Nuclear Energy: Scotland
I just want to know how the hon. Member thinks that energy from nuclear power stations the length and breadth of the country would be transported about the country.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Nuclear Energy: Scotland
I welcome the Minister to her place, but to suggest that to be anti-nuclear is to be anti-baseload or anti other forms of useful energy that can provide baseload is absolute nonsense. Will she accept that looking only at nuclear, and not properly backing things such as geothermal or tidal energy, is a blinkered approach? We could be creating many jobs in Scotland from those forms of energy—God knows we know how to drill a hole and get stuff out of it.
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
Four years ago, I was the first Conservative Minister to say publicly that, to stop the boats and protect women and girls, we needed to leave the European convention on human rights. My hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) has been advocating for departure from the ECHR for many years. Will the shadow Minister take this opportunity to apologise to the nation, on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, for refusing to support my policy proposal when her party had the opportunity, power and, indeed, duty to stop the boats and deal with the invasion?
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I was honoured to visit Piddington a few weeks ago, with my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin), representing my party, Reform, as one of the first female MPs to respond to the women of Piddington when they wrote to all female MPs in this House. It is interesting that there are no female Labour Back Benchers sitting in on this debate. That is how seriously the party in government takes this issue. When I met the women of Piddington, I was staggered. They are scared, they are angry and they feel like no one in government is listening to them. The people there are not far-right thugs. Many of the women—and, indeed, the men—that I met are elderly pensioners. Some of them are widowed and living alone. Many are parents speaking on behalf of their children. This small rural village is right now fighting against the British state right in order to protect itself. It is a scandal that no one in this Government is willing to listen to the women and girls of Piddington. Unfortunately, this is not confined to Piddington; it also involves the people of Waterlooville. Last year I led a campaign with 10,000 local people to fight the Home Office and the Labour-Lib Dem plans to house asylum seekers there. We were successful on that occasion. Now I am supporting people in Gosport and in Portsmouth who are taking to the streets in peaceful protest against illegal migrants arriving on their shores.
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
I will not, because I want to respect the direction given by Madam Deputy Speaker. This issue is extending across our country, and it is out of control. The Government say it is getting better, but the boats are getting bigger, the people are coming in higher numbers, and British people are more scared than ever. And they are right to be scared, because the facts are that Afghan and Eritrean migrant men are 22 times more likely to be convicted of sex crimes than Brits, and 40% of sexual assaults in London over the last five years were committed by foreign-born men. I am not making that up. That is data. These are not irrational fears, but they are being treated with contempt. The tragedy of all this is that it is caused by the ECHR. People come here on the boats illegally. They claim to be victims of persecution and to have family rights here—all gaming human rights laws against us. I saw this as Home Secretary, as Attorney General and previously as a barrister working in the field. I wrote a paper about it last year, which was dismissed by the Conservative party. The truth is—we have got to be honest about this—that we might not even have had to be here talking about Piddington or Gosport or Fort Blockhouse or Waterlooville. This problem could have been fixed. The tragedy is that the last Conservative Government utterly refused to do the right thing—[Interruption.] I will come to that. I was the first Conservative Minister who said publicly that to fix this crisis we needed to leave the ECHR. I said it as Attorney General and as Home Secretary. What happened? The Leader of the Opposition said that I was having a nervous breakdown. The Conservatives said that I had mental health problems. They demonised me, isolated me and blocked me from doing the right thing. I have asked them to apologise today. They have refused to apologise to the nation for causing this crisis and I will not let them off the hook. I have just published a book setting out the painful battles I had with my Conservative party colleagues to fix this, so I will not take any lectures from anyone in the Conservative party about their promises to leave the ECHR. Do not believe them. What do we need to stop this invasion and fix this national security emergency that my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) has been talking about for years? We need to leave the ECHR, with credible leadership. We need to suspend our asylum system now, void all those grants of asylum, deport all those people who are applying for asylum—deport 90,000 people—and, yes, deploy the Royal Navy into the channel to ensure that we properly secure our borders. This Labour Government will not do it. The last Conservative Government did not do it. This Conservative party cannot be trusted. Only Reform will stop the invasion and stop these boats.
- Hansard source
Engagements
MI5 boss Sir Ken McCallum yesterday revealed that there have been 50 arrests in the last year linked to Iran, and I have to say that this Government deserve praise. They deserve praise for proscribing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—a very important move. But every single week there are young, unidentified males from Iran coming into this country, some of whom pose a genuine security threat to our nation. Is it not time the Government recognised that what is going on in the English channel is a national security emergency?
- Hansard source
Victims of Crime: Access to Justice
5. What recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the Crown Prosecution Service in ensuring access to justice for victims of crime.
- Hansard source
Victims of Crime: Access to Justice
I thank the Attorney General for her answer, but a constituent from Guildford has endured repeated delays to a domestic abuse prosecution. Causes included the Crown Prosecution Service failing to secure a barrister, and a trial collapsing after eight days as the proceedings had overrun and jurors could no longer continue, due to other commitments. She now faces the prospect of waiting for justice until June 2028, almost five years after her husband’s arrest. By then, there is a real risk that crucial evidence will have been lost. Does the Attorney General recognise that administrative failures like these undermine victims’ confidence in the criminal justice system? What accountability is there when CPS failings cause such devastating delays?
- Hansard source
School Funding: Stockport
My hon. Friend is making a really strong statement about the schools in her patch and in wider Stockport. The oversubscription of schools impacts Cheadle too. Schools such as Woodford primary school have been oversubscribed for some time. Does she think that if we crack the funding issue and make funding fairer, that would help the admissions system and give parents the peace of mind that they can choose the school that is best for their kid?
- Hansard source
Underperforming NHS Trusts: Government Oversight
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart, and to follow the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman). I have four NHS trusts serving my enormous constituency, which is the second biggest in England: the North Cumbria foundation trust, which is ranked 117th out of 134; the Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear foundation mental health trust, which ranks 39th out of 58; the University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay foundation trust, which ranks 97th out of 134; and the Lancashire and South Cumbria foundation mental health trust, which ranks 54th out of 58. What do those four trusts have in common? They are run and staffed by outstanding people who are wonderful, compassionate, committed and capable. They all also struggle with a common underlying challenge: rurality, which this Government, like their Conservative predecessors, fail to understand and, indeed, to tackle. Let me start with the Morecambe Bay trust. It has three hospitals, but it is funded as if it had just one. This year, NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care are forcing £32.5 million-worth of cost savings on the trust, causing it to have to close 42 beds, despite the fact that it has been at level 4 of the operational pressures escalation levels framework—the highest level of alert and extreme pressure on services—a total of 14 times over the last 12 months, including three times in June, July and August. We have some of the worst cancer waiting times in the country, and it is no surprise, because in south Cumbria we have no direct or close access to radiotherapy treatment. The OECD average, and the target, for the proportion of people with cancer who receive radiotherapy is 53%. In the UK, that figure is a mere 36%, and Lancashire and south Cumbria is the worst area in the worst country in the OECD, at only 29%. In north Cumbria, people use the Penrith urgent treatment centre, which is brilliant, but it is often under enormous pressure because the nearby Keswick urgent treatment centre—in the constituency of the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours)—is often closed because of understaffing. Mental health provision in the two mental health trusts is under enormous pressure. When Cumbria has a suicide rate twice the national average, that is unacceptable. In addition, the local council is proposing to close Applethwaite Green care home in Windermere because of a 31% cut that the Government have made to the council’s funding this year. Why have the Government done that? Because they do not get rurality and they do not fund services in rural communities. I want to finish by mentioning a Policy Exchange report, the foreword of which was written by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) and the title of which reads: “The Rural Penalty: How NHS funding formulas are disadvantaging rural and coastal areas and putting health devolution at risk”. It is not just putting health devolution at risk; it is putting the health and the lives of my constituents at risk, and I hope the Minister will put that right.
- Hansard source
Nuclear Energy: Scotland
I beg to move, That this House has considered the future of nuclear energy in Scotland. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. I am grateful to see that so many Members wish to speak about this issue. I welcome the Minister to her first debate. I grew up in Aberdeen, the home of North sea oil and gas. I was there when Aberdeen became a cosmopolitan city. At first, workers from the US and Australia arrived to work on the rigs; then came people from all over the UK. Local Scots developed the skills to join the offshore workforce. Our economy boomed, local businesses grew, businesses relocated and new businesses emerged. New housing was built, and the price of existing homes skyrocketed as incomes rose. The oil extraction bandwagon arrived and communities thrived. Scotland benefited from the economic boost and became known as an energy producer. Now, those oilfields are in decline, the reserves are depleted and the oil and gas bandwagon is leaving town. We must ensure that we do not lose the skilled workforce, and offer it an alternative future in Scotland. Although the climate emergency means that we need to move away from fossil fuels to low-carbon energy sources, no country has achieved that with renewable electricity alone. Scotland already produces the electricity that it needs from renewables, including hydro and onshore and offshore wind, with the balance of demand coming from Torness nuclear power station—although that is due to end in 2030. With a much greater demand for energy across the UK, Scotland could again be known for energy production and the good-quality, high-paid jobs that it brings. Our green transition has been successful—I welcome that, and the continued economic growth that it brings—but the wind does not always blow, and we import much of the equipment. We still rely on gas power stations to meet demand and keep the grid stable. Nuclear offers something different. Rolls-Royce is designing small modular reactors that could be built by British workers and give us steady, low-carbon power, whatever the weather. Nuclear offers a future for the people who work in oil and gas, ensuring that they are offered real opportunities outside oil and gas and that we do not lose them to work abroad.
- Hansard source
Nuclear Energy: Scotland
I agree. The important thing is that we identify suitable sites. Nuclear power generation offers skilled, well-paid jobs and a long-lasting and predictable energy supply. For the first time in history, more than 100,000 people work in the industry across the UK—but, sadly, they are not in Scotland. Since 2014, England has gained more than 47,000 nuclear jobs, but Scotland has gained just 661. One in 10 workers at Hinkley Point C is a Scot forced to travel hundreds of miles each week to work in England. Let us compare that with Wales, where the Wylfa small modular reactor will bring an initial investment of £2.5 billion to Anglesey and up to 3,000 jobs at peak construction, all at one site. The Welsh Government have signed an agreement with Sizewell C that could be worth up to £900 million to their supply chain. The SNP has signed no such agreement, despite the UK Government offering to sit down with its Members to put opportunities on the table. I welcome the Minister’s recent attempt to start talks with the Scottish Government on maintaining production at the Torness site beyond its current scheduled closure in 2030. Will she ensure that young people in Scotland can access apprenticeships at new sites such as Wylfa? I do not believe that young Scots deserve to have their career opportunities limited by the short-sighted political games of the SNP. Communities that already host nuclear know its value. East Lothian council passed a motion asking the UK Government to investigate the possibility of a new power station on the Torness site. The community wants nuclear to remain, but regardless of the community’s wishes or of how many families could be supported by jobs, how much it could reduce energy bills and how much it could improve UK energy security, the SNP’s position will prevent that. The SNP ignores the economic benefits that low-carbon nuclear power generation could bring to Scotland. That feels like the short-sighted approach of the Conservatives when they sold off the British National Oil Corporation, then Britoil, in 1982. Given that the SNP is willing to sacrifice our energy security and the jobs that support nearly 800 families at Torness, will the Minister say what plans there are to balance the grid when Torness goes offline? How much is it expected to impact electricity prices, and how many employees at Torness have been offered alternative employment?
- Hansard source
Nuclear Energy: Scotland
We should include other energy sources in the baseload. The strike price of wind has been lower than nuclear, but it is important that there is a geographically predictable source of energy for the grid. That helps to reduce transmission costs. Although the investment will be significant, it is likely to be less than the hon. Member mentioned and will produce a stable, reliable source of energy, which in time will bring down household bills. This issue is about more than jobs within the nuclear industry. Nuclear can strengthen the UK’s energy security and give heavy industry—from steel and ceramics to new tech companies—the steady supply of power that they need to grow.
- Hansard source
Nuclear Energy: Scotland
I thank the hon. Member for your intervention.
- Hansard source
Nuclear Energy: Scotland
I apologise, Mr Stuart. I was not around in 2010. I always take situations as they are and look to the future. We have to take steps to work on where we are now and not regret what happened in the past. A stable, reliable power supply will bring down transmission costs and household bills. Siting new small modular reactors at Hunterston and Dounreay could also breathe life back into the highlands and islands, just as oil and gas once did for the north-east. Where remote rural communities are losing their young people, a nuclear site brings the jobs and investment that gives them a reason to stay. We have seen what happens when a country turns its back on nuclear. Germany took an approach—much like the SNP’s—of decommissioning and deindustrialising, and has gone from exporting 26 terawatt-hours of electricity a year to importing 22 terawatt-hours and relying on coal-powered plants. Now, more than ever, we have a responsibility to protect our environment. Personally, I would rather follow the lead of France than shy away from nuclear. France chose to invest in a low-carbon energy supply, and that has paid off. French households pay around a quarter less for their electricity than households in the UK, and the communities that host nuclear plants have seen the direct benefits in childcare, transport, hospital upgrades and affordable housing. Scotland could see the same—well-paid jobs, new house building, increased tax revenue and real community benefit, giving people a future and good, well-paid and secure jobs—but the SNP says no. At a time when Scotland faces chronic housing shortages, bus services have been cut by a sixth in just five years, Scots pay some of the highest electricity prices in Europe and remote and rural areas pay exorbitant energy charges, the SNP refuses to even consider such a clear solution.
- Hansard source
Nuclear Energy: Scotland
I know that there is new pumped hydro storage coming online from Loch Sloy, and other projects are in the pipeline, but we are considering the situation for nuclear. The SNP refuses even to consider the nuclear solution, even when it is funded by Westminster. When I speak to my Mid Dunbartonshire constituents about energy, their position is clear: they want to tackle climate change, they want the Government to look after the environment and deliver net zero, and they want cheaper bills. I want the same, as I believe do most people living in Scotland and across the UK. There is a clear solution: small modular reactors producing a predictable cheap, low-carbon energy system. The waste product of nuclear fission is a concern, but nuclear is the only form of energy that prices in decommissioning and waste disposal at the start of the project. Scotland deserves better than the student politics and political games of the SNP, but I support the stance of the Minister for Energy not to impose unwanted nuclear infrastructure on Scottish communities. The Scottish Parliament should decide, and I am pleased that we now have 10 Liberal Democrat MSPs in Holyrood to influence the debate going forward.
- Hansard source
Nuclear Energy: Scotland
I agree that on most issues it is for local authorities and planning authorities to make the decisions, but for national infrastructure in Scotland, there is a place for Holyrood to be involved. The plans announced by the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), to override devolved planning laws, should be roundly rejected. Nuclear offers Scotland thousands of jobs, millions in tax revenue, billions in investment and an opportunity to revive the communities of remote and rural Scotland, which have far too often been left behind. I am proud to be Scottish, with our own education system, health system and legal system. To protect our Scottish identity, Scotland could once again be a leading energy exporter in a way that protects our environment, grows remote and rural communities by providing housing and jobs, and helps to pay for improved connectivity and for saving the Gaelic language. Scotland has always worked closely with the rest of the UK, with connected and mobile people and products. Nuclear power can continue that tradition by providing low-carbon energy to contribute to our evolving sustainable energy system, to reduce household bills and to supply industry. With that in mind, I have one final ask of the Minister: to build on their assessment of Scotland’s potential nuclear power plant sites by setting out, before the end of this parliamentary term, the jobs and economic benefit that new nuclear could bring to Scotland. That way, we can see in real terms the cost of the SNP’s approach to nuclear.
- Hansard source
Nuclear Energy: Scotland
I am really pleased to have heard so many excellent contributions to the debate this afternoon, and I thank the Minister, the Opposition spokesperson—the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden)—and my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for their comments. It is clear that there is majority agreement in the room, it is clear that there is an opportunity for Scotland to be an energy source and powerhouse for the UK, and it is clear that the SNP is refusing to grasp this opportunity for families and companies, despite the good examples of success in other countries. I urge the Government to keep pressing the Scottish Government to reconsider their position. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the future of nuclear energy in Scotland.
- Hansard source
European Convention on Human Rights: UK Obligations
7. What steps she is taking to ensure the UK meets its legal obligations under the European convention on human rights.
- Hansard source
European Convention on Human Rights: UK Obligations
The Conservatives and Reform want to leave the ECHR—a convention Winston Churchill championed—putting us alongside Russia and Belarus. Does the Attorney General agree that that is no place for a country that helped to write it?
- Hansard source
Underperforming NHS Trusts: Government Oversight
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) on securing this extremely important debate. I serve the population with the highest number of frail elderly people, and the irony is that our hospital is frail and elderly. It is the third oldest in the country, and the poor quality of the estate massively impacts the service that can be delivered to my community. More than 80% of it is not fit for purpose. We were one of the areas promised a new hospital by the previous Conservative Government, but sadly we are now in wave 2. There have been more than 700 sewage leaks across the hospital in recent years, and that impacts on clinical areas. Members can draw their own conclusions about how that has shunted treatment for patients down the line. The tower block at Torbay is swathed in scaffolding to stop bits of it falling off and braining patients. In February, my hon. Friends the Members for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) and for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) and I wrote to the Minister, backing our NHS managers, who desperately need an £8 million investment to sort out the tower block. We wrote again, and I met the Minister in September to bang the drum again, and we got £1.8 million, rather than £8 million. Devon and Somerset fire and rescue service has now served a fire safety notice on our trust, as it has serious safety concerns about patients, and the CQC served another warning notice in the last few days. The chickens have now come home to roost. We need action. We need the cheque that I asked for in September in the post to tackle the fire safety issues in the tower block. The staff are doing incredible work, but the patients deserve better. Will the Minister meet me and other colleagues from south Devon constituencies to explore the impact of the fire safety notice and the CQC warning? There are rumours swirling around the internet about the closure of beds in Torbay hospital.
- Hansard source
Violence against Women and Girls
8. What steps she is taking to help increase prosecution rates in cases of violence against women and girls.
- Hansard source
Violence against Women and Girls
Last year, the Public Accounts Committee warned that the Government would not meet their manifesto commitment to halve violence against women and girls if they did not get to grips with the evolving nature of abuse. Technologically facilitated abuse is growing rapidly; referrals to Refuge rose by nearly 80% last year. This includes intimate image abuse; offences rose by 27%. However, over the same period, the proportion of cases resulting in a charge fell from 5.8% to 4.5%. What steps is the Attorney General taking to help increase prosecution rates in cases of technologically facilitated abuse?
- Hansard source
Engagements
Q7. In rural Somerset distance has a price. Every school bus, bin round and pothole fix costs more, yet the Government are diverting hundreds of millions from rural to urban councils, leaving Somerset £21 million a year worse off. Roberta from Martock told me yesterday that people need more affordable homes, but slashing funding will not build a single one. Will the Prime Minister use December’s settlement to restore remoteness funding to Somerset—yes or no?
- Hansard source
Underperforming NHS Trusts: Government Oversight
It is an honour to serve with you in the chair, Mr Stuart. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) for securing the debate. When we discuss underperforming trusts, we must recognise that some NHS trusts are operating in circumstances that would challenge even the best management teams. The Royal Devon University Healthcare NHS foundation trust serves a largely rural and coastal population, with an ageing demographic, workforce pressures and significant barriers to access. I do not want to blame the Royal Devon leadership team. This is certainly not about blaming hard-working staff, because they do a brilliant job in very trying circumstances. But let us face it: the geography and demographics are stacked against them. The chief medical officer, Sir Chris Whitty, has repeatedly highlighted the unique health challenges facing rural and coastal communities, including when he visited Devon in May this year. Sir Chris has warned of “the health challenges of coastal towns”, and that attracting staff in such areas is significantly harder, noting that transport links are often limited. In his 2023 report Sir Chris warned: “People living in peripheral areas experience issues relating to accessing primary and secondary healthcare, domiciliary care, medicines, shopping and transport. The response times of health care professionals are often longer because of the distances involved, which is particularly important for emergency presentations”. Steve Brown, the director for public health in Devon, said: “In Devon, our records show that some people are dying up to 15 years earlier than they should because essential building blocks of health…like reliable transport…and services that people can reach…are missing.” My constituent Hilary Robarts-Arnold, from Seaton, wrote to me to describe the lack of transport and the difficulty of getting services in east Devon. Her husband is increasingly frail and suffers from skin cancer. Until recently, he attended dermatology services at Axminster hospital, seven and a half miles away. Those local services have now gone, and patients are instead forced to trek to Exeter, if they can. For her and her husband, that would be 22 miles, which is simply not possible because it is just too challenging a distance. As a result, his cancer is not being dealt with. The RDUH told me that “this is a workforce and capacity issue, not a reflection of the clinical priority we place on patient care”. If Government oversight of NHS trusts is to be meaningful, they must recognise the realities of rural and coastal healthcare and weight funding accordingly.
- Hansard source
Engagements
Q10. Despite the desperate need for pitch space in my constituency, Udney Park playing fields in Teddington have lain derelict for over a decade. The most recent owner, a Chinese business man, has now been sanctioned by the British Government and has had his assets frozen. Given that the Prime Minister has made it clear that he wants communities to take back control of precious sites like Udney Park, will he work with me to ensure those playing fields are put back in the hands of the community, right where they belong?
- Hansard source
Domestic Abuse: Prosecution Rates
10. What steps she is taking to help increase prosecution rates for domestic abuse.
- Hansard source
Domestic Abuse: Prosecution Rates
Last month, Your Sanctuary, a women’s refuge in my constituency, hosted a conference to tackle domestic abuse. One of its key asks is tackling the 2020 harm review, “Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases”, which has not been implemented. What steps is the Attorney General taking to correct that wrong?
- Hansard source
Nepal: UK Government Support
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) for securing this debate about our support for a country that is a friend and an ally, and one to whom we have owed gratitude over more than 200 years. I start by adding my condolences to the families and friends of all those who lost their lives or remain missing in Nepal and Tibet, following the August floods and the floods in Nepal over the weekend. I pay tribute to the UK rapid deployment team and humanitarian crisis response specialists who have supported British nationals and the wider crisis response to the floods in Nepal. Those brave and skilled teams are a clear example of the UK’s world-leading excellence and expertise. The news might have moved on, but the people of Nepal face rebuilding their country while experts note that such disasters might become more frequent in the region in the coming years. Indeed, the UK Government’s national security assessment of global biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse cites severe degradation or collapse of the Himalayas as particularly significant for UK national security. The August floods were not unexpected. Nepal’s mountains are warming rapidly. In 2023, the UN Secretary-General reported that they had lost almost a third of their ice in just over three decades. The wider Hindu Kush Himalaya region is also warming significantly faster than the global average. All the while, international agreement founders when it comes to action that truly meets the moment. Rebuilding comes at a great financial cost. The Government of Nepal have written to the UN loss and damage fund to request $20 million, which is 0.7% of the reported $2.7 billion it has estimated in physical damage to infrastructure and economic losses. The loss and damage fund itself is suffering from a lack of finance. It has reportedly already received requests totalling $2.8 billion from 119 countries, but only $400 million has been given by the international donor community. The demand vastly outstrips supply. With the impact of climate change intensifying, and with the super El Niño in the process of biting, it is deplorable that the international community continues to fail when it comes to preparing for climate shocks. Although I welcome the rapid deployment of UK personnel and the £5 million in humanitarian aid to help with the crisis, that £5 million is not enough and does not reflect the closeness of our relationship with Nepal. I remain deeply concerned about the wider UK aid budget, which has been slashed to 0.3%. That includes the cutting of the UK humanitarian crisis reserve by 12%, from £85 million to £75 million, leaving less flexible money for rapid support in humanitarian emergencies. Cutting the humanitarian crisis reserve at a time when many of the world’s poorest countries—the ones often most vulnerable to the impact of climate change—are dealing with those impacts is strategically illiterate. I ask the Minister, as I have before: when will the Government set out a road map for a return to spending 0.7% of GNI on official development assistance, and will the Government revisit the cut to the humanitarian crisis reserve? Climate finance has also been cut—there has been a halving of the UK commitment to the Green Climate Fund and a significant cut to our international climate finance, despite an ambitious new Government ICF strategy. The reality does not match the rhetoric. It is also a matter of national security for us here at home, as I have mentioned. The national security assessment of global biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse is brutal in its assessment of the impact on our national security and prosperity, with crop failures, intensified natural disasters and infectious disease outbreaks. It points out the critical ecosystems that support major global food production areas and impact global climate, water and weather cycles, and their importance, including in the Himalayas, and how their degradation and collapse will lead to water insecurity, severely reduced crop yields, fisheries collapse, changes to global weather patterns, release of trapped carbon exacerbating climate change, novel disease and loss of pharmaceutical responses. It will drive migration and serious and organised crime and lead to black markets in scarce food, pharmaceuticals and critical minerals, with non-state actors gaining control over scarce resources, and there are pandemic risks. As instability grows, it leads to conflict and military escalation. Wider development finance can provide some solutions, but definitive action on debt sustainability, illicit financial flows and reform of the multilateral development banks is necessary. Given that the countries most vulnerable to climate change are often also vulnerable to debt distress, it is imperative that the Government use their upcoming G20 presidency to take real and meaningful action on the issues, as well as charting a course forward on climate finance. This is, after all, a fairness issue—a justice issue. Nepal is responsible for only 0.1% of global emissions, yet it is bearing the consequences of runaway carbon emissions and global inaction in tackling them. As the Nepali Prime Minister recently said at the UN General Assembly, countries like Nepal are “hit by the climate we did not warm and hit again by the wars we did not start.” What does fairness look like? Estimates that we heard at the International Development Committee, on which I sit, put the UK’s fair share of international climate finance, as the world’s sixth-largest economy and fifth-largest historical emitter, at £9 billion a year. Add in inflation and the changes to the Government’s accounting methodology, and the ODA element of ICF4 diverges even further from the UK’s fair share. Given all those factors, our ICF allocation is roughly 50% lower than ICF3. Failure to tackle the climate crisis will erode development gains and push more people into humanitarian need, resource competition and a vicious cycle of poverty and instability, and will damage the UK’s reputation as a leader in climate and development. With COP31 fast approaching, what will be the Government’s strategy for real and meaningful action? How will the Foreign Secretary go beyond words to action that is reflected in tangible UK commitments, both domestic and globally? The floods in Nepal have shown us what can happen and what will continue to happen if we do not act. There is still time to take action. World Bank research estimates that climate change could force 260 million people to move within their countries by 2050, but that immediate action to reduce global emissions could reduce that number by up to 80%. I urge the Minister and the Government to take bold steps with our development and climate strategy, our aid and our G20 presidency so that the catastrophe in Nepal does not become the norm for communities everywhere. The UK has an opportunity to lead, and we should take it.
- Hansard source
Nepal: UK Government Support
Is the Minister confident that the work of British International Investment, particularly in Nepal, is targeted on climate resilience and adaptation?
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
I will indeed respect the amount of time for the third party, which I understand is 10 minutes. Thank you for giving me that time, Madam Deputy Speaker.
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
Your advice is noted, Madam Deputy Speaker. Of course it would be inappropriate to house 1,200 asylum seekers on a military base next to a village of a few hundred people, and of course it would be inappropriate to house them on a site that has never previously been used for residential accommodation. That goes without saying. The Liberal Democrats can back that element of the motion, even if we do not agree with the wording deployed by the official Opposition. I will allow my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) to deal with the specifics of the local matter when he contributes later. What must be disputed, however, is the second part of this deeply harmful motion. Brexit has made us all poorer. It has reduced Britain’s standing in the world and made it more difficult for this country to run a safe and controlled asylum system. So why on earth are the Conservatives suggesting leaving the ECHR, which would be Brexit 2.0? Not only would that make the UK a pariah state, but it would likely result in the end of the Brexit deal that they negotiated. The Conservatives often tell us that the Brexit settlement must not be reopened, but that is exactly what they are suggesting. Once again, the Conservative party is arguing that this country should pursue what would basically amount to a no-deal Brexit, except this time it is not a fringe argument being contested among factions in the Conservative party, but the position of the shadow Front Bench and the Leader of the Opposition, backed by all Conservative MPs. Indeed, their leader has told them that they will be barred from their party unless they adopt the position, which is why so many of them have now changed their mind on the issue. The drift of the Conservatives away from the centre-right to the hard-right is a dereliction of duty. It runs counter to many of the traditions in British Conservatism. But we know why they are doing it: they are terrified of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) so they chase after him. They increasingly make his arguments as they prepare for their grubby deal. We all remember what happened in 2019, when the hon. Member for Clacton stood down his candidates in alliance with Boris Johnson. People up and down the country are more than aware that those two parties would engage in the same sort of stitch-up again without a second thought, no matter how much Tory MPs and their leader plead the opposite in public.
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
The point is that we are in Europe, we are a European nation and most of our relationships are with the ECHR nations. I gently caution the Conservatives that every time they change position in an effort to catch up with Reform, the hon. Member for Clacton will move further and further to the right. This week that resulted in the horrifying suggestion made by Reform that our military should be told to murder civilians on small boats in the English channel. The suggestion that leaving the ECHR will help us to deal with a broken asylum system is absolute nonsense—a system that was broken by the Conservatives, by the way, who now spend so much time brazenly telling us that they alone have the solution. Leaving the ECHR will not stop a single small boat crossing from France. It will not, as the Conservatives suggest, make it easier to deport people, because when a nation ditches international agreements, others are less likely to work with it. What leaving the ECHR would do, as I have said, is make this nation an international pariah. It would likely result in the conditions once known in the public debate as a no-deal Brexit, which the Conservatives told us they were against. In fact, the trade and co-operation agreement makes continued UK adherence to the ECHR a major part of our current Brexit conditions. If we were to leave the ECHR, we would also end co-operation with our neighbours on law enforcement and criminal justice, which risks leaving dangerous criminals walking free, unidentified and able to escape overseas and evade prosecution, and would seriously jeopardise public safety, including that of women and girls. That is deeply irresponsible.
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
I will come to that point later, I hope, with specific reference to Northern Ireland. There is more than that to this debate, though. Leaving the ECHR would also rob British people of hard-won British rights—rights that have for so long been championed across political divides, in so many notable cases by Conservatives, who now argue that we must scrap those rights on the altar of the debate about small boat crossings. Article 2, for instance—the right to life—helped the brave families of the Hillsborough victims to secure fresh inquests to get to the truth of what happened in that tragedy. Article 3 helped the victims of John Worboys, the black cab rapist, to get justice and build into British law additional protections for victims. Alongside article 3, article 4 helped victims of the Rochdale grooming gangs—who Conservative and Reform Members talk about so often—to secure damages and better justice from Greater Manchester police. Article 10 protects the right to freedom of speech and expression, something that the right tells us is so important—just for them; maybe not so much for everybody else—although certainly not important enough to retain and protect it in law for all of us. This article also guarantees the right for journalists to protect their sources. While it is not for me, as a one-time rubbish journalist and now a politician, to tell journalists how to do their job, there has so far been disappointingly little scrutiny from the fourth estate, particularly in the right-wing media, on the Reform and Tory proposals on the ECHR. Article 10, by the way, also protects the rights of people to hold their politicians to account in the most direct terms. This is established in law.
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Of course, the second part of the convention does tackle those sorts of derogations. It is important that we see the convention in its entirety. As I said earlier, all of this is before we consider the implications for Northern Ireland, which have been well rehearsed in this Chamber. When British people up and down the country hear Conservative and Reform politicians pledging to erase those rights, we must all ask ourselves whether we trust those politicians to give us back those rights when they no longer exist. The answer is, of course, that they will not give us those rights back. [Interruption.] And do not argue with me about the Wolfson report, because that is nonsense. Leaving the ECHR will mean that we have even fewer opportunities to work on agreements with the EU—the place small boats set off from—to prevent those crossings, and that goes to the nub of the matter that we are discussing today. If we have learned one thing over the past decade, it is that the concept of the UK becoming more successful and prosperous while distancing itself from its closest allies is a total fiction. It was a lie in 2016, and it is a lie today. The only way to move towards an asylum system that works is by working with our European allies, and that means that this Government must first drop their self-defeating red lines, and secondly apply to join the EU migration and asylum pact. While the media is excited that the Prime Minister has been more expansive in his wording on relations with Europe, it is important to note that he is pledging to retain all his red lines. He is not promising to remove any of them, even though he knows that those red lines are making us poorer and scuppering our chances of an asylum system that could, in future, command public trust, look after genuine asylum seekers and create a fair system, as this country has always had. It will also cost UK taxpayers more and more money.
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
The hon. Member will know that the framework within which signatories to the EU migration and asylum pact work is different from the Dublin agreement. Today we renew our calls for Ministers to drop their red lines on Europe and to join the EU asylum pact. We also renew our calls for the Conservatives to recognise the reality that the first Brexit they gave us has failed this country. Do not pretend that giving us Brexit 2.0 will be any better.
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
I think the hon. Member mentioned that 80% of women in one country said they had been sexually harassed in public. What is the rate of women in the UK who report being sexually harassed in public?
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
Will the hon. Lady give way?
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
Can the hon. Lady tell us which of those countries are considering leaving the ECHR?