Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Harper, on an entertaining maiden speech—although, like my noble friend Lady Brinton, I stand fully ready to vote to abolish myself.

I was as disturbed as many others were by the Prime Minister’s warning that without strong migration rules,

“we risk becoming an island of strangers”.

Of course we need a well-managed asylum and immigration system. But not only is that kind of inflammatory language alarming and unhelpful; neither recent political statements nor any measures in the Bill do anything to promote the integration that would seek to make newcomers well-settled residents and contributing citizens. I much appreciated the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi.

Indeed, much alarm has been created by the heralding of tougher requirements for obtaining both settlement and citizenship, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, described. I will never understand why, having allowed people to legally reside, any Government think it useful to make it harder for them to convert that into permanent settlement and then citizenship, which anchors their belonging here.

I would love to say more about other parts of the Bill, but I want to concentrate on European aspects, and my noble friends are well covering other topics.

The common understanding which resulted from the UK-EU summit two weeks ago pledged to reinforce co-operation on law enforcement, including through Europol, on analysis of threats, and on exchange of information and operational action.

Although we cannot yet go back to the golden era of British pre-eminence in Europol, when one of our nationals held the directorship of that agency for a decade, we can encourage maximum exploitation of these opportunities, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, about seeking access to SIS II. My Benches will table some amendments on Europol, such as equipping the National Crime Agency and police forces to participate in Europol’s anti-trafficking operations, establishing joint taskforces, and requiring the border commander to meet the director of Europol.

I want mainly to talk about Clause 42, on EU citizens, and I welcome the intention to clear up some of the muddle of the past caused by the way in which the EU settlement scheme was devised and implemented. But I fear that further confusion may lie ahead—even another Windrush—due to the Government’s reluctance to jettison the whole of the baggage of the past.

The problem comes because Clause 42 holds back from declaring that everyone given EU settled status actually comes within the citizens’ rights provisions of the UK-EU withdrawal agreement and the EEA and Swiss equivalents, such as the ability to rely on the direct effect of those rights. It says only that all those granted the right to stay under the UK’s EU settlement scheme will be treated as if they had such rights.

The UK’s EU settlement scheme was in one sense generous, in that it swept up EU citizens simply because they had been living in the UK for the requisite time. But in doing so, successive UK Governments acted on a presumption—although this is contested—that some did not have rights under the withdrawal agreements because they had not been, in the jargon, “exercising their treaty rights”, which broadly involved being a worker rather than a non-employed person.

No actual test was applied, even though the withdrawal agreement allowed that, so EU citizens were never told their legal status. As the Independent Monitoring Authority, the watchdog for the rights of EU citizens in the UK, described it in initially welcoming Clause 42:

“There are people who have status under the EUSS who may not be entitled to rights under the Agreements. This is a complex area”—


you are telling me—

“but there is a lack of clarity as to who has rights under the Agreements and who does not … The concern is that there could be potential instances where it would matter whether a citizen with EUSS status does have rights under the Agreements or not. In these situations, citizens who are within the true cohort”—

I think your Lordships gather what that means—

“might need to re-prove they were residing in the UK in accordance with EU free movement rules at the end of 2020. As time goes by it may become more and more difficult for citizens to find the relevant evidence, such as payslips, to prove they met the free movement rules at the end of 2020. We do not know what implications this could have in the future for these citizens or future generations of citizens.”

Are your Lordships getting echoes of another scenario?

I imagine that the IMA thought that Clause 42 would wash away the relevance of this distinction and the possible need to go back and establish rights from years ago, but the absence of legal clarity identified by the IMA remains. Despite good intentions, past gremlins could pop up in future and catch people out precisely because the legal position has been left as unclear as it was in 2020.

That is no doubt why the Independent Monitoring Authority now seems to have had a bit of a rethink, commenting 10 days’ ago in regard to the Immigration White Paper that

“the vast majority of the proposals that the government is consulting on should not affect the majority of citizens with EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) status who have rights under the Agreements.”

Quite a few caveats there.

I have to finish, but as Sir Humphrey might have put it, it is not only unwise but brave, Minister, to risk recreating the Windrush miscarriage of justice. I suggest that the Government should take the wiser course, even if it goes against every instinct of the Home Office, and junk past practices and start with a clean sheet. Hence, my Benches will be tabling amendments, which I hope might be signed by others, to try to get the Government to do just that.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 26th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 18 seeks to introduce another criterion to the definition of what constitutes a threat to border security. We believe it addresses a crucial and glaringly absent dimension from the definition of threats to border security—harm to the economic interests of the United Kingdom.

As drafted, the clause defines relevant threats as those involving criminality, risk of offence, or harm to persons or property. All that is right and necessary, but to leave out the economic dimension is to ignore one of the most significant consequences of border insecurity in the modern age. Illegal entry, organised immigration crime and abuse of our immigration system come at a cost, not just to public safety or border integrity but of real and measurable economic harm. This includes the burden placed on housing, healthcare and social services, and extends to the impact on wages, labour market distortions, the exploitation of workers and loss of public confidence in our immigration system.

These are some of the effects of illegal immigration which people across this country feel most keenly. We must ensure that we reflect this in our assessment of the threat which illegal immigration poses to us. If individuals are entering the UK unlawfully in ways that undermine legal labour markets, displace lawful employment or distort local economies through illicit practices, surely that is a matter of national interest. Surely that is as much of a threat to border security as any physical or legal risk. If our legal framework cannot even acknowledge that reality, how can it ever be expected to address it? This amendment would ensure that this important consideration is included in the Bill, in recognition of economic harm being one of the most serious effects of this issue.

I take this opportunity to speak to some of the other amendments in this group. Amendments 6 and 14, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, address an important and often overlooked issue. Illegal meat imports present a genuine risk to our agricultural sector, as we have heard, and affect our food supply chains and public health. The potential introduction of diseases such as African swine fever or foot and mouth through contaminated meat would be catastrophic, economically and environmentally. Biosecurity is a key part of our national security. The Government need to take action to ensure that this threat is addressed.

The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raises a matter that I hope the Government will clear up in their response. Cybersecurity is an important responsibility of the Government. I am not quite sure how it relates to border security and asylum, but this is none the less a probing amendment that I hope that the Government respond to. I share the noble Baroness’s concerns about cybersecurity. We have seen a number of high-profile and extremely damaging cyberattacks in recent months. Ministers will be aware of the urgent need to tackle this. The noble Baroness is right to raise this issue. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I will add a couple of points to the excellent points that have been made by previous speakers. My noble friend Lady Hamwee’s point about the opportunism that is evident in the kinds of product that criminals can switch between was well made: they might one day smuggle people and another day smuggle contaminated food products, including meat.

The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, concerning the impact on the economic interests of the UK very much ties up with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, in particular, and with trying to persuade the Treasury that the costs of foot and mouth, BSE and bird flu are important. You would think that this was self-evident, even to the Treasury. I would like to say that I was surprised at hearing that it was not, but maybe I was not.

You do not have to be a countryman to think that. I admit that you could not get a lot more metropolitan than I am, but like my noble friend I listen to “The Archers” and care about the countryside. It is not true that all of us who live in cities do not care about the countryside, but we must care about biosecurity as consumers, as well as about the impact on farmers. I absolutely support that idea, but I look forward to the Minister’s response on whether it should be part of the functions of border commander. It certainly needs to go much higher—I was going to say “up the food chain”, but that would be a bad pun—up the profile of government priorities to protect the country from biosecurity threats.

There has been a lot of concern about whether post-Brexit controls are being implemented. I am not a world expert, but the can has been kicked down the road time after time on those controls. There is also concern about whether Border Force and port health authorities are being given enough resources to stamp out illegal meat and other contaminated food imports. The Minister’s colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, was given a grilling by the EFRA Select Committee in the other place early last month; I do not know whether there has been any product from its evidence sessions, chaired by my friend in the other place Alistair Carmichael, but that committee is showing how importantly it takes these issues. We have noble Lords with experience of senior government posts in this area—the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Deben, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey—so I hope the Minister will give us a positive response.

Lastly, the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, mentioned the role of trading standards, which has been so underfunded, sadly. We know what pressure council budgets are under. As a consumer, trading standards is not even on my radar, these days. Where do you go if you have a consumer complaint? I have no idea. Was it not batted off to Citizens Advice a long time ago? Anyway, we know about this function: you have the border and then you have the inside the country attention to these matters. Probably we ought to be aware that they all seem to be quite underfunded and a bit fragile in places. We know that there are so many issues that the police are unable to deal with these days, in this whole area.

There is a lot of press coverage of things such as illegal meat imports, so it would be good to hear from the Minister that the Government—not only Defra but across government—understand and will take action on the very real threats that have been raised by the amendments tabled and discussed in this group.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to all contributors to the debate. I begin by saying, straightforwardly, that the importance of biosecurity and of securing our borders on biosecurity is vital. The Government make the commitment to ensure that we prevent contaminated goods entering this country, for the very reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and my noble friend Lord Rooker mentioned—as indeed did the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Ludford.

I will start with the amendments that seek to ensure that the Border Security Commander has regard to specific threats, namely those posed to UK biosecurity by illegal meat imports, as tabled by my noble friend Lord Rooker. It is absolutely right that that will be a key issue for the Border Security Commander. I reassure my noble friend that the threats posed to UK biosecurity by illegal meat imports are implicitly included within the definition of threats to border security in Clause 3. The commander will and does work closely with colleagues in Defra and Border Force through his board to ensure that the strategic priorities for border security are tackled.

I remember the foot and mouth outbreak of 2001. In fact, I am old enough to remember the foot and mouth outbreak of 1967, when I was a child. I also remember—who can forget?—the BSE issues that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, dealt with as Agriculture Minister. My noble friend was the Minister for Agriculture in Northern Ireland and I know, from sharing time with him, that he put a great emphasis on the issue of bushmeat and on biosecurity generally, for the very reasons that noble Members have raised: it has a financial cost, a health cost and a border security cost. Criminals will get involved in this if they see profit but, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, also mentioned, people may bring back something from their holidays that they think is appropriate or they may have dropped a sandwich. We therefore need concerted efforts on organised biosecurity issues, but need also to be aware of the individual who breaches regulations.

I know that the National Farmers’ Union has recently written to the Border Security Commander, Martin Hewitt, asking for an increased focus on biosecurity issues, and he has been able to reassure them in some ways, including that sniffer dogs are operational at certain ports in the United Kingdom and that X-ray scanners at Dover are consistently used to scan vehicles that are selected as part of an intelligence-led model. There will continue to be a central focus on biosecurity by the Border Security Commander, working closely with Defra and Border Force colleagues, to ensure that we tackle the strategic priorities that noble Lords have mentioned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Cameron, which seek to flesh out what the role of this organisation is to be and to put more detail on objectives and functions. If one looks at the functions of the commander, one sees that the meat of this is really in two points made over four and a half lines, so it is very thin indeed. It is an organisation that has already been established, as we know, and there is already an incumbent, so I think it would help the Committee a great deal if the Minister were to explain what the organisation is really going to look like. We talk about the border commander as if it is an individual, and indeed that person is an individual, but then we go on to talk about the command—the organisation.

The Minister has talked in terms of hundreds of millions of pounds, potentially, at the disposal of this organisation, or if not at its disposal, then it would have a high degree of influence over it. These are very considerable sums of money when one considers the overall budget, for example, of the Border Force, so will the Minister set out what the actual border commander’s organisation, the BSC, will look like? On what sort of scale will it be, in terms of staff, for example? A figure of £150 million was mentioned that will, in essence, be put at the disposal of the commander. What does that mean? What is the operating budget of this organisation going to be? Can the noble Lord help us? To look at this as an organisation rather than as an individual, £150 million gets you a lot of co-ordination. Can we hear more about the structure, the functions, the skills of the staff that will be working there, the type of experience, the operating budget and what returns are sought on the budgets that are being put forward?

I welcome the opportunity for the Minister, in response to my noble friend’s amendments, and indeed the others that have been discussed, to come forward and help the Committee establish what type of organisation we are talking about. He might care to illustrate it through an example of how the new organisation will interact with the Border Force. Who is going to be, in a sense, holding the strategic priorities? Which organisation is going to have influence over the other? I am sure it would help the Committee a great deal if the Minister were able to do that.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 71 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord German. I had expected that it would be grouped with my mine and others’ amendments about Europol. Those are in later groups, but this one got bounced up, I guess for understandable reasons because it is about a duty on the border commander, so it makes sense to group it either way, as it were. That means there is going to be a slightly disjointed discussion on Europol, but I am delighted to raise the issue sooner rather than later.

I am hoping for a positive response from the Minister, because when the UK-EU summit on 19 May produced the so-called common understanding—it is a slightly awkward term, but it is the reset result, and a good result it was—there was, in particular, a point on internal security and judicial co-operation, and that referred back to doing better work on Part Three of the trade and co-operation agreement. In case noble Lords do not have the document under their eyes, Article 567 of the TCA is about the scope of co-operation with Europol. It talks about “the exchange of information”, including

“specialist knowledge … general situation reports … results of strategic analysis … information on criminal investigation procedures … information on crime prevention methods … participation in training activities”

and

“the provision of advice and support in individual criminal investigations as well as operational cooperation”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, he seemed to suggest that the amendments from my noble friend Lady Hamwee would somehow be unusual in criminal law. She is obviously saying that, rather than to require the person to prove a reasonable excuse as their defence, the prosecution would have to prove “without reasonable excuse” as a component part of the offence.

I was looking at driving offences. I admit that this appears to be an AI overview, subject to correction by my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, but, apparently, careless driving is

“driving without due care and attention”

or

“driving without reasonable consideration for other road users”.

Presumably the prosecution has to prove that you were driving without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other road users. It is not, at least in the first instance, for the driver to have to prove that they were taking due care and attention or that they were showing reasonable consideration for other road users. I forget any criminal law that I learned many moons ago, but I know that there are circumstances in which the burden can shift. But, overall, the prosecution has to prove the component parts of the offence.

What my noble friend is trying to achieve is the normal rule in criminal offences, where the burden lies principally on the prosecution. I query the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that my noble friend somehow wants to be out of line with the normality of the criminal law in what she suggests in her amendment. I think that it is the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, who, not for the first time, wants to be out of line.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I take that in good heart, as the noble Baroness and I are members of a committee of the House in which we share rumbustious debate. I am sorry that noble Lords have stumbled into “immigration law for dummies”, because neither of us is an expert on it. However, I think she is comparing apples and pears, because the example that she uses of dangerous driving is actually a strict liability offence, where mens rea is not an issue; in other words, it is not presumed that you would wilfully desire to get into a car and drive drunk in committing the offence. It is not necessary to prove it.

I am not saying that the noble Baroness is doing or saying anything out of line; I am merely demonstrating that one has to address wider issues in this policy area. For those reasons, the amendment is unhelpful in meeting the Government’s strategic objective to reduce illegal immigration.