Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 26th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel]

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

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 7 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower, I will speak to the further amendments in this group.

The Prime Minister said during his visit to Italy in September 2024:

“No more gimmicks. This Government will tackle the smuggling gangs who trade the lives of men, women and children across borders”.


I say to the Minister that we must be very careful that the Border Security Commander is not one such gimmick. We are told that the commander

“must have regard to the objectives of … maximising the effectiveness”

and co-ordination of other authorities, but what does that mean in practice? That is not a power of direction, it is not a position of operational command, and it is not even statutory oversight. What is more, the commander is expected to publish from time to time a strategic priority document that merely sets out what the commander thinks the threats are and what the priorities should be—and even that cannot be published without the consent of the Secretary of State and a consultation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment 7 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel]

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

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

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

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

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

“the principal threats to border security”.

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

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

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

I listened carefully to the Minister’s response, but I simply do not believe that it is a serious approach to a serious national challenge, when confidence in the system is fragile, to leave the frequency of such an important document so open-ended. For that reason, the clear solution is Amendment 9’s requirement to issue it annually. That is simply a minimum standard of accountability. It would not be excessive or difficult and, if the commander is to be held to their role, it would be a form of regularly reporting on the document.

Frequency is not the only issue, as has been said. As drafted, the document lacks substance. It offers no mandate to assess the effectiveness of the methods being used to deter illegal entry, reduce crossings or facilitate removals. Amendment 10 would address that gap directly. If the Government truly believe that the role will make a difference, they should have no hesitation in embracing clarity, direction and purpose in the remit of the commander.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

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

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

Amendment 9 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel]

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

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

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

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

“a person with functions of a public nature”.

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

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

“illegal entry to the United Kingdom”

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

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

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

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

Amendment 15 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel]

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

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

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

Our amendment to Clause 4 simply asks the Government to state in each annual report the number of people-trafficking gangs that that have ceased to operate as a result of enforcement action. That is it: it is not an unreasonable demand; it is not an operational risk; it is just seeking the facts, if the Government have them. If the Government really are dismantling these criminal gangs, they would have no reason to oppose this. If the policy is working, the data should be on hand and should strengthen the case that the Government are so eager to make. Transparency would serve to confirm what is claimed is already happening.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

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

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

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

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

and

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

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

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

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

Amendment 20 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel]

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

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

This is particularly important given that, in the world of organised immigration crime, individuals often seek to insulate themselves by arranging exchanges between others, keeping their own hands clean while remaining the central co-ordinator, and often beneficiary, of criminal activity. This amendment would simply ensure that those who orchestrate these exchanges are held to account just as much as those who carry them out.

If we are to deter and disrupt the criminal networks profiting from illegal migration, we must be prepared to legislate against the full chain of facilitation and not just the visible ends of it. I respectfully submit that the Minister should think carefully now about these kinds of loopholes that the Government risk creating in the legislation, which can be easily identified if a practical operational perspective is taken. I hope he accepts these amendments, and I beg to move.

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

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

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

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

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Katz, for his speech. It has been a long afternoon and I feel that, at the very end of it, I have made a tiny step of progress. I think he agrees that the case is simple, because it is a strong case: we are not asking for anything radical, just for the law to keep pace with the realities of how organised immigration crime actually works. I will say no more about Amendment 30.

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

Amendment 30 withdrawn.