The Global Irregular Migration and Trafficking in Persons Sanctions Regulations 2025
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Global Irregular Migration and Trafficking in Persons Sanctions Regulations 2025 (S.I., 2025, No. 902).
It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair today, Sir Desmond. I welcome all colleagues back after the conference recess. This statutory instrument was laid before Parliament on 22 July under powers in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. The measures in the instrument were made under the affirmative procedure and entered into force on 23 July.
The Committee will be well aware that we in the United Kingdom face a grave problem: large numbers of individuals are undertaking dangerous journeys via irregular migration routes that not only risk their lives but undermine the rule of law. Irregular migration is as much a foreign policy issue as a domestic one. Smashing the gangs and addressing public concerns at home demand hard-headed action and co-operation abroad.
We are determined to confront the concern head-on, targeting those responsible rather than the victims of the vile trade, and protecting national and international security in the process. People smuggling and trafficking are assaults on human dignity. They are vile trades that exploit the vulnerable, fuel organised crime and destabilise entire regions. As our national security strategy makes clear, they threaten peace, security and the very fabric of international co-operation. That is why irregular migration is a top priority for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Together with the Home Office, we have established a joint unit on international irregular migration to strengthen our efforts, deliver our strategy and drive results.
In that vein, and given the purpose of the regulations, sanctions are one of the most important foreign policy tools that the UK uses to back words with action. We now have 37 live sanctions regimes, with more than 4,000 individuals and entities designated. All designated individuals and entities appear on the UK sanctions list, which can be found on gov.uk. We continue to use sanctions alongside all our other diplomatic tools to protect our citizens, uphold our values, and defend international peace and security.
The sanctions regime is a landmark step, as it is the first dedicated regime of its kind anywhere in the world. It is designed to prevent and combat the networks that enable irregular migration; it reflects deep collaboration across government, from the Home Office to law enforcement; and it draws on the full breadth of our expertise. It enables us to strike at every link in the chain, from source to destination. We can impose real costs on the callous groups and individuals who promote and profit from this inhuman trade in people. Sanctioned individuals will face serious consequences, including being banned from entering the UK, being disqualified from company directorships and having their assets frozen.
The regime adds powerful new tools to our arsenal. It will enable us to act against people smugglers and their enablers with the same force that we apply to terrorists, cyber-criminals and kleptocrats. It also reflects our broader strategy to use sanctions to deter and disrupt threats and malign behaviour, defend our values and protect our country. The regime will target individuals and entities wherever they are in the world, from operators in countries of origin to those who smuggle migrants across borders and those who enable, promote and profit from those dangerous journeys. That includes companies involved in small-boat supply chains and organised immigration crime. No part of the smuggling infrastructure is beyond reach. Crucially, it also allows us to target hostile state-backed actors who seek to weaponise migration to destabilise the UK or our allies.
On 23 July, therefore, the UK took action. We sanctioned 25 individuals and entities involved in people smuggling, from small-boat suppliers in Asia, to hawala money movers in the middle east and gang leaders in the Balkans and north Africa. That included individuals such as Bledar Lala, who leads a smuggling ring that moves people from Belgium across the English channel to the UK, and Muhammed Pirot, a hawala banker who controls payments from people being smuggled from the Kurdistan region of Iraq to Europe via Turkey. Those designations cover a range of activities, including: supplying boats, forging documents, facilitating illicit payments and orchestrating smuggling operations. Each designation represents a blow to the business model of exploitation.
We will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the designations imposed so far and of any future designations, to ensure that they demonstrate our ability to target individuals and entities anywhere in the world, to disrupt the activities of criminal networks, and to deter others from engaging in this vile trade.
While we are proud to lead, we do not stand alone. People smuggling and trafficking are global concerns. We are working with international partners to confront them together. Indeed, with the new Foreign Secretary, I had important conversations with representatives from across the western Balkans just last week in Northern Ireland. There have also been important discussions at the European Political Community meeting in Denmark in recent weeks. Our work together includes strengthening sanctions co-ordination, sharing intelligence and building joint responses to dismantle criminal networks. We welcome news from EU Commission President von der Leyen that she intends to propose to EU member states a new system of sanctions specifically targeted at people smugglers and traffickers. We look forward to working with the EU and other key partners to smash the gangs and tackle irregular migration.
To conclude, sanctions are a powerful tool of foreign and security policy. UK sanctions are built on a transparent and robust legal framework. That has been confirmed by our courts, including by the Supreme Court in July. However, there might be instances where a person’s activity falls within the scope of both sanctions and other relevant law enforcement and criminal justice powers. In such instances, we will work closely with colleagues across Whitehall and in law enforcement to de-conflict and to ensure that appropriate tools are used. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will continue to play its full part in delivering the Government’s plan for change. This legislation and the designations that have followed and will follow are proof of that commitment. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, and to speak about the regulations on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I thank the Minister for setting them out a bit more detail.
In the context of these regulations, it is important to come straight to the point: Labour has lost control of our borders. I therefore have a number of important questions to ask the Minister. The Government first announced the new sanctions regime in January, which is 10 months ago, and only now are we seeing the enabling legislation come before Parliament. Why has it taken so long to get here? That delay hardly reflects a sense of urgency on the part of a Government who claim to be serious about stopping the boats and smashing the criminal gangs. Crucially, when will we see the sanctions take effect? Has the FCDO identified targets? How many individuals or entities are being considered? Is it tens, hundreds or just a handful? It would also be helpful if the Minister could give us the confidence to know that the sanctions unit has sufficient resourcing and expertise to deliver on the new regime, while also maintaining capacity to deal with existing sanctions work on Russia, Iran and other priority areas.
The test for any sanctions regime is not its announcement, but the implementation and the impact. The measures must lead to real disruption of trafficking routes, real consequences for those financing or profiting from the trade and, ultimately, fewer people illegally crossing the channel. Unfortunately, the Government’s record speaks for itself, as it is important again to note in the context of the regulations: this year we have seen record high numbers of small boat crossings, with more than 34,000 already, including over 1,000 in just one day the other week. Meanwhile, more asylum seekers are being housed in hotels than when this Government came to office.
Ministers promised to “smash the gangs”, but the gangs are still operating, the boats are still coming and the traffickers still see the UK as a soft target. And no wonder, given that Labour—including the Prime Minister and the current Foreign Secretary—voted against life sentences for people-smuggling gangs, the very same gangs that this Government now claim they want to smash.
To be clear, the previous Conservative Government delivered the powers that this Government now claim that they want: powers to impose visa penalties on countries refusing to take back their nationals; a landmark returns agreement with Albania, which cut illegal crossings from the country by more than 90%; and a deterrent approach to illegal migration that our European partners are now seeking to emulate. Instead of building on that record, this Government have repealed the Rwanda deterrent, weakened our border laws, and allowed illegal immigrants to claim asylum and even access British citizenship.
To conclude, the Government must show that the measures in this regime are more than just another announcement or gimmick, like the one in, one out deal with France that has removed just over a couple of dozen people while thousands more have arrived. The Opposition will not oppose these regulations today, but we expect to see them work.
Stephen Doughty
I thank the shadow Minister for her comments, but I must start by completely rejecting her overall thesis on the Government’s migration policy. I would put it to the Committee that the previous Government left the system in absolute chaos. Over 400 hotels opened, at a cost of nearly £9 million a day, and they deliberately cut asylum decision making by 70% and wasted £700 million. I was also quite surprised to hear her mention the Rwanda scheme, which returned just four volunteers.
In contrast, we have introduced this new world-leading regime, which is already having an impact, which I will come to in a moment. We have doubled the number of asylum decisions and increased the removal of failed asylum seekers by 30%. We have removed 35,000 people with no right to be here, including 5,200 foreign criminals. The shadow Minister mentioned hotels, and the number of hotels involved is now down to 200, which is almost half of what it peaked at under the last Government, and we will close the rest as quickly as possible. We have also announced £250 million to fund the new Border Security Command since taking power.
I mentioned some of the work that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is doing, but at every level we are working in co-operation with partners in Europe and elsewhere to ensure that we tackle the gangs and individuals engaging in the vile trade of smuggling people across borders and ending up at the English channel. We are taking action in multiple areas to do that, and those that we are taking with partners in the western Balkans and with other European partners at the EPC just last week, for example, are testament to that.
The shadow Minister asked about the length of time. She will know from when I was sitting in her place in opposition that I often raised the length of time, but she will also understand, I am sure with generosity, that to bring in a completely innovative and new regime—it is the first in the world of this nature—we need to ensure that it is legally robust and substantial. When making designations, we must ensure that they are absolutely based in facts and evidence, and that they can be substantiated. As I said, this regime was introduced in July and we are only debating it now because of the recesses, but this is very swift action and we used the new powers almost immediately.
I can assure the shadow Minister that there will be further use of the powers, but I will not say when, as she knows that I do not comment on future designations. However, I can assure her that there is more to come, and we are monitoring the impacts of this first round of designations, which are substantial already. I can assure her that there has been an impact, but I do not want to get into operational details of what our law enforcement and other agencies are looking at. We are working closely with a range of agencies across government to ensure not only that the measures that we have already announced have an impact, but that we use the lessons from those in looking at what will be the biggest-impact targets, which will allow us to deter the vile smuggling chains and those who finance, support and facilitate them around the world.
The shadow Minister was clear that she supports this regime and is not going to oppose the regulations, and I am glad at least for that. I think that is very important, particularly when we have seen Members from on all parts of the House work together on the issue of human trafficking and the vile trade that is involved. There is broad agreement that we absolutely need to go after the individuals involved in that vile trade, and that is exactly what this regime does.
On the resourcing questions that the shadow Minister asked, we have an excellent team of officials who work on these matters. There must always be a balance to ensure that we can deliver on all our different sanctions priorities. We keep those resourcing requirements under regular review, but I can assure her that the team is more than capable of delivering. This is not just an effort by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office; it involves our law enforcement agencies and close working with our colleagues in the Home Office and elsewhere, as it does across the piece on our sanctions regimes. The principles of disrupt, demonstrate and deter are at the heart of this regime, as they are at the heart of all our sanctions regimes. I am confident that we delivering in all three respects, and I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Human Medicines (Authorisation by Pharmacists and Supervision by Pharmacy Technicians) Order 2025
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Human Medicines (Authorisation by Pharmacists and Supervision by Pharmacy Technicians) Order 2025.
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. The draft order, which was laid before Parliament on 17 July, broadly applies across the United Kingdom but, as I will explain, some of it does not, in practice, apply to Northern Ireland. It forms part of wider reform to modernise pharmacy regulation, cut red tape and make better use of the skill mix in pharmacy teams. The order has been developed with the Health Departments of the devolved Governments, and it has the support of the four chief pharmaceutical officers of the United Kingdom. I thank the sector and the profession for their input and engagement during the development of the legislation. These changes have been in development for some time, and I am pleased that we are making them a reality.
Before I go into the details of the draft order, I wish to recognise the importance of pharmacy services and the dedicated workforce across all settings, including hospitals, community pharmacy and care homes. Across the UK, there is a joint vision to fully realise the potential of pharmacy services to support better health outcomes and provide quicker access to care in our communities. All nations are committed to supporting the sector and the profession, and they have increased funding for these vital services against a backdrop of severe financial pressures.
In England, we have hit the ground running in delivering our 10-year health plan. The order is another immediate and tangible change that will mean that patients get better care closer to their homes. We have increased community pharmacy funding to more than £3 billion and enacted legislation to increase the efficiency of dispensing medicines, including the extension of hub and spoke dispensing. Last month we launched a consultation on proposals that would give pharmacists flexibility to dispense an alternative product where the prescribed item is not available. We have also introduced the national patient prescription tracking service to enable patients to access and track their prescriptions online through the NHS app. That reduces the burden on busy GP and pharmacy teams, and it avoids having a patient queue at a pharmacy only to find that their prescription is not ready.
I will now set out why this legislation is needed. In English community pharmacies alone, around 1.2 billion medicines are dispensed every year. Of those, around 75% to 80% are repeat prescriptions for long-term conditions. That number grows year on year, and we must continue to look at ways to make further efficiencies and remove legal barriers to modernising pharmacy practice.
The dispensing of a medicine covers a number of processes, including the receipt of a prescription, the clinical and accuracy checks, the sourcing of the products, the preparation, assembly and supply of medicines, and advising the patient to ensure that they know how and when to take the medicine. Many of those activities can and should be delegated to registered pharmacy technicians, who are competent and trained to take more of a leading role in the dispensing of medicines.
The draft order contains three core proposals. First, at the moment, a pharmacist must carry out or supervise all stages of the preparation, assembly, dispensing, sale and supply of pharmacy and prescription-only medicines. Case law has led to restrictive practice and different interpretations of the law. Under our first proposal, we will allow pharmacists to authorise a registered pharmacy technician to undertake or supervise those activities. That will mean the pharmacist no longer has to supervise each transaction and can therefore spend more time with patients and delivering clinical services. The provision will not apply in Northern Ireland until pharmacy technician becomes a registered profession there. At that point, we will work with the Department of Health in Northern Ireland to bring in these measures as soon as possible.
Secondly, at present, medicines that have been checked by a pharmacist and are ready to be dispensed to a patient cannot be handed to them if the pharmacist is off site or uninterruptable. This understandably causes frustration for patients. I, like many Members of this House, have received complaints from constituents venting that frustration and demanding that the Government act. Under this legislation, we will allow a pharmacist to authorise any suitable member of the pharmacy team—for example, a pharmacy technician or pharmacy counter assistant—to hand out prescriptions in the absence of the pharmacist. That will be very helpful for prescriptions that have been clinically checked by the pharmacist, and where no further consultation is required between the patient and the pharmacist. This proposal will apply across the UK.
Thirdly, and finally, the law currently states that hospital aseptic facilities can be run only by a pharmacist. However, pharmacists are not the only staff capable of running these facilities. They are highly specialised services delivering sterile medicines for cancer patients, premature babies and other vulnerable patients. It is incredibly important that those services are fully staffed to deliver high-quality products in an increasingly complex area of modern medicine.
Many of those facilities are staffed by highly educated and capable pharmacy technicians, but the law prevents NHS trusts from allowing those individuals to run such facilities. That is simply not right. We will enable suitably qualified and experienced registered pharmacy technicians to run those facilities. That will give the NHS and pharmacy contractors more flexibility in how they deploy their staff to deliver quality NHS pharmaceutical services.
That proposal, like the first one, will not apply in Northern Ireland until pharmacy technicians become a registered profession there. The proposed changes to the Medicines Act 1968 and the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 will remove those legal restrictions and represent a seismic shift in how pharmacies can operate, updating the law for modern practice and improving services for patients. The changes are permissive, not prescriptive, recognising that every pharmacy is different, with different levels of staff, qualifications and experience. Pharmacies that are ready to embrace these changes can do so, and those that are not, or that do not want to change how they practise, can continue as they are—but they would, of course, forgo the benefits that these amendments present.
We propose a phased approach to implementation. The measures allowing checked and bagged items to be handed out in the absence of the pharmacist will enter into force 28 days after this legislation is made, which means that patients and pharmacies can benefit almost immediately. The remaining measures—enabling new delegation powers for pharmacists to allow pharmacy technicians to supervise dispensing processes, and allowing pharmacy technicians to take charge of hospital aseptic facilities—will come into force on a date that not has not yet been set in law, but we are working with the sector towards a date one year after the legislation is made. The transition period is to allow time for the pharmacy regulators and professional leadership bodies to implement professional regulations, standards and guidance to support the sector and the profession to implement the changes safely into practice.
I hope that I have given a clear explanation of the rationale behind amending the 2012 Regulations and the 1968 Act to enable pharmacists to authorise pharmacy technicians to supervise the dispensing and final supply of medicines, to enable greater flexibility in the final supply of medicines when a pharmacist is unavailable and to allow pharmacy technicians to run hospital aseptic facilities. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee and hope that hon. Members will join me in supporting them.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this evening, Ms McVey.
As we have heard, the order before us will, broadly speaking, enable pharmacists to authorise pharmacy technicians to take primary responsibility for the preparation, assembly and supply of medicines in pharmacies and hospital aseptic facilities. Like the Minister, I thank the thousands of pharmacists across the country for the way they serve our communities, both in the community and in hospital settings.
The Conservatives will not be opposing this legislation. The current model of medical dispensing centralises responsibility upon the shoulders of the pharmacist, taking their clinical skills away from treating patients and underutilising qualified pharmacy technicians. It is clearly sensible, therefore, for both pharmacists and technicians to work at the top of their remit. That will be more rewarding for them and more efficient for the NHS.
That is why the Conservative Government launched a consultation in 2023 on retaining the need for each pharmacy to have a responsible pharmacist but enabling them to delegate more straightforward tasks to technicians. The risk of doing so is low, and it is further lowered by the fact that, in Great Britain, pharmacy technician is a regulated profession. I am therefore pleased to see that this Government have picked up the baton from the previous Conservative Government, and we welcome the new legislation in principle. However, I do have a few questions for the Minister.
First, embedded within these provisions is a total reliance on “supervision” and “authorisation”, yet clarity of definition is missing on how those will operate in practice for a pharmacist authorising a pharmacy technician to dispense medicines. I note that 76% of pharmacists in the consultation shared that anxiety. The Government assure us that there will be a transition period to enable the General Pharmaceutical Council to update its 2005 guidance on pharmacist supervision, but the length of that transition period remains uncertain.
Will the Minister confirm the length of that transition period to ensure that regulators can put the correct safeguards in place to preserve accountability when it comes to the rather loose terms of “supervision” and “authorisation”? What guidance has he provided to the regulator on those guidelines? This is a particularly important clarification, given the Government’s preference for oral authorisation, which, although flexible, leaves pharmacists without specific written record-keeping.
As the Minister knows, not all pharmacies have a pharmacy technician. In fact, NHS England’s 2023 community pharmacy workforce survey found that there were 17,666 full-time employed pharmacists and 4,324 pharmacy technicians. The impact assessment notes that smaller pharmacies are less likely to have a technician, so larger pharmacies will be able to dispense more cheaply and develop a broader service. With that in mind, what assessment has the Minister made of the effect on rural, remote or small family pharmacies? What plans does he have to monitor the effect of the consolidation on travel distances and patient choice?
With the time freed up by delegation of tasks, pharmacists will be able to provide contraception services, blood-pressure checks and vaccinations. They will also be able to expand Pharmacy First provision—another great service introduced by the previous Government, I note. However, as a new service, Pharmacy First was introduced within a fixed funding envelope, so what plans does the Minister have to expand that service?
Finally, what discussions has the Minister had with his counterparts in Northern Ireland regarding the establishment of a regulated profession of pharmacy technicians there?
As Conservatives, we welcome improving efficiency and giving patients faster access to appointments and prescriptions. For those reasons, the changes are to be welcomed. I conclude by paying tribute to officials in the Department, and organisations outside this House, who have worked hard to get these updated provisions before us today.
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the shadow Minister for those questions. As he rightly pointed out, and as I mentioned in my opening remarks, the length of the transition has not been defined in the legislation, but our aim is for it to be no longer than 12 months. I will follow up with my officials to check precisely where we are with that timeframe and whether it has been nailed down, or whether something more specific may have been agreed in the intervening period. I would be happy to write to him to clarify that point, if he is okay with that.
The shadow Minister asked what happens in a pharmacy that does not have a technician. As I said, this legislation is not prescriptive; it is permissive. Frankly, this is something that those who have technicians can take advantage of, and those who do not will not be able to. Once the legislation is in place, however, they would be able to take advantage of it. Therefore, pharmacists who do not have technicians can perhaps aspire to do things in this way, whereas at present even those who have technicians cannot do so.
Pharmacy First is something we absolutely want to take forward. If we look at the 10-year plan and the three shifts, Pharmacy First supports the two key shifts from hospital to community and from sickness to prevention, in particular. Pharmacists are, in many ways, the front door of the NHS. They play a crucial role in people’s neighbourhoods and in the whole prevention agenda.
We are still working with the teams to finalise the financial envelope for pharmacy, coming out of the spending review announced in June, and of course we have to get the balance right. There are tremendous cost pressures, which we are looking to equal out, across what pharmacy does, going from the core business of dispensing through to the fee structure for Pharmacy First. There are some issues around Pharmacy First. The take-up has not been as good as we would have liked it to be, and I think that is because of some errors that the previous Government made in setting the fee structure to incentivise Pharmacy First and really push take-up forward. One thing we are looking at with Pharmacy First is how to incentivise it to make it more effective.
I understand from my officials that the discussions with Northern Ireland have gone well and are very positive. The Government there are very clear that they want to move in this direction, but certain hurdles still need to be crossed. I could perhaps add to the letter that I have already promised to write to the shadow Minister, to give him an update on where exactly the discussions with Northern Ireland are now.
Question put and agreed to.