lord says, it is a vital part of our soft power work.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, I had the privilege of being chair of the British Council for six years, at the beginning of this century—which was quite a while ago, when I was a much younger woman. As I travelled the world, looking at the projects that were conducted by the British Council, I found that it was the envy of the world. It was the envy of France and Germany; they too had cultural organisations, but those never had the reach or success rate of the British Council. The scandal has been the diminution of the government grant to the British Council over the last 15 years. Given the situation we are facing—where we are watching the United States retreat from the world and from obligations to the world, and from the soft power that it exercised through USAID—is this not the very moment when we should be stepping forward and making sure that we are the people who can do soft power better than anyone? Can there not be an increase in the grant to the British Council and assistance in dealing with this debt?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

At the moment, the Government provide around 16% of the British Council's funding. The rest, to the British Council’s enduring credit, it manages to raise itself through its own activities—mostly English language tuition and other activities that it conducts. The balance of that we are discussing with the British Council. However, it is a strength that the council has that degree of independence from government, and I would not wish to see that jeopardised. Whether or not we can increase the government grant and to what extent is open to discussion, but I point out gently that, if we did decide to do that, the money would have to come from somewhere else.

Israel-Gaza Conflict: Arrest Warrants

Debate between Baroness Kennedy of Shaws and Baroness Chapman of Darlington

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

On both questions, I am afraid that I disagree with the noble Lord. That is not how we view the ICC. We respect the ICC and our obligations as a signatory to it. As for the decisions on export licences, those were made in compliance with UK law.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a misunderstanding by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, if he thinks that this is a matter concerning proportionality with regard to self-defence? Warrants have been issued very specifically not in relation to disproportionate use of self-defence. They have been issued on the basis of the refusal to allow humanitarian aid to reach the civilian population of Gaza. That was the basis for the warrants being issued: the starvation that follows from that and the impact in particular on young children’s development and survival possibilities.

I want to ask a supplementary question. It is very important that people in this House know that the International Criminal Court is not indicting Israel. It is indicting two of its leaders who have conducted this war. Normally the principle of complementarity would have meant that we would respect the courts of Israel to investigate and deal with the matter. That was blocked by Prime Minister Netanyahu. Do the Government agree that because that avenue of complementarity was not available, after the opportunity had been given for an inquiry or an investigation by the Israeli authorities, warrants were issued for that reason? Does the Minister agree that it is about the people of Palestine being deprived of humanitarian aid?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My noble friend is correct in that the warrants are for war crimes of starvation, intentional attacks on civilians and other inhumane acts. I point out to noble Lords that the indictment is not a finding of guilt. It is the start of a process. There would theoretically be a court process that would investigate all the alleged crimes.

China: Human Rights and Sanctions

Debate between Baroness Kennedy of Shaws and Baroness Chapman of Darlington

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We will continue to lead on this issue where we can in international fora. I am grateful for what the noble Lord said, and we share his concerns on this. But, to reiterate, the Foreign Secretary raised Xinjiang and the Uighur people in China last week, and he will continue to do so because our concerns have not changed since the change of Government. He will continue to raise those issues whenever and wherever he can.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

I will ask the Minister about the situation for parliamentarians in this country who were sanctioned because of raising what was happening to the Uighur community in Xinjiang province. Two Members of this House—myself and the noble Lord, Lord Alton—and five Members of the House of Commons were sanctioned. I understand that that was not raised in the Foreign Secretary’s meeting with the leadership in China. Preserving our right to raise human rights issues, without feeling that there will be consequences for doing so, should concern this House.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I completely agree with my noble friend, as does the Foreign Secretary. These issues are raised. The sanctions against parliamentarians for things they have said are completely unwarranted and unacceptable. The Foreign Secretary met with Speaker Hoyle before his trip to China to reiterate that this was a concern to him. It is a concern to the Foreign Secretary and to all of us in the Government. It is inappropriate that parliamentarians in this and the other House should be sanctioned in this way, and we will consistently raise this with China.