Crime and Policing Bill
Lord Jackson of Peterborough ExcerptsTuesday 20th January 2026
(3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 View all Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 111(Corrected)-XI(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Eleventh Marshalled List) - (20 Jan 2026)
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 411 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel and my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie. The amendment was championed by my honourable friend Matt Vickers in Committee in the other place.
The amendment alters the statutory threshold for the exercise of the powers under Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. That section permits a police officer of at least the rank of inspector to authorise stop and search powers within a defined locality for a period of 24 hours. Where such an authorisation has been given, a police officer may stop any member of the public to search them for offensive weapons or dangerous instruments without suspicion of the commission of an offence—so, essentially, it allows for a temporary adjustment to standard stop and search powers.
The current test that must be met is for the officer of sufficient rank to reasonably believe that incidents involving serious violence may take place in any locality in his police area. Our amendment would lower the threshold so that the police would be able to use Section 60 powers where there is a reasonable likelihood of violence, not serious violence. The fundamental principle behind this amendment is that the police should be able to act where there is a threat of violence—any form of violence—without being required to weigh the seriousness of that violence. This would remove the more subjective element of the test.
We know that stop and search powers are highly effective in combating crime and preventing violent offences. In the year ending March 2025, there were a total of 528,582 stops and searches conducted by officers in England and Wales. This represented a slight decrease of 1.4% from the previous year. Of those, 5,572 were conducted under Section 60 powers, which actually represented an increase of 5.4%. This is welcome; I am pleased to see the police making good use of their powers. But, given that there were 1.1 million incidents of violence with or without injury recorded by the police in the year ending June 2025, that the figure that the ONS has given shows no statistically significant change compared with the previous year, and that there were still 51,527 knife offences, there is more work that needs to be done. Lowering the threshold for the use of Section 60 is another tool that the Government could utilise in their efforts to crack down on the use of offensive weapons and the incidence of violence. I beg to move.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend on the Front Bench. At this juncture, I also thank the Committee for its forbearance when I was not able to move my previous amendment on mobile phone theft. I put on record my warmest thanks to my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for moving it so eloquently on that occasion.
This is an issue about the difference between “serious violence” and “violence”, but the wider context is the fact that the UK has a knife crime problem. In London, the number of incidents up to June 2025 was 15,639, which was an increase of nearly 72% from the data recorded in 2015-16. Unfortunately, it has to be said that the number of stop and search encounters peaked at the end of the last Labour Government and dramatically decreased under the two previous Governments. Between 2003 and 2011, stop and search numbers increased, peaking at 1.2 million, but by 2018 this had fallen by 77%. The number of arrests resulting from stop and search encounters had fallen from 120,000 to 48,000.
The fact is that there is significant evidence that stop and search does demonstrably have an impact on the incidence of knife crime, and therefore reduces crime. In a study released in 2025, the two criminologists Alexis Piquero and Lawrence Sherman analysed data between 2008 and 2023, and found that stop and search encounters were successful in reducing deaths and injuries related to weapons. The conclusion of the study was that
“increased stop and search encounters can significantly reduce knife-related injuries and homicides in public places”.
Evidence from a number of bodies and think tanks, including Policy Exchange, suggests that, while there may be a range of causal factors, a link between rates of knife crime and rates of stop and search exists. As the rate of stop and search decreases, the amount of knife crime increases. As stop and search rises, the amount of knife crime falls. The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester, Sir Stephen Watson, said last year:
“If you don’t back your officers to do stop and search, they will stop doing stop and search. And if you stop doing stop and search, you’ll see street robberies going up”.
The issue is the difference between “serious violence” and “violence” within that context. My simple point to the Committee is that, if we want to take weapons off the street and prevent incidents of knife crime and other crime, we have to increase stop and search. Therefore, you have to give warranted officers the legal underpinning and the authority to make the appropriate decisions for stop and search. In 2023, there were 5,014 occasions when a police officer found a weapon or firearm when looking for a different prohibited item. In 3,221 of those cases, they were looking for drugs. This is a case of effective policing and not just getting lucky. So, if they could stop for “violence”, they might find weapons that could have led to a more serious situation. If not, there is a potential for people to just walk away.
On that basis, it is wise for the Government to consider this amendment, because it allows flexibility in operational policing. Fundamentally, it will prevent crime and may even in the long run prevent serious injury or death. Therefore, I invite Ministers and the Committee to give this amendment their strong support.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s Amendment 411, because it brings clarity and accountability to the exceptional power in Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. This is not a call to strengthen police powers; it is a call to describe them accurately, so the public understand their narrow scope and the safeguards that constrain them.
Section 60 is triggered only when
“a police officer of or above the rank of inspector reasonably believes”
one of a small number of factors: that incidents of violence may take place in a locality; that a weapon used in a recent incident is being carried locally; or that people are carrying weapons without good reason; and that there has already been an incident of serious violence. The statute requires the authorisation to be for
“any place within that locality for a specified period not exceeding 24 hours”.
These are tight operational limits.
Changing the definition from “serious violence” to “violence” keeps all the safeguards that make this power exceptional rather than just routine: the inspector-level threshold; the written and recorded authorisation; the geographic and temporal limits; the ability to seize weapons; and the requirement to provide records to those stopped. Those are not peripheral details; they are the legal guardrails that protect civil liberties while enabling targeted public safety action.
I simply ask: where is the dividing line between violence and serious violence? If someone gets stabbed multiple times and it is life-threatening, we would all agree that is serious violence, but what about the person who gets stabbed once and suffers a non-life-threatening cut? Is that merely violence and so does not count? That is why we have to change this definition to any violence, no matter how serious it may be called. This is not a wide-ranging opening of the stop and search powers applying everywhere for all time. Using “violence” in operational documents with an explicit cross-reference to the Section 60 triggers reduces confusion with broader strategic programmes labelled “serious violence”. It prevents the normalisation of suspicionless searches and makes it easier for Parliament, oversight bodies and the public to scrutinise each authorisation against the statutory test.
This amendment is modest, practical and proportionate. It highlights the statutory safeguards and does not remove any of them, but it gives the police a sensible power to save lives and prevent injury where they think that there may be more violence. I urge the Committee and the Minister to support Amendment 411.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
As usual, the noble Baroness is making a cogent and persuasive case, but I do not think she concedes that we are not talking about suspicionless searches; we are talking about an expectation that violence will happen—there will be a violent incident rather than a seriously violent incident.
I just leave her with the figures: in London, from 2021, there were 311,352 stop and searches, and they had fallen to 135,739 in 2024. At the same time, there was an 86% rise in knife crime. The argument that those of us on this side are making is that there has to be a balance. None of us wants racially profiled overpolicing, but at the same time, we have to find a reason why when we reduce stop and searches, there is an inevitable increase in knife crime.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I hear the noble Lord, but with respect, this provision relates to suspicionless stop and search. That is a term we use to describe a stop and search power that does not require reasonable suspicion that the person who is about to be stopped and searched is a criminal, is equipped or whatever it is.
The power in Section 60, therefore, is a suspicionless stop and search power, which is why it needs to be circumscribed and why there have to be certain conditions met before an area can be designated, because the normal law of the land, as noble Lords will recognise, is that anywhere in the land a constable can stop and search an individual whom they reasonably suspect of carrying a knife or being otherwise involved in criminality.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Section 60 powers are in operation and have been there for some significant time. As I shared with the Committee a moment ago, the use of those powers by police officers was significantly higher in the mid to late 2000s than it is now. That is because we are trying to ensure that there is operational guidance—not ministerial guidance—on the use of stop and search powers. Stop and search is seen by the police as a tool of last resort in an area where there is serious violence. I am not going to speculate for the noble Viscount on what that serious violence barrier is; that is an operational decision for the police at a local level in a particular circumstance.
The legislation is clear. The level of use has dropped because the police recognise that this is a tool of last resort which has to have the confidence of the community. I cannot differentiate between levels of violence in a way that may help the noble Viscount today, but the level of violence must be deemed at the time by a local senior police officer on the ground to be sufficiently worrying that he or she determines an area in which stop and search powers will operate. That may not answer the point, but I hope it is of some help to the noble Viscount.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
On that issue, notwithstanding the fact that these powers have to be sanctioned by a police inspector, they are often accompanied by a public information initiative from the police force concerned, and their time limit is 24 hours. If this amendment were accepted, would it not give the police the opportunity to use these powers at football matches, at which there is a chance not of serious violence but of public disorder leading to lower-level violence? In the last year or so, they have used them 357 times. Therefore, they would not necessarily use the more draconian dispersal orders which are sometimes used at football matches. What this side is asking for is more flexibility not just in respect of knife crime but of public order-related events such as football matches.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I say this as best I can to the Committee: to my knowledge, there has been no request from the police for that reduction in threshold to allow them to exercise further stop and search powers. Indeed, as has been shown over the last 15 or 16 years, the use of stop and search has significantly decreased to around the 5,000 figure, as I mentioned earlier. I hear what the noble Lord says, but I am not sure that the police themselves want to exercise that power to control crowds at football matches. I will leave it at that, if I may.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I am generally with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and we have done an awful lot together to look at cyclists being held more accountable. On this, however, I am probably going to suggest an amendment to her amendment. As it stands, the problem with her amendment is that the police currently have the power to stop any vehicle on the road without reason. They can stop somebody with or without a mask, or for no reason at all. This power would therefore not add anything, given that the police already have the power to stop any vehicle.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, acknowledged, whether it be in the cool of the winter, or even sometimes on a cool summer’s day, there is a reason to wear a mask or a face covering if you are cycling, because it gets cold. We have probably all been there. However, something to look at in the future—perhaps on Report—is whether someone, having been stopped, can be ordered to remove their face mask. There is not an awful lot of point in stopping them and they can keep their face mask on if their identity is in question. That is also true for motorcyclists, who wear helmets. Their faces are obviously encased in a helmet and there is no power to ask them to remove the helmet. Most of them do, because it gets pretty uncomfortable after a few minutes—in fact, if you prolong the conversation long enough, they always take it off—but there is no power to compel them to do it. That may be something that could be considered in the future.
On the police needing powers to stop cyclists, there is no power to stop an e-scooter, but any vehicle on the road can be stopped by an officer for any reason—not the least of which is that the police are expected to direct traffic. That is one of the reasons that they are given the power to either redirect or stop vehicles. So, as it stands, I am not sure about this amendment.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I support the excellent and tightly drafted amendment from my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. I say that it is tightly drawn because proposed new subsection (2) is about concealing one’s identity, not about wearing the clothes themselves: the scarf or the hat. I speak as a cyclist who frequently cycles in the winter, when of course you need to wear protective clothing to keep you warm. However, this is about allowing a police officer, or another person who is entitled to know your identity, to know your identity, and it is about failing to stop when required to do so by a constable.
I am glad that my noble friend mentioned the issue of live facial recognition. I am just about to finish my four-year term on the British Transport Police Authority. In terms of clear-up rates, one of the issues we have in unfortunately failing to tackle violence against women and girls—which, of course, is a government priority and a priority of the Department for Transport—is that we have way too many persistent, repeat offenders on bail who are travelling on the rail network and who are able to enter stations and get on trains. Live facial recognition, were it to be rolled out for a good reason, with proper checks and balances, would significantly reduce the incidence of those people being able to get on trains and Tubes and assault women and girls, and others. Live facial recognition is important because, if people are going to be wearing face coverings, that will naturally circumscribe the powers used in live facial recognition.
Rates of crime on bikes and scooters have gone up. Many people who are committing those crimes are hiding their identity and I believe that, in most cases, there is a legitimate reason for the police to stop them. In 2024, Sky News received figures from FoI requests that showed that crimes involving e-bikes and e-scooters had risen by more than 730% in the preceding five years. These crimes included theft, robbery, burglary, drug trafficking, stalking, rape, violent crimes and weapons offences. In 2023-24, 11,266 crimes were recorded that mentioned an e-bike or e-scooter—up from just 1,354 in 2019-20. These figures do not include data from the Metropolitan Police and the West Midlands Police—I know that West Midlands Police have been busy doing other things, not always to their great credit —so the actual numbers were likely higher.
On 30 December 2025, the Metropolitan Police reported that it had seized 37 e-bikes and scooters in an attempt to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour. That resulted in 52 arrests and weapons being seized. Between January and December 2025, Merseyside Police seized 1,000 unregistered vehicles, e-bikes, e-scooters and scramblers. It launched Operation Gears in July 2024 to deal with crime and anti-social behaviour linked specifically to bikes and scooters. In its words, two-wheeled vehicles
“are increasingly linked to serious criminal activity, including violence, robberies, and serious organised crime (SOC) offences”.
The Metropolitan Police has also produced reasonably new data—up to the end of 2023. They show that there were 4,985 cases of robbery and theft of a mobile phone in London using a motorcycle or an e-bike in 2023, and a face covering was worn in over 1,000 of those. These statistics demonstrate that it is legitimate to link bikes and scooters to crimes. Therefore, if someone is covering their face specifically to avoid identity while using these vehicles, it does raise suspicion, and it most emphatically gives police a legitimate reason to exercise their due and proper powers. On that basis, I support my noble friend’s amendment.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, as someone who regularly jumps out of the way on a pavement from e-bikes, electric scooters and so on, I think this amendment is probably very sensible, but we should listen to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, because, as far as I can see, it does not go sufficiently far. We need to add to it, perhaps on Report, a provision that the police can require someone to take their face covering off, because without that, I do not think it goes very far.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support the excellent amendment of my noble friend Lord Young of Acton. I declare an interest as a paid-up member of the Free Speech Union.
I was brought up in Plumstead in south-east London, as was Stephen Lawrence. I can absolutely understand the horror and the imperative for action that arose from the disgraceful racist murder of that young man in 1993: there was a clamour to tackle the culture that gave rise to five racist thugs taking that young man’s life. That is a very important context, but I am afraid that things have developed in a way that we did not foresee way back in 1993.
In preparing for this debate, I was reminded of the remarks of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Stephen Parkinson, in 2024:
“I had to look up what on earth the term”—
non-crime hate incidents—
“meant—I was puzzled by it”.
Coming from the DPP, that reveals a lot about what a strange anomaly NCHIs have been.
The idea that there is a kind of police record that can result in ordinary people who have committed no crime being visited by police at their home or workplace because an investigation has been launched into whether their views or attitudes may one day lead to criminal activity should be seen as entirely incongruent with British justice and freedom of expression. It brings to mind the film “Minority Report” and the fictional idea of pre-crime. But this is not fiction: it is the real world. The idea that, in the real world, a person could lose their job because an NCHI shows up on an enhanced DBS check ought to be anathema to us.
Mention was made earlier of Allison Pearson. My noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs is absolutely right: it was the Communications Act or another piece of legislation that was involved when Essex Police visited her on Remembrance Sunday 2024. She has nevertheless raised the public profile of the impact of NCHIs on people and, for that, we should thank her, as we should Harry Miller and others.
The Times reported that year that 13,200 NCHIs were recorded by 45 police forces in the 12 months to June 2024. That includes allegations against doctors, vicars, social workers and even primary school children. As we have heard, Policy Exchange calculated that this had amounted to at least 60,000 hours of officer time. It surely was never a defensible use of police time, especially while so many serious crimes such as burglaries and sexual offences remain unsolved and uninvestigated. There are too many stories to tell, but one elderly woman was shocked to find herself the subject of an NCHI after taking a photograph of a sticker which read: “Keep males out of women-only spaces”. She did not even put the sticker up; she just took a photo of it. The 73 year-old received a visit from police officers after she was caught on CCTV taking the photo of the sticker, which someone had put up on an LGBT Pride poster. She said she agreed with its sentiments and wanted to show it to her partner. Apparently, the police thought this made her a likely future criminal.
My noble friend Lord Herbert said that these cases have been bad for public confidence in the service, and he is right. It is therefore welcome that over the last year or so there has been a growing realisation and consensus in the Government that there is a need to address the problem. In particular, I welcome the recent press reports that the college and the NPCC are set to recommend scrapping non-crime hate incidents as a result of the review.
My noble friend Lord Herbert has promised that there will be a sea change. We must wait and see the final detail on how the changes are delivered in practice. I say this partly because what we are attempting to do in turning policing away from an excessive focus on what we might call DEI issues towards the criminal matters that the public care about goes against the grain of the last two decades of police culture. We have seen before how difficult this is to uproot. The previous Government published new statutory guidance on NCHIs in 2023. Training should have been given to call handlers on the raised thresholds and common-sense tests, and we should have seen a reduction in the number of non-crime hate incidents recorded, but, sadly, the report published the following year by His Majesty’s inspectorate, An Inspection into Activism and Impartiality in Policing, concluded that there was
“inconsistency in the way forces have responded to the new guidance”
and that
“We often found that call takers hadn’t received training about NCHIs, and had limited, if any, knowledge”
of the statutory guidance.
First, can the Minister say how we will ensure that police training on the new regime is not undercut by an obsession with DEI issues and the politicisation of policing which has clouded police judgments too often in recent years? Secondly, we need to see a clearer commitment from the Government on how they plan to respond to the NPCC report and what the timelines will be. I know there are ongoing reviews into police discretion and hate crime, and I particularly welcome the review by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, of hate crime legislation. I hope that he will feel emboldened to address one of the more fundamental issues; namely, the injustice resulting from the creation of a hierarchy of victims by legislating for certain protected characteristics rather than treating all victims equally.
However, these ongoing reviews should not be an excuse for inaction. Will the Minister make the commitment that, should the NCHI review require primary legislation to implement its recommendations, this will be done via amendments on Report—a point made by my noble friend Lord Blencathra—preferably adopting my noble friend’s carefully crafted amendment?
While I understand the previous Government’s decision to introduce statutory guidance via the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 as a first step towards introducing some common sense in this area, it had the unfortunate consequence of providing a statutory basis for recording NCHIs. If this is to be corrected, the law will need to change.
Again, the devil will be in the detail. The NPCC’s final report has not yet been published, but it did publish a progress report last October. There were a number of points where I would want to see improvements in the final report before I could feel confident that the new system will avoid the pitfalls of the current regime. One of those relates to the NPCC’s recommendation that the Home Office introduce a new national standard of incident recording. As I alluded to earlier, the current threshold, which dates back to 2011, is too low and does not adequately cater for contemporary policing demands.
We ought to think carefully, too, about any new definition. The current draft proposition put forward by the NPCC defines an incident as
“a single distinct event or occurrence which may be relevant to policing for preventing or solving crime, safeguarding individuals or communities or fulfilling other statutory policing purposes”.
This helpfully makes it clear that there needs to be a clear policing purpose for this data to be recorded. I am concerned about the words “may be relevant”. At the very least, would it not be better for it to say, “likely to be relevant”? My concern is that an activist police officer would record practically anything on the basis of “may”. We all know hoarders—the kind of people who keep everything because they tell themselves it may be useful in the future.
Finally, we need greater clarity on enhanced DBS checks. The progress report recommends that the Home Office consider whether there needs to be further guidance, but key questions are ignored. Will the police delete NCHIs that they have already recorded, and will the new anti-social behaviour incidents be disclosable in enhanced DBS checks? I am pleased to support this very good and sensible amendment.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I want to say a heartfelt thank you to the noble Lords, Lord Young of Acton and Lord Hogan-Howe, for leading on this. It is telling that there is cross-party support for this amendment. The Government should take note of such rich and excellent speeches from across the House. There is widespread concern for all sorts of reasons, and action should be taken.
I feel a bit cynical because I have celebrated the demise of non-crime hate incidents on a number of occasions in the past. When the Fair Cop founder Harry Miller won his High Court challenge in 2020, the judge declared that non-crime hate incidents had a chilling effect and unlawfully infringed on Harry’s freedom of speech. I remember that a lot of us thought that would be the end of that. I then listened to a number of Home Secretaries declaring that there was a problem with non-crime hate incidents, and I thought, “Oh, good, something will be done”, because politicians like to do something. But I am most reassured, genuinely, by the present Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, who seems to be determined to get to the bottom of this and to sort it out. Her emphasis that the police should focus on streets and not tweets is quite a good summation of where we are. However, despite that universal acknowledgement that non-crime hate incidents are not fit for purpose in many ways, I worry that, as with the Greek mythological Hydra, all the various attempts at cutting off the monstrous NCHI serpent’s head will result in another couple of heads growing instead. It is important that we do not just console ourselves with getting rid of the name while allowing the sentiment and the politics of it to remain.
As somebody who has spoken many times on this issue in this House, often greeted by some eye-rolling but also offered endless assurances that it was all being sorted—not by this Government but by a previous Government—I now believe that assurances are not enough, and we need to make this issue watertight. We need primary legislation as a guarantee that there will be no more non-crime hate incidents and a full deletion of the historic records held by the police. The noble Lord, Lord Herbert, made the point that when there have been changes in the criminal law, records have not been deleted, but these are not crimes, so they should be deleted. Even if they are not used, the idea that the state has a file on hundreds of thousands of people with the words “bigot” or “hate criminals” across them, even if they are hate non-criminal, is not right and they should be deleted.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, for his contribution because he set out the balance between non-crime hate incidents and non-crime incidents and the difference between the two. One of our concerns on these Benches is that—I am going to use the phrase he used, for which I apologise, but I had already written it down—in looking at this amendment, we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater. That is really important, and I will explain why in some detail later.
I remind the Committee that, in considering our two amendments about hate crime last week, I referred to the recommendation Combating Hate Crime by the Council of Europe, which says that
“hate can be manifested with different degrees of severity, ranging from everyday stigmatisation and discrimination, microaggressions and verbal abuse, to violence, terrorism, war crimes and genocide”,
which is an enormous spectrum. The reason why non-crime incidents, whether hate-related or not, need to be recorded is that often, the perpetrators go on to escalate their behaviour.
I have referred before in this House to being stalked by a political opponent for three years. Before we could get the police to take it seriously, we had recorded some 75 incidents, probably half of which were crimes but half were not. As things escalated, it went from minor crimes to the perpetrator using a very large knife on tyres. The police psychologist said, “If we don’t get him now, it will be people next”. It is that entire spectrum of behaviour, with some incidents ending up being part of a crime, that means we cannot just throw out all non-crime incidents.
I am afraid that the same is also true for non-crime hate incidents. I am grateful that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, referred to the appalling case of the antisemitic attacks, because those would go as well if this amendment were accepted, since there would be no capacity for the police to start monitoring and recording such things until they tipped the balance into a crime, even though the damage was done in those earlier incidents, repeatedly to the same group of people. I think of friends of mine who go to synagogue in one town, and of young Muslim friends in my home town of Watford who are shouted at on their way to worship every single week by the same small group of people. Probably neither of those would even get to the first bar of being recorded as a non-crime hate incident; but, if their behaviour follows the typical course and escalates, and the police have not recorded anything, they have nothing to go back over. So I beg the movers of this amendment to—
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
What the noble Baroness has described is a crime. Those people shouting racist abuse at Jewish people or Muslims on the way to a mosque are committing a crime under the existing legislation that has been in place for many years. It has nothing to do with the recording of police intelligence, which is unfettered by this amendment, and it is certainly the case that what she has described is de facto a criminal offence.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I referred to the comments made by previous speakers on this group who talked about police wasting their time recording. The two groups of people I have just referred to have tried to report these incidents and have not been able to get them taken particularly seriously. Therein lies the problem. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, that there has to be new, revised, clear guidance about how the police need to process these things. It may be that there will be many that are not now processed, but we cannot just say that we should get rid of non-crime hate incidents in their entirety.
A lot of the other speeches during this debate have talked about the polarisation in our society being because people are now saying things to others, with people becoming offended. We discussed this briefly last week. The things being said to people on the street would not have been said five or six years ago. People might have thought them as they walked past, but it was quite rare. We are deeply offended if it targets us. We often do not recognise when we are being offensive to other people. I say again: there is something about the way our society is working at the moment that means we have to learn to look at ourselves, not just at the others we do not like. The police, who are literally trying to police all this, are in a very invidious position. They need tools to record information because it helps them to assess and understand when other things happen. It is much broader than non-crime hate incidents, as I have alluded to already.
Paul Giannasi OBE, the national hate crime lead for the police, has been reviewing the current protocols and his recommendations for a new code of practice will be very welcome. I am sure, from what the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, has said and from what I have heard elsewhere, that there certainly will be changes. We have to understand that the key issue here is balancing those individual rights: the absolute freedom of expression as expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton—he and I had a debate about JS Mill last week—alongside the state’s obligation to protect citizens against targeted victimisation. The police must be able to gather intelligence and evidence and log symbolic messaging to targeted groups. All the other things—about whether those end up on DBS—can be looked at as part of this review, and I am sure they will be. But the police need to see that bigger, wider picture.
One of the problems about the Lawrence murder was that the police were not watching what was happening in that community in the months and years running up to it. That institutional blindness was certainly one of the things that came out of the inquiry. As others have said, the monitoring of such incidents was the result of the recommendations by Sir William Macpherson as part of his public inquiry in response to Stephen Lawrence’s murder.
I come back to this point: in terms of practical value, the police must be able to record incidents that do not in and of themselves amount to criminal offence, because many crimes, such as I described with harassment, and indeed with stalking, require evidence of a course of conduct. People say to me, “Oh, but stalking is always about relationships; that’s not about a hate crime”. Quite a lot of stalking is actually non-domestic, and it is targeted at somebody because of a particular characteristic.
I finish on the point I made right at the start about the evidence that police need for this course of conduct if behaviour escalates. If a group of people go out and do things again and again, there is a point at which it is going to tip over. I was party to and a survivor of something that ended up as 132 crimes; once the police saw all the evidence that we had been holding of the earlier non-crime hate, it was extremely helpful when things started to escalate. Reform is absolutely needed. We hope that the review will have recommendations for a new regime. But I also hope that it will not leave victims vulnerable, either from perpetrators whose behaviour escalates or from police who are not quite clear about the role they have in recording non-crime incidents.
Defending Democracy Taskforce
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend is right to say that those who help support election monitoring overseas do a valuable job. I know that she has recently been undertaking election monitoring in Moldova. It is extremely important that the integrity of elections, not just in the United Kingdom, is maintained in the face of threats on the ground and disinformation. We are examining whether legislation is required, which my honourable friend the Security Minister is currently undertaking. If there are areas where action is needed, it is important that we address those speedily.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, the Minister and the House will know from the media—it was reported in the press last week—about the threats of intimidation and serious violence that were aimed at the former Labour MP for Blackburn, Kate Hollern, by supporters of the victorious candidate in the general election in July 2024. What steps is the taskforce taking to address intimidation of elected representatives, particularly where such activity may be linked to extremist groups or foreign influencers?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord will know that, first and foremost, we are taking measures through the police and crime Bill to protect the homes of elected and public figures, even such as Members of the House of Lords, from that level of intimidation and protest. We will examine the allegations that have been made by Kate Hollern in relation to the activity in Blackburn. It is important that, for the sake of democracy as a whole, individuals are entitled to put forward their ideas free of intimidation and threat. There is existing legislation in place to tackle that. This matter has come to light just in the last week, so we will need to reflect upon it.
Crime and Policing Bill
Lord Jackson of Peterborough ExcerptsWednesday 17th December 2025
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 View all Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 111(Corrected)-VII(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Seventh Marshalled List) - (17 Dec 2025)
“Offences of causing harassment, alarm or distress: amendments(1) The Public Order Act 1986 is amended as follows.(2) In section 4A (intentional harassment, alarm or distress) omit “, alarm” in each place where it occurs (including the heading) and omit “, alarmed” in subsection (2).(3) In section 5 (harassment, alarm or distress) omit “, alarm” in each place where it occurs (including the heading).”
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to contribute to Committee proceedings. My Amendment 352 is quite straightforward. It would omit the word “alarm” from the appropriate legislation, by way of a new clause. In the landmark 1976 case, Handyside v United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights established that freedom of expression under Article 10 extends to ideas that “offend, shock or disturb” the state or any sector of the population. The court emphasised that tolerance and pluralism are essential for a democratic society, and that this protection applies to both popular and unpopular expression.
The cut and thrust of debate, whether political, religious or philosophical, means being able to challenge long-standing and sometimes deeply cherished assumptions. It can be shocking and disturbing—even alarming—to have the pillars of one’s world view challenged. It can be deeply uncomfortable, but it should not be a matter for the criminal law. That is why I have tabled this amendment to the Public Order Act 1986.
My amendment would remove “alarm” from Sections 4A and 5 of the 1986 Act. Section 4A currently criminalises “words or behaviour” that are intended to cause
“another person harassment, alarm or distress”.
Section 5 criminalises
“words or behaviour … within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress”,
even where that impact is not intended or, indeed, actually caused.
It seems to me that there should be no place in the criminal law of England and Wales for criminalising a citizen on the basis that his words or behaviour cause or are deemed likely to cause alarm. Of course, the law should seek to protect the citizen from harassment and distress: these are impacts that can have untold negative effects on people. In a democratic society, freedom of speech should always be balanced with civility and kindness. But, unlike harassment or distress, being alarmed is not inherently a negative impact. Indeed, it may be positive.
For some years now, we have been warned that our planet is hurtling towards destructive and irreversible climate change—I notice the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, temporarily sitting on my Benches—such that it might not be able to support life as we know it. The science and the prescribed remedy are by no means universally accepted. I make no point about that, but I do observe that those seeking to change our economic behaviour have not flinched at alarming us about the peril we face.
Of course, if you believe that bad consequences will follow bad decisions, you will naturally warn of those dangers, as exemplified by the proponents of Project Fear during the EU referendum. If the perceived dangers are said to be catastrophic, it will inevitably alarm some people. This is seen in the expression of religious or philosophical belief. If a Christian preacher believes, as Christians do, that the Day of Judgment is approaching, in which all people will be judged for the lives they have lived in the here and now, it should come as no surprise that the preacher will seek to ring the alarm bell. If you believe that the world consumption of meat is causing the decimation of the rainforests and leading to the overproduction of carbon dioxide gases, you might well want to alarm the complacent beef eater of those catastrophic consequences in order to make the case for veganism.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Is the noble Lord saying that, when I was on the Bench here and he hissed at me that I should shut up because I was rude, that was okay because it did not alarm me? Does he remember doing that? We almost came to blows outside.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I recollect that we have always had a robust exchange of views. I did not in any sense seek to alarm the noble Baroness, but, from memory, she arrived late for a group of amendments, pontificated for a few minutes on issues that she had not heard and then—
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I am going to call a halt at this point. This is remembrance of things past. We have an important amendment to discuss today, and we should focus on the amendments.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I thank the Whip. I was merely elucidating for the benefit of the Committee the context of the noble Baroness’s rather strange intervention on my remarks. I do not quite have the same recollection that she does—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Beith) (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord has moved the amendment, and the opportunity is there for other Members to speak to it.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I confess that when I woke up this morning I did not anticipate having a discussion about Thames Valley Police and a gay horse. Such is political life on the Government Front Bench. Nor did I anticipate talking about the Prime Minister’s private parts, referred to by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti.
On a more serious note, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for his amendment. I begin by confirming what my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti said, which is that the right to express views, even those that may be unpopular, is a vital part of our democratic society, and freedom of expression is vital. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti have argued to remove “alarm” from Sections 4A and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, for giving some balance to the argument and coming to a conclusion that I share. To remove from these offences behaviour that causes alarm would mean that behaviour that frightens or unsettles someone but which does not amount to harassment or distress would no longer be covered. Why does that matter? It matters because it would narrow the scope of the law and reduce the police’s ability to intervene early in potentially volatile situations. An example was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, in relation to activity on a train, late at night, by an individual with too many beers in their body. That is a valuable cause of alarm.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that these provisions have been in place for many years: in fact, they were passed under the Government of Mrs Thatcher, which is not usually a thing I pray in aid when discussing legislation in this House. Removing “alarm” at this stage —this goes to the point mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey—would affect how offences operate in practice, including the thresholds that have developed through case law. It would impact on the existing legal framework, which already ensures that enforcement decisions are made proportionately and in line with human rights obligations. This includes the important right, as my noble friend said, to freedom of expression.
The balance that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, struck is the one that I would strike as well. It is a long-standing, 39 year-old piece of legislation that has held up and has been interpreted in a sensible way by those who have legal powers to use it, both police officers and the CPS. Ultimately, we should ensure that the alarm element remains.
Having said all of that, noble Lords will be aware that the Home Secretary has commissioned an independent review of public order and hate crime legislation, which the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, KC, is considering. He will consider the thresholds relating to public order and hate crime legislation, whether they remain fit for purpose, if legislative changes are required and if we could have more consistent approaches to the offence of inciting hatred. He will also consider how we ensure offence thresholds do not interfere with free speech and how we deal with the type of issues that the noble Lord has mentioned.
I believe we should stay where we are for the reasons I have outlined, but a review is ongoing. It is important that we allow that review to conclude, which it will do by spring next year. The Government will consider and respond to whatever recommendations come forward. We do not know what those recommendations might be, but they are there to be done, and that is one of the reasons the Home Secretary commissioned the review. I understand where the noble Lord is coming from, but I hope I have put a defence of why we should maintain where we are. In the light of the potential review, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I thank the Minister for his typically thoughtful and considered response. I think he would concede that this has been a very interesting and intelligent debate. I thank all noble Lords who took part, particularly my noble friend Lady Lawlor, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, who was hoping to take part in the debate but, because this Committee has overrun somewhat, was not able to be here. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, touched upon the fact that the real meaning of alarm is a fine judgment. I take on board the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. However, it is important to look in the context of the advice and guidance that the police are given on the use of Section 4A and Section 5 of the Public Order Act. For instance, to breach Section 5, a person needs to act in either a threatening or abusive manner. He also needs to intend his words or behaviour to be threatening or abusive, or be aware that they may be threatening or abusive. I would say that alarm is a lower standard of criminality—a lower bar—than that.
According to police guidance, Section 4A is designed to deal with:
“More serious, planned and malicious incidents of insulting behaviour”.
You are more likely to be accused of a Section 4A offence in relation to a comment directed to a particular individual—for example, publicly singling out someone in a crowd. I think those are the differences, and we will have a different view as to the appropriateness of whether alarm is apposite for dealing with these offences.
Having said all that, we may come back to this. I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, on this—it is very unusual, but it is a seasonal phenomenon that we agree from time to time. I even agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, from time to time. On the basis of Christmas spirit and all that, and the fact that we will no doubt return to this on Report, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Violence against Women and Girls Strategy
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for her question. Key to that is help and support for young men from primary school age, so that they are inculcated in respect for women and the rights of women. One aspect of the strategy, which again will become clearer tomorrow, is the investment and support we are putting in through the Department for Education in England in order to put this issue at the centre of educational opportunity. My noble friend may have noticed that my honourable friend the Policing Minister this morning announced work with the Department of Health and with neighbourhood policing to raise this issue still further. This is a cross-government strategy involving all government departments and devolved Administrations to make sure that we take action to halve this scourge over the next 10 years.
Crime and Policing Bill
Lord Jackson of Peterborough ExcerptsWednesday 17th December 2025
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 View all Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 111(Corrected)-VII(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Seventh Marshalled List) - (17 Dec 2025)
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, in opposing the proposition that Clause 107 should stand part of the Bill, I will speak also to my opposition to Clauses 108 and 109. These clauses were added by the Government without any debate on Report in the other place; therefore, they have not been subjected to the detailed scrutiny that they deserve. It is only right that, as the revising Chamber, we should fulfil our duty in that respect.
I will be clear from the outset that we on these Benches do not doubt for a moment the courage, dedication and indispensable role of our emergency workers. Indeed, the previous Conservative Government legislated to bring forward the specific offence of assaulting an emergency worker through the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018. However, we must also ensure that the criminal law remains proportionate, coherent and workable, and in our view these clauses fail that test. Clauses 107, 108 and 109 introduce a series of new offences on the racial or religiously aggravated abuse of emergency workers. The Government present these measures as necessary enhancements to the law to protect emergency workers from abuse motivated by racial or religious hostility. No one disputes the seriousness of such conduct. But these clauses do not simply strengthen existing protections; they create overlapping, confusing and potentially sweeping new offences that go beyond what is necessary or desirable in a free society.
The provisions duplicate offences that are already well established in our law. Threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour motivated by racial or religious hostility is already an offence under Sections 18 and 29B of the Public Order Act 1986. I completely understand that those offences cannot be committed inside a dwelling, while the new offences in Clauses 107 and 108 can be committed inside a person’s house. That is a key difference between these offences.
Both clauses also require the conduct to be racially or religiously hostile, but, again, that aggravation is already captured by the criminal law. Section 66 of the Sentencing Code creates a statutory aggravating factor for any offence based on racial and religious hostility. Furthermore, Section 31 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1988 creates a specific offence of using words or behaviour that cause “harassment, alarm or distress” and are religiously or racially aggravated. That offence can be committed inside a dwelling, so a person who racially abuses an emergency worker inside their home can already be prosecuted under the Crime and Disorder Act 1988. It is abundantly clear that there is absolutely no need for these new offences.
Clause 107 in particular casts an extraordinarily wide net. It includes not only threatening but insulting behaviour. This is a highly subjective term that will not create clarity or certainty—but do not take my word for it. The Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House has criticised these clauses for this precise reason. Its 11th report states:
“Clause 107 criminalises ‘insults’ and clause 108 introduces the term ‘distress’. This potentially leaves people open to criminal sanction on a subjective basis. In addition, clause 108 includes a defence for ‘reasonable conduct’, which is not defined. As a result, the precise scope of these clauses, and the criminal offences contained within them, is uncertain”.
In Clause 108, matters become even more troubling. The clause would criminalise conduct merely likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress, again with the addition of racial or religious hostility, but with penalties that do not align with the broader public order framework. Here we see threatening or abusive behaviour that is already covered elsewhere reframed in a way that risks catching behaviour far removed from the core of criminal wrongdoing. While a defendant may raise a defence, the burden-shifting mechanism in subsection (7) is unusual and risks being applied inconsistently.
It is a long-standing principle that the criminal law should be carefully calibrated, limited to what is necessary and drafted so that ordinary citizens can understand the boundaries of acceptable behaviour. The law must be strong where it matters, not sprawling and duplicative. When Parliament repeatedly layers offence upon offence, we risk incoherence, overcriminalisation and legal uncertainty, none of which helps emergency workers or the public. If the Government believe that the existing framework is insufficient, they should amend those statutes directly and not create parallel criminal regimes that overlap and contradict one another.
In conclusion, Clauses 107 and 108 are unnecessary and duplicative and risk expanding the criminal law in ways that Parliament has previously rejected. They confuse rather than clarify. They undermine coherence rather than strengthen protection. We owe emergency workers the best possible statutory safeguards, but they must be safeguards that work. These clauses do not. For that reason, and in the interests of principled and proportionate criminal law, I urge the Committee to oppose Clauses 107 and 108.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly because we have very important business in future amendments. I heartily endorse the comments of my noble friend on the Front Bench. Why were these proposals—which, after all, attract cross- party support, as indeed the 2018 legislation did—not brought forward for pre-legislative scrutiny or debate and discussion at an earlier stage in the other place? They were introduced only at a later stage. For all the reasons my noble friend gave, there would have been a proper debate about whether it is right to bring forward legislation that includes potential incarceration for up to two years for an offence. In fact, it is quite incongruent because it does not look at sexual orientation and disability, for instance, only racially biased hate crime in private dwellings. Why was it not brought forward at an earlier stage, when I think all sides of the House would have been predisposed to support it and debate it properly?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I will come back to that point in a moment. I think the noble Lord is trying to inject a slight bit of topicality into a different argument, but I respect his opportunities in trying to raise those issues.
I say at the outset that I am with the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, on this, which is why we brought this forward. I am grateful to her for standing up and supporting the objectives of the Government in her contribution. I have to say to the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Jackson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that I cannot and will not support their approach to delete these clauses from the Bill.
Emergency workers, as the noble Baroness has said, risk their safety every day to protect the public. They deserve robust protection through legislation, especially against abuse directed towards them because of their protected characteristics, which is not only harmful but erodes the principle of respect and public service, which are core values of this democracy.
As the noble Baroness rightly said, when emergency workers walk through a door of a private dwelling, they are faced with the circumstances in that private dwelling; they cannot walk away. They are there because of an emergency—perhaps medical, police or fire—and, if they face abuse in that private dwelling, then they deserve our support, just as they have our support if they face abuse on the street for a racially aggravated reason. If somebody does something at the end of their path on a street in Acacia Avenue and abuses them, they will find themselves under the course of the law on those matters.
I believe—and this is what these clauses are about—that, if the emergency worker is racially abused in the property, then they deserve that protection. It is critical for sectors such as health, fire and policing to have that legal support. We cannot leave them, as the noble Baroness rightly said, to be abused. The law must recognise this and make sure we have proper protection.
Currently, as has been mentioned, the Public Order Act 1986 and Section 31 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provide important safeguards in public spaces. It is not acceptable to call somebody a racially abusive name in a public space, so why is it to call them that name in a place of a private dwelling? It is not acceptable, so we are going to bring those clauses into play.
The noble Lord asks why we do this. We do this because Sergeant Candice Gill of Surrey Police, supported by the deputy chief constable—and, may I just say, by the Conservative police and crime commissioner for Surrey—has campaigned for this change in the law, having personally experienced racial abuse in a private home. It is not a sort of technical matter that the noble Baroness or the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, have mentioned; it is a real issue of racial abuse in a private dwelling to a police officer—who is doing her job, serving and trying to protect and support the public, and is being racially abused with no consequence whatsoever. Sergeant Candice Gill, after whom I would be proud to call this legislation Candice’s law, is campaigning and has campaigned to make this an amendment to the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, asked why we brought it forward in the House of Commons as an amendment. I will tell him why: it was brought to our attention, it is an action we do not support, and it is an area where we think action needs to be taken. That is why we have brought it. I do not think it is fair that people are racially abused in homes. Sergeant Candice Gill has campaigned on this and has brought it to the attention of the Government; we brought an amendment forward in the House of Commons which is now before this House, and I believe it should have support.
Clauses 107 to 109 will close that legislative loophole. The removal of the dwelling exception will make racially or religiously aggravated abuse of an emergency worker in a private dwelling an offence. The change will ensure that offenders prosecuted under Clause 107 face a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment. The offence in Clause 108 will be liable to a fine not exceeding level 4. As I have said, Lisa Townsend, the Conservative police and crime commissioner for Surrey, said:
“This long-overdue change to the law would never have happened without Sgt Gill’s courage and determination”.
I think we owe this to Sergeant Gill and any other officer, health worker, fire service worker or police officer who has been racially abused in a home where they have gone to help support individuals. They deserve our support.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt, I think we need to put it on record that everyone deprecates racially aggravated abuse of hard-working, decent emergency workers—that is taken as read. But the noble Lord is asking us to consider legislation when we already have a situation, under Section 66 of the Sentencing Act 2020, which permits a court to consider any offence that has been racially or religiously aggravated. Section 31 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provides for a separate offence where a person commits an offence under Sections 4, 4A or 5 of the Public Order Act.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
Much as I would love to be intervened on by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, who I believe will be supporting my amendment later on, I am intervening on the Minister, and we are not allowed to intervene on interventions.
If I may beg the Committee’s indulgence, I finally say to the Minister that the Select Committee on the Constitution specifically said:
“Clause 107 criminalises ‘insults’ and clause 108 introduces the term ‘distress’. This potentially leaves people open to criminal sanction on a subjective basis”.
Not only do we already have existing legislation, but the language in this new legislation is sufficiently loose that it will give rise, I think, to unintended consequences.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I hope the noble Lord will accept that I am not indicating that he or anybody else would accept that language, but the point is that we have to define and be clearer about the definition in relation to racially aggravated insults. The reason that we brought this forward is that, on the back of police representations from senior officers in Surrey Police—and from Sergeant Candice Gill, who was herself racially abused—and with the support of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey, having examined this internally, we believe that the law needs to be clarified, which is why we have brought this legislation forward.
The noble Lord also asked me to examine why it is covering only race and religion, why we do not cover protected characteristics of sexual orientation, transgender identity and disability, and why the Government have not tabled such an amendment. He will know that the Law Commission is already examining its review of hate crime laws. It is a complex area, and it is important we get the changes right. I will tell him this: we are considering that and have given a manifesto commitment to do so, and, ensuring that we do that, we will bring forward conclusions at Report stage in this House to give effect to those manifesto commitments on sexual orientation, transgender identity and disability to extend the proposals still further. I give him notice of that now so that he does not accuse me of pulling a fast one on Report. We will do that, but we will have to bring forward the details of it in due course.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I am inordinately grateful to the Minister for giving away, but he will know, because he was a diligent and assiduous constituency MP, that many of the people who go into clinical settings—for instance, A&E—are very distressed, discombobulated and upset about their condition, do not quite know what is going on and will sometimes say things they regret. I am not saying that is right. Some of them are not culturally sensitive, for instance. That may or may not reach a criminal threshold.
My main point—if we accept the principle that we need new legislation—is that, frankly, those people are in a very difficult position, and if we have loose and opaque language in primary legislation, we will have a situation where people who are not reaching the criminal threshold, or are doing so very marginally, are criminalised and are liable to go to prison for up to two years. Surely that is not something the Government are keen to encourage.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Government are keen to discourage racial abuse against individuals who are doing their job, and that is what Clauses 107 to 109 do. The clauses set out in legislation a broad thrust of definitions. Ultimately, in these cases, police and health workers usually have body-worn cameras on and the police will judge evidential material to determine whether they wish to refer it to the CPS. The CPS will review the incident that has led to the potential referral and determine whether it meets the evidential threshold and is worthy of prosecution. Then, if it comes before a court, it will be for that court to determine whether that criminal threshold has been crossed.
With all that, it is not a simple matter of us passing the legislation; it is also a matter of the judgment of police officers, CPS officials and ultimately a judge or jury in determining the outcome of those cases. As with most legislation, I want none of this to go to court. I want it to change the behaviour of people who are looking at a charge of using racially abusive language not on the street but in their home. I hope it sets a minimum standard, which is what this Parliament should be about, in saying that we will not tolerate this. That is why I support the inclusion of the clauses.
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
Lord Jackson of Peterborough ExcerptsMonday 24th November 2025
(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 View all Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 149-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Reason - (21 Nov 2025)
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, in dealing with this Motion we will also deal with Motion A1.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Lord Jackson of Peterborough
Moved by
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 37”.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I really do not envy the Minister in this situation. Obviously, we have debated this issue on a number of occasions; it was debated in the other place last Wednesday.
A lot of water has gone under the bridge since the Second Reading of this Bill in the other place and in this House—even more so, it is fair to say, since the Home Secretary unveiled her new policies on the asylum system and immigration policy, which, in many respects, supersede this Bill as it currently stands. I mention this because it is my firm view that, had this amendment been debated several months ago, with this Home Secretary, it would undoubtedly have been accepted; indeed, the Government may also have been minded to put down a similar amendment to my own.
We can potentially be cynical about the new policies that have been developed by the Home Secretary. Some may say that they are performative smoke and mirrors—that, in the absence of a policy to leave, or at least to derogate from the ECHR, they will rely on discretionary powers; that there will be little deterrent effect; and that far too many loopholes were still in place, even with the new policy—or we can believe that it is a genuine and workable programme to tackle uncontrolled immigration. We shall see, but let us take the Home Secretary at her word.
One of the key aspects of the Home Secretary’s new policy is a new work and study visa route. On Report, the noble Lord, Lord German, asked this: if we cannot collect data on student visas and criminality, how can we properly assess the risk of abuse of the visa system when the Home Office and universities are obliged to take such factors into account in their decision-making? Also, if we do not collect all the relevant data, particularly with respect to students, we cannot—this was articulated by the Home Secretary—pursue a policy of visa bans for countries that fail to co-operate with returns policies.
These are issues of openness and transparency. The Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Lemos—failed to reassure us on Report. He actually supported the thrust of our argument when he stated:
“I entirely accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, that without proper information on this and a number of other matters, it is very difficult to have an informed public debate”;
as I said earlier, the Government could have moved their own amendment, but they have chosen not to do so. The Minister also said:
“The Home Office does propose to publish more detailed statistical reporting on foreign national offenders subject to deportation and those returned to countries outside the UK”.—[Official Report, 5/11/25; col. 1944.]
More to the point, the Minister was unable to address the substantive point made by my noble friend Lord Harper about information collected on the propensity of different nationalities to commit crime. I understand that he has received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Lemos. We look forward to a clearer answer on that particular question; perhaps my noble friend will reference it should he choose to speak in this debate.
Your Lordships’ House will be aware that many other jurisdictions routinely collect, collate and publish this type of data. Examples include Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada; the Department of Home Affairs in Australia; and the United States’s SEVIS, or student and exchange visitor information system. All of them publish this data as a matter of routine. The question is: if we already have this data, why not publish it to enable proper, informed debate and fact-based policy-making? Ministers have failed—both here and, last Wednesday, in the other place—to articulate a coherent rationale for resisting this sensible, practical and helpful amendment to the Bill. With all due respect, their arguments were threadbare, to say the least.
Surely the acid test are the answers to two questions. First, will this amendment damage or impede the central premise of this Bill? Secondly, will the amendment help His Majesty’s Government develop public policy, which is of significant public concern, based on real-time, robust empirical data? For the benefit of the Minister, the answers are no and yes. Even now, the Minister can accept this amendment and break free of what I described earlier as a significant culture of secrecy and obfuscation in respect of this data. If Ministers want to be taken seriously and to restore trust in their proposals and policies, they can make a good start in good faith by conceding what would be, in the great scheme of things, a minor amendment. On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Jackson’s Motion for several reasons. The first is that he set out a compelling case for why this data should be both collected, if it is not collected, and published so that we have a much clearer idea about the nature of student visas. I did not hear any compelling reason, in our debate on Report, why that should not be the case.
In the House of Commons, when they debated this matter last week, the Minister went out of his way to say that
“the Home Office already publishes data on a vast amount of migration statistics, including information on visas, returns and detention”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/11/25; col. 790.]
He said that it is all “kept under review” and so on, but he did not actually give us a reason around this particular set of data. First, he did not tell us whether it is collected. He also did not tell us whether it was going to be published; actually, he did not come up with any reasons as to why my noble friend’s amendment could not be accepted. I certainly do not think that, either on Report here or in the House of Commons, Ministers set out any concerns about the drafting of my noble friend’s amendment—so it cannot just be that it is okay except that it is terribly badly drafted, in which case, of course, Ministers could have taken it away and used the skills of the Government’s parliamentary draftsmen to have it improved. That is the first thing; I cannot see any reason why we should not accept it.
If the Minister were to suggest that he would be happy to publish it, I cannot see why we should not just put the amendment in place. This Minister is a very fine Minister—we like him very much, and he is very robust—but, sadly, he may not be the Minister for ever.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord German. I cannot guarantee that I will be here for ever—nor would I wish to be. I have done 13 years at various Dispatch Boxes over the last 27 years, and the 14 years I did not do were not my fault. I hope to continue.
I am giving a commitment on behalf of the United Kingdom Government which will hold for the term of this Parliament. I cannot commit future Governments to issues but, again, that is what parliamentary democracy is about—holding Government Ministers to account. Who knows who the next Government will be or what they will look like, but I am giving a commitment on behalf of the UK Government for those statistics over this period of time. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, will accept it.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this interesting debate. It is important that we understand the wider context of what we are doing here. We are seeking to improve the Bill. It is the role of this House to provide scrutiny and oversight and to improve legislation that may be defective or could be improved.
As I said in opening, this amendment would improve the Bill. We all know about judicial activism, the threat of judicial review and, not least, the opposition of the Minister’s Back-Benchers in the other place. The Home Secretary’s new proposals may very well fall foul of judicial review, so anything in primary legislation that protects the Government and enables them to carry out their stated policies is probably a good thing.
I am somewhat discombobulated by the transformation of the Minister from bruiser to pussycat today. He will concede that he has not always been like that. The context of this is that I asked six parliamentary Questions between March and June this year and got the same vacuous answers from the department—including that it will “always undertake a thorough, comprehensive review of statistics”. He will forgive me if I am slightly less willing to take this on board. I make the distinction between the Minister, who is a man of honour and integrity, and the department in which he is a Minister, which does not always put some issues at the top of its priorities. I will leave it at that.
To respond quickly to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I reassure her that there was no inference that all foreign students are criminals and are therefore likely to be deported. That is why I specifically said on Report:
“I want to make it clear that the vast majority of those individuals come, study hard and contribute to our society and economy, but there is a minority who abuse that privilege—and it is a privilege. We have some of the world’s top universities in our country, and it is not an automatic right to be here”.—[Official Report, 5/11/25; col. 1932.]
I stand by those words.
I am concerned about the lack of focus on this issue. I was confused by the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, to my noble friend Lord Harper. It did not seem to have a focus on risk assessment and was not clear about what data would be collected. The Government seem particularly ill prepared, as my noble friend alluded to, for the visa ban policy on Angola and other countries if they do not collect and publish basic data.
Finally, we seem to have no idea of a timescale. We have constantly been promised that a protocol is in place for the collection and publication of data, but it is always mañana —it is always tomorrow.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Just so the noble Lord has absolutely no excuse not to support what I have said, a broad time period will be reported on, subject to the data being available. We will commence work immediately, with a view to publication by the end of the financial year, which is April. That is the timescale, if the noble Lord wishes to accept this. If he does not, he can have his Division if he wishes, but that is the offer I am making to him today.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I take that offer in good faith, but it will be 14 months since I first asked a similar question about the figures. The Government have had endless opportunities—before they launched this new policy, and before the Prime Minister’s speech on immigration earlier in autumn—to bring forward their own amendment on this issue.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
So the noble Lord would rather have a Division than accept the publication of what he wants by April. I just want to be clear on what he is saying today. So that the House is clear on what he is saying, the noble Lord would rather try to win a vote in order to cause more difficulties and discussion, even though I am offering to give him by April next year the thing he is requesting.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I take on board what the Minister is saying. However, I reiterate the point that it is intellectually incoherent to think it is good policy to say in Hansard and in letters to my noble friends that you have always believed something, but not to will the means by putting it in primary legislation. On that basis, I intend to test the opinion of the House.
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
Lord Jackson of Peterborough ExcerptsTuesday 11th November 2025
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 View all Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 136-IV Fourth marshalled list for Report - (7 Nov 2025)
“Duty to remove foreign offenders(1) The Secretary of State must make a deportation order against any person to whom this section applies.(2) This section applies to a person (“P”) who—(a) is not a British citizen,(b) has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment in the United Kingdom, and(c) has completed their term of imprisonment and been released accordingly.(3) The Secretary of State must make the deportation order against P within the period of seven days after P’s release from imprisonment.(4) A deportation order made under this section is not subject to appeal under—(a) section 15 of the Immigration Act 1971,(b) section 82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, or(c) any other enactment.(5) A deportation order made under this section is final and not liable to be set aside in any court.”
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, this amendment was comprehensively debated last week. It is, for the avoidance of doubt, about the efficacious deportation of foreign national offenders who have been released after serving a custodial sentence. On the basis of an unsatisfactory response from the Minister, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
Lord Jackson of Peterborough ExcerptsWednesday 5th November 2025
(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 View all Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 136-III Third marshalled list for Report - (4 Nov 2025)
“Collection of data on overseas students subject to visa conditions and immigration rules(1) The Secretary of State must collate and publish—(a) the number of overseas students who have had their student visas revoked as a result of the commission of criminal offences,(b) the number of overseas students who have been deported following the revocation of their student visas, and(c) the number of overseas students detained pending deportation following the revocation of their student visas.(2) Data published under subsection (1) must be broken down by nationality.(3) For the purposes of this section—“overseas students” means any person who is not a British citizen who has been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for the purposes of partaking in an educational course;“student visa” has the same meaning as in the Immigration Rules.”
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I believe this amendment supports the main thrust of the Bill, which seeks to help make our country safer and more secure, a goal that I share. It seeks to have a robust immigration system, and I commend the Government on that. The first step in that process is having the information that you require to give effect to efficacious public policy. An effective immigration system that protects the UK and allows it to flourish needs to understand the people coming into our country and whether they are acting like the good, law-abiding citizens they ought.
It is as well to remember that at the heart of this amendment is the central fact that the Immigration Act 1971 was and always has been a permissive legislative instrument, in that student visas are issued with conditions, impose obligations and are in no sense an absolute civil or human right. Some 431,725 sponsored study visas were granted in the year ending June 2025. I want to make it clear that the vast majority of those individuals come, study hard and contribute to our society and economy, but there is a minority who abuse that privilege —and it is a privilege. We have some of the world’s top universities in our country, and it is not an automatic right to be here.
In the 2022-23 academic year, less than a quarter of recent foreign students were on courses that the Department for Education deemed “strategically important” for the UK, such as in engineering, science, technology or healthcare, contrary to the hopes of Ministers in the previous Government when they launched the graduate visa route in 2019 and enacted it in 2021. Indeed, 69% had been on a course of only one year’s duration. The proportion of international students remaining in the UK after graduation climbed from 20% to 56% between 2021 and 2024, with only a minority of 23% studying a strategically important postgraduate course. Others studied, for instance, anarchism, television studies, recreation and leisure studies, hair and make-up, computer games, beauty therapy and alternative medicines and therapy.
This may be linked to the fact that 1.9 million foreign nationals are now claiming benefits in the UK; 30% of those benefits were paid to non-working dependants and family members, which adds up to £10.1 billion in universal credit payments in 2024. If you come to this country as a student, if you get a visa and the opportunity to come to the UK, you have responsibilities in our society and under the law. If you abuse the freedoms we allow here and break the law, you will be punished, and the legitimacy of your stay in the country should be questioned.
I tabled this amendment in the context of the serious public disorder linked to the Israel-Gaza conflict, and the not unreasonable accusations of two-tier policing by the Metropolitan Police and others in the way that public disorder and rampant antisemitism were treated and policed. I made the point that other jurisdictions defend the integrity of their student visa regime and take a robust stance on individuals who flout or disregard their obligations to be good, law-abiding citizens while guests in the country. The relevance of this amendment has been recently brought to further attention with the jailing of two Chinese students who fraudulently claimed more than £140,000 in train refunds. Once again, most students come here and work hard, and I have nothing but respect for them, but the information should be collected so that those who commit offences here face the consequences.
Your Lordships’ House will want to know the context of why I brought this specific amendment. Regrettably, it is not a good story. For the last six months, I have been met in my Questions to Ministers with obfuscation, ignorance, stonewalling and answers to questions that I did not ask. I first asked the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, a Written Question in March as to whether the Home Office collects this information. He responded that it did not—fair enough.
On 26 March, I asked His Majesty’s Government,
“further to the Written Answer … why information about the removal of foreign nationals following the revocation of student visas is not collected and published”.
He said:
“Official statistics published by the Home Office are kept under review in line with the Code of Practice for Statistics”,
et cetera—but he did not answer the Question.
On 30 April, I asked him
“what specific factors they have taken into account in deciding not to collect and publish data on the revocation of foreign student visas”.
He said, rather unhelpfully:
“I refer the Rt. Hon. Lord to the Answer he received on 26 March”.
Then on 8 May, trying a different tack, I asked,
“further to the Written Answers by Lord Hanson of Flint on 30 April … and 25 March … what plans they have, if any, to collect data on the revocation of student visas”.
He said:
“Obtaining the specific information requested would involve collating and verifying information from multiple systems owned by multiple teams across the Home Office and, therefore, could only be obtained at disproportionate cost”.
On 9 June, I tried again. I asked him
“what discussions they have had with representatives of the higher education sector on the revocation of student visas for those foreign nationals convicted of serious criminal offences in the United Kingdom”.
He said, apropos of nothing:
“Any foreign national who commits serious crimes in the UK should expect to be removed from our country, regardless of the visa on which they travelled here”.
So he did not answer that Question either.
So, on 11 June, I asked another Question, which was a bit more up front:
“whether they will now answer the question put, namely, what discussions they have had with representatives of the higher education sector on the revocation of student visas for foreign nationals convicted of serious criminal offences in the United Kingdom”.
The noble Lord’s Answer was:
“The Home Office keeps all aspects of the immigration system under review, including compliance and enforcement issues within the education sector, in consultation with a wide range of experts and other stakeholders”.
So, he did not answer that Question either. We have clearly not had clear and concise Answers on this issue, and I have to say that the Minister, for whom I have inordinate respect from our time in the other place, really should understand that it is not acceptable and is a gross discourtesy to this House that he and his department will not answer straightforward Questions in a timely way.
For the avoidance of doubt, the Government cannot abdicate the responsibility of maintaining an immigration regime for students only to higher education institutions, which have a vested interest and, indeed, a conflict of interest. The Government have a proper responsibility to police our borders and protect the system from gaming criminality and abuse. You cannot design an immigration system, you cannot make effective and wise decisions and you cannot serve the British people as well as you want to without the right information. If a disproportionately high percentage of students come from certain countries and are more predisposed to criminality, that must be known and addressed.
In Committee, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, reassured us at the Dispatch Box that Immigration Rules are in place for the cancellation of entry clearance and stays, and that he was committed to reviewing the collection of statistics in order to
“identify changing needs for new statistics to support public understanding”.—[Official Report, 8/9/25; col. 1178.]
This is the time to make real that undertaking and that commitment to transparency. The purpose of this amendment is simply to make sure that the Government can make better-informed choices in our national interests. For that reason, I commend it to the House and hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting it. I beg to move.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 35C aims to stop people who come to the UK on a student visa abandoning that route for an asylum claim. Today, I will explain why such an amendment is needed, and then I will respond to the objections made by the Minister, take account of them and explain why this amendment meets the most substantive one.
First, why is this amendment needed? Around 435,000 people were granted student visas in the 12 months to June 2025. In the same period, 111,000 people claimed asylum, of whom 14,800 had entered the UK on a student visa. So, 13% of claims for asylum were made by student visa switches. The consequences—as I explained, so I will not run through them again in detail—are serious. For university finances, the ability to plan courses and allocate places suffers if students accept and are allocated a place but drop out mid-course or never show up, leaving empty places, damaging the finances and creating black holes for the university. They are not, except in a few cases, innocents overtaken by dangerous political changes at home, which my Amendment 35C now covers; rather, they are people who abuse the student visa route and exploit the laxity of our rules and the by now reluctant generosity of our taxpayers.
I may have mentioned a recent report of a couple from India who candidly spoke anonymously on camera to a reporter. The wife had got her student visa but had no intention, she said, of taking up her place. An agency had been engaged to see to the paperwork and fake the financial and other eligibility documents. That couple are now living on benefits and hope they will be given asylum because one of their children has a bad medical condition.
In Committee, the Minister made three sorts of objections to my amendment, designed to include claims from student visa holders made two days after arrival. The first was also mentioned by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. I therefore take account of this, the substantive objection in both the Minister’s and my own Front Bench’s argument. A two-day time limit does not cover unfortunate students who dutifully pursue their degree courses but discover, sometime into it, that the political circumstances have changed and they could face imprisonment, torture or even execution if they go home. Today’s amendment allows for these changed circumstances.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and all noble Lords who took part in the debate, in particular my noble friends.
If I can just clear up an issue for the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, this amendment is colour-blind and is not about citizenship; in that respect, I hope I can reassure him. I defer to no-one in my admiration for his success; he came here as a student from Uganda and has made such an enormous contribution to our society. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord German, for a thoughtful and helpful contribution in putting the questions to the Minister.
This debate has shown that there is a very significant culture of secrecy and obfuscation around these figures. I have been trying to get these figures for nine months and have thus far failed. There seems to be a void at the centre of public policy on data management of these figures, particularly for student visas. Notwithstanding the calming and insouciant voice of the Minister at the Dispatch Box, on the basis of what he said rather than the way he said it, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the two amendments tabled in my name in this group, but, before doing so, I will say that I strongly support the comments made by my noble friend Lord Murray and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. My amendments are to Amendments 47 and 68, and would ensure that modern slavery claims and appeals cannot be singled out in some way and still be used as a loophole for the merry-go-round of asylum claims that we see. The Home Secretary herself highlighted the vexatious last-minute modern slavery claim that was put in, in the case of the one-in, one-out asylum seeker. We have heard other examples as well.
Last year, noble Lords might wish to know, we saw that 65% of referrals to the NRM were found to have no reasonable grounds. This was compared with only 16% four years ago. So there is evidence that this is increasingly being used for last-minute, spurious claims, and I would like to make sure that these amendments are as bulletproof as possible. We should seek to restore public confidence in the modern slavery system, to make sure that it is doing what it was designed to do and what this Parliament designed it to do: that is, to be a lifeline for victims of horrific abuse. It was not designed, as it has increasingly become, as a route for Albanian men arriving on small boats.
The British citizens who are referred into the system are overwhelmingly children. I am sure that most people would agree that that is the right thing for the state to be doing. Foreign citizens referred in tell a different story: these are mostly adult men from Vietnam, Albania, Eritrea and Sudan. Supporting them is not the right priority for the taxpayers of this country. My amendment therefore ensures that only genuine victims can make use of our generous support and that these vexatious claims can definitely be thrown out.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to speak to the amendment in my name, but only in passing, because I cannot better the excellent remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. They made a very strong case. I also associate myself with Amendment 68. But I really want to talk to Amendment 46, the first in this group.
We all have a vested interest in protecting the integrity of the criminal justice system, and the faith and trust that our citizens have in that system. At the present time, I fear that people are losing faith in it. They are losing faith in the capacity of the judicial system to deliver fairness and equity for the British taxpayer. I think it is perfectly possible to have a strong modicum of compassion for those people driven to seek asylum in this country by poverty, famine, war and despotic dictatorships. However, a system that is intrinsically designed to be gamed—for young men to come to this country and use legal loopholes to settle in one of the wealthiest countries in the world—is no longer a situation that we can tolerate. That is why we need to take what would appear to be immoderate and draconian action in the first instance, because we are in the middle of a crisis.
I do not often quote Labour Members of Parliament, but Mike Tapp, the Member of Parliament for Dover and Deal—I think he is the Minister’s colleague—has been criticised for quite rightly complaining about the fact that people who are criminals are coming to this country and there is effectively nothing we can do about it. We can do nothing about it because this Government set their face against the Rwanda scheme and scrapped that scheme before it had a chance to work. Yet they go scrambling around parts of eastern Europe seeking an alternative scheme to put in place.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, is absolutely correct; it is incumbent upon this Government, after 16 months, to come up with an alternative. With all due respect to the Minister, the speech he gave to the Chamber on Monday was exactly the same speech, verbatim, that he gave on 8 September on undertakings to bring forward legislation and to the review of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, is quite right that we are now in a position where a significant number of member countries of the Council of Europe are sufficiently concerned that they are putting a very great deal of pressure to change things, because the system is broken.
If the system breaks, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, is absolutely right that it gives rise to people who are not moderate, who are extreme and who will scapegoat honest, decent people seeking to make a better life. It is incumbent on us to come up with solutions. Look at some of the egregious cases we have seen in recent years from the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal. “Egyptian migrant is ‘danger to the community’—but can stay in Britain”. “Cannabis dealer claimed deportation would destroy his marriage”. “Albanian who battered man with umbrella can stay because the attack was ‘one-off’”. “Asylum seeker can stay in Britain after having affair”. “Afghan drug user allowed to stay in the UK because Taliban is harsh on addicts”. “Migrant avoids deportation because he lost his phone”.
We may have a wry smile at some of those cases, and I accept that they are a minority of cases, but they are corrosive of the faith and trust people have in the system. That is why Amendment 46 is so important. If the Government are truly of the view that nothing is off the table, they have to be able to bring forward costed alternatives and not just fall back on the fact they are reviewing, they are looking at the European Convention on Human Rights and they will bring forward legislation. They have had 16 months; they need to take firm action to deal with this immigration crisis. On that basis, I strongly support the excellent amendment from my noble friend Lord Murray and, of course, the other amendments, including Amendment 46 from the Front Bench.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, this is obviously a lawyers’ paradise of a debate, where we normally have expressions of views. I am going to be much simpler than that. I want to look at Amendment 79A first, because it is important and I think I understand what is happening. I am in the fortunate position of being a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which enables me to have access, ask questions and find out far more than perhaps this House has been informed about at this stage. I would encourage all Members to talk to their party delegates on this matter to see what they have been doing about it.
My question about Amendment 79A is: does it mean withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights? Is that being suspended? If that is the case, which I understand is Conservative Party policy, quite clearly what we are heading for is Brexit 2. Is that the position?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I mention to the noble Lord the deal with France, the deal with Iraq, the scheme we are taking upstream with the Germans to tackle various issues, the work of the Calais Group, the work of the Border Security Command being executed by this Bill, the important measures in this Bill to tackle illegal migration, the measures we are taking to speed up asylum claims and get them through quickly, the two new barracks that we announced last week would be opened to speed up asylum claims and get a deterrent in place, and the work on illegal working in migration. We have done a whole range of things. Although I never cross my fingers on these matters, the last couple of weeks have seen no small boat crossings whatever. It is a difficult challenge, but let us look at how we deal with these issues.
We know that more must be done to address the backlog in the immigration and asylum appeals system. Clauses 46 and 47 set a statutory timeframe on First-tier Tribunal decisions. We have put in place additional funding to increase sitting days in 2025-26 to speed up the processing of asylum claims. I know that more needs to be done, which is why we are introducing a new appeals body to deal with immigration and asylum appeals, fully independent of government. We are committed to setting out further details of our plans very shortly.
Although the Government share the frustrations about the inefficiencies and delays in the immigration and asylum system, there is still a need to ensure due process, which is a fundamental part of our legal system. That touches on the points that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, mentioned, because we have to have due process as part of our legal system. The amendments would remove any judicial oversight of Home Office decisions and prevent an independent review of a decision other than by a Home Office board—effectively putting the department in charge of marking its own work. That is not a good place to be; judicial oversight is an important matter. There would inevitably be legal challenges against the Government based on that lack of independence. It would also be contrary to important UK legal principles, notably the rule of law, the protection of rights and access to justice, as well as more proposals on the most vulnerable, including in modern slavery cases—the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, mentioned this.
Without alternative ways of independent and impartial redress, these amendments would cause serious issues with the withdrawal agreement, which—like it or lump it—is in place. It is a legal agreement with the Government of the day. This also impacts upon the Windsor Framework and the relationship with Northern Ireland. All this points me to saying that I cannot accept those amendments.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I might be wrong, and I hesitate to say this in the presence of so many eminent lawyers, but my understanding is that there is a precedent for this suggestion, in that coronial verdicts are not traditionally appealable unless there has been irrationality or the coroner has erred in law. It is not the case that every single decision made in the criminal justice system, or the justice system generally, is necessarily traditionally appealable.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I defer to those who have expertise in coronial decisions—that is an MoJ matter—but in this case, this is what we have, and I am not prepared to give it up. We can disagree on that, and there are Division Lobbies on either side if we need to sort this out, but I do not expect to support those amendments, on the basis of the arguments that I have put forward today.
Amendment 79A from the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, would require the Home Secretary to disregard the Human Rights Act. I am not going to support that either. It would further limit when the UK could comply with interim measures and how they should be treated in domestic courts. The UK is fully committed to the protection of human rights at home and abroad, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, as the Prime Minister has made clear—
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
Lord Jackson of Peterborough ExcerptsMonday 3rd November 2025
(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 View all Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 136-II(b) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (3 Nov 2025)
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, almost daily we are subjected to ever more horrific stories of foreign nationals committing horrendous crimes in this country, who are all too often permitted to stay in the United Kingdom. Fahad Al Enaze, an asylum seeker from Kuwait being housed in a hotel in Liverpool, sent sexual messages to a person he believed to be a 14 year-old girl. He was sentenced to eight months in jail, but the sentence was suspended for 24 months. Consequently, he will be spared jail time and, under the current law, he will not be subject to automatic deportation.
Section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007 as it stands permits the automatic deportation of a person sentenced to at least 12 months’ imprisonment or who is convicted of an offence which is specified in an order made under Section 72(4)(a) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The individual just cited was convicted of attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child, which is an offence under Section 15A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 but is not specified under Section 72(4)(a) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Since he was convicted of an offence that is not specified and was not sentenced to more than 12 months in prison, he will not be automatically deported. This is obviously wrong. This is a man seeking to obtain asylum status in the UK who is being housed at the taxpayers’ expense. He is a convicted paedophile and yet the law will permit him to stay. There are many more examples of this and it cannot be right. We cannot claim to be protecting the British public when we permit people like this to remain in the country.
The amendments in this group in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough would change that. Amendment 34 would ensure that, where any foreign national is convicted of an offence, regardless of the sentence, they will be deported. The amendment does this through two avenues. First, it proposes an alteration to Sections 3 and 24 of the Immigration Act 1971. Proposed new subsection (2) in my amendment would change the current discretion in Section 3 for a court to recommend deportation where a person over the age of 17 is convicted of an offence to make that recommendation mandatory. The change to Section 24 would ensure that, where a person commits the offence of entering the UK illegally, they will be liable to deportation and the Secretary of State must make the necessary arrangement for that person’s removal.
Secondly, my amendment would amend Sections 32, 33 and 38 of the UK Borders Act 2007 to remove the condition that a person must be sentenced to a custodial sentence of at least 12 months to be eligible for automatic deportation. Government figures show that 12% of the current prison population are foreign-national offenders—that is nearly 11,000 people. Not only this, but a further 19,500 foreign-national offenders have been released from jail but not deported. We know that this Government have released almost 40,000 prisoners before the end of their sentences. Their Sentencing Bill, which introduces the presumption that any sentence shorter than 12 months will be suspended, will mean that another 40,000 people will avoid jail every year. The Government claim this is necessary due to prison capacity. Of course, if the Government were to adopt our proposals to remove all foreign-national offenders from UK prisons and deport them, and ensure that any foreign national convicted of a criminal offence was also swiftly deported, we would have thousands of spare prison spaces.
The British public does not want foreign nationals who commit criminal offences to remain in the United Kingdom. A poll from March this year found that over 80% of people want them deported. Unfortunately, under the law as it stands, this will not happen. Even after the Government bring in changes to the early removal scheme via Clause 32 of the Sentencing Bill, a significant proportion of foreign criminals will not be deported, and that is to say nothing of those foreign-national offenders who have served sentences and then been released. Amendment 72 tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson would ensure that they were given a deportation order within seven days of their release from prison. When the time comes, if my noble friend decides to test the opinion of the House, he will have my full support.
Where this Government have acted, we will support them. They have increased the rates of removal for foreign-national offenders, and that is welcome, but it is not enough. I beg to move.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to speak to Amendment 72 in my name and emphatically support Amendment 34 in the names of my noble friends on the Front Bench.
The amendment seeks to enshrine in law the responsibility of and duty on the Government to remove from this country those who do not have the automatic right to be here and who have committed a serious enough offence to have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment. If you come to this country and make it your home, you must understand that if you break the law, there are consequences. The amendment would apply to those who have committed crimes serious enough that they present a risk to the security and public safety of the British people.
The increase in the number of foreign national offenders between 2021 and 2024 was three times greater than that of British nationals, at 19.4% compared to 5.9%. In 2024, there were 20,866 non-summary convictions, of which violence and sexual offences by foreign national offenders amounted to 14,016 crimes, or 67% of offences, and a quarter of jailed sex offenders come from just five countries. We also have over 11,000 foreign national offenders housed in our prison estate, as my noble friend said. Albanians take up over 1,000 prison places. To my knowledge, they have been part of neither the British Empire nor the Commonwealth and have never been citizens of the European Union. Therefore, why is this the case and what are Ministers doing about it?
At the same time, the number of foreign national offenders released and not deported rose to 19,244 by the end of 2024. One of the reasons for this is the backlog of legal cases by those who have challenged deportation. The Government need to take strong action to clear this backlog and remove new offenders who present themselves.
This Government can blame only themselves, in all honesty, for this crisis, for which they have no solutions. Their cultural cringe to the European Court of Human Rights and their activist so-called jurists have facilitated the abuse of the central tenets of human rights and obligations by our own activist judiciary, as well as by some rapacious and cynical human rights lawyers.
The necessity of this amendment—the imperative of placing such a duty on a statutory footing—has been shown by recent events. A foreign offender who was imprisoned for sexual assault was accidentally released and then deported only after he was recaptured. He was then paid £500 so that he would not try to challenge his deportation. He was given taxpayers’ money in case he tried to claim asylum. The Government should not be in a situation where officials must decide that the paying of foreign offenders to leave nicely without causing a disturbance is the only way forward. That is not the best course of action. An individual who has been convicted and has served time for sexual assault should not have the ability to hold our immigration system to ransom.
On a wider question, could the Minister advise the House on the progress made in the returns deal with the Balkan states, and the review of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which my noble friend Lord Harper challenged him on two months ago, on 8 September? On that date, the Minister stated:
“We will simplify the rules and processes for removing foreign national offenders and take further targeted action against recent arrivals who commit crime in the UK before their offending can escalate … Later this year … we will table legislation to strengthen the public interest test, to make it clear that Parliament needs to be able to control our country’s borders and take back control over who comes to and stays in the UK”.—[Official Report, 8/9/25; col. 1164.]
I ask the Minister, when are we likely to see this new legislation?
I concede that the Government have moved in a positive direction. Around 5,100 foreign national offenders were deported in 2024, which, to their credit, is more than the just under 4,000 deported under the previous Government. That said, a large number chose to leave voluntarily.
I spoke in Committee about a
“chronic issue of mismanagement in the criminal justice system”.—[Official Report, 8/9/25; col. 1157.]
That mismanagement has now been brought to public attention. In the 12 months leading to March 2025, 262 prisoners were released by mistake, a 128% increase compared to the previous year. A criminal justice system as dysfunctional as ours, as error prone as this, needs clarity brought to it where possible, and that is what this amendment brings.
I agree that my own party’s record was suboptimal, but this Government have had 16 months to develop—
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
That is being polite. They have had 16 months to develop a workable strategy, yet the one-in, one-out strategy is an embarrassment and an international joke. Plans to spend vast sums of money on asylum hostels and houses in multiple occupation continue, and we are welcoming Gazans and their families without any proper security vetting or due diligence.
Crime and Policing Bill
Lord Jackson of Peterborough ExcerptsThursday 16th October 2025
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 View all Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 18 June 2025 - (18 Jun 2025)
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, Clause 191 proposes an extremely radical change to abortion law. It was added on Report in the other place without due consideration and with only 46 minutes of Back-Bench debate. It is unnecessary, badly drafted and will harm women. We already have one of the most permissive abortion laws in the world. Even David Steel said he never intended the Abortion Act 1967 to enable termination to be treated like a form of contraception. The presumption in the Act is that deliberately ending the life of a child in the womb is a criminal offence unless it is signed off by two doctors who decide in good faith that one or more of the specified grounds are met.
The change in the law is not because there are women who cannot get abortions or because it is too difficult to get a doctor to sign off, but because of an ideological commitment to presenting abortion as a form of healthcare, like the removal of a tumour. The humanity of the baby in the womb is ignored. A wanted child is a baby and should be protected; an unwanted child is a foetus—an othering word, if ever there was one—and can be removed and disposed of. I simply do not believe the degree to which a mother wants or does not want her baby changes the moral status of the child and think we need to have a national conversation about this.
I may be in a minority in this House when I speak on this issue, but I suspect that the removal of abortion from the ambit of the criminal law for the mother is something that makes many people uncomfortable because abortion is important. I think we all instinctively know we are dealing with the termination of a human life. We cannot just allow a free for all; there must be limits. Even though prosecution of mothers for unlawful abortions is incredibly rare, the existence of a criminal law framework for abortion sends a vital message that ending the life of an unborn person is a serious matter. This is reflected in the way the law is framed, and that is what the majority of the public appear to want.
A poll of over 2,000 adults found that more than six in 10 respondents agreed that abortion should continue to remain illegal after 24 weeks; just 17% disagreed. Clause 191 disapplies the law from a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy. No matter how she ends the life of her unborn baby, no matter how late in the pregnancy, no matter how painful for the child, no matter how distressing for whoever finds the remains, she would be beyond the reach of the law; whereas any doctor or nurse who is complicit would be committing a criminal offence. The Member for Gower gave an interview to Times Radio. She was asked whether she was comfortable with any woman ending a pregnancy at any time; she said she was. That is what Clause 191 will enable.
Janice Turner of the Times, a supporter of abortion, wrote that she was “aghast” at this “glib, careless and amoral” clause. In her words,
“it cannot be that killing a full-term baby in the birth canal is legal, but smothering it outside the womb is infanticide”.
The Times editorial also raised the issue of pills by post, which was passed in the dead of night in 2022 without proper debate, or an impact assessment, and indeed the amendment was a disorderly one which had to be amended by the department.
There can be severe complications with abortion pills, especially when they are taken late in pregnancy. These include haemorrhaging and excruciating pain. The traumatic situations in which these women have ended up is as a result of pills by post. It enables women to have dangerous, late-term abortions at home alone without any medical supervision. Yet activists are now using the failings of pills by post to push for even more extreme laws.
In conclusion, Clause 191 will only make the situation worse, increasing the number of late-term abortions, and putting more women in danger. If we really care for women, we need to reinstate in-person appointments: proper, sensitive, skilled medical assessments where experts can assess how far along a woman is, whether there are any complicating factors that put her in danger, or whether she is being coerced. We already have unfettered access to abortion: Clause 191 is an embarrassment to supporters of abortion and a stain on our reputation as a country that claims to care for pregnant women and their unborn children.