UK Borders Bill

I rise to support amendments Nos. 34 and 35, on which we hope to have an opportunity to vote at a later stage. Perhaps one of the biggest issues in terms of automatic deportation is that, in the Bill, automatic deportation is not automatic deportation. The key question about the processes whereby somebody goes through a criminal conviction and then ends up at some stage being deported is this: at what stage should the judicial consideration as to the merits of the case for deportation occur? We have strongly argued that that should happen at an early stage. We argue that the court of first instance at which the decision is taken as to whether someone is guilty and what sentence they should receive should also be the point at which it should be decided whether they ought to be deported. The Government’s alternative—having failed previously to execute judicial recommendations for deportation—is to have a process whereby a decision remains to be taken by the Home Secretary as to whether certain exemptions apply. As a consequence, the decision will be subject to judicial review. Because it will be subject to judicial review, there will be a stay of proceedings in terms of the deportation until the judicial review has occurred. Therefore, rather than the judicial consideration of the issue taking place right at the start, it happens at the end of the process. Therefore, we can envisage situations arising in which a prisoner who is released because of judicial review proceedings having been initiated then wanders off somewhere. The judicial review proceedings then continue and it is decided that there is no case to answer, but the person concerned has been released. That is an absurd situation. Even if the Conservative party’s recommendation for deportation decisions to be taken at least a month before the end of the sentence is accepted, we could end up with people being released and there being a stay of proceedings. With no deportation, a violent criminal could be allowed to wander around the streets when they should have been deported. It is clear that these issues should be dealt with at the start. Some offences that result in imprisonment—such as not paying council tax, or stealing electricity, or not attending probation meetings—do not make someone a major threat to society. If someone has been living in the country for 30 years, we would not expect them to be deported for not going to a meeting or not paying council tax. That would not be reasonable.