The UK’s Demographic Future

Thursday 11th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

13:48

Moved by

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

That this House takes note of the Common Good Foundation and Centre for Policy Studies report Don’t stop thinking about tomorrow, published in July 2025, and of the implications of projected population growth for the UK’s demographic future.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)]

In introducing this debate, I give all best wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, for his valedictory speech.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con) (Valedictory Speech)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her good wishes; I hope she will still feel the same at the end of my speech.

The issue of population change and its consequences has long been an interest of mine, because I believe that successive Governments have failed to give the topic sufficient strategic analysis and attention. In a country where we appear to want to plan for almost everything, we conspicuously fail to plan for one of the essential building blocks of our society: the number of people living in this country.

Over the past 10 years, I have published three reports trying to analyse this issue in as transparent and evidence-based a way as I could manage. The report before your Lordships’ House today is the third of them and provides an appropriate bookend to my time here. I put on record my sincere thanks to the Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms—the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy—and my own Chief Whip, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, for enabling the scheduling of this debate.

I have not so far had the pleasure of debating with the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson. I hope she will forgive me for saying that as this is a valedictory debate, I hope that when she comes to reply she will not confine herself to a speaking note that might just say, “We inherited a broken system from the party opposite; give us three years and we will have fixed it”. I hope that she will instead spend some time genuinely considering the issues and concerns that I and others will raise.

We all know that this issue is not susceptible to piecemeal, short-term solutions, which are often produced to meet a particular crisis. By contrast, it requires careful strategic analysis conducted in a transparent, evidence-based way, which should lead to discussions in Parliament. This, in turn, will reassure the many concerned members of our population. In short, we need to create space for what can best be described as the wisdom of the crowd to make itself felt, and so marginalise the unrealistic and often unpleasant views at either end of the spectrum.

The impacts of demographic change are very long term. In the world of demography, yesterday is 2000 and so we are today living with the consequences of the decisions made by the Blair Government in the early 2000s. Similarly, tomorrow will be 2045, when our successors will have to assess the results of what was called the Boris wave, when they have become fully apparent. That is why my report is called Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow.

Since this is a topic where every word counts, let me define two of them. First, the “settled population” means people who have a legal right to be in the UK and expect to spend all, or substantially all, of the rest of their lives here. It is not, as some will immediately allege, another word for “white”, since close to 20% of the UK’s population is now made up of minority communities, many of whom are not white. But whatever their colour, this is a group that polling shows has a high level of concern that their interests and the interests of their children are being overlooked and too often sacrificed to short-term political expediency.

Secondly, the word “immigrant” has become a loaded term, as in, “I’m an immigrant and I’m proud”, as opposed to, “Those immigrants down the road”—not so proud. So I prefer to use the phrase “new arrivals”. Of course, I understand and appreciate the moral imperative that drives those new arrivals, many of whom have been here a long time and have benefited from a life in the UK, to be concerned about our trying to close the door on those seeking to follow them. While I recognise that moral imperative, it is unarguable that numbers and scale matter. However sensitive and painful it is, the key point of numbers has to be recognised and taken into account in our discussions.

That takes us to the heart of the demographic challenge we face. As a result of a series of events from which none of the major political parties can escape responsibility—some being deliberate policy decisions and others being forced on us by outside events, such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine—over the 30 years since 1995 the population of this country has risen from 58 million to 69.5 million, an increase of 20% or about 11.5 million people. What do 11.5 million people look like? The population of Greater Manchester is 2.8 million, so we have added over four Manchesters in that time.

Drilling into the issue of housing, since we live 2.4 people per dwelling, we have to have built 4.8 million homes to house these new arrivals before we tackle any of the shortages of housing for our settled population. If noble Lords want a snapshot of how the country is changing, 31% of all children born in this country last year were born to mothers who were not born here; 25 years ago, that figure was 10% or 11%.

Where do we go from here, and what does the future look like? The ONS suggests that, between now and 2036, we will have a 10% increase in our population—that is, 6.6 million people. The growth is then expected to slow over the period to 2045. But by 2045, we will have 76 to 77 million people, and we will have overtaken Germany as the most populous country in Europe.

Where will these people have come from? Of course, there is the natural increase—the excess of births over deaths. Leaving that aside, because of the level of press publicity, the man in the street will likely point to refugees and asylum seekers. In this, he would be wrong, because, historically, the main components have come from two sources we have always controlled. First, UK higher education has built a business model based on recruiting an increasing number of foreign students, of whom 30% to 40% morph into our workforce at the end of their studies. Secondly, British industry uses overseas recruitment—the Migration Advisory Committee described it as the “default option”—and has ruthlessly exploited the shortage occupation list, which enables you to recruit from overseas with lower wages. As I speak, there are 61 categories on that shortage occupation list. Many will be familiar, but not all—how many Members of your Lordships’ House realise that we have a shortage of dancers and choreographers?

It is worth noting also that our demographic challenge is made more acute by the fact of our being a relatively small island. For example, France has 120 people per square kilometre. The UK has 279, which is more than double. England has 438, so it is nearly four times as densely populated as France.

For my third report, I concluded that, to increase credibility, I should not write alone. I was lucky to get support from the Common Good Foundation and the Centre for Policy Studies, respectively, a centre-left and a centre-right think tank, to support me. I asked a number of experts in the world of demography to discuss the demographic challenge as seen through their eyes. It is, of course, impossible to summarise nine detailed chapters in this debate. But the overall conclusion of them all was that, as a country, we have not been taking a sufficiently coherent strategic approach to this particular problem.

Further, since this demographic challenge is one faced by all countries, I made contact with three countries overseas: the Netherlands; Japan, which is facing the opposite problem of a rapidly declining population; and Denmark, which has now become the poster boy for immigration policy.

Many interesting ideas emerged. Denmark, perhaps slightly sadly, enforces very strict conditions on new arrivals and moves them on if they are not complied with. Rather depressingly, when I asked the Danish, where those people go to, they said that they nearly all go to the UK, because the word on the street is that, once you get to the UK, no one will check anything and you are free to do what you like.

I believed that there was interest among the public, so I asked YouGov to do some polling. The results were that 70% thought that the Government have no plan to manage population growth, and 56% support the idea of creating some official body. An important message for the three parties in your Lordships’ House is that only 10% thought that the Labour Party had the best answers, only 8% thought that the Conservative Party had the best answers and only 5% thought that the Liberal Democrats had the best answers. By contrast, 22% supported Reform.

So, what can be done? We have to have the courage to recognise that the irrevocable nature of demographic change means that departmentally based solutions will never provide a coherent response. We have to cut through what I call the “firewalls”, which suggest that the issues raised by demographic change are not appropriate subjects for discussion. We have to call out cases where any proper discussion is closed down as a result of what Dame Sara Khan called in her government-commissioned review on social cohesion, “freedom-restricting harassment”. Thus, as an example, while it is perfectly acceptable to discuss policies to help achieve net zero, it is not acceptable to suggest that adding 6 million people to this country might impede achieving that objective.

There is a strong argument for creating a new strategic body to be called the office for demographic change, or perhaps the office for population sustainability, which would subsume within it the existing Migration Advisory Committee. It would be tasked with learning from the past to collect evidence about and analyse the consequences of past policies, looking to the future impacts of likely population changes—economic, environmental, ecological and societal—and, finally, undertaking research into demographic developments and learn from best practice around the world. It would not, however, be a policy-making body. This new authority would be a stand-alone body but would report to the Cabinet Office. It would report, at least annually, to Parliament.

The new body would help create conditions for a broader, better and more balanced discussion about demography. For example, is there a maximum level of annual population increase we can absorb without prejudicing the position of our settled population? What can be done to improve the data sources, which are clearly inadequate? Is there an argument for seeking to increase the birth rate among our existing population? And so on.

To conclude, Governments may choose to continue to muddle along, but recent events have shown a rising public temperature, and these pressures seem set to increase. It is not just individual events such as those at Crowborough or Epping but about the public mood. So the issue seems set to become a major driver of political change. Writing in the Times on 15 September, Trevor Phillips’ article was headlined, “Dismiss Unite the Kingdom march at your peril”, and was subtitled:

“Calling this movement the product of extremist rabble-rousers will no longer do. Mainstream politicians must wake up”.


Successive Governments have tried ignoring the problem, insinuating that those who are concerned about it are closet racists, suggesting that nothing can be done about it, and that if only everyone would stop talking about it the problem would go away, or, finally, making aspirational statements with no measurable follow-through.

The mainstream parties here in your Lordships’ House now need to step up with a comprehensive, measurable response to public concerns. My report suggests one such approach. But if we fail to respond, events will likely become increasingly ugly as wilder spirits make the running. I can think of no more pressing internal threat to the long-term prosperity and harmony of the society of this country than our future population levels. So I am proud and pleased to be able to hold my valedictory debate on this topic, and I beg to move.

14:01

[Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)]

My Lords, it is an honour and a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbott, opening this debate, and I add my admiration for his work over the years. Although in those years when I was a party-political politician we were “on the other side” in many ways, I was a West Midlands politician, so I would have come across a great many of the people who have played a role in his political life.

I am particularly glad that we are having this debate, because it is on a subject which is so important but which, for reasons I do not entirely understand, we are extremely reluctant to debate. The noble Lord started by hinting at some of the problems we appear to be having. I sometimes wonder whether it goes back to the 1970s, when you had countries such as China and India trying to address this, either with a one-child policy or in India a particularly aggressive population control policy; perhaps that started our shying away from this as a subject which we should not address. However, we would be wrong to do so, and for a number of reasons.

The aspect I want to focus on, which is in the report, is national security. In the report Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow, the chapter by Professor Michael Clarke is headed, “‘Ask not what your country can do for you’—The implications for national security of demographic change”. Very accurately and importantly, he focuses on what is national cohesion. He takes us through the various arguments but essentially says:

“The UK’s demographic development and the way it interprets its own deep and erstwhile pluralism can be either a strength or a weakness in these circumstances – on the one hand, a source of deeper resilience; on the other, a series of fault-lines capable of exploitation by the country’s adversaries”.


It is this danger that could be a strength; we must not allow it to become a weakness by not addressing some of the issues and having some open discussions. Professor Clarke essentially concludes that, as long as we do not face these,

“internal and external security challenges … our demographic evolution will be addressed largely through strategies merely of hope, rather than anything more precise, or new approaches based on better knowledge and understanding of the phenomenon”.

So I think he identifies the things which we need to look at if resilience, national defence and national security play into the debate about demography.

In a sense, the Government have acknowledged that that is an issue. If we go back to the strategic defence review from 2025, we see that it includes “home defence and resilience” and explicitly calls for a “whole-of-society approach”. In that whole-of-society approach, it calls on the Government to “Build national resilience” and “Increase national warfighting readiness”. It makes it clear that:

“The Government must promote unity of effort across society, leading a national conversation to raise public awareness of the threats to the UK, how Defence deters and protects against them, and why Defence requires support to strengthen the nation’s resilience”.


It states what ought to be obvious but is often forgotten:

“The connection between the UK Armed Forces and wider society is the longstanding and necessary foundation for the defence of the country”.


All that requires cohesion of society and for that to happen requires certain other elements. This may be the moment to declare that I am an honorary captain in the Royal Navy’s reserve force. On top of that, I am what would be called an immigrant; I came here in the early 1970s.

I would challenge the report when it says that we must not stop thinking about tomorrow, as we probably have not even started to think about tomorrow. If I were to open today’s newspapers or listen to the news, it would ask, “Will residential doctors strike again or is the offer to provide extra places for early-career doctors sufficient?” As the noble Lord reminded us, in demographic terms, 2000 is yesterday. I am now talking about something called yesterday, because it was 25 years ago when we published the Black Country strategy. It identified the needs of the region in terms of doctors. It made connections between doctors’ and nurses’ propensity to remain in the region in which they had trained. It therefore said that, because the region required those extra doctors, who require three, seven or 15 years to be fully trained, Birmingham University required 100 extra places. There was logic in that approach: it took the regional needs and its demography to decide what should happen, so it is not that we do not know how to do it but that, somehow, curiously, we seem to keep forgetting and pull back from the decisions that we have made, which at one stage were long term. When the places at Birmingham University medical school were cut, I literally could not find out who had made that decision. We are seeing the consequences of that in 2025.

We are talking about an ageing population, pension contributions, inheritance tax and, as the noble Lord said, higher education. The system has ended up creating an extraordinary dependency on international students for the funding of our higher education students without having thought through the consequences.

I will not go on with those examples, but I am always taken back to 2008, when Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth went to the London Stock Exchange in the wake of the financial crisis. In essence, she said to them, “Why did nobody notice this? Why did nobody see this coming?” Their answer, roughly speaking, was that at every stage someone was relying on somebody else and everybody thought that they were doing the right thing individually. What they did not do was see either how these individual decisions were hanging together or the consequences of a very complex system.

I fear that with a lot of these debates. I raised this problem with a Minister recently, who looked at me rather surprised and said, “Gisela, the facts are known”. I felt like saying, “Yes, I know the facts are known, but what are we doing with them?” A lot of the facts in this report are known, but we need to pull them together so that they become a meaningful basis for future decision-making.

The noble Lord mentioned an office for demographic change. I can see the logic of that but would like to add an extra dimension because this is a report by the Common Good Foundation and it would therefore be wrong of me not to mention that in all this is a need for identity, community and belonging. These things are too easily overlooked; whether cohesion or resilience, it is a feeling of belonging to a community and having a sense of identity. That is why the national debate should also have a very local dimension.

I would not hasten to ever try to go back to Victorian values, but there is one Victorian value that I would like to recommend to the House: the civic audacity of Joe Chamberlain in Birmingham. It was a kind of confidence in place, where cities would compete with one another to be better. Their competition was not based on having to fight for a central pot of money which was coming out of Whitehall, because that does not lead to good decision-making. Similarly, on the debate on demography, we need national figures, but we also need some very granular regional figures and data which take account of the needs of those communities. I think they will be best met by those local communities themselves; they have to take ownership of those.

This whole-of-society approach, together with a bit of civic audacity, will allow us to have a national view but regional implementation, or we will not be able to face the problems coming our way, whether those are islands and pockets of ageing populations or, in other areas, a shortage of schools or medical facilities. We can see them coming, and we can plan, but only if we are willing to face up to it, have the data and implement it in a much more granular way than we do at the moment. If we do not start to think about the future, it is going to happen whether we like it or not, and we cannot go on just being surprised by things.

14:11

[The Lord Bishop of Leicester]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for his work in bringing together this report and giving us the opportunity to debate it. I add my thanks to him for his fascinating speech today and his wider contribution to this House, and I wish him well for the future.

The authors of this report raise various thorny policy problems, each of which demands careful negotiation so as to manage conflicting trade-offs. It would be easy to brush them aside in favour of more electorally popular concerns or to oversimplify them to stoke division. I want to put on record first my support for an open debate on questions such as, “What is a reasonable level of population growth?” It may be an uncomfortable question, but what are we here for if not to model healthy, mature debates on uncomfortable questions?

I want to focus my remarks on the chapter on social cohesion by Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali. While I would differ from Dr Nazir-Ali on a few of his points, I welcome his overall thrust: calling for more attention to be paid to the fabric of our society and how it is affected by the demographic shifts noted in the report.

Perhaps, though, it is not attention that is wanting. We are not short of policy papers, polling results or comment pieces telling us that we are a divided, lonely and polarised nation—ironically, that seems to be the one view that we are all agreed on. Rather, what is needed beyond simply attention is action and leadership. The former Faith Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Khan, is among those calling for a clear social cohesion strategy, and I add my voice to that. Indeed, my first question to the Minister is this: can she assure us that the Government are working on such a social cohesion strategy and doing so as a matter of urgency?

I use the phrase social cohesion, rather than integration, deliberately, because what is needed is something more than support for newcomers to the UK to settle well here. Here, my emphasis is slightly different from that of Dr Michael Nazir-Ali. If it were only immigration that affected the strength of our communities, we would find higher levels of loneliness, lower levels of civic participation and of social action, and a reduced sense of belonging in areas with higher immigration. But that is not what the data shows: once researchers control for poverty and neighbourhood deprivation, any negative correlation between diversity and social cohesion disappears.

Yes, the Government should pay attention to how new migrants can be supported to become active participants in our communities—I would give one example as restoring the funding for ESOL programmes to its previous level; it is almost impossible for somebody to navigate British society, let alone appreciate our history and values, if they cannot understand English.

However, that by itself will not heal our fractures. We need to wrestle honestly with the toll taken by poverty, deindustrialisation, decades of increasing individualism, institutional distrust and inequality. We must take seriously the fact that the media and social media do best, commercially speaking, when they drive us further apart; and we know that there are global actors who use social media, and who have no shortage of funding, to sow discord and fear.

In one of the letters of the Bible, St Paul describes the Church as a body with many members, all different and each indispensable. That is the image which, I believe, should ground a social cohesion strategy. How can we all be supported and encouraged to use our gifts to serve the common good and feel a sense of belonging, even of obligation, to one another?

Our debate today will naturally focus on what the Government should do. When it comes to social cohesion, Governments certainly have an important role. They can and should invest in community infrastructure, enforce laws against discrimination and create the conditions in which trust can grow; but for that to be sustainable and fruitful, everyone has to feel a sense of responsibility for our common life. I would like to see every institution—from schools to universities, businesses, public services, sports, arts and cultural organisations—recognising that bringing people together across difference is part of their social responsibility. Does the Minister agree with such a whole-society approach, and can she share how the Government plan to achieve it?

14:16

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I deeply regret being here today and participating in this debate. I regret it because it involves the valedictory speech of a great parliamentarian who should not be stepping down, as a mere boy of 83 in House of Lords terms. Just look at him. He is still as sharp as a tack and gives top-class service to this house. Indeed, he is an Aston Martin V8 firing on all cylinders, if one is allowed to boast about petrol cars these days. Okay then, in electric terms he is a Duracell Bunny that just keeps going and going and going—that is something the family will tease him about over Christmas, I am certain.

My noble friend Lord Hodgson has been highly active in business for the past 50 years, and he still is. He was a director of the Securities and Futures Authority for 10 years. After coming to this place, he served on various committees before David Cameron asked him to perform a wholesale review of the Charity Act 2006 and the Charity Act 2011. He published his report in 2012. In 2021, he co-authored an essay entitled Population Growth, Immigration and “the Levelling Up” Agenda with my noble friend Lord Horam. However, for me, it was in the period 2019 to 2023 that he made his greatest contribution to this House, and indeed to Parliament, when he chaired the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I had the privilege and opportunity to work with him as chair of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.

I say to my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger that my noble friend will be an absolute nightmare at home because he will not stop working. There will be no slippers and pipe for him. I expect to read in a couple of years’ time yet another authoritative report by my noble friend Lord Hodgson. I mentioned his work as chair of the SLSC. He authored an outstanding report, Government by Diktat: A Call to Return Power to Parliament. It received widespread acclaim and is even more relevant today as we see more and more ill-thought-out secondary legislation bypassing proper parliamentary scrutiny. I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of the Common Good Foundation’s report Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow and to pay tribute to my noble friend for bringing this vital analysis to our attention.

The report rightly insists that we must think beyond the next election and plan for the demographic, economic and infrastructural realities that will shape our country for decades to come. My noble friend’s work sets out a clear, evidence-based case: population growth, driven in part by migration, creates sustained pressures on housing, water, transport and public services, and there is public concern about the pace of change. That concern is real and politically consequential, and we ignore it at our peril, as other noble Lords have pointed out. Without long-term planning and honest public engagement, we risk undermining social cohesion and democratic trust. These are not abstract academic points; they are practical governance challenges that demand cross-government thinking and durable policy responses.

However, I suggest that there is an additional, closely related concern, which my noble friend has raised elsewhere, that should be folded into our thinking about tomorrow. Here I want to amalgamate the theme of his report Government by Diktat, in which he warned that the increasing use of secondary legislation, regulations and orders, subject to far lower parliamentary scrutiny than primary Acts, has the effect of imposing hundreds of laws with minimal effective oversight. As he put it, government by diktat must not become the norm.

That warning matters for the demographic debate we are having today, for two reasons. First, many of the levers that shape population concerns—immigration settings, planning rules, environmental pyramids, infrastructure, and approvals—are exercised through secondary legislation, guidance and administrative practice. If those levers are adjusted without robust parliamentary scrutiny, we risk making long-term structural choices by stealth rather than by democratic consideration. Secondly, when major social changes are managed through low-scrutiny routes, public confidence in institutions can erode, feeding the very polarisation and distrust that the demographic report warns against.

For those reasons, I urge the House to treat my noble friend’s two reports as complementary parts of the same argument. Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow asks us to plan for demographic futures, while Government by Diktat reminds us that how we make those plans matters, as well as what we decide. Long-term strategy requires not only sound analysis and investment but transparent, accountable lawmaking and genuine parliamentary oversight.

What, then, should we do? I suggest three practical steps that respond to both reports together. First, we should adopt a cross-government demographic strategy with a long-term horizon, 20 to 30 years ahead. That strategy should align immigration policy, housing supply, water and energy planning, transport investment and local government capacity. It should be published, updated regularly and stress-tested against higher-population and lower-population scenarios so that Ministers, local authorities and the public can see the trade-offs involved.

Secondly, we should restore and strengthen parliamentary scrutiny over the instruments that implement that strategy. Where secondary legislation is used, Parliament should receive clearer explanatory material, longer scrutiny windows and, where appropriate, affirmative procedures rather than the negative ones that we get on almost every Bill these days. Major changes to planning, migration and infrastructure rules that have long-term consequences should be debated openly and honestly and, where necessary, enacted through primary legislation so that our full democratic mandate is explicit.

Thirdly, we should commit to transparent public engagement and local empowerment. Citizens must be given accessible information about population projections, the assumptions behind them and the likely impacts on services and communities. Local authorities need resources and statutory powers to manage integration and deliver infrastructure at the pace required. National strategy without local delivery is a recipe for frustration and failure.

I suggest that these steps are practical, not partisan. They are about restoring the balance between the Executive and Parliament and ensuring that long-term policy is made openly and responsibly. They also respond directly to my noble friend’s plea that we should not allow emergency modes of lawmaking to become the default. In times of crisis, speed is necessary; in terms of planning, scrutiny is essential.

In concluding, I return to the character of my noble friend’s contribution. He has done us a great service by refusing to treat demographic change as a purely technical problem or by allowing the mechanics of lawmaking to remain invisible. He has connected statistics to lived experience and legal process to democratic legitimacy. That combination—data, democratic principle and practical policy—is exactly what we need if we are to govern well for the next generation and succeeding generations.

I commend my noble friend’s Government by Diktat report and this current one, Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow, to the House. Let us take their combined message seriously, plan for tomorrow with courage and clarity and make those plans through processes that Parliament can scrutinise and the public can understand and trust. If we do that, not only will we manage population pressures more effectively but we will strengthen the institutions that make democratic government possible.

My noble friend is a deep thinker, a committed parliamentarian and quite simply a great man. I shall miss him immensely.

14:25

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am delighted to take part in this valedictory debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. He was one of my supporters when I was introduced into your Lordships’ House in 2010, and I have had the privilege of sharing a room with him ever since—although “sharing” may not be a totally accurate word. The accumulation of paper and the general air of industry in the room is attributable, I am afraid, to him rather than to me.

The noble Lord has been an exemplary member of your Lordships’ House, whether on the Opposition Front Bench or, as we have heard, as chair of committees, or as a Back-Bencher prepared to take on difficult subjects. Some may remember the debate over the Albert Hall, to which he brought such expertise and common sense. He kindly assisted me in our attempts to establish a register of beneficial ownership for the foreign owners of property in this country. Of particular relevance today, he has regularly drawn attention to the difficult and highly contentious topic of immigration. We will miss him very much as a popular Member of the House and as a voice respected on all sides of it.

This report, if that is the right word, is typical of the noble Lord. It provides reliable facts and statistics, and includes essays from a number of different perspectives. As the Library summary says, demographic changes and population growth due to migration could bring

“very special challenges for the UK”,

including “extreme” political parties. But the noble Lord does not make crude political points: rather, his report focuses on matters including the environmental impact of population growth, and provides, as he has told us, useful international comparisons.

My own view is that, as a country, we have been afraid to ask the fundamental question: are we entitled to decide who does or does not come here? We have certainly failed to answer that question. There is much to be gained, of course, by refreshing the country with new arrivals; there is also an economic case to be made. We have an excellent history of accepting refugees. What is more, the expression of any view that appears to oppose immigration can so easily attract allegations of racism. No wonder centre parties tend to duck these difficult questions.

Will our country be happier for the vast increase in population in recent years, almost entirely due to immigration? We have an economy that stubbornly refuses to grow, and a widespread sense that we simply cannot afford the additional cost of immigration. It is by no means the only cause of the problems we have, but it has contributed to a general malaise that reminds me of the late 1970s, when I was starting my career. Jim Callaghan announced that, if he were a young man, he would think of leaving the country. I was tempted. I may be wrong, but I think the majority of the population thinks that we should be able to control migration. The Brexit vote was very much influenced by the sense that, with freedom of movement, we were unable to determine who was allowed to come quite legally to live in our country. Since Brexit, we have had a different sort of migration, much of it in response to particular crises. But the emphasis politically has been on illegal migration. Legal migration, at least in theory, is something that a country should be capable of controlling, although there are huge practical challenges in doing so.

I accept that illegal migration is an imprecise term, in that many asylum applications succeed, and thus the asylum seeker can become a legal migrant. However, asylum seekers, with the departure of those seeking more friendly economic pastures, are now increasing in both absolute numbers and as a proportion of immigration as a whole. This Government and the last simply cannot escape the images of boats crossing the channel and our inability to stop them.

The failure to reduce numbers is significantly attributable to international law and our approach to it. We have a dualist system in this country, whereby international law is not binding on us at a domestic level unless we specifically incorporate it into our law. We generally do not do that, with the exception of the European Convention on Human Rights, which was incorporated in the Human Rights Act 1998. The debate about asylum seekers has focused very much on our international obligations, whether they emanate from the ECHR or the refugee convention, or even the rather elusive concept of customary international law.

The Home Secretary has recently made some quite pugnacious remarks about tackling illegal migration and ruled nothing off the table. How well this is going down with the Prime Minister and that human rights zealot the Attorney-General I do not know, but in my view, unless she tackles the primacy of our national law, as opposed to what are often international obligations fashioned in an entirely different context, she will never get control of illegal migration. The recent efforts to engage with the European Court of Human Rights are unlikely, I fear, to produce significant change—certainly not in the near future.

I return to my fundamental question: is Parliament sovereign? Can Governments say no? This report is a pertinent and sophisticated analysis of the consequences of mass migration, but I fear that much of the population may take the view that they are looking for rather less sophistication and that the next election will be characterised by some ugly exchanges. This will largely be the fault of centre parties for ignoring the reasonable concerns of the population. If that scenario eventuates, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, in what I hope will be a long and happy retirement, could be forgiven for saying to himself ruefully, “I told you so”.

14:32

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to take part in this important debate and to follow the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. It is, however, an occasion tinged with sadness, because it marks the retirement of one of our most talented, fair, honest and hard-working colleagues, my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. I endorse everything that has been said today about his character and his generosity. He was one of a small band that kept forensic, intelligent and constructive opposition going through the, for us, bleak years of the Blair Government, and his experience of that will be a great loss.

Since I joined the House in 2013, the noble Lord has been a great support and a fount of knowledge for me as I battled with business legislation, including the tricky reforms on pubs as a Minister in the coalition Government. He also made a superb contribution as chair of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, as my noble friend Lord Blencathra has already said. That is a body that makes our scrutiny more effective and is incredibly important.

When we sat on the Back Benches together through the Brexit years, we tried to improve the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill in 2020, wresting back some parliamentary control with a cap on arrivals, or the advertising of vacancies in the UK before they were offered to newcomers, or higher salary thresholds. All these ideas were rejected at that time—wrongly, as is now clear. My noble friend Lord Hodgson’s underlying rationale then was the likely surge in immigration and the impact of that on demand for housing and the consequences for water and nature. On 30 September 2020, he criticised the Home Office for an attitude which essentially said, “Don’t worry; it will be all right on the night”. His measured warnings on demography and his call even then for an office for demographic change were well grounded and admirably unemotional. I am only sorry that he had to be a Cassandra in this respect.

I hope nobody will deny the proposition that demography is a very important subject. It is especially important when populations are changing rapidly, as we have seen in recent years. Indeed, demography, in the form of one of its components—namely, immigration—has for many years been at the top, or near the top, of the subjects that voters deem to be the most important political issues of the day. So UK citizens were fully seized of its importance. They judge correctly. After all, immigration policy—an aspect of demography—was plausibly a principal cause of Brexit and of the rise of Reform, which now leads in the polls, as we have heard. “Take back control” was largely a political response to what was then regarded as large waves of immigration for which nobody had voted or, indeed, been asked to vote.

Unfortunately, Governments, political parties and legislatures have not shown the same clear-headedness as our voters. Indeed, they frequently acted like the proverbial ostrich, determined to see nothing and to direct attention elsewhere. This went on for many years before the very recent reluctant tacit acceptance by all parties, including the party currently in government, that the subject deserved more attention and more action.

I am afraid that, in this process, we in this House have not covered ourselves in glory. When presented by my noble friend Lord Hodgson with the opportunity to consider what was known to be of major importance to many voters, we have instead been content to pretend that much lesser issues deserved more attention. We did not support his proposal for a new office, and we repeatedly turned down his request for a special committee of inquiry on this subject. So, to our shame, we join the ostriches in that.

Today we have the opportunity to set this right by properly and fairly examining the noble Lord’s report, and we should do so. In reading it, I was immediately struck by the stark simplicity of his statistics and the quality of the different contributors. The population grew from 55.9 million in 1971 to 67.6 million in 2022, and of course that has accelerated. The fertility rate, however, has fallen rapidly, from 2.44 in 1970, as the report shows. The most recent figures from the ONS are 1.41 per woman in 2024 in England and Wales—the lowest on record—and 1.25 per woman in Scotland. Unfortunately, as Professor Sefton points out, pro-natal policies do not seem very effective. The most pragmatic response is to reinforce the trend of older workers retiring later. So we need to make that easier and improve the incentives for employers, who tend to discriminate against older workers, as I found when I conducted the review of the state pension age in 2022.

Another worrying statistic, highlighted by Professor Sarah Harper, is that the UK population over 65 is predicted to reach some 25% by the middle of the century, with 2% over 85. That is some 1.5 million people, and it is likely to double within two decades. This means smaller numbers of productive people paying for the non-productive in a country where productivity has already been flatlining since the financial crisis during the last Labour Government.

We know from the work of the OBR how disastrous the increase in the proportion of the elderly will be for the nation’s finances—one reason why I proposed a GDP-related growth cap on pension expenditure in my review. As the report says, we can also learn from Japan, which has a more open attitude to employing older workers. This could have a dramatic effect on the dependency ratio, the UK’s future finances and, indeed, the nation’s health. As those of us who are lucky enough to work in this House know, working has a generally positive effect on health.

Some little-known and puzzling statistics on page 21 of my noble friend’s report are those on national insurance numbers in 2024. It is difficult to see how the 940,000 national insurance numbers—60% for Asian nationals—can be reconciled with the much lower number of work visas that have been issued. My noble friend Lord Hodgson and I quizzed Home Office Ministers on the defects of immigration statistics during the passage of past legislation, but they appeared to have a surprising degree of faith in their statistics and a resistance to looking forward at the future implications. It took several precious years for the establishment to accept that reality. Other important statistics have been mentioned. For example, England has a population of 438 people per square mile and will have a larger population than Germany on current trends. This is highlighted by Professor Michael Clarke in a very interesting contribution on national security, which the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart of Edgbaston, rightly mentioned.

This all leads to the report’s conclusion that there is a problem finding properly based and appropriately focused data to tell us what is going on. It means that there is a strong case for a new body following the precedent of the independent Dutch state commission on demography 2050, as advocated for so eloquently and frequently by my noble friend.

We have a problem, as the report makes clear, in the widely differing levels of acceptability of discussing big strategic decisions. Climate change and net zero have been the subject of extensive debate and have their own well-resourced Climate Change Committee, yet adding 6 million to 10 million more people to our population will not only hasten climate change but will have a major effect on our country, our children and our grandchildren—and, of course, our schools, hospitals, housing and infrastructure.

We also need to get under the skin of net migration. As we discussed in the Budget debate last week, we are now losing many entrepreneurs and more of the young and ambitious because of the weight of taxation and the growing burdens on business ushered in by this Government. Net migration has reduced significantly from its record levels, but in the year to June 2025, we were still seeing 898,000 new arrivals, many of them hard to accommodate here and creating a drain on public expenditure and pressure on benefits. We need to understand this and the social and regional ramifications much better.

In closing, I thank the Leader of the Opposition and his Chief Whip for finding time at last for this important debate and invite the Government to establish a new demography or population authority. Given the expertise in this House and its convening power, we should also tackle the issues in one of our committees. Such changes would be an appropriate legacy of my noble friend Lord Hodgson’s 50-year contribution to Parliament, to public life and to evidence-based debate.

14:42

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, like others, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for securing this debate but also for bringing forward what I think is his third major report. Of course, there have been numerous contributions in between. I guess that over the years, he has become somewhat discouraged, perhaps, that the Governments of the day have not seized the opportunities provided by him and his reports, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, rightly said, all of us in Parliament are to blame and have been for a long time.

None of what is occurring now is a surprise. Perhaps the scale of it in recent years has been, but the trend has been there for quite a long time and there has not really been a proper, meaningful debate. No political party has put anything meaningful in its manifesto other than vague targets, none of which has ever been met, and we now see the outworkings of that, with the changing political landscape. If anybody thinks that this is simply a flash in the pan, they would be very unwise to harbour those thoughts. It is fair to say, I suppose, that it goes back to the Blair Government, when mass migration became a feature of our life, when decisions were taken on the accession countries in the European Union. We took people from those countries—some great people, there is no doubt—but we were not under any legal obligation to do so. It was a decision of that Government to start that process and it led ultimately to the erosion of support in this country for our membership of the European Union. Ironically, our departure from the European Union ended up with an acceleration of mass immigration to this country.

The report has produced a number of statistics. I will drill down a wee bit into some of the figures, as most people do not grasp what 7 million or 12 million people means. In the year to June 2023, the net figure of people coming into this country legally per week was 23,000. Imagine what 23,000 people looks like. All of them require accommodation, water and associated services. We have no possibility whatever of being able to integrate 23,000 people a week. The number went down in 2023-24 to about 17,500 people per week and has gone down further since, but the net figures are deceiving unless you know the requirements of the people coming in versus the requirements of those leaving, and the differences between them. Those figures dramatically underestimate the implications of what we are facing.

There is not a day when you do not pick up a newspaper containing something about illegal or irregular immigration, the boats and the gangsters who are making a fortune out of this misery, but in numerical terms that is not the issue. I think we are running at about 184,000 boat people since 2018. That is a mere few weeks of legal immigration.

There is no doubt that, collectively, all of us in this Parliament and our predecessors have been negligent. You cannot allow change to take place on that scale and not expect consequences. It is utterly impossible to imagine there being no consequences from that. The scale is so large—numbers matter. My view for some time has been that we need to institute a pause, slow this down and try to get cross-party consensus on what the future of our country should look like. I do not want to see it become the stone-throwing match that it might very well be over the next few years coming up to another election.

If there is a consensus in Parliament, we have to pause this mad rush of people. Let us face it: we are issuing the visas. We understand that there is an illegal side as well, but we are issuing the visas. There is a machine somewhere printing them. We need to think things through and work out how we integrate and maximise the benefits for our population and what contributions we can make. We need thoughts along those lines. The right reverend Prelate talked about what would effectively be a new contract. We must look at all these things, but we cannot look at them rationally unless we slow down this mad rush.

Two areas of our life are, in part, responsible. Our further and higher education sector, which is very expensive, is living on a business model that is making matters worse. It is failing to provide the trained people this country needs, and do not forget that we have a growing number of economically inactive people. We are also allowing businesses to bring people in on work visas at lower wages, and we see that all over the country. Those businesses do not have to pick up the social security and other matters arising from the folk who come in. It is not only those who are on work visas but their dependants and families, and it goes on and on.

Whether we like it or not, we are regarded as the soft touch of Europe. As referred to already, it is the place where nobody checks; we do not know who is here. We are losing young people—hundreds of them have gone missing, and I have no doubt that many of them are being exploited and abused. We do not know where or who they are. The people coming in destroy their identification, so how do we know who they are? There are no checks on them—it is impossible—yet they will be in centrally heated hotels this Christmas while up the street people will be lying in doorways.

This country has got itself completely divorced from reality, and this Parliament is a leading example of that. In her response, perhaps the Minister will give some consideration to taking to her right honourable colleague the idea that we have a period of calm to pause this. We have to look at the further and higher education model, and the idea that companies can bring people into this country on lower wages, because that is what has been happening. To be perfectly political about it, for a Labour Government to be presiding over that is the very antithesis of what I always understood the movement to stand for.

We have not even touched on the costs. I have been battling with the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, to try to get some information about the costs of non-hotel accommodation. We have the costs of hotel accommodation; we know that it is between £5.7 million and £6.7 million a day. But that figure is for 32,000 occupants and it is now 36,000. We have 111,000 people who are not in hotels but in other forms of accommodation. The audit office produced a report the other day, and part of the reason why I do not have an answer to my questions is that the audit office concluded that the Home Office does not know the costs because money comes from different pots. Some comes from our overseas development budget, which is being fed into this, and other costs are under different headings.

The Library very kindly did some research; the Home Office’s figures for the last financial year were running at about £4.5 billion, but that does not touch the sides. We do not take into account the cost of the Border Force, the huge cost of the legal and other services, the tribunal service that has to wade through all this stuff and the policing costs when individuals misbehave and have to be dealt with through the courts. The costs could be £6 billion, £7 billion or £8 billion a year. Earlier in the debate we said that this is one issue on which we have ignored things and buried our heads in the sand; we are pretty good at that. We have not built a frigate in this country for 15 years, and we wonder why they are clapped out and we have only seven that are operational, which is half what we had in 2010.

Can the Minister please bring to her colleagues’ attention the serious implications of ignoring the problems that we now face? We can all work together. We want to avoid extremism triumphing, but it will if we continue to sit and do nothing. This is primarily the responsibility of the Opposition, but I believe that other parties in this Chamber would be very happy to work with the Government to create a strategy that has some possibility of achieving public support.

14:54

[Baroness Buscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I associate myself with all the good things that have been said thus far by noble Lords about my noble friend Lord Hodgson. I pay tribute to him for securing this debate and say a major thank you. I well remember him encouraging me back in in the early 1990s, when I first met him and his wife, my noble friend Lady Hodgson, at my first Conservative Party conference, to become much more engaged in politics. I took his advice and very quickly found myself first as a district councillor and then as a parliamentary candidate for Slough in the 1997 election. That latter experience taught me a lot and has stayed with me. I realised that just 20 miles from my home, in a sweet riverside village, another world of different cultures and beliefs existed and was growing rapidly.

This report, Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow, is excellent in many ways. I want to delve a little deeper into the social and cultural impact of mass immigration—in particular, the challenge within the report of managing different cultures that do not necessarily see eye to eye among themselves and do not necessarily respect our British way of life or our rule of law.

In Slough, I was quickly introduced to clashes between different communities in nearby Chalvey, just a few hundred yards from Windsor Castle. These were knife fights between young Sikhs and Muslims. The authorities did nothing so as not to upset community relations, a term that, with the ascendance of Blair, became “multiculturalism”—a crazy failure, given the absence of any need for meaningful integration into British culture.

At that time, I was often invited for tea by Hindu families who said, “We have too much immigration in this country”. They could see and experience what was happening 27 years ago, and some of them were afraid. Animosity between cultures that have brought their difference with them to this country is still something that few dare to talk about, as other noble Lords have said. One stark example is the current rise in antisemitism, which is so appalling, unsettling and upsetting. It degrades and shames us all as a people. I well remember young Muslim men who were born in this country telling me, “Our people do not respect your people because the British are weak and don’t stand up for what they believe”. I entirely agreed with them. Multiculturalism allowed difference and division to entrench. We were weak and afraid to confront that for far too long, for fear of causing offence or being called a racist.

The treatment of women by some other cultures and nationalities is still a huge problem. The rape gangs say it all. In addition, Pakistan outlawed polygamy years ago, yet here it is funded through ever more generous state handouts, while most working British couples are seriously asking themselves whether they can afford to have any children at all. As for the appalling disabilities that are caused by first-cousin marriage, which continues to have a major impact on our NHS children’s wards for the long term, what on earth were and are some of our politicians of all persuasions thinking—and why has the taxpayer been funding this barbaric and immoral practice for so long? In addition, how many prosecutions have there been for another barbaric practice, FGM, in the past two years? I have heard from midwives who have been threatened and are afraid to intervene. Successive politicians have tried to persuade me that polygamy is definitely illegal in this country—so where are the prosecutions? All these practices create division and anger, and an enormous shift in the political landscape.

In 2004, when I was shadow Justice Minister, Blair opened our borders for so-called economic migration and told us that an estimated 7,000 people a year would come to our country. We now know that legal migration has far outstripped all estimates. Where was, and is, the infrastructure to support it? Meanwhile, a net 170,000 highly skilled workers, mostly young, have left this country in the past year to work and live a different life—a life where there is an energy for growth, prosperity and a future.

Anger has been growing, heightened by not only the massive increase in legal migration but illegal migration, the latter bringing a deeply worrying force of criminal gangs to our shores. This has not happened overnight. However, politicians have for too long lacked foresight and been blinkered by their politics. A cross-party House of Commons Defence Committee report, Future Maritime Surveillance, during the Session of 2012-13, did not address any threat of illegal migration using boats. In addition, the disbandment of the Nimrod maritime force, together with the short-sighted failure to renew the final maritime patrol aircraft contract with the commercial contractor Cobham in 2015, meant an almost total loss of our surface maritime aerial surveillance around the British Isles. In response to this extraordinary lack of foresight, I had the audacity to suggest in a debate in September 2015:

“My immediate concern regards maritime security, particularly the security of our borders … I say this given the clear and present increased threats from uncontrolled migration”.—[Official Report, 15/9/15; col. GC 237.]


Again, that was in 2015; my concern was unanswered.

Recently, things have deteriorated. Now we know that serious criminals arrive and we then lose them, either from the hotels or from prisons. Is the Home Office not telling the truth to its political masters, or are the politicians afraid to tell or even learn the truth? At least the Home Office has now admitted that immigration is out of control.

Thanks to good journalism and our police and crime commissioners, we now know that illegal arrivals do not necessarily stay in the hotels, as we also know that the domestic network to manage and assist the illegal boats is to be found in those working in the absurd number of Turkish barbers, vape shops et cetera. Why are these people, who have not been vetted, not confined? Why are they given money to take the trains and disappear into illegal cash-only networks and hang out on our streets? This Monday, we learned that heroin and cocaine are being imported in the stomachs of illegal immigrants. Why have the Government withheld that information? Why are we not warning every citizen that these shops may well be, and often are, sanctuaries for criminal gangs involved in organised crime, money laundering and the grooming of our young people into dealing in and delivering drugs—gangs often run by Albanians, with Kurds and others, who may have walked out of the asylum hotels with absolutely no right to be here?

I have now learned from a Written Question that we release convicted foreign adult male criminals awaiting deportation from the category C prison, HMP Huntercombe, owing to the Home Office’s failure to provide the necessary deportation documents in time. We are not told how many and how often. In addition, it is now clear from another Written Answer I have received that the Home Office does not know how many illegal immigrants have simply walked out of asylum hotels in the past five years and are not accounted for. The Home Secretary, we are told, is speeding up removals. However, I have now asked: how can illegal migrants be removed if we do not know where they are?

Noble Lords can tell that I am angry—angry for the love of my country and for the future, for our children and our grandchildren. This is not about being far right; this is about love of country, a love that all those who come from other cultures to live here will naturally feel for their own country. We must stop bending to the absurd notion that mass uncontrolled immigration can work on our small island, nor must we keep bending to the criminal and those who take pleasure in trying to destroy or usurp our traditions and privileges. I will not talk about rights; only others who try to change us talk about their rights. I thank my noble friend Lord Hodgson for this opportunity to speak the truth.

15:04

[Lord Horam (Con)]

I think we can all agree, my Lords, that if anyone deserves a debate on a subject of their choice, it is my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. This is not simply because of this particular report, with its brilliant title asking us to look to the future, but because of his body of work, which includes two other major reports of a similar kind, on the demographic future of this country; his persistent demands for a Select Committee to work in this area, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe pointed out; his persistent demands for debates on this subject; and, as my noble friend Lord Blencathra pointed out, his authoritative work on the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which is so important to this House.

My noble friend Lady Buscombe pointed out all my noble friend Lord Hodgson’s work in the Conservative Party, in significant roles such as chairman of the National Conservative Convention, and all the rest of it. That does not begin to tackle all the other things that my noble friend has done. We have been celebrating what he has done in the House of Lords, but he was a Member of Parliament too.

Leaving aside politics, my noble friend was a hugely successful businessman, with a 40-year career in the private equity business. Not only was he an entrepreneur—my God, we need those these days—but he was a regulator, putting his own skills and knowledge at the service of the public. On top of that, he has a family and three children. It is amazing, frankly, what my noble friend has done. I am still in awe of that, and we will greatly miss his presence, I can tell him firmly.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

It was not just me.

[Lord Horam (Con)]

He is pointing at my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger, his wife.

I am eternally grateful to my noble friend for all that he has done. As for this report, there are a number of reasons why we should adopt an authority looking at population. First, population and migration are huge issues. Alongside the National Health Service and the economy, they are one of the top three issues. My noble friend Lady Buscombe spoke with heartfelt feeling on this subject. It fires people up; I am absolutely certain.

Secondly, we are a small island. When American soldiers were told to come over here in the Second World War and were briefed, they were told, “England—think North Carolina”. We are the same size as North Carolina. It has a population of 10 million; we have nearly 70 million. That is the comparison we should make. We are a small island; we have to be careful about the number of people we allow here.

People want a control on population and migration. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, made the point, and the report makes it clear. It is not an expensive policy to set up. The Government should be looking for less expensive policies, given their fiscal problems. Other countries, such as Canada, Australia, Norway and Denmark, are doing precisely what he is asking for.

This rational, objective approach would reduce toxicity, the need to do so the right reverend Prelate spoke about. It is our responsibility to future generations. We always think we should leave the country in the same sort of situation as we found it. This approach also has vision and a plan. People are constantly asking of the present Government: where is the vision, where is the plan? This is a plan and this has a vision.

Also, as my noble friend said, if we do not do it, other extremist policies will take advantage. The Minister should be particularly knowledgeable about that because in the recent elections in Staffordshire, Reform got 49 seats; the Conservatives were reduced to 10 and the Labour Party was reduced to one. If you look at the electoral calculus and present polling, the seats in Stoke, for which the Minister was the MP some time ago, are all thought likely to go Reform in the next general election. She has an understanding, I think, of what is at stake here.

The future of democracy is at stake here, because if we cannot plan long-term, autocratic societies such as China will say, “We’re better because we can plan long-term. The democracies are far too short-term to deliver sensible results”. For all those reasons, this sort of authority and instrument for policy is desirable.

My personal view is this. The thing that I fear and hate most is the overcrowding of this country: the shortage of housing and the need to put up more housing, and therefore the demolition and destruction of the open countryside. I was born in 1939 in the little village of Grimsargh, just outside Preston, at the entrance to the Ribble Valley. You go up the M6 and turn off at Pudding Pie Nook Lane—or the M55, if you prefer modern terminology—and there you are in Grimsargh. During the war time, despite the fact my father was away on war work, it was a wonderful place to be brought up, because my little pebbledashed terraced house was surrounded by fields, woods, streams and trees to climb—it was absolutely idyllic. It was wonderful. There was rationing, and so no obesity or malnutrition. There was, I am afraid to say, with the rather boring food we had in those days, a great deal of what the official report on the Second World War called an epidemic of flatulence because of the poor diet we had.

Then the population of the UK was 40 million, so it was possible to have that sort of life. Now it is 70 million. The village next to my little village is called Longridge. As a result of what has happened over the last few years, the locals call the villages “Grimridge”—Grimsargh and Longridge—because the fields between them have disappeared. It is now one village, with executive houses everywhere. There are no fields or woods—nothing—unless you get in the car and go for a long distance. It is ridiculous. I am reminded of Philip Larkin’s marvellous poem, “Going, Going”; I do not know whether the House is familiar with it. It says:

“And that will be England gone,


The shadows, the meadows, the lanes,

The guildhalls, the carved choirs.

There’ll be books; it will linger on

In galleries; but all that remains

For us will be concrete and tyres”.

He wrote that in 1972—and how much more visible that is today than it was in 1972.

As has been pointed out, it is going to get worse. The driver is immigration. I think of immigration like water. Your doctor will tell you that the sensible thing to do, especially if you are my age, is to have some water every day. My GP says, “Keep taking the water. It’s good for you”. But if you binge on water, it really is bad for you, and you become extremely ill. The fact is that we have binged on immigration over the last 20 years, instead of taking a sensible amount every day, which we could naturally accommodate and would be an advantage to the nation. So if you slow down immigration—personally I am in favour of doing that, because that would mean a slowdown in population growth—you would probably have an overall decline in or stabilisation of population. We need not fear that.

As is pointed out in the report, the present situation of constantly getting economic growth and extra GDP through persistently increased immigration is unsustainable. Other countries that do not have our levels of immigration have exceeded our economic performance: for example, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan. South Korea has a declining population, but its economic growth and GDP per head are now greater than the UK’s. Citizens of South Korea are more affluent than people in this country. Taiwanese citizens are even more affluent than people in the UK, and Japan is not far behind. So, you can do this without an economic penalty. In fact, it may be better economically in many ways.

Other people raise issues such as, “Well, if we have less immigration, what about all these elderly people? Who will be the young people to look after them?” I say, read the section by Professor Harper, who is an expert in this field. We can raise the retirement age: look at all of us. How many of us over the age of 65 are still working, at least part-time, if you can call this part-time? All that could be done and is being done by other countries, quite apart from technology and so forth. All these issues need to be discussed in an open way, and the authority and the way it is constituted would enable us to do that.

I have been in these debates before with my noble friend, and we usually get the same argument from the ministerial Bench. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, sitting on this side when we were in power. I cannot remember who the Government Minister at the time was, but both major parties said, “Oh, we can’t do this, we should not do this”—the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has a point here.

The arguments will be familiar to Members: first, “We’re doing it anyway; we’re collecting all these figures anyway”. This is not true. I went to the APPG on social sciences the day before yesterday and the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford pointed out that the figures are not being collected in a serious way. Of course, departments are picking up figures here and there for their own purposes, but not in the holistic way that we need. So, that argument does not stand up.

The second argument, which is usually put forward by the Minister, is that we do not want another quango or another body. But, as my noble friend Lord Hodgson pointed out, he proposes to change the Migration Advisory Committee into this body, so there would not be another body but a replacement body.

The third argument is sometimes dismissed as the least appetising or favourable on the grounds that it somehow has a whiff of eugenics about it and is about something rather unpleasant. This is nonsense. It is not at all unpleasant; it is just simple common sense.

This is an eminently rational, straightforward, common-sense proposal and we have a responsibility to future generations to fight for it.

I say to my noble friend, whose work in this area, as noble Lords can see, I warmly applaud: we will not give it up. He may leave, but we will not give it up. He is a determined man. I am determined, too, and many others are determined, not just here but in the Commons. It is a brilliant idea, and all brilliant ideas such as this are worth fighting for.

15:18

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, on securing this debate. He has been consistent and courageous in drawing public attention to the very serious consequences that will flow from continued immigration on anything like the present scale. His opening speech was masterly and, of course, I agreed with it all.

For my part, I have been engaged in these matters for nearly 25 years: that was with Professor David Coleman of Oxford University. Together, we set up Migration Watch in 2001, with a view to getting wider understanding of the challenges of large-scale immigration. That work is now being taken forward by Alp Mehmet, a retired British ambassador born in Cyprus.

Today I will focus on just three points. First, the continued chaos in the asylum system has been and continues to be damaging to public confidence in the capability and even the integrity of successive Governments. Many members of the public simply do not understand how we have failed to deter or prevent the arrival of many thousands of asylum seekers. They are right. The current legal framework for asylum has failed and needs to be replaced, but that is a very complex matter for another day.

My second point is about the sheer scale of legal migration, which tends to get forgotten while much of the press talks about asylum. It is ridiculously high, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, described it. Over the last four full calendar years, net migration has totalled—I stress—about 3 million. In round numbers, we have been seeing levels of 500,000 in one year, 1 million in the next year, 1 million in the next year, and 500,000 in the fourth year. It is astonishing. If anyone had told you this five years ago, you would have dismissed it as just not possible to achieve. One wonders how the Government of the time made such a mess of it. As for the current calendar year, net migration looks like being about 200,000, but the reasons for that are not yet clear.

It is indisputable that the Conservative Party lost control of the numbers. Serious steps are now needed, and soon, to tackle this. So far, there has been little sign that the Labour Government have understood just what is required. The Home Secretary has spoken well; let us see whether she can get it put into action.

Thirdly and lastly, let us be clear: immigration cannot be allowed to continue at anything like the current levels. It now poses an existential threat to the UK. It is sowing the seeds of division and undermining the cohesion built up over centuries, and it is rapidly changing the nature of our society. Indeed, it is hard to believe that this matter is not already recognised as a national crisis. These words from Matthew Syed of the Sunday Times sum it up:

“The utter failure to control borders was not an expression of democracy but its greatest modern betrayal—and it will reverberate decades into the future”.


That is someone of Pakistani origin, born in Britain. He can see it and he will say it. Other people see it, but not enough people say it.

The effect of these developments depends on the assumptions being made about future net migration and the birth rates of different communities. It will be fair to say that, on reasonable assumptions, the white British population of England will become a minority in about 35 years’ time. This is based on net migration of less than 200,000 over the coming years. Obviously, nobody knows how this will turn out, but it is surely clear that we need serious action, consideration and study, and serious moves have to be taken: otherwise, we will muddle our way into growing social difficulties.

The public have never—I stress—been consulted about this very serious issue. However, the writing is on the wall. It is high time that our leaders read it and took serious and consistent measures to get immigration sharply down and keep it down.

15:24

[Baroness Verma (Con)]

My Lords, it is good to be following the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, because I want to pick up on some of his words. First, I thank my noble friend Lord Hodgson for this important, timely debate and the report, which I have read. I found it a really good toolkit for all politicians to use if they are going to take the issue of immigration, migration, integration and social cohesion seriously.

My noble friend started the debate very thoughtfully, and every noble Lord who has contributed has tried to show and highlight some of the issues that we have all failed to discuss and debate properly. I am an immigrant. I came to this country as a nine month-old baby with immigrant parents from India, but my grandfather was here in 1938. We see ourselves as a family who have properly socially integrated; we have taken on the values and the good things that this country has enabled families like mine to have.

I am slightly disappointed with the Labour Benches for not having more speakers—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, wanted to speak but was slightly caught out on time—because this debate should be about all of us being incredibly concerned about the state of what is happening in our country. I come from Leicester, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester spoke earlier. He, like I, will be witnessing the discord that is happening among communities on a daily basis. Communities are now becoming very inward looking and integrating less with each other, and Leicester is one of the most mixed communities in this country.

Following the noble Lord, Lord Green, I feel that every time people like he or I try to raise the debate around these subjects, we are shot down as being racists or irresponsible, and for being those who start the discord and harm in each other’s communities. I remember when we were debating photo ID for elections in this Chamber; the Liberal Benches reminded me of how the BAME and ethnic minority communities will feel that they cannot be part of the voting system. Wider communities of people who were not born here or who were born here but come from immigrant backgrounds find these sorts of assumptions offensive. We, by and large, are integrated and want to integrate, but we have focused for far too long on those communities that have decided to stay outside the mainstream of this country. We have pandered to them and allowed them to socially exclude themselves and not sign up to the values that they and their previous generations had come to this country for. They came for liberal opportunities—to be able to be yourself, thrive and grow without being restricted by your caste or your country of origin.

It is a really serious debate for me. I get very irritated when we cannot have an honest debate about something that worries most of the population, including my family. My children are worried sick about the state of the debate in this country today. I grew up in the 1960s and 1970s; this toxic debate was happening then and it was difficult. As a child, I would walk out and be racially abused on a daily basis, as it was okay to do that then. We have moved a long way in the right direction, as people accept that there is a cultural mix in this country, but it was a mix in which everybody tried to be part of the wider community.

My mother, like my noble friend Lord Horam, was born in 1939; she came to this country as a 20 year-old and she wanted to be part of the wider community. As I have said many times, she learned English. I have heard mentioned on a number of occasions today that the new immigrants are not able to speak English, but I can tell your Lordships that there are people who have been here for 20 or 30 years who have not learned to speak English. Their women are not allowed to go beyond their square mile because they want control of their communities.

I have an adult social care business, which I highlight is in the register of interests. We come across families where the children born in particular communities—they are not restricted to one faith, by the way—do not meet any child of any other community: they are home-schooled, and they go to the chemist and the grocery shop of their community. How are we going to get integration if we allow this to happen in our communities and cities here?

What happened in Rotherham and across the country has happened because we have been complicit in staying silent for far too long. Whether it is the institutions of the public sector such as the police or social work, we have been complicit. Whenever it was raised, the response was, “Well, you’re a racist”. I am afraid that the two major parties then backed away, and it was to the detriment of the wider community.

I have been in politics for a long time. I was 11 years old when I went on my first march against racism, because it is difficult to be a little kid and have names thrown at you every single day. I went on marches because I wanted to show, alongside white people who stood by me, that we cannot tolerate racism. That does not mean we accept that other communities can come along and force-feed, and not integrate into our community here.

I spoke to my mother before I came to this debate. I said “Mum, I’m going to this debate”, and she said, “Tell them. I’m going to tell you to tell them this: you come to this country, you accept everything, and you enrich it with things that can be made better”. Now, my mum is a force for—well, she is a force—but the one thing she taught me was that we should never ever give in to a small number of people with large voices. They are loud voices, but they do not account for the majority of this country. Somebody asked me the other day, “Do you think Britain is becoming more racist?” I said, “No. What has happened is this: those voices of a smaller number of people have just got louder, and the large majority have just become quiet”. I think we need to respond to that properly. I stand here and say to all my colleagues, and all those people across the Benches over there, that we cannot give a vacuum, because, if we give a vacuum, bad things happen. Sadly, for far too long, we have allowed that vacuum to get bigger and bigger.

Finally, I say this to all those communities who will definitely read this and then send me abusive messages. Any community that comes to this country has to accept the norms, values and traditions of this country. If you do not like it, then please find somewhere else to go, because you are creating disharmony for those of us who have nowhere else we want to go. This is our country; we love it to pieces; the flag belongs to me as much as it belongs to you; and I, and we, will fight to the core, like my grandfather did for the British Army, to protect this land, but we will not allow negativity around all our communities to be taken up by a small group of people.

I apologise for my gravelly voice—I am getting a cold and do not want to give it to my noble friend on the Front Bench. I am now going to end by saying one thing, which I point to the Labour Benches. When they lifted the two-child cap on universal credit, they managed to say that large families have to take little responsibility. I say the following to them, as somebody who genuinely worries. I come from a community where we see education as important to lift us out, to be socially mobile upwards. A lot of Indian families came to this country with £3 in their pockets and have been very successful, because the education system here allowed them to be. Please think very carefully when doing legislation that pushes people backwards rather than forwards.

15:35

[Lord Frost (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I begin by declaring my interest, if perhaps a rather general one, as the incoming director-general of the Institute of Economic Affairs, which has an interest in these and many other questions.

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate and to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, who made a powerful speech, if I may say so, that compelled attention. It is also a particular pleasure, of course, as many other noble Lords have said, to be able to support the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, today and to pay tribute to all his work over many years. The report on population that we are debating today is entirely characteristic of the serious, evidence-based examination of issues that he has always brought to bear and is particularly needed on this subject.

For there is, without question, a real problem. The numbers are striking. We have heard them already today, so I will not go into the detail, but as the report notes, over the past 20 years the UK population has risen by nearly 10 million people. One-third of that increase has arrived in the past four years or so, and another who knows how many—five, six, seven million—may arrive over the next decade or so. Population growth on this scale concentrated on an already densely packed island and particularly in the south-east of England, which is now one of the most densely populated areas in the whole world, apart from island states—a point that is repeatedly underlined in the report by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson—obviously poses challenges for housing infrastructure, public services, social cohesion and so on.

As we have heard, the implications of all this are simply not taken into account systematically in government planning. Indeed, the debate on the subject is too often stigmatised, as if expressing doubts about whether rapid population growth is desirable or possible to accommodate marks one out as being beyond the pale. One of the important things about today’s debate is that it is a way of beginning to break some of those taboos about important issues. It is necessary because polling consistently shows that the public feel that the population is growing too fast and that immigration has been too high. They know that something is amiss.

We have already discussed those issues at some length today, but there is one aspect that I want to focus on today, which has been mentioned but not covered in detail, and that is fertility and the birth rate—the number of children that we have in this country. That is where I want to focus my remarks. Just reviewing the facts briefly, all western countries, with the exception of Israel, have seen significant declines in fertility rates. The UK’s current fertility rate, about 1.4 children per woman, is the lowest it has ever been. Thirty years ago, all our population growth—it was much slower then, of course—pretty well came from births, from natural increase; 15 years ago, it was 50:50; now, births and deaths are roughly equal and all our population growth is coming through migration. This is historically unprecedented, at least since the fifth century AD.

Why has this decline in fertility happened? Some of this is obvious. Social changes are real and well documented. Women have more choices, education and careers rightly come first and marriage is delayed, but these changes have been in progress for many years now. They surely account for the fall in the birth rate over the 1960s and the 1970s, but since then, between about 1980 and 2015, the fertility rate—the number of children per woman—has bumped along at around 1.8. That is not at replacement rate, but not so far from it.

Since 2015, however, fertility has fallen precipitously again to around 1.4, as I said. It is tempting to attribute this, and it often is attributed, to particularly British factors such as high housing costs—which are, of course, themselves driven by immigration, at least in part—or to a tax system that is, compared to much of continental Europe, remarkably unfriendly to families. In truth, though, that is not quite good enough. A similar trend is visible across most European countries. It is more or less strong from country to country; the starting points are different, but the trend is still quite clearly visible.

Why is this happening? The only honest answer to give, I think, is that we do not really know. One can of course speculate. The slow to zero growth in incomes across Europe since the financial crash is no doubt part of it. There is perhaps a growth in cultural disapproval—I do not know; I feel it is rarely stated openly, but it is certainly present—of those who choose to have large families. Could it be that the growth in social media since around 2015, the boom in dating apps and the growth in, shall we say, novel conceptions of sex and the family have had some effect on all this? Unpopular though it may be to say it, I will say it anyway: the increasing recourse to abortion, now at its highest ever level in this country with a quarter of a million abortions in 2022, not far off now half the number of live births, clearly has an impact on the figures.

Or could there be something more intangible and more profound—some sort of loss of confidence in the future more broadly? Some say this is about climate catastrophism; others see it as a decline in confidence in the values of western civilisation. Who knows? Whatever it may be, when people do not believe that the future will be better than the present, they tend not to have children. The fact that Israel, a country with strong civilisational self-confidence among many other things, has more or less avoided this trend suggests that there is at least something in that view.

However, we do not really know. That is part of the problem because it makes the issue particularly difficult to deal with, but the fact that we do not know is not a reason not to talk about it. We have to deal with the consequences because they exist whether we like them or not. We have to try to find some way of mitigating them if we cannot change them.

So what can we do? I identify—here I am echoing work by other demographers, notably Dr Paul Morland—three possible solutions to this predicament. The first is to try to have more children and increase the fertility rate back towards replacement. As I say, so far only Israel has really achieved this among developed nations, and other countries that have tried it in various ways, with extra public support or whatever, such as the French and the Hungarians, have had only a very limited effect. That suggests to me that, although there is an economic aspect to the problem, it is not really the whole problem.

The second approach is to give up on trying to change demographics and simply adjust to an ageing society: accept lower fertility and a shrinking workforce but invest heavily in productivity, automation and reform of the labour market and pensions to accommodate this older population with fewer children. That is the solution set out by Professor Sefton in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and Japan is the obvious case study here. The basic difficulty, though, is that, in order to increase productivity in this way, we would need, in this country and across Europe, to embark on a campaign of liberalisation and reform of the economy for which no political party really seems to have the appetite, and which perhaps ageing societies are particularly reluctant to contemplate.

The third approach is the one that we have actually chosen over the last 30 years along with most developed countries, and that is bring in a replacement population: import workers and their families to maintain the worker to dependant ratio and supply the labour that the native population cannot. The problem with that option, whatever its appeal—and it is of distinctly limited appeal to me at least—is not actually a solution at all, for two reasons. First, the economic case for mass migration is weaker than is often claimed. The work of Dr David Miles and others, again as cited in the report, shows that mass migration does not boost per capita growth—it may produce a growth in the absolute size of the economy, but not per capita—and of course there are lots of social and other consequences that we have discussed.

Secondly, and more fundamentally, mass migration is simply a way of deferring the problem. If you try to hold the dependency ratio constant through immigration—that is, at about its current 3:1—to ensure that there are always enough working-aged people to support those in retirement, simple maths shows that you end up needing inflows of half a million to three-quarters of a million people every year in perpetuity.

On that trajectory, by 2050, a third of the British population will be born overseas. I do not particularly welcome that prospect; I do not think that it is a sustainable policy for us, and it may not, in any case, be a solution that is available to us due to the growing scepticism about mass migration that has been touched on in our debate today.

We have to exclude the option of importing a replacement population. The option that is before us is to bring immigration down, close to zero, for a prolonged period. If we choose to resume it later, on a more selective basis, then we can, but it does, of course, leave us with a problem. What can we do to solve it?

First, we can try to increase the birth rate. That involves boosting economic growth, building more houses, reforming taxation and doing what we can to change and reinforce the civic and cultural messages that are around. We should not and cannot count on that working. Secondly, there is the Japan solution: do what we can to create a more productive workforce if we cannot create a bigger one. Luckily, the solutions there are largely the same: more growth, more reform and more incentives to boost incomes, however challenging that all looks. Thirdly, and this is a bureaucratic solution, is the recommendation in the report from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for an independent advisory body on demographic strategy to provide us with honest, evidence-based advice about the trade-offs and the numbers. I would add that this body should be explicitly tasked with studying trends in the birth rate and fertility. It should be tasked with looking at whether measures taken in any other countries across the world have made any difference, and why. More broadly, it should look at what the experience of other nations tells us about managing demographic change.

Finally, we need to break the taboo on discussing these things. I remember the scorn that was poured on politicians sharing my political opinions, such as the former MP Miriam Cates or the current MP Danny Kruger—who are my friends—when they sought to raise these questions two or three years ago. They persisted—credit to them—and now the birth rate is slowly becoming part of the debate. We cannot avoid it; indeed, it is very welcome. Honest, open, evidence-based discussion—on the interaction between fertility and migration, and its economic and social effects—is vital if we are going to restore public trust in our institutions’ ability to solve these difficult questions. The report from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is a vital contribution to that conversation, and I hope that it marks the beginning, not the end, of a more serious engagement with one of the defining challenges of our time.

15:48

[Lord Sarfraz (Con)]

My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend on this report, on the debate and on a lifetime of public service. The report makes it absolutely clear that we will continue to need high-quality, highly skilled individuals who, above all, can contribute directly to economic growth, but every country in the world is now aggressively competing for that same group of global talent. Some are doing so with golden visas, others with citizenship by investment, and today we have heard about the launch of the “Trump card” in the US. Yet contributing to Britain’s economy no longer requires you to be physically present in this country. In fact, many highly productive people could easily live somewhere else while still contributing meaningfully to our economy.

The Government should therefore perhaps consider establishing a British digital residency programme. A digital resident would not need to come to the UK physically but could incorporate a British company, open a British bank account, benefit from British commercial courts, bid on British contracts, hire local professional service providers, transact in pounds and pay tax on UK-based income without placing any strain whatever on our public services. This is not a silver bullet for immigration policy, but it allows us to think differently about immigration. Other nations have experimented with digital residency, Estonia being the clearest example. Estonian digital residents have built some amazing companies without ever stepping foot in Estonia. The UK could offer a far more powerful, globally attractive version and the highest-performing digital residents could even be offered pathways to physical residency.

Alongside this, we should recognise the value of short-term digital nomads. Many countries now offer one-year visas that allow people to live and work temporarily without being eligible for any public services, and those countries are attracting talent and entrepreneurship. We do not offer this visa category at all; we are leaving the opportunity on the table, whereas Portugal, Spain and Germany are embracing it.

Finally, as robotics accelerates, it is absolutely true and a very good thing that we will see robots deployed at scale in industries across the country, including in agriculture and manufacturing. Sooner or later, harvesting robots will be picking strawberries in Kent and robots will be making cars in the West Midlands. We are witnessing a wave of inward investment into manufacturing across Europe and the US, much of which is possible only because factories are now highly automated. This shows that robotics does not kill manufacturing; it saves it, and it attracts global capital even in high-wage countries.

I urge noble Lords not to be suspicious of robots. Robots are nice. They do not require GP appointments. They do not need housing. They do not need visas for dependants and, so far, they have not willingly committed any crimes, yet they will unquestionably create local jobs, local industries and new opportunities for British entrepreneurs. Maintaining these machines, operating them and renting them out are all components of hyper local economic growth.

This report is called Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow. In doing so, we must recognise that tomorrow’s economic contribution will come in new and exciting forms—some human, some digital and some robotic. In thinking about tomorrow, we must be ready for what is inevitably coming.

15:53

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, with apologies for not putting my name down earlier, I would like to make a small contribution in the gap.

I have two reasons for wanting to make this contribution. First, I want to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, in this, his valedictory debate. We all are sad at the departure from this House of the noble Lord, but we have the benefit, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, pointed out, of him kindly leaving behind his wife. We will therefore continue to have the benefit of the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger. My second reason for wanting to take part in this debate was that in my maiden speech in this House, when I was a very young man 53 years ago, the subject of the debate was the need for a UK population policy. I have to say that the impact of that debate, despite my speech, has been negligible.

We have the evidence of that in the foreword to this excellent report. In 1971 the population of the United Kingdom was 55.9 million, but in the last 25 years there has been a rise of 9.2 million. In that debate, the argument was put forward that responsible parents had no more than 2.5 children. It rather puzzled me how responsible parents could produce 0.5 of a child. This then became a matter of personal embarrassment to me because my wife gave birth to our third child, so I was 0.5 irresponsible according to the view in the debate.

On this very important subject, we must not sit on our hands. The rise in population, causing strain on vital components in our society—the National Health Service, housing and demographic balance—is terribly threatening. There has been too much social unrest, particularly arising out of immigration.

This is a brief intervention, and I hope the Whips are noticing that I am keeping to the promise of four minutes. Indeed, it has been only three at the moment—I am glad to see my noble friend nodding acknowledgment of my achievement. This vital question was at the very end of the conclusion of this report: we must

“ask why, as a country, we did not have the determination to look forward and adopt policies that more directly addressed the concerns of the settled population of the country whose general welfare must surely be the primary objective of any government”.

I endorse those words, and I am under four minutes.

15:56

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

My Lords, I wanted to participate in this debate, obviously because of the valedictory speech from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, but also because it is a very important debate. I thank him for it. As everybody has said, he has been a respected Member of the House and a great servant of it for the past 25 years. He represents all that is best in this House, and we shall miss him.

For part of the 14 years that I have been in the House, I shared accommodation with the noble Lord over in Fielden House. We did not share the office but were in the same area, and we often walked over for votes here. We talked about the merits and demerits of Brexit, three general election campaigns, the prospects for the coalition, and endless battlefield tours that we were going on or had been on.

I have always respected the campaigns that the noble Lord has so bravely led in this House at times. We have mentioned the Albert Hall, but I also remember the Holocaust memorial debate, in which I admired his bravery and his interventions. I could not quite believe that he was going to retire when I talked to him earlier this week. He has always seemed so youthful and energetic, and the only consolation is, as others have said, that we will have the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, continuing here, which will provide a vital link with him. We shall miss his contributions, his courage and his tenacity on issues dear to his heart, such as this one today. I am sure we wish him a very happy and long fourth age outside the House.

I have read the report in total and I thought it was fair, timely and provocative. It has encouraged debate, as we have seen today, and it is an example of the noble Lord’s persistence on an issue that troubles him. I congratulate him on it. The only criticism I have, which is what I am going to talk about today, is that although it mentions Denmark, Japan and Holland, I think it lacks an international, global perspective. The pressure of immigration is from outside. It is not just the demand from inside; it is the pressure from outside. We now live in an age that, sadly, reminds me of the 1930s. The only consolation of the 1930s was that, although it ended in a war, it led to a generation of international co-operation in trying to address some of the problems that the 1930s were dealing with.

Today, we have not mass unemployment but mass insecurity. Due to the huge pace of change, we have international competition and the breakdown of traditional jobs and occupations. We have absolutely stagnant productivity and living standards. We have nationalism, or at least “nation first” has revived itself despite all the efforts after the war to generate international work, provide co-operation and stop the rise of nationalism. We face the situation in this country of an ageing population; there is going to be huge pressure on public spending and the need for care provision on an unimaginable scale as we go forward. Actually, I have to say that I think war in Europe seems closer than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis. Inevitably in that circumstance, immigration and population growth are very high on the agenda. It is not surprising.

It is a key issue of public concern, largely, I think, because people think immigration is out of control, and I have to say that over the last few years it has been, extraordinarily so. I know we have had the problems of Ukraine and Hong Kong, but clearly the numbers show how out of control it has been, and the result is that some of the benefits of immigration are now being challenged. I accept that short-term fixes may be the order of the day, but I agree with the report that it is the long-term trends that need attention.

Whenever we talk about immigration, we must recognise that there have been benefits. The open economy, the dynamic energy that it has given us, the commitment to education and enterprise of people coming here for education have been important to our culture and our community. We have only to see the schools in our immigrant areas of London and elsewhere, where aspiration and commitment to education have actually strengthened. The last generation of my family was half-Dutch. The next generation will be half-Indian and half-Singapore Chinese. That has given our family huge perspective and dynamism. Whenever we talk about these issues, we should not forget the commitment and the contribution that immigrants have made to our nation and still do. We should not underestimate that, nor play it down.

Obviously, the country wants to see immigration under control. People do not like lack of control, and that is what they see—the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, made this point in his speech. The principal problem at the moment is that people think that immigration is out of control. We know that boat migration is not the sole problem of immigration, but at the moment it is defying control and it seems unfair to a fair-minded country that people are trying to jump the queue. It is only one small part of the problem, but it attracts attention and focus and we need to stop it. The Government have been trying to do that and I support their efforts in doing it, but it will not be the sole issue going forward.

On the problem with the boats, I have to ask whether Brexit has made it harder. I think it has, because the French are not wholeheartedly behind us and they do not have the pressure of the EU to bring them into line, as they would if we were a member of the EU. We cannot tackle the gangs because we are outside Europol and do not have the intelligence, and “Take back control” has proved to be a complete illusion. In reality, immigration cannot be solved by one country. Sovereignty is not actually very powerful when dealing with the issue, because all the pressure is coming from outside and, unless Europe can address the numbers coming across the Mediterranean, it will not be easy to stop the numbers coming across the channel.

Immigration is an international problem. If we do not accept that or have an international perspective in dealing with it, we are missing a trick. Are we assessing, for example, the cutbacks that we and the USA are now making to overseas aid on birth control in Africa? That will be a key issue. It is suffering huge cutbacks and women are unable to get the help that would be available from overseas aid programmes, so we are worsening the problem and the pressure of immigration. Some think that we should pull out of the European Convention on Human Rights. I accept that it will be difficult to get consensus on reform. There is international recognition that it needs redrafting, but withdrawal from such international engagement will simply make the problem worse.

In finishing, I will mention one final aspect of immigration. We have not had much discussion of students and the dependence of our university sector on overseas students. In my view, students are not the problem because their time here is transitory, but the report makes the excellent point that the problem is that they move on to work visas and become settled, which contributes to permanent migration. We should separate out the student figures when talking about the total numbers of net migration. There are huge benefits for our university sector in having these overseas students—we know about soft power—but we need to deal with people staying on simply because we need their skills and our own people have not been trained to fill them.

I welcome this debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for his service and contribution, and I send him every good wish for the future.

16:07

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by putting on record my gratitude for the contributions in this House by my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts over 25 years, ahead of his retirement. I have been a Member of your Lordships’ House for only 10 of those years, but it has been an honour and a pleasure to serve alongside him during this time. He has been an active and effective Member of your Lordships’ House and will be greatly missed. The heartfelt tributes from noble Lords across the House today are testimony to this undeniable truth.

I am delighted to take part in this debate to take note of the report Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow. The issues it raises speak to one of the most consequential policy challenges of our age—the demographic future of the United Kingdom. Its authors demand that we confront an unavoidable truth: demographics shape everything. They shape our economy, public services, environment, culture, infrastructure and welfare system. Demographic change is one of the least discussed, understood and planned-for forces in British public life. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, pointed out, we should not be afraid to discuss it. My noble friend Lady Verma made an eloquent case in her extraordinarily powerful speech that issues of demography and integration have been swerved for far too long.

My noble friend’s report is wide ranging and detailed. It is evidently the result of extensive research and proposes a number of recommendations which we should consider carefully. I congratulate him on it. One of its most impressive features is that it shines a light on so many of the areas impacted by rapid population growth—biodiversity, national security, water and food security, public services and our ageing population.

Increasing migration is undoubtedly a major challenge, as the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, among many others, has consistently warned. This report makes the point that, without firm population controls and forward planning, the pressures on public services, infrastructure and the environment will become unmanageable. We need to consider how to develop a mechanism to ensure that migration numbers are sustainable, predictable and aligned with the nation’s capacity to absorb them, delivering in effect the long-term planning framework that the report calls for.

The report emphasises that current demographic trends, in particular high net migration, are placing substantial burdens on housing, healthcare, education and welfare infrastructure, and warns that, if present patterns continue, the United Kingdom could become one of the most populous countries in Europe within a few decades. Yet, crucially, population growth does not guarantee an increase in living standards. Indeed, as the report notes, rising aggregate GDP often masks falling GDP per capita, stagnant productivity and declining real wages. Relying on ever-increasing population levels to boost headline GDP is a false economy. This point was well made by my noble friend Lord Horam. What matters is what working families feel and living standards per person, not size of the population as a whole.

Economic success must be built on higher productivity, better skills and strong domestic labour participation, not continually importing labour to compensate for structural weaknesses. Relying on low-skilled migration is not the answer, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, emphasised. We must prioritise our own skills programmes and address urgently and directly the challenge of upskilling our own workforce.

The report warns repeatedly that using immigration to prop up GDP growth or to compensate for an ageing population will lead to long-term fiscal strain. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe spoke persuasively on this point. Even if population growth does not reach that extreme, the medium-term projections still point to the UK adding around 10 million people in the next 20 years, driven overwhelmingly by immigration. For this reason, we need some kind of mechanism to manage migration, combined with reforms to the visa system to ensure that only genuinely high-skilled applicants earning at or above the required thresholds can come to the UK. This is about controlling a rate of change so that population levels remain manageable, aligned with public sentiment and consistent with the nation’s capacity to provide.

The report underscores the need to align population growth with housing and infrastructure. The Government have pledged 1.5 million new homes in the next Parliament. Although that is an important commitment, the report rightly notes that, without careful planning, new supply will struggle to keep pace with population increase. Again, this point was picked up by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. House prices have already been driven up significantly, in part because demand has far outstripped supply. If the population grows by over 6 million by 2035, as some projections suggest, then 1.5 million homes alone will not stabilise prices or alleviate overcrowding, unless accompanied by strategic planning and major infrastructure investment.

The report rightly highlights public services, with strain already evident across the NHS, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, pointed out. Waiting lists remain above pre-pandemic levels, and the report’s projections make it clear that, without careful planning, an additional 10 million would further exacerbate pressures. As the report notes, migration-driven growth increases demand for healthcare, while the fiscal contributions of migrants vary considerably depending on skill level and integration.

We need to shift our immigration system firmly toward high-skilled, high-contributing migrants, while simultaneously investing in domestic training. This is particularly the case when it comes to medicine, social care and essential public service roles. At present, over 20,000 British-trained doctors each year do not secure specialist training places, yet we continue to rely heavily on internationally trained staff to fill NHS vacancies. This is not sustainable. We need to expand domestic clinical training capacity and apprenticeships to ensure that young people in the UK can enter professions where they are desperately needed.

On welfare, the report emphasises the importance of fiscal sustainability, noting that population growth alone will not resolve pressures on the welfare state and pensions. Indeed, depending on the composition and productivity of the population, it can worsen them. That is why we must prioritise making work pay, tightening welfare eligibility and strengthening incentives for labour market participation.

This report paints a picture of a country at a demographic crossroads, as the noble Lord, Lord Frost, demonstrated. There is no doubt that, if we continue with unmanaged population growth, relying on immigration as a short-term economic remedy, we will face mounting pressures on service housing, infrastructure and social cohesion—although my noble friend Lord Sarfraz did make an excellent case for robots to swerve these problems. We need to consider more carefully how we manage migration, with a focus on selective high-skill immigration, domestic skills investment, welfare reform and a coherent long-term housing and infrastructure strategy.

Can the Minister explain how the Government intend to develop a long-term demographic strategy that addresses these points? Will the Government ensure that population projections inform policy across departments, from housing and transport to healthcare and welfare? Will they finally accept that migration cannot remain the default solution to labour shortages and economic challenges? There can be no doubt that, as we consider the current challenges our country faces and the country our children stand to inherit, we cannot shy away from these issues. We must consider the issues that this report raises and have an answer to the central question of how we intend to reduce our reliance on immigration and focus much more on increasing our productivity and domestic skills and on building a sustainable economy.

These are just some of the key challenges and questions which the Government face. It is not possible to reflect the full range of challenges that are highlighted in the report in my remarks today, but I am pleased that noble Lords have been able to bring so many of these themes and core challenges to the fore in their contributions, such as the environmental factors that were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, the fertility issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and especially the strains on social cohesion, which a number of noble Lords, such as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester and my noble friend Lord Blencathra highlighted. Other issues and problems were eloquently demonstrated by my noble friend Lady Buscombe.

As my noble friend Lord Hodgson highlights in the foreword of his report, the British have been repeatedly promised a policy by political parties of all stripes that would focus on admitting a limited number of highly skilled or creative individuals: a policy with which few would disagree. Instead, they have seen virtually uncontrolled numbers of primarily lower-skilled individuals. The debate today has been a good opportunity to consider why we have seen those levels of immigration, with their consequential impact, in the past, and, most importantly, to ask ourselves what steps must be taken to put us on the right track for the future.

Looking to the recommendations, my noble friend proposes a twin-track approach, with a new responsibility placed on government alongside a new body to monitor the Government’s objectives and provide research on that policy. I entirely accept the premise that demographic policy currently lacks coherence. With responsibility fragmented across the Home Office, the Department for Education, the DWP and the Cabinet Office, each one pursuing its own objectives with little regard for the whole, we have a system that is nobody’s responsibility.

On data, the report recommends that the Government should be required to monitor and disclose the likely level of population change in the near and long term. This touches on a point of real concern to noble Lords on these Benches. It was a little over two weeks ago that my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough forced Ministers to review and publish the data that is held on the number of students who have had their visas revoked due to criminality during the progress of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. The Government initially resisted publication of that data. On issues as important as demography, the Government should be seeking to build greater trust with the British people. Refusing to publish data has the opposite effect. Can the Minister please reassure your Lordships’ House that the Government will take a more positive attitude towards requests for additional data in the future?

While we are on the issue of data, I briefly mention that my honourable friend Nick Timothy MP asked Ministers in the other place last month whether the Government planned to release data on the economic contributions by different profiles of migrants, in line with the Danish model. The Minister refused. As the report highlights, better data and greater transparency are essential. I hope that the Minister can give us an assurance that Ministers are seriously reviewing the current publications, with a view to improving transparency.

The report includes a recommendation for a new authority, to be called the Office for Demographic Change, ODC, or Office for Population Sustainability, OPS. My noble friend is right that Ministers should consider our existing structures for monitoring immigration and population over time—not to mention emigration, which is of such concern when those choosing to leave the country are our wealth creators and high-skilled young people starting out in their careers. We need the right mechanisms for monitoring and reporting, so that Parliament and, in turn, the British people have the information they need to make informed choices about the future of demographic policy. My noble friend Lord Horam brilliantly explained the importance of long-term monitoring. I am personally always sceptical of the creation of new NDPBs as, over time, public bodies often come to establish their own institutional views. I would be interested to hear from my noble friend how he would plan to mitigate that risk, but there is certainly a strong case for some such body.

My noble friend Lord Hodgson is absolutely right with his core thesis. Ministers must be held to account and we should continue to explore new and tougher processes by which we can hold the Government to account on the future demography of our country. Finally, it only remains to congratulate my noble friend on securing this debate on the day that he has chosen to make his valedictory speech. The debate, which has touched on so many of the core challenges we face as a nation, is a testament to his commitment to building a brighter future for our country as a devoted public servant. I know I speak for the whole House in wishing him all the very best in his next chapter outside your Lordships’ House.

16:21

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, for securing this debate. The report Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow is a timely contribution to our national discussion on population, prosperity and the future of our United Kingdom. Many noble Lords have already highlighted the noble Lord’s distinguished career. I add my thanks for his public service, and for his notable contributions to my county of Staffordshire in his business dealings.

The report highlights the demographic shifts our nation is currently experiencing, but, before I touch on his report, I feel I should also reassure the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, that I will respond to its key points. I will reflect on some of the questions in Hansard, answer some specific ones that have been raised and will, as ever, write. However, noble Lords will appreciate that this has been a wide-ranging discussion and debate. I should also highlight to the noble Lord that, before the general election, my boss was Sir Trevor Phillips, whom he cited; so I could end up getting myself in a great deal of trouble by the end of this response.

This Government recognise the points articulated in the document: the pressure on housing supply, the strain on our NHS, the impact on wages in certain sectors and the importance of maintaining social cohesion amid rapid change. We are not alone in facing these challenges. As the report notes through its international case studies, many countries across the world are also grappling with similar issues. Before I move on to the substance of the debate, I would like to make a couple of points.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Horam, who raised the issue of Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire, and where this debate can lead, I am well versed, having helped to lead the campaign against the BNP in my great city. Only this week, the now former leader of my county council of Staffordshire had to resign over his support of white supremacist social media sites. I am aware of what is at stake, and so are my Government. As the Prime Minister has stated, this is a battle for the values which govern our country and it is incredibly important that we are part of the fight.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, who made a very powerful speech, I say that, like her mother, my mother is also a force. I would suggest that is why both the noble Baroness and I are in your Lordships’ House. My mother ensured that I understood my responsibilities to fight back against racism, and those who hated me because of who I was and not what I did. However, I think my mother beat the noble Baroness’s, because I went on my first demo when I was a toddler.

I will now address some of the specific issues in the report before us, and the points noble Lords raised in the debate. On migration, this Government have been clear that we want a system that works in the national interest, attracting the brightest and best while being fair and firm. The modern challenges that migration can present do not overwrite the millions of individual stories of people who have come to this country over the centuries, built our nation in partnership with those already here, and today are our colleagues, our neighbours, our families and our friends.

I am here because my family fled persecution and found sanctuary in our great country. It was a brave decision to flee the country from which they came, to flee the Pale of Settlement, but the scale of pogroms gave them little choice, and I am very grateful that our country let them in.

Since taking office, this Government have taken fair action to reduce the number of people coming to the UK, particularly in some of the areas identified by the report. Our recent tightening of the rules around dependants for students and the review of the graduate visa route are evidence of the Government’s commitment to responsible migration management. However, fair management of migration is only one side of the coin. We must also address the consequences of population change already in the system, as outlined by the report’s expert contributors.

Given the request for better data, however—which I will come to later in my speech—it would be helpful to remind your Lordships’ House that the latest ONS figures estimate net migration of 204,000 in the year to June, a fall from 649,000 the year before. If we are going to talk about data, we should be absolutely clear on the accuracies of that data.

Turning to some of the points raised about migration, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, who raised the issue of asylum seekers, the Government have published a new asylum policy statement setting out significant reforms to the UK’s asylum and illegal migration system. The statement outlines the current challenges, the Government’s objectives and a comprehensive package of measures to restore order, control, fairness and public confidence in the system. Elements of this include that refugee status will be temporary, granted for 30 months and renewable as necessary. Settlement will no longer be automatic; instead, there will be a 20-year route to permanent residency, ensuring long-term commitment and integration. Refugees will be able to switch into a new bespoke work and study route to access family reunion and resettlement rights, with new fees and conditions in accordance with the rules of that route. This will enable them to earn down their length of time before they can settle in the UK to 20 years.

Both the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham—from slightly different positions, I suggest—touched on the ECHR and our current plans. Noble Lords will be aware that only yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister, accompanied by my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General, addressed the Council of Europe’s informal Conference of Ministers of Justice in Strasbourg to talk about reform of the system, in order to make sure that the ECHR can be fairly applied with regard to illegal migration, and to secure the convention’s future.

With regard to immigration and the effect on GDP, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, the UK’s immigration system is geared towards supporting businesses and accessing highly skilled overseas workers, who boost the supply of skills and talent in the UK labour market. These individuals are the most likely to contribute to growth. That is why the Government have recently announced plans to improve access to our highly talented visa routes and tilt the immigration system back towards attracting higher skilled workers to the UK. The Government are clear that overall net migration must fall from the very high levels over recent years. We plan to achieve this by reducing lower skilled migration and groups with lower participation in the labour market, who contribute less to growth.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, also raised the issues of skills and productivity. Increasing skills is responsible for a third of productivity growth and provides the opportunity for people to boost their incomes and improve their quality of life. Through short courses, funded by the growth and skills levy, and partnership with colleges and universities, Skills England will work in partnership with employers to support clearer navigation of the skills landscape and training products for the outcomes they need. The Department for Work and Pensions will work with employers to fill their vacancies—to get the right people with the right skills, or set them on the right path to grow their necessary skills.

The introduction of work visas was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Empey. Since the introduction of the skilled worker route, the salary requirements dictate that a migrant must be paid whatever is higher out of the general threshold for the route or the going rate for that occupation, with an absolute minimum salary requirement that an overseas worker has to be paid. This is designed to place a premium on recruiting overseas and maintaining access to international talent for firms, while also ensuring that UK resident workers are not undercut—something the noble Lord would expect from the Labour Party.

The Government are clear that international recruitment cannot be a cheap alternative to fair pay, and this must be reflected in future changes to the immigration system. On that point, I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Sarfraz, who raised a series of interesting points about new technologies. I will reflect on his comments, especially that robots are nice. Given the subject of the report, he really is thinking about tomorrow. I have all the lyrics of “Don’t Stop” in front of me, and I am very disappointed that other noble Lords have not used them in their speeches.

I turn to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, about international students converting from study visas to work visas. The Government’s approach is to link migration policy and visa controls to skills and labour market policies, so that immigration is not used as an alternative to training or tackling workforce problems in the UK. This approach will be important to enabling delivery of the Government’s broader agenda.

Moving from migration to social cohesion: the UK has experienced a sustained period of rapid demographic, economic and technological change, which, alongside 14 years of Tory austerity, has put increased pressure on public services and local communities. We have seen tension, frustration and, in some cases, division manifested in the places most affected. At this point, I put on record my former roles at HOPE not hate and the CST, where my core responsibilities involved work on social cohesion and counterextremism.

I reassure your Lordships’ House that these issues are being taken extremely seriously, and I especially reassure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester that this is key to what we seek to do. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is co-ordinating cross-government efforts to consider a longer-term, more strategic approach to social cohesion, working in partnership with local government, communities and stakeholders comprehensively to address complex, deep-seated issues in our places. As the right reverend Prelate asked for, this is a whole-society approach.

As part of our pride in place strategy, we are providing up to £5 billion over 10 years to support more than 330 of our most deprived communities across the country, helping to build strong, resilient and integrated communities. My great city of Stoke-on-Trent is a participant in that, including in my husband’s constituency—I set that out for the record. Bentilee, Ubberley and Meir North are areas that will each receive up to £20 million over the next 10 years.

Our long-term investment is designed not only to address deprivation but to rebuild social capital and strengthen community ties in areas, with a portion of funding expected to support cohesion-related projects. Importantly, we are empowering communities to make decisions that shape their places. We will continue to seek ways to bolster social cohesion, working in partnership with local government and civil society.

I turn to one of today’s consistent themes: the pressure on public services and housing. The 10-year health plan, published in July 2025, set out a vision for how the Government will make an NHS fit for the future. The plan set a clear direction for the service, its stakeholders and the public on the future shape of care through three radical shifts: hospital to community, analogue to digital, and sickness to prevention. I turn to a specific point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart—I want to call her “my noble friend” even though she is a Cross-Bencher. An engaged workforce is central to delivering the Government’s objectives for the NHS. The 10-year health plan set out the vision for how the Government will make the NHS fit for the future.

A new workforce plan will be published next year to detail how the workforce will be equipped to deliver the 10-year health plan, the roles it should carry out, where they should be deployed and the skills it should have. That includes staff being better treated and having better training and more exciting roles. The new workforce plan will be based on multi-professional teams, with the skills needed to enable the delivery of the three shifts.

Building on that point—and in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Finn—NHS England will shortly commence the second phase of the medical education and training review, working with partners to design a package of reforms that will provide doctors with the skills they need to meet the evolving needs of our patients in a modern NHS. That includes work focused on procedure-heavy specialities, to ensure a rapid acquisition of skills and to develop a curriculum that delivers the skills needed for a community-based, digitally enabled healthcare system.

On housing, we are committed—as noble Lords have recognised—to delivering 1.5 million safe and decent homes this Parliament, as set out in our plan for change. We have already taken urgent action through bold planning reforms and a record £39 billion investment to kick-start social and affordable housebuilding at scale across the country.

Houses are homes which anchor communities. It is vital that the homes delivered are high-quality, well designed and in places where people can work and thrive. We will ensure that what we build is supported by the necessary infrastructure and well-designed place-making, working in partnership with councils, housing associations and the wider sector.

Employment support was highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. Professor Harper’s analysis in the report of an ageing UK workforce is particularly pertinent. People in the UK are living longer, and the proportion of workers over 50 in the workforce is growing. Noble Lords need only look at your Lordships’ House.

Good work and careers have a positive impact on health, well-being and financial resilience. Work gives people purpose, a focus for learning and the important means to engage with society. This is particularly important for people who experience loneliness in later life, as the right reverend Prelate highlighted. Our focus is on lifelong learning, upskilling and incentivising longer, healthier working lives to maximise the potential of our domestic workforce.

The DWP currently offers employment support for all ages through its network of jobcentres across the UK and through contracted employment programmes. In addition, work coaches and employers are supported by 50PLUS Champions working across all 37 jobcentre districts. Champions provide a critical layer of support through jobcentres to ensure that the needs of workers over 50 are met.

I have many points on the environment, but there were not many points made on it. So I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, who was the main person to raise it.

I move on to security, on which there were several points. Professor Clarke, who I worked with when he acted as an adviser to the House of Commons Defence Select Committee and is a great analyst, addresses two areas of national security: protecting the state from external threats, and internal stability. He focuses in particular on military recruitment and on threats to national cohesion from state-directed sub-threshold warfare.

At this point, I refer the House to my register of interests. Like my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, I am an honorary captain in the Royal Navy. While we are talking about matters relating to the senior service, I will just quickly respond to the noble Lord, Lord Empey. I reassure him that both the Type 26 and the Type 31 frigates are currently being built in the UK as we speak. When I questioned myself, I did go and check with the former First Sea Lord, who usually sits in front of him.

As the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, emphasised, the issues of security are key, and some of the issues we are addressing are outside our immediate scope. These are both important aspects of the challenges we face. Our national security strategy, published in June, sets out the Government’s intent to harden their approach. Its objectives include strengthening our borders and making the UK a harder target for adversaries and for gangs engaged in people trafficking.

Beyond our borders, we must consider the effects of the very significant demographic changes which will take place in other countries over the next 50 years. The strategy is clear that we are entering a period of significant global instability. Demographic change will contribute to a number of issues, with challenging implications for the UK.

As set out in the strategy, our statecraft will need to adapt to this environment, ensuring that we can defend our territory and overseas supply chains from increased competition, improving our resilience to transnational risks and strengthening our key alliances so that we are better placed to tackle together the challenges that we all face. The noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, is aware of exactly what is in the national security strategy, so I will not read out the details.

I am trying to make sure that I come in under 20 minutes.

In terms of how we legislate, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and Henry VIII and delegated powers, following on from previous reports laid by the noble Lord, I reassure your Lordships’ House that the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee will review every single Henry VIII power that comes forward. There are circumstances where it is appropriate for Bills to contain substantial delegated powers, but departments with Bills containing any delegated powers must produce a delegated powers memorandum detailing each power and the justification for it, which is published on introduction. Noble Lords are aware that we are seeking to move away from the sheer volume of SIs that there has been previously.

The lack of data to understand trade-offs and what is happening on migration was raised specifically by the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Finn. Forecasting net migration is an uncertain business. The impact of external events as well as uncertain behavioural responses to policy measures on migration trends make future migration hard to predict. Not all impacts of migration are quantifiable, as set out by the Migration Advisory Committee in its report, EEA Migration in the UK.

Although there is a significant body of evidence to suggest that highly skilled immigrants make a positive contribution, there remains a lack of evidence and significant uncertainty about wider impacts on productivity, investment and social cohesion. The ONS is making more use of administrative data in its estimates for net migration. It keeps published estimates under review and revises accordingly, with estimates in the last 12 months marked as provisional. The revisions published recently by the ONS are primarily due to changes in the data sources, which have led to improvements in the ONS’s methodology. Although the numbers have changed, the overall trend for net migration has remained the same.

The Home Office continues to develop its data linking. In May 2025 the Home Office published a research report linking sponsored work and family visa data with HMRC PAYE data, providing crucial data on the earnings and tax contributions of visa holders, but I appreciate that not all points raised by noble Lords are covered there so I will come back—I am going to go slightly over time, so apologies.

The key recommendations of the report are

“the creation of a new body that would provide a commentary on the government’s stated policy objectives, to undertake research into demographic issues, and to provide an open transparent forum to reassure the public that these challenges were not being overlooked”.

The Government have a manifesto commitment to strengthen the Migration Advisory Committee to deliver several key reviews and to fill a new remit with a new Labour Market Evidence Group to support a more joined-up approach to skills, migration and labour market policy. The Labour Market Evidence Group consists of the Migration Advisory Committee, the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council, the Department for Work and Pensions, Skills England and equivalent skills and training experts from the devolved Governments.

As set out in the immigration White Paper, the Labour Market Evidence Group has an ongoing standard function to work together to gather and share evidence about the state of the workforce, training levels and participation by the domestic labour force, including at devolved and regional levels. It will focus on sectors and occupations that are central to industrial strategy, currently have high levels of reliance on migration for their workforce or are anticipated to in future, and it will make recommendations about sectors or occupations where workforce strategies are needed or where the labour market is currently failing.

This report is a timely challenge to all of us in this House, and across all parties, to think beyond the immediate term. The people of this country have a right to expect a Government who plan for tomorrow. We are committed to taking action now to tackle these pressing issues, providing the clear leadership and long-term strategic planning that the British people deserve. I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for his report and for the opportunity to debate it in your Lordships’ House. In the words of Fleetwood Mac, who I assume he is very fond of: “Don’t you look back”. I wish him well in his retirement.

16:43

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a long and very interesting debate, and I am extremely grateful to everybody who has contributed. To the people who have said very nice things about me, thank you very much; it is not deserved but it is very kind.

It was encouraging that there were lots of suggestions about how the ODC concept could be improved and made more appropriate. I am really interested in getting this conversation going so that we can get something important into the public consciousness: that we are aware of and are tackling this problem head-on. The only problem I have is with people who say there is not a problem, because there clearly is a problem and we need to face up to it.

I will just pick up a couple of points because I am aware that we have been here for some time. I thank my fellow long marchers, the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, who has been on this for a long time, my noble friend Lord Horam and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, from whom I was hoping to hear but I know it went sideways. I had not realised that we had a hidden long marcher in the shape of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, who has been at it for 53 years, apparently, which is very good, so I ask him to become an honorary long marcher with us.

It is important to think carefully about how this is impacting across the piece. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe raised the impact on older people: 30% of people aged over 50 are unemployed. Can that be a good and useful way for us, as a society, to behave?

I thought that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, for the first time from those Benches, said something about which I thought “hello”. It was a question about how many people we can absorb. It was a really important and courageous point to have made because, in the past, people have said we should have safe and legal routes without ever saying where they are coming from and how many there are going to be. I really appreciate and support what the right reverend Prelate said.

My roommate, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, has kept me on the straight and narrow. Your Lordships have seen his legal expertise, which enables him to fillet a problem in no time at all.

Finally, my noble friend Lord Blencathra is a worthy guerrilla fighter, but, unfortunately, the guerillas are heading back to the hills, because we could not get colleagues in the Commons to pick up the torch and run with it. The background is that the Executive are taking part at the expense of the legislature, and they are still doing it. When we had our debates on those reports, the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury—who is a great friend—used to nod enthusiastically from the opposite Benches about how we had to do something about it. Now that he is on the Government’s side, somehow, it is “Oh dear, I’m not sure we can quite do it that way”. There is a battle to be fought, but it has to be done from the Back Benches and it has to include the Commons, without which the first thing the Government will say is that unelected Lords are trying to teach the elected Commons how to do its work. It is game over once that is said; it is a dog whistle that always resonates.

I thank everybody who has participated and will finish with one minute of a very personal nature. When I was younger, I went to a business school in America. People used to come to talk to us who were not businessmen to tell us something about the world outside business. We had a concert pianist once and so on. On one occasion, we had an agronomist talking about soil management and how it was key to maintaining outputs. He introduced us to a man called George Washington Carver, who was the first Afro-American agronomist who studied in the Mississippi Delta. He found that sharecroppers trying to scrape a living out of cotton-growing had not realised that, if they grew cotton out of the same soil all the time, it would be depleted; you need break crops, such as sweet potatoes and peanuts. But he was not just an agronomist; he was a philosopher. On that day, 60 years ago, we were told what his philosophy was, which I will use as my parting words. These are Mr Carver’s words:

“How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday … you will have been all of these”.


With that, I take my leave.

Motion agreed.

House adjourned at 4.48 pm.