Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Lord Lexden

Committee stage
Monday 8th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, the question was posed by my noble friend Lord Jackson—and touched on by, I think, my noble friend Lord Harper—as to why Irish citizens are not deported. The answer lies in the Ireland Act 1949, which was passed by this Parliament when the Irish Free State turned itself into a republic. The Ireland Act 1949 states that Irish citizens should not be treated as foreign citizens for the purposes of British law, which is why Irish citizens can vote in our elections and why Irish prisoners are not sent to the Republic of Ireland.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful, as ever, to the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Jackson, for their amendments. I echo the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Jackson, about my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. He has served his party and Government over many years, and he deserves to be recognised for the efforts that he has put in. I am pleased to endorse those sentiments from the Committee today, not least because I have shared an office with him for the past 13 months of my term in this Government. I will pass on the Hansard reference to him, so he can read the responses himself.

Foreign nationals who commit crime in the UK should be in no doubt that the law will be enforced and, where appropriate, we will pursue their deportation. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, mentioned this in passing, but it is worth placing it on record that 5,179 foreign national offenders have been deported in the 12 months between July 2024 to July 2025—a 14% increase on the previous year.

On a personal note, I am grateful for the comments about my continuing tenure in this job. I am commencing my 15th year as a Minister, 28 years overall as either a Minister or a shadow Minister, which is quite a long time. I have been around this block several times and I can recall, on foreign national prisoners, going to Nigeria in 2008 and negotiating a foreign national prisoner transfer with the Nigerian Government. Because this falls within the MoJ, I will update colleagues in due course about any potential new prisoner transfer agreements being developed.

Amendment 138 seeks to prevent any challenge—this is a key point from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—to an automatic deportation decision and to prevent a deportation order being made when there is an appeal against a sentence. Amendment 203A, from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, seeks to prevent any appeal against deportation; I will refer to the circumstances around that in a moment. Both amendments would remove any challenge to deportation and would, if nothing else, be contrary to the withdrawal agreement, which the previous Government negotiated and which requires us to provide a right of appeal against deportation for beneficiaries of the withdrawal agreement.

For other foreign national offenders, the right to appeal deportation was removed by statute in 2014 by the previous Government. Appeals can now be made against only the refusal of a human rights claim, the refusal of a protection claim or a decision to revoke a protection status. In any event, the amendments would be contrary to Article 13 of the ECHR when read with other rights. We can have a debate about the ECHR, and I am sure that we will, at the moment, the amendments would be contrary to those rights. It would also be unconstitutional and contrary to the ECHR to deny courts the ability to set aside a decision by the Secretary of State when such a decision may be manifestly wrong. This Government take citizens’ rights very seriously and we continue to work constructively with the EU to ensure that we meet our obligations under the withdrawal agreement.

Amendment 203A, from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, would also undermine the UK’s agreement with Ireland on the deportation of Irish citizens. There is a range of legislation around that, but since 2007, public interest has been the qualifying matter. Irish citizens are exempt from automatic deportation, except in exceptional circumstances where the Secretary of State can determine that it is in the interests of the public at large. It would also undermine the protections against deportation afforded to certain Commonwealth nationals. It would set an artificial deadline for the making of a deportation order, preventing any leave being granted to a person who made a successful human rights or protection claim.

Amendment 139 seeks to extend automatic deportation to any foreign national convicted of an offence in the UK or charged with an immigration offence, without consideration of their human rights. As the noble Lords, Lord Oates and Lord Pannick, mentioned, it would remove protections for under-18s and victims of human trafficking. It would also require a court to pass a sentence of deportation to any foreign national convicted of an offence in the UK. In my view, these amendments would not be workable and would be contrary to our international obligations.

For the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I say again that the Government are committed to the protection of human rights and to meeting our international obligations. The Prime Minister has made clear that the United Kingdom is unequivocally committed to the ECHR, and these amendments would not prevent persons being deported from raising human rights claims with the European Court of Human Rights. They would deliver nothing except the outsourcing of deportation considerations to Strasbourg and would slow down the removal of those being deported. The amendments would also undermine our obligations to identify and support victims of trafficking, as set out in the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, of which we are a signatory.

I hope that noble Lords are getting the general sense that I am not going to be in favour of the amendments. I can continue, should noble Lords wish me to do so.

Immigration: Human Rights

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Lord Lexden

Monday 13th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble and learned Baroness makes an extremely important point. Victims of modern slavery should be central to any policy determination. This Government will support the efforts of the previous Government and the previous Home Secretary—who is now a Member of this House, the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead—who introduced what is now the Modern Slavery Act. We will ensure that those rights are upheld and that victims of modern slavery have that aspect of their lives taken into consideration when their asylum or refugee status is considered.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, in view of the increasing threats to journalists in different parts of the world, are the Government contemplating action to give effect to the recommendation of the Media Freedom Coalition, of which the UK was a founding member, that an emergency visa scheme should be introduced for journalists and other defenders of human rights at serious risk of harm?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I understand the point the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, makes. As I said, the Government will prioritise and look at the most urgent cases first. If there are urgent reasons why a journalist’s case needs to be examined over and above anybody else’s, they will be considered. The issue of priority is there for the Government to consider.

Independent Office for Police Conduct

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Lord Lexden

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lexden]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the work of the Independent Office for Police Conduct.

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

An independent watchdog is vital in ensuring the effective oversight of police complaints and investigating the most serious and sensitive cases involving the police. The Independent Office for Police Conduct is accountable to the Home Office and Parliament for the delivery of its statutory and non-statutory duties. It was independently reviewed in 2023-24 as part of the public bodies review programme. The Government are currently considering the recommendations.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, why, after 18 months, is there no sign of the outcome of this organisation’s gross misconduct proceedings against Mr Steve Rodhouse? Inexplicably, he was made director-general of operations at the National Crime Agency after leading the disastrous Operation Midland, which inflicted immense distress on two distinguished Members of your Lordships’ House—Lord Bramall and Lord Brittan—and many others. Mr Rodhouse is the only officer to be called to account over this catastrophic police operation. As it goes about its leisurely work, does this organisation have any conception of the feelings of Lady Brittan and others who have suffered as a result of Mr Rodhouse’s misconduct? Incidentally, it has not stopped him recently receiving a £10,000 pay rise. Finally, does it come as any surprise that having found Mr Rodhouse guilty on a separate misconduct charge of jeopardising police operations against organised crime, the IOPC kept its decision secret until the Daily Mail revealed it?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As ever, I try to be helpful to the noble Lord on these matters, but he will know that there is an ongoing IOPC investigation into the police officer he has mentioned. I am not able from this Dispatch Box to give advice or commentary on that investigation until such time as it is complete.

Operation Conifer

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Lord Lexden

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lexden]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they will appoint an independent legal expert to review the seven allegations of child sex abuse against Sir Edward Heath left unresolved at the end of Operation Conifer in 2017.

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

The noble Lord will be aware that four reviews of this operation have found it legitimate and proportionate. This is a complex matter with significant history, which I am approaching with an open mind. To that end, I will listen carefully to any representations that noble Lords make on the issue.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, noble Lords may recall the debate that we had on this in January. Did that not confirm and strengthen the conviction long held in all parts of this House that the seven unresolved allegations against Sir Edward Heath, to which this Question refers, should be subject to independent review? Do we not owe it to the memory of this deceased statesman to ensure that his reputation is not unfairly and improperly compromised in the eyes of posterity? That could so readily happen if we do not establish the full truth now, while the matter is still relatively fresh. Evidence in police files can be scrutinised carefully and impartially by an independent legal expert attuned to the circumstances of our times.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As the noble Lord mentioned, it is unfortunate that Operation Conifer was not able to resolve conclusively the position in respect of the allegations made against Sir Edward Heath. The Operation Conifer summary closure report emphasises—and I must emphasise this as well—that no inference of guilt should be drawn from the fact that Sir Edward would have been interviewed under caution had he been alive. I will reflect on the points that the noble Lord has made, as I will on any other points put before the House today.