Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 10th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I shall begin by speaking to my Amendment 188. I appreciate the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and my noble friend Lord Harper. This amendment inserts a new clause to exclude illegal migrants and foreign criminals from GDPR provisions in relation to personal data processing by authorities carrying out immigration enforcement functions.

We need to be clear about the principles at stake here: security, accuracy and the rule of law. If we are serious about defending the integrity of our borders and our domestic security, we must ensure that those on the front line, our law enforcement agencies, have the full set of legal tools they need to do their jobs effectively. That is a thread that has run through many of our remarks from these Benches in Committee, for the important reason that we expect these organisations to protect us and to uphold the rule of law. We must do all we can to help them do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. At present, we are not minded to support Amendments 97 and 98. I entirely understand the rationale behind them and many noble Lords have spoken powerfully in support of them. The concern we have is simply an operational one, which was hinted at by my noble friend Lord Harper.

The operational implications of these amendments may be very broad and far reaching. It seems to me that they would create a practical obligation for the UK Government to deploy biometric collection facilities or personnel across multiple jurisdictions, regardless of cost or feasibility.

Clause 34 applies specifically to authorised persons, who are, in the definition of the clause,

“a person authorised by the Secretary of State”.

That could come at an unknown and potentially significant cost. Are we to set up biometric processing hubs in every conflict-adjacent state? The noble Lord, Lord German, stated that that could easily be done, but I remain to be convinced. My noble friend Lord Harper was very pertinent about this. If the Government are to support this, I look forward to hearing from the Minister what the logistical burden on government would be?

Amendment 99, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, is a probing amendment designed to understand which organisations will have access to biometric information for the purposes of exercising a function relating to law enforcement. It brings with it the noble Lord’s customary focus and expertise in this area. It is very welcome, and I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to set out which agencies will have access to this information to fulfil the demands set out in Clause 35.

I once again reiterate that we need to make sure that, in the technical solutions we are discussing on this fundamental issue, we are firm and robust in taking steps to mitigate and ultimately end the crisis of illegal migration, not exacerbate it.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions and echo the point that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, has just made. There is a common interest between His Majesty’s Opposition and us on that issue.

The important point about Clause 34 is that biometrics are required as part of an immigration or nationality application to conduct checks on the person’s identity and suitability before they come to the UK. That is a perfectly legitimate government objective and the purpose of the clause is to establish it in relation to the powers in the Bill, which aim to strengthen the Government’s ability to respond flexibly in crisis situations in particular, as noble Lords across the Committee have mentioned. The Bill provides the power to take biometrics—fingerprints or facial images of the applicant—without the need for an application to be submitted. That has had a generally positive welcome from a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the signatories of the amendments, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord German. It is important to recognise that.

The proposals in the Bill will enable the Secretary of State to determine whether the person poses a security threat—this goes to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, which I will come back to in a moment—before facilitating their exit from another country. The Bill will ensure that the power to collect biometrics outside of a visa application process will take place only in tightly defined circumstances where individuals are seeking to leave a particular country due to a crisis or any other situation where this Government facilitate their exit.

Before I move on to the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord German, I hope I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, on the matter that he raised. Where biometrics are collected in connection with immigration or nationality applications, the police will be able to conduct their own checks against the biometrics captured under the clauses in this Bill. For example, the police currently have access to this data when the biometrics are enrolled into the immigration and asylum biometric system. They can then be washed against a series of police fingerprint databases, which include unified collection captured at police stations and other sets of images, including from scenes of crime and special collections, used to identify high-risk individuals. The noble Lord made this very point. This could be particularly important with individuals who have been involved in terrorism activity and appear on counterterrorism databases. The police make checks against the Home Office fingerprint database to help identify a person they have arrested and assess whether they might also be a foreign national offender. I hope the fact that those checks are undertaken will enable him to withdraw his amendment, based on that assurance. I look forward to hearing what he has to say in due course.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, raised important issues and tabled amendments which aim to defer or excuse the request for biometrics from overseas applicants. As I have said, biometrics are normally required to be taken as part of an application to conduct checks on the person’s identity. As the noble Lords, Lord Harper and Lord Cameron, said, that is important for security.

In all cases, it is the responsibility of the applicant to satisfy the decision-maker about their identity. A decision-maker may decide it is appropriate for an application to be made at a visa application centre, or to enrol the biometrics to be deferred or waived.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed. Just, I hope, to bring a little clarity to the latter discussion between my noble friend Lord Harper and the noble Lord, Lord German, as I read it, Clause 13, “Supplying articles for use in immigration crime”, sets out in its first subsection the offence, and it does so neatly separating the actus reus, the actual act—here, offering to supply a relevant article—from the mens rea, which is knowledge or suspicion. Subsection (2) goes on to state:

“It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to show that they had a reasonable excuse”.


It was subsection (2) that we debated at length on the previous day in Committee on this Bill, and it is at that point that the burden of proof shifts to the defence to prove their defence under the subsection.

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for bringing these amendments. It has proved to be a very stimulating debate. As others have said, I have an immense amount of respect for him, given his long and distinguished career, and I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I listened very carefully to what they both said. I have to say that I fundamentally disagree with the amendments that they have brought, however. They seek to alter the mens rea principle in Clauses 13, 14 and 16, by replacing the current standard of knowledge or suspicion with one of “intent” in the case of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, or “belief” in the case of the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. It does not seem to me to be in dispute that these amendments, if passed, would introduce a higher and more complex threshold for the mental elements of the offences, thereby raising the requirements for securing conviction and making it significantly more difficult to hold to account those involved in supplying equipment for illegal crossings and other articles used in the facilitation of unlawful entry into the United Kingdom. In doing so, they would risk creating precisely the kind of ambiguity that organised criminal gangs thrive on.

I think it is important to remind ourselves what this clause is designed to address. It is aimed at those who provide the tools that make dangerous, illegal crossings possible: those who supply forged passports, false work permits, dinghies and outboard motors that fuel the people-smuggling trade. These individuals are the logistical agents of criminal networks responsible not only for undermining the security of our borders but for endangering lives.

Let us not forget that more than 20,000 people have now crossed the channel in small boats in 2025 alone and, tragically, some have died in the attempt, fundamentally because the journeys are facilitated by those who care more about profit than human life. If we are to be serious about tackling this, we must ensure that the legal framework is as robust and usable as possible. If we replace the standard of knowledge or suspicion with intention or belief, prosecutors will be forced to demonstrate not merely that a person knew or suspected that their goods would be used for immigration crime but that they positively intended or actively believed that they would be used as such. That is a much higher bar, and one that would inevitably lead to fewer prosecutions, fewer convictions and fewer disruptions to these dangerous criminal networks.

The very thorough report from the Joint Committee said that the current standard in the Bill is a low threshold compared to, for example, intentional recklessness. We note that comparable precursor terrorism offences have a higher mental element, requiring intention to commit or assist in the commission of terrorist acts. I think this was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, correctly said, these terrorism offences are not precursors and so are not comparable.

The mens rea test of knowledge used in this Bill—the one that the noble Lord and the JCHR have criticised—is the same standard that is used in offences under the Immigration Act 1971, albeit about entry and not the supply of articles. Section 24B(1) of that Act states that:

“A person who … requires leave to enter the United Kingdom under this Act, and … knowingly enters the United Kingdom without such leave, commits an offence”.


The operative word here is “knowingly”. This is the same standard that is applied to the offences in Sections 24(A1), (C1), (D1) and (E1), and Sections 24A, 25 and 25A, of the Immigration Act 1971. In short, existing immigration offences all use the test of knowledge to determine the mental element of an offence. It is therefore entirely consistent for the offences in Clauses 13, 14 and 16 to use the same test.

These are not minor procedural safeguards. These are the tools that we need to dismantle the infrastructure of people smuggling. The law should be a shield for the vulnerable, not a loophole for the criminals who exploit them. We have to construct a strong legal framework, not one that is diluted and less able to protect vulnerable people as a result. My noble friend Lord Harper made the point very powerfully that this is about creating a deterrent. We need to confront this threat with a strong legal arsenal, not a weakened one. We should not be inserting language into this Bill that makes it harder to prosecute those who supply the means for deadly journeys. These are serious offences with serious consequences, and the law must reflect that seriousness. In this instance, I oppose these amendments.

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

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for tabling their amendments. They have stimulated a discussion on important points that the Committee needs to consider. I am also grateful to noble Lords for attending this debate when such powerful alternative options are available not 200 metres away—I will use metres instead of my normal yards—where the President of the Republic is addressing both Houses of Parliament.

The noble Lord, Lord German, tempts me to discuss what the President of the Republic is currently saying. Our relationship is very strong. There are a number of issues on which we are expected to make positive statements in the next couple of days, and we are working very closely on re-intensifying our activities on the northern coast. I will allow further discussions to take place prior to any announcements from this Dispatch Box about the outcome of any discussions between the Prime Minister, the Government and the President of the Republic. I am sure that we will return to those points when the discussions have taken place in a positive framework—as they will.

I start by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that I welcome the JCHR report that was published on 20 June and thank the JCHR for its work. As the noble Lord knows, I have given commitments that the Government will respond in due course. It is worth putting on the record that all measures in this Bill are considered to be compliant with the UK’s human rights obligations, including the European Convention on Human Rights, and that the Government are fully committed to human rights at home and abroad. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made clear, the United Kingdom is unequivocally committed to the European Convention on Human Rights. We will respond to those issues in due course, but I wanted to set that out at the beginning, because it is important and part of the framework that the noble Lord has brought forward.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for moving his amendment. He started by giving a couple of caveats. Like him, I am a product of a council estate and proud of it, and like him, Latin passed me by at my comprehensive school—I think some people did it, but it passed me by. That does not mean that we cannot address the substance of the points that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have made. These important issues deserve full merit and consideration.

Amendments 31 and 41, on changing the mens rea in Clauses 13 and 14 from “knows or suspects that” to “intends that, or is reckless as to whether”, follow the findings from the JCHR. Those findings have unanimous support, and we will return to them in due course. In bringing those amendments forward, the CT-style power is now more in line with the counterterror legislation, which is what the noble Lord is intending. Reasonable suspicion is the same threshold as for the offence in Sections 57 and 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000. In fact, Section 57 does not have a “reasonable excuse” defence; instead, a person must show that

“his possession of the article was not for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism”.

The Section 57 and 58 offences contain no more safeguards when compared with the offences in Clauses 13 and 14.

The mens rea of the current drafting of the clause is designed to enable law enforcement to act earlier and faster to disrupt these criminal smuggling gangs—the very point that the noble Lord, Lord Harper, has alluded to. Day in, day out, these ruthless people smugglers put vulnerable people on boats in the channel or into the back of refrigerated lorries, not caring if they live or die. As the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, mentioned, people have died as a result. Changing the mens rea to require law enforcement to show intention or recklessness would place undue pressure on those on the front line of tackling organised immigration crime and would slow down the response to stopping these evil criminals undertaking their actions. It is right that we do whatever we can to support law enforcement in tackling these criminals at the earliest possible stages of criminality. For that reason, disappointing as I know it will be to the noble Lord, I cannot accept the amendments.

Amendments 32, 42 and 53 seek to change the mens rea for these offences from suspicion to belief. For the supplying and handling of articles and collection of information offences, amending this threshold would significantly raise the bar for enforcement. That is a point made by His Majesty’s Opposition Front Bench, along with the noble Lords, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, Lord Harper and Lord Green of Deddington. I find myself on occasion in company that I am not normally in, but it is right that, if noble Lords are right and make a sensible case, that support is welcome—as it is on this occasion.

A “suspicion” threshold allows for earlier, preventive action, which is a core feature of the legislation. It is designed to enable authorities to disrupt organised crime at the preparatory stage, while still requiring a proper investigation into an individual’s activity, and not in any way damaging a defence’s ability to put up a defence to the prosecution’s case in due course. The shift from suspicion to belief would narrow the scope of these clauses, undermine their preventive purpose, reduce the chance of successful prosecutions and place a greater strain on investigative resources in the first place.

It is important to note that the “knows or suspects” threshold is not novel. It is well established in UK criminal law, especially in regimes aimed at early intervention. For example, under Section 330 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, professionals commit an offence if they

“know or suspect that another person is engaged in money laundering”

and fail to make a disclosure.

Similarly, Section 19 of the Terrorism Act 2000 criminalises failure to disclose information where someone “believes or suspects” it might be useful to prevent terrorism. In both the Proceeds of Crime Act and the anti-terror legislation, the mental thresholds are designed to trigger preventive action and have been consistently upheld in the courts as proportionate and compatible with Article 6 and Article 7 of the ECHR. I go back to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Harper, mentioned: namely, that the offences in the Bill serve a preventive purpose. They are not about punishing people after harm has occurred but are instead about stopping harm happening at all.

I will also speak to the concerns that the current offences might criminalise those who are acting innocently or for humanitarian reasons. Each of the relevant clauses includes the reasonable excuse defence, which is non-exhaustive and allows courts to consider the full context of the person’s action. Any good defence would bring forward those defences if, again, the thresholds were passed by the police and the CPS for bringing prosecutions under any legislation that was ultimately passed by both Houses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, the debate has obviously spanned beyond the amendments before us, but it is worth stating at the outset that the focus of these amendments is to determine that the provisions are aimed at the particular people who are breaking the law—the smugglers. The focus has to be that it helps law enforcement and the judiciary to focus their resources on the people that the Government really want to apprehend in order to tackle the criminal gangs. There are words—which I will come to in a moment—on which I agree a different definition might be more helpful, but it is worth while repeating the words of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, about the international regulations and rules that guide us and we put around ourselves and the importance of those.

I am reluctant to go into this field of the reinterpretation of the ECHR, but one mistake relates to the fact that some countries signed an unaddressed letter which gave no indication whatever of what changes to the ECHR they were looking for. The person who was supposed to receive it read about it in the newspapers. I contrast that arrangement, where nothing could be made of the letter because it gave no sense of what was to be changed, to the approach of the British Secretary of State for Justice, who approached the matter in a proper manner and spoke to the people concerned, the right Committee of Ministers, who are responsible for any review of the ECHR. There is already a set of motions in place to enable that discussion to occur. It would be worth while trying to understand what people in other countries want to do and what they need to happen in order to change, but those discussions are under way because, essentially, this is a living document that needs to be changed, interpreted and looked at as time goes by, and that is happening at present.

We should be clear that these amendments would simply treat the people who are coming here with a deal of compassion. I absolutely agree that we have to separate genuine asylum seekers from the rest. We cannot do that by our own legislation until they arrive here. There are no routes by which people can arrive here, apart from the few which would not affect the people from the countries who are most affected in this matter. What makes sense with these amendments—maybe not entirely in the words they use—is that they are trying to distinguish who we are going for and who we are gunning at, as it were.

Amendment 33 seeks to ensure that the scope of the offences in Clauses 13 and 14 apply only to the smugglers. The amendments seek to link the offences to financial and material gain. If there is another way of explaining the financial and material gain as being the method by which you determine a smuggler, then obviously it would be worth noting.

In that respect, I took note of what the noble Lord, Lord Harper, said about how to deal effectively with the migrants situation. Fortunately, I went to visit the site of the Jungle in Calais two weeks ago. It is now fields; there is nothing there but fields, grass and animals grazing, and that is because the French authorities dealt with groups of people to make sure that they fit with the strategy they are adopting. They had no complaints about the way that was working at the present time. Maybe times have changed, and maybe people need to be thinking differently.

Amendment 35 proposes that the defence excuse in Clause 13 should ensure the protection of

“refugees, smuggled persons, and victims of trafficking, in certain circumstances”—

and that is the question. In mentioning “certain circumstances”, one needs to define what those circumstances are; otherwise, the courts would not be able to make the appropriate case work.

Amendment 38 suggests that the scope of offence of Clause 14 should include for financial or material gain. That is the distinguishing factor between those who are smuggled and those who are not.

Amendment 44 suggests that the defence excuse in Clause 14 should ensure protection of

“refugees, smuggled persons, and victims of trafficking, in certain circumstances”.

Again, one has to define the words “certain circumstances”, because otherwise it becomes too general.

Amendment 57 suggests that the reasonable excuse defence in Clause 16 should ensure the protection of

“refugees, smuggled persons, and victims of trafficking, in certain circumstances”.

Again, that wording needs to be tightened up.

Finally, Amendment 203 would provide

“a statutory defence for refugees in certain circumstances”

for the offences in Clauses 13, 14 and 16. Obviously, there is a need for tightening up in this matter to ensure that we can separate out the people for whom the Bill is intended to deal with: those who are causing the misery, those who are trafficking and those who are smuggling and those who are spread around Europe to make sure that these schemes work. These are the people whom the Bill should be aimed at and is aimed at. All these amendments would do is make sure that we entirely focus our efforts on those people who are causing these criminal acts.

Therefore, I suggest that these amendments have a right sense of direction in what they intend. They enshrine the international regulations which we sit within. It is not just one convention; it is quite clear from the opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that there are a raft of international conventions, laws and rules that we sit behind. We are part of that international way of dealing with matters, and if we lose that way of dealing with it and do not follow it through, we will never be able to solve something which is so international in its nature.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their speeches in this group. Again, I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the rationale behind these amendments. The general thrust of all noble Lords’ amendments, however, is to seek to impose further limits on the exercise of legal powers designed to tackle people-smuggling gangs and their supply chains.

On all these new offences, we need to be both clear and bold in providing our law enforcement agencies and our courts with the legal tools and powers they need to be robust in tackling the gangs, who are both the root cause of and the major beneficiaries from this problem. We on these Benches have rightly criticised the Government for the rhetoric around smashing the gangs—which in our view, at least at the moment, is empty rhetoric—but it is a clear fact that we need to tackle the criminal gangs, and it is right that we use this as an opportunity to shape our legislative framework so that we can do that as effectively as possible.

Amendments 33 and 38 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, would add an additional demand: for the person to have committed an offence, it must be demonstrated as well that they have financially benefited from the supply of a relevant article for use in connection with an offence. Again, I understand the rationale and the intentions behind the amendment, but I put myself against it and support the current Government—again, a slightly rare position to be in. Unlike other aspects of the Bill, it seems clear to us on these Benches that, as it stands, the text of Clauses 13, 14 and 16, which create these offences, is adequate, clear and sufficient.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, we have Amendments 51 and 51B in this group. Amendment 51 would add mobile phones and chargers to the list of relevant articles. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, is just leaving; he may be coming back. There are innocent examples of the use of mobile phones in the JCHR’s report. Mobile phones are very common, and we are looking for proportionality in all this. Some years ago, I quite often heard opponents of asylum seekers and refugees, who were outraged, say, “They even have mobile phones”, as if that was some sort of great luxury and that having them meant they would be perfectly capable of getting, possibly not first-class seats, but certainly seats on a plane, because they were clearly very civilised, well-equipped and moneyed. I have not actually heard that for some time. Mobile phones are not a luxury these days; they enable asylum seekers to keep in touch with their family. I think that is hugely important, not for any sinister reason but because they are a lifeline for mental health, quite apart from more practical examples.

Amendment 51B speaks to the regulations which I mentioned in the last group. The Secretary of State can, by regulations, alter the list of relevant articles, and my amendment would provide for consultation with organisations that aim, without charge, to assist asylum seekers. I think that that point was made by one of those organisations in its briefings to noble Lords. After all, if there is to be a change, it is perfectly reasonable and proper that the people who know what happens on the ground—I am not suggesting that the Government do not—and who have that particular take on it should be consulted.

I have signed Amendment 56, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has spoken. People travel in groups—not everybody, but some people—and it seems natural, to me anyway, that a husband would perhaps carry documents for his wife and children, or a mother would carry documents for her children. I think that it would be right to make that change.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

Once again, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this group of amendments around the safeguards to the offences. As I have already said on previous groups, it is the position of His Majesty’s Opposition Benches that the new criminal offences in the Bill must be as watertight as possible. We know that people-smuggling criminal gangs are incredibly innovative in their efforts to continue running their illegal operations, concocting ever more ingenious methods to circumvent the law. We must do all we can to frustrate that. To do so, we need to ensure that there are no loopholes that could be used to evade legal repercussions.

I turn to the amendments. Amendment 46, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord German, seems, to us, with respect, to be unnecessary. As the Bill stands, the person in question already has a defence if they are able to show that they were carrying out a rescue, or if

“they were acting on behalf of an organisation which … aims to assist asylum-seekers, and … does not charge for its services”.

In my view, if someone has broken a law, as they will have done if they are charged under this clause, without being able to avail themselves of those two specific defences, then they have committed an offence for which they should be held liable. The amendment proposes that we, in effect, waive the law if the person shows that their actions were self-relating. That is a dangerous precedent to establish—that someone acting to benefit only themselves can get away with actions that are demonstrably illegal. If someone knowingly engages in criminal activity and is unable to have recourse to the defences set out in the Bill, we need to be clear that they have committed a crime and should still be liable as a result. In our view, the amendment would blow wide open the rigour and focus of the offences as currently drafted, which is the opposite of the strong message we need to send to those who—we cannot forget—are illegally violating our borders.

Amendments 50 and 62 would mean that, for the purposes of the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, any offence committed under the relevant clauses would not be regarded as a particularly serious crime. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, explain the rationale for the amendments, and I completely understand the concern that lies behind them. I think I am right in saying that the convention talks about constituting

“a danger to the community of that country”,

and I completely accept that that is very strong language, but I think it is important to consider this in context. Illegal migrants enter the UK without going through any checks whatever. It can be almost impossible to find out who such migrants are, where they have come from, what their history is, and, fundamentally, what sort of people they are. Safe and legal routes are safe and legal precisely because they answer these questions. Let us not forget the incident that happened in May, when five Iranian nationals were arrested for planning what the Home Secretary described as a major terror attack. They arrived in the United Kingdom by irregular means, including small boats and a lorry, before claiming asylum. One of those people was taken out of his taxpayer-funded accommodation when he was arrested. Is it not clear that those men constituted a danger to the community of our country? We need to appreciate the risks that we run when faced with this system and with the problem that we have no idea of who those people are or the potential risk they pose. The police and security services were successful in foiling that attack, but we cannot guarantee that that would happen indefinitely. This problem obviously and demonstrably risks the safety of our national community, and we need to engage with the law in a way that reflects this. For that reason, we oppose those amendments.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am afraid that I will again speak against the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I recognise that both these amendments are probing amendments, but I suggest they are unnecessary. Clause 16 already provides a robust and comprehensive defence of reasonable excuse for those charged with the offence and collecting information for use in immigration crime. Subsection 8(b)(v) explicitly references those preparing to provide medical care or emergency shelter or supplies. In plain terms, that is humanitarian assistance.

Indeed, subsection 8(c) goes further by protecting those acting on behalf of bona fide organisations assisting asylum seekers. So it is our view that humanitarian activity is not only covered but it is expressly protected in the text. Therefore, to insert an additional, open-ended reference to humanitarian support simply risks introducing ambiguity to a legal provision, which already strikes a careful balance between protecting genuine humanitarian actors while still enabling the prosecution of those who aid illegal immigration. It is vital that the law is clear and enforceable and it is our view that the clause already offers wide and meaningful protection to doctors, volunteers, NGOs and others engaged in humanitarian work.

On Amendment 60, again in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I completely understand the desire to ensure that legal professionals are not inadvertently caught up in Clause 16, but I disagree with the amendment as it stands. It seeks to add a new limb to the reasonable excuse defence, namely that a person was carrying out a legal activity as defined by the Legal Services Act. It is arguable that that protection already exists in the clause as drafted; it is a flexible and general defence in terms of reasonable excuse, and subsection (8) sets out several examples of what that defence might include: journalism, academic research, rescue efforts et cetera, but crucially also those acting on behalf of legitimate asylum support organisations. I respectfully say that this is a deliberately broad and protective provision. It gives courts ample discretion to protect those acting lawfully, including legal professionals who are working to assist asylum seekers.

As I said, I understand that these are probing amendments, so I am sure it would be of benefit to the whole Committee to hear the Minister’s response, although, as it stands, our perspective on this matter is that the clause as drafted provides adequate protections for those acting in good faith.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 26th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel]

7: Clause 3, page 2, line 29, at end insert—
“(c) reducing the number of illegal migrant crossings, and(d) increasing the prosecutions of criminal organisations who facilitate illegal migrant crossings.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adds further objectives to the Commander’s functions.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 7 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower, I will 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, women and children across borders”.


I say to the Minister that we must be very careful 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 co-ordination of other authorities, but what does that mean in practice? That is not a power of direction, it is not a position of operational command, and it is not even statutory oversight. What is more, the commander is expected to publish from time to time a strategic priority 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 a consultation.

Border security is not an abstract exercise. It is about real threats, people smuggling, trafficking, organised crime, the movement of dangerous goods and hostile actors seeking to exploit our borders. If this role is meant to mean anything at all then the commander must be empowered to act, not just observe. They must be able to co-ordinate, direct and enforce, not simply suggest, advise and hope that someone listens. As it stands, the first few clauses of the Bill grant the commander very little in the way of real powers. Clause 3(1) gives the commander only two objectives, Clause 3(2) states that the commander must issue a so-called strategic priority document, and Clause 4 states that the commander must prepare an annual report.

In the spending review, the Chancellor announced an additional £280 million per year in funding for Border Security Command on top of the £150 million that the Chancellor announced in the Autumn Budget. That gives the commander a total of £430 million in overall budget—that is, £430 million to write two reports and adhere to two objectives. While we on these Benches welcome that extra funding, we must ask what that money will actually fund. How can the operation of the commander’s functions cost that much money? Might it not be better for the money to be funded directly into Border Force, the coastguard or immigration enforcement?

If we are to have a Border Security Commander then surely we should give that office far greater authority in its objectives than what the Bill currently delivers. That is what our amendments attempt to achieve. They seek to add further fundamental objectives to the functions of the Border Security Commander.

Amendment 7 states that the commander must have regard to the objectives of reducing the number of illegal migrant crossings and increasing the prosecutions of criminal organisations that facilitate illegal crossings—or to smash the gangs, in the phrase of the Prime Minister from the general election last year. This amendment is completely in step with the Government’s stated aims. In fact, at Second Reading the Minister said that the key performance indicators for Border Security Command are

“a reduction in the number of migrant crossings, an increase in prosecutions and a disruption of the gangs”.—[Official Report, 2/6/25; col. 588.]

I ask as a direct challenge: if the Minister believes that those are the key indicators for success, as stated to the Committee, then why would he not wish to put them in the Bill?

Amendment 8 would make preventing the boarding of vessels and illegal entry and facilitating the return of those with no right to be here explicit functions of the commander. Again, this goes to the heart of tackling the issue we are discussing. In effect, we want it in black and white in the Bill that the commander will be given the objective of reducing illegal entry to the country. That is what this amendment seeks to achieve. Since 2018, when the figures were first recorded, more than 150,000 people have arrived in small boats. In 2024, 36,816 people were detected making the crossing. I would like to understand why the Government do not think it is worth while to give the Border Security Commander the direct objective of reducing or even ending those arrivals.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope I have answered the points for Members of the Committee. It is up to them whether they wish to pursue their amendments further.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and all noble Lords who have contributed on this group. Some of the contributions were outside the subject matter of my amendments but made some very important and significant arguments, especially from noble Lords who were not able to be present at Second Reading. I particularly point to the speech of my noble friend Lord Goschen, who asked some very pointed and forensic questions about the nature of the security command. I am not sure that he received an answer that satisfied him, but we will see how this transpires.

We have heard again and again that the Bill, and the creation of the Border Security Commander, are meant to signal a new era in the Government’s approach to illegal migration and organised criminal networks. If that is to be the case, the reality has to live up to the rhetoric. At present, I do not believe that it does. Our amendments seek to give substance to a role that currently lacks it and to ensure that the commander is tasked not with observation but with action. Without clear objectives, real powers and meaningful authority, this role risks becoming the most expensive strategic document writer in the history of Whitehall.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised a question about one of our amendments including prosecutions. We are not suggesting for a minute that the Border Security Commander will be responsible for prosecuting. I was pointing to what the Minister said at Second Reading: that the success of Border Security Command would be measured by a reduction in crossings and an increase in prosecutions. These amendments simply seek to put those objectives in black and white. We do not understand why the Government should be reluctant to define in law as objectives the very outcomes that they claim to be delivering.

With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, we do not believe that this is otiose. We think it is important. The amendments that we have proffered are the opportunity to correct that. They would ensure that the commander’s functions are explicitly tied to the outcomes that the Government say they want. They provide objectives that would lead to urgent decision-making on asylum claims. They would empower the commander to issue binding directions to the partner authorities, et cetera.

The stakes here are very high. The British people are watching. They are right to expect more than well-meaning structures; they expect real enforcement, real deterrence, real co-ordination and, above all, real outcomes. If the Government are serious about regaining control of our borders, they must give the commander the tools to do the job. We think that these amendments are a constructive, credible way forward and that they give the role meaning, direction and power.

If the Minister continues to be emollient, I also encourage him to be reflective and to reflect on these amendments, not just for the sake of the legislation but for the sake of public trust and national credibility. Let us not settle for appearances; let us legislate for results. I hope the Government seriously consider adopting our amendments in the future but, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 7 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel]

9: Clause 3, page 2, line 30, leave out “from time to time” and insert “annually”

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 9, alongside the other amendments in this group, seeks to amend the strategic priority document issued by the commander. The Government envisage that this strategic priority document, as outlined in Clause 3, is essential to focusing the Border Security Commander’s priorities and that its contents will outline the principal threats to border security and the strategic priorities to which partner authorities must have regard.

I therefore ask why the Government have decided it must be issued simply “from time to time” rather than annually, as proposed in Amendment 9. If the Government are so confident, should they not issue this document annually? From time to time could mean very rarely. If the role is to be taken seriously, it must come with measurable goals. It goes without saying that a vague timeframe renders the publishing of a document a somewhat arbitrary display of the commander’s responsibility, instead of a fulfilment of his strict duty to protect our borders. I acknowledge that there is an annual reporting duty. That reinforces, in my view, the need for this document to be produced annually too.

There is one point in this clause on which I genuinely seek clarification from the Minister, because it goes to the necessity of the provision as a whole. Subsection (2) requires the commander to assess

“the principal threats to border security”.

This goes to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, on the last group: is the assessment of principal threats to security not properly a function to be undertaken by Ministers, most obviously the Home Secretary, with the Home Office, her 38,000 or so staff, the Border Force, Immigration Enforcement, the Small Boats Operational Command, the Migration Advisory Committee and the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration? In seeking to place this duty to assess principal threats on the commander, I ask the Minister where responsibility lies.

Secondly, the Bill requires a rather slender number of inclusions in the strategic priority document. If the commander is to prepare a statement of strategic priorities, should it not be more comprehensive? My Amendments 10 and 12, and Amendment 11 from my noble friend Lord Goschen, attempt to rectify this.

Amendment 10 would require the commander to include an assessment of the most effective methods for deterring illegal entry, reducing the number of sea crossings and arranging for timely and effective removals, including to a safe third country. The Government have stated that they believe the creation of this new position is essential in deterring migration; if that is so, why not require the commander to consider those factors when drafting his overall assessment of threats to our borders?

I am afraid it is true, given the crossings this spring and early summer, that the Government have not succeeded in their mission. We know that on 21 May, 825 people crossed the channel; on 13 June, 919 made the crossing; and on 31 May, 1,195 people journeyed. The Government have presided over the highest asylum figures recorded in a single quarter—September to December 2024. Given these figures, does the Minister not agree that an explicit requirement relating to reducing illegal crossings should feature in the commander’s strategic priorities?

I welcome my noble friend Viscount Goschen’s amendment to my amendment; I believe it would a crucial addition to the strategic priorities that the commander must consider. We know that all those who choose to make the crossing across the channel have transited through a safe third country. Understanding the reasons why they do not therefore choose to remain in those safe countries is the first step to deterring them effectively. For that same reason, I and my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower have included in Amendment 10 an assessment of removals to safe third countries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to noble Lords. I will try to answer the noble Viscount immediately. It was very kind that he paraphrased my reply as “We don’t know”. A tadge unfair, I fear, but an opinion none the less. We do know about the many issues that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, refers to on a regular basis—war, hunger and oppression—that drive people to leave their homes or force people out of their homes. There are many people who are criminally trafficked across Europe. There are many people who attempt to come to the United Kingdom because of simple things such as speaking English as opposed to other foreign languages or because of the nirvana promised to them by criminal gangs. There is a range of pull factors that we know about, and we are consistently assessing those.

The noble Viscount might be interested to know that, under the previous Government, in the years between January 2018 and March 2025, 94% of small boat arrivals had an asylum claim raised, and outcomes from those asylum claims varied. People from Afghanistan had 37% of asylum claims agreed, for people from Syria it was 99%, for people from Eritrea it was 86%, for people from Iran it was 48% and for people from Sudan it was 98%. There is a variety. That is because the factors that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, rightly continually raises in this House 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.

Our model has to be to try to smash the criminal gangs and to remove their ability to traffic effectively, for the reasons that we have debated all afternoon. In that, the role of the border commander is critical. The amendments that have been brought forward by His Majesty’s Opposition’s Front Bench look at, first, specifying the frequency with which the Border Security Commander must issue a strategic priority document. The Border Security Commander can issue a strategic priority document to partner authorities setting out the principal threats to border security, but I want the Border Security Commander to have flexibility to update those priorities as and when threats evolve. The very changes that the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, have mentioned might well impact upon that. Under the terms of the amendment, the production of a document annually would not allow that to happen. I want it to be a fluid operation between the Border Security Commander and others.

Members have also asked who is setting the strategic priority. The framework we have set out in the Bill is clear: the Border Security Commander will be setting strategic objectives, having consulted a board that is established under the Bill, having consulted partner agencies which have operational responsibility—as mentioned—under the Bill, having discussed it with the Home Secretary and the Home Secretary, who will themselves have discussed it with other Ministers, and having produced clear evidence of what the pressures on border security are. The plan will then be produced. We are currently looking at the issues that I mentioned earlier—the operational delivery of that and the members of staff, and so on, downstream—about which I will write to the noble Viscount.

We have a £280 million resource for the next three years of the spending review, and we will be looking at how we do that when allocations are made later this year. However, I say to His Majesty’s Opposition Front Bench and other noble Lords who have raised these issues that the flexibility to produce a plan with the Border Security Commander under the strategic objectives set by the Government is critical.

Other amendments set out that additional information should be included in the strategic priority document. The Government are working hard to prevent dangerous sea crossings, to target smuggling gangs, to make sure that they do not put lives at risk and to address the factors that are driving illegal immigration from safe countries. The strategic policy document is issued to partner authorities and sets out the strategic priorities that they must have in exercising those functions. Again, I hope the noble Lord will reflect on the proposals in the Bill in due course because it is not clear how suitable the assessment set out in the amendment would be for such a document.

Amendment 12 aims to ensure that the strategic priority document issued by the Border Security Commander and the UK border strategy are supportive of each other. Again, border security is a fundamental part of the wider strategic approach to the border and strategic priorities for border security, which will help to drive the wider UK Government approach. Indeed, the whole purpose of the Bill is to ensure that we coherently and sensibly convene activity across the whole UK border system. It is therefore not really plausible to imagine a situation whereby the commander’s priorities, setting consultation with the board, would be at odds with wider priorities set by other agencies. The whole purpose of the Bill is to provide the grasp, coherence, drive and strategic forum for the exercise of these measures to deal with the very issues that we have all mentioned in this short debate.

I hope that helps regarding the amendments. We can return to these on Report if need be, but I hope that for the moment I have addressed the issues raised.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and to my noble friend Lord Goschen.

This short debate has brought to light a number of what we say are shortcomings in how the Government currently envisage the role and responsibilities of the commander, particularly with regard to the strategic priority document. We are told that it is central to the commander’s function and that it will help to shape the response to some of the complex and pressing threats to our border, yet it still seems a surprise that it need be issued only “from time to time”.

I listened carefully to the Minister’s response, but I simply do not believe that 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. For that reason, the clear solution is Amendment 9’s requirement to issue it annually. That is simply a minimum standard of accountability. It would not be excessive or difficult and, if the commander is to be held to their role, it would be a form of regularly 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 effectiveness of the methods being used to deter illegal entry, reduce crossings or facilitate removals. Amendment 10 would address that gap directly. If the Government truly believe that the role will make a difference, they should have no hesitation in embracing clarity, direction and purpose in the remit of the commander.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I just want to add that the Employment Rights Bill is currently going through a lengthy procedure of discussion in this House. It is attempting to put down a whole range of measures which tackle some of the employment issues on illegal working that will potentially—going back to the noble Viscount’s point about pull factors—deal with that in a much more effective and strong way. I hope that, after 10 or 11 days in Committee and with Report to come, the noble Lord can reflect on that and see what support he can give to the measures in that Bill.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

I will reflect very carefully on that. The amendments in this group, like the amendments in the previous group, are not about undermining the Government’s intentions; they are about giving them a credible, coherent mechanism to pursue and deliver them. That is the very reason I support Amendment 11, tabled by my noble friend Lord Goschen, and Amendment 12, which would ensure that the commander’s work is not carried out in isolation but is aligned with the UK’s border strategy. The lack of linkage between the commander’s priorities and the border strategy is, in our view, a missed opportunity. Amendment 12 would put that right.

If the Government are serious about border reform and want to be taken seriously on deterring crossings and improving removals, they must demonstrate a willingness to embrace the structure, purpose and accountability offered by the amendments. I simply urge the Government to listen to what we have proposed today and accept these changes in the spirit in which they are intended; that is, to ensure that the commander is not just another headline but a role that delivers real outcomes for the British people. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel]

15: Clause 3, page 3, line 2, at end insert—
““illegal entry to the United Kingdom” is defined in accordance with section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 (illegal entry and similar offences);”

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 15 I will speak also to Amendment 17; both are in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower. I will also reflect briefly on Amendment 16, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.

Amendment 15 is a matter of legal precision. Legal precision, especially in issues as sensitive and complex as immigration enforcement, is a necessity. This amendment would define illegal entry to the United Kingdom with direct reference to Section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971. That Act has long provided the statutory foundation for offences relating to unlawful entry and overstaying. If we are serious about creating a coherent framework for the commander to operate within, we must be clear about what we mean by “illegal entry”. Without this definition, the term is left open to interpretation and could result in confusion, inconsistency and perhaps even legal challenge. By tying a definition directly to the existing law, we would ensure that there is no ambiguity and no risk of the commander operating under uncertain or shifting interpretations. It is a simple, necessary fix and sets widely accepted parameters, not only for our discussion now but for the law once it comes into force.

Amendment 17 is likewise rooted in common sense. It defines sea crossings as

“journeys by water from another country for the purpose of reaching, and gaining entry into, the United Kingdom”.

That is important because it makes it clear that a sea crossing can be regarded as having occurred from any third country. It is vital that we draft this legislation now in a way that allows our enforcement authorities to take robust action to stop this threat. How we define these core terms is important to ensuring that we can do this successfully.

We note that the Government’s current intention is to include sea crossings that originate only in France, Belgium or the Netherlands, as is stated in the offence of endangering another during sea crossings in Clause 18. We have an amendment to address that in a later group, so I will not dwell on it now, but suffice it to say that we do not think we should be narrowing the scope of the definition only to crossings that begin in these three countries. They might be the countries that illegal migrants cross from now, but we must ensure that the legislation is future-proofed. Given that the strategy—indeed, much of the public discourse—centres on the dangers and deterrence of these crossings, it is only right that the Bill is clear in defining what it actually refers to. Our amendment would close that gap.

I turn briefly to Amendment 16 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which raises an interesting point about whether private bodies carrying out public functions are captured under the definition of “public authority”. I suggest some caution, though: although the intention is to probe and not prescribe, 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 working at the border are to be brought within the scope of the commander’s influence, that should be considered through a fuller and more deliberative process, and not inserted without clear parameters.

So, although I appreciate the spirit of the amendment, I hope the Government can offer some clarification, perhaps in guidance or regulation rather than in primary legislation at this stage. The two amendments in our names are about clarity, consistency and good legislative practice, and they would support the effectiveness of the commander. I urge the Government to support them, and I beg to move.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

We have Amendment 16 in this group. It is indeed a probing amendment. I am a little amused that the noble Lord has just criticised the expansionist tendencies of this amendment, given that that is what some of his earlier amendments have tended to suggest.

Clause 3(5) tells us that “public authority” means

“a person with functions of a public nature”.

Clause 3 makes public authorities “partner authorities” for the purpose of the chapter. Across the public sector—not just this one—private organisations are contracted to provide services, so I am probing whether such organisations are within the definition. Does the commander have authority over them—and, if so, how far?—or is it that, as I have been arguing for the whole of today, the responsibility lies with the Secretary of State for all this work? Of course, we know that the Home Office has contracted private sector organisations—to run asylum hotels, for instance—so my questioning is not totally theoretical.

I often worry that the Government are not always as good at procurement as one might like them to be—or, frankly, at enforcing contracts—so I hope that the private sector will not be put in an even stronger position in the sector. If it is, I for one would like to know. But this is a probing amendment, and I am not seeking to expand the territory.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful again. I hope I can answer the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, immediately. As she outlined, her amendment seeks to probe whether private bodies carrying out public sector functions are included in the definition of “public authority” in Clause 3(5). I hope the clarification I can give her will be of assistance. It is as follows: private bodies carrying out public sector functions, such as the contractors working with Border Force, would fall under the definition of “public authority”. I hope that meets her probing amendment, but it is on the record that that is the position.

The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, again raised a number of amendments. Amendment 15 would require a definition of

“illegal entry to the United Kingdom”

to be included in Clause 3(5). Amendment 17 would require a definition of “sea crossings”. I say to him—and I hope he will reflect on this—that, in Clause 3(5), in the chapter, we have included the words “border security”, “partner authority” and “public authority”, and they have been explicitly defined due to their presence in other clauses in the chapter. My honourable friend the Minister in the House of Commons was clear that we do not want to put into the Bill issues that will be included in the strategic priority document or the annual report, to ensure that sufficient flexibility is retained to respond to the continually evolving threats to border security. If we were to accept the amendments that the noble Lord has proposed today, we would, by defining these terms, actually water down what is in Clause 3(5). “Border security”, “partner authority” and “public authority” are clearly defined terms in the chapter, giving the Border Security Commander the flexibility to address the issues of the day. I note a little shake of the head from the Opposition Front Bench. If the noble Lord remains unhappy, he should feel free to challenge. If he wants further clarification, I will try to give it to him. If he wants further further clarification, I will write to him, and if he feels that this does not meet the objectives that he has set, then we have the potential to discuss it at further stages of the Bill.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister, and I hope he recognises the constructive spirit in which these amendments have been brought. What we are seeking is legal certainty and legal clarity, and what these amendments show is that language matters. This is a Bill of great significance; it deals with powers of co-ordination, enforcement, and national security. The clarity of our definitions is not just a drafting preference; it is a legal and operational necessity.

I do not want to be repetitive about the two amendments, but we say that Amendment 15 would provide a clear legal anchor for the term “illegal entry” by referencing existing law under Section 24 of the Immigration Act. It is a small change, but it would give certainty to the commander and to those the commander is expected to co-ordinate. Amendment 17 would perform a similar function. It sits at the very heart of the public and policy debate. It is about scope and enforceability: if we are to disrupt these crossings, we must be clear in law as to what constitutes one. Ambiguity here invites confusion, in our view. If Ministers are serious about making the command structure work, then we say that these amendments clarify and improve the Bill. I urge the Government to think again about this, but on the basis of what has been said so far, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 15 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel]

20: Clause 4, page 3, line 37, at end insert—
“(c) state the number of people trafficking gangs that have ceased to operate as a result of enforcement action in the financial year.”

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower refer to the annual reports clause in the Bill. We are told time and time again that the Government’s priority is to “smash the gangs”. We hear at the Dispatch Box, both here and in the other place, that the immigration policies of the current Government are cracking down on the criminal networks who profit from vulnerable people. We are assured that progress is being made and that enforcement is working, but when it comes to the results, the actual measurable outcomes, we are met with a very different picture. I shall not restate the statistics that I have been over already this afternoon.

Our amendment to Clause 4 simply asks the Government to state in each annual report the number of people-trafficking gangs that that have ceased 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 seeking the facts, if the Government have them. If the Government really are dismantling these criminal gangs, they would have no reason to oppose this. If the policy is working, the data should be on hand and should strengthen the case that the Government are so eager to make. Transparency would serve to confirm what is claimed is already happening.

There has so far been a lack of openness around this supposedly central policy objective, and that raises questions about whether the crackdown is as effective as claimed, whether the strategy is working and whether the targets are being measured. If the Government cannot or will not report on how many trafficking gangs have been taken off the streets, how can the public be expected to trust that this is a meaningful priority? This amendment simply seeks transparency and facts, rather than slogans, and if the Government are serious about earning confidence, we gratefully suggest that they should adopt it. They should have nothing to hide and every reason to show us the results.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

In the spirit of co-operation and the hand of friendship that the noble Viscount has reached out, I say that it is a valid challenge. There is a place for accounts and there is a place for reports on performance, but it is a valid challenge to which we will return in due course. I will certainly reflect on the points he has mentioned, which is the purpose of our discussion today.

I just wished to put the statistics on record because I did not wish to let down the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, or for him to think I am never going to be a bruiser again on these issues. Therefore, it is important occasionally to put some facts on the record. Those are not my facts; they are government statistics that go to the heart of the amendment brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, about whether we include them in the annual report or, as we do now, produce them on a quarterly basis on a range of those measures.

I do not wish to let the noble Viscount think I have missed the other point he raised, about the £150 million this year for the cost of the Border Security Commander. I am sure he will be pleased to know that this was new money. Effectively, in being new money, it was savings from the money that was allocated for the Rwanda scheme, which never actually materialised once the current Government came into place. We have reallocated Rwanda resources to the Border Force and the Border Security Command. We have also reallocated it elsewhere to help speed up asylum system claims by recruiting additional staff.

Jumping ahead slightly to future clauses in the Bill, that is essentially part of the recalibration that the current Government undertook on election just after this time last year to make some real changes and to try to improve longer-term performance on the issues on which we both agree: to reduce illegal migration and to respond positively to irregular migration in due course.

The noble Viscount’s second amendment mentions the partner authorities who attend the commander’s board, who would be able to collaborate on the development of the annual reports. The commander will not create this report in isolation; it will be a collaborative effort, but the commander’s job, self-evidently, is to pull together an annual report that shows how they have performed against the objectives that have been set in the strategic priorities. I do not believe that the amendment is necessary, but we will reflect on those matters and we can return to them in due course.

I hope that I have answered those points, and I look forward to hearing the response from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this debate. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for her contribution. She said that she was not able to speak at Second Reading, but she made a very pertinent point about the climate of trust—I think that was the phrase she used—and that the Government are just not believed. Confidence and trust in the system are absolutely imperative, and that is the basis of these amendments.

We again heard the Government’s claim that tackling organised immigration crime is a top priority. All we seek is the most basic evidence of that success. It is not about operational compromise, or disclosing sensitive intelligence or tactical information; it is simply about reporting outcomes: how many gangs have been dismantled? How many prosecutions have taken place? How many individuals have been detained or removed?

The Minister read out the subsection in Clause 4 setting out what the annual report must do. It says that the annual report must

“state how the Commander has carried out the functions of the Commander”

and

“set out the Commander’s views on … performance”.

These are absolutely intrinsic issues. It is not unreasonable—it is the bare minimum—simply to ask that data on performance is put into the annual report. The Minister mentioned various items about data that can be accessed, but we seek certain information—for instance, about the number of persons charged or convicted with offences under this very Bill—that does not exist yet. It will exist in due course.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I reassure the noble Lord that we are very keen to put into the public domain in due course the performance data that he is looking for. The question is about whether we put this requirement into the Bill.

I apologise for not mentioning the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, by name in my earlier response. It was an oversight on my part, and I apologise for that. I was trying to address the issues that she and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, had raised as a whole.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that. I do not want to repeat myself, but if the Government are confident in this policy, and if they believe that their approach is producing results, what possible reason is there not to publish the data? The Minister mentioned many statistics that put the previous Government in what he described as a poor light. I could also cite statistics from the past year, but I will not do so; I have cited them before in this Chamber.

If the Government truly want to earn trust, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said, they should adopt this amendment without hesitation. They should put their money where their mouth is and be honest with us about how well the policy is performing. That is simply what we seek to do. The time for slogans has passed; the time for evidence, scrutiny and measurable success is now. I urge the Committee and the Government to reflect on these points but, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 20 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, I have not heard too many debates in which your Lordships have moaned about the lack of lawyers participating, but we have listened to two people who claim not to be experts.

I will touch on Clause 13 in the context of Amendment 36 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. This is really a question for the Minister: I do not understand Clause 13(3)(b), which is the “reasonable excuse” related to whether the individual concerned was

“acting on behalf of an organisation which … aims to assist asylum-seekers, and … does not charge for its services”.

That is an extraordinarily widely drawn and unqualified reasonable excuse ground.

It would certainly help me and may even be of assistance to the broader Committee if the Minister could give a couple of examples of the types of scenario envisaged and could provide some reassurance that this is not too broadly drawn as an area to provide a reasonable excuse. I genuinely do not know and do not have a particular view about that, but, on the face of it, without further qualification, it seems to be very broadly drawn. I look forward to the Minister’s explanation.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, the Opposition Front Bench’s view on this is that we side with my noble friend Lord Jackson on the group of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. At their core, as others have said, the amendments would rewrite the structure of the offence in Clause 13 by placing the burden of proof for the test of reasonable excuse squarely on the prosecution. The implications of the change would be significant—I will come back to the law in a moment—as it would dilute the seriousness with which we treat those who are convicted of supplying articles for use in immigration crime.

Let us be absolutely clear about what Clause 13 addresses. It addresses the supply of forged documents, false identity papers and materials designed to facilitate illegal entry into the UK. Those are not minor infractions; they are serious crimes that underpin the business models of trafficking gangs, enable the circumvention of border controls and directly endanger lives. In such cases, it is entirely appropriate that, if an individual is found supplying such items, it should be for them to demonstrate that they had a legitimate reasonable excuse.

I would suggest—it has been some time since I practised criminal law—that that is not some obscure or novel principle. Of course, the usual legal position is that it is for the prosecution to prove the elements of the crime. But it is not unusual to reverse the burden of proof on to an accused in some circumstances. It reflects well-established frameworks in other serious areas of law, most notably in the Misuse of Drugs Act, in firearms legislation and in the Companies Act, where it is for an accused director to prove that all reasonable steps have been taken to avoid committing an offence.

In legislation on firearms and the misuse of drugs, the burden of establishing a lawful or innocent reason rests with the person accused of being in possession of or supplying the prohibited article. So, this is not an unusual path to take, and to shift the burden back to the prosecution, as these amendments would do, would make it harder to secure convictions, weaken the deterrent effect of the law and send precisely the wrong message at a time when we face record levels of illegal entry and organised criminal facilitation across our borders.

The public expect us to ensure that the law acts as a meaningful deterrent to those who seek to undermine it. This group of amendments would not do that. It would make it easier for those facilitating unlawful entry to escape liability and place an unnecessary an inappropriate burden on prosecutors, who are already contending with highly complex cases. Let us not forget that those convicted of supplying articles for use in immigration crime are not passive actors but deliberate enablers of lawbreaking. To demand that the prosecution proves not only 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.

This goes to the heart of the problem that we have debated all afternoon: the people we are talking about are organised criminals who make money by endangering the lives of those they profess to help. It is not the time to rewrite what is, in my view, a long-standing legal norm in a way that would weaken enforcement. It is time to uphold the seriousness of the crime and ensure that our legal tools are effective in tackling it.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, this has again been a useful discussion, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for tabling the amendments to allow it. I confess I find myself in a strange position before the Committee where I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, said and much of what the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, said from the Front Bench. In fact, I wondered whether they had a secret leaked copy of some of my notes, because the points they made are extremely important and vital.

I shall start with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. He asked whether someone would be arrested on a beach in France because they rolled up with a dinghy. I assure him, and I hope he will know this from his police experience, that, in practice, these will be intelligence-led, targeted investigations by authorities as a whole of those suspected of being connected with organised crime networks involved in people smuggling and criminal activity. It is not the intention of this Bill that authorities would turn up on a beach in France, find someone paddling in the sea with a recreational leisure facility and arrest them. It would be a targeted approach, which backs up the points that the noble Lords, Lord Jackson and Lord Cameron, made. It is about tackling organised criminals.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel]

30: Clause 13, page 7, line 8, after “supply” insert “or has in their possession with intent to supply”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would also include possession with intent to supply in the offence of supplying articles for use in immigration crime.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, the two amendments in this group are to do with expanding two of the offences in the Bill as drafted. The Bill criminalises only the supply or offer to supply articles for use in immigration crime but fails to cover what is often a critical precursor to that act—the possession of such articles with intent to supply. My amendment seeks to address what we say is a clear loophole in the Bill.

If someone is found holding forged documents, counterfeit passports, boat parts or other materials commonly used to facilitate illegal entry with the clear intention of supplying them to others, that is not innocent behaviour; it is preparatory, deliberate and deeply harmful to the integrity of our immigration system. We do not accept this kind of gap in legislation dealing with drug offences or the possession of firearms. Section 5 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, for example, criminalises possession with intent to supply controlled drugs. If we do not accept such gaps in other legislation, we should not accept them here.

The Government have talked up their expansion of border security powers, and the Prime Minister has spoken of providing counterterrorism-style powers. If so, all possible loopholes in these offences should be closed. If we are serious about disrupting organised networks and cracking down on those who profit from unlawful immigration, the law must allow us to intervene before the supply takes place, not simply after the fact. Amendment 30 would therefore simply bring the offence in Clause 13 into alignment with other similar offences. It aims to strengthen the clause and close the loophole.

The other amendment I propose to the offences regarding articles for use in immigration crime is Amendment 39. This amendment is intended to help the Government by strengthening the offence in this clause. It looks to close another loophole that could permit smuggling gangs to escape conviction. The effect of this amendment would be to expand the offence of handling articles for use in immigration crime to cover a crucial additional scenario—namely, where a person arranges for one person to receive a relevant article from a third party. That may seem like a small change, but it would address a significant gap.

The current law targets those who receive, arrange to receive, remove or dispose of such articles themselves, or who assist another person to remove or dispose of relevant articles. They are rightly included in the nature of the offence in the Bill. But, as it stands, were a person to arrange for two other people to exchange a relevant article, the person who organised such an exchange could escape liability. Therefore, they would not be liable for criminal penalty, despite clearly being a at the heart of the offence committed.

This is particularly important given that, in the world of organised immigration crime, individuals often seek to insulate themselves by arranging exchanges between others, keeping their own hands clean while remaining the central co-ordinator, and often beneficiary, of criminal activity. This amendment would simply ensure 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 the criminal networks profiting from illegal migration, we must be prepared to legislate against the full chain of facilitation and not just the visible ends of it. I respectfully submit that the Minister should think carefully now about these kinds of loopholes that the Government risk creating in the legislation, which can be easily identified if a practical operational perspective is taken. I hope he accepts these amendments, and I beg to move.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for speaking to the amendments tabled by him and the noble Lord, Lord Davies. The purpose behind these two amendments is to ensure that those who possess an item believed or suspected to be used in immigration crime, and those who arrange or facilitate the supply of an article for immigration crime, fall into the scope of the offence.

On Amendment 30, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, made some salient points about other offences currently on the statute book. In a spirit of openness and wanting to listen to noble Lords, the Home Office would be happy to take this issue up with operational partners to scope whether it would be a worthwhile addition to the Bill. We are certainly serious about using this legislation, as my noble friend the Minister said, to crack down on smuggling gangs. This could potentially be a helpful addition to the Bill, but for now I request that the amendment be withdrawn, and we will update the House further on the matter later in the Bill’s passage.

We are sympathetic to the motivation behind Amendment 39, but I can confirm that arranging the supply of an article relevant to the proposed offence would fall under the clause as drafted. It might be described as “brokering” or “offering to supply”. Either Clause 13(1)(a) or 14(1)(a) are considered wide enough to cover this activity since, for example, an offer to supply would have been made in the scenario that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, outlined, as the individual would be supplying or offering to supply an item that they knew or suspected was for use in immigration crime. I hope that is clear and, while thanking the noble Lord for tabling the amendments—and indeed agreeing with the sentiment and motivation behind them—I respectfully reject Amendment 39 as unnecessary and ask him to permit further time for Amendment 30 to be considered.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Katz, for his speech. It has been a long afternoon and I feel that, at the very end of it, I have made a tiny step of progress. 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 the realities of how organised immigration crime actually works. I will say no more about Amendment 30.

On Amendment 39, I just ask the noble Lord, as he has offered, to think about it carefully. It is critical, we say, to cover the organisers, the co-ordinators, those who sit above the exchange itself and arrange for others to carry it out. They often avoid direct handling precisely because they know that the law can be weak when it comes to intermediaries, and we cannot allow them to exploit that weakness. The amendment is grounded in the operational reality of how trafficking and smuggling networks function, but I am very grateful for the indications that he has given and, for those reasons, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 30 withdrawn.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate today, over the course of this evening. The Bill’s focus, as the Minister stated at the outset, is illegal or irregular migration. I am grateful to him for laying out the rationale and context for the Bill, though I depart from him on much of the substance.

I particularly commend the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Harper. Given his long and distinguished career in the other place, as well as his time in government—as an Immigration Minister at one point—it is perhaps unsurprising that his excellent speech today was both illuminating and incisive. I for one look forward to many more contributions from him in the years ahead.

This debate has made for a stimulating and wide-ranging discussion on one of the most important areas of responsibility for any Government: the control of our borders. That phrase is an interesting one, because it was only at the weekend that we heard a member of the Government admitting that the UK has lost control of our borders. This was a startling admission from the Secretary of State for Defence, no less, on a weekend that saw the highest daily total of arrivals this year—1,195 people on 19 boats—and the fourth highest figure ever recorded.

However, I admire this frankness—we need to be frank. We need unflinching candour, as my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough put it so elegantly. Controlling our borders is fundamental to our national security and to our integrity as a sovereign nation. Despite the decades of peace and globalisation we have all experienced over the last 80 years, it remains the first and foremost duty of any Government. We also need to recognise that controlling our borders is a way in which we define, sustain and protect our national identity, not just our national security.

I mentioned the events of the last weekend, because the situation we are seeing now is dire. Small boat crossings are up 30% on last year, and since this Government were elected last July, the numbers have increased. Almost 37,000 people crossed the channel in small boats in 2024. Of those who arrived that year, more than 23,000 did so after the election.

For all the condemnation we have heard tonight of the Rwanda Act, let us not pretend that the last year under the current Government has been anything other than a resounding failure in terms of illegal crossings. The gangs, self-evidently, have not been smashed.

This situation is untenable, but it is also, tragically, costing lives. The UN estimates that at least 78 migrants died in 2024, making it the deadliest year on record. It says that at least 225 migrants have lost their lives when attempting to cross since 2018. This is an unlawful route of entry into the UK, overseen by gangsters, that is, tragically, taking its toll of human life. That is why, among many other matters, we have to deter people from making this journey. None of this should be controversial.

I am sure that I am joined by noble Lords from across the House when I say that it is incumbent on the Government as a matter of supreme urgency to introduce measures which are courageous, bold and definitive enough to stop this level of illegal migration from happening. With regret, I do not believe the legislative proposals we have before us will achieve this.

Given the scale of the problems we face, I hope the Government will seriously consider the many concerns that have been raised today by those who have called for more stringent measures. My noble friend Lord Davies of Gower outlined many of these issues in his opening speech.

In a moment, I will concentrate on some specific points where we believe there are significant problems with the Bill, but before I do so, I would like to address its context; namely, the provisions which are designed largely to undo the work of the last Government in terms of the Illegal Migration and safety of Rwanda Acts.

It is unsurprising that a new Administration will seek to undo some of the policies of their predecessor of a different political hue—that is democratic politics, after all. But let us be clear about the reality of what this will actually mean. It will mean that the Home Secretary is no longer duty-bound to make arrangements to remove illegal migrants to their home country or a safe country; it will mean that some illegal migrants are allowed to obtain British citizenship; and it will mean that asylum seekers will no longer be treated as over 18 if they refuse to take a scientific age assessment.

Those are just a few of the reasons why we believe the Bill will not succeed. If you were contemplating an illegal crossing into the UK, would a degree of protection from removal, British citizenship, and a bypass of age checks make you more or less likely to attempt the trip as an illegal migrant? More likely, of course.

As my noble friend Lord Goschen said, it is important to ask why people try to come to the UK illegally. The answer to that lies in part in the provisions of the Bill, I contend. In removing these key provisions, the Government propose to replace them with new offences, which are one example, we say, of where technical measures simply will not work in practice. The Bill creates a new offence of selling and handling small boat parts for use in channel crossings. The Bill will also make it illegal to supply life jackets suspected of being for use by people-smuggling gangs and to supply forged ID documents. These are very specific, technical points.

However, simply as a matter of logic, criminalising such activity makes little sense. These supply chains are based in Europe. The boats are coming from France to the UK. The point at which the lifejackets, boats and any forged documents get to the UK is when they appear on the beaches where illegal migrants are landed—at which point, I am afraid, it is far too late. It may be that there is provision in the Bill for such offences to occur outside the UK, but the reality is that, by the time perpetrators are prosecuted, the boats will have arrived. In essence, the Government are proposing to tear up laws that created a direct disincentive to make the journey in the first place and replace them with a list of new offences, which in practice will operate only once migrants are already here.

Other problems with this Bill include the proposal for a new Border Security Commander. Despite the title, if we dig a little below the surface, as my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower said, we find that what the Government are actually proposing is a civil servant acquiring a redesignated role and, if I may add, a somewhat vague remit—and that is before we get to the potential for duplicating the work of the Small Boats Operational Command. This proposal does not appear to add value at present.

The Explanatory Notes for the Bill set out that the Border Security Commander will be responsible for setting the Government’s strategic priorities for border security. Surely that strategic priority is simple and can be stated in one sentence: stopping illegal migration and protecting our borders. The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary do not need a new agency or office to tell them this.

Does the Minister believe that, in addressing this issue, we need to take tougher steps to crack down on organised crime in this area? Would he support amendments that might be tabled in Committee to strengthen the powers of the Border Security Commander so that, when the Bill leaves this place, it proposes a cogent and effective office, able to tackle head on the crisis that we are discussing?

I turn to the importance of a deterrent and its absence from the Bill—a point that many noble Lords have made. We need to prioritise stopping people making the journey in the first place. As my noble friend Lord Lilley said—far more eloquently than I can—the only way we can address this problem is by creating a substantial and meaningful deterrent. If we want illegal migrants to stop coming, we must give them no reason whatever to want to come to the UK; otherwise, they will go to any lengths to circumvent even the strongest legal prohibitions.

The numbers I cited earlier show that people-smuggling gangs are circumventing the law as it stands already—and that is before the Government repeal large swathes of the last Government’s immigration legislation. Surely the Minister cannot be confident that this Bill contains a serious, coherent deterrent to people who are weighing up the decision to cross the channel. The changes proposed to citizenship and staying in the UK simply will not deter people who want to come here illegally. As my noble friend Lord Harper said, the Bill might lead to the removal of the Rwanda Act from the statute book but it contains no deterrent itself. This point was also made by my noble friends Lord Swire, Lord McInnes and Lord Horam, and others.

We have some suggestions for the Minister, which I hope he will consider seriously as we progress to Committee. I have suggested some of these policies already in the Chamber. The first is that we automatically deport anyone who arrives into our country via an illegal, unlawful route. We are a caring and considerate nation. People across this country have opened their homes and their family lives to refugees from Ukraine and Afghanistan. There are other successful resettlement schemes. We have safe and legal routes for people to seek asylum in our country, so we should not tolerate people skipping the queue by trying to enter illegally. The British people possess a profound compassion, but they also have a deep sense of fair play. When that kindness and fairness are exploited, we should not tolerate it—especially as it comes at the expense of people who do use legal, recognised routes to seek asylum.

Secondly, we propose that the Human Rights Act be disapplied from all immigration matters. This would prevent foreign nationals from exploiting our courts with tenuous human rights arguments designed to avoid deportation or exploit the asylum system. The Human Rights Act is of course designed to protect and uphold fundamental rights, but this is demonstrably not how it is used in matters of immigration. I speak as someone who, in a past life as a lawyer, has acted for asylum seekers. The Human Rights Act has been used to prevent the deportation of convicted foreign criminals. It is tying the hands of government and preventing the deportation of those who cause harm in our communities.

I note with interest what the current Government have said about the interpretation of Article 8 in immigration cases. There is an acceptance by the Home Secretary herself that the application of Article 8 of the convention raises significant concerns. Those who have little respect for fundamental rights should not be able to hide behind such rights when their actions catch up with them. This is a sensible proposal that will ensure that foreign criminals are no longer able to impose themselves on the communities they harm.

Finally, we on these Benches encourage the Government to adopt a legally binding annual cap on migration, voted on by Parliament. A measure that limits levels of migration requires political courage, as the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, stated. This would ensure that migration levels are determined by the British people through their elected representatives. For decades, the British people have demanded, and politicians have promised, dramatically lower immigration. For decades, successive Governments—and, of course, I freely accept that that includes the previous one—have not delivered. It is now time to deliver what the public want. We propose that the Government should be legally tied to a cap—a promise in law to control immigration in line with what communities up and down the country are telling us is their limit. I anticipate that the Minister will welcome a proposal of a cap. If he and the Government are confident that the measures in the Bill will reduce the numbers of people coming here illegally, making themselves accountable to the British people is surely something they will support.

To conclude, the debate has raised many interesting points. I am sure that we all agree that this is a profoundly serious issue and one that is of fundamental importance to people across the United Kingdom. The simple fact is that we need to stop people coming here illegally, and I do not believe, with respect to the Minister, that the proposals in the Bill will do that. We need a system closed to criminals and which is intolerant of those trying to exploit its structures and free to take the necessary steps to protect our borders and communities. More than anything, we need a forceful, effective deterrent to stop people coming here illegally in the first place.

We intend to push our proposals in Committee to make this a Bill that does deter illegal migrants. I look forward to working with noble Lords across the House as we progress to the first day in Committee. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this important debate.

Pensioners: Shoplifting

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, it is imperative that those working in shops, and retail workers in general, are protected in the face of significant levels of aggressive behaviour and violence in so-called kamikaze shoplifting raids. I know that the Government plan to bring in a new specific offence of assaulting retail workers. However, new laws like that work only when the police are there to enforce them. Can the Minister confirm that the number of new police officers entering the front line will be sufficient to help tackle the crime of shoplifting in general?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I shall say two things to the noble Lord, and I hope he can support the Government on this. We have put in an extra £1 billion of funding into policing this year, over and above what was in last year. We are funding 3,000 extra neighbourhood police officers this year. The plan is to fund 13,000 neighbourhood police officers over the course of this Parliament. I was Police Minister in 2010. In 2011, 20,000 police officers were lost, and that has had a big impact on capacity over that time. I say to the noble Lord that people who undertake violence and ram raids are criminal organised gangs and the police need to focus on that, but neighbourhood policing can also help in improving relationships and highlighting the fact that shop theft, be it one cup of coffee, a jar of coffee or a ram raid full of alcohol, meat and expensive products, is taken seriously by the police.

Immigration System

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, there is now a broad consensus that the Government’s immigration system is broken. Too many people are coming into and staying in the United Kingdom. This is affecting jobs. It is affecting people’s communities. It is a serious problem that requires a serious solution. It is disappointing that the White Paper we have before us is not such a solution. Knowing him a little better now, I am sure that in a few moments the Minister will stand up and speak about the legacy of the last Government. Let me save him some time. Let me point to the fact that in the other place, earlier this week, the Home Secretary herself praised Conservative policies when she noted that visa applications are down by 40%. This is a direct consequence of the policies introduced by the last Government, which came into force in April last year.

However, analysing the last Government’s record is yielding less and less for this Government as the months roll by. It is now almost a year since the current Government came into power. The migration numbers we are seeing are manifesting, and have manifested for many months, on their watch. In our view, the White Paper lacks ambition to make the tough decisions needed truly to take a hold on immigration numbers. Now is the time for courage, not halfway-house decisions that do not tackle the problem. Safeguarding British jobs, promoting cohesion in our communities and reshaping our immigration system to be fit for purpose must be prioritised. For instance, there is a refusal in the White Paper to define an annual cap on migration to be set and voted on in this Parliament. It is not enough, in our view, simply to hope that numbers will come down. If the Government are confident that they can get the numbers down in considerable amounts, will the Minister push for a cap to be set out in law?

I am sure we will discuss this in more detail when the borders Bill is debated here in the next few months, but it was disappointing that the Government refused to support our amendments in the other place designed to disapply the Human Rights Act from immigration matters. Does the Minister agree that to tackle this issue properly that needs to happen? The same could be said for changes to visa thresholds. The previous Government planned to increase the visa salary threshold from £29,000 to £38,700. This was due to come into force on 1 April, but the Government delayed this policy, missing the opportunity to bring the numbers down with a measure that was projected to lower immigration numbers by 300,000 people. Will the Minister consider adopting that policy and raising the visa salary threshold for family visas to £38,700?

Immigration matters deeply to people across the country. The proposals we have before us are, I am sure, well intentioned, but they simply do not go far enough. Until the Government start considering the proposals that I have just set out, the White Paper we have before us will not deliver the changes that people across this country want to see and which the Government have a responsibility to bring about.

Telecommunications Fraud: Reimbursement of Victims

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, fraud of this kind targets some of the most vulnerable people in our society and causes considerable emotional as well as material harm. Given that 70% of fraud in the UK either originates overseas or has an international link, can the Minister update the House on how the Government are working with other countries to make sure that those abroad who are targeting people in this country are stopped?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Absolutely; that is an extremely valuable point. Again in the upcoming fraud strategy, we will look at a number of countries from which fraud emanates. We have put just under £1 million into supporting the United Nations conference on this very issue, which will be held next year; the UK is leading the charge on that. For those noble Lords who may have missed me, a couple of weeks ago I spent four days in Nigeria dealing with the Nigerian Government and, with them, signing a charter to look at joint co-operation on fraud that emanates from both our country and theirs collectively; that is the first of a number of charters and codes of practice that we will look at with other countries. This is an extremely important point: there are certain areas from which fraud emanates very strongly. We need an international response to what is an international criminal gang operation.

Female Genital Mutilation

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. One of the key things we need to do is ensure that those people who perpetrate FGM and encourage others to do so are held to account. That is why I again point to the prosecution figures and to the information collected by the National Health Service, because, again, someone only goes to the National Health Service when they have already been offended against. Those are both important issues, and the purpose of the policy study we are undertaking is to gather more information. Again, it is important that we have a proper definition of FGM and honour-based abuse. We are currently looking at that with other government departments to come to some conclusions in, I hope, the relatively near future.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, girls born in the UK in communities where FGM is commonplace face severe injury, long-term health complications and sometimes even death because of this abuse. As many have highlighted, it is almost impossible to detect because of the burden on victims to report it. I therefore ask the Minister: what specific steps have the Government taken to reach out to women in those communities where FGM is prevalent? How are Ministers working to safeguard women and girls and to effect a cultural change to ensure that this dangerous and illegal practice is stopped?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. First of all, this is a crime. As it is a crime, if it is reported it will be acted on, and if evidence is collected the CPS will prosecute. We need to ensure that we increase the level of prosecutions. The noble Lord asked about the help we are giving to people who may be involved. This is not a political point, because his Government supported it as well, but the Home Office has for many years funded Karma Nirvana’s national helpline. We have committed £215,000 for this current year, 2024-25; obviously, we continue to look at that support. It is important that people come forward and report FGM to the health service and the police. If they do so, we need to look at how we can improve those prosecution rates to make sure that offenders are brought to justice.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel]

15: Clause 7, page 5, line 41, leave out from beginning to “prepared” and insert “within six months of it being”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the document prepared under this clause to be provided to the Security Industry Authority within six months of it being prepared.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

Amendment 15 seeks to enhance the efficiency of providing documents to the SIA. It was debated in Committee and offers a small but practical improvement to the Bill. I hope that I can be brief.

The amendment would introduce a clear requirement for the document to be provided to the SIA within six months of it being prepared, rather than

“as soon as is reasonably practicable”.

It would help to ensure timely and structured reporting and to prevent unnecessary delays in the implementation of security measures. A six-month time limit would simply provide a definitive timescale and an end date, which would bring clarity and certainty and be a helpful addition.

I will also briefly introduce Amendments 18 and 32, in the name of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower—without, of course, stealing his thunder. These important amendments address the need for greater oversight of the SIA. Amendment 18 seeks to establish an advisory board to support and guide its work, and Amendment 32 proposes an independent review panel to assess its performance. Both measures would help to ensure that the SIA remains accountable and thus responsive to emerging threats. More broadly, I hope that the Minister accepts that all the amendments in this group seek to improve the quality of the legislation, and I look forward to hearing his response in due course.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for moving his amendment, and I welcome him to the Front Bench. This is the first time we have had a debate with him as the shadow Home Affairs Minister, and I welcome him to his post and wish him as much success as I possibly can, given the Government’s position and his own position on these issues.

Amendment 15 is important, as it looks at the question of the timeframe by which the compliance document must be submitted to the Security Industry Authority. As we have had previous debates on this issue, there are a number of points for me to make to the noble Lord. The document being provided to the Security Industry Authority will detail, among other things, the procedures and measures in place, under the provisions of the Bill, to comply with the Bill’s requirements. It is an important document, as it will enable the SIA to make any initial evaluation of the security approach at the premises or event in question, to engage with the person responsible and to assess compliance with the Bill’s requirements. As such, the document should be sent to the regulator at an early stage, as the noble Lord mentioned.

However, we have not stipulated in the Bill a single deadline for enhanced duty premises and qualifying events in scope, because the Bill applies to a wide variety of such premises and events, from long-established department stores to potential pop-up events. Some will require little change to their security approach, whereas others might need to make a substantive change, or, in the case of certain events, may have long or short lead-in times. The Government therefore determined that the document should be provided as soon as is reasonably practical.

If we accept the noble Lord’s amendment and have an imposed blanket deadline of six months, following completion across enhanced duty premises and qualifying events, this could hinder the SIA’s ability to monitor compliance and provide advice. It may result in out-of-date or inaccurate documents being provided. Depending on the circumstances, the SIA submission may be delayed until very close to the deadline, which is not necessarily the best way to do business. I understand where the noble Lord is coming from—he wants to give that certainty—but I cannot accept the amendment today.

We had an extensive discussion about Amendment 18 in Committee. I refer back to the two public consultations on this legislation, the engagement that both the previous Government and the current Government have had with hundreds of trade organisations and industry bodies, and the work with relevant stakeholders, existing regulators, security partners and local government. That was all about how we can put this legislation in place effectively.

In its current role, the SIA already works with industry, local authorities and civil society. Those working relationships will not end with Royal Assent; the Home Office will build on its existing work to ensure that the SIA is fit for purpose. As I have said before, Royal Assent is the start of a process, of potentially two years or more, of implementation. The amendment would place the burden of a statutory duty on the Secretary of State and, for that reason, I cannot support it, although I again understand where the noble Lord is coming from.

On Amendment 32, I hope that I can assure noble Lords that Clause 12 has been drafted to ensure appropriate oversight by the Secretary of State, with checks and balances on the SIA to ensure that regulation is being delivered as the Home Office intends. The SIA produces annual reports, which will, following Royal Assent, both encompass its regulatory function and provide transparency.

The Secretary of State will continue to appoint board members when required and will be held accountable, in this House and the other place, for those board members. The Secretary of State will make sure that there is significant expertise in the SIA to ensure effective regulation and organisational change, and that it will work closely with business. The Secretary of State will have the power to give directions to the SIA when necessary if they so wish. The Government will therefore be able to ensure that the legislation is being implemented as intended. I know that both the noble Lord and shadow Ministers in the House of Commons will question the SIA and hold it to account, and potentially have debates about the progress of this legislation.

If we were to have, as is proposed, an independent review panel, it would add an extra level of bureaucracy. As I have set out, the Secretary of State has robust powers and oversight to ensure that the SIA manages its responsibilities accordingly. Therefore, I am ashamed to say that, yet again, I reject the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and ask the House, if he presses them, to reject them accordingly. If the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, wishes me to give way, I certainly will.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I fully expect to publish the outcome of those reviews. I give the noble Lord an assurance that this Government will continue that practice and will publish those reviews in the event of them taking place in the timescale he mentioned for the SIA. With that, I hope that he can respond positively and that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, can withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very generous words of welcome. I look forward to working with him—and, occasionally, against him—in future. I listened very carefully to what he said, and I do not intend to take Amendment 15 further. However, it remains my view that accountability and oversight should not be seen as bureaucratic hurdles; they are fundamental to ensuring that security measures are properly implemented and continuously improved. I make it clear that I do not plan to press Amendment 15, so I respectfully beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment 15 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel]

19: Clause 16, page 12, line 32, at end insert—
“(8) Where the Tribunal has been unable to determine the appeal within a reasonable time the Tribunal must—(a) consider ordering that the notice or variation (as the case may be) is of no effect until the appeal is determined or withdrawn, and(b) notify the applicant of the outcome of the Tribunal’s consideration under this subsection.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Tribunal to consider whether a notice should be ordered to be of no effect in circumstances where the Tribunal has been unable to determine the appeal within a reasonable time.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 19, which is tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, I will speak also to Amendments 20 and 23, in the name of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower. Amendment 19 would require the tribunal to consider whether a notice should be ordered to be of no effect in circumstances where the tribunal has been unable to determine the appeal within a reasonable time. That is the context for the amendment.

The fundamental background behind this amendment is that the SIA will issue notices; we do not know how many, at this stage, but there is a strong likelihood that they will be appealed in significant numbers. This will likely be a major additional burden on the First-tier Tribunal, raising questions on capacity and speed of response. It is also right to say that many of the regulated persons are responsible for events with a hard deadline, which carries with it financial and operational consequences. How will events deal with a situation where their appeal is lodged with a tribunal but no determination has been made in a reasonable time?

Amendment 19 seeks to prevent people being left in limbo. It would follow Clause 16(7), which allows the tribunal to decide that an order is of no effect until the appeal concludes, and it should be read in that context. In that sense, Amendment 19 is simply an additional protection for those organising events if, for whatever reason, the tribunal has simply not been able to determine the appeal within a reasonable timeframe. I hope the Minister understands the reasons behind this amendment, and I am keen to hear his response.

I will speak more briefly on Amendments 20 and 23, in the name of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower. Amendment 20 seeks to extend the grace period from 28 to 42 days. This is a practical adjustment: compliance with new regulations takes time and, while security must remain a priority, we must recognise the operational realities faced by businesses, charities and community groups. A slightly longer grace period provides a fairer timeframe for implementing necessary measures without imposing undue pressure. An additional 14 days is a reasonable and fair addition of extra time.

Finally, Amendment 23, again tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower, calls for local authorities to be consulted. Local authorities are on the front line of implementing security measures under the Bill, and their insight and expertise should be taken into account. Consultation will ensure that security policies are practical, properly resourced and, critically, aligned with local needs. Effective counter- terrorism measures require co-operation at all levels and this amendment strengthens that collaborative approach. I look forward to hearing the Minister in reply.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 21, 22, 24 and 26. I am sure we all know how important volunteers are in the way our society works. Across the country, many vital community venues are run on our behalf by volunteers who give up hours and hours of their time to help run community enterprises—for example, village halls and community centres. I am also sure that noble Lords will have found that it is getting more and more difficult to persuade people to take on voluntary roles and responsibilities. It is very much harder to persuade people into senior voluntary roles, particularly if those roles carry with them personal risk to that volunteer, either of financial liability or criminal liability.

As I have made clear in previous debates on this legislation, I am very concerned that this Bill will unintentionally have a significant negative impact on members of our community volunteering. By Amendments 21, 22, 24 and 26, I seek to ensure that voluntary unpaid officeholders and unpaid trustees are exempt from the personal and criminal liability under Clauses 24, 25 and 26 of the Bill, provided, of course, that they have acted without wilful misconduct or gross negligence.

As I observed in Committee, when this Bill was considered in draft by the Home Affairs Select Committee, it heard evidence about the impact of these proposed measures on community volunteering. The committee, under the then chairmanship of Dame Diana Johnson, reported in July 2023 and said this in paragraph 39:

“However, we are concerned that the capacity figure of 100 for standard tier premises, which will capture some small and micro-sized businesses, and community-run and voluntary groups, could be disproportionate and burdensome. This category is particularly troubling because it would include many smaller venues that may not have sufficient resources to cover costs of what is proposed. It would also cover village halls, places of worship and similar amenities that provide vital community support, often on low budgets. If such places are forced to close down, this represents a win for terrorism, rather than an effective means of combatting it”.


I could not have put it better myself.

In light of this and other representations, the present Government increased the threshold from 100 to 200, and I commend them for doing that, but that increase is no sufficient answer to the problems that have been raised. I remain concerned that, with the effect of the measures in the Bill—on top of the other measures facing volunteers across our community, which we heard so ably outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in an earlier group—there is a risk that we will have fewer volunteers and volunteer leaders, which may mean wide- scale closures of village halls and community centres up and down our country.

It is clear to me that the effect of the measures in the Bill as it presently stands runs the serious risk that the new liabilities in the Bill will reduce the appetite for members of the public to step forward and volunteer. This is, in any event, in an era when public involvement in these sorts of institutions is waning. It is important that the Government do not make it harder and harder to be a volunteer or a trustee of these institutions.

The amendments that I propose here are directed to removing the worst of the disincentives for people to volunteer. The way Amendment 21 works, as the House will have seen, is to remove the risk that a volunteer or unpaid trustee would be held personally liable for financial penalties imposed under Clause 17, provided that they were acting at all times in good faith and within the scope of their duties.

Amendment 22 would exclude a voluntary unpaid officeholder or unpaid trustee from the daily penalties, described in the Bill as being up to £500 a day. I suggest that that sort of measure is a powerful disincentive to people to volunteer, due to the risk of their own personal liability for these sums.

Amendment 24 would exempt volunteers, unpaid officeholders and unpaid trustees from criminal liability, provided again that they have acted without wilful misconduct or gross negligence. I hope the House will agree that it is a significant disincentive to volunteering to think that you face, on a cursory reading of the Bill, the risk of up to two years in prison for failing to adhere to the strictures of the regulations made under the Bill.

I appreciate that, as the Minister will no doubt tell the House, these criminal powers will be used only rarely and are a maxima, and I am sure all that is right. However, the fact is, if it is in the statute, it will act as a disincentive to volunteers. People will not want to be the responsible person, because they will not want to take the risk of going to prison.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I was surprised at the last stage by the amendment requiring the tribunal to issue a determination within a reasonable time, as defined by the Secretary of State, because it seemed to me that that was an inappropriate combination or eliding of the roles of the judiciary and the Executive. That was not pressed, but this amendment seems to me to be on the same page.

Others will have experience of the courts staying an order—I mean professional experience—but I understand that to be part of proceedings in a lower court. As I read Amendment 19, it would require an extra stage in the proceedings, presumably a hearing on an application that the time before determining an appeal is unreasonable, and so a further addition to the tribunal’s load and further delay. We cannot support that amendment.

On Amendment 20, having to pay within 28 days does not seem to me to be excessive penalisation, which is the wording used in the Member’s explanatory statement. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, talked of a grace period being aligned with similar penalties. The Minister disagreed and made the point that 28 days is a minimum.

The penalty will not come out of the blue in most cases, as I understand it. The SIA has to be satisfied that there has been, or will be, a contravention. Unless the responsible person has refused, or completely failed, to engage with the SIA, there will have been a dialogue.

With regard to volunteers, of course we are with the noble Lord on not disincentivising volunteers, but I do not think this is the first or only time that volunteers have been faced with or have had to think about the responsibilities laid on them as volunteers, particularly if they are trustees of charities. There are a lot of rules that have to be observed by them.

The Bill, in any event, is about taking precautions appropriate to the premises or to the event. The distinction between the operators—volunteers or paid—is surely irrelevant. I doubt terrorists would make that distinction. As we have been reminded today, the Conservative Government were proposing 100 as a threshold. That would have meant a greater problem, as the noble Lord defines it. We are, I am afraid, not able to support those amendments.

With regard to Amendment 23, Clause 20(2) allows for the SIA to consider “matters it considers relevant”, which presumably will include the local authority’s view. Having specifically to obtain the local authority’s view seems to be another bit of bureaucracy in certain cases. If it is relevant, it will be considered, and provision is made for that.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions, particularly those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and my noble friend Lord Murray.

I turn briefly to the amendments. My noble friend Lord Murray dealt with the treatment of volunteers and spoke eloquently about the principle that volunteers acting in good faith should not be subject to financial penalties, criminal liability or civil liability. He made the point that volunteers play a vital role in many public and community settings, often stepping forward to help in times of crisis. To penalise those who act voluntarily and in good faith would be both unfair and counterproductive. If the Bill is to encourage a culture of shared responsibility for public protection, it must also offer reasonable protections to those who contribute to that effort, and volunteers should not be deterred from assisting by fear of punitive measures. Those amendments strike the right balance by ensuring that only those who act negligently or with ill intent are held responsible.

On Amendment 19, respectfully, I do not accept the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that this creates an additional court process. The Bill already contains a mechanism in Clause 16(6) and (7) for rendering a notice as having no effect, and Amendment 19 would simply add another scenario to that. Taken together, I suggest these amendments improve the Bill and I urge the Government to accept them.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the amendments. I will try to run through them and do them justice in as short order as I can.

On Amendment 19, first, I do not consider it necessary to require in the Bill that the tribunal consider suspending a notice where it has been unable to determine an appeal within a reasonable time. The tribunal is already subject to relevant tribunal procedures. The Bill makes provision for the tribunal to consider whether a notice of variation should, in effect, be put in place pending the outcome of an appeal. The Bill gives the right of appeal to such a notice, which, while not automatic, allows the tribunal to make an order to suspend its effect pending the appeal’s determination. I hope that addresses the issues in Amendment 19.

Amendment 20 talks about the penalty period being within 28 days from the date of a penalty notice being issued. I reassure the House that the period of 28 days, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, a is minimum period that the SIA may specify, and it may therefore specify any number of days post that 28-day period. I hope, on that basis, that the flexibility for the SIA on the 28-day period is acceptable.

I fully understand why we have had this debate on a number of occasions: we have been round this at Second Reading, in Committee and now on Report. It is because it is a valid issue to raise. We want to ensure that we encourage volunteers to continue to meet their responsibilities, and I understand that there are concerns, which have been expressed today by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, about the liability of voluntary officeholders and unpaid trustees. The Government are mindful of the pressures that voluntary and community-run organisations face. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester endorsed those pressures, and I understand, having been voluntary trustee on a number of small bodies myself, where noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate are coming from. Again, I go back to the requirements of Clause 5. The requirements are there to achieve public protection outcomes; they are not there to put disproportionate burdens on trustees or, indeed, organisations.

As to the consultation, the Government have increased the threshold from 100 to 200 to ensure that we take out a number of smaller bodies. An estimated 13% of village halls and 10,000 community centres have been taken out of scope by that change to the threshold. We are trying to ensure that these are voluntary, simple measures that will require no specific expertise. I understand and accept that in some cases, that could put people off, but would it do so more than any other legislation? Health and safety legislation, for example, could put people off. This is meant to be a simple measure in Clause 5 that allows individuals to undertake, and to do so in a way that meets the obligations but does not discourage volunteering.

Turning to Amendments 21 and 22, under the Bill, penalties can only be issued for non-compliance with the requirement, and daily penalties can be issued only where a penalty notice for a contravention has been issued. Again, I would hope that, in the first instance, if there is any contravention, the SIA will be there to provide guidance, support and help for individuals and organisations to meet their responsibilities, which, I reiterate, are relatively low under the provisions of Clause 5.

Turning to Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, there are limited circumstances in the Bill where an individual would be liable for an offence committed by a body in connection with failure to comply with a requirement. That will happen and apply only to certain persons in control, and again, it is an offence to fail to comply with compliance or restriction notices only in relation to enhanced duty premises and qualifying events. The offence is therefore less likely to be implemented against village halls or community premises in any event. Again, it is our intention, as it has been all the way through the Bill—and I reiterate that in respect of Amendment 26—that a civil claim for breach of statutory duty may not be brought against an individual. I hope the House will accept those reassurances.

There are limited proposals in Clause 5. There are responsibilities for a responsible person, but they are not ones on which we do not seek guidance and advice from the SIA in the event of non-compliance. Prosecution would be the very last resort in any particular instance. That applies equally, as I mentioned, to other amendments, including Amendment 23. I hope those reassurances will allow noble Lords not to press the amendments.

The implementation period of, potentially, two years, the guidance issued by the SIA, the reviews we have put in place, and the assurance I gave the noble Lord, Lord Murray, on the last set of amendments—that any review of implementation would be published and open to scrutiny—will, I hope, give noble Lords the reassurances they sought in tabling the amendments.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

Having been prematurely enthusiastic, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 19.

Amendment 19 withdrawn.