Extradition Act 2003 (Amendment to Designations) Order 2025

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Brinton]

At end insert “but that this House regrets that the Order makes changes to the extradition arrangements with Hong Kong at a time when a fair trial can no longer be guaranteed in Hong Kong due to the National Security Law; further regrets that the Government did not carry out a full consultation, preventing those who will be affected from expressing their views; and in the light of the special responsibilities of the United Kingdom to Hong Kong, calls on the Government to set out robust protections to ensure that no Hong Kongers are extradited for politically motivated purposes.”

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for meeting me to discuss this statutory instrument and my concerns, which are outlined in my amendment to the Motion before your Lordships’ House. As it makes clear, my concerns extend to only one of the three countries specified in the SI—Hong Kong—because of its specific and different status.

The reason for my concerns is that most of the Hong Kongers in the UK are holders of a British national (overseas) passport—an arrangement made after the UK’s 100-year lease of Hong Kong expired in 1997. The UK Government then made BNO arrangements for the people of Hong Kong to confirm the special status and relationship they had for over a century, when they were ruled by the British and felt British. Most importantly, these days they feel that they have a stronger tie to the UK than to China.

In 1997, many Hong Kongers felt that they were being deserted by the UK Government. At the time, the noble Lord, Lord Patten, my former colleague Lord Ashdown and many others said that we must, as a nation, recognise our responsibilities. In the House of Lords we continue to hold successive Governments to this standard.

We are told that the SI in front of us aims to correct an irregularity in relation to the arrangements for extraditing a Hong Konger at the request of China, which have been in place since 2020. As the Minister outlined, Hong Kong is designated under category 2 in Part 2 of the Extradition Act 2003, which requires prima facie evidence to the UK judicial system. In the past, Hong Kong was designated under the UK-Hong Kong extradition treaty of 1997. However, this was suspended in 2020 following the imposition by China of national security legislation containing provisions that, as the Minister said, were incompatible with the treaty. I will put it more bluntly: a fair trial in Hong Kong can no longer be guaranteed.

China’s treatment of those who disagree with it remains completely incompatible with that treaty. Protesters are repeatedly imprisoned, and prisoners who are British, such as Jimmy Lai, are treated very badly and not to a standard that our extradition processes would ever want to support. That is why Hong Kong was given a blanket “no extradition” in 1997.

The Minister says—and I hear him—that there are protections under the new proposals in this SI to look at cases on a case-by-case basis. This means that the Chinese Government could try to call for the extradition of Hong Kongers who may have both British and Chinese nationality.

The other point in relation to Hong Kongers living in the UK is that, in the last few years, there have been many reports to the police of China’s inappropriate behaviour through its agents in the UK. This includes mainland Chinese students physically attacking Hong Kongers in the streets; Hong Kongers having to move house because of threats from China; and Hong Kongers not using social media because China will use that to harass and intimidate them. This is the behaviour of a country that might try to submit extradition demands purely to get at Hong Kongers with BNO passports whom it might wish to pressure further.

I am very grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, whose 34th report, published on 11 September, quoted Hugo Keith KC stating that

“it looks like the government is seeking to reverse, through a sleight of hand, the practical consequences of suspending the [UK-Hong Kong] treaty”.

In that same report, the Government responded by saying that much of that reporting is false. I am grateful for the Minister explaining earlier why he believes that to be the case, but there has been no direct explanation to our Hong Konger community here in the UK. Those people need to understand why China might not behave in the way that I have outlined and why the change in designation will give them the full protection that they need.

As I understand it, the argument runs that protection is there for extradition on a case-by-case basis, but how can that protect targeted individuals if the application itself is spurious? Once commenced, a request for extradition would cause significant anxiety to the individual concerned and their family, both here and in Hong Kong, not to mention incurring legal costs, none of which would have happened under the blanket refusal that we had before. Is it worth moving to this case-by-case basis when Foreign Office Ministers repeatedly call out China for its egregious treatment of those who disagree with it—not just Hong Kong?

In paragraph 10 of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee report, the Home Office noted that this brings Hong Kong into line with other non-treaty partners under the Extradition Act 2003. Can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House how many other countries with non-treaty partners have residents with British or British national (overseas) passports, because of our historic responsibility for them for well over 100 years?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all the speakers. I thank the Minister for repeating the strong, hard processes that he believes are in place to protect Hong Kongers. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for agreeing that Hong Kongers need very specific protection, and for the question on whether the UK would entertain or support an application from China for extradition; the Minister’s response on that was also helpful. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness for talking about indirect influence on the Government, which continues to remain a concern for us—as I am sure it is for the Minister as well—so I am grateful for his response.

The reason I tabled the regret amendment was about the difference between hard processes and soft power. Hong Kongers remain concerned that they will be further under threat, and I am grateful for the hard processes that the Minister has given. I am also grateful for the promise of a meeting, because I think that will help people within the community to feel that their concerns are being listened to and that they will know where to go if there is a concern about China pressing for extradition from the UK in the future. On that basis, I beg to withdraw my regret amendment.

Amendment withdrawn.