Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Lords Chamber

I note that the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy will be undertaking an inquiry on the case and intends to hold public evidence sessions. The Intelligence and Security Committee has also indicated that it will investigate. We welcome the launch of the inquiry and the investigations, with which the Government will, of course, fully co-operate. I have already set out the range of activity that this Government are taking to combat the Chinese espionage threat, and I hope that that is well understood. Let me also provide the House with the reassurance that the Government will take all necessary action to keep the UK safe and secure”.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, in response to this Urgent Question in the other place, the Security Minister appeared to do little more than try to shift the blame to the previous Government. He did not answer the question from my right honourable friend the shadow Home Secretary, so I would like to put that question to the Minister here. I would be grateful if he could answer the question without his colleague’s obfuscation. The question quite simply is: when did the Home Secretary become aware of the impending collapse of the case? Also, given that the CPS has said it was given insufficient evidence, did the Home Secretary take steps to provide further evidence?

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

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. As he knows, the Security Minister made it clear last week, on 15 October, in Parliament that Ministers were informed after the DPP had made his decision and shortly before reporting restrictions were lifted. He came to the House straightaway to make a statement; self-evidently, I hope that answers the noble Lord’s point.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 16th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Official Opposition. It will come as no surprise to noble Lords on the Government Front Bench that we on these Benches broadly support the Bill, because large parts of it are a copy-and-paste job from the previous Conservative Government’s Criminal Justice Bill. From the provisions on anti-social behaviour to the new offence of cuckooing, the duty to report child sexual abuse and the new protest and public order offences, this Government are continuing the work we were doing to strengthen the criminal justice system. This is, of course, very welcome, but it does not mean that all is plain sailing.

The feeling among the British public is that crime has been increasing, even though overall rates of crime have fallen since 2010. The Crime Survey for England and Wales for the year ending March 2025 shows that there were 9.4 million incidents of headline crime. Although this represents a 7% rise from the previous year, the ONS states that this is due entirely to a 31% increase in fraud.

Undoubtedly, a significant factor in this overall feeling of pessimism is the increase in more visible crimes that impact people’s daily lives. Shoplifting, phone theft, graffiti, vandalism, fare evasion and drug use are highly visible crimes that leave people feeling unsafe in their daily lives. Shoplifting, for example, has risen by 20% in the year from 2024 to 2025.

The National Police Chiefs’ Council has pointed to an estimated £1.2 billion shortfall in police funding. The chair of the NPCC has said that the funding settlement in the spending review will “cover little more” than police pay rises. Chief Constable Paul Sanford has warned that the Government will find it “incredibly difficult” to meet their neighbourhood policing pledge with the funding settlement. The Metropolitan Police has already announced that it will have to cut 1,700 staff, scrap its dedicated anti-social behaviour officers and close down half of the front desks in stations across London.

This strikes at the heart of a wider principle. Is this Crime and Policing Bill, which runs to over 200 clauses and over 20 schedules, actually going to reduce crime on the streets of this country? In some ways, it might, but in many others, unless coupled with serious improvements in enforcement and police action, it may very well not.

To turn to the Bill, the Government have committed three crimes of commission and two crimes of omission. I will start with the crimes of omission. The Government’s 2024 election manifesto promised to introduce new respect orders with the aim to

“stamp out issues such as public drinking and drug use”.

The Government come armed with a noble cause, but all it takes is to scratch just below the surface to see that these respect orders are little more than smoke and mirrors.

The Bill inserts a new part before Part 1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, creating respect orders. It then converts what are currently anti-social behaviour injunctions into youth injunctions. Rather than giving the police, local authorities and the courts tough new powers to tackle anti-social behaviour, as the Government claim, they are instead simply renaming the currently existing injunctions and creating new orders that are the same in all but the name.

The anti-social behaviour injunctions were introduced as part of my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead’s efforts to streamline the powers available to authorities to deal with criminal and challenging behaviour. As she noted at that Bill’s Second Reading, under the previous Labour Government, over nine anti-social behaviour laws were passed, creating 19 separate powers. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 consolidated those into six powers. That had a purpose. I cannot see what this Government’s new respect orders will add to this arsenal.

Secondly, on the repeal of Section 22A of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, this provision states that shoplifting of goods with a value of less than £200 is to be tried only summarily in a magistrates’ court. There has been much misinformation about this provision, which was brought forward by the last Conservative Government. The Labour manifesto called this an “effective immunity” for some shoplifting—a line that has been parroted by Labour Ministers ever since. However, the Government’s policy paper on the Bill, published on GOV.UK, calls it “perceived immunity”, and I think that sums up the bizarre nature of the criticism.

I want to be absolutely clear: anyone claiming that trying low-value shoplifting in a magistrates’ court is granting criminals immunity is wrong and misleading the public. There is absolutely no reason why theft under £200 cannot be tried summarily. I need not remind the House, full of eminent lawyers as it is, that a person can still be sentenced to up to six months’ imprisonment and issued with a fine if found guilty in a summary trial. Six months’ imprisonment is clearly not immunity.

What this does is clear the already clogged-up Crown Court and let the police prosecute more serious cases. That does not mean that thefts under £200 from shops do not impact on shopkeepers, or that they should not be investigated, but there is nothing wrong with having a bit more summary justice in this country. It permits cases to be tried and discharged more quickly and efficiently, rather risking long and drawn-out Crown Court cases that last for months if not years. If the police are not investigating such offences, that is an issue with the operation of policing, not the law.

Clauses 107 and 108 were inserted into the Bill on Report in the other place and, as such, have not had as much scrutiny, perhaps, as they ought to. The 11th report of the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House has drawn attention to these clauses for the uncertain scope of the new offences and the use of highly subjective terminology.

Clause 107 creates the new offence of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour towards an emergency worker that are racially or religiously hostile. Clause 108 creates the offence of using threatening or abusive words or behaviour that are likely to cause an emergency worker harassment, alarm or distress. These offences are very similar to the existing offences under Section 4A and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. The key difference is that these new offences can be committed in a private dwelling, whereas those in the Public Order Act cannot. It is understandable why the Government might wish to press ahead with these new offences—we all wish to see our emergency workers protected—but it is far from certain that creating two new speech-related offences will offer emergency workers any greater protection in reality.

Clause 107 involves the criminalisation of insults and Clause 108 uses the term “distress”. Both are highly subjective, thereby leaving people open to prosecution on undefined terms. We already know that this an acute problem in this country. There exists a litany of cases where people have been arrested and prosecuted for speech offences. The continual misuse of non-crime hate incidents, and the probably irresponsible policing of tweets and online comments, have had a chilling effect on free speech. If anything, we should be reviewing and removing barriers to freedom of expression and speech, not expanding those limitations. I therefore echo the comments of the Constitution Committee in relation to Clauses 107 and 108 and call on the Government to heed its advice that these clauses should be drawn far more narrowly.

I am sure much of the debate on the Bill will comprise what noble Lords deem to be omissions and missed opportunities. I have time to mention only a few of those, but I give notice to the Minister that in Committee I will be raising many more. Given that this Bill, in many ways, mirrors the previous Government’s Criminal Justice Bill, it was surprising to see there has been no inclusion—bar two clauses—of the measures to end and replace the Vagancy Act. The previous Government planned to repeal the Act and replace it with a new framework around nuisance begging and rough sleeping. If the Government are to commence the repeal of the Vagrancy Act, but not institute further powers to replace it, there may be a gap in the law. I would appreciate it if the Minister could perhaps comment on why the Government have not included these measures in the Bill.

Furthermore, the Bill does not include the previous Government’s plans to impose tougher penalties on those convicted of shoplifting offences on more than three occasions. Those provisions would require the court to impose a community order, including a curfew, exclusion or electronic whereabouts monitoring condition, or a combination of such conditions. Given the Government’s tough talk on bearing down on retail crime, it is more than a little confusing why they have not included such measures in the Bill.

I will end where I began: criminal justice is not simply about laws this Parliament passes. We can continually create new criminal offences and we can pass as many new laws as we like, but until we get to grips with the enforcement of those laws, we will never tackle the scourge of criminality. The Government have been talking tough on crime, but this must now be met with corresponding action.

Police: Vetting, Training and Discipline

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, the “Panorama” exposé and the 17 deaths in or following police custody last year cast serious doubt on the independent custody visitor scheme. Evidence shows that it neither influences police nor ensures robust oversight. Does the Minister agree that the scheme requires urgent reform, needs to be totally independent and should not remain the responsibility of police and crime commissioners?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

If the noble Baroness will allow me, I will look at the points that she has raised. It is an important issue. I happen to think that it is important that there is an inspection regime of police custody. She has raised some particular concerns today. I will reflect on those and discuss them with my colleague the police Minister and respond to her in due course.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I was about to say that I share the sentiments being expressed here today. The issue, I feel, is one not of legal adequacy but of management oversight, training methods, accountability and, indeed, discipline. Speaking as somebody who spent over 30 years in a once very disciplined organisation, I ask the Minister whether he shares my disappointment that there is little evidence of progress being made in recent years in these areas, particularly within the Metropolitan Police? What further action is the Home Office taking to ensure that senior officers, from the very top down, are effectively holding their officers to account, and to improve public confidence in the police?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises a very important point. Going back to the question from the noble Viscount, leadership—understanding performance and showing leadership—is extremely critical. The Home Office is this year funding the College of Policing to look at ongoing support for police leadership, and we have given £2.6 million this year to do that. We have also set, and are examining still with the College of Policing and with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, national leadership standards. We will continue to work with the college to ensure that we improve standards of police training. That goes from chief constables down and I certainly endorse the comments that the noble Lord made.

Manchester Terrorism Attack

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Lords Chamber

However, at the same time we must not let this attack defeat us, nor forget who we really are, because the real face of this country was not that of the vile monster who conducted this attack. It was those who stood up to him and saved their fellow worshippers, and the emergency services who sprinted towards danger to bring the attack to an end. The real face of this country was not those who took to the streets and protested the very next day, but rather those who were horrified by the attack, stood with their Jewish neighbours and chose the path of solidarity over division. The antisemitic terrorist attack of 2 October was a horrifying act. In response to it, I hope the whole House can be united in a simple message: those who seek to divide us by pitting one against another will fail. No act of terror will ever defeat us. I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, it has been almost two weeks since Manchester was left reeling from yet another terrorist attack. The events of 2 October not only ended the lives of Adrian Daulby and Melvin Cravitz but left our entire Jewish community worrying about their safety. We are in an appalling situation now where we have to have armed police and security patrols outside synagogues and Jewish schools simply to ensure that British Jews can go about their daily lives safely. In the immediate aftermath of such an attack, such measures are, of course, necessary, but our places of worship and our community centres should be places of safety. No British citizen should have to live in perpetual fear simply because they are Jewish.

I have an observation to make. Whenever we speak in this House and elsewhere of terrorist attacks, atrocities and acts of extreme violence, we often offer our thoughts and prayers to the victims and their families. It has also become commonplace to repeat the refrain, “Never again”. We have said these words too many times; we hear them too often. We must move on from simply offering hollow words of condolence. Thoughts and prayers do not revive a grieving wife’s husband, do not prevent future attacks and do not save lives. These attacks happen again and again.

Beyond expressing our condolences, it is our duty as legislators to work together to tackle the evil that lay behind this attack. We must be clear that this terror attack and the rise of Islamic extremism and increasing antisemitism are inexplicably linked. This year has seen the second-highest number of antisemitic incidents ever recorded in this country. Hate-filled marches, ostensibly in the name of the pro-Palestine movement but frequently entering the territory of being anti-Jew, have filled our streets. For as long as we fail to tackle the growth of radical and violent Islamic extremism, both at home and abroad, attacks such as these are likely to continue. We must not shy away from calling this what it is—an extremist ideology linked to Islam—and we must ensure that we are always able to call out such an ideology.

Unfortunately, the Government’s working group on Islamophobia could serve to actively stifle free debate on the nature and prevalence of Islamic fundamentalism. This has been criticised by the National Secular Society, the Free Speech Union and the Network of Sikh Organisations, which is planning to bring a judicial review against the Government if the new definition goes ahead. So will the Minister implore his ministerial colleagues to drop these plans and ensure that free and open discussion about the dangers we face as a society from Islamic extremism is never curtailed?

I appreciate that this is a live legal investigation, and as such there is a limit on what the Minister can tell us. However, several questions arise from the particulars of these events. First, the attacker in question, Jihad al-Shamie, was a Syrian-born male who arrived in the United Kingdom as a child. He begged a woman to become his second wife, claiming that in Islam it is permissible for a man to have up to four wives, and then abused her mentally and sexually. At the time he carried out his attack, he was on bail for a rape he allegedly committed earlier this year. When he committed the Manchester attack, he called 999 and pledged allegiance to Islamic State. Despite all this, he was apparently not known to counterterror police. Does the Minister agree that more needs to be done to plug the gaps in the Government’s terrorism prevention programme? If so, are the Government looking into how they might do so?

Secondly, the Home Secretary, in her Statement, said she was looking to bring forward legislative changes to the Public Order Act 1986 to allow police forces to consider the cumulative impact of protest marches when deciding to impose those conditions. Indeed, we have seen the Government claim that they did not have sufficient powers to prevent the hate-filled marches across the country on the day after the 2 October attack in Manchester. However, Section 12 of the Public Order Act already permits senior police officers to place conditions on a public procession if it is held to cause intimidation to others. Is it the Government’s view that this existing test would not have been enough to place restrictions on those marches? Does the Minister think that the proposed new cumulative impact test will be sufficient? I look forward to his response.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, the appalling attack on the Manchester synagogue is a stark warning of the persistent threat of antisemitic hate and the urgent need to unify against those who seek to divide us. Attacks based on race or religion are totally unacceptable and this attack is a chilling testament to the rising tide of division in our society, which has left many in the Jewish community frightened even to go to their synagogue. Antisemitic hate, or hate in any form, has no place in Britain. We must never allow the heat of public debate to legitimise, excuse, encourage or embolden such cowardly acts of terrorism. Anyone who incites hatred, or spreads it, against any faith or background must be held accountable under the law.

This crime was not a political statement but an act of pure violence designed to spread fear and drive communities apart. Nevertheless, all of us, across all political parties, share a responsibility to seek consensus and reduce division when addressing issues that provoke strong passions. As a society, we are becoming more polarised with public debate, whether about events in the Middle East, immigration or indeed any other difficult subject, too frequently descending into hostility and suspicion. We all must reject the language and the policies of division and commit to trying to rebuild a sense of common purpose.

As we mourn the victims of this atrocity, we must also guard against overreaction. The temptation can be to reach for more powers and more controls, even at the expense of our fundamental freedoms. The Prime Minister’s pledge to review public order powers in the wake of Manchester is understandable, but I urge the Government to approach with caution, because incremental curbs on protest will not stop antisemitic hate, but a “drip, drip” approach to legislation risks us becoming a society where people of all backgrounds and beliefs no longer feel safe or free to express their views. That would, in my view, hand victory to those who want to divide us, because the restriction of protest rights will not defeat antisemitism but risks damaging our democracy.

The best way to respond to hate is to defend everyone’s right to live, worship and speak freely, within the law, while refusing to compromise our commitment to an open and plural democracy. We must learn from this tragedy, so I ask the Minister what action are the Government taking to work more closely with grass-roots faith leaders, not only through funding and policing but through genuine, community-led, early warning and education work with Jewish and interfaith groups to strengthen local resilience, encourage reporting and tackle radicalisation at its roots?

Refugee Family Reunion Scheme

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As my noble friend will guess from the questions I have had to date, we paused the family reunion scheme on 4 September pending a review, and we expect to bring forward proposals by April of next year. I am not in a position to give my noble friend a foretaste of what those proposals will be, because the purpose of us pausing the scheme is to examine the reasons why the increase has happened; to look at the pressures that have brought, potentially, 18% of reunion visas from Syria, 17% from Iran and 12% from Afghanistan; to look at what the drivers of that are and at how we can provide an appropriate level of family reunion—but in a context whereby we put some more strictures on what family reunion means.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

The Government have rightly suspended the refugee family reunion route while they draft new rules for the scheme. The Prime Minister has said that this was because he wanted to end the

“golden ticket to settling in the UK”.

Surely, the Minister must accept that the Government’s inability to implement any meaningful policies to stop illegal migration and their failure to deter the recent small boat crossings is indeed a golden ticket?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord and I have had much discussion on this issue in the last weeks and months. He knows that we have an honest disagreement about how we control some of those issues. He is conflating family reunion and asylum claims with individuals who are potentially coming here through irregular migration by small boats, funded by criminal gangs. He knows we are putting a border command in place to tackle those gangs. He knows we are putting in place measures to criminalise that activity. He knows we are putting in measures to try to stop that, including a scheme with France and scrapping the failed Rwanda scheme. There is an honest disagreement between us, but I hope he will recognise that the Government are acting responsibly in looking at the drivers of family reunion to see if we can make an honest assessment, rather than letting the figures rise uncontrollably, as happened under the last year of the previous Government.

Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 14th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, as always, it is a pleasure to follow the Minister in opening the Second Reading of this short but highly important Bill. There is a lot that we disagree on in this House—indeed, in politics in general, it would be fair to say that the Minister and I have differing views on a number of issues—but we all have the same end goal: we want to see this country thrive and, to do that, it must be as safe and secure as possible. To that end, I fully support the Bill.

The Minister has given a detailed account of the events that led the Government to seek this change to Section 40A of the British Nationality Act 1981. As he said, it arises out of a Supreme Court case earlier this year. In that ruling, the court held that were an appeal against a deprivation order successful, the order is considered to have had no effect. That means that while the Home Secretary’s further appeals are pending, the person would be able to enjoy their full rights of citizenship. The point here is that the power to deprive is used as a last resort. There was some talk in the other place that this power has not been used sparingly. That is not the case, because between 2010 and 2024, 222 orders were made on the grounds that deprivation was conducive to the public good—that is an average of 15.8 per year—and 858 orders were made for fraud. For context, there were 269,621 grants of British citizenship in 2024 alone, and since 2010, there have been at least 100,000 grants of citizenship every single year. We are therefore talking about a very small proportion of people who have their citizenship deprived when compared to the number of new citizenship grants that have been made. It is evident that the power is indeed used sparingly, in cases of the utmost seriousness.

Is it not wholly right, therefore, that in cases of such gravity the deprivation order should continue to have effect during the period of appeals? Of particular importance here is where a person whom the Home Secretary rightly deems to be a national security risk is currently abroad. The deprivation order would prevent that person returning to the United Kingdom. Under the Supreme Court’s new interpretation of the law, if that person were to successfully appeal in absentia, their right to enter the country unhindered would be reinstated automatically, with no regard to the potential risk they presented to the British public. That is surely an untenable situation.

This new interpretation is also legally inconsistent with asylum and immigration decisions. With asylum claims, a refusal continues to have effect until all legal processes are completed. Asylum status is not simply automatically granted by a court upon the first successful appeal. The process requires one to exhaust the full spectrum of legal challenges first.

This Bill is not about attempting to subvert judges or to amend the appeals process, nor does it make it easier to deprive a person of their citizenship. Rather, it is about reasserting the simple fact that it is for Parliament to decide what British citizenship means and the expectations we place on those who are granted it. Citizenship is a privilege, one that demonstrates a bond of trust. Those who violate that trust and openly threaten our society, or who utilise fraudulent means to gain it, should have that privilege revoked. The Government are right to ensure that deprivation can continue during the appeals process and are right to bring forward this Bill.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

We need to know what the Government’s direction of travel is: otherwise, it becomes very tricky for us to amend the Bill in a way which makes sense of it for the future. But then, if we do manage to amend it, that means, of course, that the Government will have to recognise that this House has taken a decision and follow that with their own regulations. So I am looking forward to some very concrete answers from a very important man who is sitting right opposite me as the Minister.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this group brings us to a very topical and significant point of contention. Amendments 165, 166 and 177 all seek in their own way to expand refugee family reunion provisions, in some cases dramatically.

I begin by acknowledging the sincerity of those who support these amendments. We all recognise the tragic circumstances that force families apart due to conflict and persecution. But we must equally recognise that compassion, if not tempered by realism and control, risks undermining both the integrity of our immigration system and the public’s confidence in its fairness. Each of these amendments, though well intentioned, risks undermining the very principles that underpin a sustainable, fair and secure asylum system.

Amendments 165 and 166, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, have made the argument that those granted refugee status in this country should be able to apply to bring their spouse, civil partner or unmarried partner, their children, grandchildren, sister, brother, nephew or nieces to the UK; and, for a child, they should be able to sponsor their parents, grandparents, sisters, brothers, aunts and uncles. This is a fundamental shift in the architecture of our immigration policy. It creates wide-ranging entitlements without the necessary safeguards, verification mechanisms or limits. It also risks creating perverse incentives, in particular the possibility that families might send unaccompanied children on dangerous journeys in the hope of opening a pathway for broader reunification. Such unintended consequences which risk perverse incentives are not compassionate: they are, to put it mildly, reckless.

Amendment 166 would require the Secretary of State to rewrite the immigration rules within six months to provide an expansive new framework for refugee family reunion—one that far exceeds the scope of existing policy, international norms and operational capacity. Subsection (5) of its proposed new clause includes, as of right, not only spouses and dependent children but siblings up to age 25, unmarried partners and, potentially, a wide range of others where there is dependency or concern for well-being. In that regard, my noble friend Lord Jackson is right to raise the issue of unmarried partners via his Amendment 169. Crucially, it would also open the door to almost unlimited discretion under its subsection (5)(e). This would empower the Secretary of State to admit other persons based on subjective criteria, including emotional or psychological dependency, with no practical limiting principle.

This is not a measured enhancement of our current rules. It is an open-ended expansion that risks transforming refugee protection into a de facto right to extended family migration, far removed from the original purpose of asylum law. It would not only increase pressure on our asylum system, already under significant strain, but risk distorting the principle of individual refuge into a system of family-by-family resettlement through the back door.

The current refugee family reunion framework already allows for spouses and children under 18 to join those granted protection, recognising both humanitarian concern and practical enforceability. What is proposed here goes far beyond that: it would create a prescriptive and permanent legal duty to change immigration rules, backed by statutory timetables, without proper democratic scrutiny or flexibility to adapt to changing geopolitical conditions.

This raises several concerns, the first about security and verification. How will we reliably establish family links, particularly when documentation is scarce or unreliable? The broader we cast the net of eligibility, the more vulnerable our system becomes to fraud, abuse and trafficking. A second concern is about the operational consequences. The Home Office is already processing record numbers of applications, with finite resources. Imposing a statutory obligation to widen the criteria, potentially by tens of thousands of additional claimants, would undermine our capacity to deal swiftly and justly with the most urgent cases. This amendment, with its wide eligibility, statutory rigidity and lack of safeguards, risks sending precisely that signal.

I must ask: what is the end point? If we legislate to allow adult siblings, adult children up to 25, unmarried partners and those in psychological dependency, where does it end? We risk normalising a model where refuge is no longer about the individual at risk but an entitlement for entire extended families, however genuine their desire to reunite. That is not what the refugee convention envisages and it is not something we can responsibly support.

Amendment 177 proposes a statutory family reunion right for asylum-seeking children overseas to join relatives already granted protection in the UK. The amendment would remove virtually every safeguard, with no maintenance or accommodation requirements, no fees and no health surcharge. It would also oblige the Secretary of State to facilitate travel arrangements and co-ordinate with foreign authorities, regardless of the complexities or security conditions on the ground. In effect, this would create a state-sponsored international reunification scheme for extended relatives, with no meaningful eligibility checks or financial thresholds.

The idea may be noble in sentiment, but it is completely divorced from operational reality. We already offer safe and legal routes for those in greatest need. The resettlement schemes for Syrians, Afghans and Ukrainians, not to mention the Hong Kong BNO route, demonstrate that, when this country chooses to act, we do so with generosity and resolve. But that generosity must be targeted, managed and sustainable.

At the heart of all three amendments is a belief that compassion must override control, but compassion without control is not kindness but chaos. The British people expect an asylum system that is firm but fair, not one that is open-ended, unverified and vulnerable to abuse. We must not confuse individual acts of empathy with a systematic rewriting of our immigration obligations. Nor should we allow our policies to be shaped by emotional pressure alone. A functioning asylum system must serve those in greatest need first and foremost, but it must do so within the bounds of national sovereignty, operational capacity and public trust. I fully respect those who have tabled these amendments, but I urge the Committee to reflect seriously on the risks they pose. We cannot allow emotion to drive policy at the expense of security, sustainability and the long-term integrity of our borders.

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

I am genuinely grateful to noble Lords who have tabled these amendments. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Jones, the noble Lords, Lord German, Lord Jackson and Lord Kerr, and my noble friends Lord Dubs and Lady Lister for their proposed amendments. They have generated a debate and discussion that we need to have. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, for his recognition of the difficult job we face in the Home Office. This week alone, it is immigration today, deprivation of citizenship tomorrow and crime and policing on Thursday, and there may be a repeat Statement on the Manchester incident as well. It is a full agenda for the Home Office to deal with.

I start by responding to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I am not right-wing; I am not pandering to right-wing tendencies. I am trying to ensure, with my colleagues in the Home Office, that we manage some important issues in an effective way, for the response that is required by the public but also for the management of this system.

--- Later in debate ---

I think the sentiment behind Amendment 175 is correct—the link between wages and migration—but it has got the causality round the wrong way. We should have a tough immigration system, which is what puts the incentive on employers to train and hire people from the domestic labour force.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, the two amendments in this group in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord German, raise two slightly different, yet interlinked, points. I have just a few observations. There is often much talk about the necessity of immigration because people are unwilling to do certain jobs, and therefore, to prevent understaffing, we must fill vacancies with workers from abroad. This is evident in the social care sector, which undoubtedly does suffer from a workforce shortage and low wages. Although not guaranteed, there is the possibility that, if wages in the care sector were higher, we might see more British people willing to enter carers’ roles and thus end the reliance on importing labour for the sector.

There is the obvious caveat, of course. This amendment asks for a report to assess the effect of introducing a sector-specific minimum wage for carers on net migration, and we must be careful about setting wages via statutory intervention in a highly selective manner. If we begin carving out bespoke wage floors sector by sector, we risk distorting the labour market and undermining the effectiveness of our broader immigration and wage policy framework. Nevertheless, Amendment 175 raises an interesting point and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

I am far more sceptical about Amendment 176, which seeks to exempt NHS workers from the immigration skills charge. The NHS currently relies on talented professionals from around the world. They are a credit to our country and an integral part of our public services. However, I would suggest that there is a fallacy inherent in this debate. For far too long, our solution to the problem of labour shortages in the health and care sector has been to simply import workers from abroad. That is the easy solution. I have no issue with admitting that, in the past, my party has been all too complicit in this as well. But just because this has been the prevailing policy for some time does not mean it is right.

The immigration skills charge exists for a reason: to ensure that businesses and public services invest in domestic training and workforce development. Staffing shortfalls in the NHS have been filled by migration, but what that demonstrates is a fundamental weakness in our healthcare training and education system. As it stands, we are clearly not doing enough to hire British doctors, nurses and care workers, and that is why we are having to rely on immigration to fill those gaps. This is precisely the inverted logic that has been applied to healthcare hiring and immigration for far too long.

To exempt NHS employees outright risks setting a precedent that could ultimately weaken the incentive for long-term workforce planning in our health system. Applying exceptions to the charge will therefore not solve the problem we have; it may very well exacerbate it.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord German, for speaking to the amendments on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. They have raised two specific issues, as the noble Lords, Lord Harper and Lord Davies of Gower, have mentioned. First, the Government recognise the vital contribution which international care workers have made to both the NHS and adult social care. However, the immigration White Paper, published in May, sets out the Government’s general position that we should be trying to encourage greater use and greater support for opportunities within the United Kingdom for those levels of skills, training and engagement for those who are economically inactive in the resident UK labour market. The purpose of the Government’s White Paper—and, indeed, the announcements on 30 September on the fair pay agreement for the adult care sector—is to ensure that professionals are recognised and rewarded for the important work they do. It is a manifesto commitment that we will commit to extensively engage with the care sector on the design and implementation of a fair pay agreement, with the process and objective of, along with the immigration White Paper, increasing the use of UK-based residents in the social care sector.

I am grateful for the introductory comments from the noble Lord, Lord German, because in those comments he clarified for me what he meant about the minimum wage. Obviously, there is no specific minimum wage for carers as a whole, although there is a national minimum wage, which I was proud to stay up over several days to vote for back in 1998 in another place. It is a very important piece of legislation. However, people looking to recruit international care workers and senior care workers must now pay at least £25,000 per year based on a 37.5 hour week. This equates to £12.82 per hour. Noble Lords will be aware that the Government changed the immigration rules in July to remove the right to recruit care workers internationally. Therefore, the amendment as drafted is unclear as to what minimum wage would be reported on, although I did get the sense that it is the living wage that the noble Lord, Lord German, was speaking about.

However, I do not believe that it is necessary to lay a report in Parliament, given that the Government publish details on migration on a quarterly basis which will show the impact of changes on inward migration and, in due course, once we have had an opportunity to consult further, the impact of the fair pay agreement on adult social care as a whole.

More broadly, in light of changes to the immigration system, the Government have commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee to review salary thresholds across the skilled worker route, to ensure that international recruitment is never a cheap alternative to fair pay and must reflect the new changes to our immigration system. I think this is a very positive development by the Government to ensure that foreign workers are not undercutting wages for people based in the United Kingdom—something I had experience of in my former constituency when I was a Member of Parliament. So I say with due respect, as ever, to the noble Lord, Lord German, that the amendment is not necessary and misses the target on this point.

On Amendment 176, I hope the Committee will bear with me when I say that I agreed with almost every word of the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Harper—it is a novel experience, but one I welcome—as he made the arguments that I would have made and will make on this amendment. Removing the immigration skills charge would send the wrong message. It would remove an important tool in encouraging employers to look first at the domestic labour market and what more can be done to train and improve the skills of those in the UK, rather than simply looking outside it to import individuals who may accordingly be employed on a lower rate of pay. Following the arguments we made in the immigration White Paper, we want to ensure that we both reduce reliance on overseas-trained workers to support our public services and upskill and support the development of local talent to fulfil those roles.

Also—I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, on this point—by seeking to exempt the NHS, this amendment would allow the NHS to benefit from cheaper recruitment for non-clinical roles, such as health service and public health managers or people working in IT occupations. The amendment would not cater for health and care professionals who are not employed by the NHS. For example, it would not cover nurses working in private hospitals or health professionals who may work in private organisations that support the wider health sector.

So, for once in this Committee, I agree with two noble Lords from the Official Opposition Benches. Hopefully, I can rely on their support to ensure that the proposals from the noble Lord, Lord German, if he chooses to bring them back on Report later this month or early in November, are defeated. I hope that, with the explanation I have given him, the noble Lord will not press these amendments and will reflect on them with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, whom I hope to see back in her place shortly, so that we do not need to discuss this issue again on Report in a couple of weeks’ time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I absolutely support the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, in this matter. I draw upon my own experience of 11 years in a bilingual Parliament, the Senedd Cymru: without accuracy or professional translators, it would undoubtedly have been difficult to create the laws we passed during those 11 years.

Accuracy and clarity are critical. There is of course a cost to doing it properly, as the noble Lord, Lord Harper, rightly says. However, if it is not done properly, it will end up in the courts, and legal aid and various other factors will be involved. I do not agree with the noble Lord that you should not face the cost, because that cost may be displaced over the time.

I will wait for the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, to reply on AI assistance, but there is a big difference between people hearing what is said exactly and reproducing it in exactly the same way it is being spoken. When someone speaks, the interpreter and translator translate those words exactly as they were said. That is the important issue here.

I want to tempt the Minister to talk about the learning of the English language, which is of course associated with this. There is undoubtedly a real problem in providing sufficient language courses to help people get an experience of the English language. Do the Government have any ambitions to improve the teaching of English to people coming here on the migration route?

As for the reason for this amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said, we should not be putting ourselves at risk by not having it.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak only briefly on this amendment. The intention behind it is obviously very welcome. We need to make sure that those going through this process can understand what is happening and what is being asked of them. It is of course a duty of the Government to make sure that this can happen. To that end, I hope the Minister can take this opportunity to set out to the Committee that the Government are already working to make sure that the Home Office and other agencies have the capacity to provide these services, and how they plan to manage any increase in demand.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and, to an extent, the noble Lords, Lord Harper and Lord German, for raising this matter of both practical importance and human dignity: the provision of translation and interpretation services within the Home Office.

The Government’s immigration White Paper rightly underscores the importance of English language proficiency as a cornerstone of successful integration into British society. We believe, as I am sure not only the noble Baroness but all noble Lords will agree, that the ability to speak English empowers individuals to participate fully in our communities, to contribute economically and to build meaningful lives in the United Kingdom.

However, obviously, there are circumstances where the needs of both protection and expediency trump this proposal. As we have already heard from noble Lords, particularly from the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, there are individuals for whom translation and interpretation services are essential to enable them to access care and to begin the long journey of recovery and justice—for example, dealing with young women who have been trafficked to the UK against their will, suffering abuse and exploitation. The Home Office has a duty to uphold the high standards of delivery of these services. It is not merely a matter of administrative efficiency but of moral and legal obligation.

Paragraph 339ND of the Immigration Rules already makes it clear that the Home Secretary must provide, at public expense, an interpreter wherever necessary to allow an applicant to submit their case. This includes the substantive asylum interview, a moment that can determine the course of a person’s life.

Noble Lords may be aware that, in the other place, an MP elected on the Reform ticket asked a number of His Majesty’s Government’s departments not to provide such translation services. I, for one, believe that the Government regret that approach. Both natural justice and respect for the rule of law are essential characteristics of our system and our society, and we will not undermine these principles. As I said, we understand the importance of providing proper interpretation services, not simply so that asylum seekers can access the system adequately but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, pointed out, so that the system makes the right call the first time round.

Moreover, in the context of criminal investigations undertaken by Immigration Enforcement, the principle of common law and the European Convention on Human Rights both affirm that a defendant must understand the charges against them and be able to mount a proper defence. This is not optional extra, and we do not treat it as such. As I said, the current Immigration Rules make clear the need to provide interpretation services. For instances where we do not provide translation services within the asylum process, claimants can utilise legal representatives to support them. Furthermore, Migrant Help’s asylum services, which are available 24 hours a day, offer free, independent advice, guidance and information, including full interpretation services.

We have had some discussion about funding, and noble Lords will appreciate that value for money remains a guiding principle for this Government in public service delivery. We must therefore ensure that language services are cost effective, and the Home Office is committed to assessing language service needs and spend to ensure we deliver both fiscal responsibility and a compassionate, practical approach to translation. We understand well the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, about penny-pinching undermining the integrity of the system. The noble Lord, Lord Harper, asked about the cost gap in the sense, I suppose, of a counterfactual situation. I am not sure that any assessment has been made of that additional cost gap, but I will go back and ask officials whether that has been the case.

Asylum Claims: Religious Conversion

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. He gives me the opportunity to repeat the fact that the Government have recruited an extra 1,000 individuals to work on speeding up asylum claims, because the key issue is making sure that we determine very speedily whether individuals have a right to stay in the United Kingdom. If they do, they can; if they do not, they should be removed after subsequent appeals have been unsuccessful.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister may be aware that in March last year, the Home Affairs Select Committee heard oral evidence from a former Anglican reverend that his church had been used as a conveyor belt for an industry of asylum baptism. He raised concerns that asylum seekers were deliberately converting to Christianity in order to claim that they would be persecuted if they were sent back to their home country. Given the unease within the Church of England about those comments, what discussions has the Home Office had with the Church of England regarding such conversions for asylum purposes?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Home Office continues to have discussions with Church leaders on a range of matters, including asylum. I say to the noble Lord—I hope this is helpful—that if he is asking, “Does the Home Office accept every conversion claim?”, we do not. All claims are assessed on an individual basis. Someone simply saying that they are converting to Christianity does not mean that they will have their asylum claim accepted. That asylum claim will be tested against both their performance and whether they attend church, along with advice given by Church leaders and others, but it does not guarantee an acceptance of an asylum claim.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I do not want to repeat all that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, but I agree with every word. If we wish people to become full citizens of, or to integrate into, our country, looking back at the way in which they came into the country actually damages that process. People who could have been working here for years, and brought families up together, are being denied that opportunity.

It is quite clear that this is a case of one step forward, one step back. The repeal of some of the provisions of the Illegal Migration Act, in Clauses 38 and 39 of the Bill, was absolutely the right thing to do. But then the Secretary of State overturned that by stating simply that, from 10 February 2025, individuals applying for citizenship who arrived by “a dangerous journey”, or who entered the UK irregularly, “will normally be refused” British citizenship, with no carve-out for refugees, stateless persons, victims of trafficking or children—and it is retrospective to people already in the United Kingdom.

Because it is such an important issue, I managed to ask whether Britain was standing alone on this matter. I have arranged, through a system in this Parliament that I did not know about, to ask all 46 Parliaments of the Council of Europe a question. When considering a citizenship application from an individual who is legally recognised as a refugee, to what extent does the method by which they entered the country impact their eligibility for citizenship? For example, does entering national territory without permission normally make an applicant ineligible for citizenship, including if they are later recognised as a refugee?

That was dealt with by the Parliaments of the Council of Europe, and we received responses from 31 member countries. Not one of them has the rule that the Secretary of State has just applied to this system. I will read out the names of those countries, because they ought to be on record: Albania, Armenia, Austria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Canada—which is an associate of the Council of Europe—Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Moldova, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and Ukraine. None of them carries out this policy.

Why are we standing alone? Why are we the ones who are marching out of step with everybody else? Why is it that we do not want these people, who are coming here and spending their lifespan here, to be integrated fully and granted citizenship? They have worked their way through our society. It is absolutely shameful and the Government ought to rescind the Secretary of State’s statement and fall back on what is done in this Bill. In the Bill, we have done the right thing. By contrast, the Secretary of State’s statement needs to be re-dealt with, so that we can fall in line with every other country in Europe that decided to respond to this. Incidentally, it was only the small countries that did not respond, such as San Marino and Andorra; all the big countries of Europe are in there.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly about the first amendment in this group, in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford and moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, before moving on to those in my name and those of my noble friends.

The “good character” assessment may, in the view of some noble Lords, have a slightly antiquated name, but let me take a moment to go into some more detail. A person will not normally be considered to be of good character if there is information to suggest that any of the following apply: if they are a criminal, if they are a terrorist, if they have failed to pay tax, if they are dishonest or if they have breached immigration laws. That is not an exhaustive list, but those are the main points set out by the Government.

I know that the amendment is well intentioned, but we on these Benches believe that the requirements currently set out to be considered a person of “good character” are not only valid but important for maintaining national security and the safety and well-being of our citizens. For us to say that a person should not be a threat to national security, that they should be honest and that they should seek to nurture our community rather than harm it, as a prerequisite, is, I am sure all noble Lords will agree, an entirely valid principle. I therefore cannot support any measures that threaten the watering down of this principle and cannot back the amendment.

I turn to the amendments in this group in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Cameron and Lord Jackson of Peterborough. We need to acknowledge in this debate that, despite our various disagreements on the Bill and, to some extent, on how we approach the issue of migration more widely, we share the same fundamental ambition to see our country succeed. We all want a country in which everyone contributes, in which communities thrive and work together, and in which our economy and public services are properly supported. But, if we are to get closer to achieving this ambition, we must face up to the reality that our social security and welfare systems are not limitless. They exist to protect the vulnerable here at home and to support those who fall on hard times. That is why these amendments are so vital.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

189: After Clause 48, insert the following new Clause—
“Disapplication of the Human Rights Act 1998 for immigration legislation(1) For the purposes of any provision made by virtue of this Act or the relevant immigration legislation, and for any decision, action or policy made under this Act or the relevant immigration legislation, the Human Rights Act 1998 does not apply.(2) Where a court or tribunal is considering any decision under the relevant immigration legislation, the court or tribunal must disregard the Human Rights Act 1998.(3) For the purposes of this section “the relevant immigration legislation” means—(a) the Immigration Acts as defined by section 61(2) of the UK Borders Act 2007, and(b) the Immigration Rules made under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971.(4) In the Human Rights Act 1998—(a) in section 3, after subsection (2), insert—“(3) This section does not apply to any provision made by or by virtue of the relevant immigration legislation as defined by section (Disapplication of the Human Rights Act 1998 for immigration legislation) of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025.”;(b) in section 6— (i) in subsection (2)(a) omit the last “or”(ii) after subsection (2)(b) insert—“(c) the authority was exercising powers or fulfilling functions conferred on the authority by the relevant immigration legislation as defined by section (Disapplication of the Human Rights Act 1998 for Immigration Legislation) of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025.”(5) In the Immigration Act 1971—(a) in section 8AA—(i) in subsection (2), omit “Subject to subsections (3) to (5)”,(ii) in subsection (2)(a)(i) omit “, or”;(iii) omit subsection (2)(a)(ii), and(iv) omit subsections (3) to (6), and(b) in section 8B, omit subsection (5A).(6) In the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, omit section 2.(7) In section 84 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002—(a) in subsection (1) after “must” insert “not”,(b) in subsection (2) after “must” insert “not”,(c) in subsection (2) for “section 6” substitute “any section”, and(d) in subsection (3) after “must” insert “not”.(8) In the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc.) Act 2004 in section 2 (offences relating to entering the United Kingdom without a passport), in subsection (12) for the definition of “leave or asylum interview” substitute—“leave interview” means an interview with an immigration officer or an official of the Secretary of State at which a person seeks leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom.(9) Where the European Court of Human Rights indicates an interim measure relating to the exercise of any function under the legislation identified in subsection (1)—(a) it is only for a Minister of the Crown to decide whether the United Kingdom will comply with the interim measure under this section, and(b) an immigration officer or court or tribunal must not have regard to the interim measure.”

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, we now turn, in my submission, to probably one of the most important groups of amendments on the Bill, which I am sure will promote some discussion and likely much disagreement. That is perhaps something to be welcomed.

The stated aim of the Human Rights Act, when it was introduced, was to bring rights home. It incorporates 16 rights derived from the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law and was itself enacted to satisfy the obligations placed on the British Government by Article 1 of the ECHR. This was all to satisfy a noble purpose: to make sure that human rights in the United Kingdom were protected and upheld. But we have seen the corruption of this noble purpose no more keenly than when we see how it has been applied to matters of immigration and deportation.

To give an example, noble Lords will no doubt be familiar with the horrific abuses inflicted on girls by the Rochdale grooming gangs. Two of the Rochdale grooming gang ringleaders, Adil Khan and Qari Abdul Rauf, fought deportation by claiming their right to a family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is also Article 8 of the Human Rights Act. Rauf even gave up his Pakistani citizenship just to make sure that we could not deport him. He lost his appeals, yet he is still here: still in Rochdale, still living among the people whose lives he destroyed.

It is clear that, under the straitjacket imposed on us by the Human Rights Act, our country has lost control of the asylum system. Hundreds of thousands of people have come here claiming to be refugees—far more than politicians before us ever imagined—almost all passing through neighbouring countries which are perfectly safe. Tens of thousands of them will receive taxpayer-funded legal aid, which is spent on lawyers competing to devise ever more ingenious legal arguments to keep them in the country.

Let me give your Lordships some more examples. One woman, who was refused leave to remain, deliberately joined a terrorist organisation to manufacture a claim that she risked imprisonment back home. A convicted paedophile evaded deportation by claiming he was gay and that his life would be at risk in his home country. And let us not forget the Albanian criminal who claimed in February that he could not be deported because of his son’s sensitivity around food, the sole example given in court being his aversion to foreign chicken nuggets. The immigration tribunal ruled that his deportation would breach his Article 8 rights, as it would apparently have an “unduly harsh” impact on his son.

Every day we see these kinds of cases reported, and tens of thousands of illegal immigrants, mainly adult men, take the risk of crossing the channel in small boats because they know that we cannot remove even criminals and terrorists. Indeed, we pay their legal fees to help them stay. We have seen this unjust situation unfold further with the Government’s returns deal with France. The week before Parliament broke for recess saw the first two flights leave with no migrants on board. Those who were due to be deported on those flights had their deportation orders halted by the High Court due to concerns about human trafficking and torture. The new Home Secretary herself admonished those trying to use the Human Rights Act and the ECHR to prevent their deportation as

“making a mockery of our laws”.

How can this situation be a reflection of the laudable aims that heralded the incorporation of the ECHR into our statute book in 1998? The simple answer is that it is not. The dream has become a nightmare, and the time has come for us to do something about it. That is why I and my noble friends on these Benches have tabled this amendment.

There is a point I wish to clarify here. After the excellent, thorough report of my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, the Conservative Party has committed itself to repealing the Human Rights Act and leaving the ECHR. While it is no longer the policy of the Official Opposition simply to disapply the Human Rights Act for immigration cases, this Bill does not present us with the opportunity to repeal the HRA. To do so would require a Bill of its own. This amendment is therefore the avenue through which we are able at this stage to facilitate discussion on the impact of our continued membership of the ECHR.

I know that some noble Lords in your Lordships’ House today will disagree with me. As I have already said, the debate is welcome, but I ask those who disagree whether our situation now, this minute, is one that the Human Rights Act is working to improve. Has the Human Rights Act protected the victims, their families and communities in Rochdale? Has it protected our people from the paedophiles who continue to languish in the United Kingdom because we cannot deport them? Does it help or hinder people smugglers who use it to reassure the people they are transporting that they will not be removed? The answer is clear: the Human Rights Act in this context does not uphold human rights. It aids and abets abusers in their abuse. Trauma is continued and renewed because of the Act. The rights of our people come second to the rights of child abusers and terrorists, who hide behind the Act to remain on our shores, to remain a threat to our people and to remain a source of terror and pain for the people they have already harmed. We are prevented from deporting those who show flagrant disrespect for the laws passed by our sovereign Parliament, but even more fundamentally it prevents us enacting the wishes of the British people. This is an untenable situation that we must swiftly seek to remedy.

I further welcome the amendments to Amendment 189 tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth; they perform an important function in strengthening its purpose. While that amendment would disapply the Human Rights Act from immigration legislation, my noble friend’s additions would ensure that the mechanisms contained in Sections 4 and 10 of the Human Rights Act are also expressly excluded. In practice, this means that the courts would not be able to issue declarations of incompatibility in relation to immigration law; nor would Ministers be able to use remedial orders to alter such legislation on human rights grounds. That would close off any backdoor reintroduction of Human Rights Act challenges into this field, and it would provide the clarity and certainty that are essential if this policy is to be delivered effectively. I therefore strongly support these amendments as a logical and necessary reinforcement of the central principle of Amendment 189.

As has been said in the other place, now is the time for radical decisions. This is an amendment the Government should welcome if we are to stand up for the rights and well-being of the British people. I beg to move.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, as foreshadowed by my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower, I have two amendments in this group that seek to amend the Front Bench disapplication provision for the Human Rights Act. Of course, disapplication feels rather “yesterday”; the Overton window on the question of human rights law is now clearly swinging in favour of repeal of the Human Rights Act, following the excellent report produced by my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar and the announcement of the party’s new policy. Be that as it may, for the purposes of this Bill, the correct approach, which I suggest the Minister should grasp with both hands, is to disapply the effect of the convention and the operation of the Act in the sphere of immigration decisions.

Disapplying the Human Rights Act from this area is not unprecedented. As the Minister will recall, this provision was incorporated, in a slightly different form, in the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act, and it was clearly a matter that passed both Houses of Parliament. It is both a precedented and a necessary step.

I turn briefly to the context for my amendment. The amendment itself would add two further provisions to the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Davies: that is, to include in the operation Section 4 of the Human Rights Act, which is the court power to make a declaration of incompatibility, and Section 10, which is a power to remedy any incompatibility by means of a statutory instrument. As Policy Exchange observed in its paper on the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act in December 2023, that disapplication provision did not mention Sections 4 and 10 and was the worse for it, because the experience has been that, where a court can make a declaration of incompatibility, those matters are taken almost automatically by the Government as warranting some sort of remedial step.

No Government so far have ignored a declaration of incompatibility, to my knowledge. For example, in the recent case where the Northern Irish High Court found an incompatibility in the legacy Act, the decision of the Government was to bring forward a remedial order to have the effect of suspending the operation of the provisions of that Act without waiting for primary legislation, itself a controversial move. To avoid that situation recurring, I have tabled these amendments to exclude from any potential challenge to immigration-related decisions a decision by a court to make a declaration of incompatibility, or a decision by a Government to attempt to remedy it by making a remedial order under Section 10 of the Human Rights Act.

It is clearly time that we took back control of the United Kingdom’s borders. This Government, and particularly this Home Office, know the difficulties that trying to operate within the constraints of the Human Rights Act has generated as it has evolved. I encourage the Minister to accept a provision similar to this so that he can implement the policies of his Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I suggest that the noble Lord tests me on these matters when we have, as I have said, undertaken the work, reviewed potential legislation, brought forward proposals and put them before both this House and the House of Commons. Either I or a Minister in the House of Commons will have signed the Bill at that stage, in terms of those issues, but we are a number of steps away from that.

At the moment, we have assessed—this goes back to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, mentioned—that Articles 3 and 8 have some challenges, but the principle is not to do what the Opposition seek, which is to withdraw from this in its entirety and, in doing so, withdraw from a range of international obligations that we share with many countries and which underpin the work of this United Kingdom in so many areas. That is not my natural approach to this challenge. With due respect to noble Lords, let us have that debate and, if need be, let us have that vote at some point. We will be on different sides of that argument.

To the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, I say this: bear with us. We will bring forward the points that I have tried to make in tonight’s debate on Articles 3 and 8. They will be examined when the Government have had an opportunity both to examine them in detail—now that we are in government, as opposed to being outside the tent in opposition—and to bring forward proposals that will help in a way that builds consensus with our partners on what ECHR reform could look like. At the recent European Political Community Summit, 17 nations, including the UK, agreed to work together to ensure that the ECHR and other international frameworks are implemented in a way that safeguards against abuse so that Governments can tackle modern challenges.

The UK is committed to complying with international law. If we accepted the amendments from those opposite, we would not be, in my view, complying with international law. That includes implementing judgments of the European court and complying when it indicates binding interim measures in pending cases; when the court has reformed and improved its approach to interim measures, which I currently welcome, we will abide by those also.

In summary, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, can be patient. To the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Murray, I say this: I am sorry that we are not going to agree, but I hope that I have explained the reasons why.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, as expected, that created a good discussion on the amendments in this group; I am thankful to the noble Lords who took part in it. I am disappointed that, after all the legitimate deportations that have been blocked, the Government are still resisting these sensible proposals—if not, perhaps, a little confused by the Government’s variety of views as to where they are going with this.

I shall not detain the Committee for much longer, but I must stress that the Human Rights Act is not supporting or upholding the rights and freedoms that it was meant to enshrine. The Human Rights Act has become a shield behind which criminals, terrorists and abusers hide. We are clear that this is not at all right.

Let us not forget that varying degrees of this policy are supported by many of those on the Government’s own Benches. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, has publicly called for the Government to suspend parts of the ECHR to allow for more illegal migrants and foreign criminals to be deported. Another former Labour Home Secretary, Jack Straw, has proposed decoupling human rights laws from the ECHR to permit more deportations. I note that the Government have committed to reforming how Article 8 is interpreted under UK law and we have heard that commitment again from the Minister. But the simple fact is that this is not sufficient. If we reinterpret Article 8, crafty defence lawyers will find a workaround for the new interpretation or will start using other provisions of the Human Rights Act to block deportation. We say that only a wholesale repeal will resolve the issue of vexatious legal challenges and allow us to regain control of our asylum system.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

204: Clause 49, page 47, line 14, leave out “5” and insert “14”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to standardise the punishment for offences relating to articles used in serious crime in this clause with the punishment for offences relating to articles used in immigration crime in clauses 13 and 14.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this is a simple group with some simple amendments. As we are close to reaching the end of six rather long days of Committee on this Bill, I will be brief. Amendment 204 seeks to standardise the punishment for offences relating to articles used in serious crime in Clause 49 with the punishment for offences relating to articles used in immigration crime in Clauses 13 and 14.

It is slightly strange that Part 3 has found its way into this Bill. The provisions around serious crime prevention orders and articles for use in serious crime were part of the previous Government’s Criminal Justice Bill, which unfortunately fell due to the election. Although it is welcome that this Government are taking these provisions forward, it would have made more sense to include them in the upcoming Crime and Policing Bill, which we will consider later this week, rather than in an immigration and border security Bill. But, since these clauses have found their way into this Bill, there is good reason to consider them holistically as part of the general measures aimed at deterring immigration offences. That is what the amendments in this group aim to achieve.

Amendment 204 therefore changes the maximum period of imprisonment for possession of an article for use in a serious crime from five years to 14 years. This would be the same as the maximum imprisonment for the new offences of supplying or handling an article for use in immigration crime. Similarly, Amendments 204A and 204B would expand the class of applicants for a serious crime prevention order to include the directors-general of Border Force and Immigration Enforcement, as well as the Border Security Commander. This would permit those senior officials to apply for these prevention orders as part of their duties in protecting our border security and enforcing immigration laws.

Amendment 208B would expand the definition of a “serious crime” for the purposes of the Serious Crime Act 2007. Currently, the only crime under any of the immigration Acts considered to be a serious crime is the offence of assisting unlawful immigration and helping an asylum seeker enter the United Kingdom. If a serious crime prevention order can be given for these offences, why can one not be given for all offences under Sections 24 and 24A of the Immigration Act 1971? Certainly, why can one not be given under the new immigration offences in Clauses 13 and 14 of this Bill?

These amendments, taken together, are intended to strengthen the ability of the authorities to tackle immigration crimes by giving them the necessary legal tools. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 207 in this group. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, that it is rather odd that the serious crime prevention provisions are in this Bill. I wondered whether it is because the Crime and Policing Bill was “overloaded”—would that be the term to use? But that is the extent to which I agree with the noble Lord.

I am not alone on these Benches: the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and I have raised a number of times over the years our concern about civil orders morphing into crime without any finding of guilt. The Bill extends serious crime prevention orders with the inclusion of electronic monitoring and the creation of interim orders, extends the list of parties who can apply for an order—the noble Lord, Lord Davies, would extend it further—and gives the Crown Court jurisdiction in this area. So it will be no surprise to anyone who has heard us before to see this amendment.

It is not only the extensions that make the need for a review all the more important. There is very little evidence or data, if any, to show that the orders work. They overlap with other orders, so there is some confusion. There is inconsistency in their use, which I have become very aware of in the context of modern slavery and human trafficking, where it became clear that some police forces were not even aware that they could pursue equivalent orders. There is a lack of resourcing and infrastructure to monitor and enforce orders. Breaches are common, which is not surprising, because individuals do not have adequate support to comply with the restrictions and requirements that orders can contain and so, as has been put to us, they are set up to fail.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights made recommendations with regard to these provisions:

“Given the severe infringement on the right to privacy posed by the imposition of electronic monitoring, the test should be one of ‘necessity and proportionality’, not whether it is ‘appropriate’”,


and,

“To ensure respect for Convention rights, the prosecuting authorities and the courts must be careful to only seek and impose these interim orders where risks are imminent”.


Rather than proposing those provisions specifically, we on these Benches feel that it would be helpful and important for there to be a review of prevention orders in the round before we make piecemeal additions to them, and a review would certainly extend to the issues of necessity and proportionality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I am very happy to write on that point but, speaking as a practitioner of the dark arts of evaluation, I am generally in favour of its publication.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his response and will be very brief in closing this group. The amendments considered here all focus on provisions drafted by the previous Government and continued by this one, so it is not surprising that I support them. My amendments in this group do not signify my opposition to these clauses of the Bill. Rather, they serve as suggestions to further improve and expand the ability of immigration authorities to combat immigration crime—although I perhaps take issue with what the noble Lord said in respect of Amendment 204B. Perhaps that is a debate for another time. I understand his view on this and I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 204 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

I am not expecting the Minister when he responds to say, “Yes, it is a wonderful idea and we will do it tomorrow”, but I hope he will at least consider it and see if it is a way of saving lives. I do not care whose lives they are; that is something completely separate, but you still have a duty to save lives. On that basis, I beg to move.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I will deal with Amendments 208 and 208A tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Dubs. I begin by saying that we on these Benches agree very much with the underlying principle: the importance of taking action against those who endanger lives at sea.

We appreciate the passion behind this amendment. Indeed, I fully appreciate it, having been a maritime Minister. That is a principle that we have strongly supported. Indeed, it is one already reflected in the amendments we have tabled to this Bill. There can be no doubt that the small boat crossings in the channel are dangerous, reckless and exploitative. Time and again we have seen the devastating consequences of criminal gangs putting men, women and children into overcrowded and unseaworthy boats, knowing full well the risks to life that this involves.

However, this amendment as drafted, we believe, is flawed. It appears to rest on an assumption that some of the vessels are safe and some are not, and that it is the task of enforcement authorities to distinguish between the two. That is not a distinction that exists in reality. The simple truth is that one endangers lives at sea purely in the act of getting into one of these boats in the first place. Every single vessel making an illegal crossing of the channel is, by definition, dangerously unsafe. Everyone involved in launching or boating those vessels, from the organisers to the passengers, is participating in an inherently perilous act which should be treated as such under the law.

We cannot afford a situation in which authorities must first determine whether a vessel is dangerously unsafe before intervening. We cannot wait for tragedy to occur before action can be taken. The legal position must be absolutely clear: all such crossings are unsafe, unlawful and unacceptable. That is the principle that underpins the approach that we have advocated throughout this Bill and the one that we believe that the Government must continue to uphold.

On Amendment 208A, I appreciate the noble Lord’s intention to ensure effective co-operation between the Border Force’s maritime command and His Majesty’s Coastguard. However, it is not clear that the creation of an additional co-ordinating body, as this amendment proposes, would make any practical difference on the ground. The Border Force and the coastguard already operate under well-established protocols for joint working through the Joint Maritime Security Centre. We must trust the professionals on the front line, the experts in the Border Force and the coastguard, to exercise the powers granted to them safely, responsibly and in the national interest.

The answer to the challenges in the channel lies not in expanding bureaucracy or creating new administrative structures but in ensuring that the powers and resources that we have already legislated for are used effectively. Both these amendments proceed from understandable and serious concerns, but in our view the right way forward is not to introduce new uncertainty into the law nor to create additional layers of oversight but to maintain clear, firm principles—that all small boat crossings are inherently unsafe and that those charged with policing them must be trusted to act decisively and professionally to prevent loss of life and secure our borders.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I was intrigued to know what points the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was going to raise. After listening to him, it occurs to me to ask the Minister whether HM Coastguard is a partner authority under Clause 3 of the Bill:

“a public authority with functions in relation to threats to border security (whether exercisable in the United Kingdom or elsewhere)”.

Of course, partner authorities have a duty to co-operate with the Border Force commander—so I am asking about context.

Undocumented Migrants

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for reminding me that, when I was last a Minister in the Home Office, we had an identity card scheme in place that was scrapped by the then-incoming Coalition Government of 2010-2015. It is an expensive business to re-jig ID cards, but all options are always being examined by this Government. I am genuinely sorry that the Coalition Government took the decision at the time to scrap that deal.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, leading on from the question from my noble friend Lord Massey, this week we were due to see the start of the Government’s much-vaunted one-in, one-out returns deal with France. However, due to the ongoing human rights claims and last-minute legal challenges, no one has yet returned to France, on the flights that left yesterday or today. Does the Minister not think that now is the time to endorse Conservative proposals to disapply the Human Rights Act from immigration and asylum matters to prevent this very issue occurring in the future?