Oral Answers to Questions
Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight this issue. It is one that we take seriously through Operation Pegasus. We are working through the leadership of the police and crime commissioner for Sussex on this very issue. No doubt either the Policing Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) or I will have the opportunity to update the House on this work as it progresses.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
This autumn, the Government pledged to treat retail crime as organised crime, but with their Criminal Justice Bill, they have fallen at the first hurdle. There is no consolidated offence to protect retail workers, no strong signal on the £200 limit on investigations and a denial of reality on their hollowing out of neighbourhood policing. From the answers we have heard, the Home Secretary wants us to believe that we have never had it so good, but the ones who are thriving are organised criminals. Will the Government accept our amendments to add the protection of shop workers into the legislation?
Robert Jenrick
When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I set out our comprehensive plan this time last year, it had many facets, one of which—an extremely important component of which—was our Rwanda plan, but that was not its only element, and we have worked intensively over the last 12 months on each and every other facet of that plan. Opposition Members jeer, but is that plan working? Yes, it is. We can see that from the fact that we are almost the only country in Europe where the number of illegal entrants is falling. It has fallen by more than a third, compared to a 30% increase in the rest of Europe and almost a 100% increase in Italy.
None of that negates the importance of interjecting a further critical deterrent. That is the crucial element of the Rwanda scheme. The difference between those of us on the Government Benches and the Opposition is that, frankly, they do not want to stop the boats, and they do not have the stomach to do a policy like Rwanda.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
Since the previous Home Secretary was removed from her post, I think it is fair to say that the Immigration Minister has become a law unto himself. First, he briefed the media that he has been instructing the Prime Minister to tear up all our legal obligations to fix the unfixable Rwanda policy. Then he set himself on a collision course with his new Home Secretary by appearing to bet the house on the Rwanda flights taking off. To add insult to injury, he went behind his new boss’s back to present his laundry list to the Prime Minister, including a cap on social care visas and abolishing the shortage occupation list. Does the Immigration Minister have any respect whatsoever for the authority of the new Home Secretary? Given that he is said to be on resignation watch, will he confirm that he will resign if his proposals are rejected?
Robert Jenrick
Once again, we heard absolutely nothing from the Opposition about what they would actually do. The sad truth is that they have complete disdain for the British public. They do not appreciate that the public that we are sent here to represent demand that we reduce the levels of both legal and illegal migration. The Home Secretary and I will do absolutely everything in our power to achieve that. We are working closely with the Prime Minister, and we will set out further plans in due course. But the public watching the debate should be very clear: if they share our determination to tackle small boats or to reduce the numbers arriving in this country legally, they have only the Conservative Party to support.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Last week, a woman and a man died while attempting to cross the channel in a small boat; others in their group were hospitalised for hypothermia. Despite the clear risks, over 400 people in nine boats were detected crossing the channel in the past seven days. They clearly felt there was no other choice. The lack of safe and legal routes is putting people at risk. Will the Immigration Minister consider a humanitarian visa, as the Red Cross has recommended?
Robert Jenrick
We do not encourage anyone, whatever their circumstances, to come across illegally in a small boat. That is a criminal offence and it should not be encouraged. We have supported nearly 25,000 people to come from Afghanistan since the end of the war, which compares extremely favourably to other European countries. We have issued more than half a million humanitarian visas, which is a record we should all be proud of. The Scottish National party always wants to make the UK out to be a small country, but that is not correct. The United Kingdom is a big-hearted country, and one of the world leading countries for resettlement—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. We have been here 20 minutes and have covered only two questions. We have a huge amount of business to get through, so can we please go faster? I would like brief questions and brief answers.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. Lady raises an interesting point on how we keep our politics accountable. Rules are set out by this House, the other place, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and various other people on how we account for expenses, money raised and various forms of connection. She is right that those records must be kept up to date. The Prime Minister expects every Minister to do that, and I am very confident that the new Foreign Secretary—whom I congratulate—has done so.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
The Defending Democracy Taskforce has an important remit to defend our country and protect our sovereignty. Given the threats we face, it is vital that rapid progress is made. However, some matters require immediate attention. Can the Minister give an assurance that both the Three-Vodafone merger and the future ownership of The Daily Telegraph will be looked at, not just through the economic prism of competition but in accordance with the National Security and Investment Act 2021?
Laura Farris
I do not have that answer. I will have to go back to the Home Office and write to the hon. Member.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
It is a privilege to take on this important role. I pass on my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) for her dedication and commitment. I am looking forward to getting to work.
A shocking new study has found that domestic abusers are controlling the finances of more than 5 million women in the UK. This cannot be allowed to continue. The Government have turned a blind eye to this issue for more than a decade, so what steps is the Minister taking today to tackle economic abuse?
James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. This Government were criticised by the Opposition and by voices across the continent when we started to take action to address the significant increase in the volumes of illegal migration. Countries across the continent are now looking at us in order to emulate the actions we are taking. Illegal migration has gone from something that the Labour party believed was a non-issue to being a core issue for Governments across Europe and North America. If the good people do not grip this issue, the bad people will attempt to do so, and I will never let that happen.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Home Affairs Committee has taken a particular interest in small-boat crossings. We produced a report last year that I suggest the new Home Secretary might want to look at. We have also visited France and Belgium this year. Owing to our interest and expertise in this area, will the Home Secretary consider giving the Home Affairs Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights the opportunity to carry out pre-legislative scrutiny of any emergency legislation that he plans to bring forward?
Several hon. Members rose—
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
I would be delighted to do that, and I support her call. To achieve precisely the objectives my hon. Friend describes, from April next year—in just a few months—every police force in the country will receive substantial funding commitments to conduct antisocial behaviour hotspot patrols, including against the scourge of off-road biking that she mentions. In forces where pilot schemes have been tried, including those in Essex, Lancashire and Staffordshire, we have seen reductions in antisocial behaviour of up to 30%.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Home Secretary has been in post for two weeks, during which time he has used the same language to pick a fight with Stockton and show what he thinks of his own Rwanda policy, he has been attacked by his Back Benchers, and Downing Street has already been forced to confirm it still has full confidence in him. Twelve days ago he said the number of asylum hotel bed spaces are down, but four days ago Home Office figures showed they are up to a record 56,000—10,000 more than at the beginning of the year. Does he even know what is going on?
Chris Philp
A round of safer streets funding was distributed for the current financial year, and we will make an announcement shortly about the following financial year. More money will be available, and it will be up to police and crime commissioners to decide how they spend that money. We will also confirm shortly the roll-out of antisocial behaviour hotspot patrols across the entire country—across all 43 police forces in England and Wales. Where those have been trialled so far—in Essex, Staffordshire, Lancashire and elsewhere—we have seen 30% decreases in ASB. Pretty soon, that will be available in Gloucestershire as well.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
That concludes proceedings on questions.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I will take points of order after the urgent question, unless they are directly relevant to what has just been said.
Madam Deputy Speaker
It is not directly relevant to a question that has just been answered—well, I am guessing it is not. [Interruption.] Order. We are moving on to a very important matter and I expect the House to be quiet to listen to the urgent question from Mr David Lammy.
Points of Order
Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have advised the respective offices of the Members of this House whom I will refer to in this point of order.
It is extremely sad that the Home Secretary has not the guts to admit to his appalling remark made about my Stockton North constituency from the Front Bench and apologise to the people I have the privilege of representing. There was quite a chain of events last week. After I raised the matter on the Floor of the House, the Home Secretary first denied he had said anything at all. The Government then sent out the Tory party chairman, the hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), to tell the media that no words had been uttered from the Treasury Bench. Next up, the Leader of the House said she had been told by the Home Secretary that he had not said anything and she believed him. She did not help matters by referring to Billington instead of Billingham.
The Home Secretary clearly took them both for fools, as he later admitted his foul language but tried to minimise the damage to his reputation by claiming his remark was aimed at me. Well, that is all right then, but it is untrue and has been shown to be untrue. My thanks go to The Mirror and the other wizards out there who have proved that to be the case.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, who used the word “untrue.” I think he could find another way of expressing that, as I am sure he would not wish to say that a right hon. Member of this House had uttered something that is untrue.
Alex Cunningham
Madam Deputy Speaker, you offer me a considerable challenge. Perhaps the Home Secretary has inadvertently misled people across the country in relation to this particular matter.
This matters: people take notice of what the Home Secretary says and his talking down of Stockton and Teesside can have consequences. He may have whispered in your ear, Madam Deputy Speaker, but can you advise me on whether you have any powers to order him to return to the Dispatch Box to apologise in person for insulting Stockton, rather than hiding behind the half-truths uttered on his behalf by an official?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He will recall that I answered a similar point of order last week, when he raised one aspect of this matter. At that point, I reminded all Members of the need for good temper and moderation in the language they use in this Chamber.
The hon. Gentleman asks me if I have power to require the Home Secretary to return to the Chamber. I do not need such a power; the Home Secretary has voluntarily returned to the Chamber, and if he would care to make a point of order, further to that point of order, the Chamber will hear him.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. For the avoidance of doubt, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) accused me of making derogatory remarks about his constituency. My response, issued through my office, was that I did not, would not and would never make such comments about his constituency. What I said was a comment about him. My apology was for using unparliamentary language, but I will make it absolutely clear, for the avoidance of doubt and with no ambiguity, that I did not, would not—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) asked the Home Secretary to come back to the Chamber to issue an apology, and he is doing so. [Hon. Members: “No, he isn’t.”] Enough. Hon. Gentlemen ought to hear what the Home Secretary has to say and not shout from a sedentary position—please.
James Cleverly
I know what I said. I rejected the accusation that I criticised the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. My criticism, which I made from a sedentary position about him, used inappropriate language, for which I apologise. But I will not accept that my criticism was of his constituency, because it was not.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. This is not a debate, and the matter is now closed. The Home Secretary has rightly come to the Chamber. He has apologised to the hon. Member for Stockton North. That is an apology rightly due to him, and I hope he will accept it.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I will briefly listen to the hon. Gentleman, but I wish to close this matter.
Alex Cunningham
I do not require any apology for an insult against me, because it did not happen. You have just intimated, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Home Secretary has apologised to me. He has not apologised to me. He has not apologised to the people of my constituency. He has apologised for using unparliamentary language.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman has issued an apology. I require an apology for the use of unparliamentary language, and the right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary, has given that apology. It is my understanding that he has also apologised to the hon. Gentleman—whether the hon. Gentleman accepts it or not is a matter for him. I require an apology, the Home Secretary has issued that apology, and the matter is now closed. I must say that the people who elected us to this place expect us to concentrate now on the very serious matters that we have been discussing and that we are going on to discuss.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In response to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s autumn statement, the right hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), whom I have informed of this point of order, stated that the economy would be “£40 billion smaller” in 2027 than the Chancellor forecast in March. The Office for Budget Responsibility has stated that in fact in 2027 the economy will be £15 billion larger than the Chancellor stated in March, so there is a £55 billion gap between Labour’s words and economic reality. Let me ask a procedural point. If the right hon. Lady were a Minister, we could call for an urgent question or demand a statement, but how can Members of this House compel her to come here to correct the record and apologise for inadvertently misleading Members of this House?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s point of order and for his having given me notice that he intended to make it. Will he confirm that he has informed the right hon. Lady of his intention to raise this matter?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I see that he is nodding to say that he has informed her. I am glad that he has done so. I have no ability to require a shadow spokesman to come to the House. It is Ministers who are responsible for answering to the House. I also say to the hon. Gentleman that it is not for the Chair to adjudicate on the interpretation of statistics. One person’s statistic is another person’s non-statistic. I have discerned that over many years in this Chamber. The hon. Gentleman has used the opportunity of a point of order to make his point.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful that the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), is still in his place because, as the urgent question illustrated, there is huge concern about unfolding events in the middle east. In the spirit of the updates and briefings to the House about Ukraine, would it be in order for the House to request regular statements on ongoing and unfolding events in the middle east, in order that it can reflect the concerns expressed from across the House, as illustrated by the responses to the urgent question?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Gentleman, but I think he knows that was not a point of order for the Chair but a question he can ask of the business managers and the Leader of the House on Thursday mornings, when the Leader of the House takes questions. I see that the Minister is eager to answer the point. It is not a point of order, but given the sensitivity of the subject that we are discussing, I will allow the Minister to make his point.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) that we in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office are the servants of the House. We will do anything that the House requests in respect of fulfilling the role that he has identified, which we fulfilled in the early days of the Ukrainian war.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I have never known the Minister not to relish an opportunity to come to the Dispatch Box and I am sure that we will hear from him many times in forthcoming weeks. Let us hope that it will be with good news, to counteract the bad news that he has had to deal with today and on other days.
Bill Presented
Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Michael Gove, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Oliver Dowden, Secretary Lucy Frazer and Lee Rowley, presented a Bill to make provision to amend the rights of tenants under long residential leases to acquire the freeholds of their houses, to extend the leases of their houses or flats, and to collectively enfranchise or manage the buildings containing their flats, to give such tenants the right to reduce the rent payable under their leases to a peppercorn, to regulate charges and costs payable by residential tenants, to regulate residential estate management and to regulate rent charges.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 13) with explanatory notes (Bill 13-EN).
Points of Order
Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order on the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) in the statement. The immigration guidelines were changed in August 2023 to enable eviction within seven days as opposed to 28 days, and my hon. Friend has the letter from Clearsprings to the person she is representing that confirms a seven-day deadline. I wonder whether the Minister might wish to correct the record based on the exchange he had with my hon. Friend earlier.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As a rule, it is not correct to continue a statement with additional questions, but he appears to raise a genuinely new question arising from the statement. If the Minister would care to answer it, I will allow him to do so. If he prefers to write to the hon. Gentleman, that is also acceptable.
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I could do both. I will write to set out our position, but from the information that has been made available to me, I suspect that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) is mistaken. There is a twofold process: on granting an individual their asylum claim, they are notified that they have 28 days plus two days for postage to vacate their property. When they come to seven days before the end of that 28-day period, we then serve them with a notice to quit in accordance with the law. I am afraid she is mistaken.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the situation and I trust that that satisfies the shadow Minister’s point of order.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care made an official visit to Charing Cross Hospital in my constituency. On arrival, he was joined by the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) and the Conservative parliamentary candidate for Hammersmith and Chiswick. They then proceeded to use the visit for party political purposes.
A video they recorded inside the hospital concludes by saying that the hospital has
“got a really, really great future here under the Conservatives.”
That will come as a surprise to my constituents who fought for seven years to stop Conservative Governments demolishing the hospital and, earlier this year, saw it taken out of the 2030 new hospital programme, putting £1 billion of essential funding at risk.
Paragraph 8.1 of the ministerial code states:
“Official facilities paid for out of public funds should be used for Government publicity and advertising but may not be used for the dissemination of material which is essentially party political.”
Can you advise me what steps I can take to see that that flagrant breach of the ministerial code is properly investigated?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for having given me notice of his intention to raise it. I am not absolutely clear: is he saying that a Minister visited his constituency but did not give him notice?
Andy Slaughter
No, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am saying that the Minister visited and used official facilities for a party political purpose.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I heard that part of what the hon. Gentleman said—[Interruption.] Order. I do not need all that talking while I am dealing with a point of order because it means I cannot hear anything. The hon. Gentleman’s main point is not that he was not notified of the visit but about the content of the visit. If it had been about notification, I could certainly have dealt with that from the Chair. The content of the visit is a matter for the ministerial code and not something I can deal with from the Chair, but I am confident that there are currently some senior Ministers on the Treasury Bench, and I trust that the hon. Gentleman’s point will be taken seriously. If it is a matter for the ministerial code but cannot be dealt with from the Treasury Bench, he ought perhaps to write to the Speaker and the matter can then be discussed in that way.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I attempted earlier during Foreign Office questions to catch the Speaker’s eye, but was unsuccessful given the number of Members who were keen to speak. On Friday, I wrote to the Foreign Secretary about a constituency case, asking him to ensure that consular assistance was provided for an imminent trial overseas. I am concerned that, given the heightened tensions in the middle east, my constituent’s case may not receive the attention that it deserves. His wife, young child and other family members are understandably very concerned about his situation. I would welcome any assistance that you can provide, Madam Deputy Speaker, in encouraging the Foreign Office, which I appreciate is under heavy pressure at the moment, to nevertheless take an urgent look at my constituent’s case and provide consular assistance.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I understand, from a compassionate point of view, why he wishes to raise that matter on the Floor of the House, but I think he knows that it is not a matter for the Chair. I understand why he wishes to have the matter raised and paid attention to immediately by Ministers, and I am confident that if he approaches the appropriate Minister in the usual way, the case will get the attention that it needs and that his constituent deserves. I hope that is helpful.
Illegal Migration
Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on illegal migration.
The Government have made it our top priority to stop the boats, because these crossings are not only illegal, dangerous and unnecessary, but deeply unfair. They are unfair on those who are genuinely in need of resettlement, as our finite capacity is taken up by people—overwhelmingly young men—coming to the UK directly from a place of safety in France, but most of all they are unfair on the law-abiding British public who face the real-world consequences of illegal migration through housing waiting lists, strained public services and, at times, serious community cohesion challenges, and it is the interests of the British public that we have a duty to advance.
We have developed what is among the most comprehensive and robust plans to tackle illegal migration in Europe, and over the last year the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and I have focused on delivering it. The plan starts with taking the fight to the people-smuggling gangs upstream, long before they are even in striking distance of the United Kingdom. We have already doubled the funds for the organised immigration crime work of the National Crime Agency, and at a meeting of the European Political Community earlier this month the Prime Minister announced new, tailored initiatives with Belgium, Bulgaria and Serbia, which come in addition to the enhanced strategic partnerships that we have already agreed this year with Italy and Turkey. Our two agreements with the French Government have elevated our co-operation to unprecedented levels. This is degrading the organised immigration crime groups, and in the last few weeks new physical barriers have been installed to make it considerably harder for the flimsy dinghies to be launched.
As we are increasing disruption abroad, so we are restoring deterrence at home. We are breaking the link between arriving here illegally and a life in the UK. The number of removals of those with no right to be in the UK has increased by more than 75% in comparison with last year’s figure. Since we struck our enhanced returns agreement with Albania in December, we have returned more than 4,100 Albanian immigration offenders, and, as I saw for myself in Tirana last month, some of those individuals are being returned home in as little as 48 hours.
In August we announced the biggest shake-up in a decade of the penalties imposed on rogue employers and landlords who encourage illegal migration by hiring or renting to illegal migrants, and as we proceed with that, more unscrupulous businesses are getting the knock on the door. We have increased the number of enforcement raids by more than two thirds since this point last year. The surge has led to a doubling in the number of fines imposed on employers, and has tripled the number issued to landlords. However, for those who are complicit in the business model of the people smugglers, severe financial penalties are not enough, which is why we have dramatically increased the number of company directors who have been disqualified for allowing illegal working.
Our concerted efforts at home and abroad are making progress. For the first time since the phenomenon of small boat arrivals began four years ago, they are down by more than a fifth in comparison with those in the equivalent period in 2022, and in recent months we have seen still further falls—and let me dispel the myth peddled by some of our increasingly desperate opponents that that is because of the weather. The weather conditions this year were more favourable to small boat crossings than those in 2022, but we have still seen a marked decrease. By contrast, in the year to June 2023 detections of irregular border crossings at the external borders of Europe increased by a third, and irregular arrivals in Italy from across the Mediterranean have almost doubled. However, we must and will go further to stop the boats altogether. We remain confident of the legality of our Rwanda partnership and its ability to break the business model of the people smuggling gangs once and for all, and we look forward to the judgment of the Supreme Court. As the success of our Albania returns agreement has shown, with swift removals driving a 90% reduction in the number of illegal migrants seeking to enter the UK, deterrence works.
The real-world impacts of illegal migration on our communities have been raised many times in the Chamber. One of the most damaging manifestations of this problem has been the use of hotels to meet our statutory obligation to house those who arrive illegally and would otherwise be destitute. Ever since the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and I assumed office a year ago, we have made it clear that that is completely unacceptable and must end as soon as practicable. Those hotels should be assets for their local communities, serving businesses and tourists and hosting the life events that we treasure, such as weddings and birthdays, rather than housing illegal migrants at an unsustainable cost to the taxpayer.
We therefore took immediate action a year ago to reduce our reliance on hotels. We significantly increased the amount of dispersed accommodation, and we have increased funding for local councils. We reformed the management of the existing estate: by optimising double rooms and increasing the number of people sharing rooms we have created thousands of additional beds, and in doing so have avoided the need for a further 72 hotels. We have mobilised the large disused military sites that are more appropriate, and have worked closely with local authorities to ensure that they have less impact on communities. We are in the process of a re-embarkation on the barge in Portland, and, as of 23 October, occupancy had reached approximately 50 individuals. That will continue as planned, in a phased manner, in the days and weeks ahead.
Nearly a year on, as a result of the progress we have made to stop the boats, I can inform the House that today the Home Office wrote to local authorities and Members of Parliament to inform them that we will now be exiting the first asylum hotels—hotels in all four nations of the United Kingdom. The first 50 exits will begin in the coming days and will be complete by the end of January, with more tranches to follow shortly. But we will not stop there: we will continue to deliver on our strategy to stop the boats, and we will be able to exit more hotels. As we exit those hotels, we are putting in place dedicated resources to facilitate the orderly and effective management of the process and limit the impact on local communities.
We made a clear commitment to the British public to stop the boats, not because it would be easy but because it was, and remains, the right thing to do. We are making solid progress, and our commitment to this task is as strong as ever. We will continue to act in the interests of the law-abiding majority, who expect and deserve secure borders, and I commend this statement to the House.
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his good advice and wise counsel. He had to clear up the mess left by the last Labour Government, so he knows how challenging these situations can be. We have put in place more resource. We met our target of 2,500 additional caseworkers to manage the asylum system. When I stood at this Dispatch Box in my first week in this role, the Home Office was making around 400 decisions a week. We are now making 4,500 a week, and I commend the civil servants at the Home Office who have driven that extraordinary improvement in management, grip and productivity. But we on this side of the House do not believe that we can grant our way out of this challenge; we have to stop the boats in the first place. That is why true deterrence is so critical, and it is why our Rwanda partnership, which Labour has tried to frustrate at every opportunity, is so important to securing our borders.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Minister will know that Mears has recently signed a contract with a hotel in Glasgow South West, so perhaps he can update us on the status of that contract. He has mentioned the backlog. Not everyone in a hotel in asylum accommodation is illegal; some will be successful in being granted refugee status. Can he tell us what discussions he is having with local authorities—I am thinking of Glasgow City Council in particular—on supporting and providing financial support for those successful refugees who will have to leave their hotel or asylum accommodation following a decision? Will he meet me and my Glasgow colleagues to discuss this issue?
Can the Minister tell us the estimated total operational and associated costs of this new system that he is creating, including barges, military sites, detention facilities and removal centres, alongside the proposed Rwanda deportations? Finally, an investigation by “The News Agents” has found that people traffickers say they are having an easier time sending small boats across the channel because of Brexit, which removed biometric system sharing and pan-European co-operation. What steps is he taking to create a returns agreement with the European Union, binding closer alignment with the EU and system sharing?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Enough. We have had that question, and we are now moving on to the next one.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
My constituents have welcomed Ukrainians into their homes and Hong Kong Chinese into their communities, and our excellent domestic abuse services mean that we often give women from all over the country a fresh place to restart their life. However, that means that there is huge pressure on local schools and housing, and the more than 400 asylum seekers who have arrived in Chelmsford since early summer risk bringing those services to breaking point. Although I welcome today’s announcements, I am concerned that Chelmsford is not on the list. Will the Minister, who is doing an excellent job, work closely with those in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to look at housing for those who are granted asylum, so that the need is shared fairly across the country and does not just create extra pressure on areas that are already hotspots?
Illegal Migration Bill
Baroness Laing of Elderslie ExcerptsMonday 17th July 2023
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 View all Illegal Migration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 17 July 2023 - (17 Jul 2023)
Stephen Kinnock
I will make a little bit of progress, and then I will allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene.
I will turn first to Lords amendment 1B, intended to ensure that the Bill is consistent with international law, which Labour fully supports. Last week, the Minister deemed the same amendment unnecessary, because:
“It goes without saying that the Government obey our international obligations, as we do with all pieces of legislation.”—[Official Report, 11 July 2023; Vol. 736, c. 198.]
That comment was typical of the Minister’s approach. He is constantly trying to calm his colleagues’ nerves by fobbing them off with that sort of soothing statement, but we all know that he does not really believe a word of it. He knows that the very first page of the Bill states that the Government are unable to confirm that it complies with our legal obligations. He also knows that the Government are more than happy to break international law—just look at how they played fast and loose with the Northern Ireland protocol. If the Minister really thinks that we will simply take his deeply misleading words at face value and trust him and his colleagues to uphold our legal obligations, he has another think coming.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman did not mean to use the phrase “deeply misleading”. Knowing that he is an honourable gentleman, I suggest that he might want to use a slightly different phrase—“inadvertently misleading”, perhaps?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would “misleadingly soothing” work?
Stephen Kinnock
As always, Madam Deputy Speaker, you are very gracious.
The late, great Denis Healey famously advised that when you are in a hole, you should stop digging. [Hon. Members: “Quite right!”] Hang on. He would certainly have approved of Lords amendment 9B, which goes right to the heart of the fundamental unworkability of this bigger backlog Bill and seeks to prevent it from becoming the indefinite limbo Bill.
Let us be clear: the current state of affairs represents both a mental health crisis for asylum seekers and a financial crisis for British taxpayers, who are already shouldering an asylum bill that is seven times higher than it was in 2010, at £3.6 billion a year. Indeed, the mid-range estimate for the hotels bill alone is greater than the latest round of levelling-up funding, and three times higher than the entire budget for tackling homelessness in this country. The only people who benefit from the inadmissibility provisions in the Bill are the people smugglers and human traffickers, who are laughing all the way to the bank. As such, it is essential that this House votes in favour of Lord German’s amendment, which seeks to ensure that inadmissibility can be applied to an asylum seeker only for a period of six months if they have not been removed to another country.
A major concern throughout the passage of the Bill has been its utter disregard for the mental wellbeing of unaccompanied children. Many of those children will have had to see their loved ones suffer unspeakable acts of violence, yet despite the Government’s concession, the Bill will mean that when they arrive in the UK, they will be detained like criminals for up to eight days before they can apply for bail. We are clear that that is unacceptable, and are in no doubt that the Government’s amendment is yet another example of their liking for performative cruelty. We urge the Minister to accept the compromise of 72 hours contained in Lords amendments 36C and 36D.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We have only one hour left for the remainder of the debate, so I have to impose an immediate time limit. I was going to say six minutes, but I will have to say five minutes.
Tim Loughton
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is always an experience to follow the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). It was once said that someone who had just met his father had just spent half an hour having a five-minute conversation with him. We have just had a half-hour speech, but I am afraid that we did not get five minutes of anything remotely new in that.
Madam Deputy Speaker
It would be better not to do so. There is no hard and fast rule, since the right hon. and noble Gentlemen is no longer a member of this Chamber.
Tim Loughton
I will happily withdraw that, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I can have my minute back. I declare an interest as the chairman of a safeguarding board of a children’s company.
I was rather surprised to read in papers over the weekend that, according to the briefings, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and I are some sort of ringleaders against the Bill. May I make it absolutely clear that I support the Bill and want it to go through as quickly as possible, and that I support the Rwanda scheme? Objecting to some of the Bill’s trafficking measures is about protecting victims and prosecuting traffickers, not undermining the Bill. Greater safeguards on how we look after children who have arrived here would not undermine the Bill; they would strengthen it. Safeguards to ensure that safe and legal routes are in place for genuine asylum seekers would not undermine the Bill; they would strengthen and justify the measures against those who are gaming the system, to whom we do not have a duty of care.
In my limited time, I want to concentrate on the amendment tabled by Baroness Mobarik. I also thank Baroness Stroud and Lord Randall for the amendments on trafficking and safe and legal routes. The fact is that the Government’s amendments to clause 12 will give a child on their own in the UK the chance to apply to be bailed from detention after eight days, but that will apply only if they were detained to be removed, to be united with family or to be returned to their home country. That will not apply to all unaccompanied children when they first arrive in the UK; it will impact on only a small group of children. Other separated children not subject to removal will be detained for at least 28 days, and there is still no statutory limit on detention for any separated child.
Under the Government’s proposals, separated children affected by the Bill can still be indefinitely detained. That is the truth of the matter. It is imperative to include a time limit on child detention in the Bill. If the Government intend to detain children for the shortest possible time, they can reinforce that message by enshrining a time limit in the primary legislation, as we have asked for all along. Although the Minister has given some concessions, we are still not there.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.
Stuart C. McDonald
We should oppose all nine Government motions, which is precisely what my SNP colleagues and I will do this evening. Let me say again that this Bill is so appalling that the House of Lords should stop it in its tracks. However, Baroness Jones was the one speaker who had the guts to say:
“we should be stubborn about not allowing the Bill to go through.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 July 2023; Vol. 831, c. 1814.]
As I asked last week, if the Lords will not consider halting this Bill, which Bill will it be? This Bill is about locking up kids, forcing trafficking victims back to their exploiters, mass detention, closure of the UK asylum system and the trashing of international laws. If the Lords will not use their powers to block this Bill—a Bill that also runs totally contrary to what was in the 2019 Conservative manifesto—what is the point of their powers, and what is the point of the House of Lords? Let us hope that we can salvage something from these final proceedings.
On Lords amendment 1B, if the Bill is consistent with our international obligations, the Government cannot have any objections to the amendment. On the other hand, if, as the Government have at other times argued, it wrecks the Bill to have to be read consistently with international law, then the problem is with the Bill, not the amendment. That is a good reason in itself for the whole Bill to be stopped in its tracks. The revisions to the amendment mean that arguments about allegedly incorporating international laws have been addressed, despite the completely unsubstantiated assertion from the Minister. We have heard lots of strong words about protecting a dualist system of law, but given that the Government could not even make the normal human rights compatibility statement, we need strong action to protect fundamental human rights and the rule of law.
The grouped amendments 7B and 90D are also important in upholding the rule of law. They preserve judicial oversight, so that illegal decisions by the Government can be properly challenged before they are implemented. It really is as simple and fundamental as that. The Government keep talking about loopholes, but access to courts, the rule of law and fundamental rights are not loopholes; they are fundamental principles that we should be upholding.
Lords amendment 9B is another crucial amendment. It now includes safeguards to assuage the usual Government concerns about gaming the system, but retains the vital protection that if a person cannot be removed to Rwanda even after six months, they will then have their case assessed here. It simply preserves the status quo and is an essential protection. It remains an appalling prospect that people who are refugees will be left in limbo forever by the Government; never allowed to have their claim heard here and never able to contribute, even if removal is a near impossible prospect.
Indeed, it is also ludicrous that there will be people with totally unfounded claims for asylum who will get to remain here in limbo, often at considerable taxpayer expense, because of the Bill. The Bill stops unfounded claims being dealt with, just as it stops well-founded claims being dealt with. The end result is that thousands of people will need to be detained and accommodated in perpetuity. Many more will disappear underground, as they will have no reason to stay in touch with the Home Office. It is the end of the UK’s contribution to the refugee convention. Again, if the Government are not willing to move on that, their lordships should hold up the whole Bill.
On mass and limitless detention of children in inappropriate accommodation, of course we continue to support all efforts to curtail the horrendous new powers and to limit the extraordinary harm that we know—and the Home Office knows—detention causes to them. We therefore support Lords amendments 36C, 36D and 33B. As I said last week, the Government’s amendments in lieu really represent a pathetic non-concession. A theoretical right for some kids detained for removal to seek bail after eight days is just not remotely acceptable. At the very least, we need short, hard and fast limits, and those limits should be automatic and not dependent on a child being able to navigate the bail system and accessing the legal support that would be required to do that. And the time limits should apply to all kids, whether accompanied or not, and regardless of which particular powers they were detained under. The Government make claims about creating incentives to play by the rules, but, as with most of their claims, they offer absolutely no evidence. There is no suggestion, for example, that the introduction of strict time limits by David Cameron’s Government had the impact suggested here. It is just another myth.
As Members on both sides have said, the Bill is a serious threat to victims of modern slavery and trafficking, and yet again it totally ignores devolved powers on this subject. Those being exploited are the ones who will suffer, not the traffickers, whose power over their victims will only be enhanced by the withdrawal of any route to safety for those they are exploiting. We therefore support Lords amendment 56B and anything that will undo some of the damage that the Bill will do to modern slavery and trafficking provisions. Without 56B, the damage the Bill will do to slavery and trafficking laws across the UK is yet again sufficient to justify holding up the whole Bill.
On Lords amendment 23B and protections for LGBT people, we fully support everything Lord Etherton said in support of his amendments. Put the fact that these countries are not safe for LGBT people on the face of the schedule. Anything that builds on the flimsy and almost certainly unworkable system of “suspensive claims” should be welcomed. LGBT people should not have to go through that process in the first place. If the Government are committed to safe legal routes, they should have no problem with Lords amendment 102B. On the archbishop’s amendments 107B and 107C, a 10-year strategy is utterly sensible—indeed, it is essential. Long-term thinking is as necessary for issues surrounding forced migration as other pivotal challenges such as climate change.
Ultimately, the amendments can only add a little polish to an odious Bill that is utterly beyond redemption. It should be stopped in its tracks entirely and any parties that still send people to the relic of a second Chamber should be using their influence to see that that happens. Otherwise, this is all just for a show and very vulnerable people will suffer as a result.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I will begin by putting on the record my complete opposition to this horrendous Bill in its entirety. It is cruel and inhumane. It will put people at serious risk of further exploitation. It is stoking division within our society, and it undermines constitutional principles and human rights.
We are here today to focus on amendments, so I will briefly say that I support all the Lords amendments before us, particularly Lords amendment 1B, which others have already spoken about, in the name of my friend Baroness Chakrabarti. The amendment sets out the Bill’s intention to comply with a host of human rights conventions, including those with regard to the protection of human rights and the rights of the child, and against trafficking human beings.
It is vital that we underline our commitment to human rights, and, to quote the First Minister of Wales, Mark Drakeford,
“provide a warm welcome to all of those who seek sanctuary”.
That is particularly important as accommodation sites that have been identified by the Home Office for asylum seekers become targets for protests by the far right. That is happening in Wales at the moment. Amendment 1B is a modest and uncontroversial amendment. The Lords have backed it twice. More than 70 organisations have stated their support. The Government must yield and stop voting it down. If the Government are, as they say, confident that the Bill is compatible with the UK’s international law obligations, there is nothing to fear from the amendment.
I also support Lords amendment 102B in the name of Baroness Stroud, a Conservative peer, which provides for a duty to establish safe and legal routes. This is, again, a modest and uncontroversial amendment that could make an unsupportable Bill slightly better. We need to go much further. We need to expand safe routes, as organisations such as the Refugee Council, Care4Calais and the Public and Commercial Services Union have argued, in line with the amendment. We also need to tackle the backlog with a fair, humane and speedy processing system.
The Government have lost control over the asylum system. Their “stop the boats” rhetoric will not stop the boats because people are genuinely seeking asylum from war and poverty, and nobody would go on a boat, risking their life, unless they were desperate. We should be welcoming people to our country. What is contained in the Bill does not represent the type of country that I want to live in, or that I want my children or grandchildren to live in. What I and millions of others want is a country and society that is based on care, compassion, kindness, generosity, respect, inclusivity and, yes, solidarity.
I support today’s Lords amendments, which should be accepted, but if the Bill is passed this week, I and many others in this House—and, more importantly, outside it—will continue to oppose and campaign against this appalling piece of legislation at every opportunity.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I have to reduce the time limit to four minutes. I call Claudia Webbe.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The provisions of the Bill are inhumane and punitive. It has not improved with the Government’s amendments sent to the other place, which the other place has rightly rejected, proposing their own counter-amendments.
The Government remain determined to allow themselves to detain and deport even unaccompanied children; to disqualify many refugees from even attempting to apply for asylum or to appeal against unjust decisions; and to give the Home Secretary sweeping powers to make new rules or apply them as the Government see fit. Even if every amendment proposed by the Lords was passed, this would remain an odious Bill, and one that shames this House and shames this country, but the latest Lords amendments would at least mitigate some of the worst harms of the legislation—legislation that the Home Secretary cannot even say is legal under international law.
Migration and Economic Development Partnership
Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
We all know that the Home Secretary’s instincts on this are right. However, the wider Government promised to stop the boats and clearly we have not stopped them yet, so I fully support her decision to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, as I think will most people in this country. Given legal procedural issues and judicial recesses, it could take months for the case to reach the Supreme Court, let alone for a judgment to be handed down. In the meantime, the boats will keep coming, now probably all summer.
May I ask the Home Secretary two questions? First, with her extensive legal experience, can anything be practicably done to expedite the Supreme Court’s decision in this case? Secondly, was my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) right that the only way we will ultimately solve the problem is to achieve a derogation from the ECHR?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before the Home Secretary answers those two questions, I have been very lenient to the right hon. Gentleman but that does not set a precedent. Each Member who asks a question gets one question. On this occasion I will allow the Home Secretary to answer both questions, but I am not creating a precedent. One question, and we do not need an opening preamble either—just a question.
Suella Braverman
My right hon. Friend speaks powerfully. On the timelines to which we are subject, the Court of Appeal has asked for submissions on permission to appeal by 6 July. We will adhere to that timetable, which I think he would agree is swift. Thereafter, it is in the hands of the Court. I am encouraged by paragraph 16 of the summary judgment, which notes the need for swiftness when considering the matter, but ultimately the Court sets the timetable and we will follow any timeline it sets.
Suella Braverman
Again, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Opposition Members would rather put all their efforts into campaigning to stop us deporting foreign criminals than support our legislation to stop the boats. They would rather vote against all our measures to improve our asylum system than stopping the boats. They are a joke. They are not on the side of the British people. They are on the wrong side of this argument again.
Madam Deputy Speaker
It does not mean that we are at the end of the statement. It just means that, in the circumstances, I am being kind to the hon. Member for Strangford.
Jim Shannon
I am sure the Secretary of State was saying, “Great, it is all over.” I jest, but it is not fair to do so, because it is a very serious matter.
Although I agree with the Secretary of State that there must be an end to boatloads of young refugees circumnavigating the system in place, the Court has determined that the risk of refoulement from Rwanda to other countries means that the Government’s policy cannot be carried out legally. Will the Secretary of State outline how she believes the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can stop the influx while fulfilling our human rights obligations, which is not just a legal matter, but a moral one.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Lady has asked her question. It is discourteous for her to sit there repeating it when the Home Secretary is answering it. A bit of courtesy is necessary on all sides.
Suella Braverman
Last year, 30% of those arriving on the boats came from Albania, a safe country—a country from which they are not feasibly fleeing persecution or torture—so it is, again, a fallacy to suggest that everyone coming on the boats is somehow vulnerable or is coming here for humanitarian reasons. The vast majority are young, healthy men. The vast majority are paying willingly for those journeys. They are procuring them from people-smuggling gangs—criminal gangs—and they are coming here, knowingly and willingly breaking our laws, to seek a better life. That is not what humanitarian protection is all about. That is not what refugee status is all about. That is why we need to stop the boats.
Suella Braverman
We have been up front about the costs of our partnership with Rwanda, and that is a matter of public record. However, what is absolutely clear —I am sorry that I have to repeat it again, but the hon. Gentleman does not seem to be getting the point— is that we are spending £6 million a day on hotel accommodation and £3 billion a year on our asylum system. That cannot continue, which is why we will do whatever it takes to stop the boats.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
That concludes proceedings on the statement from the Home Secretary. I thank everybody for taking part.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I strongly support what the Home Secretary has been saying, but I am concerned with ensuring that, in the ping-pong that will ensue when the Illegal Migration Bill returns from the House of Lords—that should be quite soon, we hope—we will not in any way be inhibited by the fact that judicial proceedings are taking place. It will be a really quite important debate, and we need to be able to conduct it with as much latitude as possible, so I seek your guidance. Perhaps I could ask you to give that some thought, if I may.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. It is a point of order, which is a good start—points of order are not usually points of order—and I can assure him that sub judice rules do not apply while legislation is being considered. While the actual process of legislating is under way, sub judice rules do not apply, so the hon. Gentleman need not worry on that ground.
Migration
Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
What an interesting choice. Aha! But there is no choice, as the first choice is always the Father of the House.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
What a pleasure it is to follow the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley). His contribution is always very wise—he is not called the Father of the House for nothing—and we thank him for that. I also thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to sow into this important debate.
I love to be part of a nation that embraces others. The fact that many of our hospitals could not currently function without international staff is testament to the mutually beneficial role that legal migrants play in all areas of the fabric of this wonderful society in which we are so blessed to live.
I will mention four points to begin with and then focus specifically on migration and the fishing sector. First, nearly 40% of those who crossed the channel in 2022 came from just five countries—Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Eritrea and Sudan—that are all in the top 12 of the Open Doors world watchlist, which details the countries that are the worst offenders for the persecution of Christians. That tells me that we open the doors for people who are fleeing due to persecution.
Secondly, yesterday an amendment was tabled in the other place to the Illegal Migration Bill that would make provision for an asylum pathway for individuals persecuted for their religion or belief. I ask the Minister and the Government to support the establishment of such a pathway.
Thirdly, pathway 3 of the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme promised a pathway to 20,000 Afghans from vulnerable backgrounds, including at-risk religious minorities. The Government have promised to resettle more than 5,000 in the first year and up to 20,000 over the next five years. Currently, the pathway is open only to British Council and GardaWorld contractors and Chevening alumni. Again I ask whether that scheme will be opened to the groups identified as being at greatest risk.
Fourthly, I am mindful of something that has already been spoken about—those who have been in the system of hotels for almost two years. I have two companies in my constituency that are willing and able to give jobs to those people right now. If people have been accepted under the asylum system, why not give them the opportunity to work and fill some of the gaps that we have in our area?
I want to focus the rest of my speech on fishing and the visa system. I have been discussing this with Harry Wick from the Northern Ireland Fish Producers Organisation, with whom I have been working closely to find a solution to the question of fishing and migrant workers, and he has asked me to stress something that must underpin this discussion: it is important not to conflate those entering the UK illegally with the safe and legal migrant workers that UK industry depends on.
The media tends to shift attention from those who applied correctly and bring skills to add to our workforce in many different forms to images of illegal immigrants, which is an entirely different debate. As I have said, there are jobs in the UK that need to be filled by highly qualified workers, including in hospitals, and that is accepted. What is not so well understood is that there are roles lying empty that simply are not filled, but which do not require significant training or specific expertise. Those jobs are no less valuable to our society because of that.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) referred to the farming sector. I encourage hon. Members to speak to a farmer who has crops dying in his fields because he cannot get the manual workers to come in. Low-skilled workers are an essential component of the workforce, and we cannot focus only on those with a degree education when other labour is just as essential. I know the Minister appreciates the point I am trying to make.
I am aware that lower-skilled labour is in short supply. The Home Office encourages industry not to look abroad but to look inwards to our own UK citizens, but they do not always fill the gap, whereas higher-skilled roles are filled by migrant workers through the points-based system. Given industry reports that labour supply is the biggest barrier to growth and that the UK labour market cannot fill our existing vacancies in either sphere, we need to understand our position in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in relation to migration in a more specific way.
The very clear question for the Minister is this: does he not agree that it would be in the best interests of UK workers to backfill those lower-skilled vacancies with appropriately sourced and legal migrant workers, while promoting an education system that allows children to pursue a vocational focus that suits their personality, character and what they are able to do, rather than an academic one?
I once read a quote—it might be a bit spurious—that went like this: “If we tell a fish that it is stupid for being unable to climb a tree, we prevent the fish from understanding the depth of its capacity.” It is all about capacity. Those who want to be on the fishing boats have the capacity to understand how fishing works. Instead of berating those who struggle with algebra, we must have a system that allows them to see that perhaps their love of the outdoors is exactly what the local farmer is looking for.
The gap in labour need cannot be filled internally, and the system of outsourcing, particularly in fishing, is too onerous. The language of the sea is understood by all those who work it, and the language barrier on a boat is easily overcome by that common sea speak. Once again, I ask the Home Office to hear my plea. I spoke to the Minister before the debate to reiterate our request from the Westminster Hall debate two weeks ago.
I believe that this might be achieved by developing the existing seasonal workers scheme into something that can better support our fishing and farming communities, upon whom we rely three times a day, every single day, for our sustenance. That could also mean showing flexibility on the language requirement for skilled worker visas. The Minister knows my feelings on that. He has been very amicable in our meetings, and I genuinely appreciate it, as he knows. I am always trying to find solutions. For me, this is about solutions to the system, and I have given the Minister my thoughts about them.
I believe in change, but we need to move forward in a positive fashion to encourage migration for those who want to come here, work here, raise their families here and be a part of the wonderfully diverse British community —this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before I call the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), I am so pleased to have the opportunity to congratulate her on becoming a dame.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I wanted to talk about the challenge posed by legal migration, but there is not much time. Therefore, as my constituency is about to be the victim of illegal migration, I must follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) in talking about that topic and once again raising the issue of RAF Scampton. I apologise if I am wearying the House on this issue, but unless people groan when you stand up, you are probably not making progress in this place, so I will keep referring to it.
The decision to house 2,000 migrants at RAF Scampton is a perverse decision that makes no sense in terms of public policy. To remind the House, RAF Scampton is an iconic RAF base, the home of the Dambusters and the Red Arrows. It is to the RAF what Portsmouth is to the Royal Navy. We had the most exciting scheme ever developed for a former RAF base, with £300 million of investment and really exciting proposals, but the Home Office is now intending to put 2,000 migrants in that base. It wants to take the whole base. There are 800 acres, miles of perimeter fence, a two-mile-long runway and 100 buildings—many of them listed, such as Guy Gibson’s office. We were going to have a heritage centre. I have talked about the past and the rich heritage that could, and does, make RAF Scampton an iconic base, but most excitingly of all—as I said to the Innovation Minister yesterday—we were going to have a spaceport on the runway. We were going to launch rockets into space carrying satellites, so a whole new technology was about to be developed.
Why is the Home Office taking this huge, historic base to house 2,000 migrants? Apparently, it wants three or four decaying airmen’s blocks that could maybe take 300 or 400 people, and a bit of hardstanding. The Home Office must own hardstanding all over the country; why can it not put portacabins up on hardstanding, and not try to stymie £300 million of investment? It would be a reasonable proposal as a starting point if the Home Office said to us, “All right, there are these airmen’s blocks. We will take them and put a fence around them”—of course, we cannot lock people up under the refugee convention, but they could go to their own entrance and take a bus to Lincoln, where they could access health, education, sport and all the rest of it—“and we will release the rest of the site to West Lindsey District Council.” It has not even offered us that.
It gets worse. This is something that I have not yet said in the House, which I think is really bad: this is not an isolated site in the middle of the countryside. It is just five miles from Lincoln. There are 1,000 people who live cheek by jowl next to the RAF base in the former married quarters. Some of those people—maybe 100 of them—are still serving RAF personnel. What is really bad is that there has been a total lack of communication between the Government and those private citizens who live in the married quarters, who have bought their own home and put their life savings into those houses, but there has been regular communication with the Ministry of Defence personnel.
Only two or three weeks ago, there was a so-called secret meeting at the village hall on the site, with two military policemen outside, at which the MOD personnel employed by the RAF were told that because migrants were now going to be placed next to them, they would be moved at public expense. That offer has not been made to the ordinary people who have bought their house. The Minister will say, “I am not responsible for the MOD”, but we have collective responsibility. How can the Government say that it is so shocking that their own people, who they employ, should live next to a migrant camp that they are prepared to move them at public expense?
The buildings that we are talking about are old—some of them were put up in the war. They are not built to a modern standard, they may be riddled with asbestos, and there has been contamination by fuel. The Government say, “The fact that we are going to put them in an RAF base is a deterrent”, but I can tell them that if a person is desperate—if they come from the likes of Syria, Somalia or Iraq—they are not going to be deterred from coming to the United Kingdom because they will be put up in a warm room in RAF Scampton, rather than a hotel in Skegness. Skegness is very bracing; it might actually be warmer in RAF Scampton. The thought that we are going to deter people just by taking over an RAF base simply does not make sense.
There is such a lack of communication with the local authority, too. We have asked for risk assessments, but they have been denied us. We have asked for an assessment of the risk of asbestos and that has been denied us.
If the Illegal Migration Bill goes through—I warmly support it; it is the only hope that we can deter people because they know they will be detained and offshored—people will come to Manston. Apparently, they will then be immediately sent to RAF Scampton. By definition at that stage, if the Bill becomes law, they will be illegal migrants, but they will be in RAF Scampton. The Government tell us that there are no plans to make RAF Scampton a detention centre, so those people will be able to walk out the front door, take the shuttle bus to Lincoln, take the train to London and vanish. We have no ID cards. We will never find them. What is the logic of all this? It simply does not make sense.
We should have joined-up government. We are supposed to believe in innovation. Why are we stopping a fantastic piece of innovation to launch satellites into space? We are supposed to believe in levelling up, so why are we destroying £300 million-worth of levelling up? We are supposed to have a coherent policy on migration. Putting as many as 2,000 migrants in one place is not a good idea. By the way, it is not supported by local people, the local authority or the Refugee Council. It is bad for their stability and welfare to have 2,000 migrants in one place. For all those reasons, I very much hope the Minister will think again.
Kirsten Oswald
The Scottish Government will do absolutely what is needed for refugees if given the power to allow us to actually do so, and it is high time that the Minister stopped this damaging narrative, which is neither accurate nor fair. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Lady is about conclude. Just let her finish.
Kirsten Oswald
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Rather than more damaging legislation, what we want to see is safe and legal routes for people coming here to seek sanctuary from war and persecution. We need an effective and efficient asylum system and, if that cannot be created here, the powers to do that must be devolved to Scotland so that we can create an asylum system with fairness and dignity at its heart. If we had the powers of a normal independent country, we could of course do that ourselves, and I much look forward to the day when we can.
Illegal Migration
Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Ordinarily, points of order are taken only after all statements and urgent questions are finished. However, I will take a point of order from the shadow Home Secretary if it relates specifically to the statement that has just been delivered.
Yvette Cooper
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is specific to a sentence in the Home Secretary’s statement and her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle). It is a factual issue. She said that
“the asylum initial decision backlog is down by 17,000”
whereas Home Office official statistics say that the asylum initial backlog is now over 170,000, up from 160,000 in December. The facts are that the asylum initial decision backlog is up by over 10,000, not down by 17,000. I know that there was a lot of nonsense in what the Home Secretary said, and sometimes it is hard to know where to start, but this is about the facts given to Parliament. Will she now withdraw the incorrect statement that she has made, because her facts are wrong?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Let us remember that this is not a continuation of a debate; it is a point of order to the Chair, and it is not a matter for the Chair. The way in which facts are presented here in the Chamber is entirely—[Interruption.] Who is shouting at me? The way in which facts are presented in the Chamber is entirely a matter for the Minister, or any other Member who is presenting the facts. If the Home Secretary wishes to say anything further to the point of order—[Interruption.] She does not. [Interruption.] No, that is enough. This is not a matter for the Chair and we cannot continue the debate. It is a matter of debate and interpretation of statistics. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) for drawing her concerns to the attention of the House, the Chair and, indeed, the Home Secretary.
Sir Chris Bryant
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think this is a matter for the Chair. Will you confirm that the ministerial code states that a Minister must always present the facts as they believe them to be true? However, sometimes, inadvertently, Ministers make mistakes, and there is a proper process for correcting the record. It may be that the Home Secretary, when she gets back to her office, will realise that the Home Office statistics are not quite as she has presented them to the House. If so, there are means of correcting the record, and you can confirm that to her.
Madam Deputy Speaker
That is a point of order for the Chair, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for it. There are indeed means of correction, and I think all Ministers in the House are well aware of that. Indeed, it is open to any Member to correct the record if they consider that a mistake has been made.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I take a point of order from the hon. Gentleman and he wants to argue with me! It is not a matter of argument; anyone can correct the record. However, what he said is absolutely correct: when a Minister is delivering complicated statistics provided by a Department, and it transpires that there is a mistake—I have no idea whether on this occasion there is such a discrepancy—there is a procedure for correcting that.
Psilocybin Treatments
Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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.
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.
Illegal Migration Update
Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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)
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?