Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Green of Deddington Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I am grateful for that explanation. As I explained to the Committee, I could not be here on the first day but I have read through the debate and I am afraid I did not agree with that then either. I just do not buy that that is what this does. The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody is guilty of the offence. In the legislation as drafted by the Government, somebody can offer a defence and all they have to do for that defence to be successful is create a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury. That does not reverse the burden of proof at all.

To pick up on the point in the amendment about changing “knows or suspects” to “intends that, or is reckless”, if you know or suspect something untoward is going to take place, that is a reasonably decent idea that someone should not really be doing it. If I know or suspect someone is going to commit crime, it is probably not very wise if I provide them with equipment that would enable them to commit that crime. I do not really see why I would want that test to be much higher. Let us remember that we are not trying to criminalise people who are thinking about doing this; we are trying to say to them, “If you do this, you will be committing a criminal offence and we’d like you not to do it”. That is the purpose of this. Ministers would be delighted if they did not have to prosecute anybody—certainly none of the people contemplating crossing the channel. They want to put in place a deterrent regime that stops them doing it. That is the objective of the legislation. Weakening it would just remove that deterrent effect and we would get back to the position in which we do not have control of our borders, significant numbers of people cross the channel and undertake unsafe journeys, and the British people have no confidence in our immigration and asylum system, which would damage it for the legitimate refugees for whom we want to provide proper protection. We can only do that if there is a system that commands public confidence.

If I have understood what the Government intend to do, I respectfully suggest that the Committee should not support the amendments tabled by noble Lord and noble Baroness. We should stick with the wording in the Bill.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, I can be very concise, mainly because I agree almost entirely with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Harper, said. We should not lose sight of the fact that this whole issue is a real concern to the public. They think we are being made fools of and they are largely right. It is time that the law was tightened up and the authorities got a grip on the situation. I support the Government’s drafting and I hope it will be widely supported.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I oppose these amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was gracious in absolving me of my stupidity in jumping ahead. I misread the amendments last week, but we are now in group 2, so we can discuss mens rea.

It is quite in order for noble Lords in this House to test the efficacy and appropriateness of new offences; there is nothing wrong with that. I have read in detail the report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and I have even read the ILPA briefing on the Bill—which takes some doing if you come from my perspective. I concur with the pithy remarks of my noble friend Lord Harper—who has great experience as a former Immigration Minister—that one does not always take Liberty’s briefings as the true gospel.

However, the reason I oppose these amendments is that I am not convinced by the argument prayed in aid by noble Lords, even in the JCHR report. I thought the comparison on page 10 was a specious comparison of precursor offences when they were compared with terrorism offences. I did not think that was an appropriate offence to compare it with, frankly. It is quite right to test the limits of the mens rea doctrine in respect of intention, recklessness and the reverse evidential burden of proof contained within the reasonable excuse provisions. But one has to look at the real-world consequences of what would happen if we accepted these sweeping amendments in terms of the interpretation by the judiciary and others of an amended Bill with this wording in it. I used the words “well-meaning” and it is absolutely not ignoble to put forward these amendments. However, there is a degree of otherworldly naivety about the damaging implications of the Bill being amended in this way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I am always more than happy to have a conversation with my friend the noble Lord. However, as the Minister himself said not that long ago, the Bill in its entirety is compliant with the current legislation in respect of the Human Rights Act and the European Court of Human Rights. It would be otiose, and at the same time restrictive, to put this stand-alone amendment in the Bill. It would encourage what I have previously described as judicial activism, which we have seen in the immigration tribunal and has been featured in the Daily Telegraph quite regularly. I do not think that is helpful; it would undermine the faith and trust that people have in the criminal justice system. For that reason, I do not think the Bill should be amended in the way that the noble Lord proposes, but I am always happy to be persuaded by him.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

Noble Lords will be aware that I have been concerned with immigration matters for about 25 years. I have not paid much attention to asylum because the numbers were much smaller, but they are now significantly greater. I repeat my warning that we really need to have our feet on the ground if we are going to deal with the scale of what is now in front of us. The public need to know that their concerns are understood and are being acted on. That is not yet the case and it needs to be done.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps it is possible to bring both sides together on this issue. I have a long history of being attacked for my views on this. I was the Member for Lewisham West when we brought in the east African Asians, and I remember the appalling attacks that one had for supporting Ted Heath and the Conservative Government at the time. I want to underline the long history of Conservatives being supportive of proper attitudes towards human rights and asylum. But it does not help us in this discussion if we miss out two different things.

The first is that we need to support international agreements, because this is not going to get any easier. I will not bore the Committee on the question of climate change, but if anybody thinks we have real problems of immigration now, the kind of weather changes we are going to have will mean that there will be a lot more people moving not for economic reasons but because they can no longer live where they are born. We have to realise how serious the issue of immigration right across the board is going to be. One has to take this very seriously, but that means we should be very careful about protecting the rights of asylum seekers. We did not just do this because of the Holocaust, although that was the proximate pressure. There are people who are treated in a way that makes life in their countries absolutely impossible, and they cannot leave by some accepted rule or open system. They have to hide and escape, and we need to take them very seriously.

The other thing we have to remember is that there is widespread concern about the number of immigrants who have come into this country and who are likely to do so. This Committee must not ignore that fact. But if we are to accept both those things, we have to be very careful that the legislation we pass is truly consonant with the international agreements we have. We also have to be extremely careful that we do not say, every time there is an amendment, that somehow there is something unsuitable behind it.

These amendments are technical. I do not agree with them all, but the Committee has to accept that they are important. To dismiss them as if they were merely the product of people who always oppose any kind of restraint on immigration seems unfair and unworthy. I also happen to think that many of us opposed the Rwanda proposal because it was a load of old rubbish—because it was not going to work. That is why we opposed it, not because we did not understand the importance of the issue but because it was not the right answer. Frankly, to suggest that because we did not agree with the Rwanda concept we are somehow wet on this subject seems untrue and very unfair.

We in this House are surely in the business of discussing these matters in detail and carefully. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Alton, have rightly brought to our notice some important issues that we have to get right. They may not be the right amendments, but we have to discuss them without automatically believing what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who has a long history of defending those who are not otherwise defended, has brought to our notice. I am pleased that we have been discussing it. I think we will find that he withdraws or does not move the amendments and thinks again about which ones he wishes to press.

I hope we will treat this with the seriousness it deserves, which means, first, recognising the national concern about numbers and, secondly, trying to make a proper distinction that protects people who flee from terrible regimes. I would like everybody in this Committee to think once again how blessed we are that we are not in that position. If we are blessed in that way, we should think carefully about those who are not.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Green of Deddington Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, I will be brief. These matters are not new; indeed, it is now 24 years since I co-founded Migration Watch, together with Professor David Coleman of Oxford University.

I listened with great interest to the Minister’s clear summary of the Government’s proposals. Sadly, I have to say to him that they will not work. They will not bring the scale of net migration down to a level that is acceptable to the public. Indeed, the Bill barely scratches the surface of the massive problems that our country now faces as a result of the enormous increase in immigration over recent years. We now know that net migration was approaching 1,000,000 in 2023 and was about 400,000 in 2024. These massive numbers are completely without precedent in our history and will have very serious consequences for public services such as health and education, as well as for demand for housing, as the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, pointed out earlier.

More importantly, these numbers point to the prospect that, in the foreseeable future, the white British will become a minority in their own country. It is already the case that all of our population increase is a result of immigration. Meanwhile, births to the present white majority have been very low for some years. They could increase, of course, but there is currently no sign of that. Birth rates among immigrant communities vary but are usually higher—sometimes much higher—than those of the white British.

That said, the major factor by far is now net migration. Even if it is held at the current figure of 430,000 a year, we can expect the white British majority to become a minority in the UK about 30 years from now. Of course, that number—30—is crucial. It depends on what other numbers you use in your calculation, but this is, in essence, a likely outcome if no serious measures are taken.

The Prime Minister recently had the courage to put his toe into this delicate water when he spoke of the risk of our becoming “an island of strangers”. He was right, and the public feel in their bones that he was right. We now need serious consideration of the policies required to put the brakes on this process. These include having the political courage to set a clear target for net migration, backed up by specific measures; I regret to conclude that the Bill before us today will achieve virtually nothing of the kind now needed.

Immigration System

Lord Green of Deddington Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As I have said—I hope I can say this again for the benefit of the House—students contribute to the cultural, economic and soft power of the United Kingdom. We have welcomed students and we will continue to welcome students. But we also have to look at the impact of students on the migration system. At the moment, many students stay in the United Kingdom beyond graduation. What we are trying to do in the White Paper is reduce the time they can automatically stay on and put in place a number of caveats so people will then have to go through the normal migration system and being a student is not seen as a back-door way of coming to the United Kingdom in the longer term. That is a reasonable proposal, which does not stop our soft power or investment in universities but looks at what students do in the long term.

I take the point that my noble friend made about language, which is important. It is really important that we focus on what the Government are trying to do. The five key principles that I have set out are the direction of travel. We want to see better integration. I am pleased that my noble friend mentioned that language is important to that, but integration is also, to go back to the point made by the right reverend Prelate, about churches and other faiths talking to each other. It is about neighbourhoods being mixed neighbourhoods, and about understanding and respecting differences in our culture. At the same time—and this is where the Government are coming from—it is about trying to put a framework around all that to ensure that there is some level of management and control over how immigration is used and how our skills base is raised. I hope that that reassures my noble friend. I shall look at all the points that he has mentioned and continue to have a dialogue with him, because I know that it is a matter of some importance to him.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

I should like to declare an interest as president of Migration Watch UK. Indeed, I have spent 24 years on this subject, but I promise to be extremely brief today.

Much of what the Minister said has addressed the issues that we now face. What this discussion has not faced is the sheer scale of the problems that have emerged in recent years. We had net migration of nearly 1 million in one year, and 700,000 in the subsequent year. These are immense changes, and I welcome the remarks that the Prime Minister made that show some understanding of public opinion on this, which is now becoming very strong.

I make just one point to the Minister, which is that he is going to need a target. I understand very much the breadth of what he has covered and his reluctance to set a target, because it makes life very difficult in future years, but if he wants to persuade the public that he is serious about this, he had better have a target and get very close to it.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government have made a judgment, and in the White Paper we are trying to make a judgment about a number of issues. There is legal migration and the issues of who comes, how they come and under what circumstances. We are trying to put a framework around that, which also tries to raise the level of skills of English and British-based citizens who are currently economically inactive to try to meet some of our skills shortage. We are trying to put a target around the impact of universities, both on soft power issues and on longer-term investment in skills and what people do in graduate-level jobs afterwards.

We are trying to look at a range of issues around integration and community coherence, which I think resonates with what the noble Lord has said. But I do not think that setting a target would be a good thing. For us, it is the wrong issue; we are trying to ensure that we put a framework in place to manage those pressures, and to look at what the UK economy needs, at how we build those skills and at how we build integration. Outside of that legal migration route, there is the real challenge, which I know the noble Lord is also concerned about, of illegal migration. A whole range of measures will come before this House very shortly, on 2 June, in the immigration and borders Bill around what we need to do to stop illegal migration and put it to one side.

There are immense challenges, but I hope that noble Lords and noble Baronesses can not only look at the White Paper and be critical of it in parts but look at it in terms of how we are trying to develop a framework and contribute positively to it, rather than look at what is not in it.

Asylum Seekers: Hotels

Lord Green of Deddington Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, I declare a non-financial interest as president of Migration Watch, but I shall speak personally today. This is a very difficult subject. Many good-hearted people have been working on these issues for years. Sadly, the situation has got steadily worse, and I suggest that it is now time for an entirely new approach, changing the legal system as necessary.

I will make four brief points. First, asylum is serious, but it is far from being the main issue. Legal net migration in the year to June 2024, at nearly 1 million, was more than 30 times the number who crossed the channel illegally in that year. It is high time that this massive legal inflow was tackled with the seriousness it deserves. At present, it seems that the Government are focusing on asylum to distract attention from the huge scale of legal migration that they have inherited.

Secondly, as regards asylum, it is absurd that we should accept, effectively without penalty, applications from asylum seekers who have destroyed their documents. As a result, claimants have a clear incentive to move on to the UK from the safe countries that they have already reached.

Thirdly, those who arrive without documents should no longer be accommodated in hotels, free to come and go and with some £40 a week to spend. Instead, they should be held in secure campsites until their cases have been decided. Any who left this temporary accommodation without permission should have their asylum claims automatically dismissed. The word would quickly spread, the numbers and costs would fall, taxpayers’ money would be spent on genuine cases and the numbers drowning in the channel would fall sharply.

This would be a radical change and would take time, but we simply cannot go on as we are—still less can we take the approach that the Government are now taking. I refer to the terms of the Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill, which is currently going through this House. As noble Lords will know, the current position allows entry to the UK only for parents, partners and children under 18. They have averaged about 6,500 a year over the past 10 years. The Bill proposes that family members of a person granted protected status should include parents, spouses, unmarried partners, children, adopted children and others dependent on the above. It even goes on to include

“such other persons as the Secretary of State may determine, having regard to … the importance of maintaining family unity”,

including

“the physical, emotional, psychological or financial dependency between a person granted protection status and another person”.

This is crazy. It is the exact opposite of what the present situation requires. The likely scale of the resultant inflow would have a very serious impact on community relations in this country. The public have had enough of being ignored by Governments on these matters. This Government would be well advised to amend their draft legislation and to do so soon.

Illegal Migrants

Lord Green of Deddington Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hate to disappoint the noble Lord, but no, I do not think it was a tad rash. The Rwanda scheme cost £700 million, four people went to Rwanda as a result of it—voluntarily—and boat arrivals increased in the period between January and July this year, when the Rwanda scheme was operating. The noble Lord is wrong. It is smoke and mirrors to think that Rwanda was helpful to this situation: it was not. In his job in the Home Office, he should have secured action on criminal gangs, but his Government failed to do so.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the amount of legal net migration is 10 or more times that of illegal migration? When will the present Government take action to deal with the legacy of the previous Government?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern said, legal migration is people who come to university, who come to create jobs and who bring skills to this country. We need that managed migration, and to ensure that illegal migration is cracked down on. That is the objective of the Government: to ensure that we have a sensible net migration target that we can control, at the same time as making sure that illegal migration and the criminal gangs that exploit people are tackled. This will be a difficult process—nobody said it is easy—but border control and border command have focused us on doing that. We will take action to ensure that we use migration for the benefit of the UK economy.

King’s Speech

Lord Green of Deddington Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly about one issue that has not been covered in our debate so far—or, as far as I know, in this House for many years. I put it to your Lordships that our country now faces its most serious challenge for nearly a century, yet nobody seems to be willing to discuss it. I refer to the sheer scale of current immigration and its implications for the future scale and nature of our society.

Over the past 20 years, the UK population has grown by 8 million. That is roughly eight times the population of Birmingham. Some 85% of that growth has been due to the arrival of migrants and their subsequent children. As a result, the ethnic proportion of our population is now already 21%. Recent Conservative manifestos for 2010, 2015 and 2017 all promised to get net migration down to tens of thousands. In 2019, the manifesto promised that

“overall numbers will come down”.

What actually happened? Despite all those commitments, we now face by far the highest levels of net migration in modern history. The total for the last two calendar years taken together was nearly 1.5 million. That outcome is no accident. It results from specific decisions by the previous Government to cave in to pressure groups such as universities and the care sector. That is the result, and it has not yet been tackled.

The response of the new Labour Government has so far been non-committal. There are no serious measures to reduce net migration and no targets have been set. Instead, Labour has focused on asylum, which accounts for less than one 1/10th of the overall net inflow. Even if Labour was able to achieve a reduction in net migration, let us say to 350,000 a year—about a third of the present level—the population of the UK would increase by 9 million by the mid-2040s. That is roughly the population of London. The impact on housing and public services will be immense.

The social aspects are no less important. Unless the new Government get a firm grip on immigration, it is likely that children born today to an indigenous British couple will find themselves in a minority in our country by the time they reach their late 40s. Yes: a minority in their own country.

Change on such a scale, and against the oft-repeated wishes of the current majority, carries very serious risks for the future stability and cohesion of our society. It is now time for some courageous leadership from our new Government, including a clear commitment to get net migration down as close as possible to 100,000 a year. That is a goal which, as we know from surveys, 80% of the public would favour, including, as the Government must know, many of their own supporters. Action on this barely even addressed matter is essential if really serious difficulties are to be avoided in the future.