Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 — Will write letters: Letter from Lord Katz to Lord Cameron regarding the language in Section 72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

Lord Katz MBE
Lord in Waiting (Government Whip)

House of Lords
London
SW1A 0PW

The Lord Cameron of Lochiel
House of Lords
London
SW1A 0PW

23rd September 2025

Dear Lord Cameron,

BORDER SECURITY, ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION BILLHOUSE OF LORDS
COMMITTEE

I am writing further to the debate in the Lords Committee on Monday 8th September,
where I committed to write about the issue you raised relating to language in Section 72 of
the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

You asked about the phrasing of the amendment to define offences within Schedule 3 of
the Sexual Offences Act 2003 as a ‘particularly serious crime’ for the purposes of
exclusion under Article 33(2) of the Refugee Convention. Specifically, you also stated that
if the clause was to pass in its current form, the language in Section 72 of the Nationality,
Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 would not be uniform and would reintroduce the
ambiguity regarding the rebuttable presumptions that was removed by Section 38 of the
Nationality and Borders Act 2022.

Under current provisions, a ‘particularly serious crime’ is defined as a conviction that
results in a sentence of imprisonment of at least 12 months. This is not subject to a
rebuttable presumption because Parliament previously decided that a conviction leading to
a sentence of at least 12 months was sufficiently grave to warrant it being defined as a
‘particularly serious crime’. Individuals can, however, rebut the presumption that they
constitute a danger to the community as a result of that conviction. The existing provision
remains unaffected by clause 48 and all cases which involve a custodial sentence of 12
months or more will continue to be handled in the same way.

However, by introducing clause 48, we are widening the definition of a ‘particularly serious
crime’ to include Schedule 3 sexual offences that do not lead to a custodial sentence of 12
months or more. This means that individuals will fall in scope of exclusion from the
Refugee Convention, even where they have not received a sentence of 12 months or
more, provided their offence is a Schedule 3 sexual offence which attracts notification
requirements. To ensure our broader interpretation of a ‘particularly serious crime’ remains
compliant with the Refugee Convention, we have established an additional safeguard that
will allow individuals to rebut the presumption that they have committed a ‘particularly
serious crime’ as a result of receiving a conviction for a Schedule 3 sexual offence.

In line with the existing version of section 72, they will also have as well as the ability to
rebut the presumption that they constitute a danger to the community. Our view is that
both the rebuttable presumptions must remain as a practical measure to ensure that we
take as firm approach as possible, whilst at the same time remaining compliant with the
obligations placed upon us by the Refugee Convention.

I hope you find this letter helpful. I will also send a copy to all Noble Lords who spoke in
the debate and will place a copy in the House library.

Best wishes,

The Lord Katz MBE
Lord in Waiting (Government Whip)