Hong Kong: Human Rights

Question for Short Debate

Asked by

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on human rights in Hong Kong of the national security law proposed by the National People’s Congress of China.

The Question was considered in a Virtual Proceeding via video call.

My Lords, the draft legislation passed last week by the People’s Congress of China threatens to be the death knell for “one country, two systems”, the framework agreed before Britain handed Hong Kong over to China in 1997 that protected its special status. The legislation would undermine Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy and be a serious threat to human rights there. I therefore welcome the Statement made by the Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons on Tuesday that if China does not reconsider its approach, 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 shall outline the following issues: the nature of the legislative process so far, what it means for Hong Kong and why the UK should take action to protect the freedoms of the people there. My main questions to the Minister today are as follows. What is the Government’s current assessment of the legislation’s impact on human rights in Hong Kong if it were to be enacted? What will they do next to fulfil the commitment made by the Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons and by the Prime Minister, writing in the Times newspaper yesterday? What factors will the Government then take into account when deciding on their next steps?

Last week the People’s Congress rubber-stamped a draft decision. That resolution will now pass to China’s senior leadership to be fleshed out into a draft law. The proposals outlaw behaviour deemed to be subversion, terrorism, separatism, assisting foreign interference or endangering national security. Charges such as these are often used in mainland China to detain dissidents and political opponents. It now seems that the era of Hong Kong’s political freedom could be over and that many could become criminals for actions that were legal until now.

Reportedly, Beijing wants the law to be implemented before Hong Kong’s own legislative elections in September. Direct imposition of the security law by Beijing, rather than through Hong Kong’s own institutions, would curtail the liberties of those in Hong Kong and dramatically erode Hong Kong’s autonomy and the system that made it so prosperous. Through the Sino-British joint declaration, we aimed to protect the city’s unique status and defend some of its key institutions, such as the Legislative Council and the court. The rule of law and an independent judiciary are the foundations on which Hong Kong’s success is built. Both are at risk from the draft legislation.

Before I call the next speaker, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, the Government Whip, to say a word about timekeeping.

My Lords, given the large number of noble Lords who wish to speak in this time-limited debate, perhaps I may underline the importance of keeping remarks to no longer than a minute so that the Minister has time to respond to the important points that your Lordships will raise.

My Lords, China is flexing its muscles rather like Hitler’s Germany in the early 1930s, using the distraction caused by the Wuhan virus to see what it can get away with. The new national security law will fatally damage the “one country, two systems” agreement on Hong Kong. China is already breaking international law by its actions in the South China Sea; its threats to Taiwan are becoming more vociferous; it is stealing intellectual property on an industrial scale and taking other aggressive actions in cyberspace; it is increasingly using its economic clout to browbeat and threaten smaller nations; and its treatment of minorities and trade in human organs is unacceptable among civilised nations.

I ask the Minister: is it not time to take some deterrent action, rather than appeasement, to show China that the international community will not put up with this? Appeasement, as we found with Hitler, will encourage bad behaviour and could finally lead to war. We should, for example, encourage the main westernised trading nations to recognise Taiwan; set up a new south-east Asia treaty organisation on the sort of scale we did with NATO in 1949; revitalise like-minded nations to review the successful world order established post World War II and make it fit for purpose in this new world; work with our allies to review all trading links with China; and review Chinese investments and educational links. Urgent action is needed.

My Lords, 4 June is a poignant date, because it is the day 31 years ago when the tanks rolled into Tiananmen Square, and many young protesters were the victims. Many in Hong Kong fear that their protests on 4 June, to recognise the sacrifice made by other young people, may well be the very last. My question is about young people, which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, alluded to. The Government’s plan suggests that the right to visit visa-free for those with BNO status will be extended from six months to 12 months, but there are 250,000 people with BNO passports out of an estimated 2.9 million people with BNO status. They had to secure that before 30 June 1997, and it cannot be passed down to children. There are nearly 7.5 million people in Hong Kong. Given that the greatest threat is to the young people of Hong Kong—many born after 1997—or to the children of those with BNO status, how will we show affinity with those young people and offer them the kind of support that we will offer others?

My Lords, I draw attention to my declaration of interests. There is nothing unusual about security legislation; after all, Britain made use of emergency legislation during its stewardship of Hong Kong. What matters is how such legislation is implemented in practice. Hong Kong’s Justice Secretary asserts that her department—not its Chinese counterpart —will make all prosecution decisions under the national security law and that Hong Kong’s judicial procedures will be followed, and I trust that she is right. Hong Kong’s Government accept that the security law is needed, and so does a substantial part of the Hong Kong business community. Both believe that Hong Kong’s future economic prospects will be better safeguarded and investment more readily attracted with a security law that is applied in line with Hong Kong’s common law traditions.

The Foreign Secretary has spoken up well for Hong Kong’s rights, making it clear that support from Britain does not extend to violent rioting or to claims for independence that have no basis in history or law. The Prime Minister’s proposal to extend the rights of BNO passport holders, if the new security law is misapplied, will reassure Hong Kongers that they have a safety net if one is needed. The most satisfactory outcome will be a national security law by which Hong Kong citizens feel protected rather than threatened. China’s present leaders should show the same wisdom and leadership as China’s then leader, Deng Xiaoping, when he agreed the 1984 joint declaration and the principles it contained.

My Lords, in the limited time I have, I ask the Minister three questions. First, in the light of the persecution of the Uighur people and the demolition of Christian churches in mainland China, what representation is Her Majesty’s Government making to the CCP about freedom of religion both there and, for the future, in Hong Kong? Secondly, while the extended BNO programme and joint statement with Australia, Canada and the US are commendable, can the Minister explain why the foreign policy review has been postponed just at a moment when a human rights-based foreign policy must surely be our collective starting point? Thirdly, what consideration has been given to an expanded BNO scheme with partner nations—a lifeboat policy—for the 6 million residents of Hong Kong?

My Lords, it is especially ominous that this is happening during the 4 June anniversary of the Tiananmen Square protest, as the “one country, two systems” framework is being eroded—a framework that has preserved liberty, prosperity and democracy in Hong Kong since 1997. I welcome the Government’s decision not to shrug our shoulders and walk away. Instead, we will honour our obligations and provide an alternative for the citizens of Hong Kong.

I am sure that my noble friend is aware of the letter that seven former Foreign Secretaries sent to the Prime Minister only a few days ago. They asked that we seek to set up, together with our allies, an international contact group to monitor the situation in Hong Kong and to co-ordinate joint action. Will my noble friend tell the House what consideration has been given to this proposal? Are the Government also seeking the support of our European allies?

My Lords, I am privileged to have been a friend of Martin Lee for quite some years. He is one of the most resolute defenders of democracy on behalf of the people of Hong Kong. It is clear that this new security law goes entirely against the Sino-British agreement; I believe that Deng Xiaoping would have opposed it. He supported the original “one country, two systems” approach. I remember meeting some students from China in Hong Kong. They told me that they regretted having to return to Beijing because they so valued the democracy under which they lived while they were in Hong Kong.

I believe that the majority of people in Hong Kong are against this new security law. The Hong Kong Bar Association has come out resolutely against it. It is a breach of all international agreements. Surely the key to this is international unity at all levels. We should tell the Chinese that we are totally opposed to it. We should also value the BBC for the contribution it is making in broadcasting to the people of Hong Kong.