Hong Kong: Human Rights

Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts
Thursday 4th June 2020

(4 years, 7 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Asked by
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Portrait Baroness Anelay of St Johns
- Hansard - -

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.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Portrait Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
- Hansard - -

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.

The legally binding joint declaration, signed by China and the UK, and registered at the UN, sets out that Hong Kong will have a high degree of autonomy. It also provides that rights and freedoms, including those of the person, of the press, of assembly, of association and others, will be enshrined in law in Hong Kong, and that the provisions of the two UN covenants on human rights—the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights—shall remain in force. But, as the Hong Kong Bar Association has pointed out, there is no assurance in the draft decision that the law will comply or be required to comply with those provisions.

If “global Britain” is to mean anything, it is vital that we maintain our values and uphold the agreements we signed up to. We have a duty to the people of Hong Kong to do just that. I have the honour to chair your Lordships’ Select Committee on International Relations and Defence. It was a privilege to take over the chair last year from my noble friend Lord Howell, who is speaking in this debate. He led us on our major inquiry into UK foreign policy in a shifting world order. The report concluded that the Government should work with China

“in a manner which is consistent with the rules-based international order”.

It also noted:

“In the longer term, the Government will need to weigh up the strategic challenge posed by China’s approach to its international role, and its impact on the rules-based international order, against China’s growing economic significance.”


In their response to our report, the Government stated that

“China’s position is sometimes at odds with parts of the rules based international system. Where China’s approach challenges important principles of the order, such as human rights—an important part of the international architecture—we and our allies speak up for our values.”

Given that, what will the UK Government do next? Ministers have already made it clear that they will commit themselves that if the Chinese Government go through with their proposed legislation, the UK will do the following. First, they will work with the international community on these matters. The joint statement by the UK, US, Australia and Canada last week was welcome, but how will they now develop that international partnership beyond the Five Eyes? Secondly, they will put in place new arrangements to allow British nationals overseas to come to the UK without the current six-month limit, which would include a path to citizenship. Does that include their dependants?

What impact, if any, will economic decisions have on the course of action the Government decide to take in fulfilling their commitments? Will they feel constrained by the vast flows of capital and trade between Britain and China? I would hope not and I believe that as we navigate the way ahead, we should continue to be an outward-looking country that is a champion of collective security, the rules-based international system and free trade, and a defender of human rights. Those are the values that have served us well and we should be constant in upholding them. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Portrait The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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.

Covid-19: Repatriation of UK Nationals

Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts
Thursday 30th April 2020

(4 years, 8 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Portrait Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, I welcome my noble friend the Minister’s reference to the UK’s responsibility to protect the safety of the people in our overseas territories, but could he give an example of the UK’s tailored support for the OTs and what he actually means by appropriate resources—is that money, equipment, technical advice? What is it?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Portrait Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My noble friend speaks from experience as a former Minister for the Overseas Territories—a job that I enjoyed; it was sometimes challenging but in the main enjoyable. First and foremost, I assure her that the overseas territories, which are British territories, have been discussed at the highest level of government—at the international inter-ministerial group, which continues to be chaired by the Foreign Secretary, so it is being discussed at the highest level. In terms of specific responses, we have deployed Crown agents to look at the equipment that is needed in response to the coronavirus. All the inhabited territories—with, I think, the exception of Tristan da Cunha and the Pitcairn Islands—have been given direct support with equipment, and, through Public Health England, we are speaking to the Chief Medical Officer in each of those countries. In relation to my noble friend’s second point, we are giving technical support to ensure that needs are met. From her time in office, she will be acutely aware of the security challenges. For example, we have already supported the security efforts in the Turks and Caicos Islands, and we talk regularly to all representatives of the overseas territories. I am certainly working very closely with our noble friend Lady Sugg, who is doing an admirable job in this area.