Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps: Proscription

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I have had a detailed letter from the noble Lord raising a number of points that I will respond to. I am hoping to see him before the Bill comes to this House, for a private discussion on some of those matters. We have acted upon recommendations from Jonathan Hall KC, whom we asked to review this legislation. The Bill before Parliament is what he has assessed is a workable piece of legislation.

On including issues such as a membership offence, Jonathan Hall has judged that that is not workable because of international law considerations. We will have to debate that detail, but I hope that ultimately we can settle on a Bill that gives the Secretary of State—the Home Secretary in this case—the power to act against any state threat in a way that we are not able to do now. The House has pressed me about this on many occasions. We have not been able to do it because of the failings in the legislation to date. To deal with those challenges, this Bill will make that difference. I am grateful for the noble Lord's support.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I strongly welcome the role that the Minister has played in ensuring that this legislation is brought forward. I remind him of the debate that we had in in your Lordships’ House on the Joint Committee on Human Rights report, Transnational Repression in the UK. We took evidence from Iranians who had been left bleeding on the street after being attacked by members of the IRGC, and BBC Persian journalists who were targeted in the way that the noble lord, Lord Cryer, described.

Can the Minister ensure that the recommendations in that report are acted upon? Will he also look at what more can be done to hold to account those who have been executing Iranians in Iran at an unprecedented rate—some 2,159 in the last 12 months, 52% based on the death sentence issued by the revolutionary courts? Of course, in our minds is the young woman, Mahsa Amini, who was arrested and died in police custody because she offended the dress code.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support as well. I know he has a long-standing interest in this matter and has put pressure on the Government accordingly, which I welcome. We are trying to put in place a framework for legislation where we can act on any potential state threat. The type of incident that he has mentioned are ones that we will reflect upon. The Bill itself, unless amended by both Houses, means that there must be a UK connection of some sort for any designation to take place. Those are matters that we will discuss. I do not want us to get ahead of ourselves. I want this Bill to be an Act so that the Secretary of State can legally act to take action against any actor who is providing a state threat against this United Kingdom and its citizens.

Concealed Surveillance Equipment in Government Offices and Vehicles

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the reported discoveries of concealed surveillance equipment in Government offices and vehicles, what assessment they have made of the implications of this for (1) national security, and (2) public policy.

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

In line with the practice of successive Administrations, this Government do not comment on the detail of internal security matters, but I can confirm that an electronic device was found in a communal area of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government during a routine security check. The device was not in or near ministerial offices, and it is currently being investigated by the appropriate agencies. The Government have also looked into the Daily Mail report and previous coverage and have not discovered any evidence of a tracking device being placed in Prime Ministers’ cars. This is based on inquiries made at the time, and more recently.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, and to the Minister for that reply.

That disclosure was made yesterday to a Select Committee in another place—that a Chinese cellular module was discovered in the then Prime Minister’s car—and on the previous day, there was a report of secret cameras being discovered in government offices. Surely that raises serious questions about the security of government departments, and the systematic use of both surveillance and indeed transnational repression by hostile states, including those states described by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, as being part of a “deadly quartet” of our country’s enemies.

Is it true that the location of the cameras was where consideration of the proposed embassy of the People’s Republic of China was taking place? Will the Minister make an assessment of whether there has been undue influence as a result? When will the Government give effect to the unanimous call from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I have the honour to chair, that the People’s Republic of China should be listed with Russia and Iran in the upper tier of the foreign influence registration scheme?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

In short, no. I am trying to be helpful, as is my nature, but there are certain things I cannot be helpful with. One of them is anything that may give further information about or prejudice investigations into the important matter of the location of any device found. As I have said to the House, it was not in or near a ministerial office, but we are investigating and there will be an examination of what happened. I would hesitate to speculate as to who, what, where, why or when until such time as the investigation has occurred.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister is always helpful in the replies that he gives to the House, but I press him further on the second limb of the question I put to him about the discovery of cellular modules in a former Prime Minister’s car. This was not something just reported in a newspaper, as he said to the House. This was mentioned yesterday at the Business Select Committee in another place by Mr Charles Parton, who served as one of our senior diplomats and is one of this country’s leading experts on China—and also on cellular modules. At a meeting that I chaired last night in your Lordships’ House, Mr Charles Parton said it again. Will the Minister at least look at the record of the Select Committee, and undertake to have a conversation with Mr Parton?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will repeat my answer in the interests of clarity for the noble Lord. We have looked into the reports and previous coverage and have not discovered any evidence of a tracking device being placed in Prime Ministers’ cars. That is based on inquiries made at the time and again more recently. I cannot be clearer than that. An investigation has taken place and no evidence has been provided. I saw the individual make these allegations on television last night, but I can only repeat my understanding of the security services’ follow-up of those investigations. What I have said to the House today is my current understanding of the position.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Nash (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and others; I commend them on bringing them forward. Social media companies have captured our children’s attention, and now AI chatbots are coming for their affection—and worse. In legislating against harms caused by technology, we are always going to be playing catch-up, but we need to learn quickly to play catch-up much faster. These amendments offer us the opportunity to do that, and we should seize it.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, brevity is the order of the day but, like some of my noble friends, I would like to add my support to the amendments that have been laid before your Lordships’ House by my noble friend Lady Kidron.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I have the privilege of chairing, is currently conducting an inquiry into AI and human rights. We have concluded our evidence taking, and I commend to your Lordships the evidence given by, in particular, Google, Meta and Microsoft. I also highlight some of the concerns that have been raised around child safety.

My noble friend Lady Kidron gave me, the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and others the opportunity to meet the parents of Sewell Setzer. It was an extraordinary moment. He was a 14 year-old boy who took his own life because he had been befriended by a chatbot. I was struck by a report from Internet Matters that said that two-thirds of UK children aged between nine and 17 have used AI chatbots, with many engaging often. More than a third—35%—of them say that it is like talking to a friend; that figure rises to 50% among vulnerable children.

It is the obligation of your Lordships’ House to take this issue seriously. We should all be greatly indebted to my noble friend Lady Kidron for laying these amendments before us.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

My Lords, I oppose government Amendment 429B in this group. I declare my interest as the director of the Free Speech Union. Like my noble friends, I will try to be brief.

As several noble Lords have already pointed out, this amendment would grant the Secretary of State at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology sweeping Henry VIII powers at a very late stage in our consideration of the Bill, thus giving this House far too little time to scrutinise them. Subsection (1) of proposed new Section 216A would grant the Secretary of State the power to

“by regulations amend any provision of this Act”—

the Online Safety Act—

“for or in connection with the purposes of minimising or mitigating the risks of harm to individuals in the United Kingdom presented by”

among other things, “illegal AI-generated content”.

That will presumably include content that breaches Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, meaning that it is grossly offensive. This can include memes. In 2024, a man called Lee Dunn was sentenced to eight weeks in jail for reposting three “grossly offensive” memes on Facebook, having pleaded guilty to a Section 127 offence. How will Ofcom monitor whether AI chatbots are generating grossly offensive content?

Will the Secretary of State use the powers granted to her by this amendment to insist that spyware is installed on personal computers and mobile phones? Perhaps your Lordships consider that too remote a risk, but what about requiring technology companies to carry out client-side scanning of people interacting with AI chatbots on their devices—much like how Section 121(1) of the Online Safety Act grants Ofcom the power to require companies, including those that own private messaging apps such as WhatsApp, to scan content on people’s personal devices and report certain categories of illegal material to the National Crime Agency?

Do not forget that this amendment would allow the Secretary of State to amend “any provision” of the Online Safety Act in order to minimise or mitigate the risks of harm posed by illegal AI-generated content. I dwell on this to illustrate just how wide-ranging and open-ended are the powers that this amendment would grant to the Secretary of State—powers that could have far-reaching consequences for civil liberties and freedom of speech.

Another risk is the definitions part of the Amendment. Subsection (17) disapplies Section 59(14)(a) of the Online Safety Act when it comes to illegal AI-generated content. Section 59(14)(a) qualifies the scope of illegal content in Part 3 of the Act, and disapplying it gives the Secretary of State enormous scope to enlarge the definition of illegal content and impose proactive suppression duties on AI chatbots to make sure they comply with the new draconian censorship regime.

If the Government believe there are specific harms that users of AI chatbots are currently exposed to and should be protected from—and I certainly do not say that there are not—let them bring forward primary legislation so we can consider the remedies they propose and factor in the trade-offs, particularly when it comes to free speech.

Transnational Repression in the UK (JCHR Report)

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

That this House takes note of the Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights Transnational repression in the UK (7th Report, HL Paper 160).

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)]

My Lords, before the debate gets under way, I want to highlight the four-minute advisory time for Back-Bench contributions. This is designed to ensure that the debate can finish within two hours, in line with the usual timings for Thursday debates, and that the House can rise at a reasonable time. I therefore urge noble Lords to keep their remarks within four minutes to meet these ends—of course, with the exception of the mover, the noble Lord, Lord Alton.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, it is an honour to open today’s debate on the Joint Committee on Human Rights report Transnational Repression in the United Kingdom. As chair of the JCHR, I pay tribute to my committee colleagues from both Houses and thank the terrific JCHR team, headed by our clerks Rhiannon Hollis, Moriyo Aiyeola and Lauren Marchant. I also thank the Library for its briefing note, the Minister and the officials who have briefed him for the work that has been done by him and his colleagues in the department, but especially the noble Lord, Lord Isaac, who will make his maiden speech today. We greatly look forward to hearing that.

Our report highlights the absence of a universally accepted definition of transnational repression—TNR. We recommend that the Government adopt a formal definition, systematically collect data, and develop monitoring mechanisms. We agree with James Lynch, the co-director of Fair Square, who told our committee that we are missing a

“big opportunity to properly monitor and analyse the trends and then develop a coherent strategy”.

We query the way in which TNR is treated in diplomacy with hostile states, and contend that failure to incorporate it as part of the UK’s diplomatic engagement with perpetrator countries

“risks … emboldening authoritarian regimes to escalate TNR activities”.

The report calls for international co-operation with other democracies—we mention the example of Canada—in combating TNR, and we make some specific recommendations about the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs, and the misuse of Interpol red notices. Closer to home, we call for a national hotline for victims, and more systematic, specialised training for police officers to identify the early warning signs of TNR.

In paragraph 96 of the report, we say:

“The UK’s response to TNR would benefit significantly from more structured and consistent coordination across government departments”.


Andrew Scurry, the director of the homeland security group at the Home Office, told us that:

“We are looking still with the police … at how best to gather data and more information, and indeed intelligence”.


It would be good for the House to hear how that is going.

During a discussion this morning with academics from Bristol and Oxford Universities, facilitated by the international affairs parliamentary hub, I was struck by their finding that TNR is profoundly on the rise in the UK. This chimed entirely with our own committee’s view that TNR is not a peripheral or minor issue. MI5 says that, in 2024, the number of its state-threat investigations jumped by some 48%, with more than 20 threat-to-life cases relating to Iran alone, since the start of 2022. The true scale, though, is likely to be far greater still, given the significant underreporting and the often covert nature of TNR criminality.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights commends the National Security Act 2023, which created new offences relating to foreign interference in the UK, and did not identify any significant gaps in criminal law related to TNR. We do, however, want the existing laws to be better used and more effectively enforced. It is essential that the legal framework remains agile and responsive to evolving threats. We recognise the rapidly evolving nature of digital technologies, and the increasing sophistication of methods used to conduct TNR. We call for the Government to keep relevant legislation under regular review, and have asked for an annual update to the JCHR on the effectiveness of current legislation in addressing evolving digital forms of TNR.

Our country has a long history of giving protection to courageous dissidents being hunted down by dictatorships. During my early days as a young Member of Parliament in the 1980s, I met extraordinary heroes who had escaped the Soviet bloc and continued to work for the liberties that would ultimately come with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Back then, and today too, dictatorial regimes had a long reach.

Let me draw on the evidence given to our inquiry to illustrate the nature of the threats that people resident in the United Kingdom now face. A number of noble Lords have experienced a small dose of transnational repression themselves: in my case, collecting sanctions from Russia, North Korea, Iran and China. But this is small beer in comparison with some of the appalling intimidation experienced by others. Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether China has lifted sanctions on parliamentarians’ families, and on others, including Sir Geoffrey Nice KC, who chaired the Uyghur Tribunal, Dr Jo Smith Finley, Essex Court Chambers, and the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission.

Will the Minister also comment on the 1 million Hong Kong dollar bounty placed by the CCP on the head of Chloe Cheung, a 19 year-old young woman, and others in the United Kingdom? Read Chloe’s courageous testimony to our inquiry, waiving her anonymity, in which she described the profound effect that this CCP targeting has had on her. She spoke recently against the proposed CCP mega-embassy in London, fearful that, if it is built and she is snatched, she will, to use her words, “never come out”.

Read the evidence of the brave Uyghur activist Rahima Mahmut, whose relatives in China have been subjected to intimidation and coercion, forced to publicly condemn her in order to safeguard themselves from reprisals. She movingly described to the committee what she called the “human cost” of speaking out. Read the evidence of the disgraceful treatment of Professor Michelle Shipworth by University College London, and the shameful mistreatment of Sheffield Hallam’s Professor Laura Murphy following her brilliant work on Uyghur slave labour in Xinjiang.

Their treatment is an affront to British sovereignty, to academic freedom and to free speech. It is transnational repression driven by overreliance on Chinese money. Let us note too that, earlier this month, MI5’s Ken McCallum identified threats to universities, students and academics at a meeting he convened with 70 vice-chancellors. How will the Government implement a direct reporting route on foreign interference, implement the complaints scheme in the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act and strengthen overseas transparency regulatory powers?

Unsurprisingly, the JCHR received a large amount of evidence recommending the designation of China under the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme—FIRS. It was an issue raised by Caoilfhionn Gallagher KC the lawyer of British citizen Jimmy Lai, incarcerated in Hong Kong for five years and in solitary confinement. She told our inquiry that, as his lawyer, she had been subjected to threats and harassment. She criticised the feeble response to bounties and sanctions against parliamentarians and described how peaceful protestors in Manchester had been assaulted by CCP diplomats. She said:

“We send such a terrible message if we have a situation where a diplomat can drag an activist by the hair into the Manchester consulate … and the use of language such as calling individuals rats who need to be hunted down worldwide, and yet … China is not in the enhanced tier”.


The JCHR concluded:

“Decisions on which countries to specify under the enhanced tier of FIRS must be guided by objective assessments of threat, not influenced by broader foreign policy considerations. We recommend that the Government specify China under the enhanced tier of FIRS”;


and that

“The Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020 do not capture the full range of TNR tactics”;


and that China’s omission from the enhanced tier

“risks undermining the credibility and coherence of FIRS”.

The JCHR found:

“China conducts the most comprehensive TNR campaign of any foreign state operating in the UK”.


I would be grateful if the Minister would respond to my previously voiced proposal—which appears at paragraph 90 on page 37 as a JCHR recommendation—that the Intelligence and Security Committee, on which the noble Lord himself served with great distinction, should have confidential oversight of FIRS and sanctions and which, like appointments of high-level British ambassadors, or the expulsion of diplomats connected to TNR, should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

Such scrutiny should also extend to issues of proscriptions. Let us consider Iran and the IRGC, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. We heard shocking evidence of the lethality of Iranian transnational repression. We heard about an Iranian journalist left seriously wounded on the streets of London and about intimidation of BBC Persian journalists and their families. One witness, Hossein Abedini, deputy director of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, almost lost his life in a vicious brutal attack by Iranian operatives. He told the JCHR that “cultural centres” in the UK are used as fronts for surveillance operations targeting members of the Iranian diaspora. Reporters without Borders told us:

“Iranian women journalists have been subjected to gendered and sexualised abuse, including explicit threats of rape or sexual violence towards them or their families (including children), the circulation of fake stories designed to ruin their reputations and photoshopped pornographic images”.


In this week marking the fourth anniversary of Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine, we should consider also how Putin’s regime has engaged in the most terrible war crimes and egregious forms of transnational repression. We can recall the Salisbury nerve agent attack on Sergei and Yulia Skripal. But Russian TNR comes in other form too. The JCHR received evidence relating to the misuse of SLAPPs to intimidate and silence journalists, activists, and other critics.

Although SLAPPs are typically initiated by private individuals rather than states, we heard that they are often used as a TNR tactic. Susan Coughtrie, the director of the Foreign Policy Centre, told us that individuals “closely aligned” with the state are utilised to carry out TNR through legal harassment. She cited the case of Catherine Belton, the journalist and author of the book Putin’s People:

“She was pursued originally by five oligarchs, including Roman Abramovich, but also Rosneft, which is the Russian state gas company, so there was a very direct link there … to the Russian state”.


The inquiry found that SLAPPs are increasingly used to silence and intimidate people who expose or criticise the actions of authoritarian regimes.

The committee would also like the Government to look at the cost and stress of lengthy legal action, provide a clear timeline for a review of the effectiveness of the SLAPPs provisions in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 and ensure that future legislation deals with SLAPPs that are not related to economic crime.

Our inquiry also found that Interpol red notices had been issued without the knowledge of those targeted, leaving people uncertain about whether they can travel without risk of detention. We concluded that red notices are being systematically exploited to pursue political opponents, human rights defenders and journalists beyond national borders.

Beyond Russia, Iran and China, the committee received credible evidence that a number of states had engaged in acts of transnational repression on UK soil. The evidence included allegations concerning Pakistan, India, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates.

I draw particular attention to the evidence and testimony given to our inquiry concerning Eritrea by Martin Plaut, the accomplished former BBC journalist, author and academic. The UN special rapporteur on Eritrea told the inquiry that those who refuse to contribute a tax that is levied on the diaspora are

“considered government opponents and face harassment, intimidation and ultimately social isolation”.

I welcome an update on what the Government are doing about this.

In the last few days, I have received additional disturbing depositions, one of which I know the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, will refer to in her remarks. I received evidence also about a Burmese artist who has been targeted, and I will send the depositions to the Minister, because they are outside the scope of the inquiry.

Let me end. With our national security interests and way of life threatened on a scale unparalleled since the 1930s and 1940s, democracies must act together in strong alliances to combat multipolar threats to our way of life. We are fools to take for granted our privileges and freedoms, including the right to think, to speak and to believe—even to live. All over the world, the 30 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are under concerted attack. We have been far too complacent and dependent on the states which threaten us, and insufficiently focused on resilience. Transnational repression is a harbinger of far worse to come.

Our committee concluded that transnational repression risks undermining the UK’s ability to protect people who have sought safety within our borders, such as the witnesses to whom I have referred. But we also found that a failure to deal robustly with TNR and the malign activities of hostile states will also increasingly put the UK’s indigenous population at risk today. Debates such as this will bring the JCHR report to a wider audience and I hope that noble Lords who have participated—and I am grateful to them all—will circulate its findings far and wide. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I start by saying how grateful I am to noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, for the way in which he has engaged with the JCHR on this issue, and indeed to his colleague, Dan Jarvis, Member of Parliament, another Minister in the Government, who gave evidence to the committee. It has been constructive and we have made progress.

The noble Lord has felt some of the frustration around some of the issues, such as FIRS and sanctions—things on which he cannot give running commentaries, including the proscription of the IRGC. However, that begs the question I raised earlier on about how we as a Parliament deal with such difficult, sensitive and often controversial questions. They cannot be dealt with on the Floor of the House, but they can be in places such as the Intelligence and Security Committee. I hope that he will talk to his colleagues about how some dedicated moment in the course of the year might be set aside to look at those things, because he knows as well as I do that if the avalanche of issues that come before a committee rumbles on, you never get round to doing some of the other things you might like to do. Perhaps he can take that away specifically so that some of these questions could be looked at in more detail in more confidential surroundings, in camera and safeguarding national interests. That is something constructive that could come out of this.

The Minister said that this is a safe, open and democratic society. There is unanimity across your Lordships’ House that we want to keep it that way. I do not agree with him about the numbers. In fact, he said we need to look again at the data. We have underestimated the scale of transnational repression. If anything, this report and the debate have helped us to see the scale.

This is an excellent report. I congratulate everyone involved in its compilation. I only regret that my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, who is such a hard-working member of the committee, has now rotated off it. We were grateful to him for the contribution that he made to the report’s compilation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said that few people know what transnational repression is. She is quite correct. I hope that the report and today’s debate will help to put that right. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, complimented the witnesses who came before the committee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, emphasised the courage that many have shown, specifically those who wanted to waive their anonymity so that people would know what has happened to them.

Maiden speeches always give special definition to debates, and the noble Lord, Lord Isaac, certainly raised our debate. The noble Lord, Lord Cryer, said that we would all have to look to our laurels as a result of the noble Lord’s maiden speech; I agree. The noble Lord, Lord Isaac, brought together two things: his commitment to education and to human rights. Curiously, those two have conflated as we have heard about the threats to our universities. We heard that from the noble Lords, Lord Moore and Lord Young of Acton, and other noble Lords who contributed. This is something we have to return to. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, the Universities Minister, is looking at this. She could do no worse than go back to the report compiled several years ago by the then Universities Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Johnson of Marylebone. When I drew that report personally to the attention of his brother, who at the time was the Prime Minister, he said he was not even aware of it. Things have moved on and we need to be much more aware of the systemic subversion of our universities, which has been referred to today.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who is a long-standing friend, always emphasises the importance, as he did in his intervention a few moments ago, of resilience and getting rid of the dependency we have—billions of pounds of national debt every year. But it goes beyond the funding to the very heart and nature of our society. We have heard about FIRS, SLAPPs, red notices, Magnitsky sanctions, common definitions, the collection of data, how to reset diplomatic engagement, proscription of the IRGC and the rest. These are all important themes and I am glad that our committee was able to bring some of them out. I am grateful to all noble Lords who developed the arguments and delved deeper as we have proceeded.

I shall end on a personal reflection, which is that I always enjoy listening to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. We have talked today about maiden speeches. He may not remember but in 1979, a brash new young MP who had just been elected in a by-election and became the shortest-ever lived MP, for two and a half days flat, had to make his maiden speech within two hours of arriving because the House was being suspended so that people could go back and fight a general election. It fell to the noble Lord, then Jeff Rooker, to respond to the new youngest Member of the House of Commons and say nice things about him. He has always given me encouragement as the years have proceeded, and it is always a pleasure to hear him speak in debates such as our own today. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Isaac, will also feel encouraged by all the commendations that have been made to him from around your Lordships’ House. With those words, I conclude my remarks.

Motion agreed.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th February 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

472: After Clause 196, insert the following new Clause—
“Universal jurisdiction over the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, and ancillary conduct (England and Wales)(1) The International Criminal Court Act 2001 is amended as follows.(2) In section 51(1)—(a) after “person”, insert “, whatever his or her nationality,”;(b) after “war crime”, insert “in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.”.(3) Omit section 51(2).(4) In section 52(1)—(a) after “person”, insert “, whatever his or her nationality,”;(b) after “conduct”, insert “in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.”.(5) Omit section 52(4).”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause gives effect to the JCHR’s recommendation to amend the ICC Act 2001 to provide for the exercise of universal jurisdiction over the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, and ancillary conduct. This would allow for the authorities in England and Wales to prosecute persons suspected of these crimes without any requirement for a connection to the UK.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, in moving all-party Amendments 472 and 473, I thank the co-sponsors and other supporters, who include the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws and Lady Hodgson of Abinger, my noble friends Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Carlile of Berriew, and the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Clement-Jones.

These amendments have been recommended to the House in two separate reports of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I have the honour to chair. One of those arose from the legislative scrutiny of this Bill; the other was its report on how to deal with the atrocity crimes of Daesh against the Yazidis and other minorities. The recommendations and amendments of the JCHR were unanimous and enjoyed all-party support. They also enjoyed the strong support of the International Development Committee of the House of Commons and its chair Sarah Champion MP, and organisations such as Redress.

The Minister and others will have seen a letter from the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute, signed by more than 30 of some of the most illustrious and distinguished practitioners in the field. These amendments are a response to what the JCHR saw as a justice gap. They are also compatible with practice in other jurisdictions and are limited in scope. They make a very small but indicative and incremental change by removing the requirement of UK citizenship and UK residence from Sections 51 and 58 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001. I will try to summarise the key arguments in favour of the amendments for the Committee, then tackle some of the misconceptions.

Under international law, the UK is already legally obliged to prosecute suspects of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes who are present on its territory regardless of nationality or residence. A failure to do so puts the UK at risk of becoming a safe haven for alleged perpetrators of international crimes. The rule of law is weakened when alleged perpetrators of genocide or crimes against humanity and war crimes can be here in the UK without facing justice, so this is about closing that justice gap.

These amendments give substance to the long-standing case for reform repeatedly raised since 2009 and are not directed at any particular country, individual or context. There is no concealed political agenda, and safeguards are included to ensure the continuation of prosecutorial oversight by the Crown Prosecution Service and the Attorney-General of decisions about whether to prosecute. They also make a reality of the often-repeated desire for the United Kingdom to reinforce and renew its claim to leadership in promoting the rule of law. We will be doing so by ending impunity for the gravest international crimes and by empowering British courts to act where alleged perpetrators of international crimes are present in the United Kingdom.

It is a mirage to cite the role of the International Criminal Court, as it cannot single-handedly provide accountability for international crimes, even before considering the use of vetoes by those who would not wish such crimes to be referred to that court. Capable national courts must share the burden, as the German courts have done, in successfully prosecuting the crime of genocide. Other comparable democracies already prosecute suspects present on their territory, and that option should be open to us too.

--- Later in debate ---

As for the other concerns I have mentioned, we might try to address them by providing the strict conditions under which our courts would exercise universal jurisdiction. Those conditions would be, first, if the individual in question could not be extradited to a foreign jurisdiction with a closer connection with the alleged offence of the alleged offender because of, for example, human rights bars; and, secondly, where the countries with closer connections with the offence or the offender do not have an independent judiciary. If we had those conditions spelled out, it would deal with some of the concerns that have been pointed out.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

I ask the noble Lord to continue the discussions with those of us proposing this amendment today, but our amendment is not as ambitious as he suggests. I wish it were, but actually it is much more limited. On some of the points he raised about the kinds of people who could be brought for prosecution to the United Kingdom under universal jurisdiction more widely, yes, that could happen in a country like Germany, but it would not happen under this amendment. This is about people coming here and being able to do so with impunity rather than immunity, simply because we do not have any powers to arrest them or take them to court.

[Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)]

I appreciate that it is about only those who are within the jurisdiction, but a lot of officials come within the jurisdiction at different points in time and for different reasons. There was another case a few years ago in which I was also instructed, concerning the visit of the Egyptian head of intelligence to the United Kingdom. On that occasion, there was an attempt to arrest him, which failed, and his immunity was upheld. That is the sort of scenario where we need clarity.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

I am very glad that my noble friend has raised that point, because it is very relevant. If, for instance, the Foreign Office were to say to the Attorney-General, “We are bringing someone here to have discussions about how to secure peace in Sudan”, but they might have been involved with the RSF or the Sudanese Army in some of the atrocities there, there would be no requirement to prosecute them, because in those circumstances the Attorney-General simply would not allow the prosecution to proceed.

[Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)]

It is not quite like that, because the Foreign Office would have to issue special permission for the person who came within the jurisdiction, and now that we have clarified the law, that would give that individual immunity. As for the Attorney-General’s decision not to consent, there is a risk that that could be subject to judicial review, and there have already been attempts in that space. But I agree that that is a very important procedural requirement, and it is already in the Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I accept that, and I thought I understood the noble Lord’s position clearly, but I am grateful for his clarification. It still adds to the general point that I have made today, and I go back to the original, overarching point that the UK applies universal jurisdiction to only a very few specific international crimes. Our approach—through long-standing support of successive Governments—is that, where there is no apparent link between the UK and an international crime, we support the principle that such crimes are best investigated and prosecuted close to where they are perpetrated. That may not be a position that satisfies the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, or his supporters today, but it is one which I hope I have clarified. I note also—which I did not mention earlier—the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for the general approach of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. With that, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I thank everybody who has participated in this important debate. I was particularly grateful, of course, to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, with her immense experience and as a colleague on the Joint Committee on Human Rights—we are beginning to miss her already, only one week after she rotated off the committee. This was a unanimous recommendation, not just in one but in two reports. We took evidence. This was not just about our inability to intervene in faraway places. We took evidence about British nationals who had been in north-east Syria and in northern Iraq and who had committed what even the Foreign and Commonwealth office has now decided was a genocide—it is willing now to use that word, which is very unusual on the part of the FCDO.

So we have the evidence. We know that 400 of the British fighters who went there came back, and not a single one has been prosecuted for the crime of genocide. Too often, there has been rank impunity. We also know that they have connections with other people who are not British citizens and who regularly travel to the United Kingdom. What this limited amendment seeks to do is not bring all those people before the British courts; it is about taking people who come into the UK with those kinds of links and bringing them to justice if the Attorney-General believes that there is a case to answer.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, for reinforcing the argument, and I thank my noble friend Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, the noble Lords, Lord Verdirame and Lord Wigley, and my noble and right reverend friend Lord Sentamu. I wish we could have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, but I suspect there will be an opportunity on Report, and I hope that omission will be put right. Nevertheless, I was grateful to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, said about being willing to hear what she has to say but on a one-to-one basis. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and of course the Minister himself.

Asylum and Immigration: Children

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The UK Government are committed to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I give that commitment to the noble Lord: that is what we are committed to. The policies that we are bringing forward, which are subject to consultation, will be in line with those policy objectives.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister will know that the Joint Committee on Human Rights has been in correspondence with the Home Secretary about children who disappeared from asylum accommodation in the UK: not one or two, but dozens and dozens of children. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us when we might get an update on what happened to those children. Did they end up being exploited or trafficked when they disappeared? Every single one of those children’s lives matters. When will we be able to find out what happened to them?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. The last hotel that dealt with unaccompanied children was closed by the previous Government in January 2024. At the Home Office we are committed to working with local councils, the police and others to find out what has happened. It is a disgraceful episode that more than 472 children went missing from hotels up to January 2024. We think that about 428 children have now been found, following investigation, but that still leaves some 50 to 60 children who have gone missing. This Government will ensure that we work with local authorities, the police and third sector partners to locate those remaining children. We are going to try to make sure that that does not happen again, by changing the procedures under this Government.

Defending Democracy Taskforce

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend makes some valuable points. The Security Minister, the honourable Dan Jarvis, has already announced in November that he is co-ordinating a cross-government, counterpolitical interference and espionage action plan, which will report back to Parliament, in due course, from Ministers across government. A significant number of achievements have been made to date. I will take away my noble friend’s suggestions and report back to her in due course.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, on 30 July, the Joint Committee on Human Rights published its report on transnational repression. Can the Minister tell us what weight he attaches to its conclusion that the UK has become a hunting ground for authoritarian regimes around the world to harass and intimidate, and its finding that the Government are failing to provide adequate protections? In particular, what has he got to say about those Hong Kong residents in the UK, such as Chloe Cheung, aged 20, who has had a 1 million Hong Kong dollar bounty placed on her head? What does he have to say about the evidence we received about Iranian pro-democracy activists in the United Kingdom, who have even had their lives put at risk by Iranian state agents?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is not acceptable for foreign nations to threaten individuals who happen to reside in the United Kingdom, and I condemn any actions taken by foreign nations to do that. As I have said to the noble Lord on a number of occasions previously, if there are particular individuals who wish to draw concerns to the attention of the Home Office, we will examine those concerns and look at how we can protect those individuals.

Shamima Begum

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments on this case. He will know that the decision of the UK Government has been upheld by UK courts, which we support. I cannot comment further. I explained to my noble friend prior to this Question coming up that I could not do this because there is currently a court case before the European Court of Human Rights and it would be inappropriate for me to go into individual cases given the ongoing litigation in this matter. However, the Home Secretary will never hesitate to use any of the powers available to her to safeguard national security, and the Home Secretary at the time who took this decision did so for that reason.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, without asking the Minister to go into individual cases, has he had a chance to read the report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, debated in your Lordships’ House back in September, on Daesh crimes? Has he seen the evidence that we were given that there is a distinction to be made, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has said, between children and adults? To leave children in festering conditions in camps in Syria is likely to lead to their being radicalised by groups whose interests are wholly opposed to the interests of the United Kingdom. Can we contrast the generalities around young people with the failure to prosecute any one of the 400 Daesh fighters who have been returned to the United Kingdom? As the Joint Committee pointed to, not one has been prosecuted for the crime of genocide, which even the British Government now say was committed against the Yazidis and others.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I respect the noble Lord and his representations, but the decision in relation to the individual case was taken having considered evidence and supported by both the previous Government and this Government. With the litigation that is currently ongoing in the European court, I cannot say much from this Dispatch Box. I hope that the noble Lord understands that; I would like to be able to give him further information, but I cannot.

The noble Lord will have noticed that this very weekend the UK Government took action against Daesh and will continue to do so. The prosecution issues that he mentioned are for the courts and the legal system and not for me as a Minister.

Facial Recognition Technology: Safeguards

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government have invested over £12 million in supporting the development of facial recognition technology and have supported local forces in doing that. Ultimately, this is a decision for local forces at the moment. We want to see the outcome of the consultation, but I think that that it is an important use of technology to help prevent crime, catch criminals and find missing people. It is also used by police officers on their body-worn cameras to identify individuals when they say they are somebody but, actually, it can be proved that they are not. It is important tool, but the key questions are how we safeguard it, how we put regulations around it and what body will examine those regulations. We are looking at those in the consultation and I will take any representations from the noble Lord as part of that.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome what the Minister said about the importance of safeguards. He will have seen the report last week from Liberty and the Times, which found that, across 43 regional police forces, children as young as 12 have been caught by facial recognition. Will he confirm that he will talk directly to Dame Rachel de Souza, the Children’s Commissioner, who has expressed concern about this, and that the specific position of children, and their safeguarding and protections, will form an important part of the consultation?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Yes, my Lords.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 5th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

58: After Clause 48, insert the following new Clause—
“British National (Overseas) visa route: statutory protection(1) Notwithstanding section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971, the Secretary of State must, by regulations, ensure the continuation of the British National (Overseas) visa scheme as set out in the Immigration Rules HC 395 (“the BN(O) route”), including the pathway to settlement after five years of lawful residence.(2) The provisions of this section may not be repealed except by an Act of Parliament.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to place the BN(O) visa route, including the existing five-year path to settlement, on a statutory footing. It would require any substantial restrictions to the route — such as eligibility criteria or the qualifying period for settlement — to be made through regulations subject to the affirmative procedure, and would prevent the repeal of the route other than by primary legislation.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, first, I express my thanks to many noble Lords, both those in the Chamber this evening and others outside it. I felt a tsunami of good wishes and kindness since experiencing a routine bus journey to your Lordships’ House at 8.15 am one morning, after which I ended up with a broken back, concussion and various other things.

The following week, the noble Lord, Lord Katz, responded to a debate about a Joint Committee on Human Rights report, which I should have been moving; the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, moved it in my place. He said that it was odd that someone who was probably the most sanctioned Member of either House of Parliament, with four countries having sanctions against him, should end up being silenced by a London bus.

That meant that I was unable to speak not only in that debate but on the amendments in the group currently before the House. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, who is overseas this week, for introducing Amendments 58 and 61 in Committee. I particularly thank my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who kindly said that, if it got too late this evening, I would be released so that I could get a train—not a bus—back to the north of England. I am grateful to her.

I am particularly pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, on the ministerial Bench. He has been very kind to me over the intervening period in engaging with emails and the usual flurry of things that I tend to inflict on Ministers, so I am grateful to him.

In moving Amendment 58 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I should also mention that I am vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong and a patron of Hong Kong Watch. In 2017, I was part of the team that monitored the last fair and free elections in Hong Kong. As a result of that, I was sanctioned, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, something that I regard as a great honour—to have been sanctioned for something as important as the promotion of democracy in a place such as Hong Kong.

Going right back to my earliest days in the House of Commons, I visited Hong Kong in 1980, and I have huge admiration for people who have been part of the pro-democracy movement. I count Jimmy Lai as a friend. I know many of those who are currently languishing in prison in Hong Kong as pro-democracy activists. I have nothing but huge admiration for those who have been allowed to be settled in this country. I thank the previous Government for opening the way for Hong Kongers to be able to come, settle and play their part here as they continue to defend democracy.

I move this amendment in defence of a promise, made not just by Ministers of this Government, but by the United Kingdom itself. It is a promise rooted in law, in honour and in the moral fabric of our democracy. When Britain and China signed the Sino-British joint declaration in 1984, we pledged to the Hong Kong people, our fellow citizens, that they would enjoy their rights and freedoms under the rule of law.

When that pledge was broken by Beijing through the imposition of the national security law, we created the British national (overseas) visa route as a means of upholding our end of the bargain. That route is more than a bureaucratic mechanism; it is a covenant. It says to the people of Hong Kong, “If your freedoms are eroded, Britain will offer you sanctuary, stability and, ultimately, the chance to rebuild your lives in freedom”. The amendment simply seeks to protect that covenant, to put the BNO visa route on a statutory footing to ensure that the pathway to settlement after five years of lawful residence cannot be changed by ministerial whim or administrative convenience.

This is about trust. Hundreds of thousands of Hong Kongers have sold homes, left careers and uprooted their families on the strength of this promise. They have enrolled their children in British schools, invested in our economy and enriched our communities. They have done so believing that this country stands by its word. To allow that route to be weakened, extended or quietly repealed by regulation would be a betrayal, not only of them but of Britain’s reputation as a nation of honour.

We have seen the power of this route. More than 230,000 people have already come to the UK under it. They are starting businesses, serving in the National Health Service, volunteering in our communities and contributing to civic life. They are an asset, not a burden. However, I have heard from many families who now fear uncertainty. I pay tribute to the Home Secretary, the right honourable Shabana Mahmood, for the statements she has made to try to reassure people, which have been very constructive and helpful. Nevertheless, there are rumours—unconfirmed but unsettling—about the possible tightening of eligibility or lengthening of the route to settlement, and those have created anxiety. People worry that what was promised as a five-year pathway could become 10; that the cost of visas and fees will rise beyond their reach; and that the scheme might one day close to new applicants altogether.

These families deserve better; they deserve certainty. That is why Amendment 58 provides that the scheme may not be repealed except by Act of Parliament. If there is ever to be a change, it should be done transparently, through primary legislation—debated and decided by both Houses, not slipped through in secondary regulations or quietly allowed to lapse. The Government have argued that flexibility is necessary to respond to changing global circumstances, but flexibility must not come at the expense of integrity. The Home Secretary should not be able, by regulation, to undo what was solemnly promised in the name of the United Kingdom. This is not an abstract issue. It goes to the heart of who we are as a nation. We stand at a time when the international rules-based order is under strain. From Ukraine to Taiwan, from Hong Kong to Tehran, authoritarian regimes test the world’s resolve. Britain’s word—our credibility—matters more than ever.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, spoke powerfully in Committee about the need for certainty for those who have built their lives here under this route. She reminded us that what we are offering is not a new privilege, but the honouring of a promise, and I entirely agree. We are not creating new rights: we are keeping faith with those who relied on our word. Let us recall what these families have fled. In Hong Kong today, people are imprisoned for peaceful protest, for journalism, or for simply lighting a candle in memory of Tiananmen Square. Civil society has been dismantled. The free press has been silenced. The rule of law has been subverted by decree.

The BNO route has been one of the few lifelines available to those who refuse to live under tyranny. It has been a quiet act of defiance, an assertion that Britain still believes in liberty. To dilute or imperil that route now would send the message not only to Hong Kong but to the world that Britain’s promises can be adjusted when convenient. I hope that we will not do that. There are those who argue that the route creates pressure on public services, and I acknowledge that concern; but we should also recognise the contribution of these new arrivals, which I have alluded to. When I meet Hong Kongers who have come under this scheme, I am struck by their gratitude and determination to give back. They see this country not as a temporary refuge but as a home, and they want to serve it.

By supporting this amendment, we reaffirm a simple truth: the promises made by Parliament should be changed only by Parliament. We would not tolerate a Chancellor quietly revoking a pension guarantee by regulation, nor should we tolerate the quiet dismantling of a visa promise made to hundreds of thousands of lawful residents. Some may ask why the amendment is necessary now. I would answer that it is because the trust of the people affected is not theoretical; it is real, it is personal, and it is fragile. Many of these families have known only broken promises from colonial powers, from authoritarian regimes, and from political leaders who said one thing and did another. Let us not add Britain’s name to that list.

In 1984, we gave our word. In 2021, we offered a route to keep it. In 2025, we must protect that route in law. If we fail to do so, we risk signalling to the world that Britain’s undertakings are conditional; its assurance, reversible; its word, negotiable. This House has often been at its best when standing up for principle over expedience. From the abolition of slavery to the defence of refugees, from Magna Carta to modern human rights, the thread that binds us is the belief that law should protect the vulnerable and restrain the powerful. That is what Amendment 58 seeks to do. It places a shield of legality around a promise of hope. Therefore, I ask noble Lords right across the House—whatever parties or groups they may be members of; whatever their views on broader migration policy—to please join me in supporting this amendment.

I will not detain the House by speaking at length on Amendment 61, but I am a signatory to it, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, is for good reasons unable to be here tonight. I commend to the House what he said in Committee and urge the Minister to look again at the position of people who have come from Ukraine and who have no immediate prospect of returning, especially those who are from areas that have been occupied by Putin and may never return to Ukraine. Women and children primarily are involved in that, and I tabled this amendment in Committee at the request of women and children from Ukraine. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, for his support for it, and I commend that to the House as well. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

Given the unique circumstances of this cohort, the flexibility of the Immigration Rules is in our view the more appropriate way, so I ask the noble Lord, Lord Alton, to withdraw the amendment in his name. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for rather rushing through that; they were important issues, and I hope I have done them justice.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister has indeed done the issues justice. I am grateful to him, not least for the tone he adopted in the reply he gave to the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and I made in our speeches about Hong Kong.

I heard what the Minister said about flexibility. That is one of the problems outside this place: people are worried about what “flexibility” might imply. However, if they read carefully what the Minister has just said, I think they will be reassured at some level.

I also heard what the Minister said about continuing to listen, and I will convey that message back to the all-party parliamentary group and to others who are interested in this. We might well take him and the team at the Home Office up on what I think was an invitation to continue to engage on this question.

The way in which the noble Lord has dealt with this amendment is exemplary, and I am grateful to him. As I say, I thought the tone was well struck. On the issue of the Ukrainian amendment, I will talk to his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, when he is back here next week, and maybe we can go and see Ministers to talk about that situation. But they are different categories of people and the issues are separate.

If the Minister was worried about standing in the way of noble Lords and the Recess, I would be even more worried, so the noble Baroness will be pleased to hear that I have no intention of dividing the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 58 withdrawn.