Suicide Prevention
Debate between Sojan Joseph and Ben Coleman(3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) for securing the debate, and I congratulate him on his very touching speech. The clear message coming from the House today is that suicides are preventable. Defeating stigma is essential, and the more that we can raise this issue in Parliament, the more we can do to help remove that stigma.
This Government inherited a mental health crisis. More than a million people who are in need of mental health support are not getting the care that they so desperately require. The suicide rate is now higher than it has been at any time in the 21st century. The pledge by Ministers to ensure that mental health gets the same attention and focus as physical health is an important one. It was talked about for 14 years when the Conservative party was in power, but there was little progress. I genuinely hope that under this Government things will finally change. With that in mind, will my hon. Friend the Minister update the House on the progress being made to tackle mental health waiting lists? Research from Rethink Mental Illness has shown that 12 times as many people have to wait 18 months or more for mental health treatment compared with the wait for treatment for physical health.
It is necessary to discuss mental health provision in this debate; after all, the link between suicide and mental illness is well established.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we should also look at the impact on people’s mental health of online gambling, which is responsible for between 117 and 496 suicides a year—figures repeated in our Health and Social Care Committee report? My constituent Jack lost his son Arthur to gambling-related suicide aged only 19, after only six months. It is a tragic situation. Does my hon. Friend agree that gambling should be seen as a public health issue, that in future it should be regulated not by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport but by the Department of Health and Social Care, and that the DHSC should launch a public health strategy to tackle gambling as a cause of suicide?
Sojan Joseph
I agree with my hon. Friend that not all suicides are linked solely to mental health. I was about to say that various social issues need to be tackled as well. It is it is important that we do not see suicide prevention solely through the prism of mental health. Indeed, many of those who die by suicide have either had no contact with mental health services or shown no signs of mental ill health. It is also important to point out that not everyone who dies by suicide has a diagnosed mental illness. For those at risk of suicide, a complex range of individual, relationship, community or societal factors can be at play.
As the suicide prevention strategy makes clear, common risk factors that are linked to suicide include physical illness, financial difficulty and economic adversity, gambling, alcohol and drug misuse, social isolation and loneliness, and domestic abuse. Although addressing suicide prevention can include mental health, the strategy emphasises that it also goes well beyond these issues. If we see suicide prevention just as a mental health issue, those people in our communities who may not meet the criteria for a mental health diagnosis but are still in acute distress can end up being forgotten. Perceiving suicide just as a mental health issue also puts the responsibility mainly on mental health services, when in reality local authorities, employers, schools, the criminal justice system and wider society all have roles to play. When we talk about suicide prevention, we should therefore also talk about early intervention in schools, universities, places of work and community groups.
It is worth mentioning the great work done by charities—many names have already been mentioned. I congratulate the recently opened Ashford Safe Haven, which is based at William Harvey hospital. It offers a walk-in service every evening for people who are in crisis or feel they are heading towards crisis. A few months ago, I visited the safe haven and met some of the staff to hear about the support they provide and how they help to create staying well and crisis plans, as well as supporting people to access other services and organisations that may be useful to them. It is a great resource for people in our community and I hope that the East Kent hospitals trust is successful in its bid for funding for a round-the-clock walk-in service. Working with suicide prevention charities can complement the services offered by the NHS and bridge gaps in provision. We should also ensure that the health system becomes more effective in signposting the services that are offered by suicide prevention charities.
While I will always lobby for meaningful change in the mental health system, I also know that talking about suicide prevention just as another issue for our mental health services risks narrowing the conversation and excluding others who might need help. I hope that today’s debate has helped to make it easier for those watching who might need help now or in the future to get the right help at the right time.
Indefinite Leave to Remain
Debate between Sojan Joseph and Ben Coleman(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to his position. I hope that he is enjoying the debate.
I understand why the Government are proposing to extend the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain. I think we all recognise that the immigration numbers are high. This is a complex challenge, not least, let us remember, because of Boris Johnson’s failed Brexit deal—a deal for which the leader of the Reform party, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), also bears great responsibility: it opened the door to historically high levels of unskilled net migration. In my view, the leader of the Reform party is as much to blame as the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
The leader of Kent county council has asked the Government to increase the number of visas for healthcare workers, but does my hon. Friend agree that there is a double standard? One minute they are asking to stop the immigration, and the next one they are asking for more health workers to be brought from abroad?
Ben Coleman
It will come as no surprise to anybody who has ever dealt with any member of the Reform political party for more than five minutes that double standards are involved. We only have to read what its leader says from one week to the next to realise that its association and commitment to maintaining a close relationship with the truth is very weak.
I go back to what I was saying. When we talk about the high levels of net immigration, we must not lose sight of the human impact of the proposals that the Government have brought forward, especially—as many people have recognised—on those who have already built their lives here and are net contributors to our economy and communities.
Since the publication of the White Paper in May, many residents in my constituency of Chelsea and Fulham have got in touch with me. These are skilled workers, and their overwhelming feeling is simply of being blindsided. They came to the UK in good faith and followed the rules, and now they are being told that these rules might change just before they become eligible to settle. They also find it destabilising that, almost four months since the publication of the White Paper, the Government have still not given clear guidance on when the rules will come into effect, who will be affected and how it will work.
One couple told me how they moved from the United States in 2020. They both work for global firms and pay the top rate of tax, and they rightly believed that in April 2026—just down the road—they could apply for settlement. Now they write to me:
“The rug has been pulled from beneath us.”
Their plans are suddenly on indefinite pause. Similarly, I have a young scientist in my constituency who studied in the UK and works in clinical research. She has paid her international student fees and taxes, and she has invested her savings here, but now she still has no certainty about her future. In my constituency there is also a local NHS speech therapist and her husband, who is a data scientist, and they are expecting their first child. They told me that even if they are not caught out by the changes now, they have no faith that, given the way in which this has been handled, the system will not be changed again in the future.
People cannot plan their lives without basic certainty. I am hoping that the Minister today will be able to provide my residents with the clarity they need and tell us when the Government plan to launch the consultation they promised. The previous Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper), said:
“There will be plenty of opportunity for people to comment on and consider the detail”—[Official Report, 12 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 53]
of the proposals. I hope that that will still be the case, and perhaps the Minister can reassure us of that. I would also like to understand whether the consultation will contain a clear and detailed definition of what the White Paper refers to as
“Points-Based contributions to the UK economy and society”.
Who exactly will be eligible for a shorter pathway to indefinite leave to remain?
So many of my residents are literally counting the days until they become eligible for settlement. They deserve decent treatment, not five more years of waiting. I look forward to the Minister’s responses, and to being able to offer my residents the much-needed reassurance to which I think we all agree they are entitled.