Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Richard Holden and Stephen Kinnock

Tuesday 23rd July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

I welcome my hon. Friend warmly to his place. I hope he will not mind if I use this analogy, which is that you cannot make a prescription unless you have the diagnosis, and you cannot make policy on the hoof. We cannot have the chaos, neglect and failure that we have seen from the Conservatives for the past 14 years because they have not made policy based on evidence and data. I am absolutely on board with what my hon. Friend says, and I would be more than happy to discuss it with him further at his convenience.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I welcome those on the Opposition Front Bench to their roles and those on the Government Front Bench to their new roles. One of the things that we did very well over the past few years on a cross-party basis was tackling the disparity between mental and physical health. Since 2018, £4.7 billion extra has gone into NHS mental health services. Will the Government commit to that going forward and ensure that the proportion of funding towards mental health services will increase in the coming years?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, but he appears to be living in a parallel universe. We are in the midst of a mental health crisis as a result of 14 years of Tory chaos, neglect and failure. We have a plan, with 8,500 more mental health workers, young futures walk-in hubs, specialist mental health support for young people and mental health specialists dealing with talking therapies. Of course, we will also introduce legislation following the Gracious Speech to deal with helping people who have more severe conditions. That is a plan of action with which I hope we can once again make our country proud of how we deal with this extremely serious issue.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Richard Holden and Stephen Kinnock

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 26th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

What I would contend—[Interruption.] I am going to tell him. What I would contend is that with the Rwanda plan the wheels are going to fall off the bus very soon, so we will not need to answer that question. It will completely fail. Rather than chasing headlines, the Minister should be doing the nitty-gritty work of negotiating a returns agreement, giving resources to caseworkers and sorting out safe and legal routes. It is about not the razzle-dazzle of Daily Mail headlines but getting the job done.

At Home Office oral questions yesterday, the Minister could not answer a single question that I asked him about the cost of the Rwanda plan. I asked him: how many refugees does he expect to send to Rwanda each year? The Prime Minister says “tens of thousands”; is that correct? What will the cost be per single refugee going to Rwanda? What will the £120 million sweetener being paid by the UK to Rwanda actually be spent on? How many asylum seekers can Rwanda’s detention centres house at any given time? Finally, given that the top civil servant at the Home Office refused to sign off on the Rwanda plan, citing concerns over value for money, when will the Minister publish a full forecast of the costs?

[Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman has outlined his opposition to the Government’s proposal, but will he confirm, in answer to the Minister’s question, whether an incoming Labour Government would cancel the plan or go ahead with it?

[Stephen Kinnock]

We have made it absolutely clear that the plan is going to fail, as the Home Office’s top civil servant said, so the question will not arise. We will not need to deal with it; the wheels will fall off the bus. We certainly would not be spending £120 million on a press release.

The Rwanda offloading plan is not only a grotesquely expensive gimmick that is unlikely to deter people smugglers in the long-term, but deeply un-British. Dumping this challenge on a developing country 4,000 miles away, with a questionable record on human rights, raises serious concerns about whether this legislation complies with the UN refugee convention. That is why we will back Lords amendment 5D.

Another deeply un-British part of the Bill was the idea that the rubber dinghies could be pushed back out to sea. Yesterday, we witnessed the Home Secretary’s latest screeching U-turn—this time reversing a particularly unhinged part of the legislation. The Home Secretary’s pushback policy was almost completely unworkable, as she was told by the Border Force, by the French, by the Ministry of Defence and even by her own lawyers. As we learned from court documents published yesterday, she had actually agreed that pushbacks could not be applied to asylum seekers in the channel, but she tried to keep that secret so that she could keep up the bravado and tough talking. We hope that she will correct the record.

I have already pointed out—