1-20 of 839 results for subject:"Exclusion orders"
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.34 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.005 seconds
- Search query
- subject:"Exclusion orders"
- We searched for
- subject_t:"Exclusion orders" OR subject_ses:91189
Type
House
Session
More
Year
More
Department
More
Member
More
Primary member
More
Answering member
More
Legislative stage
Legislation
More
Subject
More
Publisher
Recent examples of people barred from the UK under discretionary immigration powers include Kanye West, Hasan Piker and Valentina Gomez.
Recent examples of people barred from the UK under discretionary immigration powers include Kanye West, Hasan Piker and Valentina Gomez.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if her Department will take steps to ensure that Aliyah Day in May 2026 does not host the Israeli group Shivat Zion.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if her Department will take steps to ensure that Aliyah Day in May 2026 does not host the Israeli group Shivat Zion.
The Home Office has no plans to host events commemorating Aliyah Day.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what comparative assessment she has made of (a) recent exclusion decisions and (b) previous cases involving individuals such as Raed Salah and Yusuf al-Qaradawi.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what comparative assessment she has made of (a) recent exclusion decisions and (b) previous cases involving individuals such as Raed Salah and Yusuf al-Qaradawi.
The Home Office does not routinely comment on individual cases.
The Home Secretary has the power to exclude a person who is not a British Citizen if their presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good. The Immigration Rules also provide for the refusal of entry clearance or permission at the border if a person’s character, conduct, or associations mean it is undesirable to grant them entry to the UK.
The Home Secretary has the power to deprive an individual of British citizenship where it was obtained by fraud, or where deprivation is conducive to the public good. Deprivation on conducive grounds is used only for individuals who pose a threat to the UK or whose conduct is considered to involve very high harm, for example activities relating to national security (including terrorism and espionage), war crimes, serious and organised crime, or extremism and the glorification of terrorism. Decisions on deprivation are taken on a case-by-case basis.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if she will set out the criteria to determine whether an person's presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good; and if she will set out how those criteria were applied in the decision to refuse entry...
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if she will set out the criteria to determine whether an person's presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good; and if she will set out how those criteria were applied in the decision to refuse entry...
The Home Office does not routinely comment on individual cases.
The Home Secretary has the power to exclude a person who is not a British Citizen if their presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good. Exclusion is reserved for cases involving national security, extremism, serious crime, war crimes, corruption and unacceptable behaviour. An exclusion decision must be reasonable, consistent with decisions taken in similar circumstances, and proportionate to the threat the person poses to the UK. There must be a rational connection between exclusion of the individual and the legitimate aim being pursued, for example safeguarding public security or tackling serious crime.
The Immigration Rules also provide for the refusal of entry clearance or permission where a person’s character, conduct or associations means it is undesirable to grant them entry or permission to stay the UK. The decision to refuse entry on the ground it is conducive to the public good must be made on a case-by-case basis, taking account of the conduct and circumstances of the person concerned. All decisions must be reasonable, proportionate and evidence based. A person’s presence may be deemed to be non-conducive to the public good for a range of reasons, for example, because of criminality, reprehensible behaviour falling short of a conviction, or because their identity, travel history or other circumstances means that their presence in the UK poses a threat to UK society. A person does not need to have a criminal conviction to be refused admission on non-conducive grounds.
Where a person has already been admitted to the UK, deportation action may be taken where their presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good. This may include those who have publicly expressed support for proscribed organisations.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the consistency of the application of powers to exclude foreign nationals from the UK in cases involving people with (a) controversial public rhetoric and (b) reported links to or support for proscribed organisations.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the consistency of the application of powers to exclude foreign nationals from the UK in cases involving people with (a) controversial public rhetoric and (b) reported links to or support for proscribed organisations.
The Home Office does not routinely comment on individual cases.
The Home Secretary has the power to exclude a person who is not a British Citizen if their presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good. Exclusion is reserved for cases involving national security, extremism, serious crime, war crimes, corruption and unacceptable behaviour. An exclusion decision must be reasonable, consistent with decisions taken in similar circumstances, and proportionate to the threat the person poses to the UK. There must be a rational connection between exclusion of the individual and the legitimate aim being pursued, for example safeguarding public security or tackling serious crime.
The Immigration Rules also provide for the refusal of entry clearance or permission where a person’s character, conduct or associations means it is undesirable to grant them entry or permission to stay the UK. The decision to refuse entry on the ground it is conducive to the public good must be made on a case-by-case basis, taking account of the conduct and circumstances of the person concerned. All decisions must be reasonable, proportionate and evidence based. A person’s presence may be deemed to be non-conducive to the public good for a range of reasons, for example, because of criminality, reprehensible behaviour falling short of a conviction, or because their identity, travel history or other circumstances means that their presence in the UK poses a threat to UK society. A person does not need to have a criminal conviction to be refused admission on non-conducive grounds.
Where a person has already been admitted to the UK, deportation action may be taken where their presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good. This may include those who have publicly expressed support for proscribed organisations.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether she has considered banning Valentina Gomez from entering the country.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether she has considered banning Valentina Gomez from entering the country.
The Home Office does not routinely comment on individual cases.
The Home Secretary has the power to exclude a person who is not a British Citizen if their presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good. The Immigration Rules also provide for the refusal of entry clearance or permission at the border if a person’s character, conduct or associations mean it is undesirable to grant them entry to the UK.
My constituent, an indomitable lady in her eighties, was seriously assaulted at home last year, and her assailant was jailed. He was given a sentence, and the court granted an exclusion order covering the whole area around her home, where he committed the offence. Over a month ago, he was...
My constituent, an indomitable lady in her eighties, was seriously assaulted at home last year, and her assailant was jailed. He was given a sentence, and the court granted an exclusion order covering the whole area around her home, where he committed the offence. Over a month ago, he was...
I am sure that the hon. Lady’s constituent is more than sorry, because this appears to be an unacceptable case. If the hon. Lady gives me the details, I will raise the matter with the Justice Secretary, to see whether there is a need for a statement on tagging and...
I am sure that the hon. Lady’s constituent is more than sorry, because this appears to be an unacceptable case. If the hon. Lady gives me the details, I will raise the matter with the Justice Secretary, to see whether there is a need for a statement on tagging and...
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many foreign nationals have been excluded from the UK since 2010, broken down by type of grounds for refusal.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many foreign nationals have been excluded from the UK since 2010, broken down by type of grounds for refusal.
The Home Office publishes data on entry clearance visas in the ‘Immigration system statistics quarterly release - GOV.UK’. Data on visa applications are published in table ‘Vis_D01’ whilst data on outcomes of visa applications are published in table ‘Vis_D02’ of the detailed entry clearance visas dataset. Information on how to use the dataset can be found in the ‘Notes’ page of the workbook. The latest data is from January 2005 up to the end of September 2025. Please note that data on refusals by reason is not available from published statistics.
Lords committee stage third day. Clause 28, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 29 to 35 agreed to. Clause 36, as amended, agreed to. New clause agreed to. Clauses 37 to 39 agreed to. (Part 1 of 2).
Lords committee stage third day. Clause 28, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 29 to 35 agreed to. Clause 36, as amended, agreed to. New clause agreed to. Clauses 37 to 39 agreed to. (Part 1 of 2).
Moved by
Lord Hanson of Flint
57: Clause 28, page 32, line 7, leave out “6” and insert “12”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment increases the maximum term of imprisonment on summary conviction in Scotland for an offence under section 141(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
Moved by
Lord Hanson of Flint
57: Clause 28, page 32, line 7, leave out “6” and insert “12”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment increases the maximum term of imprisonment on summary conviction in Scotland for an offence under section 141(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
My Lords, this is the first in a number of groups of government amendments. I apologise for the large number of amendments before the Committee today. Their core aim is to apply various additional provisions in the Bill to Scotland and/or Northern Ireland. They reflect the outcome of further engagement...
My Lords, this is the first in a number of groups of government amendments. I apologise for the large number of amendments before the Committee today. Their core aim is to apply various additional provisions in the Bill to Scotland and/or Northern Ireland. They reflect the outcome of further engagement...
My Lords, I rise to ask on a point of information and declare an interest: I chair the National Proof of Age Standards Scheme board. In the list of identifications for proof of age purposes, I did not hear the noble Lord say that the PASS card was acceptable. It...
My Lords, I rise to ask on a point of information and declare an interest: I chair the National Proof of Age Standards Scheme board. In the list of identifications for proof of age purposes, I did not hear the noble Lord say that the PASS card was acceptable. It...
I think I can say yes to both those points. If I cannot, I shall revert to her shortly.
I think I can say yes to both those points. If I cannot, I shall revert to her shortly.
My Lords, on these Benches, we support the intent behind this blizzard of government amendments. Of course, as the Minister says, the effect of these amendments and other consequential changes is to apply tougher maximum penalties and provisions relating to offensive weapons in Scotland and, in certain cases, Northern Ireland.
It...
My Lords, on these Benches, we support the intent behind this blizzard of government amendments. Of course, as the Minister says, the effect of these amendments and other consequential changes is to apply tougher maximum penalties and provisions relating to offensive weapons in Scotland and, in certain cases, Northern Ireland.
It...
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s comments, which I will respond to in a moment, but it is important that I clarify the point referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I was half right. The answer “yes” is to the question of passports; it is correct that...
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s comments, which I will respond to in a moment, but it is important that I clarify the point referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I was half right. The answer “yes” is to the question of passports; it is correct that...
My Lords, this group essentially encompasses several different groups of amendments; perhaps they should have been separated, but we are where we are. Two of those groups within this very large group are, I would argue, quite uncontroversial. I have absolutely no issue with the Government increasing the maximum penalties...
My Lords, this group essentially encompasses several different groups of amendments; perhaps they should have been separated, but we are where we are. Two of those groups within this very large group are, I would argue, quite uncontroversial. I have absolutely no issue with the Government increasing the maximum penalties...
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and I am genuinely sorry. I understand where he is coming from, and I am grateful to him and the Opposition Whips’ Office for giving notification that they would have concerns over those matters, but I am sorry that he has...
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and I am genuinely sorry. I understand where he is coming from, and I am grateful to him and the Opposition Whips’ Office for giving notification that they would have concerns over those matters, but I am sorry that he has...
Before the Minister sits down, I thank him for what he said. I am slightly baffled. There is no Bench more strongly against compulsory digital ID than the Liberal Democrat Benches, so I find the Minister’s assurance that the analogue form of identity will continue—and digital ID in this instance,...
Before the Minister sits down, I thank him for what he said. I am slightly baffled. There is no Bench more strongly against compulsory digital ID than the Liberal Democrat Benches, so I find the Minister’s assurance that the analogue form of identity will continue—and digital ID in this instance,...
Will the noble Lord respond on the mandatory conditions on the digital proof-of-age pass, which he confirmed would be published before December?
Will the noble Lord respond on the mandatory conditions on the digital proof-of-age pass, which he confirmed would be published before December?