Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd September 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, having exchanged some gestures with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I think it is me next. I am pleased to support this amendment, which I have cosigned, and I very much agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Markham, said.

My remarks will principally have China in mind. China is not the only repressive regime, of course, but certain examples come to mind. Take, for example, the political prisoners in Hong Kong, such as Jimmy Lai and Joshua Wong, who was in the news recently when he was outrageously imprisoned, on so-called national security grounds, for democratic expression and protest. There are many other such examples, of course. There are also concerns about electroshock weapons being demonstrated inside the Chinese embassy here, and we recently saw a considerable eight-year sentence under our National Security Act for the manager of the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in the UK because of attempts at repression in the UK. So there are problems of justice—or, rather, injustice—in Hong Kong and China, but the tentacles of repression are very much reaching into this country, particularly for the Hong Kong diaspora.

We have seen other examples, such as Interpol red notices being misused, so there is a great concern that requests for digital information sharing that have a nefarious purpose could be made by authoritarian states under the Bill. We have had examples in Hong Kong of residential surveillance and holding individuals incommunicado for up to six months, without access to a lawyer or family, which amount to enforced disappearance and increase the risk of torture. We have the lack of judicial independence, as the noble Lord, Lord Markham, mentioned, which explicitly prevents a fair trial, particularly in so-called national security cases. The treatment of imprisoned activists undermines any semblance of a fair trial. There are concerns about the admission of evidence obtained through torture in Chinese courts, which includes Hong Kong. The situation in prisons is intolerable. I understand that Jimmy Lai is being held in conditions where he is practically boiling in the heat of his cell. Anyway, this gives the Committee an illustration of everything that I think noble Lords are already aware of.

I understand that, under the Extradition Act, co-operation between the UK and Hong Kong authorities is permitted on a case-by-case ad hoc basis; if that is incorrect, I would accept correction. But if, under the Bill, NIS data—including sensitive information such as IP addresses, digital fingerprints and user-level logs from digital service providers—could increase the risk of extradition to a country without a bilateral treaty with the UK then that could trigger special extradition arrangements, bypassing traditional human rights safeguards. We are on a slightly uncertain basis of extradition to Hong Kong, into which the Bill could add another element, so there are no permanent safeguards against extradition to Hong Kong and this data sharing could serve as an intelligence-gathering tool, which facilitates that process by providing the evidence which then justifies the filing of an ad hoc extradition request. So we could increase the likelihood of an ad hoc extradition request, which would make it more difficult for the British authorities.

Of course, we all know that many of the diaspora in the UK are living in fear of their lives—not just fear for their safety but for their lives, with bounties on their heads. We are also aware of all the cyber attacks that we understand are being launched from a Chinese direction. This NIS data could help to identify the architecture of the UK’s critical systems and choke points. It could also assist with the harassment of dissidents and human rights defenders living in the UK.

For all these reasons, I very much support the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Markham, said, if the Government believe that there are institutional drafting problems then it is incumbent on them—if they agree with us that there is a danger in this zone of sharing data with a repressive regime, and I cannot see how they would not—to come up with something which fits the existing parameters but prevents opening the door to assisting repression. That would certainly be against any values in this country.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I will briefly follow the noble Lord, Lord Markham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, in supporting this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, who is the architect of the amendment—indeed, of many amendments relating to China and human rights—unfortunately cannot be here, but both the noble Lord, Lord Markham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, explained eloquently why this is important, particularly the focus on China.

Over the years, British Governments of all colours have had a very ambiguous policy towards China. On the one hand, in terms of trade and the economy, it is crucial. On the other, we have to admit that Chinese repression and China’s appalling human rights record mean that the Government need to tread very carefully in their relationships with China.

My interest in this came from the problems, particularly in Xinjiang province, with enforced organ harvesting of dissidents and followers of Falun Gong. When we say “forced organ harvesting”, we essentially mean that prisoners are killed so that their organs may be taken and sold, in essence, on an international market. China makes billions of pounds from this appalling practice.

Over the years, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has chipped away, legislatively, at a number of pieces of legislation to, in essence, preclude British companies from supplying China with goods, medicines or chemicals that could then possibly be used for organ harvesting. There are a number of pieces of legislation where this happens. Obviously, this Bill is different, but I note the argument that the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the noble Lord, Lord Markham, made about why we should have special provisions for fair trials and the release of information to authoritarian countries.

I fully take the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, who, like the noble Lord, Lord Markham, referred back to the debates in the other place and the difficulty of drafting. I hope that the Government might be prepared to talk, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about whether we can find a way forward here.

Heathrow Airport Closure: Resilience and Security

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, that was a nice try but I am afraid I am not going to respond in the way the right reverend Prelate might wish—although, if we are talking about regional transport hubs, I hope that this year we can celebrate the reopening of the Kings Heath station in Birmingham.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, do the Government accept—I think this is less of a stretch—that one lesson to be learned is that Heathrow’s lack of contingency and resilience plans means that a third runway is not feasible?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not take that point at all. Clearly, Heathrow had a resilience plan. One of the points of the investigations is to see how effective it is, and we are mindful of the impact the closure had on thousands of people. The noble Baroness knows that the Government believe that we need to expand Heathrow. It is a hugely important asset to the United Kingdom, but we have to make sure that any expansion is in line with our legal, environmental and climate obligations.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Monday 15th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, time is against us, so I will be really brief. From all our debates so far, I am convinced that the issue of inconsistent policing is the one where I would put most of my money in terms of improving the situation. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate, which looked at the way police forces dealt with violence to women and girls, was very persuasive about the hugely patchy approach of police forces.

As far as the Law Commission is concerned, anyone reading its work will see that it is complex and that it did not come to an easy conclusion when it gave a provisional view that it would be helpful to add to the categories in the way suggested. Most notably, it identified the risk that hate crime laws could prove unhelpful in certain contexts such as domestic abuse and sexual offences. It then went on to quote evidence from the Fawcett Society, which argues that all sexual and domestic abuse offences committed by men against women should be understood as inherently misogynistic. There is therefore a risk that sex-based hate crime might disrupt this understanding because it would require juries to seek express evidence of misogyny in these contexts, potentially causing some offences to be non-misogynistic where there is insufficient evidence of this.

I am not qualified to comment on the detail, but it is clear that this is a complex issue, as are the issues of sex and gender. Given that the Law Commission will report by the end of the year, the key thing we want to hear from the Minister is that the Government will take the report seriously and it will not join other Law Commission reports in the long grass.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, we are all impatient for the Law Commission report, but I believe it is best to await it before deciding how best to frame any law on hatred towards women. Sex and gender have become conflated in ordinary speech, even in legislation, but they are not the same. While “sex” has a clear meaning in law, as defined in the Equality Act, the term “gender” does not, and is taken to mean social roles or stereotypes associated with someone’s sex, and that is too tenuous, at least at this stage, to be a legal definition.

If the intention of adding “or gender” is to ensure that legislation also covers hate crimes perpetrated towards trans women, it is unclear why the law would not catch a crime directed towards a trans woman on the basis of presumed sex. In addition, crimes directed against someone based on their transgender identity are already covered by hate crimes legislation.