Transnational Repression in the UK (JCHR Report)

Earl of Effingham Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, first I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Isaac, on his excellent maiden speech. I note that he was a partner at a top law firm that was established in 1769, so he will fit seamlessly into your Lordships’ House, which is another amazing place to work, having also been around for many centuries. As my noble friend Lord Blencathra so eloquently put it, the CV of the noble Lord, Lord Isaac, is so extensive that I could keep going for quite some time. I would like to focus, however, on just one further item. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Isaac, is the first provost of Worcester College to keep bees, and has been known to sell his honey in college, so perhaps he might consider selling a jar to His Majesty’s loyal Opposition.

Moving on to the report in front of us, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and those on the committee, such as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for their thorough and forensic work, which has resulted in the excellent report and debate today. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition would also like to pay tribute to all those who had the tenacity and strength of character to give evidence to the committee, despite the potential personal risk that they were taking in doing so. Through their voice, others will, hopefully, be spared the suffering of transnational repression here in the UK.

The security of our nation is clearly the first duty of government. It is a pivotal priority for any Administration that aim to foster a high-trust society where people are and, more importantly, feel free—that is, they are free to speak openly, free to debate and free to challenge constructively. Transnational repression has a chilling effect on those very freedoms. It is neither fair nor reasonable that individuals living in the UK are unable to speak out and bring to the fore perceived abuses perpetrated by foreign states, both internationally and here on our home soil.

The Government’s own National Security Strategy 2025 concluded:

“Hostile activity on British soil from countries like Russia and Iran is increasing, threatening our people, critical national infrastructure and prosperity”.


As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, the committee found that

“In the last year, the number of state-threat investigations run by MI5 jumped by 48%”,


with that agency dealing with more than 20 threat-to-life cases relating to just Iran since the start of 2022. This repression is not limited to just those countries. As we have heard, Egypt, Eritrea, Rwanda and others feature in the committee’s report.

In that same national security strategy, Ministers recognised the vital importance of diplomacy in approaching the threat posed by China, and they are entirely correct. So as a starting point, we would be most grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, would confirm that his Government will action at pace an appropriate diplomatic conversation with senior counterparts from every country on the committee’s list, and update your Lordships’ House on what is being done and when.

Many noble Lords have made specific reference to Iran. In the same vein, we would appreciate a blow-by-blow account of the steps Ministers are taking to address the committee’s finding that:

“Iran represents one of the highest kidnap and assassination state threats to the UK”.


Surely, that is a line that must never be crossed.

Regarding evidence calling for a formal definition of transnational repression, in line with the Council of Europe’s Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, is the noble Lord the Minister in a position to explain why Ministers have resisted calls to issue such a formal definition? What is the logic behind that decision? Does he not agree with all noble Lords, I am sure, on what my noble friend Lord Blencathra said: that a definition might improve our data on transnational repression? If he does not agree, perhaps he could provide colour on why the Government believe that data and monitoring of transnational repression can be improved without a further change to the way the Government describe the act. On the specific recommendation that new offences in respect of transnational repression may be required in future, is it not a sensible idea that Ministers keep existing offences under review and respond to emerging threats in the way the committee suggests?

Turning to China, the statistics do not lie, and I am afraid to say that the Government have failed to deliver the growth they promised 18 months ago. One just needs to look at the market-standard benchmark of GDP per capita, a measure often highlighted quite correctly by my noble friend Lord Hintze. The Prime Minister’s recent trip to China was a sensibly cautious yet tangible reset of UK-China economic ties. However, in line with the calls to action from my noble friend Lord Blencathra, the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and the noble Lords, Lord Morrow and Lord Moore of Etchingham, it would be wrong not to challenge the Minister on why China remains at a lower foreign influence registration scheme designation and not on the enhanced tier. Can he please explain what the threshold for China’s designation on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme would be?

My noble friend Lord Young of Acton rightly mentioned the Uyghurs, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. The evidence given by the Uyghur Muslims to the committee was both brave and insightful. The same applies to the Uyghur communities in the UK and around the world.

Only last week, the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, was asked at that very Dispatch Box which UK-registered firms imported component parts for solar panels that include polycrystalline silicon from China, and how many of these components were sourced from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, to which he replied:

“The Government does not hold or publish data identifying which UK-registered firms imported component parts for solar panels containing polycrystalline silicon from China, nor data on how many of these components may have originated from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region”.


The Great British Energy Act is crystal-clear. It requires the Secretary of State legally to satisfy himself or herself that no schools are clad in solar panels made from slave labour. It is only fair and reasonable that the Minister and the department confirm to schools, parents and children that they have a cast-iron guarantee from this Government that no schools are clad in solar panels with any component parts made by slave labour.

Noble Lords are also all too familiar with the situation of Jimmy Lai, and Ministers have flagged that:

“We will continue to protect the Hong Kong community in the UK and others from transnational repression”. 


Is it the case that, if the Minister were to raise China to the enhanced tier, then Hong Kongers’ confidence in our national commitment to their safety and security would increase accordingly?

Finally, the committee’s report touched on strategic lawsuits against public participation. I assume the Government do not believe it is right to use a SLAPP to silence individuals who are exposing or criticising unacceptable conduct. Does the Minister agree with the committee that the current framework for tackling misuse of SLAPPs is too limited?

It would be wrong to end without touching on a critical element of the entire report, namely support for victims. The committee welcomed the Government’s guidance and improved training for the police, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in her live example. But actions speak louder than words, and all victims of transnational repression will be watching the Government’s every move to improve communication with and support all those affected.