Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

75: After Clause 48, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to have due regard to family unity(1) A relevant authority must, in the exercise of relevant functions, have due regard to the need to promote the unity of the family.(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), a relevant authority must, in the discharge of its duty under that subsection, have due regard to—(a) the public interest in children being properly brought up,(b) the right of children to be cared for by their parents unless this would be contrary to the child’s welfare,(c) the right of children to have direct contact, in person, with members of their families, unless this would be contrary to the child’s welfare, and(d) the principle that maintaining contact with family members by electronic means of communication is not an adequate substitute for direct contact in person.(3) This section is subject to section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 (duty regarding the welfare of children); and nothing in this section requires or authorises a relevant authority to do anything which is contrary to the welfare of any child (whether that child is in the United Kingdom or not).(4) Nothing in this section—(a) requires or authorises the Secretary of State or an immigration officer to refuse to grant a person leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom where they would, apart from this section, have granted such leave, or(b) requires or authorises the First-tier or Upper Tribunal to find that a ground of appeal under section 84(1)(c) or (2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 is not made out when it would not, apart from this section, have so found.(5) In this section—“child” means a person under the age of 18, and “children” shall be construed accordingly;“relevant authority” means—(a) the Secretary of State,(b) the First-tier Tribunal, and(c) the Upper Tribunal;“relevant functions” means—(a) any function of the Secretary of State in relation to immigration or asylum;(b) any function conferred by or by virtue of the Immigration Acts on an immigration officer in relation to immigration or asylum;(c) any function of the First-tier or Upper Tribunal in connection with the determination of any ground of appeal under section 84(1)(c) or (2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.”

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Amendment 75 would insert a new clause after Clause 48 to place a duty to have due regard to family unity on the Secretary of State, immigration officers, and the immigration and asylum tribunals. This is supported by the organisation Bail for Immigration Detainees. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that, in the exercise of immigration and asylum functions, those charged with making decisions have due regard to the need to promote the unity of the family. It is a modest but vital safe- guard to ensure that decisions affecting people’s lives are made with a clear understanding of the human consequences.

Subsection 1 of the proposed new clause sets out the core duty that every relevant authority, in carrying out its functions, must have due regard to the need to promote family unity. Subsection 2 then provides helpful clarification of what that means in practice. These principles are rooted in common sense and compassion. They simply reflect what every parent, teacher and social worker knows: that children who have the love, stability and presence of their families can thrive.

This proposed new clause would complement the existing duty under Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, which already requires regard to be had to the welfare of children. Subsection 3 makes that explicit. The new duty would sit alongside Section 55 and be subject to it, ensuring that the welfare of the child remains paramount.

Equally importantly, proposed new subsection 4 provides clear limits. It ensures that nothing in this clause would require or authorise the Secretary of State or a tribunal to refuse leave to enter or remain, or to allow or dismiss an appeal contrary to what they would otherwise have done. In other words, this clause does not create new rights to remain in the UK. It simply creates a duty of consideration and a framework for fairer, more humane decision-making.

This amendment would not diminish the Government’s ability to control immigration. It would simply require that, when exercising discretion or assessing proportionality, decision-makers take proper account of family unity and children’s rights to grow up in the care of their families. By including the First-tier and Upper Tribunals within the scope of this duty, we would ensure that the principle applies consistently across the whole system, from the Home Office desk to the final appeal. It would give tribunals a clear statutory steer that family relationships are not peripheral to human-rights decisions but are central to them.

The UK has long recognised through international commitments and domestic law that the family is the fundamental unit of society. This amendment would give practical effect to that principle in the immigration and asylum context. It reflects our obligations under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, both of which emphasise the importance of maintaining family life. It does so in a proportionate way, respecting the primacy of the child’s welfare and the proper limits of executive power.

I hope the Minister will see that this amendment would strengthen rather than weaken the integrity of our immigration system by ensuring it operates with fairness, consistency and humanity. I beg to move.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, the importance of family life and family unity is a principle that no one in this House would dispute. The principle already has a firm statutory protection. Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 imposes a clear duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the United Kingdom. It is a duty embedded in every decision taken by immigration officers and by tribunals that consider appeals.

With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, the amendment before us would, in effect, duplicate these existing safeguards and reduce them in a way that risks generating uncertainty and inconsistency. It would open the door to litigation and invite the courts to revisit and reinterpret established principles of immigration law. For those reasons, I respectfully urge the House to resist the amendment.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for her Amendment 75. As she outlined, it would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to have due regard to the unity of family in exercising immigration functions. She has raised an important point, but the amendment is unnecessary. I will try to explain for her the reasons why.

The important protections it seeks are already firmly embedded in legislative frameworks and policies, such as Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, the Human Rights Act 1998, and the public sector equality duty derived from the Equality Act 2010. As announced in the immigration White Paper in May, we are exploring further reforms to the family route. As she mentioned, there is already a statutory duty to promote and safeguard the welfare of children in Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. That places a duty on the Secretary of State to make arrangements to ensure that immigration, asylum, nationality and general customs functions are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the UK. That every child matters is set out in our statutory guidance.

The Immigration Rules balance the right to family and private life under Article 8 and the right to respect for private and family life under the European Convention on Human Rights. Under Part 5 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, Parliament set out the view of what the public interest requires in immigration cases, engaging the qualified right to respect for private and family life under Article 8. It requires the courts to give due weight to this public interest when deciding such cases.

Where an applicant under the family rules does not meet all the core eligibility requirements, the decision-maker will consider whether there are exceptional circumstances which would render refusal a breach of Article 8. This involves considering whether refusal would result in unjustifiably harsh consequences for the applicant or, indeed, their family. Under Section 149 of the Equality Act, which I mentioned earlier, the Secretary of State must have due regard to eliminating discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity and fostering good relations. Due regard for family unity must not limit the ability of the Secretary of State for the Home Office to remove serious criminals who would do us harm. Article 8 claims, as we will discuss, will succeed only if a deportation’s impact on a qualifying child is unduly harsh. The immigration White Paper confirmed plans to legislate for easier removal of such offenders under Article 8, but not in other circumstances. For those reasons, I respectfully invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I hear so often in this Chamber that the amendments the Opposition have brought are completely unnecessary, it is already in law, and we do not have to worry our pretty little heads about it as it will all be fine. The fact is, it is not. This issue, in particular, will continue to make an awful lot of money for lawyers, who will fight what the Government are doing. However, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 75 withdrawn.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group, so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Russell.

Amendment 27 asks for a statute of requirement for police officers to undertake an anti-social behaviour impact assessment when a victim reports three incidents of anti-social behaviour in a six-month period. This would enable agencies to understand the level of harm that is being caused, so that victims are given access to the appropriate support.

Victims have cited several barriers to utilising the anti-social behaviour case review. A key barrier was a lack of knowledge and awareness about the case review among staff at key agencies with a responsibility to resolve anti-social behaviour. For many victims, this lack of knowledge prevented them being signposted promptly, if at all, to the case review mechanism. This posed additional barriers to them being able to successfully activate the case review process and get the anti-social behaviour resolved. This ultimately prolonged victims’ suffering—and none of us wants that. I ask the Minister to seriously consider this.

Amendments 28 and 31 ask for a statutory threshold for triggering an anti-social behaviour case review that removes any discretion for authorities to insert additional caveats which serve as a barrier to victims getting their cases reviewed. To ensure consistent access to anti-social behaviour case reviews, we are recommending the Home Office consults on the need to legislate to standardise the threshold for anti-social behaviour case reviews by placing it in statute as opposed to just guidance. This would prevent local authorities unilaterally adding caveats which make it more difficult for the victim to make a successful application. This consultation, we recommend, should look at mandating access to case review applications via a range of options, including but not limited to paper, online and telephone applications.

Amendment 29, which has already been outlined, would give victims a voice and enable them to explain the impact that the behaviour is having on them and their families, which is critical. To strengthen victim participation and ensure their voices are central to the process, we recommend the Home Office consults on the need to introduce legislation which guarantees victims the right to choose their level of participation in a way that best suits their needs. It might include attending a case review meeting in person, participating virtually or submitting a written impact statement detailing the anti-social behaviour effects, or being represented at the case review by a chosen individual to ensure their perspective is effectively communicated. We want them to have the right to choose the method in which this happens. There should be a statutory requirement that anti-social behaviour case reviews are chaired by an independent person—this is not an unreasonable request. Very often, when there is somebody independent who can see things that other people have not seen and bring it to people’s attention, fairness and confidence in a system is absolutely strengthened.

Amendment 30 seeks that local bodies should be compelled to publish data on the reasons an anti-social behaviour case review was denied to enable better overall scrutiny and an understanding of how effective and consistent the process is across England and Wales. As the noble Lord, Lord Russell, stated, data is king, and we do not think this is an unreasonable request at all.

I hope the Minister will give serious consideration to these amendments and, if they cannot be accepted, he will explain in detail why.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, these are powerful amendments and it is hard to see how they can be argued against. We have all heard of cases where victims have had a very tough time demonstrating the persecution that they have experienced, and they often get challenged in court, unreasonably, I think. These amendments are excellent and we should encourage the noble Lord to push them to a vote later.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, this group, so well introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Stedman-Scott and Lady Jones, focuses on putting the victim first, a principle that we wholeheartedly support.

Clause 6 aims to strengthen the anti-social behaviour case review, and we support the package of amendments to the clause tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Hampton. We support the objective of establishing a statutory threshold for convening a review that explicitly considers the victim’s vulnerability. This is crucial, as it would remove the discretion for authorities to apply additional caveats and ensure that the severity of the impact on the individual is prioritised over mere persistence of the behaviour.

We back the proposal in Amendment 29 to ensure that the review is chaired by an independent person who has not previously been involved in the case. Independence is essential to restore trust and ensure objectivity when agencies review their own failures. We also strongly agree with the demand in Amendment 30 that authorities must publish the reasons for determining that the threshold for a review has not been met. This is a simple but powerful measure to increase accountability and transparency in the decision-making process. Amendment 27, which would require police officers to undertake an ASB impact assessment when the threshold is met, is a common-sense measure to ensure that victims experiencing high levels of harm receive appropriate support.

These amendments demonstrate how we can collectively strengthen the system to deliver genuine justice for victims of persistent anti-social behaviour, ensuring that their trauma and vulnerability are fully recognised. I very much hope that the Government will take them on board.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 35 standing in my name says:

“Regulations may not require a relevant authority to provide information on social media posts which they may consider to be anti-social or have anti-social behaviour messages”.


I do not need to regurgitate much of what I said earlier on non-crime hate incidents, which could compose a large part of this, because I am looking forward to the Minister’s announcement in due course that he will have solved the problem of so-called non-crime hate incidents.

I was tempted to propose that Clause 7 should not stand part of the Bill, because I wanted to discuss the huge number of requirements in it, but I thought I would do it under the scope of this amendment. Basically, I want to ask the Minister: what will the Government do with all the information demanded by Clause 7? When I was a Home Office Minister—and I am certain the noble Lord has had this experience as well—we got lots of written requests from Members of Parliament, PQs, asking for information on all sorts of law and order issues concerning what the police were up to in England and Wales. We could not provide it, because the police forces were not under an obligation to send it to the Home Office.

Sometimes I would think, “Oh, I’d like to know that as well”, but whenever I asked the police forces if they could provide it, they would quite legitimately say, “What resources do you want us to divert from fighting crime to collating this information to send to the Home Office, and what practical use will you put it to?” Well, I think they had a fair point, but the demands for more and more statistics from the police have continued to increase. I will not suggest that it is in proportion to the rise in crime, but more information has not helped reduce it.

I come back to the point: will the Minister tell the House exactly what use the Home Office will make of all this information, since what is demanded is fairly extensive? If this information was free, it would be okay, but we all know what will happen. All councils will employ at least one, probably more than one, special information-gathering co-ordinator to collect the information required and transmit it to the Home Office. New computer systems will be needed to provide it in “the form and manner”, as per new subsection (4)(b).

This, I suggest, is not a low-grade clerking job, since the information demanded in subsection (2) is not just a collection of numbers or reports, but provision of the reports, plus the authorities’ responses, plus the details of ASB case reviews. Then subsection (3)(d) calls for the information collected to be analysed by the local authorities. As I say, analysis of the plethora of different anti-social behaviour orders and responses to them in sufficient quality to be sent to the Home Office will be regarded as a fairly high-level job, not one for a low-paid junior clerk in the council.

I think we are probably looking at a salary of about £50,000 for the lead person and £30,000 for the assistant, and with national insurance and pensions we are looking at about £100,000 per authority. Multiply that by 317 local authorities and we will have local government costs of £32 million. No doubt many local authorities will love it; there will be more office-bound jobs as they cut dustbin collections and social services work and leave potholes unfilled. Okay, that is a sinister, cynical comment, but that will happen in some local authorities.

I simply ask the Minister to tell the Committee, if that £32 million I calculate will be the cost of every authority supplying all the information requested in Clause 7, will that be money well spent? My little amendment would do my bit to limit some of the costs, since I do not want local authorities wasting time and resources by collecting and analysing so-called anti-social social media posts which have happened in their area, either to the poster or to the complainant. They will be chasing their own tails if they attempt to go down this route. It would be a self-defeating waste of time. That is the purpose of my amendment: to ask the Government to justify what they will do with all the information collected under Clause 7 and to ask whether my calculation of £32 million is roughly right. I beg to move.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 55A, which is supported by StopWatch, a campaign organisation that is concerned with the use of stop and search. I disagree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.

Amendment 55A would require the Home Office to publish quarterly data on the issuing of anti-social behaviour orders and related injunctions. Specifically, it would ensure that these reports include the number of occasions when stop and search has been used by the police prior to the issuing of such orders, and the protected characteristics of those who have been issued with them. These powers can have serious and lasting consequences for those subject to them, particularly young people and those from marginalised communities. Yet at present, the public and Parliament have very limited visibility of how these tools are being applied. This would ensure transparency and accountability about how anti-social behaviour powers are being used across England and Wales.

We know from existing evidence that stop and search disproportionately affects people from black and non-white ethnic backgrounds. The Government’s own figures last year reported that there were nearly 25 stop and searches for every 1,000 black people and yet only around six for every 1,000 white people. There is a real risk that these disparities could be echoed or even compounded in the issuing of anti-social behaviour orders or injunctions. Without clear data, broken down with protected characteristics, we cannot know whether these concerns are justified, nor can we properly evaluate the fairness and effectiveness of the system. By requiring the Home Office to publish quarterly data, this amendment would bring much-needed transparency. It would allow Parliament, bodies with oversight and the public to monitor trends, identify disparities and ensure that anti-social behaviour powers are being used proportionately and appropriately.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is clearly very exercised about the use of resources. He actually said that more information does not reduce crime. I think that is probably completely wrong, because the more information you have, the better you can understand what is happening. So this is about good governance and evidence-based policy. If these powers are being used fairly, the data will confirm that. If not, then we will have the information necessary to take corrective action. Either way, the transparency will strengthen public trust in policing and the rule of law.

This amendment is about shining a light where it is most needed. It would do nothing to restrict police powers. It would simply ensure that their use can be properly scrutinised. I hope the Minister will agree that accountability and transparency are not optional extras in a just society; they are actually the foundations of it.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, we support Amendment 55A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. She has already highlighted the importance of improved data collection around the use of anti-social behaviour legislation. This is essential because it is impossible to gauge the fairness or effectiveness of anti-social behaviour powers without adequate data and transparency.

We also support Clause 7. It is important to have more transparency around how these powers are used by local authorities and housing providers. The evidence is that they already have this information but are failing to share it. As a result, little is known about how these powers are being used in practice.

The charity Crisis wants the Government to go further by making this information publicly available. This would provide full transparency around patterns of anti-social behaviour and the powers used to tackle it. Is this something the Government might consider? Perhaps the Minister could let us know.

The police, too, must improve their recording practices around anti-social behaviour. A report last year by HMICFRS found that some forces’ recording is very poor, while others do not always record the use of statutory powers. We believe that transparency is key to ensuring that future orders are applied reasonably and proportionately, and to prevent discrimination.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 3rd November 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

28: Clause 38, page 32, line 20, leave out “11” and insert “12”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add section 12 (period for which persons may be detained) to the list of sections of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 to be repealed.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, these are meant to be helpful amendments and, if they are read with a favourable eye, they might be seen as such. To start, I remind your Lordships that freedom from executive detention is the most fundamental right of all. It is not only an international human right but a national one, reaching back 800 years to the Magna Carta. In the absence of any statutory time limit on the length of detention, other than for children and pregnant women, the right to liberty has been safeguarded in our common law.

Amendments to strip back Section 12 and uphold the common law during the passage of the Illegal Migration Bill in July 2023 were supported from all corners of this House by a quite motley crew of very noble Lords. Amendment 28 and the consequential changes made by Amendment 30 seek to simply restore the common law to the position it was in before Section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 was brought into force and sought to chip away at it. With so many other provisions of the Illegal Migration Act to be repealed by Clauses 38 and 39, Section 12 should be added to their number.

There are two reasons. First, the reasonableness of a period of immigration detention should not simply be in the hands of the Minister and down to her opinion; it should be entrusted to the responsibility of our courts in our world-renowned common-law system. This is not to say that courts will ignore the Home Secretary’s views. On the contrary, in 2007 our Court of Appeal specifically acknowledged that it will no doubt take account of the Home Secretary’s views as may seem proper.

Secondly, by returning to the common-law position, we would also uphold the right to liberty under international human rights law. In 2016 the European Court of Human Rights agreed that it is this consideration by domestic courts of the reasonableness of each individual period of detention that ensures the absence of a general fixed time limit in the UK system, because it does not, in principle, give rise to increased risk of arbitrariness.

Repealing Section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act is consistent with the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. At paragraph 103 of its report on this Bill, it clearly stated:

“We agree with our predecessor Committee and recommend the repeal of section 12 to restore certainty and ensure compliance with Article 5”.


Turning to Amendment 32 in my name, I take forward the task of continuing to recommend that the Government leave out the retrospective element of the detention power in Clause 41—that is, the power to detain people when considering whether to make a deportation order on the basis of their presence. This amendment is modest when compared with the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which was to leave Clause 41 out of the Bill altogether. This amendment is simply about removing retrospectivity in subsection 17, which treats the new detention power as always having had effect.

The Government’s position appears to be that Clause 41 is necessary to clarify matters but that it is not retrospective. Both cannot be true. It is either necessary because it is retrospective and protects the Government from false imprisonment challenges, or it is unnecessary because it is already the position in law. The Government’s own impact assessment, when read carefully, shows that it has been unlawful since 20 October 2014 to detain people in the way that they have. Changing the law now and treating it as if it had always had effect will provide neither legal certainty nor foreseeability to people detained in these past 11 years. It only insulates the Government from challenge and inhibits people from having a domestic remedy and compensation for their unlawful detention.

This precedent of making the unlawful deprivation of liberty lawful places us on a very slippery slope. I ask the Government to reconsider their position on both these amendments, to repeal a section of the law that prior Governments passed in the Illegal Migration Act to erode our common law, and to leave out retrospectivity from their new detention order—all to uphold the right to liberty and to be free from executive detention, that most fundamental right of all. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Lord, Lord German, asked when and how we can review this matter. We will keep all matters under review. There are further potential issues around immigration and asylum trailed with the immigration White Paper. We have got to keep these matters under review at all times. I would argue to both him and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that the extension of the Secretary of State’s powers is still subject to all the legal oversight that she would wish it to have and is ultimately still subject to parliamentary scrutiny on how those powers are exercised. I will answer to this House if there are any abuses of that power that Members wish to draw to the attention of either House—to the Home Secretary or to me, as the Minister accountable in this House. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I thank the Minister for his reply. I deeply regret that I did not come to him with these amendments before to discuss them a little bit more. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, even the noble Lord, Lord Harper, who started to raise deep, dark political waters that I definitely do not agree with him about. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 28 withdrawn.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 16th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I know that many on the Labour Benches do not want to hear this, but this Government are actually more authoritarian than the previous one. Not only have the Labour Government accepted all the draconian laws of the Conservative Government, but they continue to add to them. I have been here for only 12 years, but how many times in the past 14 years have the Labour Benches spoken against laws clamping down on protest? But now they are supporting them, defending them and even adding to them. The values of liberty and democracy and a passionate defence of the right to protest—it all sounded great in opposition, so why did Labour drop them when it came to power?

The desire to quash effective protest is the aim of this legislation. Of course Governments do not mind if protest changes nothing. The bulk of laws in recent years have been aimed at the kind of non-violent direct action protests that stop big corporations from, for example, setting up damaging fracking wells in our countryside, or support people trying to stop an ancient woodland being cut down to build a destructive new road.

A lot of those protests were successful and led to policy changes, either locally or nationally—like the direct action protests a few years ago that led to the passing of the climate emergency Act. The oil and gas industry does not like countries switching to renewables, insulation or net zero. So it paid a think tank to come up with laws clamping down on effective protest, which the last Government passed and this Government have kept. That is why we need to enshrine a legal right to protest, and I intend to bring an amendment to that effect.

I have spent 12 years in this House warning about this country being on the path towards a Big Brother state. A combination of laws against effective protest while using digital ID will enable a future Government to carry out repression with a biometric link. The police are already using facial recognition without any proper regulation or legal restraints. With the proposed rules against face covering and the rollout of digital ID, just being seen on a protest against a future Government could see you losing promotion, or your job, or state benefits. It has already happened to dissenters in Hong Kong and other repressive countries.

The Government can blacklist people, just as the UK building industry did to trade unionists, in conjunction with the police. We have to allow people to disrupt, make a noise and get noticed. That is democracy. The police should, of course, be able to arrest for serious infringements, and people should still face legal consequences—but not the very severe punishments of recent years that labelled protesters as terrorists. The proscription of Palestine Action was another nail in the coffin of democracy and dissent. The new powers for the police to ban repeated protests are the state trying to shut down the people who are putting a spotlight on the Government’s complicity in the genocide in Gaza. After all, when you are supplying military intelligence to Israel and exporting arms to a country that wants to ethnically cleanse people from a land that it wants to settle, those are actions which could land you in an international court.

My noble friend Lady Bennett, who cannot be here today, will engage on the issue of Travellers’ rights and abortion law at a later stage. So I just have a few questions for the Minister to answer. I will cram in as many as I can. Does he suspect that the proscription of Palestine Action has discredited the use of anti-terror laws? Will the Government look instead at the case for proscribing members of the Israel Defense Forces living in or visiting this country? These are people who have taken part in potential war crimes, and who have murdered and terrorised thousands of women and children in Gaza. Finally, does the Minister really feel it is a priority for the police and security services to waste their time enforcing this unpopular and largely pointless proscription when they have real terrorists to track down?

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

The amendment we are proposing does not create new entitlements; it simply ensures that resettlement is delivered in a way that protects children and upholds the values of compassion and decency that this House has long championed. It strengthens accountability, supports local authorities and fills a critical gap in our humanitarian response. At a time when safe routes are being closed and children are being placed at greater risk, it offers a practical and principled way forward. I urge noble Lords to support it.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I signed Amendment 166, though there are several amendments here that I could have supported because I feel that they are common sense.

How can this Government be so heartless as to not accept that families have to be together? Surely that is basic humanity. Why are this Government so happy to shed so many voters simply by hanging on to the right-wing nonsense that says asylum seekers are to blame for all the problems that we face in Britain—the shortage of housing, the damage to the NHS and the lack of jobs? This is not the fault of asylum seekers; this is the fault of the previous Government’s policy of austerity that has so damaged our processes here. The right wing gets this opportunity to pass the blame on to other people. Will this Government please get a backbone and stand up for the rights of people?

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, is saying about immigration. It is in the press every day and it is a serious issue that the public care about. However, he spoke a great deal about adults and, on this, we are particularly talking about children.

I hugely admire the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for the valiant work he has done over so many years. I support family reunion, and I particularly support his amendment. Some years ago, with the help of the NGO Safe Passage, Fiona Mactaggart, then an MP, and I went to Calais and met children. We did not meet any grown-ups who were trying to get to this country; we met entirely children. I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that it was not 17 year-olds we were talking to; they were 10, 11 and 12 year-olds who were anxious to join their families in this country.

Until Brexit, this country—under Dublin III, I think it was—allowed children to join their parents. To the credit of the then Conservative Government, that was going to be continued. It was then stopped. It seems to me that, with one voice, this Government are talking in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill about the best interests of children and saying that the welfare of children is paramount. Does that stop at this border? Does it mean that if a child comes from Somalia, Eritrea, Sudan or Afghanistan—countries where the greatest conflicts are at the moment—that child does not merit their best interests being considered? I absolutely do not believe that that is the view of this Government. Whatever may be said about this Government, in the past they have shown a huge degree of compassion in all sorts of situations. Although I may not agree with much that the Government say, I have admired the party over many years for its approach. For this Government to say that they will no longer allow foreign children to come to this country to join their parents would, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, be shocking—I use his word.

It would probably be wise to support the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, rather than go too far in saying how many relatives could come and join children who are already here. I worry about children put into care in this country if they do not have their families—of course I do; but I worry a great deal more about children living under the trees in a cold Calais winter, wanting to join their families here. That is the group we should worry about. That is the group that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is primarily talking about.

I find it incredible that this Government will not recognise that some children whose families are already here cannot come and join them, as successive Governments have allowed for so many years. I find it truly sad, if that is what the Minister is going to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I will introduce Amendments 184 and 185 in my name. I am grateful for the support of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. Both amendments are inspired by the Government’s commitment in last year’s election manifesto that we will once again be a defender of the international rule of law.

The late Lord Bingham of Cornhill’s eighth principle on the rule of law is that it

“requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law as in national law”.

The rule of law is a fundamental constitutional principle that safeguards against arbitrary power. What are we here for if not to protect the constitution?

Throughout debates on this Bill and other annual asylum Bills of recent years, noble Lords have raised concerns about compliance with international law, including the 1951 refugee convention. More than 20 years ago, in 1993, a Bill was passed through Parliament, with the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, as Home Secretary. It was implemented by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, and contains a section titled “Primacy of Convention”. This section, still in force, provides that:

“Nothing in the immigration rules … shall lay down any practice which would be contrary to the”


refugee convention.

My Amendment 184 is in the spirit of this provision, but addresses the relationship between the convention and our domestic legal system more holistically. Drawing from the hallmark constitutional balance agreed by Parliament in the Human Rights Act 1998, it seeks to ensure harmony between primary legislation, subordinate legislation, the Immigration Rules, executive guidance and the refugee convention, so far as that is possible. It would give effect to Parliament’s intention to legislate in compliance with human rights. As with the Human Rights Act, courts would interpret laws only with the grain of the legislation and do no more than necessary to ensure compliance with human rights standards. This would help realise Parliament’s overarching intention and rectify drafting errors or address factual circumstances not foreseen by legislators.

Just as our courts have exercised judicial restraint in using Section 3 of the Human Rights Act, our independent judiciary could be trusted to exercise restraint in using this proposed new clause. Where primary legislation cannot be compatibly interpreted, then, as with Section 4 of the Human Rights Act, a declaration of incompatibility could be made which would not affect—I repeat not affect—the validity or continued operation of that law.

Those who rail against judicial human rights decisions with which they disagree should be reminded of this relationship between Sections 3 and 4 of the Human Rights Act. It explicitly protects parliamentary sovereignty and, in contrast with, say, the US Bill of Rights, prevents our Supreme Court reinterpreting, let alone striking down, explicitly incompatible primary legislation. For the sake of completeness, the injunction in Section 2 of the Act is to “take into account”, not be bound by, decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Amendment 184 would, so far as is possible, ensure, for example, that our criminal penalties do not violate the immunity provided by the refugee convention, that our guidance on nationality does not treat refugees for evermore as not of good character if so to do would breach the refugee convention, and that refugees would not face being sent to places called safe where they will, in fact, face persecution.

Amendment 185 is specific to the question of immunity from criminal penalties. As your Lordships have heard time and again, Article 31.1 of the refugee convention protects refugees from

“penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence”

if they come directly from the country persecuting them,

“present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence”.

The reason for this immunity is simple. People fleeing persecution and seeking sanctuary are often compelled to arrive, enter and be present in a state irregularly. It is clear that Section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 is intended to cover this defence. Indeed, it is titled:

“Defences based on Article 31(1) of the Refugee Convention”.


However, it is insufficient and does not reflect the full scope of that article. It provides only a narrow defence to an insufficient list of offences, including forgery and connected offences, possession of false identity documents, deception and falsification of documents.

Therefore, while there is a statutory defence for arriving with false documents, there is no statutory defence for arriving without requisite documents. Someone who uses a fake passport to get on a boat or plane directly from where they face persecution is provided with a narrow defence, but as we know, with our ever-tightening visa regime and with airlines afraid of penalties, refugees cannot board safe planes—if they could, they might not risk crossing Europe on foot or the channel in dinghies. If they had instead walked barefoot or been trafficked and arrived in Libya, Turkey or France, having lost or had stolen any papers they had along the way, they would have no statutory defence against prosecution for irregular arrival or entry in the UK, or indeed against the new facilitation offences in this Bill and the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 before it.

This is not a mere hypothetical. The best available data shows that 556 people arriving by small boat were charged with illegal arrival and 455 were convicted—a number of them young people, who are treated and prosecuted as adults, with insufficient initial age assessments. The vast majority of those charged and convicted had ongoing claims for asylum, as well as experiences of trafficking and/or torture, but had to share prison cells with adults before being released into the care of local authorities.

In its recent report on this Bill, the Joint Committee on Human Rights stated:

“Article 31 is partially incorporated into domestic law by way of section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. However, the Committee agrees with its predecessor that this provision is not fully compliant with the Refugee Convention”.


Therefore, my amendment is one endeavour to ensure compliance. I appreciate that there are other such attempts, including from the chair of that committee, the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, in his Amendment 203. I am sure that we all wish him a full and speedy recovery from his recent injuries.

In Amendment 203I and other amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, has proposed a restrictive interpretation of Article 31.1 of the refugee convention. Our courts have interpreted the term “directly”—as in coming directly—broadly and purposively to ensure that refugees who have crossed through and had mere short-term transitory stops in other countries, such as while crossing deserts and seas, may still be exempt from penalties if they were en route to their place of intended sanctuary. The late and much lamented Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood in Adimi provided a clear test for interpreting whether someone has come directly, looking at the length of stay in the intermediate country, the reason for the delay and whether or not the refugee sought or found protection in that intermediate country. We must return to and uphold that common law position, as the late Lord Bingham of Cornhill did in the House of Lords Judicial Committee in Afshar.

As we repeatedly discuss, the entire system of international refugee protection would collapse if this were not the case—if every person were subject to penalties if they passed through or stopped in a safe country. The UK could say that all refugees are the responsibility of France. France would look to Italy, which would no doubt point to Tunisia. Tunisia would say “Libya”, and Libya would say “Sudan”. Thus, immediately, neighbouring countries would bear all the responsibility, of which they already bear a great share, or refugees would be pushed back into their countries of persecution. This was never the intention and could never logically have been the intention of a refugee convention. With this approach, like dominoes, our system of post-war legal protection and the international rule of law would fall. I beg to move.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I signed the two amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, not because I have any legal training but because I trust her judgment on this. I was hoping that some of our estimable Cross-Bench KCs and former judges would stand up and say, “This is rubbish; you can’t do this”. In their absence, I will say just a few words.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I have given the House accurate figures which show the removals. I cannot give the noble Viscount the figure he asked for immediately in this discussion, but I will reflect upon that question for him, on the ratio of individuals and where they have come from. However, around 35% of asylum claims are rejected. We are trying to speed up the asylum claims system to ensure that we come to decisions earlier and can therefore remove people with no right to be here. I will certainly examine the noble Viscount’s question, and if he is not happy with the response I eventually give him, there are opportunities further downstream for us to debate that further.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I have listened to so much claptrap from this side of the Chamber, I cannot bear it any more. Could we please stop the right-wing nonsense you are all spouting? Could we perhaps hear just how many people who arrive by small boat are actually given asylum because they have a justified claim?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I cannot give the noble Baroness the definitive figure on small boat arrival asylum claims, but roughly 61% to 65% of asylum claims are accepted, and roughly 35% are not. I can reflect on the exact figures, but those are the rough figures. From the Government’s perspective, we then have to speed up the asylum claims so we can make those assessments much more speedily. Part of the reason for the problem of having a large number of people in hotels is that those asylum applications were not speedily assessed. Therefore, people have been left in limbo in asylum hotels.

Those numbers have grown exponentially during the period 2015 to 2024. There was a dip just before the election, which I acknowledge, but further energy needs to be put into that to close the hotels—which we intend to do—and to speed up the asylum claim procedure to determine who has a right to asylum. There are separate issues, which have been raised by a number of noble Lords, such as ECHR obligations, refugee convention obligations, et cetera. But the Government simply believe that we need to speed up those asylum claims, and the measures in the Bill and externally from executive action and the immigration White Paper, along with future proposals, are designed to do that. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his clause stand part notice.

Public Order Legislation

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord has raised an extremely important point. I do not want to answer it directly at the Dispatch Box now; I will need to reflect on the issues he has raised. I hope he will understand that. I will get back to him in writing so that there is clarity on that ruling.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords—

[Lord Strasburger (LD)]

My Lords—

Palestine Action Protests: Arrests

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, it is not, I am afraid, appropriate for the Minister to stand here and say what the police are doing is none of his business. Putting aside for a moment the proscription of Palestine Action—and you know how I feel about that—the police clearly do not understand the powers that have been given to them. They are clearly arresting people who are protesting peacefully. The Minister has a responsibility to make sure the police know what they are doing.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Absolutely, we do. I assure the noble Baroness that the Government take the way in which this is interpreted and executed by the police very seriously. But what I am saying is that it is not the responsibility of this Government to make judgments on the ground, which police officers are trained and supported to do, about what action to take in relation to the legislation that we have passed. It is the job of the police to make those independent judgments—it is not for me as the Minister to say that they should arrest somebody or not arrest somebody. That is a judgment for the police under the legislative framework that this House and the House of Commons set.

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

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

At end to insert “but this House regrets that the proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation (1) undermines civil liberties, including civil disobedience, (2) constitutes a misuse of anti-terrorism legislation, given that offences such as property damage can be dealt with under other criminal law, (3) suppresses dissent against the United Kingdom’s policy on Israel, and (4) criminalises support for a protest group, thereby creating a chilling effect on freedom of expression.”

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, when I tabled this regret amendment yesterday, my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle gave me some advice. She said, “Don’t lose your temper”. I am going to try to do my best to heed her advice. I thank the Minister for his engagement; he has been very kind and polite, and I thank him for that. I had better state for the record that I am a protester of many decades, but I believe in non-violence: that is a limit for me.

However, there are many reasons why proscribing Palestine Action is a bad idea. Listening to the Minister, I thought that his descriptions of the three organisations had very distinct differences and that the actions of Palestine Action did not appear to have the same calibre of evil as those of the other two. Therefore, collectively organising these three into one SI is perhaps a little bit sneaky of this Government. Palestine Action is not like any other group that the British Government have so far declared a terrorist organisation. I was 12 years on the Met Police Authority and in that time I had lots of anti-terrorist briefings. To me, the actions of Palestine Action do not ring true as terrorist activities.

This SI also goes against the promises—

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

Would the noble Baroness give way momentarily?

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I am so sorry, but no. If the noble Lord does not mind, I would like to finish my speech.

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

Let him intervene.

[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.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

On that point—

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

No, I am sorry; I will not take interventions. There is an opportunity at the end.

Some 53% of British people agree with stopping sending arms to Israel, and I would expect any Government with a sense of morality to do that. Instead, it has been left to groups such as Palestine Action to take the lead. If you want Palestine Action to disappear, stop sending arms to Israel and giving military support to a foreign Government engaged in ethnic cleansing. Palestine Action has done many things that I do not agree with, but spraying paint on refuelling planes that campaigners believe are used to help the ethnic cleansing in Gaza is not terrorism; it is criminal damage, which we already have laws for. It is gesture politics, and the MoD itself has declared that it did not block any planned aircraft movements or stop any operations. Palestine Action would have been in court to face justice, but so would the Government on that basis, and I think that is what Ministers have actually been rather concerned about.

Palestine Action has a five-year history of things it has done, but as soon as Ministers realised that a jury might not convict it of spray-painting at Brize Norton, they declared it a terrorist group. The Government were very aware of how likely it was that a jury would free Palestine Action campaigners because of the public’s horror over our involvement in the ethnic cleansing of Gaza. They would remember that the Prime Minister was the lawyer who defended the “Fairford five” after anti-war protesters broke into RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire to sabotage United States bombers before the Iraq war. He argued that while their actions were unlawful, they were justified as an attempt to prevent war crimes, asserting that the Iraq war lacked legal basis under international law due to an absence of a clear UN resolution. I can easily see why a jury might choose not to convict the campaigners at Brize Norton in the same way. Subsequent legal appeals, based on the legal threshold of terrorism when events do not endanger life, could cost us, the taxpayer, a lot of money. This Government have clamped down on civil liberties in many ways, through many laws, and for me this is a step too far. I deeply regret that we have reached this point, and I beg to move the amendment.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

My Lords, I have supported my party for nearly 10 years since I joined this House, sometimes late like the last two nights, but I cannot support this Motion, as my noble friend understands. That gives me no joy because I have been a long-standing colleague of his as a Welsh MP. Indeed, he was a very effective Minister when I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. To be absolutely clear, I support the right of Israel to exist and of Israelis to enjoy full security. I am also a long-standing supporter of Palestinian rights to self-determination in their own state. I was vehemently opposed to the antisemitism tolerated under Jeremy Corbyn’s ill-fated leadership and, as far as I remember, I have never participated in any Palestine Action protest or been on any of its platforms. I sought advice from the clerk of the Table Office to amend this Motion so that it proscribed only the two Nazi-like paramilitary groups it lists and not Palestine Action but was advised that this was not procedurally possible.

--- Later in debate ---

In summary, this is not a decision that Governments take lightly. It is a government decision, based on legislation and on clear tests. It is designed to protect the public, not to stifle public concern, demonstrations or activity around the causes linked the organisations being proscribed today. It is an evidential test, and we believe that the three organisations have passed that evidential test. I therefore commend this order to the House.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I thank the Minister for his response, and every noble Lord who has spoken in the debate, especially those who have been kind about me. I will just say that I do not normally take interventions because, in my 12 years’ experience of your Lordships’ House, most interventions can be a speech after mine. I just do not see the point in being disrupted all the time—I think it is rude. Admittedly, there were two points of information that I should probably have taken, so I apologise to the noble Lords, Lord Harper and Lord Scriven.

This is a regret amendment, and I have heard enough regret from various of your Lordships to want to test the opinion of the House.

Police: Facial Recognition Technology

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend touches on important issues and again, I refer to the point I made earlier to the noble Baroness. A survey of the existing use of facial recognition technology estimated that there was no discrepancy between gender and race. My noble friend shows slight dissatisfaction with that potential outcome, and I say to him that those are the very factors we want to look at in the guidance my right honourable friend is considering bringing forward. Self-evidently, if we are going to use facial recognition technology, it needs to be accurate, regulated, proportionate, intelligence-led and organised in a way that does not discriminate against sex, race or any other characteristic.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, noble Lords have had the opportunity twice in the last month to be briefed by the Met Police on facial recognition. On both occasions, including when Minister Johnson from the other end was present, it was clear, as the Met admitted, that it does not have clear oversight, which the Minister also admitted in an earlier answer. When are the Government going to provide some clear regulations? In what other area of public-facing policing do the police make up their own rules?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is interesting that the noble Baroness mentions that she has been to a meeting with Minister Johnson and the Metropolitan Police. That is part of a regular series of stakeholder engagement meetings being undertaken by the Policing Minister with the police, current regulators, civil society groups and others. The purpose of those discussions is to gauge the sort of opinion that the noble Baroness has brought forward now, so that we can, as I have said, look at the police using facial recognition technology in a framework set by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The noble Baroness may be impatient, but the issue has been identified by the Home Office and actioned by the Home Secretary, and we will bring forward proposals in due course to try to resolve the various tensions put to me in the Chamber this afternoon.