Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,750 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
I have also been approached by BeechBand. I hope the Minister agrees that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the Government must ensure that where there are new, innovative technologies that could help sufferers of Parkinson’s or any other disease condition, they can get to the frontline to help people as quickly as possible.
I bow to the hon. Member’s experience on that. I hope the Minister is listening carefully, because these types of innovative technologies can make a significant difference and should be rolled out as quickly as possible. Living with Parkinson’s brings real financial strain. On average, people spend more than £7,500 each year managing their conditions. That rises to £22,000 when lost earnings are included, so support is not just a clinical need, but an economic one. In my Farnham and Bordon constituency, which includes Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages, 289 people are currently living with Parkinson’s. The fact that we are—I believe—the only constituency served by three integrated care boards of different sizes brings with it not only challenges but a chance for comparison. Despite their different sizes, some of their challenges are the same, including the increasing number of emergency admissions across all three ICBs. Those numbers lay bare the scale of need and the pressure on services, and underline the urgent requirement for earlier access to specialist care. I raised these concerns in May as the shadow Minister, but I sadly remain unconvinced that the current Government have identified Parkinson’s as a strategic priority. The new 10-year health plan imagines neighbourhood teams of doctors, nurses, pharmacists, physiotherapists and social workers. It is a positive vision, but it will work only if Parkinson’s specialists are part of those teams. In the Health and Social Care Committee, we often hear about artificial intelligence, remote monitoring and wearable devices, all of which have the potential to transform care through early intervention and better monitoring. The Government must look at those things as well. I will end with three clear questions. First, in May, the Minister committed to discussing support from the point of diagnosis with Parkinson’s Connect, the Parkinson’s UK programme designed to equip NHS professionals. Have those discussions taken place, and what actions will follow? Secondly, the Minister has said that Parkinson’s nurses are “worth their weight in gold”—[Official Report, 1 May 2025; Vol. 766, c. 493WH.] and I agree. What practical measures have been introduced to strengthen training and development for those nurses, particularly those who support patients with the most complex needs? Thirdly, will the Minister commit to working closely with charities such as Parkinson’s UK to ensure that the 10-year plan gives patients, carers and frontline staff the support they urgently need? Members on both sides of this Chamber share one goal: to get better diagnosis, better treatment and better support for people living with Parkinson’s. Action is what brings progress, and action is what our constituents need and deserve.
Like the shadow Secretary of State I welcome the announcement on moving forward with SMRs, but like the Minister’s extremely knowledgeable hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), I am concerned about gigawatt scale. Wylfa is truly the best site for a gigawatt-scale nuclear development. When we build in such a way we create a lot of jobs in north Wales, whereas bringing in a modular pre-made SMR will do less of that. Why was the decision made to put SMRs on Wylfa, when Wylfa is practically unique in its attributes for large-scale gigawatt nuclear production, and many sites could host SMRs? Will the Minister please explain that to the House, because I genuinely do not know the answer?
Correlation is not causation, but no one has so far mentioned that our environmental levies on legal waste disposal go up and up, in correlation with rises in criminal dumping. Is it possible that we have gone too far in that direction? Regardless of the enforcement we do, we are creating an incentive, and if there is enough money in it, we will have criminals doing it. There is no point wringing our hands in this Chamber and urging greater enforcement if we have created the fundamentals of an economy that we can never fix.
My thoughts are with those affected by the floods and by Storm Claudia. We cannot overstate the mental health impact of these events, and I pay tribute to the emergency teams and volunteers for the work that they do when we need them most. All Members from across the House will have had incidents in their constituencies of fly-tippers dumping waste; sadly, we have seen serious cases in my constituency of Epping Forest. Fly-tipping is a blight on communities, and the shameless people who do it should be punished to the full extent of the law. The hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) is right to raise the issue of the shocking illegal waste dump in his constituency, in which the waste was stacked over 10 metres high. It is positively frightening to think of the effects that will unfold for the environment, ecology and wildlife. The Labour Government’s action so far on dumping and fly-tipping has been somewhat lacklustre, despite the fact that 36 of the 50 local authorities with the highest fly-tipping rates—a staggering 72%—are Labour-controlled. What are the Government doing to help join up police forces to tackle this issue? In the case of huge, catastrophic dumps, such as the one in Oxfordshire that we are discussing, what support do the Government give the Environment Agency and the local authority? Will they work with the Home Office, the Cabinet Office and the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government to tackle this? What analysis of reform are they proposing to the Environment Agency? Would they consider a review, as we have proposed? With police numbers dropping under Labour, how do the Government propose that rural and, indeed, urban police forces tackle fly-tipping more effectively? With regard to this catastrophic Oxfordshire case, are the Government conducting an assessment of the potential public health and environmental impacts of this horrific waste dump?
This urgent question is about Budget press briefings. The Minister has repeatedly said that he takes his responsibilities very seriously. He was asked by the shadow Chancellor whether he could rule out any of the ministerial team or special advisers having leaked any of the information out to the press. Will he do so from this Dispatch Box in honour of what he has been saying in his answers this afternoon?
I thank the Home Secretary for a copy of her speech. It states that “the public rightly expect that we can determine who enters this country, and who must leave,” and I agree. One thing that is missing, though, is verifying the people who come in. We Conservatives put forward the idea of age verification, which many other countries have. Is that part of her plan? If not, would she consider putting it back in the plan, so that we know that those coming in are who they say they are?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the Petitions Committee for enabling this debate, and the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for opening it. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), who launched and promoted the petition. Like others, I thought it was the first time I had come across a petition from a Member, and it turns out that it is. The number of signatures that the hon. Member managed to secure shows that this issue is of great interest to our constituents, and it is right that we, as elected representatives in Parliament, debate these matters. I want to begin by talking about something that was not given sufficient focus in the debate: priorities and choices. Police officers cannot and have never been able to investigate and solve all crimes, all the time. They will never be able to do that, so choices and priorities have always been at the heart of policing since it was introduced in this country. The Opposition would rather that our police officers prioritise catching burglars, car thieves, shoplifters and violent offenders, and it seems clear to me that the public agree. It also seems clear that this is an issue on which the police, the CPS and the courts do not get it right all the time. As always, we cannot be led entirely by the worst examples, but they inevitably raise public concern. I will not focus overly on individual cases, many of which have been well publicised and often, thankfully, not taken forward in the end, but that begs the question: what would have happened to less high-profile individuals, or in cases that were less well publicised? The outcome may have been different, so this issue clearly needs our attention. That is not to say that there should never be any restriction on what people can put online. We need to find a balance akin to the one that we manage, as a whole—although certainly not perfectly—to keep more consistently in what we might call the real world. The criminalisation of hate speech and incitement is not new; what has changed is the scale and immediacy of communication in the digital age. Social media allows anyone with a mobile phone to reach potentially millions of people within seconds, and their words are essentially permanent and traceable. It exposes individuals to a constant stream of content, often stripped of context, and sometimes designed to provoke. Social media also strips away the manner in which something is said and the demeanour of the person—details that are often key to the prosecution of these sorts of cases in the real world. We have a responsibility to ensure that the law keeps pace with technology but remains fair, proportionate and grounded in common sense. Those who use social media to clearly and obviously promote hatred, threaten individuals or genuinely incite violence must not be able to act with impunity. But we must also ensure that sentencing reflects the seriousness of each case, that it distinguishes between genuine threats and offensive opinion, and that it maintains public confidence in both justice and freedom of expression. The judiciary has discretion to consider the context, harm and intent behind each offence, and proportionality is key. Sentences must be transparent, consistent and seen by the public to be fair. We know that the vast majority of people in this country value free speech deeply, but they also expect accountability for those who cross the line into criminality. The balance is delicate and must be protected. Social media has created new forms of harm, but also new forms of expression, and the justice system must navigate these novel complexities carefully. However, when the response appears to some to exceed what is necessary to deter or rehabilitate, it is right that Parliament examines whether the framework that guides decisions remains appropriate. There have been increasing anecdotal reports of the police arriving in disproportionate numbers to arrest children, parents and older people who may have said “the wrong thing”—as they might describe it—online. One example, widely reported in the press, was the arrest of Graham Linehan by five armed police officers at Heathrow in September. His alleged offence was a series of social media posts in which it seemed apparent to most dispassionate observers that he joked about punching transgender women in the genitals if they refuse to leave female-only spaces. That is a good example of the sort of joke that would not be welcome, and that many people would think was displeasing or inappropriate, but it should have been carefully considered before it was put forward as a possible crime. It was hardly worthy of the time of five armed police officers. Such use of police time and resources was completely disproportionate when officers’ efforts could be focused on dealing with the crimes that our constituents care more about—such as knife crime, shoplifting and burglary—that regularly go unsolved and do not have the same level of attention in all circumstances. I welcome the fact that in response—and in clear support of the fact that there is an issue—the Metropolitan police announced that they will no longer investigate non-crime hate incidents. I direct those who think there is no issue to the decision by an independent police force to make a major change in how it polices these sorts of things and to “focus on matters that meet the threshold for criminal investigations”. We need to see that approach applied across the whole country. The Conservatives put that idea to a vote in the Crime and Policing Bill Committee earlier this year, but sadly the Government voted it down. The National Police Chiefs’ Council, supported by the College of Policing, has reviewed the use and effectiveness of non-crime hate incidents. Subsequently, in September, the NPCC and the college wrote to the Policing Minister urging her to immediately scrap non-crime hate incidents in their current form, but the Government have not acted. They have ignored the authors of the review that they commissioned, and kicked the issue into the long grass. Will the Minister work with the Home Office to implement the recommendations of the NPCC and the College of Policing? More broadly, the Government are not being transparent about this issue. They do not collect data on non-crime hate incidents and they do not publish data on the number of arrests made for online malicious communications offences. Accurate quantitative data on arrests and prosecutions for offences on social media are therefore hard to come by. Does the Minister agree that the Government should do more to assuage concerns by collecting and publishing data that might help to illuminate the issue? We do have some data. In April, The Times published an article using data collated from freedom of information requests, setting out the number of arrests made in recent years under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. The newspaper reported that police officers are making more than 12,000 arrests a year under the legislation, equating to more than 30 a day. I remind hon. Members about the issue of priorities: police officers are going out and making 12,000 arrests a year for these sorts of offences. The paper also claims that the number of arrests in 2023 represented an almost 58% increase from before the pandemic, and that forces recorded 7,734 arrests in 2019.
That is a good example of the sort of question we cannot answer. We have had to rely on a media organisation putting forward FOIs to get some information. If the Government took ownership of the issue and published proper data, which might be able to pick out the nuances, we could have a more realistic debate. The hon. Gentleman is right that that could be the explanation, but we are none the wiser. We cannot simply blame this spike on rank-and-file officers. They are often only following orders from their superiors, who point to guidance from the NPCC and the College of Policing. Another key issue is that many people I have spoken to who perhaps thought that people such as Lucy Connolly had done the wrong thing and should be punished, but were concerned about the length of the prison sentence. At the same time as the Government will not budge on this issue, they are passing legislation that will let thousands of violent sexual offenders out of prison early. Very many thousands of them will serve only a third of their sentences. The Government say that there is not enough prison space, yet their proportionate response is to say that we have plenty of prison space to arrest other people.
I am happy to take an intervention.
I genuinely welcome that intervention. Throughout the debates on the Sentencing Bill, Labour MPs again and again made interventions that demonstrate that they fundamentally do not understand the Bill. I can take the hon. Lady through it step by step.
It may come from a man, but it is just an explanation. The early release schemes that we used, and that the Minister was previously using, excluded all sexual offences. We excluded sexual offences, and the early release schemes that continued excluded sexual offences. The Sentencing Bill makes no exclusion for sexual offences—none. We would not let out rapists earlier, and the Labour Government initially would not let out rapists, but they are now going to do so. We would not let out people who raped children, and initially the Labour Government would not let out people who raped children, but they are now passing a Bill that will let out people who raped children. Some people say that the scheme addresses a short-term crisis, but, again, there are existing schemes that could be used for short-term prison capacity issues, such as the ones that I have talked about, which exclude sexual offences. We agree that those should be excluded. Instead of carrying on using those schemes, this Government are legislating to let rapists, child rapists and paedophiles out of prison earlier on a permanent basis. Ninety per cent of people who go to prison for child grooming will be serving a third of their sentence. If that is something that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) thinks is defendable, I encourage her to go away and read the detail. As I said, the Sentencing Bill will let out thousands of violent and sexual offenders, even if Government Members pretend that that is not what is going to happen. I would also point out that some Labour MPs understand that and would not vote for it. They understand what their Government are persuading them to vote for. They really should not vote for it. I hope the Minister will commit to looking again at the sentencing framework to ensure it better reflects the concerns that colleagues have laid out today. Otherwise, this will be a missed opportunity. We are clear that we can restore democratic accountability to sentencing only through the abolition of the Sentencing Council and the restoration of its activities to the Lord Chancellor’s office. That is the sort of wholesale reform that is needed. We introduced an amendment to the Sentencing Bill to enable that, but Labour voted it down, proposing instead a halfway house that will not achieve anything like the radical change we need. The right choices are there and a better way forward is available. It is true that this is a new area for our law and for society; perhaps we were always going to take time to get this right. I welcome the campaigners and individuals affected driving politicians of all parties to do so. We have had some clear proposals for reform, which are a start, but in the meantime it will sadly take more cases, more public concern and more demands for change for the Government to get this right.
Does the Minister accept that our proposals, which were not just to abolish the Sentencing Council but to create a number of bodies that advise the Department, are essentially exactly the same proposal that existed before the Sentencing Council was introduced by the Labour Government. Did he think there was constitutional vandalism prior to Labour’s reforms?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I will keep my remarks brief because the debate is so well attended. It is a real privilege to speak in this debate on behalf of so many people in my constituency who have campaigned tirelessly to improve care and support for those living with Parkinson’s. Parkinson’s UK tells me that in Bexhill and Battle, around 377 people live with Parkinson’s. I pay special tribute to my constituents Linda, Helen and Vivienne, who join us in the Public Gallery today. They are part of a fantastic local Parkinson’s group, which campaigns with energy, determination and an unwavering commitment to the community, and their advocacy has brought the realities of living with Parkinson’s to the forefront, highlighting not just the challenges but practical solutions. Their work has also been key in raising awareness locally around the Parky charter petition. I am immensely proud that Bexhill and Battle recorded 576 signatures, the highest number anywhere in the UK. That is a testament to the strength of feeling in our area and the dedication of campaigners who ensured every voice was heard. The charter aims to highlight delays in diagnosis, fragmented care, failed benefits assessments and underinvestment in research as key areas where we need to do better. Delays in diagnosis can have irreversible consequences. Around 21,000 people in the UK currently live with Parkinson’s undiagnosed. Access to a full multidisciplinary team is another central pillar of good care, yet only 44% of people have access to an occupational therapist; 62% to a physiotherapist; and 40% to a speech and language therapist. Research is needed to create a brighter future for Parkinson’s sufferers. Currently, there is no cure and treatment options are limited. With someone diagnosed every 20 minutes in the UK and 25 million people affected globally, the need for new therapies is urgent. Closer to home, we have seen some encouraging steps in local Parkinson’s services. Our local trust has signed up to Parkinson’s Connect, allowing direct referral at the point of diagnosis. The trust now supports around 800 patients and the specialist team has grown from one to four staff members over the past two years. Home visits and outreach clinics are planned, which could make a meaningful difference once fully operational, but progress remains uneven.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for securing this debate and I thank the charities and organisations including Parkinson’s UK and the Royal College of Emergency Medicine for meeting me and sharing the insights into Parkinson’s that they have as patients and clinicians. In the UK, 166,000 people have Parkinson’s. It is a progressive neurological disorder that can start with a tremor or muscle stiffness, sleep problems or a whole range of symptoms, and end in complications such as swallowing difficulties, falls and bone fractures. Like all degenerative conditions, it impacts not only the individual but their family. It is vital that our NHS has the neurologists and therapists to care for people with Parkinson’s, because they depend on them for world-leading care. Unfortunately, this is an area in which we could do better. The UK was ranked 44th out of 45 European countries for the number of neurologists per head of population. The UK has only one neurologist per 100,000 patients, compared with one for every 25,000 patients in France and Germany, and one in five patients here has no access to a Parkinson’s disease nurse.
As I am a rural MP myself, the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I agree with him. The problem is with wider specialisms, too. According to the 2022 audit by Parkinson’s UK, just 40% of people with Parkinson’s had access to a speech and language therapist, 45% had access to an occupational therapist and 62% had access to a physiotherapist. I want to particularly highlight that to the Minister because there are no treatments that slow down the progression of Parkinson’s disease, but evidence published last year suggests that exercise might do, so physiotherapy—making sure that people are doing the right exercises to help them—is important. What plans does the Minister have to recruit, train and retain the NHS Parkinson’s health workforce? For the benefit of charities, hospitals and patients, will she shed any light on how her delayed long-term workforce plan, when it is published, might assist in that mission? As was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), Parkinson’s disease patients can live for many years, often with huge positivity. I was inspired to read of Neil Russell, a 65-year-old gentleman who ran from London to Barcelona—almost 1,000 miles—to raise money for Parkinson’s disease research. One in three of those living with Parkinson’s is of working age. It is crucial that they can get support, because many work as doctors, nurses, chief executives, scientists, journalists and in other professions. I was inspired by a meeting that I was privileged to have with Dr Acheson last week. He is not only working as an A&E consultant, after being diagnosed with Parkinson’s almost 10 years ago, but is leading work on a time-critical medicines project. We have already heard that medicines for Parkinson’s are time critical. If people with Parkinson’s do not get their medication within 30 minutes of the prescribed time, it can lead to them being unable to walk, talk or swallow. Research by Parkinson’s UK has found that 58% of people with Parkinson’s—a clear majority—do not get their medication on time every time when in hospital. That will not only cost hospitals £65.8 million in excess bed days and readmissions, but cost over 150 people their lives this year. That is inexcusable. Just half of NHS trusts provide staff with training for time-critical medication, and one in four trusts in England does not have policies allowing people with Parkinson’s to take their own medication in hospital. That leaves patients capable but unable to take their medication, and they suffer detriment as a result. I was pleased that last week—following repeated questions to the Minister, both in the Chamber and outside—that the Minister for Health Innovation and Safety, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), met me, Dr Simin Nikou from the RCEM, and Dr Acheson to talk about self-administration of medicines. I am pleased that the Minister was able to commit that the chief pharmaceutical officer will work with those individuals to ensure that there is a protocol for self-administered medicines in A&E for those who are capable of taking them, and to ensure that the protocols for time-critical medicines are enhanced. NHS England launched a three-year national quality improvement initiative on time-critical medications that is not yet complete. I worried that the Minister’s eagerness to merge NHS England and her own Department may cause such ongoing initiatives to be simply lost. I encourage the Minister to correct me if I am wrong but, from conversations with her ministerial colleague, I understand that NHS England’s three-year initiative on time-critical medicines will be completed. Research is important because, at the moment, treatment for Parkinson’s is symptom-relief treatment, not disease-modifying treatment. In fact, some of it is not symptom-relief; it is treatment to relieve side effects of the treatments that are providing symptom relief. Ramping up research is an important step towards finding better treatment, and hopefully chasing down a cure for Parkinson’s. Between 2019 and 2024, the last Conservative Government invested almost £80 million into research for Parkinson’s disease, on top of a £375 million investment over five years for research into neurodegenerative diseases. Will the Minister confirm whether that funding commitment will be renewed as part of her Government’s spending review? What assessment has the Minister made of companies pulling out of billions of pounds of life sciences investment in the UK? How does she think that will impact critical research into conditions such as Parkinson’s? Is she working with her colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to resolve matters for the health sector? Within the treatments that we have so far, Produodopa was approved in February 2024, and made available on the NHS, under the last Conservative Government, to around 900 people with Parkinson’s. As people with Parkinson’s often struggle with taking numerous tablets to manage fluctuating symptoms, delivering a continuous dose of medication 24 hours a day by a canula under the skin can be ideal to manage symptoms day and night. What assessment has the Minister made of the benefits of Produodopa so far? What steps is she taking to make sure that more people with Parkinson’s have access to that potentially life-changing treatment? More broadly, what is she doing to mitigate the supply issues for some Parkinson’s medications?
The debate today is about the Parky charter. I am sure the Minister will answer that question in her speech—at least I hope she will. The Government established the Neuro Forum, which was designed to address the gaps in treatment and care for people affected by neurological conditions, including Parkinson’s disease, but its achievements so far are unclear. Progress in this space demands clear action, not just empty roundtables, so will the Minister confirm how many times the Neuro Forum has met in the year since it was established, what budget and resources have been allocated to it, and what its successes have been so far? The Government want to shift towards technology. New, affordable technology is available: focused ultrasound can help with tremor; at the most invasive, there are deep brain stimulators. There is also very simple technology. I recently met the former MP Steve Double, who gave me a device that shakes to put on my wrist for a few minutes. Apparently, people find that it helps with dyskinesia, rigidity, walking problems and speech difficulties. What assessment has the Minister made of the benefits of technology as a treatment pathway for people living with Parkinson’s in the UK? What is she doing to facilitate research so that, when someone has a good idea that may benefit patients, it is brought to the fore as quickly as possible? I note the Minister’s response to a written question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking). Will she clarify whether NHS England’s neurology transformation programme will indeed be concluding at the end of this financial year? Will she reassure us that the conclusion of the programme, which includes Parkinson’s disease treatments, is not related to the Department’s abolition of NHS England? What will she replace it with? The linchpin of the e-petition is that it asks the Government to consider implementing the Parky charter, which encompasses faster diagnosis, better support, welfare support, access to multidisciplinary care and investment in research—all things that I and others call on the Minister to give answers to today. Given the Government’s decision to do away with the major conditions strategy, I am concerned that Parkinson’s disease will not get the research and workforce it requires. People can live with Parkinson’s for very many years. For the quality of life of the patients and their families, greater consistency is urgently required in the administration of time-critical medicines in hospitals. Parkinson’s is a condition that is time-critical by its neurodegenerative nature; the Minister’s actions must be equally urgent and time-critical.
There appears to have been a lot of speculation about this Budget, and it seems to have been the same measures that have been speculated on by a number of different news sources, which leads to suspicions of a leak. The Minister must surely recognise that there was a possibility of a leak, in which case either he knows who the leak was and that is why he does not want to investigate, or he does not know who the leak was, in which case he should want to investigate. I am not asking him to speculate on the contents of the Budget, so he should please not give me that answer again. Why will he not institute a leak inquiry?
On the dumping of waste across the countryside, what assessment has the Minister made of the ability and capacity of the Environment Agency to adequately control and regulate the dumping of toxic emissions by wholly unwanted and unnecessary waste incinerators that are being foisted on our communities, including in Westbury in my constituency?
It was a genuinely good statement—as far as it went—from which we learnt that countries could be determined to be safe at some point in the future and refugees from them returned home. What would be the Home Secretary’s criteria for safety, and which countries does she have in her sights? For example, would they include the Council of Europe and NATO member, ECHR signatory and EU candidate, Turkey?
I very much look forward to the new violence against women and girls strategy. Can the Minister give us a bit more of a clue as to when we might see it? Will it include a single definition of violence against women and girls that is applied consistently across law enforcement and the Department?
I am sure that my Committee will want to look closely at the very significant number of announcements that the Home Secretary has made today. She referred on a number of occasions to asylum seekers contributing when they are given support. Has she given any consideration to setting up a deferred payment scheme, much akin to the student loan scheme, so that when people are granted asylum and are in work, they can start to pay back the generosity that they have received?
One thing that neighbourhood policing can tackle effectively is the way in which TikTok is being used to distribute spice-laced vapes to our young people. Will the Minister comment on that?
The speculation was inflamed by the Chancellor herself giving a speech at the press conference. Surely one of the most damaging pieces of speculation in the media was that there might be an exit tax on wealthy people fleeing the country. That has only just been ruled out, but many, many people have fled in the interim. There has been a real cost to the Exchequer from all the speculation, so will the Minister confirm that there will be a leak inquiry?
It is no secret that I am a fan of new nuclear in this country, so I welcome the progress on SMRs. If we are to have a strong economy and a good standard of life, we need abundant, reliable and cheap energy. Nuclear works in the winter, can run 24/7 to power artificial intelligence, and is 100% clean to boot. It uses 3,000 times less land than wind and solar energy, and the latest prices around the world show that it can be much cheaper, too. The Conservative position is that we need a lot more nuclear. We were the party that overturned the complete failure of the previous Labour Government to start any British nuclear plants, so I say this with some feeling. I have been told that there was just one nuclear welder left in the country when we started work on Hinkley Point C. We invested in the supply chain and in skills, which had completely withered under the previous Government. Now the most important thing is to keep building. I personally signed off on a third large nuclear plant at Wylfa because it is our best site. It could host both large-scale nuclear and small modular reactors. By ruling out large-scale at Wylfa and ditching the 24 GW target, are the Government calling time on new large-scale nuclear? That is what it looks like to the rest of the country. It would be a huge mistake—the same mistake that Labour made last time it was in power. If we want cheap energy and growth in this country, we need to build, build, build when it comes to nuclear. The Minister talked about power generation from SMRs in the 2030s, but industry is being told that it will be 2042 at the earliest. Who is right, and is that really the best the Government can do? We have plans to make nuclear building much cheaper. In fact, to cut environmental red tape, we tabled radical amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, but the Government voted against them. The nuclear regulatory taskforce will report soon, though; will the Government consider our proposals when it does? Lastly, does the Minister agree that it is fundamentally absurd for the Green party to talk about clean power while it has a policy of dismantling Britain’s nuclear power plants?
Well, it is good to see the Home Secretary here, taking some time off from her leadership campaign. She is quite clearly preparing a one in, one out policy for No. 10 Downing Street! The Home Secretary has announced that she wants to replace the Government’s entire immigration policy with Denmark’s. Is that because the Government have failed so badly in the year and a half since the election? Since the election, illegal channel crossings have surged 55%, up to 62,000; new asylum claims have reached record levels; and the numbers in asylum hotels have gone up. In just 75 days, since the right hon. Lady became Home Secretary, 10,000 illegal immigrants have crossed the English channel, but the Home Secretary—
Okay, I will ask a question. Will the Home Secretary agree with us that in order to control our borders we must come out of the European convention on human rights, enabling us to deport all illegal immigrants within a week of their arrival?
Our leader is not going anywhere, but the right hon. Lady’s leader most certainly is—out of No. 10! The Home Secretary talks about the Rwanda scheme. That scheme never even started. It worked in Australia and it would have worked here. After her Government cancelled it with no replacement, numbers have surged. The truth is that under this Government, illegal immigration has gone up, and there is a crime wave going up with it, including rape and murder. Her ideas are not radical enough. She wants to give illegal immigrants a 20-year path to citizenship—
The Home Secretary wants to give illegal immigrants a 20-year path to citizenship. We want to deport them. Will she accept our proposal to come out of the ECHR so that we can actually control our borders?
Last October, a Sudanese small-boat illegal immigrant murdered 27-year-old Rhiannon Whyte by stabbing her 23 times with a screwdriver. In September, an illegal immigrant from Egypt was jailed for brutally raping a young woman in Hyde Park. Just last week, an Iranian and two Egyptian small-boat illegal immigrants were committed to trial for the rape of a 33-year-old woman on Brighton beach. How many more murders and rapes must there be before the Home Secretary agrees to the immediate deportation of all illegal immigrants within a week of arrival?
I call Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
I thank the Minister for his responses this afternoon.
I call the shadow Minister.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Before I call the Home Secretary to make her statement, I am sorry that Mr Speaker has once again had to ask me to remind Ministers of the requirement in the Government’s own ministerial code that major new policy announcements should be made in this House in the first instance and not to the media. This afternoon’s statement has already been the subject of very extensive media coverage, both over the weekend and this morning, including a lot of policy detail. Hon. and right hon. Members on the Government Benches were very quick to criticise Ministers in the previous Government for this kind of behaviour, but the Home Office seems to have a particular problem with making media announcements before Ministers come to make statements to the House. I know that the Committee chaired by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) is looking at this matter, and I look forward to reading the Committee’s recommendations. I call the Home Secretary.
I call the Leader of the Opposition, Kemi Badenoch.
Order. I was very generous with the time I allowed the Leader of the Opposition. I call the Home Secretary.
Before I call the first Back-Bench contribution, may I remind Members that in order to expect to be called to speak in response to a statement, they should have been here from the start of the Home Secretary’s statement? There may be Members bobbing quite unnecessarily.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
The Home Secretary should know that language that is not acceptable in this House does not become acceptable if it is attributed to others. She might like to apologise for the language that she used.