Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,750 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
I am disappointed that the Minister does not know of the example of the Chancellor who resigned from Attlee’s Government for inadvertently or otherwise leaking details of the Budget. Does he at least appreciate that there is a difference between speculating about the contents of a Budget and leaking a Budget, and does he think that there should be any punishment for people who leak a Budget, irrespective of whatever the details were?
No one likes to consider the prospect of international conflict, but we have seen from that between Ukraine and Russia how dangerous a situation can be when fuel supply installations are targeted. What thought have the Government given to affording the same level of protection against either sabotage or external attack for these new smaller reactors as those that are already built into the construction of the larger plants?
We Conservative Members genuinely wish the Home Secretary well, because otherwise, in her own words, the country will start falling apart. It is a good effort—seven out of 10. She clearly has strong conservative instincts, but does she fear that the misery in many of these countries is such that asylum seekers are not really worried about how long they have to wait for their claim to be processed? Does she fear that unless we arrest, detain and deport people very quickly, this problem will just go on and on? The Home Secretary mentioned return hubs; could she say a bit more about those, and will she have an open mind about schemes such as Rwanda?
Given the blatant breach of pre-Budget purdah, will the Chancellor follow the proper example set by Hugh Dalton?
As the Home Secretary struggles to find these return hubs, she should reflect on the fact that it was her Government who wasted £700 million by giving up an opportunity to Germany and the United States before we got the chance to use it.
Can I ask the Minister whether I have got this right? The Chancellor made a speech to try to reassure the markets that she was going to plug the enormous black hole in the Government’s finances. It reassured the markets to an extent, and the forecasted borrowing costs fell. The OBR adjusted its forecasts, and then the Chancellor decided that she did not need to take the measures she had announced in her speech, and the markets have now reacted adversely. This is all against the background of the cost of borrowing being higher today, as it has been all year, than the peak under the supposedly disastrous Budget of Liz Truss. What sort of confidence is that going to give the British economy?
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Labour’s change of course is most welcome, and she has outlined some useful steps. My constituents want to see the Holiday Inn in Bridgwater emptied of migrants and returned to commercial use. To achieve that, she will have to be bolder, so does she agree that anyone who arrives in this country illegally should be detained on entry and deported automatically?
Thank you for calling me, Ms Lewell, and many congratulations to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on securing the debate. As many Members have already said, a huge number of families have acquaintance with Parkinson’s. My old dad, who served in this House until 1997, lived with Parkinson’s and I am hugely honoured to be the patron of the Royal Sutton Coldfield and North Birmingham Parkinson’s Group, which does so much good and hard work in the royal town and elsewhere. I pay special credit to Movers and Shakers, which is led by people living with Parkinson’s. Some of them are in the Public Gallery today. Movers and Shakers was started by Rory Cellan-Jones and Sir Nicholas Mostyn. The “Movers and Shakers” podcast has made a huge difference to so many people, and I am extremely grateful to Sir Nicholas for agreeing to come to Royal Sutton Coldfield next April. There are just two key points that I want to emphasise today. The first is that we need more specialists and better access to specialists. We do not have enough neurologists in this country. People are supposed to have to wait for only 18 weeks to see a neurologist, but there is clear evidence of people waiting for between one and two years to see one, and of course most of those people will not have any medication in that period. There are 720 neurologists in the UK. There are 4,400 neurologists in Poland, which has half the UK’s population. The second point is that we need more support for research. Inevitably, that is about funding. We need to harness the private and public sector together to maximise that funding. These two points seem to me to be two of the five key points that we are discussing in this debate.
Does the Minister have any understanding at all of the impact of this incontinent briefing and leaking—the contradictory rumours about pensions, inheritance tax and housing—which is enraging so many of my constituents in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield? Does he not agree that normally an omnishambles happens once the Budget speech has been delivered, not while it is still being crafted?
The Home Secretary said that she was exploring “the possibility of return hubs, with negotiations ongoing.” Can she tell the House which countries she is negotiating with and how much it will cost?
Does my hon. Friend agree that the current pathway for innovative technology to be licensed is both costly and time consuming, meaning inventions that would help his constituents, such as BeechBand, which uses vibrotactile stimulation to decrease symptoms, face delays in testing and potential introduction, and that we need to find a way forward?
The last Home Secretary said that we should judge the success of the Government in smashing the gangs by whether the number of channel crossings falls. By which date should we judge whether the Government have been successful? If the Home Secretary fails, will she resign?
In some ways at least, this Chancellor is improving: her Budget last year unravelled within a day, and this year the Budget has unravelled before it has been announced. We know why the Chief Secretary is refusing to answer the question about the leak inquiry. It is because the Chancellor knows exactly who leaked the details of the Budget, because she sees that face every day in the mirror. This all goes back to last year’s Budget. Labour said in its manifesto that it would limit spending increases by the year 2028-29 to £9.5 billion a year. In the Budget, the Government increased spending by £76 billion a year. That is eight times higher. Before the Chief Secretary starts spouting about the £22 billion fiction, £9.5 billion plus £22 billion equals a lot less than £76 billion, doesn’t it?
Most on the Government Benches disagree with us, but I share the Home Secretary’s admiration for the Danish model. The Danish Finance Ministry publishes data regularly on the fiscal contribution of different profiles of migrants. It shows in Denmark that migrants from MENAPT—the middle east, north Africa, Pakistan and Turkey—are net recipients over the course of their lifetimes. Will the Home Secretary ensure that the Treasury publishes the same data in the same way in this country?
I call the shadow Minister.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
I call the shadow Minister.
With the leave of the House, I will take motions 7 to 10 together. Ordered, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs That Helena Dollimore be discharged from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and Juliet Campbell be added. Environmental Audit That Anna Gelderd and Alison Taylor be discharged from the Environmental Audit Committee and Alison Hume and Jonathan Davies be added. Northern Ireland Affairs That Leigh Ingham be discharged from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and Mike Kane be added. Welsh Affairs That Claire Hughes be discharged from the Welsh Affairs Committee and Gerald Jones be added.—(Jessica Morden, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement, most of which I read The Sunday Telegraph. I am pleased that she is bringing forward measures to crack down on illegal immigration. It is not enough but it is a start, and a change from her previous position in opposition of a general amnesty for illegal migrants. I praise the new Home Secretary. She is bringing fresh energy and a clearer focus to this problem, and she has got more done in 70 days in the job than her predecessor did in a year. She seems to get what many on the Labour Benches refuse to accept, and she is right to say that if we fail to deal with the crisis, we will draw more people to a path that starts with anger and ends in hatred. We will also allow our English channel to operate as an open route into this country for anyone who is prepared to risk their life and pay criminal gangs. That is not fair on British citizens, it is not fair on those who come here legally, and it is not fair on those in genuine need who are pushed to the back of the queue because the system is overwhelmed. Anyone who cannot see by now that simply tinkering with the current system will not fix this problem is either living in la-la land or being wilfully obstructive. It is a shame that it has taken Labour a year in office to realise there is a borders crisis—[Interruption.] I don’t know why Labour Members are chuntering. What was their first act in government? The first act of the Home Secretary’s predecessor was to scrap the Rwanda plan, which was already—[Interruption.] Yes, they are cheering. It was already starting to act as a deterrent before it even got off the ground, and before it started, Labour Members threw away all our hard work and taxpayers’ money—they are the ones who have wasted that money, not us. The statement is an admission that the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill of the Home Secretary’s predecessor will not work, but I am glad to see Labour Members now changing course. The powers they are using in the Bill are ones they all voted down when we were in government, and they would not be able to do that if we had not got those measures through. None of them know the work that was done; they are just cheering nonsensically, but we know what has happened since Labour came to office. The Home Secretary will know that 10,000 people have crossed the channel in the 70 days she has been in office, and we have seen record levels of asylum claims in the last year. The problem has got worse since Labour came into office, and it is getting worse by the day. I am afraid that what the Home Secretary is announcing will not work on its own, and some of these measures will take us backwards. I say that to her with no ill will, and I hope she believes me when I say that I genuinely want her to succeed. Conservative Members are speaking from experience: we know how difficult this is— [Interruption.] We do, and we will not take any lectures from the people who voted down every single measure to control immigration. Some of the measures that the Home Secretary is announcing today are undoubtedly positive steps—baby steps, but positive none the less. We welcome making refugee status temporary, and we welcome removing the last Labour Government’s legislation that created a duty to support asylum seekers—she is right to do that. However, some of what she is announcing simply does not go far enough. Conservative Members believe that anyone who arrives illegally, especially from safe countries, should be deported and banned from claiming asylum. Does the Home Secretary agree that anyone who comes to this country illegally should be deported? I would like to know, and I think the country would like to know, because this announcement means that some people who arrive will be allowed to stay—they just need to wait 20 years before getting permanent settlement. That does not remove the pull factor. The main problem is that for as long as the UK is in the European convention on human rights, illegal immigrants and those exploiting our system will use human rights laws to block anything she does to solve this. I know that because I saw it happen again and again over the last four years, and I know she has seen it too. We even saw it this year with the Prime Minister’s one in, one out scheme, which has seen people return to France and come back on small boats yet again. I guarantee that the Home Secretary’s plan to reinterpret article 8 will not work. We tried that already, and Strasbourg and UK case law will prevail. I agree with her that the definition of “degrading treatment” is over-interpreted, but renegotiating article 3 internationally will take years—years we do not have if it were even possible, but the fact is that it is not. We know that because a small group of EU countries tried that earlier, and they were dismissed by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe. Her Government did nothing to support them, so I am not convinced it is the Prime Minister’s negotiating skills that will sort out that problem. We have looked at this issue from every possible direction, and any plan that does not include leaving the ECHR as a necessary step is wasting time we do not have. Just like the Government’s plan to “smash the gangs”, or the one in, one out policy, it is timewasting, and it is doomed to fail because of lawfare. We have seen this all before. The tough measures will be challenged in the courts and blocked, the new legal routes that the Home Secretary is talking about will be exploited, and the numbers arriving on our shores and disappearing into the black economy will keep on rising. If the Home Secretary is serious about reducing these numbers—I do believe that she is—she must be bolder. She must take steps to deter illegal immigrants from coming to Britain, and deport them as soon as they arrive. Our borders plan does just that, and I know that she has studied it in detail. I have seen the looks, and I know that she knows that we would leave the ECHR and the European convention on action against trafficking to stop the Strasbourg courts from frustrating deportations, and establish a new removals force to ensure that all illegal arrivals are deported. We would end the use of immigration tribunals, judicial review and legal aid in immigration cases, as those are the things that are slowing us down, and we would sign returns agreements that are backed by visa sanctions to ensure that we send illegal arrivals back to their place of origin. I welcome what she says about Angola and Namibia, but we all know that those countries are not the ones that are creating the biggest problems. We need to be bold, serious and unafraid to do what the British people demand: secure our borders. That is what is in our borders plan, so I urge the Home Secretary to take me up on my offer to work together, not just because we have some ideas that she might find useful, but because judging by the reaction of her own Back Benchers today, she may find our votes come in handy. Earlier this year, we saw what happened when the Government tried to make changes through the welfare Bill: the Prime Minister was defeated by his own Back Benchers and ended up passing legislation guaranteeing that more money would be spent on welfare. It does not appear that his grip on the party has improved since then, so we can be sure that Labour Back Benchers are already plotting to block any serious changes that she tries to make, so we can help her with that—[Interruption.] Why are Labour Members shaking their heads? We have seen them do that time and again. Our offer to work together is a genuine one and in the national interest. We will not play the same game that Labour Members did by voting things down for no reason. However, the Home Secretary must be clear with the House on these questions: how many people will be able to take advantage of the new work and study visa routes? What will be the level of the cap? Will it be 10,000 people or 100,000 people? The Government have separately confirmed that they will allow Gazan students to bring dependants. We oppose that, but can she clarify how the Government will ensure that people brought to the UK from a territory under Hamas control are not a risk to our security? If she finds that the Human Rights Act 1998 and the ECHR prevent her from enacting those proposals, will she use primary legislation to resolve that? Has Lord Hermer agreed? By her own admission three weeks ago, the Home Office is not yet fit for purpose, so why are we creating a new legal route for the Home Office to run? Will she take me up on my serious, genuine offer to meet and to discuss how we can work together to resolve the asylum crisis—yes or no? I urge her to put party politics aside, meet me and my shadow Home Secretary, so that we can find a way to work together—
The Home Office has requested transitional accommodation for asylum claimants, following the closure of Garats Hay in my constituency. However, neither Leicestershire county council nor Charnwood borough council has been consulted or received any additional funding for this extra burden. Why are these councils being bypassed, and will they get the funding that they need?
In the past year, a record £70 billion has been withdrawn from pension schemes through the tax-free lump sum as a result of the fear driven by the uncertainty of recent months. Does the Minister understand that the constant leaks and policy kite flying are leading to this adverse effect on pensioners’ savings?
More than 5,000 people in Bexley have signed my petition to stop Mayor Khan closing the overnight counter at Bexleyheath police station. Will the Minister tell us who is to blame for the £260 million of funding cuts now facing the Met police: the Labour Government or the Labour Mayor of London?
12. What assessment her Department has made of the potential merits of introducing a statutory annual cap on levels of legal immigration.
Does the Minister not recognise that an important step towards significantly reducing net migration would be to make it clear to all those working in his Department or handling migration that there is a number that everyone is working towards? If that is the case, surely Members of this House should be able to vote on that binding cap, as happens successfully in countries such as Australia.
Rural crime and tool theft are out of control. A tradesman’s tools are stolen every 21 minutes, and when a farmer or tradesman has their equipment stolen, it causes complete misery and costs them severely. Their means of work are then all too often sold in broad daylight at car boot sales. Will the Government adopt our rural crime and tool theft plan to crack down on the sale of stolen goods and on the misery being caused to so many farmers and tradesmen?
Joy Allen, Labour’s very own police and crime commissioner for Durham, has said that the Government have consistently demonstrated their complete lack of understanding of policing and community safety. Does the Minister think that she said that because the Government have cut police numbers by 1,316 since they came to power, because crime is surging, or because senior police officers are warning that the Government are creating a funding crisis?
I understand that the permanent secretary at the Home Office recently appointed a single senior official to be responsible for asylum hotels. Will the Home Secretary please use her good offices to encourage that official to come to the Stanwell hotel in my Spelthorne constituency, so that they can see for themselves how inappropriate it is in the context of the surrounding village, and prioritise it for closure?
A constituent wrote to me asking whether I could get a wriggle on with his EU settlement scheme application. We checked with the Home Office and it turned out that he was subject to a live deportation order. It was issued in 2017, and we did deport him. Somehow he got back into the country and made his application. I said to the Home Secretary’s predecessor that if she was prepared to, with a stroke of her pen, re-enact that deportation order, then I was prepared to drive him to the airport myself. Now that we have a Home Secretary who is going to get a grip of this situation, I offer the same thing again.
I really do thank the Home Secretary for her statement. This is a tiny step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. To truly show that the Home Secretary is listening to the British people, does she agree with me that if you enter this country illegally, you should never be allowed to stay?
In March this year, the then permanent secretary of the Home Office said that the strategy to tackle violence against women and girls would be published before the summer recess. In July, the Minister committed to September. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) wrote to the Minister six weeks ago to ask for an update and has yet to receive a response. We would all like to see progress in halving violence against women and girls. Commenting on the delay, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Dame Nicole Jacobs, has said: “I fail to see where the momentum within government is coming from to ensure this commitment succeeds.” What does the Minister make of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s words, and can she please reiterate her commitment to publish the strategy before the end of the year?
Hoad’s Wood, which was mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), is a patch of semi-ancient bluebell woodland in my constituency where criminal gangs have dumped 30,000 tonnes of waste. It took about six months for them to fell ancient trees and bring in lorry after lorry. My constituents are really concerned that something like this might happen again. Over that whole period, the criminals were not stopped or apprehended. Have the Minister and the Secretary of State come to an understanding on who is responsible in such scenarios for stopping it from happening, and have they met the Environment Agency, police and local authorities to make sure that criminals will be stopped in the act if they do this in future?
Does the Chancellor recognise that her trailing of a mansion tax for houses that are nothing of the sort has caused deep anxiety for thousands of people, including many pensioners in my constituency, who could not afford a potential doubling of their council tax?
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I pay tribute to my constituent David Reid, who has done a huge amount of work to promote this petition, including by wearing his Parky charter T-shirt around the Scottish Borders. I met him most recently at the Border Union show, where he spoke about the petition’s importance and his hope that it would get enough support for us to have a debate, and here we are. Parkinson’s impacts every aspect of people’s daily lives, from making a cup of tea to getting dressed, spending time with friends and family, and much more. According to Parkinson’s UK, around 14,000 people in Scotland have a diagnosis of Parkinson’s. Parkinson’s UK does outstanding work to support people with this terrible condition. In the Scottish Borders, I have met its teams many times, including recently in Galashiels, and have learned more about the helping hand it gives to people living with this terrible disease and to their families. I encourage anyone who is affected by Parkinson’s to attend one of its events if they need someone to talk to, need a bit more support, or simply want to get out and about to socialise. I thank everyone who volunteers for Parkinson’s UK in the Scottish Borders and across the UK. They do so much to ensure support for people living with the disease. One in three people diagnosed with Parkinson’s are of working age, and more than 10,000 are under 50. We owe it to everyone with Parkinson’s to ensure they have the support they need and the best life they possible can.
10. Whether she has made an assessment of the potential merits of extending the remit of the national statutory inquiry into grooming gangs to include Scotland.
Last week, brave grooming-gang survivor Fiona Goddard spoke of how she was trafficked to Scotland as a vulnerable teenager. As she rightly said, the idea that this issue stops at the border is “insane”. Despite clear evidence from victims about grooming gangs operating in Scotland, the SNP Government in Edinburgh still refuse to hold an inquiry. [Interruption.] Will the Minister please listen to victims and campaigners and extend the national inquiry to Scotland, so that we can ensure that young girls and teenagers are not treated in this way again?
Two weeks ago, the Chancellor held a press conference from which everyone inferred that income tax was going to go up. On Friday, every newspaper said that income tax was not going to go up. It is plainly obvious to the general public and anyone who reads any of the papers that everything is being briefed from the Treasury or No. 11. Surely the Minister needs to come to terms with that and face up to the fact that it has a horrendous effect on business and consumer confidence, which is doing the economy a lot of damage.
The Home Secretary’s asylum plans still have a gaping hole in the middle of them in that she does not know what to do with failed asylum seekers who cannot be returned home. Her statement says that she is exploring possibilities with third countries. Can I suggest that she swallows her pride, and speaks to a third country that we know is willing: Rwanda?
In the spirit of consensus, which the Energy Minister untypically just moved away from, I join him in welcoming this announcement. I was advising the then Energy Minister when the Hinkley contract was signed and the Horizon project was proceeding, before Hitachi withdrew, so I am keen to see development at Wylfa and beyond. Will the Minister confirm what tangible steps are being taken to accelerate approval of Rolls-Royce’s design and other SMR designs, and by how much? When does he expect the first SMR to be operational at Wylfa?
The Government have clearly lost control of this Budget process. While they have been flying kites, businesses across the UK have been sending up distress flares. The £40 billion of tax from them in the last Budget saw hiring down, confidence down and investments down, and we are now seeing the same again. If any business in this country went to find backing and made as many U-turns as this Government are producing, it would not have a chance of finding an investor, so how can any business across the country have confidence in this Government?
I congratulate the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on introducing this debate. Every hour, two more people in the United Kingdom hear the life-changing words, “You have Parkinson’s.” As I have said before, for me, this is personal. A close family member was first diagnosed with Parkinson’s and later with progressive supranuclear palsy, a more aggressive condition, but my family’s experience is far from unique. Numerous constituents have contacted me about this debate—including Ellie from Farnham, who is in the Public Gallery today—and they all speak plainly about their daily reality, including mobility issues, speech challenges and the emotional strain that falls on individuals and their families. Their stories show extraordinary resilience, but also the gaps in support that remain.