Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 5th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Amendment 47 not moved.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

My Lords, I cannot call Amendment 47A, as it is an amendment to Amendment 47.

Clause 48: Refugee Convention: particularly serious crime

Amendment 48

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

This will land us in a rather strange situation. It would mean that a person convicted of a sexual offence would be able to argue in court that they have not been convicted of a particularly serious crime, but that a refugee found guilty of any other crime punishable by more than 12 months in prison would not. For example, a person convicted under Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 is liable for up to two years’ imprisonment, so a refugee convicted of rape could argue that they have not been convicted of a particularly serious crime, but a refugee convicted of sending an offensive message would not be able to do so. This is an absurd situation. I hope that the Government will understand that this is a bizarre situation and will accept that Clause 48, as it stands, will introduce further ambiguity into the law, not less. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

My Lords, I just say to noble Lords that it is very hard to hear the speeches from the Front Bench if there is a lot of chattering on my right.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, to add to what noble Lords expect I would say, this seemingly small amendment and its consequential amendments seek to remove the words

“to be presumed to have been”

from Clause 48. It has enormous implications, in effect transforming a balanced legal measure into an irreversible and potentially unjust set of rules.

I will not read out Article 33 of the convention on refugees, but it is quite clear that it says that the person would have

“been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country”.

The explanatory memorandum from the UNHCR on what a serious crime is gives examples of murder, rape, arson and armed robbery. The amendment certainly does not meet that.

In short, the existing text in Clause 48 is carefully constructed to allow the courts to address serious criminality, such as sexual offences, while remaining compliant with our international obligations that require an assessment of whether the person poses a continuing danger to the community. Amendment 48 destroys this necessary balance and should be rejected.