Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 26th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Rooker]

6: Clause 3, page 2, line 28, after “threats,” insert “including the threats posed to the biosecurity of the United Kingdom by illegal meat imports,”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Border Security Commander, to have regard to the threats posed to UK biosecurity by illegal meat imports.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, the explanation of the amendment makes its intention clear, and so I will not take very long.

I do not say that this amendment is a leftover—far from it—but, back in May, the NFU operated a very successful campaign on the need for greater biosecurity in the country, and there was an attempt to put this issue when the Bill was in the Commons. I think it simply was not selected and so there was no opportunity for it to be debated. I offered to do the necessary to get it raised here.

For an island nation like us, biosecurity is national security—it is as simple as that. We are in the same position as New Zealand, if one is looking for a comparable need for biosecurity. Our exports at the moment amount to about £9 billion of animal and plant products, and that very much relies on our reputation. We have had a few problems in the past, but our reputation is very good. The recent foot and mouth outbreak in Germany, Hungary and Slovakia is a stark reminder that it has not gone away. The consequences of failure at the border would be catastrophic for UK food producers, not just the 44,000 farmers.

Using the Bill to clarify that biosecurity is an element of border security—which is what I am asking my noble friend to do—is quite important. We look to strengthen the deterrence against and penalties for those engaged in border criminality, and to ensure, importantly, that all the agencies—the Border Force and the port health authorities—have the resources, legal powers, intelligence and political backing that they need. This is not a trivial issue, but it is not high in the political importance of colleagues in both Houses, particularly in the Government. We need to get it raised. We need to evaluate whether the current customs and inspection functions are fit for purpose. This is much needed.

I want to give a couple of examples. Since October 2022, more than 240 tonnes of illegal meat products have been seized at the Port of Dover alone. During the week commencing 6 January this year, 10 tonnes of illegal meat were intercepted and removed from the food chain. These volumes are not trivial. This will be meat that has probably not gone through official controls and has not had the hygiene care that is required. It is an ongoing threat.

Of particular concern is African swine fever—a disease with no cure or vaccine—which would cost the UK economy between £10 million and £100 million. The pig sector alone is worth £8 billion and would be severely impacted, with exports currently valued at £600 million facing greater restrictions. I have already mentioned the foot and mouth disease outbreak—the big outbreak in 2001, as opposed to the 2006 self-inflicted outbreak from the laboratory. The 2001 outbreak cost to the public sector was more than £3 billion and more than £5 billion to the private sector, including the culling of over 6 million animals. An outbreak today would devastate UK agriculture. In 2025, both African swine fever and foot and mouth disease have been detected in multiple countries across Europe.

Illegal meat is big money. The meat industry is a huge industry. It has been some years since I did any individual checking on it. Then, it was worth £6 billion—it is huge. In my experience in MAFF, Defra and the Food Standards Agency, it was one part of the food industry where there was always a willingness among certain sectors to cut corners. I had no problem with colleagues tightening up official controls. I know people complain about it, but there are plenty of people looking to make extra money with illegal meat.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Before my noble friend Lord Rooker responds, I again refer the noble Baroness to Clause 3(2). It says very clearly, and this is why it is generic, that:

“The Commander must from time to time issue a document (a ‘strategic priority document’) which sets out what, in the Commander’s view, are—


(a) the principal threats to border security when the document is issued, and


(b) the strategic priorities to which partner authorities should have regard in exercising their functions”.


That is a long-term proposal for a Border Security Commander to determine in the priority document that they are going to produce under this clause the strategic threats to border security. That would include, potentially, at any one time, biosecurity, cybersecurity, economic security and the issues of illegal immigration security that we are facing as a high priority at this moment.

I hope that Clause 3(2)(a) and (b) give the potential for that document to be produced. That document is going to be shared and discussed with the Home Secretary of the day. It will be produced later in an annual plan showing what is happening. That gives an opportunity for Members of both Houses to question, debate and discuss it at any time. If there was, for example, a glaring gap in biosecurity in that strategic document, it would be for Members of this House and the House of Commons to press Ministers on that. I am saying to Members today that it is a priority for the Government. It will be in the work of the Border Security Commander. The generic role set out in Clause 3(2) includes setting a strategic priority document.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to those who have contributed. As far as I am concerned, my noble friend has given a positive, clear, on-the-record response for which he can be held to account. That is what it is about. He has been quite clear, and he has not tried to shove it aside.

The amendment is about border security. In my remarks, I missed the opportunity, which I always try to take, to say that the unsung heroes of food safety in this country are environmental health officers. There is no question that they are unsung, and there are fewer of them than there used to be.

I want to close with one example of joined-up government, because it covers my noble friend’s position. My first role in this House was as a Home Office Minister. I had one year. Doing immigration, asylum and nationality was my day job, and the rest of the Home Office was the other bit. During that year, I spent one complete day at Gatwick and one complete day at Heathrow watching the transfer of particular flights that were coming in—they were the bushmeat flights. This was the Home Office in 2001, so we were joined up to that extent. They were both Saturdays. I am not going to mention the country the flights came from, but the result was that we slapped visas on them. The Home Office was aware of the situation because of what was being discovered, and it was thought appropriate that the Minister should have a Saturday there and a Saturday at the other place. I still occasionally read about people with bushmeat. I do not accept the cultural argument, by the way; it is out of bounds, as far as I am concerned. It is about food safety, it is illegal, and it is crucial that it is dealt with. The Home Office in 2001 proved that safety goes across government.

I understand that my noble friend is not even paid for the job he is doing at the moment, so I will not try to force him to spend a Saturday down at the airport, away from his family. He gave a first-class answer. I congratulate the NFU as well; I know that it pushed this issue, having started a campaign back in May to improve biosecurity. The more that we talk about it, the more likely we are to succeed in protecting the country. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 6 withdrawn.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Rooker Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the speeches on this Bill have probably been exhaustive. I make just one observation: it appears that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has had one pint too many as far as this debate is concerned.

This Bill turned out to be more exciting than its name promised. It has been an interesting process going through it. I thank the Ministers, the noble Lords, Lord Leong and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for their good humour—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, on that—their levels of engagement and the engagement from the Bill team and the political office, which helped us fashion this Bill. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, and their Back-Bench posse, for making the debates on this Bill so interesting. I also thank Cross-Benchers for their support, who made some important interventions.

Special thanks go to my noble friends Lady Brinton, Lord Foster and Lord Redesdale, and a big thank you to Adam Bull, who was our legislative support officer and supported us ably. Your Lordships have shown great interest during this debate in the affirmative process and legislative scrutiny, so I look forward to seeing all of you in Grand Committee when the statutory instruments arrive.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, so that we do not gloss over the constitutional aspects of this Bill, I remind my noble friend that, when he said that he appeared before the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee last October, that was the first time in the three years that I was a member of the committee that we ever summoned Ministers, because we were so disturbed by the Bill’s transfer of powers from Parliament to Ministers. I am very pleased to see the Attorney-General here, because it is his job to stop this kind of thing turning up in Bills. I am not blaming anybody for this one; it is early days and he has plenty of time to get going, but he must be firm that this Bill went too far. This has been debated before in this House. We have to watch it at our peril, because there has been a massive transfer in the last few years of powers from Parliament to Ministers, and it has gone too far.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I also thank the Minister and his officials for their considerable time, patience and responsiveness as we have raised issues during the Bill. I will briefly note three things.

I hope the Minister and his colleagues in the other place will look at Clause 1, because this Bill should be about product safety but does not mention it. It does not say that products should be safe, even though it repeals and replaces Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, which does. I hope they might still look at the purpose, so that Clause 1 says that one of the purposes should be that products should be safe, such that risks associated with their use are minimised or mitigated. That would be much clearer for those reading the Bill.

Regulated and Other Activities (Mandatory Reporting of Child Sexual Abuse) Bill [HL]

Lord Rooker Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I cannot speak too highly of the efforts of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson; they must be applauded. My intention is to raise a narrow aspect of the issue; namely, what has happened since 4 July last year.

I am not an expert and I do not recall anything like the present situation in my 27 years in the Commons. My interest and curiosity were alerted by a letter in the Times on 18 October last year from Richard Scorer and Kim Harrison, joint heads of abuse law at Slater and Gordon Lawyers UK. It pointed out that, in the two years from October 2022, nothing had been done regarding the IICSA report and there was no sign of the present Government addressing the failure. I therefore tabled a Written Question—HL1773—which was answered on 24 October by my noble friend Lord Hanson. It was an excellent Answer and full of empathy, but it did not say that the recommendations would be implemented. It said that the Home Office was working across government

“to identify how best to deliver against the recommendations … The lessons learned from”

the report

“will provide a fundamental basis for this work … and we hope to … get started … soon”.

I checked the King’s Speech, but there was no reference to it. I was aware of the First Reading of this Private Member’s Bill, so I parked it.

Then, earlier this month, Elon Musk raised the issue, doing so in a crude, misleading and immoral way. Initially, it was clear that he had no knowledge of the UK legal or parliamentary system, but that changed. He went directly for a Government Minister, Jess Phillips, who has an excellent record and now requires extra security. He went for the Prime Minister, who has not so far responded directly to Musk by name; even though an examination of his record as a prosecutor is excellent, he appeared to be pushed on to the back foot.

Musk has to be taken head on; he has massive weaknesses but is never seriously challenged. As Ian Hislop said in a recent interview, we should have cottoned on to how bad a person he was following the allegations he made towards those helping the young boys trapped in the Thailand caves in 2018. While the world went to help, Musk had no moral compass. It is strange that he failed to spot Jeffrey Epstein committing offences against young people in his own adopted country.

Ros Atkins, the BBC analysis editor, looked at 24 hours of Musk comments on Twitter on Monday 6 January—48% of the 153 posts were about the UK—and he found them wanting in accuracy. The conclusion was that Musk’s concern about grooming gangs does not extend to being truthful when discussing them. I am not at all clear why the Government are not being bold on Musk—turning the other cheek will not work.

Why was the IICSA report not in the King’s Speech? I asked our Library to check Hansard from both the Commons and the Lords, from 4 July to the end of December, on the issue of Professor Jay’s report. There are very few instances: a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood; a Question from Shaun Davies MP; a Question from me; and a Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. There have been other Questions on child sexual abuse relating to specific locations, the Church of England, devolution, the Met Police—but there were only four on the report.

The excellent Library staff also checked debates with a mention of the IICSA report. Speakers included the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester on the King’s Speech; the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in an Oral Question; the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, on the Second Reading of the home school education Bill; and the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, in the debate on social cohesion.

Those are the recorded questions. As to the answers, not a single one states clearly that the Government accept, and intend to implement, all 20 recommendations made by Professor Jay, between 4 July and the end of December. The same phrases—the line to take that I quoted earlier—are used throughout. They all avoid specific commitments; that is, until 6 January, when the Home Secretary made commitments to implement three key recommendations. I expect my noble friend the Minister to say something today about the other 17. It is crystal clear that urgent action on them—alongside more detailed inquiries, as called for by the MP for Rotherham, Sarah Champion—should take place.

The PM needs to boldly take on Musk by name and defend all his Ministers. Appeasement to a bully invites more bullying. This House supports and thanks the Minister for Safeguarding, Jess Phillips, for the excellent work she has done and is doing. The UK is not in a world-leading position on this issue, and we need to get there fast.