European Entry and Exit System

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

The Government are in constant dialogue with the European Union. We are working closely with European member states to ensure that the juxtaposed ports have the right technology and processes to enable travel to be as smooth as possible for UK citizens. This has included providing £3.5 million in funding to each of the three ports to help make their changes to infrastructure. We will continue to discuss with European partners how we can ensure that we have as smooth an operation as possible in the interests of both the European Union and British travellers.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the root cause of the EES misery that British people are suffering is Brexit. There is no running away from that. But my enthusiasm for the EU does not blind me to its flaws, and this is one of them. Will the Government convene an emergency UK-EU meeting with the European Commission before 20 July—perhaps this can be one of Keir Starmer’s leaving presents—to address the disruption and shambles that is the EES, unfortunately, and protect British travellers during the summer peak?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right that, were we still a member of the European Union, this issue would not be a problem. She knows how I voted in the referendum and she knows that this is a consequence of that referendum and decision. Having said that, we are where we are. The European Union is responsible for its management of the schemes. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, we are in constant contact. She asked for an emergency summit; we are holding a summit continuously. We are in constant contact with the authorities and we hope to ensure that the transfer of passengers through the three juxtaposed ports is smooth and efficient.

National Security (State Threats) Bill

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 30th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for the amendments in their names. It is timely to have a debate and to keep raising—as I know the noble Lord, Lord Alton, does regularly—the threat we face from China. The ISC in its China report outlined the very detailed structure which the Chinese state, which has the largest security services in the world, uses not just at home for repression but abroad for undermining other nations’ ability to act, and in persecuting individuals who oppose the Chinese communist regime.

The issue around the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office is an obvious one which has raised concerns. The Bill is needed because whenever we have made the operating environment more difficult for states to use diplomatic cover, they have gone to other lengths. The success in identifying individuals who are using diplomatic cover for other activities shows that our security services are conscious of this. The response to the Salisbury attacks—in this country and across Europe among our allies, where a number of individuals were expelled from Russian embassies because of their links to intelligence services and activities which were not in keeping with their designation under the Vienna convention—certainly proved that point.

The problem I have with Amendment 4, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is in defining strategy. That would be very difficult in terms of the united front. We all know what our adversaries get up to and what the aims are. The Bill is important because, as the operating environment has become more difficult, they are subcontracting this to individuals. So it is not necessarily about not understanding what the Chinese state is up to—we have a very clear understanding of this, and it is very complex and broad. The other thing the ISC report highlighted is that it is not just the scale but the lengths it goes to, both to intimidate individuals here and across the globe and to suck up information—which many of us might think is pretty irrelevant—for economic purposes and for building up a picture, a matrix, of what is happening in various political systems around the world.

It is good that these issues have been raised, because it throws a spotlight on what is happening not just in terms of China but what both Iran and Russia are doing. As I said at Second Reading, it is important to have that public debate to keep highlighting the dangers this country faces, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on his tenacity in continuing to do this. These dangers are on multiple fronts, whether it is universities being targeted, and individual diaspora members being targeted there, or IP thefts from both companies and universities. This is something that needs constant vigilance.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I was pleased to co-sign the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. All the amendments in this group—Amendments 1, 3 and 4 in particular—are expressing frustration with the limited scope of the Bill. Perhaps the Minister might be able to give an idea as to whether the national security Bill that was heralded in the King’s Speech will be able to pick up some of these themes, if we are not successful in persuading the Government today to make amendments to this state threats Bill.

There is a feeling of concern that some threats that have been experienced, or that are pretty obvious, are not being sufficiently dealt with by the Government. This is particularly in relation to China, where we have been urged to wake up and not be naive about the underwater crocodile. Whether the Government are being naive or shaped by other considerations towards China, there is a feeling that there appears to be so much going on—demonstrated in the recent trial concerning the staff of the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office, and otherwise instanced by the transnational repression towards residents of this country from Hong Kong who are being persecuted by the Chinese state, while they are supposedly under the protection of this country and this Government, which is intolerable—that we need to wake up and smell the coffee in relation to China.

I would like to hear some reassurances from the Minister that if he cannot take up some of these points in this Bill, the Government will take them up in the forthcoming national security Bill, which is intended to:

“Consolidate the Government’s approach to countering state threats to align more closely with the approach to countering terrorism”.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

I strongly agree with the points that the noble Baroness has just been making. She has referenced the plight of people living in the United Kingdom who now have bounties on their heads. Will she take the opportunity to highlight specifically the case of Chloe Cheung, who was 14 when she took part in pro-democracy demonstrations in Hong Kong and now has a 1 million Hong Kong dollar bounty on her head and is fearful of being dragged in—as some were, and attempts were made to drag others, to the Chinese consulate in Manchester in order to intimidate them? These are not illusions. There are many frightened Hong Kongers in the UK worried about the direct attacks that are being made upon them. I thank the noble Baroness for raising the general point.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

Not at all. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for all the work that he has done on this topic, both individually and as chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I had the pleasure of meeting Chloe Cheung and some of her colleagues, and became even more aware of the threats they are under. It is intolerable that people to whom we have rightly given protection and residence are facing these kinds of huge, life-threatening threats from a foreign state. So far, we are not feeling reassured that this Bill is going to cover these threats.

There is a feeling among many of us that we want to hear robust pledges from the Government, even if, for whatever reason, they now want to get the Bill through incredibly quickly, having—to the bemusement of some of us—taken over a year to get to the point. They now want to rush it all through, but so be it. There is unfinished business in the Bill. If it is not dealt with today, it needs to be dealt with as soon as possible in the forthcoming national security Bill: the transnational repression, the proxy networks, the issues with the capacity of our police forces to cope with these threats, the foreign language capacity, the resources, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, called it, the “China capability”. We risk being looked at as a laughing stock if our state and its law enforcement institutions are not able to cope with the threat being directed towards our state and the people living here. So I hope that, even if the Minister does not accept some of these amendments, he will tell us that no stone will be left unturned in the coverage of the national security Bill that we are expecting.

My noble friend Lady Doocey gave a very powerful justification of her own amendment on superintelligent AI. She certainly frightened me, in as far as I understood much of it. I am a bit behind the curve on AI, it has to be said, so she will have to give me a tutorial. But, to be serious, she rightly stressed all the threats and the Bill covers only a bit of this territory. We need to hear from the Government much stronger and more comprehensive responses to all the threats that are being sponsored by foreign countries towards us and the people who live here.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I do not want to delay the House for very long. I will just add my voice to Amendment 1, which I added my name to. The Government are very clearly warning about hostile state activity. Therefore, the probing amendment gives the Government and the Minister the opportunity to say that espionage is included in the state threat. The amendment seeks to add it and to give clarity to the clause. However, I hope that the Minister can be very clear that the foreign power threat activity includes espionage. If he is able to say that, it will be very helpful. It is very clear, after the recent case involving the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office—which, as far as I am concerned, should no longer have any status here in London and should be disbanded, but that is for another day—that the British state was penetrated, dissidents have been targeted and, indeed, our colleagues in Parliament have been under surveillance. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be able to say that in his closing remarks.

National Security (State Threats) Bill

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, as my noble friends have said, we on these Benches strongly support the Bill, but with some caveats about process, scope and drafting. We felt bafflement and frustration as this Government—and indeed the last one—failed to act on the very obvious threat from the IRGC. The Conservative Government promised to in 2023 but did not deliver in office. But we then accepted that the tool of proscription had to be replaced by a new formula of designation for state bodies, although I note what the noble Lord, Lord Polak, said about Hezbollah, which was interesting. Jonathan Hall KC’s report was delivered over a year ago, and now, having dragged their feet, the Government want to rush the Bill through at unseemly speed, and at the possible expense of precision. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, suggested, understandably, that a draft Bill might have been preferable.

As the Minister said in his introduction, state threats are “both evolving and enduring”. The Bill needs to be scrutinised and stress-tested sufficiently in Committee that it produces lasting but nimble legislation, which is capable of future adaptation. We know that we are experiencing the equivalent of terrorist acts emanating from states such as Iran and Russia, in sabotage, physical attacks, arson, firebombing and propaganda—with Jewish communities often targeted, shamefully—as well as from China in spying, harassment and death threats to Hong Kong pro-democracy activists. Often proxies are used for these nefarious activities, in parallel with espionage and cyber threats from state intelligence agencies.

The Bill must be fit for designation of foreign power entities backed by any state. However, the IRGC is the clearest and most obvious one. These Benches therefore envisage seeking to amend the Bill so as to ensure, on its face, that IRGC designation is properly pursued within one month. This is an urgent priority. If not the IRGC, and not in this Bill, then who and when? The Minister made encouraging noises about designation for the IRGC, but no commitment. A commitment is needed—not the wiggle room that one suspects some bits of Government still seem to want.

We also wish to extend the offence of material assistance to a designated body to include the setting up and use of companies or trusts to hide the true ownership of assets belonging to that body, and we will explore that in Committee. My noble friend Lady Doocey also sought clarity that organisations could not escape the Bill’s net by operating from abroad in this digital world. She also suggested that foreign state threats in the Bill should be capable of including superintelligent AI tools.

Many noble Lords referred to humanitarian activities, conflict resolution and peacebuilding efforts. Some of this activity requires, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, put it,

“intensive dialogue with brutal and unpleasant regimes to which it may be difficult … for western Governments to speak”.

I think we all accept that.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, explained the Opposition’s objection to the prohibited purpose offence having the limitation of being

“prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom”.

One problem with removing this limitation is that it might expose the activities of humanitarian and peace- building organisations to criminalisation. Indeed, the fact that this limitation of the offence, or defence to it, does not appear in proposed new Sections 17B or 17C on assisting or material benefits, but only in proposed new Section 17A on supporting a foreign power entity, illustrates perhaps the worries raised by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, my noble friends Lady Tyler and Lady Northover, and others.

Other organisations besides the IRGC are in our minds. The Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office has been mentioned in the debate, and it was debated yesterday. No doubt it was once an office that did what it said on the tin, but it now seems to be an extension of the transnational repression perpetrated by China.

The noble Lord, Lord Pickles, also raised the issue of organisations which might pose a threat but do not fit the definition of state-sponsored threats, such as the Muslim Brotherhood. One could, no doubt, think of others.

All noble Lords who have spoken have welcomed the Bill as an important step forward but will seek to ensure that it is watertight but adaptable, durable but not inflexible. We have a task before us in Committee. The Government would do well to benefit from all the expertise which has been on display in the Chamber today—and to listen and to incorporate changes where justified. As well as legal, diplomatic and other expertise, we are fortunate to have heard from not one, but two, former Independent Reviewers of Terrorism Legislation, in the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Carlile, as well as the chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Let us draw on all the skills and talents to perfect the Bill. The Government would be making a mistake if they were just to rush through without listening to all the very well-intended suggestions for amendments that have been made.

Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I certainly will give the right reverend Prelate the assurance that freedom of religion and expression is essential in the United Kingdom. Residents of this country should know that, whatever nationality they have, the Government take the safety of individuals extremely seriously; that we will not tolerate transnational repression; that we will use legislation to take action where it has surfaced; that the prison sentences, in this case for espionage, of eight and 10 years are significant; and that we keep all matters, such as the foreign influence registration scheme and all the other measures we have, under continuous review.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister talks about things that are unacceptable and will not be tolerated, but the Chinese Communist Party is using the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office as a tool for its repressive activities. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to it as a relic of a time when it was a valid trade and economic office. The two front men have recently been caught, but there is a whole apparatus behind them. Why is the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office still being allowed to exist as a smokescreen for those repressive activities?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office exists to promote trade with the Hong Kong special administrative region, and that is a legitimate activity. If there are allegations of criminality, or where there is proven criminality, the Government will take action, as has been the case with the two individuals who are now serving time in prison for their crimes. I can only reiterate that we take this matter seriously. The Foreign Secretary summoned the Chinese ambassador on 8 May. She explained quite clearly that that behaviour is unacceptable. We will continue to monitor it and, if need be, take action.

Student Visas

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is important that the Government take a whole-government approach to this issue. I know that my colleagues in both the Foreign Office and the Home Office, and in some cases in the Ministry of Justice, are very focused on ensuring that we have a whole-government approach on the removal of individuals who have no right to be here. I will supply the noble Lord with figures on the removals, which have increased. It is important that we focus on continuing to remove people who have no right to be in the United Kingdom.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, is it really not possible for the Government to have a more targeted approach—similar to what my noble friend Lady Hamwee suggested—by increasing the workforce to assist asylum applications? Rather than the blunderbuss of removing the right of nationals from certain countries to apply for visas, can the Government not home in on the individual abuse of the system? The blanket approach risks being unfair.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The brake on the four countries is a temporary brake while we assess the reasons for the rise in numbers that took place. The Government are trying to speed up the asylum processes along the lines that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned. We have put additional staff in to approve the processing, because we want to get to a stage where individuals know quickly whether they have a genuine asylum claim, whether they have been accepted—and, if they have been rejected, that they have the right to appeal—and whether we have to remove them. That is self-evidently part of the Government’s approach to this issue.

Antisemitic Attacks

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend, whose point goes to the heart of intelligence-led policing. We need to look, through intelligence and the security services, who do a great job, at who is behind motivating these attacks, the actors who are undertaking them and whether they are being supported or directed by other state organisations, and we need to take action accordingly. The security services, the police and the Home Office are constantly on that ball, trying to ensure that we find out who are the perpetrators and stopping attacks as well as dealing with the consequences.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My noble friend Lord Palmer quoted his local rabbi as saying that this is unacceptable for us as a nation. That is what I would like to emphasise. The Minister has given us an account of a lot of the good work that the Government have done, but I cannot help thinking that we are not really getting down to the roots. Even the title of the Statement is “Antisemitic Attacks”, which is a bit precise. Antisemitism is a virus, as has been said, that ideally we want to cure, but first we have to look at all the root causes and the way in which it is changing and mutating. We need something bigger and bolder to get across to the nation what is happening to the Jewish community, such as the Prime Minister going on television, if that is not a daft idea. We need to sock it to our fellow Brits just what the Jewish community is experiencing at the moment.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The title of the Statement is what it is because my honourable friend the Security Minister wanted to make a Statement to the House of Commons straight after the events just over a week ago. He went to the House of Commons last week and we are discussing that Statement today. He also visited the synagogues, as did my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on Friday last week.

It is absolutely vital that politicians of all parties stand with the Jewish community and look at the very issues that the noble Baroness mentioned, which are the root causes. We have an antisemitism commissioner, my noble friend Lord Mann, reports coming through about what we need to do in the long term and the social cohesion strategy, which is funded by £800 million of taxpayers’ resource and is trying to bring together actions to make sure that we have the social cohesion that we want. We will also continue using intelligence-led policing to track down those who are undertaking this type of activity.

Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Smith of Finsbury (Lab)]

My Lords, it pains me to intervene to say that I think Ministers have got these changes wrong. It pains me even more to say that this is an all too common feature of Home Office decisions at the moment. I want to focus, as my noble friend Lady Royall did, on the provisions in these changes for students, and I do so, of course, as chancellor of the University of Cambridge.

The total ban brought in on students from four countries, Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan, not only removes opportunities from students severely affected by war and regimes in those nations—and let us not forget the impact on Afghan women students particularly—but diminishes the experience and opportunity to learn for British students too. Overseas students bring life and cultural difference to our universities, and we are infinitely the richer for it. Welcoming international students also represents a rather crucial bit of British soft power, and we should not forget that advantage either.

Why on earth is the Home Office deciding to remove any possibility for students from those countries to come here to the UK, even Chevening scholars, simply because a small number of those who have been here in the recent past have asked to stay? While I am at it, can I ask, as I have done before, why students cannot be removed entirely from the immigration figures? Students, by definition, are not immigrating—they are here for a temporary, defined period. The statistics are there to record permanent immigration. It is high time for the Home Office to think seriously about that change, and not the changes in front of us this evening.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with everything that has been said this evening. I do not remember a debate where that has been quite so true. I will jump from international students to the EU settlement scheme, quite briefly, as I know that the bulk of this debate has been on other matters.

First, however, the Immigration Rules represent an astonishing degree of executive power over substantive policy changes, surely not envisaged in the Immigration Act 1971, which conferred those powers. I am grateful to the Hansard Society podcast, which I listened to, about how this has grown. It is an incredible imperial edifice that is largely immune to parliamentary control or even scrutiny. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who reminded us that the other place has no scope to debate them at all, so this is the only place they get any airing. They are even below the level of secondary legislation, because all we can ask the Minister and the Home Office to do is think again—we can only regret, not negative these changes.

I want to raise the proposed changes to the Immigration Rules Appendix EU and ask a series of questions. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee regretted the lack of impact assessments. I think there were only two on the page on GOV.UK—there certainly is not one on the changes to Appendix EU—and I must admit that I find them difficult to understand.

In paragraph 5.54 of the Explanatory Memorandum, the Government suggest that they need to tackle

“identified abuse by EEA citizens sponsoring EUSS applications by those falsely claiming to be eligible family members”,

and that they will

“enable an EUSS application to be refused where it is more likely than not that … the person has assisted another person fraudulently to obtain … entry clearance”.

No assessment is available of this identified abuse or its scope, why these powers are necessary or how they will be exercised. If the Minister does not have time tonight then maybe he can write to me on this, but the Government say they want to extend

“the current provision allowing a non-EEA national applicant to use an expired biometric residence card as proof of their identity”.

I do not understand why the point about a “non-EEA national applicant” is in Appendix EU. Does it mean to the EU settlement scheme? It is not very clear.

There is the assertion in paragraph 5.55 that

“we continue to see attempted abuse of the EUSS family permit route”

and the Government want to bring in additional validity requirements. What is this attempted abuse? Can we have some evidence of what it is and what the scope is? The Government say they will

“require the applicant to provide evidence of the sponsor’s EUSS status”.

I am surprised that that is not already required. I do not understand why an applicant applying essentially for family reunion does not already have to provide evidence of the status of the person they want to join—the sponsor. That is really weird. They will also require the applicant to provide evidence or information to attest to the family relationship. I do not understand how anyone could make an application of this kind without already providing such evidence. Those are some of the issues raised for me by page 12 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which are pretty unclear and seem to provide lots of scope to the Government to do things on rather unclear grounds.

Finally, I highlight the fact that the organisation the3million, with which the Minister and I have had a lot of contact in the past few years, is sadly having to take legal action because the Government do not allow people who have applied for status under the EU settlement scheme and are waiting for a decision to come to the UK while that application is pending. There are probably about 75,000 people waiting for a decision on their application whom that is affecting, of whom 9,000 have been waiting for more than four years. Some are waiting for an administrative review; some are waiting for the outcome of an appeal. All together, we are talking about a not inconsiderable number of people.

Transnational Repression in the UK (JCHR Report)

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the JCHR for this very important report, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for moving it.

The Government recognised in their response to the report that not only can transnational repression

“undermine an individual’s ability to exercise their freedoms and human rights”,

but that

“it is also a matter of national sovereignty and national security”.

But there seems to be an insufficient follow-through from these conclusions. Although the Government say they cannot publish their Defending Democracy review, they say that the review found that the UK had a

“hard operating environment for states wishing to conduct transnational repression”,

and that the UK had

“robust tools and system-wide safeguards”.

The JCHR begs to differ, finding that the UK currently lacks a clear strategy to address it, with no clear definition of transnational repression, as we have heard, and a failure to routinely collect data on the issue.

Hong Kong Watch advises:

“Hong Kong activists have highlighted concerns that UK police officers see harassment, disruptions and verbal abuses by Chinese individuals against the Hong Kong diaspora as internal conflicts between groups with differing political views. One activist stated he felt this framing helped the police depoliticise TNR, omitting the role of foreign Governments in pursuing activists and thus avoiding highly sensitive aspects of UK diplomacy and national security”.


We want the Government to show that that charge is not true.

It is a mystery to me why the Government resist a definition of TNR in favour of a description. The Tackling Transnational Repression in the UK Working Group, a coalition of 60 individuals and organisations, has produced what seems to me to be a good definition:

“Acts or threats against individuals, groups and communities across territorial borders carried out by Governments or their proxies, which violate human rights and/or intimidate, control, coerce or silence dissent”.


It seems to me that it is impossible to have an effective policy and operational response from the Government and police to something that is undefined. Therefore, it seems fair to claim that there is an unresolved protection gap between policy commitments and lived experience, and that the UK response is fragmented and difficult to access.

For instance, a dedicated reporting line is something the JCHR asked for. The Government consider this would be

“duplicative and potentially cause confusion”,

which I do not really understand. This seems to me to have slight echoes of the experience of and complaints from victims of domestic abuse and sexual crimes in this sector.

In particular, the committee—understandably—wants China to be specified on the enhanced tier of the scheme. The Government’s response was, “We will not rush this decision”. As has been widely referred to, there is also the lack of proscription of the IRGC. Lastly, I ask the Minister: what are the Government doing at Interpol to stop the abuse of Interpol red notices? This is of course a cause that Bill Browder—Sir William Browder—has long taken up, after the case of Sergei Magnitsky. The other tool of pressure and silencing that the committee mentions is SLAPPs, which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, also mentioned. What are the Government doing on all these matters?

Electronic Travel Authorisation: Dual Nationals

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support. As he knows, this position was introduced by the previous Government, and I am very pleased that we have been able to see it through. He asked how we will use this information for important border control. The whole purpose of the system is to have border control. As he probably knows, today we have had some new figures on immigration positions. They show that asylum hotels are at the lowest level for 18 months, which coincides with the UK Labour Government; the asylum backlog has fallen for the fourth quarter in a row to 64,426; and small boat arrivals are 9% lower than the peak in 2022. This is part of a government strategy to control our borders and ensure that they are firm. I welcome his support not just for this measure but for the wider government agenda.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I am not sorry but pleased to disrupt this cosy consensus because, honestly, the Government’s temporary mitigation measure is no good at all. It leaves discretion to carriers on what evidence to accept for entry, resulting in, as was said by my friend in the other place, Manuela Perteghella, who tabled this Urgent Question yesterday,

“chaos for law-abiding British citizens”—[Official Report, Commons, 25/2/26; col. 351.]

and the separation of families. Why can this Government not do what Canada did: delay enforcement and create a low-cost, temporary authorisation? Why do this Government not do something similarly common-sense? We understand that controls should be properly enforced, but, for goodness’ sake, leave a breathing space for people for whom the impact is very personal.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, rightly said, this scheme has been in planning for three years; it was introduced by the previous Government and we have seen it through. There is always going to be a deadline at some point in any scheme, and the deadline for the introduction of this one was 26 February—today. What we have tried to do is to ensure that, if there are individuals who are impacted today, this week or in the near future, there is a temporary mitigation so that carriers may—at their discretion, as the noble Baroness said—accept an expired UK passport, alongside a non-visa national third-country passport, as evidence of British nationality.

Dual nationals may also ask their carrier to contact the Home Office’s carrier support hub, which is available now. Dual nationals overseas may also wish to contact the embassy. There is provision for urgent travel without a British passport in certain circumstances, as set out on GOV.UK. If there are particular problems, my colleague the Immigration Minister will hold drop-in sessions in the Houses of Parliament next week and the week after. Now that the scheme is available, dual nationals who wish to come to the UK can apply for either a British passport or a certificate that is a lifetime allowance on that dual-national approach.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 472 and 473. On the arguments and all the difficulties and intricacies, the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, cannot be doubted, given his involvement and the things he has done. In the end, however, I am a simple person. I know that there are complications and it is difficult, but if these amendments are accepted, it would allow the possibility of exploring all those intricacies and complications.

The really annoying thing for most of us is when people whom we know have committed terrible atrocities—when the evidence is incontrovertible—can leave the places they have devastated and come here to do their shopping and have holidays. This country, and particularly this present Government, say that everything is going to be best under the rule of law. Lord Bingham, in his book The Rule of Law, said some wonderful things—that the rule of law is the nearest thing we have to a universal origin. In other words, there are no areas the rule of law does not cover. I say that because there is a possibility of enshrining what Lord Bingham was talking about.

Globalisation has given we citizens of the world the possibility of living in a global village. It is no longer about living on this little island—we all belong to this huge global village, and whoever touches any citizen in our global village touches us. It is not just the people who live in Ukraine or somewhere else: they touch them, and they are touching us.

We are therefore partly involved in all this. The United Kingdom must not become a haven, as the noble Lord said, for those who committed such atrocities and are escaping justice and the places where they were done. We must not be a place that gives the impression that the door is open and they can come here. They do their shopping, and some even bring their children to send them to university or other places of learning; I have known this. They think that they are getting away with it. To me, that is what must not happen.

Margaret and I came to this country in 1974, and it was another nearly six years before Idi Amin’s Government fell. We were terrified to have any contact with the Ugandan embassy, because the people he had sent before his Government fell had committed terrible atrocities. Margaret and I knew these characters and they got away with it. In his regime, nearly 900,000 people were murdered, including the chief justice, the chancellor of the university, the head of the civil service—I could go on and on. These dictators and people like that seem to have a very long arm that prevents anybody getting near them.

For me, these amendments are opening a door for further conversation. The proposers of the two amendments were wise in saying that this, if it is to happen, should be laid at the door of the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General, who has a lot of advisers and very able people, will look at it and make a decision on whether prosecution happens. They are not simply opening it out to every court, to everybody, to think they can have a go. It is so limited. If we do not do this, as a country that really upholds the rule of law, and if we do not have this universal jurisdiction as an armoury in place, we will simply have people coming here when they have committed terrible atrocities, and they will look as though they are untouchable.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, all the speakers have made a powerful case in support of these two amendments, not least of course the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who moved the lead amendment. I apologise to him for missing the first few minutes. I was caught out because I had not remembered that Amendment 471 had already been debated. I have had the advantage of reading that part of the JCHR report, both on the account of—

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise, but the noble Baroness has just said that she was not in her place at the start of the group. Really, she should not be speaking to the group if she was not in her place. That is the usual convention and courtesy of the House and is set out in the Companion as well.