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.