Agenda item

By Mark Raymond Peter Henry Delano Wheatley

To consider a Motion, submitted by Mark Wheatley, in relation to the Law of the People's Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

Resolved – That Barbara Newman and Adrian Bastow be appointed to the Barbican Residential Committee, both for the Ward of Aldersgate.

 

Resolved – That Deputy David Bradshaw, Deputy John Tomlinson, Mary Durcan, and Mark Bostock, be appointed to the Barbican Residential Committee for the Ward of Cripplegate.

 

Motion - “That this Honourable Court reiterates our support for the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong.

 

It notes the view of the British Government that China's imposition of the new National Security law breaches the terms of this treaty.

 

It notes the view it undermines the right of Hong Kong citizens to enjoy "a high degree of autonomy" in the governance of their affairs.

 

It notes the British Government has in response extended residence rights to British Nationals (Overseas) citizens living in Hong Kong.

 

It notes this offer extends the right to live and work in the UK from 6 months to 5 years, with a right to apply to settle after a further 12 months.

 

This Honourable Court welcomes this policy and adds further that those seeking to live, work, settle under this scheme or to apply for asylum if persecuted under the new National Security law will always be welcome in the City of London.

 

This Honourable Court welcomes the 23 years of cooperation, investment and friendship between Britain and China, between the City of London and Hong Kong, prior to the imposition of the new National Security law, and hopes for a return to that state of affairs at the earliest opportunity.”

 

Mark Wheatley spoke to introduce the Motion, noting the strong historical relationship with Hong Kong, the commitments made through the Sino-British Joint Declaration and recently reaffirmed by the Government, and referencing the strong British legacy of welcoming others to work and trade. He clarified that the Motion was in no way intended to suggest any challenge to the sovereignty of the Peoples’ Republic of China over Hong Kong, nor their right to introduce such a law; neither was it a comment on continued trade, where the UK’s clear position was to open trade as far as possible. Rather, the Motion reflected the values and commitments of London and the United Kingdom, particularly with reference to its history of openness, free trade, and global regulatory standards.

 

During debate, several Members commented on the close relationship between China and the United Kingdom and the strong trading links between the two, adding that friends told each other what they did not necessarily wish to hear. Consequently, there was an onus on the City and the UK to raise concerns, with particular reference made to Mao Zedong’s statement that “the differences between friends cannot but reinforce their friendship.” A Member also expressed the view that they would hope other countries would raise similar concerns should this be taking place in the UK.

 

It was also suggested that it would be disingenuous to argue that the City Corporation should not involve itself in foreign policy in this way, given that it regularly hosted banquets and receptions for leaders of foreign governments and that trade was such a large factor in foreign policy. A wider point was made relating to the City’s position across the board where there might be political or human rights concerns with trading partners, with it suggested that a wider policy in respect of responding to such issues should be considered, rather than adopting a case by case approach.

 

Other Members spoke to oppose the Motion, observing that making such a statement would not provide any tangible benefit or assistance to those in Hong Kong, but would serve to diminish the City Corporation’s voice and impair its wider work in encouraging Sino-British co-operation, as it would be viewed as a political statement regardless of its intent. The view was expressed that it was not appropriate for the City Corporation to become engaged in foreign policy; rather, it  was to support its stakeholders in the sectors it spoke for, who were clear on the importance of nurturing the strong economic ties between the two countries. Whilst it was recognised that there were challenging issues in China, there were similar concerns in many others nations with which the UK traded, and to stray into the realms of commenting on each would be outside of the City’s role and would diminish its ability to effect change.

 

Mark Wheatley spoke to close the debate, reminding the Court of the historic links between Hong Kong and London and the shared values they held. He reiterated his respect for China’s sovereignty but emphasised the importance of sending a moderate and measured message of welcome to those in Hong Kong who were unsettled by recent events.

 

A Division being demanded and granted, there appeared:-

For the Affirmative - 49

ALDERMEN

Graves, D.A.

Hughes-Penney, R.C.

Masojada, B.

COMMONERS

Abrahams, G.C.	Graham, T.	Packham, G.D.
Addy, C.K.	Harrower, G.G.	Patel, D., O.B.E.
Ali, M.	Holmes, A.	Pearson, S.J.
Anderson, R.K.	Hudson, M.	Pimlott, W.
Barrow, A.M.	Hyde, W.M., Deputy	Pollard, J.H.G., Deputy
Bennett, J.A., M.B.E., Deputy	James, C., Deputy	Quilter, S.D.
Bensted-Smith, N.M., J.P.	Joshi, S.J.	Sayed, R.
Chadwick, R.A.H., O.B.E., Deputy	Knowles-Cutler, A.	Scott, J.G.S., J.P.
Chapman, J.D.	Littlechild, V., M.B.E., J.P.	Simons, J.L.
Dostalova, K.	Lloyd-Owen, N.M.C.	Thomson, J.M.D., Deputy
Dunphy, P.G., Dunphy	Lord, C.E., O.B.E., J.P., Deputy	Tomlinson, J., Deputy
Durcan, M.	Mayer, A.P.	Tumbridge, J.R.
Fairweather, A.H.	Mayhew, J.P.	Wheatley, M.R.P.H.D.
Fentimen, H.L., O.B.E.	Merrett, R.A., Deputy	Woodhouse, P.J., Deputy
Fernandes, S.A.	Newman, B.P., C.B.E.	Wright, D.L.
Fredericks, M.B.

Tellers for the affirmative – Deputy Edward Lord and Deputy David Bradshaw.

For the Negative - 28

ALDERMEN

Gowman, A.J.	Mainelli, Prof M.R., Sheriff	Sir David Wootton
Hailes, T.R.	Sir Andrew Parmley	Russell, W.A.B., the Rt Hon The Lord Mayor
Howard, R.P.S.

COMMONERS

Bennett, P.G.	Haines, C.W.	McMurtrie, A.S., J.P.
Bottomley, K.D.F., Deputy	Hayward, C.M., Sheriff	Morris, H.F., Deputy
Bradshaw, D.J., Deputy	Hill, C.	Petrie. J.
Doshi-Smith, G.M.	Hoffman, T.D.D., M.B.E., Deputy	Pleasance, J.L.
Duckworth, S.D., O.B.E, D.L.	Ingham Clark, J., Deputy	Regan, R.D., O.B.E., Deputy
Edwards, J.E.	Levene, T.C.	Rogula, E., Deputy
Everett, K.M., Deputy	McGuinness, C.S., Deputy	Seaton, I.C.N., M.B.E.

Tellers for the negative – John Petrie and Deputy Jamie Ingham Clark.

Abstentions were recorded from Rehana Ameer, Alderman John Garbutt, Oliver Lodge, Alderman Ian Luder, Wendy Mead, Deputy Brian Mooney, Jason Pritchard, and Sir Michael Snyder.

Upon the results of the Division being announced, the Lord Mayor declared the Motion to be carried.

 

Resolved – That this Honourable Court reiterates its support for the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong.

 

It notes the view of the British Government that China's imposition of the new National Security law breaches the terms of this treaty.

 

It notes the view it undermines the right of Hong Kong citizens to enjoy "a high degree of autonomy" in the governance of their affairs.

 

It notes the British Government has in response extended residence rights to British Nationals (Overseas) citizens living in Hong Kong.

 

It notes this offer extends the right to live and work in the UK from 6 months to 5 years, with a right to apply to settle after a further 12 months.

 

This Honourable Court welcomes this policy and adds further that those seeking to live, work, settle under this scheme or to apply for asylum if persecuted under the new National Security law will always be welcome in the City of London.

 

This Honourable Court welcomes the 23 years of cooperation, investment and friendship between Britain and China, between the City of London and Hong Kong, prior to the imposition of the new National Security law, and hopes for a return to that state of affairs at the earliest opportunity.

 

Motion – “That, in line with the privilege accorded to the Lord Mayor and the Sheriffs, the Court is minded to invite Deputy Brian Mooney to extend his term in office as Chief Commoner for a further year.”

 

John Scott spoke to introduce the Motion, which had been accepted by the Lord Mayor for urgent consideration in accordance with Standing Orders 12(4) and 12(7). He made reference to the difficult circumstances presented by the COVID-19 outbreak, which it was now clear would continue for longer than had been originally anticipated, and the subsequent impact on the current Chief Commoner’s term of office. In view of these circumstances and the decision to extend the terms of the incumbent Sheriffs and Lord Mayor, he asked that the Court grant the same privilege to the Chief Commoner.

 

Several Members spoke in opposition to the Motion, making the following comments:

·         Whilst entirely sympathising with the impact on the current Chief Commoner, it was argued that there had been insufficient notice to inform a full and reasoned debate. In view of the importance of the matter and the number of Members who had already departed the meeting, it was suggested that it would not be fair to take this decision now.

·         It was observed that the primary driver for the extension of the Shrieval and Mayoral terms had been the impracticability of convening Common Hall to allow for elections to proceed. This did not apply in this instance given the ability to allow for electronic and remote voting. Given the concerns expressed during debate under Item 9 earlier in the meeting in relation to delaying the City elections, it was suggested that it would be incongruous to delay this election.

·         Whilst the impact on the term of the current Chief Commoner was unfortunate, it was difficult to predict how long the COVID-19 impact would last and it seemed unfair to deprive another Member of the opportunity to serve.

·         The question of whether to extend the term of office had been considered by the Court previously when the impacts of COVID were known, meaning that various candidates had already expended considerable efforts campaigning ahead of October’s scheduled election. This seemed unfair to those candidates, with it ventured that one option could be to extend the current Chief’s term of office but proceed with the election nonetheless, with the successful candidate taking office a year later in 2022/23.

 

A number of Members also expressed support for the Motion:

·         The profound effect of the COVID-19 outbreak on the incumbent Chief Commoner’s year was noted, with it observed that original expectations as to when there might be a return to normality had been misplaced.

·         It was now clear that the COVID-19 impact might last for some time, meaning that the incumbent Chief Commoner’s term could well be entirely affected. This would seem unfair and leave him unable to deliver on a number of undertakings made upon being elected.

·         Noting the decision at Item 9 to proceed with a postponement of the City elections, a Member suggested that this evidenced things were not back to normal and it would be odd for this election alone not to be deferred too.

·         The question of parity with the position for the Mayoral and Shrieval terms was highlighted, with Members expressing disquiet as to an inconsistent approach.

 

In response to a query, it was clarified that the incumbent Chief Commoner would not be eligible to stand again under the current rules.

 

The Chief Commoner spoke to express his sympathy with the views put forward on all sides of debate, making clear his neutrality in the matter and that he wished only to follow the will of the Court and not to be the source of any disunity.

 

In the interests of determining the will of the Court, a Division being demanded and granted, there appeared:-

For the Affirmative – 47

ALDERMEN

Garbutt, J.	Howard, R.P.S.	Wootton, Sir David
Goyal, P.B., O.B.E.	Parmley, Sir Andrew	Russell, W.A.B., the Rt Hon The Lord Mayor
Graves, D.A.

COMMONERS

Absalom, J.D., Deputy	Harrower, G.G.	Mead, W., O.B.E.
Anderson, R.K	Hayward, C.M., Sheriff	Merrett, R.A., Deputy
Barrow, D.G.F.	Hudson, M.	Pearson, S.J.
Bradshaw, D.J., Deputy	Joshi, S.J.	Pimlott, W.
Chapman, J.D.	Knowles-Cutler, A.	Pleasance, J.L.
Duckworth, S.D., O.B.E., D.L.	Levene, T.C.	Pollard, J.H.G., Deputy
Dunphy, P.G., Deputy	Littlechild, V., M.B.E., J.P.	Quilter, S.D.
Durcan, M.	Lloyd-Owen, N.M.C.	Scott, J.G.S., J.P.
Edwards, J.E.	Mayhew, J.P.	Seaton, I.C.N., M.B.E.
Everett, K.M., Deputy	McGuinness, C.S., Deputy	Thomson, J.M.D., Deputy
Fentimen, H.L., O.B.E.	Morris, H.F., Deputy	Tomlinson, J., Deputy
Fredericks, M.B.	Newman, B.P., C.B.E.	Wheatley, M.R.P.H.D.
Hill, C.	Patel, D., O.B.E.	Wright, D.L.
Hoffman, T.D.D., M.B.E., Deputy

Tellers for the affirmative – John Chapman and Deputy David Bradshaw.

For the Negative – 17

ALDERMEN

Mainelli, Prof. M.R., Sheriff

COMMONERS

Add, C.K.	Fairweather, A.F.	Lodge, O.A.W.
Bennett, P.G.	Fernandes, S.A.	McMurtrie, A.S., J.P.
Bensted-Smith, N.M., J.P.	Haines, C.W.	Packham, G.D.
Bottomley, K.D.F., Deputy	Ingham Clark, J., Deputy	Rogula, E., Deputy
Broeke, T.	James, C., Deputy	Sayed, R.
Dostalova, K.

Tellers for the negative – Deputy Edward Lord and Deputy Jamie Ingham Clark.

Abstentions were recorded from Munsur Ali, Deputy John Bennett, Alderman Tim Hailes, Ann Holmes, Alderman Robert Hughes-Penney, Deputy Edward Lord Alderman Ian Luder, Deputy Brian Mooney, Jeremy Simons, and Deputy Tom Sleigh.

Upon the results of the Division being announced, the Lord Mayor declared the Motion to be carried.

 

Resolved – That, in line with the privilege accorded to the Lord Mayor and the Sheriffs, the Court is minded to invite Deputy Brian Mooney to extend his term in office as Chief Commoner for a further year.

 

Motion – That, in accordance with Standing Order 2, Standing Order 16 be suspended to allow for the meeting to continue.

 

Upon the Motion being put, the Lord Mayor declared it to be carried.

 

Resolved – That, in accordance with Standing Order 2, Standing Order 16 be suspended to allow for the meeting to continue.