Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Debate between Lord Sentamu and Lord Harper

Monday 3rd November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I suggest that careless driving is not a trivial offence. When I was Immigration Minister, I dealt with a father who had lost his child because of someone’s poor driving. We were struggling to remove that person from the country for a similar reason to that which the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, set out: they were an EU national, and there was a stricter test about whether you could remove them. I have to say that that father who had lost his child thought that that driving offence was really serious, so I would not trivialise it at all.

The second test is that, if we cannot deport someone to the country from which they came, we should look at whether there is an opportunity, as we set out in our Rwanda policies, to deport them to another safe country. It is very clear that the British people do not want serious criminals who have come to this country staying here. We can have a debate about the detail of this, but the principle is very clear. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will address the principle of whether he thinks that people in the circumstances set out by my two noble friends should be able to stay here.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

I want to follow the argument that the noble and learned Baroness tried to raise. Looking at the wording, I am afraid that the process would still be very long. The proposed new clause in Amendment 34 states:

“Where a person to whom this subsection applies is convicted of an offence, the court must sentence the person to deportation from the United Kingdom”.


Let us say that this person has committed grievous bodily harm and has been tried, and the jury say that he is guilty and so he is found guilty of the crime that is committed. The noble Lord is saying that, immediately, that same court must sentence this person to deportation. But the person who has been convicted in this country has a right of appeal. They may challenge the way the jury was selected, the way everything happened and the sentence itself, saying that being sent back to the very dangerous place that they left is condemning them to death. Should the process of appeal still happen, what the noble Lord is saying would not happen immediately.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

That was quite a lengthy intervention, with a number of points. The case raised by the noble and right reverend Lord about a country that we would normally deem not safe is a perfectly reasonable one. But, as I said, my challenge back is this. Is there any offence that people who come from certain countries to which we would not normally return them can commit that is of a level of seriousness that we think should make them immune to being sent back to that country? I believe that there are certain offences that people commit for which it is reasonable that they forfeit the right to stay in the United Kingdom. That is a perfectly reasonable case.

It may be that the wording in these amendments is not entirely perfect, but the argument that we are having is whether, if you come to this country and you commit a serious sexual offence, for example—as in my noble friend’s example—or you murder or rape somebody, you should be able to stay here for ever because the country from which you came is not ideal and we would not normally send you back to it. That is a debate worth having. I think the general public would take a much more robust position in those cases than many Members of your Lordships’ House would feel comfortable with.

Finally, I challenge the Minister, as my noble friend Lord Jackson did, having got in before me, to respond to the points in the debate we had earlier about what the Government will do to bring forward amendments or changes to how they interpret human rights legislation to give them a better chance—I am assuming the Government will not accept these amendments—of removing people who we know the Government would like to get rid of. In the case that my noble friend Lord Jackson set out, it sounded to me as though Ministers were very frustrated—as frustrated as he is. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Debate between Lord Sentamu and Lord Harper

Report stage
Tuesday 21st October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I strongly support the case that has been made by the noble Lord for a number of reasons. I strongly agree with his opening proposition that the Government should take only powers that are absolutely necessary, and I will listen, as he will, to the Minister, when she sets that out.

I come at this from previous experience. When I became Immigration Minister, it was in the wake of a tragedy that had occurred when force had been used to deport somebody from the United Kingdom who sadly, in the process, lost their life. As a result, we set up an independent inquiry. We took these matters very seriously. That inquiry reported and set out very clear steps and processes that should take place when the state uses force, as is sometimes necessary, to carry out policy. One of the things that came through very clearly was about the high standards of training and oversight that are necessary before reasonable force is used. Otherwise, the result can be people losing their lives. As a result, that was something that we took very seriously. The Home Office now puts a lot of effort into training officers who carry out deportation work to make sure that that work is properly authorised, training takes place, and it is done in a safe and reasonable way.

That experience then came to the fore during the Covid pandemic, when the Department for Housing, Communities and Local Government attempted to give similar powers to use reasonable force to local government officials to enforce some of the Covid regulations. My party was in power at that time, and I had private conversations and some conversations in the other place about the unwiseness of giving those powers to officers of the state who were not properly trained to use them and where there was not the proper safeguard of oversight. I am happy to say that, in that particular case, I persuaded the Minister, who then brought forward a revised set of regulations that no longer gave local government officers the power to use reasonable force.

I made the case, as the noble Lord has, that if there are cases where reasonable force should be used, it should be used by a constable—somebody who is properly trained to use reasonable force, and where there is proper oversight from a command and control system that means that, first, it is used properly, and that if something goes wrong, there is a proper process to scrutinise and to learn from mistakes that are made.

From what the noble Lord said about what the Minister said in Committee, and from what the Explanatory Notes say, the intention is that the power will be limited to being used against things, not people. It seems to me that the legislation should reflect the policy intent and we should not just rely on Ministers telling us what the power is going to be used for.

I should say that I am a bit reluctant even to accept the compromise that the noble Lord has put forward. The danger is this: what if the officer of the DWP is using reasonable force to deal with things and the person concerned tries to intervene to stop the reasonable force being used? You do not have to think very far forward to see that you could end up with a very difficult situation, potentially with vulnerable people, where the result is that somebody is injured or tragically loses their life.

I say to the Minister—I felt this very keenly when I was Immigration Minister, even though this particular loss of life happened before I came into post—that if this legislation was passed and a DWP official used reasonable force and the consequence was that someone was injured or sadly lost their life, it is the Minister who would be held to account at that Dispatch Box. People would want to know why that power was given to that official and to understand in incredible detail, possibly in a public inquiry, what steps had taken place about that use of force being authorised and what training had taken place. I can tell her that it is a very uncomfortable experience when there have been failings and you have to set up an independent inquiry and say the result has been that somebody has lost their life.

In the case that we were talking about, it was somebody who should not have been in the United Kingdom and who had committed an offence but, even so, it should not have resulted in that person losing their life. That was a failing of the state, and it was something that we took very seriously.

I would say to the Minister, when she comes to the Dispatch Box to justify the legislation as it is drafted, that, unless I have missed something, it does not correctly set out the policy intent. Even if she thinks that the amendments that have been tabled are defective, I think it would be wise to accept them and then for the Government to come forward and tidy them up during ping-pong. Also, we should not just rely on the Minister saying how the powers are to be used. Even if that is the Minister’s intent, there are many thousands of officials in the department. With the best will in the world, if the powers are there and somebody attempts to use them, this will end very badly.

In Section 117 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which is referred to—and I have checked it—there is not a limitation on the power to be used just “against things”. The “reasonable force” power is available to a constable for the full breadth of the thing that they are trying to do. So far as I can see, the legislation as drafted does not deliver the policy intent that is set out in the Explanatory Notes. I may have got that wrong. If I have, I will be delighted for the Minister to point it out, but I would urge her, for her own sake and that of her successors: do not give power to use reasonable force to people who are not trained to use it and do not have proper oversight.

There is a perfectly reasonable compromise in Amendment 76, although, personally, I would be more comfortable if the power was just taken out completely, even if you have to beef up the ability of the DWP officials to work with the police. I am not saying that there are never errors or tragedies with the police’s use of powers, but the police are properly trained and they have a proper structure of oversight. There is also a proper, independent complaints process and mechanism to account for the use of that power—as the noble Lord said, it was set up recognising that the use of force against citizens is a power of last resort for the state.

As this debate progresses, I would urge the Minister to think carefully about whether, at the end of it, she should, in effect, force the noble Lord—without putting words into his mouth—to test the opinion of the House. On reflection, could the Minister perhaps accept one of these amendments or offer to come back herself with something that the House will be more comfortable with? As drafted, the Bill gives too much power to Ministers and goes far further than the Minister herself has said previously is the policy intent of the Government. If the noble Lord were to test the opinion of the House, I would be happy to support any or all of his amendments.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I want to speak to Amendment 75. There is a lot of wisdom in what the noble Lord has said. What happens when this reasonable force is being exercised by members of the DWP? On the way there, everything looks okay, but you get into the house and, before you know where you are, fighting breaks out. In that house, there is a criminal gang, which is part of the fraud. What will happen? What number will they ring to ask for reinforcement?

Of course, it will be 999. The police get up there and they realise that the case has already been messed up. It is not very easy to clear things up when people think, “These could be robbers”. Whatever force and power you thought you had given to these DWP officials, you could end up with a very awkward, difficult situation.

In some places such as London, the police may get a very bad report, but generally, throughout England and Wales, people know that the police have authority. The uniform has given them something very definite. In most cases, apart from where organised crime is pretty furious, when they turn up they get good entry, they get people talking to them, because they are there to keep the King’s peace.