Hong Kong: Human Rights Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Lord Wood of Anfield
Main Page: Lord Wood of Anfield (Labour - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Lord Wood of Anfield's debates with the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Hong Kong: Human Rights
Lord Wood of Anfield Excerpts(4 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
My Lords, China’s national security laws imposed on Hong Kong are wrong for two important legal reasons. First, Hong Kong has not consented to these measures. Its governing authorities tried to pass an equivalent law in 2003, but the proposal fell after mass protests. Article 23 of the Basic Law clearly requires Hong Kong’s consent, as a constitutional requirement, as the Hong Kong Bar Association resolutely maintains. Secondly, these measures are a clear violation of the Sino-British joint declaration, which in paragraph 3 pledges that Hong Kong will
“enjoy a high degree of autonomy, except in foreign and defence affairs.”
I support the Government’s suggestion of visa offers to Hong Kongers with BNO status, but I want to ask finally about the Huawei decision, as did my noble friend Lord Campbell. Beijing’s actions in Hong Kong are not the reason to revisit that decision, but they provide evidence about the readiness of Beijing to ignore boundaries between the Chinese central state and other entities to pursue national security. Given this, I cannot see a justification for the Government to continue their plan, and I hope that they will revisit the decision urgently.