Lord Cameron of Lochiel:

Moved by Lord Cameron of Lochiel

138: After Clause 41, insert the following new Clause—“Automatic deportation: Appeals(1) Subsection (2) applies to a person (“P”) who has been given a deportation order in accordance with section 32(5) of the UK Borders Act 2007.(2) P may not appeal against the deportation order but may only appeal against their conviction in accordance with section 1 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. (3) The UK Borders Act 2007 is amended in accordance with subsections (4) and (5).(4) In section 32, after subsection (7) insert—“(8) An order made by the Secretary of State under subsection (5) is final, and not liable to be questioned or set aside in any court.”.(5) In section 34(2) omit “or sentence”.”

My Lords, Amendments 138 and 139 are in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower. Together, they go to the heart of what it means to have a fair, firm and trusted asylum and immigration system that both commands the confidence of the British people and respects their good will.

We should start from first principles. The people of this country are generous, compassionate and welcoming. That generosity has been demonstrated towards those migrating to the UK over the centuries and has especially been seen more recently in the Homes for Ukraine scheme, through which ordinary families across the UK opened their doors, and the Afghan relocations and assistance policy and the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, which have offered refuge to those who stood by our Armed Forces. This reflects a profound national instinct to offer sanctuary to those in genuine need fleeing persecution and violence, and to do so with humanity and dignity.

However, that good will is not unlimited, nor should it be exploited. When we ask the British people to assent to immigration policy, we are not legislating in the abstract. We are in effect asking our fellow citizens to share their homes and their services with those arriving on our shores. That is a profound act of trust, and it is our duty in this place to protect that trust. That is why I suggest that these amendments matter: they draw a clear and important distinction between those who come here in need of our support and behave with gratitude and decency, and those who come here and break our criminal law and expect to remain regardless.

I turn to the detail of the two amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Davies. Amendment 139 would provide that any person who was not a British citizen and was convicted of a crime while in the UK would be automatically deported. Furthermore, where a non-British citizen over the age of 17 was convicted of an offence, the court would have to order deportation when sentencing. That would bring absolute clarity: if you break the law, you forfeit the right to remain. It would also ensure that those who committed immigration offences, such as entering or remaining unlawfully, were dealt with firmly and consistently.

Amendment 138 deals specifically with automatic deportation orders. These were introduced to the immigration system by the previous Labour Government in the UK Borders Act 2007. They state that the Secretary of State must make a deportation order in cases of conviction where 12 months’ imprisonment is applied and an offence is specified. My amendment seeks to prevent the possibility of constant and lengthy appeals by removing the ability of foreign offenders to frustrate an automatic deportation order through a lengthy appeal mechanism. It provides that, if a deportation order is made, it is final and can be neither appealed nor overturned by a higher court. That would not, of course, affect the right to appeal the criminal conviction, which would remain, but the automatic deportation order could not be overturned.

We cannot justify to the British people a system in which convicted criminals linger here for years during protracted appeal proceedings. These amendments are not directed against those who genuinely need our protection—those fleeing war, persecution and danger—but against those who exploit our generosity, take advantage of our systems and commit crimes against the very society that has given them shelter.

Finally, I lend a word of support to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough. I have no wish to steal his thunder, so will be as brief as I can. I support the amendment, which would ensure that deportation orders follow swiftly within seven days of release and cannot be endlessly delayed or appealed. That clarity is essential both for the integrity of the system and for the public’s trust in it.

These amendments draw a firm line, restore public trust and reaffirm the principle that compassion must be matched by responsibility. I beg to move.

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to speak to Amendment 203A in my name and to contribute to the wider deliberations of the Committee. It almost feels as if this Bill is from a different era. The speed of change of government policy on immigration following the publication of the immigration white paper and various other political developments has left us somewhat flat-footed.

Foreign national offenders remain an endemic issue, which the previous Government, in all fairness, failed to tackle as effectively as they could have. It is apposite that just today the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Removal of Prisoners for Deportation) Order 2025 is being considered by the Grand Committee. As noble Lords will know, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has opined on that statutory instrument in its 31st report. I will not bore the Committee with the details.

Foreign national offenders cost roughly £54,000 each. They cost £500 million a year and, as of 25 June, there were 10,772 foreign national offenders in our prison estate. They represent 12.5% of the prison population. Disproportionate groups are Albanians, Poles, Romanians, Jamaicans and Irish citizens.

I welcome the Government’s new focus on this area. It is fair to say that they have made some progress. Up to August 2025, they had removed around 5,000 of these individuals. Nevertheless, the number of foreign national offenders is still extremely high compared with just six years ago. Since 2019, there has been a 16.8% rise in foreign national offenders in the prison estate. It was not always the case that we were struggling to remove them. In 2016, the previous Government removed 6,437. In 2017 the figure was 6,292 and in 2018 it was 5,500. Believe it or not, over 12,000 were removed in 2012. The previous Government secured a prisoner transfer agreement with Albania in May 2023.

Regarding some of the legal impediments to the removal of foreign national offenders at the end of their sentences, the German Government—no doubt we will come back to this issue in future—derogated from parts of the European Convention on Human Rights specifically to prevent vexatious and spurious claims against deportation by, in particular, persistent Albanian career criminals. I wonder why the UK Government have not sought to pursue a similar policy, but I am obviously glad that they are looking at it in their review of Article 8. Every time the Minister speaks on this, he sounds a bit more robust in his interpretation, which I am hopeful about.

One-third of foreign national offenders are citizens of the European Union. They should be removed on the basis of public policy, public health and public safety and security, available under the free movement regulations and, post Brexit, Regulation 27 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016.

I am interested to see the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, in the Chamber, as I do not know what the statutory basis for this is, but why do we not remove the many hundreds of Irish prisoners in our estate? It seems to be a “convention” that we do not. As she would no doubt agree, surely we can ask the Irish to take back their own prisoners as a quid pro quo for the defence support we consistently give to them. The previous Government paid £25 million to the Government of Jamaica to construct a prison in Kingston as part of a quid pro quo for the removal of several thousand Jamaican prisoners in our estate. It seems that we have not expedited that positive outcome. Can the Minister update us on any new prisoner transfer agreement that is likely to come to fruition on top of the one signed in October 2023 with the Philippines? I know that there is ongoing work with the Government of Italy in this respect as well. Maybe he can say how many prisoners claim asylum, or are likely to claim asylum, at the point that they are due to be released or deported.

The reason why we need this amendment and a statutory duty as an imperative in law is that Ministers are bedevilled not just by judicial activism and the misuse of Article 8 of the ECHR by some judges in the Upper Tribunal, as consistently exposed by the Daily Telegraph, but by a fundamental and chronic issue of mismanagement in the criminal justice system. It is why we have 12,000 criminals mooted for deportation at large in our communities, an increase of 192% since 2012. Yet we have the legal powers to act decisively under the Immigration Act 1971 and the UK Borders Act 2007. I applaud the Government for their early removal scheme changes and efforts to secure new prisoner transfer agreements. I think we all agree with that, but we need better and more up-to-date data and communications between the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office. We need better reporting performance at the foreign national offenders returns command and a review of case working. We need to stop the use of manually accessed spreadsheets, tackle poor IT provision and improve case ownership, case management, accountability and timelines.

What progress have the Government made in response to the inspector of borders and immigration’s report of 2023, which made some robust criticisms of the existing regime? This was raised in the debate I had last year in Grand Committee.

While I am at it, and on a note of consensus, the Opposition spokesman on that occasion was the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, who was a decent, courteous and knowledgeable Minister across his brief. His resignation or removal from the Government is a matter of regret. I wish him well in his future endeavours, and it is a great loss to the Government that he is no longer a Minister.

I know that the Minister should welcome this amendment, which supports the broad thrust of the Government’s current policy, but I look forward to him telling me that he will not support it. Nevertheless, I beg to move.

My Lords, I will add a few words about the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby: I too greatly appreciated all the work he did and the courteous manner in which he addressed this House. I look forward to working with the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, his replacement at the Ministry of Justice.

Amendments 138 and 139 would certainly bring clarity, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said in speaking to them, but they would do so, surely, at the expense of any balance and consideration of relevant factors. Amendment 138 would provide that there is to be no appeal against a deportation order. It would be most unusual and highly regrettable to have a sanction that is simply unappealable; I cannot think of any other circumstance in which that is the case under our law.

If this amendment were accepted, there would be no appeal, however strong the basis for one. If a deportation order were to be made despite the fact that the criteria set out in the UK Borders Act are not satisfied, it would be quite an extraordinary position to be in. There would be no right to appeal despite a deportation order being made to a country which everyone accepts would pose a well-founded risk of torture to the individual concerned; such a provision would be absurd, in my respectful submission.

Amendments 139 and 203A would impose obligations to make a deportation order with no exceptions or discretion where a person who is not a British citizen is sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Again, this is surely wholly unacceptable because it would mean an obligation to make a deportation order even if it means removal to a country where the person concerned will face torture. It would mean an obligation to make a deportation order irrespective of the circumstances of the offence, any mitigating circumstances or how long the person concerned had been lawfully in this country. Such an absolute provision surely cannot command the support of the Committee.

I very much hope that the Minister will say that the Government will not accept any of these amendments. The right way forward, I suggest, is for the Government carefully to consider the existing work to address what guidance and directions should be given to courts and tribunals, particularly in relation to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, so that a proper balance can be accepted and implemented in this important area.

My Lords, I was not able to be here at the opening of the debate on the earlier group, so I hope noble Lords will forgive me if anyone else has already said this, but I was delighted when I walked into the Chamber and saw the noble Lord still in his place. I have worked very closely with him on these matters over the years and I am pleased that his qualifications have been appropriately recognised over the weekend.

I certainly support the thrust of these amendments, and I will come on to the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in a moment. They are important because the public believe that, if you are in the United Kingdom and you are not a British citizen, you owe some obligations and responsibilities to the country that has provided you with a home. People generally feel that if you come to the United Kingdom and you are here lawfully, and you subsequently break the law, it is something we should deprecate. There should be some consequences, and we should set a very clear expectation that those who come here under the Immigration Rules and who are not British citizens are expected to be exemplary in obeying the law. It is both a sanction, as the noble Lord said, and something that sets an expectation about behaviour. That is ultimately the thrust behind the amendments from my friends on the front bench and my noble friend Lord Jackson.

To pick up one point my noble friend Lord Jackson made, and I hope the Minister can cover it in his response, I believe the issue around Irish nationals is that they have unique legal status here that is not connected to the Republic of Ireland’s membership of the European Union. It is to do with our entwined history and the Act which set up the Irish Republic—or separated it from the United Kingdom. That is therefore a more complicated position and it would be helpful if the Minister could deal with that when he responds, because my noble friend made some points that the public would not necessarily understand.

I want to pick up some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, which I thought had some merit, and which have been considered previously by Ministers. I was pleased that my noble friend Lord Jackson referred to the very successful deportation period in 2012—I just throw out as an aside that that was when I happened to be the Immigration Minister and responsible for such matters; I will just leave that there. When we toughened up the legal regime in what became the Immigration Act 2014, we contended with exactly the points that the noble Lord raised, about whether you put an absolute position in the legislation or allow any judicial weighing-up of these factors at all. I agree with him that there is a role in allowing there to be some judicial oversight, and we did that in the Immigration Act 2014; we said that if you were sentenced to over four years in prison, you must be deported unless there were compelling reasons over and above the two exceptions set out in the Act. This was to circumscribe the ability of judges to use Article 8 to allow people to stay here at the drop of a hat.

Where I part company with the noble Lord is that I do not think that the Government’s current plan to simply set out in guidance, or some non-statutory mechanism, directions to judges is going to be adequate. When we looked at this, we found that because the Immigration Rules are set out in secondary legislation, courts felt very confident about inserting their judgment on whether people should be removed from the country. We put the balancing arguments—particularly those for Article 8—in the primary legislation, which set out some exceptions and the need for compelling circumstances. The effect was that judges, as they properly do, put a great deal of weight on what Parliament said, rather than what Ministers put into secondary legislation.

Therefore, if my noble friends withdraw and do not move their amendments today, I urge the Minister to think about coming back on Report—we can think about that as well—with something tougher than simply guidance, advice or directions for judges. My experience is that, unless you put it in the legislation, it does not have the desired effect.

Appeals in this area of law are different than in others because, if somebody is in the United Kingdom unlawfully or if we are trying to deport them, it is in their interests for the appeal process to take as long as possible, because for every day the appeal process is not concluded, they are able to stay in the United Kingdom and effectively achieve their objective. That is not like the situation in other areas, where they do not have an incentive to make the process go very slowly. Therefore, we need to do something in the legislation.

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has a point when he says that there should be some element of judicial discretion. The challenge, of course, is that as soon as you allow there to be any, it is very easy for that to creep along and for judges to widen it. Then we get all the cases we read about in the paper that bring the law into disrepute.

Therefore, the expert drafters in the Home Office—whom I know are there—should bring forward some tightly drawn amendments that achieve the spirit of what my noble friends have put on the Marshalled List but that perhaps allow some judicial discretion. I was certainly told that, by allowing some judicial discretion, you actually strengthen the power of the statute, because it means that the courts will not seek to overturn it in creative ways, because they feel that justice can be done by following what is in the law. That is perhaps the approach I would urge the Minister to take as he puts together his response to this and what he may come forward with on Report.

Of course, I am more hopeful about the Minister bringing something forward on Report than one would perhaps normally be in this debate because, having seen some of the opening remarks of the Home Secretary, I note that she seems very taken with the idea of a more robust approach to removing foreign national offenders in particular from the country.

I hope the approach I have set out, taking inspiration from what my noble friends have done, is something that the Minister will find meets favour with his new boss in the Home Office. I therefore commend these amendments in moving the debate in the spirit I think the public would wish.

My Lords, I will just intervene on this interesting exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and my noble friends on Amendment 203A. The question this raises—I say this really as a question—is: is it not the case that people in this country who want our borders strengthened and immigration controlled may perhaps consider that convicted offenders from overseas who are not British citizens should not enjoy the same rights, privileges and protections after a conviction as a UK citizen should?

I understand that we are bound by international regulations and international law. None the less, as my noble friend has said, there have been derogations from the law, not least by Germany, which has in fact withdrawn legal aid from those appealing. The French Government, in defiance of their own courts, very often deport overseas offenders. Therefore, although it is a very persuasive Intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, there is a wider context in which this group of amendments is being spoken to.

My Lords, I will speak very briefly in support of the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and shall give one example as to why automatic removal regardless of the circumstances is so wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Harper—whom I was lucky to work with many years ago in the coalition Government and am glad to see here—raised a point that a number of other Lords have also mentioned: people who have come to this country and have been afforded protection by it should understand the consequences if they breach the law. That is an understandable point to make.

However, I will give one example. Take a small child who came to the UK, whose parents became British citizens and who had assumed that they were in fact a British citizen, who had committed a crime and was sentenced to prison—and, under this Amendment, was therefore subject to automatic removal—but the national referral mechanism competent authority later found that they were a victim of modern slavery for the purpose of forced criminality. That person would have no right of appeal, none of the circumstances of the case would be considered and they would be deported automatically to a country that they have never been to and where people speak a language that they do not understand. It would be wholly wrong for that to happen without any mechanism for a court or tribunal to consider it. I very strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and oppose these amendments.

My Lords, I will make a very brief point in addition to that one. It is interesting that we have just came out of a debate on a group of amendments that address the rule of law and legal advice. Around the Committee, there was a strong view that people should have representation, that they should be able to make their case and that their case should be heard. What we have before us now is a group of amendments in which there is absolutism without any sense of balance or proportionality. The case of coercion, which my noble friend has just discussed, makes it incredibly difficult for anyone who believes in the rule of law and in due process to support these amendments, particularly when we are told that the criticism largely comes from the Daily Telegraph.

I will respond, with all due respect, to the noble Lord’s comments about minors. We should bear in mind that this Amendment would apply to people who would be subject to the provision as adults, not children, when sent into the prison estate. They would be subject, for instance, to pre-sentence reports and background information being provided if they were young people, but, in essence, they would be adults. They would be at the top level of criminality, because they would be incarcerated in respect of a custodial sentence. In other words, they would have committed pretty serious offences; they would not have been sent to prison for not paying their TV licence or for speeding. Therefore, for the noble Lord to conflate the two is wrong. This is something that the British people are looking to the Government to take action on. They look at other jurisdictions and simply cannot understand why other jurisdictions are in a position to take robust action to remove people who have committed persistent criminal offences in their country.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Minister has made very clear his approach to the amendments, but I want to press him a bit. The Government accept that in some cases the courts are not drawing the lines in the right place, which is why the Government have suggested, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referenced, that they will issue further guidance to courts to make these decisions and draw the lines in a different place. Is guidance going to be sufficient to alter where judges make these decisions, or do we need to change the law? The Minister may not agree with these proposals, but I would argue that you do need to change the law. If he does not think that these proposals are okay but thinks that courts are not getting it right at the moment, the Government should bring forward their own amendments on Report. I suspect that this House will give them a fair hearing.

The noble Lord raises perfectly valid questions. I was clear to the House and have been today to the Committee that the Government will examine the European Court of Human Rights Article 8 requirements. We will be issuing guidance on that and have some further discussion on what that means in practice. We are still considering those matters, but we not minded at the moment to bring forward legislation—and I am certainly not minded to support, for the reasons that I have said, the amendments from the Opposition front bench and from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. I hope that I have been clear on that.

We are committed to reforms across the immigration system. It is right that we take action against foreign national offenders in the UK before they get the opportunity to put routes down in the UK. We will do what we can to protect local communities and prevent crime. 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, as the noble Lord is intimating, we will set out more detailed reforms and stronger measures to ensure that our Laws are upheld, including streamlining and speeding up the removals process. 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. We need to strike that balance between family rights and the wider public interest. That is why we will clarify Article 8 rules and set out how they should apply in different immigration routes so that fewer cases are treated as exceptional. We will also set out when and how a person can genuinely make a claim on the basis of exceptional circumstances.

Amendment 139, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, seeks to amend the penalty for immigration offences in Section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971, replacing this with a sentence of deportation and removing the lack of knowledge as a defence against these offences. We have been clear in our response to the sentencing review that we will reduce the use of short sentences and increase the use of suspended sentences, so there will be a significant reduction in the number of such offenders being sent to prison. Foreign nationals convicted of immigration offences can be considered for deportation at present, and we will act to ensure that such action is taken in future.

Removing lack of knowledge as a defence will likely result in consequential deportation decisions being subject to more ECHR challenges, resulting in delay, the consequence being fewer successful removals.

To pick up on a point made by the Minister, he confirmed that the Government are undertaking this review of Article 8 and how it is interpreted by the courts. He also said that, if necessary, the Government would bring forward legal provisions to put reforms in place. We have a bit of time before Report, with another day in Committee in October and Report a little bit after that. Can I urge the Minister to speed up that review? If it is necessary to put into statute any changes in how Article 8 is being interpreted, he can then bring that forward in this legislation, to take advantage of bringing those reforms in urgently, rather than waiting for another piece of legislation to come down the track in a year or two.

We keep all matters under review. This will go at the pace that it goes at. We will be making further announcements in due course on how we will review Article 8 and the issues that will result accordingly.

The sentencing review is ongoing. We welcome recommendations to make it quicker and easier to deport foreign criminals. We have committed to returning foreign national offenders earlier by changing the point at which they can be deported under the early removal scheme from 18 months to 48 months, subject to serving a minimum of 30% of their custodial sentence. Also, the MoJ-Home Office joint operation is conducting further work on how we can deport foreign national prisoners serving less than three years as soon as possible after sentencing.

Finally, Amendment 139, which I have referred to several times already, seeks to amend the Illegal Migration Act by disapplying key immigration legislation from the Human Rights Act 1998. I regret that this would have no effect, as this Bill will repeal the provisions in that Act.

I have tried to answer the points that have been made by noble Lords. I suspect that we will return to some of these issues on Report. We certainly will if the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Jackson, re-table their amendments. In the meantime, I would welcome them withdrawing or not moving their amendments, and them considering what has been said.

I am grateful to all the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, particularly the Minister, whom I congratulate on showing his survival instincts over the weekend. I do not shy away from the absolute nature of these amendments. Having listened carefully to what has been said, I intended to withdraw or not move them, but I make just one point, which was also made by my noble friend Lord Harper.

The rationale of these amendments lies in building a fair, trusted and enduring immigration system that requires us to carry the British people with us. Protecting that good will must be a matter of utmost importance. The danger is that the good will that currently exists is dissipating very quickly. Foreign national offenders are at the epicentre of that and public confidence in our system can never be taken for granted.

However, in the light of what has been said, and reflecting on everything, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment 138 withdrawn.

Amendments 139 and 140 not moved.