Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Earl of Erroll Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 3rd November 2025 Lords Chamber

I am sorry that my noble friend used some of the words that he did in defence of his amendment, because I think his amendment—properly amended, so that we do not get ourselves into the concerns raised by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—should be supported by people who could not accept some of the things that he said. What he and the Front Bench have put forward is something that the Government really have to answer, because the public feel strongly about this—as do I. I do not understand why somebody who is not a citizen and who commits a crime should not be deported. I understand that some of those circumstances will be difficult because of the country from which they have originally come and that we need to amend this amendment properly to meet what we really want. But will the Minister accept that, unless we face up to this issue, we will constantly be giving to people, whom we do not want to stir up trouble, the most wonderful opportunity to do so? That is why these amendments have to be taken seriously.

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

My Lords, I will briefly speak to something that has always puzzled me. Article 8 has two paragraphs. The first is about

“the right to … private and family life”.

The second states that you can ignore that if it is

“in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”.

I do not see the problem with inserting something such as that into the Bill, whereby we can remove people if they breach that. That is part of Article 8, which is not at all about an unqualified right to a family life.

On the point about “careless driving”, that term is used if you have made a bit of a mistake, whereas “dangerous driving” really is a dangerous offence. I can see how that would qualify, but I am not so sure about careless driving—it depends on the circumstances.

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

My Lords, it has been a fascinating debate, and I support the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Jackson. This is the type of debate that we need to have in this Chamber. These are wide moral issues that go to the heart of what we do with our justice system.

Something that has been forgotten in the debate is that the purpose of some measures—which have been described by some as extreme and, somehow, a little too far reaching—is to have a deterrent effect. We sometimes forget that that is the purpose of some law. It is not about having something in place so that, after an event has happened, we can do something that is proportionate to the person who did it; it should be about the knowledge of the wider public, whether that is our standing population or those who are living among us and seeking refugee status, that there are normalities and reasonable behaviours expected of us all. If we have what some describe as extreme measures on our statute book, they could perhaps facilitate better behaviour. I do not think we should be frightened of this.

We need to have a wider debate and for the Government to open up more countries to be deemed acceptable and safe. We hear that our European neighbour countries are taking a rather different view of what is deemed a safe country, including Afghanistan, from ours in this country. I do not think that their human rights industry has quite got to the advanced state that we have in the UK. We have an opportunity here for the British public to realise that these Houses of Parliament are listening to them and their concerns, so I welcome this wider debate. If we do not adopt these amendments today, the Government should take on board how they can move towards the position of the wider public.