Jimmy Lai: Prison Sentence
Debate between Lord Garnier and Baroness Chapman of Darlington
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We have recently introduced many measures around higher education that would be relevant to that which the noble Lord outlined to us. I do not know whether we need to activate that particular section in the Act, but we are alive to the concerns that he raises and the Department for Education is working with the higher education sector to address them.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, two weeks ago the Minister’s colleagues in the Foreign Office summoned the Chinese ambassador for a discussion. She was not able to tell us what happened, because she was not in the room; will she ensure that the Chinese ambassador is summoned first thing tomorrow morning to a meeting that she will be able to attend? Can she then report back on what was said, how the Chinese ambassador reacted and what this Government are going to do if that reaction is unsatisfactory?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I have good news for the noble and learned Lord. Since he asked that question—and he is right that I did not answer him at the time, because I was not at that meeting—a read-out has since been published, and he can read it at his leisure.
China: Human Rights and UK National Security
Debate between Lord Garnier and Baroness Chapman of Darlington
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I admire hugely the consistency with which he raises these issues. He is absolutely right to say that, although there is clearly some progress on the measures that have affected our parliamentarians and, as he says, former parliamentarians such as Tim Loughton, those measures should obviously be lifted immediately. We are continuing conversations to get absolute clarity on which measures and which people, and to make sure that that is complete.
On the things that we voted for in opposition, when you are in opposition and have a Government who took the position that they did, there are only certain things that you can do to highlight these issues. The approach that this Government are taking is based far more upon engagement and dialogue and attempting to rebuild the relationship in order to get the progress that everybody here would like to see. We have more options at our disposal now, so we are attempting to approach these important matters in a different way. As the noble Lord knows, I cannot comment on sanctions, but I note what he says.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, although I trust the Minister both expressly and implicitly, she is tied by the problems of being a Government Minister. I am now in opposition, so I have greater freedom to speak and to complain. I complain because the responses that we get from the Government are little more than vague generalisations. That breeds suspicion that nothing much is being done and that the dialogue between the Government and China is no more than formulaic.
Can the Minister please do her best to reassure us—she may well know what the Prime Minister is about to say, or has already said, in the other place—that the fate of Jimmy Lai and our relations with China are not just diplomatic boxes to be ticked with nothing more to be said, and that genuinely positive, concrete discussions, with force behind them, are being conducted by her department and the Government as a whole?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I appreciate the way in which the noble and learned Lord put that question, although I assure him that I do not find this in any way awkward. It is important that I am here and fully accountable to this House, above all. The Prime Minister is, I believe, on his feet right now, so the noble and learned Lord will not have very much longer to wait to hear what he has to say, and I expect—although I do not know—that the Statement may well be repeated in this House in the usual way, so there will be further opportunities to make these points.
I assure the noble and learned Lord that there is no sense in which the fate of Jimmy Lai is in any way a tick-box exercise for this Government. We are clear and consistent, and have been for some time, that Jimmy Lai should be released with immediate effect.
China: Jimmy Lai
Debate between Lord Garnier and Baroness Chapman of Darlington
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.
Jimmy Lai Conviction
Debate between Lord Garnier and Baroness Chapman of Darlington(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
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 Lord Garnier and Baroness Chapman of Darlington
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 Lord Garnier and Baroness Chapman of Darlington(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
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 Lord Garnier and Baroness Chapman of Darlington(1 year, 2 months 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 Lord Garnier and Baroness Chapman of Darlington(1 year, 3 months 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.
Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords]
Debate between Lord Garnier and Baroness Chapman of Darlington(12 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jenny Chapman
Perhaps, then, if that is the Minister’s attitude, he will be minded to support our new clause 5. It is reasonably worded and if he reads it carefully he might find that he can support it.
Returning to HMP Oakwood, the Government have somehow managed to build a brand new, state-of-the-art prison that seems to be failing on every imaginable front. A surprise prison inspection last year found inmates reporting that it was easier to get drugs than soap on the wings, while the inspectorate report revealed that the inexperience of staff was visible everywhere, with staff unwilling to challenge bad behaviour and many being
“passive almost to the point of collusion”.
As the report continued, indicators of levels of violence were high, there were not enough activity places and the control and supply of medication was “chaotic”. The chief inspector of prisons called the state of the prison “unquestionably concerning”. The Secretary of State was disappointingly somewhat less firm in his criticism, largely dismissing these as “teething problems”. A couple of months later, inmates managed to stage not one, but two rooftop protests. As late as last week, six months after the inspectorate visited the prison, West Staffordshire police were notified of an incident lasting through the night, apparently involving an entire wing being barricaded by inmates.
Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)
I am sure it is entirely my fault for being obtuse, but could the hon. Lady try to weave her remarks about the prison into her arguments in support of the new clause because I do not see a connection?
Jenny Chapman
I will attempt to assist the hon. and learned Gentleman. The point is that Oakwood prison is run by one of the would-be providers of probation services.
Jenny Chapman
Absolutely not. I welcome the involvement of probation mutuals. I think that it would have been a great deal easier, less time-consuming, less expensive and less traumatic if some of those organisations had been allowed simply to get on with it without having to form themselves into new organisations. Had the Government’s initial proposal been for all trusts to be able to re-form as mutuals, using the skills, experience, knowledge and relationships that they already have, we would not have needed to engage in this debate today.
We will press new clauses 1, 4 and 5 to a vote. If the Government are so confident about what they are doing, why should they not submit their plans to proper parliamentary scrutiny?
Sir Edward Garnier
I will be brief because we enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) for some little while. Essentially the point of difference between her and me, certainly in relation to new clause 1 and the new clauses that mirror it, is that she would like to delay the progress of the implementation of the Government’s proposals and I would like them to be implemented as soon as possible.
There has been a considerable amount of to-ing and fro-ing both across the Dispatch Box and between Members of Parliament and their constituents who work within what I loosely term the probation services, by which I mean not specifically the Government agency, but those who carry out rehabilitation services. I have recently met members of staff of the Leicestershire probation service and when I was a shadow Justice Minister I made a point of visiting a huge number of probation offices, meeting both probation staff and those who work not in the Government agencies but in the charitable sector, such as the organisations my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) mentioned in his intervention. It struck me that, by and large, there was a big hole in the way we look after short-term prisoners and repeat offenders. They were released from prison unsupervised, and the sooner we start supervising these under-12-month prisoners the better for them and for their victims and society as a whole.
I can appreciate the political arguments the hon. Member for Darlington advanced. I appreciate that from her pre-parliamentary background she has an affiliation with the GMB and therefore has an interest in—
Sir Edward Garnier
Well, I hope I have read the hon. Lady’s entry correctly. Perhaps she had better come and see me later and we can get it corrected. In any case, her party has a closer affiliation to the trade union movement than I personally have and my party has. I can therefore understand why she is advancing these arguments requesting pilots and other forms of delay mechanisms, because she does not want these measures to come to pass. I think that argument has been had and the situation now needs to be resolved, however, and I therefore urge her not to press her amendment to a Division. I am far more interested in the results we can achieve for our constituents and those offenders who desperately need the supervision they are currently not getting than I am in the political arguments.
Sir Edward Garnier
No doubt that might be one of the collateral reasons, but that does not undermine the point I am making, which is that we need to help these under 12-monthers as soon as possible. If we are to have further statutory brakes on the introduction of supervision, either through the national probation service or through the non-Government organisations—
Jenny Chapman
I really did not want to intervene and was trying very hard not to do so, but I just want the hon. and learned Gentleman to understand that we are not opposed in any way whatever to the introduction of supervision for prisoners who serve short sentences, but we believe there are other ways in which that could have been implemented without going through this ridiculous process that the Government are hell-bent on pursuing.
Sir Edward Garnier
Is it St Francis I am reminded of: “Oh Lord make me pure, but not yet”?
Sir Edward Garnier
The right hon. Gentleman and I have many mutual friends who are members of NAPO. Harry Fletcher is a former assistant general-secretary whom we both know and respect. My point was quietly to tease the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) who happened to say in a parliamentary reference book that she was a member of the GMB, but she tells me that that is not the case. I was not making a substantive point but—
Sir Edward Garnier
I do not think that we need to divert into other areas. The short point I am making is that of course there are political differences between my party and Labour over the influence of trade unions. Essentially what I want to get across is that this needs to be done because the victims and the prisoners in question need to be assisted.