Asylum Policy

Lord Howard of Lympne Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

My Lords, who will decide whether a country is safe? The previous Government decided that Rwanda was safe, but the Supreme Court, following a decision of the European Court of Human Rights, said that it was the body with the responsibility for deciding whether a country was safe. So my question to the Minister is: who, under the Government’s proposals, is to decide whether a country is safe—the Government or the Supreme Court?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s question. I take the view that the Government will determine ultimately which are safe countries. The Government will make that judgment. We are open to challenge and discussion, but the Government will have to make a determination on that. In doing so, we will look at a range of factors. What does the United Nations think? What do the other agencies think? In the end, however, the Government ultimately will have to determine. Again, let me just say that it may not even be a blanket “safe” for a particular country. It may be safe, for example, now, for individuals post an Assad regime to return to Syria, but it may equally not be safe for some individuals to do that. There is a case-by-case basis for the individual, but, ultimately, we have to make that call.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Howard of Lympne Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 16th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

With the greatest respect, I do not know if the noble Lord has read my amendment, but that is exactly the point. The point is that before the Bill is passed there should be consultation on these proposals, but there is no opportunity for consultation because they are implemented at Royal Assent. The Government keep telling us that there will be a consultation, but how can there possibly be consultation if the measures come in at Royal Assent?

Still, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that interruption because it proves the point. It also allows me to explain to him another payment from the Unite political fund, which he may not be aware of, to the Marx Memorial Library. I kid you not—you could not make it up. I am sure the members of Unite are thrilled to know that their hard-earned wages are going to support the Marx Memorial Library, but when the Bill becomes an Act, in a matter of months, they will no longer have the right to see that disbursement.

If that is what Unite wants to do then that is up to Unite, but surely it should not be covered up. All I am asking at this time is that proper consultation on the effects of Parts 4 and 6 should take place before this is ramrodded through on the statute book without any proper consultation and discussion with, as the Government like to call them, “relevant stakeholders”. It is on Amendment 106 that I will probably be seeking to test the opinion of the House today.

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support these amendments and declare my interests, as recorded in the register, as the chairman of three businesses that would undoubtedly qualify as small enterprises.

I was provoked into intervening in this debate by an observation made by the Minister when she replied to the last debate. She said to your Lordships that if an employer dismissed an employee for cause, as set out in the Bill, the employer would have nothing to worry about because the tribunal would find in their favour. Very long ago I practised in the field of employment law, and I saw at first hand the consequences—often very damaging, sometimes disastrous—for a small business of having to spend the time, trouble and expense involved in contesting a case at the tribunal, even if ultimately, it was successful. In the real world, faced with that predicament, employers often find themselves obliged to settle these cases, again at considerable expense, even if the application is completely unmeritorious and would stand scant chance of success, were it ever to come before the tribunal. That factor ought to be taken into account.

My question to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Leong, is this. Attention has been drawn today to the impact assessment, particularly by my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, who pointed to the increase in the number of tribunal cases that would be a consequence of the Bill. To what extent did that impact assessment take into account disputes that were not actually taken to the tribunal and were settled by the employer, who could not afford the consequences of contesting the case at the tribunal, but which would nevertheless involve substantial, damaging and sometimes disastrous consequences for the employer?

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

Given that the noble Lord, Lord Howard, and I practised in employment tribunals, does he agree with me that there are now strong procedures by which employment tribunals can strike out vexatious claims without there being a full hearing? I had the pleasure, of course, of appearing against the noble Lord in the Employment Appeal Tribunal, I think it must be 40 years ago—it was a delight—but the mechanisms have developed over those decades and tribunals now do not hear vexatious claims. They strike them out before they get there.

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

I do not know if the noble Lord’s memory extends to which of us won on that occasion. It is true that there has been an improvement, but it would be a mistake to assume that those provisions would cover all the cases to which I drew attention in my remarks.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne and indeed all noble Lords who have made such compelling arguments for the amendments in this group. I rise to support Amendment 107 in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, to which I have added my name. I again refer the House to my registered interests, particularly as a dairy and livestock farmer and as a forester.

The farming community needs help after the run of negative actions taken by this Government: the slashing of delinked payments, followed swiftly by the cut-off in sustainable farming incentives with no notice, contrary to previous promises. That leaves a large number of farms with negligible environmental payments, incentivising the intensification of their farming operations, undermining their businesses and undermining nature restoration. To that is added the more general burden placed on all businesses of increased employer national insurance contributions.

Farmers’ long-term planning has been thrown into chaos by the reduction in inheritance tax reliefs on agricultural and business property. It is a burden that farming businesses simply cannot afford and will lead to the sale and break-up of many of these on the death of a family member, with families also losing their homes and businesses as a result.

In the run-up to the introduction of the reduced reliefs in April 2026, the financial incentive for elderly or terminally ill farmers and business owners to take their own lives increases. In Committee, I was grateful to the Minister, who is again in his place today, for his promise to speak to his ministerial colleagues at Defra and the ONS about keeping accurate and timely data on farmer and business-owner suicides. I ask him again today: what has been the result of those discussions? How can the Government assess the impact of this measure on suicide rates if they simply rely on out-of-date and insufficiently granular ONS data?

On Amendment 107, the arguments in favour of granting farming an exemption from these Bill provisions have been well made in Committee, and I will hit only the headlines. Farming is almost uniquely exposed to seasonality in its harvesting operations, as well as the weather variability in the timing of those operations. Livestock farmers have to look after their animals every day and rely on casual labour to fill in gaps due to illness or scheduling issues. That requires flexibility in its engagement with seasonal and part-time or casual staff. There are penalties enough in weather unpredictability without introducing more through compensating staff for changing hours at short notice or having to compensate for sickness from day one. These obligations are simply unaffordable for farmers and unworkable in practice.

Farming operates on cycles that are unknown in other businesses. It is easy enough to assess the quality of work and the suitability of staff in retail, offices and manufacturing, even after the first day or so. However, most farming workloads are solitary, with little oversight. We know whether a new employee has drilled a field correctly, looked after animal hygiene effectively, checked weed growth around new trees without damaging the trees, or ensured that livestock is back in calf in the necessary window, only months after those operations are performed. Reducing probationary periods and leaving farmers exposed to human resource and litigation risks, potentially from day one, is simply not acceptable or workable.

As my noble friend Lord Deben highlighted in Committee, this is not a Government who have a background or experience in the farming or rural economy. That lack of experience is often evident, and I urge the House and the Government to listen to those of us who have that experience and to support this critical amendment. I hope to hear encouragement from the Minister that the Government are listening.

King’s Speech

Lord Howard of Lympne Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, with whom I had many jousts in the past. We often found —speaking for myself at least—that we agreed with each other far more extensively than we cared to admit, and that goes for much of what he said this afternoon.

I congratulate the Government on their election victory and the Minister on his appointment and maiden speech. I echo the warm words of tribute which have rightly been paid to him for his astonishing work on the rehabilitation of offenders—an objective which we all share. I wish the Government well. As my right honourable friend, the leader of the Opposition, whose premiership will I think be treated kindly by history, has said, their successes will be our successes; we all want our country to succeed. It is in that spirit that I intend to offer the Government, respectfully, some advice.

One of the most intractable challenges that the new Government faces is that posed by illegal immigration, and it is to that that I intend to devote my remarks. All we have seen so far is the Prime Minister’s commitment of £84 million to help what is often referred to as tackling the matter at source. I welcome that. It was under my leadership that the Conservative Party first committed to the 0.7% target, so I support the measure and hope that, together with other sources of development assistance, it helps to improve living conditions in some of those countries which are much less well off than we are. But we must be realistic: those countries will, whatever happens, remain for the foreseeable future much less well off than we are, so there will continue to be people who want a better life and who are prepared to take terrible risks to reach our country. Rebadging the Border Force will not stop them, but there is one way which would, and I speak from experience.

In 1995, as Home Secretary, I reached an agreement with France, under which we undertook to return to each other those who illegally entered one of our countries from the other. It worked, even though the number returned to France was, of course, far greater than the number returned to the UK. What, you may ask, did we give France in return? Nothing. We were able to reach this agreement because I persuaded my French opposite numbers that it was in their interest to come to it. Why? Because no French Government could take pride in the number of migrants congregating on their northern coastline or the numbers making their way through France to Calais to get to the UK. I suggested, and they agreed, that if it became clear that getting to Calais was no longer a way of getting into the UK, there would be no incentive for these migrants to come to France in the first place.

The agreement worked; it worked for the two remaining years of my time as Home Secretary, but it had a wrinkle: it applied to those who claimed asylum and to those who did not. It contained a provision that it would not apply to asylum seekers once the Dublin convention came into force. The Dublin convention, which came into force after I left office in 1997, provided that asylum seekers should apply for asylum in the first European member state they reached, and if they did not, they would be returned to that member state. Here I was guilty of naivety: I thought the Dublin convention would work, but it did not. In 2018, for example, 1,215 asylum seekers were transferred into the UK but only 209 out of it, despite the fact there were far more cases where the first country they reached was not the UK. The Dublin convention did not preclude bilateral agreement, and one was reached between Germany and Demark. My Labour successors could have sought to revive the application of my agreement to asylum seekers once it became clear that the convention was not working, but they did not.

I respectfully suggest that the Government might look at this agreement again. As far as I know, it has never been revoked, but the arguments that persuaded my opposite numbers in 1995 are as valid and strong now as they were then. There is no reason why the original terms could not be restored. It seems quite likely that the new Prime Minister of France will be a socialist. I think it was Clement Attlee who coined the phrase, “Let left talk to left”, so there may well be an opportunity—to use a phrase currently much in vogue—for a reset in our relations with France on this issue. I commend it to the Government.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Howard of Lympne Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 20th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, I am puzzled by this amendment. For 18 years, between 2004 and 2022, we had on the statute book an Act of Parliament which said there was an irrebuttable presumption that certain countries on a list were and would always be safe. I do not recall any Member of this Chamber, or anyone in the other Chamber when I was there, demurring. We had on the statute book an Act of Parliament that had no provision for a monitoring committee, and I do not remember any Member of this Chamber or that Chamber complaining about that. For 18 years, we had provisions which had none of the safeguards that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, wants to include—and I do not recall him or any other Member of this Chamber demurring.

As I understand it, the only difference was that we were required to have that list by our membership of the European Union and still would have that list now if we had not left the European Union—and I do not recall anybody in this House saying it was wrong that that situation should persist or using it as an argument for leaving the European Union, so that we could then get rid of it, as we did. So, I think we are now making a bit too much of the lack of provisions and safeguards around one black country when we had no concerns about a list of white countries.

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

Is it not the case that that legislation did not simply lack the controls advocated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope? It did not have the controls that are in this Bill. There was no monitoring committee. It simply did not have these controls in that legislation.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My noble friend is absolutely right, as he always is.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Howard of Lympne Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 12th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to make a point which I hope may be taken into account by honourable Members in another place, though I fear it is unlikely to find favour with most of your Lordships. I cast no aspersions on the motivation which has led to the amendments your Lordships have passed. An undeniable consequence of most of these amendments would be delay in dealing with an issue which is regarded as important and urgent by very many people in our country—an issue to which no alternative remedy has been advanced. I hope that this point may be taken into account by honourable Members in another place, even if not by most of your Lordships.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, mine is a different point. I am not sympathetic to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Howard, has just made. On Report, I raised the question of representations by the Government of Jersey and our Government’s failure to consult before including a provision in the Bill. I do not know whether this also represents the view of Guernsey and the Isle of Man, but the Government of Jersey said that they were not happy about it. I asked the Minister if he could clarify the position at Third Reading. Can he do so?

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Howard of Lympne Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 4th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, we support all the amendments in this group. It is absolutely critical that domestic and international law is complied with. This should not be up for debate. It is who we are. It is what we stand for. If we seek to deviate from our domestic and international legal obligations, our role on the world stage and our ability to have influence globally is significantly diminished. We cannot shy away from the consequential impact this will have on other countries choosing to follow suit. As the United Nations Human Rights Council put it last Friday,

“international standards on the independence of the judiciary are closely linked to the rule of law and the separation of powers. ‘Provisions of the Rwanda Bill could undermine the principles of the separation of powers and the rule of law in the United Kingdom’”.

That is sufficient for us to support all these amendments.

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by associating myself with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Hailsham about the late Lord Cormack. I cannot add anything to what my noble friend said, but it is entirely true that Lord Cormack is a great loss and we shall all miss him tremendously.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and my noble friend for their references to my earlier intervention in these debates. I am not sure that the further interpretation that they place on my intervention is entirely justified or that I would entirely go along with it, but that is perhaps a matter for debate at a later stage.

The amendments in this group are all based on respect for the rule of law. A critical part of respect for the rule of law is the separation of powers, something much referred to in our earlier debates, and it is to that subject that I propose to address these remarks. As Anthony Speaight KC reminds us in his recent Politeia pamphlet, there is no such thing as the absolute separation of legislature, executive and judicial powers in our constitutional arrangements. Our Executive are rooted in our legislature and in any event, as Mr Speaight and others have pointed out, there are precedents for this legislation—for the proposition that Parliament can deem certain countries to be safe—including the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004, passed under the Blair Government. The principle in that legislation was challenged in the case of Nasseri but was upheld by the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. That, of course, is essentially what this Bill does: it deems Rwanda to be a safe country.

However, there is an even broader principle that is relevant here and is at the root of why this legislation is necessary. We have traditionally recognised the separation of powers between the Executive and the judiciary. That principle can be expressed in the proposition that decision-making is the responsibility of the Executive, but that the courts have the responsibility to review the lawfulness of those decisions.

That responsibility of the courts is what we know as judicial review. Its scope has been expanded greatly in recent years in ways which have not found universal approval but its principle is accepted as an important part of our constitutional arrangements. However, judicial review does not involve the courts substituting their own decisions for those of the Executive. It involves, in essence, an assessment of whether it was reasonable for the Executive to make the decision in question.

Illegal Migration Update

Lord Howard of Lympne Excerpts

Wednesday 6th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

My Lords, has my noble friend seen the recent, extremely sensible suggestion that, since the boats which are used in such dangerous circumstances to cross the channel do not comply with the safety requirements of the European Union, France and other member states have the power—and, indeed, the responsibility—to confiscate those boats? What representations are His Majesty’s Government making to France and the other countries to exercise these powers?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My noble friend makes an important point. It is right that Home Office officials and National Crime Agency officers are working closely with the French to try to disrupt the supply of small boats. We now have many of the boats used in the crossings which have been confiscated following the journeys across the channel. By and large, they are not ones which are sold on the French market; most of these vessels are constructed for the purpose. I have seen them myself, and they are incredibly dangerous and not fit for crossing an area of open water such as the English Channel. I can reassure my noble friend that, from what I have been told, the practice of the French, when they disrupt a launch, is to destroy the effectiveness of the boat and to confiscate what remains of the boat. This is something the French authorities have been handling. We are working, as ever, with them to disrupt the maritime side, and further work to disrupt the upstream provision of both boats and engines is ongoing.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Howard of Lympne Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 10th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

My Lords, it is indeed a privilege to follow the most reverend Primate. I am sure that the whole House will wish to congratulate him on the most distinguished part he played in the Coronation proceedings on Saturday.

Notwithstanding the eloquence of those who have previously spoken in opposition to the Bill, I cannot agree with them. I support the Bill. It is the first duty of a Government to protect the borders of their state, and the Bill represents the best available means of achieving that objective.

I shall make three points. First, I want to deal with the allegation that the provisions in the Bill, particularly those relating to interim rulings of the European Court of Human Rights, in some way breach the rule of law; secondly, I want to comment on the provision of safe routes for asylum seekers; and thirdly, I want to consider the extent to which the Bill’s measures are likely to succeed.

The provisions of Clause 53 have attracted a good deal of controversy. It has been suggested that they constitute a breach of our duty under the European convention and therefore a breach of the rule of law. In order to assess the validity of those arguments, it is necessary to examine the legitimacy of the power of the European Court of Human Rights to make interim rulings—which is what Clause 53 is all about.

The European court derives its authority from the convention. Article 46 of the convention expressly states that only final judgments of the court are binding. Rule 39 of the court’s rules of procedure, which provides the basis for its ability to make interim rulings, states only that it may indicate the measures that it thinks should be taken in any case. It is true that the court, in a case in 2005, seemed to conclude that it could make a binding interim ruling, but that was clearly inconsistent with the convention and with rule 39 itself.

Against that background, let us consider the ruling that the court made last year in relation to the Government’s plan to remove illegal immigrants to Rwanda. It was an ex parte ruling so the UK Government had no opportunity to state their case, it was issued by an anonymous judge in a press release, and it was indefinite in the sense that no provision was made for a hearing to take place at which the UK Government could state their case. It was contrary to all the rules of natural justice. I ask your Lordships to consider the fate, on appeal, of any first-instance judgment in our courts made in that way. It would not survive five minutes.

The response to that lamentable state of affairs set out in Clause 53 is commendably moderate. It gives a Minister of the Crown discretion, and in subsection (5) it sets out some of the matters to be taken into account in exercising that discretion. Those matters represent all the elements of natural justice that were lacking in the interim decision made by the court last year, so I commend Clause 53 to your Lordships.

Next, I would like to say a word about safe routes. There are of course legitimate arguments to be made about safe routes, but they are—I am afraid—irrelevant to the need for measures to deal with the boats. Let me explain why. Unless everyone—and I mean everyone—who applies for leave to enter the UK through a safe route is granted that right, there will be some who are refused. Some of those who are refused will be able to acquire the means to pay the people smugglers, and the people smugglers will continue to put them on boats to cross the channel. Whatever the arguments in favour of safe and legal routes, they are—I repeat—irrelevant to the main provisions of the Bill.

Finally, I want to say something about the likely efficacy of the measures set out in the Bill. There can, in my view, be little doubt that the most effective way of dealing with the problems posed by the illegal immigrants crossing the channel is to reach a return agreement with France. We reached such an agreement in 1995 when I was Home Secretary. Both countries agreed to take back anyone who had entered one country from the other and who was refused admission. Although those refused admission to the UK far outnumbered those who applied for and were refused admission to France, France honoured and complied with the agreement—which, as a matter of fact, has never been rescinded or revoked. I accept that France is not now prepared to implement this or any similar agreement, so the Government have to take whatever action is available to them. It seems to me that this Bill represents the best option available. I believe that it will have a deterrent effect and diminish the ability of the people smugglers to continue to ply their evil trade, and I commend it to the House.

Public Order Bill

Lord Howard of Lympne Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 30th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I wonder whether I could suggest to the House that we have to think a little beyond the precise legal issues we have been concentrating on. First, I was drawn into this discussion by a previous speaker—the noble Lord, Lord Faulks—but I would remind him of my constant demand that we should take seriously the words of the Green vice-Chancellor of Germany, who made it absolutely clear that behaviour which meant that ambulances could not get to hospitals and suchlike was unacceptable as well as counterproductive. I do not think anybody would suggest that I have ever been a supporter of that kind of thing, and I do not think the noble Lord would have said that.

However, the Government have to face two very important questions. The first is on the point referring to the march of a million people, which of its nature is bound to discommode large numbers of other people. But as somebody who voted against a three-line Whip and against the Iraq war, it seems to me that unless you can accept that something so appallingly wrong can result in large numbers of people saying, “Not in my name”, you really cannot run a democracy. That is absolutely essential, so I need to know from the Government how they would explain that their particular way of looking at this would not have made illegal a march against the Iraq war. If that is not covered, then it seems that any of us who happen to believe in some fundamental issues will find it very difficult to support the Government.

The second thing the Government have to explain is how they see the position in which this puts the police. I have to say this carefully, but the truth is that the police’s reputation is practically at its lowest ever. We have to ask whether this is the right moment, in any way, to put them in the small “p” political position of making these kinds of decisions. That is why I voted against that ludicrous thing we introduced, which was that you could be prevented from making a noise. The concept was that, somehow or other, the police were going to say that if your protest was too noisy, they could stop it before it was started. I have never been on a protest that was not noisy and meant to be so; its noisiness was essential. But we passed that provision, which was and is nonsense. It will never be imposed but the Government argued for it, so they are in a slight difficulty here. The argument I used against that was not only that it was barmy, which was obvious, but that it would put the police in an embarrassing position at a time when the police are themselves—

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

Will my noble friend give way?

[Lord Deben (Con)]

If I can just finish that sentence—when the police are themselves in a difficult position. I give way to my long-lasting jouster.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

Does my noble friend not agree that the insertion of the words in this amendment would place upon the police the initial duty of deciding what is or is not a reasonable excuse?

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I do not disagree, since that is what it says. I am merely saying that I want the Government to be clear about what they are doing by involving the police at what may not be the most sensible time.

The last thing I want to say to the Government is this. There are many serious issues which, in a democracy, we have to ask the Government and the Opposition to deal with. Some of those serious issues are not being satisfactorily dealt with and, in a democracy, there comes a moment when a Government have to say to themselves, “We are so unable to deal with this that we will have to accept that there will be a significant increase in the public demonstration against where we are”.

Western Jet Foil and Manston Asylum Processing Centres

Lord Howard of Lympne Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

My Lords, I too welcome my noble friend to his responsibilities. Does he recognise the inconvenient truth that it is almost impossible—perhaps entirely so—to deal with this issue without agreement with France going far beyond the level of co-operation to which he referred? Will he draw the attention of his ministerial colleagues to the agreement reached with France in 1995, under which it agreed to take back those who illegally entered the United Kingdom from France—they enter illegally, even if they subsequently claim asylum—and which it honoured?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for reminding me and my department of that very valuable agreement. Certainly, the best solution to this problem would be an agreement with France under which it accepted the return of everyone who crosses the channel. There could be no stronger deterrent to crossing it. I will of course encourage officials to look at the agreement made in 1995 and see what steps can be taken to revive it.