Psilocybin Treatments

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Thursday 18th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House welcomes the development of treatment options in mental health; further notes there have been no new pharmacological treatments for depression, with the exception of Esketamine, in over 30 years; recognises that psilocybin, a naturally occurring compound, has the potential to revolutionise the treatment of many of the world’s most hard to treat psychiatric conditions such as depression, PTSD, OCD, addiction and anorexia nervosa; recognises that no review of the evidence for psilocybin’s current status under UK law has ever been conducted; regrets that psilocybin is currently more controlled than heroin under the most stringent class and schedule under UK law which is significantly stalling research; and calls on the Government to take steps to conduct an urgent review of the evidence for psilocybin’s current status as Schedule 1 under the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 with a view to rescheduling, initially for research purposes only, in order to facilitate the development of new mental health treatments and enable human brain research for the benefit of researchers, patients and the life sciences sector in the UK, and to deliver His Majesty’s Government’s commitment to be world-leading in its approach, with evidence-led and data-driven interventions, and building the evidence base where necessary.

Psilocybin is a psychoactive substance found in more than 50 species of fungi, including many native varieties of mushroom that grow wild across the UK. There is a certain irony in the fact that this debate follows on from the debate on access to nature, because in many respects our debate is also about that.

Psilocybin is a naturally occurring substance and produces a window of neuroplasticity that lasts for a number of hours. When administered in a controlled environment with psychotherapeutic intent by trained professionals, psilocybin could be a powerful and effective tool to help treat society’s most complex mental health conditions, and that is what we call on the Government to make possible.

The evidential basis for psilocybin’s current status as a schedule 1 substance has never been reviewed since it was first controlled more than 50 years ago, and there is an urgent and medically justified need to reschedule psilocybin under the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001. It is unethical to deny that any longer. A review of the evidence of psilocybin’s harms and utility should be undertaken immediately, with a view to rescheduling it.

The use of psychedelics in medicine is not novel; they have been used throughout human history to treat the sick, from peyote ceremonies in Mexico to ayahuasca in the Amazon basin, and the San Pedro cactus in Peru. The earliest evidence of psychedelic use can be found in a cave in the Tassili-N’Ajjer region of the Sahara desert in Algeria, with a mural depicting what is referred to as the “mushroom man” or “mushroom shaman”, a bee-headed figure with mushrooms identified as Psilocybe mairei, native to the region, sprouting from his body. The mural has been dated as being between 7,000 and 9,000 years old.

The Selva Pascuala mural in a cave in Spain features mushrooms that researchers believe to be Psilocybe hispanica, a local species of psychedelic mushroom, and is dated as being approximately 6,000 years old. We can also date back to the 13th century western scientists first discussing the use of psychedelics in healthcare in Latin America. None of this is new.

Modern psychedelic research began when Albert Hofmann first synthesized lysergic acid diethylamide, or LSD, in 1938, causing something of an explosion in interest among psychiatrists and psychologists, with studies from the period showing the safety and efficacy of psychedelics, including psilocybin, in treating a whole range of psychiatric conditions. However, all that progress was stalled by the counter-cultural movement of the 1960s, which ultimately led to the criminalisation of the drugs. Since then we have been in stasis, until in recent years something like a psychedelic renaissance has taken place among researchers.

Today, there are serious and considerable barriers to legitimate research associated with the schedule 1 regulations. While current legislation does not preclude scientific research with the drugs, it does make them significantly more difficult, time-consuming and costly to study. I will share with the House just one example of this, from Rudy, a psychology PhD student whose thesis is investigating psychopharmaceutical treatments for addiction—a noble avenue of study, as I am sure we would all agree.

Rudy was first motivated to undertake this research after reading incredible findings that psilocybin administration was associated with sustained nicotine cessation in humans, with 80% of participants abstinent after 6 months. Rudy wanted to see whether those results could be replicated to treat other addiction disorders. However, he ran into problems due to the schedule 1 status of psilocybin. He says that

“in order to undertake my research, I would have had to spend upwards of £20,000 applying for Home Office Schedule 1 licences and retrofitting my laboratory to the correct security standards. Meanwhile, I can work with heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine with no qualms. In light of this, I had to modify my experiment to instead investigate the effects of ketamine. I find it shocking that this government is willing to throw life science research under the bus and push life scientists out of this country with an outdated and downright illegitimate understanding of the medical benefits psilocybin can provide. Please do what you can to fix this!”

That is just one example. At a recent seminar at the Royal Society of Chemistry with some of the country’s most eminent neuroscientists, psychopharmacologists and psychiatrists, I spoke to countless researchers who have run into the same issues, making their research either needlessly more expensive or so prohibitively difficult to do that it has had to be abandoned. There is a huge credibility gap between psychiatry and politics for that reason; psychiatrists cannot understand why, at a time when we claim to be listening to the experts in the field of health, and when this country is facing a mental health crisis, we in Westminster are satisfied with doing nothing on this issue.

Why do we set up expert bodies and not listen to them? It is dangerous, immoral and unethical, and it is frankly offensive to both psychiatrists and their patients that we seem to think that as politicians we know better because of some moral panic 50 years ago. Multi-criteria decision analysis shows the comparative harms of various different kinds of drugs. Psilocybin is physiologically non-toxic and consistently found to be one of the safest controlled drugs, with the broader category of psychedelic compounds it falls into considered relatively safe physiologically and not drugs of dependence. The idea that psychedelics, including psilocybin, are dangerous is a myth, created and perpetuated to justify keeping them illegal.

Psychiatrists tell me that psychedelics are the best clinical tool and the best bit of psychiatric equipment they have, altering states of consciousness to allow for deeper processing and exploration of trauma and opening a therapeutic window where treatment can work, versus sub-optimal treatments with maintenance medications and substandard psychotherapies.

Moving on to patients, there is not a single other field where we would accept a 90% failure rate as acceptable, yet in mental health treatment that is where we are. There are a number of mental health conditions, including borderline personality disorder, that we seem to be satisfied with having no proper treatments or cures for. Psilocybin has been shown in numerous studies globally to have a profound and lasting effect over placebos for a range of different mental health conditions including treatment-resistant depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, anorexia nervosa and addiction.

I want to talk first about one of those conditions, PTSD. I have referred previously to living with PTSD, and that is where my interest in the potential promise of psilocybin as a treatment first began—so please consider this a declaration of interest, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was first diagnosed almost two years ago, after being the victim of a crime, and I cannot overstate the impact it has had on my life.

PTSD is a condition that I can expect to live alongside potentially indefinitely, and that can only ever be managed. It is a condition that has, for me, proved almost fatal. I manage it through a combination of a powerful serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, Venlafaxine, taken daily, benzodiazepines taken for sleep and to stave off a dissociative episode if I am triggered by something, and regular therapy, following an almost month-long period as a psychiatric inpatient, having been sectioned in 2021 for my own safety. I am not telling the House this for sympathy, but because I hope my experience can be illustrative of just how debilitating a condition such as PTSD is.

We all know that being an MP can be a difficult job at the best of times. However, I ask hon. Members to consider for a moment what it is like living with a condition such as PTSD and the myriad subtle and unsubtle ways my body lets me down: having to put my best face on and go into a meeting after a panic attack; having the energy to make it through our long working hours after a virtually sleepless night plagued by night terrors, where I try to fight my attacker off me and wake up covered in bruises; seeing someone who looks like my attacker on a tube platform and feeling a terror so acute that I want to jump in front of the oncoming train to make it stop; going for walks until I am exhausted and my feet are bleeding in order to burn through the nervous energy that fizzes up inside me; finding myself in dangerous situations and being more vulnerable as a result; hearing a car going past playing the song that was playing when my PTSD began and vomiting; dissociating and losing time; being angry, messy and erratic; crying at everything and nothing; being snappy with my loved ones and becoming convinced that ending my own life would be a kindness to all those who have had to deal with me throughout the worst period of my PTSD, from my staff to my family. Even at its best, it is a living hell. There is nothing I would not give, nothing I would not do, to go back to who I was before my diagnosis.

My experience is not unique. This is the reality of living with a serious mental health condition. I am making it through as best I can because of the love and support of friends, colleagues and psychiatric intervention, but I know that, just as I am a million miles better than I have been, and there are many more good days than bad these days, I could easily relapse because of something I can neither plan for nor prevent.

I am hopeful that this sort of treatment may offer a light at the end of a very dark tunnel and finally give me my life back. The evidence shows that psilocybin, as with other psychedelics, can be such an effective treatment for PTSD that following a successful course of psychedelic-assisted therapy, many patients no longer even fulfil the diagnostic criteria any more—they are all but cured. But this Home Office, and its scheduling policy, which says against all the evidence that this is not allowed, is stopping that. It feels like institutional cruelty to condemn us to our misery when there are proven safe and effective treatment options if only the Government would let us access them.

Just as that is one story—my own experience—consider the millions of people in this country and around the world living with the same, with no hope that things can or will ever get better. Depression is one of the most socially, medically and economically burdensome diseases of the modern world. It is the single largest cause of global disability and the leading contributor to suicide. An average of 18 people take their own lives every day. Up to one third of people with depression do not respond to multiple courses of medication; an estimated 1.2 million adults in the UK live with treatment-resistant depression.

The direct treatment and unemployment costs to the UK associated with depression in 2020 have been estimated at £10 billion. The human and economic burden of that condition is profound, and there are clear benefits to supporting development of therapies that may be effective where all other treatments have failed. Mental health costs the UK £117.9 billion a year—around 5% of GDP—yet that is not nearly enough money to address our current crisis. Waiting lists for specialist treatment are often years long. There is both a moral and economic imperative for the Government to act.

We are being left behind as a nation. Some US states have legalised the use of psilocybin in mental health treatment. In 2018 it was granted “breakthrough therapy” status for depression by the United States Food and Drug Administration, expediting the research and approval process, with expected approval by the FDA in 2024. In Australia, from 1 July this year,

“medicines containing the psychedelic substances psilocybin and MDMA can be prescribed by specifically authorised psychiatrists for the treatment of certain mental health conditions.”

In Canada, healthcare practitioners may be able to access psilocybin for emergency treatment under a special access program when a clinical trial is not available or suitable.

We have charitable organisations in this country, such as Heroic Hearts, which take veterans abroad to be able to access treatment that they should be able to get in this country on our NHS. We have scientists, including the brilliant Dr Ben Sessa, leaving the country to pursue research and treatment abroad. That is utterly, utterly shameful. The real-world data from those countries will only make avoiding change in the UK even less justifiable.

The motion would make no difference to the laws around recreational use or supply of psilocybin or magic mushrooms. Further, there is no evidence of diversion of schedule 2 substances from clinical research. Use of psilocybin-containing mushrooms is low, and there is no evidence of users developing a dependency. As psilocybin mushrooms grow wild throughout the United Kingdom, psilocybin does not represent an opportunity for profit-motivated gangs and criminal individuals. These proposals do not risk increasing drug-related harms but will allow us to assess and access the benefits of psilocybin as a substance.

Of all of the psychedelic compounds that show promise in this area, psilocybin has the lowest risk profile across all metrics, so there is little reason not to reschedule it but plenty of reasons to make the change as soon as possible. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that psilocybin does not pose a major risk to the individual, to public health or to social order. Its schedule 1 designation is not morally, medically or economically appropriate.

We are supported in our call today not only by politicians from across the House, but by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Campaign Against Living Miserably, the Conservative Drug Policy Reform Group, Drug Science, Heroic Hearts, Clusterbusters and SANE, among many other organisations. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for having the political courage and will—those are, sadly, too often lacking in this place —to grant us this important debate so that we may move ahead on rescheduling psilocybin. Now it is the Government’s turn to show that political courage and will.

Psilocybin’s current status as a schedule 1 drug is incommensurate with the evidence of its harm and utility. I beg the Government to support our motion and finally, finally right the historic wrong of its scheduling.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I think the whole House will wish to commend the hon. Lady for her courage in bringing this matter before the House and for the way in which she has put her case this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

It is a rare privilege for me to rise in this place and follow two such magnificent speeches from Members across these Benches, and it is a fact that when we find ourselves with cross-party support on something, we tend to be able to back off and just talk sense about things, and stop trying to score political points off each other.

Then I look at the Government Front Bench, and I understand that the Minister must be asking himself the question, “Why on earth am I here today?” The Government have a history of doing this. When we bring forward debates that are clearly issues for the Home Office, particularly about drugs, they send a Health Minister. When it is clearly something about health, they send a Home Office Minister—this is not new. Sorry, Minister: you are not the first to be put in this position, but you are here today and you will answer the speeches that have been made. I am not going to rehearse everything that has already been said so eloquently today. There is no need: if you have been listening, you have heard the points. You have heard about the number of people who suffer from mental health conditions and can benefit from psilocybin, and the lack of research—I do not have to tell you it again.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. It would assist me if the hon. Member would say “he” and not “you”, although we will not make a fuss about it.

[Ronnie Cowan]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, for once again correcting me.

Since announcing that I was taking part in this debate, I have been inundated with briefings from a wide range of individuals and organisations, every one of which was welcome. Not being medically trained, it took me some time to read through and absorb what I was being told. I have my own views on the issue and the path forward, but it is always worth while listening to those who agree and disagree with me—how else can I develop a well-rounded and balanced approach?

That is why it is interesting to note that the motion we are debating states that

“no review of the evidence for psilocybin’s current status under UK law has ever been conducted”.

As has been said, it currently has schedule 1 status under the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001, which—in the view of the UK Government, with no review of the evidence—makes psilocybin, a drug that cannot be overdosed on and has low addictive qualities, more dangerous than heroin or cocaine. We have legislation that is based on preconceptions rather than evidence. That is nonsensical—well, I think it is, but clearly the UK Government do not. They actively support the current situation.

Psilocybin has been pushed to the back of the drugs cabinet and left there, almost—but not quite—forgotten. In the USA, especially in Oregon and Colorado, they are way ahead of us in producing medical research; I also note that Australia has taken a lead in the field. In the UK, a drug being schedule 1 does not completely prevent research, but the researchers themselves have raised the issues of increased administrative and financial costs. We should not be placing barriers in the way of research: we should be supporting and encouraging it, and using it to help us legislate properly. It is not just me saying that. This month, the Royal College of Psychiatrists wrote to the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), calling for the same change as this motion. People are suffering from mental health issues that existing evidence tells us would benefit from psilocybin administered by the right people in the right way. We should be pursuing that avenue of research and developing the support and professional skills required.

Before the Minister responds, I hope that he considers that the motion is not about recreational use. It is not about dictating the uses of psilocybin, or those who would benefit. All we are asking in the motion is that the UK Government conduct an urgent review of the evidence for psilocybin’s current status as schedule 1 under the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001. That is it; that is what we are asking for. That would allow better opportunities for the required medical research to be completed. That research would help us to provide appropriate medical support for those suffering from a range of conditions. Why would the UK Government not want that? Why would they continue to obstruct the research? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the SNP spokesman.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it is good to see you in the Chair. It is a pleasure to speak in the debate today and to follow the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) on a subject about which I have to admit I had no great prior knowledge. I had some knowledge, although not great prior knowledge, so getting my nose into briefings and articles about a most poorly understood topic, at least I think for Members in this House, and hearing the various contributions today has been most enlightening.

I will come on to those contributions in a moment, but I would like to pay tribute to my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), who is a co-sponsor of today’s debate. He is certainly a fan of the road less travelled, and I find the tenacity and good humour with which he approaches the sometimes unfashionable subject of drug reform—not only in this Chamber, but at home in Scotland—to be a breath of fresh air. As we know, the subject can often be too dominated, especially in this place, by preening truism pedlars who do not challenge either elected Members or the general public, who expect us to be able to have debates of substance on topics that, as the hon. Member for Devizes indicated, have no easy answers, but are none the less valuable.

I thank the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) and especially the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) for showing that there is cross-party support in this House for a sensible evidence-based approach to drug law reform. To come first to the hon. Member for Warrington North, who talked about the prior debate on access to nature, we live in these islands surrounded by psilocybin. Importantly, the hon. Member brought in the lived experience of their condition and how this research, or rescheduling to schedule 2 would have a profound impact on those suffering from PTSD. I hope not only that the Minister is listening, but that all of us on the Front Benches are listening, as well as those who advise Ministers in Government in Whitehall. I am sure Government Ministers will be taking their advice and I hope they are listening to the lived experience so well and eloquently expressed by the hon. Member.

The hon. Member for Reigate exposed something that all politicians, especially those on the Front Benches, need to be very careful about, which is proposing White Papers that talk about an evidence-based policy-making approach. Well, the evidence seems to be self-evident. My good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde, talked about how the regulation we have is based on a preconception. I am maybe going to call it the “Mary Whitehouse approach”, because it seems to be founded on the Mary Whitehouse approach of the 1950s. I hope that those who advise Ministers—from the medical profession, but notably civil servants in Whitehall—will reflect that we now perhaps need to take our heads out of the sand.

I think it is clear from the contributions in general today that something does need to change with regard to the drug scheduling laws, particularly as they relate to psilocybin. It is a strange time for drug reform in many ways. We in this place seem a good decade, if not even further, behind the attitudes of the wider public—and, actually, other countries—who appreciate that the days of endless and expanding prohibition must surely be behind us and that the so-called war on drugs has been in so many ways not only unwinnable, but actually detrimental to the society it seeks to protect. I think all of us on the Front Benches really need to take our heads out of the sand and look at the opportunities that debates such as this now offer us to change our own views.

My party is one that I hope will always support sensible drug policies that uphold the rule of law and make communities safer. I am afraid that I now need to perhaps challenge the Minister about the UK Government’s continued reticence, for example, to even countenance an evidence-based change to drug laws, which, at least from my perspective, means letting people down. For those of us in Scotland, we have seen this in, for example, the safe consumption rooms. It is a policy with proven efficacy across the western world that enjoyed cross-party support as one possible way to reduce the terrible toll of drug deaths in many of our constituencies, yet I am afraid this was reduced to the level of party politics.

I mention the Government’s attitude to opiates there deliberately, because in many ways psychedelic drugs are more restricted, as we have already heard from various Members, with opiates being licensed for medical and research use, while substances such as psilocybin remain on the schedule 1 list with no medical potential. So this makes it an issue of pretty unique importance. I can understand arguments against, for example, safe consumption rooms, even if I disagree with them, but when it comes to psychedelic compounds, I do not think anyone can have the same arguments regarding addiction and societal breakdown that we would have heard around opiates.

Members who want a crash course in opiate addiction need only pick up the Financial Times today to see the profound consequences of opiate addition in the city of San Francisco in the United States. It is a harrowing article to read, and will have consequences for us all if we do not start to pick up on some of the issues highlighted by the hon. Member for Reigate about accessing new medical treatments. That is not, as the hon. Member for Devizes indicated, a silver bullet, but it is another tool in the armoury for those suffering from various conditions.

This is not just for mental health issues; there are a whole range of usages, and people are using psilocybin, or even micro-dosing with it, for many other issues. There are those who consider using it for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, which is not a mental health issue but a learning disability. There are those using it who are pre-menopausal, menopausal and post-menopausal, to deal with the menopause. We have to take this out of certain silos and see it as the broadest opportunity. As the hon. Member for Devizes said, this is not a silver bullet but another element in our armour to deal with a whole range of medical conditions. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say, because I am not sure that that approach is yet cutting through, although I might yet get that wrong.

As we have heard from those contributing to the debate, there are certainly enough examples of the efficacy of psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy to merit further research, but the barriers put up by schedule 1 status make any investment in that research prohibitively expensive. SNP Members believe that needs to change. We talk about the shrinking number of industries—again, the hon. Member for Reigate made a fantastic speech to challenge the Government, and they made it very clear that the UK seeks to be a global player. After financial services, the example given is the pharmaceutical industry, yet in that area of relative competitive advantage the Government seem—I might be wrong; perhaps the Minister wants to get to his feet and change that opinion—to be choosing to cede to states, notably in North America and the rest of Europe, that do not share that head-in-the-sand approach.

At a time when it is becoming somewhat fashionable for Members to talk about the mental health crisis, catching up with the lived experience of so many in communities such as mine, and those described by the hon. Member for Warrington North, where people could take advantage of advances in psychiatric pharmacology to improve their lives, those of their families, and be better able to contribute to their community, is something I would recommend to Members across the House, to Ministers, and to those who seem to be advising them to stick their heads in the sand. To overcome such problems, we must rise to the challenge and grasp the opportunity offered by psilocybin and other areas like it, and not curtail what is a reasonable scientific proposal by sticking our political heads in the sand.

Let me conclude with a final appeal to the better judgment of the Minister and those advising him. They can be safe that they would be able to proceed with a solid trifecta of public support, a solid working hypothesis about how research into psilocybin would work, and a depth of industrial and academic capacity to bring this research forward. Let us see whether the Minister has the confidence to do so.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Illegal Migration Update

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Wednesday 29th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on illegal migration.

Three months ago, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out a comprehensive plan to tackle illegal migration. We said we would act, and we have. We have increased immigration enforcement visits to their highest levels in recent years: since December, more than 3,500 enforcement visits have been carried out and more than 4,000 people with no right to be here have been removed. Anglo-French co-operation is now closer than ever before and will be deepened because of the deal struck by the Prime Minister earlier this month. We have expanded our partnership with Rwanda to include the relocation of all those who pass through safe countries to make illegal and dangerous journeys to the United Kingdom. Our modern slavery reforms, introduced in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 to prevent those who seek to abuse our generosity from doing so, are bearing fruit. We are tackling the backlog in our asylum system by cutting unnecessary paperwork and simplifying country guidance. As a result, productivity has increased and we are on track to process the backlog of initial asylum decisions by the end of this year.

We must ensure that our laws enable us to deal with the global migration crisis, which is why we have brought forward the Illegal Migration Bill. The Bill goes further than any previous immigration legislation to fix the problem of small boats, while remaining within the boundaries of our treaty obligations. Of course, as we reform the asylum system, we will continue to honour our country-specific and global safe and legal commitments.

But we cannot and will not stop here, because illegal migration continues to impact the British public in their day-to-day lives. The sheer number of small boat arrivals has overwhelmed our asylum system and forced the Government to place asylum seekers in hotels. These hotels take valuable assets away from communities and place pressures on local public services. Seaside towns have lost tourist trade, weddings have been cancelled and local councils have had their resources diverted to manage them. The hard-working British taxpayer has been left to foot the eye-watering £2.3 billion a year bill. We must not elevate the wellbeing of illegal migrants above that of the British people; it is in their interests that we are sent here.

The enduring solution to stop the boats is to take the actions outlined in our Bill, but in the meantime it is right that we act to correct the injustice of the current situation. I have heard time and again of councils up and down the country struggling to accommodate arrivals. This is no easy task; the Government recognise that placing asylum seekers into local areas comes at a cost, and so central Government will provide further financial support. Today, we are announcing a new funding package, which includes generous additional per-bed payments and continuation of the funding for every new dispersal bed available. We will also pilot an additional incentive payment where properties are made available faster.

However, faced with the scale of the challenge, we must fundamentally alter our posture towards those who enter our country illegally. This Government remain committed to meeting our legal obligations to those who would otherwise be destitute, but we are not prepared to go further. Accommodation for migrants should meet their essential living needs and nothing more, because we cannot risk becoming a magnet for the millions of people who are displaced and seeking better economic prospects. Many of our European partners are struggling with the same issue: Belgium, Ireland, Germany and France are having to take similar steps, and the UK must adapt to this changing context.

I have said before that we have to suffuse our entire system with deterrence, and this must include how we house illegal migrants. So today the Government are announcing the first tranche of sites we will set up to provide basic accommodation at scale. The Government will use military sites being disposed of in Essex and Lincolnshire and a separate site in East Sussex. These will be scaled up over the coming months and will collectively provide accommodation to several thousand asylum seekers through repurposed barrack blocks and portakabins. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is showing leadership on this issue by bringing forward proposals to provide accommodation at the Catterick garrison barracks in his constituency. We also continue to explore the possibility of accommodating migrants in vessels, as they are in Scotland and in the Netherlands.

I want to be clear: these sites on their own will not end the use of hotels overnight. But alongside local dispersal and other forms of accommodation, which we will bring forward in due course, they will relieve pressure on our communities, and manage asylum seekers in a more appropriate and cost-effective way. Of course, we recognise the concerns of local residents and we are acutely aware of the need to minimise the impact of these sites on communities. Basic healthcare will be available, around-the-clock security will be provided on site and our providers will work closely with local police and other partners. Funding will be provided to local authorities in which these sites are located.

These sites are undoubtedly in the national interest. We have to deliver them if we are to stop the use of hotels. We have to deliver them to save the British public from spending eye-watering amounts on accommodating illegal migrants. And we have to deliver them to prevent a pull factor for economic migrants on the continent from taking hold. Inaction is not an option. The British people rightly want us to tackle illegal migration. As I have set out today, we are doing exactly that and I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

You’re blasphemous, you are.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Now, now. We will just calm down before we go any further, thank you. I expect better from Members.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

If I may respectfully make a few points to my right hon. Friend the Minister, we need to tackle this entire debate and discussion with a degree of maturity, because it is a difficult and sensitive subject. The points I would like to make refer to previous policy, the new plan for immigration and Greek-style reception centres. Had we had those in place, as I think he would recognise, we would not be in this situation.

I am an Essex MP and the other MP for the Braintree district. Wethersfield is not in my constituency—in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary—but it is no different in rurality and village size from a former site, Linton-on-Ouse, which is not in Essex and which was cancelled by the current Government. Why is it deemed appropriate for asylum seeker accommodation for single men to be placed in a rural village in Essex, where there is no infrastructure and no amenities, when it was not appropriate for somewhere like Linton-on-Ouse?

Illegal Migration Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron]

I am trying to respond to the hon. Lady’s first point. [Interruption.]

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order.

[Tim Farron]

If the hon. Lady really wanted to deal with the issue that she has just articulated, she would do something to undermine the business case of the people smugglers. Of course these people are doing what they are guided to do—

--- Later in debate ---

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I draw the right hon. Gentleman’s mind to the 1970s when, in this country, a Conservative Government passed legislation saying that a married woman, or any woman, coming to this country had to go through a virginity test, and it was the European Court of Human Rights that overturned that British legislation. Are you really telling me that you think that legislation was correct?

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I think the hon. Lady means the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, not me.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Is the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) really telling me that he thinks that decision by the European Court of Human Rights was wrong?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

This is a fascinating description of the three ways in which we can deal with this matter. One way is to leave the convention altogether, which is what I would favour but is not what we are proposing or debating tonight. The second is to have some kind of “notwithstanding clause” of the kind that has been proposed. The third is to assume, through the interpretation of the Court of the will of Parliament and Government, that we will have our way. My hon. Friend is making a good case for the third way, but the problem with that is that it places a great deal of faith—although she says that she does so on the basis of precedent—in the Court to honour the will of this House. I am not sure that I would have the same degree of faith. If she does not like the work of Professor Ekins and so on, I recommend that she look at the speech given at Cambridge University by the Home Secretary—when she was Attorney General —on the interpretative matters that my hon. Friend describes.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I remind the hon. Lady that she should sit down when allowing an intervention.

[Laura Farris]

I am sorry, Dame Eleanor.

To respond to my right hon. Friend’s intervention, it is dangerous to conflate what has been understood on the Conservative Benches to have been called “overreach” in the application of rule 39—on which I agree—with an overenthusiasm of the Court to involve itself in primary legislation, which is what the Bill will be. I see no precedent for that concern, so I hope that I can allay my right hon. Friend’s fear to some extent.

National Security

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for being here for both my first and second outings at the Dispatch Box. I am extremely grateful that Mr Speaker granted the statement and that it follows the urgent question. Again, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), who took over the chairmanship of the Foreign Affairs Committee from me, not only for the urgent question but for her work over many years in standing up for our freedoms.

I would like to make a statement on national security and safeguarding our democracy. In this new era of global competition, we face constant and concerted efforts to undermine our country and our institutions. A range of actors, including foreign states, are trying to weaken us, to challenge us and to exploit us. We are not alone. It is the burden of liberty shared by democracies around the world. The evidence of that is clear and, sadly, indisputable. Dictatorships are trying to write new rules for a new world. Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine is a terrible example of the growing threat from hostile states to our security. Russia is attacking not just a free people but a free world.

Our integrated review, published last year, makes clear the threat that we are facing. This is not a simple clash of armour but a clash of ideas. Across our society, we are seeing the challenge grow and evolve to pose a strategic threat to the security and prosperity of our nation for many years to come. A generation ago, we had the answer: our technology and our wallets were greater than theirs. Today, technological integration has deepened connections and opened doors into areas of our lives that we once thought closed. Now, as our markets integrate, we need to think about the future of our industry and innovation. Our economic security guarantees our economic sovereignty just as our democratic security guarantees our freedom.

The advanced technologies that our rivals have spent time and money developing have levelled the field and made us more vulnerable. Britain has been on the frontline of the defence of liberty for generations. Our agencies and businesses have faced the reality of this danger for decades. Our Parliament and our politics are now no different. Whether as Ministers or shadow Ministers, on Committee or when leading a campaign, this is about every party and every Member of the House. We have all heard of the attempts of unfriendly states to influence our politics in recent years and of the actions that the security officers of the House have had to take to defend us. They are not working alone. I want to put on record my admiration and gratitude to those who work hard to keep us safe in the House and around the country, because while others are on the frontline of our nation, those of us privileged to be elected—at every level and in every community—are on the frontline of our democracy.

I am here to make it clear that the Government are, and always will be, here to protect our freedoms, and none is more precious than the freedom of our nation to determine its own future. That is, after all, what democracy is about. It is the debate in towns and villages—in person and online—of free people in a free country searching for answers to the problems that we all face. As all of us know, it does not always go our way, but it is the freedom to choose that we all defend. We are taking action to address these threats.

Just as our counter-terrorism legislation in the early 2000s updated the necessary legal powers that our police and security services needed to tackle the growing threat of terrorism, we are enhancing our ability to defend against hostile states and those acting on their behalf. The National Security Bill, which is currently before the House, will give us the powers we need today for the threats that we face now. It will be the most significant piece of legislation to tackle the incursion of state-based threats to our nation in a century. Those actors threaten not just life but our way of life. We have to work even harder to protect and uphold our freedom and the institutions that defend it. From establishing our Defending Democracy programme in 2019 to the continuous work by the National Cyber Security Centre, we have sought to address that, but we must do more. That is why I can announce to the House that the Prime Minister has asked me to lead a taskforce to drive forward work to defend the democratic integrity of our country. The taskforce will work with Parliament, Departments, the security and intelligence agencies, the devolved Administrations and the private sector. It will work to better protect the freedoms and institutions we hold dear—institutions such as this very House.

The taskforce will look at the full range of threats facing our democratic institutions, including the physical threat to Members of this Parliament and those elected to serve across the country, so tragically brought home by the murder of our dear friends Sir David Amess last year and Jo Cox in 2016, and the support on offer through Operation Bridger and by the police. The work of this Taskforce will report into the National Security Council and more details will be set out in the update of the integrated review.

This is not just a taskforce for this Government. It will be cross-departmental and inter-agency, and I will be inviting cross-party co-operation, because, as I have said, this is not just about Ministers in office, civil servants or advisers across Whitehall. This work is for all of us in this House and those who have asked us to represent their interests. The Government have robust systems in place to protect against cyber threats. We are vigilant in ensuring that these are up to date and meet the challenges of the modern world. The National Cyber Security Centre, Government and parliamentary security offer all Members specific advice on protecting personal data and managing online profiles, as well as best practice guidance. I am grateful to Mr Speaker for agreeing to write to all parliamentarians on that important issue.

Finally, it is important to end by underlining that tackling these threats means providing the protection that defends our democratic institutions and the liberties that we cherish so dearly, because the point of security is not to lock us down but to liberate. My job as Security Minister of this great United Kingdom is to give us all the security to live our lives freely, and to debate and choose our future, guarded by the laws and freedoms of our nation. That is my guiding principle. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the shadow Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

I thank the shadow Home Secretary for her very kind comments on joining the taskforce and assisting with it, because this is clearly not just a matter for the Government. As she correctly set forward, all of us in this House have responsibilities and the potential to be influenced in different ways. That is why so much of the legislation going through, on which the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) is being incredibly co-operative, such as the foreign influence registration scheme legislation, will help us to address many of those challenges. The right hon. Lady will also be aware that the National Security Bill, of which the Opposition have been so supportive in so many areas, will be important in enabling us to challenge some of these different issues.

The right hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight the fact that we all have such responsibility. Sadly, this is not just a UK matter. Sadly, it is not even a single Government or a single party matter. The reality is that we have seen the intrusion or attempted intrusion into different aspects of all our communications at different points over many, many years. This issue has grown in importance.

I am not going to comment on individual cases, because as the right hon. Lady rightly said, that would be absolutely unhelpful. It would be completely wrong of me to use, for any private party advantage, comments on anything that the agencies have told me in private. She herself has been extremely gracious in accepting briefings on Privy Council terms, and she has, completely correctly, guarded the privacy of them. I know that she has responded to those in exactly the appropriate way, so I place on record my enormous thanks to her for her extreme co-operation in what is fundamentally a matter of national security.

I will bring forward further proposals on the taskforce and would welcome the right hon. Lady’s thoughts, because there is an awful lot that we must do together. Sadly, the next few years are likely to be more challenging than the last. The indications are not great, as she knows. We need to work together. This is not about one party or one Government; it is about defending the British people’s right to choose their future democratically and freely, without the influence of foreign states.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, Dr Julian Lewis.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

May I start by apologising to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the House for the fact that I will not be able to stay for the remainder of the statement, as I would normally wish to do?

I congratulate my right hon. Friend again on his new responsibilities. I remind him that, in 2013, extensive new legislation gave considerably greater powers to the intelligence and security agencies. In return for that, an understanding was reached—and there was a memorandum of understanding—between the Prime Minister and the Intelligence and Security Committee that we would have oversight of the various agencies that had improved and increased powers; and that, as the situation changes, we would continue to have oversight of new organisations of the sort that he is announcing today. Will he confirm that the elements of the taskforce’s activities that involve, for scrutiny, access to classified information will fall under the purview of the Intelligence and Security Committee; and that he will break the bad practice that was brought in by the last but one Prime Minister of farming such matters out to ordinary parliamentary Select Committees, which, with the best will in the world, cannot conduct the scrutiny properly because they lack the secure facilities and suitably cleared staff?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I thank the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, who knows well the importance that I place on Committees. I merely challenge him on one small aspect: there is no such thing as an ordinary Committee in this House. All of them are select and are selected by the House for the purposes that they have been asked to investigate. I make absolutely clear my commitment to work with his Committee and the Committees of others, as relevant, to ensure that the necessary democratic oversight of Government is complete.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesman, Stuart C. McDonald.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

All members of the King’s Privy Council have access to the information that is necessary to conduct their tasks.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

And now, in his traditional place, Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. A taskforce for all the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has to be excellent news, and I welcome it.

The Northern Ireland protocol is stirring up tensions in Northern Ireland. What steps will the Minister and the Government take to deal with the people who chant in support of the IRA—the same IRA, the same fifth columnists, who want to destroy our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and who carried out the indiscriminate murder campaign of pure evil with which they devastated Northern Ireland during the troubles—and what steps have been taken to ensure support for the Police Service of Northern Ireland at all times to combat the very real threat of terrorism from republicans or, indeed, from any mindset in Northern Ireland?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his second question today; I hope I will be privileged to take many more. He can be assured that all security policy will include the whole of the United Kingdom, and that I will be absolutely committed to working with the PSNI and numerous other police forces.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Just before I conclude the proceedings on the statement, let me say, as Chairman of the Consultative Panel on Parliamentary Security, that I wish to add my thanks to the Minister for what he has said today, and for the work to which he has dedicated himself so enthusiastically.

Overseas Chinese Police Stations in UK: Legal Status

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat]

May I thank the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee for his kind words and emphasise my keenness to work with his Committee and Members across the House to make sure that we address this subject together? His question about diplomats is, I am afraid, one for the Foreign Office, but he can be absolutely assured that information arising from any inquiry or assessment by the Home Office or by police forces or agencies will feed straight into the Foreign Office for its evaluation.

As for Hongkongers in UK universities, my right hon. Friend will know that, in a former incarnation, I may have been responsible for the publication of a Foreign Affairs Committee report in 2019 that highlighted the threat that some face in universities. He can be absolutely assured that that has not left my desk.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the SNP spokesman, Stuart C. McDonald.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on securing this important urgent question, and I welcome the Minister to his place.

These are really alarming and incredibly serious allegations, which, as the Minister says, have to be properly investigated. Indeed, the suggested international scale of these activities across 30 countries on five continents is actually pretty shocking. Given the international perspective, what discussions are the Minister and his counterparts having with colleagues in the EU and beyond about how they can co-ordinate on this matter?

What steps can the Minister say have been taken to ensure that law enforcement and security services have the skills and resources to tackle the matter? This seems a recent and different challenge for them. Will he say a little more about the co-ordination with devolved Governments who have responsibility for policing?

The Minister expressed confidence that the powers in the National Security Bill, which we have debated at some length, will be sufficient to tackle this type of alleged activity. Will he express a willingness to use those powers if these allegations are made out?

Finally, does the Minister agree that, while our attention is rightly focused on the bad actors seeking to control and coerce Chinese residents, BNOs and others, it is all the more important that we remember and support the many other groups, businesses and individuals who do positive work in supporting their communities to contribute to our society?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

I thank the hon. Member for his kind words. The House had to wait a little while longer for me to speak from the Dispatch Box than it normally has to wait for him to ask a question to whoever is at the Dispatch Box. I am grateful that he is in his place for my first event.

The hon. Gentleman’s point about torture is incredibly important as that is one of the few completely unconditional rights that every citizen in the country has been afforded for many years. He is absolutely right that any accusations of torture or violations of human rights on these islands or in any way under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom would be taken extremely seriously.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

That concludes proceedings on the urgent question. I would normally pause while people leave or come into the Chamber, but as I have before me the same dramatis personae for the next item of business, I will filibuster for a moment only to give the Minister a chance to pick up his bits of paper.

Western Jet Foil and Manston Asylum Processing Centres

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Let us make it clear from the beginning that this is a very serious statement on a serious matter that is affecting a lot of people. The Home Secretary will be heard, with dignity.

[Suella Braverman]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. With permission, I would like to make a statement about asylum processing at Manston and the incident in Dover yesterday.

At around 11.20 am on Sunday, police were called to Western Jet Foil. Officers established that two to three incendiary devices had been thrown at the Home Office premises. The suspect was identified, quickly located at a nearby petrol station, and confirmed dead. The explosive ordnance disposal unit attended to ensure there were no further threats. Kent police are not currently treating this as a terrorist incident. Fortunately, there were only two minor injuries, but it is a shocking incident and my thoughts are with all those affected.

I have received regular updates from the police. Although I understand the desire for answers, investigators must have the necessary space to work. I know the whole House will join me in paying tribute to everyone involved in the response, including the emergency services, the military, Border Force, immigration enforcement, and the asylum intake unit.

My priority remains the safety and wellbeing of our teams and contractors, as well as the people in our care. Several hundred migrants were relocated to Manston yesterday to ensure their safety. Western Jet Foil is now fully operational again. I can also inform the House that the Minister for Immigration, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), visited the Manston site yesterday and that I will visit shortly. My right hon. Friend was reassured by the dedication of staff as they work to make the site safe and secure while suitable onward accommodation is found.

As Members will be aware, we need to meet our statutory duties around detention, and fulfil legal duties to provide accommodation for those who would otherwise be destitute. We also have a duty to the wider public to ensure that anyone who has entered our country illegally undergoes essential security checks and is not, with no fixed abode, immediately free to wander around local communities.

When we face so many arrivals so quickly, it is practically impossible to procure more than 1,000 beds at short notice. Consequently, we have recently expanded the site and are working tirelessly to improve facilities. There are, of course, competing and heavy demands for housing stock, including for Ukrainians and Afghans, and for social housing. We are negotiating with accommodation providers. I continue to look at all available options to overcome the challenges we face with supply. This is an urgent matter, which I will continue to oversee personally.

I turn to our immigration and asylum system more widely. Let me be clear: this is a global migration crisis. We have seen an unprecedented number of attempts to illegally cross the channel in small boats. Some 40,000 people have crossed this year alone—more than double the number of arrivals by the same point last year. Not only is this unnecessary, because many people have come from another safe country, but it is lethally dangerous. We must stop it.

It is vital that we dismantle the international crime gangs behind this phenomenon. Co-operation with the French has stopped more than 29,000 illegal crossings since the start of the year—twice as many as last year— and destroyed over 1,000 boats. Our UK-France joint intelligence cell has dismantled 55 organised crime groups since it was established in 2020. The National Crime Agency is at the forefront of this fight. Indeed, NCA officers recently joined what is believed to be the biggest ever international operation targeting smuggling networks.

This year has seen a surge in the number of Albanian arrivals, many of them, I am afraid to say, abusing our modern slavery laws. We are working to ensure that Albanian cases are processed and that individuals are removed as swiftly as possible—sometimes within days.

The Rwanda partnership will further disrupt the business model of the smuggling gangs and deter migrants from putting their lives at risk. I am committed to making that partnership work. Labour wants to cancel it. Although we will continue to support the vulnerable via safe and legal routes, people coming here illegally from safe countries are not welcome and should not expect to stay. Where it is necessary to change the law, we will not hesitate to do so.

I share the sentiment that has been expressed by Members from across the House who want to see cases in the UK dealt with swiftly. Our asylum transformation programme will help bring down the backlog. It is already having an impact. A pilot in Leeds reduced interview times by over a third and has seen productivity almost double. We are also determined to address the wholly unacceptable situation which has left taxpayers with a bill of £6.8 million a day for hotel accommodation.

Let me set out to the House the situation that I found at the Home Office when I arrived as Home Secretary in September. I was appalled to learn that there were more than 35,000 migrants staying in hotel accommodation around the country, at exorbitant cost to the taxpayer. I instigated an urgent review. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order.

[Suella Braverman]

I pushed officials to identify accommodation options that would be more cost-effective and delivered swiftly while meeting our legal obligation to migrants. I have held regular operational meetings with frontline officials and have been energetically seeking alternative sites, but I have to be honest: this takes time and there are many hurdles.

I foresaw the concerns at Manston in September and deployed additional resource and personnel to deliver a rapid increase in emergency accommodation. To be clear, like the majority of the British people, I am very concerned about hotels, but I have never blocked their usage. Indeed, since I took over, 12,000 people have arrived, 9,500 people have been transferred out of Manston or Western Jet Foil, many of them into hotels, and I have never ignored legal advice. As a former Attorney General, I know the importance of taking legal advice into account. At every point, I have worked hard to find alternative accommodation to relieve the pressure at Manston.

What I have refused to do is to prematurely release thousands of people into local communities without having anywhere for them to stay. That is not just the wrong thing to do—that would be the worst thing to do for the local community in Kent, for the safety of those under our care and for the integrity of our borders. The Government are resolute in our determination to make illegal entry to the UK unviable. It is unnecessary, lethally dangerous, unfair on migrants who play by the rules and unfair on the law-abiding patriotic majority of British people. It is also ruinously expensive and it makes all of us less safe.

As Home Secretary, I have a plan to bring about the change that is so urgently needed to deliver an immigration system that works in the interests of the British people. I commend this statement to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Suella Braverman]

I will pick up on some of the right hon. Lady’s points, but I will not comment on any details relating to the case in question or to the individual under consideration. There has been clear work afoot with the National Crime Agency and all partners to try to tackle the problem of illegal migration. I am very encouraged by the relationship that we have built with the French, and I am grateful to the French authorities for their real commitment to, and work on, tackling this problem.

As I made clear in my statement, on no occasion did I block hotels or veto advice to procure extra and emergency accommodation. The data and the facts are that, on my watch, since 6 September, over 30 new hotels were agreed, which will bring into use over 4,500 additional hotel bed spaces. Since the start of October, it has been agreed that over 13 new hotels will provide over 1,800 additional hotel bed spaces. Also since 6 September, 9,000 migrants have left Manston, many of them heading towards hotel accommodation. Those are the facts; I encourage the right hon. Lady to stick to the facts, and not fantasy. [Interruption.]

The right hon. Lady raised other points. My letter to the Home Affairs Committee, sent today, transparently and comprehensively addresses all the matters that she has just raised. I have been clear that I made an error of judgment. I apologised for that error; I took responsibility for it; and I resigned. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Does the House want to hear what the Home Secretary has to say?

[Suella Braverman]

I apologised for the error, I took responsibility, and I resigned for the error, but let us be clear about what is really going on here. The British people deserve to know which party is serious about stopping the invasion on our southern coast, and which party is not. Some 40,000 people have arrived on the south coast this year alone. For many of them, that was facilitated by criminal gangs; some of them are actual members of criminal gangs, so let us stop pretending that they are all refugees in distress. The whole country knows that that is not true. It is only Opposition Members who pretend otherwise.

We need to be straight with the public. The system is broken. [Interruption.] Illegal migration is out of control, and too many people are more interested in playing political parlour games and covering up the truth than solving the problem. I am utterly serious about ending the scourge of illegal migration, and I am determined to do whatever it takes to break the criminal gangs and fix our hopelessly lax asylum system. That is why I am in government, and why there are some people who would prefer to be rid of me. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I can hear who is making the noise, and it will be a long time before they are called to ask a question.

[Suella Braverman]

Let them try. I know that I speak for the decent, law-abiding, patriotic majority of British people from every background who want safe and secure borders. Labour is running scared of the fact that this party might just deliver them.

Public Order Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 18th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Jeremy Quin)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 8—Injunctions in Secretary of State proceedings: power of arrest and remand.

New clause 1—Guidance on locking on—

“The Secretary of State must by regulations issue guidance to police forces about the protest technique of locking on, which includes—

(a) examples of best practice, and

(b) detailed guidance on addressing new and developing forms of locking on.”

New clause 2—Consolidated protest guidance—

“(1) Within three months of Royal Assent to this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations issue guidance which consolidates into a single source—

(a) the College of Policing’s authorised professional practice for public order guidance,

(b) the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s operational advice for protest policing, and

(c) the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s protest aide memoire.

(2) The Secretary of State must regularly review the guidance and, if appropriate, must by regulations issue revised consolidated guidance.

(3) The consolidated guidance must include specific updated guidance about the protest technique of locking on.”

New clause 3—National monitoring tool—

“(1) The Secretary of State must develop a consistent national monitoring tool, accessible by all police forces, to monitor the use of or requests for specialist protest officers across England and Wales.

(2) Data collected under this section may be used to evaluate capacity and demand for specialist protest officers across England and Wales.

(3) The monitoring tool must be accessible on a national, regional and local basis.

(4) The monitoring tool must include—

(a) examples of best practice from policing protests across the United Kingdom, and

(b) data on how many trained officers have been required for any protests during the period in which monitoring took place.”

New clause 4—Injunction to prevent serious disruption to effective movement of essential goods or services—

“(1) Upon an application by a person under subsection (4), an injunction may be ordered by a Judge of the High Court against ‘persons unknown’ in order to prevent a serious disruption to the effective movement of any essential goods or any essential services occasioned by a public procession or public assembly.

(2) The “persons unknown” may be—

(a) anonymous persons taking part in a public process or public assembly who are identifiable at the time of the proceedings; and/or

(b) persons not presently taking part in a public procession or public assembly protest but who will in future join such a public procession or public assembly.

(3) The conditions under which such an injunction may be granted are as follows—

(a) there must be a real and imminent risk of a tort being committed which would result in a serious disruption to the effective movement of any essential goods or any essential services;

(b) a method of service must be set out in the order which may reasonably be expected to bring the proceedings to the attention of the “persons unknown”;

(c) the “persons unknown” must be defined in the order by reference to their conduct which is alleged to be unlawful;

(d) the acts prohibited by the order must correspond with the threatened tort;

(e) the order may only prohibit lawful conduct if there is no other proportionate means of protecting the effective movement of essential goods or essential services;

(f) the terms of the order must set out what act(s) the persons potentially affected by the order must not do;

(g) the terms of the order must set out a defined geographical area to which the order relates; and

(h) the terms of the order must set out a temporal period to which the order relates, following which the order will lapse unless a further order is made upon a further application by the applicant.

(4) An applicant for an injunction to prevent serious disruption to effective movement of essential goods or services may be—

(a) a local authority with responsibility for all or part of the geographical area to which the proposed order relates;

(b) a chief constable with responsibility for all or part of the geographical area to which the proposed order relates; or

(c) a person resident in, or carrying on a business within, the geographical area to which the proposed order relates.

(5) A “serious disruption to effective movement of essential goods or services” includes a prolonged disruption to—

(a) the effective movement of the supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel;

(b) a system of communication;

(c) access to a place of worship;

(d) access to a transport facility;

(e) access to an educational institution; and

(f) access to a service relating to health.”

New clause 5—Definition of “serious disruption”—

“(1) For the purposes of this Act, ‘serious disruption’ means—

(a) significant delay to the delivery of a time-sensitive product to consumers

of that product, or

(b) prolonged disruption of access to any essential goods or any essential service, including, in particular, access to—

(i) the supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel,

(ii) a system of communication,

(iii) a place of worship,

(iv) a place of worship,

(v) an educational institution, or

(vi) a service relating to health.

(2) In subsection (1)(a) a ‘time-sensitive product’ means a product whose value or use to its consumers may be significantly reduced by a delay in the supply of the product to them.”

New clause 6—Offences impeding emergency workers—

“(1) This section applies where—

(a) the court is considering for the purposes of sentencing the seriousness of an offence under sections 1 (Offence of locking on) or 3 (Obstruction etc of major transport works) of this Act, and

(b) the commission of the offence had the effect of impeding an emergency worker in exercising their functions, subject to the exception in subsection (2).

(2) The exception is that the emergency worker was exercising their functions in connection with the offence for which the person is being sentenced or in connection with any action which the court considers to be related to that offence.

(3) The court—

(a) must treat the fact mentioned in subsection (1)(b) as an aggravating factor (that is to say, a factor that increases the seriousness of the offence), and

(b) must state in open court that the offence is so aggravated.

(4) In this section, ‘emergency worker’ means—

(a) a constable;

(b) a person (other than a constable) who has the powers of a constable or is otherwise employed for police purposes or is engaged to provide services for police purposes;

(c) a National Crime Agency officer;

(d) a prison officer;

(e) a person (other than a prison officer) employed or engaged to carry out functions in a custodial institution of a corresponding kind to those carried out by a prison officer;

(f) a prisoner custody officer, so far as relating to the exercise of escort functions;

(g) a custody officer, so far as relating to the exercise of escort functions;

(h) a person employed for the purposes of providing, or engaged to provide, fire services or fire and rescue services;

(i) a person employed for the purposes of providing, or engaged to provide, search services or rescue services (or both);

(j) a person employed for the purposes of providing, or engaged to provide—

(i) NHS health services, or

(ii) services in the support of the provision of NHS health services, and whose general activities in doing so involve face to face interaction with individuals receiving the services or with other members of the public.

(5) It is immaterial for the purposes of subsection (4) whether the employment or engagement is paid or unpaid.

(6) In this section—

‘custodial institution’ means any of the following—

(a) a prison;

(b) a young offender institution, secure training centre, secure college or remand centre;

(c) services custody premises, as defined by section 300(7) of the Armed Forces Act 2006; “custody officer” has the meaning given by section 12(3) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994;

‘escort functions’—

(a) in the case of a prisoner custody officer, means the functions specified in section 80(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991;

(b) in the case of a custody officer, means the functions specified in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994;

‘NHS health services’ means any kind of health services provided as part of the health service continued under section 1(1) of the National Health Service Act 2006 and under section 1(1) of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006;

‘prisoner custody officer’ has the meaning given by section 89(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.”

New clause 9—Publication of data about use of stop and search powers—

“(1) The Secretary of State must publish data about the use of the stop and search powers under sections 9 and 10 within three years of—

(a) if sections 9 and 10 come into force on the same date, the date on which they come into force, or

(b) if sections 9 and 10 come into force on different dates, the later of those two dates.

(2) The data published under this section must include—

(a) the total number of uses of stop and search powers by each police force in England and Wales, including whether the powers were used on suspicion or without suspicion,

(b) disaggregated data by age, disability, ethnicity/race, sex/gender and sexual orientation of the people who have been stopped and searched, and

(c) data relating to the outcomes of the use of stop and search powers.”

New clause 10—Review of the use of stop and search powers—

“(1) The Secretary of State must appoint an independent reviewer to assess and report annually on the use of the stop and search powers under sections 9 and 10.

(2) In carrying out their review, the person appointed under subsection (1) must—

(a) consider the impact of the use of stop and search powers on groups with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, and

(b) consult such civil society organisations as appear to the person appointed under subsection (1) to be relevant.

(3) The person appointed under subsection (1) must ensure that a report on the outcome of the review is sent to the Secretary of State as soon as reasonably practicable after the completion of the review.

(4) On receiving a report under this section, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament—

(a) a copy of the report, and

(b) the Government’s response to the findings.

(5) The first report under this section must be completed no later than one year after the date provided for under section [publication of data about use of stop and search powers](1).”

New clause 11—Offence of interference with access to or provision of abortion services—

“(1) A person who is within a buffer zone and who interferes with any person’s decision to access, provide, or facilitate the provision of abortion services in that buffer zone is guilty of an offence.

(2) A “buffer zone” means an area which is within a boundary which is 150 metres from any part of an abortion clinic or any access point to any building or site that contains an abortion clinic and is—

(a) on or adjacent to a public highway or public right of way,

(b) in an open space to which the public has access,

(c) within the curtilage of an abortion clinic, or

(d) in any location that is visible from a public highway, public right of way, open space to which the public have access, or the curtilage of an abortion clinic.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), ‘interferes with’ means—

(a) seeks to influence,

(b) persistently, continuously or repeatedly occupies,

(c) impedes or threatens,

(d) intimidates or harasses,

(e) advises or persuades, attempts to advise or persuade, or otherwise expresses opinion,

(f) informs or attempts to inform about abortion services by any means, including, without limitation, graphic, physical, verbal or written means, or

(g) sketches, photographs, records, stores, broadcasts, or transmits images, audio, likenesses or personal data of any person without express consent.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable—

(a) in the first instance—

(i) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months,

(ii) to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or

(iii) to both; and

(b) on further instances—

(i) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, or to a fine, or to both, or

(ii) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to a fine, or to both.

(5) Nothing in this section applies to—

(a) anything done in the course of providing, or facilitating the provision of, abortion services in an abortion clinic,

(b) anything done in the course of providing medical care within a GP practice, hospital or other healthcare facility,

(c) the operation of a camera if its coverage of persons accessing or attempting to access an abortion clinic is incidental and the camera or footage is not used for any of the purposes listed in subsection (3), and

(d) a police officer acting properly in the course of their duties.”

New clause 12—Justice impact assessments for Wales—

“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must issue a justice impact assessment for any provision of this Act, or any regulations which have been made under this Act, which impact on matters which are devolved to Senedd Cymru.

(2) Within one month of the date on which they are made, the Secretary of State must issue a justice impact assessment for any regulations made under this Act which are not included in the assessment required under subsection (1) which impact on matters which are devolved to Senedd Cymru.

(3) The Secretary of State and the Welsh Ministers must jointly prepare and publish guidance on the implementation of the provisions on which justice impact assessments have been issued under subsections (1) and (2).”

New clause 13—Intentional harassment, alarm or distress on account of sex—

“(1) A person (P) commits an offence under this section if—

(a) P commits an offence under section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986 (intentional harassment, alarm or distress), and

(b) P carried out the conduct referred to in section 4A(1) of that Act because of the relevant person’s sex In this subsection ‘the relevant person’ means the person to whom P intended to cause, harassment, alarm or distress.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) it does not matter whether or not P carried out the conduct referred to in section 4A(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 for the purposes of sexual gratification.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) it does not matter whether or not P also carried out the conduct referred to in section 4A(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 because of any other factor not mentioned in subsection (1)(b).

(4) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable–

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court, to a fine or to both;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, to a fine, or to both.

(5) If, on the trial on indictment of a person charged with an offence under subsection (1), the jury find the person not guilty of the offence charged, they may find the person guilty of the basic offence mentioned in that provision.

(6) References in this section to P carrying out conduct because of another person’s (B’s) sex include references to P doing so because of B’s presumed sex.”

New clause 14—Harassment, alarm or distress on account of sex—

“(1) A person (P) commits an offence under this section if—

(a) P commits an offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 (harassment, alarm or distress), and

(b) P carried out the conduct referred to in section 5(1) of that Act because of the relevant person’s sex.

In this subsection ‘the relevant person’ means the person to whom P intended to cause, or caused, harassment, alarm or distress.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) it does not matter whether or not P carried out the conduct referred to in section 5(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 for the purposes of sexual gratification.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1) it does not matter whether or not P also carried out the conduct referred to in section 5(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 because of any other factor not mentioned in subsection (1).

(4) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable—

(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale;

(b) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment to a term not exceeding 6 months, or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.

(5) If, on the trial on indictment of a person charged with an offence under subsection (1), the jury find the person not guilty of the offence charged, they may find the person guilty of the basic offence mentioned in that provision.

(6) References in this section to P carrying out conduct because of another person’s (B’s) sex include references to P doing so because of B’s presumed sex.

(7) It is not a defence under this section for P to claim that they could not reasonably have foreseen that their behaviour may constitute an offence.”

New clause 15—Public inquiry into the impact of policing of public order on Black, Asian and minority ethnic people—

“Within six months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act, the Secretary of State must set up an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 into the impact of the policing of public order on Black, Asian and minority ethnic people.”

New clause 16—Equality Impact Analyses of provisions of this Act—

“(1) The Secretary of State must review the equality impact of the provisions of this Act.

(2) A report of the review under this section must be laid before Parliament within 12 months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act.

(3) A review under this section must consider the impact of the provisions of this Act on—

(a) households at different levels of income,

(b) people with protected characteristics (within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010),

(c) the Government’s compliance with the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, and

(d) equality in the different nations of the United Kingdom and different regions of England.

(4) A review under this section must include a separate analysis of each section of the Act, and must also consider the cumulative impact of the Act as a whole.”

New clause 17—Public inquiry into the policing of protests—

“Within six months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act, the Secretary of State must set up an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 into the policing of public order and protests, including investigation of the use of—

(a) force,

(b) kettling,

(c) police horses,

(d) policing powers contained in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, and policing powers contained in this Act.”

Amendment 3, page 1, line 4, leave out clause 1.

Amendment 28, clause 1, page 1, line 6, after “they” insert

“, without reasonable excuse, and using a device or substance that impedes detachment”.

This amendment, together with Amendment 30, would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights by taking the burden of proving “reasonable excuse” away from the Defendant and make it an element of the offence. It would also narrow the meaning of “attach” to focus on the use of devices or substances that make removing the protester difficult.

Amendment 29, clause 1, page 1, line 10, leave out paragraph (1)(b) and insert

“that act causes, or is likely to cause, serious disruption to the life of the community, and”.

This amendment would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights by replacing the current threshold of serious disruption with a higher threshold based on serious disruption to the life of the community (defined in Amendment 32).

Amendment 30, clause 1, page 1, line 16, leave out subsection (2).

Amendment 31, clause 1, page 1, line 20, leave out

“the maximum term for summary offences”

and insert “three months”.

This amendment would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights by reducing the maximum penalty for the offence of locking on.

Amendment 32, clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—

“(4) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), in determining whether a person has a reasonable excuse, particular regard must be had to the importance of the right of peaceful protest in a democracy by virtue of Article 10 and Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

(5) For the purposes of subsection 1(b), “serious disruption to the life of the community” means a prolonged disruption of access to any essential goods or any essential service, including, in particular, access to—

(i) the supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel,

(ii) a system of communication,

(iii) a place of worship,

(iv) a transport facility,

(v) an educational institution, or

(vi) a service relating to health.”

This amendment would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights by inserting an express requirement to have particular regard to the right to peaceful protest when considering whether an individual has a “reasonable excuse” for their actions when locking on. It also provides detail on the meaning of serious disruption to the life of the community.

Amendment 4, page 2, line 11, leave out clause 2.

Amendment 33, clause 2, page 2, line 13, leave out

“may be used in the course of or in connection with”

and insert “will be used in”.

This amendment would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights by narrowing the scope of this offence.

Amendment 5, page 2, line 20, leave out clause 3.

Amendment 6, page 3, line 23, leave out clause 4.

Amendment 7, page 4, line 19, leave out clause 5.

Amendment 8, page 4, line 35, leave out clause 6.

Amendment 34, clause 6, page 4, line 36, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

“(1) A person commits an offence if—

(a) the person obstructs the undertaker or a person acting under the authority of the undertaker—

(i) in setting out the lines of any major transport works,

(ii) in constructing or maintaining any major transport works, or

(iii) in taking any steps that are reasonably necessary for the purposes of facilitating the construction or maintenance of any major transport works, or

(b) the person interferes with, moves or removes any apparatus which—

(i) relates to the construction or maintenance of any major transport works, and

(ii) belongs to a person within subsection (5), and

(c) that act causes, or is likely to cause, significant disruption to setting out the lines of, the construction of or the maintenance of the major transport works affected, and

(d) the person intends their act—

(i) to obstruct the undertaker or person acting under the authority of the undertaker as mentioned in paragraph (a) or to interfere with or remove the apparatus as mentioned in paragraph (b), and

(ii) to have a consequence mentioned in paragraph (c) or are reckless as to whether it will have such a consequence.”

This amendment would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights by narrowing the scope of this offence to ensure it criminalises only conduct that would cause or be likely to cause serious disruption to major transport works. It would also introduce a requirement of intention or recklessness.

Amendment 35, page 5, line 9, leave out

“It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that”

and insert

“A person does not commit an offence under subsection (1) if”.

This amendment would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights by taking the burden of proving “reasonable excuse” or that the act was part of a trade dispute away from the Defendant and making it an element of the offence.

Amendment 36, page 5, line 14, at end insert—

“(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(a), in determining whether a person has a reasonable excuse, particular regard must be had to the importance of the right of peaceful protest by virtue of Article 10 and Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”

This amendment would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights by inserting an explicit requirement to have particular regard to the right to peaceful protest when considering whether an individual has a “reasonable excuse” for their actions.

Amendment 9, page 6, line 42, leave out clause 7.

Amendment 37, clause 7, page 7, line 5, leave out

“It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that”

and insert

“A person does not commit an offence under subsection (1) if”.

This amendment would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights by taking the burden of proving “reasonable excuse” or that the act was part of a trade dispute away from the Defendant and making it an element of the offence.

Amendment 38, page 7, line 10, at end insert—

“(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(a), in determining whether a person has a reasonable excuse, particular regard must be had to the importance of the right of peaceful protest by virtue of Article 10 and Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”

This amendment would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights by inserting an explicit requirement to have particular regard to the right to peaceful protest when considering whether an individual has a “reasonable excuse” for their actions.

Amendment 39, page 7, line 18, leave out “to any extent” and insert “to a significant extent”.This amendment would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights by narrowing the scope of the offence to prevent it sweeping up minor interference.

Amendment 40, page 7, line 22, after “means” insert “an essential element of”.This amendment would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights by narrowing the meaning of “key national infrastructure” to exclude inessential elements of infrastructure.

Amendment 51, page 7, line 31, at end insert—

“(j) farms and food production infrastructure.”

Amendment 10, page 8, line 17, leave out clause 8.

Amendment 41, clause 8, page 8, line 24, leave out “or B”.

Amendment 42, page 8, line 27, after “Act)” insert

“, but excludes infrastructure that is not essential for the purposes of transporting goods or passengers by railway”.

This amendment would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to narrow the scope of the offence by narrowing the meaning of “rail infrastructure” so as to ensure the offence does not extend to interference with inessential elements.

Amendment 43, page 8, line 39, after “Act)” insert—

“(c) but excludes infrastructure that is not essential for the purposes of transporting goods or passengers by air”.

This amendment would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to narrow the scope of the offence by narrowing the meaning of “air transport infrastructure” so as to ensure the offence does not extend to interference with inessential elements.

Amendment 44, page 8, line 41, leave out “or in connection with”.

This amendment, together with Amendments 45 to 48, would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to narrow the scope of the offence, and reduce uncertainty, by narrowing what amounts to key national infrastructure.

Amendment 45, page 9, line 5, leave out “or in connection with”.See the explanatory statement for Amendment 44.

Amendment 46, page 9, line 20, leave out “or in connection with”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 44.

Amendment 47, page 9, line 35, leave out “or in connection with”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 44.

Amendment 48, page 10, line 1, , leave out “or in connection with”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 44.

Amendment 49, page 10, line 18, leave out

“‘newspaper’ includes a periodical or magazine.”

This amendment would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to narrow the scope of the offence by narrowing the meaning of “newspaper” so as to prevent it extending to any periodical or magazine.

Amendment 52, page 10, line 18, at end insert–—

“(16) “Farms and food production infrastructure” means—

(a) any infrastructure, used for the commercial growing of crops and horticultural produce or rearing of livestock for human consumption or as an ingredient in items for human consumption; or

(b) any premises on which items for human consumption are processed, produced, or manufactured for commercial purposes; or

(c) any abattoir.”

Amendment 11, page 10, line 20, leave out clause 9.

Amendment 12, page 11, line 1, leave out clause 10.

Amendment 13, page 12, line 29, leave out clause 11.

Amendment 14, page 13, line 9, leave out clause 12.

Amendment 15, page 13, line 33, leave out clause 13.

Amendment 16, page 14, line 6, leave out clause 14.

Amendment 17, page 14, line 15, leave out clause 15.

Amendment 1, page 18, line 7, leave out clause 16.

Amendment 2, page 20, line 15, leave out clause 17.

Amendment 20, page 22, line 11, leave out clause 18.

Amendment 21, page 23, line 12, leave out clause 19.

Amendment 22, page 24, line 12, leave out clause 20.

Amendment 23, page 25, line 20, leave out clause 21.

Amendment 24, page 26, line 9, leave out clause 22.

Amendment 25, page 27, line 1, leave out clause 23.

Amendment 26, page 27, line 8, leave out clause 24.

Amendment 27, page 27, line 26, leave out clause 25.

Amendment 53, page 29, line 33, leave out clause 26.

Amendment 54, page 30, line 28, leave out clause 27.

Amendment 55, page 31, line 8, leave out clause 28.

Amendment 56, page 31, line 23, leave out clause 29.

Amendment 57, page 31, line 30, leave out clause 30.

Amendment 58, page 32, line 10, leave out clause 31.

Government new schedule 1—Injunctions in Secretary of State proceedings: powers to remand.

Government amendment 50.

[Jeremy Quin]

I thank hon. Members who have joined us for this important debate today and I look forward to the lively discussion that we are bound to have over the course of the afternoon. Although there will inevitably be differences of opinion, which I will come on to, I hope we can all agree on the fundamental point that should be underpinning this discussion—namely, that it is completely unacceptable for a selfish minority to wreak havoc on the lives of people going about their daily business. I would like to open the debate by speaking to the amendments in the Government’s name, and I will respond to other amendments in my closing remarks.

I will also touch on new clause 11, which covers abortion clinic buffer zones. We totally endorse the sentiment behind the new clause, but I look forward to setting out in my summing up why measures in existing legislation combined with the growing use of public space protection orders—PSPOs—can be used and are effective.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The right hon. Gentleman cannot intervene because he was not here at the beginning of the hon. Lady’s speech. He can intervene later, but he cannot intervene halfway through a speech when he was not here at the beginning of it. I appreciate that the hon. Lady is proposing amendments that everybody wants to hear about, but she has held the Floor for 15 minutes. We have three hours for this debate and I have more than 20 people who wish to speak, so I have to appeal for brevity. I would rather not put on a time limit, because that curtails debate. I hope the hon. Lady will appreciate the position of everybody else in the Chamber who also has to have an opportunity to speak.

[Stella Creasy]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I promise I was just about to wind up. I hope the Minister will address the issue in new clause 14 about foreseeable harassment and that perhaps over the course of the debate he will rethink his opposition to new clause 11. I know many of us across the House would welcome that.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 13th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is indeed a pleasure to speak on Second Reading of this important Bill. But before I begin my remarks, let me just mention that, in the Public Gallery today, there are two young dancers from Ukraine, Yeva and Zakhar, who, yesterday, came second in the International Ballroom Dancing Championships. I am sure that we all want to pass on our congratulations to them.

I welcome the Minister to his new role. I very much look forward to working with him in the same spirit as I did with his predecessors. Today, he will have heard Members across the House express their concerns about the time that it has taken to introduce this legislation. Urgency is required not just to bring forward a Bill, but to bring forward the Bill that we need to close the gap between what we are doing now and what needs to happen to tackle the scale of economic crime that exists.

As we heard today, action on economic crime was first promised in 2016 and then again in 2018 and 2019. Even in March, the Government blocked Labour’s amendments, which would have introduced reforms to Companies House and left Russian oligarchs with nowhere to hide. It matters that we have had these delays, because, in six years, we have seen a significant increase in economic crime, much of which could have been prevented had the Government acted earlier.

I thank all the Members who have contributed today from all parts of the House, many of whom have been ahead of the Government in calling for action. I also thank the Minister and his team for our meeting earlier this week. It is also good to have heard about the work going on with the devolved Administrations, because we do indeed need to hear voices from across the nations.

Let me pay tribute to some of the contributions that we have heard today. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) made the important connection between fraud and cyber-crime. He also mentioned the local nature of crime and its links with economic crime nationally. This is not just a debate about a grand scale matter. There is a very deep connection with the lives that we lead in our everyday economies. There is also a need for global action, and it is up to the UK to take the opportunity to lead that action.

The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), with whom it is always an honour to debate from the Front Bench, made some very powerful comments including around false registration, the methods of verification and the need for resources. I commend her work on tackling the issue of Scottish limited partnerships. I also commend the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) on her work on the APPG for whistleblowing; I hope that as we go through Committee we will see more action taken in this Bill to tackle the challenges faced by whistleblowers, who do us a service.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) spoke eloquently, as always, but what stood out for me was her articulation of the scale of the challenge and the fact that there is still just not enough determination or ambition. She was absolutely right to say that warm words need to give way to action—I will come back to some of her other comments.

I will also come back to the speech by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), but his comments about legislation with implementation stuck with me. He is right, because we cannot afford to sit on our laurels after passing this Bill, saying we are proud of it, if it does not achieve the change that is necessary and vital. I will also come back to his campaigning on the failure to prevent; his arguments have been heard across the House.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) articulated the problem of homes being used fraudulently for the registration of companies when people are not living there, and the lack of redress—an issue also raised by other hon. Members across the House. I want to highlight what that means for the vulnerability of elderly people: we know they are more likely to be victims of scams, but the ability to identify them, often on the electoral register, as people who might be living alone is another source of vulnerability for them and may lead to their being targeted and becoming victims of economic crime.

The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), who I also come across in many debates on this and other related topics, is right that the Bill was due, and past due—I think those were his words. I am sure that we will come back in Committee to the arguments he has made about the urgency of proper beneficial ownership transparency and many other points he has raised. I look forward to working with him on those matters.

The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), who is not in her place, was right to say that we should get this done in economic crime Bill 2, because we do not want to be back for economic crime Bill 3. This is our chance. She made the point that it is worth taking a little longer to get this Bill through both Houses of Parliament to make sure that it is fit for purpose, and I support that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), speaking from his own deep experience on issues of policing and enforcement, made the point extremely well about the need to ensure that we have the resources, motivation and morale for both policing and enforcement. We cannot have a revolving door. We must have the resources within our public sector to tackle these issues effectively. The hon. Members for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) and for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) also made similar and very effective comments in the debate.

I would like to give one final set of thanks, because it is right to pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking and the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton for their leadership in the work of the APPGs on anti-corruption and responsible tax and on fair business banking. Their work serves this House and our nation extremely well on these difficult and complex issues.

I also recognise and thank for their steadfast advocacy the civil society groups that work tirelessly for action on economic crime, including Transparency International, Spotlight on Corruption, the Royal United Services Institute, Open Ownership and the Fair Tax Foundation. That is not an exhaustive list, and many others are worthy of our thanks for bringing insight and clarity to a complex area, which demands that we act in the interests of our national and international security and prosperity.

This Bill is an historic opportunity to put a stop to the UK’s shameful role as a hub of illicit finance and a facilitator of economic crime. This debate is testament to the support of the House for the Government’s going further in tackling money laundering and the illicit use of cryptocurrencies to enable crime.

I am sure the Minister has heard the arguments put forward today, and the motivations for doing so are so clear. Dirty money is a national security threat. It is the lifeblood of corruption, crime and war. Organised crime gangs profiteer from drug smuggling, people trafficking, arms dealing, fraud and environmental destruction. Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee has criticised Russian influence in the UK and frankly, as long as Putin and his friends have a safe haven in London, we do a disservice to the brave people of Ukraine, who are fighting with their lives to defend their country and our shared values of democracy and freedom.

Dirty money also causes massive financial damage. In 2020, the National Crime Agency found that money laundering causes at least £100 billion of economic damage to the UK. We have heard other estimates today. Spotlight on Corruption estimates that fraud, now the most commonly experienced crime in the UK, costs us £190 billion annually, hitting businesses and tax receipts and damaging public services. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking said, we will never secure sustained growth on the back of dirty money. Every one of us is a victim of economic crime.

Dirty money is damaging the UK’s reputation. The prevalence of economic crime jeopardises our status as a business destination of choice. The United States has designated us as “high risk” for money laundering, alongside Cyprus. That is embarrassing, frankly. Britain must not lose its status as a trusted jurisdiction. The warning signs are there and we need to act urgently.

Finally, dirty money undermines the rule of law and democratic institutions. It corrupts political and legal systems. Oligarchs are clogging up Britain’s already overburdened legal system with vexatious lawsuits to muzzle legitimate critics and whistleblowers. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) made that point extremely well. Democracy, free speech and the rule of law are under threat.

We welcome the Bill. Our argument is not about what is in it, but what is not in it. There are aspects of the Bill that we will want to strengthen and to work with the Government on doing so. Let me lay out some of the areas on which we want to see further action, some of which have also been touched on today. Money launderers use complex financial structures such as shell companies and offshore tax havens to provide the secrecy that allows them to move, hide and spend their money. We must lift the cloak of anonymity that protects criminals and the corrupt.

We are pleased that the Bill begins to tackle the abuse of limited partnerships, including Scottish limited partnerships, by strengthening transparency requirements and enabling them to be deregistered. New research by Transparency International has revealed that more than one in ten limited liability partnerships ever incorporated—over 21,000—have characteristics identical to those used in serious financial crimes, such as bribery, embezzlement of public funds and sanctions evasion. We will review the detail of changes in Committee. Given the mass use of LLPs and other UK legal structures in large-scale money laundering, those networks are ideal platforms for a variety of clients looking to move dirty money.

On Companies House, the Bill is a huge step forward in improving the integrity of our register. That is important as we move from Companies House being a register to being more of a regulator. For far too long, fraudsters have obscured their identities behind shell companies, relying on a lack of verification of the information they submit. It is right that the Bill will make failure to comply with new ID regulations a criminal offence. The identity verification introduced by the Bill can finally begin to close that door, but it needs to be strong and we need further details about how the new powers will be used to close down those fraudulent companies already registered with Companies House.

Experts such as Graham Barrow suggest that there have been a huge number of bogus incorporations over the past decade alone, which will take significant effort and time to retrospectively verify. The Government have yet to clarify the period in which registered companies will be required to meet their new commitments, which, similarly to the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, will create a window in which those who have engaged in fraudulent activities can dissolve their entities or transfer interests. We do not want to see that happen. Has the Minister considered whether such verification should also be required to strike off and dissolve a company? That would help to prevent entities from dissolving and restructuring to avoid scrutiny under the new regime.

I urge the Minister to consider a mechanism by which parties affected by fraudulent entries—we have heard examples today—can apply to Companies House to have an entity or director struck off. They should not have to wait for Companies House to use its querying power, given the time that it takes. Public accountability is vital, so what plans does the Minister have for reports to Parliament on Companies House activity, which will bring public confidence?

Trust and company service providers are defined as being “of the highest risk” for money laundering by the National Crime Agency. A recent Treasury review found that HMRC, which is responsible for supervising TCSPs, continues to suffer from

“a lack of appropriate AML policies, control and procedures”.

The AML supervisory regime, including of TCSPs, is under review, but the further consultation promised by the Treasury in June is yet to be published. Until this broken supervision is fixed, how can we rely on such third-party agents to effectively act as the gatekeepers of our financial system? Under the Bill as introduced, they can be authorised to carry out ID verification as an alternative to Companies House. Crooks and kleptocrats already rely on these enabling professionals to build and maintain whole systems of shell companies. New measures in the Bill requiring third-party agents who form companies on behalf of someone else to register with Companies House and be registered in the UK with an anti-money laundering supervisor are long overdue. However, unscrupulous TCSPs will simply add ID verification and, potentially, falsification to their menu of law-busting schemes. That must not become a loophole in the legislation.

Could the Minister outline how the legislation will have sufficient teeth to prevent rogue actors from setting up shell companies for money laundering? The detail of verification checks is yet to be defined, but as drafted, third-party agents will simply be able to state that they have verified information on behalf of clients. Will the registrar have sufficient powers to review the documentation of “know your customer” checks if there are concerns?

There are concerns from stakeholders, such as Transparency International, that the Bill does not commit to verifying shareholder data, which could reduce the level of trust in the accuracy of that data. Concerns have also been raised about information sharing. While the measures in the Bill are a step forward, information-sharing measures appear to be reactive, rather than to proactively spot problem areas. This is a complex issue, and I am sure that there will be detailed discussion of it in Committee.

Extending current asset recovery provisions into the realm of cryptoassets is a welcome step forward, with cryptoassets increasingly used to launder the profits of crime and to support terrorism. On seizing and recovering cryptoassets, we will want to work with the Government to ensure that powers in the Bill extend to introducing sanctions on crypto-marketplaces that enable criminal activity. However, we are concerned, as the UK Anti-Corruption Coalition is, that to be effective, any new provisions regarding crypto money laundering and asset seizure need to be executed by a fully trained workforce. What is the Government’s economic crime people and skills strategy, and how is it changing in the light of the new threats we face?

Finally, I want to come back to a point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and others. We very much believe that there is a missed opportunity in this Bill, which is extending corporate criminal liability for economic crimes. The powers that exist under the Bribery Act 2010 and in relation to tax evasion could and should be extended to other economic crimes. The Secretary of State for Wales said this week that he considers a new failure to prevent offence for fraud “likely”. The Home Secretary said that the Government are looking at this, so why do they not just get on with it, and bring forward proposals or work with us on amendments to the legislation? I certainly believe, on the basis of the debate today, that there is support for such a move across the House, and we will continue to push for it.

There is much to welcome in this Bill, with long overdue powers for Companies House and law enforcement agencies, but those powers will make a real difference only if the Government provide the resources to use them—legislation with implementation, as the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton said. We know that the Government committed £63 million in the 2021 spending review to Companies House, which was allocated for the transformation effort that, rightly, must take place. That is £63 million as against the billions that I have described economic crime as costing the UK each year.

The Government have included a new power to set Companies House incorporation fees. We know that the £12 cost of registration is the sixth lowest in the world, so what are the plans to resource those efforts? Does the Minister plan to increase the costs of incorporation to help pay for the effective operation of the new regime as part of the sustainable resourcing model, or to seek an increase in the economic crime levy, and what is the alternative? It would be helpful to understand that as the Bill goes on its passage through the House.

With the Bill’s complexity, it would not be possible to touch on all the issues involved, but I am grateful to have had the opportunity to wind up for the Opposition. We have the power in this country to lead change, and for the sake of our citizens, our children and the international community we must do so now.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call, to make his debut at the Dispatch Box, Minister Dean Russell.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dean Russell]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I appreciate that he would love me to give a date. I cannot do that right now, but I promise that I will continue with the engagement and discussion. I have spoken to officials many times about this issue over the past two weeks, and I would like to continue to meet and have conversations on that front. The key point is that there is a willingness and a framework already being discussed. It is about how and when, as he says.

Why are the Government not legislating for corporate criminal liability? That was a topic that came up throughout the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, the right hon. Member for Barking and my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare raised concerns about the prosecution of corporate bodies for economic crime. I thank them for their work in this area.

As several Members referenced, the Government have taken steps to establish the case for change. We commissioned the Law Commission in 2020 to undertake a detailed review of how the legislative system could be improved to appropriately capture and punish criminal offences committed by corporations, with a particular focus on economic crime. The Law Commission, as was mentioned in the House earlier, published that paper on 10 June 2022, just a few months ago, with the two strongest options being reform of the identification doctrine and the creation of a new criminal offence of corporate criminal liability for fraud, also known as failure to prevent fraud. The Government are carefully assessing the options presented and are committed to working quickly to reform criminal corporate liability.

I will move on to a final few points. First, I will reference comments by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central—she mentioned a lot of things in her speech, so I want to ensure I cover them as best I can—and by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran). On the reforms and whether they apply to limited partnerships, including Scottish limited partnerships, I reiterate that the reforms to limited partnerships will apply to all forms of limited partnership, including Scottish limited partnerships. The Bill will tighten registration requirements and require limited partnerships to demonstrate a firmer connection to the UK. They will increase requirements and enable the registrar to deregister from the register limited partnerships which are dissolved and are no longer carrying on business.

On SLAPP—strategic litigation against public participation—the Government are committed to protecting free speech. We often have debates in this place on the importance of free speech and the rule of law, which are cornerstones of our democracy. SLAPPs are an abuse of the legal system, involving the use of legal threats and litigation to silence journalists, campaigners and public bodies who investigate wrongdoing in the public interest. That is utterly wrong and should not happen.

The invasion of Ukraine heightened concerns about oligarchs abusing those laws and seeking to shut down reporting on their corruption or economic crime. The Government published a call for evidence on SLAPPs earlier this year to build a robust basis for reform. The Ministry of Justice ran a series of roundtable events with key stakeholders, including campaigning journalists, claimant and defendant lawyers, media groups and civil society organisations.

The Government’s response to the call for evidence was published on 20 July 2022, and we are currently exploring opportunities to legislate to introduce a new early dismissal mechanism in SLAPPs cases, as well as a targeted cost protection regime through secondary legislation.

I will conclude by addressing a couple of other key points that were raised—I know there were many. I note that the big folder I have here contains the original points I was going to make, so hon. Members will be glad to hear that we will finish this debate before the Committee proceedings start.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The Minister does actually have one hour and one minute left to speak. That is easy for me to say, as Mr Deputy Speaker is about to take the Chair.

[Dean Russell]

In that case, shall I start my new speech, Madam Deputy Speaker? I will not, because I am conscious that hon. Members have been incredibly gracious in their speeches and even more gracious in listening to mine. I will do my best to finish these last few points, so that the Adjournment debate can begin. [Interruption.] I can assure hon. Members that they will get weekends—I do not need to legislate for that.

Several Members, including the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), raised concerns about how the supervisory regime for professional enablers works and whether it is sufficiently robust. The UK’s anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing supervisory schemes are comprehensive in their regulation and supervision of firms most at risk from money laundering and terrorist financing. In December 2018 the global standard setter for those organisations, the Financial Action Task Force—there are lots of acronyms, so for anyone watching who is not as understanding of the details, I will use the words involved, rather than FATF, AML and all the rest—recognised that the UK’s regime is one of the strongest of more than 100 countries assessed by the Financial Action Task Force and its regional bodies to date.

In 2018 the Government established the Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision to provide a greater degree of oversight and promote co-operation between the 22 professional body supervisors. That office has driven significant improvements in the supervision by professional body supervisors, and in 2019 only 9% of PBSs fully applied a risk-based approach. That rose to 86% by 2020. It has also developed platforms, such as the intelligence sharing expert working groups, to facilitate greater information and intelligence sharing. There is still work to be done to ensure consistency of approach and to improve information and intelligence sharing, as identified in the recent post-implementation review of the OPBAS regulations and the recent OPBAS report.

Community Payback

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

We now come to the first Opposition day motion, on community payback. Before we start the debate, I inform the House that there is a small error on the Order Paper. The first part of the motion should read: “That this House notes that the number of community sentences handed down fell by one quarter in the last three years”. The motion has been corrected online; I would be grateful if Members corrected it on their Order Papers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Royal Assent

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Just before I call the next hon. Member in the debate, I have to notify the House—hon. Members can sit down; this is a very exciting announcement—in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:

Social Security (Additional Payments) Act 2022.

HM Passport Office Backlog

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mary Kelly Foy]

My constituent went to Durham passport office to collect his passport only to be told that there was an issue with the photo that had previously been approved. He has just been to deliver new photos, but staff told him that they have no record of his interview, despite the Home Office telling me two hours ago that it was on the system. He flies to America on Monday. What do I tell him?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. This is the Minister’s winding-up speech; it is not the place for a new speech. I let the hon. Lady finish because—[Interruption.] Do not argue with me. I let her finish because she was speaking on behalf of a constituent, and it matters, but that is not how we conduct debate.

[Damian Hinds]

I think the hon. Lady will appreciate that it is impossible—literally impossible—for me to comment on the details of that case and the particular issue with the photograph and so on from the Dispatch Box of the House of Commons, but if she speaks to our colleagues in the hub in Portcullis House, or with me or the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay after the debate, we will be sure to pick it up.

The difficulties that we have heard about today absolutely must be taken with great seriousness, and that is happening. I assure hon. Members that we will continue to look at ways to further improve performance. I also remind them that 98.5% of UK applications across March, April and May were processed within the published processing time. Indeed, the overwhelming majority were processed more quickly than that, with more than 91% of those completed in May having been processed within six weeks.

I certainly do not seek to minimise the frustrations that have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House during the debate, but I assure the House that everybody at Her Majesty’s Passport Office is completely focused on meeting the needs of customers ahead of their long-awaited and hard-earned summer holidays.

Question put.