Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Green of Deddington Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

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

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

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

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

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

Immigration System

Lord Green of Deddington Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

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

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

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

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

Asylum Seekers: Hotels

Lord Green of Deddington Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

including

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

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

Illegal Migrants

Lord Green of Deddington Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

King’s Speech

Lord Green of Deddington Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

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

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

“overall numbers will come down”.

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

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

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

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

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Green of Deddington Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 20th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

No, that is simply not the case at all. What the noble Lord appears to suggest is that there is a confusion in the Rwandan constitution; I do not see that at all. The point is that they have agreed that treaties will have a kind of direct effect in domestic courts and once ratified, that is indeed the case. The concern by which he sought to encourage noble Lords to support the Motion before us today is, I suggest, simply not on a secure foundation.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak only once in this debate and very briefly, as usual. I should just mention my interest as president of Migration Watch UK. We have been pressing the Government for three years to get a hold of asylum but, regrettably, the situation has deteriorated greatly. There is something missing from the discussion of this subject, and that is the public. There have been plenty of very interesting and capable legal arguments—I do not touch on any of those—but we must not forget that very substantial numbers in this country are concerned about what is happening now on our borders. The Government need to get a grip and if they do not succeed, the next Government will have to tackle it so let us not be too legalistic. Let us see if we can find a way through.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, as I am for their contributions throughout the progress of the Bill through your Lordships’ House, but these amendments do significant damage to the core purpose of the Bill. In relation to political language, I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said from the Front Bench but on this subject, I wish to do no more than echo the wise and temperate words of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. Her observations, as she said, come from someone who is not a supporter of the Bill, but she spoke about the manner in which arguments should be conducted, and the manner in which this House should treat the views of the other place—not a tyrannical assembly, contrary to the view expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, but elected Members representing their constituents.

In relation to Section 19(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act, which the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, addressed from the Front Bench, the matter is touched on in the response to the Constitution Committee which the Government have issued. The use of a Section 19(1)(b) statement does not mean that the Bill is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. There is nothing improper or unprecedented in pursuing Bills with a Section 19(1)(b) statement; it does not mean that the Bill is unlawful or that the Government will necessarily lose any legal challenges on human rights grounds. Parliament intended Section 19(1)(b) to be used as it is included in the Human Rights Act 1998. All such a statement means is that the Home Secretary is not able to state now that the Bill’s provisions are more likely than not compatible with convention rights. A range of Bills has had Section 19 (1) (b) statements in the past. As we discussed at an earlier stage, that includes the Communications Act 2003, passed under the last Labour Government.

The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, extends an olive branch, as she puts it, and I think the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, came back on that. But the other place saw these provisions, olive branch though they may be. I do not for a second seek to challenge the noble Baroness’s assertion that she is attempting to improve the Bill, but what the other place recognised was that these provisions are integral to the functioning of the Bill. Therein lies the deterrent effect by which the Government intend that illegal crossings of the channel should come down and be deterred altogether.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, Rwanda is a safe country, Rwanda will always be a safe country. How can I say that? Because shortly we will have an Act that makes it legal fact. But, no matter how often I repeat it to myself, I just cannot make it stick. That is why I think these two amendments in lieu from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, are so important. I refer to Amendments 3B and 3C, which will undoubtedly improve this Bill substantially.

I will mention one other factor. A few kilometres away, over the border in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, there is a war going on. More than 100 armed groups are involved in this conflict, and the M23 is in an escalating battle for Goma with the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s troops. This is just a few miles across the border. The situation was described by UNHCR as “catastrophic”. Hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced. This is just across the border from Rwanda. I am not going to get into arguments about whether Rwanda at this precise moment is safe, but surely we need to look at what is happening just over the border and put in the amendments the noble and learned Lord has suggested so that we can deal with the situation should it change.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, I wonder whether we are making rather heavy weather of this. Surely, the objective is that, if the situation changes in Rwanda, we stop sending people there. Do we not have a thing called an embassy? Could it not tell us? Is it not going to be in touch with the people on the ground and the administrators of the scheme? It can advise the Government, and if the Government say it is going badly, out we go—pack it up. It is quite simple.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Green of Deddington Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 4th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, that is a very interesting speech but what we are being asked to do here is to vote on an opinion. The noble Lord knows that most of us do not agree with that opinion. I will speak on the Bill only once today. I am deeply offended that it was ever brought to us. It is a mess of a Bill; it is illegal and nonsensical.

We in your Lordships’ House are being asked to indulge in pointless chatter for the whole day, and for another day. It is pointless chatter because, whatever we say, the Government will not listen to us. This is partly fuelled by the Labour Front Bench, which seems to be rewriting the Salisbury convention that we do not try to stop anything in the Government’s manifesto. In fact, the Labour Front Bench is now suggesting—it has been articulated on numerous occasions—that the Lords must not interfere with any legislation or decision by the Government or the Commons because they are elected and we are not. Then what is the point of your Lordships’ House?

The point is that we have centuries, possibly millennia, of experience and knowledge. We had the opportunity to stop this foolish Bill, but the Labour Front Bench decided that we would not and whipped its members to abstain. That is an abnegation of their responsibility, and I am horrified by it. It grieves me that they might win the election and then behave in the same way. I think they are hoping that the current Government are going to respond in kind and not block any Bills, but that is a false hope.

We Greens will vote for any amendments that come up today, but, quite honestly, we are wasting our time.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, I shall be extremely brief. Some important points have been made, but I want to focus on the exact drafting of Amendment 3, which is clearly central and what the vote will be about. The puzzling aspect is that new subsection (1B) makes the condition that

“the Secretary of State has considered all relevant evidence … and is satisfied that the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country for the processing of asylum and humanitarian protection claims”.

Fine, no problem, but then it goes on to say:

“before successful claimants are returned to the United Kingdom by request of the Secretary of State under Article 11(1) of the Rwanda Treaty”.

I have looked at Article 11(1), and it does not say that. It says:

“The United Kingdom may make a request for the return of a Relocated Individual”.


Paragraph 12(c) of the Explanatory Notes describes that as a response

“to the Supreme Court judgment by … Creating a mechanism for the UK to require the return of a Relocated Individual”.

Which is it? Does this provide for the Secretary of State to bring people back or, as the noble Baroness implied, is that the outcome that is the purpose of the whole thing? I think that is the case, but the language needs to be cleaned up, or perhaps the noble Baroness would confirm it so that we know what we are voting for.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to my old friend Lord Cormack, whom I knew for 60 years. I first met him when I was fighting the then ultrasafe Labour seat of Mansfield and he was fighting the ultrasafe Labour seat of Bassetlaw next door in the 1964 election. From that time, he was a very good personal friend of mine for well over 50 years in Parliament, when we both got there on a rather better basis for our political careers. He was an extremely good man. It has to be admitted that he was always regarded as speaking too much in the Commons and the Lords, as he was always forthright in his views, but that rather ignores the fact that overwhelmingly he spoke very sensibly and extremely well, and the principles that guided him throughout his political career were extremely sound. We will all miss him.

I will not repeat the arguments that I have made previously. I just acknowledge that my noble friend Lord Hailsham has made a speech every word of which I agree with. The Government are in an impossible position. Another good personal friend, my noble friend Lord Howard, made a brilliant attempt to defend that position and to try to demonstrate that the Bill is compatible with the things that he holds as dear as I do—the rule of law and the separation of powers—but I fear that he fails. His arguments might apply if we were talking here about a matter of political judgment on a given set of facts that the Government were making a policy decision about. However, the Bill is solely about asserting a fact as a fact regardless of any evidence, and regardless of the fact that five Supreme Court judges unanimously considered that evidence and came to the conclusion, which is not too surprising, that Rwanda is not a safe country.

I cannot recall a precedent in my time where a Government of any complexion have produced a Bill which asserts a matter of fact—facts to be fact. It then goes on to say that it should be regarded legally as a fact interminably, until and unless the Bill is changed, and that no court should even consider any question of the facts being otherwise. It is no good blaming the Human Rights Act; I do not believe that it was in any way probable that the British courts were going to come to any other conclusion. If the Labour Party allows this Bill to go through, I very much hope there will be a legal challenge. The Supreme Court will consider it objectively again, obviously, but it is likely that it will strike it down again as incompatible with the constitutional arrangements which we prize so much in this country. I too will be supporting any of the amendments in this group as introduced. It is a very important principle that we are seeking to restore.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Green of Deddington Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 29th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, I will leave the important legal aspects of the Bill to the many outstanding lawyers who have spoken and will focus on much wider aspects of the current situation. This is a critical stage for the Government’s asylum policies and, by extension, their even more important immigration policies. Net migration last year was roughly 20 times the number of people who crossed the channel.

The Bill sets up a complex system to remove asylum seekers to Rwanda as a deterrent to future channel crossers, yet, at the same time, the Government are granting asylum to applicants from six Middle Eastern countries by a paper process without even an interview. Nearly all of them will have destroyed their documents and most will have crossed the channel and therefore come from a safe country. Young men in those countries total about 23 million. It is ludicrous to be talking purely about law—although it is right for this body to do so—when the policy has lost its way entirely.

The numbers could get even worse. The Migration Advisory Committee recently suggested that asylum seekers, including those who have crossed the channel illegally, should be allowed to work in any job after six months. Surely that would completely undermine the effect of any Bill before us. One is left with the suspicion that the Government’s policy is to focus on asylum to distract attention from the much greater scale of immigration more generally. As has been mentioned, net migration in the last calendar year reached 745,000. That is an incredible number, by far the highest in our history, albeit with some special factors such as Hong Kong, Ukraine and Afghanistan.

What are the possible consequences if we focus so much on asylum, without any reflection on the immigration policy itself? Migration Watch UK, of which I am president, has done some work on the population impact of asylum and immigration taken together. We have made one projection based on net migration of 600,000 a year at current birth rates. The result was a population increase of about 20 million for the UK in the next 25 years. That would be roughly 15 cities the present size of Birmingham. Even at a much lower migration assumption of 350,000, which some other think tanks have suggested, the population increase would be about 9 million.

We are looking here at policies that will have a massive effect on the future of our country. In either case, the implications for housing, health and education would, of course, be huge. To take one example from the education sector, according to government statistics, British children could become a minority in state schools in England in about 20 years’ time.

I think the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, was the only speaker to mention public opinion. The wider point of the Bill is surely that failure to achieve an effective legal structure to deter illegal immigration, combined with a failure to achieve a considerable reduction in legal migration, would lead to very serious consequences for the scale, the nature, and—indeed, let it be said—the continuing stability of our society.

Net Migration

Lord Green of Deddington Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2023 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Green of Deddington]

To ask His Majesty’s Government why net migration rose to 745,000 in 2022, according to data published by the Office for National Statistics on 23 November; and what plans they have to reduce it.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, the increase in net migration since 2021 reflects a number of important factors including the introduction of our humanitarian routes, such as the Ukrainian and British national (overseas) schemes, and an increase in non-EU students and workers. Earlier this year we introduced measures to tackle the substantial rise in students bringing dependants to the UK, and the Government will announce details of further measures to reduce net migration in due course.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his outline, if I may call it that. It may help the House to consider the last two years of net migration because that comes to a total of 1.2 million people, and the significance of that is that it is the population of Birmingham. When you think about that, of course you think about the enormous expenditure there will be on infrastructure, hospitals and so on in return for a large number of immigrants, many of whom are relatively low paid. The impact on housing, schools, medical services—

[Noble Lords]

Question!

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

I am not quite sure what the problem is.

[The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, I think the House is asking if we can come to a question point. We must respect the noble Lord. Not everybody agrees with his contributions, but I think he must be heard and he must ask a question.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

I am so sorry; I got that in the wrong order. My question is to ask His Majesty’s Government why net migration rose to 745,000 in 2022, according to data published by the Office for National Statistics on 23 November; and what plans they have to reduce it.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

As I alluded to in my opening Answer, there are well-understood reasons why net migration is high at present. Global events such as the world’s recovery from Covid-19, the war in Ukraine, the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan and the national security law in Hong Kong, along with policy changes introduced as part of the new immigration system and the end of EU freedom of movement, have all had an impact on migration. On 23 May the Government acted decisively by announcing a package of measures to reform the student route. We are working on further measures to prevent exploitation and manipulation of the visa system, including clamping down on those who take advantage of the flexibility of the immigration system, and we will announce details of these measures in due course.

Rwanda: Asylum Arrangements Treaty

Lord Green of Deddington Excerpts

Tuesday 21st November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I would also note that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, asked me an incredibly unhelpful question on another subject yesterday, so that is a win double. Actually, I was not aware of any of the contents of whatever may or may not have been in the folder of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that entirely legal immigration, encouraged by his Government, is roughly eight or 10 times the number of illegal migrants, to which this Question is addressed?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Yes, I am aware of that.