Lord Verdirame:

Moved by Lord Verdirame

122A: Clause 32, page 59, line 30, at end insert—“(1A) Subsection (1) of section 260 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 does not apply when a fixed-term prisoner is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than three years.(1B) A fixed-term prisoner is not to be removed under section 260 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 unless the Secretary of State has made arrangements for the prisoner to serve the remaining custodial period in the country to which the prisoner is to be removed.(1C) A fixed-term prisoner is not to be removed under section 260 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the interests of justice are not defeated by the removal (having regard to the gravity of the offence and the impact of the offender’s criminal conduct on those affected by it).(1D) Subsection (1) of section 260 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 does not apply in relation to a prisoner detained in accordance with subsection (4)(b) of that section after returning to the UK following a previous removal.”Member’s explanatory statementThis Amendment is intended to add certain limits to early removals to ensure that the interests of justice and those of victims are taken into account, and that early removals do not result in impunity.

My Lords, I apologise for not speaking at Second Reading. If I had, I would have said that there are many positive things about the Bill. However, I have tabled this Amendment, with the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, because I consider Clause 32 to be an unsatisfactory aspect of the Bill.

Clause 32 amends the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to enable the removal of an offender from prison for the purpose of immediate deportation from the United Kingdom, so that removal can happen at any time after sentence. Any foreign offender on a fixed-term sentence would be eligible for deportation without serving any part of their custodial sentence.

The Government have chosen to go beyond the recommendation of the Independent Sentencing Review, chaired by the former Lord Chancellor David Gauke. The review had proposed reducing the removal point from 50% to 30% of the custodial sentence, and that recommendation has already been implemented by statutory instrument. The review also recommended that foreign offenders sentenced to three years or less could be removed more swiftly—even before they had served any part of their sentence. However, Clause 32 does not include the three-year limit.

Some of the practical and principle problems with this change in the law were spelled out in an article in the Spectator last August by Professor Ekins from Policy Exchange’s judicial power project and the University of Oxford. He argued that this change in the law risks creating “perverse incentives” for foreign offenders, who would be able to commit serious crimes in the United Kingdom with relative impunity. Serious crimes would not be treated consistently or as their moral gravity warrants.

The new policy is said to have public support. It is true that the public, if asked, “Do you want foreign offenders to be deported?” will likely say yes by an overwhelming Majority. But, if the questions are, “Do you want foreign offenders to go unpunished?” or, “Do you think British offenders should be punished more severely than foreign offenders for the same crime?”, I suspect the response would be rather different. To be clear, I am not opposed to the principle that a foreign offender should be removed after serving time in prison. The question is whether we as a country should give up on punishing and rehabilitating foreign offenders and instead deport them without any punishment.

The review recommended three years as the limit because it considered that foreign national offenders sentenced to three years or less would serve the equivalent of a short prison sentence and, in those circumstances, deportation could be viewed as punishment—although I must admit that, for my part, I have some difficulty with the notion that deportation itself is a form of punishment. Where the individual is already liable to deportation, it cannot be said to constitute a new punishment. But, more fundamentally, being deported is simply not the same as going to prison, and how punitive deportation is will depend on the circumstances, including the gravity of the crime. As Professor Ekins argues, it is very obviously not true that deportation is a punishment comparable with a lengthy term of imprisonment for offences such as rape, robbery or drug or people trafficking.

But, even if deportation is to be treated conceptually as a form of punishment, the three-year limit recommended by the review is essential. The removal of that limit is at odds not only with the idea of punishment but with the principle of rehabilitation. Without the three-year limit, some quite serious offenders, including sex offenders, who have neither been punished nor, as far as we know, rehabilitated could be removed to places where they could go on to commit crimes. Are we really going to say that it is not our problem because those victims, including potentially children, are foreigners? When dealing with serious offenders, whether national or foreign, we have a responsibility towards both their past victims and their potential future victims.

My amendment seeks to temper the damage that Clause 32 would cause. It would add four subsections to Section 260 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The four subsections do not necessarily come as a package; each represents a discrete limit to the new policy. Proposed new subsection (1A) implements the three-year limit in line with the Gauke review—perhaps the Minister can tell us why the Government decided not to accept that recommendation in the review.

Proposed new subsection (1B) would limit the power to remove a foreign offender from prison for the purpose of deportation, so that it applied only if or when

“the Secretary of State has made arrangements for the prisoner to serve the remaining custodial period in the country to which the prisoner is to be removed”.

This would avoid the injustice of foreign offenders failing to be punished at all for their crimes and would incentivise the Secretary of State to work to conclude such arrangements with foreign countries. I appreciate that the Government will view proposed new subsection (1B) as particularly challenging to the objective of deporting the largest number of foreign offenders, because at present only a few foreign offenders are sent back through such prison transfer or similar arrangements. But we do not want the Government to lose sight of the importance of these arrangements, because they continue to offer the best way of implementing the various policy objectives at stake.

Proposed new subsection (1C) would limit the power to remove a foreign offender so that it would apply only if the Secretary of State had first considered whether the offender’s early removal from prison—maybe without having served any time at all—would be just, in view of the seriousness of the crime and its impact on the victims and/or the general public. This change would avoid the Secretary of State removing serious offenders without them having to confront the gravity of their crimes and the understandable outrage their victims may feel at the prospect that those offenders will not face any punishment.

Proposed new subsection (1D) deals with the foreign offender who, having been removed under Section 260 of the Criminal Justice Act without having served a minimum custodial period, then returns to the United Kingdom. The situation was already addressed in part by a change introduced by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which introduced the “stop the clock” provision: Section 261 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The effect of that provision is that a person who returns to the United Kingdom goes back into custody to serve the remainder of the custodial part of the sentence from the moment when it was paused to give effect to the deportation.

Until 2022, in these situations, national offenders would have been returned to prison only if apprehended before the sentence expiry date. In the new regime, if Clause 32 is adopted without amendment, the Secretary of State would have the power under subsection (1) to remove again a prisoner from prison for the purpose of deportation, even once he returned to the UK. Proposed new subsection (1D) would close down that possibility by disabling the power in that case. The offender would, of course, still face deportation after serving the sentence.

I would be grateful if, in responding, the Minister could give us a sense of what the implementation of Clause 32 would mean in practice. In particular, how many offenders sentenced to more than three years’ imprisonment do the Government expect would be removed without serving any time in prison? Given that Clause 32 creates a discretionary power for the Secretary of State, how are the Government going to exercise that discretion? For example, will they take a different approach for certain offences and, if so, which ones and on what basis? What about the case of a foreign national who might benefit from the early removal arrangement and who flees the jurisdiction before trial? Will we still seek to have this person sent back to the UK to stand trial, or will we take the view that, given that the person has already inflicted upon himself the maximum punishment that we would conceivably impose for that offence, there is no need to do so?

There are three other amendments in this group. As I understand them, the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, Amendment 141A, along with Amendment 146 from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, would be consistent with my amendment. As I understand it, Amendment 142 from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, would also be consistent with this amendment, because he seeks to make sure that there is an automatic order for deportation, but he does not necessarily seek that order to take effect even before the sentence is served. I look forward to the Minister’s answers to my questions. With that, I beg to move.

I have Amendment 141A in this group, probing the position with regard to people who have been victims or survivors of modern slavery, human trafficking or domestic abuse.

The large Majority of black and minoritised migrant women in contact with the criminal justice system are survivors of human trafficking and/or violence against women and girls. This often happens when a trafficker or abuser identifies their vulnerability, often resulting from unmet basic needs such as housing, income and healthcare. Their criminal convictions will have stemmed very often from the abuse they have suffered, and whether they were coerced into offending or acting under the influence of unaddressed trauma.

In the case of women, particularly, who have been trafficked, we know that the section—I forget the number—in the Modern Slavery Act that seeks to protect them is not working well. The very fact of deportation adds to the vulnerability to abuse; it often leaves the person subject to it without accommodation or income, and it removes community and support networks, in many cases leaving them in a place they are not familiar with. The risk of deportation has a similar effect. A person may be left without ways in which to meet their basic needs and in fear, and the fear itself adds to the vulnerability, which is capitalised on by abusers. This is particularly true for people who are already traumatised by previous abuse and exploitation.

We know that victims of human trafficking and modern slavery—and victims of domestic abuse—need specialist support and protection from re-exploitation and further abuse. I have used the term “she” because very often, mostly, it is a she. We know too that women have particular needs, largely stemming from their own backgrounds.

My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in my name. I will also briefly comment on the excellent remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame. I too have great sympathy with his comments and have read the interesting article that Richard Ekins KC produced in the Spectator on 11 August. The noble Lord outlines the case very eloquently and I am minded to support his Amendment because it is logical and sensible. It really goes to the heart of a philosophical debate about whether the Government’s proposals essentially forget the raison d’être of rehabilitation, re-education and punishment. If the system is predisposed just to deport someone then you are not really concentrating on some key aspects of the criminal justice system with regard to incarceration. The noble Lord’s comments and amendment are therefore logical.

I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I think that, as usual, her heart is in the right place but, in this case, her amendment would gum up the system and be misused by, in my opinion, activist judges to prevent the deportation of people who should be deported for the public good, safety and security. I therefore cannot support it.

I will not dwell too long on Amendment 142. It is pretty straightforward and the hour is late, but I do want to discuss at reasonable length my Amendment 146. We are now reaching the end of the Bill; we are on Part 4 and Clause 42, which is on the deportation of foreign national offenders. My amendment seeks to ensure that all British citizens, including those in Northern Ireland, can rely on their Government and their sovereign Parliament in Westminster to enact legislation on their behalf, including Clause 42, which was passed without vote, as I understand, in the other place.

However, due to the iniquitous and unfair Windsor Framework and the capitulation by the previous Government—of my party, sadly—in putting it into legislation, thereby making Northern Ireland an effective colony of the European Union, this legislation will not apply to Northern Ireland. Its people, who are British citizens, subjects of the Crown and taxpayers, will again be treated as second-class citizens as a result of this Bill, if my amendment is not accepted. Article 2(1) of the Windsor Framework effectively disregards the will of the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom, of this unitary state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in favour of a foreign legal entity and a foreign jurisdiction—Laws over which residents of Northern Ireland have no say and whose fundamental rights are circumscribed; they do not have equal citizenship with UK citizens in England, Wales and Scotland.

These people are subject to the direct effect of Union law—European Union law, made in a foreign Parliament, designed by a faceless, unaccountable bureaucracy and unelected politicians who appoint each other—by virtue of Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which gives direct effect to such provisions automatically as part of UK domestic law, subject to those EU provisions. This, of course, trumps all UK domestic law, for the Supreme Court has opined:

“The answer to any conflict between the Protocol”— that is, the Windsor Framework—

“and any other enactment whenever passed or made is that those other enactments are to be read and have effect subject to the rights and obligations which are to be recognised and available in domestic law by virtue of section 7A(2)”.

Yes, a Conservative Government legislated to make UK law permanently subservient to EU law in a significant part of the United Kingdom. In fact, this affects 300 areas of law across every aspect of life in Northern Ireland.

Essentially, this Bill means that foreign criminals in Northern Ireland have hit the jackpot. If they are EU citizens, they are protected by the EU citizens’ rights directive and the withdrawal agreement that was signed in 2020. If they are not then never mind: they are in any case protected, as would not be the case in Great Britain, by enhanced protections under the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 19 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as activist judges have, in the past, misused their powers and misinterpreted that particular piece of legislation. No matter how much tub-thumping we hear from excitable Labour Back-Benchers about the new powers of Clause 42, they are supporting a Bill part of which holds that we cannot deport criminals—rapists, murderers, burglars, et cetera—from part of our own country.

The will of this House and the other place is irrelevant. No one voted for this lamentable state of affairs. The Explanatory Notes to the Bill are completely silent on the impact of the Windsor Framework on Clause 42 and its operation in Northern Ireland. No court has yet opined definitively on this specific sui generis issue. The Windsor Framework is a constitutional abomination, a stain on the record of the Sunak Government and an insult to the people of Northern Ireland. It was a completely unnecessary, supine capitulation to the European Union. It gives rise, in this case, to a dangerous development that affects the safety and security of the people of the six counties of Northern Ireland. My amendment seeks simply to address that matter unequivocally and straightforwardly.

I have great sympathy for the Minister. This is not his bailiwick. This is a very unusual and unique part of the Bill that I do not expect him to be across and knowledgeable about, but it necessarily raises some very important—indeed, central—constitutional issues about whether this Parliament is sovereign.

My Lords, I apologise for my voice. I will try to keep going. It is not actually hurting the way it sounds, so noble Lords need not feel too much sympathy. I will follow on from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, and support Amendment 146, which I have signed.

Most of the Bill, as noble Lords know, does not apply to Northern Ireland, but Part 4 does. These very important amendments deal with deporting foreign criminals. I very much support the Government’s move to do that, but I hope the Committee needs no reminding that this House passed three Bills recently that it said applied to the whole United Kingdom, but we then discovered the courts overruled that. We had the Rwanda Act, the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the soon to be defunct legacy Act. We have had legal opinion from the former Attorney-General for Northern Ireland that the Tobacco and Vapes Bill will also not be able to apply. We were not able to bring in the export of live animals for slaughter Act to the whole United Kingdom as it does not apply in Northern Ireland.

The Minister is probably hearing this for the first time. Many Ministers have had to sit through statutory instruments in which those of us who wish to bring out the injustices of the Windsor Framework have been able to do so. However, Article 2 of the Windsor Framework overrules the sovereign Parliament; it very simply says that EU Laws—laws that are not made in this House but by a foreign institution—overrule what our sovereign Parliament says. Whatever the history of this, and whatever party brought it in, we should all be beginning to realise that this is just not sustainable.

The three pieces of legislation to which I have referred have been overruled in respect of the people of Northern Ireland, due to parts of that legislation that offended EU rights and legislation. In the well-known Dillon case, the Court of Appeal decreed that it would disapply parts of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 because it offended rights supposedly given to victims by EU law. The relevant parts of the Dillon judgment are now before the Supreme Court, and we hope to get a judgment on that soon, which will give us more context to see how we are being affected by the Windsor Framework.

This specific amendment deals with the deportation of foreign criminals. As the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, pointed out, if a foreign criminal is an EU citizen already living in Northern Ireland and this law comes in, they will have enhanced protection against deportation. If they are not an EU citizen but a foreign criminal from somewhere else in the world who is living in Northern Ireland, they are also likely to have enhanced protections that they would not have if they were living in Great Britain, because of the importation of the reliance upon the European Charter Of Fundamental Rights. I do not need to tell noble Lords that Article 19 of the charter affords particular protections against deportation. It states that each deportation must be specifically examined and that there cannot be a provision for automatic deportation. Part 4 of this Bill is going to do precisely that: for a foreign criminal convicted in our courts, the presumption will be towards deporting them.

Anyone with any common sense must think that it would be outrageous if we end up with a law that says that a foreign criminal living in Great Britain and found guilty can be deported but that a foreign criminal living in another part of our own country, the United Kingdom, cannot. That is something we need to address. The Minister never seems to want to tell us whether he has had legal advice from the Attorney-General, but if he has, he will probably say that this is okay. But they have said that on three Bills, and each time they have been proved wrong. Noble Lords will forgive me if there is a little scepticism about how the Bill will apply to Northern Ireland.

It is an important issue not only for Northern Ireland’s citizens but for citizens of the whole of the United Kingdom. At some stage, we have to look at the constitutional issue of whether we can, in our own country, make our own laws that apply to the whole country. That really does need addressing.

As the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, said, there is nothing about this in the Explanatory Notes—it has been completely ignored. The purpose of tonight’s amendment is to raise this issue and make it clear that many people believe that this will not be able to apply to Northern Ireland, and to ask the Minister to say very clearly that, if this Bill goes through, there will be an absolute determination—whatever it takes—to make sure that it applies in Northern Ireland.

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. It is good to see that even a hoarse and croaky voice cannot silence her.

I am broadly in favour of the amendments in this group. I particularly commend Amendment 146, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, which offers a common-sense solution to a very real problem. As has been indicated by the previous two speakers, this is yet another problem that has undoubtedly arisen because of the protocol and the Windsor Framework. It is clear that we need a much more fundamental solution that tackles and recasts that relationship.

While we await that solution from government, and a recognition of the need to embrace that, we cannot simply sit on our hands and hope that everything will be alright until then, because this represents a real undermining of the Bill itself. Even the strongest supporter of the Windsor Framework or the protocol would have to admit that their application in these circumstances represents a high level of overreach. If the rationale behind our current arrangements with the EU as regards Northern Ireland is to regulate trade and try to protect the EU single market then the issues of the deportation of foreign criminals and immigration stand a mile away. They serve no purpose in the supposed objectives of that relationship.

There is a very good reason why issues around deportation are handled on a national basis, in whichever nation it happens to be. If there are regional variations within a country on issues such as deportation, that is, frankly, a road down which lies madness. That is what is being threatened by the current position we are left in. The Government in recent weeks have laid out a range of measures to try to help tackle and be serious about dealing with illegal immigration and foreign criminals, some of which are contained within this legislation. However, if the Government are to be successful in this objective, but do not tackle the issue relating to Northern Ireland, they leave their position fatally undermined.

This is not simply a constitutional affront and an outrage; it is a very real practical difficulty. If we are left with a situation in which this cannot be applied in Northern Ireland, or if a defence is offered by foreign national criminals to avoid deportation, this not only creates a situation in which Northern Ireland is treated as a second-class citizen but it leaves the whole of the UK vulnerable on this issue. Northern Ireland then becomes simply a back door to those criminals—a safe haven to either come in from or return to, with a perceived greater level of protection for those criminals than would be the case elsewhere. Wherever we set the boundaries on the issue of deportation, we need something that applies across the whole of the United Kingdom.

As outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, in particular, this is a real and practical issue. We have seen on a number of occasions, in particular in the three court rulings that the noble Baroness outlined, that this is not simply a theoretical debating issue but a practical issue in which rulings have been made. For instance, there are many in this House who would see deep flaws with the Rwanda Act, but the important thing about the ruling on that was that the courts said that EU law was supreme on this issue and therefore overruled the position in Northern Ireland, which meant that it could not be applied there. That renders the entire legislative process a nonsense. If we do not fix this, we will be left in exactly the same position.

So there is a challenge for the Government: they need to embrace what I think is a common-sense solution, to make their own legislation work better. I look forward to the response from the Minister. I hope that he will not simply say that this is not necessary and that they have given an assurance, because we have been down this road time and time again. With previous legislation, we have had reassurances, in this House and the other place, that the Government were completely confident that it would all be watertight and there would be no problem. However, on each occasion, the courts overruled the Government’s position, which was found to be wrong. I look forward to the Government responding and—I hope—adopting this amendment, because something of this nature is clearly needed if we are to solve that practical problem.

My Lords, I will speak briefly to support my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough’s Amendment 146, which was supported so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey.

One measure of a Government’s sovereignty is that they make the law for their citizens—the whole country and their whole territory—and they uphold that law. However, as we have heard this evening, Northern Ireland will not necessarily be included in proposals to deport foreign criminals, as Northern Ireland will be subject to the Windsor Framework arrangements.

We may hold different views about the Windsor Framework. I feel that it was a bad mistake by the Conservative Administration to move from the temporary arrangements of the withdrawal agreement to the permanent acceptance of arrangements that were regarded by both sides—the EU and the UK Government—as transient, pending the best endeavours of both parties to get it right. I am sorry that that did not happen and that we are left with the Windsor Framework, but that is no reason for the arrangements to promote economic EU law in Northern Ireland to apply now to criminal law.

It is a mark of the UK’s sovereignty that it upholds the law for the whole country, and I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment, so that the citizens of Northern Ireland can rest assured that foreign criminals will be deported, no matter from where they come. The amendment would also ensure—as the noble Lord, Lord Weir, mentioned—that Northern Ireland will not become a haven for a disproportionate number of foreign criminals fleeing there because they know they will not be deported. For all these reasons, I heartily support the amendment.

I will very briefly go back to a point about Amendment 122A that I raised at Second Reading. The Minister was kind enough to write to me to explain the pressure on prisons and the need for places, but I have already suggested earlier today a far better solution to that.

I will make two points. First, if someone comes here to commit a crime—for example, a drug dealer or a contract criminal—it is no punishment to be sent back. In fact, it is a bonus for them, because they do not have to pay for the return trip. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that the most rigorous examination will take place before people are deported.

I think that a very valid point has been made. I immediately think of the situation—

The noble Lord has already spoken.

I am intervening.

It is Committee.

It is Committee, so I am entitled to speak in relation to that point.

The case that comes to my mind would highlight the absurdity of the position of simply having an immediate deportation: namely, the Russian agents involved in the Salisbury attempted murder. Had they been captured and convicted, they could have been immediately sent back to Russia on that basis, possibly to a hero’s welcome, rather than any level of punishment. It shows the absurdity, and I agree entirely with the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord.

Perhaps I could just finish my second point very quickly. It is simply that, even if the public do not think there is any harm in just deporting someone who has committed a crime, I would caution Government not to rely on public opinion. It does not always stay constant, but I can be sure that, if a serious crime is committed and someone is deported without being punished, this provision will come back to haunt the Government, and I do not want that to happen.

My Lords, the principle of deportation of foreign national offenders attracts almost universal support. I say “almost” because the cohort of foreign national offenders may not entirely embrace the idea. However, if we introduce a system whereby they are deported without custody or punishment, I suspect that they will come on board with the idea as well.

It occurs to me that the Government are going to approach this with considerable and conspicuous care and take on board the very considered Amendment advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, and Amendment 142 from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. It will, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, said, come back to bite us if it is discovered by very professional criminals that you can come here, execute your robbery, contract killing or whatever else and then, when you are caught, we pay your air fare home. It does not make an awful lot of sense.

With regard to Northern Ireland, I would take Amendment 146 as a probing amendment inviting the Minister to explore the impact of the Windsor Framework on this proposal.

I note that, if a foreign national offender in Northern Ireland is offered the option of deportation or lengthy custody in Northern Ireland, he might well be inclined to the former, but that is just a practical proposal. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

I start by thanking noble Lords and the noble and learned Lord for tabling their amendments, their interest in this topic and their considered words. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, that prisoner transfer agreements are very important. A few weeks ago, I went to Albania and met the Justice Minister and consulate colleagues to reiterate how important it is and to see what more we can do.

Our priority is to protect victims in the UK and ensure that these offenders can never again offend here. Once deported, offenders will be barred from ever returning to the UK, protecting victims and the wider public.

I will address the amendments in turn. Amendment 122A, limiting the early removal scheme to those in receipt of a sentence of less than three years, would mean a more restrictive early removal scheme than we currently operate. On the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, on foreign national offenders, there are more than 3,200 FNOs who would not be eligible for removal under Section 260 because they are serving a fixed-term sentence greater than three years. The impact on our ability to manage prison capacity would be substantial. We already transfer prisoners to serve the remainder of their sentence in their home country under prisoner transfer agreements, where they are in place.

However, these are not suitable in all cases, and it is important that we retain multiple paths for removal to reduce prison capacity and speed up removals, especially when you consider that it costs an average of £54,000 a year to house these offenders. Once removed, FNOs are barred from ever returning to the UK, keeping victims and the wider British public safe.

The early removal scheme remains a discretionary scheme that will not be suitable for all foreign national offenders, and we are reviewing the existing guidance that includes a range of reasons it can be refused.

The “stop the clock” provision means that those who re-enter the UK in breach of their deportation order, following an ERS removal, are liable to serve the remainder of their sentence here.

I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, that we are working with the Home Office to revise the policy framework that underpins the scheme and ensure that clear operational guidance is in place before the measure is commenced. I am happy to write to the noble Lord on his detailed questions. The eligibility of those who have returned after a previous removal is one consideration, as is the commitment made in the other place to consider those convicted of stalking offences.

Amendment 142, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, seeks to introduce immediate deportation for foreign nationals given sentences of at least six months. This would require the Government to make an immediate deportation order in respect of persons who have committed less serious offences. In the Bill, we are extending automatic deportation to persons given a suspended sentence of 12 months or more.

We will also increase the deportation consideration threshold to include anyone given a suspended sentence of any length. In this, the Government are going further than any previous Government in tackling foreign criminality. We have ramped up the removals of foreign criminals, with almost 5,200 deported since July 2024—an increase of 14% compared with the same 12 months previous.

However, just as we no longer transport convicts to the other side of the world for stealing a loaf of bread, we do not think it appropriate to have immediate deportation for less serious crimes in the way proposed by the noble Lord. Lowering the threshold in the way that his amendment does would result in a disproportionate duty to deport for low-level offending. It would lead to significantly more appeals being made against such decisions, arguing exceptionality. It would increase the operational burden to pursue deportation in cases where it was unlikely to be successful because the offending was relatively minor.

On Amendment 146, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for their understanding of my lack of knowledge on the intricate details of the Windsor Framework. In fact, I think that when the Windsor Framework was going through Parliament, I was very happily running a shoe repair business.

This amendment seeks to disapply parts of the withdrawal agreement and Article 2 of the Windsor Framework in relation to the automatic deportation provisions in the UK Borders Act 2007. I think that the intention behind the amendment is to ensure that deportation decisions in Northern Ireland can be taken on the same basis as deportation decisions in the rest of the UK.

It is the Government’s view that Clause 42 is compatible with Article 2 of the Northern Ireland protocol and the Windsor Framework. Therefore, we do not agree that there is a need for this amendment. To reiterate, it is the Government’s view that the deportation of foreign national offenders is not prohibited by these provisions. It is our view that immigration is a reserved matter, and we apply the same immigration Laws across the whole of the UK.

I want to reassure the noble Baronesses, Lady Hoey and Lady Lawlor, and the noble Lord, Lord Weir, that foreign national offenders, regardless of where they are in the UK, should be in no doubt that we will do everything to make sure they are not free on Britain’s streets, including removal from the UK at the earliest possible opportunity.

I note that the stated purpose of Amendment 141A as tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is to probe the effect of Clause 42 on survivors of modern slavery, human trafficking or domestic abuse. I reassure the noble Baroness that the Government take their responsibilities towards vulnerable people very seriously. The Home Office has published guidance on how to identify and support victims of modern slavery and human trafficking. Where removal of a person would breach the UK’s obligations under the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, deportation must not proceed. Victims of domestic abuse whose relationship has broken down can apply for permission to settle in the UK permanently. Victims of domestic abuse who meet the threshold for deportation will be considered for deportation in the same way as other persons.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the opportunity to set out the Government’s position regarding the impact of Clause 42 on people who have a reasonable claim to be a victim and survivor of modern slavery, human trafficking or domestic violence. Such a claim does not amount to immunity from deportation for people convicted of an offence, although in some circumstances temporary permission to stay may be granted to victims of human trafficking or slavery. The changes brought about by Clause 42 will not alter this.

I thank noble Lords and Baronesses for this debate and ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Just briefly, on the point of my Amendment, one problem is that people simply do not know what their rights are and find it very hard to find out. However, I wanted to ask the Minister about prisoner transfer agreements—I was wondering whether to raise this earlier in the debate. Is he able to tell the Committee how many are in place, or could he perhaps write to us to give us information about that? I am slightly ashamed to ask this because I am sure that a quick search on the internet would tell me, but I think the noble Lord will be more authoritative.

I will write to the noble Baroness with exact details. I have quite a few details in my head, but I want to get it right, so I will write.

Very briefly, my Lords, I want to thank the Minister for his very helpful, illuminating and quite reassuring answer, which those of us who spoke to Amendment 146 are grateful for.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his answer. I too would like to hear more about prisoner transfer agreements. They are the best policy solution in this area, so I am glad to hear that the Government are still pursuing that route. On whether the three-year limit is more or less restrictive, it is true that it does not feature in the legislation currently, but the key element of the current regime is that foreign offenders have to serve 50% of the custodial part of their sentence. That 50% has been reduced to 30% following the statutory instrument a few weeks ago, but Clause 32 would reduce the 30% to zero. In that context, the three-year limit would not be more restrictive.

However, with that in mind, I very much look forward to the Minister’s letter dealing with the other questions that I raised. I hope that he will be able in due course to meet me and others who are interested in this Amendment to discuss what to do on Report. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 122A withdrawn.

Clause 32 agreed.

Clause 33 agreed.

Clause 34: Number of hours of work required by unpaid work requirement