Crime and Policing Bill
Lord Cameron of Lochiel ExcerptsMonday 17th November 2025
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 View all Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 111(Corrected)-II(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (14 Nov 2025)
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group address the very serious blight that is fly-tipping. The issue lies at the heart of community life. It is vital that we make every effort to ensure environmental protection and community confidence in law enforcement.
The scale of fly-tipping in the UK should not be understated. Between 2023 and 2024, local authorities in England dealt with around 1.15 million incidents, a 6% increase on the previous year. The majority of these cases involved household waste, sometimes dumped in bulk. Unfortunately, the absolute number of prosecutions is tiny in relation to the problem. There were only 1,598 prosecuted actions in that same year. Fly-tipping is organised crime, but it is local councils and private landowners who often bear the cost of clearing up the mess.
The amendments tabled in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Davies and my noble and learned friend Lord Keen seek to protect local communities from the destructive practice of fly-tipping by providing for harsher penalties and giving the police more powers to act. Amendment 41 amends Clause 9 so as to ensure that the Secretary of State’s guidance on fly-tipping makes the person responsible for the fly-tipping, rather than the landowner, liable for the costs of cleaning up. It is wrong that this is currently left to judicial discretion—that risks inconsistent outcomes. The amendment does identify the person responsible, who in this case is the convicted offender.
My Amendment 46 introduces a further enforcement tool. Where a person is found to have committed a fly-tipping offence, authorities would have the power to add three points to their driving licence. Rather than simply compelling fly-tipping offenders to pay a fine, which they may deem a worthy risk when compared with the profits of their actions, this measure places at risk the offenders’ ability to drive. By threatening points on driving licences, repeat offenders will be less likely to fly-tip as their licences will be in jeopardy.
I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for his Amendment 42, which seeks to ensure in statute that the cost of cleaning up fly-tipping should not fall on to the landowners. In many ways, this amendment seeks to achieve the same outcome as my Amendment 41. I therefore welcome it and hope that the Government will pay it due regard.
I also thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for his Amendment 40, which seeks to remove the provision of third-party protection for seizure of vehicles in respect of fly-tipping, which he spoke to most compellingly just now. This would mean that offenders cannot escape punishment by using someone else’s vehicle and that local authorities are better equipped to tackle fly-tipping. Again, I look forward to hearing the Government’s position on this proposal. If we are to tackle fly-tipping seriously, it is important that police are well equipped to act.
My Amendment 47 seeks to amend Section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 so that the police can seize a vehicle which they reasonably believe has been used in association with fly-tipping offences. It empowers the police, not just local authorities, to take action.
In conclusion, these are practical, targeted interventions with a clear principle: those who dump waste illegally should be held to account and local communities should not be left footing the bill. I hope that all noble Lords recognise the importance of holding those who dump waste to account and protecting communities from the blight of illegal dumping. I earnestly hope that the Government will consider carefully the practical measures proposed by me and my noble friend Lord Blencathra and the broader structural steps proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in the amendments in the next group. Together they form a system for tackling fly-tipping. I look forward with interest to the Minister’s response.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his amendments. As he said, they include requiring the Secretary of State to designate serious and organised waste crime as a strategic threat; to create a national action plan to collect and publish quarterly information on waste crime; and to provide for an independent review of serious and organised waste crime.
On the strategic priority designation and the national action plan, of course I support taking fly-tipping and organised waste much more seriously. Fly-tipping goes far beyond simple domestic waste and is a widespread practice of criminals; I point to the comments I made in the preceding group. I earnestly hope that the Government take this amendment seriously and I look forward to hearing their thoughts on a national action plan.
On the publishing of quarterly data, we on these Benches are always sympathetic to the principle of transparency, which in turn drives government accountability. More granular and consistent data assist the Government in formulating their efforts to tackle fly-tipping.
On the third and final amendment, although I recognise the noble Earl’s thought process behind an independent review and the importance of scrutiny, my one worry is that it may divert scarce government resources away from tackling the problem at hand. Too large a focus on reviewing may unduly delay action. In our view, this Government are already all too keen to launch a review to solve every problem that comes their way. We do not need to give them any more incentive to do so. It is our priority to give the police the power to act as soon as possible. None the less, I hope the Government take all the noble Earl’s amendments seriously.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, explained, the purpose of these amendments is to take forward some of the recommendations of your Lordships’ House’s Environment and Climate Change Committee to tackle serious and organised crime in the waste sector. At this point, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and the work of her committee, not just in their detailed examination of the issue but in the whole way their report has raised the profile of this important issue.
I am glad we have had an opportunity to discuss waste crime in the round. As we have noted, and I think we are all in accord across the Chamber, this is a serious issue. At the end of the debate on the previous group, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mooted that perhaps we need to rebrand fly-tipping to make people take it more seriously. From reflecting on this debate, nobody can be in any doubt, as the committee’s report demonstrated, that this is a serious business—and it is a business. It incurs huge costs in terms of the damage done. It is obviously a very profitable business to those who engage in it and I think we are all determined to tackle it. We argue that there are certainly provisions in the Bill, as well as other government actions, that will help to address this.
As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, waste crime costs the economy an estimated £1 billion annually. We are determined to tackle it, why is why we are preparing significant reforms to the waste carriers, brokers and dealers regime and to the waste permit exemptions regime. Bringing waste carriers, brokers and dealers into the environmental permitting regime will give the Environment Agency more powers and resources to ensure compliance and to hold operators to account. Changes will make it harder for rogue operators to find work in the sector and easier for regulators to take action against criminals. Our planned reforms will also introduce the possibility of up to five years’ imprisonment for those who breach these new laws.
We are also introducing digital waste tracking to make it harder than ever to misidentify waste or dispose of it inappropriately. By digitising waste records, we will make it easier for legitimate businesses to comply with their duty of care for waste and reduce the opportunities for criminals to operate. Furthermore, better data will help us manage resources more sustainably, reduce waste and protect the environment for future generations.
As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, noted, the Government have also increased the Environment Agency’s funding, including the amount available to tackle illegal waste operators. This year, we have raised the budget for waste crime enforcement by over 50% to £15.6 million. The Joint Unit for Waste Crime, which is hosted within the Environment Agency, has nearly doubled in size thanks to that extra funding. Overall, the EA has been able to increase its front-line criminal enforcement resource in the Joint Unit for Waste Crime and area environmental crime teams by 43 full-time equivalent employees. They will be targeted at activities identified as waste crime priorities, using enforcement activity data and criminal intelligence. That includes tackling organised crime groups, increasing enforcement activity, closing down illegal waste sites more quickly, using intelligence more effectively and delivering successful major criminal investigations.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, touched on the terrible incident at Kidlington, which we discussed in the previous group. All I can do is repeat what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. The Government are engaging with the Environment Agency on the case with the utmost seriousness. An investigation is underway, and an Environment Agency restriction order has been served to prevent access to the site and further tipping. I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra; it is bad now, but at least this way it cannot get any worse. The local resilience forum has been notified to explore opportunities for multi-agency support. Noble Lords may be aware that there was an Urgent Question in the other place this afternoon asked by the local MP Calum Miller; I believe that my honourable friend the Minister Mary Creagh offered to meet with Mr Miller to discuss this further. This is an issue that we are taking very seriously.
As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will appreciate, the Environment and Climate Change Committee wrote to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as recently as 28 October, to set out the conclusions of its inquiry into waste crime. I am sure that noble Lords will appreciate that it will necessarily take a little time to consider fully the Government’s response. Having read the letter that the committee sent this morning, I know that it is a complex letter that raises many points, and rightly so. Notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, offered from the annals of classic British comedy, we do not want to rush our response, and it certainly would ill behove me to shoot from the hip in my response when my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will respond to it. I assure the Committee that the Secretary of State is carefully considering the report and will respond in due course.
Noble Lords will be aware of two facts, and I will put it no more strongly than this. First, the committee asked in its letter for a response by 9 December. Secondly, we are due to continue in Committee on this Bill until the end of January at the earliest—
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s interjection and for that clarification. However, as somebody who lived for 35 years with a footpath running through their garden, I have to say that I do not really agree with him.
We should be very careful about implementing these two amendments. They smack to me of the landed gentry attempting to keep the ordinary man and woman from enjoying the countryside. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that it would not be an easy task to prove that deliberate trespass had occurred over land and grounds or gardens with the intent of causing harm or wanton damage to those grounds.
In respect of Amendment 47B, I do not support increasing the fee should an offence be proved. I am nevertheless keen to hear the Minister’s views on the amendment, but at the moment I am not inclined to support the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for tabling these amendments. The case he set out seems clear and obvious. His amendment would ensure that the offence of trespassing with intent to commit an offence extended to people’s gardens and grounds, and it goes no further than that. Any intrusion into those grounds or gardens with mal-intent should be reflected in the level of criminal fines.
My noble friend’s amendments simply proceed on the assumption that gardens or grounds, in their simplest terms, should be treated the same in legislation as residences and buildings. Private property does not stop existing once you step out of a physical doorway; the grounds or gardens surrounding buildings are extensions to them, to be bought and sold just as freely. I think the word “curtilage” often appears—certainly in the law, but often more widely—to describe the land or garden around someone’s house. Indeed, there may be even as great a need to create an offence for this as there is for trespassing on a property with intent. I can imagine criminals using back gardens to navigate between houses to commit burglary. I can imagine confrontations taking place not inside a building yet still in the garden or grounds owned by a victim. They are just as serious as entering a property to commit a crime.
However, I acknowledge that there is generally a difference between entering someone’s house and entering their garden. The former is in most cases far more intrusive—a far greater infringement of someone’s right to a private property. It therefore follows that entering a house should regularly carry a harsher sentence than merely entering the grounds, but that can be the case while ensuring that both are offences. We do not have to disapply the latter simply because it might carry a lower fine than the former.
My noble friend Lord Blencathra’s Amendment 47B provides for this, as he set out. It seeks to give the court the discretion to alter the fines levied on an offender based on the seriousness of the offence, creating a higher maximum fine to be used for the most serious offences. Additionally, creating a minimum fine will ensure that any form of trespassing with the intent to commit another offence is dealt with to a minimal acceptable standard.
Whatever form it takes, trespassing in order to commit crime is incredibly invasive and often traumatic, and it is right that this is acknowledged in the range of the fine level. I hope the Minister has listened to these points, and I look forward to his response.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for tabling the amendments. I hope I can half help him today and, in doing so, assist the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.
I confirm that the Government will repeal the outdated Vagrancy Act 1824. In Clauses 10 and 11, the Government are legislating to introduce targeted replacement provisions for certain elements of the 1824 Act, to ensure that the police have the powers they need to keep our communities safe. Those targeted replacement measures include a new offence of facilitating begging for gain, which we will come on to shortly, and an offence of trespassing with the intention of committing a crime. Both were previously provided for under the 1824 Act, and the police have told us that it would be useful to retain them.
I hope this helps the noble Baroness, because the new criminal offence of trespassing with intent to commit a criminal offence recreates an offence that is already set out in the 1824 Act. It does not add to it; it recreates it. As is currently the case, it will be an offence for a person to trespass on any premises—meaning any building, part of a building or enclosed area—with the intention to commit an offence, and that is currently in the legislation.
Amendment 47A from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, seeks to ensure that trespassing in gardens and grounds of a private dwelling is captured by the replacement offence. This is where I think I can half help him by indicating that gardens and grounds would already be included in the definition of “premises” in the 1824 Act, so, in essence, that is covered already.
His Amendment 47B would introduce a minimum level 2 fine and increase the maximum level fine from level 3 to level 4 for this offence. Again, the measure in the Bill replicates entirely—going back to the noble Baroness—the maximum penalties currently set out in the existing legislation that we are repealing, but replacing in part, through the clauses addressed by these amendments. I agree with the noble Baroness on the proportionality of the current level of the fines. I say to the noble Lord what he anticipated I would say to him: sentencing is a matter for the independent judiciary, and we need to afford it appropriate discretion. Parliament rarely specifies minimum sentences, and this is not an instance where we should depart from that general principle. I know he anticipated that I would say that—as the good old, former Home Office Minister that he is, I knew he would clock that that was the potential line of defence on his amendment.
It is important to say that the penalties set out in the current legislation, which we are replicating, are considered appropriate and proportionate to the nature of the offence. Therefore, with what I hope was helpful half clarification on grounds and gardens, and with my steady defence on the second amendment, which the noble Lord anticipated, I ask him not to press his amendments.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate and to the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for her amendment. Contributions have been thoughtful, and they have certainly highlighted some of the issues that certain communities face. There is no doubt at all that we are united in the belief that all communities should be treated with dignity and fairness, and that these considerations should guide interactions between them and local authorities.
However, I respectfully state that we on these Benches cannot support Amendment 49. The effect of this amendment would be to repeal the provisions introduced by the previous Government in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. That Act created the offence relating to unauthorised encampments and the accompanying enforcement powers. Those powers were introduced by a Conservative Government, after much consultation and representations from local authorities and members of the public, who repeatedly expressed concern about the impact of unauthorised encampments on local communities.
The provisions that this amendment seeks to remove were designed to address situations where unauthorised encampments caused significant harm, such as damaging land, obstructing highways and shops or creating fear and distress in local neighbourhoods. We are not talking about minor inconveniences; we are talking about serious damage and disruption. In many cases, these provisions have provided clarity and reassurance, enabling the police to respond more proportionately and local authorities to act more swiftly while still supporting negotiated stopping and offering lawful sites wherever possible.
The noble Baroness deployed the argument that these provisions have been declared incompatible with the Human Rights Act, but I do not think that is an overwhelming argument for repealing legislation passed by this Parliament.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but does he accept that there is no definition of “alarm and distress”, and that it is in fact a subjective view on the part of the landowner? Does he also accept that majority of the police did not want this provision when consulted?
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
I think the point is that the lack of a definition gives the police the ability to act within their discretion.
As for the issue of incompatibility, it is worth noting that, when a declaration of incompatibility is made by the courts, such a declaration is not a strike-down power; it is not a mandate for immediate legislative repeal. It will come as no surprise that we on these Benches believe that there have been too many instances of judicial overreach, as to justify a repeal of the Human Rights Act and withdrawal from the ECHR. If we cannot prevent unlawful encampments by people with no right to reside on the land, which is, in our view, an absolutely legitimate aim, that is an indication that the Human Rights Act and the ECHR are not fit for purpose.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. He speaks about so-called judicial overreach, but building on what the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, said, in a consultation in 2018, 75% of police said they did not want these extra powers and 85% said that they did not support the criminalisation of unauthorised encampments. This is across the justice system; it is not just what the judges are doing.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
That may be the case in the year the noble Baroness cited, but the fact remains that these provisions have been brought into force, have been effective and have responded to representations from local authorities and members of the public, who have repeatedly expressed concern about the impact of unauthorised encampments on their community. I earnestly believe that repealing these measures entirely would remove essential tools for managing the real and sometimes serious harms experienced by communities across the country. For those reasons, these Benches cannot support the amendment.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Whitaker for tabling the amendment. She has obviously secured widespread support—from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
As my noble friend explained, the High Court ruling in May 2024 found that the specific changes made by the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 relating to Traveller sites were incompatible with convention rights. This is where I am going to depart from the view of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, because the Government respect the decision of the court. The Government—I hope that this is helpful to my noble friend—are working now on a response to that court judgment. I want to make it absolutely clear that I recognise the High Court ruling, and the response is needed. I hope I can help my noble friend by saying that I can undertake to update the House ahead of Report on this matter. We are not able to finalise the exact response as yet, but I hope that is helpful to my noble friend.
I cannot support my noble friend’s amendment today, but it is important that we signal to her that this matter is one we have to resolve speedily. In considering the court’s judgment, the Government will carefully balance the rights of individuals to live their private lives without discrimination, while recognising the importance of protecting public spaces and communities affected by unauthorised encampments. That balance will be made, and I hope to be able to resolve that issue by Report, as I have said.
A number of noble Lords and Baronesses have mentioned the question of the shortage of unauthorised sites available to Gypsies and Travellers, and that is an important point. Local authorities, as Members will know, are required to assess the need for Traveller pitches in their area and must plan to meet that need. These decisions are made locally; they reflect specific circumstances in each area and operate within the national planning policy for Traveller sites, which is set by the Government. We aim to ensure fair and equal treatment for Travellers in a way that facilitates the traditional and nomadic way of life of Travellers, while respecting the interests of the settled community.
“Removal of power of entry under Part 8 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003In the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003, omit section 74 (power of entry in relation to complaints about high hedges).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would repeal provisions of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 that permit the local authority to enter a person’s property without their consent to investigate complaints about high hedges.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, this amendment seeks to repeal provisions of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 that permit the local authority to enter a person’s property without their consent to investigate complaints about high hedges. I entirely accept that this is a somewhat niche and technical amendment, but it is nevertheless an important one. The 2003 Act established a regime whereby individuals can make a complaint about their neighbour’s high hedge. This provision made its way into the Act after amendments to the Bill in your Lordships’ House during its passage in 2003.
The intention was understandable, but it is one thing to give people the ability to complain about their neighbour’s high hedge and another matter entirely to grant the state the right to enter a person’s private property without their consent simply to measure that hedge. Such a power is and must always be exceptional. It should be tightly drawn and robustly justified. We submit that the matter of high hedges, however irritating or capable of provoking neighbourhood disputes, simply does not meet that threshold. Section 74 was conceived at a time when the framework for powers of entry was far less coherent than it is today, and since then, Parliament has rightly legislated to reduce, rationalise and strengthen oversight of such powers. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in particular represents a significant step towards rebalancing the relationship between citizens and the state. Yet the power preserved in Section 74 stands out as an anomaly, disproportionate in nature and insufficiently justified in practice.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for tabling what he termed a niche amendment today—there is nothing wrong with a niche amendment; it has generated discussion. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, has just said, this puts the focus back not on the legislation or even on the enforcement but on whether, when discussions between parties break down, the local authority should be and is the arbiter of the dispute and, in order to be the arbiter of the dispute, whether the local authority can have access to the property.
It is important to say that, when assessing a complaint or appeal, issuing a remedial notice to an individual or assessing whether an individual has taken the necessary action, entering a property to assess the hedge in question surely is not a niche issue; it is part of the role of the local authority to be able to assess that issue. The Government believe that local authorities are best placed to consider unresolved disputes on high hedges; the procedures are set out in national guidance.
On the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, has mentioned, I note that the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 enables local authorities to intervene, as a last resort. It should be for neighbours to try to sort these matters out, but there are opportunities for people who are unhappy with the council’s decision to have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State in cases in England. The power of local authority officers to enter someone’s property is an important part of ensuring such disputes are resolved and any remedial action is taken.
I assure the noble Lord that the power of entry is a power to enter a “neighbouring land” to carry out functions under Part 8 of the Act. The term “the neighbouring land” means the land on which the high hedge is situated—effectively someone’s garden. A local authority must give 24 hours’ notice of its intended entry and, if the land is unoccupied, leave it as effectively secured as it was found. I stress to the noble Lord that there is clear guidance on GOV.UK for local authorities in exercising their powers. The Government will keep this guidance under review.
In the absence of disputes being resolved by neighbours themselves—as the noble Baroness has said—amicably between the parties, it is possible that there are remedial powers to step in and require the offending property owner to take action. Where they fail to do so, it is also right that the local authority should be able to undertake the remedial work itself and charge the householder concerned. To do this, it is necessary to undertake the niche point of entering someone’s garden to examine the fence or hedge or to erect a platform on the highway to do the same.
If we accepted the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, today, I do not know how local authorities would be able to assess in terms of the legislation under the Act. If he says he does not believe the legislation under the Act is appropriate, and we should not have high hedges legislation, that is a different point. If we do have that legislation, then we need a mechanism whereby the local council can enter a premises. There might well be occasions where the local council must do that because relations have broken down to such an extent that only the local council can resolve it, and therefore it must undertake entry into a person’s garden or erect a platform to assess the issue in the first place. That is not a gross invasion of a householder’s property; it is a sensible resolution by a third party—given the powers to do so under the 2003 Act—to resolve an issue that neighbours have not been able to resolve.
The local council may resolve the complaint in favour of the complainant or in favour of the person with the high hedge; that is a matter for them. But if the council does not have access to the property to do that, then the niche discussion will be about not being able to resolve the problem, so I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I thank those in your Lordships’ House who have spoken in this debate. I am delighted to have a degree of support from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, who, as she recounted, has had some personal experience of this issue. I reiterate to the Minister that it seems entirely disproportionate for local authorities to be able to enter a person’s private property without their consent to investigate this issue—that is what underpins this amendment. I do not want to beat around the bush any more, and, for now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Gang-related graffiti(1) A person commits an offence if—(a) the person defaces a relevant surface with graffiti, and(b) the graffiti is gang-related.(2) Graffiti is gang-related if—(a) the graffiti contains any symbol, sign, mark or slogan that is associated with, or is an identifiable marker of, a gang or gang activity,(b) the graffiti contains any symbol, sign, mark or slogan that a reasonable person would associate with a gang or gang activity, or(c) the person who defaced the relevant surface with the graffiti is part of a gang.(3) In this section a “relevant surface” is any of the following surfaces, whether internal or external or open to the air or not—(a) the surface of any street or of any building, structure, apparatus, plant or other object in or on any street;(b) the surface of any land owned, occupied or controlled by a statutory undertaker or of any building, structure, apparatus, plant or other object in or on any such land;(c) the surface of any land owned, occupied or controlled by an educational institution (including its governing body) or of any building, structure, apparatus, plant or other object in or on any such land.(4) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—(a) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);(b) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.(5) In this section –(a) “gang” means the activities of a group that—(i) consists of at least three people, and(ii) has one or more characteristics that enable its members to be identified by others as a group;(b) “graffiti” includes painting, writing, soiling, marking or other defacing by whatever means.”
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, this group speaks to the two amendments in my name and in the names of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower and my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie. They seek to address the long-standing problems of gang involvement in our cities and to probe the Government’s approach to this. I am grateful to the Minister for approaching me recently to discuss the issue, and I hope that we can continue that conversation.
Gangs are groups of people whose entire identities are founded on the control of a territory through the means of violence. They are established to exert power, maintained through the coercion and grooming of the youth, and exist to establish themselves over their counterparts by any means. They are exploitative organisations. The very idea that groups of young men should be able to gain de facto control of large parts of our cities through intimidation and aggression is one that should have been stamped out long ago. Unfortunately, we have let them fester. The result is that the Metropolitan Police believes there are 102 active gangs in London, each vying for their own share of the territory that is not, and cannot become, theirs. They commit a litany of crimes, with the most horrific reports suggesting that they keep scoreboards of the number of rival gang members they either stab or kill. This is not unique to the capital; it is the norm across many of our major cities.
Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to legislate against gang involvement before a crime has taken place. They are uncodified organisations, and attempting to break them up would require a large infringement on every citizen’s right to associate freely. But that does not lessen the need for legislative steps to be taken. Amendment 52 would implement, in our view, the next best thing by creating the aggravating factor of committing an offence in connection to the activities of a gang. This would disincentivise group-based crime and would mean that criminals identified as gang members would be able to be imprisoned for longer.
Similarly, it is well known that gangs often leave tags to mark their territories. This graffiti comes at enormous cost to either the taxpayer or private businesses. Small local businesses can see the fronts of their stores defaced, leaving them to choose between forking out repair costs or seeing customers potentially put off by the vandalism. Councils are faced with even more bills as they are forced to pay for the upkeep of their local areas. It is entirely unfair on the law-abiding communities that are burdened with this.
Gang-related violence does not end at the physical crime committed; it extends to the psychological. There is also the problem of the tone that gang-related graffiti sets. It is bad enough seeing your neighbourhood vandalised by gangs, but it is far worse when it is vandalised by a violent group marking their territory. It sends a signal to locals that their community is not, in fact, their shared property but that it belongs to a small group of individuals with scant regard for the law. It alarms them that these people live among them; it causes fear, distress and alarm. It is an act of intimidation which makes society feel less safe.
On the subject of graffiti, I do not know whether noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches are aware, but my right honourable friend the shadow Lord Chancellor has received a letter from one of their colleagues, the honourable Member for Cheltenham, Max Wilkinson. In his letter, he said that our amendments would see anyone who paints a St George’s cross on a public surface jailed for up to two years. I was rather baffled when I saw that; the subject matter of Amendment 51 is, in explicit terms, gang-related graffiti. The amendment would criminalise graffiti that uses gang signs, symbols or slogans that is committed in the course of gang activity. It uses the same definition of “gang” as Section 51 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. In our view, a person who simply paints a cross on a public building is very clearly not in scope of this new offence.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, and I thank the Minister for her kind comments at the start—they were slightly undeserving in my case, given her own experience. I listened carefully to what she said.
There were a couple of points I would like to come back on. Painting a St George’s cross, a saltire or whatever symbol might be chosen, would not and would never be caught by this, because it is not “gang related”. In addition, it is not too difficult for juries to understand the concept of something that is gang related.
On the issue of defining a gang, a point made both by the Minister and by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, the definition of a gang is the same as the one used in Section 51 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. It is the accepted definition. In that respect, I would not accept that it is too broad.
Underpinning these amendments is something that we all want to see: clean, happy cities that do not face the persistent threat of crime of any form. Unfortunately, a large part of the urban crime we currently face is the product of gang-related feuds and violence. The Centre for Social Justice has estimated that 60% of all shootings are gang related. Other reports suggest that they are responsible for as much as half of all knife crime. If we are serious about tackling crime, especially knife crime, we must do all we can to punish criminal gang members and disincentivise those who have not yet joined a gang. It is for that reason that we have put forward these amendments: to make gang-related offences specific and for them to require specific treatment in our law.
I could say much more about the amendments—and I am very grateful for the comments from all noble Lords, particularly for the support from my noble friend Lord Blencathra—but for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 51.
“Offence of engaging in nuisance begging(1) A person aged 18 or over who engages in nuisance begging commits an offence.(2) Where a constable has reasonable cause to believe that a person is engaging or has engaged in nuisance begging, the constable may require the person to leave a relevant location as soon as reasonably practicable.(3) Where a person has been required to leave a relevant location by a constable, the person commits an offence if the person does not comply with the requirement.(4) A person who commits an offence under subsections (1) or (3) is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.(5) For the purposes of this section, a person engages in “nuisance begging” if subsections (6) or (7) applies.(6) This subsection applies if the person begs—(a) on public transport,(b) in a station or any form of public transport, or at an entrance to or an exit from any such station,(c) at a bus stop, tram stop or other place where members of the public get on to, or alight from, any form of public transport,(d) at a taxi rank,(e) on a carriageway or cycle track,(f) in any area outside business premises (whether or not the area forms part of a highway) where people are consuming food or drinks supplied by the business,(g) within 10 metres of an automated teller machine or night safe, (h) within 10 metres of a ticket machine, a vending machine or any other device through which members of the public obtain goods or services by making payments,(i) in, or within five metres of, the entrance to, or exit from, retail premises, or(j) in the common parts of any building containing two or more dwellings,(7) This subsection applies if the person begs in a way that has caused, or is likely to cause—(a) harassment, alarm or distress to another person,(b) a person reasonably to believe that—(i) they, or any other person, may be harmed, or(ii) any property (except property belonging to the person begging) may be damaged,(c) disorder, or(d) a risk to the health or safety of any person except the person begging.(8) In this section—“carriageway” and “cycle track” have the meaning given by section 329(1) of the Highway Act 1980;“distress” includes distress caused by—(a) the use of threatening, intimidating or abusive words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or(b) the display of any writing, sign, or other visible representation that is threatening, intimidating or abusive;“relevant location” means a location where the person is engaging or has engaged in nuisance begging;“retail premises” means premises used wholly or mainly for the purposes of the sale of anything by retail.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would introduce the offence of nuisance begging and permit a constable to move on a person engaging in nuisance begging.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, these amendments require a little bit of legislative background to be given. In 2022, the Government accepted an amendment to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act to repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824. Section 81 of the 2022 Act containing the repeal has not yet been commenced.
The previous Government stated their intention to commence the repeal of the Vagrancy Act only once appropriate replacement legislation was put in place. The replacement legislative framework was included in the previous Government’s Criminal Justice Bill, after which the current Bill is modelled. While almost one-third of the clauses of the Criminal Justice Bill have made their way into this Bill, the provisions to replace the Vagrancy Act have not. This amendment is intended to ascertain why.
The Criminal Justice Bill proposed to create a new framework of nuisance begging and nuisance rough sleeping, as well as creating three new related criminal offences. I entirely accept that the Government have carried forward the offence of trespassing with intent to commit a criminal offence and the offence of arranging or facilitating begging for gain, but we do not see anything relating to nuisance begging in the Bill. My question to the Minister is simply: why? Do the Government believe that the police will have sufficient powers to deal with anti-social begging once the Vagrancy Act is repealed? It appears somewhat counterintuitive for the Government to seek to criminalise the facilitation of another person’s begging but not to criminalise nuisance begging. Do the Government believe there is such a thing as nuisance or anti-social begging?
Regardless of the Government’s response to that, it appears to us that there will be a legislative gap if the Vagrancy Act is repealed and nothing is put in place to substitute it. My Amendment 53 therefore mirrors the proposals from the previous Government’s Criminal Justice Bill. It would create a very narrowly defined offence of nuisance begging and would equip the police with a proportionate and practical tool—namely, the power to require an individual to move on from a relevant location where disruptive or unsafe behaviour is occurring.
This amendment does not criminalise poverty, homelessness or the simple act of asking for help. It does not target those who are vulnerable or down on their luck, nor does it seek to sweep such people out of sight. It draws a clear distinction between legitimate, peaceful begging on the one hand, and conduct which crosses into harassment and intimidation—with danger both to the public and often to the person begging themselves—on the other.
We believe that the public have a right to move through stations, transport hubs, shopfronts and busy pavements without being impeded, threatened or placed at risk. Likewise, those who beg have a right to be treated with dignity. But it is precisely because dignity matters that we must address those situations where begging is carried out in a manner or in locations that create real harm.
The amendment identifies particular locations: public transport; station entrances; ATM machines; business forecourts; taxi ranks. These are points where there is little practical ability for a member of the public to avoid unwanted confrontation. They are places where one cannot simply walk around a challenging encounter. A narrow station staircase is not somewhere to negotiate past an insistent or aggressive request for money. These are the very locations where nuisance behaviour has taken root and where the police currently lack a clear and effective mechanism to act.
The amendment would set a threshold based not on the mere presence of a person asking for money but on conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress, fear of harm, risk to health or safety, or disorder. These are long-established, widely understood standards in public order law, and they ensure that the power is used only when behaviour becomes unacceptable.
The move-on power in subsection (2) is at the heart of the proposal. It is preventative rather than punitive. It would give a constable the ability to intervene early, to de-escalate situations and to protect all involved before matters deteriorate. For the individual concerned, it would avoid immediate criminalisation; it would give them an opportunity to comply and move on without penalty. Only wilful refusal to comply would constitute an offence.
For all those reasons, and with the balance that this amendment strikes so carefully, in our view, I commend it to the Committee, and I urge noble Lords to lend it their support. I beg to move.
Amendment 53A (to Amendment 53)
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, this has been a most interesting debate, and I thank all those who contributed. I listened very carefully to the Minister and his indication that the Government believe that they have all the necessary tools to prevent anti-social begging.
Underpinning these amendments is that those who work daily in town centres, transport networks and retail spaces consistently report situations where members of the public feel frightened or cornered. The law does not provide a consistent, targeted response to those problems. That is the basis of this amendment, which seeks to ensure clarity for the public and the police. The amendment is carefully drawn, limited, balanced and rooted in the principle that no one should be made to feel unsafe when going about their daily business.
We cannot ignore the reality that some forms of begging today bear little resemblance to what many of us have known in the past. We now see behaviour that is aggressive, persistent and sometimes strategically targeted at locations where people feel trapped. However, having listened very carefully, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, we recognise the legitimate concerns about persistent anti-social behaviour. Repeat offenders represent a significant challenge; within many communities there is a small core of individuals creating a disproportionate amount of misery and distress to victims. However, the Liberal Democrats remain sceptical about the approach taken by Amendment 54. On these Benches, we believe that youth incarceration should be a last resort, not an automatic consequence. Mandatory detention after three breaches not only removes judicial discretion, it risks criminalising young people for behaviour which is below the criminal standard.
The evidence shows that detention is largely ineffective and often counterproductive. In reality, it increases the likelihood of future offending. Indeed, a chief constable I spoke to told me that short-term sentences simply equip people to be better at crime. The aim of these measures may be to help victims, but the risk is that they could ultimately result in the creation of more of them.
We believe that the key to tackling persistent anti-social behaviour is properly funded community policing. There are about 10,000 fewer police and PCSOs and neighbourhood teams now than in 2015. More than 4,500 PCSOs have disappeared, and their loss is continuing. Some forces simply do not have enough personnel in neighbourhood teams to actively address anti-social behaviour. In his response, will the Minister say what is being done to reverse the exodus of community officers?
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, the contributions we have heard demonstrate the seriousness of the issue and highlight why communities and victims need reassurance that persistent anti-social behaviour will be confronted robustly and effectively. I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for bringing forward these amendments. They provide a welcome opportunity to examine whether the current response to repeat breaches of injunctions is sufficient.
It goes without saying that ongoing and persistent anti-social behaviour has a profound impact on the lives of ordinary residents, including the feeling of individual safety and a wider sense of cohesion in our neighbourhoods. Amendment 54 seeks to provide that if someone under 18 breaches three injunctions of supervision orders, they must be given a detention order. It seems likely, to me at least, that someone who has broken three such injunctions is plainly on the path to becoming an habitual offender. Repeated breaches should not simply be met with ineffective sanctions—communities have to know that the law has teeth and that those who repeatedly defy court orders will face meaningful consequences. The amendment seeks to reinforce that principle and to signal clearly that a cycle of breach, warning and further breach is unacceptable.
I hope that the Government give the amendment the thought and time that it deserves, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for Amendment 54 and for fessing up to Amendment 55, which we will accept as an honest mistake. I welcome his honesty in raising the issue.
There is a recognition that Amendment 54 still wants to provide for minimum sentences for persistent breaches of youth injunctions. I emphasise that the Government do not want to criminalise children unnecessarily, an aspiration we share with the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. That is why the new respect order in the Bill will not apply to those under 18. However, we know that in many cases the behaviour of offenders under 18 requires a more formal deterrent and intervention. That is why we have retained the civil injunction as is for those under 18. Practitioners have told us that it is a particularly helpful and useful tool to tackle youth anti-social behaviour and to ensure that their rights and the safety of the community are upheld.
Youth injunctions are civil orders and fundamentally preventive in nature, which again goes to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. It is more important to intervene to prevent than it is to punish afterwards, particularly when young people are the individuals who are causing those challenges in the first place.
The important point about youth injunctions, which, again, goes to the heart of the noble Lord’s amendment, is that if the respondent abides by the terms of the order, they will not be liable for any penalties but, self-evidently, where a respondent does breach an order there needs to be some action. The noble Lord has suggested one course of action. I say to him that the courts already have a range of responses, including supervision orders, electronic tagging, curfews and, in the most serious cases, detention orders for up to three months for 14 to 17 year-olds.
I hope there is a common theme across the Committee that detention of children should be used only when absolutely necessary, and that courts should consider the child’s welfare and other risks before imposing such a response. This should be on a case-by-case basis, and the prescribing of a mandatory minimum sentence, even for repeat offenders, would both undermine the ability of the independent judiciary to determine the appropriate sentence and potentially be disproportionate. There is a place in our sentencing framework for mandatory minimum sentences, but I submit that this is not it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, is quite right again that one of the best preventive measures we can have is to have large numbers of boots on the ground in neighbourhood policing. She will know that the Government have a manifesto commitment to put 13,000 extra boots on the ground during this Parliament. In this first year or so, the Government have put an extra 3,000 in place. We intend, where we can, to increase the number of specials, PCSOs and warranted officers to replace those who were lost between 2010 and 2017. When I was Police Minister in 2009-10, we had 20,000 more officers than we had up to around 2017. That is because they were hollowed out and taken out by the two Governments who ran the Home Office between 2010 and 2017.
The noble Baroness is absolutely right that visible neighbourhood policing is critical to tackling anti-social behaviour, but the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, seeks to provide minimum sentences, which I do not think will achieve his objective. It does not have my support either. I hope he will withdraw the amendment, having listened to the argument.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I hope to be as brief as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lord Blencathra when introducing these amendments.
There is an urgent need to ensure that the mechanisms we put in place under the Bill are both workable and effective. My noble friend’s amendments seek to ensure that the person appointed as the co-ordinating officer is simply the most qualified regarding the internet and online sales. There seems to be broad agreement that those responsible for enforcing penalties for illegal online sales must have the right skills. Whether or not such individuals wear a uniform is less important than whether they understand the digital channels through which harmful goods are marketed and moved, and criminals should not be able to exploit technological advantage to stay one step ahead of enforcement. I therefore hope that the Government take these amendments seriously as practical suggestions to help tackle a serious problem.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his amendments to the clauses that implement this Government’s manifesto commitment to hold senior managers of online platforms, be they social media platforms, online marketplaces or search engines, personally liable for the failure to remove illegal online content relating to knives and offensive weapons. His Amendment 55B would require the co-ordinating officer—that is, the person appointed by the Home Secretary to administer these new powers—to have the necessary internet and online sales experience and skills, stating that they need not be a warranted officer. Amendment 55F would make these criteria explicit in the statutory guidance for these measures.
I agree with the sentiment behind the amendments. It is of course important that the co-ordinating officer responsible for the administration of these powers be suitably experienced. I reassure the noble Lord that the Government are providing £1.7 million for a new national police unit to tackle the illegal online sale of knives and weapons, including the issuing of content removal notices. The unit will be dedicated to co-ordinating investigations into all aspects of online unlawful knife and offensive weapon sales, and to bringing those responsible to justice. It will also improve data collection and analysis capability in order to expand police understanding of the knife crime problem and how enforcement activities can best be targeted. The intention is that a senior member of this specialist unit will be appointed as the co-ordinating officer, and they will have the necessary skills and resources to administer the powers.
Whoever is appointed as a content manager must be experienced in both aspects of the problem we are trying to tackle. They should have experience not only of online sales but of the investigation of illegal online sales of knives and weapons—that is, they must be able to understand the investigatory and evidential process as well as having experience of the internet. This will, to paraphrase the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, not be any old bobby with a warrant card but someone highly experienced in internet sales and the investigatory and evidential role. That is why, in short, we feel that the role must be held by a warranted officer. It is a police role. They will be issuing enforcement notices and, as part of the criminal process, they need to have that experience as well as the essential online experience that all noble Lords who spoke in the debate mentioned; we agree that that is necessary.
Given the assurance that we are not neglecting the online side of things, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, will be sufficiently reassured and is content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has so concisely described—he gets more concise as the evening goes on—this group deals with the sanctions applied under the online weapon advertising regime.
We very much welcome the Government’s commitment to ensuring accountability for businesses and sellers who facilitate the online sale of knives. However, if the penalties imposed are too small, they merely become a tolerable cost of doing business for large, wealthy online service providers. As the noble Lord explained, the Bill proposes maximum civil penalties for service providers of up to £60,000 for failing to comply with content manager requirements or for failing to comply with a content removal notice. His Amendments 55C and 55D directly challenge that maximum limit by proposing that the penalty for a service provider’s non-compliance should instead be a minimum of 500% of the value of the illegal goods advertised.
In our view, that proposal shifts the focus decisively towards financial deterrence—although I hate to agree with the noble Lord twice in one evening. The argument embedded within these amendments is sound: fines should reflect the scale and profitability of the illegal advertising business they enable. By linking the minimum fine directly to five times the value of the illegal goods advertised, we ensure that the penalty scales proportionally with the volume of the illicit trade facilitated by the platform, making it financially unsustainable to turn a blind eye to illegal weapon content.
The noble Lord’s Amendment 55E applies this same principle to the penalties imposed on the service provider’s content manager. Clause 23 currently sets the maximum penalty for the content manager at £10,000. Amendment 55E seeks to replace that cap with a minimum penalty of 100% of the value of the illegal goods advertised. That would ensure that the individual responsible for overseeing compliance within the organisation also faces a penalty that reflects the seriousness of the content they failed to manage or remove, particularly where that content is tied directly to the advertisement of unlawful weapons.
These amendments force us to consider how we can make our laws genuinely tough on organised online crime. In our view, legislation must be proportionate; and proportionality, in the face of corporate digital crime, means that penalties should meaningfully exceed the profits derived from facilitating criminal activity. The amendments rightly push us to consider the financial consequences that would truly deter platforms from risking public safety for private gain.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Blencathra for these amendments and offer support from the Front Bench for them.
The three amendments by my noble friend all have the same aim: to tie the level of financial penalty directly to the value of the illegal knives being advertised and the profits generated from their sale. The logic behind them is obvious—and they also raise an important point. Fines that merely represent a modest operational cost to criminals will do little to deter those who deliberately trade in dangerous and illegal weapons. If the economic reward remains greater than the economic risk, the deterrent effect is minimal. Therefore, it seems prudent to put into statute appropriate provisions to ensure that that never is the case. The purpose of penalties must be both to punish wrongdoing and to disrupt the business model that makes it worth pursuing.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would increase the maximum sentence for the new offence of possessing a weapon with intent.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 56 in my name seeks to increase the maximum sentence for the new offence of possessing a weapon with intent, where conviction is conviction on indictment, from four to 14 years. The principle behind a new offence of possessing a weapon with intent to use violence is well intentioned. It is one that we support. We are living through an epidemic of knife crime, and the level of general offensive weapon offences has shown no signs of declining over the past decade.
I appreciate that the Government are taking some of the necessary steps to attempt to curb this situation and this new offence is one of them. Creating more offences to eliminate the problem at source is the right approach, in our view, while introducing additional measures that target the most dangerous in our society is also necessary. This Bill creates a separate category for those who have violent intent, which, in principle, should achieve the latter. But it is worth implementing this offence only if it is accompanied by sufficient corresponding punishment. The Bill as it stands does not achieve this.
There is, of course, the current law that prohibits the carrying of a bladed article in public. That offence carries a maximum sentence of four years. It is a blanket offence which does not consider additional factors; it treats offenders the same regardless of whether they hold some kind of ill intent. This new law, conversely, will consider intent. Violent intent will become an additional factor to be considered, and rightly so, because the extra element of meaning to commit damage or harm makes it a worse crime than simply carrying a weapon. It will differentiate between those who might and those who intend to cause a threat to society. In essence, the question behind this amendment is: why then is this not reflected in the punishment? Why does the new law carry the same maximum four-year sentence?
This law should work to do two things. It should allow the justice system to differentiate between those who pose intentional threats and those who may not. It should deter those who have intent from leaving the house with a weapon in the first place. If the penalty does not differ from the current law, it will do neither. If the maximum sentence remains identical, the courts will not have the means to sufficiently differentiate criminals who have been convicted. The criminals themselves will not be deterred in the first place, as there will be no greater threat of repercussion than that which already exists.
If we are to treat carrying an offensive weapon with violent intent as a separate, more serious crime, it must be reflected in the punishment. It is an incredibly serious offence that someone should not only break the law by carrying an offensive weapon but do so with the intent to inflict damage or harm. It self-evidently threatens the safety of our citizens and shows complete disregard for the functioning of society. Sentencing these criminals as if their violent intent is merely a secondary factor that does not deserve consideration will not do, in my respectful submission.
Amendment 56 seeks to solve this disparity. It increases the maximum sentence to 14 years. It is a maximum sentence, a ceiling, not the sentence to be imposed whenever. That, in our view, is the right thing to do. It will give the courts the means to reflect this in practice. There is no reason why the Government should not wish to achieve both these things, but the punishment must be reflective of the crime. I look forward to the Government’s response on this. For those reasons, I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Goschen and Lord Blencathra, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for their support for this amendment. I really hope that the Minister will reflect on the support for it from different quarters of the Committee.
I particularly want to comment on the speech of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, in which he pointed to the 12-month summary conviction, because under the Government’s Sentencing Bill, that sentence would be suspended. A convicted criminal, having just been proven in court to hold violent intent, will not go to prison, but will instead be released back into the public. I really hope that the Minister reflects on that specific point, as well as the more general one, which is that it is self-evident that legislation must give the courts the necessary flexibility to account for different levels of crime. If we cap the maximum sentence at four years, which is the same as for the lesser crime of carrying a bladed article, we risk not effectively penalising those planning to commit the worst possible crimes.
As the Minister said, it is a differentiation, this new offence. It is a more serious offence, and it must be sufficiently different from the existing law: that difference must continue through to a different level of sentence. It is consistent that the maximum punishment is increased to reflect this additional consideration, but the Bill does not yet do this. The maximum sentence remains at four years, even though it is for a more serious crime. Therefore, I really hope that the Minister reflects on everything that has been said tonight and that he looks again at Amendment 56 in my name.
It is an amendment that solves these issues: it gives the courts ample room to adapt their sentences, based on the severity of a crime; it gives the judiciary the discretion to issue longer sentences than it is currently able to do; and it is a maximum—I say again, it is a maximum—sentence. It is a ceiling. It would allow the justice system to effectively deal with criminals who pose a tangible risk to their fellow citizens, and act as a great deterrent. We all want a system where the worst criminals are proportionately punished and the courts are able to adapt to achieve this. Although I listened very carefully, I am not convinced that the legislation as it stands achieves this, and I really hope that the Government reconsider this. For the time being, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
Lord Cameron of Lochiel ExcerptsMonday 17th November 2025
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 View all Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 136-IV Fourth marshalled list for Report - (7 Nov 2025)
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, it has been a long time since the Bill was introduced in the other place and since then much has happened. The Government have brought forward the immigration White Paper detailing changes to the Immigration Rules. They have established a one-in, one-out agreement with France which has so far returned just over 100 migrants. Meanwhile, since that deal was announced on 10 July, almost 18,000 people have crossed the channel in small boats.
We know that the Government are now bringing forward new measures relating to the asylum system. We will have the opportunity to debate those once the Home Secretary has announced the full details today in the other place, but many of the plans have been trailed already and it is evident that new legislation will be required to implement a number of those changes. The point is that events have moved at such a pace that this Bill feels out of date before it has even become law. The Prime Minister’s “smash the gangs” pledge has fallen so flat that the Government appear to have ditched the slogan. But as we have consistently said, simply going after the gangs will not work. What is required is a credible deterrent but, unfortunately, as we know, this Bill repeals the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024.
We put our plan to the House, and it is a shame that the Government and the Liberal Democrats appear unwilling to take the action necessary to put an end to the small boats crisis. That said, I am pleased that we were able to amend the Bill in a positive manner. My noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, who is not in his place today, sadly, has been pushing for the Home Office to release data on overseas students for a long time now. His successful amendment to the Bill requiring the publication of those statistics is welcome and I hope the Government will finally listen and agree to publish that data. It is also welcome that the Government agreed with me that the new offences in Clauses 13 and 14 contained gaps as originally drafted. They did not cover possession with intent to supply an article for use in immigration crime, nor handling by third parties, and I am very pleased the Government took this on board and brought forward their own amendments.
I thank the Minister. I do not share his enthusiasm for the Bill, but I know how hard he has worked to steer it through your Lordships’ House with his willingness to meet Members of this House privately. I extend my thanks to the Bill team and to all noble Lords who contributed, particularly my noble friends Lord Harper, Lord Murray of Blidworth, Lady Lawlor, Lord Goschen and Lady Maclean of Redditch. I am also grateful to all noble Lords who supported our amendments both in Committee and on Report, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.
To conclude, the Government had the opportunity with this Bill to take serious steps to fix the crisis in the asylum system. They could have banned illegal migrants from getting asylum. They could have committed to detaining and removing anyone who enters illegally. They could have committed to deporting all foreign criminals. Unfortunately, they have not, and we will have to wait to see what new ideas the Government bring forward and whether they will have any real impact, because the Home Secretary was right when she said that illegal migration is tearing this country apart. It is well past the time to take the comprehensive action necessary to protect this country’s borders.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to His Majesty’s Opposition and the Liberal Democrats for their contributions to this debate. We have had some differences but I think both noble Lords will accept that the Government have a plan to try to deliver on our manifesto commitments. Additional proposals are being discussed, and they will be outlined shortly in another place, that will form an answer to the proposals by the noble Lord, Lord German. They are not part of this legislation, but I will be outlining further the Government’s approach once my right honourable friend has made her Statement. I thank both noble Lords from the Front Benches for their contributions; they have helped generate discussion on the Bill.
As well as the Bill team and my private office, my two colleagues on the Government Bench today from the Whips’ Office have provided stalwart support. I also place on record my thanks to the Chief Whip for ensuring that only one defeat of the Government took place on the Bill, which on an issue as contentious as immigration is a matter of some joy for the Government and of some frustration, undoubtedly, for the Opposition. I commend the Bill to the House.
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
Lord Cameron of Lochiel ExcerptsTuesday 11th November 2025
(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 View all Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 136-IV Fourth marshalled list for Report - (7 Nov 2025)
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, these amendments raise a very important point, and I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for opening the group with the arguments she made. The important point is the need to ensure that interpretation and translation services in our asylum and immigration system are both adequate and effective. Self-evidently, clear and accurate communication is essential to the fairness and integrity of any decision-making process, and that is particularly true in cases which can have serious consequences for the individuals concerned. The amendments before us seek to strengthen the standards applied to interpreters and translators. In principle, that is a very sensible and worthwhile aim.
Before we consider making changes to the existing framework, it would be more helpful to understand from the Minister the current position in a little more detail. The noble Baroness laid out specific deficiencies that she believes are presently affecting the system in providing these services. Objective standards are important, but some are already in place under the current arrangements, such as the interpreters code of conduct—the noble Baroness mentioned this and the need for a review of that code in her speech. If there are demonstrable gaps or failings in quality assurance, that would certainly merit attention. Indeed, we would welcome assurances from the Minister on this point that the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, are being actively addressed. Equally, if existing mechanisms are already achieving those aims, we should be cautious about introducing additional prescription, which may duplicate what is already in operation.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, the asylum interview is an important part of the asylum process for many asylum seekers, because it is one of the main opportunities to provide relevant evidence about why they need international protection. Similarly, for the asylum decision-maker, and indeed for the whole of the Government’s processes, it helps draw out and test the evidence. As the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, said in moving the amendments, paragraph 339ND of the Immigration Rules provides that:
“The Secretary of State shall provide at public expense an interpreter for the purpose of allowing the applicant to submit their case, wherever necessary. The Secretary of State shall select an interpreter who can ensure appropriate communication between the applicant and the representative of the Secretary of State who conducts the interview”.
Interpreters are required to interpret to a high standard on a range of protection-based and human rights topics, including, although not limited to, religious conversion, female genital mutilation, sexuality and gender-based claims, all types and forms of persecution, physical and mental health, and political activity.
It is really important that we are having this debate. I am again very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Coussins and Lady Ludford, for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I also salute the indefatigability of the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for raising this subject, being flexible and meeting myself and officials to get clarification on this important subject area.
Amendments 79ZA and 79F seek to amend the provisions relating to interpreters in the Immigration Rules and the Asylum (Procedures) Regulations 2007. Amendment 79F seeks to include the provision that interpreters must be professionally qualified. For an interpreter to join the Home Office panel of freelance interpreters, they must be either a full member of the National Register of Public Service Interpreters or hold one of the qualifications or assessments listed in the Interpreters Code of Conduct, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, referred. The code exists to ensure that expected standards of conduct and behaviour are met and that any potential misconduct issues are addressed at an early stage.
Throughout this process, the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, has been tenacious in stressing the importance of experience and professional standards. We feel that that is very much the spirit of the code of conduct and its practice. Interpreters must conduct themselves in a professional and impartial manner and respect confidentiality at all times, irrespective of whether they are attending an interview in person, remotely via video conference or by audio only. Prompt and decisive action is taken when the Home Office becomes aware of any alleged inappropriate conduct by an interpreter.
The Home Office requires interpreters who wish to join its panel to already be a full member of the National Register of Public Service Interpreters—NRPSI—or hold a specified qualification or assessment. There may be instances, where a language is particularly rare, when the Home Office will accept documented proof of hours worked as an interpreter in that language for a reputable business or charity, but these are assessed on a case-by-case basis and must be approved by a senior manager. We wish to preserve the spirit of flexibility that the current system has for these exceptional cases, and specification in the Bill might prohibit that sort of approach to a particularly rare language or dialect where interpretation is required.
The minimum standards are long-standing and demonstrate that interpreters already need to prove that they are proficient before being accepted on to the Home Office interpreters panel. They also allow for a level of flexibility which ensures that even those who speak rarer languages can be serviced by the Home Office, protecting the proficiency and standards of Home Office interpreters. The qualifications needed by interpreters are freely available to all, published on GOV.UK.
It is considered that amending the Immigration Rules in the way envisaged by the amendment would have little impact. The code of conduct sets out clear expectations around impartiality and the standards of conduct and behaviour that interpreters are required to meet. Interpreters must hold recognised qualifications. They undergo rigorous background security checks and are required to sign a declaration of confidentiality.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, asked about enforcement of the code. Feedback is collected on interpreter performance, and any incidents of alleged behaviour falling short of the code of conduct will be fully investigated. Feedback is primarily compiled by interviewing officers completing an interpreter monitoring form, but this form may also be completed by other Home Office officials. Prompt and decisive action will be taken as soon as the Home Office becomes aware of any alleged inappropriate conduct, and this is obviously in the best interests of the department, the interpreter, the wider public and, of course, the claimant. The way in which the code of conduct is managed and enforced minimises any risk of bias, including for sensitive, asylum and immigration cases.
Interpreters must comply with any requests from the Interpreter & Language Services Unit for information within the time specified. If there is evidence of behaviour falling short of the code of conduct, interpreter monitoring may be considered, to determine any further action.
The amendment also seeks to include “translator” within the provisions relating to interpreters in paragraph 339ND of the Immigration Rules and the Asylum (Procedures) Regulations. This relates to providing at public expense a translator to allow an applicant to submit their case and appeal their claim, as well as a translator to ensure appropriate communication at interview. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, in her contribution, raised a number of questions around the role of translation in the Home Office rules and code of conduct; I will come to what she was referring to in a short time.
The asylum interview guidance makes clear that where a claimant wishes to submit documents relevant to their claim, where those documents are in a foreign language, the asylum decision-maker must ask what it is and what relevance it has. If the document is or could be useful, they must give the claimant an agreed period to submit a translation, noting this on the interview record.
Specifically on translation services, to be clear, the code applies to anyone conducting any assignments on behalf of the Home Office. The Home Office contract for written translation is held by thebigword, whose stringent quality control processes in place should ensure that translations meet the high standards required.
Although I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for the amendments and indeed the wider debate we have had on this issue both tonight and in Committee, the Government see no reason why the existing framework should be changed in the way suggested by the amendment, and for that reason I invite her to withdraw the amendments.
As I said, it is important that we are able to retain some flexibility in the way that we provide interpreter services particularly, specifically because of very rare languages. Too much specificity in the Bill could constrict the effective service that we want to provide to asylum seekers and might also have a negative impact on our ability to provide a fair, effective and efficient system.
However, I am pleased to say that, following our extensive discussions with officials, I am happy to commit from the Dispatch Box that the Home Office will work with stakeholders to review the Interpreters Code of Conduct and provision of translation services—to address the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford—including a section in the code that outlines the criteria for becoming a Home Office interpreter, reflecting the need for qualification or professional experience, including reference to NRPSI standards, as I have set out. Given that additional commitment tonight and the conversations that we have had over the past days and weeks, I very much hope that that will satisfy the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and that she will see fit to withdraw her amendments.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I want to draw attention to one factor which has been represented to us here. All the evidence seems to be addressed to the Anglican Church, which of course is the Church of England, and for those of us who belong to a disestablished church in another part of the United Kingdom, these matters have never been discussed or raised with us.
Debating an English-only issue in a Bill which relates to asylum seekers across the whole of the United Kingdom is worrisome, but introducing a statutory requirement for breaking down asylum grants by religion risks shifting the focus away from the merits of individual claims towards demographic patterns. The cornerstone of a fair protection system is that every asylum claim must be determined solely on its merits. The Minister told us in earlier debate on this matter that no judgment is taken on cohorts of people; it is solely on the merits of a case.
The objective of the state must be to focus its resources on those fleeing regimes where oppression and violence are a real and present danger. Decisions should not be driven by statistics based on demographic information, such as religious affiliation, but by the specific personal risks of persecution faced by the applicant upon return. Although transparency is welcome, requiring reporting that segregates data by religion risks underpinning policies that lead to blanket refusals or differential treatment that disregards the crucial individual assessment needed for effective asylum decision-making.
We must ensure that our system focuses on those who truly need our help—the victims of torture, persecution, war and trafficking. Based on the principles of individual justice and effective resource management, we reject these amendments.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Maclean of Redditch for Amendments 79C and 79D. Both amendments are proportionate and consistent with the principles that underpin the Bill; namely, that our asylum and immigration system should be firm, fair and founded on clear evidence.
There is a common theme that has run through a number of amendments tabled by these Benches in this Bill and that is transparency. If we are to build and sustain confidence in how this country handles claims for asylum, and particularly those made on sensitive grounds such as modern slavery or religious persecution, we must ensure the facts are available and that Parliament can see them clearly set out. Without good data, good policy is impossible.
Amendment 79C would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on how many individuals identified through the national referral mechanism as victims of modern slavery go on to receive asylum or refugee status. This is a vital area of public concern. The link between the asylum system and modern slavery referrals has grown significantly in recent years, and questions have been raised about whether that system is being exploited by those seeking to frustrate legitimate removal or immigration control processes.
An annual report as proposed would shine a light on the outcome of modern slavery referrals, who is granted asylum, on what grounds, and through which routes they arrived. It is about evidence-based policy-making, and it would strengthen, not weaken, our collective efforts against the crime of modern slavery.
Amendment 79D addresses another area that demands careful scrutiny: asylum claims based on religion—in particular, cases where an individual has converted to a new faith after arrival in the United Kingdom. Again, this is a matter that touches on deeply held convictions and our tradition of religious liberty, but it is also an area where the integrity of the system must be beyond reproach. Legitimate concerns have been expressed in this House and beyond about the authenticity of some claimed conversions—for example those said to have been made to Christianity—and the consistency of decision-making in those cases. I simply suggest that we cannot be squeamish about addressing this. My noble friend has asked several Written Questions on this matter. It is an issue that needs to be dealt with.
My noble friend’s amendment is agnostic on this issue. It does not preclude asylum claims being granted on the basis of religious conversion, nor does it state that all such claims should be declined. It does not prejudge any claim or seek to cast doubt on anyone’s faith. It requires the Home Office to publish each year a factual report on how many asylum claims were granted on religious grounds and, crucially, how many of those cases involved a conversion that took place after arrival in the UK. That data will be broken down by religion and laid before Parliament. That is transparency in action. It would not alter a single individual’s right to claim asylum or change the grounds on which such claims are assessed, but it would give Parliament and the public the information necessary to scrutinise and understand how such claims are being made and determined, and give reassurance to genuine converts and the faith communities that support them that the system operates fairly and consistently. The amendments are about ensuring that government policy is grounded in evidence and that Parliament can fulfil its duty of oversight.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I must start with what may have been a slip of the tongue from the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, when she talked about safeguarding this country’s conditions and living standards. In so doing, she mentioned the established Church. I have to say once more that it is the established Church in England; it was disestablished in Wales, and there is the Episcopalian Church in Scotland and so on. If we are trying to protect the nature of our society in its broadest context, we have to recognise that we are very diverse. We are diverse in religion, across nationalities and across language and diverse in all sorts of other ways as well. As a country, we should celebrate that diversity no matter where it comes.
This amendment introduces what I would call an inflexible barrier to protection based solely on the timing of a person’s religious conversion. The long-established principle in our asylum system is that claims must be evaluated strictly on their merits. Amendment 79E mandates a blanket refusal based on a characteristic—post-arrival religious conversion—rather than considering the genuine risks of persecution faced by that individual on return. We must focus ourselves on this matter.
Adopting such a provision would also place the United Kingdom in breach of our obligations under the refugee convention, which is built on core principles including non-penalisation, non-discrimination and non-refoulement. The timing of religious conversion is a deeply personal matter. If a court or tribunal determines that a person genuinely holds a religious belief, established after arrival in this country, the removal of that belief protection solely because of when the conversion occurred would undermine the foundational commitment to non-refoulement. We must resist the temptation to attempt to fundamentally change the interpretation of the convention by unilateral domestic legislation—an approach which has rightly been scrutinised elsewhere.
We should not tie the hands of the courts and decision-makers by removing their ability to grant protection in cases where genuine risk of persecution has been proven, merely because the threat arises from faith adopted while seeking sanctuary here. For those reasons, we therefore uphold the principle that justice demands we look at the substance of the persecution claims regardless of when the circumstances giving to rise to them developed.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, once again I thank my noble friend Lady Maclean of Redditch for this amendment which, as she said, addresses the interpretation of the refugee convention in cases where an individual claims asylum on the grounds of religious persecution following a conversion that took place after arrival in the UK. The amendment would make it clear in statute that refugee status should not be granted solely on the basis of a claimed religious conversion that occurred after a person has entered the United Kingdom.
Again, the purpose of this amendment is not to question the sincerity of anyone’s personal faith, nor to diminish the fundamental right to freedom of religion. Rather, it seeks to uphold the integrity of our asylum framework and ensure that the refugee convention is applied as originally intended: to those fleeing a well-founded fear of persecution in their country of origin, not to those who have created new grounds for asylum only after arrival here. This is a matter of fairness and of public confidence. It is no secret that concerns have been raised, both within this House and among the wider public, about individuals who, having exhausted other immigration routes, subsequently claim asylum on the basis of a newly professed faith. If the Minister does not accept this amendment, how will the Government address this issue?
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
Lord Cameron of Lochiel ExcerptsTuesday 11th November 2025
(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 View all Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 136-IV Fourth marshalled list for Report - (7 Nov 2025)
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I will be very brief. First, I apologise on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who is still not well. I know that she would have intended to support this amendment as it is now. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, has presented us with a very neat solution to a problem that the Minister espoused in Committee. He has also sought—and I think this is the whole purpose of the amendment—to make sure that previously unworkable and satisfactory legislation is converted into something that has a sense of purpose and direction, and which is understandable and has clarity and definition within it.
In reply to my question in Committee as to why the Government are retaining Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act, the Minister said that it would be right
“to retain the flexibility to expand the use of inadmissibility in the event that we see asylum claims from individuals from countries that we would generally consider safe”.—[Official Report, 3/9/25; col. 825.]
That was the reason given for retaining that particular section.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, has just expressed the issue with the words “generally safe”. There are many countries that may be safe for some people but not for all people. The one that currently sticks out an absolute mile is Georgia. If someone has any political thought that has nothing to do with Georgian Dream, they will be imprisoned. I have lost count of the number of politicians who I—and, I know, other noble Lords in this House—have met, who said that the day after we met them they would be going back to go to prison because they were going to be arrested, simply because they were politicians who were elected by the people but who did not speak on behalf of the Government, and who were speaking out against the Government. While “generally considered safe” means that it is generally safe to send people to Georgia, we would be absolutely wrong to send somebody who had a political opinion, because we know the disgraceful ways in which politicians have been treated in that country.
In conclusion, this amendment is a worthy solution to a problem that has been identified. In the context of the Government wanting to retain Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act, they have before them a workable solution to make sense of it and convert it from an unworkable, unsatisfactory position into something that is exactly the opposite. We on these Benches commend it.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, for his amendment and for his submission today, which I listened to carefully, on the case for this change. I have a great deal of respect for him and I acknowledge the intentions behind this amendment, the general issues of which we explored in Committee. That said, I regret that we cannot support his amendment—I do not think that will come as a massive surprise to him—because it would, in our view, weaken the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which was amended under the previous Government. We are clear that those who come from safe countries should not be able to make asylum or human rights claims. Consequently, we cannot agree with the noble Lord’s attempt to downgrade the duty under Section 80A to a power that “may”, rather than “must”, be exercised by the Secretary of State.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, noble Lords will know that my name is attached to this amendment, and I feel very strongly that the House should accept it.
I will not spend time talking about the issues that were raised in Committee: that it is a barrier to people becoming British citizenships, it is very costly, and people may not be able to use their valuable money in order to clarify whether they are part of an exception. We are also an outlier: I listed all the 33 countries—all the big ones in Europe—and nobody else does this. Then there is the whole issue about cohesion and integration, which has been so adequately put on the agenda by the right reverend Prelate.
I draw attention in particular to what will happen if the Government’s policy continues. It may be all right for people to get indefinite right to remain in this country as part of that journey, and it may be that that is where the Government want them to stop—to be people in this country who have only indefinite right to remain. But there are other parties—one of them sitting on my right-hand side here and one of them with a very small representation in the other place—which have a Bill before this Parliament, from the shadow Home Secretary, saying that people’s indefinite right to remain will be removed. So, at a glance, all these people who have entered this country as refugees, who currently have the right to remain in this country and will be given it, will suddenly have that stripped away, according to the Bill before the House of Commons.
The danger then, of course, is this. If the journey to getting citizenship in this country is 10 years—which is what the Government are proposing; it could be somewhat longer than that—and you come as a single person, marry somebody from this country, have children and send them to school, at the end of it all another Government might well say, “Thank you very much. You’re an outlier—you’ll have to go back”, and we would expel them from this country.
Just imagine what the consequence of that policy would be if carried through. This measure started in February this year. We are not talking about people who have come to this country in this immediate time, because it takes time to build up your relationship in this country, to contribute to it in the ways that we have heard from two Members of this House so powerfully today and to build up that good character. To do that, you then have to seek citizenship so that you can become a full member of our society. That journey is one which you will be judged on, but the Government propose to make that judgment right at the beginning, from February. So, people who come may be granted the right to be here because they are refugees and may be granted the right to remain, and they may even be granted the indefinite right to remain, but there are hostile partners in this Parliament, outside government at the moment, who would then say, “No, you cannot become a citizen, and if you’ve got indefinite leave to remain you will lose that right”, after many years.
I ask Members of this House, when they consider this matter, to think of it in the longer term as well as the shorter term. There will be amazing consequences from this right down the track. We are not expecting people who have come here since February to suddenly get citizenship. They have to prove the right to be in this country and that they are part of our society. They have to contribute to our society. It does not take much for us to look around this country and see people who have done just that. We are in danger of splitting up families, splitting up husbands and wives from each other, and leaving children in a state of limbo with a more hostile Government in place in this country. I ask your Lordships to think very carefully about the consequences of not supporting this important amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for her speech. We recognise the principle behind this proposal. The good character test has been in place since 1981. It asks applicants for British citizenship to be of good character and is controlled by the guidance issued by the Home Office. The test must safeguard the integrity of citizenship but must also be applied with common sense and humanity.
However, while we understand and respect the intention behind this amendment, I am afraid we cannot support it. It would require the good character requirement to be applied in line with a wide range of international conventions. Decisions on who can become a British citizen should be for the UK Government applying national tests under domestic law. More broadly, we are cautious about references to multiple international bodies and agreements that could, in practice, limit the United Kingdom’s ability to manage its own borders and nationality system. Our view is that the UK must retain the freedom to make its own decisions on immigration and citizenship while still acting with fairness, decency and respect for human rights in our own right.
Of course, we are not opposed to the principle of international co-operation, but our domestic framework is set by Parliament and should serve the national interest. For those reasons, we cannot support the amendment in its form.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for Amendment 60 and in particular for her courage in bringing her personal experience to the Chamber today. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett, the noble Lord, Lord German, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for speaking in support of the amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord German, indicated that there may be different political parties that may at some point in the future have the power to make changes that he and maybe even I would not find palatable. In the event of either of those political parties that he is concerned about winning an election, they could probably do what they wanted in both Houses of Parliament anyway, taking forward those policies that they probably would have won a mandate on. I may not agree with that point, but his argument not to make a change against the right reverend Prelate’s proposal today, because it might open up a gateway for a future party to exploit that amendment’s acceptance, does not seem to be a sensible way forward. If a Government of any political party, not mine, wish to make a change, they would be the Government. Like me standing at this Dispatch Box, they probably would have the numbers in the House of Commons to take that policy through and the numbers in this Chamber to make that case over a period of time for that discussion. So I do not accept that contention.
Having said that, my concerns are different. British citizenship is a privilege, not a right. The requirement for an individual to be of good character is a statutory one that goes back to 1981 and the British Nationality Act. It is considered reasonable and proportionate when assessing whether to grant British citizenship. On the point that the noble Lord, Lord Harper, made, it is for the Home Secretary to make changes to the discretion in that policy. This amendment seeks to limit that discretion by preventing the consideration of illegal entry into the UK if the person was a child when they entered the UK.
Apart from this potentially encouraging people to make false claims about their age to benefit from the provision, the amendment also seeks to ensure that the consideration of good character is compliant with the UK’s international obligations. The right reverend Prelate may not have received it yet, but I sent her a letter this morning which she can have a look at later. In it I say that the good character policy is compliant with our obligations under the refugee convention. Where a person has come directly from a country where they fear persecution, their protection under Article 31 of the refugee convention means that they will not be penalised when their application for citizenship is considered.
I hope that this will partly reassure the right reverend Prelate, but I will say again that the decision-makers are required to take into account the UK’s international obligations, including the refugee convention and the European Convention on Human Rights, when assessing whether a person meets the good character policy. Furthermore, guidance on the good character policy provides for a decision-maker to be able to exercise discretion on a case-by-case basis. It may not find favour across the whole House, but it does include disregarding immigration breaches such as illegal entry if it is accepted that this is outside the applicant’s control. That case is for the applicant to make when they make that decision.
For example, a victim of modern slavery, or a person who is trafficked, or, indeed, going to the very nub of her argument, someone who entered the UK illegally as a child, would not be implicated by the policy and would have that discretion open to them by the decision-maker. I will just emphasise that still further by saying the good character policy does not apply to children under the age of 10 on the date of application.
The amendment would seek also a more generous approach for migrants—
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I do not know whether the Opposition want to come in on this, but I may as well jump in. I support the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. Her amendment is simplified from her one in Committee. She is quite right that this Government ought to wish to stick to Article 31 of the refugee convention. That is what they maintained over the last few years, and it would be sensible and right to come back to that position. As she said, we can rely on the common law position, which I think was contributed to by the late Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, and rely on the court to understand what “directly” means. It can sometimes include short stops in transit— I think we can all understand why that might be—but it is a question of assessment in any individual situation. It is important to go back to the refugee convention definition and understanding for reasons of fairness and justice.
In the closing part of her remarks, the noble Baroness picked up on something that I was keen to ask the Minister. She repeated the statistics that she gave us in Committee: 556 people arriving by small boat were charged with illegal arrival and 455 were convicted, and the vast majority of those charged and convicted had ongoing claims for asylum. In her remarks just now, she added that a lot of these people who were prosecuted had refugee status. I wonder: what is the point of adding new pressure on the criminal justice system, particularly in the light of all the demands on it that we heard about in this House yesterday? It cannot cope. Surely the important thing is to get on with assessing someone’s claim so that you can decide whether they have a valid refugee or other humanitarian claim and are allowed to stay—or not, in which case they ought to be deported. What is the point of wasting time, resources and energy, and putting people who may well get refugee status through that process, when you go on to grant them refugee status anyway? What is the point of the diversion? I have never understood this, to be perfectly honest.
The noble Baroness is offering a way to get back to a sensible position. Of course people who are guilty of smuggling and trafficking offences might still get caught by this, but we have a baroque arrangement at the moment. We need to cleave to the refugee convention, which has been the traditional position of the Labour Party in opposition—and ought to be in government—and not waste resources, time and everything else in prosecuting people instead of just getting on with the asylum determination and removing those who have no claim. The present situation does not make any sense, in justice or in practicality. I hope the Minister can give a positive response to the noble Baroness’s amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I listened very carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, whose long and well-known experience in these matters I greatly respect. I have sympathy for the underlying principle of her amendment, but I fear that, though well-intentioned, it would take us back to the position that, in our view, Parliament quite rightly sought to clarify in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.
Section 37 of that Act was introduced for a very clear reason: to ensure that the UK, while complying with its obligations under the refugee convention, could define in domestic law how those obligations should be interpreted and applied. This amendment would lead to the repealing of Section 37 and the expansion of the statutory defence and, in our view, would go far beyond what the refugee convention requires.
Article 31 exists to protect those who come directly from danger and present themselves without delay. It does not exist to provide a blanket immunity for all irregular entrants, including those who have travelled through safe countries and have not claimed asylum there.
In our view, there has to be a system that is firm, not open to abuse and, above all, determined by Parliament. Diluting the provisions of the 2022 Act would undermine confidence and encourage, not reduce, the dangerous business of people smuggling. For those reasons, although I acknowledge the sincere spirit in which this amendment is brought forward, I respectfully urge noble Lords to oppose it.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 74, tabled by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, seeks to remove the requirement that asylum seekers must come directly to the UK to benefit from the defence provided by Article 31 of the refugee convention. Furthermore, it seeks to expand the list of specific offences set out in Section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act, which asylum seekers who arrive illegally have a statutory defence against. I thank my noble friend for her amendment, while noting the previous amendments she suggested during the passage of the Bill, and for her kind words about my response to the debate on her previous amendment in Committee.
The Government remain committed to ensuring that all asylum claims in the UK are considered in accordance with our international obligations under the 1951 refugee convention. Indeed, all our asylum-related legislation, rules and guidance will continue to fully comply with all our international obligations. I hope that provides a level of assurance for the avoidance of any doubt. All claims which are admitted to the UK asylum system will continue to be considered on their individual merits by assessing all the evidence provided by the claimant against the background of published country information.
The Government consider that those fleeing persecution should seek asylum in the first safe country in which it is reasonable to do so. This is in the asylum seeker’s best interest, serves to reduce the risk inherent in making further dangerous attempts to reach the UK illegally, and prevents further profit going to criminal people and those who organise the terrible criminal offences the Bill is designed to stop.
Providing a statutory defence to illegal arrival and illegal entry would, in effect, provide a defence to virtually all individuals who reach the UK by illegal means. It is difficult to see how this could be seen to support the Government’s stance on enforcing the law on illegal migration. Again, it would only undermine the confidence of UK citizens in our wish to maintain a fair and safe immigration system.
Both my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, raised the question of recognised refugees being prosecuted for illegal entry, so I will spend a bit of time explaining the grounds when considering whether or not to make an arrest. In that case, Immigration Enforcement criminal and financial investigators must consider whether or not the suspect is likely to benefit from the statutory defence in Section 31. They must consider the defence as set out in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, as well as the published CPS guidance on statutory defences. If it is deemed that the individual would benefit from the defence, they are not to make an arrest. If evidence suggests that a prosecution would be possible then continuous liaison between investigators and the relevant asylum caseworker must be undertaken throughout the asylum claim process.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Amendment 75 would insert a new clause after Clause 48 to place a duty to have due regard to family unity on the Secretary of State, immigration officers, and the immigration and asylum tribunals. This is supported by the organisation Bail for Immigration Detainees. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that, in the exercise of immigration and asylum functions, those charged with making decisions have due regard to the need to promote the unity of the family. It is a modest but vital safe- guard to ensure that decisions affecting people’s lives are made with a clear understanding of the human consequences.
Subsection 1 of the proposed new clause sets out the core duty that every relevant authority, in carrying out its functions, must have due regard to the need to promote family unity. Subsection 2 then provides helpful clarification of what that means in practice. These principles are rooted in common sense and compassion. They simply reflect what every parent, teacher and social worker knows: that children who have the love, stability and presence of their families can thrive.
This proposed new clause would complement the existing duty under Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, which already requires regard to be had to the welfare of children. Subsection 3 makes that explicit. The new duty would sit alongside Section 55 and be subject to it, ensuring that the welfare of the child remains paramount.
Equally importantly, proposed new subsection 4 provides clear limits. It ensures that nothing in this clause would require or authorise the Secretary of State or a tribunal to refuse leave to enter or remain, or to allow or dismiss an appeal contrary to what they would otherwise have done. In other words, this clause does not create new rights to remain in the UK. It simply creates a duty of consideration and a framework for fairer, more humane decision-making.
This amendment would not diminish the Government’s ability to control immigration. It would simply require that, when exercising discretion or assessing proportionality, decision-makers take proper account of family unity and children’s rights to grow up in the care of their families. By including the First-tier and Upper Tribunals within the scope of this duty, we would ensure that the principle applies consistently across the whole system, from the Home Office desk to the final appeal. It would give tribunals a clear statutory steer that family relationships are not peripheral to human-rights decisions but are central to them.
The UK has long recognised through international commitments and domestic law that the family is the fundamental unit of society. This amendment would give practical effect to that principle in the immigration and asylum context. It reflects our obligations under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, both of which emphasise the importance of maintaining family life. It does so in a proportionate way, respecting the primacy of the child’s welfare and the proper limits of executive power.
I hope the Minister will see that this amendment would strengthen rather than weaken the integrity of our immigration system by ensuring it operates with fairness, consistency and humanity. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, the importance of family life and family unity is a principle that no one in this House would dispute. The principle already has a firm statutory protection. Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 imposes a clear duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the United Kingdom. It is a duty embedded in every decision taken by immigration officers and by tribunals that consider appeals.
With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, the amendment before us would, in effect, duplicate these existing safeguards and reduce them in a way that risks generating uncertainty and inconsistency. It would open the door to litigation and invite the courts to revisit and reinterpret established principles of immigration law. For those reasons, I respectfully urge the House to resist the amendment.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for her Amendment 75. As she outlined, it would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to have due regard to the unity of family in exercising immigration functions. She has raised an important point, but the amendment is unnecessary. I will try to explain for her the reasons why.
The important protections it seeks are already firmly embedded in legislative frameworks and policies, such as Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, the Human Rights Act 1998, and the public sector equality duty derived from the Equality Act 2010. As announced in the immigration White Paper in May, we are exploring further reforms to the family route. As she mentioned, there is already a statutory duty to promote and safeguard the welfare of children in Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. That places a duty on the Secretary of State to make arrangements to ensure that immigration, asylum, nationality and general customs functions are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the UK. That every child matters is set out in our statutory guidance.
The Immigration Rules balance the right to family and private life under Article 8 and the right to respect for private and family life under the European Convention on Human Rights. Under Part 5 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, Parliament set out the view of what the public interest requires in immigration cases, engaging the qualified right to respect for private and family life under Article 8. It requires the courts to give due weight to this public interest when deciding such cases.
Where an applicant under the family rules does not meet all the core eligibility requirements, the decision-maker will consider whether there are exceptional circumstances which would render refusal a breach of Article 8. This involves considering whether refusal would result in unjustifiably harsh consequences for the applicant or, indeed, their family. Under Section 149 of the Equality Act, which I mentioned earlier, the Secretary of State must have due regard to eliminating discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity and fostering good relations. Due regard for family unity must not limit the ability of the Secretary of State for the Home Office to remove serious criminals who would do us harm. Article 8 claims, as we will discuss, will succeed only if a deportation’s impact on a qualifying child is unduly harsh. The immigration White Paper confirmed plans to legislate for easier removal of such offenders under Article 8, but not in other circumstances. For those reasons, I respectfully invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
“Rights of Chagossians(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of any agreement or treaty between the United Kingdom and Mauritius, or any change in the sovereignty status of the British Indian Ocean Territory, the immigration rights of Chagossians with respect to the United Kingdom may not be altered or amended in any way.(2) In this section—“the immigration rights of Chagossians with respect to the United Kingdom” means any visa, indefinite leave to remain or immigration status, with respect to the United Kingdom, granted to a Chagossian or the descendant of a Chagossian;“Chagossian” means a person who was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of the person’s birth in the British Indian Ocean Territory or, prior to 8 November 1965, in those islands designated as the British Indian Ocean Territory on that date.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that any change in the status of the British Indian Ocean Territory would not change the UK immigration rights of Chagossians.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 78 is a saving provision to protect the immigration rights of the Chagossian community, notwithstanding any agreement the Government may make with Mauritius. This is neither the time nor the place to revisit the arguments made in this House and the other place regarding the Diego Garcia military base Bill, but I thank the Government for agreeing not to proceed with Report stage of that Bill until the new year, following calls from these Benches for additional time for further scrutiny. We fundamentally disagree with the Government’s agreement with Mauritius, but if it is to be implemented, the Chagossians must have their say and Ministers must listen.
This new clause would give the Chagossian community the peace of mind and security of immigration status they deserve, and I urge the Government to take this opportunity to do the right thing and protect the Chagossians from any future weakening of their immigration rights as a result of any agreement with Mauritius. I beg to move.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, we support this amendment because it would protect the rights of Chagossians. After the treaty enters into force, Chagossians will not be able to apply for British Overseas Territories citizenship under the route that was set up in 2022. Those who currently hold British Overseas Territories citizenship through their connection to the British Indian Ocean Territory will not be able to pass it down to descendants born after the treaty enters into force. If any Chagossian who has claimed BOT citizenship has a child born before entry into force, that child will automatically hold British Overseas Territories citizenship and does not need to make an application under the 2022 route before entry into force. If any member of the Chagossian community does not already have British Overseas Territories citizenship and would like to claim it based on their connection to the British Indian Ocean Territory, they will be able to do that through the 2022 route until the treaty enters into force. That is the issue about which we need an explanation. That protection of rights ends when the treaty comes into force.
I remind the House that the International Agreements Committee, of which I am a member, discussed this matter and took evidence from Ministers. The summary of the evidence received was as follows:
“We regret that members of the Chagossian community feel that their interests were not sufficiently taken account of in the negotiation of this agreement”.
With that knowledge, it is important that we secure the rights of Chagossians—not just resettlement in the Chagos islands themselves, but that the status the United Kingdom has given them is protected.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 78 aims to prevent changes to the UK immigration status held by Chagossians and their descendants, regardless of any agreement or treaty between the United Kingdom and Mauritius or any change in the sovereignty status of the British Indian Ocean Territory. Under UK law, as noble Lords noted, Chagossians and their descendants are either automatically British citizens or have a right to apply to be registered as British citizens. As British citizens, they are free to make their home in the UK without being subject to immigration control.
The Government have been very clear that the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill will protect British nationality rights, so I give the noble Lord, Lord German, that assurance. The treaty and the Bill make no changes to the citizenship that Chagossians currently hold or to their right to claim British citizenship. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, mentioned, this is being debated in respect of other legislation. All Chagossians will remain eligible for British citizenship and free to make their home in the UK should they wish to. The immigration status of Chagossians living in the UK who do not wish to take up British citizenship will not be impacted by the agreement between the UK and Mauritius.
In the Government’s view, this amendment is therefore unnecessary and would prevent the UK Government exercising their lawful power to amend or alter the immigration status of those subject to immigration control in the UK—for example, if the basis upon which someone’s immigration status was granted changes, or, as we have debated many times in your Lordships’ House, if an individual is convicted of a criminal offence for which they receive a custodial sentence of 12 months or more. Furthermore—this is the salient point—the amendment would also effectively prevent Chagossians applying to amend their immigration status and prevent them exercising their right to apply for British citizenship, should they so choose. I therefore ask the noble Lord, in the light of my comments and the assurance I have given, to withdraw the amendment for the reasons outlined.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful, especially to the noble Lord, Lord German, for his support for this amendment. I am delighted finally to be on the same page as him on this Bill, after many days of Committee and Report. He made a compelling argument for the basis of this amendment, and it is a topical question. In our view, it is an opportunity to do right by the Chagossians and give them the statutory certainty they deserve, but in the light of what has just been said by the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Police: Records
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend makes a very interesting point. I bear the scars of that one as well, in the sense that I answered for the Home Office in 2009 when the phone hacking scandal first erupted. Lessons have been learned. There have been many litigious court cases and a range of policy changes have been made as a result, but, self-evidently, transparency is key. I will certainly examine my noble friend’s comments if we can add further to that transparency.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, the police release data on arrests relating to the details of the offences but do not publish data specifying aggregated information about the offenders. Will the Minister commit to publishing further data about who has committed what offences?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
If the noble Lord will allow me, I will reflect on that rather than commit today. There are a number of important issues around data collection. My noble friend asked about the integrity of that data; the noble Lord is asking about widening that data. It would not be appropriate to make a judgment quickly at the Dispatch Box on that issue, but I will certainly reflect on it and contact him in due course.
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
Lord Cameron of Lochiel ExcerptsWednesday 5th November 2025
(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 View all Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 136-III Third marshalled list for Report - (4 Nov 2025)
“Duty to deport illegal arrivals(1) The Secretary of State must make a deportation order against any person (“P”) to whom this section applies.(2) This section applies to any person who—(a) commits an offence under section 24 (illegal entry) or 24A (deception) of the Immigration Act 1971,(b) enters or arrives in the United Kingdom at a time when they are an excluded person within the meaning of section 8B of the Immigration Act 1971 (persons excluded from the United Kingdom under certain instruments), or(c) has had their asylum claim, protection claim or human rights claim rejected,on, after or before the day on which this section comes into force.(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b) the exceptions in subsection (5A) of section 8B of the Immigration Act 1971 (exceptions to section 8B) do not apply.(4) Where P has entered the United Kingdom unlawfully by means of sea crossing, a deportation order must be made against P as soon as P is detained under section (powers of detention for illegal entrants).(5) Where P is given a deportation order under this section the Secretary of State must make the necessary arrangements for the removal of P from the United Kingdom so as to ensure that P is removed from the United Kingdom within the period of one week beginning on the day that P is detained under section (Powers of detention for illegal entrants).(6) Where a deportation order is in force against P under this section, the Secretary of State must give directions for P’s removal to either—(a) a country of which P is a national or citizen providing that country is a safe country, or(b) where a country of which P is a national or citizen is an unsafe country, to a safe third country.(7) For the purposes of subsection (6)—(a) a country is a “safe country” if in general a person’s life and liberty would not be threatened by reason of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion;(b) a country is an “unsafe country” if in general a person’s life and liberty would be threatened by reason of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion;(c) A “safe third country” means a country of which P is not a national or citizen but is considered to be a safe country under this subsection.(8) Where—(a) a deportation order is in force against P under this section, and(b) P has a child (“C”) who was born in the United Kingdom after P entered the United Kingdom unlawfully,the Secretary of State must also make a deportation order against C.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to deport, within one week, any person who entered the United Kingdom illegally or who has had their asylum claim rejected.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I begin this group of amendments, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower, by stating that they are directed at illegal entrants and not genuine refugees whose claims are upheld or who enter by legal routes.
We began Report with a discussion about the Government’s new Border Security Commander, Martin Hewitt, who, during an evidence session of the Home Affairs Committee in the other place, said:
“What we absolutely have to do, I think, is ensure that there is nothing, there is as little as possible in our systems and our asylum systems that is making this particular place more attractive for someone than somewhere else”.
The Government’s own Border Security Commander himself recognises that there need to be changes to reduce the pull factors and create a deterrent effect. This year alone there have been 36,954 small boat arrivals. We know that 95% of those arrivals go on to claim asylum. The Government have argued that their new “one in, one out” deal with France will take up that mantle, but all we have seen is how migrants who are sent back to France simply make the crossing again. The plan is not working. It is not deterring illegal entry and it is not removing those who have already entered illegally.
These amendments would achieve the aim of deterrence. Although they are two distinct amendments, they are intended to work in tandem with each other, as well as with the other amendments we have tabled to the Bill, which will be discussed in later groups. The arguments in support of these amendments were well ventilated in Committee. Amendment 35A proposes that the Secretary of State must make a deportation order against any person who commits an offence under Sections 24 or 24A of the 1971 Act, is an excluded person under Section 8B of that Act, or who has had their asylum claim, protection claim or human rights claim rejected. Amendment 35B is a corollary to that. It contains the power of detention and, accordingly, mandates the Secretary of State to detain such a person. That person would be detained in a removals centre or detention centre immediately, not a hotel or home of multiple occupation, and would not be eligible for immigration bail. A deportation order would then have to be made against that person by an immigration officer acting on the Home Secretary’s behalf and the person must then be deported from the United Kingdom within one week of their initial detention.
When people cross the border unlawfully, claim asylum and then remain in limbo, it undermines the integrity of our system. Genuine refugees are mixed with those who exploit the system, and the public rightly question whether the rule of law is being honoured. It is important to repeat that these amendments are not about genuine refugees but rather about the clearly identified cohort of unlawful entrants—illegal asylum claimants whose cases have been rejected—and the need to ensure that we have the operational means to detain and remove them. By doing so, we preserve the integrity of the asylum route for those in genuine need. I beg to move.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, it will come as no surprise that we oppose Amendments 35A and 35B. While we are committed to strengthening border security and tackling criminal exploitation, these amendments attempt to reintroduce the core unworkable architecture of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, thereby undermining the rule of law and proving counterproductive to the very goals they seek to achieve. It is rather like having the legislation that we saw from the last Government but without Rwanda.
Amendment 35A would require the Secretary of State to make a deportation order against anyone who enters irregularly or arrives without leave. This mandatory duty echoes the failed duty to remove provisions being repealed by the Bill. We oppose this mandatory refusal mechanism on grounds of legality and fairness.
First, it would be a breach of international obligations. Amendment 35A would mandate refusal and deportation without consideration of the merits of a person’s claim. Refusing a person’s asylum claim and proposing removal to their country of origin without considering the merits of that claim would put the UK in breach of its obligations under the refugee convention. Even if an asylum claim were refused by this measure, any related humanitarian protection claim would still need to be properly considered on its merits.
Secondly, on punishing victims and not assessing claims, the strength of a person’s claim to protection should not be indicative of the method by which they entered the country. This mandatory approach targets asylum seekers who arrive irregularly, rather than focusing on the perpetrators of organised immigration crime.
Amendment 35B would require the immediate detention of any person who commits an illegal entry offence or has had a claim rejected for the purpose of removal within one week. This proposal is flawed on operational and practical grounds. For a duty to remove to be effective, there must be a destination to which it is safe to remove people, or a host country must agree to accept them. The fundamental challenge to mandatory removal provisions is the practical question of where they are to go. The previous policy framework that these amendments seek to retain was deemed unworkable and led to asylum seekers being left in indefinite limbo because there was often nowhere to remove them safely.
The detention powers in Amendment 35B are reliant on the duty to remove provisions, like those proposed in Amendment 35A, which the Government are seeking to repeal precisely because they created an unsuccessful scheme. Current legislation already provides broad statutory powers to detain migrants for examination and removal purposes. Introducing a mandatory and immediate detention requirement, particularly one that is inextricably linked to a failed removal strategy, risks arbitrary detention inconsistent with standards in international human rights law.
These amendments attempt to enforce a strategy of deterrence without providing any practical or lawful means of enforcement. They are based on a framework that has already proven chaotic, unworkable and fiscally irresponsible. Reincorporating this approach into the Bill would serve only to complicate the removal process, clog up the courts and fundamentally undermine the integrity of our immigration system. I conclude by drawing attention to the fact that I am supported by the RAMP organisation.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, if the amendments in this group seem familiar, it is because we have seen their intention before. Taken together, Amendments 35A and 35B from the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron, can be seen as an attempt to reinstate certain aims and objectives of the Illegal Migration Act 2023—indeed, at points taking a more unworkable approach than what came before. This Government have been clear on their approach to the Illegal Migration Act and the policy intentions of that Act. This Bill repeals the Act, aside from the six sections where we have identified operational benefit, and fully repeals the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024.
Amendment 35A, in effect, seeks to reintroduce in a different form the unworkable duty to remove measures in the Illegal Migration Act that we are repealing, as the noble Lord, Lord German, so clearly and ably articulated for us earlier. Having a duty to remove people unlawfully in the UK is something that is easy to say but very difficult to deliver in practice, as evidenced by the previous Government’s failure to implement that part of the Illegal Migration Act. Such a legal obligation means taking away all discretion, and defining exceptions to that duty is not always straightforward. There remains a risk of legal challenge for acting unreasonably in individual cases.
For a duty to remove to be effective, there needs to be a destination to which it is safe to remove people when their own country is not safe for them or where there are practical difficulties in proceeding with the removal, and a host country needs to agree to accept those people. If a third country is not willing to accept foreign national offenders or unaccompanied children, as was the case with the previous Rwanda scheme, that can incentivise perverse behaviour for migrants seeking to remain in the UK. I make no apologies for echoing very closely what the noble Lord, Lord German, said because the facts are the facts, and he was very clear in his analysis.
As I stated in Committee, we already have well-established powers to remove people who are unlawfully in the UK. In fact, we have seen an increase under this Government of over 31% in failed asylum seekers being removed since June last year, along with an increase of 16% in foreign national offenders being removed. Opposition to this amendment is not about opposing the removal of those with no right to be in the UK—far from it. It is about delivering long-term, credible policies to enable a properly functioning immigration system. Having a duty to remove will not add anything useful to that aim.
Amendment 35B, in effect, seeks to introduce a new power of detention and completely remove the power to grant immigration bail. It proposes that all those committing an immigration offence under Sections 24 and 24A of the 1971 Act should be detained in a removal centre, with no recourse to bail, until such time as they are deported. This is simply unworkable. There is no capacity to detain all those within scope of this amendment, it leaves no scope to bail people where removal is not likely to take place within a reasonable timeframe, and provides no discretion in the case of children or those who may be vulnerable. Without wishing to press the point, it is simply wishful thinking. We already have established powers of detention that cover the examination, administrative removal and deportation processes, as well as powers to grant immigration bail where the Secretary of State or the court considers that to be the more appropriate option. The noble Lord, Lord German, has already set out the risks of retaining the approach set out under the failed Illegal Migration Act, so I will not repeat those comments.
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 and the ECHR. 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 cannot ignore the fact that these amendments also fail to take into account the needs of vulnerable individuals, including children. I therefore invite the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, to withdraw Amendment 35A.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Katz, for their comments. It will come as no surprise that I do not accept the criticisms that they made. I suggest that these amendments are responsible, pragmatic and necessary and would restore faith in the principle that sovereignty means that we decide who may enter, who may stay and who must be removed. The backlog of claims, the scale of illegal entries and the long delays in removals all speak to a system that lacks credibility, and these amendments would move us towards a stronger, fairer, more sustainable regime. For that reason, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
“Powers of detention for illegal entrants(1) A person to whom this section applies (“P”) must be detained under the authority of the Secretary of State or the authority of an immigration officer for the purposes of P’s removal from the United Kingdom.(2) This section applies to a person who—(a) commits an offence under sections 24 or 24A of the Immigration Act 1971 (“A”), or(b) has had their asylum claim, protection claim or human rights claim rejected (“B”).(3) Where P is detained under this section, P must be detained in a designated removal centre and may not be accommodated in any other form of accommodation.(4) For the avoidance of doubt, the reference in subsection (3) to “any other form of accommodation” includes hotel accommodation, houses in multiple occupation and military bases. (5) Where P is detained under this section, P must be detained for the relevant period.(6) For the purposes of subsection (5) the “relevant period” begins—(a) for A, on the day on which the person unlawfully enters the United Kingdom;(b) for B, the day on which the claim is rejected.(7) For the purposes of subsection (5) the “relevant period” ends on the earliest of the following—(a) for A, on A’s deportation from the United Kingdom;(b) for B, on B’s deportation from the United Kingdom.(8) Schedule 10 of the Immigration Act 2016 (immigration bail) does not apply to a person detained under this section.(9) Section 141 of the immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (fingerprinting) is amended in accordance with subsections (10) and (11).(10) In subsection (7), after paragraph (d) insert—“(da) any person (“DA”) who has been detained under section (Powers of detention for illegal entrants) of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025;”.(11) In subsection (8), for paragraph (d) substitute—“(d) for D or DA, on D’s or DA’s detention or arrest;”.(12) In subsection (9), in paragraph (b), for “or D,” substitute “,D or DA,”.(13) Regulation 2 of the Immigration (Collection, Use and Retention of Biometric Information and Related Amendments) Regulations 2021 are amended as follows.(14) In paragraph (7)—(a) in sub-paragraph (f), at the end omit “and”,(b) in sub-paragraph (g)(ii), at the end insert “; and”(c) after sub-paragraph (g) insert—“(h) any person (“H”) who has been detained under section (Powers of detention for illegal entrants) of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025.”(15) In paragraph (11) –(a) in sub-paragraph (f), at the end omit “and”,(b) in sub-paragraph (g), at the end insert “;and”(c) after sub-paragraph (g) insert—“(h) for H, on H’s detention.”(16) In paragraph (12), after sub-paragraph (b), insert—“(c) for H, on H’s deportation from the United Kingdom.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require any person that enters the United Kingdom illegally or has had their asylum claim rejected to be immediately detained in a removals centre, not a hotel or HMO, have biometric information collected, and then be deported within one week.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their comments on this group.
With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, we unfortunately cannot support her amendment. This past year has seen the largest number of boat crossings since records began. We believe that the current Government are buckling under the numbers. It is a situation that calls for measures that disincentivise those considering making the dangerous crossing across the channel. It is not an answer to strengthen the incentives to come here and then wonder why there is more inflow and more of a public backlash—that would be the outcome of Amendment 37.
If we were to increase the periods of financial and accommodation eligibility, we would give migrants a significantly greater reason to come here, and the taxpayer would be burdened with an even greater bill. In fact, we know from reports last week that the asylum seeker deported from France under the Government’s “one in, one out” policy returned because he could not get housing in France. The only group of people that the amendment would benefit would be people smugglers, who make a living by trafficking humans and breaking our laws. Instead, we should take the opposite approach. If we want to stop the tragic deaths in the channel and ease public sentiment towards the asylum system, we should disincentivise those illegally arriving here.
We understand and acknowledge the sentiment behind Amendment 73, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord German, on Nightingale processing units, but at present cannot support that either.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 44, which would simply reinstate the rights that the last Labour Government introduced, and I cannot understand what the case is against doing so now. If it is not possible to do that, my noble friend Lady O’Grady has made the very helpful suggestion of a summit to discuss how to take this forward.
I have long argued and voted for the principle of the right of asylum seekers to work, and that should include, once asylum seekers can work, the right to work in any job, not just those on the immigration salary list, such as a ballet dancer or a geophysicist—hardly critical to our economy or our health service. That is something that the Migration Advisory Committee has recommended on a number of occasions. However, when we in this House have voted in support of this principle in the past, it has been on the basis of a right to work after six months, not three months. That is what is being proposed by a lot of organisations, including Lift the Ban, so I think it is unfortunate that the amendments refer to three months, not six months, but the principle is an important one, for all the reasons that have already been given.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions. It has been a very stimulating debate on one of the most difficult areas in the Bill, in my view. This group of amendments concerns the right to work and, of course, no one can dispute the vital role that work can play. We encourage people to contribute to society and support themselves, where appropriate. However, our position is that while a claim is pending, asylum seekers should not be working; nor should anyone who has entered the country illegally have the right to work. That is a clear and fair principle and one that we believe must underpin our immigration system.
Specifically on the amendments, Amendment 42, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German, proposes granting asylum seekers the right to work after three months. Reducing the current 12-month waiting period to three months risks making the United Kingdom a more attractive destination for those who enter illegally; quite frankly, I think it is a pull factor. We do not believe this is sensible or appropriate, as such a change would incentivise further illegal entry. Here, with the greatest respect, I flatly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord German.
Amendment 44 seeks to restore wider rights for migrant domestic workers, including the ability to change employers freely and apply for indefinite leave to remain after five years. Again, we encourage all domestic workers to enjoy the flexibility of the job market, but while these workers remain on domestic worker visas, we do not think that the proposed changes are appropriate. Granting such rights prematurely would undermine the integrity of the Immigration Rules and create gaps that risk exploitation and misuse of the system.
Finally, on Amendment 45, we made our position clear: we do not believe the amendment is necessary as it risks diverting focus away from the effective administration and integrity of the asylum system.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to noble Lords for the amendments tabled today. I was pleased to meet my noble friends Lord Rees of Easton and Lord Barber of Ainsdale to discuss these matters outside the Committee. I was pleased also to have discussions with a number of other noble Lords on this matter. Today, the noble Baronesses, Lady Neuberger and Lady Ludford, the noble Lords, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard and Lord German, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, my noble friends Lady O’Grady and Lady Lister, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester have all spoken broadly in favour of these amendments. I just want to try to put some context to it.
The key to all this, ultimately, is for us to be able to speed up the asylum decision-making system, so that individuals either have asylum claims accepted and are therefore integrated into society on the basis of their asylum claim being accepted, or those individuals who have had that asylum claim turned down are therefore then removed from the United Kingdom as a failed asylum seeker. That is the key to all this, ultimately. What the Government are trying to do, as I have tried to explain on previous amendments, is speed up that process very significantly. The question then remains: what do we do with those individuals in the system at the moment? The amendments seek, first, to reduce the waiting period for asylum seekers to apply for permission to work from 12 months to three—a proposal which does not find favour with all those who have spoken today—and to address issues on domestic workers and modern slavery that I will come to in a moment.
As noble Lords would expect me to say, the Government’s current policy must strike a careful balance between maintaining the integrity of the asylum system, the speeding up of claims and supporting those with genuine protection needs. Our principal concern is that reducing the waiting period to three months could act as a pull factor. We can debate that; it is a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and I share his concerns.
It would be a pull factor because after three months you would be able to get work in the United Kingdom. That would place additional strain on a stretched asylum system and divert resources away from those in genuine need of protection. I ask noble Lords: what will happen when a decision is reached on someone who is in work for three months and then maybe finds that they are not eligible for an asylum claim? That is a real issue.
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
Lord Cameron of Lochiel ExcerptsMonday 3rd November 2025
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 View all Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 136-II(b) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (3 Nov 2025)
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, the evidence coming out in our debate today is that there are a lot of examples where people are being wrongly assessed as adults. Last weekend, I met a group of local authority leaders who told me about a situation last November, regarding unaccompanied children who had been kept in hotels and were coming out into their care. I asked whether it had improved, and they said that the numbers may have changed but there were still examples of young people who had been taken out of the system because they had been wrongly assessed. The current system for determining the age of unaccompanied children seeking asylum remains deeply flawed. I think there are not many who would accept that it is all working really well.
We already have some indication that the cohort of people being sent back to France included a number of children, largely because they were inspected rapidly upon entry by Border Force officials. As we know from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, appearance, demeanour and physical development are all affected by environment, life experiences and ethnicity, and making visual assessments is notoriously unreliable.
In answer to the point that there will be some people who will play the system, we need to understand that, when children are wrongly treated as adults, they are denied the rights and protections afforded them as children. That risks them being placed in adult accommodation, detained or even prosecuted. That is a clear safeguarding failure. Misidentification of children as adults poses a greater safeguarding risk than the reverse, primarily because adult systems lack the robust protections necessary for children. We have already seen cases where individuals who raised that their age was under 18 were subsequently arrested and charged in the adult criminal justice system, leading to time spent in adult prison on remand, or a conviction on immigration offences.
The stakes in this Bill are extremely high, with the new offences related to immigration crime contained within it carrying substantial periods of imprisonment, sometimes up to 14 years. It is critical that we safeguard against the unintended consequence of criminalising vulnerable individuals seeking protection.
I know that the Government have started to look carefully at these issues, as we had this discussion during Committee. The Government said that there were concerns about how such an amendment would operate in practice, mentioning the risk of delays that could arise from waiting for a full assessment, and that it would potentially frustrate the removals process and add to asylum backlogs. But at that time the Minister gave assurances, as he will know, that existing safeguards are in place. He named three: that the Home Office decision on age for immigration purposes is not binding on UK courts; that the Crown Prosecution Service is advised of age-dispute issues and determines if pursuing prosecution is in the public interest; and that the Home Office has introduced an additional safeguard, whereby an abbreviated age assessment conducted by qualified social workers is provided for individuals assessed as “significantly over 18” who maintain their claim to be a child and are identified for potential criminal charges. However, these assurances do not go far enough when a child’s liberty and future are at stake.
First, relying on the CPS’s prosecutorial discretion and the court’s ability to take a decision on age retrospectively is insufficient, when we know that individuals have already been wrongfully detained and imprisoned in adult settings. The risk of unlawful detention must be mitigated at the earliest possible point—before the charges proceed. Secondly, the proposal of an abbreviated age assessment is inadequate in the context of criminal law. This amendment would require a comprehensive Merton-compliant age assessment, which adheres to professional standards and best practice, and involves gathering information holistically.
On Amendment 57, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has said, we need to engage with all parties in respect of this matter. There are so many different interests here, not just local authorities and the key people within them but those who have expertise in this area. It is a difficult area, and we therefore need to bring together all that expertise to ensure that justice, through a full assessment, is preferable to the costs, both human and financial, of wrongful imprisonment or unlawful detention.
The Government are right to focus on improving the robustness of the process. That includes looking at what the NAAB does, how it operates and whether it is up to the job of doing the things that we have been talking about in this debate. Facial age estimation technology is almost a case of saying, “We may have that possibility in the future”, but, as with anything—such as if we were trying to tackle new drugs or give new treatments to people—we should not do it without sound advice that it is in order and would produce the right results. The question must remain open on that matter, and I am sure the Minister will know that the exploration of this issue may have some way to travel.
Amendment 27, in the name of my noble friend, is a fundamental safeguard. It would ensure that expert, child-focused social work assessment occurs before an individual is drawn into the criminal justice system as an adult. We know that this amendment has been supported by organisations across the children’s sector. It would ensure that the principle of protecting children from criminal proceedings is enshrined in law by requiring a high standard of age verification by appropriate experts before any prosecution can proceed. We support the intention of Amendment 57, also in this group. There are very serious matters here that I hope the Minister will address.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, we begin the second day on Report with the first of two groups on age assessments. As in Committee, they have produced a stimulating debate.
The two amendments in this group, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Lister, approach the issue from a different standpoint from our later amendments. That is perhaps not surprising, but it will also come as no surprise that we take a different and opposing view from the underlying principles of both these amendments.
It cannot be right, as is proposed, for a person to be automatically assumed to be a child where their age cannot be proved by way of documentary evidence. We know that too many illegal migrants purposefully tear up or coincidentally lose their passports or identity documents, or, as has been said, lie about their age, so as to game the system once in the United Kingdom.
My noble friend Lord Harper made several compelling arguments in respect of both these amendments. I have little to add, except to say that we have seen too many cases where individuals have claimed to be children, despite being grown adults. To these Benches, that represents a grave safeguarding failure. For all those reasons, we cannot support these amendments.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Lister for her Amendment 57, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her Amendment 27, which has stimulated a discussion. I am grateful for the letter that I received today from my noble friend Lady Longfield, in which she asked me to support my noble friend Lady Lister’s Amendment 57. We have had a number of contributions, and I will try to refer to the issues that have been raised. I was grateful for the chance to have a meeting with the noble Baronesses, Lady Neuberger and Lady Brinton, to discuss these amendments. I do not think my noble friend Lady Lister was present—I have had so many meetings that I lose track.
There is general consensus to date that age assessment is a difficult area of work and that no single combination of assessment techniques is able to determine chronological age with precision: Members from all sides of the House have raised that issue. The Government take it extremely seriously and the amendments are right to press the Government on the issues we have raised. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, put her finger on the difficulty, sometimes, of age assessments, and this is self-evidently a difficult area for us to examine in detail.
I will mention the report from the independent borders inspectorate. It is important to say at the start of this discussion that the Government accepted all eight recommendations, several of which are in progress—the noble Lord, Lord Harper, and my noble friend Lady Lister, among others, referred to that. They include plans to proactively engage with local authorities—a point the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made—social workers and key stakeholders to advance progress on the recommendations. I hope that, throughout this, Members of the House will recognise that the Government take this issue extremely seriously.
Amendment 57 seeks to incorporate an age assessment measure into the Bill. The proposed clauses would change the current age threshold for a “significantly over 18” policy from 18 to 21, with written reasons, and would put this on to a statutory footing. Initial decisions on age are an important first step to ensure that individuals are routed to the correct immigration process. Immigration officers currently treat an individual as an adult only where they have no credible and clear documentary evidence proving their age and two Home Office staff members independently assess that their physical appearance and demeanour very strongly suggest that they are significantly over the age of 18. This approach to initial decisions on age has been considered by the Supreme Court and held to be lawful.
The Government believe that “significantly over 18” is the right threshold, and that raising this even higher would present significant safeguarding risks by putting adults into settings with children. The principle of doubt remains a key element of the policy. Where there is doubt that an individual is not significantly over 18, they will be treated as a child pending further assessment by the local authority—the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, raised this. This is extremely important because, obviously, if an individual is deemed to be over 18 and is not, that presents safeguarding risks—and vice versa: if an individual is deemed to be under 18 and is actually over 18, that equally presents safeguarding risks. So it is extremely important that we examine this individual point in some detail.
The important question of data has been raised, and I gave assurances in our meeting with the noble Baroness and the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, that we are collecting data and that the Government expect to resume publishing age assessment data in early 2026. We have developments now representing a significant advancement in technical infrastructure, enabling the more accurate and consistent recording of key activities. Therefore, the up-to-date age assessment data is not currently published, but work is under way to develop improved recording and reporting on those issues. I hope that addresses the amendment seeking to place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to lay annual reports on this data. We will have that data very shortly and I hope we can publish it.
There has been significant discussion—the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Harper, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, made reference to this—of the facial age estimation technology and its use in age assessment processes. I refer noble Lords to the Written Ministerial Statement on this subject issued by my colleague the Minister for Border Security and Asylum in July 2025. Facial age estimation is indeed currently being explored by the Home Office as a potential assistive tool in the age assessment process.
To go back to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Harper, mentioned, further testing and trialling has been commissioned, with the intention of developing this technology further in late 2026. The results of this testing and the necessary validation are required before any final decisions are made on how best to implement this technology. However, the exploratory work that we have undertaken has shown that the technology is continuously improving, as evidenced in the emerging scientific literature, including the recent report issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which shows that the potential is there for this to be of assistance.
“Offences and deportation(1) The Immigration Act 1971 is amended in accordance with subsection (2) and (3).(2) For section 3(6) substitute—“(6) Where a person to whom this subsection applies is convicted of an offence, the court must sentence the person to deportation from the United Kingdom.(6ZA) Subsection (6) applies to a person who—(a) is not a British citizen, and(b) who is over the age of seventeen.”(3) In section 24—(a) for subsection (F1) substitute—“(F1) A person who commits an offence under any of subsections (A1) to (E1) is liable on conviction on indictment to removal from the United Kingdom.”,(b) after subsection (F1) insert—“(F2) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for the deportation of any person convicted of an offence under subsections (A1) to (E1).”, and(c) in subsections (A1), (B1), (C1), (D1), (E1) and (1) omit instances of “knowingly”.(4) The UK Borders Act 2007 is amended in accordance with subsections (5) to (7).(5) In section 32—(a) in subsection (1)(a), at the end insert “and”;(b) in subsection (1)(b) for "and” substitute “or”;(c) for subsection (1)(c) substitute—“(c) who has been charged with or convicted of an offence under section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971”; and(d) omit subsections (2) and (3).(6) In section 33, omit subsections (2), (3) and (6A).(7) In section 38—(a) omit subsection (1),(b) in subsection (2)(a) for “does not include” substitute “includes”, and(c) in subsection (4) omit paragraphs (b) and (d).”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would require the deportation of any foreign national who is convicted of any offence in the United Kingdom.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, almost daily we are subjected to ever more horrific stories of foreign nationals committing horrendous crimes in this country, who are all too often permitted to stay in the United Kingdom. Fahad Al Enaze, an asylum seeker from Kuwait being housed in a hotel in Liverpool, sent sexual messages to a person he believed to be a 14 year-old girl. He was sentenced to eight months in jail, but the sentence was suspended for 24 months. Consequently, he will be spared jail time and, under the current law, he will not be subject to automatic deportation.
Section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007 as it stands permits the automatic deportation of a person sentenced to at least 12 months’ imprisonment or who is convicted of an offence which is specified in an order made under Section 72(4)(a) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The individual just cited was convicted of attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child, which is an offence under Section 15A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 but is not specified under Section 72(4)(a) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Since he was convicted of an offence that is not specified and was not sentenced to more than 12 months in prison, he will not be automatically deported. This is obviously wrong. This is a man seeking to obtain asylum status in the UK who is being housed at the taxpayers’ expense. He is a convicted paedophile and yet the law will permit him to stay. There are many more examples of this and it cannot be right. We cannot claim to be protecting the British public when we permit people like this to remain in the country.
The amendments in this group in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough would change that. Amendment 34 would ensure that, where any foreign national is convicted of an offence, regardless of the sentence, they will be deported. The amendment does this through two avenues. First, it proposes an alteration to Sections 3 and 24 of the Immigration Act 1971. Proposed new subsection (2) in my amendment would change the current discretion in Section 3 for a court to recommend deportation where a person over the age of 17 is convicted of an offence to make that recommendation mandatory. The change to Section 24 would ensure that, where a person commits the offence of entering the UK illegally, they will be liable to deportation and the Secretary of State must make the necessary arrangement for that person’s removal.
Secondly, my amendment would amend Sections 32, 33 and 38 of the UK Borders Act 2007 to remove the condition that a person must be sentenced to a custodial sentence of at least 12 months to be eligible for automatic deportation. Government figures show that 12% of the current prison population are foreign-national offenders—that is nearly 11,000 people. Not only this, but a further 19,500 foreign-national offenders have been released from jail but not deported. We know that this Government have released almost 40,000 prisoners before the end of their sentences. Their Sentencing Bill, which introduces the presumption that any sentence shorter than 12 months will be suspended, will mean that another 40,000 people will avoid jail every year. The Government claim this is necessary due to prison capacity. Of course, if the Government were to adopt our proposals to remove all foreign-national offenders from UK prisons and deport them, and ensure that any foreign national convicted of a criminal offence was also swiftly deported, we would have thousands of spare prison spaces.
The British public does not want foreign nationals who commit criminal offences to remain in the United Kingdom. A poll from March this year found that over 80% of people want them deported. Unfortunately, under the law as it stands, this will not happen. Even after the Government bring in changes to the early removal scheme via Clause 32 of the Sentencing Bill, a significant proportion of foreign criminals will not be deported, and that is to say nothing of those foreign-national offenders who have served sentences and then been released. Amendment 72 tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson would ensure that they were given a deportation order within seven days of their release from prison. When the time comes, if my noble friend decides to test the opinion of the House, he will have my full support.
Where this Government have acted, we will support them. They have increased the rates of removal for foreign-national offenders, and that is welcome, but it is not enough. I beg to move.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to speak to Amendment 72 in my name and emphatically support Amendment 34 in the names of my noble friends on the Front Bench.
The amendment seeks to enshrine in law the responsibility of and duty on the Government to remove from this country those who do not have the automatic right to be here and who have committed a serious enough offence to have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment. If you come to this country and make it your home, you must understand that if you break the law, there are consequences. The amendment would apply to those who have committed crimes serious enough that they present a risk to the security and public safety of the British people.
The increase in the number of foreign national offenders between 2021 and 2024 was three times greater than that of British nationals, at 19.4% compared to 5.9%. In 2024, there were 20,866 non-summary convictions, of which violence and sexual offences by foreign national offenders amounted to 14,016 crimes, or 67% of offences, and a quarter of jailed sex offenders come from just five countries. We also have over 11,000 foreign national offenders housed in our prison estate, as my noble friend said. Albanians take up over 1,000 prison places. To my knowledge, they have been part of neither the British Empire nor the Commonwealth and have never been citizens of the European Union. Therefore, why is this the case and what are Ministers doing about it?
At the same time, the number of foreign national offenders released and not deported rose to 19,244 by the end of 2024. One of the reasons for this is the backlog of legal cases by those who have challenged deportation. The Government need to take strong action to clear this backlog and remove new offenders who present themselves.
This Government can blame only themselves, in all honesty, for this crisis, for which they have no solutions. Their cultural cringe to the European Court of Human Rights and their activist so-called jurists have facilitated the abuse of the central tenets of human rights and obligations by our own activist judiciary, as well as by some rapacious and cynical human rights lawyers.
The necessity of this amendment—the imperative of placing such a duty on a statutory footing—has been shown by recent events. A foreign offender who was imprisoned for sexual assault was accidentally released and then deported only after he was recaptured. He was then paid £500 so that he would not try to challenge his deportation. He was given taxpayers’ money in case he tried to claim asylum. The Government should not be in a situation where officials must decide that the paying of foreign offenders to leave nicely without causing a disturbance is the only way forward. That is not the best course of action. An individual who has been convicted and has served time for sexual assault should not have the ability to hold our immigration system to ransom.
On a wider question, could the Minister advise the House on the progress made in the returns deal with the Balkan states, and the review of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which my noble friend Lord Harper challenged him on two months ago, on 8 September? On that date, the Minister stated:
“We will simplify the rules and processes for removing foreign national offenders and take further targeted action against recent arrivals who commit crime in the UK before their offending can escalate … Later this year … we will table legislation to strengthen the public interest test, to make it clear that Parliament needs to be able to control our country’s borders and take back control over who comes to and stays in the UK”.—[Official Report, 8/9/25; col. 1164.]
I ask the Minister, when are we likely to see this new legislation?
I concede that the Government have moved in a positive direction. Around 5,100 foreign national offenders were deported in 2024, which, to their credit, is more than the just under 4,000 deported under the previous Government. That said, a large number chose to leave voluntarily.
I spoke in Committee about a
“chronic issue of mismanagement in the criminal justice system”.—[Official Report, 8/9/25; col. 1157.]
That mismanagement has now been brought to public attention. In the 12 months leading to March 2025, 262 prisoners were released by mistake, a 128% increase compared to the previous year. A criminal justice system as dysfunctional as ours, as error prone as this, needs clarity brought to it where possible, and that is what this amendment brings.
I agree that my own party’s record was suboptimal, but this Government have had 16 months to develop—
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
This Bill covers a whole range of manifesto commitments that the Government made in the general election, including the establishment of a Border Security Commander. Going back, for example, to the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, mentioned about Albania, that Border Security Commander has established a Balkans task force dealing with a whole range of issues there to tighten up our performance with countries such as Albania. This Bill covers a whole range of other matters, but the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has been around a long time. He knows that the Government have processes to follow and legislation to bring forward.
I am saying today that we are going to bring forward, in very short order, the measures I have outlined: detailed reforms on ensuring that our laws are upheld; simplifying the rules on processing for removal of foreign national offenders; and strengthening public interest tests under Article 8. That is going to happen in very short order. Not everything can happen in the first 12 months of a Government. Actually, if I go back to the point that the noble Lord mentioned, the non-legislative drive has seen us increase the number of foreign national offenders removed from this country by 14%, so it is an absolutely important matter that we have.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, asked me an important question, and I just want to give her a response on this. Immigration is a reserved matter. Deportation powers are consistent across the United Kingdom. Article 2.1 of the Windsor Framework provides a commitment that the rights, safeguards and equality of opportunities set out in a particular part of the Good Friday agreement are not diminished as a result of EU exit. This means that certain rights people in Northern Ireland had before Brexit cannot be reduced as a result of EU exit.
The Home Secretary is currently continuing to challenge some court interpretations on those matters, including the scope of Article 2.1 of the Windsor Framework, both in the case of Dillon and Ors v the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and in pursuing an appeal against the High Court ruling on the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission’s application, JR295, which found that certain provisions of the Illegal Migration Act were incompatible with Article 2 of the Windsor Framework.
Bluntly, the bottom line is: when foreign nationals commit serious crimes in our country, we will do everything in our power to deport them. We will bring back measures in the near future on some of the issues that have been raised today to give greater support and clarification. But I cannot accept the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Cameron of Lochiel and Lord Jackson of Peterborough.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. It has been very spirited. I listened very carefully, especially to the Minister, who has unfortunately not accepted Amendment 34. We stand by this amendment: there are far too many foreign nationals who have committed criminal offences and who will not be deported if we allow the law to remain as it is. My noble friend Lord Deben and others are absolutely right: this is of huge concern across the United Kingdom. The Government’s plans do not go far enough. Therefore, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Asylum Seekers: MoD Housing
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, both military sites proposed to house asylum seekers have significant local consequences. Cameron barracks in Inverness is close to the city centre, and local communities there are rightly concerned about the lack of consultation with them about such a major proposal. Crowborough army training camp in East Sussex is used by a large number of cadet forces, who will now be deprived of its use. Of course, if the Government truly wanted to clear the asylum backlog and close more asylum hotels, they would ban asylum claims from migrants entering the country illegally and deport them. Can the Minister say why the Government would prefer to move asylum seekers to sensitive sites—which have just as large an impact on local communities—rather than take real action to solve the problem?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for his question. The local authorities in both areas were informed two weeks ago, and we are continuing to ensure that we discuss the arrangements to date with the police, the National Health Service and local councils in each area. The Government are trying to do what I hope the noble Lord wishes the Government to do, which is to put a deterrent in place. The individuals who will be going to these sites in a phased, operational way, over a period of time, will have arrived, been processed and been put into those sites pending asylum decisions being taken. That is a real deterrent to people: it is not about going to a hotel or into the community—they are going to a very firm site where action can be taken. It is our ambition to reduce the number of hotels, and we have reduced the number from 400 at its peak to 200 now. It is our ambition to stop the crossings that are leading to these pressures in the first place. I look forward to the noble Lord’s support on both matters.
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
Lord Cameron of Lochiel ExcerptsTuesday 28th October 2025
(4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 View all Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 136-I(b) Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (28 Oct 2025)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would also include possession with intent to supply in the offence of supplying articles for use in immigration crime.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, the Minister knows that the new offences in Clauses 13 and 14 are ones that I support, and he will remember my defence of them in Committee. During our Committee proceedings, I raised two important issues relating to what I consider to be gaps in these two new offences.
The first was the omission of “possession with intent to supply” from the offence of supplying an article for use in immigration crime. My argument here is that the possession of sufficient quantities of such an article is not an innocent act; it is a precursor to the commission of the offence. By failing to criminalise the preparatory acts, I feared that we would not be including within the offence everyone that we wish to capture.
The second gap I identified is that the offence in Clause 14 does not include a person who arranges for two third parties to exchange articles for use in immigration crime. Once again, this is an essential preparatory act whereby one person is facilitating the exchange of goods that will later be used in the commission of the new offence. The problem here is that we know that organised crime gangs are always concocting ever more ingenious methods of circumventing the law, often by removing themselves from the criminal acts and organising exchanges.
In this regard, I am very pleased that the Government have listened and tabled Amendments 4 and 8. It is genuinely welcome that they have listened to the concerns that I raised in Committee, taken those suggestions away and come back to this House with a solution.
The Minister’s amendments would create two further offences within Clauses 13 and 14; in effect, by expanding their reach. Included within the scope of these offences is a person who is concerned in the supplying or the receiving of an article. The second aspect of these new offences is that the person has to know that the relevant article is to be used in connection with an offence, under the relevant sections in the Immigration Act 1971. It is my understanding that those two aspects of the new offences in Amendments 4 and 8, tabled by the Government, would cover possession with intent to supply and the arranging of the exchange of an article between two third parties. I ask the Minister to give me his cast-iron assurance that the Government’s amendments include the gaps that I have identified. With that, I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I start from the position of being very unhappy with Clause 13 in any event. The term “intent” in Amendment 3 is certainly familiar, but it is really quite hard to prove. We should not be in the business of creating offences where it would not generally be realistic to prosecute.
On government Amendments 4 and 8, the term “concerned” is very broad. I think it is used in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; I do not know how that came into my mind, but I found it. In any event, it is so broad as to be questionable. This clause would criminalise people and, as we said many times in Committee, we see a danger of criminalising asylum seekers by regarding them as doing things that we do not want smugglers to do. We do not want smugglers, but we are sweeping them up in that net.
I have rather the same point about new subsection (1A)(b) in Amendment 4 and the term “in connection with”, which again is very wide. Surely the criminal law covers being an accessory, aiding and abetting, and so on, so I am also concerned about that.
Amendment 6 includes the term “arranges”. How is this not covered by Clause 14(1)(c), which uses the term “assists”?
Overall, we are concerned about the breadth of these amendments. The extension of the offences concerns us—if I can use that word without punning—in any event.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this short but worthwhile debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for tabling Amendments 3 and 6, and to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for speaking to them. These seek to criminalise possession with intent to supply and to ensure that those who arrange for a relevant item to be received by a third party fall into the scope of the offence.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, acknowledged, in response to the debate that we had in Committee on these amendments, the Government have tabled Amendments 4, 5, 8, 9, 16 and 17. These build on proposals advanced by the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron, in Committee and, indeed, this evening on Report.
In refining the approach, we have tabled amendments that ensure that individuals who are concerned in the supply chain can be held accountable where they know that their actions are enabling criminal activity, and that those who are knowingly concerned in supplying articles for use in immigration crime fall in scope. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, noted, criminals are always developing new ways to pursue organised immigration crime, and we have to stay on top of them. These amendments are part of the package of measures in the Bill, and that is why we have tabled these government amendments, to address the concerns around third-party supply that were noted in Committee.
I believe that this matches the intent in the noble Lords’ amendments, both on Report and in Committee, by ensuring that those who are concerned in the supply of, or the making of an offer to supply, a relevant article for use in immigration crime, and those who are concerned in the handling of a relevant article for use in immigration crime, are in scope of this offence. As such, I hope that noble Lords are content with the government amendments and will not press theirs.
This is a proportionate and necessary step, one that targets the infrastructure behind the wicked trade of organised immigration crime. It allows us to disrupt the actions of not only those who commit offences directly but those who facilitate them through the provision of tools, materials or services. As we have already heard tonight, organised immigration crime works internationally, through networks of facilitators and organisers. This new offence, strengthened by this amendment, is about acting before the facilitation offences have happened, to prevent crossings and the risking of life, and everything that goes with it.
These amendments have safeguards in place, reflecting our wider discussion on this aspect, in that the individual must be knowingly engaged in facilitation to fall into scope, and law enforcement must be able to prove that knowledge, protecting those who act in good faith from these offences.
I turn to some of the questions and points raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and, from the Front Bench, the noble Lord, Lord German, raised concerns about the language in the Bill and its precision.
First, on how “concerned in” is any different from the “handling” wording in the Bill—as Lord German asked—the Bill equips law enforcement with counter- terror-style powers to disrupt and dismantle smuggling operations far earlier, well before a boat is launched from the French coast and lives are put at risk. The amendment strengthens these powers, setting out that someone does not need to smuggle people into the UK themselves to face jail time. Law enforcement can also use these powers to go after people playing other roles in smuggling operations. This may include, for instance, providing a lorry to try smuggling people into the UK, sending money to buy small boat parts, or storing dinghies in warehouses knowing full well that they are being used for channel crossings.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, talked about the breadth and vagueness of the use of “concerned in”. Would it, for instance, capture those who are selling boat equipment to sailors? To be clear, that is not the intention here. All that is changing with this amendment is setting out that someone involved in people-smuggling operations can face jail time, not just those smuggling people into the UK themselves.
To go to the heart of whether this is an overreach, which I think is the concern coming from the Liberal Democrat Benches, let us be absolutely clear, and I think we can all agree on this: vile people smugglers are wreaking havoc on our borders and are putting lives at risk to line their own pockets. None the less, law enforcement must follow a strict legal test and prove that someone knew the activity was part of smuggling operations. As with any criminal offence, independent prosecutors will look at all factors when considering prosecution and judge every case on its merits. Indeed, the officers who are carrying out potential seizures and applying for arrest warrants will bear in mind the usual high bar of evidential standards that prosecutors require for a successful prosecution. Nothing changes there.
The noble Lord, Lord German, asked about the impact on legal practitioners. To be clear, this is about supplying goods, not services. There is a clear difference between people who want to supply dinghies to get people across the channel and those who are supplying people with legal services to defend an appeal claim for asylum, for instance.
Lastly, I turn to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, who asked for the bigger picture. This Bill is about making it harder for vile smugglers to operate. The new counterterror-style powers equip law enforcement with the tools that it needs to act earlier against the smugglers. I would say to the noble Lord that even one prosecution that stops a smuggler in their tracks could save countless lives. We have seen over many summers the number of people who are crammed on to those boats. If we can stop any single boat launching, through getting those dinghies seized earlier, that will have a material impact in saving lives.
This is tough legislation that builds upon the surge in operational action against people-smuggling networks. The National Crime Agency carried out around 350 disruptions on organised immigration crime networks—its highest level on record and a 40% increase on the previous year. Through these amendments, we send a clear and unequivocal message: those who enable immigration crime, whether through direct action or indirect facilitation, will face consequences. This aligns with the Government’s broader commitment to stop the boats and dismantle the nefarious networks that profit from the evil of human exploitation, and reinforces our resolve to tackle every link in the chain of illegal migration.
The Government’s approach has been clear from taking office: to go after the gangs. We need these offences enacted to allow operational colleagues to do their jobs. They will strengthen our ability to prosecute facilitators and reinforce our stance that nobody concerned in the supply of articles for use in such offences should be beyond the reach of the law.
Having said that, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, to withdraw his amendment. We shall then formally move the government amendments in this group.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short group. I have just one observation on the comments from the noble Lord, Lord German, around the phrase “concerned in”, which appears in the amendments. He stated that it appears in counterterrorism law. It also appears frequently in the criminal law around misuse of drugs. I would suggest that the criminal courts are well used to both interpreting and applying that phrase; there is a wealth of case law on it. I would also suggest that it is not unusual, difficult or exceptional phraseology.
I am very grateful for the assurances from the Minister. It is very welcome that the Government have listened to our concerns and addressed them with these amendments. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 3.
Rape Gangs: National Statutory Inquiry
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, when updating the other place on the progress of a national inquiry on child grooming gangs on 2 September, the Minister for Safeguarding said:
“Most importantly, the chair must have the credibility and experience to command the confidence of victims and survivors, as well as the wider public. Meaningful engagement with victims and survivors is paramount”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/9/25; col. 162.]
But four months on from the announcement of this inquiry, there are no terms of reference and no chair, while four of the victims have resigned from the victims and survivors’ panel. How do the Government seriously still believe that this inquiry will have the confidence of the victims, when all evidence points to the contrary?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel. First, I say to him that when the Infected Blood Inquiry and the Covid inquiry were established, it took seven months to put a chair in place. We are currently at the very late stages of determining who the chair for this inquiry should be. It is very important, as he has said, that the inquiry, its chair and its terms of reference have the confidence of victims and survivors. I am sorry that a number of victims and survivors have walked away from the process; they will be welcomed back, should they wish to return.
We are working closely with the charity, NWG Network, to ensure that a range of victims put their views to this purpose; they are doing that currently. I believe that we will be in a position shortly to establish the inquiry, with the terms of reference to ensure that we do what we said we were going to do on the tin: to meet the objective that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, set of a national inquiry, focusing on grooming gangs and on the ethnicity issue. I hope that we will have full support from the noble Lord and his colleagues in doing those important tasks.