Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Sentamu Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I support the amendments led by my noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, which have been signed by others. We have debated refugee family reunion at numerous points over the past five years or so. My friend, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, recalls that at one point I picked up the relay from my noble friend Lady Hamwee and took a Private Member’s Bill through this House successfully. Unfortunately, it did not get through the other place successfully, but I have been somewhat involved in this issue and feel strongly about it.

Just to pick up the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, he talked about family being the basis of belonging and stability. That is important, not only for personal feelings of security and being able to thrive within the family but as a practical issue about integration, which has been much talked about in recent months. On the one hand, people shout, “Why aren’t immigrants properly integrated?”, yet we want to pull the rug from under refugees by saying, “You have no right to have family reunited with you, which would help you to settle and get on in our society”.

There is obviously room for discussion about the scope of the amendments that I support, and colleagues to the right have pulled various holes in in them. One can discuss some of them, but I must admit that I am somewhat shocked by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson—he and I are not always completely eye-to-eye in other fora. Here, he makes some reasonable suggestions in some of his amendments, but this one I find bad. He wants to delete proposed new subsection (5)(e) in my noble friend’s Amendment 166. He wants to delete having regard to issues such as

“the importance of maintaining family unity … the best interests of a child”

and

“any risk to the physical, emotional or psychological well being of a person granted refugee status”.

As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and the right reverend Prelate said, the principle of family unity is important, but I think that the social aspects are also very important. There seems to be a lack of continuity and consistency in the policies of successive Governments. Like others, I find pretty shocking what has happened in the last six weeks. First, the Home Secretary paused family reunion, and then, perhaps tellingly—there may have been an interesting internal debate with the Home Secretary—No. 10 said, “Actually, we are going to make that permanent; it is not just a pause. We are going to eliminate family reunion as we know it”.

Some remarks from noble Lords on the Conservative Benches went to wider issues about immigration and asylum. I always find it a bit rich that such complaints are made. There are valid issues about the control of migration and security of borders—no one denies that—but we must not forget the big explosion in legal migration that took place after Brexit, which the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, supported. We then had far greater volumes than ever happened under EU free movement, besides eliminating the two-way street which allowed Brits to migrate within the EU. I think a bit of non-joined-up thinking goes on there.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, talked about how we do not have a right to deny public opinion. Of course, public opinion—which is perhaps in a rather inflamed state at the moment—is important. I read in a briefing from the safe routes coalition that recent polling undertaken by the organisation British Future found that 67% of the public support a controlled official route for refugee children whose only remaining family are in the UK to travel here safely. Two-thirds of the public polled support family reunion for children who are stranded abroad, which is a large element of these amendments. That is public opinion, and we must be specific about what the public are reacting to.

The aim of some is apparently to curb the numbers coming in, but it depends what numbers we are talking about. In the case of family reunion and child refugees, we are talking not just about compassion, humanity and human rights, or even the principle of family unity, but about the best interests of the child and of the people who will settle in this country. We and they hope that they will make a big contribution to the success of this country, but we cannot expect them to do that if they are lonely, anxious and deprived of the support of their family. We must always remember that we are talking about social practicalities here, as well as the high principles of human rights.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I sat through this wonderful Bill as it went through its Second Reading and through all its Committee meetings. I speak today because I have been moved by Amendment 177 from the noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord Kerr, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.

Why am I saying these few words? The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, really put the finger on the issue: it is not just about children but about family reunion for asylum-seeking children outside the United Kingdom. He has narrowed it in such a way that it would be quite wrong in our statute to use it as an assurance, instead of a statement of public policy. If the statute uses it as an assurance, we will end up like that wonderful or awful Bill that went through Parliament and ended up as the Dangerous Dogs Act. Do your Lordships remember it? It was intended to give assurance, but it was very bad legislation and it was amended very quickly. We do not want that kind of assurance—of rising public opinion, which some see as a court of public opinion. It is important that a legislature is concerned about statements of public policy and that the law expresses that reality.

When I was Bishop of Stepney, there was a lady called Lasoya. She came here from west Africa as a student. She studied, got her degree and did very well. They gave her a job and she worked here for a number of years. She then became pregnant and had a son. The authorities then caught up with her overstaying and discovered that her son had already been registered as a British citizen. The adjudicator said that what should happen was that the son, who was already a British citizen, should stay, but that the mother should be sent back to west Africa.

That was an ugly statement. Hackney was up in arms and so was Islington. As Bishop of Stepney, I wrote to the Prime Minister, who at the time was John Major. I said, “At the moment, I have leave to remain. I am willing to exchange my leave to remain and give it to Lasoya so that she can stay with her son”. Do you know what happened? The Prime Minister was very quick to say that the adjudicator’s decision was ridiculous. He could understand what had happened and that she should not have overstayed, but the Government had not caught up with her, so the fault was on their side, so she stayed and there was great rejoicing in both Islington and Hackney.

Children outside the United Kingdom who are seeking asylum want to be reunited with their families who are here. Common sense tells us that, whatever the law may do in the future, this should guarantee that, because that is the only way if you have given somebody asylum and their children are not united with them. The ages are very clear in the amendment: limit it to those who are not 18 yet and then see what happens.

I am moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who has been a great campaigner for children and is known for working on this. The same is true of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who, in her work as a judge, has dealt with a lot of family cases and speaks from wonderful experience and knowledge. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said to the Minister that, if it is not to be decided today, this matter cannot be rushed or kicked into the long grass—by Report the Minister may have gathered ideas about how to respond to this marvellous amendment, which I support.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Sentamu Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 8th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, not being a lawyer, I feel more qualified to speak on this than anybody else.

The reality is that legal aid across society is, in effect, a rationed resource; it cannot be universally applied. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made a point about obligations, and Parliament has been perhaps unwise in the past to have open-ended obligations when we cannot deliver them. The Minister will no doubt have some figures on this but, if more money is allocated through the legal aid system to asylum and immigration cases, either the budget will have to expand or money will be taken away from other areas. It is a simple matter of arithmetic. This is about choice and priorities, and they need to be matched with obligations that we have shown ourselves unable to meet.

On the point that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made in his contribution, it would be invaluable for the Committee to have some factual evidence. A point was made that if cases could be made to go more quickly, with fewer adjournments and appeals, savings could be made—and maybe they could be—but we are flying blind because we do not have the facts. I do not know whether they are obtainable or whether this can be looked at before Report, but it would be extremely helpful to have some factual evidence to support this.

Unless the Government expand the budget for legal aid, something will have to give somewhere. If more money needs to go into this area, less will have to be spent somewhere else. It is not a hugely challenging intellectual concept. It would be most helpful to hear in the Minister’s reply whether he has any facts at his disposal. The Committee would be in a much stronger position to take a decision when we have that information.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I was not going to speak in this debate because we have had a fantastic presentation by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and the legal arguments were made by the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Carlile, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. They gave the legal basis for why this amendment ought to be accepted, but I am going to go in another direction—that of ethics.

We as a society may say to ourselves, “We are built on the rule of law and in everything we do it is a mirror by which we are judged”. Then we get strangers whose language is not English and whose background is not that of our culture, and we say, “We really uphold the rule of law”. The best way to know whether we are doing that is, first, that no one is above the law, and, secondly, in how we apply the rule of law to those unfortunate to find themselves facing immigration questions so that people see that this is a society that does not simply talk about the rule of law but upholds it. We are going to be judged by the rule of law.

Immigration is its most testing point. Immediately, people say that such people could be illegal and ask why we should give them legal aid, as it is going to be costly. But I am with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick: the question of cost cannot in the end trump the rule of law because, if you do not get good representation, you will find those cases going to appeal. If we have not carried out our obligations, we will find this question of the rule of law to be just words and words.

Let me put it another way. Any civilised society that abides by the rule of law will be judged by the way it treats the stranger—the one whose habits and behaviour are not our norm. In the end, if this amendment is not allowed, something similar to it must be, if we really believe that we are a society built on the rule of law.

We will know what we are when we treat the stranger with great disdain and think that anything will do. I know of many immigration appeal cases that happened because there was no legal representative. I know that some cases go wrong because they have not hired a legal person who understands the nuances. If we want to speed this up and hold a mirror to our society, it is what we do, particularly towards the stranger, that demonstrates how we uphold the rule of law. If we cannot, we should stop using these words.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Sentamu Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 104 and 203J, and to join the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, in inviting the Minister to consider carefully the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Murray. I was a member of the court in the decision to which the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, referred. It provides a good example of the problem we face in looking at these amendments.

The problem with the courts is that individual cases come to us and you have to consider them one by one. But as legislators, we can take a broader view, cover the whole ground and intercept problems that, if not intercepted, would come back to the courts one by one to be dealt with. The Georgian case is a good example: if it came before the Supreme Court now, the protection the court offered in the case to which the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, referred, would be made available as well. To allow that person to be extradited to Georgia, in the light of such conduct, would be quite contrary to their human rights. For these reasons, there is a lot of force in those two amendments, on the ground that they intercept a problem that will recur and is best dealt with by legislation now.

The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, referred to a case in the Supreme Court. I have no recollection of that case, and he will correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that I was party to the decision and therefore was not in the majority. However, if the minority had included Lord Rodger, that would carry great weight for me.

I confess that, for quite some time, I have felt that the point that the noble Lord, Lord Murray, is making had a lot of force behind it. I would need to look again more carefully at the wording of the convention to determine what my final decision would be, but he said enough to justify the invitation from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, to the Government to look at it very carefully, because the advantages of giving effect to that reading are obvious. I do not think that it would damage our reputation, because it would depend on an interpretation of the wording of the convention—not defying or withdrawing from the convention but giving effect to it. That, I think, is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Murray, is making, and there is a lot of force behind it.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I am also tempted to speak to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, but I will restrict myself to that from the noble Lord, Lord Browne, which seeks to include a reference to Section 59 in the clause.

Most of the asylum seekers who want to end up in Britain come from countries which we may at first see as safe countries but which soon go into chaos, confusion and great difficulty. So, to define a “safe country” in the rather difficult world that we happen to inhabit at the moment is precarious, because we will never know how safe it is. For a country that we thought was safe, we may suddenly discover that there has been a coup, or that people want a different Government, or that there is a lot of organised theft—and that is not simply a question of corruption, because, for me, the concept of corruption, at the heart of it, is a bit illusory. Because of the vicissitudes that exist for the majority of the people who come to this country illegally, let us not assure ourselves that the countries that we think are safe now will be safe in the next two months. Things change pretty quickly.

If we are to repeal parts of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 in Clause 38 of this Bill, it is best to include the repeal of Section 59 and not stop at Section 58, because of the difficulty we find in defining what we thought was a safe country. To put it in legislation would be a very unwise decision. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, has been wise to invite us to go up to Section 59 and not to stop at Section 58, because we would cover this uncertainty that still exists.

I am also attracted to this idea because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has supported Amendment 104 —and with good reason. I do not want to repeat the arguments that were carefully crafted by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, but simply to say that, because I come from Uganda, I know that while we may think that the country is stable today, it may easily find itself in great difficulty tomorrow. As legislators, let us not assume that the countries where we want to send these people are safe, because we do not know how quickly that temperature may change, and we may find that we have legislated for something that we really should not have done. Let us not be prophets; let us be legislators.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, when responding to questions about immigration in general, the Minister frequently repeated the phrase that the United Kingdom will honour its international obligations, and I fully understand that. Following the raising of the issue of the 1951 convention, I asked the Government in a Written Question in July last year whether they were talking to our allies and friends with regard to reviewing the convention given the changing circumstances of the world since the day and hour it was drafted. I got a one-liner saying no. I repeated the question on 3 June. The Answer exceeded the one line, but I was told that it had been looked at as long ago as 2018 in the United Nations but that no action had been taken, so, in effect, no discussions were taking place with our allies with regard to the convention.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Sentamu Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 16th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendment. It seems to be a reasonable change to get rid of the two years, and I think six months is a more reasonable representation. My question, though, is about how this will affect police officers.

Police officers are not employees. Their terms and conditions are governed by secondary legislation or police regulations. It is already quite difficult to remove the ones who should be removed because, first, they are represented by lawyers—I say this with all respect to the lawyers in the room—in the misconduct process. It never makes it quicker, and it always makes it more expensive. Secondly, when the assessment is made of whether the proof is there to sack them, the test of the standard of evidence is moved from the balance of probabilities to beyond reasonable doubt. That is the same standard for criminal proof, so it is quite a high standard, and they are represented by a lawyer. It gets quite difficult.

The two-year probationary period has always been a good way to remove those people who should be removed or who are not suited to the role. If we are to remove that two-year period, one of the measures by which we get rid of the worst officers will be lost, and I worry about that. We know from research that often the officers who turn bad later should have been removed in their probationary period, had everyone had the courage to take that decision.

I am not saying that it is wrong or right, nor that the police regulations should definitely change, but I would like to understand what the Government’s reaction is. We will have a group of people who are not classed as employees—police officers—who will still have a two-year period and, under the new scheme, might have none at all. This is a group I think we should pay particular attention to. Perhaps the Government might give their view on how they intend to deal with that.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I will begin with an explanation. When I supported the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, in Committee, there was concern about a risk assessment that said that if there was no probation period, it would be quite difficult for some employers to take people on. The same question was then posed, rather more sharply, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips: would you employ an ex-offender if there was no probation period at all? That little sentence requires probing.

Last time, I began with apprenticeships. In particular, I spoke about a young man called Oscar, who has been taken on by one of our best plumbers in Berwick, and I said that I hoped he qualifies. I was about to move on to the actual amendment when I said that, when Oscar finishes his apprenticeship, he will have an interview with his current employer and some other people, and that if he passes that interview he will be expected to serve a period of probation, and that this wonderful plumber would not be likely to retain Oscar if there was no probation period. That is where I was going to end. It is right that we remove the two-year qualifying period, which is too long, but I am not so sure that it should be nine months.

In the Church of England, no cleric is an employee because they are all self-employed. I remember a wonderful case where someone complained about a bishop for something they had said to this particular clergy, who had gone to a tribunal after a series of reviews that showed that he was not competent in what he was doing. At the end of the hearing, the clergy was told that he was suing the bishop but that the bishop was not his employer—his employer was God. He was told that if he could bring God into this, he could sue him because he was self-employed and answerable only to God.

We have lived without this worry, but the more I have worked with a lot of people and become a trainer for some, the more I have realised that, if we remove the probation period, we are going to find ourselves in a very difficult situation. The people who are more likely to miss out are young people who need some mentoring and support, and who can be directed to different things.

I am not sure where this is coming from. There are, of course, bad employers, who like to dismiss people at the shortest notice. If we went for six or 12 months in the statute, most employers would abide by what they have taken on. Let us give a good word to employers and not think that all of them simply want you to get out as soon as you come in.

I support Amendments 49, 50 and 51. If all of them are put to a vote, I will be the first into the Lobby.

[Lord de Clifford (CB)]

My Lords, I support this group of amendments, as the initial period of employment is so important to both employers and employees. I declare my interest in the register as the part owner of an SME veterinary practice that employs 140 employees. I am one of those people who will suffer from Clause 23, which is changing our views because of the uncertainty it will bring. Your Lordships have made many very important points that I will try not to repeat.

As employers, we still have no details of when the consultation on probation periods will be launched or how it will work, again creating uncertainty. Probation periods are so important to both employees and employers. The start of a new job is very important for both parties and is, we hope, the start of a long and productive relationship. Employers value employees who stay for many years, as the cost of employing individuals is so expensive. Employees have flexibility at the start of a job, with generally a week’s notice. All we ask is for flexibility for employers as well. That is what probation periods grant, but the Bill will potentially remove these.

Why is the probationary period so important for employers? It is a time to assess whether the individual that you have employed has the capacity to do the required tasks of the job. Do they have the skills that they said they have? Do their skills meet the standards that you set for your business? Is their attendance of a reasonable standard to be part of a team? Do they fit the culture of the business and hold similar values? If the employee, for whatever reason, does not fit, the employer has to go through a long, time-consuming and unfair dismissal process, even when someone has been in the business for two or three weeks or a couple of months—a process that uses up valuable management time and brings uncertainty for the employee. In some cases, it is blatantly clear that this relationship between the employee and the employer is not going to work.

As said by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Vaux of Harrowden, we need guidance on the initial period of employment, as it is so important for employers to take on employees who may be disadvantaged in the job market. If employers want to give them a chance but have no clear guidance or a short probation period, they will not take a risk that could benefit potential employees and those who, in the long term, may become really valuable with some time.

This group of amendments seeks to bring important parts of the employment relationship into the Bill, rather than waiting for a long, detailed consultation, with no details. It would help the Government’s plan to make work pay by encouraging all into work. That is why I support this group. If the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, calls for a Division, I will follow him into the Lobby.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Sentamu Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches support the noble Baroness, who is part of the eminent quartet that has signed the amendment. I had been wondering—but it was one of those thoughts that got away—about somehow trying to get the word “voluntarily” into the Bill in respect of actions taken by people that could be offences, and the first of these amendments certainly reflects a part of that.

As regards Amendment 49, I am sure that, through the briefings that we have received, there has been mention of phones—I will not try to inflame the Minister—which have not been returned by the authorities. They have been held so as to extract information, and they have somehow got lost in what I can understand must sometimes be a pretty chaotic situation. That is not relevant just for the offence but can be a hindrance to the NRM process.

As the noble Baroness was speaking, something occurred to me that may or may not be relevant, but I will just float it. When, some years ago, we were debating young women who were vulnerable to being pushed into forced marriages, they were advised to hide about their person, if they could, something that would be picked up at the border, while they were going through security, which would enable them to talk to the border officials. I simply do not know, but could people who are trafficked try that same sort of trick or device to attract attention when they would be among people who do want attention at the border? I throw that in as a thought. I do not know whether it would be covered by

“acting under the duress of slavery”,

but I express it anyway since it has come into my mind.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, first of all, I want to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady May, for getting legislation about modern slavery on to the statute books. I want to say thank you very much, because we have people—some from my own country—coming here under that very disheartening reality. The second thing I want to mention is what the noble Baroness did with the Hillsborough inquiry. She resolved a lot of pain for a lot of people in Liverpool, so I wanted to say thank you for that.

The question I want to ask is this. Under Amendment 47, the line of defence would be that they were

“acting under the duress of slavery”.

What about a member of one of these criminal gangs that are bringing people over? They could easily say as their defence, “I was under duress when I did what I have done”. What would be the response to such a line of defence?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group, tabled by my noble friend Lady May, raise some interesting questions that I hope the Government will be able to address.

Modern slavery is of course an extremely serious issue. As the recent report from the Global Commission on Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking—which is most ably chaired by my noble friend—made clear, the effect that this brutal trade can have on the people involved is truly harrowing. It is right that the Government take this opportunity to outline how they will incorporate protections for those who are acting under duress of slavery into the immigration system. I welcome my noble friend’s amendment in so far as it provides the Government with an opportunity to address this important issue.

However, I want to raise a cautious concern about one particular aspect of the amendment, which is that the protection would apply only once someone’s status as having acted under the duress of slavery had been established. I understand that determining this status would involve going through the national referral mechanism, which, as noble Lords across the Committee will be well aware, faces severe backlogs. Not only that but, as the UN themselves has highlighted, far fewer foreign applicants under the NRM actually have a decision made in their favour, suggesting that immigrants are increasingly applying to the NRM on the basis that this will delay any decision to remove them, rather than because they have genuine grounds for a claim. That raises the question of whether the amendment would risk creating another loophole and another incentive for those crossing in small boats to delay any decision on their application in the full knowledge that the NRM mechanism already is severely delayed and backlogged.

It is the duty of the Government to seek to protect those who are under duress of slavery. As I have said, the amendment might risk creating a considerable loophole that could be easily exploited by bad actors. That is not to say that I do not support the intent behind the amendment, but I will be paying close attention to what the Minister has to say on this point.

On Amendment 49, we agree that this is an important provision and that it makes complete sense to be assured that articles will be both protected and kept in a condition that will allow them to be used and referred to in any future case. As my noble friend has already alluded to, my understanding is that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act powers will already cover this, and that if any seized articles were lost or damaged then that would perhaps be a disciplinary matter for the officer involved. We therefore question whether a protection in the Bill in the form of this amendment is necessary, but the point that my noble friend raises is an important one. We will join her in seeking strong assurances from the Minister that these articles will be protected and kept in a condition that will allow them to be used in the future.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Sentamu Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 8th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I give the noble Lord my commitment that it is very much a work in progress.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

I want the Minister to explain something. He has refused to set the definite hours in which this needs to be done. He said that that would be prescriptive and that the tribunal will determine whether the matter is reasonable. Is it not quite odd to rely on the tribunal to execute what noble Lords are trying to suggest in their amendments? Should not the Bill itself include those hours? If you do not want to be prescriptive, you can say, “Up to 24 hours”, or, “Up to 48 hours”, which means that they do not have to go all that way—that is slightly less prescriptive. I am baffled that the Minister wants the tribunals to enter into these matters. He and I know that they take a long time and cost a lot of money. Why is he legislating to open a door in this area to tribunals, which everybody should try to avoid?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for his intervention. I can say only that I thought we were all agreed that flexibility is a good thing, and I am sure we do not want anything in the Bill that would restrict either an employee or an employer from making a reasonable judgment on a case-by-case basis. On that, I rest my case.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Sentamu Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Brookeborough (CB)]

My Lords, I may be accused of intruding, because I have not been here for the whole thing. It just interests me that, on one side, we are talking about what is in Clause 5, what we do when a terrorist incident takes place, and on the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was mentioning how we prevent it. From a Northern Ireland perspective, we had places and events every day of the week that were open to terrorist attack. Yes, having the facilities in place to enable us to take action if it takes place, but then there is also what we do to try to stop it taking place, making it more difficult for the terrorists to do it. We therefore channelled them, unfortunately, into working around what we have put in place.

When we are talking about buildings—I am sorry that I am not technical enough—what about the places outside where people are waiting? I do not understand why we need a building, alone, for the Bill, because people are under threat when they come together in large numbers. That is crucial. We had many events that did not involve buildings at all. Listening to this, I just think that we are not quite linking the two things together to make a good argument, a good reason and a good result for, first, trying to prevent it and then making sure that our protection is far enough away that it does not endanger people.

I shall give a simple example and then I will stop. We had vehicle checkpoints on the border, and they were easy to bomb and blow up to begin with, because people drove into them. It was not suicide, so it is not that far different, but proxy, where people drove into the middle and blew it up. Then we started using electronics—I know these cannot be used for every event—where we moved the protection further away, so that people had to come through that first. But then you create a queue on the other side. All I am saying is that to me, the lay person, I am not sure that we are not slightly confused about where this terrorist attack is going to take place. I cannot think that they consider only buildings.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I was not going to be involved in this, but I have a history of ministry in this country, including over the summer months, and after Easter, there are many gatherings that all meet in large tents. Big tops can house up to 10,000 people. If the clause is limited to buildings, so many vulnerable places and open spaces will be left out.

In this country in the summer, there are incredible gatherings—particularly of young people—that do not take place in what you would call a building. They will be in the big top. Subsection (5) tries to define “premises”, which is a much more flexible word than concentrating on “buildings”. Of course, some meetings will be taking place in buildings. The heart of all of this, however, is large gatherings of people—particularly of young people in the summer. Noble Lords would be absolutely surprised by how farmers lend their land for these kinds of concerts, which can go on for a while.

The people who organise these events, such as spring harvest, hold the responsibility for the protection of people, as laid down in the Bill—not because it takes place in a building but because of the event itself. So I would want to look for a tighter definition than what a building is, because I think we know what a building is. I want the events, where they take place and those responsible to have the same due regard as those who have big theatres. So, will the Government continue their flexibility in their definition as they did in subsection (5)? They may borrow some of the phrases from these amendments, but just remember that we get gatherings that are just so vast, you would not actually be providing protection against terrorism for that many people.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I have three brief points to make in response to this rather interesting short debate. My first point relates to Amendment 20, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. As my noble friend said, it is very much a probing amendment that resulted from organisations that organise events and have premises but are unclear as to the definition. They are people who want to do the right thing but want a greater explanation on the record from the Government as to what it actually means in practice.

My second point continues the flattery of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. If the noble and learned Lord is asking a question, I feel it is one that has to be answered. He is asking the right question although, as he acknowledges, perhaps he has not come up with the right answer yet in terms of the wording. I hope the Government will return to this before Report with some of the suggested wording, taking on board the various points that have been raised.

My third and final point relates to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. In many ways, the noble Baroness hits the nail on the head; we should not let the terrorists win. But that is what the Bill is about: it is about getting the balance right between not letting terrorists win and yet letting the public feel safe to go to events and public buildings and not worry, because they know that somebody, somewhere has thought about what to do in the case of an attack.

King’s Speech

Lord Sentamu Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. I begin my contribution to this debate on justice by calling Lord Bingham, a noble and learned Lord, as my expert witness. He is in glory. Thankfully, his incisive and illuminating legal mind speaks with authority on justice. He says at page 174 of his excellent book, The Rule of Law:

“The rule of law is … one of the greatest unifying factors, perhaps the greatest, the nearest we are likely to approach to a universal secular religion. It remains an ideal, but an ideal worth striving for, in the interests of good government and peace, at home and in the world at large”.


I humbly suggest to His Majesty’s Government that The Rule of Law should be the golden thread that runs through the legislative programme outlined in the King’s Speech, as well as in the governance of our four nations. It is the perfect glue that binds together governance and the laws passed by Parliament. The Attorney-General’s excellent maiden speech chimes in well with this, as does the maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Timpson. Bravo!

Take poverty, for example. President Nelson Mandela said:

“Overcoming poverty is not a gesture of charity. It is an act of justice. It is the protection of a fundamental human right, the right to dignity and a decent life. While poverty persists, there is no true freedom”.


Now then, what are we to understand by the rule of law, a phrase that we regularly use? My expert witness says the existing principle is

“that all persons and authorities within the state, whether public or private, should be bound and entitled to the benefit of laws publicly and prospectively promulgated and publicly administered in the courts”.

Further:

“State observance of the rule of law requires the availability of effective and impartial dispute resolution mechanisms. This means that citizens must be able to access the courts, and be heard by independent judges, under a fair process”.


A manifesto commitment to put victims first, supporting them at every stage of the criminal justice system, is a good innovation, but surely it must treat all alleged perpetrators of crimes as innocent until proven guilty, and therefore supported as well.

Building more prisons will ease overcrowding. However, as a former chaplain in the 1980s of a sizeable remand centre that was full beyond capacity most nights, I know that building new prisons must go hand in hand with increased funding for the courts system; legal aid; the rehabilitation and education of offenders; a fully funded and renewed Probation Service; a regular training review of all prison officers; a rigorous refreshing of the workings of the Crown Prosecution Service; and the renewal of restorative justice—

“To no one will we … deny or delay right or justice”.


The rule of law is not an arid legal doctrine but the foundation of a fair and just society, and a guarantee of responsible government. It makes an important contribution to economic growth, as well as offering the best means yet devised for securing peace and co-operation. My expert witness in The Rule of Law advocates eight conditions which capture its essence. I will give you four:

“The law must be accessible and so far as possible intelligible, clear and predictable … Means must be provided for resolving, without prohibitive cost or inordinate delay, bona fide civil disputes which the parties themselves are unable to resolve … Ministers and public officers at all levels must exercise the powers conferred on them in good faith, fairly, for the purpose for which the powers were conferred, without exceeding the limits of such powers”.


Finally, there must be

“compliance by the state with its obligations in international law”.

When it comes to justice, the rule of law guards, protects, drives and guarantees its delivery. Love without justice is self-indulgence. Justice without love is tyranny. The rule of law holds both justice and love together in a creative tension.

Ukraine: Small Boats

Lord Sentamu Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I say to my noble friend what I said earlier: no request has come to the Home Office, and, as far as I am aware, the same goes for the FCDO and the MoD. As far as I am concerned, there has been no meaningful request to the authorities which could provide the boats that are under discussion.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked about seizing Russian assets to use them to support the war effort by Ukraine. That idea came from the Foreign Secretary. He said it on a BBC programme and everyone else there said it was the most brilliant idea that had come from the United Kingdom, so I am surprised that there has been no further conversation. I happen to agree with the Foreign Secretary; he has his finger on the pulse. Is it not time that these assets were seized and used to help Ukraine to fight its war?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

As I think I made clear, I do not disagree or otherwise with the noble and right reverend Lord. He makes a perfectly reasonable point, but the Foreign Secretary is having those discussions and I am not.

Public Order Bill

Lord Sentamu Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 28th March 2023 Lords Chamber

No doubt many others wish to contribute. I finish where I started: this is about suspicionless stop and search, which in certain areas to do with serious violence or terrorism may be necessary. It cannot be necessary in a free and democratic society to have suspicionless stop and search for protest-related offences. This is overreach by the Government, and noble Lords should support my Motion as a further way to try to mitigate the impact of a clause that should not really be there in the first place.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I stand only to amplify what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has said. Anybody who reads the Baroness Casey Review: Final Report will find it a great shock. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has tried to put her words very simply. Paragraph 10 in one of her recommendations says:

“The use of stop and search in London by the Met needs a fundamental reset.”


We cannot simply go back and say, “We’ve been doing it this way”. She goes on:

“The Met should establish a charter with Londoners on how and when stop and search is used, with an agreed rationale, and provide an annual account of its use by area, and by team undertaking stop and searches. Compliance with the charter should be measured independently, including the viewing of Body Worn Video footage. As a minimum, Met officers should be required to give their name, their shoulder number, the grounds for the stop and a receipt confirming the details of the stop.”


At the end of our Stephen Lawrence inquiry, we talked about stop and search. We said that stop and search should be retained because it is a useful tool for preventing crime, but we had a similar attitude and gave similar statements to the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. John Grieve was tasked by the then commissioner of the Met to carry out work on how this could be done. There was a pilot. It worked, but of course some newspapers did not like it and saw it as bureaucracy that prevented the police’s work too much, and it was then stopped. This has now come home to roost. Had we sustained what was started by Sir Paul Condon, we would be in a very different place, but we are not. We have a review suggesting that what is in Motion A1 would be a good thing. I do not see how that could go wrong.

Finally, as I said in the last debate on this, if the Bill is about public order, we have extended stop and search beyond belief. People are protesting—let us say young people—about climate change, injustice and unfairness. There is really no need for it; I cannot see why they should be stopped and searched. Most of all, these protests are at the heart of being in a free society. Most of us did not want Clause 11 but, now that it is in there, these provisions would be a safeguard so that the extension of stop and search does not do greater damage and hurt to our young people, who really want to protest.

Remember when they left school for a day to protest about global warming. If you stopped and searched them because you believed there was a reason to do so, most parents would have been offended. I would have been. Stop and search has been extended in the Public Order Bill and not for the rest of crimes, which I would wholeheartedly support. In many ways this amendment would limit the abuse that could occur because we went for believing as opposed to having grounds to suspect.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, this Bill was always about political signals, not sensible policy. Finally, even signals must change. I respect the Minister, but others in the Home Office have been slow to respond to the concerns of the British public about abuses of broad police powers.

Much has happened and even more has been exposed since this Bill began its passage last May. Last July Wayne Couzens lost an appeal against a whole life sentence for the abduction, rape and murder of Sarah Everard while he was a serving police officer, after a purported stop and arrest for breach of lockdown laws in March 2021. Last month David Carrick was imprisoned for 30 years for an unrestrained 18-year campaign of rape and abuse while he was a serving police officer.

Also last month, YouGov reported that 51% of Londoners do not trust the Metropolitan Police very much or at all. Last week, as we have heard, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, called for a “fundamental reset” of the use of stop and search, which she said is

“currently deployed by the Met at the cost of legitimacy, trust and, therefore, consent.”

Just yesterday the Children’s Commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza, found that nearly 3,000 children aged between eight and 17 had been strip-searched under stop and search powers between 2018 and 2022. Nearly 40% of them were black. Half of those strip searches had no appropriate adult present.

All this relates to the use and abuse of current police powers. Still, today we are being asked yet again to green-light new powers to stop and search peaceful protesters without even a reasonable suspicion of criminality. When trust in policing and the rule of law is in jeopardy, if this House does not exercise its constitutional duty to say “enough”—no more power without at least the modest statutory responsibilities set out in Motion A1 in the name of my noble friend Lord Coaker—what are we for?