China: Breach of UK Parliamentarians’ Data

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Thursday 12th November 2026 Lords Chamber

This Government have brought forward robust measures to defend our country and our democracy from state-backed threats, including from China. That includes launching the political interference and espionage action plan, running training for front-line police officers to better spot, understand and respond to state threat activity, and investing an extra £600 million in our intelligence services to increase their ability to detect and disrupt state threats. We do all of that, and much more besides, because national security is our first duty and because we will never tolerate attempts to undermine the security of our nation or of those who serve, whether in this place or in any other part of our democracy”.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, when this Question was asked in the other place, the Minister for Security rather surprisingly accused my honourable friend Alicia Kearns of politicising this issue. He then disappointingly proceeded to ignore many of the questions asked. I am sure the noble Lord the Minister will be far more constructive and will answer some of the questions that his colleague neglected, particularly around the security position of Members of Parliament. The crucial point is: why did the Government or their agencies not brief those parliamentarians who were affected that their phone records and financial information had been obtained by agents of the CCP?

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

I always try to be helpful to the noble Lord, and I will try to be helpful today. He will know that there is an ongoing FBI investigation into this matter. There is an outstanding Interpol warrant for arrest. The Government will not comment for security reasons on what they knew and when, because it is an ongoing investigation that requires co-operation and discussion and I cannot relate to it in this House. He will also know that my right honourable friend the Member for Barnsley North, who is the Security Minister, indicated in response to questions in the other place that he was happy to arrange for confidential briefings to take place with relevant Members. Obviously, the security of Members is a matter for both Houses and we will co-operate on ensuring that Members are apprised of those security issues. I cannot add any more to that, but I hope that will help him. I will, as ever, if the opportunity arises, give him further briefings outside the Chamber should he so wish.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (Continuation) Order 2026

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2026 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, this Order was laid before the House on 14 September 2026 and provides for the continuation of the Secretary of State’s powers under the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, also known as the TPIM powers. The continuation is for a further five years.

I think all noble Lords accept that it is the first duty of government to protect the public, and central to that mission is to counter the threat we face from terrorism—a threat which, sadly, is enduring and evolving. In response, there is a range of tools, including the powers conferred on the Secretary of State by the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, which I well recall, having dealt with it at the time as shadow Minister for these issues.

The measures ensure that, where prosecution or deportation is not possible, the Secretary of State can impose specified restrictions and requirements on an individual involved in terrorism-related activity, to protect the public from a risk of terrorism. Section 21 of the Act states that the Secretary of State’s TPIM powers will expire at the end of five years from the date the Act was passed. The orders were renewed twice, in 2016 and 2021, and these powers are due to expire at the end of 13 December 2026. As TPIMs remain an important part of the UK’s counter-terrorism toolkit, we seek to renew them today. This position is supported by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and the director-general of the Security Service.

As noble Lords will know, the Secretary of State can impose a TPIM notice on an individual if the conditions set out in Section 3 of the Act are assessed by the Secretary of State to have been met. These conditions include that the Secretary of State reasonably believes that the individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity, and reasonably considers that it is necessary, for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism, to impose such measures on the individual. In addition, the Secretary of State has powers to extend and vary a TPIM notice that is in force, and to revive a TPIM notice that has been revoked.

It may help noble Lords to know that, since the introduction of the Act in 2011, 33 TPIMs have been imposed. As of the last published set of figures, from June to August 2026, there are four TPIMs currently in force.

These are undoubtedly restrictive measures, which is why it is right that they are used sparingly and only in exceptional cases involving individuals assessed to present the highest levels of terrorism-related risk, where prosecution, deportation or other disruptive measures would be insufficient to protect the public.

There are, however, stringent safeguards. The Secretary of State must be satisfied that all conditions are met and apply to the court for permission to impose the TPIM notice, except in cases of urgency. A TPIM notice is subject to a review hearing at which the court reviews the Secretary of State’s decisions and the conditions were and continue to be met. The Act also provides a right of appeal in relation to specified decisions taken after its imposition.

Having consulted as required by the Act, the Home Secretary has decided to make this statutory instrument to provide for the continuation of TPIM powers for a further five years, the maximum period allowable in the legislation. We take this step because, sadly, we still face significant terrorist threats, and it is necessary to continue upholding the first duty of government: securing the nation and keeping our citizens safe.

The House of Commons has considered this order, and I hope that noble Lords will also support it today. I beg to move.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, the Official Opposition support this order. The Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 gives the Home Secretary powers that are needed in the small number of cases where the threat is real, but prosecution is not possible. Without this order, those powers would lapse on 13 December this year. Continuing them until December 2031 is the responsible course of action and we will certainly not stand in the way of this.

However, I have a few questions for the Minister. First, he stated that four TPIM notices are currently in force. How has that figure changed since the last renewal of the powers in 2021? I appreciate he may not have those figures to hand. More broadly, is the Minister satisfied that the powers are being used in proportion to the threat rather than falling into disuse?

Secondly, what is the Government’s assessment of compliance and breaches? For instance, how often are TPIM subjects found to have absconded or breached their conditions? Does he believe that the police and security services are properly resourced to monitor them?

With those questions, I reiterate the support of the Official Opposition for this order.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for his broad support for TPIMs. They were introduced when the noble Baroness, Lady May, was Home Secretary; I shadowed her at that time, and we had some concerns, some of which were around the issues the noble Lord has mentioned. Absconds and breaches are important issues.

I can give the noble Lord some figures. Since 2017, 16 TPM subjects have been prosecuted, with breaching measures imposed on them, and 12 pleaded guilty. To date, three have been found guilty by a jury. Judges have imposed custodial sentences on individuals who have breached the terrorism prevention and investigation measures, which I hope demonstrates to the noble Lord and the Committee the seriousness with which courts take these breaches.

On conclusion of any custodial sentence, the Home Secretary has the power to revive the existing TPIM if it provides a necessary and proportionate response to any threat that the individual may still pose. It is important that I put on record that the breach of a terrorism prevention order is a criminal offence. Every suspected breach is treated seriously and investigated, and we will always work with the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to support prosecutions accordingly.

I mentioned in my opening remarks that we currently have four individuals on TPIMs. I hope the noble Lord will be reassured that we provide a quarterly update on the TPIMs figures, and we have had 33 since their instigation. Off the top of my head, I do not have the quarterly figures for before the latest quarter, but there are four existing TPIMs. We will give an update every quarter on the numbers to date.

The Secretary of State takes these powers very seriously. The number one priority is to ensure that a TPIM is proportionate. When the Secretary of State—the Home Secretary in this case—signs off that TPIM, they must have a full submission and a full examination of it, and they will challenge it to ensure it is required and necessary. The appellant can appeal in court against that TPIM, and therefore a robust case is always made. A breach or indeed an abscond is a serious matter, and TPIMs provide significant levels of control over a range of movements and locations. As the noble Lord will know, on a number of occasions we remove people to new locations, so they are broken away from other influences.

I say to the noble Lord that we can rest assured. When I was in his position as a shadow Minister in the House of Commons, I asked about and was concerned about absconds and breaches. Now, as a Minister in government working alongside the Home Secretary, I am confident that we have a regime that is minimising those breaches. As I said to him in relation to the figures, if breaches or absconds occur, we take them extremely seriously, and these cases will potentially result in a custodial sentence. With those remarks, I hope I have assured the Committee that the order is worthy of general support.

US Diplomat: Removal

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

With due respect to the noble Lord, the details of the reasons why the individual was recalled to the United States are still under discussion. The Metropolitan Police was informed that that there was a US investigation relating to indecent images of children, but the offences are now being investigated and the individual has been recalled to the United States. The Metropolitan Police is examining and co-operating and discussing with the US authorities. I also say to the noble Lord that, on the previous case he mentioned, this Government looked at the lessons learned, have accepted all 12 recommendations, will implement all 12 recommendations and will write to the family by the end of this year on progress on that implementation.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, it has been reported that the Metropolitan Police was informed by American authorities only after they had removed the diplomat from British soil. Can the Minister tell the House exactly when the Government were made aware of the allegations, when they were informed of the diplomat’s removal and whether that sequence of events breached any protocol governing co-operation between British and American authorities on serious criminal allegations?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As I have said to the House already, the Metropolitan Police was informed by the US authorities on 25 August of a US investigation relating to indecent images of children. As a result of the investigation, a member of US embassy personnel who was at that point based in London was recalled to the United States, where the investigation is focused. Senior officials, and indeed Ministers—in this case, a Minister in the Foreign Office—have discussed the case with senior diplomats in the US embassy to ensure that maximum co-operation occurs with UK law enforcement. Again, the Metropolitan Police is in contact with US law enforcement partners as investigations continue. The important point I would make to the noble Lord is that the US investigation relating to indecent images of children is ongoing in the United States, and that is the key point to this item before the House today.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Temporary Class Drug) Order 2026

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Grand Committee

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

This instrument, laid before Parliament on 10 June, takes urgent action to control a new and very dangerous class of synthetic opioid. In the space of little over a year, orphines have been involved in at least 22 deaths in the United Kingdom, and 14 of those deaths were sadly between December and March. The UK is not alone in this respect: between 2024 and April this year, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime received 206 reports from numerous countries of drug samples that contained orphine compounds.

I am particularly grateful to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs for prioritising an assessment of these deeply harmful substances. Its report was published on 30 April, and the dangers we face here are encapsulated in the following line from that report:

“the risk to the population from these recently emerging compounds is sufficiently great that urgent steps are required to protect public health”.

The Government have heard that message loud and clear, and we are acting at pace. We enacted a temporary class drug order, TCDO, to control these drugs, less than six weeks after the council produced its report. The TCDO covers seven orphines: three that have tragically been involved in those deaths here in the UK, and four that the EU Drugs Agency has notified as being present in EU drug markets.

This is the first TCDO in 10 years, so I will take a moment to remind noble Lords about what these orders do. A temporary class drug order makes it a specific offence to produce, supply or offer to supply these seven orphines; to export or import them; or to possess them when there is also an intention to supply. Doing any of these things can result in up to 14 years in prison, the same as for a class B drug.

The TCDO also provides that the substances should be treated as if they were in Schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001. Scheduling here covers the circumstances in which a controlled substance can be used legitimately, and the procedures that must be followed in doing so. Schedule 1 covers substances with no known medical uses, which is the case with these seven drugs. Anyone who needs to make legitimate use of them, for example in research, would need to apply to the Home Office to obtain a licence.

This instrument uses the made affirmative procedure. This reflects a balance between the requirement to put in place urgent measures to safeguard public health and the need for proper parliamentary scrutiny of measures, which expand the scope of criminal law. Under the provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act, the TCDO must be approved by both Houses of Parliament within 40 days of it being made. I know noble Lords will be pleased to note that the other place, the House of Commons, approved it last night, and I hope this House will do so by Friday’s deadline.

My colleague Sarah Jones MP, the Minister for Policing and Crime, also accepted the further recommendation from the advisory council that the TCDO be followed by a permanent control, which would make orphines class A drugs. This would cover not only these seven substances but also two “generic definitions” of orphines. The purpose of those is to make it harder for criminals to circumvent the controls by making slight tweaks to the chemical composition of what they sell. Noble Lords will doubtless agree with colleagues on the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that the class A control should come into force swiftly. So, although I am not able to give a precise timetable today, I can confirm that we will act as soon as possible.

Self-evidently, the devastation that harmful drugs inflict on our society is intolerable, and it demands a response commensurate with the scale of the threat. The order before the Committee today stands as further evidence of the Government’s commitment to mounting such a response. I beg to move.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing the order before the Committee. It is a simple and uncontroversial order, and I am pleased to support it. As the Minister established, the purpose of this legislation is to make a temporary class drug order under Section 2A of the 1971 Act in respect of seven substances that fall under the category of orphines, which are a class of synthetic opioids that have been recommended for control by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. Given the reports that the UN Office on Drugs and Crime have received regarding the presence of orphine compounds in drug samples and their links to deaths, the Government are absolutely right to seek to control these substances.

However, I seek a couple of clarifications. As its title suggests, this order makes a temporary class drug order for the listed substances. I note that Section 2A of the 1971 Act states that TCDOs expire within one year of the order being made, which means that the Government will need to come forward within one year with a new Order in Council under Section 2 of the Act that lists these substances as controlled drugs. If the Government do not do that, these substances will cease to be controlled, so will the Minister confirm that the Government will bring forward a new order within that timeframe?

As a linked query, it is interesting that the Government have sought to make a TCDO now rather than simply to bring in an Order in Council. Why make a temporary order and then a permanent order later? There is an argument for the Government to have added these substances straight away to Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act. If we accept that they cause enough harm to justify a temporary order, surely they should be controlled permanently in the first place. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain the rationale for their approach.

Other than that, as I said at the start, I am more than happy to support the Government in their endeavours on this order.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for his broad support for the order. As he said, it is quite sensible that we do this, but he asked two legitimate questions. In answer to his first question, we are mindful that the TCDO lasts for just one year and we will lay a permanent control before Parliament as soon as possible, as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has urged us to do. I cannot give the noble Lord a timescale for that but, self-evidently, with the expiry of the order, we want to get that done and make sure that it is covered as a whole.

As the noble Lord said, we could have brought in an urgent, permanent class A control, which the advisory council has suggested is preferable. However, controlling new substances as class A, B or C drugs takes some time, and rightly so. Such controls expand the scope of the criminal law and amend primary legislation, and it is right that Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise them. That is precisely why the legislation also allows for these temporary class drug orders. They do everything that class A, B or C controls do, except that the maximum sentences are not as long as for class A drugs.

I say with due respect to my colleagues in the Privy Council, of which I am a member, that the need for the relevant order to be made at the Privy Council adds some weeks to the process, and there is no real need for that at the moment. In the previous Session of Parliament, the Government supported a Bill sponsored by the honourable Member for Gloucester which would have removed this requirement. For the moment, we think that we can put the controls in place, mindful of the expiry, and revisit that in due course. We will look at the longer-term procedure more slowly, but the purpose of this order is to make sure that we put some definitive controls in place on the seven new opioids that have, sadly, caused deaths in the past year. I hope that that answers the noble Lord’s questions.

National Crime Agency: Reform Party Funding

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

One of the Rycroft recommendations is that we standardise political finance reporting, and the Government have accepted that. Accepting that means that we have given the Electoral Commission powers to prescribe standardised reporting formats. We are continuing to work with the Electoral Commission on a number of other areas. I will reflect on what the noble Lord has said.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, the Labour Together episode has already been mentioned. Not only did that organisation fail to declare donations but it paid to have journalists investigated. Does the Minister agree that it would be inappropriate for anyone involved in these scandals to be given a senior role in government?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Ultimately, who gets senior roles in government is a matter for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will make a judgment on that and, with due respect, I do not think he will be taking advice from the Conservative Front Bench on whom he appoints.

Violence Against Retail Workers

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, if the Government are truly committed to tackling retail crime, such as shop theft and violence against retail workers, they need to improve enforcement and policing. Have the Government given any consideration to hotspot policing, whereby more officers are deployed to areas with particularly high rates of crime and greater use is made of stop and search?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Yes, we have. We have highlighted particular areas through the policing assessment of shop theft, and we have identified a number of areas where we have been able to put in resource to do that. We have also, dare I say, increased the number of police officers on the beat. We have a commitment to increase that by a significant number. We have managed 3,100 in the 18 months or so that we have been in office, and we intend to increase that. With our police reforms, we intend to give additional support to look at what the priorities are at a local level, with smaller police forces more focused on neighbourhood policing. I look forward to the noble Lord’s support on those measures.

European Entry and Exit System

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Lords Chamber

For passengers travelling to Schengen countries by air, EES registration will take place at their destination. It will not take place in UK airports, and queues in EU member states are for those states to manage. However, this Government continue to engage with the Commission and relevant member states to advocate for the pragmatic use of the EES flexibilities allowed to avoid delays for passengers. We are also engaging with our European partners on the use of technology, such as the EES app, to move elements of registration away from the border. We continue to encourage travellers to check with their travel operator before departing so that they know when to arrive and are aware of any possible impacts on their journey”.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, there have clearly been serious issues across Europe this year in relation to the new European entry system and it is no secret that implementation has been poor. However, the European Union seems to be under the impression that the new entry and exit system is working well. What discussions have the Government had with the European Union about improving the system?

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

The Government are in constant dialogue with the European Union. We are working closely with European member states to ensure that the juxtaposed ports have the right technology and processes to enable travel to be as smooth as possible for UK citizens. This has included providing £3.5 million in funding to each of the three ports to help make their changes to infrastructure. We will continue to discuss with European partners how we can ensure that we have as smooth an operation as possible in the interests of both the European Union and British travellers.

UK Migration

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will certainly look at the report my noble friend has cited. I also want to place on record my thanks to and recognition of the value of all those who contribute to the National Health Service. As my noble friend has said, many of them originally came to this country as non-British nationals and are now naturalised Britons. Their contributions should never be underestimated. However, that does not take away from the fact that we need to ensure that those Britons who are currently unemployed and who aspire to work in the health service can also do so. One of the objectives of the Government’s migration programme is to ensure that we build up the skills and talent of people of British heritage who were born in the United Kingdom.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, it has recently been revealed that, despite the previous Government placing restrictions on dependants for those on health and social care visas, people are still bringing in huge numbers of dependants. Some 12 such visas were issued to nationals of Cameroon, who were able to bring 180 people with them. I do not say this to make any great political point, but I am sure the Minister agrees that this is not how the system is supposed to operate. In the light of that, do the Government have any plans to rectify this situation?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this issue. We have seen some reports on the issue of dependants of health and social care visa holders remaining exempt from the surcharge, and on such visa holders bringing in family members. We are looking at this, but some aspects of the stories currently in the press are incorrect, and it is incorrect to link dependant visas granted in a given year with worker visas granted in the same period. I will look at the issue the noble Lord has mentioned and send him a note; but, while he himself has not been inaccurate, there are some inaccuracies in the reporting of this.

Rochdale Grooming Gang: Offender Deportation

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Lords Chamber

Under this Government, removals of foreign national offenders are up 36%, with nearly 10,000 returned since we entered office. The fact that that has not so far been possible for an individual responsible for such heinous crimes as Shabir Ahmed’s is unacceptable. I can assure the House that we have not given up, and we will not. While the original intentions of the legislation in question mean that we ought to proceed with care, the nature of the offending in this case demands that we explore all options, and that is what we are doing. In the meantime, we will of course do everything in our power to keep the public safe”.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, when this Urgent Question was asked by my honourable friend Katie Lam in the other place on Monday, the Minister responding, Alex Norris, said:

“I could not be clearer that all options are on the table at this stage”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/7/26; col. 28.]


With respect, the only option that should be on the table is the deportation of Shabir Ahmed. There is no justification whatever for him to remain in the country after the despicable crimes he has committed. If the Government say that they cannot deport him because of the law then they must change the law. The Opposition have said we will support that change, so why will the Government not commit to bringing forward the necessary amendment to the Immigration Act 1971 as a matter of urgency?

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

The crimes which led to the imprisonment of the individual concerned were despicable and horrendous. I say again to the noble Lord that we are urgently looking at these matters and will bring potential urgent action on them. We are examining this in detail and nothing is ruled out at all. I will keep the noble Lord updated on this matter. It is not acceptable that this individual is protected. For information, in the last 12 months we have deported 187 foreign national offenders for rape offences and 392 foreign national offenders for sexual offences. However, as the noble Lord mentioned, the 1971 Act places a restriction on this individual, and we are urgently examining that issue.

Counterterrorism: AI and Facial Recognition

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a valid point about the difference between terrorism and what I will term other crime. As she knows, facial recognition technology is sometimes used for things such as identifying missing persons who have not been involved in crime at all. There needs to be a clear framework for this. As she knows, the consultation paper raised a number of questions. We are trying to resolve and respond to those and to look at the great analysis that we had in responses. We will bring forward proposals, which she will have an opportunity to test when we bring forward the police reform Bill.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, it has been reported that the newly created PoliceAI centre will roll out large-scale pilots in up to 10 police forces to help officers triage, disclose and summarise digital evidence. Can the Minister inform your Lordships’ House as to what impact the police reform Bill, and specifically the proposed mergers of police forces, will have on these plans for a more enhanced role for AI in policing?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

At the moment, as the noble Lord knows, the Government’s policy objective is to reduce the number of police forces. We have asked the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, to look at that. Ministers have not yet had his final report with his proposals for the size of police forces. In the police reform Bill, we are trying to establish national responsibilities on crime, counterterrorism, training, and procurement. As part of our consultation, we are looking at what we need to do on a framework for facial recognition technology. As the noble Lord rightly said, we have put in £140 million, including £11 million on 40 new live facial recognition units, and we have looked at retrospective facial recognition. We are trying, in a very long-term plan, to get national capability, better resource and better efficiency for taxpayers, while at the same time recognising, as I know he does, that facial recognition is an extremely important tool for identifying known criminals, people who have broken licence terms and people who are missing, and for intelligence-led policing that can ensure that we know exactly who we are looking for and why.