Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Maclean of Redditch Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch]

247B: After Clause 55, insert the following new Clause—
“Independent Commission on Grooming Gangs: timescaleWithin three months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must commence the work of the Independent Commission on Grooming Gangs by—(a) appointing a Chair,(b) publishing the inquiry’s terms of reference,(c) appointing a Minister with the sole task of overseeing the inquiry and related activities, and(d) directing the inquiry’s hearings to begin.”

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

My Lords, there is a dismal pattern in our country in response to serious failings of the state. First, we see denials and cover-ups, then the issue gains traction, but shock and outrage quickly follow. Calls for something to be done are heard but too often are followed by absolutely nothing—more delay, while victims are relegated to yesterday’s newspapers and the news cycle moves on. Unfortunately, the rape gang issue is a classic example of this pattern.

Victims deserve so much better from us than this. Has anyone else noticed that it has gone eerily quiet? Where is the national statutory inquiry promised by the Government? The Minister said earlier, in his responses in Oral Questions, that it was coming “very soonly”, and I give him credit for inventing another euphemism which even I have not heard before. But seriously, it is conspicuous by its absence. Neither the public nor the victims know when it is going to start or who is going to chair it and, because so many victims have lost confidence in the Safeguarding Minister in the other place, Jess Phillips, which Minister is going to oversee it. Perhaps it will be our Minister, in which case I am sure we will welcome that.

This is the reason behind my tabling of Amendments 247B and 535A. They are straightforward and designed simply to ensure that the grooming gangs inquiry begins at long last. The amendments are not designed to dictate the outcome, set the scope or limit its independence. We need it for one simple reason, which is to ensure that the state does not continue to mistreat those victims, who have already suffered so much by its collective failure.

I recognise that it is perhaps not conventional and may even be novel to legislate for the start date of an inquiry, and I anticipate that the Minister will say this when he comes to respond. However, I implore him to take this seriously. We have a position in this House and we should use it for this end. We should be speaking up for these girls and women who have been let down so shockingly. The very least we can do is to send the signal to the victims that we are not going to continue failing them and we are going to get justice for them.

What is more—I speak as a former Minister in the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice—I am sure the Minister will recognise what I am about to say: providing a deadline focuses minds and drives action and activity in all parts of the system, whether the delays are accidental or bureaucratic or, in fact, unfortunately, intentional. I also remind the Minister that, in the words of the famous sage, if you keep doing what you have always done, you are going to keep getting what you have always got—no action.

We should remember that some of the survivors at the heart of this scandal have been waiting 20 years or even longer. Fiona Goddard first reported her abuse to police in 2012. She was a child when the crimes were committed against her in the mid-2000s. She told her story, took the risk, trusted the system and, as she puts it, was met with silence, closed doors and disbelief. When she was asked recently how it felt to wait this long, she said, “It’s like living with a wound that’s never allowed to close, because every year I’m told justice will come but every year nothing begins”. The victims have to keep reliving the trauma, but nothing moves forward. Hope is being postponed, year after year. We know that the only thing worse than being failed by institutions once is being failed by them twice, thrice and more. As one survivor said, “We do not need perfection. We just need to know that somebody has finally begun the work”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord has made his case. I have put my view. If he wishes to examine it further, we can do so in due course. I understand that he wants to bring people to justice. So do I, but the approach we want to take is different from his, and we will have to accept that.

Amendment 271B, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and Amendment 271C, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would give effect to recommendation 1 of the National Audit on Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, that the law should be changed so that adults penetrating a child aged under 16 are charged with rape. As I have said, the Government have accepted this recommendation and have committed to changing the law. I reassure noble Lords that we are working fast to consider how that law change should be made. We are discussing this. I met the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, as part of that work and I will update Parliament soon about our proposed approach but, at the moment, I hope that the noble and learned Lord accepts that we are committed to that legislation and will table it as soon as time allows.

Amendment 271C, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would mean that someone suspected of or charged with a sexual offence against a child that involved penetration would be described as having committed rape, whether the penetration was penile or non-penile, and regardless of what the offence is actually called in legislation. It would also mean that a wide range of other non-penetrative offending behaviour would be referred to simply as sexual assault. I do not think that that meets the intention of the recommendation from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, as it would not substantially change criminal law. Additionally, the difference in how offences are labelled in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and mandating how enforcement agencies then refer to those offences could lead to operational confusion, which I hope the noble Lord would seek to avoid.

Amendment 271B, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, which I have already mentioned, would create a new offence of rape which would apply when an adult penetrates with their penis the vagina, anus or mouth of a child aged 13 to 15. The offence would not require proof of an absence of consent or reasonable belief. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, who spoke to it on behalf of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, that the Government are committed to making this change in law. We have accepted the recommendations of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, and we strongly agree with the sentiment behind the amendment. However, we are also aware of the need to ensure a robust framework of sexual offences, which must work effectively across all types of child sexual abuse. This will be a significant change to the framework and, as such, if the noble Lord will allow me, we need to discuss it with the police and prosecutors to make sure that they have the tools needed to bring abusers to justice. When we have done that and taken those considerations into account, we will change the law, and we will update Parliament when we do that. I hope he can accept that intention.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, for her Amendments 288A and 288B. These overlap with the provisions in Chapter 2 of Part 5, which provide for a duty to report, which we will come on to later; she noted and accepted that. We believe, after extensive consultation with the relevant sectors, that the model in that chapter is the appropriate one to adopt. Again, we can debate that later, and I am sure we will, but that is the Government’s view at the moment.

Amendment 288B seeks to create a criminal offence specifically in respect of concealment by public officials. I am mindful that the type of offence proposed by this amendment may overlap with existing statutory provision, including obstruction of justice offences. Later, we will come on to consider the offence of preventing or deterring a reporter from carrying out their duty in Clause 79, and it will be part of the appropriate way forward at that stage.

Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, also tabled Amendments 288C and 288D, which are about the collection of the ethnicity and nationality data of child sexual abuse offenders and victims. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, said. The recommendation from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, is to work alongside the police to establish improvements which are required to assist the collection and publication of this data. We have accepted that recommendation. This includes reviewing and improving the existing data that the police collect, as well as considering future legislative measures if required. The objective the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, has set is one that we have accepted. We are working through that at the moment and, although it may not be satisfactory today, it is an objective to which she and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, can hold us to account.

This is an important debate. I think we are at one on these things, but it is the Government’s firm view that most of the amendments are not the way forward or need further refinement along the lines that I have already outlined to the Committee. As I have said, the Government are committed to changing the law in relation to rape. We will take away amendments and consider this further for Report.

Given these caveats, let us go back to where we started on this wide-ranging group, which is whether we should have a statutory timescale for the inquiry. Going back to the lead amendment in this group, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, will withdraw her amendment because we are trying to do this as speedily as possible. The converse impact of her amendment may well be to create a further delay to a process that the Government are determined to get down as quickly as possible, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, to land the inquiry and get further recommendations to tighten up areas in which we need to reduce—and, we hope, stop—the number of further victims of these awful crimes.

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for addressing my amendment and the others in such detail, and my noble friends Baroness Cash and Lord Blencathra for adding their support.

Even though the Minister has not accepted my amendment and stated that the others do not fit with the Government’s plans, I welcome the agreement across the Committee that we all support the principle of the work that is happening. However, I make no apologies for standing up and saying that the system is still not adequate in many ways. I am sure that the Minister can recognise some of this. I remember sitting in the Home Office in 2021-22, when I was a Minister there, and asking for the data about ethnicity and whether there was any connection. I was told, “No, Minister, there is none”. We all know now that that was not the case. I wish to God we had known that then so we could have done more for the victims. Collectively, we have all let them down; this is not a party-political issue, but one in which we should feel ashamed about what has happened to those vulnerable girls in our country.

I accept the Minister’s point about the timeline and the passage of the Bill, and that, were he to accept my amendment, it would potentially be delayed further than any of us would wish. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 247B withdrawn.

Non-Crime Hate Incidents

Baroness Maclean of Redditch Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the decision of police forces to stop investigating non-crime hate incidents, whether they plan to abolish them altogether.

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

The College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council are currently undertaking a review of non-crime hate incidents, working closely with the Home Office. The Government look forward to receiving the review’s final recommendations shortly and will decide future policy following consideration.

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer. He may not be aware that in 2023 I was charged with a non-crime hate incident. Thanks to my noble friend Lord Young of Acton, who is in his place, and the Free Speech Union, we managed to fight it and get it dropped, but, by some estimates from Policy Exchange and others, some 60,000 hours of police time are used every year in investigating these, and innocent men and women are criminalised. My main concern is that, from Questions that I have tabled, neither the Home Office nor police forces can tell us whether any of this has led to any serious crimes being solved or prevented. Is it not time for the Minister to abolish these altogether?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As I have indicated to the noble Baroness, we are awaiting the report, and it is fair, if we have commissioned a report, that we wait to see its recommendations. However, an interim report in October of this year said that non-crime hate incidents were not fit for purpose. Her noble friend Lord Herbert, who is the chair of the College of Policing, has reported to this House on the recommendations to date, and we will have those shortly. I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness that non-crime hate incidents do not appear on basic or standard DBS checks, so she is not criminalised by her close proximity to a non-crime hate incident on her own accord.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Maclean of Redditch Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch]

79C: After Clause 48, insert the following new Clause—
“Annual report: grants of asylum or refugee status on modern slavery grounds(1) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report setting out how many individuals, identified as victims of modern slavery through the National Referral Mechanism, received a grant of asylum or refugee status and—(a) arrived illegally;(b) arrived legally but are no longer in the United Kingdom on a legal basis, including those who have—(i) overstayed their visa, or(ii) violated other terms of their immigration status; and(c) have been detained for removal.(2) The report under subsection (1) must be published within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, and every 12 months thereafter.”

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments are tabled after I tried and failed to obtain information that I believe is in the public interest from the Government, from Written Questions and research, including detailed briefings from the Library. Amendment 79C, on modern slavery, would require the Government to publish an annual report of grants of asylum or refugee status on modern slavery grounds. We currently do not know precisely if, or to what extent, the national referral mechanism and modern slavery support system is being abused as a loophole for illegal migration. When people suggest that it is, we are told that we do not have any evidence for this. Why do we not have this evidence? The Government do not publish any.

I laid out the statistics that underline my concerns in earlier debates, so I will not repeat them. It is not in the interests of charities or those working with victims to agree that the system could be being abused. However, it should be the duty of the Government to demonstrate that public money is being well spent and that we know who is a genuine victim and who is not. I would hope that any Minister serving in the Home Office would welcome this amendment, so that they can hold operational departments to account for their performance. If it is the case that nobody is abusing the system, everybody would be very pleased and satisfied. However, the current approach of the Government does seem, I am afraid, to be just to hope that we will give up asking those difficult questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm that Matthew Firth is not a bishop of the Church of England?

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

My Lords, it is my understanding that he is an Anglican bishop, but I will let him speak for himself on this matter. I beg to move.

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords, I resist Amendment 79D. This amendment and Amendment 79E in the next group are both motivated by reports that asylum seekers are choosing to convert to Christianity upon arrival in the UK in order to support their claim for asylum on the grounds of religious persecution. Amendment 79E is of deep concern. I will address this in the next group.

Regarding Amendment 79D, I have no objection in principle to this data being collected, apart from the fact that both it and Amendment 79E are motivated by a desire to make an issue of something that is not an issue.

This is not the first time that this House has examined the question of faith-based asylum claims. Under the previous Government, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford gave evidence on this very topic to the Home Affairs Select Committee in the other place, as noble Lords have heard. Noble Lords will recall that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield referenced the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford’s contributions in a recent supplementary question when addressing claims of the use of Anglican churches as

“a conveyor belt for an industry of asylum baptism”.—[Official Report, 13/10/25; col. 4.]

Noble Lords will be aware that not only did the Committee find no evidence of any abuse of the asylum system through forced conversions but there was no subsequent publication, report or summary regarding this claim. From our previous discussions with the Home Office on this issue, we do not believe that the data spoken of in Amendment 79D can easily be extracted. It seems to me that there are many more problems to be solved in our asylum system before addressing this data point.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope she has listened to the very important comments of the right reverend Prelate, who not only holds a senior position now in the Church but is going to hold an even more senior position, on which I congratulate her in very short order. I hope that, on the back of those comments, the noble Baroness is able to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comments and for his consideration of the points I have raised. I thank my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel for his comments supporting my amendment and the right reverend Prelate, who has also spoken, although she has obviously opposed what I have suggested.

I agree that these are sensitive issues and, having served in the Home Office previously, I understand how difficult, practically, some of this data is to collect. Nevertheless, we should not shy away from demanding transparency on a matter of such importance, so that the public have confidence in this system. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 79C withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch]

79E: After Clause 48, insert the following new Clause—
“Interpretation of the Refugee Convention in cases of religious conversion(1) The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 is amended as follows.(2) In section 30 (Refugee Convention: general), at end insert—“(7) Any person, court or tribunal making a determination as to whether a person is a refugee within the meaning of Article 1(A)(2) of the Refugee Convention under sections 31 to 38 must not grant refugee status as a result of religious persecution where the person converted to the religion concerned after arriving in the United Kingdom.”.”

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment in my name follows on from the previous group of amendments and seeks to go much further. I have no doubt that the Government will not accept this amendment and that many others in this House will reject it out of hand. The Government have already indicated in answers to the Questions I have tabled to the Home Office that they do not agree with this amendment.

We have seen reports of bathtub conversions in asylum hotels and of multiple asylum seekers in accommodation, such as the “Bibby Stockholm”, seeking to convert to Christianity. Concerns have been raised about establishing whether or not these conversions are genuine. I recognise, as a Christian myself, that it is extremely difficult to look into a human heart and say what a person really believes. I also wish to protect our reputation as a country of religious freedom and as a refuge for those fleeing persecution around the world. At the same time, it is a leap of faith beyond any practical considerations to say that every single person in the reports is a genuine convert to Christianity.

We cannot shy away from this area of debate. I will seek to return to this subject during my future work in this House. I care deeply about the institutions of our country and our national culture, which is a Christian culture, and about our established Church, the Church of England. As a Conservative, I believe that we must fight to protect and defend these institutions from forces and individuals who could seek to destabilise and undermine their authority.

When I see our Christian faith being used as a fast track for subverting our British open-heartedness and tolerance, I feel it is simply wrong, and I know this view is shared by the general public. I am afraid I can find no evidence of anyone converting to Islam in order to avoid deportation or to lodge an asylum claim. Perhaps the Home Office Minister, in his response, can correct me if it is the case. It seems to me that it is always Christianity that is used in this way. While as Christians we are called to follow the teachings of Jesus, as policymakers we must be pragmatic and work with our knowledge of human nature, which is not perfect. There is evil in people’s hearts. With humility, we must recognise this and pray for forgiveness, but we must also open our eyes and be honest that incentives are strongly aligned for illegal migrants to lie and cheat, using Christian conversion and possibly other religious conversions too. That is why I have tabled the amendment. I believe that the first duty of our Government is to protect our borders. That means not being a soft touch for abusers and being able to show that our system is robust and discriminates between genuine and fake conversions. I beg to move.

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords, as noble Lords may imagine, I have deep concerns about Amendment 79E. The World Watch List 2025, produced by Open Doors, found that more than 380 million Christians worldwide were subject to high levels of persecution and discrimination for their faith last year, and just under 4,500 were killed for faith-related reasons. Data on the persecution of Christians makes it clear that people are willing to, and indeed do, die for their Christian faith today. We should tread extremely carefully when legislating on such profound matters.

What is more, conversion to the Christian faith is, for most, not like flicking a switch. It is a process that may take years. It is for many Christians not possible to point to a day or hour when they committed their lives to Jesus Christ. John Wesley called it “being strangely warmed”. A public declaration of faith is an important moment in that process, but if that declaration may cost you your life or the lives of those you love, you may think very carefully about when and where you make it. What better evidence in many ways of fear of religious persecution in a country of origin than that a person might wait until they are in the UK to publicly declare their faith? Amendment 79E does not recognise this context. It is also deeply problematic in its denial of the freedom of religion of people living in this country. I need hardly remind noble Lords of the horrors that promoted the creation of the 1951 refugee convention and the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

As I said on the previous group in relation to Amendment 79D, under the previous Government, the Home Affairs Select Committee looked at the question of fake religious conversions to support asylum claims. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford gave evidence to the committee. Not only did the Home Office fail to produce evidence of any abuse of the asylum system through fake conversions, but there was no subsequent publication, report or summary of the committee’s findings, which speaks for itself.

I imagine that there are some asylum seekers who might well believe that converting to Christianity will help their asylum claim. One can hardly be surprised about that, when some politicians keep implying that that is the case. Clergy are not naive. We train them to discern as best they can, through teaching, discussion, reflection, observation and prayer, whether a person, whoever they are, is ready for a public confession of faith through baptism. As the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, said, no one can see into the heart of another person: that remains between God and that person alone. It is not the job of clergy to assess asylum claims. The Home Office has stated that evidence from clergy or church members in an asylum case does not determine the outcome of a claim.

In January, the Church of England published a guidance document for clergy, Supporting Asylum Seekers; I understand that the Baptist Union of Great Britain, the Methodist Church and the United Reformed Church have also published similar materials. I am proud that the church into which I am called to serve welcomes, indeed embraces, any and all who express a genuine, considered and informed decision to follow Jesus Christ. Churches ought not to feel anxious about supporting and baptising asylum seekers if, to their best knowledge, the clergy are confident there is sincere desire for conversion and a commitment to Jesus Christ and discipleship.

We live in a world in which people regularly die for their Christian faith, and where many hide their Christian faith for fear of persecution. Thus it remains just as important now as it ever has been to offer protection, sanctuary and peace to all those who exercise their right to freedom of belief on our shores. Amendment 79E presents a concerning threat to this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful, again, to the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, for her amendment. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London made a compelling case in arguing against the amendment. I thank her for her support, as I too will not be supporting the amendment.

I took the words “blanket refusal” from what the noble Lord, Lord German, said, which is a really important point on this amendment. The noble Baroness’s amendment would mean that there was a blanket refusal for anybody who claimed status on the grounds of religious persecution, even if that person converted to a new religion after they arrived in the UK. It would mean there would potentially be people who would arrive in the UK, or who are here, and did not fear persecution when they left their country, but who may well have found religious faith on arrival in the United Kingdom, through a range of routes, and therefore would not be able to claim persecution before returning to their country. That does not seem fair to me. The 1951 refugee convention applies a definition regardless of where the fear of persecution arises. It includes situations where fear develops after arrival in the host country, in which case the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, would apply.

I took strongly what the noble Lord, Lord German, said about the independence of decision-makers who will consider claims involving religious conversion. They will fully explore the motivation of that conversion and what it means in a person’s life. They will explore whether the conversion took place in the UK. It is reasonable, even taking on board the right reverend Prelate’s comments, to ask for some evidence of that conversion. As the right reverend Prelate said, ministers in the Church of England are not going to take every conversion on the face of it; they have a strong process to go through to ensure that someone is welcomed into the faith.

In cases of religious conversion, conversion alone does not guarantee refugee status. Ultimately, an individual could convert and say that that is the reason they should stay, but the decision-maker will look at whether the risk of return to the person’s country of origin has an implication for the credibility of the religious conversion, based on the evidence before them. Conversions may be rejected as not genuine or accepted as genuine but, even where a conversion is accepted, there has to be some form of detailed examination of an individual’s circumstances and the situation in the person’s country of origin.

In determining whether an individual has a well-founded fear of persecution, the assessment cannot be disregarded on the basis of actions taken after arrival in the UK, even where there is suspicion or evidence that such actions were taken in bad faith to generate or strengthen an asylum claim. Frankly, every claim must be judged on its merits according with the rule of law and our international obligations. Decision-makers scrutinise the timing of conversion and consistency with prior beliefs and behaviour. A finding of a person acting in bad faith can be relevant to the person’s credibility and whether they will face risk on return to their country of origin.

I cannot accept this amendment. If it were adopted it would reduce the volume of grants and potential bad faith claims, but it would also breach our obligations under the 1951 refugee convention, which was put in place after a conflict that caused a significant number of refugees.

Sufficient guidance is in place for Home Office decision-makers to make a judgment on the basis of each claim. The noble Baroness’s amendment would cause difficulty and result in individuals who have genuinely converted being returned to their country of origin, maybe to face further persecution—which, as the right reverend Prelate said, is not a matter of being chided or ostracised but could result in their deaths because of their religious faith. I therefore cannot accept the amendment and I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw it.

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for listening to my comments and responding in such detail. I agree with the right reverend Prelate that we should tread very carefully with this issue. I thank her for her detailed observations and welcome what she said about the work that she does with the clergy in relation to baptism of asylum seekers and conversion to the Christian faith.

I reassure the noble Lord, Lord German, that I understand that there are vast numbers of denominations in the Christian Church. My comments should be interpreted as meaning the Christian faith and its various denominations, of which I am not an expert but many others are. We are talking about Christian baptism, which can include the Church of England and many other denominations, including churches in Wales, where the noble Lord lives.

As my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel set out, this is a question of fairness. The fact that there is no evidence of abuse does not reassure those of us in this House who are concerned about this issue. The Minister mentioned that it is possible that bad-faith claims exist within the system. I say to him that we cannot find evidence of something if the Government are not going to look for it; I note they rejected my earlier amendments.

As I said at the beginning, I will return to this topic in further contributions to this House. I would very much appreciate it if the Minister would agree to meet me and his officials to discuss this further. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 79E withdrawn.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Maclean of Redditch Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch]

65A: In subsection (1), after “protection claim” insert “, modern slavery claim”

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

My Lords, I strongly support the amendments in this group and will briefly speak to mine, which would strengthen the amendments laid by my noble friends on the Front Bench. They have the objective of restoring public confidence in our asylum system. Amendment 65A would ensure that no modern slavery claim could be made by those who arrive under the conditions set out in Amendment 65 and that we eliminate loopholes where we know or suspect that a strong risk exists of bogus asylum claims. Amendment 77A would make it clear that the proposed third-country removal centre would also process any modern slavery claims for those who could not be returned to their home country, for whatever reason.

As a package, in addition to my amendments that I discussed earlier in these debates—I will not repeat myself—this would ensure that the public have confidence that we are supporting genuine victims of modern slavery, not those who seek to use our generous provisions to prey on vulnerable people or those who, for their own evil reasons, decide to exploit our asylum laws to get a fast track into the country under the guise of being modern slaves and then go on to lodge bogus asylum claims. The public are rapidly losing trust in the state to protect our borders and we need to take determined, radical action. I beg to move.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendments put down by my noble friend Lord Davies. I will focus in particular on proposed new subsection (2)(b) in his Amendment 65, which would make it clear that, if someone does not come directly to the UK from a country in which they were threatened, they are not covered by the refugee convention. I strongly support that and we have debated it earlier on this Bill.

It may or may not surprise your Lordships to know that it is also the view of the Government. In a letter that the noble Lord, Lord Katz, sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, following our debate in Committee on Monday 13 October, in response to suggestions she made in her amendments, he said that the refugee convention

“is quite clear about the need for migrants to ‘come directly’ to benefit from the protections it affords them. In reality, not a single small boat that has reached the UK has set out from a dangerous country where migrants could not be reasonably expected to claim asylum. France, Belgium and the Netherlands are all signatory to the Convention and are entirely safe countries with functioning asylum systems of which migrants are able to avail themselves”.

I could not agree more with the Minister in that interpretation of the refugee convention, which is effectively what my noble friend has set out in his amendment. Given that the Government’s view is that Article 31 of the refugee convention should be interpreted narrowly in that sense, I hope the Minister will support my noble friend’s amendments and, even if he feels that something in their drafting is not absolutely spot on, he will none the less come forward at Third Reading with an amendment that would correct the drafting and put into statute the sentiments set out in that letter, with which I entirely agree.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, taken together, Amendments 65, 77 and 84 from the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron, further amended by the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, in Amendments 65A and 77A, can be seen as another attempt to reinstate certain aims and objectives of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the Rwanda plan. Again, as was the case with amendments discussed on the second day of Report, these proposals at points take a more unworkable approach than what has come before, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick— I hope he does not mind my praying him in aid—argued in his short but focused contribution.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, said that our policies had failed. I simply point out to him that, whereas, as he mentioned, 400 asylum seeker hotels were in use under the previous Government, now it is around 200 and we have a plan to close them all by the end of the Parliament. We have seen more than 5,000 foreign national offenders deported over the last year, a 14% increase on the 12 months before. If that is what the noble Lord and his colleagues see as failure, that is perhaps a clue as to why their approach to tackling asylum and immigration failed so much itself.

I emphasise again that this Government have been clear in their approach to the Illegal Migration Act and its policy intentions. This Bill repeals it, aside from the six sections where we have identified operational benefit for retention. The Bill, as promised in our manifesto, fully repeals the Safety of Rwanda Act 2024 —a wholly unworkable scheme which cost this country around £700 million and which saw only four people leave the country, all of whom left voluntarily.

Amendment 65 seeks to reinstate Sections 2 and 5 of the Illegal Migration Act in a different form. This amendment would mandate the Secretary of State to refuse any asylum, protection or human rights claim made by a person who enters the United Kingdom from a safe third country illegally, provided they do not come directly from a country in which their life and liberty were at risk, and regardless of the nature of the person’s claim. Amendment 65A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, would mandate refusal of a modern slavery claim on the same basis. This blanket approach would fail to factor in considerations around vulnerable groups, including children.

On Amendments 77 and 77A, I thank both noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, for their interest in the Government’s approach to third-country removal centres. However, I respectfully submit that these amendments are unnecessary. As the Prime Minister set out on 15 May, we are already actively exploring the establishment of return hubs with international partners. Our approach will be guided by what is workable. These hubs will facilitate the swift and dignified removal of failed asylum seekers who have exhausted all legal avenues to remain in the UK while they await redocumentation by their country of origin.

The effect of Amendment 77, together with Amendment 35A, discussed on day 2 of Report, would be to return to the Rwanda model by removing individuals whose asylum claims have not been determined and who are subject to the aforementioned duty to remove to a third country. The return hubs proposal is fundamentally different: it does not outsource asylum decision-making but instead targets those whose claims have already been fully considered by the Home Office and the courts and been found wanting.

We are committed to developing this policy in a way that is both workable and legally robust. As such, the Government cannot be held to timeframes on third country negotiations as set out in Amendment 77. Details of any agreement and associated policy will be made publicly available when the time is right. I therefore urge noble Lords not to move their amendments, on the basis that they not only duplicate work already in train but constrict that work and militate against the Government’s aim to conclude a mutually beneficial partnership in a timeframe that works for both parties.

These amendments would undermine the integrity of the UK’s immigration and asylum system and put the UK in conflict with its obligations under the refugee convention, the ECHR and the anti-trafficking convention. They would serve only to prevent asylum decision-making, increase the backlog of asylum cases awaiting an outcome and put impossible pressure on asylum accommodation, with significant costs to taxpayers. We also cannot ignore the fact that these amendments fail to take into account the needs of vulnerable individuals, including children and victims of modern slavery. I therefore invite the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron, and the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 65A (to Amendment 65) withdrawn.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Maclean of Redditch Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 5th November 2025 Lords Chamber

The third objection the Minister mentioned was that the two-day deadline would still leave it open for people to come on student visas under false pretences and claim asylum. I left the two-day deadline in for those genuinely fleeing persecution who fly to this country and have no option but the student visa route, but if the Minister prefers, I would not object to removing it and substituting a blanket ban. I am grateful to the Minister for explaining his objections, and I have responded, I hope, to his objections and covered the substantive one. I therefore hope that Amendment 35C will be accepted.

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 71A is an amendment to Amendment 71 in the names of my noble friends on the Front Bench. It should be seen in the context of my comments about modern slavery in the debate on Monday. This modern slavery system now supports more foreign citizens than it does British citizens—something that the public, I am sure, are not aware of and would rightly be concerned about if they did. Modern slavery victim support is a multi-million pound cost to the public purse, as well as having an untold cost in human misery. In fact, between 2016 and 2023, the Home Office spent over £40 million through the modern slavery fund to combat modern slavery overseas and reduce the threat of human trafficking to the UK, including from Albania and Vietnam. British taxpayers are funding these projects, but they evidently have not worked, so it is time for a different policy.

The top nationalities referred to the NRM now relate to Albania, Vietnam, Eritrea, Sudan, India, Iran, Romania, Nigeria and Ethiopia. But those who have been a victim of crime in this country commonly feel that their support by the British state is inadequate, and I am sure the general public would agree that our own citizens should come first, before we distribute generous welfare to people from those countries that I have just mentioned. Therefore, my amendment adds an additional visa penalty to those that are set out in my noble friends’ amendment and would ensure that those countries which do not do enough to tackle upstream causes of modern slavery, and therefore export their victims to our shores, feel the pain of not having done enough by having their visa access restricted. It is simple: if we are providing the carrot of visa access, we should ensure that we have a good, strong stick.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Jackson’s Amendment 35 and to pose a few questions to the Minister. I will not repeat what my noble friend said; he set out the case very compellingly.

I note from a Written Answer that the Minister said:

“The information requested is not available from published statistics”.


I am sure that is true; the Minister will have given a truthful answer. However, what information does the department collect that it does not publish?

When I was Immigration Minister between 2012 and 2014, we were very clear about the importance of overseas students. We wanted them to come here, but we also wanted to make sure there was no abuse. The department at that point collected a lot of information about the risks involved in students coming here from a variety of countries, including, for example, the risk that they would overstay their student visa. We used that risk information to focus our checks when those students were applying for visas. I presume that work still exists. Has the department done any work on collecting information on the behaviour of overseas students in the United Kingdom—for example, criminality or other offences—that it does not put in existing published statistics? If it does collect that information, can it make it available? If that information is used by the department in decision-making and assessing risk, it is presumably good enough—even if it is not perfect and does not meet the criteria for published statistics—to be shared with Members of your Lordships’ House.

Those are detailed questions. If the Minister is not able to, or does not, answer them today, I am sure that either myself or my noble friend Lord Jackson, in his typically assiduous way, will table some Written Questions to follow them up. With that, I strongly support his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to address Amendment 79A, in my name, on the disapplication of the Human Rights Act for immigration legislation. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, for his support for this amendment and for the support expressed for the principle by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.

As the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, has identified, there is presently an uncomfortable vacuum at the heart of the Home Office’s policy. We know that the “smash the gangs” mantra, which is at the heart of this somewhat performative Bill, has failed. Again, I do not wish to bore the House with the statistics; we all know them. The reality is that while taking the step identified by my noble friend on the Front Bench of abolishing the tribunals is certainly one course, and one which I would endorse, I would not expect the Government Front Bench to accept it.

In the interim, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, reasonably identifies, there is an alternative, and it is that set out in Amendment 79A. This would disapply the Human Rights Act from immigration cases. As we know, the vast bulk of immigration cases are derived from or directly apply human rights provisions in their construction, and in so doing prevent the effective use of border control, so it is open to the Government to accept this amendment.

I simply add this. The Joint Committee on Human Rights wrote to the new Home Secretary asking for an explanation as to what the Government propose to do in relation to Article 8. In a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, dated 23 October, the Home Secretary said:

“My officials are currently reviewing the application of Article 8 of the ECHR in immigration cases. As set out in the Immigration White Paper (24 May 2025) we will legislate to reform our approach to the application of Article 8 in the immigration system to ensure that the right balance is struck between individual and public interest in controlling migration. My officials are continuing to develop these proposals, and the Government will publish more detail in due course”.


In the following paragraph, she provided a mantra, saying that,

“the Government is fully committed to complying with international law and the protection of human rights. We do not have to withdraw from the ECHR or disapply the HRA to create meaningful reform”.

I am afraid that that is just inconsistent and plainly wrong. If the Government want an effective border control policy, they will have to take a measure such as that identified in this proposal or, I am afraid, the current state of chaos will continue.

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to the two amendments tabled in my name in this group, but, before doing so, I will say that I strongly support the comments made by my noble friend Lord Murray and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. My amendments are to Amendments 47 and 68, and would ensure that modern slavery claims and appeals cannot be singled out in some way and still be used as a loophole for the merry-go-round of asylum claims that we see. The Home Secretary herself highlighted the vexatious last-minute modern slavery claim that was put in, in the case of the one-in, one-out asylum seeker. We have heard other examples as well.

Last year, noble Lords might wish to know, we saw that 65% of referrals to the NRM were found to have no reasonable grounds. This was compared with only 16% four years ago. So there is evidence that this is increasingly being used for last-minute, spurious claims, and I would like to make sure that these amendments are as bulletproof as possible. We should seek to restore public confidence in the modern slavery system, to make sure that it is doing what it was designed to do and what this Parliament designed it to do: that is, to be a lifeline for victims of horrific abuse. It was not designed, as it has increasingly become, as a route for Albanian men arriving on small boats.

The British citizens who are referred into the system are overwhelmingly children. I am sure that most people would agree that that is the right thing for the state to be doing. Foreign citizens referred in tell a different story: these are mostly adult men from Vietnam, Albania, Eritrea and Sudan. Supporting them is not the right priority for the taxpayers of this country. My amendment therefore ensures that only genuine victims can make use of our generous support and that these vexatious claims can definitely be thrown out.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly to speak to the amendment in my name, but only in passing, because I cannot better the excellent remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. They made a very strong case. I also associate myself with Amendment 68. But I really want to talk to Amendment 46, the first in this group.

We all have a vested interest in protecting the integrity of the criminal justice system, and the faith and trust that our citizens have in that system. At the present time, I fear that people are losing faith in it. They are losing faith in the capacity of the judicial system to deliver fairness and equity for the British taxpayer. I think it is perfectly possible to have a strong modicum of compassion for those people driven to seek asylum in this country by poverty, famine, war and despotic dictatorships. However, a system that is intrinsically designed to be gamed—for young men to come to this country and use legal loopholes to settle in one of the wealthiest countries in the world—is no longer a situation that we can tolerate. That is why we need to take what would appear to be immoderate and draconian action in the first instance, because we are in the middle of a crisis.

I do not often quote Labour Members of Parliament, but Mike Tapp, the Member of Parliament for Dover and Deal—I think he is the Minister’s colleague—has been criticised for quite rightly complaining about the fact that people who are criminals are coming to this country and there is effectively nothing we can do about it. We can do nothing about it because this Government set their face against the Rwanda scheme and scrapped that scheme before it had a chance to work. Yet they go scrambling around parts of eastern Europe seeking an alternative scheme to put in place.

The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, is absolutely correct; it is incumbent upon this Government, after 16 months, to come up with an alternative. With all due respect to the Minister, the speech he gave to the Chamber on Monday was exactly the same speech, verbatim, that he gave on 8 September on undertakings to bring forward legislation and to the review of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, is quite right that we are now in a position where a significant number of member countries of the Council of Europe are sufficiently concerned that they are putting a very great deal of pressure to change things, because the system is broken.

If the system breaks, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, is absolutely right that it gives rise to people who are not moderate, who are extreme and who will scapegoat honest, decent people seeking to make a better life. It is incumbent on us to come up with solutions. Look at some of the egregious cases we have seen in recent years from the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal. “Egyptian migrant is ‘danger to the community’—but can stay in Britain”. “Cannabis dealer claimed deportation would destroy his marriage”. “Albanian who battered man with umbrella can stay because the attack was ‘one-off’”. “Asylum seeker can stay in Britain after having affair”. “Afghan drug user allowed to stay in the UK because Taliban is harsh on addicts”. “Migrant avoids deportation because he lost his phone”.

We may have a wry smile at some of those cases, and I accept that they are a minority of cases, but they are corrosive of the faith and trust people have in the system. That is why Amendment 46 is so important. If the Government are truly of the view that nothing is off the table, they have to be able to bring forward costed alternatives and not just fall back on the fact they are reviewing, they are looking at the European Convention on Human Rights and they will bring forward legislation. They have had 16 months; they need to take firm action to deal with this immigration crisis. On that basis, I strongly support the excellent amendment from my noble friend Lord Murray and, of course, the other amendments, including Amendment 46 from the Front Bench.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Maclean of Redditch Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 3rd November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I also have Amendments 69 and 79B in this group, which includes Amendments 29A and 31A from the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean. Amendment 29 would repeal Section 29 of the Illegal Migration Act, a section which, like others, is not in force.

Section 29, if enforced, would broaden the public order disqualification to mandate—because “may” becomes “must”—that potential and confirmed victims of modern slavery and human trafficking are disqualified from protection, identification and support; are denied a recovery period and limited leave to remain in the UK; and may be removed from the UK, unless there are compelling circumstances which mean that the provisions should not apply. I say “broaden” because it includes the deportation of people who have committed low-level offences, which takes us into the territory of Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which I think is now quite generally regarded as being inadequate—if not in its own terms, though there is some consensus around that, in that the offenses which are excluded are too few and it does not exclude some that are not so serious.

The clause provides a defence for modern slavery victims who are compelled to commit a crime, but it is also inadequate in the awareness of the clause, and therefore whether it should be brought into consideration in a prosecution. The Illegal Migration Act provision was criticised by a previous independent asylum seekers commissioner, who said that limiting the public order exemption would

“severely limit our ability to convict perpetrators and dismantle organised crime groups”.

I emphasise those words because the focus of this legislation is, as I understand it, intended to be on the perpetrators and organised crime groups.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights raised the same point and the Government responded, saying that this section would, if commenced, bring all foreign national offenders into scope for mandatory consideration of disqualification from modern slavery protections. I again emphasise those two words because it is not mandatory only if there are “compelling circumstances”, which is a difficult phrase—difficult ever to prove.

Amendments 69 and 79B would both restrict information sharing between public authorities when vulnerable, abused or exploited people are involved. They have particular need of protection and the concern extends not only to people who are exploited and who would like to be able to report the exploitation; it applies also to other people—their colleagues—who would like to report on their behalf but are concerned about exposing themselves. I do not want to repeat what I said in Committee, although I do not resile from it.

We had some banter then about a photograph of the Ministers celebrating the passage of the 2015 Act, if that was the right occasion. We have had some discussion about the series of photographs. I was sent a photograph as well, which included both the noble Lord and me supporting the position of overseas domestic workers. I think the Minister thinks that was an even earlier occasion. However, the passage of time has not changed the issue, even though we may look—certainly I do—rather different from how I did in that photograph. The Minister reminded us that the Bill is about tackling organised immigration crime. He used the term “turbocharge”, and I have already talked about the commitment we should have to victims. I have searched for a sort of equivalent terminology and all I have come up with is “not steamrollering them”.

The Minister referred to the NRM—the national referral mechanism—providing

“a structured, compassionate route for potential victims of modern slavery to receive help without fear of intimidation and immediate immigration consequences”.—[Official Report, 10/7/25; col. 1486.]

The problem is that they do fear, and they are deterred from reporting, whether on their own behalf or on behalf of someone else. He said also:

“In the immigration White Paper, we have made specific reference to Kalayaan”—


that is, the organisation which supports overseas domestic workers—

“and domestic workers, and I will reflect on those points as we go through”.—[Official Report, 10/7/25; col. 1484.]

I did word searches on the White Paper and I found one reference to domestic workers, though it was in another context, and I will return to all that in Amendment 44, probably on the next day of Committee—although, of course, if there has been any reconsideration to date, I would be happy to hear it. I could not find “Kalayaan”. I am not trying to make a cheap point, but, if it is there, perhaps I could be directed to it following the debate.

The most important point is that the Government recognise that there is a genuine concern around here and intend to reconsider the overseas domestic worker visa route. So any further information or news that the Minister can give the House today would be welcome.

The two other amendments in this group would retain Sections 22, 23, and 25 to 29 of the Illegal Migration Act; in other words, they would bring in Section 29, to which I have spoken, and other provisions relating to modern slavery, except one which applies to Scotland. They raise the question about how the noble Baroness considers we should treat victims of modern slavery and human trafficking, including those who claim to be victims, and what should be the future of the NRM. I beg leave to move Amendment 29.

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

My Lords, to follow on from what the noble Baroness has just said, my Amendments 29A and 31A would in fact reintroduce and commence the modern slavery clauses and provisions in the Illegal Migration Act 2023. The net effect of them would mean that individuals who have entered illegally would not be able to use modern slavery provisions as a route to frustrate removal, but it is important that we continue to support genuine victims at the same time. The reason I have tabled these amendments is that, while they were necessary back in 2023 when this Act was passed, the need for them has become even more pressing now.

I declare an interest as a former Home Office Minister who led on the modern slavery support system and has seen the challenges of operationalising this system and protecting victims of this awful crime, which is what we all want to do.

The world has changed. Since the Modern Slavery Act was passed, patterns of migration have shifted dramatically. The system that we built, for very good reasons, over a decade ago is now being stretched, and in some cases exploited in ways Parliament never intended. In particular, I can find no reference in the original debates that we intended to create a welfare and support system for victims of crime from all over the world, rather than for our own citizens who have been trafficked and abused. Yet that is exactly what is happening now.

In 2024, for the first time, 44% of referrals to the NRM reported exploitation overseas, overtaking those claiming exploitation within the UK, at 43%. This concern is shared across Parliament. I quote the Home Secretary who said, in response to the egregious situation that we saw connected to the one-in, one-out asylum-seeking individual who claimed that he was a victim of trafficking in France, that some asylum seekers were making “vexatious, last-minute claims” of being victims of modern slavery to block removal. The Home Secretary and the Government can simply use the measures already on the statute book. That is the fastest way to tackle this, if they can perhaps get over the “not invented here” objection.

When we have these debates, those who do the important work of supporting victims will claim and state, rightly, that it is impossible to provide definitive evidence that the system is being abused. I agree with that, which is why I have tabled amendments later on to address that point. But, whether we like it or not, there is a significant interaction between illegal arrivals and referrals into the NRM. Just this quarter, we have seen the highest number of referrals since the start of the NRM in 2009. The people who are being referred now are non-UK nationals: the largest groups being referred are Albanians, followed by Vietnamese. For context, in 2014, the entire system handled fewer than 2,500 referrals, yet last year it handled nearly 2,500 referrals just from Albania. This surge has placed immense strain on the system and on public confidence, and of course also on taxpayers and on the public purse, because the Government have committed to spending £379 million over five years on the modern slavery support system.

In the Lords debates on these clauses of the Illegal Migration Act that my amendment seeks to retain, my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth, speaking for the then Government, said:

“It is a central tenet of the Bill that a person who satisfies the conditions in Clause 2 will not have their asylum, human rights or modern slavery claims considered in the United Kingdom. It is a sad but incontrovertible fact that our modern slavery protections are susceptible to abuse by illegal migrants seeking to frustrate their removal from the United Kingdom. Whereas in 2019 just 6% of people arriving in the UK on a small boat and detained for return involved a modern slavery referral, the figure in 2021 was 73%”.”.—[Official Report, 10/5/23; col. 1784.]


Britain can be both compassionate and firm, but it cannot be naive. I follow my noble friend Lord Harper in asking this House to be honest that people will seek to lie about their experiences, especially when the incentives are so strong and the evidence threshold necessarily very low. These amendments would protect those exploited while removing incentives for illegal entry.

Asylum Claims: Religious Conversion

Baroness Maclean of Redditch Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the number of asylum claims based on religious conversion.

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

The Government do not publish statistics on asylum claims based on religious conversion. All claims, including those based on religious conversion, are carefully assessed individually in accordance with our international obligations and in line with our published guidance. Claims based on religious conversion do not guarantee a grant of refugee status.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but I am sure that many other noble Lords will be surprised to hear that the Home Office does not publish such statistics. Given the salience of asylum claims and the number of illegal migrants coming to our shores, it would very much help the community and the country if we could see the number of conversions, for Christianity and any other religion, that are grounds for someone being granted asylum. Will the Minister please look again at his department and publish that data for us to scrutinise?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness will know, more than 111,000 people claimed asylum in the UK in the year ending June 2025. Almost half of the initial decisions—48%—were grants, which means that 52% were not. We do not keep statistics on individual religious conversion aspects. We take that into account and will make a judgment on the case before the examiner in each individual case.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Maclean of Redditch Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

My Lords, as I speak towards the end of the day, the range of the arguments has been thoroughly rehearsed. I want to focus on an uncomfortable truth that most of us do not want to admit, even to ourselves: the issue of human nature and the evil that is in every human heart. I pay tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Grabiner and Lord Sandhurst, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, who touched on this in their contributions.

As we gather here every day, we pray the words that Christ taught us,

“lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil”.

It is this that has informed my strongly held opposition to the Bill. No amount of additional scrutiny or legislative tweaks would make it acceptable, because I oppose the principle of assisted suicide. As a Christian, my faith shapes my view, but not from a rigid doctrinal perspective. Rather, it is through reflecting on the teachings of Jesus, who knew humans are capable of great love but also of great evil. We pray “deliver us from evil” because we know that, without God’s help, we are too weak to resist.

It is much too easy not to be honest about human nature. We pretend that all families are happy and that all children want the best for their dying relatives. We have rightly heard much about elderly people not wanting to be a burden, but we have not talked about putting temptation, at a very distressing time, in front of otherwise good and moral people. No amount of safeguards can take away the temptation to kill off one’s relatives under the euphemism of “assisted dying” to get hold of one’s inheritance. Care home fees are eye-wateringly expensive, and one can see how easy it would be to say that she or he “would not have wanted to live that way”, and no one would ever need to know. We cannot know how we would behave under these conditions of extreme temptation. Let us remember in our human history where we have witnessed human beings carrying out unspeakable acts of wickedness and violence against one another.

Supporters say that the Bill is narrow and safe, but the evidence from abroad does not persuade me. It tells me that, no matter how many safeguards are introduced, we cannot escape human nature. How often in this place, and in the other place for those of us who have been Members of Parliament, have we heard about so many terrible things happening and authorities letting people down? We gather together and say that such and such a terrible thing must not happen again and that we must introduce safeguards, but I am afraid that too often it does. However, we are not destined to repeat these actions, which I am convinced will lead to more suffering and more pain.

We have talked about vulnerable people, and I want to add my words about victims of domestic abuse. Coercive control in particular is extremely sophisticated. Abusers are perfectly capable of manipulating their victims to convincingly express a wish to die, and by the time the courts, with their delays, have caught up, it is too late.

This debate is about what kind of society we want to be. Do we hold to the truth that every life is made in the image of God? Are we able to be clear-eyed about the capacity to do the evil that lives in all of us, even though it is extremely uncomfortable for us to admit, especially in this Chamber? I know my view, and that is why I do not support the Bill.

West Midlands: Transport

Baroness Maclean of Redditch Excerpts

Wednesday 8th May 2024 Westminster Hall

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government funding for transport in the West Midlands.

It is a huge pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Henderson. I am pleased to have secured a debate on this topic and I thank the House for allowing this time. I am grateful to all those who are present in the Chamber and ready to speak. I will start by explaining to anybody watching that I will confine my comments to Redditch, my constituency, and its connections to the major conurbation of Birmingham. It is a peculiarity of Parliament that the debate title must focus on the west midlands, not simply my constituency, but of course that allows other colleagues with wider geographical reaches to speak as well.

Every time I am out and about in Redditch and the villages of Inkberrow, Cookhill, the Lenches, Hanbury and Abbots Morton, it is inevitable that transport in all its forms is raised with me. That is because transport is key to our local economy, to levelling up, and to people’s opportunity literally to get on their bikes and better themselves—something that we Conservatives believe in strongly, in line with our best traditions and values. That is why one of the key pledges I made to my constituents when I was elected for the first time in 2017 was to improve local transport. As an MP who represents rural, urban and suburban residents, I know that there is a range of transport needs, which vary widely depending on where people live.

People are often bemused when I explain that the constituency of Redditch county—that is its name, even though there is no county of Redditch, before everybody writes in—and areas in the new constituency, which will be up for election after the next boundary changes, include villages and rural and farming areas. In particular, the new constituency for which I will be the candidate at the next general election includes Wychbold, Dodderhill, Stoke Prior, Harvington and Norton. Obviously, their connections to Droitwich, Bromsgrove and Evesham are also important.

That said, we are close to Birmingham. It is the major economic centre. It is vital for people’s work, study and leisure opportunities. Before securing the debate, I asked my constituents to give me their views on the transport network in Redditch. I asked them about roads, rail, bus and traffic issues around the constituency, and I will broadly structure my remarks around the answers that they gave. If people watching have missed sending me their thoughts, they can still do so, and I will post a link on my website and my Facebook page.

I will turn first to motorists. After all, Redditch is a new town that was constructed with the car at its heart. In fact, Redditch is the proud owner of England’s only cloverleaf roundabout. Everybody is welcome to come to Redditch and experience driving round the cloverleaf roundabout and many others. Dual carriageways around the town allow for quick and easy access everywhere. Equally, my rural constituents living in more remote areas rely on cars to get around, especially where other transport options might be limited. The responses to my survey reflected the central part that cars play in my constituents’ lives. Road quality was an issue that was highlighted, with 52% of respondents expressing their dissatisfaction with the quality of roads in their area.

The roads in Redditch, under the two-tier system of government that we have in our area, are managed by Worcestershire County Council, not Redditch Borough Council, which again can cause confusion. As a local MP, I know how irritating and dangerous potholes and other obstacles, such as flooding and debris, can be on the roads, and the damage they can do to a vehicle.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. Was meeting net zero targets part of her questionnaire? If it was, if we have to meet net zero targets, we have to have the infrastructure in place. I think the hon. Lady is saying that if that infrastructure is not in place, we cannot meet our net zero targets. That will also mean that we cannot deliver on the buses she would like to have for the rural constituency she represents.

[Rachel Maclean]

The hon. Gentleman has raised a very important issue. That was not specifically included in my survey this time around, but net zero is, of course, something we must aspire to achieve; in fact, we have legislated for it, and we are committed to it. However, at the same time, we have to accept that a reality of people’s lives is that they need cars to drive around in, whether they are electric or petrol and diesel. We must make sure, therefore, that the infrastructure is there, whether to support the transition or the roads, which will be important, whether the cars and buses are electric or fossil fuel vehicles.

I know that the Government recognise the issue with road surfaces. We all know that some of the funding for High Speed 2 has been reallocated to improve roads locally. In Worcestershire, we have received more than £4 million—£4,000,766, to be precise—to repair and resurface roads over the next two years, which comes from the £139 million allocated to Worcestershire County Council as part of the Government’s long-term plan to improve local roads. When he sums up, I would like the Minister to advise me how quickly that can be spent on our roads in Redditch, in our borough, and in Wychavon, which I represent, and how much of that county council funding can be allocated to Redditch Borough Council, so that I can ensure the council is hitting those targets and spending it in the right places.

While I am talking about roads, I would urge anyone who spots a hazard on their road or on a road they are driving on to raise it with the county council directly. It has a good reporting system, and I know that it does get crews out to fix the roads. If anyone is struggling with that service, they should contact me, and I will raise it on their behalf. The council can and do respond to road surface issues and potholes when they are raised. It has a website for that.

Moving on, another 43% of people responded that traffic was an issue in their area. Whether it is roadworks or school pick-up times, there are a number of reasons why we have traffic around the area. I know that the road surface funding I outlined previously can help with the speed of roads, as drivers will not have to slow down to avoid potholes, but I also know that traffic can build up at pinch points and pressure points, such as on the school run, which is something I experienced many times as a parent. We often see traffic building up around school gates, which can be dangerous for the parents and children and for the people who live around those areas. That is why I work hard with all local partners, in particular in the Brockhill estate near Holyoakes Field First School, on the challenges for people getting in and out of their estate. I have had some very constructive discussions with the developers and with the school itself, and I stand ready to help any other school that experiences those problems.

Speeding drivers are not only a nuisance, but dangerous. They also create noise. I know that the Minister’s Department is looking at noise cameras. Could he update me on whether it is rolling those out, and whether we will see them in use in Worcestershire? In the Headless Cross and Oakenshaw area in particular, noise is a real menace—I am happy to brief the Minister in more detail on that.

With the current cost of living challenges people are facing, it is important that we support motorists and remove prohibitive costs associated with driving. I support what the Government are doing by maintaining fuel duty at the current levels for a further 12 months, extending the temporary 5p fuel duty cut and cancelling the planned inflation-linked increase for next year. I am contacted by constituents who make the point that running a vehicle is a big portion of their family’s budget, so I know that people will welcome these measures and that these savings do matter.

The other issue that has been the source of real debate and challenge is the 20 mph speed limits in England. I welcome the Government’s pragmatic, proportionate approach to prevent their blanket use in areas where it is not appropriate, and to amend the guidance on low traffic neighbourhoods. What a stark contrast with Labour-run Wales, where there is a blanket 20 mph speed limit, which is having a massive impact on the Welsh economy, to the detriment of local people. Of course, we also see anti-driver and anti-car policies all over Labour-run London, where Sadiq Khan is punishing and penalising hard-working people for using their cars.

Of course, while Labour insists on those top-down, anti-motorist policies, we Conservatives know that cars are a unique means for freedom for people to fulfil their potential. We must tackle issues of poor driving and speeding. I welcome all the work my newly re-elected police and crime commissioner John Campion is doing. I have been helping him, in Astwood Bank in particular, to tackle dangerous speeding and I will renew my work with him now that he has been re-elected.

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Does she agree with me that nitrogen dioxide levels adversely affect people’s health, especially that of children? Does she not agree that air quality needs to be fixed, but, rather than taking responsibility, the Government have pushed that on to local authorities? If they are serious when they talk about anti-motorist policies, is the overabundance of motorists using cars exponentially, with the detrimental effect on health and especially that of children, something that the Government are proud of?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I want to keep my remarks to my local area of Redditch and Birmingham. I was highlighting the shocking record of Labour-run London and Wales. I stand by those comments: they are anti-driver, anti-car and anti-growth.

While many people drive to and from work, a large number of respondents to my survey highlighted the challenges faced by those who walk, cycle or use a wheelchair to get around Redditch. People highlighted the need to increase the amount of cycling and walking space and the number of crossings and to reduce the amount of time it takes to walk across the town more generally. The accessibility of footpaths was raised by those in wheelchairs and mobility scooters, who often have difficulty with high kerbs. I discuss such issues with the local borough and county councils on a regular basis. Will the Minister advise me what more I can do to make sure those issues are addressed on a practical level across our towns so we can help people who walk or cycle to work to get there faster and safer?

Bus services are key to the pledge I made to my constituents at the last election. People around Redditch and the villages rely on bus services to connect the rural areas to the surrounding towns. Covid presented an existential challenge to local bus services, with people obviously using buses less frequently. That means that certain routes have become unviable and have to be extensively supported by central Government funding.

Unfortunately, only 11% of those who took part in my survey said that local bus services were good. I caveat that, because it is not a scientifically representative sample of the whole town. Nevertheless, I know there are challenges in running bus services. Indeed, the Government have recently stepped in to award £3.4 million to support bus services in Worcestershire, bringing the total received since 2022 to more than £6 million. Additionally, the Government put in place the cap of £2 on bus fares, which has undoubtedly improved usage and provided much needed support for people who rely on buses, especially when families see their budgets squeezed.

In addition to the challenges, we have seen some success stories. Thanks to the hard work of the Conservative-run county council and backing from the Government, the No. 51 and No. 52 routes that serve Redditch are among the most commercially successful in the entire UK. I will, however, continue to work hard with councillors and Ministers to see what more we can do to support our bus network and to ensure it is reliable and delivers for residents. I appreciate the latest thinking from the Minister about what more he can do to support buses in areas such as Redditch as we move beyond covid.

I will make the point that anyone who would like to see better bus services—better funded, nationalised or subject to any of the other ideas we hear talked about—needs to explain how they would be funded. To my knowledge, only one bus route in Redditch makes a profit and that has been the case for many years because people are using buses less and less. Services must therefore be subsidised by the taxpayer. Anyone who advocates for buses being subsidised and brought under state ownership needs to explain how they will take funds earmarked for other vital services to deliver that for residents.

I mentioned at the start of my speech how, because of Redditch’s fortunate position so close to Birmingham, it is essential we have a reliable connection so that my constituents can choose to work in or visit the city with relative ease while living in the town. Before covid, we had three trains per hour to Birmingham and for some strange reason that I am not clear on, we now have only two. We must return to the previous situation immediately; it is past time for that. The future of the train station is being discussed by the county council and the midlands rail hub and I will continue my discussions with all the relevant partners in this space. It is essential that any plans are aligned with the overall vision to level up and regenerate Redditch.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing the debate. On that specific point about trains, railway stations and the midlands hub, she will know that the former Mayor of the West Midlands, Andy Street, had a vision for transport that involved funding for train stations, including Aldridge train station, and restoring train services for the first time in about 60 years. Does my hon. Friend agree that funding long-term transport objectives and projects such as the midlands rail hub and Aldridge train station remains imperative? It is incumbent on the new Mayor of the West Midlands to deliver these projects on time and on budget, and to publicly announce that he will back them.

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank my right hon. Friend for making that point, because the issues she has highlighted in her constituency were the fruits of a healthy collaboration between ourselves as local MPs across the west midlands and the outgoing Mayor, Andy Street, to whom we pay tribute. We also welcome to his position the new Labour Mayor, Richard Parker. I would add to my right hon. Friend’s plea that we can all work constructively together, especially on transport projects that cover a huge area. It is vital we have that collaboration for the benefit of all our residents.

[Tahir Ali]

On that point, will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rachel Maclean]

No, I am afraid I need to wind up. Despite the many challenges we face with local transport, I am pleased that the Government understand the inseparability of good transport networks and levelling up. Whether it is walking, cycling, wheeling, or using a car, train or bus, we must continue to work to improve transport locally so that we can deliver on our promise to level up towns like Redditch and the villages. I will continue working with my constituents and all the stakeholders so that we see improvements.

Finally, let me ask the Minister a few questions. What more can he do with his colleagues in Government to support local councils in tackling potholes and other hazards on our roads? Will he outline the steps the Government are taking to support motorists other than what I have already said, particularly in a time with a high cost of living? What steps is he taking with his colleagues to support bus services, so that we can ensure more routes are viable and sustainable, and move away from Government subsidies, which are ultimately only a short-term option? What steps is he taking to make active transport more of an option in towns such as Redditch, including for people with disabilities? I thank everybody for listening to my speech, I look forward to colleagues’ contributions, and I thank the Minister in advance of his concluding remarks.

[Gordon Henderson (in the Chair)]

Given the earlier Divisions, I expect that this debate will finish no later than 6.17 pm. I expect to call the Opposition spokesman at 5.54 pm. It does not take a lot of working out to realise that you do not have much time to talk. I remind hon. Members to bob—I can see you are bobbing anyway—if they want to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Merriman]

I am happy to give a commitment not only to continue to champion the midlands rail hub but to include Aldridge station. My right hon. Friend has been an absolute champion on the issue and has made a number of interventions on me in the Chamber in support of it, and I very much hope that the new Mayor will continue that work. My right hon. Friend and Andy Street got it to this stage, and I am sure the new Mayor will take it forward. I will certainly look to talk to him about that and to pass on my right hon. Friend’s interest.

In February, the Secretary of State for Transport announced £123 million to fund and design the first phase of the midlands rail hub, and the resulting improved services are likely to run from the early 2030s. We have the plan in place; we now need to ensure that the new Mayor is on board with it. That work will also include benefits for the cross-city line from Redditch to Birmingham. Network North investment will see the cross-city line return to six trains per hour in total, including three to Redditch. My hon. Friend the Member for Redditch has pushed and asked for that, and I can give her that commitment.

[Rachel Maclean]

I welcome that, of course. I am delighted to hear that commitment to three trains from Redditch to Birmingham, which is something on which I worked closely with the outgoing Mayor and on which I hope to work with the new Mayor. When will that service be started for the benefit of my constituents?

[Huw Merriman]

I will write to my hon. Friend with the specifics of the timeline. I do not have the information with me, but I will make sure that we write to her with more guidance on that. My officials are working closely with the West Midlands Rail Executive, the joint client for the west midlands train industry partners on the entire project, to find and deliver the earliest solution.

I applaud the work that Redditch and Worcestershire councils have done to develop plans for improving Redditch station, in the heart of the Redditch railway quarter. This will help the area to compete effectively with nearby towns for economic activity and growth, while improving connectivity and opportunities for sustainable travel. I am very keen on this project, and I will be looking into it further. I thank my hon. Friend for raising it.

I am also pleased that the A38 Bromsgrove route enhancement programme, funded by my Department, is now being rolled out. I am sure that, once complete, it will be well used by Redditch residents to access Bromsgrove and Worcester.

I would like to focus on my Department’s desire to enhance rural mobility, which is important to me as an MP for a rural constituency and which was raised by the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), who rightly highlighted the importance of rural mobility. We have published our “Future of Transport” rural innovation guidance to help support local authorities, and we have made up to £3 million of funding available to support rural transport innovation and tackle transport challenges in rural areas. Further, we are supporting the seven sub-national transport bodies to establish a centre of excellence on rural mobility.

I will address some points that have been made by right hon. and hon. Members. As I said, I will come back to my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch with specifics, but she asked about noise cameras. The Department has published research and analysis in the March 2024 plan for drivers on the efficiency of noise cameras. We are evaluating findings before we consider the next steps, but it is a matter we are keen to take forward. We know that it is a real blight for constituents, so we are keen to do more on that front.

The hon. Members for Birmingham, Edgbaston and for Birmingham, Erdington (Mrs Hamilton) talked about devolution and the desire for franchising. I have to say, that has been very much driven by this Government. Since 2010, we have looked to devolve more powers to the regions, because we take the view that the regions know best what their local solutions need to be and are represented in many instances by the Mayors that I work with.

The Government’s legislation on buses extended franchising to mayoral regions. Manchester has taken this on and, as was said, some time was taken for that to actually find its place. The West Yorkshire Mayor recently announced that West Yorkshire would be taking franchising forward. The point I make is that if the West Midlands Mayor decides that he wishes to take forward franchising for buses, that is a power we have devolved down, and that will be a matter for them. We will support that bid, as we have others. I want to be absolutely clear that that would not have happened had we not devolved those powers and had the Mayors not taken them on.

To the hon. Member for North Shropshire, the Command Paper on Network North made it clear that the Oswestry to Gobowen line would be reopened, with a new stop at Park Hall. Local to the area, we are looking to build a new station in Meir on the existing Crewe to Derby line and reopen the disused Barrow Hill and Stoke to Leek line. That commitment was there, and we will be bringing more detail on that forward, so I can give her that assurance.

My right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Gavin Williamson) asked about the Access for All programme. I can say that 230 stations have been given step-free access, which is really important to allow all members of the community, particularly those most vulnerable, to use their railway stations. That point was also raised by the hon. Member for North Shropshire. Looking at the next tranche, we have 300 really good bids and will be looking shortly to announce the latest that we will take forward. There was a £350 million commitment from Network North to further roll out Access for All and improve accessibility at stations. That is really important. We also want to get delivered those we have already promised. I am determined and committed on that particular front.

My right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire never fails to push for more rail services. He is right on the Chase line electrification about the growth in passengers and more frequent services in rail. He has pressed me for more investment so that the weekday services Penkridge receives can be transferred to weekends and that Stone station gets its direct service to Manchester. I am taking forward the matter with those he has asked me to, and I will certainly convey his concerns on pothole funding to the roads Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman). I will ensure that I write back to any other hon. Member who has raised points today with more detail.

To conclude, I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch has given us all the opportunity to discuss, debate and celebrate the significant investment that has been made available for transport in the west midlands, particularly in her constituency of Redditch. She always pushes for more for her constituents, and we always listen to her and will continue to do so. The Government’s Network North plan will continue investing in the journeys that matter to local people, bringing jobs, opportunities and growth to this region and beyond. I am pleased we have been able to debate the matter this afternoon.

[Rachel Maclean]

This has been an excellent debate, very well supported by colleagues from all over the wider west midlands region. I want to extend my thanks to all my colleagues across the House, including those from Northern Ireland, who have taken part, highlighting the vital importance of transport connectivity, whether it is bus, rail—of course, that is the Minister’s own portfolio—active travel such as walking and cycling or other means of transport, or the use of the car, which is the essential route to freedom for our constituents. We must continue to enable constituents to use their cars to travel around their areas. I am proud to represent my constituency and the concerns of people across Redditch and the villages. Transport affects everybody every day, whether they are going to work, going out with their friends, or going to study and improve their opportunities.

I look forward to the Minister’s response on the numerous points I have put to him. I am sure he will come back with a comprehensive response, which I will be anticipating eagerly and sharing with my constituents. Thank you, Mr Henderson, and I thank the Minister.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government funding for transport in the West Midlands.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Baroness Maclean of Redditch Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 17th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

The Government’s motion to disagree with Lords amendment 1D is a motion to disagree with the Government’s obligation in relation to the Bill to have due regard for international law and the Children Act 1989, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Modern Slavery Act 2015. If the Government are confident that the Rwanda scheme will be fully compliant with international law and the aforementioned domestic law, I do not understand why they are rejecting this amendment again.

The motion to disagree with Lords amendment 3E would scrap the requirement inserted by the Lords that Rwanda be treated as a safe country only if and when protections contained in the treaty are judged by the independent monitoring committee to have been implemented and to remain implemented. Surely Lords amendment 3E is an entirely proper and legal amendment if the Government deem that the measure in their own treaty is necessary? Given that Members had no opportunity to debate that treaty prior to ratification, the amendment would at least provide some reassurance that the protections it contains will be put into practice.

The motion to disagree with Lords amendment 6D is a motion to deny individual grounds for legal challenge that the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country for the person in question or for a group of persons, or that there is a real risk that Rwanda will remove or send those persons to another state. The Home Affairs Committee has always been clear that there has to be the opportunity for appropriate legal challenge as a necessary part of our fair asylum system.

I listened very carefully to the Minister’s assurances about the specified category that could be used in the future, but amendment 10D sets out very clearly why such provisions should be included on the face of the Bill and our obligations to those who have helped us and our armed forces overseas. That amendment would be the right thing to add to the Bill.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

As I was watching Aston Villa smash Arsenal on Sunday, my thoughts turned to today’s debate because, as Aston Villa fans will know, the Emirates stadium is of course sponsored by the Visit Rwanda scheme, and Arsenal play with those words emblazoned on their shirts.

I strongly support the Government’s position as set out by the reasons articulated by my right hon. and learned Friend the excellent Minister for Countering Illegal Migration. More than that, though, behind all these amendments, this ping-pong, the Reasons Room, and this process, which is quite baffling to my constituents, lies a simple question: is this Parliament sovereign or not? I believe I was sent to this Parliament to make laws in the interests of my constituents in Redditch. They are a generous people—we have accepted refugees from around the world and given them a warm Redditch welcome—but in the interests of stability and security, and protecting those British values and the culture that we all care about, they also ask that we enact measures to enable our country to control our borders. This whole debate is really summed up by the question of whether or not we in the west are able to control our borders, because we all know that this is going to get much worse. Some 100 million people are on the move.

The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), talked about having more grown-ups in the room and talking more nicely. Perhaps the people smugglers will listen to that and stop putting people in small boats, but somehow I doubt it—it is complete and utter nonsense. We are sent to this place to make hard choices, not emote and do things that make us feel good in the moment. We have to stand on one side, with the sovereignty of this Parliament and the people of Redditch, and this Bill is the way to do so. Let us get Rwanda done. We will stop these boats and make our country safer.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

We are at that stage in the legislative process where Government obstinacy sometimes overcomes rationality. There is no way that these can be described as wrecking amendments—I wish they were, but they are not. Lords amendment 3E simply uses the Government’s own mechanism to ensure, as Conservative Members have said, that Parliament has the opportunity to change its judgment when the facts change. Anyone who has any experience of the history of this region of Africa realises that there is built-in instability, and therefore we may well need to come back to this matter, although I hope we do not.

My Northern Ireland colleague the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) asked about Lords amendment 10D, and the ministerial response was that we should not worry because the fact that a number of veterans sit in Cabinet means that the system will work for those who served in Afghanistan. I am sorry, but so far, the veterans sitting around the Cabinet table have not ensured that. Many of us have dealt with individual cases, and all Lords amendment 10D would do is ensure that we live up to our commitment that those who served alongside us, putting their lives and those of their families at risk, will be secure. The existing scheme has not worked in that way, but Lords amendment 10D would ensure that it did in the future.

My final point is that I came to this place on the basis that Parliament was all about protecting its citizens and ensuring that they have safety but also access to law. Baroness Chakrabarti’s amendment 6D simply ensures that Parliament fulfils that role—it certainly is not a wrecking amendment.