Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 26th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this first day of Committee. I will speak also to my Amendments 2, 26 and 27 in this first group. At Second Reading, a number of noble Lords raised the issue that the commander will essentially be a civil servant with co-ordination functions: a commander with nothing to command. I have tabled these amendments and a number of others to seek to rectify the situation and probe the Government’s full intentions for the new role.

Amendment 1 seeks to replace the words

“designate a civil servant as the”

with “appoint a”, thereby specifying that the commander does not have to be a civil servant. Nothing here serves as a critique of the current border security commander, Martin Hewitt, coming as he does from a law enforcement background; rather, it is a critique of the Government’s limited ambition for this new role.

That is not just my view but that of Tony Smith, the former director-general of UK Border Force. He said in evidence to the Public Bill Committee in the other place that

“the first thing that struck me is that the Border Security Commander will be another civil servant. I think it will be a director general post in the Home Office. I was a director general, and we already have quite a lot of them. I am not sure he will actually be able to command anything. He is probably going to be more of a co-ordinator”.—[Official Report, Commons, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill Committee, 27/2/25; col. 40.]

Those were the words of the person whose job it was to lead the agency that polices our borders. As he stated, there are already enough civil servants co-ordinating activities within the Home Office. The Small Boats Operational Command already exists, so can the Minister tell the House how it will work with the commander? How will their roles differ, and what degree of interoperability will exist?

As Tony Smith made very clear to the committee in the other place, if the Government wish to achieve their stated goals, Border Security Command needs to have expanded powers, for example to arrest and detain in the same manner as Border Force, the NCA and Immigration Enforcement. If the powers of the commander and his team remain as they are instituted in this Bill, they will be essentially toothless in their ability to tackle illegal migration. This is a role that, by the Government’s own admission, is meant to help secure our borders, disrupt criminal networks and co-ordinate multiple agencies in the face of complex cross-border threats. Surely, we can all agree that this is not a job for a generalist administrator or a nameless Whitehall official; it demands specialist knowledge, strategic leadership and operational credibility.

Amendments 26 and 27 are essentially consequential. They amend Clause 7, which relates to delegation of the commander’s functions, and Clause 8, which permits the designation of an interim commander. Just as I am concerned by the first clause, I am potentially even more concerned about the possibility of delegation. This commander might be well qualified for the task, but who will he delegate to? As the Bill stands, this will be a civil servant. We must ask whether this is appropriate for the task at hand. My amendment would ensure that only a person of appropriate rank—a similar rank to the commander—would be able to undertake any of the functions bestowed on the commander under the Bill. These amendments would therefore introduce a vital safeguard: that the commander may appoint only a person of appropriate rank and qualifications to fulfil delegated functions, not just anyone who happens to be on the departmental payroll. They would help ensure that we do not fall into the trap of creating yet another abstract, symbolic post—another title without substance, which I am afraid is what the Bill proposes.

I had the pleasure of meeting and spending an evening with the honourable Scott Morrison a few weeks ago. He explained that, when Australia began Operation Sovereign Borders, it instituted a structure that, on the surface at least, appears somewhat similar to this Government’s Border Security Command. Its job was to co-ordinate and lead the 16 agencies that had border security functions. However, there are two crucial differences: first, the Australian system came with far more robust powers than are in this Government’s plan; and, secondly—this is the crucial difference—the Australians appointed a senior military commander, Deputy Chief of Army Major General Angus Campbell, to lead their border security efforts.

This leads on to my Amendment 2, a probing amendment which seeks to gauge the type of background that the Government think most appropriate for the role of commander. I have specified that the commander should be only a former or current officer of the National Police Chiefs’ Council—meaning assistant chief constable or above—commander or above in the Metropolitan Police, a senior officer in Border Force or Immigration Enforcement or a senior military officer of at least brigadier-general, commodore or air commodore rank in the Royal Air Force. This amendment would therefore specify that the commander should be a senior police, immigration or military officer, which I believe would put the office on a stronger footing.

If we are serious about this role having teeth and want it to be a powerful, directive position that can genuinely drive change, then the least we can do is to require that the person filling it has the experience to do so effectively. We cannot afford to build this office on vague criteria and wishful thinking. The public deserve confidence that this position is not just another bureaucratic appointment but one that is fit for purpose from day one. I urge the Committee to support this, and I beg to move.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I should explain that I have not usurped the position of my noble friend Lord German, who is in Strasbourg at the Council of Europe. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for not being physically on the Front Bench; from this position, I can be propped up.

Although Martin Hewitt has, as the noble Lord, said, a law enforcement and—I believe—Army background, I do not think it is necessary for the commander to have “rank”, to use the term in his Amendment 26. If the border command and the commander prove effective—in other words, if the institution lasts—I hope that the Secretary of State would be imaginative enough to think outside the box of people to whom the rank might be applied and consider those who might usefully carry on the function.

I do not want to speak too long at this point, but the noble Lord picked up the issue of delegation. It struck me—I understand it is not possible to amendment it—that the heading to Clause 7 really does not describe what is in the clause. The clause is right; it spells out where responsibility lies—that is not delegation. The responsibility remains with the commander, and I think that is correct. I do not know whether anyone can pick that up somewhere behind the scenes, at a later point.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, I support the thrust of my noble friend’s amendments in this first group. Chapter 1 puts the commander role and organisation on a statutory footing but, as we heard, we already have a commander in place and the Bill provides very few—if any—real powers beyond the ability to facilitate co-operation between other public agencies. Given that those agencies are already arms of government and come under the responsibility of Ministers, who could presumably direct them to co-operate in the way the Government intend, I have a slightly broader question for the Minister: why is Chapter 1 necessary? Why do we need to put the commander on a statutory footing? This leads directly to the group of amendments that my noble friend has proposed.

We always need to be very careful about legislating just to make a public statement or point. Can the Minister tell us what the commander will be able to do under Chapter 1 that he is not able to do presently under the current arrangements? Who could argue with greater co-ordination between agencies, but do we really need the provisions of Chapter 1 to achieve that?

I am sure the Minister is grateful to my noble friend for trying to flesh out the role a little bit more. It is written in five or so pages, an awful lot of which has to do with the appointment, the board, potential removal terms and so forth. There is really very little—only a few lines—about the office’s real function and responsibilities.

Looking more specifically at Amendment 2 and my noble friend’s list in proposed new subsection (5)(a), (b) and (c), he might also consider adding someone with a background in the broader security apparatus of the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I appreciate the noble Viscount’s comments, but the clauses in Chapter 1—for example, “Duty to prepare annual reports”, “Duties of cooperation etc” and “The Board” overseeing all that—underpinned by statutory function give this House the confidence that there is a legislative background to those requirements on the Border Security Commander. The noble Viscount is right that the current Border Security Commander, appointed by the Home Secretary, is undertaking those roles as a civil servant, but it is important that we underpin that with a legislative framework so that this House, the House of Commons, the Government and the people are clear about what the roles and responsibilities are. We have taken that view, and the noble Viscount may disagree or want further clarification, but that is the purpose of the first 12 clauses of the Bill.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, far be it from me to be helping the Minister out at this point, but I want to be friendly. Exactly the same issues occurred to me, particularly that the commander is in post now and has been for months, as the noble Viscount said. Presumably it would not be possible, without a statutory basis, to require, for instance, co-operation with other statutory agencies. So, at the very least, the Bill would be needed for that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has answered the first question that I had intended to ask on Amendment 3: whether what he was seeking was the opportunity for scrutiny and debate or a confirmation hearing of an appointment. I do not think that it is the latter.

I will just ask the noble Lord a question about Amendment 4. Would it be normal to publish such detail about a civil servant’s contract of employment? Would one really put the KPIs into the public domain in that sort of detail? What is important in this context is that determining “effectiveness”—the term used in the amendment—remains the responsibility of the Secretary of State. That will continue to lie with her. It must not be shuffled off or denied by having somebody in the role of commander.

In terms of the amendments, I am very doubtful about publishing the KPIs. But I am absolutely clear about the structure of this role and about where the responsibility for implementing policy must remain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I confess to being irredeemably urban—or perhaps suburban—but “The Archers” does have a function in reminding us about pig breeding and the sizes of litters. Listening to noble Lords’ comments has made me think of a number of related issues. I think it is found in a number of parts of life that people who commit one type of crime often commit another type of crime as well. We are well aware of the flexibility, if that is the right term, of the smuggling gangs. It is entirely possible that there is some sort of read across, or at least something that we should be being flagged about.

This also made me think about health, because I believe that somebody came back from Morocco with rabies very recently. It particularly made me think about the competition for facilities at ports, certainly at Dover and, I dare say, at others as well. When I was a member of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, it was made quite clear, particularly by the Port of Dover, that the issue of space to undertake immigration controls was a really big issue.

The answer may be for these relationships to be governed by other authorities falling within the category of partner authorities. However, as well as the points that previous speakers have made very powerfully, there are relationships that need to be thought about very carefully, and the competition for resources of all sorts which are raised by these arrangements.

We have Amendment 19 in this group, which probes whether cybersecurity is an element of border security; it is clearly an element of security. GCHQ is not a partner authority in the Bill, so it is not within the functions of Clause 3, nor is there a general duty to co-operate as applies under Clause 5—there are to be special arrangements. I do not have a solution to this, but it is a genuine question about where cybersecurity falls within the responsibilities and how the border commander is to take account of cybersecurity.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that gives my noble friend Lord Rooker, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, some reassurance.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

I will just come back on that—I do not mean that in any aggressive way. I certainly do not doubt the Government’s commitment on these issues. It is a matter of what is within the functions of the commander. The definition in Clause 3,

“‘border security’ means the security of the United Kingdom’s borders”,

does not take us a lot further—it is a bit circular. The Minister talked about “people”. I think that he said a “person” crossing the border. I am still not quite clear whether the security issues that are not about the physical crossing of the border come within the commander’s functions. That might be something we can discuss outside the Chamber to consider whether any further amendment would be worth tabling.

I am not yet clear about where the separations or divisions come—the answer being, of course, that it is all with the Government in some form or other. However, the functions of the commander and the scrutiny of Border Security Command require a clearer answer than the Minister may be able to give today.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I think this may be the moment to remind ourselves that “illegal” and “irregular” are not the same thing. Amendment 7 refers to “illegal migrant crossings”. It is not illegal to seek asylum, and a crossing is not the same thing as entry. I ask noble Lords to forgive me for that slightly pompous comment, but I think it is important.

I say again that it is the Secretary of State who holds the responsibility and the liability, if you like. I may be misunderstanding this, but there is a muddling of responsibility by, for instance, including prosecutions within the functions and, similarly, running UKBI casework and returns. I would also say on Clause 8 that one cannot know whether someone does not have leave, or has leave obtained by fraudulent means, and therefore the commander cannot leap straight to making arrangements for the return of such persons.

I have never been known not to support an amendment that requires consultation, and I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, is not here to speak to his amendment, which seems to be in the usual formula. I thought it would be a rather good hook, and I will push it a little by saying that yesterday I received, as no doubt other noble Lords did, a briefing from the Bar Council, which refers to the importance of independent oversight and suggests that the independent inspector—I can never remember the words; the ICIBI—might have a role here. But since the amendment has not been spoken to, I had better not go that far.

We have Amendment 25 in this group. Again, it is a probing amendment. Under the Bill, the board is given a function to assist. But, as the commander’s functions are co-ordinating and setting priorities, perhaps “assist” cannot mean an operational role. My amendment proposing “advise” in place of “assist” probes how the Government envisage that the board will function and seeks to understand whether there is or is not—I assume there is not—any operational role here. Amendment 71 is in this group as well, but I will leave my noble friend to introduce that.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton is unable to be here and has therefore asked me to speak to his amendment. I tried to add my name, but it was too late for the deadline.

Clause 9 requires the commander to comply with directions and “have regard to guidance” by the Secretary of State about the exercise of the commander’s functions. The amendment requires the Secretary of State to

“consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate before issuing or revising directions or guidance”

under Clause 9. That is fine, but the issue is whether we will ever know what guidance the Secretary of State has given; in other words, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that, when the Secretary of State issues this guidance, she shall act in a transparent manner and consult appropriate persons before issuing or revising directions or guidance under Clause 9. It is a matter of having some openness in how this thing happens; otherwise, we will never know quite what instructions have come from the Secretary of State.

I understand that the Law Society of Scotland produced a pretty good briefing on this. Although the amendment does not, of course, confine itself to Scotland but covers all parts of the United Kingdom, nevertheless, my noble friend and I are indebted to the briefing from the Law Society of Scotland. This is simply a bid for openness in the way in which the functions are to be exercised.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I apologise that I was unable to attend Second Reading. I have put my name to a number of later amendments, but I wanted to say how much I support the spirit of this group. On the issue of boat crossings, there is a feeling in relation to smashing the gangs that there is a huge amount of smoke and mirrors and not enough transparency and understanding. I fear that there is a climate of public distrust in which politicians are just not believed.

These amendments would therefore be really helpful to the Government, because they give assurances that this will be fully accounted for and not just a slogan, as has been indicated. The area around these crossings is a territory for rumour and potential misinformation. All sorts of figures are bandied around and people, because they no longer believe in the official figures, are open to all sorts of untrue figures. These amendments would help pin down exactly what this Bill will have achieved, which is very important.

There was an interesting incident recently where journalists—Patrick Christys and a team from GB News—helped to smash the gangs themselves. They did this by going on Instagram and pretending to be trying to get a crossing; they organised one and had WhatsApp communications, voice messages and so on, partly as a sting operation to show how easy it is to infiltrate the gangs and get this information. They passed on the information to the appropriate authorities. They have chased it up, and nothing has happened. Even though they had the names and phone numbers—because they were WhatsApp messages—of two gang leaders, nothing has happened to those people. Those journalists understandably used this to say, “For all the rhetoric about the gangs and this new piece of legislation saying that it will smash them, will it really?”

The first two amendments in this group will tell the public what they want to know about this Bill—how many gang leaders have been arrested and what exactly has happened. I urge the Government to look at these amendments favourably, as helpful to their cause and to the general atmosphere, so that we do not have public cynicism about political rhetoric without action.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I am intrigued by Amendment 20 requiring a statement of

“the number of … gangs that have ceased to operate as a result of enforcement action”.

As I understand it, that is very difficult to know. The characteristic of these gangs is that individual smugglers group and regroup. You have smaller fish who may be better known than the bigger ones. Obviously, the objective that is the subject of this amendment is exactly the right one, but I do not know that there could be any useful or meaningful reporting in quite the way that the amendment suggests. I am sorry not to be supporting it.

On Amendment 21, I note how important it is to have good data, whether or not the six headings here are precisely what the commander should be producing. The more general point—I will go on repeating it—is that the responsibility lies with the Secretary of State, not the commander. It is important to have full and accessible data much more frequently, and more up to date, than in an annual report published some time after the financial year to which the information relates.

I agree with the noble Lord to the extent that this is about accountability, but I do not agree—as he will have gathered rather tediously from me, and I am sorry about that—that the accountability is that of the director. It is that of the Secretary of State.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, we have had another useful discussion, and I hope that I can address some of the issues that have been put before the Committee today. The amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, would create a requirement for the Border Security Commander to include within the annual report a range of statistics relating to the new offences created by the Bill, and wider relevant statistics in relation to irregular entrants who have arrived via a sea crossing and/or deportations.

The first of these seeks to include statistics on human trafficking in the annual report, while the second seeks to include further information on the number of people charged on a range of new offences included in the Bill. As currently envisaged, the annual report must state how the commander has carried out the functions of their office in the financial year and set out the commander’s views on the performance of the border security system, with particular reference to the strategic priorities that have been set. The Bill makes it clear that, under its structures, a report will be laid before Parliament and published, providing both public and parliamentary accountability for the work of the Border Security Commander across all threats. The strategic priorities may change over time, as the threats evolve, and the commander would need to report against them.

The question at the heart of the amendments is: should we provide further statistics? In line with the statement of compliance with the code of practice for statistics, and as part of the Government’s big commitment to transparency, the Home Office already publishes a vast amount of data on immigration, including the themes within the amendment, in existing regular publications. We already have, over and above any amendment that might have been potentially accepted on this issue, quarterly statistics on people coming to the UK, extensions of stay, citizenship, asylum, detentions and returns. The quarterly immigration statistics release presents final and authoritative statistics on small boat arrivals. The appropriate place for that data is within established Home Office publications.

It is helpful information; the noble Lord should look at it, if he has the opportunity to do so. For example, it tells me that the number of small boat crossings rose from 300 people in 2018 to 36,000 in 2024—a 120-fold increase. I can get those figures from information that is in the public domain already, without it going into the Border Security Commander’s annual report. I can tell the noble Lord from quarterly statistics already produced that 29,867 people were returned between the general election on 5 July last year and 18 May 2025; the statistics tell me this is a 23% increase over the previous Government’s performance. If the noble Lord wants me to go on, I can say that there is a whole range of statistics saying, for example, that since 2018, 94% of the people arriving in the UK on small boats have claimed asylum. Around three-fifths of these have received a substantive decision, but it has taken a long time to get there. One of the reasons that we have cancelled the Rwanda scheme—which will come up later in the Bill—is so that we can put resources into speeding up asylum claims and improving on those statistics.

The noble Lord’s amendment asks us to put those in the Border Security Commander’s annual report. They are in place and are there for all to see. I cited a couple of them now. They are produced quarterly, so I can give him figures for the performance of this Government and the last Government. The two are, dare I say it, incomparable in most areas, because this problem arose and was driven under the previous Government. Those statistics are there and are done in a proper, official way, and the Border Security Commander’s annual report is to show how he performs on that matter.

Through Amendment 23, the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron, intend to reinforce the definition of sea crossings and ensure it is included in the commander’s annual report. I tried to explain on the previous group of amendments that we want to maintain flexibility in the annual report with this chapter, so I do not believe that amendment is necessary. But I want to reassure the noble Lord, in the spirit of the co-operation we self-evidently have in this discussion, that in producing the annual report, the commander will of course consider a range of evidence and data and will comment on how the strategic plan has been implemented with that data.

The noble Viscount raised the financial aspect of the commander’s annual report. The report is meant to be about his performance on and against the targets he has set. There is a place for financial accounts, but it is not in that annual report, in the view of the Government. He looks quizzically at me.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

29: Clause 13, page 7, line 7, at end insert “, without reasonable excuse”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, with others in the name of Baroness Hamwee to clause 13, makes the lack of a reasonable excuse a component part of the offence of supplying articles for use in immigration crime, thus placing the burden of proof upon the prosecution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

I appreciate that this group looks rather indigestible, so let me put it in a different way. I will give the amendment numbers so that they are there in the Official Report and it is understood that they have to be read as packages, each relating to a different clause but on the same point. To Clause 13, as well as Amendment 29, I have Amendments 34, 36 and 37. To Clause 14, I have Amendments 40, 43, 45 and 48, and to Clause 16, I have Amendments 52, 54, 58, and 61.

Chapter 2 of this part of the Bill creates various new offences, and these amendments are addressed to what is an offence and what is a defence, and in brief, who has to prove what. As the clauses are constructed, there is an offence if, to take Clause 13, P supplies a relevant article, and P will have a defence if he/she/they show that they had a reasonable excuse. The explanatory statement puts it more elegantly than I could—I credit the Public Bill Office with this; the drafting defeated me, and it was extremely helpful. That is not saying that I do not take responsibility—of course I do. As the explanatory statement says, the amendment

“makes the lack of a reasonable excuse a component part of the offence of supplying articles for use in immigration crime, thus placing the burden of proof upon the prosecution”,

which, of course, is normally the way we do things in this country. If the supply is without reasonable excuse—the prosecution has to show this—P would not be prosecuted if he has a reasonable excuse. One would not start on that journey.

I am very uneasy that the burden is on P. Innocent till proved guilty should be the position, not the equivalent of guilty until proved innocent. I beg to move.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I am very happy to support this string of amendments, which has been introduced very digestibly by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and deals with the reverse burden of proof and reasonable excuse.

Earlier in our proceedings, I referred to the publication of the report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights last Friday. It deals at some length with these issues that the noble Baroness has laid before your Lordships. These amendments seek to strengthen the safeguards in these new offences. Paragraphs 20 and 25 to 28 of our report—to which I particularly draw to the attention of the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson—deal specifically with defences and the potentially reasonable excuses referred to in this group of amendments.

Clause 16 provides two defences, the first requiring the person to show that the

“action or possession was for the purposes of a journey to be made only by them”.

If it applies simply to the individual—and not, for instance, to couples travelling with children—it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us the estimates, and I accept that they can only be estimates, of how many channel crossings in small boats are made by one person travelling alone, how many by couples and how many by family groups. I understand that we might not be able to have that information in Committee, but if we could have it between now and Report, I would be very grateful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, it is a day or two since I did any criminal law, and it was one time, in a magistrate’s court—then I started writing recording contracts.

I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate—although, I have to say, not always directly on the point being made by these amendments, and anticipating quite a lot of what we will come to on the second day of Committee. I do not want to get into discussion about the merits of what I think we will come to. My amendments do not deal with reasonable excuse, other than shifting how it is dealt with. They do not deal with the content of what is reasonable excuse.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for bringing in the JCHR report. I have not read as much of it yet as I should have done; I went straight to the recommended amendments and put a tick beside each of them. The noble Lord asked for a government response before Report. I know the Minister will not be able to give any commitment on that, but it really would be helpful. We have a bit more room and flexibility now, as I understand that days 4 to 6 of Committee are not going to happen until the September sittings of the House, so there is rather more time—not that I want anyone to interrupt their summer holidays to deal with this, but noble Lords will understand.

My noble friend—I am going to call him both noble and a friend—Lord Paddick and I have trod this ground together before, and I am grateful for his expert and informed explanation of the sequence of events when there is a prosecution. He referred to articles that have more than one purpose. If something is, as I understand him to say, very obviously aimed at illegality and cannot be used for anything else, that is not the same as an article that may have more than one purpose.

The first time that he and I were involved in a debate in this territory it related to acid. At that time—this is a good 10 years ago—there was a spate of acid attacks, with people on motorbikes driving past pedestrians and throwing acid in their face. The issues that we were discussing included a domestic product that might well, in the circumstance, be used to clear drains—what if someone had nipped out late to a supermarket and bought a domestic product of that sort? I am not suggesting that this is straightforward, but it is hugely important.

I would say—to use language used by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson—that it is in the public interest. He said that the amendments were not in the public interest, but it is not pernicious to seek to amend the Bill in this way. On the contrary, it is seeking to apply and maintain the rule of law. Almost nothing could be more important for the public interest.

There were issues such as the pull factor, as the noble Lord sees it, a loophole, mens rea and other things. We should come to these fairly early on the next day in Committee. It may well have been that the first set of groupings put those issues into this group, but there was a change quite late yesterday.

It might be harder to get a conviction, but what are we looking for? Are we looking at doing the job properly? I do not mean just getting to an outcome but doing the job properly and acting properly. We should not, as the Minister suggested, be relying on common sense as to whether or not there is a prosecution. As I have said before, that is not the way our law should work, although I accept that the CPS will look at the public interest test and the likelihood of a conviction.

I come back to the rule of law. The Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, is undertaking work on this at the moment. It sounds dry, but it is at the heart everything that we do right. This is not the time to take these amendments further, but clearly we will be thinking about them after this stage. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 29 withdrawn.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I would like to say “More, more” to that. I thank the Minister for his straightforward introduction. I think that he would be worried if he had received a unanimous welcome for the Bill today—and we have heard some rather different views. To pick up the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Harper, from his maiden speech, which I really enjoyed, we on these Benches are destined not to agree. I congratulate him on his speech.

At this time of night, I do not want to spend time on matters on which, over quite some years, we have spent a lot of time and emotion opposing. As my noble friends made clear, we welcome what we can—and there is a good deal to welcome. The repeals take up so little space in the Bill that it might be easy to spend too little time on them, but we will not shy away from probing the principled detail and workability of a number of provisions. There are several where we are some way from sharing the Government’s approach.

The Bill includes policies on which, as others have said, many organisations in the sector are providing very useful comments: we thank them. We will seek to persuade the Government of a number of policies and actions for which we have argued over some years—sometimes alongside the Labour Party, though we will try to be tactful about that—including allowing asylum seekers whose claim is not determined to work, retrieve their dignity and pay their way, in jobs which are much less restricted than those in the shortage occupation list. If applications are dealt with within a reasonable time, this should not be too much of an ask.

Where we can within the Bill’s scope, we will try to head off some of the plans trailed in the immigration White Paper, or introduced by recent rule changes, which are causing so much anxiety and distress. The new criteria for the good-character requirement for citizenship and the doubling, retrospectively, of the period of settlement are high on our list, as are the language and financial requirements—these are, to me, a somewhat skewed way of looking at integration. It is clear that a lot of UK citizens’ family members are affected by what the White Paper heralds, and the more the Minister can clarify the details of the residence requirements tonight, the better.

If public trust in the system is to be regained, respecting immigrants and asylum seekers as individuals, not some anonymous other, must be one way to do it, rather than conflating asylum and immigration. As has been said tonight, we must be clear in our language. I welcome the reflective speeches we have heard tonight that have focused on how we debate these issues. We must ensure too that people who have been, and in some cases still are being, exploited and abused are protected and supported, not punished. That is our responsibility.

The Minister will not be surprised that we will argue for practical mechanisms and safe routes to provide refuge for more people who need refuge because they come from conflict-afflicted areas—Sudan has been mentioned several times—or because of who they are. We know that we cannot provide for everyone, but we must do better. I refer any noble Lord who thinks we have been coy about our policy on safe and legal routes to look at our manifesto at the last election.

Nor will the Minister be surprised that we will again be seeking a more humane approach to family reunion, especially where children are involved. We continue to resist the notion that lone refugee children are a “pull factor”; it is push factors that make them lone refugee children. I have no doubt that we will spend time on children’s protection and needs: my noble friend Lady Brinton and others will see to that.

I turn to the Bill with which we are presented. We welcome the repeals of extreme and cruel legislation, but it does not go far enough. My noble friend mentioned detention. It is disconcerting and worrying that the Government are not dealing with clauses that adversely affect victims of modern slavery and human trafficking. As I say, we need more repeals. We know that positive action and support are needed to make the UK world-leading again. We did not stay here one night till 4.16 am to vote on age assessment not to address now all the concerns that we still have.

For myself, I am underwhelmed by the clauses relating to the Border Security Commander. As the post was established, I think, the day after the general election, and that must in large part have been presentational—a very useful term—what have we been without for the last 10 months? I have to say that I do not care for the notion that responsibility does not sit squarely with the Home Office.

This is perhaps something and nothing compared to what is under the heading “Other border security provision”. Of course, smugglers are to be condemned and responded to as organised criminals, with money, a lot of it, as their objective, and never mind who is damaged on the way, but some of the offences as drafted will criminalise people who must be recognised as victims forced into certain actions. When smugglers’ victims are, by definition, on hand to be forced to steer boats, for instance, how is this a deterrence to the real criminals or indeed to those who are simply seeking refuge?

TPIMs-type conditions which are lacking in safeguards cast people as criminals, and I accept some who will be affected are, but will these become routine? Will they be used routinely on people who are on immigration bail or who actually have limited leave? What about detention with retrospective powers,

“while the Secretary of State considers whether to make a deportation order”

and “always having had effect”?

I know that the Government do not propose to tag students, though it seems to be possible, but—especially in view of what is happening in the US—let us promote the UK’s universities, not send out a message that they, among others, are viewed with suspicion rather than to be welcomed.

Why is Part 3, “Prevention of serious crime”, in this Bill when we have a Crime and Policing Bill coming along? Mind you, I know it is already very chunky. We certainly resist any suggestion that asylum seekers as a group should be categorised as serious criminals or indeed criminals.

I am pleased that my noble friend Lady Ludford—like my noble friend Lord Oates, who cannot be here today—is prepared to take on the brain-scrambling Clause 42.

Over the years, we on these Benches have expressed our discomfort—to put it at its lowest—with civil orders which can morph into criminal penalties, and we will want to be very careful with serious crime prevention orders.

I have mentioned Clause 41. Powers of the Secretary of State to make regulations or use discretion are the bread and butter of this House’s work. Before anyone interrupts me, I am aware of the report of the DPRR Committee’s report.

Who could oppose cracking down further on bad immigration advisers? However, what would help more would be more legal aid and not having IAA fees at a level which may have an adverse effect on the numbers of skilled advisers; there is so much unmet need now.

Clauses about data always need our care. I am interested in the point made by one organisation in the sector that the UK should have safeguards to ensure it is not transferring biometric information in such a way that it may place the subject at risk.

It is not a matter for legislation, but on Saturday I received a plea for help with a long-outstanding application for ILR, with the Home Office writing that that there are “technical reasons” for the delay—this is not the case on which I have been in correspondence with the Minister, including this morning. One gets the feeling that there must be piles of too difficult, non-standard applications left on one side; improving efficiency is not only about numbers, but about the tricky cases too.

We look forward to what the JCHR has to say about the Bill, and maybe the Constitution Committee too.

We will strive to turn this Bill into legislation that is focused not on deterrence—which we do not think is likely to be effective—nor on punishment, but a positive response to one of the big issues of our day. By Committee, I might have thought of some music relevant to it.

Immigration System

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, immigration—this is not about asylum, which is a separate matter—involves a sort of contract between the immigrant and the host country. Each has a part to play, and each should be positive.

We used to talk more than we seem to now, often in the context of the benefits of overseas students in our universities, about the contribution to soft power played by welcoming people to our country, as well as what immigrants—who included my grandparents—contributed to the UK. I am glad that this was acknowledged by the Home Secretary in the Statement, though I am not convinced that the White Paper entirely reflects that, but I have to say I am shocked by some of the language used by the Prime Minister. Both words and tone are important.

I did not follow the logic of the White Paper. Supporting growth, housing and other construction and hospitality and tourism, for instance, require skills that are not at the highest level and work that can be hard but not skilled. Employers who recruit from overseas would not recognise this as the easy option, given the paperwork involved, and certainly not cheap, with high visa fees and the skills charge. Can the Minister tell us how much is expected to be raised by the increase in that charge and invested in training?

I do not accept that carers are unskilled; rather, their skills are not ones that we have traditionally valued. Better payment—the Minister will be aware of the Liberal Democrat policy of a higher minimum wage for carers—and our respect are due. Although the White Paper acknowledges that, the conclusion that overseas recruitment should end is perverse and damaging to carers and to clients. There is abuse by some employers in this and other sectors, but the response reads too much like victim blaming. Can the Minister tell us the timeframes for the fair pay agreements mentioned? I would also be interested in how the Government respond to concern that more and more pensioners will be exhausting their savings on care.

I look forward to migrant workers being given more control over who they work for, reducing opportunities for exploitation. We hope to explore that through amendments to the forthcoming borders Bill, as well as issues around family reunion, about which we have significant concerns. What consultation will there be regarding changes to family migration? What does proper integration support—to use the terminology—look like? Can the Minister clarify at what point in the immigration process, as distinct from citizenship, English language will be tested?

There is to be a new temporary shortage occupation list, including jobs critical to the industrial strategy, which the Minister may say addresses my earlier point, and to an extent perhaps it does. Does temporary mean a temporary list or temporary for the worker? Is it the list that will apply for asylum seekers when they are allowed to work, which should be much sooner than currently while waiting for a decision?

Indefinite leave to remain will “take account” of the applicant’s contribution. How is that to be measured? Five years is apparently not enough. Is it a matter of salary? How much discretion will there be? What data will the Home Office publish in the interests of transparency?

I return to some of the rhetoric. One gentleman has emailed me about how difficult it is for him and his partner—who he tells me arrived in the UK legally, paid visa fees, paid the NHS surcharge and has no recourse to public funds—to read that she is regarded as causing “incalculable damage”. Regardless of the detail, he says,

“it makes us feel unwelcome in the UK”.

These policies affect UK citizens too.

The White Paper refers to many further policies to come. There is a lot to follow up, with a lot of people uncertain, anxious and feeling threatened about their future, and many having thought that their future was clear. I hope there is a lot of consultation to come before policy is set in stone.

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

I am grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for their contributions, and I will try to answer them. I hope I do not surprise the noble Lord by saying that I am not going to go over the previous Government’s record; I will let that speak for itself. We can all make judgments on that. Government is a difficult place, but there are decisions that the previous Government took in all their forms from 2010 that we disagreed with, though there were things that we supported too, and we are where we are now.

We are trying to put a framework around some key decisions that the UK has to take in relation to the points before us in the White Paper. The key principles in the White Paper are that we need to reduce net migration substantially. We are potentially looking the number of visas issued to fall by up to 100,000 a year by the end of this Parliament as a result of the changes.

We need to link immigration to the UK skills strategy. We need to ensure that we create fair, effective and strictly enforced rules, and that includes what I would term good labour values to ensure that we do not have exploitative workforce practices, we do not have foreign-national criminals who continue to commit crime in our country and we do not have people working undercover because of their illegal entry to the UK. They are good values to ensure that we support work and the workforce as a whole.

It is also a good value that we extend the hand of friendship to those who have lived here, come here and worked here, but also we need to support integration and community cohesion. We need to ensure particularly that we empower Parliament to give a clear definition of family life and that the Immigration Rules are clear for all.

The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has mentioned three particular areas, which I will try to respond to. First, should we place a cap on migration and put that figure in there for the Government to be held to? We have taken the decision that we are not going to put a figure on that cap, but we are going to try to keep reviewing all the time the impact of the policies in this White Paper with the objective of reducing net migration over a period of time. Caps have proved a challenge in the past as an area where Governments have failed to hit targets so, while we can debate it and argue about it, that is the decision that we have taken.

Secondly, should we disapply legislation such as the ECHR and other legislation? The Government will abide by our international obligations. We do not intend to withdraw from those obligations, but we will look at, and will consult on, how we apply those obligations in a UK context. There may be room for us to look at that in detail, but there is no indication whatever that we are going to withdraw from those, nor would we wish to, because those are our international obligations and they should be met.

The noble Lord mentioned the visa changes. There will be consultations. A number of the measures in the White Paper will require legislation in this House, either at SI level, at rules level or in primary legislation, and there will be an opportunity for consultation, discussion and contributions from both Houses of Parliament accordingly.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, began by talking about the contribution of people who are immigrants to this country. I put on record how much I value those people who have come to this country to make their lives and to contribute. There are a range of services, public and private, where the contribution of people who have come to this country is central to public service, economic growth and business as a whole, and we need to recognise that.

However, we still need to have a system whereby we put some boundaries around migration and around supporting the development of UK society and its needs. There are 9 million people currently economically inactive in this country. What is the skills programme for those individuals? Can we get those people to do some of the work currently being done by people being brought into the country? That is an important issue.

I value very much the contribution of students and universities. We are not stopping students coming to the country, and we are not stopping universities having individuals come to the country. What we are doing is saying, “When you’ve finished your university course, we’re going to review the amount of time you can stay here before you need to make further applications along the lines of the immigration regime that we are putting in place in those areas”.

I know for a fact that we can probably count the number of Presidents, Prime Ministers and business leaders who have been to universities in this country and who value that experience and look back on this country as being the first step on their long road to success. That is important; we are not stopping that. We are simply putting in place an 18-month period after graduation which says that you have to then start look at reapplying, as opposed to being automatically able to stay.

The skills agenda is really important. As I have mentioned, there are a lot of unskilled people who can be brought into the market. Adult social care is important. We will be bringing forward rules to this House about changes in that sphere. However, it is important because a lot of people have abused the adult social care route and we are trying to put some rigour and order into it.

The noble Baroness mentioned exploitation. I am pleased to see the former Prime Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady May. It is important that modern slavery issues, which the noble Baroness, Lady May, championed in the other House in government both as Home Secretary and as Prime Minister, are put into measures that ensure we strengthen that route to avoid exploitation. We need to examine the issues of people coming here illegally, working illegally and being exploited by domestic employment orders, because that undercuts people who are doing legitimate work and legitimate businesses. That is a key issue for the Government.

We will be consulting on the measures the noble Baroness outlined and we will certainly examine in full any representations made. But the Government have to set out a direction of travel. One of the key things we have to do is set out a direction of travel and put some order into the system. Not everybody is going to agree with the direction of travel or the order we put in. But it is important that we have stronger control of our borders and stronger employment and training opportunities for all, that we still attract high level of talent and that we are still open for students to come and for businesses to invest. However, there has to be a framework around that, and the White Paper intends to provide that framework.

Finally, those who have indefinite leave to remain can currently apply for naturalisation after five years, but we have a 10-year proposed ceiling in the White Paper. We are going to look at transition arrangements and make sure we try to give opportunities for further consultation on points to do with naturalisation that we know are important to this House, the House of Commons and, most of all, to people who are here already. That will be subject to further consultation at an appropriate time.

I hope I have answered the questions the noble Lord and the noble Baroness raised, and I await further questions.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing the Bill forward for Third Reading. I express my gratitude to all noble Lords for their diligent scrutiny and contributions throughout the Bill’s progression.

I also extend my sincere thanks, once again, to Figen Murray—together with her team, as the Minister mentioned—whose tireless campaigning has been instrumental in ensuring that we make progress on stronger protection for premises. Without her dedication, the Bill would not have progressed as it has.

I am pleased that we had the opportunity for a thorough debate around the important issues contained in the Bill both in Committee and on Report. On Report, several crucial issues were raised; foremost among them was the concern that the Bill should not place an undue burden on smaller businesses and voluntary organisations. Indeed, I still have some concerns about that, and its eventual effect remains to be seen. We heard compelling arguments from my noble friends Lord Udny- Lister, Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord De Mauley about the challenges faced by small enterprises, charities, events and community groups, particularly in implementing the necessary security measures without excessive financial or administrative strain.

Similarly, concerns were voiced regarding the potential impact on volunteers and organisations in the cultural, sporting and heritage sectors. We heard from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester on the potential issues for hundreds of church communities and how they will be affected. These discussions underscored the necessity of ensuring that the provisions of the Bill are not only effective but proportionate and pragmatic in their application. While I am disappointed that the Government felt unable to support amendments that sought to protect smaller businesses and volunteers, we acknowledge the importance of moving forward with a Bill that still represents a significant step forward in our collective security.

We also welcome the Government’s clarification on the Henry VIII powers contained in the Bill, an issue of legitimate concern that was rightly debated in detail. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, for bringing amendments to refine these provisions. I commend the Minister on engaging seriously with these concerns and ensuring that the necessary clarifications were made. This is precisely the kind of constructive scrutiny in your Lordships’ House that strengthens legislation, and I am grateful to all who participated in this process.

I thank my noble friends Lord Cameron of Lochiel and Lord Sandhurst for their support on the Bill. I must also mention our support team on this side, Henry Mitson and Max McGiffen.

As we move towards the implementation of the Bill, it is vital that those affected by its provisions—businesses, charities, local authorities and venue operators —receive clear guidance and support. The effectiveness of this legislation will be determined not by the words on the page alone but by how well it is put into practice. Adequate resources, training and advice must be provided to ensure that compliance is achievable and that security measures are implemented effectively without unnecessary complexity or confusion. To that end, a watchful eye will be kept on the performance of the Security Industry Authority.

Furthermore, we must continue to evaluate the impact of these measures once they are in force. Security threats evolve, and our responses must remain adaptable. I hope that the Government will remain open to reviewing and, if necessary, refining the legislation in the future to ensure that it continues to meet the needs of those it seeks to protect.

In conclusion, the Bill represents a significant and necessary step in our ongoing efforts to protect the public from the scourge of terrorism. While no legislation can eliminate it entirely, we have a duty to take every reasonable measure to mitigate threats and to ensure that venues and public spaces are as prepared as possible. The Bill is a tribute to those who have tragically lost their lives to terrorism, and a testament to our resolve that we will do all we can to prevent future tragedies.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, as has been said, thanks must primarily go to Figen Murray, Stuart Murray and their team. Not for a minute have they allowed us to forget the significance of the Bill, which Figen instigated. Their staying power is remarkable, but not really a surprise in view of their history.

In the absence of my noble friend Lady Suttie from these Benches, we thank the Minister and his team for their helpfulness, openness and, as he said, collaboration, which we have really appreciated. I thank my noble friend Lady Suttie for being so easy to work with and so clear about what we wanted to achieve. As ever, I thank Elizabeth Plummer in our Whips’ Office. I have often said to her that she works so hard on legislation that she should do the last bit and be here to speak to it.

The Bill will not stop terrorism but has a very important part to play in the response to it, and we are pleased that challenges to the Bill have been resisted. We look forward to following its implementation.

Migrants: Indefinite Leave to Remain

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government have closed a certain number of asylum hotels—it is in the low teens at the moment. The Government have a commitment to closing such hotels because they are a waste of taxpayers’ resource, and there are better ways to manage what we inherited from the previous Government. Since July, we have removed 19,000 people with no legal right to remain in the United Kingdom. Of those, 5,100 were enforced returns and, since July, we have also tackled 5,400-plus visits on illegal working, and we are improving the situation with removal of foreign national offenders. There is a record that the noble Lord has to defend, and we are trying to unpick that record—and those hotels are his legacy. We will meet our manifesto commitment during this Parliament.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, are the Government satisfied that UKVI is providing good or, at any rate, reasonable service to applicants for indefinite leave? If you are paying the standard fees rather than for priority or super-priority service, is that one of the services for which you have to provide your credit card details and pay to hold on the phone, listening to a robot—possibly telling you that “Your call is very important to us”—before getting a formulaic and uninformative reply about the progress of your application?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope that that is not the experience—and if it is, I hope that the noble Baroness will send me details of the specifics of the experience that she relates. The Home Office does not make a profit from applications; where the fee is higher than the estimated unit cost, there is no profit element. The Home Office keeps all fees under review, and it is its principle to ensure that those who have a potential legal right to apply to stay in the United Kingdom have the facility to do so in a simple and effective way. I hope that the noble Baroness will supply me with the information if there is a specific case to which she wishes to refer.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I am grateful for another chance to address these amendments and support those brought forward by the Government. I am struggling a little with Amendments 13 and 25. I do not wish to deprive the good citizens of Buckley of the joy of their annual jubilee. Some of us thought that jubilees came round rather less frequently, but it is good that Buckley has them so often. I am not quite sure of the premises that would be covered by this legislation.

On Amendment 13, it would cost more in time, energy and effort to get an exemption for small premises than the fairly modest requirements for such premises would entail. It would not be much use for a small church hall to appeal for an exemption under Amendment 13. The risk for a large and wealthy organisation might be that they spend years in litigation and judicial review as to whether their premises should be exempt. I am not convinced.

As for Amendment 25, I yearn for the day when the terrorism threat is low or moderate, but I do not see that happening any time in the foreseeable future. We have to work on the basis that we will suffer significant threats of terrorism for quite some time. Given that the level is substantial one day and might be severe another, I would rather have the certainty of knowing what my premises had to do today and tomorrow and when planning an event in six weeks or 12 months, if it is a large event with a long lead-up time, rather than the rules changing depending on the terrorist threat having gone up or down a notch. Amendment 25 would create potential confusion, and I would rather that we kept things as simple as possible.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, these Benches welcome the government amendments to Clause 32, in particular Amendment 28 on consultation, which we were very keen to see written into the Bill when we debated it at previous stages.

Amendment 13 starts from the point of view that the measures in the Bill are inappropriately burdensome, as we discussed in the previous group. In fact, proposed new subsection (2) in Amendment 13 would be burdensome on applicants and the Secretary of State. It uses the words “demonstrated” and “materially”; these things all require some judgment and work. In particular, the Bill does not seek to

“materially reduce the threat of terrorism”,

as we have discussed. The public protection procedures in Clause 5 are more than a single measure.

As I understand the way that the Bill will work, with premises being different there is bound to be some dialogue between the owner or operator and the SIA in assessing whether they are compliant. That is the time to make these assessments. I do not think it will be a box-ticking exercise, at any rate to the extent that has been suggested. The process will get people to think—a word used by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox —when they are planning the procedures. I hope she will invite noble Lords to come and see the Buckley procession, but the problem there sounds to me more like a problem with local authority funding than anything which arises from this Bill. The words “flexibility” and “agility” really worry me; this will create a lot of work for people. So our main objection to Amendment 13 is that it is neither appropriate nor, frankly, workable and we cannot support it if the noble Lord decides to divide.

Amendment 25 is on the national threat level. I do not want to say that it goes up and down like a yo-yo, because clearly it does not, but it does go up and down and so, again, I think it would be unworkable given the criterion. The right reverend Prelate used the word “confusion”, which was the first word I wrote down against this amendment. We know that owners and operators want clarity and certainty, so, again, we cannot support this amendment. I really cannot see how it could work because, when the national threat level changes, it happens quite immediately, so to change arrangements as the amendment proposes would take time. I just cannot see how it could operate.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester have said about Amendment 25. This needs consistency. The danger, as well as the fact that these things can change quite quickly, is that the SIA would struggle to respond to a potential wave of applications, when the certainty that people require is probably on whether they are safe in a venue and whether there is an invacuation plan or an evacuation plan. These things can be predictable and consistent, so it would not be helpful to tie them to the thresholds. These thresholds move predictably in the sense that we can see the threat rising and events happening, but sometimes they are based on intelligence that is not always open to the public, and therefore a rapid change could lead to quite a lot of uncertainty in the operation of premises. That is not wise, either, so I cannot support Amendment 25.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I support the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, has just spoken to, for largely the same reasons that he does: we have many volunteers running church buildings and church halls around the country.

In addition to what he says, I know in practice that it is very unusual for a charity trustee, for example, to be held personally liable for something unless they have behaved egregiously. In many cases, organisations have a structure that allows them to take out insurance against some kinds of risks. But perception really matters here: the perception that one might end up going to prison, or be made personally liable, as a church warden or parish clerk, for excessively heavy fines compared with your own personal income.

Given the deterrent effect of that—when we find it so hard, and in an age when there are fewer volunteers, to keep the voluntary structures of this country running —if the noble Lord wishes to bring these matters to a Division, he will certainly have my support and, I hope, that of other Members of your Lordships’ House.

[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.

UK Airports: British Passport Holders

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, as the Minister has said, the converse of the proposal is that other lines would get longer. Does he agree that growth for this country requires us to be welcoming to both businesspeople and tourists? Is it not about capacity and organisation?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

One of the Government’s key objectives is growth. We will look again with European nations and others at how we can ensure that Britain remains a welcoming place to individuals to come and do business and tourism. Some 55% of the people who come through any of the points of entry into the United Kingdom are UK citizens. The proposal from the noble Baroness would mean that that 55% had a longer queue if there were specifically British-only lines.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

37A: Leave out Clause 31 and insert the following new Clause—
“Civil liabilityNothing in this Act or regulations made under it affects any right of action in civil proceedings.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is to clarify the right to civil proceedings under the Bill.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 37A is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. Clause 31 of the Bill provides that,

“Except so far as this Part or regulations under this Part provide, nothing … confers a right of action in any civil proceedings in respect of a contravention of a requirement imposed by … this Part”.


It then goes on to say that that subsection

“does not affect any right of action which exists apart from the provisions of this Part”.

I was quite confused by that clause, and relieved that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, also sought clarity. Our amendment would provide that:

“Nothing in this Act or regulations made under it affects any right of action in civil proceedings”.


If we have interpreted the provision correctly, that is a rather more straightforward way of saying it.

When the point was raised at Second Reading, the Minister said that the lack of time meant that we did not have the opportunity then to discuss the clause in detail. He said there would be opportunities in due course, so I am taking this opportunity. My question is, quite straightforwardly: does the amendment express what the Government are seeking to say, particularly with regard to breach of statutory duty? If it is not as the amendment sets out, why not? I beg to move.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to act as junior counsel to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I listened carefully to some comments that the Minister made on Monday, which alluded to this clause, and I thought about them carefully, but they were brief and I, too, wish to test what is really intended by the Government. My feeling is that the Government have made an inadvertent mistake in Clause 31 which they can easily rectify.

This Bill is designed to protect citizens by imposing clear statutory duties. When clear statutory duties are imposed and there is a breach of those duties, it is very common for a citizen who is a victim of that breach to be able to bring a civil action. The purpose of the civil action is often to recover damages, though it may involve other declaratory judgments too.

I want to give a few examples, because I think we are going to have one substantive debate on this clause and then a decision will be reached. I am going to mention a number of instances in which breach of statutory duty gives rise to a civil action to obtain judgments of the kind I mentioned. First, driving a vehicle in an unsafe condition gives rise to a statutory duty which can result in a judgment for damages. In this Bill we are talking about something much bigger in scale than driving a vehicle in an unsafe condition, but it may have exactly the same consequences.

There are other examples. If there are unsafe systems or means of work in any workspace, there can be an action for breach of statutory duty without it being necessary to prove negligence, nuisance or any other tort —civil wrong—that requires specific proof of certain aspects. Allowing a vehicle to be driven by an uninsured person allows a claim for breach of statutory duty. The failure to arrange compulsory insurance for employees allows such a claim. If a landlord fails to provide habitable standards, equally, there can be such a claim. If a company fails to disclose required financial information to investors, there can be such a claim for breach of statutory duty.

If a shop sells faulty electrical equipment whereby a fire is caused in the home for which it has been bought, for example, one does not have to prove negligence. One may have an action under the Sale of Goods Acts or their equivalent, but there is an opportunity to obtain damages for breach of statutory duty. At a construction site, the failure to provide safety barriers gives rise to such an action. If we go to a restaurant and suffer food poisoning because it has failed to reach the statutory hygiene standards, we can make a claim for damages for breach of statutory duty. If one fails as an employer to provide proper training to employees on handling hazardous chemicals, that too gives rise to a potential claim for breach of statutory duty. I have chosen just a few examples—and there are others—where one does not have to prove negligence and the components of negligence.

Such provisions are all designed to secure protection for individuals without the need to prove those other elements of common-law civil wrongs. I do not understand why those rights are removed by Clause 31(1). I invite the Government to reflect on what is, as I have suggested, probably an inadvertent failure.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for tabling this amendment, with the support of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. We have had discussions outside this Committee to examine these issues. I am genuinely sorry that I was not able to allay the concerns expressed in our discussions, but I hope to be able to do so today, formally and on the record. I am grateful for the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, which I think were supportive, and those from the Opposition Front Bench made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower.

The purpose of the Bill, as we have discussed, is to mitigate the effects of physical harm arising from acts of terrorism. My starting point, which I know will be shared by everybody in this Committee today, is that the people responsible for such heinous acts that might be inflicted as a result of terrorist activity are the terrorists themselves. The purpose of this potential Act, if it is approved downstream, is to ensure that there are requirements on the duty holders under it which make a real difference to the physical harm caused by potential acts of terrorism. For this reason, there is both a set of conditions to put in place, under Clauses 5 and 6, and robust regulatory and enforcement provision in the Bill.

However, the duties should not impose an actionable right for someone who has suffered loss or injury to bring a claim for a breach of statutory duty. I will try to explain why I think that is the case in due course. I may or may not convince the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, but I will attempt to do so.

Clause 31(1) puts this principle beyond doubt and provides valuable reassurance for responsible persons who, fearing they may face civil proceedings, could otherwise feel pressured to overcomply with the Bill’s requirements. These points were made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. They might, as the Liberal Democrats have previously spoken about, drive people who have those statutory responsibilities to start to engage expensive consultants to overworry about the provisions or to make alterations to their premises that are disproportionate to the risks they face.

Throughout the Bill, the Government have tried to make the provisions as simple and clear as possible and to not put concerns that would lead to potential costly litigation on the face of the Bill. Clause 31(2) makes it clear that it does not affect any right of action which exists, apart from the provisions of Part 1 of the Bill. I know the noble Lord is aware of this because we have discussed it but, for example, a claim for negligence could still be made under the provisions of Clause 31(2). That provision is precisely in line with existing legislation, such as the health and safety legislation in 2013, which ensured that no civil right of action was available for breach of statutory duty unless provided for specifically under the Bill.

It is right that the Bill makes it clear that existing rights of action, such as negligence claims, are not affected, while providing what I hope—again, this is for noble Lords to assess—is clear reassurance to all that a civil claim for breach of statutory duty may not be brought. Therefore, I hope it helps the true purpose of the Bill: to require reasonable, simple and effective steps to mitigate the harm that could be caused by an act of terrorism, for which the terrorist is solely responsible. It should be achieved appropriately, proportionately and without overcompliance flowing from a fear of costly litigation.

I may not have succeeded, but I hope I am finding the balance point between the concerns expressed by Members of the Opposition, and the genuine concerns put down by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I hope that balance point is achieved by what the Government say. I will listen again if the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, wishes to make any further points based on what I have said. That is —not with my legal training but the legal mind of the Home Office lawyers behind me—the position I put before the Committee in response to the amendments.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to those who have taken part in this debate. I do not know whether noble Lords listening are any clearer as to where we are going on this. I make it clear to the Committee that my first objective is to achieve something that is readily understandable to anybody reading this legislation. The Member’s explanatory statement refers to clarity. I was seeking to address this to, first, get clarity and then debate the substance.

I was also concerned that it is important to get discussions on the record. This is not an accusation, but I was not involved in any discussions outside this House. It occurs to me listening to the discussion that it will also be important that guidance or explanations about how this new regime is to work are written in kindergarten language and available to the public.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Perhaps I might again reassure the noble Baroness. What I have said, from this Dispatch Box, is that guidance from both the Home Office and downstream will be put out once the Security Industry Authority is established, and that it will be subject to discussion in this House. I hope that will achieve the noble Baroness’s objective.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

I hope that anything that is put out does not need that much discussion in terms of clarity and whether the plain English campaign is satisfied and so on. I am not going to seek to take this further today, but I come back to it as one of the central political points about legislation being clear to those who have to operate it and who are affected by it. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 37A withdrawn.

Citizenship Applications

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for the work he did on citizenship when he was Home Secretary some years ago. He will know that the proposals today are about illegal entry to the United Kingdom and do not affect rightful citizenship applications for people who are entering legally. On those who are stateless and at risk of losing citizenship, there is a stateless leave provision for people who qualify, and they can apply for that; children will be considered sympathetically under existing legislation.

My noble friend mentioned community cohesion. The central premise of government policy is to ensure that we have a society that respects and has cohesion. He highlighted the importance of the Government’s proposals to tackle small boat crossings and illegal migration. The Bill introduced in the House of Commons on Monday, which will reach this House in due course, provides for a new border force. It will tackle criminal gangs and make sure that we use the security services to gather and share data, and that we stop this pernicious trade, which is benefiting only those who wish to make money out of misery.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

I am sure the Minister will acknowledge that the people in question would have been accepted as refugees. By definition, over a number of years, most of them would have been seeking to contribute to British society and focusing on integration. How will they take it when they find that, in the “good character” criterion, they are bracketed with criminals and terrorists? On a factual point, there must now be a lot of very distressed and anxious would-be citizens. Can the Minister confirm that the guidance will not apply to people who have arrived here before 10 February?

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

24: Clause 8, page 6, line 14, leave out subsections (5) and (6)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to probe the impact of Clause 8 in relation to commercial agreements, as highlighted by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation’s Note on the Bill, published on 9th December 2024.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I hope the Minister will not feel beleaguered or besieged by this amendment, which is a probing amendment prompted by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation’s note on the Bill published on his website.

Clause 8 is about co-ordination and co-operation. I have always found it a bit difficult to get my head around the notion of a statutory requirement to co-operate, although co-ordination might be a bit different. The amendment addresses subsections (5) and (6), which place a duty on someone who is not responsible for the premises but who has

“control to any other extent of the premises”.

The duty is subject to enforcement by the regulator. The amendment is to ask what “control to any other extent” means. The Explanatory Notes say that it is intended to apply to the freehold owner of the premises or the superior landlord who leases to the person who is primarily responsible under the Bill.

The independent reviewer gives a particular example. The owner of a premises rents them out to the responsible person, who uses them, in this example, as a bingo hall with a capacity of more than 800. The lease has 12 months to run and provides that no alteration may be made to the structure of the premises without the owner’s consent. There are no plans to renew the lease—indeed, the owner of the premises wants to sell them to a developer. The responsible person decides that, to comply with his duty under the legislation, he must make a structural change, putting in a new exit where there are currently windows. The owner would be entitled to refuse the alterations, particularly because they would adversely affect the value of the premises. There are conflicting considerations. Does Clause 8(6) mean that the owner has a duty to give consent? It is practicable for him to do so, but is it reasonable? What is the policy intention? Does it matter that the lease gives the ultimate say to the owner over building alterations, or is the lease now overwritten?

All this amounts to a question whether Clause 8 is intended to overwrite commercial considerations. The clause has the capacity to impose new terrorism-related duties on many building owners and landowners, not only in the property investment sector. Its effect, the independent reviewer writes, is “uncertain”. He suggests that

“since the Bill imposes unprecedented terrorism-related duties on members of the public, and has the capacity to interfere with commercial relationships, the intended impact … should be clearer”.

In this group, Amendments 24A and 24B are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. I will leave it to him to introduce those. However, on Amendment 24B, in which he proposes that the tribunal must issue its determinations within a reasonable time—that being defined in regulations by the Secretary of State—I wonder whether he can tell the Committee whether this is entirely novel. He will know far better than I do, given his background and experience, whether the tribunal is required to meet a timeframe in other equivalent contexts. That is my question on his amendment. I beg to move my Amendment 24.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, in this group, I have Amendments 24A and 24B. Amendment 24A to Clause 10 is very simple. It gives the option in the case of non-enhanced duty—that is, standard duty—premises for the responsible body to delegate responsibility to more than one person. That will not dilute responsibility but, if we suppose that two people were given responsibility where it was a small and informal group, it would allow for a degree of flexibility. That is important in small, informal organisations which normally have fewer than 200 people but, in any case, fewer than 800 at an event. This is for smaller events—I do not mean that they are unimportant—and those in charge are likely to be smaller and much less formal organisations than for big places. If such organisations are to engage with all this, very often, if there are volunteers, person A may not be available because they may be on holiday, so we say let us have person B. It is not a big, structured organisation that we are talking about, necessarily.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I can see force in what the Minister has said, so I will not press my amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, will not pursue his amendment. As noble, and noble and learned, Lords will have understood, my question to him was a coded form of opposition. He said “It doesn’t matter that there’s no precedent”, but I think that it matters very much.

On my Amendment 24, I hope it is appropriate to summarise the Minister’s response as saying that there are two conditions for subsection (6) to apply: practicality and reasonableness. He is nodding—I say that so that we will get it into Hansard, because it answers the question raised by the independent reviewer. If we need to come back for any clarity, or if I am misconstruing him, perhaps there will be an opportunity.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to intervene. I gave the words “reasonable” and “practical”; they are the tenors on which the legislation would be interpreted.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 24 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

It is clear that the burdens imposed by the Bill may be considerable. Allowing companies and small community ventures the opportunity to obtain assistance and pass on some of the contingent liability would reduce the impact, particularly on volunteers in small businesses. If they had contracted with a security provider and there was a breach, it seems there would then be a strong case for that provider to answer to and remedy the breach when asked to by the accredited body. For those reasons, I urge the Committee to consider the amendment closely.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord will have realised from the last debate, my noble friend and I are rather keen on accreditation of training—I will come back to that in a moment—but I should make it clear that we should not be using the term “kitemark”; I know I always do. Apparently, that is the term used by the British Standards Institution for products—as I discovered a while ago when I got this wrong in another context.

Accreditation of training is not quite the same as accreditation of the trainer or the provider. I am a little confused about some of this amendment: the terms “accredited” and “certified” are both used, and I do not know whether it is intended that there is a difference between them. When the noble Lord winds up this debate, perhaps he could tell us—that may be something or nothing.

I had written down, “Is this delegation of responsibility or liability?” The noble Lord just talked about sharing liability, but I do think that that is the direction that the Bill is going or should go in. I find quite a lot of difficulties with this amendment, although there are points where our thinking coincides. As it stands, I do not think we could wholly support it.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Murray, has been very careful in the drafting of this amendment and I respect the work he has done, although, like the noble Baroness, I do not agree with the amendment. It seems to undermine the fundamental purpose of the Bill, which is to place responsibility on those people who control premises. To create a box-ticking exercise of this kind, which is what it would amount to, would simply facilitate the payment of an annual subscription and leave it to some other company to take that responsibility.

The noble Lord will be aware, I am sure, that, when somebody employs an independent contractor to carry out part of the work they are contracted to do—for example, a floor layer to do part of a construction contract—the person who engages that independent contractor has at least a common-law responsibility to ensure that they take reasonable steps to ensure that the independent contractor is competent and does the work properly. This amendment would appear to remove that potential responsibility. All of us who have been involved in cases involving questioning the work of independent contractors will know that sometimes such claims can be successful because the employer has not carried out proper scrutiny of the independent contractor.

I also draw to the House’s attention paragraph 8.106 of Manchester Arena Inquiry Volume 1: Security for the Arena. Sir John Saunders recommended that

“consideration is given to amending the SIA legislation to require that companies which carry out security work which may include a counter terrorism element are required to be licensed”.

He recommended, therefore,

“that only fit and proper companies carry out this work”,

under an amended SIA licensing procedure similar to the procedure that the SIA already operates for security companies carrying out door security work and similar activities. If the aim of the Bill is, as I believe, to place clear responsibility on those who operate property to take reasonable steps to secure the public against terrorist acts, that responsibility should not be shuffled aside by an amendment of this kind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, if there is not communication with local authorities on all the activities under this Bill, I would be horrified. They must have a major part to play. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, may be right in thinking that it needs to be put in black and white but, frankly, they are such central players that it had not occurred to me that that was required.

The two amendments to which my noble friend has spoken are about differences in the physical structure of premises and in how and when they are used. The briefing we had from the Society of London Theatre was about the get-out at the end of a run, when there is activity right through the night which affects adjacent premises. This is different from how other businesses are run. A good part of what we are trying to say is that none of us can know how every business operates. It requires wide consultation.

Now I look at Amendment 36A, as happens at this stage, it is not a very good amendment, but it enables me to ask how Clause 27(4) will operate. The subsection provides that, where there is an allegation that there has been a contravention of a requirement,

“proof that the person acted in accordance with … guidance … may be relied on as tending to establish that there was no such contravention”.

It uses the words “proof”, “relied” and “tending to establish”. The explanatory statement puts it better, but this probing amendment is to clarify the meaning of this and how it will operate in practice.