UK Borders Bill

I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. Clause 31(5) places an obligation on the Secretary of State to make a deportation order for foreign criminals who meet the threshold for criminality, save where one of the exceptions in Clause 32 applies. Taken together, Amendments Nos. 53 and 56 essentially eliminate that obligation. Amendment No. 53 removes the assertion that the deportation of a foreign criminal is conducive to the public good, replacing it with a mere presumption that it is. The noble Lord drew attention to a particular case to make his argument, and it is a fair point. Amendment No. 56 creates a duty actively to consider whether a foreign criminal’s deportation is conducive to the public good. The presumption in favour of deportation and the discretion to consider a case on its merits already exist. Clauses 31 to 38 add to the existing legal framework by creating certainty that criminality of a certain level will result in deportation. The Government recognise that in some instances deportation may not conform to our international obligations, for example under the European Convention on Human Rights or the refugee convention. It would not be in the public interest to deport a foreign criminal if his offending was due to mental illness or if one of the other exceptions in Clause 32 applied. However the number of those cases will be limited. In cases where an exception does not apply, deportation must be certain and swift. The provisions in Clauses 31 to 38 achieve those objectives. From the day he is convicted to the day of his release the foreign criminal and his victim will know that, subject only to one of the five exceptions, he will be deported with no scope for discretion to be applied. The noble Lord’s amendments would hinder that. They would create an open-ended, ambiguously defined test which would ultimately be used by serious criminals as a means of frustrating deportation. Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 would remove the Secretary of State’s obligation to make a deportation order in respect of foreign criminals who meet the threshold set out in Clause 31. They add nothing to the existing deportation arrangements in Section 3(6) of the Immigration Act 1971. Sentencing judges already consider exercising their power to recommend deportation whenever they sentence a foreign national. Likewise, the Secretary of State already considers very seriously any recommendation put forward by a court. The amendments would do little more than create a statutory duty to perform a process which takes place now as a matter of course. The Government believe in the value of an objective threshold for serious offending, which is set out in the Bill. We will continue to listen to the views of sentencing courts to capture extenuating features of offending behaviour below that threshold. This approach in respect of serious offending will allow for greater certainty for both the offender and the victim and will send out the message that serious criminality will not be tolerated. If the amendments were accepted, there would be no certainty over deportation. It would also send out the wrong message—simply that offenders might face deportation. I do not believe that that would be satisfactory or desirable. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, made a case based on the example he gave, that there would always be instances when a foreign criminal’s presence is conducive to the public good. We recognise that there may be such instances, and that when a person is exempt from an automatic deportation order, an exception can be made under clause 31, such as for Article 8 reasons. There is not an assumption that their deportation is conducive to the public good in those cases. It may be that a person has lived here for a long time and has family ties in the United Kingdom. However, those considerations will have to be balanced against the level of criminality. That consideration is very important and we have attempted to reflect that in our approach.