I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Tom Randall) for securing this debate and to right hon. and hon. Members for their passionate and well-informed contributions on this subject, which we have had an opportunity to debate several times. I am sure this will not be the last time that the issue of Hong Kong is brought to the House. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work on the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
I will try to respond to as many as possible of the points raised. As I have said during previous debates on this issue, and as I have written to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and other members of the all-party parliamentary group, my door and the offices of my officials at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office are always open. We are very keen to discuss the issues on a one-to-one basis. We have a depth of experience and knowledge on King Charles Street and we are more than happy to share it, so I hope we will be able to follow up on that.
As has rightly been said, this has been and continues to be the most concerning period in Hong Kong’s post-handover history. As Minister for Asia, I deeply regret not having had the opportunity to visit Hong Kong in better circumstances—some of my predecessors have been able to do so. In saying that, I share the deep concern of this House. That is why we have taken clear and decisive action. We have extended the existing arms embargo on mainland China to include Hong Kong. Right hon. and hon. Members will know that we have suspended the extradition treaty with Hong Kong and are creating a new visa route for British nationals overseas, which I will come on to shortly.
As colleagues will know, the Sino-British joint declaration was registered with the United Nations on 12 June 1985. They will also know that the declaration is a legally binding international treaty that remains in force today. This agreement between the United Kingdom and China made clear that Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy, rights and freedoms would remain unchanged for 50 years from 1997, a point that has already been made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi).
In the agreement, China undertook to uphold the freedoms of speech, of the press and of assembly. It also agreed to keep in force the international covenant on civil and political rights and to maintain the independent judiciary and rule of law. For more than two decades after the handover, those rights and freedoms underpinned Hong Kong’s prosperity and way of life.
Right hon. and hon. Members will also be aware that in 2019 and the early part of 2020, Hong Kong experienced a period of deep turmoil and widespread unrest, triggered by proposals that would have allowed extradition to mainland China. We were clear from the outset that the solution to that unrest must come from within Hong Kong and must not be imposed from mainland China. Instead, the Chinese authorities have shown an increasing propensity to breach their obligations in relation to Hong Kong. I think that on that, we are all agreed.
Since last June, Beijing’s actions have led us to declare three breaches of the joint declaration, including significant erosions of Hong Kong’s autonomy and the rights and freedoms of its people. The national security law imposed on Hong Kong by Beijing last June contains a slew of
measures that directly undermine those rights and freedoms. China’s own Basic Law for Hong Kong makes it clear that the territory should put forward and enact its own security legislation, so the direct imposition of the national security law is in clear contravention of that.
Senior Chinese Government figures claimed at the time that this law would target a “tiny number” of criminals who seriously endanger national security, but everybody in this room and watching this debate realises that the law has been used systematically to restrict freedom of expression. It has been brought up today by just about every Member present. We see in the courts the ongoing trials of 47 pro-democracy politicians and activists for their alleged roles in unofficial political primaries last year. Those cases and others demonstrate, in the starkest way, that the national security law is being used to stifle political dissent.