The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and
First Secretary of State ()
I would like to update the House on the situation in Hong Kong.
As all Members will know, Hong Kong’s historic success was built
on its autonomy, its freedoms and the remarkable resourcefulness
and determination of its people. We have long admired their
prosperity and their values, respected through China’s own
expression of the one country, two systems approach—an approach
that China itself has long articulated and affirmed as the basis
for its relations with Hong Kong. The UK, through successive
Governments, has consistently respected and supported that model,
as reflected both in China’s Basic Law and also the joint
declaration, which, as Members will know, is the treaty agreed by
the United Kingdom and China, registered with the United Nations,
as part of the arrangements for the handover of Hong Kong that
were made back in 1984.
Set against this Chinese framework and the historical context, on
22 May, during a meeting of the National People’s Congress, China
considered a proposal for a national security law for Hong Kong,
and then on 28 May the National People’s Congress adopted that
decision. China’s Foreign Minister, State Councillor Wang Yi,
made it clear that the legislation will seek to ban treason,
secession, sedition and subversion, and we expect it to be
published in full shortly.
This proposed national security law undermines the one country,
two systems framework that I have described, under which Hong
Kong is guaranteed a high degree of autonomy with Executive,
legislative and independent judicial powers. To be very clear and
specific about this, the imposition of national security
legislation on Hong Kong by the Government in Beijing, rather
than through Hong Kong’s own institutions, lies in direct
conflict with article 23 of China’s own Basic Law and with
China’s international obligations freely assumed under the joint
declaration. The Basic Law is clear that there are only a limited
number of areas in which Beijing can impose laws directly, such
as for the purposes of defence and foreign affairs, or in
exceptional circumstances in which the National People’s Congress
declares a state of war or a state of emergency.
The proposed national security law, as it has been described, in
terms of the substance and detail, raises the prospect of
prosecution in Hong Kong for political crimes, which would
undermine the existing commitments to protect the rights and
freedoms of the people of Hong Kong, as set out in the joint
declaration, but also reflecting the international covenant on
civil and political rights. Finally, the proposals also include
provision for the authorities in Hong Kong to report back to
Beijing on progress in pursuing national security education of
its people—a truly sobering prospect.
We have not yet seen the detailed published text of the
legislation, but I can tell the House that if legislation in
those terms is imposed by China on Hong Kong, it would violate
China’s own Basic Law. It would upend China’s one country, two
systems paradigm, and it would be a clear violation of China’s
international obligations, including those made specifically to
the United Kingdom under the joint declaration.
Let me be clear about the approach that the United Kingdom
intends to take. We do not oppose Hong Kong passing its own
national security law. We do strongly oppose such an
authoritarian law being opposed by China, in breach of
international law. We are not seeking to intervene in China’s
internal affairs, only to hold China to its international
commitments, just as China expects of the United Kingdom. We do
not seek to prevent China’s rise—far from it. We welcome China as
a leading member of the international community, and we look to
engage with China on everything from trade to climate change. It
is precisely because we recognise China’s role in the world that
we expect it to live up to the international obligations and the
international responsibilities that come with it.
On Thursday, working closely with our partners in Australia,
Canada and the United States, the UK released a joint statement
expressing our deep concerns over this proposed new security
legislation. Our partners in New Zealand and Japan have issued
similar statements. The EU has too, and I have had discussions
with a number of our EU partners. The UK stands firm with our
international partners in our expectation that China lives up to
its international obligations under the Sino-British joint
declaration.
There is time for China to reconsider. There is a moment for
China to step back from the brink and respect Hong Kong’s
autonomy and respect China’s own international obligations. We
urge the Government of China to work with the people of Hong Kong
and with the Hong Kong Government to end the recent violence and
to resolve the underlying tensions based on political dialogue.
If China continues down this current path, if it enacts this
national security law, we will consider what further response we
make working with those international partners and others.
I hope the whole House agrees that we, as the United Kingdom,
have historical responsibilities—a duty I would say—to the people
of Hong Kong. I can tell the House now that if China enacts the
law, we will change the arrangements for British National
(Overseas) passport holders in Hong Kong. The House will recall
that the BNO status was conferred on British dependent
territories’ citizens connected with Hong Kong as part of the
package of arrangements that accompanied the joint declaration in
1984 in preparation for the handover of the territory. Under that
status currently, BNO passport holders are already entitled to UK
consular assistance in third countries. The British Government
also provide people with BNO passports visa-free entry into the
UK for up to six months as visitors.
If China follows through with its proposed legislation, we will
put in place new arrangements to allow BNOs to come to the UK
without the current six-month limit, enabling them to live and
apply to study and work for extendable periods of 12 months,
thereby also providing a pathway to citizenship.
Let me just finish by saying that, even at this stage, I
sincerely hope that China will reconsider its approach, but if it
does not the UK will not just look the other way when it comes to
the people of Hong Kong; we will stand by them and live up to our
responsibilities. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Speaker
I shall now call the shadow Foreign Secretary, , who has up to five minutes to
reply.
11.41 am
(Wigan) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for coming to the House to make
this statement and for advance sight of it. In particular, I
thank him for the sentiment of solidarity that he expressed at
the end of his statement.
We are deeply concerned about events in Hong Kong. We share the
Government’s opposition to the national security law. We want to
see real action to address police brutality and the steady
erosion of the joint declaration. We want the people of Hong Kong
to know that the world is watching. We also want them to know
that the world is prepared to act. Can I press the Foreign
Secretary for more clarity on BNO passport holders? We welcome
the announcement that visa rights will be extended. He says that
they will be able to come to the UK if China continues down this
path and implements this legislation. Will he tell us at which
stage he envisages our taking action? When will these measures be
brought before the House? I also ask him for more details about
how this will apply. Will it apply to the 350,000 people who hold
valid passports, or to the 2.9 million who are eligible? For this
to be meaningful, surely it has to apply to people’s families.
Will he confirm whether this is the Government’s intention, and
what assessment he has done of the numbers?
The first rule of any sanction against China must surely be that
it does not harm the people of Hong Kong. Will he tell us what
assessment he has made of the potential loss of millions of
highly skilled people from Hong Kong; and what assessment he has
done of the USA’s recent announcement, which I understand he
supports, that Hong Kong is no longer autonomous? Will he
therefore support the withdrawal of trade preferences and
economic sanctions? There are implications for China and, of
course, implications for the UK, but there are also serious
implications for the people of Hong Kong, many of whom he does
not appear to be offering safe haven to. What impact does he
believe that that will have on them?
We have been asking for concrete steps, and I welcome the fact
that the Government are now signalling that they are prepared to
take these, but the joint declaration has been repeatedly
undermined since 2012. As the former Governor of Hong Kong put
it, that has been met with only “tut-tutting” and “embarrassed
clearing of the throat” from UK Ministers. Why has the Foreign
Secretary not pressed for an independent inquiry into police
brutality? Given the serious implications for human rights, does
he welcome, as we do, the suggestion by former Foreign
Secretaries that an international contact group should be
established? He knows that the only long-term solution to this is
universal suffrage. We must see pressure from Britain on the Hong
Kong authorities to begin the process of democratic reform.
I was astonished that, in his statement, the Foreign Secretary
did not address how the UK intends to respond to the threat of
countermeasures by China. It is increasingly clear that we need
an alliance of democracies to ensure that we can maintain, as he
says, a constructive dialogue with China on shared challenges,
not least on climate change, while standing up to aggressive
behaviour and clear breaches of international law. He referenced
the statements by the UK, Australia, Canada and the US, which was
welcome, and the additional statements from New Zealand, Japan
and the European Union. It is time for an international
democratic alliance to come together and speak with one voice.
The G7 is now off. The G20 is not meeting. The discussion at the
UN Security Council has been blocked by China.
It is time for Britain to be far more proactive. In recent weeks,
Australia has shown real leadership on the search for a vaccine
for covid-19 and France has led the charge for a global
ceasefire. On this of all issues, why is Britain not stepping up
and showing the leadership the world needs?
Finally, I am concerned that this exposes some serious, deep
contradictions in the Government’s approach to China. For a
decade, we have been told that we are in a “golden era” of
Sino-British relations, whereas the right hon. Gentleman has said
that we cannot go back to “business as usual” with China. What
does any of this mean in practice? The Government have finally
accepted that there are concerns about the threat the Huawei
contract poses to national security and are reportedly working
with other countries to explore an alternative, but will he rule
out Chinese involvement in any new nuclear projects beyond
Hinkley? With a long and deep recession likely, the need for a
coherent approach is only becoming more urgent. We do not have a
strategy abroad. We do not have a strategy at home. This needs a
calm and sensible approach, to maintain a constructive dialogue
and build far greater strategic independence; the two are not
contradictory but go hand in hand. Now is the moment that Britain
must step up, show global leadership and begin to take this
seriously.
I thank the hon. Lady for her solidarity and support, as
expressed at the commencement of her remarks. She asked about the
trigger point for changes. It is only right, in order to do this
in a very careful and accurate way, to wait for the legislation
to be published, so that we can see the full text, because, of
course, it is only at that point, or indeed at its application,
that we would be able credibly and reliably to say it was in
violation of the joint declaration in the way I have described. I
think that is a common-sense approach, which allows China, or
other countries around the world that are watching and that we
want to stand up in support of international law, to see that we
are proceeding on the basis of principle and on the facts.
The hon. Lady asked about the detailed arrangements. I have been
working with Ministers, in particular, the Home Secretary and the
Home Office, on this since last September. As I said, we will
wait to see precisely what the legislation says before making any
further announcements, but the Home Secretary will set out the
details at the appropriate time.
Considering families?
Of course, dependants would be considered. The hon. Lady rightly
pointed out that the threat to Hong Kong is not just to its
autonomy and freedoms, but to its economy and to investment in
Hong Kong, which the UK and many others have serious interests
in. The actions of China are, inexplicably, putting at risk what
has long been regarded as one of the jewels in the economic crown
for China. So she makes important points on that.
The hon. Lady asked why we had not called for an independent
investigation into the police, but in fact I called for it in
August 2019 and made that clear, having spoken to chief executive
Carrie Lam. The hon. Lady also asked about universal suffrage,
which of course is envisaged in the basic law for Hong Kong; I
set that out as our position in the House of Commons last
September. On both points I welcome her support and that of the
Labour party. She then asked about international action, where
the United Kingdom has been in the vanguard. We have been
co-ordinating with our Five Eyes partners—I had a virtual meeting
with them yesterday evening, where we reaffirmed our solidarity
on this point. I have had calls and been engaged with the
European Union, which has put out a statement—it is not as strong
as the one we put out, but it shows that the EU is engaged
actively on this. I have been speaking to my German, French and
other European partners about it, and I also spoke to my Japanese
opposite number today. The issue was discussed in the UN Security
Council, but of course China, and indeed Russia, will veto any
more substantive debate.
The hon. Lady asked about the specific measures we are proposing.
I have been very clear on BNOs. Equally, we will work closely
with our international partners on what the right next steps are.
I think the focus right now, in order to proceed in a productive
way that is likely to give ourselves the best chance of the
outcome we want, is on setting out our position clearly and
working with our international partners, and the ball is in the
court of the Government in China. They have a choice to make
here: they can cross the Rubicon and violate the autonomy and the
rights of the people of Hong Kong, or they can step back,
understand the widespread concern of the international community
and live up to their responsibilities as a leading member of the
international community.
Mr Speaker
We now come to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee,
.
(Tonbridge and Malling)
(Con)
I hugely welcome the statement from my right hon. Friend the
Foreign Secretary. May I also say that I welcome a noticeably
different attitude from the Opposition Front Bench in standing up
to communist tyranny for the first time in a political
generation? What we are seeing in Hong Kong is an attempt to
impose a very different form of government on the people there,
who have rights, as agreed, as my right hon. Friend said, in the
Sino-British joint declaration.
My right hon. Friend has already spoken about working with
countries in the Five Eyes community and Japan. May I ask him
what work he has done with African countries, South American
countries and middle eastern countries, and what work is he
looking to do in perhaps asking for a UN special envoy to help
protect the rule of law that our nation, and indeed his former
career, was so important in guaranteeing—not just in Hong Kong,
but around the world?
I thank my hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Select Committee, who
makes a range of really important points. He is absolutely right
to focus on what is the most effective way to build a groundswell
of support for the principled stance that we are taking and for
opposition to the actions of China where they flout international
law. He will also know from his position and his widespread
experience, to which I pay tribute, that beyond Five Eyes, the
European Union and others, there is a whole range of different
opinions on how to engage and deal with China and a range of
approaches that China takes—from inducements to intimidation—to
cajole, sway and, frankly, coerce countries to bend to its will.
The approach that we are taking is trying to maximise the number
of countries around the world—not the usual suspects that China
will dismiss as trying to weaken it or to keep it down—to make
the most powerful statement and, ultimately, to moderate the
actions of China. Unless we can build up that bigger caucus of
opinion—my hon. Friend mentioned Africa and South America, and we
are working with all of those partners—we will be less effective
when it comes to facing down what is clearly egregious behaviour
in relation to Hong Kong and some of the other matters that he
referred to.
Mr Speaker
I call , who has two
minutes. I inform the House that I am expecting to run this
statement till about 12.45 pm.
(Glasgow South)
(SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement
and, like others, I welcome much of what was in it. SNP Members
of course stand in full solidarity with those in Hong Kong, and
indeed those in Taiwan, who see this as a glimpse of what Beijing
might have up its sleeve for them in the future. In fact, anyone
who has the heel of state oppression on them right now—let us be
honest, that is increasing by the day—deserves our support.
I can accept that this is tricky: it is not a black-and-white
situation, given the nature of the actors involved. I think that
what the Government are doing on BNOs is right, but is there not
a danger that allowing so many people to leave is actually
exactly what Beijing wants? While I think it is the right thing
to do to allow people to come here and, as the Foreign Secretary
mentioned in his statement, to provide them with a path to
citizenship, when West Berliners were threatened with oppression,
we did not just offer them all visas to leave; we actually stood
up for them and offered to defend them. Beyond the statement on
BNOs, which is I think right, what else are the Government
planning to do in future to support those who are not BNOs and
who will be left behind in Hong Kong to deal with the effects of
this new law?
I would also like to ask the Foreign Secretary—the Chair of the
Select Committee took the question out of my mouth—to expand on
how he is teasing together a greater international coalition,
because that will be tricky if he is going to bring in the middle
east, Africa and others, given China’s enormous global economic
footprint through such things as the belt and road initiative and
the China strategy. Can I ask him when he expects to see the text
of the law? Is there anything in the joint agreement that allows
the UK Government to see that sooner rather than later? At what
point does he envisage having to take further steps? No one is
calling for sanctions just yet, but surely work must be going on
to put together something that constitutes a price for Beijing’s
heavy hand. Can he confirm whether the law that the authorities
in Beijing want to impose has directly led to a reversal on the
Huawei decision?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the substance and the tone of his
position. We fully welcome his support, as indeed we welcome the
support from all sides in the Chamber. This is a powerful
opportunity for us to show a united position on this. It is
something that successive Governments have agreed on. He asked
whether, if we offered to change BNOs’ status, that would be a
gift to Beijing. I do not think that that is true. I do not
think, from the response of the Chinese Government, that that is
correct. They are very sensitive about this, and in any event it
is a point of principle. We have fought to live up to our
international responsibilities and commitments, and, as I
explained in my statement, we regard this as part of the package
that went with the joint declaration. If that is upended because
of action on the national security legislation, it is only right
that we should rethink the position of BNO passport holders. That
also explains, in relation to the question from the hon. Member
for Wigan (), why we have been quite careful
about timing. We have been prepared for this, and we have hoped
it would not come, but as has often been said in this House, we
hope for the best and prepare for the worst. The hon. Gentleman
asked about how we build up international support. In my view, we
do so based on principle and the rules of international law. The
obvious riposte will be that we are intervening in internal
affairs, but we are not. We are seeking to uphold China’s own
freely assumed international obligations. And no, I am not
expecting advance sight of the legislation from Beijing.
(Chingford and Woodford
Green) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, but does he
not now think that the position of China is altogether too
obvious, and that since President Xi arrived, its ambitions
globally, both militarily and economically, are now fully on
track and Hong Kong is but one manifestation of its global reach
through the South China sea, through its abuse of human rights
and through its ambitions over Taiwan? Is this not a case, as a
previous Prime Minister once said, that this is
“only the first sip…of a bitter cup”,
and that it is going to be offered to us again and again?
Appeasement, which has been the case for the free world, is now
no longer an option, so will my right hon. Friend now explain how
he intends to organise the free world so that we stand up against
this? Also, will he now work with all our allies around the world
to get them to give all Hong Kong passport holders right of
abode, if necessary?
I thank my right hon. Friend for his excellent questions. I do
think Hong Kong is part of a pattern, although it is not a
uniform one. He referred to the violation of the UN convention on
the law of the sea—I think that is what he was referring to in
relation to the South China sea—and we could add cyber-attacks
and the treatment of the Uighur Muslims. At every step, the right
approach for the United Kingdom, as a matter of principle and
also of effectiveness, is to call out behaviour that is contrary
to international law on its own terms. In answer to the Chairman
of the Select Committee and others, that is how we will build a
coalition of like-minded countries to stand firm in the face of
such behaviour.
My right hon. Friend asked about BNO passport holders. We have
made a commitment, which he has heard today. It is important that
we did that as a matter of principle, rather than waiting for
others to agree in concept. However, we are already discussing
with our partners—I raised it on the Five Eyes call yesterday—the
possibility of burden sharing if we see a mass exodus from Hong
Kong. I do not think that that is likely in the last analysis,
but he is right to raise it, and we are on the case
diplomatically.
(Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
May I particularly welcome the commitment in relation to BNO
passport holders? The Foreign Secretary has heard me make that
plea on many occasions in the past. He will be aware, though,
that the BNO offer was closed in 1997, so the announcement today
does not offer any protection to those born after that date, who
are, by definition, the brave young Hong Kongers who are out
there demonstrating on the streets, and who are most vulnerable
and in most need of protection. Will he look at what we can do to
assist these people?
I thank the right hon. Gentleman and pay tribute to him for his
long-standing and principled position on this issue; he is
absolutely right, and we appreciate all the cross-party support
on this. He asked about those who do not qualify for BNO passport
status. I would just point out that we are talking about over
300,000 people who do qualify. Of course, he makes a reasonable
point about the cut-off date, but that would not apply to
dependants. We have set out—based on principle, in the right
way—the commitment that we are making but, as others have already
mentioned, what will be important is that the international
community comes together to ensure that there are options for the
wider group to which the right hon. Gentleman refers.
(Henley) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s clear statement, and I am glad
that he agrees that China’s national security law for Hong Kong
totally conflicts with its obligations under the joint
declaration. Will he say a little more about what we plan to do
with Australia because, of the countries around the world, it has
the most to fear from this law coming into effect in Hong Kong?
I thank my hon. Friend, and welcome his remarks and comments. He
is absolutely right about the violation of the joint declaration,
whether that is through the infringements of peaceful protests or
the legislation regarding the national anthem. He specifically
asked about Australia. As he will have seen from the statement
that the UK has put out, we work closely with the Australians on
this matter, as we do with all our Five Eyes partners: the
Canadians, the Americans and the Kiwis as well. I spoke to Marise
Payne yesterday evening about this subject, and we will be
working even more intensely in the future.
Of course, even to get to this point—the work that we have done
and the commitment that we have made—we have been talking to the
Australians and our other international partners for months, and
that will continue constructively. I know that the Australians
feel very much that this situation is in their neighbourhood and
backyard, and are taking a very principled point of view, but
they are right up against it; they see all the impacts of what
China is doing, even closer than we do, and we will be working
hand in glove with them.
(Leicester East) (Lab)
Amnesty International found that the Hong Kong police force has
indiscriminately arrested over 1,300 people in the past year at
peaceful protests, and has tortured those in detention. It has
used extreme force against pro-democracy protesters, including
the use of tear gas, pepper spray and rubber bullets. In America,
we see a brutal state crackdown against protests in response to
the latest police killing of an unarmed black man, and in England
and Wales there have been over 1,700 deaths following contact
with the police since 1990. What are the Government doing to
oppose state-sanctioned violence and racism in Hong Kong and
across the world?
We stand up in the United Nations, the Council of Europe and all
the other international forums, as we are doing regarding Hong
Kong, and call out those flagrant violations of international
law. I have set out the approach that we are taking in relation
to Hong Kong. We have raised the matter in the UN Security
Council, of which China is obviously a permanent member. China is
extremely influential. It deploys all its economic and political
leverage—and, indeed, intimidation—to get others to stay quiet.
What the United Kingdom has shown—and I am grateful for the hon.
Lady’s support—is that we are standing up as a matter of
principle and saying, “This is unacceptable”, and we are taking
the actions that I described.
(Eastleigh) (Con)
At the 1997 Hong Kong handover ceremony, said:
“Hong Kong people are to run Hong Kong. That is the promise. And
that is the unshakeable destiny.”
Will the Foreign Secretary take this moment to reaffirm this
Government’s commitment to the commitment that we made in the
joint declaration, and reassure people that Hong Kongers must
continue to run Hong Kong and that that resolutely remains
British foreign policy?
It is precisely because that is at stake—in respect of not only
the national security legislation but the previous elections we
saw and the forthcoming elections later this year—that we are
taking the approach that we are. We are calling out what is a
clear and manifest breach of the joint declaration, and I
reassure my hon. Friend that we will continue to do so, with our
international partners.
(Grantham and Stamford)
(Con)
A number of British businesses with headquarters in Hong Kong are
likely to be quite concerned right now. What is the Foreign
Secretary’s assessment of the likely risks to the Hong Kong
dollar peg, as well as the potential for control creep in Hong
Kong’s regulatory bodies and fiscal structures?
My hon. Friend is quite right to reflect, as others have done
already, on the fact that if China is willing to interfere on
political and autonomy grounds, it is also likely to pose a
longer-term threat to the economic prosperity and economic model
that Hong Kong reflects and embodies. We in the UK are mindful of
that, not only from an investment point of view but, frankly,
from the point of view of individuals who are trying to run
livelihoods or invest in Hong Kong. The sad reality is that if
China continues down this track, it will strangle what has long
been the jewel in the economic crown. It is clear to me that
China is putting politics, as it views it, ahead of economics. I
am afraid that is a natural consequence of the creeping violation
of Hong Kong’s autonomy that we see.
(Edinburgh South West)
(SNP)
Freedom of expression and peaceful assembly are precious human
rights the world over. I am sure we have all been reminded of
that as we have watched the situation in the United States of
America develop over the past 48 hours—I heard what the hon.
Member for Leicester East () had to say about that—but
what specific representations and specific pressure is the
Secretary of State bringing to bear on the Government of Hong
Kong to ensure that police handling of protests is necessary and
proportionate?
I totally agree with the hon. and learned Lady on that point. We
disagree about many things, but one thing about which we have
always firmly agreed is the upholding of those elementary human
rights, including the essential freedoms of peaceful protest,
which are the aspiration of the people of Hong Kong. As I
mentioned to the shadow Foreign Secretary, the hon. Member for
Wigan (), I raised the need for a fully
independent and robust investigation into the recent events,
including the police treatment of protesters, in my first
conversation with Carrie Lam back on 9 August. I made that clear
then and we have done so consistently since. We recognise the
concerns about the Independent Police Complaints Council and we
have been working to see what we can do to reinforce it and to
make it stronger. We also recognise the inherent weaknesses in
it, which is why we will continue, in line with the shadow
Foreign Secretary, to call for a fully independent inquiry into
those actions. I hope the hon. and learned Lady will support
that.
(New Forest
East) (Con)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Romford () has often pointed out,
only 500 veterans of the former Hong Kong Military Service Corps
and royal naval service were offered UK passports in 1997; the
rest were disregarded. Has not the time now come to pay this debt
of honour to around 250 additional former servants of the British
Crown by allowing them and their families the right to relocate
to the United Kingdom if they wish or need to do so in future?
My right hon. Friend makes an extremely important and forensic
point, as ever. As a Government and as a country we are extremely
grateful to those who served in the Hong Kong Military Service
Corps. He is right that under the scheme, which was introduced in
1990 and ran until July 1997, only a limited number of Hong Kong
Military Service Corps personnel who were settled in Hong Kong
could apply to register as a British citizen. The Home Office is
listening to representations made on behalf of those former
service corps personnel who were unable to obtain citizenship at
that time too see what, if anything, further may be done.
(Brighton, Kemptown)
(Lab/Co-op)
Rubber bullets, tear gas, central Governments clamping down on
local authorities—this is not just, of course, what we are seeing
in America, but it is a long-term trend in Hong Kong. I welcome
what the Secretary of State has said, but I implore him to see
this not just as the enactment of a particular Bill in Beijing
but as a long-term trend of undermining the rights of people in
Hong Kong. Will the Foreign Secretary ensure that this extension
of the right to be here for six months on a rolling basis for
British national overseas citizens is not just granted on
condition of whether Beijing withdraws a particular Bill
temporarily? Whatever it does, we should ensure that rights is
given, and not just to passport holders but to all people who are
entitled to BNO status.
I think the hon. Gentleman is right on this point of principle.
We want to make sure that we live up to our responsibilities, but
it is also important, as we try to change the long-term trend to
which he rightly refers, that we are clear about the basis on
which we would do it. The basis is the ripping up of the essence
of the joint declaration. We need to wait and see what the
national security legislation looks like, to see affirmed the
terms that have already been described by the Government in
Beijing. We are right to say that that particular trigger point
would change our minds, because then we would be able to stand on
the firm point of principle and international law as the basis on
which we were extending those rights. The stronger the position
we are able to be in in that regard, the more likely we are to
carry wide international support for the actions that we take.
(Colne Valley) (Con)
In article 45 of the Hong Kong Basic Law, the Hong Kong people
were promised universal suffrage. It is clear that that is being
ignored. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the UK now has a
legal and moral responsibility to protect the freedoms of the
people of Hong Kong?
I totally agree with my hon. Friend about the moral
responsibility and our responsibility in terms of the commitments
that we have made to the people of Hong Kong. We fully intend to
live up to those responsibilities. There is still an opportunity
for China to step back; we think it is unlikely that that will
happen, but we will be steadfast in sticking to the word that we
have given to stand by the people of Hong Kong and not just look
the other way.
(Blaydon) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary has said that there can be no return to
“business as usual” in Sino-British relations. What exactly did
he mean, and can he give examples of what this will mean in
practice?
That quote has been much bandied around. It is absolutely right.
The context for it was when I was asked what we would do in order
to have a clear review of how the outbreak of coronavirus started
and came about. I wanted to be clear, and the United Kingdom is
clear, working with our international partners and as a matter of
principle, that we need to have a sober and clear-sighted
independent review and analysis of how the outbreak happened, how
it was allowed to spread and what we can do to prevent it from
ever happening again.
(Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Foreign Secretary will be aware of the concern of charities
such as Amnesty International and Hong Kong Watch about how these
laws could impact on the work that they carry out in the
territory and that the political opposition more generally could
be accused of subversion and imprisoned simply for speaking to
foreigners with ties to foreign Governments. Will he commit to
the hilt to support the work of charities and non-governmental
organisations operating in Hong Kong for the protection and
freedom of its citizens?
I can give the hon. Gentleman that reassurance. Of course, the
climate for NGOs, and for anyone speaking out in an independent
forum, whether in the media or otherwise, has massively closed
down. That is not just wrong as a matter of principle and the
values that we share in the House. It is wrong as a matter of the
joint declaration, but also as a matter of China’s view of Hong
Kong’s future, reflected in Chinese law, and in particular the
Basic Law.
Mr (South West Hertfordshire)
(Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Does he agree
that the national security law proposed by Beijing undermines the
one country, two systems framework? Will he assure me that the UK
will continue to be robust to stop the creeping violations of
Hong Kong rights and continue to work with our international
friends and colleagues?
I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. Of course,
we are dealing with a major economic power that relies on all its
economic and political leverage and, indeed, other means, to
bring different countries and Governments to its way of thinking
or just to quieten them down. Our approach—as I have described,
based on principle and international law—is therefore the most
likely to be effective in building up that groundswell of support
that has the best chance of changing China’s behaviour.
(Oxford West and Abingdon)
(LD)
As far back as 1989, the late, great Paddy Ashdown called on the
Government to institute safeguards just in case one day China not
just overreached but breached the joint declaration. We now
potentially find ourselves in that position. Hongkongers are
finding that the world is shifting beneath their feet, with
nowhere to go. I understand that former Foreign Secretaries have
written to the current Foreign Secretary, asking him to set up an
international contact group to look at international human rights
and also a lifeboat policy for Hongkongers. Has he considered
their call and will he set up such a group?
I pay tribute to the late Lord Paddy Ashdown for all his work.
The UK is in the vanguard of the international response on Hong
Kong. I am not sure that we are quite in the same situation with
China and Hong Kong as we were with the former Yugoslavia, on
which I worked as a war crimes lawyer in the early 2000s. None
the less, the spirit of the hon. Lady’s question is absolutely
right. As I have described, we want to build up a groundswell of
those who share our commitment to the basic tenets of
international law. That is most likely to be effective in getting
China to think again about Hong Kong and all those other areas.
We have raised China’s conduct on human rights issues in the
Human Rights Council and the United Nations Security Council, and
we will raise Hong Kong in every appropriate forum that we
conceivably can.
(Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and his commitment on
BNO passport holders. Back in the 1990s, this country, with a
degree of regret, fulfilled its international legal obligations
to China. We must be absolutely clear to the Chinese that we
expect them to do the same now with the people of Hong Kong and
with this country. Will he make it absolutely clear to the
Chinese Government that although we want constructive relations
in future, that will be incredibly difficult if they go ahead
with a measure that completely breaches the agreement they have
with us and sends entirely the wrong message to the international
community about what China wishes to become?
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his long-standing
position on the issue. He is absolutely right. We are not looking
for inevitable confrontation with China. This is a question of
specific undertakings, which were made at the time of the
handover, to the United Kingdom and, more important, to the
people of Hong Kong—and, indeed, to the world. We will, with our
international partners, press rigorously and robustly to try to
require China to live up to its obligations and, frankly, the
responsibilities that come with wanting to be treated as a
leading member of the international community.
(York Central)
(Lab/Co-op)
There has been a clear undermining of the human rights of the
people of Hong Kong and a blatant breach of the Sino-British
joint declaration. The Foreign Secretary says that he has been
calling for an independent inquiry for 10 months. Why has nothing
happened? What support are the Government giving to human rights
defenders in Hong Kong?
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s spirit, but nothing has happened
because we do not control China or the Government in Hong Kong.
It is not entirely clear to me what specifically she proposes. I
am open to all suggestions. I welcome them.
(Rhondda) (Lab)
Magnitsky!
We have called for a fully independent investigation in relation
to police treatment of the protesters. We will introduce our
mechanism for so-called Magnitsky legislation shortly. [Hon.
Members: “When?”] We have been slightly disrupted because of
coronavirus, but we will bring it forward shortly. I pay tribute
to the work of the hon. Member for Rhondda (), who speaks from a sedentary
position and has a long-standing position on the issue.
(Gedling) (Con)
If the international security law is imposed on Hong Kong, will
my right hon. Friend confirm that he will work with the Home
Secretary to explore all options to support BNO passport holders?
I agree with the spirit of my hon. Friend’s question. The ideal
thing would be for China to step back. If China does not step
back, we will consider all the possible actions and measures that
we might wish to take. Fundamentally, rather than just wait for
international co-operation on the specific issue of what will
happen to those who are not willing to stay in Hong Kong, we feel
that we have a duty—as a matter of international law, moral
responsibility and historical responsibility—to come out and
lead. That is why we have said that we will allow the
300,000-plus passport holders, along with their dependants, to
come to the UK in the way I described.
(Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is right that we take our special historical responsibilities
seriously and take a significant interest in this issue, but we
know that, when we do take an interest in such issues, diaspora
communities at home suffer more. The Chinese community and people
of Chinese heritage in Nottingham and, frankly, across the
country, have had a horrendous first five months to this year,
with abuse increased in staggering amounts. Can I therefore seek
assurances from the Foreign Secretary that, as well as the
admirably assertive role he is going to play on the international
stage, he is working with his colleagues across Government to
formulate a sympathetic package and a thoughtful way of
supporting Chinese people and those of a Chinese background in
this country, because they really need us now?
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I have a councillor in my
constituency, , who is not only one of the
most hard-working businessmen, but one of the most hard-working
councillors, and I am sure we all have examples of that across
the country and across the political divides. It is crucial that
we say to the Chinese community here that we value their
contribution, that our stance is in relation to the Government of
China and their violation of the rights and the autonomy of the
people of Hong Kong. We will extend warm engagement to the people
of Hong Kong and embrace them in the way I have described with
the change of status so that they can come here, and I fully
support what the hon. Gentleman said.
(North Somerset) (Con)
I welcome very much my right hon. Friend’s statement. Does he
agree that China itself is now at a crossroads? It can either be
a partner in the international community, which is what we want
to see, or take the path to becoming a pariah state with disputes
in the South China sea, at the World Trade Organisation and a
lack of co-operation with the World Health Organisation over
covid. Does he agree that if the Chinese Communist party applies
these laws to Hong Kong in clear breach of previous commitments,
the world will start to wonder what the value is of a Chinese
signature on an international treaty? That would have profound
international consequences.
I thank my right hon. Friend. He is absolutely right that at the
core of this, beyond all the specific issues that he has
raised—freedom of navigation in the South China sea, the issue of
transparency and getting to the truth in relation to the initial
outbreak of coronavirus, the wider issues around cyber-attacks
that China engages in and, of course, the issue of the people of
Hong Kong—this is a question not just of international law and
rights and the violations of those rights, but of trust and
confidence in the kind of partner that China wishes to become. As
I have said unapologetically, we wish to engage with China. We do
not wish to prevent its rise. We wish to welcome China’s rise,
but I think what my right hon. Friend describes is absolutely
right: China must live up to the obligations and responsibilities
that come with that status.
(Vauxhall)
(Lab/Co-op)
In his statement, the Foreign Secretary mentioned that the UK
will not look away when it comes to the people of Hong Kong. The
Hong Kong protest movement has been driven by disenfranchised
young people who just want representation, and that can only
happen if there is democratic reform. As a co-signatory to the
joint declaration, the UK Government have a duty to hold China
accountable for the promise it made on this issue. Will he call
on the Hong Kong Government to enact political reform and give
the Hong Kong people universal suffrage?
I agree with the hon. Lady. I made my view clear in the House of
Commons on 26 September 2019 in my first debate on Hong Kong, and
I welcome her support for the position of the Government. Of
course, the bottom line is that we cannot force China and no one
is seriously suggesting, I think, that we can do so through
coercive measures. What we must do is build up a groundswell of
international support, based on standing up for principle, rights
and the rules of the international system, to persuade China that
it will be bad for China, bad for Hong Kong and bad for its own
aspirations for it to continue down this path.
(Bath) (LD)
In the spirit of solidarity across the Benches on this issue, I
pay tribute to a previous MP for Bath and the last Governor of
Hong Kong, , for all he has done and
continues to do for the people of Hong Kong. One of my
constituents was born in Hong Kong before 1997, but for one
reason or another, his parents never applied for a BNO passport.
Will the Secretary of State ensure that those who are eligible
but have so far not been BNO passport holders can apply for one?
Of course, that is something we will look at. I agree with the
hon. Lady about paying tribute to the noble in the other place for all
the work that he did on the handover and as the last Governor.
What we want to do—I think this is true across the House, from
all the different parties—is live up to the responsibilities that
we made at the time.
(Wycombe) (Con)
Is it not most unlikely that China will step back from its
actions at this stage, because what it is doing is a projection
of political power struggles at the top of the Communist party?
If my right hon. Friend believes, as I do, that that is possible,
does he agree that it is therefore necessary for the Government
to prepare to permanently welcome a broader scope of people to
the UK and, with them, their capital so that they can be
permanently established here, where we are still free?
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend because I know he stands for the
cause of liberty wherever it may be—I have always been shoulder
to shoulder with him and I am glad to be again. In relation to
the people of Hong Kong, we have set out a very principled and
generous approach. If we look at the numbers potentially
involved, we are talking about over 300,000 holders of BNO
passports and, in terms of those eligible, close to 3 million. So
I think the UK, in the terms that I have described, is doing its
bit, but we also need to work with our wider international
partners who have significant Hong Kong communities, and a
significant stake and interests in Hong Kong, to make sure that
that is a broader international response. He is right to exude
some scepticism about whether China will row back, but we have to
give it every opportunity, even if it is only a marginal one.
(Newcastle upon Tyne Central)
(Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary standing full square behind the
people of Hong Kong. I believe that our economic standing is
enhanced, rather than diminished, when Britain stands up for
human rights across the world, but does the Foreign Secretary
accept that we would be less susceptible to accusations of
hypocrisy if he condemned President Trump’s words and actions in
saying,
“when the looting starts, the shooting starts”
and in last night using tear gas to clear peaceful Black Lives
Matter demonstrators?
I understand the concern, as does anyone who has watched those
distressing pictures in relation to George Floyd or indeed the
wider protests and violence across America—we all want to see
America come together, not tear itself apart. I just gently say
to the hon. Lady that there is a federal review of what has often
been state action under way and charges have already been brought
in relation to the perpetrator. Therefore—I am not sure whether
she was trying to do this—I would be a bit careful about the
moral equivalence between what is happening in the United States,
however sobering and troubling it is, and what is happening in
China.
(Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Where does he
think the United Nations is with this issue? The democratic
freedoms of the people of Hong Kong are enshrined in
international law and an international treaty lodged at the UN,
but given what he said a few moments ago about the way China uses
its negative influence to try to silence other countries, does he
regard the UN as a lost cause when it comes to defending the
people of Hong Kong? What we should be seeing right now is a UN
special envoy being put in place to help lead the international
effort.
I pay tribute to the work that my right hon. Friend has been
doing with other parliamentarians on this subject. He is right to
press for what we are doing at the UN. There are, of course, some
inherent limitations on what we can do in relation to a permanent
member, with the veto that comes with it in the Security Council.
We have raised this in the UN Security Council, although there
are all sorts of challenges, as the hon. Member for Wigan
described, and we have raised China’s behaviour in the past in
relation to human rights in the Human Rights Council.
Fundamentally, I think it is important—this is why we have framed
our response in the way that we have to garner as much support in
the United Nations and equivalent bodies as possible—to base this
on principle, international law and the UN’s own international
covenant on civil and political rights. That seems to me the
surest way to build up the groundswell of support in the UN that
my right hon. Friend described.
(Slough) (Lab)
The Hong Kong people are rightly relying on us to show solidarity
at this point, especially when Hong Kong police have used extreme
force against pro-democracy protesters, including the use of
rubber bullets, pepper spray and tear gas. Is the Foreign
Secretary concerned about that and what precise steps has he
taken to help avert this in future?
The hon. Gentleman picks up on a point that has been raised by a
number of colleagues. I am absolutely concerned about it. I
raised the issue with Carrie Lam, the Chief Executive of Hong
Kong, the first time I spoke to her, back in August. We have
consistently raised it since. The so-called Independent Police
Complaints Council is in place. We have serious concerns about
its independence. I think that is what fuelled the remarks by the
shadow Foreign Secretary. Of course, though, as the hon.
Gentleman I think will recognise, there are limits to what we can
do in practice to force, or to require, either China or the
authorities in Hong Kong to see sense on some of this. The way we
will do it is by exercising our soft power and our influence and
by building up a groundswell of support, and the best way to
achieve that is based on principle, including human rights and
international law.
(East Worthing and Shoreham)
(Con)
A million Tibetans killed by Chinese oppression, 2 million
Uighurs incarcerated in re-education concentration camps, and now
7.5 million Hong Kong citizens about to see their civil liberties
and freedom of expression snuffed out. I acknowledge and applaud
the Foreign Secretary’s strong statement, but closer to home,
does he share my concern that a country with such a flagrant
disregard for human rights is buying and bullying influence on
British campuses and in British schools and British boardrooms?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the point of
principle that we must be very mindful, across campuses and
universities and generally, in relation to China and otherwise,
to protect the freedom of expression and freedom of speech that
we are now jealously guarding for the people of Hong Kong. He is
right to raise the concerns around undue influence that
effectively trails back to the Chinese Government. That is
something we are actively looking at.
(West Aberdeenshire and
Kincardine) (Con)
The very fact that we are debating here today and seem to be
speaking with one voice will send a strong message to the people
of Hong Kong of our support for them at this time. With the
postponement of the G7, when does the Prime Minister plan to
raise this issue with President Xi?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We will raise this, as we
have raised it consistently, with the Chinese Government at every
level—of course, to the extent that they are willing to engage.
The important point is to engage with China, to the extent that
we can, on these very specific points and the specific basis that
I have set out. Of course, China just looks the other way and
wants to ignore and flout not just international law but
international opinion, and of course there are going to be
consequences for its own ambitions in the world.
(Glasgow Central)
(SNP)
The Foreign Secretary has talked about the potential to extend to
BNO passport holders the right to stay in the UK for an
extendable period of 12 months. What would happen after those 12
months? What specific discussions has he had with his colleagues
at the Home Office? What rights will be extended to those
passport holders’ dependants?
The purpose of offering extendable periods of 12 months is that
there will be no guillotine that comes down. It allows BNO
passport holders to come here. We are removing the six-month
limitation. They can apply to work and study, and that will
itself create a path to citizenship. I have been engaged with the
Home Secretary and, indeed, other Ministers since last September,
looking at the detail. There is further consideration that we are
giving to it. Of course, it is about giving effect to those
rights as effectively as possible, but also doing it in the most
straightforward and swift way we possibly can.
(South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary is right to suggest that the national
security legislation has a sense of inevitability about it. Will
he therefore go further and make it clear to Hong Kongers that
they will always be welcome here and that the Government regard
them as a potential boon, not a burden, and in so doing make it
very clear that, post Brexit, we are global Britain and not
little England?
I entirely share that spirit. As someone whose father and his
family, to the extent that they were able to, came here as
refugees, I think this country has a proud tradition of standing
up as a haven for those who flee persecution, and I know the Home
Secretary feels the same way. We absolutely intend to live up to
our responsibilities, not just as a matter of obligation but
because that is what the British people do at their very best.
(Newcastle upon Tyne
North) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary has rightly made known the Government’s
concerns and our collective concerns about the erosion of
autonomy and democratic rights in Hong Kong. I have listened
carefully to his responses. Will he say more specifically what
consideration he has given to our future trading relationship
with China in the event that it continues down this very
troubling path?
The hon. Lady raises a perfectly good point. We will talk with
all our international partners about this. China’s size and scale
and potential growth means it has asymmetric economic power in
this regard, but of course we are not going to just turn a blind
eye. I have set out the measures, and we will look very carefully
with our wider partners at what further action we can take. We
want to try to engage with China and moderate its conduct, and
that will be the lodestar for the action we take and that we try
to galvanise the international community to take.
(Aylesbury) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary’s statement standing up for the people of
Hong Kong is very welcome, not least given our historical ties
and responsibilities. Will my right hon. Friend outline to the
House what action he is taking with other members of the
Commonwealth to combat the proposed actions of the Chinese
Government?
I spoke last night to my opposite numbers from New Zealand,
Australia and Canada, along with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo,
but that is the starting point, not the point of arrival. We have
got to make sure we build this up into a broader groundswell.
Working with Five Eyes and our European partners is important,
but I have also spoken both to people within the Commonwealth and
outside—I spoke to my Japanese opposite number this morning—and
we must try to make this as broad a group as possible, based on a
like-minded attachment to the principles of, and adherence to,
international law.
(St Austell and Newquay)
(Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend and also the Home Secretary for the
steps they are taking to support the BNO passport holders. China
has an appalling track record when it comes to the rights of
Christians and other faith groups, and there is growing concern
among Church leaders in Hong Kong in light of recent
developments, so what assessment has my right hon. Friend made of
the particular threat to Christians there, and will he ensure
that everything possible is done to defend the rights of belief,
worship and freedom of speech in Hong Kong?
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and he is absolutely
right to pay tribute to the Home Office and the Home Secretary
for assiduously working on this with my Department and others for
months. We will stand up for freedom of religion and freedom of
expression wherever it stands and whichever minority or group is
seeking to avail itself of it. That is a point of principle—that
is what we are about—and that applies to Christian minorities and
to the Uighur Muslims as well. We have, of course, my hon. Friend
the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (), the Prime Minister’s
special envoy specifically dedicated to working around the world
on this issue.
(Bristol East) (Lab)
As the Foreign Secretary has acknowledged, there is concern not
just about what is happening in Hong Kong but also the treatment
of the Uighur Muslims and Falun Gong practitioners and what is
happening not just in terms of human rights abuses in Tibet but
the terrible environmental destruction going on there, too. The
Foreign Secretary mentioned the asymmetric economic power of
China, and also implied that, basically, China’s refusal to
engage on human rights dialogue means it can get away with doing
whatever it wants; is that really the case?
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and understand the spirit
in which she asked it. She made some important points, and the
asymmetric economic size and growth of China is a fact and the
important thing we can do is engage with China as it rises and
wishes to take up the mantle of being a leading member of the
international community—trying to shape the rules of the
international system, which it is undoubtedly trying to do, as we
can see from the number of elections in which it runs in
international organisations—working with our partners to say,
“I’m sorry, but unless you’re willing to live up to the
obligations and responsibilities that come with that role, you
won’t get the kind of support that will allow you to realise
those aspirations.” I have had previous conversations with State
Councillor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi on this subject and I
will continue to engage with him as constructively as possible at
any moment in time, but of course it requires the Chinese
Government to be willing to engage on their side as well.
(Ashford) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his exemplary approach to
this crisis so far. Will he recognise, not least from our
exchanges this morning, that he has the chance to unite the House
and the country behind a complete reset of our approach,
recognising that the Chinese Government are implacably hostile to
our democracy, to our values and to our global interests, and
that Government policy should in future reflect that sobering but
realistic analysis?
I thank my right hon. Friend, and he is right to say that the
actions in relation to Hong Kong and in other areas are opposed
to our values as well as our interests. I certainly welcome the
fact that we have, it feels to me, a groundswell of cross-party
consensus on this issue, because we are stronger when we are
bigger than the sum of our parts and we are more effective in
getting our message across. We now have to translate that into
the wider international community.
(Rhondda) (Lab)
I applaud the Foreign Secretary for what he has said; he is being
very, very reasonable and, as the right hon. Member for Ashford
()
said, has the whole House behind him. I just want more oomph from
him—a bit more vim and determination—because these are really
important principles; the rule of law around the world must hold.
So I say to him: please, please, please, bring forward the
blasted Magnitsky regulations, which he proposed when he was a
Back Bencher. I want him to bring them back to the Dispatch Box,
not in weeks, months and years, but in days and hours.
I will do my level best to get this before the House before the
summer recess. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who is most
understanding, will recognise that one or two other things have
displaced our focus—[Interruption.] I should point out to the
hon. Member for Wigan () that the Government have not
been in power, and I have not been Foreign Secretary, for two
years, but we will get on with it. I share the hon. Gentleman’s
restlessness to deliver it and look forward to his support when
we do.
(Keighley) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. This country has long
and historic ties with Hong Kong, and we must take this
relationship extremely seriously. Can he assure me that we
continue to stand up for British nationals overseas in Hong Kong,
who will see their freedoms curtailed by Beijing if this law is
passed?
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. We have tried to proceed at
the right moment and in the right way, with the generosity of
spirit that defines this country at its very finest and in a way
that reaches out to and shows people in Hong Kong that if China
follows through on this they can come to the warm embrace of this
country. We will make the practical arrangements, which of course
are not straightforward, to give effect to those aspirations.
(Glasgow East) (SNP)
People in the House have rightly taken note of the fact that we
must protect freedom of expression and assembly, and 4 June would
normally see people marking the Tiananmen anniversary, but the
authorities in Hong Kong do not seem to be allowing it to go
ahead. What representations have the British Government made that
would allow people to mark the anniversary in a socially distant
way so as to allow that freedom of expression and assembly?
The authorities in Hong Kong have today confirmed that they will
not allow the Tiananmen commemoration, which has typically taken
place for many years. In fairness, they have explained that on
the grounds of coronavirus, but I share the hon. Gentleman’s
concerns within the wider context. It is worrying and disturbing,
and we will continue to raise all these points, whether on the
issue he has raised, the British national overseas passports, the
national security law, the new legislation on the national
anthem, or the wider panoply of measures that China is taking.
(Broadland) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s explanation of the Government’s
position and his recognition of the growing list of acts of
intimidation, authoritarianism and expansionism by the Communist
party of China. Is this announcement an individual response to an
isolated incident or part of a wider reappraisal of our foreign
policy towards China? Does he think that the long-applied and
hopeful policy of positive engagement with China is not having
the desired outcome? If so, how should this approach change?
I certainly agree that there are huge challenges in engagement
with China across a whole suite of issues, from cyber through to
intellectual property theft and of course the people of Hong
Kong. We have said throughout that we are not seeking to contain
China as a matter of dogmatic strategy; we are seeking to engage
with it. There are also opportunities in the relationship—on
trade and on climate change, with some of the green technology it
is capable of innovating as well as in relation to its role as a
major emitter—and we want to engage to accentuate those
opportunities and mitigate the risks involved. The issue with
Hong Kong is different. It is a point of principle and relates to
the historic ties to which Members on both sides of the House
have referred. That is why we have set out such detail. We will
stand by this relationship and continue to seek to engage, as
difficult as it may be, but we will also be clear that if China
flouts international law, or those wider values and principles
that we hold dear, we will stand up and act. Equally, we will
defend the key equities that we have in this country, whether in
relation to intellectual property theft or telecoms.
(North East Fife)
(LD)
Yesterday, I was contacted by a constituent who is an overseas
student at St Andrews University; he did not apply for a BNO
passport at the time of the original offer because he was a
toddler, and his parents did not apply on his behalf. I welcome
the Foreign Secretary’s statement, but there are many Hong Kong
citizens who, like my constituent, did not receive a BNO passport
in the first place and missed out. Will he consider the proposal
made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland
(Mr Carmichael) in his Hong Kong Bill, which I sponsored, which
would offer a pathway to citizenship for all Hong Kong citizens.
We need to be realistic about the volume of people that we in
this country could credibly and responsibly absorb. I do not
think we can have this debate without acknowledging that. The
fact is, though, that we have an historic set of
responsibilities, as I set out earlier, and we will live up to
them. Perhaps the hon. Lady should get in touch with my right
hon. Friend the Home Secretary regarding the particular case she
raised, to see what more can be done around eligibility.
(Birmingham, Northfield)
(Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I had little hope but all faith in you to
get me in at 50!
Hong Kong’s autonomy and freedoms are what have allowed it to
become so successful and prosperous. Does my right hon. Friend
share my concern that the new national security law will put that
prosperity and Hong Kong’s international standing in grave
danger?
On all sorts of grounds—standing, economic—China’s actions are
entirely self-defeating, as well as flouting its responsibilities
to the people of Hong Kong and the international commitments it
has made. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.
