Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the
proposal by China’s National People’s Congress for a national
security law in Hong Kong and what impact the anti-sedition laws
will have on the “one country, two systems” framework and the
civil liberties of those living in Hong Kong.
The Question was considered in a Virtual Proceeding via video
call.
(CB)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on
the Order Paper, and in so doing declare my interests both as a
patron of Hong Kong Watch and as vice-chairman of the All-Party
Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and
Department for International Development () (Con)
My Lords, we are deeply concerned at the decision of China’s
National People’s Congress to impose a national security law on
Hong Kong. If implemented, the imposition of a proposed new
national security law will lie in direct conflict with China’s
international obligations under the principles of the legally
binding, UN-registered Sino-British joint declaration. We are
fully committed to upholding Hong Kong’s autonomy and respecting
the “one country, two systems” model, which that law would call
into question.
My Lords, last week, in giving evidence to a Westminster hearing,
a young doctor reminded us that under the new law he could be
arrested and disappeared for doing so. Two days before the 31st
anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, how will the
Government ensure that their welcome lifeboat policy will provide
for Hong Kong’s defenders of democracy, such as that young
doctor, or already arrested lawyers such as Margaret Ng and
Martin Lee? How will they sanction those who have collaborated in
the destruction of “two systems, one country”? Will we deepen the
international response at the forthcoming G7 by forming the
international contact group proposed by seven former Foreign
Secretaries and develop a Helsinki-style response in line with
the call made by over 650 parliamentarians from 34 different
countries?
My Lords, as I said, we are deeply concerned by these actions.
The action of the National People’s Congress in invoking this law
has caused great concern, both in Hong Kong and internationally.
I assure the noble Lord, while acknowledging and praising the
work he does in standing up for human rights, not just in Hong
Kong but internationally, that we remain very committed to
standing up for the rights of human rights defenders in Hong
Kong. We have registered our serious concern with the Hong Kong
and Chinese authorities about recent arrests and we remain
committed to raising the issue of Hong Kong in partnership with
like-minded international partners. I am sure that the noble Lord
recently noted statements made by the Foreign Secretary with key
partners and friends such as Australia, Canada and the United
States to ensure that Hong Kong’s laws are respected and China
respects the laws of Hong Kong— that is, “one country, two
systems”.
(Con)
I think my interests are probably well known. To follow up what
the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said about an international contact
group, the Minister will know that, as the noble Lord said, seven
former Foreign Ministers from right across politics have sent a
letter to the Prime Minister proposing, as a way of demonstrating
our legal, moral, political and economic obligations to Hong
Kong, that the Government themselves should take a lead in
putting together an international contact group that can keep in
touch with developments there and continue to press China not to
breach its international treaty obligations or its commitments to
a high degree of autonomy in Hong Kong. It would be helpful if
the Minister could give some indication of the Prime Minister’s
thinking on this subject. At the same time, I suggest that
perhaps we should be looking at raising at the UN—I know that we
have already talked about this there—the possibility of
appointing human rights co-ordinators to go into Hong Kong and
see what is happening on the human rights front. I welcome what
the Government have said about passports, but there is a lot more
to do to demonstrate our legal and moral obligations to what was,
of course, a British colonial territory.
My Lords, my noble friend speaks with great insight and expertise
in this area, and I have noted some of his particularly helpful
suggestions. I acknowledge the action by 762 parliamentarians
across 37 countries, which talks about a flagrant breach of the
Sino-British joint declaration.
We believe that if this law is enacted it will indeed undermine
the existing provisions within Hong Kong of “one country, two
systems”. On my noble friend’s wider point, we continue to raise
this through international action and partnership. My noble
friend suggests an international contact group; as I am sure he
has noted, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has
led direct action in this respect. Over the last few weeks he has
issued several statements, including a statement of the British
position, but has also underlined the very provisions that my
noble friend has highlighted: if this law is enacted, China’s
international obligations to Hong Kong will be undermined.
Equally, he has also raised this issue in partnership with the
likes of Canada, Australia, the US and the European Union. This
is a very serious point in time and a serious crossroads for the
future of Hong Kong. We ask the Chinese authorities and the Hong
Kong Special Administrative Region again to think carefully
before proceeding with this law.
(Lab)
My Lords, I too have been involved with human rights issues in
this region for a long time. I am a lawyer and currently the
director of the Human Rights Institute of the International Bar
Association, the global voice of the legal profession. This new
legislation is causing us great alarm. It is clearly aimed at
stamping out protest and freedom of expression and it goes to the
heart of democratic autonomy and freedoms. The legislation
expressly allows Chinese national security agencies to operate in
the city of Hong Kong. The Minister will certainly know that
Beijing has probably the most advanced technological security
apparatus in the world and is now using it, including facial
recognition, intercepts, tracking devices and so on, and is
enabling wide-scale surveillance in China. The fears are that it
will be used in the same way in Hong Kong.
I also express others’ concerns about what is happening with
regard to human rights. A suggestion is being made—I strongly
urge it—that a special envoy be created by the Secretary-General
of the United Nations and that Britain should urge him to create
such an appointment so that he can travel with others, and I hope
with human rights lawyers, to Hong Kong to assess and address the
situation and to negotiate with China itself. The history of
negotiation goes back right back to the beginning of the UN, when
General George Marshall negotiated between the Chinese Communist
Party and the Kuomintang. We know that negotiations can be
successful. I urge that we take steps, and I want to know whether
the Minister has been having those conversations with the United
Nations as well as with friendly nations that are liberal
democracies.
I agree with the noble Baroness. As she knows, the existing
rights of Hong Kong are enshrined in basic law in Hong Kong. The
Sino-British agreement has also been deposited in the context of
the UN. On her final point, as noble Lords know, we raised this
issue directly during a recent UN Security Council meeting. Both
we and the United States spoke on this particular issue under the
agenda item “Any other business”.
On the specific question of a special envoy, which the noble
Baroness and my noble friend mentioned, I assure noble Lords that
in my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary we have
someone who has taken direct leadership on and interest in this
issue. We are leading the international response and thinking on
Hong Kong. In recent days and weeks, the Foreign Secretary has
continued to engage with a range of partners to explain our
position and impress upon them the gravity of the events that
have taken place. At present, we have no plans to form an
international contact group, as I said to my noble friend, or
push for a special envoy. However, we call on the Government on
China to live up to their obligations and responsibilities as a
leading member of the international community. I assure noble
Lords, including the noble Baroness, that we are working with
international institutions, including the UN Human Rights
Council, to ensure that China upholds its commitments as a
co-signatory to the joint declaration.
The Senior Deputy Speaker ()
I remind Members that if we are to get through all the questions,
both questions and answers need to be short as we are two-thirds
of the way through the allotted time.
(LD)
The noble Lord clearly recognises that this move potentially
breaks the Sino-British agreement. Will the path to UK
citizenship therefore be extended to all Hong Kong citizens, not
just those with BNO status, and their dependents?
The noble Baroness makes an important point. We have had many
discussions on this. I assure her that if China continues down
this path and implements this national security legislation, we
will be required to change the status of BNO passport holders.
The Foreign Secretary was quite specific: we would set in train
arrangements allowing BNOs to come to the UK for longer than the
current six-month period and apply for extendable periods of 12
months to work and study, which will in itself provide a pathway
to citizenship.
(CB)
My Lords, while I join in the criticism of China’s imposition of
a national security law, I ask the Minister to confirm that any
economic and financial measures being considered to dissuade or
punish China should not inadvertently cause further hardship to
the citizens of Hong Kong, so that a major humanitarian disaster
is avoided.
My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that our priority is ensuring
the well-being of the citizens of Hong Kong in terms of economic
prosperity, security and human rights.
(Con)
My Lords, three years ago, I, along with other parliamentarians,
was invited to Hong Kong to observe the workings of the “one
country, two systems” principle enshrined in the basic law
document. I was left with a sense of nervousness and desperation
for the young parliamentarians who warned of their fear of a
future clampdown on the security environment imposed by Beijing.
What substantive message of hope and substance can my noble
friend the Minister give from the British Government to the young
future generations of Hong Kong to reverse this dismal outlook
for their future?
My Lords, I assure my noble friend that we continue to stand by
our obligations as a co-signatory to “one country, two systems”.
We give hope to those human rights defenders who fight for
democracy in Hong Kong that we will continue to uphold those
obligations, not just for the United Kingdom but to remind China
and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of their
obligations and commitment to both that agreement and the
obligations that lie beneath it.
(Lab)
I want to return to the issue of British national overseas
citizens in Hong Kong. In this morning’s Statement, the Foreign
Secretary said, as the Minister just repeated, that if China
pushes through this legislation, we will act on its rights. I
welcome the announcement but clarity is needed now. When will the
Government tell BNOs in Hong Kong what their rights will be? Will
they take urgent consultation now?
My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that we take our obligations to
BNO passport holders very seriously. Both the Foreign Secretary
and the Home Secretary are directly engaged on this agenda. We
have made our position absolutely clear: if China acts, we will
be compelled to act on the basis that I have outlined.
The Senior Deputy Speaker
The noble Lord, , is not there, so I will go
to the noble Lord, , and return to the noble
Lord, , when he gets a connection.
(CB)
Does the Minister agree that Hong Kong has the important asset of
an independent judiciary, which is admired throughout the world,
and that the judges of Hong Kong will inevitably be asked to
decide whether the new laws, if implemented by Beijing, are part
of Hong Kong law or whether they conflict with the basic law of
Hong Kong, as many lawyers have suggested? I declare an interest
as a regular advocate in the Hong Kong courts on constitutional
matters.
I agree with the noble Lord that that is important. The
independence of the judiciary in Hong Kong is well recognised. In
due course, if China proceeds along these lines, I am sure that
the judiciary will give its opinion, but we have deep
reservations. If China proceeds with this, it will undermine “one
country, two systems”, which is enshrined in basic Hong Kong law.
(Con)
My Lords, I ask my noble friend to condemn the increase in racism
in recent weeks that has been aimed at British citizens of
Chinese descent. They are not the problem. However, are we clear
enough about what we want from Beijing? It seems that, too often,
we grasp at trade and economic links when we have deep political
reservations about human rights in Hong Kong and so much else. It
seems that we want its money but not its manners. Does my noble
friend accept that we need to do much more analysis of our own
policies to make our priories clear and consistent if we want to
talk to China with maximum authority?
First, I agree with my noble friend. I am sure that I speak for
all noble Lords when I say that racism in any form in any place
in the world is abhorrent and that we should condemn it
unequivocally.
On his points, we have a balanced relationship with China. It is
an important strategic partner, as we have seen in the response
to Covid, where it has assisted. We recognise the role that China
has to play economically and in the Covid response. Equally, I
believe that we balance our foreign policy objectives on trade to
ensure that we can also be a country that stands up for human
rights and international law. I am proud of our traditions in
that respect. As the British Human Rights Minister, I can say
that we will continue to bring that balance to our foreign policy
engagement, not just with China but around the world.
