Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025

Lord Harper Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

No.

This SI goes directly against the promises made by Ministers when the anti-terror laws were introduced. The then Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, clarified that if direct action groups

“do not engage in serious violence … the new definition cannot catch them”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/12/1999; col. 227.]

The current definition of terrorism includes property damage to cover

“actions which might not be violent in themselves but which can, in a modern society, have a devastating impact”.

Based on what the Minister has said and what the Government have told us, Palestine Action’s activities have not had the potential for a “devastating impact” on society, and nor have its activities included a pattern of serious violence. Yet the Government are putting it into the same category as Islamic State and al-Qaeda, setting an incredibly dangerous precedent that will impact on numerous peaceful campaigning groups. There is a long and noble tradition—

[Lord Harper (Con)]

Is the noble Baroness prepared to answer questions about—

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

No, sweetie. Noble Lords can come in at the end, okay?

There is a long and noble tradition of the use of direct action by protest movements, including the suffragettes—yesterday we celebrated the anniversary of the Equal Franchise Act, when women were finally given the right to vote—anti-apartheid protests, Greenpeace and peace campaigners such as CND and the women of Greenham Common. I ask the Minister: under the Government’s proposal, would they also be retrospectively branded as terrorists? What about Queen Boudicca, a freedom fighter for the British tribes under the Roman yoke? This Government would call her a terrorist and say there is no place in British society for her, either.

Campaigners committing criminal damage have been annoying the public and Governments for well over 100 years. The police take them to court, the newspapers owned by rich people condemn them and occasionally we get a change in government policy. That is rather how our damaged democracy has been working.

I completely agree that democracies have to defend themselves against violent attacks on their citizens aimed at furthering a political cause, which is why we should be uniting to proscribe the other two groups that the noble Lord has described. But democracies have to defend themselves against politicians choosing censorship as a way of silencing opposition to unpopular policies, which is what I think the Government are doing here.

That brings me to my most important point. This proscription order undermines the entire consensus behind our country’s anti-terror laws. I ask the Minister and every noble Lord whether they can name another group that they are about to proscribe that has hundreds of thousands of British people following it on social media. What exactly does the Minister think will happen to that support for Palestine Action from such a large swathe of British people who suddenly feel, after Wednesday, when the order takes place, that they might be affected if they morally oppose genocide and the terrorism laws being used to defend what is morally wrong? I do not agree with everything that this group has done, not by any means, but when I hear that businesses have been stopped supplying arms to the Israeli military in Gaza, I feel happy that that has happened.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I simply want to make what I hope is a helpful point to the House. In case noble Lords have not seen it, four individuals have now been charged with the alleged offences at Brize Norton. As a new Member of your Lordships’ House, I have to confess that I am not entirely certain what the sub judice rule is in the House, but it seems to me that we ought to exercise a certain level of caution in commenting on that specific offence for fear of prejudicing the trial of the four individuals who have been charged with those offences as of last night.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

I totally agree with the noble Lord, but it is like that that they have been charged. There are plenty of other criminal offences that such activity could attract rather than treating young people as terrorists because they feel frustrated about the failure to stop mass killings and bombings of Palestinians in Gaza. That is the point I am making. There is plenty of ammunition in the legal armoury to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

I support the statutory instrument before us today. Unfortunately, we are in a post-truth world. I suggest that people deal with just facts. What I have outlined today are the facts, not what people want to think the facts are to fit their narrative.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as I had a recent trip to Israel, organised by Conservative Friends of Israel, to learn more about the consequences of the terrorist events of 7 October.

I had not intended to speak in this debate had it just been the statutory instrument in front of us. I was provoked into doing so by the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, which I think is misplaced. I have to say that my experience is that, when Members advance arguments and are not willing to take questions, it is usually the sign of a very weak argument. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hain, for taking an intervention. That shows somebody who has confidence in their arguments and is prepared to have them challenged. The fact that the noble Baroness was not even prepared to take an intervention from a single noble Lord I think demonstrates that she does not actually think her arguments are that strong.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords—

[Lord Harper (Con)]

Of course I will take an intervention.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

The noble Lord had little choice then.

First, I think it is entirely inappropriate in this discussion, which is fraught enough, to assume you know which side people are on around the Israel-Gaza situation. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and I disagree wholeheartedly, but I agree with her that there is real concern over this particular issue. Secondly, when you are trying to make a contribution and are heckled, with people standing up and calling out, and you are basically on a minority side, I think it is perfectly respectable for noble Lords to accept that you do not want to take interventions. To draw any other conclusion from that has a really unpleasant, nasty vibe about it.

I am actually shocked. I am generally on the side of the people backing this proscription. At one point, listening to the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, I thought maybe people were being proscribed for misinformation. I have got to the point now where I do not know what the terrorist act is. However, I think it is completely wrong to assume that there is cowardice involved in not taking points from other Members.

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

I suggest we take the heat out of this a bit. Interventions are welcome, but noble Lords are not obliged to take them, and they should be brief.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said I was making assumptions about what views people have about Israel or Palestine. I do not think I made any assumptions about that at all. I just happen to think that, in a debate, it is helpful if people take questions and listen to the arguments of others and are prepared to deal with them. That is how in a democratic forum you test arguments. I think it is very helpful, and perfectly reasonable, for people to draw conclusions from the fact that people are not prepared to have their arguments challenged. That is all I was saying.

Let me come to the Minister’s opening remarks. I strongly support the proscription of all three organisations mentioned in this statutory instrument. I am going to limit my remarks to Palestine Action, as that is the subject of the noble Baroness’s regret amendment, and draw attention to and support several things the Minister said.

In part two of the amendment, the noble Baroness talks about the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation and mentions property damage. The Minister made it quite clear that, on multiple occasions, this particular group has been involved not just in property damage. The attack against the Thales factory in Glasgow caused over £1 million pounds-worth of damage and caused panic among the staff, who feared for their safety as pyrotechnics and smoke bombs were thrown into the area to which they were evacuating. When passing custodial sentence for the perpetrators, the sheriff said that throwing pyrotechnics at areas where people are being evacuated to cannot be described as non-violent.

It is very clear that this organisation is careless about the effects of its actions on people. I am not going to draw attention to the specific event that is now the subject of criminal charges, but once you start attacking the defence assets of the United Kingdom—the people and property designed to keep this country safe—you cross a line. That is a line that peaceful protesters do not cross, and it helps support proscription.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

In that case, would the noble Lord have proscribed the Greenham women?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I am talking about this statutory instrument. I will not go back over historical cases. I am talking about this particular case and the noble Baroness’s amendment; otherwise, we will, frankly, be here all day and trying the patience of noble Lords.

Let me pick up the rest of the noble Baroness’s regret amendment, because that is what we are debating. The first part of it talks about undermining civil liberties, including civil disobedience. Nothing in this statutory instrument stops people carrying out acts of civil disobedience. This is about people who are specifically going about breaking the criminal law in a way that meets the test of terrorism in the Terrorism Act 2000. That is not triggered by people carrying out acts of civil disobedience. I listened carefully to the noble Baroness’s speech, and she did not set out any evidence to support the first part of her regret amendment.

The second part, I have just dealt with. The third part is about suppressing dissent against the United Kingdom’s policy on Israel. Again, proscribing this organisation does nothing to stop people protesting about any aspect of the conduct of the Government of Israel in any way. People can contact their elected Members; they can go on demonstrations; they can do whatever they want in the media and all sorts of other things, but what you cannot do in a democratic country is use violence. Other examples were given in the debate in the other place yesterday of members of this organisation going out, tooled up with weapons, and being charged with offences that threaten other people. That is not a legitimate way to carry out dissent in a civilised country. As we know from this debate about the conduct of the Israeli Government and what they are doing both in Gaza and on the West Bank, nothing in this order stops people having views on both sides of that argument, both inside Parliament and outside. Again, the noble Baroness did not set out in her argument any evidence to support that part of her regret amendment.

In the final part, the noble Baroness says that the order

“criminalises support for a protest group, thereby creating a chilling effect on freedom of expression”.

She refers in that part of the amendment to this organisation as a “protest group”. It is not a protest group. As the Minister set out very clearly, it describes itself as “not a non-violent organisation”. So, in its own words, it accepts that it uses violence. That is not a legitimate protest group. Again, there is nothing in this statutory instrument that in any way stops people having freedom of expression and carrying out protests. Again, the noble Baroness did not provide any evidence to back up that part of her amendment.

There are four parts to the noble Baroness’s regret amendment. She has not made out a case with any evidence to support any part of it. I urge her to withdraw the amendment and allow this statutory instrument to reach the statute book so that the country can be safer from people who are willing to use terrorist methods to make arguments, while leaving the rest of us free to use the democratic means at our disposal on these important subjects.

Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) (Relevant Public Authorities and Designated Senior Officers) Regulations 2025

Lord Harper Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, it is a pleasure to be here today to bring forward these regulations, which are enabled by the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, during the passage of which some nine years ago I recall sitting for many hours. The IPA provides a framework designed to protect the public by giving law enforcement and the intelligence services the tools they need to prevent, detect and prosecute crime. It also safeguards the privacy of individuals by setting out stringent controls over the way the IPA powers are used.

Communications data reveals the who, where, when and how of a communication but not, I emphasise, its content, such as what was written or said. CD is routinely relied on as evidence in 95% of serious organised crime investigations and has played a significant role in every major terrorism investigation over the past decade.

These regulations will update the public authorities listed in Schedule 4. Only those public authorities listed in the schedule are permitted to use the CD powers in the Act and therefore have the authority to compel communications data from telecommunications or postal operators. In addition to this safeguard, Part 3 of the IPA sets out the specific statutory purposes for which the communications data may be acquired by the relevant public authorities. The Communications Data Code of Practice provides guidance on the process of making a Part 3 application under the Act, which ensures that the power is used only when it is both necessary and proportionate. The IPA requires public authorities to have regard to the code in the exercise of their functions.

These regulations add 11 new entries to the schedule: the Intellectual Property Office, an executive agency sponsored by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology; the Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency, an executive agency sponsored by the Department for Transport; the Security Industry Authority, an executive non-departmental public body sponsored by my department, the Home Office; Counter Fraud Services Wales, an organisation hosted by the Velindre University NHS Trust; the integrated corporate services counter fraud expert services team—a bit of a mouthful—situated within the Department for Business and Trade; the integrated corporate services counter fraud expert services team situated within the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero; the counter fraud and investigation team situated within the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; and the South East Coast Ambulance Service, the North West Ambulance Service, the West Midlands Ambulance Service and the East Midlands Ambulance Service.

Except for the four ambulance trusts, the public authorities to be added are all new entrants to the schedule and to CD powers. Following their addition to Schedule 4, the seven newly added public authorities will be able to apply for an independently approved authorisation via the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office, which, if granted, can be used to compel tele- communications or postal operators to disclose CD for the purposes set out within their designation in Schedule 4. They will not be given the power to internally authorise CD applications.

The four entries relating to the English ambulance trusts retain their CD powers and the ability to internally authorise applications. The umbrella definition of “an ambulance trust in England”, which included a total of 10 English ambulance trusts, has therefore been removed and replaced with the four named individual ambulance trusts. Therefore, six English ambulance trusts will be removed from the schedule because they have confirmed to us that they no longer require those CD powers. The Welsh Ambulance Services NHS Trust and the Scottish Ambulance Service board will also be removed from the schedule, having confirmed that they no longer need to retain their CD powers.

This SI makes no change to the ambulance service in Northern Ireland and its designation in the schedule. The regulations will amend the Insolvency Service’s designation to include the Department for Business and Trade following the machinery of government changes. There is no change to the Insolvency Service’s ability to acquire CD for the purposes already listed in Schedule 4.

In summary, communications data is vital for evidence in criminal and national security investigations. These changes will enable the aforementioned public authorities —I have mentioned them in this introduction—to carry out and fully work through their essential statutory duties in order to safeguard the public from threats. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I will not detain noble Lords for long. I have three questions for the Minister. First, I want a little detail on the process that is undertaken by the department. Who triggers the review into which organisations have these powers, whether that is as a result of requests from organisations that currently do not have powers but require them or whether it is a periodic review that the department will undertake? It would be helpful to know a bit more about the process.

Secondly, I have a question on the powers that are now given to the Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency, which is an executive agency of the Department for Transport. I have looked at those powers and at the other parts of the Department for Transport that have similar powers. They all seem very sensible, so I support the change that is being made. My question is on the Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency, which is another executive agency of the Department for Transport. As far as I can tell, it does not have these powers, but I would have thought that the same arguments that apply to the DVSA—around public safety and the criminality involved in, for example, forging driving licences, which are important identity documents—would also require the use of communications data. Why has the DVSA been given these powers and not the DVLA? Surely the arguments for one are also true in the case of the other.

The other area is that provoked by the report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee on the arguments around the ambulance trusts. It makes a reasonably coherent argument that there seems to be some inconsistency. I understand that organisations that require these powers must demonstrate that they have a compelling need and that they have appropriate compliance activities in place. It seems a little odd, therefore, that the powers are being removed from all the ambulance trusts in England. They are being restored for four of them but I do not understand, because there is no detail set out, what it is about those four that means that there are compelling needs that do not apply to the others. Also, of the four that are kept, only one had requested to keep the powers; the others had not expressed a preference. Given that organisations are supposed to have a compelling need in order for them to have these powers—I remember the debate when, as the Minister set out, the Investigatory Powers Bill was going through both Houses of Parliament; I was Chief Whip at the time—it seems to me that, in the case of three of those ambulance trusts, the compelling need case cannot have been made because they did not respond to say that they needed the powers. The powers appear to have been left with them only because they had not specifically said that they did not want them, but that does not appear to be the legal and policy test applied by the department. I would be grateful if the Minister could set that out.

I have a final point on resourcing. The instrument and its Explanatory Memorandum say that there is going to be an increase in requests made to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office because all these organisations will need approval to use these powers. The assessment by the department says that it expects those requests to be minimal, but it does not set out the basis on which it has reached that conclusion. Obviously, there are resourcing requirements that will flow from that, so it would be helpful if the Minister could set out the basis on which that conclusion was reached.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for the short and useful debate. As my noble friend Lord Jones, who I have known for a very long time, said, it is useful to challenge the Executive on a number of matters to date.

If I may, I will start with my noble friend Lord Jones, who made an all-encompassing comment regarding the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. The current IPC is Sir Brian Leveson. He will be well known to Members of this House and has served in a number of capacities, including as a High Court judge. The commissioner is assisted by a team of 13 commissioners, who must all have held senior judicial office. Together they are responsible for the use of investigatory powers by public authorities. They are supported by a body of civil servants, known as the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office, which includes authorising officers and inspectors. Self-evidently, as I mentioned earlier, they were put in place by the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. Their responsibilities include a statutory obligation to inspect the use of certain investigatory powers and to exercise delegated functions, as part of which they independently review communications data under Section 60A applications submitted by public authorities.

My noble friend touched on a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, on the budget. In the financial year 2023-24, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office operated within a budget of £15.74 million, of which it spent only £13.06 million. That was confirmed in the IPCO annual report 2023, which was published in May of this year. I hope that helps my noble friend.

I am grateful for his service, not just in both Houses but on the Intelligence and Security Committee, and for his kind words about my service. I hope that also answers in part the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Harper—who I will come back to in a moment—and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower.

The noble Lord, Lord Harper, made a very valid point about what the process is for a public authority to be added to Schedule 4. Public authorities can be added to Schedule 4 either through primary legislation or by the use of a delegated power provided at Section 71. The delegated power provided at Section 71 provides that we have an enhanced affirmative procedure, which includes the requirement for a 12-week statutory consultation with the Investigatory Powers Commissioner.

The changes being made here are, in a sense, the result of the bodies themselves asking either to be included or removed from the Act. If they wanted to be added to Schedule 4, they had to supply a very comprehensive business case that officials in the Home Office have examined and evaluated in some detail. The Home Office has then had to include a 12-week consultation process with public authorities and the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. In this case, the consultation period for the new additions began on 23 October 2024 and completed on 17 January 2025. The IPC agreed that the seven public authorities had made a clear case for access, and the IPC response informed the Home Secretary’s policy assessment to include the amendments in the regulations that we have put before the Grand Committee today.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I would be grateful if the Minister would allow me to probe this a bit further. To be clear, on the ambulance trust, given that the wide-ranging power for all ambulance trusts in England already existed in the schedule, what exactly was the trigger for a consultation? These trusts already had the power; this just changes the way the power has been described in the legislation. Further, if there was some kind of interaction between the trusts and the department and some trusts specifically asked for this, for those that did not, given that there was a conversation and a consultation process and there is supposed to be a compelling need, why has the power been left in place for those ambulance trusts that did not say they needed it?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord puts his finger on the point that, originally, all ambulance trusts were included in the schedule. As part of their general reflection, the six English ambulance trusts that are being removed by the regulations today specifically said they do not need those powers anymore. That left Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Scotland and Wales equally said they do not want the power, so they are being removed, and Northern Ireland has not requested removal and therefore is in the schedule.

Of the four remaining trusts, one of them determined that it wanted to retain the powers under the Act. Again, as part of the consultation, that went through the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office, which agreed. Three of the trusts did not respond to the Home Office in relation to the consultation and discussion that we had. They had not requested to be removed. We asked them if they wanted to stay on, and they have not responded. For the safety of the Home Office’s reputation and for the security of reducing risks, we have left them on, but we will continue to press them to ensure that, if they wish to be removed, they can be.

I have discussed already with officials that I think we should be going back to those trusts again. We can bring a further instrument forward, but I do not think it is appropriate that we take them off because they have not responded. There is an argument about whether they should have responded—that is a legitimate challenge to put to me and to the Home Office, and I am having discussions on it internally—but I do not want to take them off in case that decision was just a slip between cup and lip.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I am grateful for that answer. I can certainly understand—and do not necessarily disagree with—a safety-first approach from the Minister. I have one further question: given that ambulance trusts broadly all do the same thing, has the Home Office or the health service undertaken any work to understand for what reasons those trusts that have wanted to keep the powers are using those powers, to test whether they are actually necessary? If they are necessary, for what reason do those trusts that do not want the powers, or have not asked for them, not need them? It does not seem entirely obvious why some ambulance trusts would need the powers and some would not.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That is a fairly valid challenge. The decision to apply is for the ambulance trusts. They were initially all included. Some have determined that they have not used this power, and therefore they do not wish to have it any more. One trust has maintained the power because it wishes to use it, and three have not responded, so we have kept them on just in case because we do not want to risk operational errors.

The type of purpose that they could use it for may well be, for example, that an individual who comes into contact with the ambulance trust is in the middle of a mental health episode, is disorientated, does not know who they are and is not aware of where they are, what they have done or where they have been. There could be individuals who are involved in alcohol intoxication. There is a range of reasons why there might need to be access. As it happens, the vast majority of trusts have said they do not need or want this power. If one trust has said it wants to retain the power, it is reasonable that we assess that further downstream. But the determination is that the trusts themselves decide whether they want that power. Therefore, we are making sure that there are no operational risks in that.

On removing the authorities that did not respond, I am not particularly pleased that we did not have a response from three authorities—I will put that on the record. They should respond accordingly. But there is always the danger that, if we took them off now, they may end up using their powers without realising they do not have them any more. They may find themselves in a litigious position, and I do not want to see that either.

For the moment, that is a very valid challenge and this should be kept under review, but that is the logic behind it—if that helps the noble Lord.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Harper Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harper (Con) (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. She started off her speech so well with her kind remarks about a speech that I had not yet given. Having listened to the rest of her speech, I fear that this is one subject on which she and I are destined not to agree.

It is a great privilege to be a Member of this House and to have the opportunity to continue in public service. I thank Black Rod and her team, the doorkeepers, the clerks and the Lord Speaker’s team, who all made me very welcome before my introduction and subsequently. I also thank the catering team, who looked after my guests so very well. I should also thank, for supporting my introduction, my noble friends Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Taylor of Holbeach, as well as my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie, who, whether or not he thinks it an honour, has been assigned as my mentor to keep me out of trouble.

Although I served in the other place for 19 years, I am well aware that this House is very different. I fear that this is the time to make a confession. In the coalition Government, the Liberal Democrats, as a matter of great principle, insisted that the coalition Government tried to reform your Lordships’ House. I was the lucky junior Minister tasked with preparing a Bill to elect this House. Noble Lords will be aware that this was kiboshed by my then colleagues in the House of Commons, who saw that it was a threat to the primacy of the House of Commons, and that Bill made no further progress. However, since I have been here, I have been very pleased to see that so many of those Liberal Democrats whom I worked closely with in the coalition Government have felt able to serve in this House for many years. I hope to see them here for many years into the future. There is hope for us all.

After the coalition Government, we had the election in 2015, at which the Conservatives won our first majority for 23 years. My noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton asked me to be the Government Chief Whip. I hope your Lordships will indulge me: I should put on record a tribute to the late Sir Roy Stone, who was my principal private secretary when I was Government Chief Whip. He served in that capacity for over two decades. A finer and wiser public servant you could not wish to find. All those who came across him professionally will miss him, but the biggest loss will be felt by his family—his wife Dawn and his children, Hannah and Elliott. A fulsome tribute was paid in the other place. I wish to put mine on the record in your Lordships’ House.

When I was Government Chief Whip, I worked very closely with my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach, who was the Government Chief Whip here. He made it clear to me that whipping in your Lordships’ House is a much subtler art than it is perhaps at the other end of the building. You do not have the same tools at your disposal. However, I did not realise quite how different it was until I sat in on my first few sessions of Oral Questions here. I marvelled at the magical abilities of the pen of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, which is amazingly able to select who can speak when there is a clash. I felt a certain level of envy that I did not have that power when I was the Government Chief Whip at the other end of the building. I suspect that his pen is authoritative, because noble Lords think that he exercises it with a certain amount of fairness and judiciousness. I hope that level of fairness extends, perhaps especially, to those of us who have been Chief Whips, so that we get a fair crack of the whip.

Turning to the subject matter at hand, I have some experience in this, having served as Immigration Minister when my noble friend Lady May was Home Secretary. The Minister shadowed our home affairs team for a number of years. A couple of weeks ago, he referred in this House to Labour having always had a very robust policy on migration. My noble friend and I were a little surprised. We had not spotted that enormous support when he was in opposition. However, it is always nice to see a sinner repenteth.

On this Bill, I will say a couple of things. First, when I was the Immigration Minister, I tried, as I know my noble friend Lady May did, to put in place tough measures but talk moderately and reasonably about this subject. I feat the Government are in danger of doing the opposite—talking tough but not having sufficiently tough measures. I will draw out a couple. First, we have seen illegal migration via small boats rise by 30% since the election and, secondly, the Government have removed with this Bill the deterrent, the Rwanda scheme, without replacing it with an alternative. There is not time now to dwell on these matters, but I give the Minister notice that I will be doing so in Committee and on Report. I look forward to our clashes perhaps across your Lordships’ House in due course.