Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 16th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg. First, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hanson of Flint on securing the considerable legal services of my noble friend Lady Levitt. The Government are very lucky to have them both steering this supertanker. There is much to commend: its focus on several vulnerable groups, including exploited children, victims of stalking, cuckooing and so on. I hope to speak to these parts in Committee. There is further scope to innovate in other areas genuinely to improve criminal justice.

I still have some concerns about an arms race begun over 30 years ago and escalated by some parts of this measure. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994—some noble Lords are too young to remember—began raising public expectations that Governments could legislate their way to a harmonious society. Politicians purported to do this even in times of austerity, amid real-time cuts to living standards, in the justice system, and to youth, mental health and addiction services. Continued rhetorical attacks on the judiciary and fiscal attacks on legal aid have left swathes of ordinary people thinking that the law is not for them. It will arrest and prosecute them for a growing array of crimes and misdemeanours but rarely protect them from abusive employers, landlords or unaccountable corporations. That is why I welcome the imminent Hillsborough law.

The disillusionment can be disastrous. Knee-jerk politics fights the alligators but never drains the swamp. I fear that we have been breeding alligators in a swamp in which only populist far-right politics thrives. We see this long shadow in compromises to due process rights, the unregulated deployment of technology at the cost of personal privacy, and always more police powers; every year, yet more powers—broad, vague and never mirrored by measures improving police vetting, training and discipline.

In 1994, it was the end of the right to silence, suspicionless stop and search, and restrictions on gatherings featuring music with a repetitive beat. Now, and for years, the target has been non-violent protest. I share the Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner’s concerns about our existing public order statute book; and now we have the measures proposed in this Bill, and those trailed as likely new government amendments to come in Committee, to restrict cumulative protest. Protests against asylum hotels make me very anxious. But I would no more ban them than those against job losses, benefit cuts, environmental degradation, war crimes, or racism and antisemitism. What would blanket bans on face coverings at protests mean for dissidents outside the embassy of an authoritarian foreign power? With all its churches, restrictions on protesting “in the vicinity of” places of worship could render our capital an extremely un-British protest-free zone.

Recently Ministers have warned, rightly, of the existential dangers of a far-right Administration. We must never write, let alone legislate for, a blank cheque for potential future anti-democratic abuse. While today is one for broad brushes and four-minute speeches, I hope noble Lords will come prepared for line-by-line forensic scrutiny of Bill and amendment text in the vital weeks to come. The other place may invoke the will of the people, but here we read the small print.

Police: Vetting, Training and Discipline

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Chakrabarti]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the BBC Panorama documentary Undercover in the Police, what plans they have to change law or practice regarding police vetting, training or discipline.

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

The scenes in the documentary were simply unacceptable and deeply concerning. The Home Office supports the commissioner’s drive to root out those unfit to serve the public. The Government must improve standards nationally. That is why, earlier this year, the Government made changes to discipline and vetting, and we are intending to introduce further measures later this year to strengthen suspension arrangements and to put police vetting standards on a more robust legislative footing.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am grateful, as always, to my noble friend the Minister. I gave him advance notice of a case of a 68 year-old man convicted in Guildford Crown Court just last week of a string of pretty horrific paedophile offences. During the trial, it emerged that he had served as a police CHIS spy for many years in the environmental movement. Of course, we subsequently legislated under the last Government to give advance criminal immunities to such people. Is it time to look again at whether the system is robust enough to protect in that necessarily shadowy area of police practice?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing attention to the conviction last week. Quite simply, it is unacceptable that individuals are involved in that type of behaviour while serving as police officers, undercover or not. She will be aware that there is a long-standing undercover policing inquiry, which is examining issues and will report to the Government as soon as practicable. I am expecting to be able to respond to those recommendations once they are produced.

In the meantime, and this is the important point for the House as a whole, the Government have improved vetting and are committed to strengthening police vetting. The measures that we have brought forward this year and also in the Crime and Policing Bill, which coincidentally is before the House today, are ones which will strengthen to ensure that we root out individuals who are not suitable to hold the badge of honour of a police officer in the United Kingdom.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I am perhaps not as warm towards this amendment as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, just was. It seems to me that it does give away its intention in the title,

“Primacy of the Refugee Convention”,


which fundamentally is an assault on whether we think Parliament has primacy in our view. Of course I will give way, although I have not got very far in my argument.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

As a point of information, does the noble Lord realise that the title,

“Primacy of the Refugee Convention”


is directly adopted from the Conservative’s Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, as brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, and implemented by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne?

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I was not aware of that, but I am not sure it changes my argument. As we have just discovered by listening to the debates about Article 31 of the convention, part of the issue here is that the interpretation of the words is contested, as we heard from the points my noble friend Lord Murray set out when he talked about restoring what he feels is the original definition—indeed, that has already been done in the Nationality and Borders Act, which I think has about half-a-dozen interpretation sections interpreting parts of the convention—and from what the noble Baroness said when she disagreed that that was the original intention.

The whole point is that, if there are disputes about what the convention means, somebody has to decide what it means. It can be either be courts and judges or Parliament setting out what we think we have signed up to and being clear about that, and Parliament has done so in a number of cases. If you put this amendment into statute, it would effectively say that judges could assert that what Parliament said was not the interpretation of the convention and a judge would decide what to do.

The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said that she has been careful to word this amendment so that the court could not strike down primary legislation. If I may say so, I do not think that is a terribly good safeguard, because an enormous amount of our immigration legislation is not primary legislation but secondary legislation. All the Immigration Rules are secondary legislation made by Ministers using primary legislative powers, so unless there is something explicitly in the primary legislation which gives Ministers powers to make Immigration Rules that specifically forbids a court being able to do this, if this amendment were carried, a court could strike down our Immigration Rules.

That would in effect mean judges, not Ministers, making the decision. Of course those Immigration Rules are not just made by Ministers; Ministers draft them, but they are put before both Houses of Parliament and approved by Parliament. In the end, my contention is that, if you want to have an immigration system that carries the support of the public, decisions have to be made by people who are accountable to the public.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, talked about the convention being chipped away. Part of the issue is that a large number of members of the public do not think that it works for them. They think that people can come to this country as economic migrants, put their hands up and say that they are asylum seekers, and that that somehow gives them a free pass.

When I was Immigration Minister, I argued that we should have a tough system that lets people with a good claim stay but is clear that, where people do not have a good claim, we will kick them out. All that the charities that end up supporting them do is damage the public’s support for our asylum system. If people think that this is a way of getting around the system for economic migrants who get here, and that courts interpret the legislation in a way that is not intended by Ministers who are accountable to Parliament, it damages public support for the very principle that the noble Baroness is setting out; that is incredibly damaging.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way a second time. My point is on not the big stuff around public opinion but the specific question of the danger of courts striking down the Immigration Rules. Does the noble Lord realise that the 1993 Act, which he said a moment ago does not really matter, is still in force; and that the provision I cited already prohibits the Immigration Rules breaching the refugee convention?

[Lord Harper (Con)]

Parts of the Act are still in force, obviously, but, if what the noble Baroness says were true, there would be no need to have her amendment. The fact is that, if you say that the courts can decide that the convention—as they interpret it—can override legislation, that is damaging. The world is a very different place now from what it was in 1951 when the convention was adopted. You have to reflect that by democratically accountable Ministers and legislators making decisions about how we interpret it in the modern era; that is how you strengthen the principles underpinning it, but in a way that works in the modern world. If you do not do that, you will just have more people thinking that the whole thing is nonsense and that we should pull out of it. Actually, I do not think that we should pull out of it—it needs work and it needs to be amended, but we also need to interpret it correctly. My noble friend Lord Murray’s amendment, which sets out a definition that is relevant in the modern world around people who pass through a number of safe countries then choose to come to the UK, is sensible; it would, I think, have the support of a large number of people in the United Kingdom.

In the end, the decision on whether that is the correct interpretation of the convention should, in my humble opinion, be taken by Ministers and by Parliament. It should not be taken by judges being able to insert their interpretation of the 1951 convention, as it was drafted for a very different world, and how they think it should be interpreted now. That would be a retrograde step and would not do what the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Ludford, are trying to do. I think that they are frustrated that the public do not support the provisions of the convention and they are being chipped away at, but what the noble Baroness is proposing, supported by the noble Baroness opposite, would actually make things worse, not better. If the public think that the asylum system is not under any democratic control and that decisions are taken by courts, not accountable people, the system will become less supported by the public—not more—and the whole thing will unravel. If you believe in an asylum system, which I do, and you want to strengthen it, you have to allow democratic institutions to reflect the world in which we now live, not the world in which the convention was drafted. If you do that and make it a convention that is able to be interpreted in the modern world, you strengthen it and make it more likely to succeed than doing the opposite.

For those reasons, it would strike at the primacy of Parliament to put this into law, but it would also do something that I think, fundamentally, both noble Baronesses would not support: it would weaken public support for the asylum system, which, in the end, they will come to regret.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

To be clear, I was not talking about schemes that were set up for specific groups of people in specific situations, such as those from Hong Kong, Ukraine or Afghanistan, which the noble Lord mentioned. Indeed, I am absolutely clear as well that I do not disagree with him or the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, on the principle that we would not want to leave that purely up to the courts rather than having it as part of legislation that has been proposed by Ministers and supported by both Houses of Parliament. I do not disagree with that, but the counter-counterfactual is also the case: if we excluded anyone who passed through any country in which they could reasonably stop, as a safe port of call, then we would not be taking anybody else in outside those established schemes. I do not think that is a reasonable, practical interpretation of the facts on the ground. For that reason, I am afraid that we will not be able to support Amendment 203I from the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth.

Before I finish, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, had the courtesy to say that she would not be able to be in her place until the end of this stage of the debate. She took the opportunity when speaking to rail against the increasing authoritarianism and blaming of refugees for all the ills of this country. I urge her, and indeed all noble Lords, if they think this is the case for this Government, to read carefully the words of our Prime Minister in his leader’s speech to the Labour Party conference. He set out a clear case, with humane and progressive reasons, for controlling borders. Indeed, I point to the words of our new Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood. She is very clear that for people from, as she says, an ethnic minority, having a controlled system of borders is a good thing. There is nothing progressive about insecurity, whether insecurity of income, on our streets or on our borders. This Government were elected to tackle all three things, and we are determined to tackle them.

Given that, and given the time of night, I will conclude and ask the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lord, Lord Murray, not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their engagement in this group, even though some engagement was with a rather broader brush than ideally one would like in Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, did not need to be self-deprecating about not being a lawyer, nor did other noble Lords need to damn my amendments with faint praise for being surprisingly “legally coherent”, even though they disagreed with the substance.

Some noble Lords were of course going to use these amendments for the big debate that rages in our countries at the moment around the refugee convention. However, to go to the detail of my amendments, neither of them would affect the big debate about whether we should be in or out of the refugee convention, or whether we should be in it but periodically ignore it. My amendments were attempting to achieve some coherence in our statute book, which I think is what a Committee stage on a borders Bill should be about.

There are anomalies in the way that we are half-pregnant with the refugee convention at the moment. The noble Lord, Lord Harper, did not quite believe me when I said that Section 2 of the 1993 Act already provides that the Immigration Rules may not conflict with the refugee convention and therefore courts may decide on that matter. I would like him to believe me or, if he does not, to look at the statute, because Section 2 of the 1993 Act is still in force. The noble Lord then said that if what I say is correct, we would not need my amendment, but of course the rules are just the rules. Underneath the Immigration Rules there are executive decisions and guidance, and above the rules there is legislation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, rightly and understandably brought up the question of democracy, and other noble Lords engaged in the age-old debate about what democracy is and the relationship between elected parts of the constitution and the courts. There must be a relationship between the two because there is no democracy without the rule of law and arbitrary decisions could be made. The moment you legislate, you are passing some role to the judiciary. Some of us are happy with that and some of us do not want quite so much of that, but my amendments would expressly preserve parliamentary sovereignty as the overriding principle in our legislation, even under the Human Rights Act.

On Amendment 185, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for identifying the point I make about the anomaly in the current position. I am sorry to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, because clearly I did not make myself clear enough in my opening remarks; he said that my amendment would be a licence for people to come with forged papers. The anomaly I refer to is that, as a refugee with forged papers, you get protection from prosecution now, but not as a refugee with no papers. That is the detail of what I was trying to achieve in these specific amendments, notwithstanding this very general debate, and I am grateful for that. For the moment at least, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 184 withdrawn.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Chakrabarti]

184: After Clause 48, insert the following new Clause—
“Primacy of the Refugee Convention(1) The Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 is amended as follows.(2) For section 2 (Primacy of Convention) substitute—“2 Primacy of Convention(1) So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation, subordinate legislation, immigration rules within the meaning of the 1971 Act, and guidance issued by the Secretary of State must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention.(2) This section—(a) applies to primary legislation and subordinate legislation whenever enacted, immigration rules whenever laid, and guidance whenever issued,(b) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible primary legislation, and(c) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible subordinate legislation if (disregarding any possibility of revocation) primary legislation prevents removal of the incompatibility.”(3) After section 2 insert—“2A Declaration of Incompatibility(1) Subsection (2) applies in any proceedings in which a court determines whether a provision of primary legislation is compatible with the Convention.(2) If the court is satisfied that the provision is incompatible, it may make a declaration of that incompatibility.(3) Subsection (4) applies in any proceedings in which a court determines whether a provision of subordinate legislation, made in the exercise of a power conferred by primary legislation, is compatible with the Convention.(4) If the court is satisfied—(a) that the provision is incompatible with the Convention, and(b) that (disregarding any possibility of revocation) the primary legislation concerned prevents removal of the incompatibility, it may make a declaration of that incompatibility.(5) In this section “court” means—(a) the Supreme Court,(b) in Scotland, the High Court of Justiciary sitting otherwise than as a trial court or the Court of Session, or(c) in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, the High Court or the Court of Appeal.(6) A declaration under this section (“a declaration of incompatibility”)—(a) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of the provision in respect of which it is given; (b) is not binding on the parties to the proceedings in which it is made.””Member's explanatory statement
These two new clauses follow the model of the Human Rights Act in attempting to ensure harmony between international convention and domestic law. Primary and secondary legislation, immigration rules, and guidance are to be interpreted in compliance with the Refugee Convention so far as possible. Where it is not possible to interpret primary legislation in compliance, the higher courts may make a declaration to that effect.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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


refugee convention.

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

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

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

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

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

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

if they come directly from the country persecuting them,

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

I will keep talking while we get my noble friend Lord Hendy in. He will be here shortly. I thank all noble Lords particularly for their consideration today at Question Time, which was much appreciated by everyone here. My noble friend is, I hope, here now. No, he is not.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

Can I interrupt my noble friend for a moment to say that I understand the reasons for breaking mid-group but that the period of the break will give me a little longer to reflect on the many positive contributions that precede my other noble friend’s return to the Chamber?

Asylum Claims: Religious Conversion

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As it happens, my right honourable friend Dame Diana Johnson chaired the Home Affairs Select Committee then. She then became a Home Office Minister and is fully aware of the ongoing discussions. We will continue to discuss with any Church leader the basis for individuals claiming conversion as part of the process of asylum, but I reiterate to the House that claiming conversion or Christianity does not mean that the individual is accepted. That is subject to a rigorous test by officials in the Home Office.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, in the light of the substance of this Question, would my noble friend the Minister like to restate the Government’s commitment to Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects religious freedom and freedom of conscience, and, indeed, to the refugee convention itself?

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 8th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak on the two amendments together. Section 117C, on the deportation of foreign criminals, which the noble Baroness is seeking to amend, provides at subsection (1) that this deportation is in the public interest. I suggest that the well-being of children is a matter of public interest. There is a lot of noise about the deportation of foreign criminals at the moment, and the noble Baroness has rightly focused on the position of children. As the noble Baroness has identified, the family unit, about which politicians talk an awful lot, is generally in a child’s best interest. I am not sure about there being public interest in children being properly brought up. I do not disagree with the concept, but I am not sure how you define it.

In Amendment 187, there is a reference to maintaining contact by electronic means. I have been aware over the years that, although the means have developed, “Skype families”, as they used to be called, were desperately distressing for everyone concerned. I heard one example many years ago of a child who thought that daddy had no legs, because they had never seen the father below chest level. So, although it is not Skype these days, the principle remains.

I wish the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, a quick recovery and I thank her for bringing this to the attention of the House.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I too wish a swift and full recovery to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. Her colleague has ably set out the thinking behind this amendment. I suspect I am more sympathetic to it than some members of the Committee, but I suggest the following additional observation on a point that it demonstrates, even to those who feel very anti anyone who has committed a crime ever being able to stay in the United Kingdom.

The amendment demonstrates that Article 8 of the convention is broadly drawn, so there is room for considerable debate about where the line should be drawn on what is a necessary and proportionate interference—for example, to prevent crime or for the purposes of immigration control. A great deal of latitude has always been allowed to signatory states as to where, in the first instance, democratic politics and the elected Government of the day think that discretion should be framed. For many years, Governments of both persuasions have attempted to structure that discretion—just as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is doing in one direction in this amendment—by a combination of primary legislation, Immigration Rules and policy. So, anybody who says that one needs to resile from the European Convention on Human Rights because of Article 8 is either misguided or not misguided at all and is doing this for various political reasons.

I have been a lawyer for only 31 years, but my understanding is that there have been only four removal cases since 1980 in which the UK Government have been found in violation of Article 8. So, if people are upset about the way domestic courts are drawing the line in particular cases, I suggest that that is something for domestic legislation—primary or secondary legislation, rules, guidance and so on. It is in no way a justification for some of the toxic debates about international human rights that we have heard in recent days, weeks, months and years.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I too send my best wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. We shall miss, for a temporary period, her distinctive contribution to this House.

I am puzzled by this amendment, essentially for the reasons my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti mentions. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights is part of our law. There are suggestions that proposals may be brought forward in relation to its application, but it remains part of our law. The Minister will tell me if I am wrong, but there is nothing in the Bill that purports to remove Article 8.

Article 8 requires adjudicators, tribunals and courts to have regard to family law issues and the interests of children and parents—families—and that seems entirely appropriate. There is a balance to be struck in these cases. We are talking about the deportation of criminals. Sadly, there are people here on a temporary basis who commit serious crimes and who need to be removed. It is right and proper that the interests of families are taken into account, but that already happens. I do not see the need for the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, all noble Lords who have spoken on the amendment have got a deep understanding of a very complex system—the legal aid system—which I certainly do not, so I will leave the fundamentals of the amendment and how the legal aid system works to those who have a great deal of professional knowledge about the system.

However, I noted the observation from the noble Lord, Lord Bach, when he moved his amendment, that a modest investment would be required now in order to deliver the plans that he has outlined. Can he give some indication of what that modest investment would be? While accepting that it sounds like a simple question, I suspect that the answer is probably complex in terms of the netting off of savings elsewhere through a more efficient process and so forth. Can he also say what proportion of the existing legal aid budget that would represent in order to get the system to the level that he feels would be satisfactory, and where the additional capacity would come from and how long it would take to come through the system?

If the noble Lord could answer those points—or perhaps the Minister could in his winding-up speech—it would be very helpful, certainly to give some context to the non-professionally qualified Members of the Committee.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I also support the amendment from my noble friend Lord Bach and pay tribute to him not just for the amendment but for decades of service to access to justice, not least through successive Labour Governments and leaderships. I also congratulate him on his rather impressive list of supporters; clearly, there were many who were knocking on the door to be supporters but could not get in there quickly enough to be signatories.

I remind the Committee that we are talking about incarcerated people. This is not all migrants by any stretch, though no doubt more and more will become incarcerated in the future; there has certainly been a growth in detention in previous decades. These are incarcerated people, which means that the instinct behind the amendment from my noble friend Lord Bach is not a 1998 instinct or even a 1950 instinct; it is actually coming from a 1215 instinct—and noble Lords will understand that I do not mean 12.15 this afternoon. These are incarcerated people who are not getting access to legal advice around their incarceration and potential urgent removal from the country without legal advice. I do not think that most members of the public realise that that is the situation.

Obviously, I think this is a no-brainer, but I must try to walk in other people’s shoes and think about what the objections to the amendment might be. Clearly, if you believe that Governments and successive Home Offices and their officials always get things right and that legal process, and legal advice in particular, is just a burden and impediment and that we should ask my noble friend Lord Bach questions about how much this is going to cost et cetera, that is an obvious objection to the amendment. Another objection would come if you were of the view that non-nationals have no rights or should not have rights. If you take those two objections together, you very quickly pave the way for many more Windrush situations. I remind the Committee that nationals were swept up in that particular scandal because of the callous approach to non-nationals.

That takes me to the very important speech by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, comparing the lot of these incarcerated people with those who are swept up in the criminal justice system but have PACE protections that these people do not have, even though these incarcerated people are often not even accused of the kind of criminality that many criminal suspects are. These are incarcerated people; yes, for the most part they are non-nationals, but they face very serious consequences, quite possibly for reasons that are not a huge fault of their own.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. I put it to the Committee that I sense that my noble friend Lord Bach’s amendment is now being interpreted as being potentially much wider than certainly I took it to be on initial examination of that amendment.

Recess has meant that we have not had as much discussion about that as we may have wanted to have. The main point here is that, under current MoJ/Home Office determinations, 30 minutes is available, and subsequent legal support is available subject to tests of eligibility, et cetera. I think that goes parallel to the wish of the Government to put in additional advisers to speed up applications, to make sure that there is better-quality initial decision-making, but I am always grateful to be advised by the Committee.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for giving way. While he is still on his feet—I love that device—and before my noble friend Lord Bach responds, I think I am hearing an understandable response to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, that at the moment none of us has a view of precise figures, but we could examine that, and maybe that should go into the mix of a future discussion on Report.

However, I have to agree with noble Lords who have said that this is not a zero-sum game between justice and efficiency. Indeed, I just wanted to ask my noble friend the Minister whether he agrees—I think he indicated that he does—with judges who have had to deal with cases of unrepresented people about how much time and energy that adds to hearings that, I believe, the Government actually want to speed up. In any calculation that the Minister comes back with on Report, I hope that officials will add that component for delay—an unrepresented person in an asylum case; that should go into the mix.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. I draw the Committee back to where we are at the moment: an individual in detention can have 30 minutes’ worth of legal advice very quickly after they have requested it. There may be an issue around take-up. We are monitoring take-up on a regular basis and want to increase that take-up, but that 30 minutes is there. If further advice is required, on the merits test that can be taken forward as of now.

My noble friend’s amendment may take that issue wider than that discussion. It is the Government’s objective to speed up claims to get to decisions on asylum. We are doing that through executive action, not legislation, increasing the number of people taking decisions and making it much quicker and fairer, because that is in the public interest, as has been mentioned by all. I do not think we are going to resolve that issue in Committee today. I have tried to set out where I think we are, and my noble friend has tabled his amendment.

Serious questions have been raised on these issues by me, by the noble Viscount and by the noble Lord, Lord Empey. I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment, because I believe the Government’s case as I have put it is the right course of action on those issues. If we are going to have even further discussion on the points he has made, we need to have some better information on which to base it, even though I accept that for some members of the Committee, that becomes a matter of principle.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that this feels a little like a Second Reading debate today, but there are two good reasons for that. First, quite a bit of time has passed since we last met in this Chamber to discuss this subject and, secondly, an awful lot has happened politically. I was fascinated to see, for example, the kite being flown around digital ID cards, which is an incredibly important subject and has a huge bearing on the question of illegal immigration and control of people once they are in this country. I think it is very fair that we have a very wide-ranging debate having kicked off this day in Committee.

When we started looking at this Bill, much of the commentary was that the Bill was thin. I think we spent two days or a day and a half talking about the border controller—essentially a renamed civil servant with pretty much exactly the powers that they had previously. The Bill was not substantive. Since then, we have heard the Government floating various potential initiatives around digital ID cards, the ECHR and reform of family access—if I can describe it as that—so this is very much a moving target. It almost feels as if there is an argument to pause this Bill while some of these initiatives are worked through.

We also really need to be frank about the nature of the situation and the pull factors which drive people, for entirely logical reasons, to choose the UK as their destination of choice. The Minister and I have had a number of interactions to try and get to the bottom of why the Government believe that the UK is so popular among those who go through a number of other countries to arrive here. I am not satisfied: I am not convinced that I have had really a full answer to that question. I think some of it, as my noble friend says, lies around the very low chance of being deported from this country if one arrives in a small boat.

My noble friend Lord Murray in his Amendment 203J at least has come forward with a really substantive suggestion. Whether that works legally or not, I am absolutely not the person to opine on. When I saw the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, anxious to rise to his feet, I thought a massive torpedo was going to be launched from the Cross Benches into the middle of that amendment. A number of us over here sort of scratched our heads and thought, “Have we heard correctly?” We were delighted that we had, because I think we really are all on the same side here—

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

Very rarely.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

We are very rarely on exactly the same side as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti— I will certainly accept her correction. I think the noble Lord, Lord Empey, described the overall situation brilliantly—we cannot just do nothing or scratch around at the edges, which is an awful lot of what this particular Bill is about. We need to look at different situations and different solutions, and that is why I very much look forward to the Minister’s response to my noble friend’s Amendment 203J.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hardie (CB)]

My Lords, I may have misunderstood him, but did the Minister say that the Government would consider derogating from Article 3?

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

We cannot.

[Lord Hardie (CB)]

I know that. I may have misunderstood what the Minister said, but, if that was the case, I point out that that is not possible.

Public Order Legislation

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Chakrabarti]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review the legislation around public order to consider its clarity, efficacy and compliance with fundamental rights and freedoms.

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

My Lords, post-legislative scrutiny of the Public Order Act 2023 began in May 2025. It will assess how the Act operates in practice. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 will undergo similar post-legislative scrutiny between April 2025 and April 2027.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am grateful as always to my noble and learned friend—my almost learned friend—the Minister for that Answer, but the issue is about more than one statute. Indeed, the common law and statute law in this sensitive area has mushroomed under Governments of all persuasions in recent years. Given the summer that we have just had, and given the challenges to both freedom of expression and public order, is it not time that there was an overarching review of all the law in this area to examine not just adequacy and coherence but public and police understanding of this sensitive area of the law?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. As I have just said, legislation is kept under review at all times. We have legislation coming before this House very shortly in the Crime and Policing Bill that will add other measures to the policing of protests. The policing of protests is most definitely a matter for the police, and the freedom to protest and freedom of expression are extremely important. She raises a sensible suggestion to look at how we can ensure that the police and the public understand where the barriers are. I hope that we can reflect on what has happened at any protest and ensure that the right to protest is central but that the right to do so in a peaceful, orderly way is also central. Those are two basic tenets that would be self-evident and central to any review she suggests.

Palestine Action Protests: Arrests

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

This Government—and I personally—have no time for antisemitism. We will take action against it; we will look at the review and the reports that have been made and respond to the recommendations in due course. I hope the noble Lord will be aware that antisemitism is a curse on our society, one that we should tackle very strongly, and this Government will do so. I hope that with his support we will continue to look at how we can build bridges to ensure that antisemitism is no longer a feature of our society.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I am quite convinced from listening to these exchanges that my noble friend the Minister well understands the relevant law here, but I am not so convinced that the police do. Does he realise that if they continue to fail to make distinctions between support for a proscribed organisation, opposing the proscription, protesting events in the Middle East or indeed holding up Private Eye cartoons, their behaviour will only call further into question the wisdom, proportionality and legality of the original proscription decision?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. I can only repeat to this House that I believe the proscription order is clear in relation to the offences that potentially could be committed under that order. It is for the police to make judgment. I am not even going to second-guess the arrests that have been made, because I do not know the details of why they have been made and it is not appropriate for Ministers to delve into that matter. We set the framework, then the police investigate, execute and bring to the CPS. That is the way the rule of law works in this country.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 10th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, my Amendment 99 is not directly related to the previous amendments other than by the connection of biometric data. My question is about which database the biometric data is being checked against. The question comes from the briefing that was helpfully provided by the Minister and his advisers prior to the Bill being laid. At that briefing, I asked whether the databases were being checked for particular purposes, and the advice we received was that they could not be used by the police. I found that confusing when I re-read the Bill and saw that there is a law enforcement clause. The questions today are about whether the databases are being checked for these particular reasons.

If the people you are checking are entering for the first time, they should never have their data in these databases because they have never been to the UK. But, of course, many of the people who arrive, sometimes illegally, have been here before, have left and now are returning—so it is important to establish their identity first, obviously.

The databases that I am interested in are, first, the unsolved crime scene database. Crimes happen every day, samples are taken—DNA, fingerprints and sometimes photographs now—and, of course, not all crimes are solved. A database is kept of those crimes that are not solved, so is the biometric data of the people who are entering being checked against that?

The second group I am interested in is people who are wanted. They might be wanted in this country or in other countries. It may be that we choose not to let the third country know that this person has arrived, but at least we should know whether we are at risk of importing someone who is wanted somewhere else. This is probably quite important, given the group of countries that many of the people who are coming to our country are linked to. When many of our soldiers in Afghanistan were murdered and badly maimed by IEDs, we collected an awful lot of forensic material, which is now stored in this country in case we ever discover the people who carried out those crimes. It would certainly be ironic if somebody claimed to want to come to this country legally and had previously killed or maimed one of our soldiers—we should at least be aware of that. Are we checking this against that database?

This is quite a specific set of questions, but it relies on the data being checked. The advice we received at the briefing was that it was not. The purpose of this amendment is to get on record exactly what it is being checked against.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which have been so ably supported across the Committee—pretty much every voice so far has been in support of them. They are a very useful humanitarian mirror to arguments that have been made on the previous group about the importance of data sharing for law enforcement purposes.

Amendments 97 and 98, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, very much endorse the views of the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Alton, on the need for even more breadth and possibly a government amendment. These amendments are very sympathetic to the Government’s stated policy of smashing the gangs et cetera. It is a perverse outcome to hear that people who were trying to satisfy the Government’s legal and practical requirements for family reunion are having to resort to people smugglers. So, with respect, I hope that the Minister will see that this is a no brainer in terms of the practical facilitation of government policy.

Finally, I talked about these amendments being very much the humanitarian mirror of the need sometimes to share data—in this case, biometric information—for the purpose of giving effect to lawful family reunion. Please do not shoot the messenger, but I want to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Harper, that the Data Protection Act and the UK GDPR contain very broad law enforcement exemptions, but broad is not blanket. I hope I can say to Conservative noble Lords that it is one thing to have a broad law enforcement exemption, but another to have blanket immunity from data protection. I am sure that noble Lords opposite would not want, for example, data controllers to be negligent or not to maintain a secure system so that sensitive information, even about potential criminals, was dumped on the internet, easily hacked or simply negligently maintained. Data controllers, particularly public authority data controllers, and especially of sensitive information, should at least have to maintain a proper, secure system. Yes, data should be shared for law enforcement purposes where that is necessary and proportionate, but they should not be totally negligent with this information.

I hope that provides some reassurance on that issue. In any event, if it does not, the Minister has already said that he can write.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken. The amendments in my noble friend’s name, which I have signed, are, I think, well received across the Committee as a whole. On top of that, I must repeat the welcome for Clauses 34 and 35, which seek to increase flexibility when taking biometric information. I do not want to repeat the cases that have been talked about during this debate but shall simply speak about the practicalities of how this change might take place.

I have had experience of bringing people here for a short time and requiring their biometric information, which was sent from one country to another. Very helpfully, British Foreign Office officials in one country put the machine in the boot of their car and drove it to the other country—I am not going to give the details because otherwise they might get into trouble. Regularly, they have taken the biometric information of people who have visited the noble Lord’s part of Wales, among others; that that might give him a clue. I read today in the newspapers that the Government are to provide Home Office officials with portable biometric equipment. In my day, these things were small enough to go in the boot, but they are obviously going to be even smaller. So, in practical terms, taking biometric information is no longer a matter of using a large machine. Similarly, when you go to hospital for a scan, it is no longer done by big machines. This machinery is getting smaller, and we are now talking about portable methods. Clearly, that can be done, and it makes it more straightforward to take the machinery closer to people who are fulfilling the legal route that the Government have set in front of them. Of course, we should remember that, in 2024, 10,000 of those who came on family reunion were children.

The second thing is whether the Government are interested in using other bodies to take the biometric information. I do not know what the Government have already done on this matter—I saw the Minister checking his phone—but, clearly, if we are to have family reunion, and if President Macron has decided that biometrics can be taken in France, at least that might give some of the information we will need to know anyway about these matters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

I agree with the general thrust of the argument the noble Lord, Lord Harper, is putting to the Committee. He talked about getting the balance right, and that is really what I was arguing. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that these are children or young people, and we owe them a duty of care. We should get the balance right and not categorise them all as potential criminals or as having been involved in acts of terror or criminality. However, I recognise that there is that potential, and therefore, as he says, we have to get the balance right. We do not want a general disapplication of protections. We want to know that they are going to be used in a measured and sane way.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

As a supplement to that, I add that the balance is already there in the international standards, in things such as making sure there is an appropriate adult present. That does not harm any of the ambitions of the noble Lord. It is just what we would normally expect for minors.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I am grateful for both of those interventions. In the clause as set out there are provisions to make sure there is an appropriate person who is not a representative of the government present. All I was saying is that it is important we do not lose sight of the purpose of this exercise, which is to enable people to come to Britain, where they are legally qualified to do so and do not present a risk to us. That is an important balance to strike.

I strongly support the thrust of the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, about the use to which this information should be put. In the modern world, with the way we can process data, my experience of how we use it is that it is done in a proportionate way. Checking information against databases protects people. Our security agencies are not interested in, and do not have the resources to spend their time worrying about, people who do not present a threat to the country. The big challenge is dealing with those who do. The noble Lord set out some very important questions, which I hope the Minister can deal with when he closes. I wanted to put that in context, so that the Minister covers it when he responds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am sorry to come in on the coat-tails of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, again. My noble friend the Minister discussed the need for flexibility. Surely the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would extend governmental flexibility to facilitate biometrics being taken in more places for family reunion cases. The noble Lord opposite was concerned that this would put an onerous obligation on the Secretary of State. However, the Secretary of State is the person who will authorise people, and he will not make these authorisations if he thinks they are impracticable or overly burdensome. Can my noble friend the Minister reflect on that in future and see this as providing additional flexibility and not an additional burden?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

In response to both the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, I will repeat what I said in my preamble today: the Home Office is continuing to assess whether broader policy changes are needed to balance that humanitarian concern. The noble Lord made a very strong point about a child aged two and the length of time for a reunion—that will fall within our assessment of the broader humanitarian concern. We need to balance that with security requirements; however, in the case he put to us, a two-year old child would self-evidently not pose that type of threat.

This is important. I say to the noble Lords who tabled the amendments that the purpose of the clause is to provide the assurances that we have. I accept that noble Lords are testing that; however, while we will examine the points that have been made, I believe that there are alternative ways to achieve that objective. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, not to press her amendments. I also hope that I have satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe.