Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
Lord Davies of Gower ExcerptsWednesday 5th November 2025
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 View all Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 136-III Third marshalled list for Report - (4 Nov 2025)
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, before the noble Lord finally winds up, I have two points to make. One is in respect of the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, about Written Answers. We have all had many of them, and they have sometimes been useful and sometimes been awful. This is a problem of not just this Government; it goes back many years. The answer is just to keep going, but I sympathise with the noble Lord.
I am a member of the Science and Technology Committee of this House. We spend a lot of time talking about the shortage of researchers and students coming into our universities. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, is a very good example of how to come in properly; he passed all the exams and made a career of it. But there are an awful lot of other people who do not get here because of the difficulties, cost and delay of these processes.
I do not think it really matters how they come. It is easy to criticise people because they come in a small boat or because they get a visa in some other way. We really need to look and see how we can attract the best possible students in the world to help our research and technology industries here. We have got the opportunities from many who would prefer to leave the United States at the moment. All over, if we do not get the students, we are not going to achieve our academic success. I do not think the amendments in this group are the way forward.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 35 from my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Amendment 71 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel. We have seen disturbing instances of very serious offending by non-UK nationals on student visas. For example, there is the case of Zhenhao Zou, a Chinese national and PhD student at University College, London, who was convicted in March 2025 of multiple rapes of women in the UK and China, and who is now serving a life sentence with a minimum term of 24 years.
The existence of such a case shows that the student route is not free of risk, yet we currently have no published data on how many overseas students commit crimes, have their visas revoked or are deported. Without that transparency, Parliament and the public are effectively working in the dark.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I will not repeat the comprehensive arguments my noble friend has so eloquently set out in support of this amendment. I want to focus briefly on the point she highlighted that, by allowing settled status to expire rather than revoking or cancelling it, the Home Office is sidestepping a proportionality assessment and denying the status-holder a right of appeal.
The Home Office says that this is a generous thing to do to give people a bit more time before their status is lost but, as my noble friend has set out, it is in fact letting status-holders slide off a cliff without the withdrawal agreement safeguards. This should not be allowed to happen, fundamentally because the Home Office—extraordinary though it may seem—may be wrong in its assessments that status was granted in error. Regrettably, the Home Office has been known to make mistakes in the past—in fact, frequent mistakes, often with catastrophic human consequences.
This amendment would ensure that, where such errors are made, the victims of those errors are afforded the procedural safeguards that they should be. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, said in reply to me that those whose settled status was lapsed by the Home Office would be
“informed that they can reapply to the EUSS. If such an application is made and refused, it will give rise to a right of appeal. Any family member application that is refused because the sponsor was granted EUSS status in error also attracts a right of appeal”.
These are safeguards that the Minister said
“I hope the noble Lord will find adequate … in both these cases”.—[Official Report, 8/9/25; col. 1186.]
I regret that we do not believe they are adequate because this is not a right of appeal against the decision to allow status to lapse. It is a right of appeal against the refusal of a new application, which means that if the person concerned chooses to appeal, they are challenging a different decision, and the tribunal may well not allow the same arguments to be presented. Pre-settled status could also expire in the meantime, while awaiting appeal on the new application.
In closing, I thank the Minister for his engagement with my noble friend and myself on this issue. But, as he will appreciate from what my noble friend has said, we do not accept that the safeguards he referred to in Committee are sufficient. Therefore, we ask him, first, obviously, to accept this amendment, but if he is not willing to do so, to get the Government to reflect again and come back with a proposal that would meet these concerns.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, as indicated in Committee, we have little issue with Clause 42. If the Government believe that it is also in line with the withdrawal agreement, we do not have concerns about it standing part of the Bill.
I listened to the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. While I understand her concerns, we are satisfied that Clause 42 does not undermine the protections for European Union, European Economic Area and Swiss nationals and their family members who have leave to enter or remain in the UK granted under the EU settlement scheme. The government amendments in this group simply alter the commencement of Clause 42 so that it comes into effect on Royal Assent. Given that we have little issue with this clause, we are satisfied that its commencement on Royal Assent is not inappropriate.
I will only ask one question of the Minister. Can he explain whether he expects Clause 42 to increase administrative burdens on the Home Office and, if so, what steps have been taken to increase administrative capacity?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, for her amendment. I assure her that there is nothing nerdy about putting amendments down in this field. As a fellow nerd on many other topics, I welcome her contribution to the debate.
The amendments, as the noble Baroness has said, are on the important issue of the discussion on the safeguards for loss of status under the EU settlement scheme. I welcome the fact that the noble Baroness, the noble Lord, Lord Oates, and I have had some meetings. I think we have got a position whereby Clause 42 is welcome. I am pleased that they welcome the addition of Clause 42, because it provides legal clarity for EU citizens and their family members with EUSS status who are in scope of the withdrawal agreement, and it is the source of their rights in the UK. I hope, therefore, that they welcome Amendments 81 and 83. These will mean that Clause 42 comes into force on the day of Royal Assent, rather than two months later as was originally planned, so that those rights are guaranteed from when the Bill receives Royal Assent. I will move those amendments in due course.
The nub of the question goes to the nub of the nerdery of the noble Baroness, which we discussed when she introduced her amendments. The EUSS is more generous than the withdrawal agreement requires. As we know, there are two cohorts of EU citizens with EUSS status: the “true” cohort, who are in scope of the agreement because they were economically active in the UK at the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020, and the “extra” cohort, who were resident in the UK at the end of the transition period but did not meet the technical requirements of free movement law. Clause 42 ensures that both cohorts will be treated equally in UK law by providing that all EU citizens and family members with EUSS status will be treated as being withdrawal agreement beneficiaries. This is a significant measure that gives legal effect to what has been the UK’s approach since the start of the EUSS.
Amendment 36 would remove subsection (2)(c). Its effect would be to confer withdrawal agreement rights in the UK on those who do not qualify for them because they do not qualify for EUSS status. Worse, it would mean that pre-settled status granted in error could not be curtailed or allowed to expire, because the withdrawal agreement does not permit rights to be lost on that basis.
The amendment would give such people unwarranted preferential treatment over those whose EUSS application was correctly refused. It would also undermine the integrity of the EUSS system by giving them the same rights in the UK as those of a pre-settled status holder who complied with requirements for that status. Those are outcomes that we cannot accept. A person whose EUSS status has been granted in error will not be in the “true” or “extra” cohort and should not benefit from Clause 42.
None the less, none of this detracts from the proper safeguards against the loss of EUSS status. The noble Baroness is right to emphasise the importance of that issue, as are the stakeholders who have been engaging with the Home Office on this point. Nothing in Clause 42 affects the withdrawal agreement-compliant appeal rights in UK law for the refusal or removal of EUSS status. There is nothing disproportionate about allowing a pre-settled status granted in error to expire after its five-year term, given that the person had no entitlement to that limited leave in the first place.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord talked about Home Office errors. I would argue that the person will have been given every opportunity to show that their pre-settled status was granted correctly, and will have failed to do so. As with erroneous grants of limited leave in other immigration routes, our approach allows people to stay in the UK with the right to work for the remaining period of that leave.
Importantly, it is also open for the person to reapply for EUSS status, and, if refused, they will have the right of appeal. The noble Lord, Lord Oates, mentioned this. I said this to him in Committee, and I think that I have also written to him and spoken to him about it in our meetings outside the Chamber. It also applies to any family member whose application is refused because their sponsor’s EUSS status was granted in error.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for returning to this matter. I hope I have set down that those settled rights will exist under Clause 42. In the event of errors, there are rights of appeal, as well as an existing allowance to continue work in that particular period.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I understand that the government amendments in this group would place limits on the circumstances in which conditions referred to in new sub-paragraphs (vi) to (x) of Section 3(1)(c) of the Immigration Act 1971, as inserted by Clause 43(2), may be attached to a person’s limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom. This does not require too much comment from me. This is, in my view, a tidying-up amendment which would clarify the circumstances in which these conditions can be imposed.
Clarity on this point is welcome. Can the Minister explain how the circumstances could be altered to either augment or narrow the scope of the circumstances which would come under this section? As we all know, the nature of the threats we face can change, and it is important that we do not have an unwieldy and prescriptive list to which these conditions can only be applied, although, that being said, it is imperative that this does not undermine the role of Parliament in scrutinising what comes under this section. If the Minister could update the House on how this balance will be achieved with respect to his amendments, I would be very grateful.
On Amendment 41, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, while I appreciate some of the intention behind this amendment, I cannot support it. If we want to maintain the integrity of the immigration system, we simply must ensure that those awaiting removal or further decision remain within the reach of the authorities. In short, while I understand the desire to make the system more flexible, this amendment would do so at the expense of the very oversight and accountability that make immigration bail credible and enforceable. For those reasons, I do not believe it would be wise to support it.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate. The government amendments were tabled in response to requests in Committee, not just from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—who I hope to see back in her place as soon as possible—but the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and others, including Members from the Opposition Back Benches and Front Bench. I hope I can reassure the noble Lord that we have taken all those matters into account in bringing forward the amendment today.
On Amendment 41, tabled by my noble friend Lord Bach, I welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue with him outside the Chamber and get clarification on the points he is pressing me to examine. I hope that the explanation I give him now will meet his points of concern, but we will see whether that is in fact the case. We believe that the amendment, while testing the Government, is ultimately dealt with in other ways, and would make no material difference to the operation of the legislation. The Bounar case, which my noble friend mentioned, pre-dated changes to our bail accommodation guidance. The Northern Ireland Court of Appeal decision was handed down in December 2024, and the Home Office guidance was republished on 31 January 2025.
There is a key extract from the guidance that I want to read to my noble friend, so I hope the House will bear with me:
“Where an individual is not subject to a residence condition, but they are applying for accommodation under Schedule 10, they may request for their bail conditions to be varied to include a residence condition on the BAIL 409 application form. Bail conditions can be varied to include a residence condition at an address yet to be specified, where the individual does not have a residence condition imposed and a refusal of accommodation would be in breach of their Article 3 ECHR rights”.
The key point for me in that extract is that in the case of Bounar the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal found that the person could not be given bail accommodation because they did not have a bail residence condition. Although that is technically correct, I believe and hope that our guidance—and I hope this satisfies my noble friend—now makes it clear that bail can be varied to impose a residence condition that will enable a person to be granted bail conditions, where to refuse to do so would breach the person’s human rights under Article 3. The key point that I emphasise to my noble friend is that our guidance is now clear that the situation in Bounar should not arise. If the person requires a bail condition in order to prevent an Article 3 breach, we will create one rather than refusing the application, and the courts can now apply that, as our guidance makes clear.
I am genuinely grateful for the discussions that I have had had with my noble friend outside both Committee and Report. He has raised these issues with me regarding the Bounar case as recently as today, outside the Chamber, prior to Report commencing. I have tried to give him an answer based on our legal interpretation of the understanding of that case in relation to our guidance, and I hope that, with that clarification, he is able to reflect on that, if not today then later in Hansard. I am happy to have further discussions with him about the application outside the Chamber at a later date, but I hope that the explanation I have given meets the objectives in his amendment, and I ask him not to press it.
Lord Davies of Gower
“Abolition of Immigration Tribunals(1) The Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the First-Tier Tribunal is abolished.(2) The Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the Upper Tribunal is abolished.(3) The Transfer of Functions of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal Order 2010 is repealed.(4) In paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971 omit sub-paragraphs (5) and (6).(5) The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 is amended in accordance with subsections (6) and (7).(6) In section 94—(a) omit subsection (3)(b), and(b) omit subsection (4).(7) Section 103 is repealed.(8) In section 72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, omit subsection (10A).(9) In section (8) of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants) Act 2004—(a) omit subsection (7)(c), and(b) omit subsection (9A).(10) The UK Borders Act 2007 is amended in accordance with subsections (16).(11) In section 36 omit subsections (3A) and (3B).(12) In Schedule 10 (immigration bail) of the Immigration Act 2016—(a) omit paragraph 1(3),(b) in paragraph 2—(i) in sub-paragraph (1) omit “or the first-tier tribunal”,(ii) omit sub-paragraphs (7) and (8),(c) in paragraph 3—(i) in sub-paragraph (1) omit “or the first-tier tribunal”,(ii) in sub-paragraph (2)(f) omit “or the first-tier tribunal”,(iii) omit sub-paragraphs (3) and (4),(iv) in sub-paragraph (5) omit “or the first-tier tribunal”,(v) omit sub-paragraph (6),(d) in paragraph 4 omit “or the first-tier tribunal.”,(e) omit paragraph 5(5),(f) in paragraph (6)—(i) omit sub-paragraphs (3), (4) and (5),(ii) in sub-paragraph (6) omit “or the first-tier tribunal”,(iii) omit sub-paragraph (7),(g) omit paragraph 7(1)(a)(ii),(h) omit paragraph 8, (i) in paragraph 10—(i) in sub-paragraph (9)(a) for “the relevant authority” substitute “the Secretary of State”,(ii) omit sub-paragraph (10),(iii) in sub-paragraphs (11), (12) and (13) for each reference to “the relevant authority” substitute “the Secretary of State”,(j) omit paragraph 11,(k) omit paragraph 12.(13) In the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 omit sections 27, 54 and 55.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would abolish the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the First and Upper Tier Tribunals, so that no person can bring judicial appeal immigration and asylum decisions.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, before the Immigration Appeals Act 1969, passed by the Labour Government of Harold Wilson, there was no general right of appeal against Home Office immigration decisions. After the establishment by that Act of the system of adjudicators and the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, we have had several revisions of the system of appeals. We had the Immigration Appellate Authority, the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, established in 2005, and then the current asylum and immigration chamber of the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal was created just five years later. With all these revisions and the litany of law that has grown out of immigration and asylum matters, we have ended up in a situation whereby the entire system is held in perpetual limbo.
The system as it stands incentivises endless appeals, procedural delays and the recycling of unfounded claims, all at the expense of the British taxpayer. We know the appeal and judicial review systems surrounding asylum and immigration cases have become a tool used by illegal migrants who should be deported to prevent their removal. There are cases where people have made repeated claims over time, covering human rights, modern slavery and asylum. These claims are often made at the last minute to prevent removal and are sometimes on completely contradictory grounds. For example, one man made a claim as an Iraqi and, when that was rejected, then made a further claim saying he was in fact Iranian. It took eight years to deport a Somali man, Yaqub Ahmed, who gang-raped a 16 year-old girl in 2008 following his release from prison. He used multiple modern slavery, human rights and asylum claims, costing taxpayers huge sums before eventually being deported in 2023.
Amendment 46 would abolish the immigration and asylum chambers of the First-tier and Upper Tribunals. This would prevent any person bringing a judicial appeal to a court or tribunal. Amendment 47 would remove the ability of any person to make an appeal to a court or tribunal in respect of an initial decision for an immigration or asylum matter. The decisions that cannot be appealed include any deportation order or removal directions; a decision to decline immigration bail; a decision to refuse asylum support; or a decision to refuse an asylum or protection claim.
The amendment includes a right of administrative review to a review board in the Home Office, which would consider initial decisions where there is an error in application of the law or rules but could not reconsider the substantive material of the decision. It would be able to overturn the initial decision if and only if it was satisfied it was made in error. The Secretary of State would have to make provisions about the review board by way of regulations subject to the negative procedure. The underlying principle here is that the judicial system should not have any role in the immigration and asylum process. As I have already stated, this used to be the norm. Instead, all reviews of any immigration decision will be decided by the review board in the Home Office.
Amendment 68 takes us to the logical conclusion: the removal of the ability to judicially review immigration decisions. The only exception here would be where the Home Secretary has acted outside their powers under the Immigration Acts. Importantly, it would not include review on the grounds of unreasonableness, proportionality, or the merits of a particular case. The current system diverts scarce resources away from those in genuine need. Every pound spent on repeat litigation is a pound not spent on border security, faster processing or refugee support. True compassion is helping the genuine and deterring abuse of the system. I beg to move.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, there cannot be any doubt that the system which has been working—if that is the right word—for some considerable time is very unsatisfactory. I think that is probably recognised by the Government and was certainly recognised by the previous Government. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, summarised the complex system that currently prevails, whereby applications are made and there are appeals and the like.
I should perhaps add that, until relatively recently, it was possible to judicially review the decision of the Upper Tribunal. The Supreme Court, in a case called Cart, had decided that, so there was yet another avenue available to those who wished to use the full possibilities inherent in the system. Parliament decided that that Supreme Court decision ought to be reversed. I declare an interest as having been chair of the Independent Review of Administrative Law. We recommended that and it was, in fact, supported by a number of judges who had sat on the decision itself. It became law, so these things are not sacrosanct.
As far as judicial review generally is concerned, I simply ask the Minister this. The ouster clause, as they tend to be described, in Amendment 68 is not a complete ouster but it is a substantial one. There was an indication in remarks that the Minister made earlier that any sort of ouster might be considered to violate the rule of law. Although there have been various obiter dicta of judges—I think in particular of the well-known case of Privacy International—suggesting that the courts could ultimately refuse to recognise an ouster clause, the Independent Review of Administrative Law took the view that Parliament was ultimately sovereign. It may or may not be a good idea to oust the courts, and that is a matter that Parliament will have to consider on the specific facts. I would very much like to know what the Government’s general view on that is.
What I want to address at this moment is the amendment in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Murray, Lord Jackson and Lord Lilley, in relation to the Human Rights Act. This Bill, entitled “Border Security”, was the Government’s first response to the various attempts by previous Governments to cope with illegal migration. The opposition to the various Bills that went through this House was firm, but I was never quite clear what the policy was on the part of the Labour Party. Ultimately, it came down to the idea that the Government would crack down on the smuggler gangs. The word “crackdown” came often into the debates, and the future Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, was held out as being just the man to crack down because of his experience as the Director of Public Prosecutions. Now, I yield to no one in my admiration for his discharge of that role, but I was always somewhat confused by the idea that someone who was in charge of macro decision-making as the Director of Public Prosecutions was in some way fitted to crack down on smuggler gangs.
The crackdown was apparently to start straight away when the Government came into power some 15 months ago, but I think it is fair to say that it has not been a success. We can see the figures, and I do not wish to weary the House with what those figures are. The Bill, which in some ways is uncontroversial, gives a little extra power to allow that crackdown to take place, but what we really have here is a complete vacuum of policy on the part of the Government. We know they did not like the Rwanda scheme, but what is to replace it? The position of those who opposed the previous Government was that we could not do anything to in any way amend the ECHR or the Human Rights Act, both of which obviously play a significant part in the whole process of gaining asylum, and anyone who suggested as much was considered almost to be in the headbanger category.
Things have moved on a bit, and a number of senior Labour figures are saying that we really need to think again about the ECHR. Indeed, I think 17 nations, members of the Council of Europe, are considering trying to do something about the ECHR in view of the fact that so many European countries do not find it to be working satisfactorily. When the Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, gave evidence before a committee, he said that that might take as much as 10 years, but this is an emergency, and I am sure the Government will acknowledge that.
As for the amendment of the Human Rights Act, when I asked the Minister in Committee, he confirmed that there was no way in which there would be any amendment of the Human Rights Act—I have on me what he said in Hansard—nor would there be any deviation from the ECHR. That begs the question as to what is going to happen. What is going to fill the policy vacuum? The previous Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, made some noises to the effect that the situation was far from satisfactory and something needed to be done, and her successor, Shabana Mahmood, has said that nothing is off the table. We know that nothing is off the table but we are entirely unclear as to what is on it, and it really is time that we knew.
I can remind the noble Lord that he said in Committee, on 13 October:
“I hope to assure the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that we will legislate to reform our approach to the application of Article 8 in the immigration system so that fewer cases are treated as exceptional. We will set out how and when someone can make a claim. We are also reviewing the application of Article 3”.—[Official Report, 13/10/25; col. 132.]
How is that going to happen? Apparently there is going to be no amendment of the HRA and any changes to the ECHR are in the far distant future, yet he said to the Committee that there was going to be legislation. The only form of legislation that seems to be at all possible is some form of legislation that says that these decisions are not satisfactory and so the approach has got to be changed—in other words, guidance to judges. I am concerned about that, as it would be interference with judicial independence. The Government ought to have the courage, if they think the law is wrong, to change it. The Human Rights Act is a domestic statute and can be amended.
I come with help, I hope. The amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Murray, Lord Jackson and Lord Lilley, provides for the suspension of the Human Rights Act in the face of this emergency. It is a domestic statute, and the powers of the Government enable them to do that if necessary. It may be that that will at least help. I do not pretend that changes to the Human Rights Act are the complete answer to the almost intractable problem that we face, but it is a very real suggestion. It is contained in the amendment and I suggest that the Government should take it seriously.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Let me phrase it this way: the Government will always bring before the House, in the form of a Statement, matters on which we intend to provide policy changes. When we are in a position to make further policy announcements in this area, there will undoubtedly be a Statement in the House of Commons and in this House that Members can question and examine in detail. That Statement may include signalling for legislation; the two things are not incompatible. I know I said this in September and I have said it again today, but that is the direction of travel, and when we are in a position to make clear the policy direction the Government wish to take for public scrutiny, we will make that Statement and bring forward proposals accordingly. I hope that satisfies the noble Lord.
I cannot agree to the amendments, and I hope that Members will not press them. I hope too that, if nothing else, the case I have made today on Report is as clear as I can make it in the circumstances.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this has been an important and interesting debate. I rather suspected that the Liberal Democrats and the Government would decline to support these amendments. I am aware of some of the concerns noble Lords have. I listened very carefully to what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, had to say, but the public want us to end illegal migration via small boat crossings. They want us to deport illegal entrants. Ending the legal logjam of endless appeals is crucial to giving the Government the ability to get a grip on this border crisis. If the Government are too weak to act, then I submit that we will have to try to force them to. On that basis, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Davies of Gower
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the rebuttable presumptions in new subsections (5ZA) inserted into section 72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, so that a refugee convicted of a sexual offence would be considered to have been convicted of a particularly serious crime for the purposes of Article 33 of the Refugee Convention, therefore permitting their deportation.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, in Committee, my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel raised the reinsertion of the rebuttable presumption into Section 72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. As he explained, that section contains our domestic interpretation of Article 33 of the refugee convention. The article relates to the refoulement of refugees, and states that a refugee can be returned to their home country if they are
“convicted by a final judgement of a particularly serious crime”
and constitute
“a danger to the community”.
Initially, Section 72 contained two sets of presumptions that could be rebutted in court: first, that the refugee in question is presumed to have been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime; and, secondly, that they are presumed to constitute a danger to the community of the United Kingdom. The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 removed the first rebuttable presumption, owing to ambiguity surrounding which elements of that test an individual could rebut. The Act clarified that the only rebuttable presumption is the presumption that a person constitutes a danger to the community of the United Kingdom.
Clause 48 of the Bill seeks to alter the definition of “particularly serious crime” for the purposes of Article 33(2). It includes an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. However, the inserted subsections (5ZA) and (5ZB) state:
“A person is to be presumed to have been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime if”—
thereby reintroducing the rebuttable presumption that was removed by the 2022 Act.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are committed to complying with their international obligations, including those set out in the refugee convention. A key principle of the refugee convention is the non-refoulement of refugees to a place or territory where there is a real risk that they will be subject to persecution. However, the convention, as we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord German, recognises that there must be limited exceptions to this principle. Article 33(2) of the convention allows the refoulement refugees when they are a danger to the security of the UK or have committed a particularly serious crime and, as a result, constitute a danger to the community.
Clause 48 goes further than previous amendments made by the Nationality and Borders Act by redefining the term “particularly serious crime” for exclusion purposes to now include individuals who have received a conviction for a sexual offence, including under Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003. That is because the Government recognise the devastating impact of sexual violence on victims and our communities and are fully committed to tackling sexual offences and halving violence against women and girls in a decade.
Importantly, as it stands, Clause 48 allows an individual to rebut the presumptions both that they have committed a particularly serious crime and that, as a result, they constitute a danger to the community. Amendment 48, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, seeks to remove the “particularly serious” rebuttable presumption. This would mean that asylum seekers or refugees who receive convictions for Schedule 3 sex offences would be considered for exclusion from the refugee convention, with no ability to rebut the presumption that they have committed a particularly serious crime.
Similarly, Amendment 49 from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, seeks to remove the same rebuttable presumption for sexual offenders convicted outside of the United Kingdom where that offence would have also constituted a Schedule 3 sexual offence had it been committed in the UK.
The noble Lord’s Amendments 50 to 54 inclusive seek to make a number of changes to the provision, including removing the presumption that, where an individual is considered to have committed a “particularly serious crime” in relation to a Schedule 3 sex offence, they constitute a danger to the community of the United Kingdom as a result. There is no definition of a “particularly serious crime” in the refugee convention and no direct uniformity in the interpretation adopted by other state parties. It is open to the UK to interpret the term in good faith, and that is what we are seeking to adjust with Clause 48. A good-faith interpretation, in our view, requires consideration of the ordinary meaning of the words and respecting the guarantees provided by the convention as a whole. I hope that I am not going too far when I say that the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord German, reflects that we have the balance right in what we are trying to do with Clause 48.
The rebuttable presumption mechanism provides a safeguard for individual offenders to rebut based on their individual circumstances. However, at the same time, it is important to note that Parliament has presumed such offences will be considered particularly serious crimes for these purposes. Not only have those who receive convictions for Schedule 3 sex offences failed to respect the laws of the UK by committing heinous acts, but they have also undermined public confidence in the ability of the state to protect the public. But this measure is limited by our obligations under the convention. Both the rebuttable presumptions must remain as a practical measure to ensure that we adopt a lawful approach. We contend that the Government, in proposing Clause 48, have the balance right. For that reason, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I regret that the Government have not listened to the arguments advanced here. Clause 48 will complicate this area of law by reintroducing the confusion that was cleared up by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. No noble Lord raised any issue with that change at the time, so there is no reason to be reintroducing the rebuttable presumption. It is surely farcical that convictions for sexual offences could be argued to be not particularly serious crimes, when no other offence could be so argued. This seems like a case of intransigence on the part of the Government and a denial of the clear error they have made. As disappointing as this is, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, it falls to me to say thank you to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for taking this so far. I have had the temerity—he knows I have said this to him privately—to say that he probably ranks in this Chamber as a national treasure. That is because—I know he will not like it—if you have had his experiences and you have devoted your life to ensuring that the chance that you have had in life is given to others, you cannot fail to support this amendment. It is absolutely fundamental that children should have the right to be with their parents, and it is fundamental that we are currently denying them that opportunity. This amendment is so tightly written and so tightly executed that it is not going to take a large number of people: it is not going to take huge numbers from all over the world, it is a small number of children.
Those of us who have been on the beaches and in the background in Calais and Dunkirk know that children sometimes find themselves there in the most appalling circumstances. What are you to do as a parent if you have a child whom you cannot get to come to you? That is the most terrible thing you could possibly imagine to impose on parents. So I have no doubt that the empathy of this House is not just for the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, but the causes he has put forward and this very tight amendment. It deserves the support of all sides of this Parliament and I hope the noble Lord will put it to a vote so we can all vote for it.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, it is not that there are no means to enter the country, nor that families are being involuntarily separated at the French border; it is that we continue to allow unfettered and illegal entrance to the country and offer the amenities that make separating from one’s family a worthwhile choice for some. So, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for whom I have enormous regard, I submit that the amendment perhaps does nothing to solve these issues.
I understand that, in attempting to provide a legal route for asylum-seeking children to reunite with their families, the noble Lord’s intentions are well-meaning and indeed magnanimous. In practice, however, I suggest that his amendment might well cause even more issues with the asylum system and that more families would be split up. Those considering crossing the channel and illegally entering our country would be even more emboldened to do so if they were given the impression that having to part ways with their children would be a temporary measure. There is a great risk that more parents would board small boats, making the dangerous and sometimes fatal channel crossing. Their children, left behind with the promise of a future reunion, would be left exposed to the dangerous gangs that control the people-trafficking operations into this country.
To solve the issue of separated families, we must focus on what we can control. It is not in our power to force the migrants in France to remain with their families, but we can show them that the journey over here is not worth the risk, by taking away the luxuries offered on arrival, denying asylum claims after illegal entering and making it clear that, should you choose to leave your family, it is not the British state’s responsibility to reunite. These are clear and effective ways to solve the crisis. Unfortunately, this amendment incentivises the first set of prospects. It would fundamentally worsen the asylum crisis and, as such, I submit, it is not well judged.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Dubsfor tabling the amendment and for bringing to it not just his passion on this issue but his personal experience. I cannot imagine how my noble friend faced these issues as a child himself and I fully understand, and hope have empathy with, the driving motivation that he has brought to the House today.
The noble Lords, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, Lord Arbuthnot, Lord Wigley and Lord German, the noble and learned Baroness, |Lady Butler-Sloss, and my noble friends Lady Lister and Lord Berkeley, all spoke in support. However, I find myself, along with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, being a voice that will have to test my noble friend’s aspirations in this amendment and try to offer him a way through that understands the issues he has raised, at the same time as putting down the policy that the Government seek to have this House endorse in relation to the Bill.
The amendment, in effect, seeks to significantly expand the qualifying relationship eligibility for family reunion and make redundant the appendix child-relative policy by removing all current financial requirements on accommodation, maintenance, the immigration health surcharge and application fees, as well as the current exceptionality test of that route. My noble friend’s amendment would seek to ensure that the asylum-seeking children include children
“under the age of 18 … the child, sibling, half-sibling, niece, nephew, grandchild, or stepchild of the person granted protection status”.
I make it clear to the whole House that the Government firmly uphold the principle of family unity, especially for vulnerable children. Self-evidently, we have to recognise that families can become fragmented because of the nature of conflict and persecution, and because of the speed and manner in which those seeking asylum are often forced to flee their country.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I find myself in the unusual position of supporting this amendment, in the interests of transparency in the matters that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, raised.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth for Amendment 56, which would ensure that judgments from the First-tier Tribunal immigration and asylum chamber are published. It is not enough that justice is done; it must be seen to be done. This amendment goes to the heart of that principle. Decisions taken in the immigration and asylum chamber affect people’s lives in the most profound way. It is therefore essential that those decisions are open to scrutiny and that the reasoning behind them can be examined by the public, Parliament and the press. Transparency is the cornerstone of public confidence in our legal system. Where judgments are hidden, mistrust grows. There have been too many occasions where controversial or apparently inconsistent rulings have circulated in the media without the full facts being available.
That lack of visibility risks undermining both the independence of our tribunals and the confidence of the public in their fairness. Publishing these judgments will help improve public understanding of how decisions are made and the principle that underpins them. Importantly, this amendment is carefully drafted; it includes clear safeguards to allow for anonymity when necessary. Personal details and sensitive information can and should be protected, particularly when disclosure might endanger an applicant or compromise ongoing proceedings. The amendment strikes the right balance between transparency and privacy. It is only right that the public should be able to see how the law is being applied in their name, especially in an area that attracts so much public attention and debate. By opening up this process to proper scrutiny, we strengthen accountability and trust in the system.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 70 and 85 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who is not with us today for reasons I explained earlier. We listened to what was said in Committee and this amendment mirrors what was placed on the agenda then. But, in tabling this amendment, we have made some changes, one of which is the need for biometrics to be taken prior to travel, and the amendment also proposes a capped scheme to control numbers and an initial pilot of 12 months minimum in order to have the opportunity to evaluate it.
To try to explain this scheme, which is basically about a legal route into the United Kingdom, I will just refer to the United States. A similar scheme to the one we are proposing—not exactly the same, but similar—was instituted there, and the US Government were able to reduce illegal border crossings from Mexico across the US border by 77% between December 2023 and August 2024: that is, in nine months.
It was achieved through a three-pronged approach, one of which was, of course, diplomatic efforts to make sure that there was a strong ability to manage the system in the countries where people started, and also then taking a tough approach to the irregular border crossings, significantly reducing the chance of successfully claiming asylum for those arriving without permission, and a substantial official scheme through which people could apply to come to the country. That is the bit that, of course, the humanitarian travel permit relates to.
The result in the United States was that it simply was not worth the expense of paying the smugglers any more and it undermined their business entirely. That is because you cannot look at just one side of the demand-supply equation. The demand is being met by the smugglers, and we have to touch both sides. Without a form of legal route, you will not get that demand reduced.
I will try to explain it very straightforwardly. In the United Kingdom, we put up with queues. We may not like them, but we follow, if there is a queue, in a proper and orderly manner—mostly. If somebody pushes in, either they do not get served when they get to the front, or they get sent to the back of the queue. This scheme means to do exactly that—to provide a scheme where there is a queue in which people can come to the United Kingdom. If you decide to jump the queue by taking the smugglers route, you get put to the back of the queue again.
That means, of course, that you have to have a quota attached to the scheme, and because the law in this country says that you cannot make a claim for asylum unless you are here, you have to have a travel permit in order to come here. But that would be controlled right back at the beginning of the journey. If you have paid a slab of money to a smuggler back in Egypt or Libya, you are certainly not going to be put off when you get to the end of the route. It is certainly the case that you need to tackle this right back at the beginning. This whole scheme is about trying to create a legal route and being tough on anyone who tries to jump the queue by coming in irregularly and moving them to the back of the queue.
It does not matter if the queue is not moving very quickly; what matters is that it is moving. It is surprising that people will be prepared to wait, as they did in the United States, where, in the case of Haiti, instead of 10,000 people turning up at the US border, it was just a handful every month. That is because people said, “It’s not worth my while doing that”. They saw that joining the queue meant that at some stage they would get to the front of that queue.
It works much better, of course, if you are doing it with other countries as well, because you can collectively create these routes, which can be dealt with in a very efficient way. That way, we control the borders. That is what this is about. It is a different sort of approach from what is suggested by putting your hands up and saying, “You can’t get in”, and “We’ll stop you in every way possible”, and all that stuff. That did not work.
It may be that, in time, the pressures to try to deal with this across the channel may well work in reducing the numbers. But we are looking at changing the whole model so that the smugglers’ model does not work. It has been tried and tested. That is why, if we are going to use this in a European context, it is important that it is done with a capped model, with one particular country perhaps, and certainly for 12 months, so that we can find out whether we can make this work here in Europe as well.
This system, this scheme, is one that is designed to provide safe routes and to take away the business of the smugglers. It will not solve it all, but if it reduces it by 77%, as was the case in the United States of America, it is certainly worth doing.
That is what this amendment is about. The other amendment, with which it is associated, is simply to create a pilot scheme with a capped number of people in it. I hope that we will consider this when we come back to it later in this debate.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have brought forward this group of amendments concerning safe and legal routes and humanitarian travel permits. We recognise the compassion and concern that underpin these proposals. We cannot dispute that the United Kingdom has played its part in providing refuge to those fleeing war and persecution, but it is important to remind the House that the United Kingdom has a proud record of providing such safe and legal routes, which have brought many people to safety without the need to undertake dangerous journeys or place themselves in the hands of criminal gangs.
Through the Hong Kong British national (overseas) visa route, we have offered a secure and permanent home to those with whom we share deep historical ties. More than 180,000 people from Hong Kong have already come to the United Kingdom under this route, one of the most generous immigration offers in our nation’s history. Likewise, our Ukrainian family scheme and Homes for Ukraine programme have provided sanctuary to more than 200,000 people since 2022. Those fleeing Putin’s brutal invasion have found not just safety but welcome and support in communities across our country. In addition, our resettlement programmes for those affected by the conflicts in Syria and Afghanistan remain among the largest of their kind anywhere in Europe. The UK has resettled more than 25,000 vulnerable people through the Syrian scheme and continues to support Afghans who served alongside our forces.
The United Kingdom has therefore demonstrated through actions, not just words, that we are willing to provide safe, legal and managed routes for those in need. What we must now avoid is creating parallel systems that risk undermining the integrity of our immigration framework or diverting resources from routes that are already working effectively. Britain has done and continues to do its part. Our focus must remain on maintaining fairness, control and compassion in our asylum system, ensuring that help is targeted where it is most needed and delivered through routes that are safe, sustainable and properly managed.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all contributors to this debate. I am acutely conscious that I stand between noble Lords and the Recess—rather a short Recess, as it happens, but nevertheless. Before I make my remarks, I want to say that it is a pleasure to see the noble Lord, Lord Alton, back in his place. I thought he sounded on pretty good form, but if he is not fully back to top form, I hope he soon will be.
Amendment 61 deals with the Ukrainian scheme. I hope that everyone in your Lordships’ House knows that the UK remains unwavering in its support for the people of Ukraine and the scheme that we have in place. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked us to look again, and we have done that. Our commitment to the scheme is demonstrated by the Government’s recent 24-month extension to the Ukraine permission extension scheme, providing clarity and reassurance to Ukrainians living in the UK under the visa scheme. However, from the outset the Government have maintained— I think everybody knows this, not just in your Lordships’ House but in the country more widely—that these schemes are temporary and do not provide a direct route to settlement. They reflect a generous and meaningful commitment to support those displaced by the conflict, and they have been widely supported throughout the country. The Ukrainian Government share with us a strong desire for their citizens to return and contribute to Ukraine’s future recovery.
On Amendments 70 and 85, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, let me reaffirm, as acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, the United Kingdom’s proud record of offering sanctuary to those fleeing war, persecution and oppression around the world. We have a strong history of protecting people in those situations. The UK operates global safe and legal routes for refugees, including the UK resettlement scheme in partnership with the UN Refugee Agency, the UNHCR.
However, there is no provision within our Immigration Rules for someone to be allowed to travel to the UK to seek asylum. While we sympathise with people in many difficult situations around the world, we could not possibly consider a scheme that accepts applications from large numbers of individuals overseas. I hope the noble Lord, Lord German, will forgive me for not commenting on the situation in the United States. Those who need international protection should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. That is the fastest route to safety. Safe and legal routes are nevertheless an important part of the Government’s wider strategy to restore control over the immigration system. The immigration White Paper published in May 2025 announced a review of refugee sponsorship and resettlement, and further details will be set out in due course.
Amendment 70 includes a provision that relates to biometrics. Biometrics, in the form of fingerprints and facial images, underpin the current UK immigration system to support identity assurance and suitability checks on foreign nationals who are subject to immigration control. They enable us to pay comprehensive checks against immigration and criminal records to help identify those who pose a threat to our national security, public safety or immigration controls, or who are likely to breach our laws if they are allowed to come to the UK.
Huntingdon Train Attack
Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I express heartfelt sympathies from these Benches to all those injured in this horrifying attack, to their families and to everyone else affected. I also join others in paying tribute to the British Transport Police, Cambridgeshire Constabulary, Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service, and the East of England Ambulance Service. Their swift response, arriving within eight minutes of the first 999 call, brought an end to the violence and no doubt saved lives.
Above all, I acknowledge the astonishing bravery of the passengers and crew aboard the train. I pay particular tribute to Samir Zitouni, a man who, in an effort to protect others, ran towards the attacker and now remains critically injured in hospital. He went to work that day to serve the public. He has become a hero to the nation, and we wish him a full and speedy recovery.
It now appears that the individual charged, Anthony Williams, may have been connected to three prior knife incidents, including the stabbing of a 14 year-old in Peterborough. The Home Secretary rightly said that while investigations are ongoing she cannot comment on those events. When the case concludes, it is vital that a full account is given of what was known, when and by whom. Only through transparency can lessons be learned to prevent such atrocities occurring again.
The Home Secretary also noted that knife crime has fallen in recent years; that progress is very welcome. It is not my intention to politicise this tragedy, but I will make a couple of observations as more can and must be done. If the Government are to make good on their manifesto promise to halve knife crime by 2030, they must take a tougher stance against those who carry and use knives.
When the Crime and Policing Bill was before the other place, my colleagues tabled an amendment to raise the maximum sentence for the possession of a bladed weapon with intent to commit violence from four to 14 years. Disappointingly, the Government opposed that measure. As the Bill comes through this Chamber, I hope that noble Lords will reconsider. There can be no ambiguity: those who carry and use knives should face serious custodial sentences.
Equally, there is a widespread concern that the forthcoming Sentencing Bill risks moving in the opposite direction. The prospect of offenders being released earlier—or, in some cases, not serving their sentences in custody at all—sends the wrong message to dangerous criminals. The public are entitled to expect that those who commit violent crimes are punished proportionately and that justice is served.
On these Benches, we welcome the Home Secretary’s openness to using technology to innovate in how knife crime is tackled, such as through knife detection scanning and live facial recognition. Both have shown promise in identifying dangerous individuals and intercepting weapons. We hope that the Government can roll out live facial recognition technology at pace and that it will not be unduly delayed by further consultations. It is particularly needed in high-crime areas, many of which are centred around transport hubs.
The Government must also ramp up the use of stop and search. The former Metropolitan Police chief scientific officer found that increasing stop and search in London to 2011 levels would reduce knife homicides by around a third. I can personally vouch for the effectiveness of stop and search. When used intelligently and fairly, it saves lives. That is why the Conservatives sought to amend the Crime and Policing Bill to lower its threshold, but this was once again opposed by the Government. The police must have the powers to act decisively when intelligence suggests that lives are risk.
This country has witnessed too many tragedies of this kind. Each incident compels us to ask the same question: what more could have been done? When the investigation concludes, the Government must ensure that every department—whether it be the police, transport or probation—examines its role and translates the lessons into action, not just reports. We on these Benches welcome the Home Secretary’s commitment to halving knife crime, but words alone are not enough. It will require robust sentencing, an expansion of policing powers, and investment in technology. It will require the political courage to act decisively in the interests of public safety.
In the aftermath of this horrific attack, we have seen both the worst and the best of humanity. So, in closing, I say to the Minister: we owe it to the Huntingdon victims and to every victim of knife crime to ensure that this tragedy is a turning point, so that the public can have faith that our law enforcement and justice systems are well equipped to protect our streets and deliver justice.
Extradition Act 2003 (Amendment to Designations) Order 2025
Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts(1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for their contributions. While we on this side do not believe a regret amendment is necessary, I thank her for bringing to light the plight of Hong Kongers. As has already been mentioned, the case of Jimmy Lai ever serves as a reminder of how people’s freedoms continue to be curtailed.
The removal of Zimbabwe from the Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 2 Territories) Order 2003 is certainly not controversial. It unfortunately left the Commonwealth in 2003, and as such has not been party to the London scheme for extradition in the Commonwealth since that date. As the Minister has already quite correctly mentioned, the fact that Zimbabwe has not since been de-designated represents nothing more than an oversight, and it is right that the Government are correcting that. Similarly, it is welcome that the Government are designating Chile in this order, following their accession to the 1957 extradition convention.
The final change—the change targeted in the Liberal Democrats’ regret amendment—is the removal of Hong Kong from Article 2 of the 2003 order. This reflects the fact that we suspended our extradition treaty with Hong Kong in 2020 following the national security law and the crackdown on pro-democracy activists by the authoritarian communist regime in China. Since the treaty is suspended, there is currently no formal framework for extradition between the UK and Hong Kong, and that is right: we should not be under an obligation to extradite anyone to a state with the kind of repressive laws we now see in place in Hong Kong. The removal of the designation does not represent any change in our policy, therefore; it simply formalises the position that there is now no extradition treaty in force between the UK and Hong Kong. I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that the rights of Hong Kongers must be protected, but I do not believe this draft order will do anything to detriment them. They will not be at any more risk of extradition than before.
I have one question for the Minister. Give that Hong Kong will now be treated the same as all other non-treaty states under the Extradition Act, requests will be made and assessed on a case-by-case basis. I am grateful for the Minister’s comments in his opening remarks, but I ask again: can the Government absolutely assure the House that they will not co-operate with the authorities in Hong Kong regarding the extradition of Hong Kongers, so that we are never complicit in the subjugation of Hong Kongers by the Chinese Communist Party?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the very broad support that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, has given for the order. Essentially, the speakers today have agreed that the measures regarding Zimbabwe and Chile are necessary, right and proper; the only queries we have had relate to Hong Kong, so I will park Chile and Zimbabwe and concentrate precisely on Hong Kong in winding up.
I hope I have given the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, a very clear assurance in my opening remarks, but, for the avoidance of doubt, this instrument does not place any new obligations on the UK Government to seek extradition from these countries or, indeed, to accept extradition from them, particularly in relation to Hong Kong. It also does not change any of the powers available to the UK courts to consider any extradition request on its individual merits; it does not impact on the power of UK judges to bar extradition; and, particularly in relation to Hong Kong, it does not revive the suspended treaty, and nor does it create any new powers. On the contrary, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, recognised, it formally recognises the suspension by removing Hong Kong’s designation under the Extradition Act 2003.
On the specific question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis. I cannot guarantee that no extradition will ever take place, for the reasons we have said, but it will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and will not be automatic. We remain steadfast in our commitment to protecting those who have sought refuge here; importantly, no individual will be extradited where there is a risk of persecution. I hope that satisfies the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.
The British national (overseas) route for Hong Kongers is a historic and moral commitment. Those with BNO status and their eligible family members can apply to come to the UK. Since that route has opened, close to 225,000 visas have been granted to Hong Kongers.
I hope that today’s debate and the comments I have made give reassurance. If I may, I will take away the detailed questions the noble Baroness has asked, but I hope that that is a general reassurance. I will also look at what we can do over and above this debate to ensure that we give notice of the impact of all three orders, so that that is widely known by those who may be impacted, and that some reassurance is given.
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
Lord Davies of Gower ExcerptsTuesday 28th October 2025
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 View all Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 136-I(b) Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (28 Oct 2025)
Lord Davies of Gower
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the requirement for the Border Security Commander to be a civil servant.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to open our first few hours of debate on Report. Noble Lords who have taken an interest in the Bill throughout our deliberations so far may recognise Amendments 1 and 2. At both Second Reading and in Committee, I said that this new commander was little more than a gimmick. I had hoped that, come Report, I would have heard more persuasive reasons to change my opinion of the Government’s policy. Unfortunately, I have not.
Since we finished Committee on the Bill, 589 people have entered the United Kingdom illegally via small boats. Since the start of this year, 36,954 migrants have crossed the channel. It does not take a genius to figure out that this Government’s policies are not working. The Government entered office with a promise to “smash the gangs”, end the use of hotel accommodation and prevent illegal crossings. They have done none of those things. In fact, the problems have exacerbated.
My Amendments 1 and 2 seek to make minor changes to the method of appointment of the commander. In my opinion, this is an important and strategic role. I will not pretend they are seismic alterations that will shift the dial demonstrably. They are, nevertheless, intended to make an important point that I genuinely hope the Government will take on board.
The point is that the whole of Chapter 1 of the Bill is essentially pointless. The commander is already in post and the Bill provides no substantive new powers. In Committee, when asked by my noble friend Lord Goschen what the commander will be able to do under the provisions of the Bill provisions that his office cannot do already, the Minister said:
“The clauses in Chapter 1—for example, ‘Duty to prepare annual reports’, ‘Duties of cooperation etc’ and ‘The Board’ overseeing all that—underpinned by statutory function give this House the confidence that there is a legislative background to those requirements”.—[Official Report, 26/6/25; col. 395.]
So it appears the Government believe that designating a civil servant as a commander and granting them the ability to prepare a report and to chair a board meeting every now and then is the solution to all our border security woes.
Noble Lords will be aware of the report into the operation of the Civil Service within the Home Office. How can we have faith that another civil servant in post as the commander would make any difference? Amendments 1 and 2 are intended to press the point that the commander, if their appointment is ever to be anything more than pure performance politics, needs to be more than simply a civil servant. It is wise, is it not, to have a guarantee in the Bill that the commander will be a senior law enforcement or military officer, so as to ensure the requisite competence, leadership and experience is brought to the role.
I have one question for the Minister. Earlier this year, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration investigated the Home Office’s operation to deter and detect clandestine entrance to the UK. The first recommendation of the independent inspector was to:
“Designate a Home Office-wide ‘owner’ for clandestine entry”.
In the Government’s response, the Home Office agreed with that recommendation and said that the
“Border Security Command … will ultimately provide the structure to support this role”.
However, it said that it will not implement that recommendation until October 2026. We have a Border Security Commander who the Government tell us is critical to co-ordinating our response to threats to border security, and yet they are not willing to make him responsible for tackling all methods of clandestine entry until next year. Why is this?
Does this not demonstrate the issue with this Government’s approach to the problem? Every can must be kicked down a very long and winding road. Why not designate the commander as the Home Office-wide “owner” for clandestine entry now? Why wait until next year? It is unfortunate, and we on these Benches will be pushing the Government to go much further over the course of Report. The British public want this border crisis solved, and they are watching. I beg to move.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Davies in his amendments. They seem to me to be eminently sensible. I wholly concur with him, as do most people increasingly in the country, that there is no sense of urgency, no sense of grip and a total lack of confidence when it comes to the Government’s handling of the immigration crisis.
The appointment of a Border Security Commander, and limiting that appointment to a civil servant, is a mistake, particularly when we look at other civil servants. When I was a Minister, I had excellent civil servants, and I have nothing to say against them. The great majority of them do an extremely good job. But when we have Joanna Rowland, the Home Office’s director-general for customer services, in charge of accommodating asylum seekers, standing down because of the failure of that, why should we have faith that someone just selected from the Civil Service should be appropriate to fulfil this role?
We are missing a huge mistake in this whole immigration debate. There is a huge backlog in the processing of asylum cases. Why have the Government not come forward with an idea of having an equivalent to Nightingale hospitals, which is what we had during the Covid pandemic, to process this? In my opinion, there is a whole raft of professionals in this country who are retired far too early. We in this House are the last vestiges of people who never retire, but there are an awful lot of people in this House who have retired, or been forced to retire, from their professions—be they judges, solicitors, army officers from the military or magistrates—who would willingly serve, if encouraged to do so, on a series of tribunals up and down the country, so as to better process the backlog in immigration cases.
If you look at the appointment of this incredibly important role, the Border Security Commander is in charge of liaising with Border Force, the National Crime Agency, the Immigration Service and Immigration Enforcement, and the goal is to deliver a safe and effective border. That has not happened to date. I just do not understand the rationale behind why this legislation is limiting the appointment of such a person, with the very narrow criteria that it has, to a civil servant. There must be plenty of other people out there who would be qualified to do this job who are not necessarily from the Civil Service.
I urge the Government to underline the sense of crisis there is in this country. It is benefiting parties and groups in this country that we would rather it did not, because there is a feeling up and down the country that the Government simply have not got control of our borders. There are those who may argue that the appointment of this individual is totemic, that they do not have sufficient power and that the powers will not kick in until later. Those are other arguments. My argument is that, if we have a national crisis which is set to get only worse, we should look at the whole cadre of recently retired professionals who would step up to serve, right across the board, in dealing with the backlog and this immigration crisis. We should look at the best candidates available to fulfil this particular job and not limit it to somebody from the Civil Service.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
By his own admission, the noble Lord did not attend Committee. It is the pity that he did not, because he could have raised some of these questions then. If he chooses to raise them now, on Report, I will give him the same answer. The Border Security Commander is working closely with the security services, and they have authorisation directly from the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary. Quite evidently, when they—or in this case he—are drawing up a plan to examine what needs to be done to solve the common issue of reducing small boat crossings, bringing criminals to justice and helping to speed up the asylum removals that the noble Lord, Lord Swire, referred to, then they are going to discuss and work with the security services. I am straying into a Committee-type session, which the noble Lord did not attend. I would rather stick to Report, which the noble Lord has attended. I think I have answered the questions that he has put before the House.
Turning to Amendment 26, if we return to the position we were in in 2016—which the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and noble Lord, Lord German, would have wished we maintained—we would still be a member of Europol. On a personal note, when I was a Member of the House of Commons, in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 I argued that we retain the capability of Europol and CIS as part of the EU-UK withdrawal agreement. That did not happen. But it is important that we ensure, post-Brexit agreement, that we have as close co-operation as possible with Europol on information gathering and criminal justice delivery capabilities—which the noble Lord and the noble Baroness mentioned. That is important. As we said in Committee, we have a strong existing relationship with Europol. We have around 20 permanent members of staff who work at the multi-agency liaison bureau at the agency’s headquarters in The Hague. The noble Lord asked whether we should have some Europol people here. We currently do not. That is a matter for discussion. Where we are now may be a matter for regret. I voted to remain, but we are where we are. Europol remains an independent organisation. It is accountable to the members of the European Union, and it produces its report to the European Union.
I say to the noble Baroness, and to the noble Lord who supports her, that the proposed new clause in her amendment would require reporting on all aspects of our co-operation with Europol. Ministers, including me, will regularly update Parliament on international law enforcement co-operation, including with Europol. We publish annual minutes of UK-EU specialised committees that monitor and review our trade agreements, including with Europol.
I am mindful that Europol is not a UK body. It answers to the European Commission and its member states, so bilateral co-operation may sometimes be something that we cannot publicly report on. It is not for us to report on some of the issues with Europol, because that is what Europol does. As the noble Baroness mentioned, once upon a time, in days gone by, we did have a British senior official leading Europol. That has changed; we are in a different world now. I assure her that the focus remains on disrupting organised crime, protecting vulnerable people, securing our borders and working in co-operation with Europol to achieve those objectives. To go back to the role of the Border Security Commander, one of his key roles is to oil the machinery of that operation, and work with colleagues who are directly operationally responsible, to make sure that we engender co-operation at a European level.
I therefore respectfully say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that Amendments 1 and 2 are not necessary, and I ask him not to press them. Amendment 26, from the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, is asking for things that we do not need to do, because we in this House are, in a sense, accountable for that relationship. I cannot report on all matters, but I get the spirit of what she is trying to say. On behalf of the UK Government, I want to have the closest co-operation possible with Europol and the European agencies, because we have a joint interest in tackling the criminal gangs and stopping individuals being exploited in those crossings.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this has been a short but useful debate. I thank all those who have participated.
I will say a few words on Amendment 26, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. In addition to the noble Baroness’s comments, I would say that we should be co-ordinating with our European allies on tackling the border crisis in any case. We need to stem the flow of illegal migration through Europe and across the channel, and to disrupt the criminal gangs that operate the smuggling network. However, we should be careful not to see this as some form of silver bullet. The problem cannot be solved simply by striking agreements with other European countries. We know the limited impact that the Government’s so-called “one in, one out” deal has had.
There is so much more that the Government could and should be doing to tackle the fully blown crisis at our border. They need to eliminate the pull factors and implement an effective deterrent. We had hoped the Government would take a long, hard look at their current policy, implement a serious and credible deterrent to prevent people crossing the channel in small boats, and present us with a commander with authority, rather than a commander with nothing to command. Evidently, that is not the case. We will watch very carefully and scrutinise the role of the commander. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the Minister for tabling these amendments. I say at the outset that I am content with the government amendments in this group, but perhaps a little less so with the noble Baroness’s.
Amendments 7 and 12 would create gaps in the new offences that would be susceptible to abuse. Those who enter the United Kingdom without valid leave to enter are committing an offence. Those who handle articles which are to be used to facilitate a person’s unlawful entry, contrary to Section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971, will be committing an offence. That is right, but the exception created by Amendment 7 would mean that a person entering the country illegally could not themselves be found criminally liable for the handling of such articles. If that person intends to use that article themselves to enter illegally, I cannot possibly see why they should be excluded from the commission of the new offence in Clause 14.
Amendment 12 raises a question about the “reasonable excuse” defence under Clause 16 and whether it would extend to those carrying out legitimate legal services. I am sure that the Government have no intention of criminalising legitimate legal activity but, at the same time, we know all too well that there is an army of lawyers working for so-called human rights charities and non-governmental organisations who indeed seek to use ever more ingenious legal methods to circumvent legitimate deportations and removals.
Amendments 10 and 11 concern the offences relating to prohibited items in accommodation or transport facilities. Government Amendment 10 proposes to exempt items
“designed for use for the purposes of personal cleanliness or personal hygiene”
from the relevant offences, and Amendment 11 sensibly limits that exemption so that dangerous articles, such as blades, glass or aerosols, are not inadvertently permitted.
These amendments appear to be a reasonable and pragmatic attempt to ensure that the legislation does not extend beyond its intended purpose. We do not want to see a situation in which a detainee or asylum seeker could be criminalised for possessing a bar of soap or toothpaste, and the carve-outs in Amendment 11 should ensure that safety is not compromised.
Lord German (LD)
I shall add one more difficult question to the lump sum of woes that the Minister has just received, and that is in respect of the most used platform in this area, which is Telegram. Telegram is a company based in the British Virgin Islands, but the people behind it are a moveable feast and very secretive. As the Minister will know, of course, formerly VK sprang out of Russian influence, but Telegram is the biggest alt messaging platform in the world and the one that is more frequently used by people in the world in the area that these clauses are meant to deal with.
Having spent the best part of two years in developing the Online Safety Bill, we know that the question is how you make sure you get at a body such as the people who own Telegram, who will obviously be among the most important people in respect of these new clauses. It is not that it is not worth trying, but I query how easy it is going to be and whether there is—I do not expect a detailed answer because otherwise that will be giving away the processes—a way in which this particular platform would be caught by this and would be able to be tracked down and held to account.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, the Government have tabled a raft of amendments criminalising the online advertisement of unlawful immigration services. We know that this is a major source of business for the trafficking gangs and, as such, if the advertising methods can be targeted and disrupted then this should go some way to removing a key part of the business model.
The Government’s impact assessment on this new policy acknowledges that
“it is expected that there will be a small number of arrests under this offence, as the majority of activity is assessed to take place overseas”
The key to the success here will, therefore, lie in enforcement and international compliance, so what steps have the Government taken to push other countries to take action and remove online posts and sites that publish this sort of material? How are they supporting the National Crime Agency to go further with its investigations and campaigns? I look forward to what the Minister has to say on that.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I hope that I can try to reflect on the serious questions posed about the implications of the legislation proposed before the House today on Report. I will try to answer as best I can, but I hope that the broad thrust of what we are trying to achieve, which is to make life harder for criminals to use social media to recruit migrants to cross the channel on dangerous journeys, is accepted by the House as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Harper, mentioned a number of points that we would like to reflect on before giving him a definitive answer. He supports the broad purpose of the legislation, but I will make sure that we write to him to cover some of those points.
The noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Harper, raised legitimate issues—supported by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, from the Front Bench—about the difference that the offence will make, its impact and how we deal with people to ensure that it is put in place overseas. The noble Viscount said that if it helps one person, it would be a good thing to do. That remains true. We hope it will disrupt significantly more than that. We have not put a figure on that, but the principle is that it is an additional tool for police and enforcement agencies to take criminal action where other areas are potentially not currently open.
The enforcement of that means that, for countries with which we have extradition agreements, if we identify someone and they are arrested, they can be brought back to the UK for justice. Alternatively, an individual who is resident in the UK could be arrested once our intelligence services and others—including the National Crime Agency—track them down. Alternately, they could be individuals of a foreign nationality who are behind some of these websites or social media channels and visit the UK, and who might accordingly find themselves arrested in the UK for those crimes. So we have a range of extra tools.
With due respect to the noble Viscount, I cannot quantify that in a way that says we will reduce it by 10% or arrest 50 people on the back of that. What we can do is to put another tool in place to help disrupt those criminals. This goes to the point that the noble Lord Davies of Gower mentioned. The Home Office is working closely with the National Crime Agency and other law enforcement partners to ensure that they focus their funding on some of the new tools that they need to use in order to help crack down on this type of crime.
I know from talking to the National Crime Agency—without putting in the public domain confidences that would help criminals—that it is looking at how we can support more officers while also using smarter intelligence gathering and utilising different skills in officers to focus on this emerging market for immigration and migration crimes. All those things are important.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made a number of points about Amendment 14. I draw her attention to the opening line of the proposed new clause in that amendment:
“Application of section (Online advertising of unlawful immigration services) to internet service providers”.
The key point I want to put to the noble Baroness is about “unlawful immigration services”. She asked whether people would be hit by this proposed new clause in the event of them writing about their experiences. No, they would not, because they are not advertising unlawful immigration services. The purpose of this provision is to focus specifically on the criminals who are organising immigration crime. It will not be used in isolation; it will be part of the measures both inside and outside of the Bill, and we are looking to criminalise the critical component of the people-smuggling gangs’ business model.
The noble Baroness also pointed to a number of parts in the legislation. She asked whether Section 2 automatic, intermediate or transient and whether Section 14(3) is automatic, immediate or temporary? I can say to her only that I have described the policy objective that we have set, and the wording we have is the wording that the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel has brought forward to help us achieve that policy objective.
I will reflect on what she said—if there are areas of interest, I will write to her—but I hope that she can look at the bigger picture, which is that is not about criminalising people who do not deserve to be criminalised. It is about criminalising people who are using social media platforms, such as Google, Facebook, Twitter or X—whatever you want to call it these days—to promote their business and to encourage people to undertake illegal crossings. I go back to the initial point in my opening speech: 80% of individuals debriefed by us who have crossed said that their initial contact was via social media. That is the key point that Clause 14 intends to grasp, so I commend it, as well as Clause 13, to the House.
Lord Davies of Gower
“(c) the vessel in which the person travelled could not reasonably have been thought to be safe for the purposes of reaching the United Kingdom.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would apply the new offence of endangering another during a sea crossing to the UK to any individual who tries to enter the UK illegally and makes their journey in an unseaworthy vessel, removing the requirement for the individual to have done an act to cause or create a risk of death or serious injury.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this is a short and simple group with one simple amendment, so I will speak briefly. I moved this amendment in Committee to highlight that, as drafted, I suspect that the offence might not be utilised as much as it could be. This amendment is intended to apply the new offence of endangering another to any individual who makes a sea crossing with the intent of gaining unlawful entry in an unseaworthy vessel. This would remove the requirement for an individual to have done a particular act to create risk of death or serious injury.
The principle here is that if a person has crossed the channel in a small boat or dinghy then they have, by definition, created a risk of death or injury. No small boat packed with a large number of people can be considered safe to cross the busiest shipping lane in the world. By being in that boat, you are endangering the lives of all others in that boat. The Minister said in Committee that the reality is that none of the vessels can reasonably be considered safe, which means that the amendment would capture all those making a journey. I agree with the Minister that these journeys cannot be considered safe. Surely if this clause is to have any meaning at all, it must be expounded to capture those who are making these journeys unsafe. This amendment seeks to make that completely clear and, as such, ensure that the offence in Clause 18 can be applied to those it is intended to target. I beg to move.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, this amendment would significantly alter Clause 18 and capture all people in these boats. Every one of them would come under the power of this clause. It treats the vulnerable asylum seekers as criminals and is inconsistent with targeting specific criminal behaviour.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s comments. This is about preventing fatalities at sea and, as I said in my opening remarks, no boat packed with a large number of people can be considered safe to cross the busiest shipping lane in the world. However, I hear what the Minister says, so for now I will withdraw the amendment.
Lord German (LD)
Just before the noble Lord speaks to Amendment 62, I want to say that these Benches support the Minister.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 62 was also tabled in Committee. Its intent is to disapply data protection laws and regulations for a data subject who has entered the UK illegally or who is a foreign national offender.
The purpose here is, in essence, the same as in Clauses 27 to 31: it is intended to reduce the barriers to data sharing between the relevant law enforcement and immigration services. We feel that data protection legislation should not stand in the way of our ability to protect our borders; it should act as a block on action, not as a shield behind which those who have committed immigration offences can hide. In the same manner as human rights legislation, data protection legislation is not meant to be used to protect those who have broken the law, who have entered illegally or who are trying to prevent their lawful deportation. I will not be pressing this amendment to a Division, obviously, but I hope the Minister has listened to what I have to say.
I understand the purpose of the government amendments in this group, which are removing provisions that are now redundant due to the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. As such, I take no issue with them.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I was glad to hear the Minister use the phrases “vulnerable group” and “blanket fashion”. I think I have quoted him more or less correctly. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, seeks to alter the Data Protection Act by creating the possibility of the Secretary of State making an immigration exception decision. The noble Lord would take out of the list of circumstances to which the Act requires the Secretary of State to have regard all the rights and freedoms of the data subject, including the subject’s convention rights, and the UK’s obligations under the refugee and trafficking conventions. We are not on the same page.
Child Poverty Strategy: Migrant Families
Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, I find myself in the difficult position that I am not able to give details of the new child poverty strategy because it is not published as yet; it will be published very shortly. The points that my noble friend raised will undoubtedly be considered, but I cannot give her an answer from the Dispatch Box because that would pre-empt an announcement the Government intend to make in very short order.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, the no recourse to public funds policy is a vital protection for the sustainability of the welfare system and ensures that those who come to Britain do so to contribute to society and not to become a burden. A migrant family should not come to this country if they cannot afford to support themselves, although there are existing exceptions for those granted asylum who would otherwise be destitute. What assurances can the Minister give that the Government will not loosen the rules or drop the policy?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
There are arguments around how we control the number of individuals, families and migrant children who come to the United Kingdom. That is an argument that we are having now to look at how we can tighten the rules to stop the flow of people who are coming here through illegal channels. But we still have a responsibility to ensure that a child of five, six, seven, eight, nine or 10 years old does not suffer because of the trafficking—in many instances—poverty or war that has driven them to come to the United Kingdom in the first place, even sometimes by illegal means. The purpose of the strategy is to ensure we protect and develop those children so we do not create a whole set of different outcasts in the future. It is really important that, whatever our policy on migration and illegal migration, children do not suffer as a result.
Non-crime Hate Incidents
Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is important that we condemn the comments that were made about adverts on television. We are a multicultural society. It is quite right and proper that individuals from all parts of our society appear on television, because they are both consumers and producers of goods and contributors to society, so I have no problem in supporting my noble friend on that point. The key question on non-crime hate incidents, and this is where we stand, is the extent to which we use that intelligence reporting mechanism to gather intelligence about potential trends in difficult areas—maybe down to the micro level of a ward—versus the extent to which we take further action on those issues in a criminal context. That is what the review that the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, a member of the Conservative Party and chair of the College of Policing, is undertaking with the National Police Chiefs’ Council is looking at. I am expecting a report in extremely short order.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, it is very welcome that the Metropolitan Police finally took the decision to stop investigating non-crime hate incidents. They have clearly wasted officers’ time and had a chilling effect on free speech. Will the Government now follow through and support the amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill from my noble friend Lord Young of Acton to abolish them in their entirety? Surely this is the way forward.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The short answer is no. The longer answer is we will wait for the review to see what action we will take. Again, I remind the noble Lord that the reason we are in this position in the first place is legislation that codified non-crime hate incidents passed by his Government.
Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement
Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, in response to this Urgent Question in the other place, the Security Minister appeared to do little more than try to shift the blame to the previous Government. He did not answer the question from my right honourable friend the shadow Home Secretary, so I would like to put that question to the Minister here. I would be grateful if he could answer the question without his colleague’s obfuscation. The question quite simply is: when did the Home Secretary become aware of the impending collapse of the case? Also, given that the CPS has said it was given insufficient evidence, did the Home Secretary take steps to provide further evidence?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. As he knows, the Security Minister made it clear last week, on 15 October, in Parliament that Ministers were informed after the DPP had made his decision and shortly before reporting restrictions were lifted. He came to the House straightaway to make a statement; self-evidently, I hope that answers the noble Lord’s point.
Police: Vetting, Training and Discipline
Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, the “Panorama” exposé and the 17 deaths in or following police custody last year cast serious doubt on the independent custody visitor scheme. Evidence shows that it neither influences police nor ensures robust oversight. Does the Minister agree that the scheme requires urgent reform, needs to be totally independent and should not remain the responsibility of police and crime commissioners?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
If the noble Baroness will allow me, I will look at the points that she has raised. It is an important issue. I happen to think that it is important that there is an inspection regime of police custody. She has raised some particular concerns today. I will reflect on those and discuss them with my colleague the police Minister and respond to her in due course.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I was about to say that I share the sentiments being expressed here today. The issue, I feel, is one not of legal adequacy but of management oversight, training methods, accountability and, indeed, discipline. Speaking as somebody who spent over 30 years in a once very disciplined organisation, I ask the Minister whether he shares my disappointment that there is little evidence of progress being made in recent years in these areas, particularly within the Metropolitan Police? What further action is the Home Office taking to ensure that senior officers, from the very top down, are effectively holding their officers to account, and to improve public confidence in the police?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a very important point. Going back to the question from the noble Viscount, leadership—understanding performance and showing leadership—is extremely critical. The Home Office is this year funding the College of Policing to look at ongoing support for police leadership, and we have given £2.6 million this year to do that. We have also set, and are examining still with the College of Policing and with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, national leadership standards. We will continue to work with the college to ensure that we improve standards of police training. That goes from chief constables down and I certainly endorse the comments that the noble Lord made.
Crime and Policing Bill
Lord Davies of Gower ExcerptsThursday 16th October 2025
(3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 View all Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 18 June 2025 - (18 Jun 2025)
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Official Opposition. It will come as no surprise to noble Lords on the Government Front Bench that we on these Benches broadly support the Bill, because large parts of it are a copy-and-paste job from the previous Conservative Government’s Criminal Justice Bill. From the provisions on anti-social behaviour to the new offence of cuckooing, the duty to report child sexual abuse and the new protest and public order offences, this Government are continuing the work we were doing to strengthen the criminal justice system. This is, of course, very welcome, but it does not mean that all is plain sailing.
The feeling among the British public is that crime has been increasing, even though overall rates of crime have fallen since 2010. The Crime Survey for England and Wales for the year ending March 2025 shows that there were 9.4 million incidents of headline crime. Although this represents a 7% rise from the previous year, the ONS states that this is due entirely to a 31% increase in fraud.
Undoubtedly, a significant factor in this overall feeling of pessimism is the increase in more visible crimes that impact people’s daily lives. Shoplifting, phone theft, graffiti, vandalism, fare evasion and drug use are highly visible crimes that leave people feeling unsafe in their daily lives. Shoplifting, for example, has risen by 20% in the year from 2024 to 2025.
The National Police Chiefs’ Council has pointed to an estimated £1.2 billion shortfall in police funding. The chair of the NPCC has said that the funding settlement in the spending review will “cover little more” than police pay rises. Chief Constable Paul Sanford has warned that the Government will find it “incredibly difficult” to meet their neighbourhood policing pledge with the funding settlement. The Metropolitan Police has already announced that it will have to cut 1,700 staff, scrap its dedicated anti-social behaviour officers and close down half of the front desks in stations across London.
This strikes at the heart of a wider principle. Is this Crime and Policing Bill, which runs to over 200 clauses and over 20 schedules, actually going to reduce crime on the streets of this country? In some ways, it might, but in many others, unless coupled with serious improvements in enforcement and police action, it may very well not.
To turn to the Bill, the Government have committed three crimes of commission and two crimes of omission. I will start with the crimes of omission. The Government’s 2024 election manifesto promised to introduce new respect orders with the aim to
“stamp out issues such as public drinking and drug use”.
The Government come armed with a noble cause, but all it takes is to scratch just below the surface to see that these respect orders are little more than smoke and mirrors.
The Bill inserts a new part before Part 1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, creating respect orders. It then converts what are currently anti-social behaviour injunctions into youth injunctions. Rather than giving the police, local authorities and the courts tough new powers to tackle anti-social behaviour, as the Government claim, they are instead simply renaming the currently existing injunctions and creating new orders that are the same in all but the name.
The anti-social behaviour injunctions were introduced as part of my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead’s efforts to streamline the powers available to authorities to deal with criminal and challenging behaviour. As she noted at that Bill’s Second Reading, under the previous Labour Government, over nine anti-social behaviour laws were passed, creating 19 separate powers. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 consolidated those into six powers. That had a purpose. I cannot see what this Government’s new respect orders will add to this arsenal.
Secondly, on the repeal of Section 22A of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, this provision states that shoplifting of goods with a value of less than £200 is to be tried only summarily in a magistrates’ court. There has been much misinformation about this provision, which was brought forward by the last Conservative Government. The Labour manifesto called this an “effective immunity” for some shoplifting—a line that has been parroted by Labour Ministers ever since. However, the Government’s policy paper on the Bill, published on GOV.UK, calls it “perceived immunity”, and I think that sums up the bizarre nature of the criticism.
I want to be absolutely clear: anyone claiming that trying low-value shoplifting in a magistrates’ court is granting criminals immunity is wrong and misleading the public. There is absolutely no reason why theft under £200 cannot be tried summarily. I need not remind the House, full of eminent lawyers as it is, that a person can still be sentenced to up to six months’ imprisonment and issued with a fine if found guilty in a summary trial. Six months’ imprisonment is clearly not immunity.
What this does is clear the already clogged-up Crown Court and let the police prosecute more serious cases. That does not mean that thefts under £200 from shops do not impact on shopkeepers, or that they should not be investigated, but there is nothing wrong with having a bit more summary justice in this country. It permits cases to be tried and discharged more quickly and efficiently, rather risking long and drawn-out Crown Court cases that last for months if not years. If the police are not investigating such offences, that is an issue with the operation of policing, not the law.
Clauses 107 and 108 were inserted into the Bill on Report in the other place and, as such, have not had as much scrutiny, perhaps, as they ought to. The 11th report of the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House has drawn attention to these clauses for the uncertain scope of the new offences and the use of highly subjective terminology.
Clause 107 creates the new offence of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour towards an emergency worker that are racially or religiously hostile. Clause 108 creates the offence of using threatening or abusive words or behaviour that are likely to cause an emergency worker harassment, alarm or distress. These offences are very similar to the existing offences under Section 4A and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. The key difference is that these new offences can be committed in a private dwelling, whereas those in the Public Order Act cannot. It is understandable why the Government might wish to press ahead with these new offences—we all wish to see our emergency workers protected—but it is far from certain that creating two new speech-related offences will offer emergency workers any greater protection in reality.
Clause 107 involves the criminalisation of insults and Clause 108 uses the term “distress”. Both are highly subjective, thereby leaving people open to prosecution on undefined terms. We already know that this an acute problem in this country. There exists a litany of cases where people have been arrested and prosecuted for speech offences. The continual misuse of non-crime hate incidents, and the probably irresponsible policing of tweets and online comments, have had a chilling effect on free speech. If anything, we should be reviewing and removing barriers to freedom of expression and speech, not expanding those limitations. I therefore echo the comments of the Constitution Committee in relation to Clauses 107 and 108 and call on the Government to heed its advice that these clauses should be drawn far more narrowly.
I am sure much of the debate on the Bill will comprise what noble Lords deem to be omissions and missed opportunities. I have time to mention only a few of those, but I give notice to the Minister that in Committee I will be raising many more. Given that this Bill, in many ways, mirrors the previous Government’s Criminal Justice Bill, it was surprising to see there has been no inclusion—bar two clauses—of the measures to end and replace the Vagancy Act. The previous Government planned to repeal the Act and replace it with a new framework around nuisance begging and rough sleeping. If the Government are to commence the repeal of the Vagrancy Act, but not institute further powers to replace it, there may be a gap in the law. I would appreciate it if the Minister could perhaps comment on why the Government have not included these measures in the Bill.
Furthermore, the Bill does not include the previous Government’s plans to impose tougher penalties on those convicted of shoplifting offences on more than three occasions. Those provisions would require the court to impose a community order, including a curfew, exclusion or electronic whereabouts monitoring condition, or a combination of such conditions. Given the Government’s tough talk on bearing down on retail crime, it is more than a little confusing why they have not included such measures in the Bill.
I will end where I began: criminal justice is not simply about laws this Parliament passes. We can continually create new criminal offences and we can pass as many new laws as we like, but until we get to grips with the enforcement of those laws, we will never tackle the scourge of criminality. The Government have been talking tough on crime, but this must now be met with corresponding action.
Manchester Terrorism Attack
Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, it has been almost two weeks since Manchester was left reeling from yet another terrorist attack. The events of 2 October not only ended the lives of Adrian Daulby and Melvin Cravitz but left our entire Jewish community worrying about their safety. We are in an appalling situation now where we have to have armed police and security patrols outside synagogues and Jewish schools simply to ensure that British Jews can go about their daily lives safely. In the immediate aftermath of such an attack, such measures are, of course, necessary, but our places of worship and our community centres should be places of safety. No British citizen should have to live in perpetual fear simply because they are Jewish.
I have an observation to make. Whenever we speak in this House and elsewhere of terrorist attacks, atrocities and acts of extreme violence, we often offer our thoughts and prayers to the victims and their families. It has also become commonplace to repeat the refrain, “Never again”. We have said these words too many times; we hear them too often. We must move on from simply offering hollow words of condolence. Thoughts and prayers do not revive a grieving wife’s husband, do not prevent future attacks and do not save lives. These attacks happen again and again.
Beyond expressing our condolences, it is our duty as legislators to work together to tackle the evil that lay behind this attack. We must be clear that this terror attack and the rise of Islamic extremism and increasing antisemitism are inexplicably linked. This year has seen the second-highest number of antisemitic incidents ever recorded in this country. Hate-filled marches, ostensibly in the name of the pro-Palestine movement but frequently entering the territory of being anti-Jew, have filled our streets. For as long as we fail to tackle the growth of radical and violent Islamic extremism, both at home and abroad, attacks such as these are likely to continue. We must not shy away from calling this what it is—an extremist ideology linked to Islam—and we must ensure that we are always able to call out such an ideology.
Unfortunately, the Government’s working group on Islamophobia could serve to actively stifle free debate on the nature and prevalence of Islamic fundamentalism. This has been criticised by the National Secular Society, the Free Speech Union and the Network of Sikh Organisations, which is planning to bring a judicial review against the Government if the new definition goes ahead. So will the Minister implore his ministerial colleagues to drop these plans and ensure that free and open discussion about the dangers we face as a society from Islamic extremism is never curtailed?
I appreciate that this is a live legal investigation, and as such there is a limit on what the Minister can tell us. However, several questions arise from the particulars of these events. First, the attacker in question, Jihad al-Shamie, was a Syrian-born male who arrived in the United Kingdom as a child. He begged a woman to become his second wife, claiming that in Islam it is permissible for a man to have up to four wives, and then abused her mentally and sexually. At the time he carried out his attack, he was on bail for a rape he allegedly committed earlier this year. When he committed the Manchester attack, he called 999 and pledged allegiance to Islamic State. Despite all this, he was apparently not known to counterterror police. Does the Minister agree that more needs to be done to plug the gaps in the Government’s terrorism prevention programme? If so, are the Government looking into how they might do so?
Secondly, the Home Secretary, in her Statement, said she was looking to bring forward legislative changes to the Public Order Act 1986 to allow police forces to consider the cumulative impact of protest marches when deciding to impose those conditions. Indeed, we have seen the Government claim that they did not have sufficient powers to prevent the hate-filled marches across the country on the day after the 2 October attack in Manchester. However, Section 12 of the Public Order Act already permits senior police officers to place conditions on a public procession if it is held to cause intimidation to others. Is it the Government’s view that this existing test would not have been enough to place restrictions on those marches? Does the Minister think that the proposed new cumulative impact test will be sufficient? I look forward to his response.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, the appalling attack on the Manchester synagogue is a stark warning of the persistent threat of antisemitic hate and the urgent need to unify against those who seek to divide us. Attacks based on race or religion are totally unacceptable and this attack is a chilling testament to the rising tide of division in our society, which has left many in the Jewish community frightened even to go to their synagogue. Antisemitic hate, or hate in any form, has no place in Britain. We must never allow the heat of public debate to legitimise, excuse, encourage or embolden such cowardly acts of terrorism. Anyone who incites hatred, or spreads it, against any faith or background must be held accountable under the law.
This crime was not a political statement but an act of pure violence designed to spread fear and drive communities apart. Nevertheless, all of us, across all political parties, share a responsibility to seek consensus and reduce division when addressing issues that provoke strong passions. As a society, we are becoming more polarised with public debate, whether about events in the Middle East, immigration or indeed any other difficult subject, too frequently descending into hostility and suspicion. We all must reject the language and the policies of division and commit to trying to rebuild a sense of common purpose.
As we mourn the victims of this atrocity, we must also guard against overreaction. The temptation can be to reach for more powers and more controls, even at the expense of our fundamental freedoms. The Prime Minister’s pledge to review public order powers in the wake of Manchester is understandable, but I urge the Government to approach with caution, because incremental curbs on protest will not stop antisemitic hate, but a “drip, drip” approach to legislation risks us becoming a society where people of all backgrounds and beliefs no longer feel safe or free to express their views. That would, in my view, hand victory to those who want to divide us, because the restriction of protest rights will not defeat antisemitism but risks damaging our democracy.
The best way to respond to hate is to defend everyone’s right to live, worship and speak freely, within the law, while refusing to compromise our commitment to an open and plural democracy. We must learn from this tragedy, so I ask the Minister what action are the Government taking to work more closely with grass-roots faith leaders, not only through funding and policing but through genuine, community-led, early warning and education work with Jewish and interfaith groups to strengthen local resilience, encourage reporting and tackle radicalisation at its roots?