Lords Chamber

Thursday 26th June 2025

(began 10 hours, 27 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:07
11:07
None Portrait Oral questions: Promoting public information on allergens in England and Wales
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Ramsay of Wall Heath. I beg leave to ask the question
11:07
11:08
11:09
11:10
11:11
11:12
11:12
11:13
11:14
11:15
11:15
11:15
11:16
11:17
11:18
11:18
11:20
11:21
11:21
11:22
11:23
11:24
11:24
11:25
11:26
11:27
11:27
11:28
11:28
11:30
11:31
11:32
11:33
11:34
11:35
11:36
11:37
11:38
11:39
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:47
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:52
11:52
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
Repeat of a statement made in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 24 June 2025, National Security Strategy 2025.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Repeat of the statement made my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Repeat of the statement made my the Prime Minister. To date the Prime Minister attends the opening day of the NATO summit, that is day of the NATO summit, that is New mimic to grow spending on national security to five percent of GDP by 2035. To be made up by a projected split of 3.5 percent of projected split of 3.5 percent of core defence spending and one half percent of broader resilience and security spending. It will remark a new resolve among NATO members to new resolve among NATO members to make the country stronger, and the United Kingdom will play our part.

NATO members sit at a time when the NATO members sit at a time when the security is a situation is more security is a situation is more influx than any time and a generation. Ukraine in the fourth generation. Ukraine in the fourth year of invasion, a time when we are being asked to secure our defences more, and a time when security more, and a time when security cannot just the thought of as the traditional realms of air, sea and land, but of technology, cyber and land, but of technology, cyber and the strength of democratic society.

It has been a time of renewed literary action in the Middle East literary action in the Middle East with Israel and the United States acting to try to stop Iran developing a nuclear bomb. News of a ceasefire was welcome but as we have seen in recent hours, the situation remains fragile and the focus must be on a credible plan to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons. It is prior to my party that NATO was founded in the aftermath of the Second World War with a strong support for post-war Labour government.

The Labour Foreign Secretary at the time said we must face the facts as they are. Today, in this very different age, we must also face the facts as they are. The generation that founded NATO saw it as a powerful expression of collective security and solidarity, alliances abroad matched by capacity at home. The National Security Strategy published day made for these different times, is inspired by the same values and aims. Every member of this House understands the first duty of any government is to keep the country safe.

That is and always will be our number one priority. This National Security Strategy sets out how we do that. The world has changed fundamentally and continues to change before our eyes. It is an age of radical uncertainty and the leadership challenge in times of such changes to understand, respond and explain. The British people will understand this. They recognise we are living in a world that is more confrontational, more turbulence and more unpredictable than most of us experience in our lifetimes. When the Prime Minister spoke to the House in February he promised to produce National Security Strategy that would match the scale of the task ahead.

The strategy published does that with a plan that is clear eyed and hard edged about the challenges we face. It sets out a long-term vision about how we will do it three crucial things. Security at home, doing that by defending our territory, controlling our borders are making the UK a harder target for enemies, stronger and more resilient to future threats. And Collective security, refreshing key alliances and developing new partnerships in strategic locations across the world. It means a clear view of how we engage with major powers like China, and whether we must project national security and economic interests.

The Foreign Secretary will make a further statement on the China audit statement on the China audit shortly. And increase our sovereign capabilities, training our people, focusing investments on competitive strengths and using our exceptional research innovation base to build up advantages in new technologies. All of this will make us a stronger and more resilient country, delivering on each of these commitments will only be possible if society is coming in the same direction. Our industries have to be aligned with national security objectives, the industrial strategy will play to the industrial strategy will play to the UK's strength, and the investments in the spending review deepen our strength and resilience in the country, health service able to cope, security supplies and transport for our people, all of this contribute to a strong United Kingdom.

That's why it is so important that part of the government and business, big and small, understand that cyber- security is national security and our business is being targeted by adversaries. And we have to ensure that our own laws, from border to change has to reflect national security. National security means supply chains, strong immigration. It transcends domestic policy and plays a role in how we make Britain a more secure and sovereign nation. The document provides a blueprint of how this fits together, the strategy shows that everything we are doing across the full spectrum of national security.

The commitments to spend five percent of our domestic economic output national security by 2025, meeting NATO commitments. Over £1 billion investing on a new £1 billion investing on a new network of security centres. Our anticorruption strategy to counter illicit finance and corruption. The expansion of legal law-enforcement toolkit. The largest sustained investment in our Armed Forces since the Cold War. Our plan to unlock real benefits for working people from this defence investment, how we prioritise NATO explicitly in defence planning, a vision not only for deepening alliances with the US and the EU, but for growing our relationships with other nations.

The money we invest into our brilliant research to develop over coming years, such as £750 million invested in the supercomputer at Edinburgh University and our ambition to gain a competitive advantage in cutting-edge technologies and embed national technologies and embed national For artificial intelligence. We do not underestimate the size of the task. The world is a more dangerous place than at any time since the end of the Cold War, but is also a place where Britain is values, capabilities and alliances can make a positive difference.

Since we came to power we have taken a step after step approach to prepare Britain for what lies ahead. Record investment in defence, backing allies and resisting the false choices put before us that would have weakened our country. The strategy represents a contribution to that work, recognising that long-term growth, prosperity and living standards depend on national security becoming a way of life for people and businesses in the UK. This is a plan for how we protect the British people. A plan for how today's times, but rooted in long-held values.

A plan to defend our national interests, deepen international alliances and increase sovereign capabilities. I commend it sovereign capabilities. I commend it
12:00
Baroness Goldie Portrait Baroness Goldie (Conservative)
-
-
May I thank the noble Baroness, the Leader of the House, for repeating the statement. And it was important that the Prime Minister should come in advance of the NATO summit, signal what the government attaches to national security. From these benches, we support that approach, as we do the analysis by the government, of the perceived major threats confronting the United Kingdom, and there was much of the strategy that these benches can agree. I am aware of the continuity of advice of successive prime ministers, security, and I think that is very helpful and I pay tribute to their expertise.

My Lords, protecting our country and our people from threat is the primary responsibility of the government and that was explicitly recognised by the Chancellor in the other place. But that analysis and lack primary obligation government bring owners and challenging responsibilities. -- Own risk. May I join my honourable friend, the shadow secretary, in the other place when I was security and intelligence services, and all our defence personnel, for the extraordinary work which they do, to keep us all safe.

Secondly, can I say to the noble Baroness, the Leader of the House, that a pattern has emerged over the last few months, from the government, of a series of important announcements concerning defence and security intentions, but with two glaring omissions. No specific detail and no specific funding. These omissions seriously damage credibility and I shall touch further on these aspects in my questions. Let me deal first with security and intelligence. The statement and the strategy refer to the three pillars, security at home, strength abroad, and increasing sovereign and asymmetric capabilities.

These benches welcome actions that build on the measures that my party put in place in government, including the National Security Act 2023, which gives us increase over adversarial action and the registration scheme. At home, protecting critical national infrastructure is paramount and has to be a lead body for that. Can I ask the noble Baroness, the Leader of the House, is that the Home Office, or MoD, or a tandem operation? And are the strategic discussions taking place as to who is taking the lead? It may be that there is to be a new joint taskforce, but I think any further information, the noble Baroness, the Leader of the House, can provide and that would be very helpful.

My Lords, within the United Kingdom, our businesses and citizens face cyber threats on unprecedented scale and given the recent identification from the government of threats posed by China, may I ask three questions. Is the government confident it has an appropriate vetting mechanism in place to understand if imported Chinese goods pose security threats? And by whom and how are these mechanisms applied? Specifically, in relation to energy infrastructure, how does the government monitor, if the potential maligned activity is taking place? And is it satisfied with the robustness of the monitoring process? And thirdly, a very simple question.

Will China be placed on the enhanced tear of informed registration scheme? Strength abroad, we welcome the review but expressed concern over the lack of detail on timing, for many of the proposals and the vagueness surrounding money. So, in relation to the NATO summit, while the commitment to increase what the government describes as national security spending to 5% of GDP by 2035, with 3.5% of that to be spent on core defence, that is, in principle, welcome.

There is no funding plan, we have been unable to elicit how the government will fund even 3%. And it is that omission, that lack of material detail, which undermines the credibility of the government's intention. Now, to its credit, the government understands the urgency of the threat, but not, empirically, the urgency of money. So, for example, the strategy document in many respects, I had to get to page 27, before I found reference to any specific sum of money, which is £1 billion to establish a new network of national security centres.

The next page, there is reference of £520 million, to be placed and invested in UK diagnostic, therapeutic, vaccine manufacturing facilities. That's what I mean, my Lords, when I say there is a threadbare character about the government's funding specification. So, can I ask the noble Baroness, the leader of the, if she can shed light on when the 3% is to come through, when the 0.5% is expected to materialise and when the remaining 1.5% is to cover, and if they cannot answer these fundamental questions, the government is proceeding on a wing and a prayer.

My Lords, on Monday, this house will have a welcome opportunity to debate the Chagos deal, but in relation to the defence budget, we understand the cost of the deal will come out of the defence funding pot, which makes answers on increased defence spending all the more pressing. Promising more on the one hand, while whisking money away from the other, is adding, and is damaging but I'm sure is the government's good intentions, to our security. My Lords, on these benches we shall support the government's efforts to strengthen our defence capability to improve our security and intelligence services, and to make more resilient are the critical national infrastructure.

-- Our critical national investiture. I commend the Prime Minister for demonstrating maturity when dealing with fast-moving situations, but these benches will ask questions and we shall seek clarity, and that is what our national security interest demands.
12:07
Lord Purvis of Tweed Portrait Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I thank the leader for repeating the statement. Most people in our country take for granted the liberties and freedoms we enjoy, in a way, that is a good thing, as they do not need to concern themselves with the need for vigilance against the threats we face. We enjoy our way of life as a result of the tireless work of those that have dedicated the career for making assay. Many distinguished servants of commitment are represented in this House and I thank them as well.

We therefore support a great deal in the strategy, its judgement on the threats we face, the changing security landscape, both in potential conflicts but also an emerging dangers through technological change. And the need to address them across all government. The economy, and yes, society as a whole. They should be, of course, a high level of cross- party support. I hope the government will bring regular updates with clear action plans of the many work streams that fed into the strategy, so we can monitor and appraise for progress.

In many ways, the UK has a unique security need. But in many others, we can act as a global and open interconnected country, if we secure the support and partnership of others. As an island nation, our shipping and data cables keep our economy alive. We were the first country to lay subsea cables, 175 years ago. Today, we are almost exclusively reliant on them for communications. Shipping contributed to our growth in the industrial revolution, and today, we have reliant on this.

This is why, for example, I was very happy to see in paragraph 21 Taiwan mentioned and the words on Taiwan. Taiwanese security at the openness of the South China Sea, it is critical to our security, but also the task group, that is essential to our economy. I will refer to China little later on, and the noble Lady may not agree with me on those aspects however. We agree the way forward comes with the need for increased defence and lethal capability. Of course, we support the government on increased expenditure, as the leader knows.

It would be helpful if she could indicate the breakdown of the sources of the 5%, and what is the level of growth assumed of the size of the economy to meet the level of expenditure we expect is necessary? I say to the leader, we do not depart from the level of funding, but we do say in respect to the government it should not have been transferred from the official development assistance budget, with respect, this is a strategic mistake.

And we are seeing considerable reductions in programs, which have been part of the UK national security platform and successfully so, for many years. It's no surprise to me that in recent weeks, we've seen public statements, from a former defence and military leaders, chiefs, diplomats, heads of the intelligence community of the UK, appealing to the Prime Minister, not to cut the very programs, which have been national security focused, in conflict prevention, in conflict resolution, and supporting allies, building resilience in civil society and institutions and its malign interference.

The Western Balkans has rightly raised the strategy, twice in the chamber, and asked for clarity on a continuation of the Western Balkans Freedom and resilience program, funded by ODA, but I hope it's not under threat. So come if she can provide reassurance with our posture within the Western Balkans, it would be appreciated. The SED network, and our excellent diplomats, Israelis and rightly so. But we have to recording the spending review, there are year-on- year cuts of the operation budget going forward.

And other threats, which I agree with, such as bio security, we are less in Ireland, as many might hope for. Last night, I looked back at the U.K.'s first biological security strategy, 2018,. DEFRA and ODA was on almost every single page, in recognition that bio security in the UK is weakened if it is also weak in countries where we have a large diaspora community or travel relationship. 10 years ago, there was a reason why a bowler did not become COVID. And it was because not become COVID.

And it was because of the UK Mackie -- In regards to developed assistance, only the most passing reference in paragraph 30. But we do welcome the elements on research and development, and reconnecting with Europe. And to regain the ground that we have lost considerably under the previous government. Page 11 says we will go further than the agreements we have struck with the EU, it is good news. In what areas will new agreement be sold? We will consider the China audit next week.

The Leader may know we are concerned on these benches about the government's approach. In January, the Chancellor hailed six and did million pounds of growth to our economy from extra trade with China over the next five years. In June, the government announces £60 million for security agencies to tackle the threat from China. This is literally a zero-sum relationship this year. We'd like to see legislative action on transnational repression, from people living in repression, from people living in the UK.

The general of NI five since China is exploiting agreements on sovereign funds, on an industrial scale. While we welcome the scheme, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, has heard me say that we regret China is not only enhanced here, but also the sovereign funds are exempted at all. Finally, I want to look further to the future. At the violence, the convulsive violence, we have been seeing in the Middle East, and Sudan and elsewhere. It will have a lingering effect here within the UK.

Immunity cohesion and reducing tensions will now have to be a critical part of our National Security Strategy. Because we know from previous conflict, there was a lack between the young people affected now, who may well be radicalising years to come. Activities such as Chamberlain trust which brings communities together, are examples of good work we are doing in the UK for separate, as a result of the heightened conflicts, that this strategy is seeking to address rightly, we may well see further radicalisation within our shores at the future, so investment shores at the future, so investment now as necessary.

So we do not pay a price later.
12:14
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I'm grateful to both the noble Lady and noble Lord for their comments first I will do my best to respond to as many as possible in the time available now. Can I say, I think they are both right to recognise the work of our security services, but also those in security services, but also those in our diplomats overseas. The noble Lord raise the issue of soft power. Soft power that is embedded in our embassies and the work they do, can never be underestimated.

It is an absolutely vital part of our keeping the country safe, and improving relations across the world. I thought the noble Lady was uncharacteristically uncharitable to describe this as a wing and a prayer. This is a serious strategy document. If together numerous documents ligament has been working on, presented to this House. -- Document the government has been working on. This is not a wing and a prayer, it is a serious commitment. Noble Lords talk about the 5%. I think the point the noble Lord made of the end of his comments was a really important one because if we are looking at our national- security, what happens here at home, community cohesion, but also the resilience of our infrastructure at home is actually equally as important as what we do overseas.

That's a very important point that was made. It is not a wing and a prayer, it is an absolute commitment to commit to these figures. NATO pledged to commit to the headline ambition of 5%. We are talking about parliaments, with 25-36, 1.5 of that is around security resilience spending and homeland security resilience which is an important part of national-security. And the 3.5% of core defence spending. And I think under the estimate, we estimate we will get to at least over 4%, 4.1%, year after next.

That What is important in all of this is it is a collective enterprise, a national enterprise. Industry, across business, home and abroad, overarching strategy. The noble Lady says about government confidence, she asks questions about the China audit. That is the reason why we are having the China audit. Those are questions that must be addressed. When we talk about energy infrastructure, this is, I'm sure I will have further questions on this, our relationship with China is one of the most complex bilateral relationships we have in the entire world.

There has been various ways of looking at this in the past, the golden era where we just say yes, we are going to work closely with China, there is lack of engagement, we have got back from that. Both of those approaches do not serve the national interest in the way we would wish to do so. That is why we have the China audit because we had to manage security implications and concerns about the security implications, but also the economic relationship we have as well.

The noble Lord referred to Taiwan, I thank him for doing so. That relationship is a commitment in the document. I also say to him, when we talk about, his ingenuity, each time he speaks about the ADA he picks a different region he wants a commitment on. He will understand that if we travel around the world, if we add those up, he gets to a point where we committed to the same ODA. I know that would be his objective but I cannot satisfy him on that point.

Some of the detail is still being worked out with Baroness Chapman as we speak is engaged on work on the global health fund as work on the global health fund as well. How we work with other countries and engage with them is not just about the ODA. My honourable friend was telling me about meetings he has with African leaders, what do they want from us? They want our support for economic diversification, leaving in private funding for business so they can upgrade their economy.

They want us to facilitate and enable and all of that work continues and it is vitally important it does continue. Our relationship with the city of London and supporting them on that is also something that makes a real difference. Can I give a reassurance that those things will continue. The issue of the Middle East was also raised. I think this has been an enormous concern to members across the House on a number of occasions, we have had a number of debates on we have had a number of debates on this issue, what is clear is that Iran cannot be in charge of nuclear weapons that put the world at risk.

That is something we have to be committed to. But he is right, we see conflict played out across London and across the UK, that is responsibility to us as a government and the whole nation as well, which is why 1.5 percent of the five percent funding is so important. The noble Lady touched on this point, but resilience is resilience in a number of ways. Food resilience, energy resilience, telecoms, business resilience. Marks & Spencer's have a cyber attack, I'm sure noble Lords will not be able to use a sparks card, but the more important thing is the damage that has done to the economy in that area and that business, and the confidence people have with the business.

In all of these areas it is crucial as well. The noble Lady emphasise a lot of wanting to know exactly where the money was coming from, what is happening on this pound and that pound. Can I say to her, more details will become available as the spending review information is fed out, but this is a commitment and she should not doubt this commitment in any way at all. I would hope that all noble Lords would recognise that if we want to keep the country safe and secure, the first duty any government is the safety and security of its citizens at home and abroad.

I'm sorry that she thinks... abroad. I'm sorry that she thinks... I fail to accept that. She mentioned Chagos, governments do not spend this kind of money lightly. They only would do so if they are absolutely confident it is in the national interest to do so. We have taken the view and the evidence supports this, it is absolutely in our interest as a nation that for our security we have this deal with the Diego Garcia base. That is why we have done the deal.

Some of the figures given out were wildly inaccurate. We will have a longer debate on this on Monday but we are committed to this for the right reasons, national security and national safety. national safety.
12:22
12:23
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
He has great respect in this House for his commitment on these issues. I cannot confirm his final point at all. But I think what he is questioning, at the heart of his question is how seriously do we take the threat from China? That is clear from the document. This was raised from the document. This was raised , the Home Secretary, this week we spoke on the China audit. He referred to a quote which I will do so as well, on page 28 of the strategic defence review.

I do not think we can see this review alone as an overarching review. It states in that there China is a sophisticated and persistent challenge. China is increasingly leveraging its economic, technological and military capabilities, seeking to establish dominance in the Indo-Pacific, erode US influence, put pressure on the rules-based international order and we endorse and agree with that statement. He asks if our economic relationship undermines our commitment to security. Can I give him categorical assurance that is not the case will stop we have to manage both relationships, but security is first and foremost.

We recognise, I think it is highlighted in the strategy, that China is increasingly overloading the -- eroding the rules of the international system. If you look at the history of our relationship with China, under the previous government it was a close relationship, we move to not engaging at all, that is not a satisfactory way to proceed. It comes back to the", we have to deal with the world as it is and the threats now. We have that with the threats now.

We have that with the strategic defence review. -- It strategic defence review. -- It comes back to the enduring Bev" -- comes back to the enduring Bev" --
12:26
12:27
12:28
12:29
12:29
12:31
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
I am grateful to the noble Lord, particularly opposite to his last point, because this is a generational increase in defence generational increase in defence spending, which we can go faster and further now, which we always want to do. It's worth noting under NATO's estimate, we think we will get over 4% in the year after next, and the other point he made, it is an interesting point I had not really thought of. I was not involved in the drafting of the document but he is right that we do have to make this not just an issue for government, but give a real understanding of how the nature of threats is changing.

And how we have to work across, whether it is branches of government, local government, as a whole, and one of the things the document does is draw it out. It is a grim read, but I also think it is an encouraging read in some ways, because unless you recognise the threats and understand what you are facing, it's very hard to address them. I think for me, one of the things when I was reading it that came across is whether linkages with other actions across government.

So whether it is in the Department of Health looking at resilience, the industrial strategy look at resilience, they link together, the strategic defence review I think has been so important to this country, I congratulate Lord Robertson and his co-reporters on this. Because I think without that strategic defence review, this document would have been weaker, because it has helped to define some of the threats we are facing. And look at ways of addressing those. But if it is needed, I can give absolute assurance to the noble Lord that we do everything we can to not only reach this spending level, but in other avenues of government, we in other avenues of government, we do what we can to have the impact they can for top they can for top
12:33
12:34
12:34
12:35
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
I am grateful to my honourable friend for that, he will have more experience as a farmer himself on these issues. I have to say, food security, for the nation, and we talk about cheap food, but I think most going to the supermarkets these days have seen prices rise quite significantly. Climate change, which I think was in the last question earlier, was debunked as being something we have to deal with, climate change is having a huge impact on food security, which is why it is also part of the strategy.

Can I say to him, supporting farmers on this is key, in two ways. One through the trade agreements we do, if we look at some of the trade agreements under the last government, I think particularly Australia and New Zealand, they undermined some of the work being done by farmers in this country, insurers, redline in the agreements between the US and the EU, has farmers in this country invested in, is redline in doing trade deals. The noble Lady, Baroness Batters, is leading a farming profitability unit and their task reform to us, and how we can increase productivity and work with farmers on that.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the SPS agreement with the EU. Which is making imports and exports much easier, with farmers, again increasing profitability, that was so soon after brings it. But other things that would be helpful in looking at the profitability of our farmers in ensuring our food stability, with the £10 million investment in new technology to help farmers increase profit ability and produce on their farms and helping them with seasonal workers as well.

I think there is a number of issues to address this. Again, reflecting on the theme of wider government engagement, if we look at the work of a man with float defences and protection, what we can do to bring protection, what we can do to bring down the price of energy, all of those should help preproduction and national security issues.
12:37
12:37
12:38
12:40
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
mutual benefit. Can we bring further substantial security gains to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

UK? Again, I think it is an important part of the noble Lord has made, part of the noble Lord has made, particularly in relation to other countries. I think our relationship with the Republic of Ireland is a with the Republic of Ireland is a very solid relationship, and a very welcome relationship. I met with the ambassador and myself earlier in the week, many members of this House have a strong relationship with Ireland as well. I think the point Ireland as well.

I think the point he makes about relationships, where he makes about relationships, where there is Commonwealth as well is it extremely valid one and want the government is committed to. I think the issue around soft power and deescalation is really crucial. But I think, at the heart of a lot of what we do, and I think in the what we do, and I think in the document as well, we want to de- escalate and part of being resilient is so you can de-escalate. Part of having strong diplomatic presence having strong diplomatic presence across the world so you can de- escalate.

The Prime Minister, the escalate. The Prime Minister, the role he played recently, the visits he made across the world, the bilateral arrangements and multilateral arrangements he has multilateral arrangements he has had, those meetings have an imperative to have the kind of discussions needed to de-escalate. Very early on, a statement or Very early on, a statement or similar issue, there were criticisms the Prime Minister made, on a number of overseas visits. I think when you visit people and have meetings with other countries, when relations are good, it helps you to have difficult discussions, when things get more difficult, and there are important international issues to be considered.

It is absolutely right, at the end of the day, it is overseen by the Prime Minister, as I said before, the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, and the Home Secretary will have an important role in this as well.
12:41
12:42
12:43
12:44
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
"Not content". The contents have it. In clause one amendment one, Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Davies. Thank you, my Lords. It's a pleasure to open this first day of pleasure to open this first day of the committee's proceedings. And I rise to move my amendment one and speak to my amendments to, 26, 27 in this first group. A second reading, a number of noble Lords raise the issue that it will be essentially a issue that it will be essentially a civil servant with coordination functions for supper commander with nothing to command.

I have tabled these amendments and a number of others to rectify the situation and probed the government's full probed the government's full intentions for the new role. My amendment one seeks to replace the words designated civil servant, with words designated civil servant, with the words point A, thereby specifying the commander does not specifying the commander does not have to be a civil servant. Nothing here of course serves as a critique here of course serves as a critique of the current border security commander, Martin Hewitt.

Coming as he does from a law enforcement background. But as a critique of the government's limited ambition for this new role. This is not just my view, by the way, but it is also the view, by the way, but it is also the view of Tony Smith, the former director-general of UK Border Force. He said, in giving evidence to the Public Bill Committee and the other place, that " The first thing that struck me is the Border Security Commander will be another civil servant." I think it will be a director-general post in the Home Office, I was a director-general and we already have quite a lot of them.

I am not sure he will actually be able to command anything. He is probably going to be more of a coordinator." Those are the words of the person whose job it was to leave the agency and polices our borders. And as he stated, there are already enough civil servants coordinating enough civil servants coordinating activities within the Home Office. The small boats operational command already exists, can the noble Lord, the minister, tell the House how the small boats operational command will work with the commander? And how will their roles differ and what degree of interoperability will exist? As Tony Smith made very clear to the committee on the other place, if the government wish to achieve the stated goals, then the Border Security Commander needs to have expanded powers.

For example, to arrest and detain. In the same manner as Border Force. The NCA and immigration enforcement also, if the powers of the commander and his team remain as they are instituted in this bill, they will be essentially toothless in their ability to tackle toothless in their ability to tackle This is a role that is supposed to secure borders, disrupt criminal networks and coordinate more -- multiple agencies in the face of further threats. It is not the job of a generous administrator or name is Whitehall official.

It demands specialist knowledge, strategic leadership and credibility. Amendments 26 and 27 are consequential. They amend clause 7 that relates to delegation of commanders functions and clause 8 which permits designation of an interim commander. Just as I am concerned by the first clause, I am more concerned by the possibility of delegation. We may have a commander
12:49
None Portrait Amendment:1 Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-

more qualified for the task, but who will he delegate to? As it stands, civil servant. We must ask if this is appropriate for the task at hand. is appropriate for the task at hand. My amendment would ensure that a person of appropriate rank, similar person of appropriate rank, similar to the commander, would be able to undertake any functions given to the commander under the bill. This would introduce a safeguard that the introduce a safeguard that the commander may only appoint a person of appropriate rank and qualifications to fulfil delegated qualifications to fulfil delegated functions.

Not just anyone who happens to be on the departmental payroll. It would help ensure we do payroll. It would help ensure we do not fall into their trap of creating another only symbolic post, without substance. Which I'm afraid is what substance. Which I'm afraid is what the bill is proposing. I spent the evening with Scott Morrison a few weeks ago and he explained that when Australia began its operation Australia began its operation sovereign Borders they -- instituted a structure that on the surface appears similar to this governments appears similar to this governments borders command.

To coordinate the agencies that had border functions, but there are two differences, the Australian system came with far more robust powers than this government's plan. Secondly, the Australians appointed a senior military commander, and I lead for the security efforts. This leads to my amendment, the type of background that the government thinks most that the government thinks most appropriate for a commander. I specifies the commander should be only a current or former officer of the national police constable, meaning commander or above of the Metropolitan Police or senior officer of the Border Force or immigration enforcement, or a senior military officer, Commodore or rank in the Air Force.

It should be a senior officer, which I think would put the office on a strong footing. If we are serious about the role having teeth, if we want to be, want it to be a powerful direct imposition that can drive change, the least we can do is require the person filling it has experience to do so effectively. We cannot afford to build the office on vague criteria and wishful thinking. The government deserve confidence and it is not just about democratic appointment, but fit for purpose
12:50
12:51
12:52
12:54
Viscount Goschen Portrait Viscount Goschen (Conservative)
-
-
between other public agencies. Given that these agencies are already arms that these agencies are already arms of government and come under the responsibility of the ministers, who could presumably direct these could presumably direct these agencies to cooperate in the way the agencies to cooperate in the way the government intends, may I ask the Minister perhaps a slightly broader question which is why is chapter 1 really necessary? Why do we need to put the commander on a statutory put the commander on a statutory footing? This leads directly to the group of amendments my noble friend group of amendments my noble friend has proposed.

I think we always need to be careful about legislating just to be careful about legislating just to make a public statement. To make a public point. So, may I ask the Minister what the commander will be Minister what the commander will be able to do under this chapter 1 of this bill. That he is not able to do presently under the current arrangements. Who could argue with greater coordination between agencies? But where do we really agencies? But where do we really need the provisions of chapter 1 in order to achieve that? I am sure the noble Lord the Minister is grateful to my noble friend for trying to flesh out the role a little bit more.

It is written in five or so pages, an awful lot of which is to do with the appointment, the board and potential removal of terms and so forth. There is very little, only so forth. There is very little, only a few lines, of what the real function of real responsible issues of this office. Referring to amendment to, my noble friend's list under subsection 5, may also consider adding something on the background of the border security apparatus. apparatus.
12:55
12:56
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
Can I perhaps start with the noble Lord, to say to him, there is a great sense of urgency from this government on the issue he raises. The people are not wandering up the beaches of Dover. They are being collected by boats in the Channel when those criminal gangs bring them across, they are being taken for identification and processing. It has been a long while since people walked up the beaches of Dover. It was under a previous government that was under a previous government that they put their feet in that sand.

They are now being dealt with in an effective way. The purpose of the commander and the clauses before us today, is not have the limited ambition that the noble Lord indicated may well be the thoughts he thinks behind this bill, it is to maximise that ambition and ensure we put that in place in a very strong and effective way. That goes to the heart of the noble Viscount's comments as well. We are very clear that the border commander has a number of key roles to play.

The border commander has been put in place to coordinate, yes. To organise, yes. But has a significant budget of £150 million this year and in the spending review recently has been given an additional significant budget. The purpose of that coordinating role is to do what I think is appropriate which is to coordinate. By coordinating, that means to bring together both agencies in the UK, but also on behalf of the Home Secretary and the government, to take part in further negotiations with our partners, colleagues in Europe and as has been seen today, in countries in the Middle East, to ensure we put in place mechanisms to reduce the very flow that the noble Lord rightly highlighted is an important issue for us to take forward.

The group of for us to take forward. The group of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments contains various amendments I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister. Before he moves on the Minister. Before he moves on from the points being made, can he tell me, answer the question, as to tell me, answer the question, as to what the commander would be able to do under the provisions of the bill that he would not be able to do currently on a non-statutory footing? Because coordination and advise, budgetary management, do not need new legislative provisions to achieve.

And the fact there is already a commander in place busy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

coordinating. I appreciate the noble Lord's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I appreciate the noble Lord's comments on that. But for example, chapter 1 duty four, subsection 4, chapter 1 duty four, subsection 4, duties of annual reports, duties on cooperation, the board overseeing cooperation, the board overseeing all of that, underpinned by a statutory function, I think if this has the confidence that there is a legislative background to those legislative background to those requirements on the Border Force requirements on the Border Force commander. He is right again that the current Border Force commander, appointed by the Home Secretary, is undertaking those roles currently is undertaking those roles currently is a civil servant.

But I do think it is important that we underpin that with a legislative framework so this House and the House of Commons and the government and the people are clear what the roles and responsibilities are. We have taken that view. The noble Lord may disagree with that or want further clarification, but that is the purpose of the bill in the first 12 purpose of the bill in the first 12 clauses before the bill today.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do not want to be helping the Minister out at this point, but I do want to be friendly. In exactly the same issues occur to me, the same issues occur to me, the commander is in place now and has been for months and months, as the noble Viscount has said. Presumably noble Viscount has said. Presumably would not be possible without a statutory basis to require for instance cooperation with statutory instance cooperation with statutory agencies, other statutory agencies, so at the very least the bill would so at the very least the bill would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

so at the very least the bill would I am grateful to the noble Baroness who today continues to make Baroness who today continues to make very valid points on this issue. But I say let me come to the heart of I say let me come to the heart of the amendments, if I may. This group contains various amendments which contains various amendments which the Noble Lord Davies and the Noble Lord Cameron have tabled. First of all, they seek to remove the all, they seek to remove the requirement for the security commanders of the civil servants.

Given that the role sits within the Given that the role sits within the Home Office and given the commander leads a directorate within the department it is logical that the department it is logical that the role sits within the civil service. This does not mean that the posterboard security commander is reserved solely for existing reserved solely for existing concerns. Indeed, the current officeholder was recruited externally. Any future recruitment exercises would seek to identify the most suitable candidate irrespective of background. But, ultimately, they're acting in a civil service role accountable to the Home Secretary and that is the important point that means I hope he will reflect on that in the amendment that he takes.

He has also raised the very important point about the prior experience required to be eligible to be accounted as a Border Security Commander and as members have recognised the current board of security commander previously served as an officer of the National police counsel. But I do not believe that it is prudent to limit the role of candidates eligible to serve in this important position, and any future recruitment exercises, we believe, would have the scope to identify the best talent without limitation.

Ensuring that we bring the effectiveness of the role to its maximum potential. The Government has been very clear that the Border Security Commander is responsible for requiring the step change in the UK approached the border security. The very point that the Noble Lord has addressed. We want to provide a clear and long-term vision for border security, bring together and provide leadership to all parts of the system to maintain the integrity of both our border and immigration systems domestically and internationally, and the significance of this role and this work is reflected in this bill that puts this office on a statutory footing for the very reasons that I have outlined today, it creates legal requirements in fulfilling their duty.

The noble Baroness raises the issue of a background, we want to have as wide a role as possible and to address that particular point that she has made. I just wondered, if I may, because I think it is relevant, the commander has already used his post and the role and the capabilities associated with it to deploy key functions to date. Across Government on the board as a system he has also helped to support the Home Secretary in signing landmark agreements with key Government, struck a new and tiresome action plan with the G7, hosting an international summit on organised immigration crime, and we have meetings early next month where colleagues and nations in European Communities Act look again at how we can work on this issue.

I think those are important roles and tasks. I think they add value to the work we are trying to do in very difficult circumstances to smash the criminal gangs across the channel. But I think this House can have confidence those rules are at the moment being exercised and will be in future on a statutory basis on issues to do is with accountability that have been set out and therefore it is not for today but I hope that that Noble Lord will reflect on what I have said and at a later date not I have said and at a later date not I have said and at a later date not
13:04
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
I am very grateful to the Noble Lord that have contributed to this. We have heard the words from the Government benches, coordination, structure, but let's not lose sight of what this role is supposed to be. It is about being a commander, and that word carries meaning. It is not simply a metaphor or a piece of civil service terminology and I afraid I have to disagree with the noble Baroness when she says it is not about Frank. Frank does imply leadership and authority and the ability to direct, without that the title is misleading at best and meaningless at worst.

And what we are being offered in this bill is the risks falling flat, this is an important point, it risks creating no clear mandate, no operational standing and public visibility, in short, a coordinator would suggest much more than they are empowered to deliver. And I say again if we fail to define this role properly now than we risk embedding a model that lacks clarity, ambition, and, crucially, lacks the power to deliver the very outcomes that are close to seek and we could not risk this position becoming yet another layer of the Whitehall machine with no real responsibilities.

The amendments we have brought forward do not ask for the impossible but they do tie the Secretary of State's hand and ensuring that the commander is someone of appropriate rank experience and someone that can command confidence with partners and the public alike. We have seen what can be achieved and I quoted earlier can be achieved and I quoted earlier the Australian example and a coordinated military response and it shows what is possible with the right leadership and we can do the same, but whether it is by default or required to the delegation within the Home Office, we must decide now whether we want this to be a generally powerful one, not just in the name of a long line of titles.

These amendments are a simple safeguard against the clear statement of intent in business as usual. For the time being, we will look at this as the bill moves forward through your Lordships forward through your Lordships house, but for the time being I to move.
13:07
13:07
None Portrait Amendment:3 Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-

not moved. Lord Davies, not moved. In that case we come to amendment In that case we come to amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, My Lords, our My Lords, our amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, our amendments enclose to our design to extract some more information and those that will be information and those that will be interested and to continue the designation as the commander with designation as the commander with our amendment three seeking to tie the Government to publish these terms and conditions once they have terms and conditions once they have been defined. Crucially, our amendment also clarifies that the Government must define the KPIs that Government must define the KPIs that will be used to measure performance of a commander in their role.

This will allow not only the Government will allow not only the Government but these houses of the wider public to review how effective the to review how effective the commander is undertaking these duties. The Border Security Commander is part of the Government Commander is part of the Government offering on this question, we need to make sure that a personal point is delivering the solution properly that we are discussing and how the Government is working to define the parameters and conditions that would parameters and conditions that would ensure that this is the case.

If the Government are convinced that their Government are convinced that their policy does indeed tackle this issue effectively then I am sure they will have no hesitation about the principle of these amendments as an opportunity for them to show the public how well the policy is working and to show their ambition and set high standards for their new commander. Furthermore, our amendment five enclose 26 to incorporate greater oversight to the termination process. The Government are creating a role that would be politically sensitive, upon which there will be a great deal of pressure without necessarily the powers or duties to fulfil these demands.

And it is something that demands public trust and were public trust is concerned, silence is not an option, so to remove someone from that role without any explanation or transparency or accountability risks breeding confusion, suspicion, suspicion that something has gone on behind closed doors and that is precisely what undermines competence in the institution. There is also president, as we know, where high- profile officials are dismissed and it is expected that a Ministerial statements is made and we see this with the heads of public bodies and the Government being far too unwilling to come to Parliament about the reasons behind the choose to terminate senior officials and we saw this recently when the Government asked at the head of competitions and markets of.

The Secretary of State for SN trade would issue a statement but it took an Urgent Question from my honourable friend and the Minister to come through to that and update Parliament. This should not be the case. On a matter as important as this, we cannot afford those rules that manage to change in the dark and we need to appreciate and understand the fact that the public have lost trust in the Government on this and we need to make sure the next steps we take on trust and are done in a way that begins the confidence that the public must have.

I picked a move.
13:11
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment proposed close when it one line 13 at the end insert the words as printed on the Marshall list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support the amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support the amendment of my Noble Friend Lord Davies and it is a pleasure to be able to participate in your Lordships committee on this very important bill and I say at the outset that bill and I say at the outset that noble Lords will be aware that photo noble Lords will be aware that photo salience on the issue of immigration is extremely high and it is probably is extremely high and it is probably behind the cost of living the second most important issue.

And I think that's the bill, as it stands, as it is currently drafted, does a is currently drafted, does a reasonable job, and of course we welcome many of the measures in the welcome many of the measures in the bill as the Noble Lord the Minister will know and he has started off as will know and he has started off as a bruiser but is now much more malleable in his reaction and his malleable in his reaction and his despatch boxes performance, and we despatch boxes performance, and we will agree on many things, but the bill, as it now stands, is very good bill, as it now stands, is very good in terms of the accountability from civil servants and the Home Office and others, key stakeholders, to Ministers, but it is less strong between Ministers and the outside world and when one looks at the level of scrutiny and oversight you would have if, for instance, the Bundestag or the United States Senate or other legislation bodies that are performing a very vital scrutiny and oversight role of the board, and naturally it is an issue in the United States, then I think there is nothing to lose by us having the opportunity to be open having the opportunity to be open and transparent in seeing what the coming commander is absolutely doing and I think it is vital that we put on the face of the bill primary legislation the ability of the parliamentary committee to bring the board commander to Parliament to answer questions at least once a year to measure the efficacy of their policies and whether they are a success that is happening in line with what the elected politicians and your Lordships house require.

In order to keep that bond of trust with voters. There is a very low- level of trust amongst voters of all parties to deal long-term with the issue of border control and the safety and security of people in this country, so I would say certainly in respect of amendment three think it is a very good idea for the Minister to at least consider that. And, also, we need clarity and openness about what the commander is doing, and the worst thing about a closed system where you only have accountability between one part of Government is another is that conspiracy theories, cynicism grows, and people can't see that actually you are achieving the Government is achieving its objectives, so to have explicitly the terms and conditions laid out before Parliament on the face of the bill I think is a very useful thing and I agree very much with my Noble Friend on that.

And, finally, this is not an issue about the Labour Government. All Governments fallout with senior officials because it happened under the Blair Government, certainly happened under the Brown Government and the coalition Government. And, therefore, it is not an ignoble position to be in that you no longer think the person you have appointed has the same priorities and the same imperatives that they should have had in carrying out their role, and therefore you have two, but they say in HR now, not onboarding, the equivalent of getting rid of that, giving them a new career trajectory is very charitable.

And that should be the disinfectant of transparency. I think but once said his openness to see what Government is actually doing to explain to the voters quite why that person did not fit in and was not able to fulfil their duties and responsibilities. And so that is the essence of amendment five. On that basis, I would ask the Minister As I often say, it would not invalidate the central premises of the Bill. The Bill as written is very good in many respects, this, chapter 1.

But I think it would certainly be improved and would be a very powerful message for this government and future governments that we are serious about this topic, we are accountable, we are getting things done on behalf of the people who elected us. people who elected us.
13:16
13:18
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful, again, to noble Lords for raising these amendments and giving me opportunity to discuss it. I'm slightly disappointed that it. I'm slightly disappointed that I've moved from being bruiser to being... But there we go, we will take that as a potential compliment from the noble Lord Jackson of Peterborough. But I just remind him I reserve my rights to Bruce if needed. -- To bruise. The group contains various amendments relating to the appointment of the Border Security Commander.

Again, tabled by the noble Lord Davies and the noble Lord Cameron. There is a key issue, I think, about how the amendments relating to the Border Security Commander engaging with Parliament and that is stating that the requirements of the Secretary of State to make a statement to Parliament when an individual is designated as the Border Security Commander and to ensure the Border Security Commander appears before any Parliamentary committees when invited. And to make a statement to Parliament in the event the designation of a Border Security Commander is terminating, setting out the reasons for the termination.

Let me say first of all, that if and when an individual is designated as the border commander and in the event of their ultimate termination, that would be announced in the usual way for senior officials in the Civil Service. We would make a statement on that. There would be the ability for the noble Lord to put down either a private notice question or an Urgent Question, whichever house we were dealing with. There would be opportunities for the Government to table WMS is, there would be opportunities for questions on a daily basis in this House.

And on a regular basis in the House of Commons, for questions to be asked about what those reasons were. So I think the Government will certainly be transparent on those matters. And the government also values the role of Parliamentary committees play. And every effort will be made with requests for attendance at committees, if they were made for the border commander to attend those committees. And already there will be opportunities where officials across the Home Office and across other government departments at the level the border commander is do currently appear, either independent of Ministers or in support of Ministers on key in support of Ministers on key issues.

The final amendment in the group requires that the terms of conditions of the Border Security Commander and the key performance indicators used to determine the effectiveness are published. I just draw noble Lords attention to clause 2 of the Bill, which sets out the terms and commissions of the designation of the Border Security Commander. While it would not be appropriate to disclose the detailed terms and conditions of an individual Civil Service... Servant, the Border Security Commander is a Director General and will position with the Home Office and has the terms and conditions in line with that appointment.

The Government has been very clear that the Border Security Commander is responsible for leading the required step change in the UK's approach to border security. Providing a clear and long-term vision for border security, bringing together, providing leadership, working to maintain the integrity of our Borders and Immigration systems. Both domestically and internationally. And the significance of this role and its work is reflected in the Bill, which puts this office on the statutory bedding we have talked about earlier. -- Statutory footing. And put legal crimes on the officeholder in propelling their duties.

The key performance indicators are the ones that the Government are setting themselves. We want to smash the gangs, we want to reduce crossings on an illegal basis, we want to reduce and speed up asylum claims, we want to make sure that we reduce the number of hotel accommodations being used. Those are performance indicators which the Government have put in place. And the Border Force security commanders role is to help the government coordinate those activities and with the budget they have got and with the statue they have got, to help deliver on those objectives.

So I think there is transparency and clarity on these issues. And I hope that would reassure the noble Lord on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments he has brought forward. I'm very grateful to the Minister

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to the Minister for his response. And I would say to noble Lords, these amendments are noble Lords, these amendments are not about creating additional bureaucracy. They are very much about reinforcing something far more
13:23
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
about reinforcing something far more fundamental, that is trust. And trust in the effectiveness of the new Border Security Commander. And trust in the process by which they are appointed, assessed and if necessary, removed. An trust in the government's commitment to openness and transparency on a matter of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

genuine public concern. I would just ask him this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would just ask him this question, does he feel that the Home question, does he feel that the Home Secretary in the House of Commons and myself as the Minister in the Lords of the Home Office would not be held to account for both the appointment and any removal of the appointment and any removal of the appointment and any removal of the Border Force commander? And their performance, by which I mean also the government's performance, in the the government's performance, in the issues which are of great concern to both sides of this House? Because that is where I think we are.

This

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that is where I think we are. This is the place to hold us to account on performance. I fully accept what the noble Lord says and I rest assured that he Lord says and I rest assured that he would be held to account in the House of Lords and I'm sure my friends in the other place would be friends in the other place would be holding the Home Secretary to account. The government has chosen account. The government has chosen to elevate this role as central to their response to illegal migration their response to illegal migration and cross-border criminality and yet, as it stands, the bill offers yet, as it stands, the bill offers almost no insight into how that role will be structured, what standards of performance would apply or what transparency would be in place if the arrangements breakdown.

And if the government believes this new position would be affected and if they believe in the strength of their policy, then publishing the terms and conditions setting the key performance indicators and offering transparency around dismissal should be welcome. These amendments give Ministers the opportunity, I would say, to prove they are serious about making this role deliver real results. We cannot tackle this issue with platitudes and meaningless positions. The public need to know what sort of deal they are getting through this Bill.

But with that, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the amendment. Is it your Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn. It is by leaf with John. The question is by leaf with John. The question is that clause 1 stand part of the Bill. -- Is by leave withdrawn. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. In clause 2, amendment four, Lord clause 2, amendment four, Lord Davies. Not moved. And five, not Davies. Not moved. And five, not moved.

The question is that clause 2 stand part of the Bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. We turn then to clause 3, amendment six.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clause 3, amendment six. I beg to move amendment six in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move amendment six in clause 3, page 2, line 28... Insert the words on the Order Paper. The explanation makes it clear and I
13:26
None Portrait Amendment: 6 Lord Rooker (Labour)
-

will not take very long. We want the Border Security Commander to reply to the threats posed to the UK by security by illegal imports. Mike biosecurity. This amendment in a way... The NFU, back in May, operated a very successful campaign on the need for greater biosecurity in the country. And there was an attempt I think to put this issue, when this Bill was in the Commons, I think it simply was not selected, there was no opportunity for it to be debated.

And I certainly offered it to the necessary to get it raised here. Biosecurity for an island nation like as is national security, it is as simple as that. Are in the same position as New Zealand, if one looks at a comparable issue in terms of the need for biosecurity. UK exports, our exports at the moment are around about £9 billion of animal and products. That very much relies on our reputation will stop we have had a few problems in the past but our reputation is very good.

The recent foot and mouth outbreak in Germany, Hungary and Slovakia is a stark reminder that it has not gone anyway. The consequences of failure at the border would be catastrophic for UK food reduces. -- Has not gone away. Not just the 44,000 farmers. So using the Bill to clarify, which is what I will be asking my noble friend to do, that biosecurity is an element of border security, is quite important. We would look to strengthen the deterrent against and penalties for those engaged in border criminality.

And also to ensure all the agencies, the Border Force, the port health authorities, have the resources and that is pretty important, and legal powers, intelligence and political backing. This is not just a trivial issue, it is not high in the political importance of colleagues in both Houses, particularly in the government, we need to get it raised. And I think we need to evaluate whether the current customs and inspection functions are fit for purpose. So it is much-needed. I just want to give a couple of examples.

Illegal meat imports into the UK. Since October 2022, more than 240 tons of illegal meat products have been seized at the Port of Dover alone. During the week commencing 6 January, early this year, 10 tons of illegal meat were intercepted and removed from the food chain. These volumes are not trivial. This will be meat that has probably not gone through official controls, has not had the hygiene care that is required. So it is an ongoing threat.

And particularly there is a concern, African swine fever, a disease with no cure or vaccine, would cost the UK economy between 10 -- 10 million and £100 million. The pig sector alone is worth 8 billion and would be severely impacted with exports currently valued at 600 million facing greater restrictions. I have already mentioned the foot and mouth disease outbreak. In 2001, the big outbreak, as opposed to the 2006 self-inflicted out rate of the laboratory, but the 2001 outbreak cost more than 3 billion to the public sector over 5 billion to the private sector, including the culling of over 6 million animals.

An outbreak today would devastate the UK agriculture. So, in 2005, both African swine leader and the timeout have been detected in multiple countries across Europe. -- African swine fever. I would just say to noble Lords, illegal meat is big money. Meat industry is a huge industry. It has been some years since I did any individual checking on it and then it was worth £6 billion. It is huge. And believe you me, it was one part of the food industry, in my experience both the...

Defra and the food standards industry, where there was always a willingness among certain sectors to cut corners. I had no problem about... With colleagues tightening up official controls. I know people complain about it but believe you me, there are plenty of people looking to make extra money by illegal meat. It so happens, you could not make it up really, the reason Lord Trees is not in the chamber this morning having signed my amendment, he is at Dover, with the All Party Parliamentary Group food security, checking on protocols at facilities with reference to Real-time, we are debating it, they are doing it, so this is a serious issue for parliamentarians, currently in Dover looking at these issues and of course the reason Lord trees is not here, he is in Dover away from this dirty oil.

This is an issue and I would just like to flag up I realise it is not a key concern of the Home Office but as I said yesterday I do not think we should have silos in departments, this is bio security, and it is pretty important. And we got lucky in the important. And we got lucky in the last few years but it is there and it will happen. And the question is in the world and the best security.

And trying to avoid it, we know it is not acceptable. Whether it is meat or not, but the bio security effect could be catastrophic in a really big grey. I just wanted to highlight this, those are pretty important and it is not a waste of time. Whether it is on the farm or in the factories, but particularly at the border ports where food is imported, so we could see Heathrow but we do not get so much meat there, but ports like Dover have to take it really seriously to ensure they have the resources and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

powers to deal with it effectively. Amendment proposed, close three,
13:33
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, close three, page 2, line 28, after three, insert the words as printed on the Marshall list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

list. Mine noble Lords, I add my name to this amendment because I completely agree with what the Noble completely agree with what the Noble Lord has said. In my time at DEFRA we had a weekly bio security meeting with a variety of things to deal with bio security, whether that was invading species but also thinking about risks of African swine fever were probably our biggest concerns. Those concerns continue to rise which is why the extra investment that has gone into support order force I am conscious there is a bit of a debate about that, those issues, but, nevertheless, officials did recommend the principal gateway but also to be reinforced by the Border Force at Dover.

The reason this matters and Lord Rooker has already set out quite extensively it was already a challenge trying to get other departments to realise what the impact of having something like African swine fever in this country could do. It would entirely wipe out our industry. It would wipe wipe out our industry. It would wipe out species after species of flora, so this is why it matters in terms of our national bio security. I think one of the reasons it was great to see in the security strategy, the reference in particular to the investment going in, but that sort of issue I do not think your Lordships should underestimate actually what this could be doing in terms of people being malicious actors to try to bring in this sort of element to disrupt our country, and that is why, although I know there is collaboration between the Border Force and pot health in Dover and right around the country that having this issue very much being in the priorities of this new commander I think would give it the prominence it desperately needs not just amongst officials but really across Cabinet and Ministers as well.

As a slight aside, I do welcome the investment in Weybridge and I want to pay tribute to them tomorrow Finkelstein stepping down as permanent secretary of DEFRA, and I think this will be her one maiden legacy in her time at DEFRA. It has taken quite a few years and money has gone a long way, but having world-class facilities I think is vital to recognise the importance of this to our nation. In terms of how this could work as being a priority, a lot of effort is going on the transition from the European Union, more on the border between Northern Ireland, Great Britain, and there is no border, of course, between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

And I fear that at times a lot of effort is going into to that rich which I genuinely believe has been completely and utterly unnecessary, but we need to keep our focus right around the country. The Noble Lord Brook is particularly focused on that and I understand why, asking the staff coming in is going to different parts of the country, so I also want to pay tribute to trading standards around the country who have been tackling this issue. The area limited resource and they have many other things they are trying to do as well, tackling this, so that is why by bringing this as being important into the Home Office, that then should then extend to becoming a priority for our local police forces around the country stop a lot of this seems to be quite low level organised crime, but the impact could become truly devastating.

I am very conscious that the noble Lords security commander principally with people and immigration we have the opportunity to consider more of a strategic approach and even if this is perhaps lower down the priorities, not that I think it should be, at least it will be a shared agenda for one of the most important posts which I believe this Government is creating through this bill, so, with that, I hope that the Government will consider this. And I know that DEFRA works exceptionally hard on this and does try to work with other parts of Government, but, for me, this is an opportunity to stress how big this risk is.

How malicious actors can do little things like this to massively disrupt the country. Just think back to 25 years ago and what happened with foot and mass and how it brought the country to a standstill, so much so that a general election was delayed because of foot and mouth. That is the sort of thing we need to think about and I hope that this amendment will get through.
13:38
Lord Deben Portrait Lord Deben (Conservative)
-
-
Thank Noble Lady. I am small and organic farmer and therefore I have an interest in this but also I see the Secretary of State in the interest of time in the key area that we are trying to deal with the BSE. And now it is amazing, looking back, how we got through that period. But part of the reason was that we had a real reputation for protecting bio security here. It was possible to get other countries to believe us when we said what we were doing and how we were doing it.

And as the person who was absolutely in the spotlight on this I do have two say I it enormously to my predecessors because they created the circumstances in which it was possible to find that. And, secondly, I do believe that it is very important and I hope the Minister will accept this because I honour him considerably and I think the House recognises what a considerable role he has played. And he can usually convince us of what he needs us to do is the right thing, but I want to say to him personally that there is a problem, if you have a cabinet, no one in which is a countrymen, no one of which has a country constituency.

There are 9 million people living in the countryside and agriculture is a crucially important one of our industries. And, therefore, I hope you can understand why it is that we are very concerned that this should be in this bill because it covers a much wider range than doing the things that we might otherwise do in agricultural bills and the like. The truth is, although the Noble Lord and my Noble Friend concentrated on the gangs of the campaign, people make a lot of money out of it, one of the problems with bio security is that it is sometimes almost accidentally, you really can bring serious diseases in by bringing in a ham sandwich which is, in the wrong circumstances, and dropping it, and we also know that there is a considerable activity in bush meat.

In other words, meet which itself is illegal, as a matter of fact, but therefore has gone through no protective system at all, and the effects of that are really serious. We do not have to go into the details of some of that human diseases that have been spread by the use of bush meat. I recently had to spend a lot of time trying to get the Government of the time to take seriously the problem of wild or and the growth of the number of wild boars in forests and the fact that boars in forests and the fact that Asian pig diseases can get into that community and threatened the entire British pig industry, and I will tell the House why it was so difficult because you were talking to people who did not appear to understand first of all, that eggs produce an awful lot and you can very soon get out of hand.

They did not understand how close these wild not understand how close these wild boars were to the pig industry, they did not understand and had never really seen a wild bore, but as someone that had most of the lawn dog I want all the time ago I quite strongly felt I merely say what I found was the difficulty of explaining to people how serious this was, why if it, and what the effects were if we did not get it right, and that is why I begged that the House you support this change, and I say to the Minister I know you want to control the bill itself and one does not want to expand it and I know the Government is very concerned, but it is about only chance to remind everybody of the importance of bio security and it is getting worse and worse as a challenge.

It is not just animals, but as my Noble Friend remarked, it is also about plants, it is about invasive species, and it is about huge costs. And I end on that issue. But if we let this get out of hand, the cost to the national exchequer is enormous we only have to look at what we are trying to do about all kinds of invasive species. We know what the monster wasp is likely to do and we think of the darkened treatment and go through a whole series of this which we then have to deal with.

Many people will know what we had to deal with with the escape, for example, with the control of our borders for bio security reasons is crucial but it is crucial, also, to the Treasury. And, if I may say so, I have never found a department less understanding of how crucial it is to them and they ought to remember the cost. They ought to remember the cost and to remember the cost of all of those diseases. Just think of what bird flu is doing to us at this moment.

Therefore, I urge the seriously.
13:45
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I would wait to see without the Noble Lord Davies weights to introduce this amendment. Shall I go? I confess to being irredeemably urban, or perhaps suburban, but the Arches does have a function in reminding us about pig breeding and the numbers and the sizes of litters. Listening to the noble Lords comments has made me think of a number of related issues. One is that I think it is found in a number of parts of life that people who commit one type of crime commit another type of crime as well often.

And we are well aware of the flexibility, if that is the right It may be possible there is some type of read across or something which would be being flagged about. It has also made me think about health because I believe somebody came back from, I think it was Morocco, with rabies, very recently. But what it has particularly made me think about, is the competition for facilities at ports. Certainly in Dover and I dare say at others as well.

When I was a member of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, the issue of space to undertake immigration controls was of very... We were very... It was made quite clear, particularly by the Port of Dover, that this is a really big issue. It may be that the answer is that these relationships should be governed by other authorities falling within the category of partner authorities. But as well as the points which have been made very powerfully by previous speakers, I can see that there are relationships that need to be thought about very carefully.

And the competition for resources of all sorts, which are raised by these arrangements. We have an amendment in this group, 19. Which is probing whether cyber security is an element of border security, it is clearly an element of security. GCHQ is specifically of security. GCHQ is specifically not a partner authority in the Bill. So it is not within the functions of clause 3. So it is not within the functions of clause 30 is there a general duty to cooperate as applies under clause 5, there are to be special arrangements.

I do not have a solution to this but it is a genuine question about cyber security where that falls within the responsibilities and whether... How the border commander is to take account of cyber security.
13:48
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
My amendment 18 seeks to introduce another criteria into the definition of what constitutes a threat to border security. We believe that our amendment addresses a crucial and glaringly absent dimensional to the definition of threats to border security, namely under the economic interests of the United Kingdom. As currently drafted, the clause defines relevant threats as those involving criminality, risk of offence or harm to persons or property. All of that is right and necessary to leave out the economic dimension is frankly to ignore one of the most significant consequences of border insecurity in modern age.

Illegal entry, organised immigration, crime and abuse of our immigration system come at a cost not just in terms of public safety or border integrity but in terms of real and measurable economic harm. This includes the burden placed on housing, healthcare and social services but also extends to the impact on wages, labour market, distortions, the exploitation of workers and the loss of public confidence in our immigration system. These are some of the effects of illegal immigration which people across this country will most keenly and we need to ensure we reflect this in our assessment of the threat which illegal immigration poses to us.

If individuals are entering the UK unlawfully in ways that undermine the legal labour market, displays lawful employment or distort local economies through illicit practices, then surely that is a matter for national interest. And surely that is a threat to border security just as much as any physical or legal risk. If our legal framework cannot even acknowledge that reality, then how can it ever be expected to address it? This amendment ensures that this important consideration is included on the face of the Bill, in recognition of about the economic harm is one of the most serious effect of this issue.

I would also like to take the opportunity to speak to some of the other amendments in this group. Amendment six and 14 in the name of the noble Lord Rooker addresses an important and often overlooked issue. Illegal meat imports present a genuine risk to agricultural sector, as we have certainly heard from other noble Lords, it affects our food supply chains and public health. And the potential introduction of diseases such as African swine flu or that amount through contaminated meat would be catastrophic both economically and environmentally.

Biosecurity is a key part of our national security and the government needs to take action to ensure this threat is addressed. The amendment in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Hamwee is a matter which the Government I hope will clear up in the response. Cyber security is of course an important responsibility of the government. I'm not quite sure how it relates to border security and asylum but it is nonetheless a probing amendment, which I hope the government will respond to.

I also share the noble Baroness Lady Hamwee's concerns about cyber security, which... Where we have seen a number of high- profile and extremely damaging cyber-attack in recent months. Ministers will be aware the need to tackle this urgently. The noble Baroness is right to raise this issue and I look forward to hearing the noble Lord the Minister's reply.
13:52
Baroness Ludford Portrait Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Just to add a couple of points to the excellent point being made by previous speakers moving their amendments, and I think my noble friend Baroness Hamwee's point about the opportunism that is evident in the kind of product that criminals can switch between, was well made. And they might one day be smuggling people and another day smuggling contaminated food products, including meat. I think the amendment from the noble Lord Davies about the impact on the economic interests of the UK very much ties up with the points made to Kelly by noble Lord Deben.

And trying to persuade the Treasury of the costs offered and mouth and BSE and bird flu are important. You would not think... You would think that was self-evident, even to the Treasury. So one would like to say one was surprised by hearing that it was not but maybe not. And you do not have to be a countryman... Could get a lot more metropolitan than I am, I admit, but like my noble friend I listen to the archers and I care about the countryside, actually, it is not true that all of us living in cities do not care about the countryside.

But it is as consumers as well as the impact on farmers that we have to care about biosecurity. And so, I absolutely support the idea that whether it should be part of the functions of the border commander, I look forward to the noble Lord the Minister's response, but certainly it should be... It seems to need to go much higher, I was going to say up the food chain but that would be a bad pun, but up the profile of priorities of the government to protect the country against biosecurity threats.

There has been a lot of concern about the... About whether post-Brexit controls are being implemented. I'm not the world expert but I think the can has been kicked down the road time after time about these controls. And also concern about where the Border Force and port health authorities are given enough resources to stamp out illegal meat and other contaminated food imports. And the noble Lord colleague Baroness Hayman I think was given a grilling by the EFRA Select Committee the other place, early last month.

I don't know whether there has been any product from their evident sessions, chaired by my friend in the other place, Alistair Carmichael, but that committee is showing how importantly it takes these issues. And when we have noble Lords with the experience that noble Lord Rooker, noble Lady Baroness Coffey and the noble Lord Deben have, in senior government posts in this area, I do hope noble Lord is going to give us a very positive response. Lastly, I would just say that the noble Lady Baroness Coffey mentioned the role of trading standards.

Well, sadly, I think trading standards have been so underfunded, and we know what pressure council budgets are under. I would say that as a consumer, they are not even on my radar these days. Where do you go if you have got a consumer complaint? I have no idea. But wasn't it matted off to Citizens Advice a long time ago? -- Batted. Anyway, we know there are functions, you have the border and then you have inside the country attention to these matters and I think probably we have to be aware that all of these seem to be quite underfunded and a bit fragile in places.

And we know the police have so many issues the police are unable to deal with these days, that this whole area appears to... There is quite a lot of press coverage actually of things like illegal meat imports. And it would be good to hear from the Minister today at the Government not only DEFRA but across government understands and is going to take action on the very real threats I think that have been raised by the amendments tabled and discussed in this group.

this group. I'm grateful to all contributors to the debate today. Can I just begin by saying, straightforwardly,
13:58
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
that the importance of biosecurity, the importance of securing our borders on biosecurity is absolutely borders on biosecurity is absolutely vital. And is a commitment the government give to ensure we prevent contaminated goods entering this contaminated goods entering this country. For the very reasons that the noble Baroness -- Baroness the noble Baroness -- Baroness Coffey, the noble Lord Deben and my noble friend Lord Rooker have noble friend Lord Rooker have mentioned. And indeed Baroness Hamwee and Baroness Ludford have Hamwee and Baroness Ludford have mentioned.

It is absolutely right that if I start with the amendments which seek to ensure the Border which seek to ensure the Border Security Commander has regard to specific threats, namely the threats posed by UK biosecurity by illegal posed by UK biosecurity by illegal meat imports, as tabled by my noble friend Lord Rooker, it is absolutely friend Lord Rooker, it is absolutely right that I say to him that that will be a key issue for the Border will be a key issue for the Border Security Commander.

I want to reassure my noble friend that the threats posed to UK biosecurity by threats posed to UK biosecurity by illegal meat imports are included implicitly within the definition of threats the border security in clause 3 of the Bill. And the commander will and does work closely with colleagues in DEFRA and Border Force, through his ball, to ensure the strategic priorities for border security are tackled. -- Through his board. He does so for the very reasons, I remember the foot-and- mouth outbreak of 2001, I'm old enough to remember the foot-and- mouth outbreak in 1967.

I also remember, who can forget in fact, the BSE issue is the noble Lord Deben had to deal with as agriculture minister. And I know from sharing time in Northern Ireland, that my noble friend was the Minister for agriculture in Northern Ireland. And I shared time with him and he put a great emphasis on the whole issue of bush meat and on biosecurity generally. The very reasons that all noble members have raised. It has a financial cost, it has a health cost and it has a border security cost.

And criminals will get involved in that if they see profit. And as the noble Lord Deben also mentioned, there will be people who bring back something from their holidays that they think is appropriate or they drop a sandwich and therefore, we need to have concerted efforts are organised biosecurity issues. It also be aware -- but also be aware of the individual who will breach regulations accordingly. I say that, I know the National Farmers' Union have written to Martin Hewitt, the Border Security Commander recently, asking for an increased focus on biosecurity issues.

And the Border Force... Border security commander has been able to reassure them in some ways that there are sniffer dogs operational in certain ports in the United Kingdom. There are x-ray scanners at Dover, consistently used to scan vehicles selected as part of intelligence led model. And there will continue to be a central focus will continue to be a central focus on biosecurity by the biosecurity commander, working closely with colleagues in DEFRA and Border Force to ensure we tackle strategic priorities that have been mentioned by the honourable members here today.

-- Either Border Security Commander. The issue of cyber security, also mentioned by the amendment by the noble Baroness Hamwee. Cyber security is also a key protein for the government. The cyber security and resilience bill, which is a Department of Science, Innovation and Technology matter, is going to be introduced this year to strengthen our defences on cyber security and on resilience. And to ensure more essential digital services than ever before are protected, including across geographic borders. And the Border Security Commander will again have, as any person who crosses the border in the UK, with the intention of committing cyber security offences under UK law, which threaten harm to any kind of person, business or property, would be covered either definition of border security in We are in danger of potentially alarming in terms of meat that might Noble Friend rocker has mentioned the issues of what contains an issue of autistic, and I regard bio security, cybersecurity, and, indeed, the noble Lords Amendment 18 issues of economic security are well understood.

The Noble Lord is absolutely right that individuals coming into this country who are either themselves exploited, both subject to potentially Modern Slavery Act shoes and also undercutting legitimate businesses with paying illegal waste wages in with paying illegal waste wages in legal conditions is an issue of security but we have not, in the bill, mentioned the bio security specifically or cyber security specifically or economic security specifically because we regard that as being all part of the generic definition of autistic threats that we have put in the build.

And I would hope that my assurances to all noble members who have spoken in this short and helpful debate that we do take these issues extremely seriously and they will provide a focus. It is not just about small boats and crossings and individuals using criminal gangs, it is about autistic and the Border Security Commander will look at bio security I will look at cyber security, and will look at economic security issues as part of his generic role to look at presenting a plan to the Home Secretary on the security measures that form in this case his or her remit at any particular future time, so I hope that gives some reassurance to my Noble Friend rocker and also to the noble Baroness.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, if I could just come back on that matter noted an
14:04
14:05
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
Before my noble friend's response, could I, again, prefers the noble Baroness to clause 3, subsection 2, of the bill. It says very clearly, and this is why it is generic, but it says it clearly in the document that the commander must, from time to time, issue a document, a strategic priority document that sets out what, in the commanders view, are the principal threats to bodice when the document is issued and the strategic priorities to which partner authorities should have regard in exercising their functions, so that is a long-term proposal for a bodice commander to determine in the document they are going to produce priority document under this clause priority document under this clause to set out those strategic threats to the Border Security Command that will include, potentially, at any one time, bio security, cyber security, economic security, and the issues of immigration security which we are facing as a high priority at this moment in immigration security that we are facing at this particular time.

I hope that three. I hope that 328 and be give the potential for that document to be produced, and that document is going to be shared and discussed with the Home Secretary of the day and that document will be produced in an annual plant later showing what is happening and that is the opportunity for members of both houses to question, to debate, and to discuss at any particular point in time, and if there was, for example, a glaring gap in bio security in the strategic document, it would be for members of this House and the House of Commons to be pressing Ministers to ask the question why, but I am saying to members today it is a priority for Government, it will be in the work of that security commander, but the generic role we have got here today is setting a strategic priority.
14:07
Lord Rooker Portrait Lord Rooker (Labour)
-
-
I am very grateful to those that have contributed and as I understand my Noble Friend has given a really positive, clear, on the record response, for which he can be held to account and he has been quite clear he has not tried to shove it aside. Although, in my remarks, because the amendment was about security, I missed the opportunity which I always tried to take that the unsung heroes of food safety in this country are by the environmental health officers, no question, there unsung and there are less of them than there used to be.

But I just wanted to close with one example of trying to Government because this covers my noble friend's position was my first role in this House when I came in was the Home Office minister. I had one year. And during that yeah doing immigration, asylum, nationality, was my day job, and the rest of the Home Office was the other bit. During that yeah, I spent one day completely at Gatwick and one day completely at Heathrow watching the transfer of particular flights that were coming in because they were the bush meat flights.

This is the Home Office in 2001, by the way, so we were joined up to that extent, they were both Saturdays. I will not mention the country they came from, but the result of it was we slapped visas on them. The fact is the Home Office was aware of the situation because of what had been discovered. And it was thought appropriate that the Minister should have a Saturday there and a Saturday at The Other Place. This was, I mean, it was and still is, because I read, occasionally, that bus -- bush meat and I do not accept the cultural arguments, that is out of bounds, it is food safety, it is illegal, and it is absolutely crucial.

I would invite the Home Office in 2001 day proved they were across Government with safety. And my Noble Friend I understand is not getting paid for the work he has done, so I I'm not trying to give him a work at the airport away from his family, but he gave a first class answer and I do not see and I congratulate the NFU as well, because I know that bush meat having started a deliver campaign back in May to prove the security and I think that more we talk about it, the more likely we are to succeed in protecting the country, I pick leave to withdraw the amendment.

Wye is ideologically pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? It is, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment seven, Lord Campbell look odd.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords I rise to move Amendment seven in my name and in the name of
14:11
None Portrait Amendment: 7 Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-

seven in my name and in the name of my Noble Friend Lord Davies of Gower and speak to the further amendments in this group. The Prime Minister said during his visit to Italy in September 2024 no more gimmicks, this Government will tackle the smuggling gangs who trade the lives of men and women and children across borders. And I would like to begin by saying to the Noble Lord the Minister we must be very careful indeed that the Border Security Commander is not one such gimmick.

We are told that the commander must have regard to the objectives of maximising the effectiveness and coordination of other authorities, but what does that mean in practice? This is not the power of direction, it is not a position of operational command or even statutory oversight. What is more, the commander is expected to publish a strategic priority document from time to time, a document that merely sets out what the commander thinks the threats are and what the priorities should be, and even that cannot be published without the consent of the Secretary of State and the consultation.

Border security is not an abstract exercise, it is about real threats about people smuggling, trafficking, organised crime movement of dangerous goods, and hostile actors seeking to exploit our borders. If this role is meant to mean anything at all, the commander must be empowered to act, not just observe. They must be able to coordinate direct, and enforce, not simply suggest, advise, and hope that someone listens. And, as it stands, the very first few clauses of this bill the commander very little in the way of real powers.

Clause 31 gives the commander only to objectives and clause 32 states that the commander must issue a so-called strategic priority document, and clause 4 states that the commander clause 4 states that the commander must prepare an annual report. In his spending review, the Chancellor announced an additional £280 million per year in funding for the Border Security Command. On top of the 150 million the Chancellor announced in the budget, that gives the commander a total of £430 million in overall budget.

£430 million to write to report and adhere to two objectives. Whilst we on these benches do welcome that extra funding, we must ask what this money will actually ask what this money will actually Operation cost that much money? Would it not be better for the money to be funded directly into the Border Force or the coastguard or the immigration enforcement? Because if we to have a Border Security Commander then casually, we should give that office far greater authority in terms of objectives than what this bill currently delivers.

And that is what our amendments attempt to achieve. They seek to add further fundamental objectives to the functions of the Border Security Command. Amendment seven states that the commander must have regard to the objectives in reducing the number of illegal migrant crossings and increase the prosecutions of criminal organisations who facilitate illegal crossings or to smash the gangs in a phrase of the Minister from the general election last. This amendment is completely in step with Governments stated aims, in fact at second reading the Minister said the key performance indicators for the border security and command are a reduction in a number of migrant crossings that increase in prosecutions and a disruption of the gangs, so I ask as a direct challenge of the Noble of the Minister believes as stated to the House that these are the key indicators for success, then why would he not wish to put them on the face of the bill? Amendment it would make preventing boarding the vessels, preventing legal entry and facilitating the return of those with the right to be here explicit functions of the command.

Again, this goes to the heart of tackling the issue that we are discussing. In effect, we want it in black-and- white on the bill that the commander will be given the objective while reducing illegal entry to the country. And that is what this amendment seeks to achieve. Since 2018 when the figures were first recorded, then 150,000 people have arrived in small boats, in 2024, 36,816 people were detected making the crossings. And I would like to understand where the Government does not think it is worthwhile to give the border security the direct objective of reducing or even ending objective of reducing or even ending We also wish to ensure that those who arrive in this country illegally will not be able to stay.

We know return agreements work as a deterrent, when the Conservatives win this government we cut the number of Albanian immigrants come to this country by thanks to our returns agreement. In 2022, 12,658 Albanian illegal migrants arrived in the UK by small boat, that they'll to just 924 in 2023, following a landmark returns agreement. With Albania. Therefore, in amendment eight, we have included the objective for the Border Security Commander to ensure the decision on a claim by a person who has arrived in the UK illegally taken within six months of arrival and the commander to make arrangements with a safer country for the room removal of the person who entered the UK illegally.

person who entered the UK illegally. I'm sure we will return to the issue of deterrence during the passage of this Bill, but it is for the government to put in place an effective deterrent people crossing the Channel. These amendments inject the urgency and the authority this clause so desperately needs, they spell out clearly that the commander's job is not just to observe the crisis at our borders but do something about it. They make clear that the commander must have a remit to prevent people boarding remit to prevent people boarding vessels to enter the UK illegally, they ensure that where someone does get here unlawfully, it is an objective of the commander to make a decision on a claim swiftly, within six months, rather than leaving them in limbo, costing the taxpayer and clogging the system.

Had I moved into what perhaps is the most important amendment in this group, amendment 13. Which would allow the commander to issue binding directives to partner authorities. Because without that, what exactly is this office and its purpose? What is the point of having a Border Security Commander if they cannot direct or coordinate very agencies charged with securing our borders? And our fear is that without granting the commander the ability to actually command all aspects of our border security apparatus, all the government will be doing is creating another layer of bureaucracy to an already complex operating arrangement.

For the role of the border commander, which is a key manifesto from the government, we cannot simply have a duplication of functions, we need a commander with the powers to organise and direct the bodies responsible for securing our borders. The British public are not interested in technical advisory frameworks, they are not interested in another layer of consultation. They want action and a government that enforces its own laws, uphold our borders and stops rewarding those who enter this country illegally. As we have consistently said, the commander, in the Bill as drafted, has very little real power.

What is proposed is not a genuine command role. It is at best a loosely defined policy advisory position, job title without teeth, responsibility without power and process without... The Bill merely creates a figurehead who can issue suggestions not instructions, who can write reports but not drive outcomes. Who can identify threats but not act on them. And in the face of rising illegal entry, dangerous crossings and the exploitation of our asylum system, that simply is not good enough. If the Government does want to rectify the current situation, then I urge the government to strengthen the commander's role, improve the operational effectiveness and accept these amendments.

I take two move. these amendments. I take two move.
14:19
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Amendment proposed,... Page 2, line 9, the end insert word is printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think this may be the moment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think this may be the moment when I remind ourselves that evil and regular are not the same thing. and regular are not the same thing. -- Evil and irregular. Amendment seven refers to illegal migrant seven refers to illegal migrant crossings, it is not illegal to seek asylum and a crossing is not the asylum and a crossing is not the same as entry. And forgive me for same as entry. And forgive me for that slightly pompous comment but I that slightly pompous comment but I think it is important.

And also to say again that it is the Secretary of State who holds the responsibility and the liability, if responsibility and the liability, if responsibility and the liability, if you like. There is, to me, and I may be misunderstanding of this, a muddling of responsibility by, for instance, including prosecutions instance, including prosecutions within functions. And similarly, within functions. And similarly, running UKVI casework and returns, I would also say on clause 8, that one cannot know if someone does not have leave or leave obtained by fraudulent means.

And therefore leaping straight to making arrangements for the return of such persons is not something that the commander can just go straight to. I have never been... To support an amendment that requires consultation and I'm sorry that the noble Lord Browne is not here to speak to his amendment, which does seem to me to be in the usual formula. I thought it would be a rather good hook and I will push it a little bit by saying that I would see as no doubt other noble Lords did yesterday, a briefing from the council that refers to the importance of independent oversight and suggests that the independent...

I can never remember the words... The ICIBI, the independent inspector, might have a role here. -- Briefing from the Bar Council. Since the amendment has not been, I better not go that far... We do have an amendment 25 in this group, again, a probing one. Under the Bill, the board is given a function to assist, but as the commander's functions are coordinating setting priorities, perhaps assist cannot mean an operational role. But my amendment proposing advise in the place of assist is to probe how the assist is to probe how the Government envisages the board will function and to seek to understand whether or not, I assume not, there is any operational role here.

Amendment 71 is in this group as well but I will leave my noble friend to introduce that. friend to introduce that.
14:23
Lord Dubs Portrait Lord Dubs (Labour)
-
-
My noble friend, Lord Browne of Ladyton, is unable to be here and has therefore asked me whether I would speak to the amendment that is standing in his name. I tried out my name as well but it was too late for the deadlines. Clause 9 requires the commander to comply with directions and have regard to guidance by the Secretary of State about the exercise of the commander's functions. And the amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult such persons as considered appropriate before issuing or advising directions under clause 1, that is fine, but the issue is whether we will ever know what these...

What guidance the Secretary of State is given. In other words, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that when the Secretary of State issues this guidance, he shot in a transparent manner -- he shall act in a transparent manner and consult with appropriate persons before issuing directions or guidance under clause 9. I think this matter of openness and how this thing happens, otherwise we'll never know quite what instructions we got from the Secretary of State. I understand the Law Society of Scotland produced a bit of a briefing on this.

Although the amendment does not of course confine itself to Scotland, it covers all parts of the United Kingdom. My noble friend and I are indebted to the briefing from the Law Society of Scotland. There simply bit of openness in the way the functions

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are to be operated. I would like to support my noble friend, Lord Cameron and the group friend, Lord Cameron and the group of amendments that he has moved.
14:25
Viscount Goschen Portrait Viscount Goschen (Conservative)
-
-
of amendments that he has moved. These amendments seek to flesh out really what this role, this organisation, is all about. And seek to put more detail on objectives and functions. If one looks at the functions of the commander, the meat of this really is in two points made over 4 1/2 lines. So it is very, very thin. And it is an organisation that has already been established, as we know, there is already an incumbent. So I think it would help house a great deal if the Minister was to explain what the organisation is really going to look like? We talk about the border commander as if it is an individual and indeed, that person is an individual.

But then we go on to talk about the command, the organisation. The noble Lord the Minister has talked in terms of hundreds of millions of pounds potentially, if not at the disposal then this organisation's role would have a high degree of influence over. Two very considerable sums of money, when one considers the overall budget, for example, of the Border Force. So, could the Minister set out what the actual border commanders organisation, BSC, will look like? What sort of scale will it be in terms of staff, for example? A figure of £150 million was mentioned, that will be essentially put at the disposal of the commander.

What does that mean? What is the operating budget of this organisation going to be? Could the noble Lord help us, therefore, if one looks at this as an organisation rather than as an individual because £150 million gets you a lot of coordination. Can we hear more about the structure, the functions, the skills of the staff that will be working there, the type of experience, the operating budget? And what returns are sought on the budgets that are being put forward? So, I very much welcome the opportunity for the Minister, in response to my noble friend's group of amendments and indeed the others that have been discussed, to come forward and to help the House establish what type of an organisation we are really talking about.

And he might care to illustrate through an example of how that of the new organisation would interact with the Border Force. Who is going to be, in a sense, the holding the strategic priorities? Who is going to have the influence? Which organisation...? It would be very helpful, I'm sure it would help the House a great deal of the Minister were able to do that. Minister were able to do that.
14:28
Baroness Ludford Portrait Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I wish to speak to amendments 71, which is in this group, it is in my name and that of my noble friend, Lord German. I had to be honest expected that it would be grouped with mine and other amendments about Europol, which is sort of down the list. This one got bounced down, I guess because it is about a duty of the border commander. So it makes sense to group it either way, as it were.

Anyway, that means there's going to be a slightly disjointed discussion on Europol. But I'm delighted to raise the issue sooner, rather than later. I am very much hoping for a positive response from the noble Lord the Minister. Because when the UK-EU summit on 19 May produce the so-called common understanding, slightly awkward time, but anyway, it is the reset result. And a good result it was. And in particular, there was a point on internal security and judicial cooperation.

And that referred back to sort of doing better work on part three of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement. Which in, if you have not all looked at the document on your eyes, Article 5 67 of the TCA is about the scope of cooperation with Europol. And that talks about exchange of information, including specialist knowledge, general situation reports, results of strategic analysis, information on criminal investigation procedures, information on crime prevention methods, participation in training activities, provision of advice and support in individual criminal investigations as well as operational cooperation.

Obviously, all are very sensible things for cooperating between our institutions and Europol. On Clapham Common criminal threats. -- On Clapham But I think the common understanding from the May 19 summit recognised that this had not been properly or usefully put into effect, and so the UK Government and the European agreed there was scope for reinforcing cooperation through quicker, better, and deeper implementation of part three of the trade cooperation agreement, and by fully exploiting and building on its potential and they pledged to encourage the National Crime Agency to further develop cooperation, including on analysis projects, on operational action plans within the European multidisciplinary platform against criminal threats, and exchange of information on serious crimes.

All of that is commendable, but it makes clearly a lot of sense and I was certainly pleased to see that this point of cooperation on security and crime was given prominence in the reset with the EU pursued by this Government, so I think that in that context against the Trade and Cooperation Agreement and the pledge of just eight few weeks ago to give a boost and a bit of a kick start it makes sense to put a duty on the border commander to meet the Executive Director of Euro poll at least every six months to make sure that this pledge to better operationalise the better operationalise the cooperation provisions are given practical reality.

And I very much hope that the vision would be able to find it in their hearts to support this suggestion, because anything that gives, wherever you stand on cooperation with the EU, not talking about trying to nab criminals, it makes sense, and because the TCA was negotiated by the contemporary Government, so trying to get good cooperation in Euro poll is something that I hope can be supported from all sides, and I very much hoping that the Minister will give a positive reaction to suggestions on making the border commander me to regularly with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

boss of Euro poll. Baroness Ludford has given us a
14:34
Lord Alton of Liverpool Portrait Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Ludford has given us a taste of the considerations on amendment 206 which I have in my amendment 206 which I have in my name tabled by her Noble Friend Baroness Hamwee about Euro poll and with what they said today, I also agree with the interventions that have been made by other noble Lords, by the Noble Lord Dubs on behalf of his Noble Friend Lord Browne and in consultation I agree, of course, with what the noble Baroness has said and she has no reason to fear that we will ever accuse her, she was right to remind us about the important use of words that she drew our attention to words.

I particularly want to speak to the amendment that was moved very ably by Lord Cameron on his behalf a matter of his Noble Friend. That is amendment seven and it spells out in the amendment what the duties of the commander should be, reducing the number of illegal migrant crossings and increasing the prosecutions of criminal organisations who facilitate illegal migrant crossings and in some ways going to include this on the bill as that is clearly the main reason why the Government brought this bill forward in the first place but I understand that sometimes bills are used to send out signals and understand wife The Opposition perhaps wish to do that.

As the Minister knows I apologise for being unable to speak at second reading because a group of us from Joint Committee on Human Rights were in Strasbourg to talk amongst other things about interpretations of article 8 of the ECHR about prosecutions, about the numbers of illegal crossings referred to in this amendment, about the criminal gangs manipulating and profiteering on the backs of people. During that visit we met with, amongst others, Tim Ike who has been the British judge in the European Court for the last nine years as noble Lords will know, the British Government supports the names of three others that will take his place and I have to say that they have told me he's coming or willing to come to your budget has when he returns in September to share with us many of the experiences that he has had over the last five years and I was very struck that the European and the Council of Europe are not having these and often some of your Lordships were able to participate in what I moved on behalf of the crossbenchers a bluff weeks ago and the European Convention on Human Rights which we have been celebrating since the 75th anniversary we support in this day and age and the two things for the Council of Europe and the European are extra cuddly linked so that is something that I wanted members of our committee to go and evaluate and understand, because if one were to leave the convention it would mean also leaving the Council of Europe and thus entangling ourselves with many of the things that I personally believe help us to ensure that the number of crossings will be reduced to ensure the number of prosecutions will increase, so we have to do these things across borders and we have to do it with our neighbours and if we do not we certainly would not risk staggering numbers of people who are leaving their own homelands in order to make these dangerous crossings.

The Council of European shared our concerns during all of the discussions that we had and these are not our enemies. We discussed the exploitation and displacement. What is a staggering 122 million people, a number that nearly doubled in the last decade, these are the people that have been displaced and the number of refugees and persons in need with international protection reached over 42 million while the number of internally displaced people rose to around 74 million. More than two thirds of refugees originated from just six countries.

Syria, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Southdown, Sudan and Venezuela. Extrapolation from these figures suggest that around one in every 67 people on earth has been forcibly displaced. These people are the shadow which hangs over our debate on this amendment today. Last Friday in June 20, the committee published its report on the bill. It runs to over 80 pages and I would commend it to 80 pages and I would commend it to your Lordships house, paragraph 13 remarked it was not within the scope of this inquiry to look at wider issues subject to the refugee crisis or proposals for offering safe and legal routes to those in need of protection.

Whilst the bill focuses exclusively on tackling organised immigration crime, we encourage the Government to seek to address the underlying root causes which are fuelling the global refugee crisis. We cannot indulge that challenge. I strongly agree with the UNHCR with its recent analysis of global trends that was emphatic that for meaningful progress to be made, we must address the root causes which is a point I have repeatedly perhaps some would say tediously made in your Lordships house, humanitarian law will not be part of that solution and to be clear, the Joint committees welcomes the overall aims committees welcomes the overall aims of the bill to deter organised crime, so, of course, we would agree, therefore, with the terms of this amendment as it is drafted.

It is right that the Government does what it can to ensure that the legislative framework is in place for the difficult criminality, but we will not do that by diminishing our commitment to conventions and these if they're affected too broadly we want refugees, victims of people smuggling, and Modern Slavery Act referred to by the Noble Lord Hanson who doesn't admirable job in his job in the Home Office and I would join others in paying tribute and personally I am deeply impressed by the work that he is doing and it is good to have gotten to know him over the distance.

He knows as well as I do that victims of Modern Slavery Act being put at risk of being criminalised and that rather than smugglers it is not a question of one or the other we have got to help the victims as well as tackling smugglers. This bill needs to target those who are profiting from organised immigration crime. The people that need to be protected and present there is a reason the most vulnerable are caught, so yes. We are united in wishing to reduce the number of illegal crossings, but we would be wary of enacting laws where this could have unforeseeable consequences.

I will return to some of these points and I will try to be competitive and we have got to make progress on the bill but I do mention so far on this group of amendments this is admirable and far better I might add than some of the exchanges we have had in the last Parliament both in the Joint Committee on Human Rights and also in the House. I hope as we proceed we will keep those two objectives in our site. One is to tackle the illegality of putting the lives at risk on a daily basis and also the importance of protecting those.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I apologise for not speaking at second reading, but I did attend the pre-brief which he
14:42
Lord Empey Portrait Lord Empey (Ulster Unionist Party)
-
-
did attend the pre-brief which he kindly gave. To peers. With regard to Baroness Ludford amendment 71, I would have been surprised if such meetings were not on the agenda of anyone owning the position, had no difficulty with the concept of putting it in the bill, but I assumed it would have been a kind of routine level of cooperation that we would expect, but if she feels it is necessary to insist it is on the face of the bill I personally have no objection to it.

My concern is as I said to the Minister not with the bill itself but what is in it which is my biggest worry. And we have just heard the figures above the international situation and, of course you require and international negotiation to try and solve international problems, which is why ice surprised that the Government has refused or is refusing even to talk to our allies about the 1951 refugee Convention, I have asked the Government last August and again in a few weeks ago and they are refusing to enter into discussions with our allies on that and I would have thought that was a remnant of the sensible place to start because that convention was done after World War II, the world has changed.

And it also can be said that if the problem which I suppose is highlighted by what we have just been discussing, internationally and obviously another component part and for economic reasons we are moving in the opposite direction, so there is a kind of contradiction in terms of at the core of it all, but my main concern is with the amendments that have been put forward by Lord Cameron I think they are personally reasonable things to do but the one thing I concern myself with is we can have a commander of the Sunday commander of that and 150 million, 104, 150 million.

The people who are responsible for setting the national strategic objectives are Ministers of the crime. Not commanders. It is Ministers who set these, that is what they are elected for and that is where the responsibility Are commander will operate within a strategic framework established by Ministers. And I'm just concerned that we are back at the game of maybe will get somebody in the two head-up and will do this and will do that and will do the other. The reality is no commander is going to be able to do anything unless the government of the day 's extra strategic objectives.

-- Sets strategic objectives. The uncomfortable reality is while we uncomfortable reality is while we all detested gangs, the smugglers, we have not provided a disincentive for people define an irregular or illegal route into this country. We are just not doing it. We can dance on the head of a pin of the difference between irregular and illegal but the general public out there do not get that. They are not interested. Because the outcome is the same as far as they are concerned.

We know there are differences, we know we have international obligations, but if we want to look at those obligations we have to look at them with the people we negotiated them with. Because that is the only way you can change and if it is felt that change is necessary, you have to discuss with your interoperability is what those changes are, bringing forward from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

post World War II to the present circumstances we face. I'm grateful to my noble friend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to my noble friend because he is making I think a really important point about the importance of looking again at the importance of looking again at the things we committed ourselves to in things we committed ourselves to in circumstances in which they were assigned. I can assure him that the committee takes that beauty. We discussed, while we were in Strasbourg, a letter which had just been sent by nine different governments, led by Denmark and governments, led by Denmark and Donald Tusk's Poland, who can hardly be regarded as international law or on the far right politics, urging the Council of Europe and the European Court to look again at the interpretation of things like interpretation of things like article 8 and I know that is the position of the government to.

I hope as the Bill proceeds, we will hear more from the government about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hear more from the government about what it actually is they would like to see report. I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. The Minister will be intervention. The Minister will be aware that of course the EHCR has aware that of course the EHCR has particular connotations for me in Northern Ireland and we negotiated the Good Friday Agreement, but the Good Friday Agreement, but equally, how its terms are being interpreted internally within the United Kingdom in particular do give me cause for great concern.

And no agreement should be unable to be reviewed or looked at with the expense, life expense and with the passage and reflections of time. That is all I'm saying that I think all the government needs to do and the Refugee Convention I think is another important part of it. Coming back to the point about the powers of the commander, again, it has to be the Government that sets the strategic objectives. We also are in danger, I think, if we're not careful, of having too many cooks here.

We have got Border Force, we have got this new organisation, we have got the government itself, we got the police, we have got all sorts of people involved and indeed Interpol and operating internationally. So, I think, my anxiety about all of this, is that successive governments and successive Parliaments who are all responsible, were all part of the business model of ruthless people who exploit and take money from unfortunate individuals who find themselves in different circumstances. On the other hand, I think our own feelings internally about our record-keeping, I do not believe we really know who is in this country, we do not know how many potential...

Potential governments are putting sleeper cells into our country. We do not really know who leaves it and when. And of course notes are not the -- boats are not the only method of getting into this country irregularly or illegally. The old fashion back of a lorry and other means are still that have to be taken into account. I think we have a huge task ahead of us but I do say to the noble Lord the Minister that in probing these amendments, putting these amendments Lord Campbell has put forward and the others, has substance.

Lord Browne's amendment, again, I don't see there is anything wrong with that. It seems a reasonably sensible thing to do. And I personally would have no issues with it at all. But I do say to the Minister, the government is at the end of the day, the buck stops with the government in setting the goals. And it is within that that we should be looking at how the command operates. Because this person cannot

**** Possible New Speaker ****

simply be in splendid isolation. Again, I'm grateful for the amendments being tabled, it has sparked a discussion on a range of sparked a discussion on a range of issues. Can I first of all just say to the noble Lord Empey, that the government will be setting government will be setting objectives. The government will have policy issues on these areas, the Government will, as it has done I Government will, as it has done I think, set out its proposals and plans to deal with these issues.

But we are establishing the Border Security Commander post to assist
14:51
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
Security Commander post to assist the Government in the coordination and delivery of those points in an effective way, where we have put in £150 million in this financial year to support that post. We have agreed with the SR, through the hard work of the current Border Security Commander, an additional £280 million over the three-year period. And that is determined to deliver on the Government strategic objectives, which is to secure our borders, to provide the security on all the issues we have talked about in the previous set of amendments.

And there are wider issues which the noble Lord Empey has mentioned, which form part of the Government's consideration and discussion under the immigration White Paper. The government produced for, five weeks ago now, and presented before this House. There are matters in their relating to the very long-term issues the noble Lord has mentioned, relating to the interpretation of article 8. It will examine very clearly, self-evidently report the noble Lords committee has produced in the JCHR. And those issues, there is a very good wide ranging document, the Government will consider that look about in due course.

This is not just the only tool in the box in relation to the wider issues of downstream challenges on why these people are moving in the first place and seeking asylum through either illegal or irregular means. There are issues to do with interpretation of article 8 and there is the constant flow of activity in our office around assessing all of the issues the noble Lord Oulton and Lord Empey have mentioned. But let me focus back on this again, which is about a Border Force commander.

And the strategic priorities, again, which the noble viscount has mentioned, are very clear. We are trying to give, in clause 3 of the Bill, great scope to the Border Security Commander to produce a plan to deal with the challenges that are discussed with the Home Secretary on a weekly basis. And which are there to deliver effective outcomes. And since being in post, the Border Security Commander has, for example, strike new anti-smuggling action plan agreements with the G7 and bilateral agreements with Italy, Germany, Serbia, Balkan state and increased UK operations with Europol, which the noble Baroness -- noble Baroness Ludford has mentioned.

And has essentially been the driving. Between -- behind the Cali group, France, Belgium, Holland and the United Kingdom, looking at what measures we need to take. There are additional resources, the noble viscount rightly challenges how those resources are used. They I -- they have been used today to employ additional people under Border Security Commander initial direction, to support work on a range of issues. Such as, for example, over 200 people working in a variety of areas on the border security strategy as a whole, support for 100 new officers to deal with Border Security Commander as a whole and there has now closed twice as many social media accounts as before, increase the cost of gang and engine packages, supported over 80 ongoing investigations with the National Crime Agency.

There's a whole range of things that are going on now. And again, I hope, with the illegal framework that is in place in the Bill, there will be, as the Bill says, an annual strategy and an annual report to Parliament via the Home Secretary on the outcomes of these proposals and policies. The group of amendments which was produced and again, perfectly legitimate questions to be asked by the noble Lord Kamran Omar hill -- noble Lord Cameron. They set out issues that are in the function of the commander in clause 3 of the Bill, which includes requirements for the commander to seek to maximise the effective activities of authorities relating to threats to border security.

The first of these objectives is the very one that the noble Lord Cameron has mentioned. The government has been clear that preventing dangerous crossings, dismantling organised gangs who are facilitating those journeys is a top priority. Indeed, the work of the Border Security Commander and his partners are now delivering results. Just this month a suspected organised crime boss and his associates have been arrested for facilitating hundreds of individuals entering the UK illegally as part of a surge in law enforcement activity.

Coordinated by Border Security Commander. Government is working to restore order and control of the migration system in the wider ways we have talked about with the noble we have talked about with the noble Lord Empey. But that is central. And I welcome, in a sense, the agreement and understanding from the amendments. But it is central to the core proposals of the Border Security Commander. The further amendment would also allow Border Security Commander to issue directions to partner authorities for specified purposes.

I just do not think the power to direct is not required. In oral evidence sessions in the House of Commons, we have the National Crime Agency, the national chili -- National Police Chiefs Council and they welcomed and supported the role and collaboration today of the Border Security Commander and the arrangements provided for in this Bill which will reflect and respect the operational requirements of the various board members. That was an issue, I know he is not here at the moment, but the noble Lord Hogan-Howe raised at second reading, about operational responsibilities.

We have to respect that. But there is a role for coordination and extra financial support direction from the Border Security Commander centrally. Under clause 5 of the Bill, partner authorities have a duty to cooperate with the commander insofar as is reasonably practical for them to do so. And under clause 3, partner authorities must have regard to the strategic priorities that will have been endorsed and consulted on and supported by the Secretary of State and supported by the board.

And clause 3 and supported by the board. And clause 34B, the current wording of the Bill ensures that all parts of the system were coherently to tackle the very border security threats the noble Lord Cameron has raised in his amendment. While respecting the operational independence of the various partner authorities. And I think the amendment as proposed would potentially undermine that valuable operational independence. So I understand where he is coming from and I understand the need to press on those matters and I understand the need for the viscount to intervene, which I will allow him to do.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

... To interrupt his afternoon... To let me do so. I did ask the To let me do so. I did ask the Minister just to give the House a bit more detail. And he talked about some teams of people that were undertaking various different tasks. undertaking various different tasks. But what is the anticipated annual operating budget of the organisation? What is the very organisation? What is the very approximate staff that is approximate staff that is anticipated for the organisation, once it is up and running? And he talked about various initiatives, he said the Border Force commander has said the Border Force commander has done this, has done that, which are very positive and laudable very positive and laudable development.

But are we talking about... Sorry, are we talking about the border commander as an the border commander as an organisation undertaking executive programs, is it delivering some of these initiatives? Because the way these initiatives? Because the way it is portrayed in the Bill, the way the Minister has described it, is the Minister has described it, is that this organisation, this individual will be coordinating, the actual delivery will be done through actual delivery will be done through other partner agencies? Is that still the case?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

still the case? The Border Security Commander has coordinating but also strategic coordinating but also strategic directional role. So he will be producing, in consultation with the various partners, a plan, which brings together various partners who are now currently operating independently, some of whom are not even within the home offices direct responsibility area. There are, as we talked earlier, biosecurity, DEFRA and others there. Producing a plan to affect a strategic plan for the three year period of the SR, for which he has been given £280 million to determine how that plan is used and implemented.

From the SR settlement. We are in the very early stages of the development of the Border Security Commander -- command. They have a very good track record to date of improvements but I will, after today's discussions, write to the noble viscount and give him detail of where we are now for future plans on staffing levels and over that period of time. Because I have current staffing levels but I need to look and discuss with my colleagues what the levels are over the next three years.

With the proposals that have been brought forward. I will give him that commitment and I will do that for him, so if he remains dissatisfied or even curious, maybe not even dissatisfied, curious, then he has the opportunity to return to these matters on report to raise them still further stop I hope I will The noble Baroness lady tabled an To the language in clause 6 of the bill to the extent to which the operational decisions are within agreement of the board.

As I mentioned previously, the Government values the operational independence of our law enforcement agencies and it is clear that the board is not designed to directly operational activities of the individual agencies, going back to the very same point just would point to that noble viscount, it is a unique forum that will enable scene ever presented tips across the system to shape collective strategic response shape collective strategic response and bodice threats. The House of Commons in oral evidence sessions for law enforcement leaders who would align the value of the strategic forum which enables about law-enforcement bodies to focus on their operational activity and I hope that that language point that she has mentioned will be satisfied by the explanation that I have given.

Amendment which was tabled originally by my Noble Friend Lord Browne do have a day before us today and the Noble Lord Dobbs has ably fulfilled that responsibility by moving the amendment on behalf of my Noble Friend Lord Browne and requires the Secretary of State to consult persons that they deem appropriate and in this section. And I can assure my Noble Friend that in practice the Home Secretary and before issuing any advice or guidance and I hope that amendment from my Noble Friend represented ably today about my Noble Friend lot odds is not necessary to legislate for within this bill because the assurance argument today is of that effect.

The noble Baroness, and, again, with the support of the Noble Lord in Strasbourg today has put an amendment down for a requirement for the board of security to meet with the director of Europol every six months. The Border Security Commander has already worked very strongly and in cooperation with the international bodies, including Euro poll. And very confident that the novel Baroness May reference to a couple of weeks ago was part of that reset on our European puzzles and the issue of national security, bodice, was key within that discussion.

We had a recent organised crime summit which brought together over 40 countries and law- enforcement bodies including Euro poll which was designed to unite behind a new approach to dismantle smuggling gangs and the priority is to secure borders. I give her the assurance that the Border Security Commander will be engaged with the commander of Euro poll on a regular basis. I value very much the work that they do. It was key when I was a member of the House of Commons after the Brexit discussions and Home Office Ministers very strongly unsecured Europol being part of our engagement post-Brexit.

Those ambitions did not meet the ambitions that I had pre-Brexit, but we are in a position now where we are able to discuss with our colleagues on a regular basis how we can secure additional cooperation on these very important matters. I have to say it important matters. I have to say it is a challenge, however, for the UK to say via the board of security that your report must meet with the UK Government on a six monthly basis and that is directly with our Government but I issue whether noble Baroness and the Noble Lord in his absence that the purpose of the Border Security Commander will be to look at how we utilise the resources of Europe oh to meet the challenges that we face as a whole, so with that I hope that the Noble Lord Cameron will recognise that the Government has this as its central objective and I will write to the Noble by current with regards to the specifics that he has raised today.

The amendments I think I hope I have reassured them as I have with my Noble Friend Lord Dobbs on behalf of the Noble Lord down but with regard to both the Noble Lord MP, issues they raised are absolutely critical to the future management of the challenges on illegal and irregular migration. And that report that he has produced will examine, as the Noble Lord altered, and the issues has raised, well, themselves, turn up in legislation potentially later this year because we have two put other bills before the House and be looking at how put flesh on the bones of the immigration white paper produced not just if you weeks ago, so I hope that will answer the points for members of the House.

Obviously, it is up to them whether Obviously, it is up to them whether they wish to pursue that.
15:07
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
Out grateful both to the Noble Lord the Minister but also to all noble Lords who have contributed to this group. Some of the contributions were outside of the subject matter of the amendments and it is very important and significant arguments, especially for noble Lords who were not able to present at second reading. Can I particularly pointed to the speech of my Noble Friend who made some points and friends are questions about the nature of the security command and I am not entirely sure that he received that answer satisfyingly, but we will see how this transpires.

We have how to clean and again this bill but the creation of the Border Security Commander is meant to signal a new era in the government's approach to illegal in and organised criminal networks, but if that truly is to be the case then the reality has two live up to the rhetoric at present I do not believe that it does. The amendments we put forward today seek to give substance to a role that currently lacks it to ensure that commanders are tasked not with observation but with action because without clear objectives, real powers, meaningful authority, this role risks becoming the most expensive strategic document right in the history of it.

Can I just suggest the point made by Liddy Hanley that she raised a point about one of our members including prosecutions was that I do not recall that it is responsible for prosecuting, but we, I was pointing to what the Noble Lord the Minister himself said at second reading, that success of the security command would be judged and would be measured by reduction crossings and executions. We simply see as these executions to put those objectives in black-and-white, we do not understand why the Government should be reluctant to define the law as objectives the very outcomes they claim to deliver.

And with the greatest respect of the Noble Lord, we do not believe that is the case. We think that is important as the amendments that we have profited our the opportunity to correct that. They are sure that commands are explicitly tied to the outcomes and they provide objectives that would lead to urgent decision-making and they would empower the commander to receive new directions to the authorities et cetera. The states here are very high, the British people watching, they have a right to expect more than the structures, the expect real enforcement, real deterrence, real coordination, real outcomes, and if the Government is serious about regaining control than most get the commander of the tools to do the job and we think the amendments are a constructive, credible way forward in the role and the well-meaning power and if the Minister continues, can I also encourage him to be reflective of these amendments, not just for the sake of that legislation but the sake of Blick trust and national availability, let us not settle and let legislate for results and I hope the Government seriously considers adopting our amendments in the future, but for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw.
15:11
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-

Is at your lodgers pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn?
15:11
None Portrait Amendment:9 Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-

Amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment eight, Lord Cameron, not moved. We now come to the fifth group in clause 3 amendment nine,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Cameron. My Lords, I rise to move amendment nine which alongside the other amendments does seek to amend the strategic priority document issued by the commander. The issued by the commander. The Government envisions that this strategic priority document as outlined in clause 3 is essential to focusing the bodice command priorities and its contents will priorities and its contents will allow principal threats to border security and strategic priorities to security and strategic priorities to which the must have the regard and therefore I ask why the Government therefore I ask why the Government has decided to omit the simply from time to time rather than annually as opposed in amendment nine.

If the Government is, then it should not issue this document? And from time issue this document? And from time to time very rarely, if the role is to be taken seriously amiss to come with measurable goals in that vague timeframe which renders the timeframe which renders the publishing of the document a somewhat arbitrary display of the commander's responsibility instead of district duty to protect that knowledge that there is an annual reporting duty. That reinforces in reporting duty. That reinforces in my view the need for this document my view the need for this document and there is one point in this clause.

I genuinely seek clarification from the Noble Lord the Minister because it goes to the provision as a whole and that is subsection 2 essentially requires them to assess the principal threats to border security and it really goes to what the Noble Lord MP in the last group said that the assessment of principal threats to security is a function to be undertaken by Ministers, most obviously the Home Secretary, with the Home Office, with 38, with 38,000 or so staff with border immigration force with the command, that migration committee, independent chief expect, immigration, and in terms of seeking to place the duty on the commander for the assessments and I genuinely ask the Minister where does the responsibility lie and secondly the bill requires a spend at number of inclusions in the strategic document.

If we are to have the command of their strategic priorities than should this not from comprehensive amendments 10, 12, and 11 for my Noble Friend attempting to rectify this, amendment 10 requires the commandment to include the assessment of the most effective methods for deterring illegal entry, reducing the number of crossings in a timely and effective removal to ensure the country. The Government stated creation of this new position is essential in deterring migration and if that is so, why not require them to consider those factors when drafting the local assessment of threats to our borders? And it is true, I unafraid to say, that in terms of crossings, this spring and terms of crossings, this spring and early summer, the Government has not succeeded in that, because, as we know, 21 May, 825 people came across the charterer 13th of June, 919 made it across on 31 May, 1195 people.

The Government has presided over the highest asylum figures the world has seen. 1/4 of that being September to 2024, given these figures does the novel of the Minister not agreed the explicit requirement relating to producing illegal crackers crossings should feature in the priorities of this. And I do welcome my Noble Friend amendments to my amendment as I believe it is a crucial addition to the strategic priorities that the commander must ensure that we know all of those choose to make the crossing across the channel safer through a safer country and the reasons why they would therefore choose to remain in those countries is essentially the first step to determine, and that very same reason why in amendment tend my Noble Friend Lord Davies includes an assessment of removals to safer countries.

And, finally, the purpose of amendment 12 is to ensure that the document supports the UK border strategy published in 2020 set out the developmental plan for the innovation of the United Kingdom's orders up to 2025 to transform the nation's bio security. That is crucial to facilitate the effective and technological pollution and can only be guaranteed if the commander's work is aligned with the rest of their work to secure them rest of their work to secure them
15:17
15:17
Viscount Goschen Portrait Viscount Goschen (Conservative)
-
-
setting up the strategic priorities. So I think the bill, it would be better for it to say the Secretary of State will publish the strategic priorities for the organisation, advised by the border commander, have consulted with the commander, and indeed other relevant agencies. It seems to be quite a circular argument for the border commander to be invited to cope with their own strategic priorities, and then set out how they intend to address them as an element of marking their own homework.

So, I suspect they will listen very carefully to what the noble Lord, the Minister has to say about that point of the strategic priorities coming from the border commander, rather than the Secretary of State. And it will be something we wish to return to. My Lords, specifically, amendment 11 and the origins of that lie within exchange I had with the Minister at second reading, to which he followed up with a letter and the question I have asked him was what the real factors? What is the government's understanding of the specific factors that drive desperate people to take their lives in their hands and those of their families and undertake sea crossing, potentially with the peril of death or serious injury? Why would they come from at least one of the safe country, generally France, or a series of safe countries, they might have passed through? Why would they risk everything, including their lives and those of their families, to come to the UK specifically? What is it about the regulatory or commercial situation, cultural situation in the UK, that causes people to come here? The Minister was kind enough to provide me with a substantial letter.

I hope you wouldn't mind if I paraphrased by saying we do not really know. It's more complicated than that but that was the thrust of it, my Lords. And I think we should know. And I think we should be honest about the factors. Whether they are to do with the support that are provided, whether it is to do with A-level of control. We intend to exert over people who come here regularly, or legally. Whether it is to deal with the organised crime gangs, these are all factors which the Minister touched on.

All visits to do with the chance of deportation, and I wonder if, in the Minister's answer to me, he could insist the House by telling the House of those who come through legal means or irregular means, who cross the channel in small boats, what has been the average rate of deportation of people who have come through those means? My Lords, I believe there is another factor as well. Which is the opportunity for To take on paid workforce whatever the regulations say.

I'm sure ministers are very well aware, for example, offer coverage on the front pages of national newspapers yesterday about people coming from hotels, government funded hotels, where they have been housed, and undertaking workforce and big companies. Whether that may be a contractor, I suspect. I think we merely have to graph all of those factors, and be really, really honest about them. We need to tackle the demand side as well as the supply side, and this bill is very much about addressing the supply side, and quite rightly so.

I think it is incredibly important we look at the very specific demand for actors that are driving people to risk their lives to come to the UK with preference to other UK

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful again to noble Lords, I will try to answer the
15:21
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
Lords, I will try to answer the noble viscount immediately if I may. There are, I he is very kind to say that he paraphrased my reply to 'I don't know', a tad unfair but an opinion nonetheless. We don't know, there are many issues that the noble Lord, Lord Alton refers to on a basis of war, hunger, and oppression which drive people to leave their homes or be forced out of their homes or be forced out of their homes, there are people that are, then, the traffic across Europe.

There are people who, then, tend to come to the United Kingdom because they believe a simple thing such as speaking English as opposed to other languages. They may have had a Nirvana promise to them by criminal gangs, there are a whole range of factors and we do know and are consistently assessing those pull factors. He might be interested in addressing the previous government, in the years between January 2018 and March 2025, 94% of the small boat arrivals had an asylum claim raised, and outcomes from those asylum claims vary, people from Afghanistan were 37% of asylum claims, agreed, but people from Syria had 99% of their asylum claims agreed, Eritrea, 86%, Iran, 48%, Sudan, 90%, there is a variety, because the pull factors that the noble Lord Alton continually raises in this House, rightly, are very often push factors rather than pull factors, they are push factors from areas of high levels of poverty, war, or other disruptive influences.

Now, our model has to be to try to smash the criminal gangs, and to remove their ability to traffic effectively, for the reasons we have debated all afternoon. And in that, the role of the border come under is -- Border commander is again critical. It has been brought forward by His Majesty's opposition frontbench, again, look at first of all specifying the frequency that the Border Security Commander must issue as a priority document. The Border Security Commander can issue a strategic priority document to Border Security Commander assessing threats.

But I want the Border Security Commander to have flexibility, to update these priorities, as and when threats evolve. As and when the very changes that the noble viscount at the noble Lord Alton have mentioned that might will impact upon that. Under the terms of the amendment, the production of the document annually will not allow that to happen. I want it to be a fluid operation between the Border Security Commander and this. Members of also raised, discussed and spoken about who is setting the strategic priority.

I think the framework we have set in the bill is very clear, the Border Security Commander will be setting strategic objectives, having consulted aboard, established under the bill, having consulted partner agencies, as mentioned in the bill, having discussed with the Home Secretary and the Home Secretary themselves having discussed with other ministers. Having produced clear evidence of what the pressures are on order security for plan will be produced with the issues I mentioned earlier, and I will write to the noble viscount about, in terms of the operational delivery of that and the members of staff et cetera downstream.

We are looking about currently. We have a £280 million resource for the next three years of the SR, Spending Review, and will be looking at how we can do that when allocations are made a little further on this year. But I cited His Majesty's opposition -- But I say to both His Majesty's bench opposition, who raise these issues, that is the plan under strategic objectives set by the government, with the Border Security Commander's plan, are critical. Additional information should be included in the strategic priority document.

The government is working hard to prevent dangerous sea crossings, targeting smuggling gangs, making sure they do not put lives at risk, address the factors driving Illegal Immigration from safe countries, and the strategic policy documents is issued to partner authorities, and set out the strategic priorities they must have in regard to exercising those functions. So I think, again, the proposals in the bill, which I hope the noble Lord will reflect on in due course, it's not clear what the assessment set out in the amendment would be, in terms of its appropriateness for such a document.

Finally, amendment 12 aims to ensure the strategic rarity documentation by the Border Security Commander and the UK Border Strategy are supportive of each other. Again, borders dear is a fundamental part of the strategic approach to the wider border, and the strategic priorities for border security for the wider approach. The bill is to ensure that we coherently and sensibly convene activity across the whole UK border system. Therefore, it's not really plausible to imagine a situation whereby the security commanders priorities, setting consultation with the board, would be at all is with wider, could be at all is with wider priorities set by other agencies, the purpose of the ability provide that coherence, drive, strategic forum for the exercise of these measures, to deal with the variations we have all mentioned during the course of the short debate.

I hope that helps again with the amendments being put forward. We can return to these if need be at report, but I hope at the moment, I have addressed the issues raised.
15:28
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
I'm grateful to the noble Lord, the minister, and my noble friend, Viscount Goschen, it is insured this debate has brought to life some shortcomings and how the government currently envisages the role of responsibility of the commander, particularly in regards to the strategic priority document and we are told it is central to the commander's function, that will help shape response to some complex and pressing threats to our border. It is a surprise it will only be issued is a surprise it will only be issued 'from time to time', I listen very carefully to the Minister's response, S&P don't believe it is a serious approach to a serious national challenge when confidence in the system is fragile, to leave the frequency of such an important document so open-ended and for that reason, a clear solution is amendment nine, the requirements issued annually, that is simply a minimum standard of accountability, it's not excessive or difficult and if the commander is to be held to their role, then that is a form of regular reporting on the document.

Frequency is not the only issue, as has been said. As drafted, the document lacks substance, it offers no mandate to assess the effect of the methods being used to deter illegal entry, to reduce crossings illegal entry, to reduce crossings 10 addresses that directly. If the government truly believes this role will make a difference, it should have known hesitation, as we say, embracing a clarity direction and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

purpose in the remit of the commander... If he will allow me for a moment,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If he will allow me for a moment, I just want to add as well, if I may, the employment rights Bill currently going through a lengthy currently going through a lengthy procedure of discussion in this House is attempting secondly, to put House is attempting secondly, to put down a whole range of measures which tackle some of the employment issues on a legal working that are on a legal working that are potentially going back to the noble Viscount's .1 pull factors. Dealing Viscount's .1 pull factors.

Dealing with that in a much more effective with that in a much more effective strong way. I hope after maybe 10 of 11 days of committee, and some 11 days of committee, and some report stages to come, that the noble Lord can reflect on that. And see what support he can give to measures in that bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

measures in that bill. I will reflect very carefully on that, but the amendments put forward in this group, unlike the amendments in the last group, and not about undermining the government intentions, they are about giving them a credible coherent mechanism, them a credible coherent mechanism, to pursue and deliver. That is the reason I support amendment 11, reason I support amendment 11, tabled by my noble friend, Viscount Goschen. And finally, amendment 12 which ensures the commander's work which ensures the commander's work is not carried out in isolation but aligned with the UK Border Strategy.

The lack of linkage between the commanders priorities at the border strategy is our viewer missed opportunity management of the put Government is serious about border reform, it wants to be taken seriously, that it must demonstrate a willingness to embrace its structure and accountability by the amendment and I urge the Government amendment and I urge the Government to listen to what we have to say and ensure that the commander is not just another headline but a role that delivers real outcomes for that delivers real outcomes for British people, and on that, I picked withdraw.
15:32
15:33
None Portrait Amendment:15 Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Cameron. I rise to move amendment 15 and speak to amendment 70 tabled by speak to amendment 70 tabled by myself and my Noble Friend and to reflect briefly on amendment 60 reflect briefly on amendment 60 tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Hamwee, this amendment is a matter of legal precision and legal precision, especially in issues as sensitive and complex as immigration sensitive and complex as immigration enforcement is a necessity and this amendment defines illegal entry into amendment defines illegal entry into the net kingdom with 1971 immigration act and that act has immigration act and that act has long provided a statutory foundation for offences related to unlawful entry for staying and if we are serious about creating a coherent framework for the commander to operate within we must be clear by operate within we must be clear by what we knew my by illegal entry and without this definition the term is left open to interpretation and could result in confusion, inconsistency, and perhaps legal inconsistency, and perhaps legal challenge.

Waitangi Day definition directly to the existing law we directly to the existing law we ensure there is no risk of the commander operating under uncertain or shifting interpretations, it is a or shifting interpretations, it is a simple, necessary fix and sets wider parameters not only for our discussion now but for those that come into force and amendment 17 likewise we would see is rooted into commonsense and defines sea crossings as water from another country for the purpose of gaining entry into the United Kingdom and that is seen as having occurred from any third country, it is absolutely vital that we draft this legislation now in a way that allows our enforcement opportunities to take robust action to stop the threats and how we define these core terms is important to ensuring that we do this successfully and we note that the government's current intention is to include sea crossings that originate in France, Belgium, or the Netherlands, as is stated in the offence of endangering other sea crossings in clause 18 and we have another amendment to address that inhalator group, and I will not dwell on it now, but suffice it to say that I do not think we should be narrowing the scope of the definition to only crossings in these three countries and there might be countries where it may be legal to cross from now but we must ensure that this legislation is future proofed, given the strategy in much of the public discourse centres on the dangers of these crossings, it is clear that the bill is clear in defining what it refers to an hour amendment closes that gap and can I turn briefly to amendment 16 from the noble Baroness Lady Hamwee that does raise an interesting point of whether private bodies carrying out this are captured under the definition of public authority which suggests some caution and while it is the intention to probe and not prescribed I do say that we must be wary of unintentionally expanding the net of liability obligation without fully understanding the operational and legal issues and consequences if private contractors are to be brought within the scope of influence then that should be considered through a full and more deliberative process and not inserting that parameter, so while I appreciate the spirit of the amendment I hope that we can offer some clarification or perhaps guidance rather than primary legislation at this stage and to amendments in our name are about clarity and consistency and support the effectiveness of the commander and I urge the Government to support them and I beg to move.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

In clause 3 page 3 line 2 at end insert that would as printed on the
15:36
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Marshall list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 16, in this group, it is an amendment that I am a little is an amendment that I am a little amused by that the Noble Lord has just criticised the expansion just criticised the expansion tendencies of this amendment, given that I think that is what some of that I think that is what some of his earlier amendments have tended his earlier amendments have tended to suggest. Clause 35 tells us that public authority means a person with public authority means a person with functions of a public nature, and clause 3 makes public authorities partner authorities for that chapter, across the public sector, chapter, across the public sector, not just this one, private organisations are contracted to provide services, so I am probing whether some such organisations are whether some such organisations are within the definition.

Does the commander have authority over them? commander have authority over them? Or is it as I have been arguing for the whole of today that the responsibility lies with the Secretary of State for all this work, but, of course, we know that the Home Office has contracted private sector organisations, for instance, to run asylum hotels, so this is not totally theoretical in this questioning but I have to say that we do quite often worried that the Government is not always as good at procurement as one might like it to be and indeed, frankly, forcing contracts, so I hope the private sector is not going to be put in an even stronger position, because I for one would like to know that this is an appropriate amendment and I am

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not seeking to expand the directory first I am grateful again and I hope I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful again and I hope I can answer the Noble Lady baroness, her amendments as she has just gone her amendments as she has just gone by six to probe whether we are carrying out public-sector functions carrying out public-sector functions in the definition of public authority in clause 3 subsection 5 and I hope that the provided and I hope that the provided clarification I can give her will be clarification I can give her will be of assistance. The clarification is as follows.

Private bodies carrying out public-sector functions such as out public-sector functions such as those working with Border Force and those working with Border Force and those with public authority, so essentially I hope that reads in the probing amendment but it is on the record that is a position with regard to that. The Noble Lord regard to that. The Noble Lord Cameron, again, raised a number of Cameron, again, raised a number of amendments, amendment 15, requiring amendments, amendment 15, requiring the definition of legal entry into the United Kingdom to be included in clause 3 subsection 5 amendment 17 requiring the definition of sea requiring the definition of sea crossings.

I would say to him and I hope he will reflect upon this that on page 3 subsection 5 of clause 3 in the chapter we concluded the words for the security or partner authority and then they have been explicitly defined due to their presence in other clauses in the chapter and we have been clear in the House of Commons when these issues were raised my Noble Friend the Minister did say that we do not want to put on the face of the bill the legislation issues that would be included in strategic priority document or the annual report to ensure that sufficient flexibility is retained and the continual evolving of the threats to security, if we put down the amendments of the Noble Lord is proposed today, I think that we would, by defining these terms, essentially be watering down in actual fact the ability of clause 3 subsection 5 in that chapter with the particular issues that we have come across and partner security, public authority, a clearly defined terms in the chapter and it gives the effects ability for the border security commander to address the issues of the day in relation to those before us.

And thus a little shake of the head from the opposition front bench, if they remain unhappy, feel free to challenge, if they want further clarification I will try to write to him, and if he feels it does not meet the objectives that he has said, then we have the potential to discuss this further at other stages of the bill.
15:41
15:43
15:44
None Portrait Amendment:20 Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-

the government's priority is to smash the gangs that we hear in the immigration policies cracking down immigration policies cracking down on those that profit from vulnerable people and we are assured that people and we are assured that progress is being made and progress is working but when it comes to the results the actual measurable results the actual measurable outcomes we are met with a very outcomes we are met with a very different picture and I do not want different picture and I do not want to restate the statistics, we have read enough already this afternoon.

Our amendment to clause 4 simply asks the Government in each annual report to state the number of people report to state the number of people trafficking gangs that have ceased to operate as a result of to operate as a result of enforcement action. That is it. It is not an unreasonable demand, it is not an operational risk, it is just not an operational risk, it is just seeking facts because if the Government really is dismantling the criminal gangs then the data should be on hand and should strengthen the case of the Government that the Government is so eager to make and transparency would seek to confirm what it has claimed is already happening.

There has, so far, been, I think, a lack of openness around this supposedly central policy objective and that raises questions about whether the crackdown is as effective as claimed. Questions about whether the strategy is working. Questions about whether the targets are being measured. And if the Government cannot or will not report on how many trafficking gangs are actually being taken off the streets and how can the public be expected to trust that this is a meaningful priority. And these amendments simply see transparency and facts rather than slogans and if the Government is serious about owning confidence, we would greatly owning confidence, we would greatly They should have nothing to hide, they should have every reason to show us the results.

Amendment 21 speaks to another fundamental issue, accountability. This amendment would simply require the government to publish, in its annual report, Keydata. How many people have be in charge, Harmony have arrived in a legal see crossings, how many are being detained, and how many are actually being deported. We are told this is a bill about deterrence, we are told this is about enforcement. The only way we can judge its effectiveness as if we have the numbers and the data.

And I do say to the noble Lord, the minister, that if the government is proud of what it's delivering, this amendment should be easy to accept. It is not unreasonable ask, it's basic transparency, and without it, we risk having enforcement in the dark
15:47
15:47
Viscount Goschen Portrait Viscount Goschen (Conservative)
-
-
Lords, the first of my amendments, it is very straightforward, that the government, the commander, should publish financial accounts. There was reference made to the financial year but not the publication of financial accounts. It is very important we have discipline around the purposes of the organisation, and what the return on investment the public is making in this the public is making in this The Minister could also guide the House as to whether the hundred and 50 million figure that has been mentioned is -- To 150 million figure been mentioned accepts reallocation of existing budget, or perhaps a blend.

That brings me onto amendment 24. This could almost be thought of as perhaps post- legislative scrutiny on an ongoing legislative scrutiny on an ongoing basis for this new structure. It is a new layer, I'm not going to use the term bureaucracy, but it is a new agency essentially designed to coordinate other agencies, rather than necessarily operationally deliver outcomes itself, so there is a danger, undoubtedly, and I'm sure the government recognises this. But having another cooking this -- Cook in this kitchen could destroy value Be clear about what a real outcome has been, over a period of years the initiatives the government has brought forward, we certainly give them credit for doing so, for all the right reasons.

My Lords, I do not mean, and perhaps my drafting was rather inelegant, this is less about performance of the individual commander, and talking about the organisation, the commanders organisation, the BSC. Do the partner agencies continue to believe this agency, this new agency, is adding value, doing things that couldn't otherwise be done. The demos been arguments that if it doesn't work, as will hope it will, then it should -- There must be an argument. Then it should be taken up by another agency, perhaps the Home Office itself stop to very straightforward --.

So to very straightforward amendments. But as the first one, the second point is portrayed at Sisu are going to be the beneficiaries of this or otherwise, of this coordination should be able to express their view about the efficacy of the structure. I look forward to the Minister's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

response. My Lords, first of all, apologies

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, first of all, apologies that I was unable to attend second reading, I have put my name on a number of later amendments, but I number of later amendments, but I just wanted to say how much I supported the spirit of this group supported the spirit of this group of amendments. On the issue about crossings, there is a feeling, in relation particularly, to smashing relation particularly, to smashing the gangs, that there is a huge
15:50
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
the gangs, that there is a huge amount of smoke and mirrors. Not enough transparency, not enough understood. And I fear there is a kind of climate of public distrust, in which politicians are just not believed. I think therefore that these amendments are really helpful to the government, they accept them, because it gives assurances this is something that will be fully accounted for, not just a slogan, as has been indicated. I think the area around these crossings is a territory for rumour and fall, potentially, misinformation.

There is also so figures bandied around, people, because they no longer believe in the official figures, are therefore open to all sorts of figures that are not true, so it would seem to me that this group of amendments helps pin down exactly what this bill will have achieved, and I think that's very important. It was an interesting incident recently, in which journalists, a team from a GB news, actually went about helping smash the gangs themselves and they did that by going on Instagram, pretending to be, trying to get a crossing, they organise the crossing, had WhatsApp communications, voice messages and so on, and they were of course it ISUOG it was partly a sting operation to show how easy it is in full tread the gangs and get this information.

They pass on the information to the authorities, they chased it up and nothing has happened. Even though they have the name, although it was a WhatsApp message, the phone number, in fact, to phone numbers of two gang leaders, nonetheless, nothing has happened to those people. This was understandably used by those journalists to say for all the rhetoric around the gangs, for all this new piece of legislation in Parliament is saying it is going to smash the gangs, are they really? What I would say is this, particularly the first two amendments in this group, help say that this bill covering terms of what it's going to do will be able to tell the public what they want to know.

How many gang leaders were arrested, what exactly has happened? I would just urge the government to look at these amendments favourably as being helpful to their cause and also helpful to the general atmosphere in which we don't have public cynicism about political rhetoric without action.
15:53
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I am intrigued by the first of these amendments. Amendment 20. Requiring a statement on the number of gangs that have ceased to operate. That's the first bit, the number. And the second ACC to operate, the third is as a result of enforcement action. -- The second is ceasing to operate. As I understand it, it is very difficult to know, the characteristic of these gangs is that the individual smugglers group and regroup and got smaller fish, may be better than the bigger ones.

Obviously, the objective, which is the subject of this amendment, is exactly the objective, but I do not know that there can be any useful meaningful reporting in the way this amendment suggests. So, I'm sorry not to be supporting this amendment. On amendment 21, I do want to say how important it is to have good data. Whether again this is precisely what the commander should be producing, in terms of the six headings here, but the more general point, again, I will go on repeating it, is that the responsibility lies with the Secretary of State.

Not with the commander. And it's important to have full and accessible data much more frequently and more up-to-date than in an annual report published sometime after the financial year, to which after the financial year, to which the information relates. So, I agree with the noble Lord, to the extent that this is about accountability, but I don't agree, as he will have gathered rather tediously from me, and I am sorry about that, the accountability is that of the director, it is that of the Secretary of State.
15:56
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
Another useful discussion, my Lords, and I hope I can address some of the issues that have been put before the House today. The amendments in the name of Lord Davies, Lord Cameron, create a requirement for Border Security Commander to be included in the annual report, statistics relating to the new offences created by the bell, and wider relevant statistics in relation to the regular entrants who arrived via crossing or deportation. The first of these is to introduce to six on human trafficking in the annual report, while the second seeks to include information on people charged in a range of new offences included in the bill.

The annual report, as currently envisaged, must state how the command has carried out the functions of the office in the financial year, set out the commander's views on the performance of the border security system, with particular reference to the strategic priorities that have been set. We will, as I have said, and the bill makes it clear, legally, the structures of the bill, a report will be laid before Parliament and published, providing both public and parliamentary accountability of the work of the Border Security Commander across all threats.

It might change over time as the threats evolve, against which, again, the command will need to report against. The question at the heart of the amendments, should we provide further statistics? In line with the statement of compliance with the code of for statistics, as part of the government is already big commitment and transparency. The Home Office already publishes a vast amount of data on immigration, including the themes within the amendment, and including existing regular publications, so we already have over and above any amendment that would be accepted potentially on this issue, we already have quarterly statistics of people coming to the UK.

Quarterly statistics on the intentions of citizenship, asylum, detentions and returns, the quarterly immigration statistics release present, final and authoritative statistics on small boat arrivals at the appropriate place for that data is, I believe, with an established Home Office publications. And it's really helpful information. That the noble Lord should look at if he has the opportunity to do so. Because it tells me, for example, already, that the number of small boat crossings rose from 300 people in 2018, to rose from 300 people in 2018, to Information I am able to get from the public domain before it goes into the Border Force annual report, if he wishes to have a look at this, I can already tell him quarterly statistics already produced.

The 28,900 people returned from last year, until May 2025, which statistics published already tell me as a 23% increase over the previous governance performance. If he wants me to go on, there is a whole range of statistics saying, for example, that since he thousand and 18, 94% of the people arriving in the UK and small boat have claimed asylum, -- 2018. And of these, around 3/5 have received a substantive decision but it has taken a long time to get there, and one of the reasons we have cancelled the Rwanda scheme, which will come up later in the bill, so we can put resources into speeding up asylum claims, accordingly.

And improving on those sticks. -- Statistics. This amendment asks us to put those in the Border Security Commander's annual report, they are in place, they are there, for all to see, I quoted a couple of them now, they are produced quarterly, so I can give him figures of the performance of this government. And I can give him figures of the performance of the last government. The two are, dare I say, incomparable in most areas, because this problem has arisen and been driven, under his previous government.

So, I say to him those statistics are there, under a proper official way, through the recent official statistics, and the Border Security Commander's annual report is to show how he performs on that matter. On amendment 23, the noble Lord Davies and Lord Cameron are intending to, I think, reinforce the definition of sea crossings and ensure it is included in the commander's annual report. I have tried to explain in the previous set of amendments, we want to maintain flexibility in the annual report on this chapter.

So, I do not believe that amendment is necessary, what I want to reassure the noble Lord, in the spirit of healthy cooperation, that we are self-evidently having in this discussion, introducing the annual report, the commander will consider a range of evidence and data and will be commenting upon how the strategic plan has been implemented within that data. The noble viscount has raised the financial aspect of the commander's annual report. The report is meant to be about his performance of the targets he has set out his performance against that.

There is a place for financial accounts, but it is not going to be an annual report. In the view of the government. He looks critically at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A great time to start meeting the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A great time to start meeting the opposition. I think we are on the same side on this. We share common same side on this. We share common objectives here and it has been a great debate, I think it has been a very positive one. That is really not necessarily the comments that I not necessarily the comments that I would make that matter from sitting on opposite sides of the House. That on opposite sides of the House. That is to say that we are quite to talk is to say that we are quite to talk about the outcomes and inputs, that is crazy, I absolutely definitely is crazy, I absolutely definitely will come back to press the Minister further if he does not wish to further if he does not wish to accept my amendment and the Noble Lord has come forth with a package of measures.

We need to know what of measures. We need to know what the ongoing costing is and to extrapolate as far as we can whether that bunny would be better spent for example by the agencies that have been coordinated.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

been coordinated. In the spirit of the corporation

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In the spirit of the corporation and friendship I think it is a valid and friendship I think it is a valid challenge. And I think there is a place for reports and performance but it is a valid challenge and we will return to it in due course and I will certainly reflect on the points we have mentioned which are under discussion today and I just wish to put the statistics on record because I do not wish to let that Noble Lord Jackson down on these issues.

So, therefore it is an important occasion and puts the facts on record and those facts are my facts, there are Government statistics that come at the heart of the amendment and it is about whether we include those in the annual report or about we include those as we do now on a quarterly basis on a range of those measures to date. I do not wish to let the noble Viscount look at the point that he raised which is the question of £150 million this year for the cost of the Border Security Commander and IM sure he will be pleased to know that money was new money.

Effectively though it was savings that were allocated for the Rwanda scheme which never actually materialised once they came into place in an effective way, so we have reallocated Rwandan resources to the Border Force security command and also reallocated money elsewhere to help speed up the asylum system claims by getting the staff to do that. And that is, potentially, I will jump ahead slightly, to further future clauses in the bill, but, essentially, that is part of their calibration of the current Government that they took just under this time last year to make some real changes and to try to improve the performance in the longer term of the issues that they both share which is to reduce the legal migration and to be able to respond positively to regular migration in due course.

Secondly, they mentioned the partner authorities with the God that would be able to collaborate on those reports and the commander is not going to create the report in isolation, it will be a collaborative effort and the commanders job, self-evidently again, is to pull together an annual report that shows how they have performed against the objectives that have been set in the strategic priorities. The amendments I do not think are necessary on the face of the legislation, but we will reflect and look at those matters and we can return to that in due course and I hope I have answered the points once again this afternoon on the immigration bill debate and I look forward to hearing Noble Lord has to say in response.
16:06
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
And I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this debate? Can I particularly thank Baroness Fox for her contribution? And she said she was not able to speak at second reading but she made a very pertinent point in this regard which is about the climate of trust is a phrase she used. The Government is just not believed and confidence and trust in the system is absolutely imperative, and that is really the basis of these amendments.

We heard again the government's claim that tackling organised immigration crime is a top priority and all we are seeking is the most basic evidence of that. It is not about organisation or disclosing sensitive intelligence or tactical information, it is simply about reporting outcomes, have any gangs we have dismantled, how many prosecutions have taken place, how many individuals have been detained or removed, and the Noble Lord the Minister read out the passage in clause 4 saying what the annual report must do, it must state how the commanders carried out the functions of the commander and sent out the Man does views on performance and these are absolutely intrinsic issues and this is not unreasonable, it is the bare minimum to simply ask that data relating to performance is put into the annual report, that the Noble Lord the Minister mentioned various items that can be accessed in relation to data, but certainly we are seeking, for instance, the number of persons charged with offences under the act or convicted under this very act, that does not exist yet but it will in due course and, of course.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I reassure them that performance data they are looking performance data they are looking for they would be very keen to bring it to the public domain in due it to the public domain in due course whether we put it to the bill on the face of the bill and can I just apologise for not naming the just apologise for not naming the noble Baroness Fox might name in terms of response, it was an oversight on my part and I apologise for that, I was just trying to address the issues that we have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

raised as a whole. I think the Noble Lord the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the Noble Lord the Minister for that. I mean I do not want to repeat myself, but if the Government is confident in its policy and they believe their approaches are producing results, then what possible reason is there not to publish the data? And the Noble Lord the Minister mentioned the statistics of the previous the statistics of the previous Government. I could also cite Government. I could also cite statistics from the last year in this chamber, but if the Government wants to earn trust, truly, as the wants to earn trust, truly, as the noble Baroness Lady Fox said, then it should adopt this amendment it should adopt this amendment without hesitation it should put its money where its mouth is and be honest with us about how well the policy is performing and the time for slogans has passed, the time for evidence, scrutiny, and measurable success is now and I urge the House to really reflect upon these points, to really reflect upon these points, but at this stage I would like to withdraw.
16:09
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-

Is a tumultuous pressure that the amendment is withdrawn? Amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. Not moot, amendment 22, not moved, amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

20 would like to withdraw. Is a tumultuous pressure that the amendment is withdrawn? Amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. Not moot, 23, not moved, amendment 24, not 23, not moved, amendment 24, not moved. The question is that clause 4 stand on the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. The question is the clause 5 stand part of the bill stop As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it.

"Not content", The contents have it. In clause 6 amendment 25, not moved, In clause 6 amendment 25, not moved, the question is that clause 6 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. In clause 7, not moved, the question is the clause 7 moved, the question is the clause 7 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it.

Clause 8 amendment 27, Lord Cameron, not moved. The 27, Lord Cameron, not moved. The question is that clause 7 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. Clause 9 amendment 28, not moved. The question is that clause 9 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. The question is that clauses 10 to 12 en bloc stand part of the bill.

As many as are of that opinion, say, as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. Clause 13 amendment 29.
16:12
None Portrait Amendment:29 Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Big to move amendment 29 that I must say this group looks rather into adjustable, so let me put it in into adjustable, so let me put it in a different way. Amendment, and I a different way. Amendment, and I give the amendment numbers so they are in the official report and it is understood that they have to be read understood that they have to be read as packages each relating to a different clause, but on the same different clause, but on the same point, clause 29 as well as point, clause 29 as well as commissary, amendment 13 as well as amendment 29, clause 34, 36, 37, amendment 29, clause 34, 36, 37, amendment 33, 34, 36, 37, it is only amendment 33, 34, 36, 37, it is only 4:10 in the afternoon.

On clause 14 amendments 14, 43, 45, 48, and on clause 16 amendment 52, 54, 58, and clause 16 amendment 52, 54, 58, and 61. Chapter 2 of this part of the 61. Chapter 2 of this part of the bill creates various new offences and these amendments are addressed to what is an offence and what is a to what is an offence and what is a defence. And we must approve what. As the clauses are constructed, there is an offence to take clause 15, P surprised the relevant article and people have a defence if they show that they had a reasonable excuse.

As the explanatory statement puts it more eloquently than I could do, and I credit the public office for this, the drafting defeated and they were extremely helpful and that is nothing I did not take responsibility. Of course I do. But as the planetary statement says, the amendment makes lack of a reasonable excuse a component part of the offence of supplying articles for use, thus placing the burden of proof on the prosecution which, of course, is normally the way that we do things in this country.

If the supply is without reasonable excuse, it is the prosecution that has to schedule this, they would not be prosecuted past a reasonable excuse and would not start on that journey. I also see that the burden is on the innocent until proven guilty position, not the equivalent of guilty until proven innocent. I beg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to move. Amendment proposed, clause 13 page 7 line 7 into it without

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reasonable excuse. I am very happy to support the string of amendments that have been string of amendments that have been moved just recently by the noble Baroness that deal with the proof Baroness that deal with the proof and reasonable excuse. Earlier in and reasonable excuse. Earlier in our proceedings are referred to the publication of the report by the committee on human rights last
16:14
Lord Alton of Liverpool Portrait Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
committee on human rights last Friday and it feels it deals with some length with the Baroness LEA before your lordship this afternoon. Those amendments but we heard seek to strengthen the safeguards in these instances and report paragraphs 20, 25, 28, which I particularly draw the attention of the Noble Lord dealing specifically with defences and potentially reasonable excuses referred to in this group of amendments. We point out that clause 16 provides to defences, first, requiring the person to show the action with the purpose of the journey to be made only by them and it applies to the individual and applies to couples that it would be helpful if the Minister would be able to tell us this afternoon what estimates, and they can only be estimates, I accept that, of how many channel crossings in small boats are made by one person travelling alone, how many by couples, and how many by family groups and we can understand we might not be able to have that information during Committee stage, but in between now and that report we could have it and I would be very grateful.

The second defence requires the person to show that they had that phrase a reasonable excuse. Three categories are listed in the report. And we detailed them in paragraph 26 by the committee to We say the three categories are not exhaustive but first is that at the time of the persons action or position, the person didn't know or had reason to believe the document or record in question contained or was likely to contain information of a kind likely to be useful to a person organising preparing for, or undertaking a journey of the kind described.

The second category of reasonable excuses sets out examples of where the persons action opposition was for the purpose of into radio journalism and rescue operations. The third category has reasonable excuse for defence of persons acting for organisations, providing free assistance to asylum seekers. Bylaws, in the two subsequent paragraphs in the report, cited the impact on family members, , and those were concerns raised by organisations, such as Migrants Rights Network, about the impact on humanitarian and legal service providers that I have just referred to.

We also put Justice who say " Uncertainty for those providing legal services to vulnerable individuals risks and unjustified risk to access to justice and the rule of law." Further on in the report, we say at paragraph 29, that we have duties, of course, under the Refugee Convention, and it was the view of the advisers to the community that creates a number of significant lawyers, these engage article 31. And I'd be very interested to hear whether the Minister has had access to that same legal opinion and what the view of the Home Office is.

51 in our recommendations, and I say that a reasonable excuse, set out to explicitly provide that it must be interpreted compatibly with article 31 of the Refugee Convention. But not alone, also with article 5 of the smuggling protocol, with section 26 of the Council of Europe Convention against trafficking. We also urge for government to fully incorporate article 31 into section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act of 1999. Again, I'd welcome the noble Lords response, if he is unable to give that today, perhaps you could give it when The Home Office comes to respond to the whole of the 80 pages in the report and the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and if you give some idea whether that would be possible before report stage, I think that would be very helpful to the proceedings of your Lordships house.

A precursor offence generally, we concluded, and I quote, " Scope is broad, thresholds are low, penalties are high." B conclude though, my lords, with I thought very significant evidence that I thought was given to us by Professor's single, and in her evidence, which I thought was compelling, the danger is, " These defences would not be targeted to the people who conduct smuggling operations, most of whom never set foot on UK soil and would not be reached by the new offences.

Rather he would be targeted? The very vulnerable people seeking asylum in this country and making these regular journeys, because they have no other option." The committee concluded at paragraph 34 there was an apparent disconnect between the legitimate aim and the operational effect of the offences. I hope the noble Lord will give that serious consideration between now and the later stages and I hope it is helpful to the committee to have heard what the joint committee heard in its deliberations, and give very serious consideration to.
16:20
Lord Paddick Portrait Lord Paddick (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Whilst agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, on the detail he has given, I rise to support the amendments in the name of my honourable friend, noble Lady, Baroness Hamwee, in particular, amendment 29, 34, 36 and 37, in relation to clause 13. Although similar arguments apply to her other amendments, in relation to clauses 14 and 16. I apologise for not being available to speak at second reading, because of other commitments. But that is no excuse to deliver it now.

My second reading speech now. I will simply address the amendments. I declare my interest, if it is relevant, as a non-executive director of the Metropolitan police service. Generally, in criminal law, as the noble Lady has said, people are considered to be innocent until they are found guilty in a criminal court. Instances, until fairly recently, of reverse burden of proof have been exceptionally rare, and in most cases, the reasons have been self-evident. For example if someone is in possession of an offensive weapon made or adapted to cause injury, such as a knuckle duster, something with no other obvious use, the ball is clearly in the accused court.

In terms of the accused having to prove that he has a reasonable excuse for the possession of such an article. My laws, -- My Lords, here we are talking about an article that might have a legitimate use, rather than unlawful use as the bill suggests. That is for use in immigration crime, and I'm thinking of things such as lifejackets and inflatable boats. With the police power to arrest and dissect a very low standard for reasonable cause to suspect that someone may be about to commit a criminal offence, the prospect of innocent people, being arrested under this provision is clear.

Someone taking in an inflatable boat down to the sea containing lifejackets could reasonably be suspected that they may be committing an offence. This until, under this provision. They may be liable for a rest. Even if they were a leisure user of such equipment. They could not argue they had reasonable excuse for the possession of the boat and lifejackets because that defence, according to the bill as currently drafted, is not available to them, until after they have been arrested, after they had been detained, and after they had been charged after they had appeared in court.

This is clearly unreasonable. It should be open to anyone in such circumstances to be able to deploy the reasonable excuse explanation for their actions at the time of the incident. As my honourable friend, no Baroness Hamwee's amendment suggests, and I would therefore wholeheartedly support her amendments. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool has said, the safeguards are low. And the sentences, up to 14 years

**** Possible New Speaker ****

imprisonment, or high. -- Are high. I rise to speak to this group of amendments, with the exception of amendments, with the exception of the amendments in the name of my noble friends on the frontbench, to oppose them. It is always a
16:24
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
oppose them. It is always a pleasure, of course, to follow the noble Lord who brings great expertise to our proceedings. I listened very carefully to the noble Lord Alton who I greatly respect. But I have to say, I slightly disagree with him, I have read the report of the joint human rights committee, I feel the committee report in respect to precursor offences is less than compelling, if I am quite honest with him. And I know the government will, to a certain extent, circumscribed, because they are not a report until August, we would have benefited from this debate had we had the governments response.

Nevertheless, the government has made their position clear and I am supportive of the government in this respect, that these clauses will strengthen the ability of law enforcement agencies, to tackle the supply chains for the people smuggling networks. Which I think is what we are all interested in doing. I double the amendments moved by the noble Lady, Baroness Hamwee Lord Alton come from the workplace and a well-meaning, I do think the real world impact of them as they weaken the ability of the government, and the appropriate authorities to tackle people smuggling.

They significantly change the burden of proof in respect of evidence for criminal liability and culpability. I do think that de facto reversal of I do think that de facto reversal of proof is not in the public interest. In fact, the result of this being passed would be quite pernicious, it would not be in the public interest, and would mitigate against the strategic priorities of the government, that we would support, which is to reduce, to smash the gangs and reduce illegal.

I don't want to detain the House at this hour, by a long discussion on what it means, it does mean a guilty mind, and aspects...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We will come to those arguments, they are in later amendments. they are in later amendments. Perhaps he wouldn't want to jump ahead of us anyway, because if he ahead of us anyway, because if he looks, he will see the groups of amendments dealing with that, actually, I think, in the next set of hearings on this bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of hearings on this bill. The noble Lord admonishes me for perhaps jumping slightly ahead, so I perhaps jumping slightly ahead, so I will revert back to clause 13. Where I will put a question to the I will put a question to the Minister, if I may. The honourable Minister, if I may. The honourable lady, the member for Kent in the other place, when considering the committee, the bill at committee, committee, the bill at committee, did mention the issue of a potential did mention the issue of a potential loophole arising from the draft wording in clause 13.

Now I accept, wording in clause 13. Now I accept, in terms of reasonable excuse, the in terms of reasonable excuse, the Caveat, and you should always, when dealing with individuals, even when involved in serving as appalling as people trafficking and illegal, that there should be some discretion for the criminal system to exercise in adjudicating one of their alleged offences. But there is a question to be asked, which I will ask the Minister, about sub clause three which is about a reasonable excuse caveat.

In terms of the loophole. And whether he sees that as problematic, in terms of future litigation. Because, I wouldn't use the term two-tiered justice, but there certainly an element which speaks to the fact that you do not charge for services and that you are seeking to rescue a person, that that absolves you effectively from criminal responsibility. I do think there is an argument to be made there. That that sends out a message. I think broadly speaking, the reason I have problems with this amendment, well, this group of amendments, is that they do not reduce, or they do reduce the push factor.

And they increase the pull factor. Because that would be the real world consequences of making it easier for people to argue that they have got to use more -- That they have a reasonable excuse, and they did not intend to commit these offences and I think, for that reason, and I think on this occasion I will probably be agreeing with the Minister, that the House should resist the amendment. Can I just also say that I pray in aid the example that the immigration minister in the other place, she did a case in November 2024, of someone who organise cross-channel boat crossings from his home in Lancashire, who was jailed for 17 years after being found guilty of people smuggling charges.

And it was found that it was very much their view of the National Crime Agency and others that had these particular Been in place, he would have been arrested at an earlier juncture and it was just the fact that the authorities, particularly in CA, didn't have the ability to use the full force of law, in respect to the legislation obtaining at the time, that he was non-stop from his apparent activities at an earlier juncture. So, I finish by saying we all wish to see fair play, due process, we all wish to see a legal system that does not discriminate on the basis of race, background, ethnicity or religion et cetera.

But equally, we have to be realistic and practical and pragmatic in the real world. We need to reduce the pull factor, we need to increase the push factor, and I think these amendments will do exactly the opposite and for those reasons, I hope the House those reasons, I hope the House
16:31
Baroness Ludford Portrait Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
And I just reply to the Noble Lord Jackson? Because I think he seems to suggest that the amendment for my Noble Friend would somehow be unusual in criminal law. What she is obviously saying is that rather than make the person have two prove a defence of reasonable excuse, it would be the prosecution which has two prove that without reasonable excuse as a component part of the offence, and just looking at driving offences, and I admit this appears to be an AI overview, so subject to correction by my honourable friend the Noble Lord, but something like apparently careless driving is driving without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other road users, so the prosecution has to prove you were driving without due care and attention or you were driving without reasonable consideration for other road users.

It is not in the first instance for the driver to have to approve that they were taking this attention, or that they were showing reasonable consideration, no doubt I mean I forget any criminal law that I learned many moons ago, but I mean there are circumstances in which this can shift, but overall the prosecution has got to prove the component parts of the offence, so what might Noble Friend I believe is trying to achieve is the normal roll in criminal offences, and where the burden lies principally on the prosecution, and so I did query this suggestion from the Noble Lord Jackson that somehow my Noble Friend is sort of wanting to be out of line with the normality of criminal law in which she is suggesting in her amendments, I think it is the Noble Lord Jackson who might be minded not for the first time to wanting to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

out of line. I take that in good heart that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I take that in good heart that your Lordships, as we shared a committee of the House which we have
16:33
16:35
16:36
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, in terms of the opposition, the front benches view of this, I do side with might Noble Friend Lord Jackson in terms of the amendments in this group. The group of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, at their core, as others have said, these amendments would rewrite the structure of the offence in clause 13 we are placing the burden of proof and the test of reasonable excuse squarely on the prosecution. The implications of this change would be significant.

I come back to law in a moment, but it would dial the seriousness with which we treat those who are convicted of supplying articles of their use in immigration and let's be absolutely clear about what clause 13 addresses, it addresses the supply of forged documents, full site papers, materials designed to facilitate illegal entry to the UK. These are not minor infractions. These are serious crimes that underpin business models, trafficking gangs, enabled the circumvention of border controls and directly endanger lives.

In such cases, it is entirely appropriate that if an individual is found supplying such charters it should be for them to demonstrate they have a legitimate reason or excuse. And I would suggest as it has been some time since I practice criminal law that is not some obscure principle, it is, of course, the usual legal position for the prosecution to prove the elements of the crime, but it is not unusual to reverse the burden of proof onto an accused in burden of proof onto an accused in some circumstances.

It reflects well established frameworks in other established areas of law, most notably in the Misuse of Drugs Act and the Companies Act where an accused director is to prove these steps have all been taken to avoid committing an offence. And in the Misuse of Drugs Act legislation and the burden of establishing a lawful or innocent reason rests with the person accused the supply of the prohibited article, so I would suggest this is not an unusual path to take would make it harder to secure convictions if we could deter an effect of the law to Taiwan with his record levels of illegal entry and organised criminal facilitation across our borders and the public expect us to ensure that the law act as a meaningful deterrent and it would place an unnecessary and inappropriate burden onto prosecutors who are already contending with highly complex cases.

Let us not forget that those convicted for use in immigration crime are not passive activists. They are deliberate enable us of lawbreaking. And to demand the prosecution proving the supply but the absence of any reasonable excuse would be to fundamentally misread the nature of the offence and the damage that it causes that we have debated this afternoon the people we are talking about organised criminals that make money by endangering the lives of those they are professing to help. It is not the time to rewrite what is, in my view, a long-standing legal law in a way that would weaken enforcement.

It is the time to uphold the seriousness of the crime and ensure that our legal tools are effective in tackling it. in tackling it.
16:40
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
A useful discussion again and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling the amendments to the House. I confess I find myself in a strange position before the House today where I have heard much of what the Noble Lord Jackson has his side and the Noble Lord Cameron has said from the front bench. In fact, I wondered if they had a secret, leaked copy of my notes in terms of the discussion we are having today because the discussions we are having are extremely important and vital.

Let me just start though, if I may, with the Noble Lord paddock. I may, with the Noble Lord paddock. He given example of a beach in France with a dinghy and then being arrested because of that. Can I sure him, and I hope you will know this from his previous police experience, in practice, these will be intelligence led targeted investigations of those suspected of being connected with organised crime groups involved in varying groups of people smuggling and terminal activity by authorities as a whole.

It is not the intention of this bill to turn up on a beach in France and get someone paddling in the sea with leisurely recreational facility, it will be a targeted approach which backs up the points that the Noble Lord Jackson in the Noble Lord Cameron have said from their own front bench, it is about tackling organised criminals, but I would give way to the Noble Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I did not understand the extraterritorial provisions in this bill. That would make this British

**** Possible New Speaker ****

law applicable in France. No. The issue is that we are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No. The issue is that we are working now in cooperation with French authorities to look at a French authorities to look at a whole range of issues to do with that particular point that is raised. We are having further discussions with the French on the discussions with the French on the steps that they can take. At the point that is mentioned is that this is about the supply and the is about the supply and the collection of information purposes, it can be undertaken by targeted it can be undertaken by targeted operations and it will not be catching individuals that have uses catching individuals that have uses of material that is covered by the legislation posed in the bill.

And you will also know that in clause 13 you will also know that in clause 13 there are a range of potential nonexhaustive lists of reasonable nonexhaustive lists of reasonable excuses ensuring that those acting in good faith such as those carrying in good faith such as those carrying out the rescue of a person from danger or serious harm or working on him and it is are safeguarded and I think it is a point that the noble Viscount mentioned and I would give him some chapters on those issues post this debate today, but on 13.3, B, one and two, there is a clear intention to make sure that those that are supporting people from humanitarian organisations are safeguarded and that being the further test shift the burden of proof to disprove any excuse and makes it harder to secure convictions and if we take out as the noble Baroness has set out we will risk weakening the core purpose of the bill, enabling law enforcement officers to disrupt offences because I cannot accept the points they have made and we provide judges and prosecutors with a solid starting point on those obligations.

I realise this is difficult, but in conclusion, the existing tests of clauses 15 and 16 achieves the right balance and ensures that activity is protected and maintains the strength and support of enforcement as a viable piece of UK policy, so I am

**** Possible New Speaker ****

afraid I cannot accept the amendments for those reasons. Before the Noble Lord the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before the Noble Lord the Minister sits down, let me ask him about compliance. If the Noble Lord will allow me,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If the Noble Lord will allow me, his report has been very helpful and we need to look at that issue and we need to look at that issue and respond in very short order. It I cannot give him some of those details today but I will ensure that we do in due course.
16:45
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

we do in due course. My Lords, it is a day or two since I did any criminal law, but it since I did any criminal law, but it was once in the Magistrate's Court and I never stop the writing and recording contracts. Can I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. Though, I have to say, not always, I think, directly on the point being made by these amendments. And anticipating quite a amendments. And anticipating quite a So I don't want to get into discussion about the merits of what I think we will come to.

My amendments do not deal with reasonable excuse other than shifting how it is dealt with. Dealing with the content of what is a reasonable excuse. Can I thank a reasonable excuse. Can I thank Lord Alton for bringing in the ECHR report, I have not read as much of it yet as I should have done, I went straight to the recommended Yes against them. Going to report would be very helpful. I hope we will have a bit more flexibility now.

I understand days four and six of the committee stage are not going to happen until the September setting of the House. So there is rather more time. Not that I want anyone to interrupt the summer holidays with this, but noble Lords will understand. My noble, I will call him at both Noble and a friend, have trolled this ground together before. And I'm really grateful for his expert and informed explanation of the sequence of events, when there is a prosecution.

He referred to articles which had more than one purpose, and if something has very obviously, as I understand him today, obviously aimed at, or therefore illegality, it cannot be anything else, that is not the same then an article that may have more than one purpose. And I think the first time he and I were involved in a debate on this territory related to asset, which, at that time, this is a good 10 years ago probably, there was a spate of acid attacks.

People on motorbikes, driving past pedestrians, and throwing acid in their face. As the issues that we were discussing included the product, the domestic product. Which could be, it might well in that circumstance, be used for clearing drains. Some buddy had nipped out late to a supermarket and bought a domestic product of that sort. -- Somebody. I'm not suggesting this is straightforward, but it is usually important. And I would say, to use language used by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, it is in the public interest, he said this, the amendments were not in the public interest.

It is not pernicious, to be seeking to amend the bill in this way. On the contrary. It is seeking to apply the rule of law. And to maintain the rule of law. Almost nothing can be more important for the public interest. Issues like the pull factor, as he sees it, a loophole, and mens rea and other things, we should come to fairly early on the next day. And it may well have been that the first set of groupings put those into the group with these.

There was a change quite late yesterday. Yes, it might be harder to get a conviction. But what are looking at? Are we looking at doing the job properly? I don't mean just coming to an outcome, I mean doing the job properly, acting properly. We shouldn't, as the Minister suggested, be relying on common sense as to whether or not there is a prosecution. I said before, it's not the way our law should work. Although I accept the CPS will look at the public interest test in the likelihood of a conviction.

But I come back to the rule of law. The Constitution Committee is, of which I am a member, is undertaking work on this at the moment. And it sounds dry. It is at the heart of everything we do is at the heart of everything we do right. This is not the time to take these amendments further. But clearly, we will be thinking about and after this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendments to
16:51
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
Is at your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 30, Lord Cameron.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, these two amendments to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, these two amendments to do with expanding two of the offences in the bill as currently offences in the bill as currently drafted. The bill, my Lords, drafted. The bill, my Lords, currently criminalises only the currently criminalises only the supply or offer to supply articles for use in immigration crime, but fails to cover what is often a fails to cover what is often a critical precursor to that act, the possession of such articles with possession of such articles with intent to supply.

My amendment seeks to address what we say is a clear to address what we say is a clear loophole currently in the bill. If someone is found holding forged documents, counterfeit passports, both parts, or other materials, commonly used to facilitate illegal commonly used to facilitate illegal entry, with the clear intention of supplying them to others, that is not innocent behaviour. It's not innocent behaviour. It's proprietary, it is deliberate, and proprietary, it is deliberate, and it is deeply harmful to the integrity of our immigration system.

We don't accept this kind of gap in legislation, dealing with drug offences or the possession of offences or the possession of firearms section, the misuse of drugs act 1971 for instance criminalises the possession with intent to supply Controlled Drugs for example. If we don't accept such gaps in other legislation, we shouldn't accept such gaps here. The government have talked up their expansion of autistic powers, and the Prime Minister has spoken of giving them counterterrorism style powers for if so, all possible loopholes in these offences, if we are cracking down, the law must allow us to intervene before the supply takes place.

Not simply after-the-fact. So, this amendment, Amendment 30, would therefore simply bring the offence in clause 13 aligned to other offences. It aims to strengthen the clause and close the loophole. The other amendment to defences in article used in immigration crime is amendment 39. This amendment is intended to help the government by strengthening the offence. This clause looks to close another loophole that could permit smuggling gangs to escape conviction for the effect of this amendment is to expand the offence of handling articles for use of immigration crime, to cover an additional scenario, namely where a person arranges for one person to receive relevant article from 1/3 party.

That may seem like a small change but it addresses a significant gap. The current law targets those who receive arranged to receive approval to expose articles themselves, or assist another person to remove or dispose of relevant articles, they are rightly included in the defence in the bill. But as it stands, were a person to arrange or organise for two of the people here will change relevant article, the person who is organising such an exchange could escape liability, therefore would be liable to, no penalty.

Despite clearly being a at the heart of the offence committed. Individuals often seek to insulate themselves by arranging with others, keeping their own hands clean and remaining the essential coordinator and often beneficiary of criminal activity. This amendment simply ensures that those who orchestrate these exchanges are held to account, just as much as those who carry them out. If we are to deter and disrupt criminal members profiting from a legal immigration, we must be -- From Illegal Immigration, we must be prepared to prosecute from the full chain of it, not just the visible ends of it, and I would respectfully submit the noble Lord, the Minister, to think carefully now about these kinds of loopholes that the government risks creating in legislation, which can be easily identified if practical operational perspective is taken.

And I hope

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that he accepts these amendments and I beg to move. Amendment proposed, clause 13,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, clause 13, after supply, insert 'decision with
16:56
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
after supply, insert 'decision with intent to supply.'. -- Possession

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with intent to supply. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron for speaking to the amendment tabled itself by the noble Lord, Lord Davies. These two amendments but to be sure those amendments but to be sure those possessing an item believe all are involved in a crime, those who facilitate supply full into the facilitate supply full into the scope of the offence. Turning first, my Lords, to amendment 30. The noble my Lords, to amendment 30. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, make some salient points in relation to other offences.

But currently on the offences. But currently on the statute book. In the spirit of statute book. In the spirit of openness and wanting very much to listen to noble Lords, we would be happy to take, the Home Office would be happy to take this issue raised be happy to take this issue raised with partners, to see whether it would be a worthwhile addition to the bill. We are certainly serious the bill. We are certainly serious about using this legislation, as my noble friend, the Minister, said.

noble friend, the Minister, said. The crackdown on smuggling gangs. -- Two crackdown. This could be helpful Two crackdown. This could be helpful addition to the bill. But regarding amendment 39. Again, we are so pathetic to the motivation behind the amendment, but I can confirm arranging the supply of an article related to the offence would fall under the clause that is currently drafted. It might be described as brokering or offering supply. TOSIN OLUFOLABI:13 1A, are considered wise enough for this.

For example enough to supply would be made in the scenario that Lord Cameron outline. As the individual be supplying or offering a supply item they know. I hope that is clear, therefore, was thanking the noble Lord for tabling, and indeed the incentive behind it, with respectfully reject amendment 39 as a necessary and ask him to permit further time for the moment, permit further time for the moment, for it to be further considered.
16:58
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
Very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Katz for his speech for some has been a long afternoon, and I feel at the very end of it, we made a tiny step of progress. But I am very grateful. I think he agrees that the case is simple. Because it is a strong case, we are not asking for anything radical, just for the law to keep pace with realities of how organised crime actually works. I will say more about amendment 30. Amendment 39, I would ask him, as he has offered, to perhaps think about it carefully.

It is critical, we said, the organisers and coordinators and those who sit above the exchange itself, arrange for others to carry it out, they often avoid direct handling, precisely because they know the law can be weak when it comes to intermediaries and we cannot allow them to exploit that weakness and that amendment is granted in the operational reality of how drug rings smuggling networks function. I'm very grateful to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

indications he has given. And I, for those reasons, better withdraw the amendment's. Is it your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment is by leave withdrawn. I beg to move the House to now resume. The question is the House be now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is the House be now resumed. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contrary, "Not content". I beg to move the House do now adjourn.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page