Former Prime Minister Liz Truss has written to Sir Keir Starmer, urging him to lift the entry ban imposed by the Home Office on a Member of the European Parliament invited to address CPAC Great Britain’s upcoming “Save Britain. Save The West” Summit, taking place in London from 16 to 18 July 2026.

The intervention follows concerns that the invited speaker, Dominik Tarczyński, has been denied entry to the United Kingdom under the Electronic Travel Authorisation system and the “not conducive to the public good” criterion. CPAC Great Britain believes this decision raises a serious question that goes far beyond one conference: whether Britain remains a confident democracy that welcomes robust political debate, or whether the state is now prepared to exclude elected representatives and public figures from overseas because their views on immigration, sovereignty and cultural change differ from those of the government.

Liz Truss has urged the Prime Minister to act immediately, warning that the ban sets a dangerous precedent for free speech, democratic debate and Britain’s relationship with its allies.

Dominik Tarczyński is a democratically elected Member of the European Parliament from Poland, a close NATO ally of the United Kingdom. His family history is deeply tied to the fight for European freedom, with his grandfather having fought alongside British troops against the Nazis, while his father was a founding member of Solidarity, the independent trade union movement that played a pivotal role in peacefully ending Communist rule in Poland. When Dominik lived in London in the 2000s, he was an active member of the congregation at Westminster Cathedral. CPAC Great Britain believes that barring such a figure from entering the United Kingdom is not only wrong in principle, but risks sending a troubling message to Britain’s friends and allies.

Liz Truss said: “Free speech is the lifeblood of our democracy. Britain should be leading the free world in defending liberty, not using vague Home Office powers to exclude elected representatives from allied nations because ministers dislike their views.”

She continued: “Our strength as a nation has always come from freedom and democracy. That means allowing citizens to hear arguments, test ideas and challenge political orthodoxies in public. It does not mean allowing the state to decide which lawful opinions are permitted to enter the country.”

At its core, CPAC exists to defend the principles of sovereignty and liberty: the right of nations to govern themselves, and the right of citizens to speak, assemble, argue and challenge power without fear of being silenced by the state. But those principles are now under attack across the West. CPAC Great Britain believes the Home Office’s use of the “not conducive to the public good” criterion in this case appears selective and politically troubling. The government must explain whether this speaker has broken the law, advocated violence or posed a genuine security risk. If not, his exclusion looks less like a matter of public safety and more like an attempt to prevent lawful political opinions from being heard.

Across the world, governments have repeatedly used border powers, visa restrictions and entry bans to decide who may enter, who may speak and which political positions are deemed acceptable. CPAC Great Britain believes border powers must be applied with consistency, restraint and transparency. A sovereign country has the right to control its borders. But in a free democracy, those powers must not become a mechanism for excluding lawful political disagreement, silencing inconvenient views or deciding which opinions are permitted to enter public debate.

The question for Sir Keir Starmer’s government is simple: is this speaker being excluded because he poses a genuine security threat, has committed a criminal offence or advocated violence? Or is he being excluded because his views on immigration, sovereignty and cultural change are politically inconvenient?

CPAC Great Britain is also calling out what it believes is an obvious double standard. If the Home Office is prepared to deny entry to democratically elected conservative representatives from allied nations, then ministers must explain whether the same test is being applied to those who excuse terrorism, glorify violence, promote Islamist extremism, defend revolutionary communism or openly celebrate hostility towards Britain and the West.

Britain should not admit anyone who incites hatred, glorifies violence or poses a genuine threat to public safety. But that is precisely why the Home Office must be transparent. The state cannot claim to be protecting the public good if lawful political speakers are treated as threats, while those who attack the very principles of liberty, democracy and national sovereignty are tolerated, platformed or excused. If the “not conducive to the public good” test is being used to exclude people who challenge the government’s worldview, while failing to confront genuine extremism, then it has become a political weapon.

Liz Truss concluded: “Free speech is not meaningful if it only applies to approved opinions. Democracy is not protected by banning political opponents from entering the country. It is protected by allowing arguments to be tested in public, openly and without fear.”

Notes to editors

1 CPAC GB is taking place between Thursday 16th and Saturday 18th July at The InterContinental London - The O2 on Greenwich Peninsula. Speakers already announced include Nigel Farage MP, Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, Andrew Griffith MP and Matt Goodwin. Further details are to be found at https://www.cpac.org/int/greatbritain/home