Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Swire Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 10th July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Swire]

102: After Clause 36, insert the following new Clause—
“Further provision as to biometric information(1) In the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 in section 141 (fingerprinting)—(a) in subsection (1), for “may” substitute “must”;(b) in subsection (7), before paragraph (a) insert—“(za) any person (“ZA”) who is not a British citizen but who is attempting to enter the United Kingdom;”;(c) in subsection (8), before paragraph (a) insert—“(za) for ZA, on his arrival at a port in the United Kingdom;”;(d) in subsection (9), before paragraph (a) insert—“(za) for ZA, when he leaves the port in which he entered the United Kingdom;”;(e) after subsection (9), insert—“(9A) An immigration officer or constable may arrest without warrant ZA if ZA does not comply with a request from an authorised officer to take fingerprints at ZA’s port of entry into the United Kingdom.”;(f) after subsection (15), insert—“(15A) In this section “port” has the same meaning as in section 4 of the UK Borders Act 2007.”. (2) The Immigration (Collection, Use and Retention of Biometric Information and Related Amendments) Regulations 2021 are amended as follows—(a) in regulation 2 (photographs)—(i) in paragraph (1) for “may” substitute “must”;(ii) in paragraph (7), before sub-paragraph (a) insert—“(za) any person (“ZA”) who is not a British citizen but who is attempting to enter the United Kingdom;”;(iii) in paragraph (11), before sub-paragraph (a) insert—“(za) for ZA, on his arrival at a port in the United Kingdom;”;(iv) in paragraph (12), before sub-paragraph (a) insert—“(za) for ZA, when he leaves the port in which he entered the United Kingdom;”;(v) after subsection (15), insert—“(15A) In this section “port” has the same meaning as in section 4 of the UK Borders Act 2007”;(vi) after paragraph (16), insert—“(17) An immigration officer or constable may arrest without warrant ZA if ZA does not comply with a request from an authorised officer to take fingerprints at ZA’s port of entry into the United Kingdom.”;(b) in paragraph (1) of regulation 3 (attendance to be photographed) for “may” substitute “must”.”

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, I very much hope that my Amendments 102 and 149 are in the spirit of what we are discussing this afternoon and, indeed, in the spirit of what the Government are attempting to do. I pray in aid both our earlier debate on the UK Government’s resilience action plan—I was in the Chamber when the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, was on the Front Bench for that—and the Government’s other document, the National Security Strategy 2025, which states in paragraph 14, among many other things, that we will:

“Expand our legal and law enforcement toolkit, to ensure the UK becomes a harder target for hostile state and non-state actors including criminal gangs engaged in illegal migration … Roll out a series of new measures to strengthen our borders, defend our territory and enhance the resilience of our critical national infrastructure”.


I concede that there are other parts of this document, but they all pretty much say the same thing:

“Security at home … Defend our territory … Make the UK a harder target”.


Under “Pillar (i)—Security at Home” in paragraph 1, it says:

“The first pillar of our Strategic Framework is to protect our people, bolster the security of our homeland and strengthen our borders against all types of threats, both in the physical and online space”.


In paragraph 3, it says:

“These multiple and interconnected threats require us to make ourselves a harder target to our adversaries. As a first step, the defence of our borders and territorial waters must be strengthened”.


Hear, hear to all that.

Then we come to the clauses in question and I find the drafting rather tentative, so my amendments seek to put a bit of muscle behind the Government’s intention. In proposed new subsection (1), my Amendment 102 would change “may” to must”, which would require immigration officers to take fingerprints from all people to whom that section applies. Section 141 applies to a person who does not present a passport at a port of entry, a person who has been refused leave to enter the UK and granted immigration bail, and any person who has been given a deportation order, among others. Currently, that too says only “may”, meaning that as things stand, as the legislation is proposed, the drafting suggests there is no requirement for immigration officers to collect this biometric information. My amendment would make it a duty to do so, in order to ensure an accurate collection of data.

Secondly, the amendment would add a new person to whom Section 141 applies, “ZA”. This is any person who wishes to enter the United Kingdom—visitors, tourists, all immigrants and any arrivals whatever. Proposed new subsection (2) in this amendment would amend the Immigration (Collection, Use and Retention of Biometric Information and Related Amendments) Regulations 2021 to require immigration officers to take photographs of every arrival into the United Kingdom. This is all about ensuring that we know who is entering the country and that we have an accurate record of every person who crosses our border. If that person then commits a crime while in the United Kingdom, the police would have their fingerprints and photograph on record to enable them to investigate and prosecute. I cannot see why the Government would be opposed to this, given everything that they have said so far today.

Amendment 149, the second amendment in my name, would amend the Immigration Act 1971 to insert two new sections. Proposed new Section 28IA would create new powers to seize identity documents from foreign criminals, asylum seekers, those awaiting deportation and those granted immigration bail. Immigration officers would be able to search for, seize and retain all such ID documents, and there are penalties within the amendment for those who do not comply, seek to falsify or misrepresent themselves. Proposed new Section 28IB states that immigration officers must give all the people they have seized this documentation from a new standard biometric government-issued identity card. This would be linked to the biometric information they have supplied, as laid out in Amendment 102. There is nothing very contentious or draconian there. It is just an attempt to garner the information we need to standardise that information and to have a better idea of who is in this country at any one time. I beg to move.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support the excellent amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Swire. I begin with a confession, which I think is shared by most of my colleagues on these Benches, that we were all whipped in 2006 or 2007 in the other place when in opposition to oppose identity cards. It was a period when there were serious concerns about the infringement on civil liberties of identity cards. Tony Blair, our former Prime Minister, got a lot of things wrong over the years, but he was absolutely right on identity cards. If I were to go back in time and vote again, I would support identity cards, for many reasons. We are talking almost 20 years ago and the world has changed significantly in terms of transnational travel, patterns of serious organised crime, and the challenges of large numbers of people moving across the world, a minority of whom are doing so for nefarious reasons and for criminal enterprises.

The Minister knows that I have great respect for him. I know he serves in the greatest tradition of patriots in the Labour Party who have served in government and he wants to do his best to protect our borders and the safety and security of our country. However, we can no longer have these slightly erudite debates about ID cards and civil liberties when we have so many huge challenges, particularly the threat of Islamist terrorism and other serious organised crime. If we look abroad, we see that other countries have taken this very seriously as well, including many English-speaking countries: Australia, Canada, New Zealand and of course the United States. What bedevils us is the lack of co-ordination and collaboration in terms of sharing data.

I have been nice about the Minister and now I am going to be nasty. I have asked him four or five times the same question—I dare say it is his officials’ fault, not his—about whether we collect data on students whose visas are rescinded as a result of criminal activity. For various reasons, he has had to answer that he cannot give me that information, telling me the Home Office does not collate that data, there are too many databases, or it would be too expensive to collect that data. I am not blaming him as such, but that is symptomatic of the difficulty of being able to properly co-ordinate data in the public interest to fight crime. Therefore, we should consider anything that can assist that, whether it is facial recognition—I know there are civil liberties issues and in China we see some very major infringements of civil liberties, so I do not want to go down that road—iris scans, fingerprints, et cetera. The ability to collect that data for people coming in—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Swire, for tabling these amendments, if only because we have been able to revisit matters from the past 17 years on the benefits or otherwise of ID cards. I had the pleasure, or misfortune—delete as appropriate—to be in the Home Office in 2009 when we had the ID card rollout. I think I have said to the House before that I had ID card No. 3 at the time and had lots of biometric information taken from me. In fact, I remember travelling to Austria on my ID card instead of a passport—such was the pleasure of having that ID card.

I am pleased to see that the noble Lord, Lord Swire, has revisited his vote in the Commons and that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, has suggested similar. However, that debate is for another day. It is not one we can revisit today, as it does not really feature in any of the amendments before us. While it provides an interesting historical perspective on the rights and wrongs of having ID cards, it is the amendment before us from the noble Lord, Lord Swire, that addresses biometric information, and, if I may, I will focus on that.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

I have enjoyed this exchange with the Minister on that vote. I have been trying to find out if there was any chance that I was not around during that vote; I was Minister of State in Northern Ireland at the time, and I was rather hoping that I was stuck over there. Unfortunately, because of a lack of data collection, there seems to be no way of finding out about my presence or otherwise at that time.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Perhaps I can help the noble Lord. If he was in the building, he would have voted that particular way; otherwise, he would not have been a Northern Ireland Minister for very much longer. However, it is immaterial whether he was in the building or not; the Government he supported voted to abolish ID cards. Let me put that to one side, however; it is a debate for another day.

The proposed new clause in Amendment 102 is intended to require all foreign nationals to provide biometric information on arrival to the United Kingdom or face arrest if they fail to do so. I have no problem with biometric information and using it to secure our borders and protect the public. I have no problem with the fact that it is already a cornerstone of our immigration system, as it enables us to identify foreign nationals who are coming in and out of, or staying in, the United Kingdom. Individuals who seek to enter the UK are required to provide biometric information as part of their application for entry clearance or, indeed, an electronic travel authorisation. This allows us to do what I think the noble Lord wants us to do: to verify identity and assess suitability before arrival. We already compare applicants’ fingerprints against immigration and law enforcement databases, and that already enables us to identify those who may pose a threat in coming to United Kingdom. Requiring biometrics to be provided before a person travels to the UK also reduces the need for Border Force officers to deal with people who pose a threat on arrival.

Where a person arrives in the UK without the necessary entry clearance or electronic travel authorisation, we already have existing powers to capture their biometric information, and we can use reasonable force where necessary to do so. We already check biometrics at the UK borders, using e-gates that can match facial images to images contained in passports. For visa holders, we check their fingerprints at the primary control desks. Let me remind the Committee that the Government remain vigilant in their duty to protect our borders. As recently as March 2025, we introduced new legislation which significantly enhanced our ability to collect such biometric information at the border.

I know the noble Lord has good intentions, but were this new clause to be enacted, all foreign nationals would need to provide their biometric information, including people who are normally excused. This would include people who are physically unable to enrol with their biometrics or who are exempt from immigration control, such as sovereigns or heads of state, and that is neither practical nor proportionate.

For me, this is a key issue. The noble Lord and I are both former Northern Ireland Minsters, so he will know that under the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, there is no hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. As part of the common travel area arrangements, the UK does not operate routine immigration controls on journeys within the common travel area, and no immigration checks are undertaken. Under his new clause, we would be unable to implement a policy of taking everyone’s biometric information as they enter Northern Ireland from Ireland without introducing a hard border. I do not think he wants that, but that is what the new clause would mean.

Turning to Amendment 149, on seizing identity documents—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

With all due respect to the noble Lord, I was moving to the view that the amendment does not have merit; that is the nature of political life, as the noble Lord knows. Having poured that large bucket of cold water on Amendment 102, let me return to the question of Amendment 149 and seizing identity documents.

I reassure noble Lords that immigration officers already have powers to seize and retain identity documents and to require them to be produced. Under Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971, immigration officers have a power to require persons, on examination, to produce identity and other relevant documents, which may then be retained until the person is given permission to enter the UK. It allows immigration officers to take all reasonable steps and gives them powers to search and to seize documents relating to identity. Schedule 3 to that Act extends the powers in Schedule 2 to persons liable to detention for the purpose of deportation. Furthermore, there is a power in the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimant, etc.) Act 2004 whereby relevant documents in the possession of the Secretary of State may be retained where they may facilitate the removal of a person who may be liable to removal. Amendment 149 is therefore covered by existing legislation.

As for the noble Lord’s third amendment, on the issuance of biometric documents to individuals whose identity documents have been seized, again I must gently express some reservations. We already issue foreign nationals with status in the UK with biometric immigration documents in the form of an e-visa. Unlike physical documents, they cannot be lost, stolen or tampered with. We also issue asylum seekers with application registration cards that contain facial images and evidence that they have submitted a protection claim. We do not issue biometric immigration documents that confirm the holder’s status to people who have no lawful UK immigration status or an outstanding protection claim in the UK. We do not provide documentation that could be used for identification purposes, to avoid creating the impression that someone is in the UK lawfully.

Since November 2024, we have stopped issuing physical biometric cards to foreign nationals granted status in the UK. Having to issue physical biometric cards to people whose documents were seized would generate additional costs—without adding them up, there would be several million pounds’ worth. It is also important that the Committee recalls that the misuse of identity documents is a criminal offence under the Identity Documents Act 2010, and the supply of equipment for the creation of false documents is similarly proscribed under the Specialist Printing Equipment and Materials (Offences) Act 2015.

I hope that that explanation helps the noble Lord. Obviously, he can return to this on Report if he wishes to, but I hope that he will withdraw his amendment, having heard my defence of the Government’s position.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister, but I do not agree with his position. This would have provided him with an opportunity to send a very strong signal out to all those watching these debates and following the issue of immigration very closely. There was a lot in what he said about officials having the power and how they could do this and that, and it was all tentative again. My amendments sought to ensure that they did these things. That is the only way we can get a degree of certainty. I hope that we can return to this in the future. I strongly suspect that the Government’s position on this will have to change but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 102 withdrawn.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Swire Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, unusually, I completely agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Deben; he and I are both surprised by that. That is not because I am a business owner—that has never been my shtick—but because I am worried about the unintended consequences of the Bill. I too simply want an opportunity to check—and if I am wrong, that is fine.

This group of amendments is very important because it will give the Government a chance to think again, to assess and to reflect. It does not have to be a U-turn; it can straightforwardly be something that is accepted at this point in the Bill that would then mean that those of us who are nervous about the Bill’s consequences can be proved right or wrong.

I am particularly concerned about the impact the Bill will have on productivity, and Amendment 311 is therefore key. I am concerned that the Bill is not doing what it says on the tin and will have a diametrically negative impact on workers’ rights, jobs and wages. I am interested in Amendment 312, which simply asks for real wage impact reporting.

Of course, the big amendment that would cover all the things that have been argued for so far is Amendment 319, which calls for an impact assessment of the regulatory burden of the Bill on businesses. In the past, people who have complained about overregulation have been considered to be on the right of politics—the idea is that those people are so irresponsible that they do not want any regulations and are prepared to take risks. I have never understood it like that at all.

I was therefore delighted to find that I agreed with the Government and the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, when he made some tub-thumping speeches about the problems of

“the regulators, the blockers and bureaucrats”

stopping investment and growth. He called them an “alliance of naysayers”, which I thought was good, because I have always been worried about this. I am not from the Tory fold, but that goes along with what I thought. I was genuinely excited that the Labour Government were embracing this way of understanding what can get in the way of economic development and growth, which is necessary for workers to have jobs, wages and rights under an industrial policy that we are hearing about today—all the infrastructure things.

Last December, the Prime Minister infamously blamed Britain’s sluggish growth on

“people in Whitehall … comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline”.

As we have been going through the Bill, I have felt like I am in the tepid bath of managed decline at the heart of Whitehall and Westminster. Therefore, I urge the government representatives here to remember their own Prime Minister’s words when deciding how they should approach the Bill, rather than just being partisan.

Between 2015 and 2023, the Conservative Government set themselves the target of a £19 billion reduction in business costs through deregulation. Instead, the Regulatory Policy Committee watchdog calculated that even exempting most Covid regulation, the regulatory burden increased by £18.4 billion in that period. I am saying this because people keep declaring that they are going to tear up the regulations getting in the way of growth, industrial capacity and so on, and then, the next minute, unintentionally, regulations grow. The Bill is so jam-packed with regulations that workers’ rights do not stand a chance of breathing.

One of the fears I have about the Bill, which I have raised in a number of amendments and which I hope Amendment 319 will address, is that it is a recipe for huge amounts of lawfare. Day one rights and protection from unfair dismissal both sound progressive and admirable, but the Government’s own analysis predicts a 15% rise in employment tribunal claims. There are already huge backlogs of between 18 months to two years, even before the Bill is enacted, so there is a real threat of a litigious clogging up of the system. Of course it is important that employees are treated fairly. As I have argued throughout consideration of the Bill, I am not frightened of trade union and workers’ rights at all, but I am concerned about this growth, encouragement and incentivisation of the use of lawfare.

I have just read a fascinating report, which I will send to the Ministers, entitled The Equality Act isn’t Working: Equalities, Legislation and the Breakdown of Informal Civility in the Workplace, produced by the anti-racist, colourblind organisation Don’t Divide Us, which assesses the unintended consequences of the Equality Act. Nobody thought this would happen, but it has led to a real fractiousness in the workplace: people are suing each other, all sorts of things are going wrong, and, in many ways, it has clogged up the system. The last thing we need is the Bill adding to that burden, leading to lawfare and people taking matters even further by suing each other.

Either an impact assessment is going to show that some of the concerns raised are overhyped, or in some instances ideological or raised by nay-sayers; or the Government can take the opportunity to say, “We never intended the legislation to do this, but we have seen that in some areas, it needs to be tweaked to make sure that it is not over-regulatory, damaging workers’ rights and wages and so on, in which case we are prepared to be honest and hold our hands up”. That is the very least legislators should do when they introduce a law that is going to bring huge change the whole business and workplace arena.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, as somebody who does business from time to time and tries to encourage business, not least through my deputy chairmanship of the Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council, which is trying to grow business right across the Commonwealth, it strikes me that the Bill comes at an unfortunate time. Of course, we should always look at regulation, and there will always be an argument about what is over-regulation and what is under-regulation. But at a time when so many jobs are threatened by AI, we should surely be looking at a low regulatory framework. I urge the Government to take this into consideration during any impact assessment.

The Minister knows about business. He is a businessman and has a successful business, and I too suspect that he identifies with many of the points we are raising, although he cannot say it. But it strikes me that, just at a time when people are very fearful about their future and the uncertainty of having a job at all, let alone when they get older, so they can raise a family, have a mortgage and so forth, we should be looking at ways to encourage businesses to employ more people. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, said that he saw every good reason not to employ more people. That is really bad news. If businesses are now saying it is simply not worth the candle, that will contribute to the unemployment that will surely follow as many of these jobs are replaced by AI anyway. So I urge the Government to look at that.

Equally, at a time when many countries around the world, not least in Asia, are spending much more money, time and effort on advanced mathematics and the other things you need nowadays for coding and so forth, we in this country seem to be lowering the standards, particularly in mathematics—dumbing down at a time when we should be raising up. So by all means, let us properly protect our workers, but let us not overregulate to the extent that we do not have any workers to look after or to regulate.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I will address Amendments 310, 311, 312 and 319, which collectively seek greater transparency on the economic consequences of this legislation.

Although I am afraid that I take no firm view on the amendments themselves, which were explained in great detail by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and spoken to by other noble Lords, who expressed reservations—obviously, there are reservations—I welcome the principle that they reflect: that we must remain vigilant as to how new laws affect businesses, wages and productivity. No one else has said this, but I appreciate that the Government are already undertaking much of this work, and I would welcome an update from the Minister on how that work is progressing and informing policy development.

Amendment 310 raises a valuable and timely question about how new and small businesses might fare under the Bill. As the noble Lord knows, and as I know from a working lifetime as a chartered accountant, these enterprises often lack the resources, legal support and regulatory expertise of larger firms. It is only right that we ask whether the framework we are putting in place enables them to enter the market, grow and succeed on fair terms.

If the Government are serious about delivering long-term economic growth, they must pay close attention to the conditions facing new business entrants and small start-ups. These businesses, as I hope the noble Lord will agree, are not only a vital source of innovation and competition but key to job creation, skills development and regional regeneration. The barriers they face—and there are increasing barriers—whether through opaque processes or disproportionate compliance costs, can limit their contribution to the economy. By reducing unnecessary administrative burdens and ensuring a fair and accessible regulatory environment, we can help unlock their potential.

Growth will not come from productivity targets or ministerial ambition alone; it will depend on everyday decisions, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, mentioned, made by entrepreneurs and small business owners around the country. We should support them accordingly. As mentioned previously, I do not readily back these amendments themselves—I do not think I agree with them—but I hope the Government will take careful note of the arguments they raise, particularly the point made in Amendment 310 about the effect on new and small businesses, which deserves further attention and consideration.

There are going to be economic consequences of this part of the Bill, and the Government should tell us how they view the impact of those. Noble Lords have spoken about increased costs. We all know—anyone who has been involved with business knows—that there will obviously be increased costs. Laws that we have put in over the years have added to those costs, but most businesses have managed to increase efficiency to try and mitigate them and make more profits. You have to adjust to what is happening in the world.

These amendments, and this part of the Bill, are about impact assessments and regulatory burdens. Are we putting too many burdens on people, or are those regulatory burdens helpful to the economics of this country? We must do things which increase productivity, and that is part of what the amendments are about. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, said that he had run businesses, and many of us in this Chamber have run businesses or advised them. I hope that he is going to be proved wrong—he asked to be proved wrong. I await the Government’s answer to the comments that he made in this debate.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Swire Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, I add to the welcome to my noble friend Lord Harper. It is good to see him here bolstering our side of the House, although I hope his plea for preferential treatment for former Chief Whips is ignored in the way that it should be. But it is very good to see him here.

The Bill we are debating this evening could not have come on a more embarrassing day for the Government, with 1,194 illegal immigrants having come over in 18 dinghies on Saturday alone—the fifth-largest number in a single day, totalling 38,053 since the election. Britain has lost control of its borders: those are not my words, but the words of the Secretary of State for Defence. If it is true that Britain has lost control of its borders, the exam question is, does this Bill give us control back over our borders or does it in some way fall short?

We have discussed various matters, and we will have plenty of time in Committee to flesh those out, not least the role of the border security commander. Many of us have not been impressed by the work over the years of either the UK Border Agency or Border Force, and it has always been my view that there is a huge cadre of people in this country whose employment we terminate far too soon. I am talking about senior military figures, senior civil servants, Foreign Office people and so forth. We let them go at a point when they have many years of useful life left in them. I would have thought that we should look very carefully at making part of their retirement a secondment to boost this part of government. They would bring expertise, greatly improving the processing of applications and so forth, which we all want to see. I hope the Government will give that some consideration.

As the noble Lord, Lord Browne, who spoke before me, said, this all depends on co-operation. Can the Minister update us on our current relations with the French? Of course, we are an island; we are dependent on the French. We have given them some £476 million in a three-year deal, and seeing their behaviour over the past few days, I wonder whether we are getting any value for money from that. What discussions can we have with the French? How can we further incentivise them? Of course, if you are in France, inevitably, you do not necessarily want to retain people—you want to see them go—but why are we giving the French money if they are simply not fulfilling their part of the deal? What discussions about this legislation has the Minister had with the Irish Government in Dublin, given that another way people can come into this country is through Northern Ireland?

There has been a lot of discussion about Rwanda, and we can argue about that until the cows come home. It was oven-ready, and I understand why those who did not want to proceed with it did not, but what has it been replaced by? On his recent visit to Albania, the Prime Minister met with a rebuff. So what other countries are we now talking to? I hear that the Balkans are under increasing Russian influence. We are told that the SIS has advised the Government against the Balkans, which are a tinderbox at the moment. Who else are we negotiating with? What is the expectation that we will get a deal? What is the timeline? Crucially, what is the fallback if we do not get a deal with any third country?

This Bill deals with the future, but very little is going to happen immediately and, crucially, it ignores the population of this country. I have always said that you cannot have a grown-up conversation about how many people you want to live in this country and how many people you want to come to this country unless you know how many people are living in this country. We do not, and this Bill does nothing to address that. It talks about guaranteeing the security of our borders, but it says nothing about guaranteeing the security of the country within its borders. Can the Government guarantee that those who have come here over the years illegally wish the country well and do not present a credible threat at times?

That brings me to my conclusion and an issue which I shall be raising in Committee. It follows on from what the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said about the introduction of biometric ID cards. This moves towards that. The Minister is falling into the trap, because he is going to raise again the fact that I was in a Government who passed the Identity Documents Act 2010 to get rid of them. I went to the Library to check how I voted. I was a Northern Ireland Minister of State at the time, and I was rather hoping I would not be here, but of course, the Minister will appreciate the principle of ministerial collective responsibility. Equally, I think one is allowed to change one’s mind over 15 years.

There has been a huge change in circumstance. There has been a huge change in the accretion—if that is the right word—of our identity; we all cede it the whole time to the NHS, to credit card companies and so forth. It is staring us in the face. If we had a good biometric ID system here, we could work out who is in this country first and foremost before we then decide how many more people we want to come, and that is something I believe we should debate better.

This is a contentious subject, but by doing nothing or not enough about it we are playing into the hands of parties such as Reform. The Government are understandably nervous about the inroads that Reform is making in northern seats in particular. I say gently to everybody in this House that the less we do about this, the more it plays to Reform. I still believe there is a gap between what people expect from the Government on immigration and what politicians are delivering. The wider that gap—the more it is allowed to exist—the more it will play to those on the extremes, which I believe we all wish to avoid.

Police: Stop and Search

Lord Swire Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord will know that it is for the police themselves to determine whether they undertake stop and search. That was a particular judgment for police officers rather than for Ministers. He will know, in the Metropolitan Police area in particular, 26% of all stop and searches were taken by the Metropolitan Police overall, resulting in over 21,999 arrests—from 16% of those stop and searches.

We have signed up and supported the Metropolitan Police and others included in the Police Race Action Plan, and the Metropolitan Police has signed up to that plan. It looks at how stop and search is being used by police on black and ethnic minority individuals, and at involving black and ethnic minority representatives in monitoring the use of stop and search. The noble Lord is right that stop and search should be used for serious crimes. That also requires strong training and support to police officers, to ensure their safety also.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, how wise is it to put off the introduction of biometric ID cards?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Well, my Lords, I was in the Home Office when we had ID cards, which were abolished by the then Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition. The noble Lord has made his point. I wish that they had not been abolished, but we are in a position now where, 15 years ago to the day, the party that he supports, with Liberal Democrat support, came to power and, as a result, abolished the ID cards that he now seeks to reintroduce.

Respect Orders and Anti-social Behaviour

Lord Swire Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I expect these cases to be heard in magistrate’s courts, but again, those issues can be tested in Committee. The Bill will be considered in this House in Committee for a significant period, having been considered first by the House of Commons. That is why we are trialling respect orders, and we will put a number of pilots in place if the legislation is passed. The lessons learned from that will be considered —how long it takes to deal with a respect order, which court it goes to, the length of the trial period we put in place and what resources are required to deal with it.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, regarding the Minister’s remarks about tightening up the legislation surrounding e-bikes, we are seeing those used increasingly for mobile theft all around the capital. Can he look at the increasing menace of normal bicycle riders riding on pavements and knocking over, often, elderly people or children? In parks, they are subject to by-laws, which are simply not enforced. The whole of London is criss-crossed with cycle lanes. Should there not be a penalty for those who continue to ignore signs and ride their cycles on pavements?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I may be going off script here, but I agree with the noble Lord. There is not a day when I come into London that I do not see someone jump a traffic light or ride on a pavement. Those matters are covered by existing sanctions, if the police can track those individuals. Many cyclists behave perfectly reasonably, which is also important, but if individuals break the law which is currently in place, the police should take sanctions against them.

Probation Services: Prisoner Early Release Scheme

Lord Swire Excerpts

Thursday 14th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords—

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for that question. If I may, I shall reflect on that and raise those points with the Minister, my noble friend Lord Timpson; he will have the detail of the recruitment exercise, which I do not have before me today. I ask her to rest assured that the 1,000 new officers are on track for March 2025, and quality is key to the delivery that those probation officers are seeking to ensure.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that no foreign national offenders are being released under the early release scheme?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am afraid I cannot give the noble Lord a direct answer on that, but I will examine the list of offenders who are being released. However, foreign national offenders per se will in some cases be subject to deportation on release, will be subject to the same issues of recall in the event of any further offending and will be subject to probation management accordingly. I will look at the figure because I do not have it in front of me, for reasons that I hope he understands, and I will return to him shortly.