Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Priti Patel and Anne McLaughlin

Monday 5th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

11. If she will make an assessment of the potential merits of implementing a pilot project to evaluate the effectiveness of drug consumption rooms.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)]

Welcome back, Mr Speaker. I endorse everything you have just said. We enjoy the right to lawful, peaceful protest, but we enjoy the right to open democracy as well. Those who behave in this way should feel the full force of the law.

Before I answer these questions, I will briefly remark on my three years as Home Secretary under Boris Johnson’s prime ministership. A written ministerial statement in my name was tabled this morning—[Interruption]—shut up—outlining the work of the Home Office over the last three years to meet our manifesto commitments, which include some of the biggest reforms on security, migration and public safety, about which Mr Speaker has just spoken. I am proud to have served in this Government, and I thank the Prime Minister, Home Office Ministers past and present, and a wide range of officials.

Drugs are a scourge on society that destroys lives, blights communities and fuels crime. There is no safe way to take dangerous drugs, so I do not support legalising drugs. Importantly, the drug strategy led by this Government will tackle drug supply, reduce demand and provide world-class treatment to those in need of help.

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Lady makes a very important point about the tragedy of drug deaths, and she highlights the incredibly important work of Dame Carol Black. I pay tribute to the work of Dame Carol Black, including everything she proposed on the drug strategy and treatment programmes. She also highlighted where funding needs to come together across the whole of Government, and a great deal of work is taking place on that.

The hon. Lady is correct. Not only does more work need to be done, but we need to have bottom-up solutions. Dame Carol Black has presented some strong proposals to the Government, and the Prime Minister and I have backed and supported them. It is right that that legacy continues, as it will help to save lives and re-establish rehabilitation programmes across the country.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Last week I spent an evening in Glasgow with families who, like me, have lost someone to drug addiction. They and I accept that the ideal situation is that people will conquer their addiction, but does the right hon. Lady accept that they can do that only if they do not die first? Does she also accept that, for those who continue to use, we should enable them to do so as safely as possible and as close to medical assistance as possible? The Royal College of Nursing supports drug consumption rooms. Will she support them? And will she support the families and the memory of all those who have lost their life to drugs? Will she give the go-ahead for just one pilot project?

[Priti Patel]

I totally recognise and understand not only the hon. Lady’s remarks, but the scale of drug addiction and drug deaths—we have discussed this many times before in this House and it is tragic. Conquering addiction is not easy, which is why I stand by the work of Carol Black. It is pivotal in terms of putting forward long-term treatment programmes, because long-term treatment is really required. My views on drug consumption rooms, in particular, are known, but there are no easy solutions to this, because people who are addicted to drugs have taken drugs for a wide range of reasons. It is important that we seek to support them to conquer addiction and help them to rebuild their lives.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Priti Patel and Anne McLaughlin

Monday 25th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I would be delighted to come to his constituency to do exactly that. Perhaps we can have a conservation about the safer streets fund, which will certainly assist with that issue.

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

T9. I am getting sick and tired of the fact that every time any Opposition Member talks about our disgust with the “abandon people in Rwanda” scheme, Government Members start shouting, “What are your plans?” If they had paid any attention during the six full weeks of debate on the Nationality and Borders Bill or had read up on the multiple amendments that we tabled, which Conservative Members voted down, they would know what our plans are—

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne McLaughlin]

The main response to this issue should be safe and legal routes. The Government keep saying that they have them. I submitted a written question asking for the detail of all the routes available, and the detail of those routes fits on half a page, because there are practically none for the entire world.

[Priti Patel]

If the hon. Lady has read the new plan for immigration—I hope she has—she will be very clear about the Government’s policy on safe and legal routes. I have outlined today a number of safe and legal routes to which the Government have committed, including two routes for Ukrainian nationals and the two routes for those who fled Afghanistan last year.

New Plan for Immigration

Debate between Priti Patel and Anne McLaughlin

Wednesday 24th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are a compassionate nation, and we stand by everything we do when it comes to providing humanity and protection to individuals who are being persecuted. He has made the point incredibly well on behalf of his constituents, and we will continue—as I will today with the G6, our international counterparts, and across European Union member states—to say that they also need to do more. Until they do, people will continue to die. We all have this collective responsibility.

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) [V]]

There is so much wrong with these proposals that distilling it into two minutes is impossible. What person and what Government with an ounce of compassion or respect for international law would even consider casting vulnerable people off to an island using an offshoring system that, in Australia’s case, has been described by the UN as an affront to “common decency”? Who, with any regard to the rule of law, would limit the right to appeal? The high success rate of asylum appeals clearly shows that the Home Office is getting these decisions wrong too often.

Are we or are we not still a signatory to the UN refugee convention? Is the Home Secretary aware of article 31, which prohibits penalising someone for the way in which they reached a country or, for that matter, arriving so-called illegally? Does she know that nowhere in there does it say that someone cannot transit through another country to get here? That was never the intention of the convention, and to say it is is simply untrue. Does she remember that Nicholas Winton—rightly hailed as a hero for rescuing hundreds of children from Nazi refugee camps—was reported to have forged documents because the Home Office was too slow? Those children would today be classed as illegal and he would be a criminal, but he was a hero, because he recognised that desperate people have no choice, and the same is true today for many who reach our shores.

The Home Secretary should be ashamed to make this statement today. There is nothing pretty about this—it is ugly dog-whistle politics, and I can tell her that the SNP wants no part in it. More importantly, Scotland will not live with the associated shame of this. Scotland recognises its international and moral obligations, but we also recognise that we are prevented by the UK Government from living up to them. I despair for those having to live under this toxic environment, and I will always offer my solidarity, but I will also work even harder to ensure that Scotland votes yes to independence, so that we at least can continue to treat vulnerable people with compassion and dignity.

[Priti Patel]

First, I refer the hon. Lady to my statement. If she had bothered to listen to it, she would have heard a compelling case for stopping people trafficking, stopping illegal migration and creating safe and legal routes—something that I would have thought she would warmly welcome.

Secondly, it seems to me that the nationalist party in Scotland needs to do much more to walk the talk when it comes to resettling refugees and working with the Government to house individuals who are fleeing persecution. Sadly, that work is not taking place—[Interruption.] I can see that the hon. Lady is making some gestures towards me. If she would like to come into the Home Office and have discussions about resettlement schemes and routes in constituencies, I would be more than happy to look at that. Our Ministers would be delighted to welcome her into the Department for that conversation.

Finally, the hon. Lady speaks about our plans not being in line with the refugee convention. Again, I would like to correct her. Our new plan for immigration is in line with our international obligations, including the refugee convention. She will know that the refugee convention does allow for differentiated treatment where, for example—[Interruption.] she can shake her head, but perhaps she would like to listen—refugees have not come directly from a country of persecution.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Priti Patel and Anne McLaughlin

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Employment (Priti Patel)]

On behalf of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, I meet the Secretary of State for Scotland on a regular basis to discuss the devolution of welfare programmes to the Scottish Government; at a meeting just yesterday we discussed the ever-improving labour market in Scotland. I also have regular meetings with my counterparts from the Scottish Government and we have a joint ministerial working group. I will be speaking tomorrow to the Scottish Ministers with responsibility for fair work, and for children and young people.

[Anne McLaughlin]

The Smith agreement devolved employability funding and services to Scotland, but then the autumn statement cut funding for it by an eye-watering 87%, so that the Scottish Government now have only £7 million with which to deliver those services. Notwithstanding the general acceptance that this was a politically motivated decision, what does the Minister have to say to my constituents, who live in one of the areas of highest deprivation in the whole of the United Kingdom and are, after all, the people this will have the largest impact on?

[Priti Patel]

I start by hoping that the hon. Lady will welcome the fact that in her constituency the claimant count has decreased by 49% since 2010. We have record levels of employment in Scotland. There will be greater devolution for the Scottish Government in welfare, and we would be particularly happy to have discussions with them on employment programmes. Many of those will look at how we take these programmes further to support those who are out of work in Scotland but desperately want to work.

Benefit Sanctions

Debate between Priti Patel and Anne McLaughlin

Wednesday 16th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Priti Patel]

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says at all. Sanctions have been a part of the welfare system for a considerable number of decades, and successive Governments of all parties have acknowledged the principle that there should be a link between benefits and engagement with the labour market. That principle has been at the heart of the system, and it is important to recognise that that is exactly how the system works right now; we engage claimants and ensure they are being supported in their work searches, while ensuring fairness and balance in the system.

The claimant commitment clearly sets out the consequences of failing to meet the requirements of the claim. As I have stated in previous debates, the claimant commitment is discussed at length with the claimant and, of course, takes account of any barriers to work, health conditions, disabilities or caring responsibilities.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Will the Minister give way?

[Priti Patel]

I will not, because I have many comments to make and we are short of time.

Two weeks ago, in the previous debate on sanctions, a number of Members quoted from reports and gave statistics to support their claim that the system is broken. We have heard similar quotes today, but we should be clear that much of what has been quoted is not fully representative of the system. We have heard extensive quotes from Oxford University and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine report that suggests only 20% of JSA claimants find work after a sanction has been imposed. That is misleading, because it makes the assumption that the 80% of people who leave JSA with unknown destinations do not enter work. In fact, many people do not inform Jobcentre Plus of their post-benefit destination because they are getting into work.

Statistics published by the Office for National Statistics put a clear disclaimer on the data, stating that the destinations data are unreliable and that it should not be assumed that all movements into employment are accurately reported. It would have been more accurate for Members to quote from the comprehensive DWP destinations survey that found that 68% of those leaving JSA move into work.

Members have rightly raised the issue of sanctions for people with mental health conditions. Less than 1% of ESA WRAG claimants with mental health conditions are sanctioned each month. The latest available data show that the number of sanctions across ESA WRAG claimants has decreased over the past year, including for those with mental health conditions. That is because, as we have continuously stated, we are seeking to support people with health conditions and, in particular, mental health conditions into employment.

The Government have just pledged more than £40 million to develop a proper and robust evidence base on which approaches are effective for people with mental health conditions. Over the next three years, that investment will enable us to have informed pilots that are based on evidence, to see exactly what kind of support works for those people and whether cognitive behavioural therapy for people on ESA, JSA and UC makes a difference. We are now working in a more integrated approach with the Department of Health on the use of talking therapies in our jobcentres and other community locations.

Several hon. Members mentioned the recent Crisis report, but they did not highlight that the report found there was support for a system of conditionality among the respondents interviewed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

That, of course, is part of our ongoing work and, along with the sanctions system, it is always subject to review. We will continue to work with the system and learn from the data we receive.

To return to the Crisis report, it is not entirely clear how the respondents to the study were selected, and the conclusions appear to apply to only a subset of the overall homeless population. That is why we are quite cautious about the degree to which the views and responses included represent those of the broader population. We know that the most important priority for homeless people is to secure accommodation, and to secure support not only in getting into accommodation but in dealing with barriers to work and any particular conditions they may have. It is important to note that support is always, rightly, based on individual needs and circumstances, and is there to help homeless claimants find suitable living accommodation, which in turn helps to remove barriers to employment.

I return to the role of our work coaches. They are able to treat certain homeless claimants as meeting their job-seeking conditions if they are receiving the right support to find living accommodation. Work coaches are also able to suspend conditionality temporarily if the claimant’s circumstances constitute an emergency. We recognise that homeless claimants may not be covered by our current list of vulnerable claimants for the purposes of hardship payments, and I emphasise that we are considering expanding the list to include those who are homeless.

We understand that homelessness is highly complex, and no one should generalise about the circumstances or backgrounds of homeless individuals. It is our priority to ensure that they get the right support. That is why the Government have made more than £1 billion available since 2010 to prevent and tackle homelessness and to support vulnerable households. In the spending review, we announced an increase in the Department for Communities and Local Government’s centrally funded programmes over the next four years to tackle homelessness. I would like to think that all Members here would welcome that.

References have been made to sanctions statistics, and it has been suggested that according to the Government’s March figures, 50% of sanctions imposed have been overturned on appeal. The official statistics say something different: in the year to June 2015, only 14% of original adverse JSA sanctions and 23% of ESA decisions were overturned by decision makers. Those decisions were based on new evidence being brought forward that was not available at the time of the original decision.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Will the Minister give way?

[Priti Patel]

I come back to my point that if individual Members want to raise specific cases with me, they are very welcome to do so.

I do not have time to touch on the overall improvements to the sanctions process, which I know we have discussed before, or the Work and Pensions Committee. We keep the operation of the sanctions system under constant review—as we do all our policies—to ensure that it continues to function effectively and fairly. We will continue to do that.

I will touch on the pilot of the yellow card system, which gives claimants an additional period of time to provide evidence of good reason before a decision is made. That will help to strike the right balance between fairness, conditionality and individual circumstances. Our intention is that the trial will operate in Scotland from March 2016, running for approximately five months. It will be carefully designed and delivered, with a clear process, training and guidance provided for all staff involved. The trial will be evaluated in full to assess the impact on the individual behaviours and understanding, and we will carefully monitor all the relevant data to consider the extent to which the warning system trial affects sanction decisions. We will make the findings available from autumn 2016. There are already a number of opportunities for people who are sanctioned to present more evidence, and of course, that will be part of an ongoing system of review. We are working with our work coaches to develop that.

As today’s debate was secured by members of the SNP, I would like to raise some particular points about the situation in Scotland. First, I am pleased to say that today’s employment figures show that Scottish employment is up significantly, by 178,000 since 2010, and that Scotland has an employment rate of 74.3%, which is higher than the UK average. We are seeing very strong levels of employment growth in Scotland. Unemployment has fallen by 63,000, with the number of people in work in Scotland now close to a record high. That is not just because of economic policies, but because of employers expanding their businesses and doing more to support the economy. There are plenty of figures on that, but I do not need to quote them. Members in all parties can access today’s employment figures.

However, I want to touch on something that has not been raised today. When it comes to welfare provision in Scotland, we have the Scotland Bill, and the devolution package in Scotland will make the Scottish Parliament one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world. The Bill will also apply to welfare provision in Scotland, which will be tailored to local circumstances. Powers will include: a power for Scotland to create its own employment programme to help the long-term unemployed and disabled people into work; the power to create new benefits in any area of devolved responsibility; powers in universal credit to determine how and when claimants are paid and how much some claimants get for housing support; and the power to legislate for top-up payments to people in Scotland who are entitled to a reserved benefit.

This of course puts more power in the hands of the Scottish Government, and Members of the Scottish National party can now be up front with the public in Scotland on what they will do with this new devolved power and how they will apply the new powers to their welfare system.

Although we have had a full debate today, I think it is fair to say that sanctions are not a punitive measure, contrary to what the Scottish National party Members—[Interruption.] They are sitting there giggling right now, but I would not trivialise the support that has been put in place by this Government to help people into work; I think that is quite insulting, actually, to many of our work coaches and the people who work in the welfare area providing support for individuals.

This is part of a wider framework of policy to provide support to encourage claimants into work. Today’s labour market figures show that. Not only are we seeing high levels of employment, but the claimant count rate is at its lowest level since 1975. Conditionality and sanctions have played a role in that, and it is only right that we continue to keep under review the policy of sanctions, and continue to work to do more, to do better and to provide the support to help people get back into work. That is why we have the new joint health and work unit, set up by the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Health between them, and why, during the autumn statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced a new work and health programme. That will come in in 2017 to support individuals with significant barriers to work and, in particular, help them to get back into work, through the welfare system, with support. Of course, universal credit is part of that. It gives people the help that they need to increase their earnings, move away from welfare dependency, and importantly, make sure that work always pays.

Thank you for chairing the debate this afternoon, Mrs Gillan, and I thank all hon. Members for their contributions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Priti Patel and Anne McLaughlin

Monday 22nd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

9. What arrangements are in place to prevent child maintenance payments from increasing when a parent is prevented from spending time with their child by the recipient of the payments.

[The Minister for Employment (Priti Patel)]

The issue of contact with children and that of the calculation of child maintenance, although related, are separate. In the calculation, we will reflect the level of care that a parent provides for any child for whom he or she should pay maintenance, but we have no power to direct what the level of care should be. That is a matter for the parents to agree either privately or through the courts.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I asked the question on behalf of a constituent, but obviously many others will be in the same situation. I do not agree that there is no link, because it clearly states on the Child Support Agency website that if someone spends less time with their children, they will pay more in child maintenance. Some people spend less time with their children because, through no fault of their own and with no suggestion of any detriment to the children if they were to see them, the partner prevents that from happening. Will the Minister examine this and stop punishing parents twice over?

[Priti Patel]

Child contact following the separation of two parents is always a difficult and emotive issue, and the child’s needs must be met by both parents, in terms of financial support, when they separate. We are investing in support for parents to help them make more family-based child maintenance arrangements, and we will continue to help and secure separated families so that they can do what is in the best interests of their child. The hon. Lady mentioned that she has a particular case, and I am happy to look into it.