Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 28th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out “designate a civil servant as the” and insert “appoint a”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the requirement for the Border Security Commander to be a civil servant.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to open our first few hours of debate on Report. Noble Lords who have taken an interest in the Bill throughout our deliberations so far may recognise Amendments 1 and 2. At both Second Reading and in Committee, I said that this new commander was little more than a gimmick. I had hoped that, come Report, I would have heard more persuasive reasons to change my opinion of the Government’s policy. Unfortunately, I have not.

Since we finished Committee on the Bill, 589 people have entered the United Kingdom illegally via small boats. Since the start of this year, 36,954 migrants have crossed the channel. It does not take a genius to figure out that this Government’s policies are not working. The Government entered office with a promise to “smash the gangs”, end the use of hotel accommodation and prevent illegal crossings. They have done none of those things. In fact, the problems have exacerbated.

My Amendments 1 and 2 seek to make minor changes to the method of appointment of the commander. In my opinion, this is an important and strategic role. I will not pretend they are seismic alterations that will shift the dial demonstrably. They are, nevertheless, intended to make an important point that I genuinely hope the Government will take on board.

The point is that the whole of Chapter 1 of the Bill is essentially pointless. The commander is already in post and the Bill provides no substantive new powers. In Committee, when asked by my noble friend Lord Goschen what the commander will be able to do under the provisions of the Bill provisions that his office cannot do already, the Minister said:

“The clauses in Chapter 1—for example, ‘Duty to prepare annual reports’, ‘Duties of cooperation etc’ and ‘The Board’ overseeing all that—underpinned by statutory function give this House the confidence that there is a legislative background to those requirements”.—[Official Report, 26/6/25; col. 395.]


So it appears the Government believe that designating a civil servant as a commander and granting them the ability to prepare a report and to chair a board meeting every now and then is the solution to all our border security woes.

Noble Lords will be aware of the report into the operation of the Civil Service within the Home Office. How can we have faith that another civil servant in post as the commander would make any difference? Amendments 1 and 2 are intended to press the point that the commander, if their appointment is ever to be anything more than pure performance politics, needs to be more than simply a civil servant. It is wise, is it not, to have a guarantee in the Bill that the commander will be a senior law enforcement or military officer, so as to ensure the requisite competence, leadership and experience is brought to the role.

I have one question for the Minister. Earlier this year, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration investigated the Home Office’s operation to deter and detect clandestine entrance to the UK. The first recommendation of the independent inspector was to:

“Designate a Home Office-wide ‘owner’ for clandestine entry”.


In the Government’s response, the Home Office agreed with that recommendation and said that the

“Border Security Command … will ultimately provide the structure to support this role”.

However, it said that it will not implement that recommendation until October 2026. We have a Border Security Commander who the Government tell us is critical to co-ordinating our response to threats to border security, and yet they are not willing to make him responsible for tackling all methods of clandestine entry until next year. Why is this?

Does this not demonstrate the issue with this Government’s approach to the problem? Every can must be kicked down a very long and winding road. Why not designate the commander as the Home Office-wide “owner” for clandestine entry now? Why wait until next year? It is unfortunate, and we on these Benches will be pushing the Government to go much further over the course of Report. The British public want this border crisis solved, and they are watching. I beg to move.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Davies in his amendments. They seem to me to be eminently sensible. I wholly concur with him, as do most people increasingly in the country, that there is no sense of urgency, no sense of grip and a total lack of confidence when it comes to the Government’s handling of the immigration crisis.

The appointment of a Border Security Commander, and limiting that appointment to a civil servant, is a mistake, particularly when we look at other civil servants. When I was a Minister, I had excellent civil servants, and I have nothing to say against them. The great majority of them do an extremely good job. But when we have Joanna Rowland, the Home Office’s director-general for customer services, in charge of accommodating asylum seekers, standing down because of the failure of that, why should we have faith that someone just selected from the Civil Service should be appropriate to fulfil this role?

We are missing a huge mistake in this whole immigration debate. There is a huge backlog in the processing of asylum cases. Why have the Government not come forward with an idea of having an equivalent to Nightingale hospitals, which is what we had during the Covid pandemic, to process this? In my opinion, there is a whole raft of professionals in this country who are retired far too early. We in this House are the last vestiges of people who never retire, but there are an awful lot of people in this House who have retired, or been forced to retire, from their professions—be they judges, solicitors, army officers from the military or magistrates—who would willingly serve, if encouraged to do so, on a series of tribunals up and down the country, so as to better process the backlog in immigration cases.

If you look at the appointment of this incredibly important role, the Border Security Commander is in charge of liaising with Border Force, the National Crime Agency, the Immigration Service and Immigration Enforcement, and the goal is to deliver a safe and effective border. That has not happened to date. I just do not understand the rationale behind why this legislation is limiting the appointment of such a person, with the very narrow criteria that it has, to a civil servant. There must be plenty of other people out there who would be qualified to do this job who are not necessarily from the Civil Service.

I urge the Government to underline the sense of crisis there is in this country. It is benefiting parties and groups in this country that we would rather it did not, because there is a feeling up and down the country that the Government simply have not got control of our borders. There are those who may argue that the appointment of this individual is totemic, that they do not have sufficient power and that the powers will not kick in until later. Those are other arguments. My argument is that, if we have a national crisis which is set to get only worse, we should look at the whole cadre of recently retired professionals who would step up to serve, right across the board, in dealing with the backlog and this immigration crisis. We should look at the best candidates available to fulfil this particular job and not limit it to somebody from the Civil Service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

By his own admission, the noble Lord did not attend Committee. It is the pity that he did not, because he could have raised some of these questions then. If he chooses to raise them now, on Report, I will give him the same answer. The Border Security Commander is working closely with the security services, and they have authorisation directly from the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary. Quite evidently, when they—or in this case he—are drawing up a plan to examine what needs to be done to solve the common issue of reducing small boat crossings, bringing criminals to justice and helping to speed up the asylum removals that the noble Lord, Lord Swire, referred to, then they are going to discuss and work with the security services. I am straying into a Committee-type session, which the noble Lord did not attend. I would rather stick to Report, which the noble Lord has attended. I think I have answered the questions that he has put before the House.

Turning to Amendment 26, if we return to the position we were in in 2016—which the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and noble Lord, Lord German, would have wished we maintained—we would still be a member of Europol. On a personal note, when I was a Member of the House of Commons, in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 I argued that we retain the capability of Europol and CIS as part of the EU-UK withdrawal agreement. That did not happen. But it is important that we ensure, post-Brexit agreement, that we have as close co-operation as possible with Europol on information gathering and criminal justice delivery capabilities—which the noble Lord and the noble Baroness mentioned. That is important. As we said in Committee, we have a strong existing relationship with Europol. We have around 20 permanent members of staff who work at the multi-agency liaison bureau at the agency’s headquarters in The Hague. The noble Lord asked whether we should have some Europol people here. We currently do not. That is a matter for discussion. Where we are now may be a matter for regret. I voted to remain, but we are where we are. Europol remains an independent organisation. It is accountable to the members of the European Union, and it produces its report to the European Union.

I say to the noble Baroness, and to the noble Lord who supports her, that the proposed new clause in her amendment would require reporting on all aspects of our co-operation with Europol. Ministers, including me, will regularly update Parliament on international law enforcement co-operation, including with Europol. We publish annual minutes of UK-EU specialised committees that monitor and review our trade agreements, including with Europol.

I am mindful that Europol is not a UK body. It answers to the European Commission and its member states, so bilateral co-operation may sometimes be something that we cannot publicly report on. It is not for us to report on some of the issues with Europol, because that is what Europol does. As the noble Baroness mentioned, once upon a time, in days gone by, we did have a British senior official leading Europol. That has changed; we are in a different world now. I assure her that the focus remains on disrupting organised crime, protecting vulnerable people, securing our borders and working in co-operation with Europol to achieve those objectives. To go back to the role of the Border Security Commander, one of his key roles is to oil the machinery of that operation, and work with colleagues who are directly operationally responsible, to make sure that we engender co-operation at a European level.

I therefore respectfully say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that Amendments 1 and 2 are not necessary, and I ask him not to press them. Amendment 26, from the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, is asking for things that we do not need to do, because we in this House are, in a sense, accountable for that relationship. I cannot report on all matters, but I get the spirit of what she is trying to say. On behalf of the UK Government, I want to have the closest co-operation possible with Europol and the European agencies, because we have a joint interest in tackling the criminal gangs and stopping individuals being exploited in those crossings.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a short but useful debate. I thank all those who have participated.

I will say a few words on Amendment 26, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. In addition to the noble Baroness’s comments, I would say that we should be co-ordinating with our European allies on tackling the border crisis in any case. We need to stem the flow of illegal migration through Europe and across the channel, and to disrupt the criminal gangs that operate the smuggling network. However, we should be careful not to see this as some form of silver bullet. The problem cannot be solved simply by striking agreements with other European countries. We know the limited impact that the Government’s so-called “one in, one out” deal has had.

There is so much more that the Government could and should be doing to tackle the fully blown crisis at our border. They need to eliminate the pull factors and implement an effective deterrent. We had hoped the Government would take a long, hard look at their current policy, implement a serious and credible deterrent to prevent people crossing the channel in small boats, and present us with a commander with authority, rather than a commander with nothing to command. Evidently, that is not the case. We will watch very carefully and scrutinise the role of the commander. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the Minister for tabling these amendments. I say at the outset that I am content with the government amendments in this group, but perhaps a little less so with the noble Baroness’s.

Amendments 7 and 12 would create gaps in the new offences that would be susceptible to abuse. Those who enter the United Kingdom without valid leave to enter are committing an offence. Those who handle articles which are to be used to facilitate a person’s unlawful entry, contrary to Section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971, will be committing an offence. That is right, but the exception created by Amendment 7 would mean that a person entering the country illegally could not themselves be found criminally liable for the handling of such articles. If that person intends to use that article themselves to enter illegally, I cannot possibly see why they should be excluded from the commission of the new offence in Clause 14.

Amendment 12 raises a question about the “reasonable excuse” defence under Clause 16 and whether it would extend to those carrying out legitimate legal services. I am sure that the Government have no intention of criminalising legitimate legal activity but, at the same time, we know all too well that there is an army of lawyers working for so-called human rights charities and non-governmental organisations who indeed seek to use ever more ingenious legal methods to circumvent legitimate deportations and removals.

Amendments 10 and 11 concern the offences relating to prohibited items in accommodation or transport facilities. Government Amendment 10 proposes to exempt items

“designed for use for the purposes of personal cleanliness or personal hygiene”

from the relevant offences, and Amendment 11 sensibly limits that exemption so that dangerous articles, such as blades, glass or aerosols, are not inadvertently permitted.

These amendments appear to be a reasonable and pragmatic attempt to ensure that the legislation does not extend beyond its intended purpose. We do not want to see a situation in which a detainee or asylum seeker could be criminalised for possessing a bar of soap or toothpaste, and the carve-outs in Amendment 11 should ensure that safety is not compromised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

I shall add one more difficult question to the lump sum of woes that the Minister has just received, and that is in respect of the most used platform in this area, which is Telegram. Telegram is a company based in the British Virgin Islands, but the people behind it are a moveable feast and very secretive. As the Minister will know, of course, formerly VK sprang out of Russian influence, but Telegram is the biggest alt messaging platform in the world and the one that is more frequently used by people in the world in the area that these clauses are meant to deal with.

Having spent the best part of two years in developing the Online Safety Bill, we know that the question is how you make sure you get at a body such as the people who own Telegram, who will obviously be among the most important people in respect of these new clauses. It is not that it is not worth trying, but I query how easy it is going to be and whether there is—I do not expect a detailed answer because otherwise that will be giving away the processes—a way in which this particular platform would be caught by this and would be able to be tracked down and held to account.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have tabled a raft of amendments criminalising the online advertisement of unlawful immigration services. We know that this is a major source of business for the trafficking gangs and, as such, if the advertising methods can be targeted and disrupted then this should go some way to removing a key part of the business model.

The Government’s impact assessment on this new policy acknowledges that

“it is expected that there will be a small number of arrests under this offence, as the majority of activity is assessed to take place overseas”

The key to the success here will, therefore, lie in enforcement and international compliance, so what steps have the Government taken to push other countries to take action and remove online posts and sites that publish this sort of material? How are they supporting the National Crime Agency to go further with its investigations and campaigns? I look forward to what the Minister has to say on that.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope that I can try to reflect on the serious questions posed about the implications of the legislation proposed before the House today on Report. I will try to answer as best I can, but I hope that the broad thrust of what we are trying to achieve, which is to make life harder for criminals to use social media to recruit migrants to cross the channel on dangerous journeys, is accepted by the House as a whole.

The noble Lord, Lord Harper, mentioned a number of points that we would like to reflect on before giving him a definitive answer. He supports the broad purpose of the legislation, but I will make sure that we write to him to cover some of those points.

The noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Harper, raised legitimate issues—supported by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, from the Front Bench—about the difference that the offence will make, its impact and how we deal with people to ensure that it is put in place overseas. The noble Viscount said that if it helps one person, it would be a good thing to do. That remains true. We hope it will disrupt significantly more than that. We have not put a figure on that, but the principle is that it is an additional tool for police and enforcement agencies to take criminal action where other areas are potentially not currently open.

The enforcement of that means that, for countries with which we have extradition agreements, if we identify someone and they are arrested, they can be brought back to the UK for justice. Alternatively, an individual who is resident in the UK could be arrested once our intelligence services and others—including the National Crime Agency—track them down. Alternately, they could be individuals of a foreign nationality who are behind some of these websites or social media channels and visit the UK, and who might accordingly find themselves arrested in the UK for those crimes. So we have a range of extra tools.

With due respect to the noble Viscount, I cannot quantify that in a way that says we will reduce it by 10% or arrest 50 people on the back of that. What we can do is to put another tool in place to help disrupt those criminals. This goes to the point that the noble Lord Davies of Gower mentioned. The Home Office is working closely with the National Crime Agency and other law enforcement partners to ensure that they focus their funding on some of the new tools that they need to use in order to help crack down on this type of crime.

I know from talking to the National Crime Agency—without putting in the public domain confidences that would help criminals—that it is looking at how we can support more officers while also using smarter intelligence gathering and utilising different skills in officers to focus on this emerging market for immigration and migration crimes. All those things are important.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made a number of points about Amendment 14. I draw her attention to the opening line of the proposed new clause in that amendment:

“Application of section (Online advertising of unlawful immigration services) to internet service providers”.


The key point I want to put to the noble Baroness is about “unlawful immigration services”. She asked whether people would be hit by this proposed new clause in the event of them writing about their experiences. No, they would not, because they are not advertising unlawful immigration services. The purpose of this provision is to focus specifically on the criminals who are organising immigration crime. It will not be used in isolation; it will be part of the measures both inside and outside of the Bill, and we are looking to criminalise the critical component of the people-smuggling gangs’ business model.

The noble Baroness also pointed to a number of parts in the legislation. She asked whether Section 2 automatic, intermediate or transient and whether Section 14(3) is automatic, immediate or temporary? I can say to her only that I have described the policy objective that we have set, and the wording we have is the wording that the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel has brought forward to help us achieve that policy objective.

I will reflect on what she said—if there are areas of interest, I will write to her—but I hope that she can look at the bigger picture, which is that is not about criminalising people who do not deserve to be criminalised. It is about criminalising people who are using social media platforms, such as Google, Facebook, Twitter or X—whatever you want to call it these days—to promote their business and to encourage people to undertake illegal crossings. I go back to the initial point in my opening speech: 80% of individuals debriefed by us who have crossed said that their initial contact was via social media. That is the key point that Clause 14 intends to grasp, so I commend it, as well as Clause 13, to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

22: Clause 18, page 11, leave out lines 24 to 26 and insert—
“(c) the vessel in which the person travelled could not reasonably have been thought to be safe for the purposes of reaching the United Kingdom.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would apply the new offence of endangering another during a sea crossing to the UK to any individual who tries to enter the UK illegally and makes their journey in an unseaworthy vessel, removing the requirement for the individual to have done an act to cause or create a risk of death or serious injury.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this is a short and simple group with one simple amendment, so I will speak briefly. I moved this amendment in Committee to highlight that, as drafted, I suspect that the offence might not be utilised as much as it could be. This amendment is intended to apply the new offence of endangering another to any individual who makes a sea crossing with the intent of gaining unlawful entry in an unseaworthy vessel. This would remove the requirement for an individual to have done a particular act to create risk of death or serious injury.

The principle here is that if a person has crossed the channel in a small boat or dinghy then they have, by definition, created a risk of death or injury. No small boat packed with a large number of people can be considered safe to cross the busiest shipping lane in the world. By being in that boat, you are endangering the lives of all others in that boat. The Minister said in Committee that the reality is that none of the vessels can reasonably be considered safe, which means that the amendment would capture all those making a journey. I agree with the Minister that these journeys cannot be considered safe. Surely if this clause is to have any meaning at all, it must be expounded to capture those who are making these journeys unsafe. This amendment seeks to make that completely clear and, as such, ensure that the offence in Clause 18 can be applied to those it is intended to target. I beg to move.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, this amendment would significantly alter Clause 18 and capture all people in these boats. Every one of them would come under the power of this clause. It treats the vulnerable asylum seekers as criminals and is inconsistent with targeting specific criminal behaviour.

--- Later in debate ---

For the reasons I have given—that illegal entry is already covered and that, through this power, we want to address the specific dangerous acts that I have described —the Government cannot accept this amendment. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s comments. This is about preventing fatalities at sea and, as I said in my opening remarks, no boat packed with a large number of people can be considered safe to cross the busiest shipping lane in the world. However, I hear what the Minister says, so for now I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 22 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

Just before the noble Lord speaks to Amendment 62, I want to say that these Benches support the Minister.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 62 was also tabled in Committee. Its intent is to disapply data protection laws and regulations for a data subject who has entered the UK illegally or who is a foreign national offender.

The purpose here is, in essence, the same as in Clauses 27 to 31: it is intended to reduce the barriers to data sharing between the relevant law enforcement and immigration services. We feel that data protection legislation should not stand in the way of our ability to protect our borders; it should act as a block on action, not as a shield behind which those who have committed immigration offences can hide. In the same manner as human rights legislation, data protection legislation is not meant to be used to protect those who have broken the law, who have entered illegally or who are trying to prevent their lawful deportation. I will not be pressing this amendment to a Division, obviously, but I hope the Minister has listened to what I have to say.

I understand the purpose of the government amendments in this group, which are removing provisions that are now redundant due to the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. As such, I take no issue with them.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I was glad to hear the Minister use the phrases “vulnerable group” and “blanket fashion”. I think I have quoted him more or less correctly. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, seeks to alter the Data Protection Act by creating the possibility of the Secretary of State making an immigration exception decision. The noble Lord would take out of the list of circumstances to which the Act requires the Secretary of State to have regard all the rights and freedoms of the data subject, including the subject’s convention rights, and the UK’s obligations under the refugee and trafficking conventions. We are not on the same page.

Child Poverty Strategy: Migrant Families

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, I find myself in the difficult position that I am not able to give details of the new child poverty strategy because it is not published as yet; it will be published very shortly. The points that my noble friend raised will undoubtedly be considered, but I cannot give her an answer from the Dispatch Box because that would pre-empt an announcement the Government intend to make in very short order.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, the no recourse to public funds policy is a vital protection for the sustainability of the welfare system and ensures that those who come to Britain do so to contribute to society and not to become a burden. A migrant family should not come to this country if they cannot afford to support themselves, although there are existing exceptions for those granted asylum who would otherwise be destitute. What assurances can the Minister give that the Government will not loosen the rules or drop the policy?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

There are arguments around how we control the number of individuals, families and migrant children who come to the United Kingdom. That is an argument that we are having now to look at how we can tighten the rules to stop the flow of people who are coming here through illegal channels. But we still have a responsibility to ensure that a child of five, six, seven, eight, nine or 10 years old does not suffer because of the trafficking—in many instances—poverty or war that has driven them to come to the United Kingdom in the first place, even sometimes by illegal means. The purpose of the strategy is to ensure we protect and develop those children so we do not create a whole set of different outcasts in the future. It is really important that, whatever our policy on migration and illegal migration, children do not suffer as a result.

Non-crime Hate Incidents

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is important that we condemn the comments that were made about adverts on television. We are a multicultural society. It is quite right and proper that individuals from all parts of our society appear on television, because they are both consumers and producers of goods and contributors to society, so I have no problem in supporting my noble friend on that point. The key question on non-crime hate incidents, and this is where we stand, is the extent to which we use that intelligence reporting mechanism to gather intelligence about potential trends in difficult areas—maybe down to the micro level of a ward—versus the extent to which we take further action on those issues in a criminal context. That is what the review that the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, a member of the Conservative Party and chair of the College of Policing, is undertaking with the National Police Chiefs’ Council is looking at. I am expecting a report in extremely short order.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, it is very welcome that the Metropolitan Police finally took the decision to stop investigating non-crime hate incidents. They have clearly wasted officers’ time and had a chilling effect on free speech. Will the Government now follow through and support the amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill from my noble friend Lord Young of Acton to abolish them in their entirety? Surely this is the way forward.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The short answer is no. The longer answer is we will wait for the review to see what action we will take. Again, I remind the noble Lord that the reason we are in this position in the first place is legislation that codified non-crime hate incidents passed by his Government.

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?

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.

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.

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.