MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
Will the Minister give way?
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
Did the Minister reflect on what the National Crime Agency said about the need for a deterrent? What assessment has she made of how effective the Australian approach to third-country processing has been in bringing down its crossings?
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
On that point, will the Minister give way?
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
The hon. Gentleman talked about the UK becoming a pariah state if we are not in the ECHR. Does he think that Canada, which is not in the ECHR, is unable to provide a framework of rights for its citizens?
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
The hon. Gentleman is talking about the benefits of co-operation with the EU and how that might help us. Does he accept that when we were in the Dublin convention, we took more asylum seekers than were sent back?
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the work going on in relation to article 8. What is his view on how article 3 has changed from a protection against torture to a way to access particular forms of healthcare? Does he think that is reasonable?
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate. The concerns and worries of women in Piddington about the sorts of people being placed alongside them are shared by women up and down the country. You and I, Madam Deputy Speaker, know better than many exactly what those concerns are, because of the camp in Crowborough. The Government have placed more than 500 young men in Crowborough, in your Sussex Weald constituency, and they are pledging to keep them there all the way till 2030. Madam Deputy Speaker has had to do her best in the face of a Green, Lib Dem and Labour council that has totally failed in its responsibilities to support those residents. The contrast in scale at Piddington, where there are just 350 residents, is even greater. At the heart of the debate is whether women have a legitimate, reasonable concern to be worried about the people being placed in their communities. I am not afraid to say that I think the culture of the people often placed in these communities is inferior to ours when it comes to women’s rights and attitudes to women. Let us be clear that more than 72% of the people crossing in small boats are men, and the vast majority of them are aged between 18 and 39. They come predominantly from countries like Eritrea, Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq. What do the people of those countries—men primarily—think about women and women’s rights? This is not speculation or stereotyping; it is evidence from social surveys and reports of third parties. In Syria, more than 70% of women report that they are severely restricted in their ability to leave their homes. In Afghanistan, more than 90% of the population think that spousal physical abuse is justified. In Iraq, more than 46% of currently married women are exposed to at least one form of spousal violence and eight in 10 women have suffered some form of sexual harassment. In Pakistan, the UN estimates that between 70% and 90% of Pakistani women experience some form of domestic violence in their lifetime. In Eritrea, misogyny is embedded so deep that over half of women aged 15 to 49 think it is entirely justified for a husband to beat his wife.
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
I wish we had a system in which we could test the hon. Member’s proposition, because at the minute, we have absolutely no idea about the attitudes and values of the people coming from those countries. She is correct to say that we have issues of misogyny in this country, but for our country the equivalent figures to those I have just mentioned are significantly lower. That is the point: these cultures are worse than ours on the many issues we care about in relation to women and girls. On the one hand, the Government are pledging action on women and girls and driving improvements in that area—we have done so in our society for many decades—but on the other hand they are pretending that the citizens of those countries, which have done none of that work, are exactly the same as us and will come over and treat our women exactly the same. I am afraid that flies in the face of common sense and the clear statistical evidence I gave about rates of crime and the social attitudes of those people. I am not afraid to say that there is a lot to do when it comes to women and girls in our culture, but we have a significantly better culture towards women and girls than countries such as Eritrea, Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and a whole range of others, so it is perfectly reasonable for women being asked to live alongside huge numbers of unvetted people from those countries to be concerned and to have worries. We should not be afraid to call that out, and it has nothing to do with racism. We have a culture of football hooliganism in this country, and it is predominantly white people who engage in that football hooliganism. I am happy to say that; it does not make me racist towards white people. It does not make me racist towards other cultures when I point out the issues and problems that they have, which we should not be afraid to call out.
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
It is around one in four. It was 80% in the country I referenced, which is significantly more. The equivalent figure for this country is much, much too high—I would want it to be zero—but that makes the exact point, which I think the hon. Member did not want to draw out, that those countries are worse than we are. We should not be importing large quantities of unvetted young men from those cultures without a proper way of dealing with that. We do not have a way of doing that. The Government inadvertently admitted that, as they have had to actively tell those people not to rape women. That is because they know the things I have said about the differences in attitudes towards women in many of those countries. The question is: what do we do about it? I am clear that it should be up to us to decide who comes here from what countries and on what basis. We should decide asylum policy—not the people smugglers—and the routes on which people come. The Conservatives have been clear and admitted that we should have been quicker in bringing in our own deterrence policy, but we are committed to doing that now and have a plan for it. That is what actually counts. The only country that has successfully dealt with this issue is Australia. It saw a decrease of more than 90% in the number of people crossing the sea and entering illegally by saying, “If you come here illegally under that method, you don’t get to stay—end of story.” That worked, and we should do exactly the same thing. The Government like to talk about the failure of the Rwanda plan and the four people sent as volunteers. They know that those people went voluntarily. It is clearly not a deterrent if someone goes voluntarily, but we were never allowed to use the scheme as a deterrent to deport people whether they wanted to go or not. The Government can do everything they want to reform and tweak the operation of human rights laws in this country, but there are two ways in which that approach is fundamentally flawed. First, it does not matter if a claim can be successfully rejected if someone cannot be deported to the country they came from. It is completely futile. Unless the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) thinks that we will deport people en masse to Afghanistan or some other third world, war-torn country, clearly, whatever we might want to do around the validity of their claim is worthless if we cannot send them to another country or back to the country they came from. Secondly, we have talked about the nature of the claims and how we might tweak them. The European Court of Human Rights is a precedent-setting Court. If it makes a ruling and sets a precedent, ultimately, that will hold sway. I asked the hon. Member for South Norfolk to comment on article 3, which he failed to do. That is just one example of how the European convention on human rights has become totally distorted. Article 3 was originally envisioned to prevent people from being deported to a country where they might face torture. That was the aim of the article. It is now used to say that when someone comes to our country and commits horrendous crimes such as rape, but they have a psychiatric illness, it is torture if the country we seek to deport them to does not have adequate healthcare provision. Under article 3, that is not allowed. Who can reasonably argue that that was envisioned by all the people the hon. Member referenced when they created a set of rights which, at the time, were appropriate and applied appropriately? Does he really think that those people envisioned that, 50 years later, that would mean we could not deport a rapist because he would not get adequate healthcare in the country that we were deporting him to? The article has been totally distorted from its original purpose, and the question of whether we can operate a safe and decent framework of rights in this country without the use of the ECHR is quite clearly scaremongering. Canada manages it, New Zealand manages it, Australia manages it. They all manage to have a framework of rights and international agreements, and that includes Canada, which is seeking a closer relationship with the EU, which is not part of the ECHR.
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
I urge the hon. Gentleman to read Lord Wolfson’s report, which makes it clear that we can engage in international agreements. To make the point valid, the hon. Gentleman has to suggest that no other countries in the world manage to enter into complex legal arrangements without both being part of the ECHR. Of course they do. Agreements will be subject to renegotiation. This country is absolutely right to respond to what our people want us to do, which is to protect our borders and put them first, and not the sorts of people we are putting up at taxpayers’ expense in Crowborough.
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
The hon. Gentleman is talking about how a system can effectively manage the risk of the sites. Does he not accept that the women in Piddington and others just do not want the risk there at all? They do not want it to be managed; they do not want it there at all.
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
Will the Minister give way on that point?
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
Does the Minister think that, in any circumstances, a rapist should not be deported from this country because of access to healthcare?
- Hansard source
Infants, Parents and Carers Bill
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West on introducing this important Bill. I also recognise the contributions of Members of both Houses, and that of the former Members of Parliament Andrea Leadsom and Will Quince, who have done so much work in this area. I declare an interest, Dame Siobhain, as a consultant paediatrician in the NHS and a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. I put on record that the Opposition support this Bill. Child development is hugely important; that is why Committee members are here today. It is also why I am in this place at all, as it was a major motivator for me to become an MP. As a paediatrician, I saw the profound effect that children not receiving the care that they need in the early years can have. Some cases were of deliberate neglect, and I saw children who had delayed growth, delayed development or physical changes. I remember one little boy who was admitted with vomiting, but he was not ill with a medical condition. We discovered that he had learnt to vomit because nobody came when he cried. Those children need us to step up in a way that we do not always do at the moment. There is a spectrum, and most of the children are thankfully not in that situation, but it does demonstrate the profound changes that can occur if children are not looked after. However, we also see the profound improvements that can occur if children receive all the things that they need to thrive to their best potential. Sometimes parents may not understand the importance of certain interventions, or they may need support to deliver them. That is where this Bill comes in.
- Hansard source
Infants, Parents and Carers Bill
I think it is important that we have both women and men in politics, because fathers have an important role to play with babies too, and gentlemen can talk about their experiences of fatherhood. One of the challenges that some babies face is the lack of that male role model. It is a balance between the two. And, of course, women and men can talk about each or either topic if they wish to do so. The other thing I want to talk about is interaction and play—the serve and return. Being played with and stimulated is very important for brain development, and a lack of it can lead to reduced attention span, reduced memory and weaker impulse control in the long run. People might believe that interaction and play come instinctively, and to some they do, but to others less so. Support and understanding of what they can do to help their baby is something that I think women and men value, because almost everyone loves their children intently, so they will want to do the best for their baby, and sometimes it is helpful to know what that is. I often get patients in clinic who come with one problem, but if they have a small infant, they will often say, “While I am here, doctor, can you just look at this? Can I just ask about that?” I am sure the hon. Member for Stroud, as a GP, will tell us the same. Parents ask because there are so many questions, and having the opportunity to have them answered is very important. I also want to talk about inequalities, because we have talked a lot about them this morning. There is now inequality between the services provided in cities and those provided in rural areas. Does the Minister have any comments on how those services will be provided in rural environments? Very often the average income for a postcode may be good, but there will be hidden poverty within it, because of discrepancies within postcode averages that are seen less in cities. Transport can also be more difficult in rural areas. How will the Minister ensure that the services are accessible to those who need them? I want to talk about the money, because if we invest £1 in a child’s life at this age, we can get £10 in return owing to better outcomes in the long run. Will the Minister confirm that the money for those services will be provided in full, and that there will be a workforce plan to ensure that there is a workforce to deliver them? The hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South, who I know has done a lot of work in this area over the years and cares about it very deeply, talks about outcomes. Outcomes are important, but so is value for money, because we must be careful with taxpayers’ money. What interventions are making the most difference, and how do we focus on achieving them? We need to think carefully about what we measure. Overall, however, this is a good Bill that will help infants and children to develop their full potential and have equality of opportunity, and therefore I will support it.
- Hansard source
Underperforming NHS Trusts: Government Oversight
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) on securing this debate on a subject important not only to her constituents but to all of us right across the country. The performance of the NHS is key to the health of the nation. It gives us all the best chance of good health and recovery, which is important for our social wellbeing and brings economic benefits. The first question is this: how do we know which trusts are performing well and which are not? First, we need to decide what good performance looks like. We can look at that in a couple of ways, in particular in relation to outcome and experience, both of which are important. The outcome, for example, may be a death. That will come to us all eventually, but the experience might be one of comfort, in line with the wishes of the individual—as good as can be delivered. Conversely, one could on the face of it have a good surgical outcome from a trust but a poor experience of care during that experience. Experience is measured in a number of different ways: individual staff, such as consultants, have patient feedback as part of their appraisal and revalidation; the friends and family test enables people to give anonymous feedback; the number of complaints or compliments can be measured; and trusts do their own surveys—but those are all to some extent internal processes.
- Hansard source
Underperforming NHS Trusts: Government Oversight
Sorry, the microphone went off, but it has just come back on again. The processes are mostly internal. Healthwatch is an independent patient voice, which looks at people’s experience across the health service in a way that is independent of Government. As part of the Health Bill, however, the Government plan to abolish Healthwatch and to bring it inside the Department. Will the Minister comment on whether they still plan to do that? When he was Mayor of Greater Manchester and in charge of its integrated care board, the Prime Minister wrote to the Government to suggest that they might be on the wrong path. As Prime Minister, does he still think so? What instructions has the Minister had in relation to that? People are sometimes frightened to provide feedback to trusts, but they will be more willing to do so when they have confidence in being heard independently. Other ways in which the Government measure experience relate to waiting times—how long it takes to be seen in clinic, how long it takes to be seen in A&E, how long it takes from the decision to admit a patient to actually admitting them, or how long it takes for a procedure or an operation. The Government produce lots and lots of figures but many of them, I am afraid, go in the wrong direction. The Government have a dashboard for the referral to treatment statistics, and the waiting lists are rising. The number reached a low point in March 2026, just after the reports of exceptional numbers of removals, but it has now risen by 222,000 in the past four months. I am afraid that the numbers waiting for a procedure or operation are higher now than at the general election. This year, many more people than in 2024 waited more than 12 hours in A&E after a decision to admit them. Staff sickness rates, mentioned earlier in the debate, are also consistently higher than they were before the general election. Statistics across the NHS are not going in the right direction. The Government also measure outcomes through the financial management of a trust, leadership and Government metrics, the number of procedures performed, the number of “never” events, and CQC inspections. Again, the Government are planning to fold HSSIB into the CQC, which many commentators have warned against; the Liberal Democrats and we the Opposition have spoken against the abolition of HSSIB. When the Government take the Health Bill through the Lords in Committee in the next week or two, I hope that they will think again. The Government also plan to roll a number of other things into the CQC at the same time, including events management; I wonder whether they are asking an organisation that they acknowledge has been struggling to take on too much. If poor performance is identified, who is responsible? Is it the consultant or the matron? Is it the directors’ suite—the chief executive or the chair? Ultimately, if a trust is underperforming at the moment, governors are supposed to hold the board to account. The Health Bill abolishes those. The ICBs—the commissioners—can hold the trust to account but their budgets have been halved, so will they have the capacity to do so? Many of them have merged, and some of those mergers have been paused by the Government. This is all a distraction. NHS England has a role, but it is being abolished too. Apparently, the overall headcount in the DHSC and NHS England is to be halved. How will they have the bandwidth to provide the scrutiny that the Government say they will have? Having identified the management of poor performance, the Government chose five trusts—North Cumbria, Mid and South Essex, Hull University Teaching Hospitals, Northern Lincolnshire and Goole, and East Kent—to have a special intensive recovery programme in March 2026. However, it is not clear what has been instituted in those trusts, what outcomes that programme is developing, how long it will last or what the Government will do for those trusts that fall just outside that group of five. How will the Government improve the variability between trusts that do not fall into the bottom cohort? How did they choose the five trusts that were chosen? As we heard earlier, there are several metrics by which some trusts could be considered in the bottom five, but they were not chosen, and some metrics by which those that were chosen may not be in the bottom five. How has the Minister chosen those trusts and how does she intend to improve those that do not fall into her chosen few? The Government have promised a workforce plan, but the workforce is the most important thing. Right hon. and hon. Members have spoken in this debate about the really good staff in their trusts working extremely hard in very difficult conditions. The previous Conservative Government developed a long-term workforce plan. This Government decided that they wanted their own workforce plan—they won the election so they are very much entitled to make one. But they have still not written it. They promised it by the end of 2025; we are rapidly approaching the end of 2026 and it is still not with us. Can the Minister—[Interruption.]
- Hansard source
Underperforming NHS Trusts: Government Oversight
Before the interruption, we were talking about the importance of workforce to the health service and to any improvements that we wish to make to services. The previous Conservative Government developed a long-term workforce plan. This Government decided to develop their own, which is fair enough, but it is very delayed. Can the Minister tell us, without using the words “in due course”, “imminently” or “soon”, when it will be published, preferably giving a date? Returning to other plans, the Government say that maternity and neonatal care is their priority, which is good, but when they came into government, they said that they had a plan to improve it. They spent the first 12 months writing their 10-year plan, which said that they would produce a maternity and neonatal plan. They did a review, which took six months longer than it was supposed to. They were then two years into a parliamentary term. That plan says that they will have a commissioner, who they have yet to appoint, and another plan for a modern service framework, which is apparently due by Christmas. Can the Minister guarantee that, two and a half years into the Parliament, they will have a delivery plan for maternity improvements? The bottom line is that I am concerned that the Government are too busy reorganising the NHS to deliver on their promises. NHS performance is declining in many areas. There is huge variability between trusts and departments. The Government picked five for intensive treatment. What about the others? Can the Minister clarify that it works? The Government are internalising patient experience, which means that it may suddenly look much better, but how will anyone have confidence in the figures if they are produced by the Government marking their own homework? The abolition of NHS England has been badly planned. ICB cuts, mergers and paused mergers are simply a distraction. The removal of the need for governors removes another layer of accountability and scrutiny. The Government say they are working at pace, but it is a very slow pace. The workforce plan and the maternity plan have been delayed, but so have things like the Hughes report. People suffering from valproate and mesh have been waiting and waiting. It is getting towards three years since that report was published. They have waited long enough. I urge the Minister to say when the Government intend to respond to that report. The Government need to get a grip of who is holding the trusts to account, so that when the Health Bill comes out the other side of the Lords, there is a clear chain of command. Perhaps it will lead up to the Secretary of State, but it is clear that they will not be able to micromanage every detail. There needs to be a clear path so that people know who is accountable, who will drive improvement, who to congratulate when improvements are made and who to hold accountable when it goes wrong.
- Hansard source
Underperforming NHS Trusts: Government Oversight
Will the Minister give way?
- Hansard source
Inheritance Tax
It is clear that the hon. Member is taking this issue very seriously and thinking about it very deeply. What does he think about inheritance tax on businesses? I give him the example of a bandage factory making sterile bandages, owned by a family, where the 40-odd-year-old gentleman currently running that factory stands to lose quite a lot of money when his father dies. That will mean laying off people or selling the factory. How does that help the people who work there?
- Hansard source
Inheritance Tax
Will the hon. Lady give way?
- Hansard source
Inheritance Tax
The hon. Gentleman is making a distinction between money earned by somebody and money earned by their father. If a man and his daughter run a business together and the father dies, should the daughter not inherit? How much did she earn the money by working in that business? Did she not earn it? Why should it matter? That business employs people—whom the hon. Gentleman has talked about—who will lose their job if that business must close.
- Hansard source
Inheritance Tax
What proportion of people working in the private sector on low wages are employed by people who own businesses?
- Hansard source
Inheritance Tax
On the point of ideology, what I have tried to get from my interventions is an understanding on the Government Benches that inheritance tax penalises people at all levels. If people do not start a business because it is not worth the bother, if they do not invest because it will be taken off them, and if they cannot pass a business on to their children and, as a result, it has to be sold and the jobs are lost, people do not have jobs and employment, and everyone is affected.
- Hansard source
Inheritance Tax
My husband is a farmer and runs businesses. He feels a huge responsibility not just in building his business, but to the people he employs. Those people will be affected if the business does not grow or does not invest because he is worried about this tax.
- Hansard source
Inheritance Tax
Does the hon. Gentleman understand that the bank of mum and dad comes from the hard work of mum and dad so that they can pass things on to their children?
- Hansard source
Inheritance Tax
This is, without doubt, one of the most important debates we can have, because it goes to the heart of a simple question: when someone works hard, saves diligently, builds a business, a family farm or buys a family home and wants to plan for their children’s future, why are they penalised by this Government? Why is their success targeted? And when will fairness be restored, so that those who work hard to achieve success are rewarded, not attacked and subject to the politics of envy? The answer, I hope, will be after the next election. Labour’s answer is always the same. Its instinct is to ask, “Who can we tax?” That is not me saying that, but the Work and Pensions Secretary, who admitted that every conversation he had had with Labour Back-Bench MPs was them asking who they can tax to pay for increased welfare spending. It is constituencies like Runnymede and Weybridge that are firmly in their sights. I can picture them now, sitting high in their Whitehall ivory tower, looking for new ways to tax and spend. Surrey and the south-west comes into their sights: the successful businesses, the skilled workforce and the resulting high house prices. Rather than looking to replicate that growth and success, they simply look at their spreadsheet. They see a house price. They see something they think they can tax. But people’s assets are not lottery winnings. They are the product of decades of hard work, discipline and sacrifice. To tax wealth and savings in this way is not fairness; it is a penalty on individual responsibility. It sends a damaging message that those who work hard, build a business, and save for their and their family’s future will be punished for doing so. I believe in fairness, not redistribution. At the next election, the country will be offered a clear choice: a Labour Government whose priorities put welfare spending above our country’s defence and whose commitment to raising taxation will bankrupt our children’s future; or a Conservative party that believes aspiration should be rewarded, not targeted, that savings belong to the individual not the state, and that planning for the future should be encouraged, not penalised. Whether it is an increase in taxation on savings and investments, increased taxation on businesses, the mansion tax or the family farm tax, Labour’s approach is to tax success. Labour is asset-stripping our country, and targeting the very people and businesses that create growth, prosperity and opportunity. At the next general election, the choice could not be clearer: a Labour party, facilitated by the Liberal Democrats, that sees taxpayers as targets; or a Conservative party that backs enterprise and rewards hard work, and stands up for those who want to build a better future for their children. People’s money is their own. It is not the Government’s money that Labour has not taxed yet.
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
Is it not the case that those on the Labour Benches have entirely missed the point? Dealing with the problem once it has arrived in our communities will not do. We need something fundamental that deals with the problem, which, admittedly, did not arrive in 2024—it is of relatively long standing. We need a solution, just like the Rwanda solution, which was on the cusp of being implemented at the general election. The first thing that the Labour party did on coming into office was to can that.
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
Lord Wolfson has put that beyond fear of peradventure in his report—we have to leave the ECHR—but does my hon. Friend agree with me that that is not enough? Some of the countries to which we want to send people back will not take them, particularly Pakistan. Do we not need to get real with the Government of Pakistan and say, “If you refuse to co-operate with this, you can forget about visas and foreign aid”?
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
The Minister is talking about Rwanda, but she did not give the scheme a chance to generate results. On day one, the previous Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, canned it, without any prospect of it showing demonstrable results. Looking back, does she think that was wise?
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
Would the Minister like to look at the way the previous Government dealt with illegal Albanian migrants? It was hugely successful, yet this Government do not appear to have learnt any lessons from that. They are persisting with allowing illegal migrants to remain here indefinitely without any realistic prospect of being returned, and there is no meaningful pressure on Governments, particularly Pakistan, to take people back.
- Hansard source
Inheritance Tax
I am grateful to the Minister; he is being very generous. If he was a farmer with a relatively small farm—probably pretty marginal at, say, 300 acres and worth about £3 million—would he consider improving his farm and investing in capital to upgrade it, with the expensive kit now necessary to produce any sort of return on the land these days, or would he think, particularly if he was getting on in years, that that money would simply be top-sliced by the Treasury?
- Hansard source
Inheritance Tax
What would the hon. Lady say to her constituents about this subject? I have been looking on Rightmove at houses prices in St Albans, where a very nice but semi-detached house in Carlisle Avenue is on the market for £1.4 million. She has just dissed those people by saying they will not be a priority for tax cuts at the next general election. Can she advise how they should vote?
- Hansard source
Nuclear Energy: Scotland
The hon. Lady made the point that the Scottish Parliament should decide. Does she not agree that it should be the local planning authorities that decide? They should be given proper devolution, which would allow the local communities to decide whether they want nuclear or not.
- Hansard source
Nuclear Energy: Scotland
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart, and I welcome the Minister to her place. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) for bringing forward this debate. I also welcome the Scottish Liberal Democrats getting off the fence and finally backing new nuclear.
- Hansard source
Nuclear Energy: Scotland
The Prime Minister mentioned déjà vu at Prime Minister’s questions, and I must say I am suffering from a bit of the same. I fondly remember many debates in the Scottish Parliament in which I made the case for new nuclear in Scotland, but it was always blocked by the SNP. I have always maintained that we should have an energy mix, and nuclear is vital for our baseload when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow. Without nuclear, it will be a real struggle for the Scottish Government to get to net zero. I will refer to some of the contributions today. The hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire was right to point out skills and opportunities. This could be a real path for oil and gas workers to make that transition. Another key thing mentioned was grid stability, which I had not thought of. The inertia from the large power stations that we have just now is vital to keeping the grid stable. It would be good to hear from the Minister what plans there are to replace that once Torness closes. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) described the renaissance of nuclear and all the benefits, but Scotland is being left behind just now in relation to jobs, skills and local economies. Instead, the SNP wants to carpet-bomb our countryside with monster pylons and battery storage.
- Hansard source
Nuclear Energy: Scotland
That is a brilliant point, because we would probably be building new nuclear power stations where the grid already is. We already have the grid connection at Hunterston and at Torness. It is exactly why we should be backing new nuclear. It is clear that the SNP’s effective ban on new nuclear power is holding Scotland back, in terms of both our energy transition and our economy. Right now, Scotland has the most expensive and vulnerable grid in the UK, and much of that is down to the fact that the SNP has turned its back on nuclear. When I was an MSP, I was fortunate enough to visit Hunterston B. What a wasted opportunity that is. It has the grid connection and the space—it is all there; it just needs the political will to make it happen so that we can have Hunterston C. As we progress to sourcing more and more of our energy from renewables such as wind, the problem of intermittency will only get worse. The irony is that the SNP’s irrational opposition to new nuclear means that a future Scotland would be completely reliant on English nuclear power when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine. Luckily, we have a UK grid, so we share the power with our neighbours, and Scotland will not face blackouts because of SNP failures. But while our shared grid means that Scotland will not miss out on imported nuclear energy, thanks to the SNP’s blind opposition we are missing out on thousands of jobs and billions of pounds of investment. During my visit to Hunterston, I met the young graduates and apprentices there. It was heartbreaking to hear that, to have a future in nuclear, they were going to have to move away from Scotland—talented young people in highly paid jobs moving away because of the SNP’s dogma. It is interesting to hear that one in 10 people at Hinkley Point C are Scots. What makes the SNP’s luddite approach totally senseless is that people in Scotland want new nuclear. We have heard it again this afternoon. Sixty per cent of the Scottish public are in favour of building new nuclear power stations to replace those being decommissioned. East Lothian, Dumfries and Galloway and Highland councils have all called for new nuclear development. Many of the jobs and much of the investment that could be generated by new nuclear would go to some of Scotland’s most deprived communities. We are in desperate need of thriving local industries, yet the SNP, which loves to talk about devolution, has overruled those local wishes. For far too long, the SNP has weaponised devolved powers over planning to block new nuclear, which of course is a reserved issue. The SNP’s bizarre opposition to this clean and consistent energy goes against science, against all common sense and against the wishes of the Scottish public. The clear cross-party consensus from the Scottish MPs in the Chamber—apart from the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) and the SNP, of course—shows just how backward John Swinney’s position really is. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to this important debate. I very much hope that nuclear energy will have a bright future in Scotland. If we are to transition beyond fossil fuels in the long term, nuclear will be a vital part of our energy mix. Scotland must not miss out as a result of the SNP luddites.
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I sought to intervene on the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) because I agree with his point about the unfairness of asylum dispersal. For my constituents, two thirds of whom are in Hillingdon, which, because of Heathrow airport, has the highest number of asylum seekers per capita of any local authority in the country and has borne for decades the consequences of the asylum dispersal policies, the issue is of huge importance. I invite the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich and the Minister to call to mind the name of the Member of this House who created the asylum dispersal system, which placed asylum seekers in accommodation in the cheapest parts of the country to make taxpayers’ money go further. I worked with that Member of Parliament when I was involved in local government. When he introduced it, he was the hon. Member for Leigh. Now he is the right hon. Member for Makerfield. Members who criticise that system might like to reflect that their party, like ours, has been hearing for many years that the British people expect us to do better on this issue. Nobody has a monopoly on virtue when it comes to dealing with the asylum system, particularly the right hon. Member for Makerfield, who I hope will reflect, now that he is Prime Minister, on the importance of rebuilding the system that had so many flaws when he first put it into effect many years ago. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that this issue is hugely important to you. The relentless campaigning you have done on behalf of your constituents around Crowborough reflects the campaigning that many of us have needed to do. In my case, lessons have been learned by my constituents about the consequences of the huge numbers arriving at Heathrow. In more recent years, the asylum system has become even more overloaded with new applications, as people are driven on coaches from Dover and Kent to Home Office asylum accommodation in close proximity to Heathrow airport, placed there by the then Minister, now Prime Minister. More recently, that pressure has been added to by the significant number of Chagossians in Mauritius fleeing the consequences of the Government’s deal and needing to be supported by the local authority. This really matters to constituents. Following the murder of Wayne Broadhurst, killed while walking his dog in nearby Hillingdon about a year ago by Afghan refugee Dawood Safi, the community has done marvels to come together and show its hospitality and welcome for people who are genuinely vulnerable. But there is exasperation, and we need to see serious progress. In the spirit of holding the Government to account, I have some questions for the Minister. It is clear from a number of Members’ points that this is about not just the ECHR but the refugee convention and, in particular, the Human Rights Act 1998. Having visited the court in Strasbourg, I know that in the last 16 years only one case there involving immigration matters has gone against the British Government, but we have cases day after day within our own courts. The ECHR has no jurisdiction over borders; it covers immigration, but not borders. Every day at Heathrow, people arrive as undocumented migrants—without a visa or whatever is required—and are turned away, unable to access the process, which causes such frustration and leaves them stranded in our system for many years. That sovereignty of decision making at the border is an asset that we have not used sufficiently. The Opposition’s borders plan has set out the much broader range of initiatives that we need to take, but will the Minister, given the pressure on my constituents, consider a different approach to sovereignty? It would be a case of simply saying to those who arrive on small boats, “We will not let you cross our border. You have no documentation. You will not be allowed to access that system at all, and we will not accept that continued pressure on our courts, local authorities, health services and the other parts of the system.” At the same time, the Government should consider, as I have advocated previously, introducing an asylum visa and simply saying, “If you arrive to work, get married or for family reunion, you have to have a visa to cross our border,” with asylum as the sole exception. We are an island. People who come to our country know in advance that they are going to make that journey. There is ample opportunity for them to seek permission. I have total sympathy, having been on the French beaches and seen the footage that the French police have. We need to ensure we deal with this robustly. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that this issue is something that you and I share. Given the way the system operates, we need to ensure full consultation and planning. Some communities are playing host to thousands of people who may be stuck in some sort of limbo for a long time and who will acquire through that process rights to housing locally, so we need a more effective system in place for planning, and it needs to be addressed by this Government. We need a much more robust approach to borders, but there are things this Government could do today that would make the situation for my constituents and yours, Madam Deputy Speaker, so much better.