Contest: UK Strategy for Countering Terrorism 2023

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Suella Braverman]

As I mentioned, there are no words and there is no amount of money that can adequately reflect the pain and suffering experienced by victims of terrorism. That is why it is absolutely right that we provide victims of terrorism with full compensation and the fullest support possible and available to enable them to move forward from these tragic events. As I said, we know that more must be done. That is why we are reviewing the support available. We need to better address victims’ needs through the current schemes and ensure that they are properly meeting the needs of victims.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

There are people in Ukraine who found their territory illegally occupied and annexed by Russia, their children disappeared into Russian custody and their land settled by ethnic Russians. Under international law, we recognise the right of victims of the criminal actions of the Russian state to resist. How can we ensure that we do not end up characterising the legal actions by the victims in that conflict, and in other analogous conflicts around the world, as terrorism?

[Suella Braverman]

I am very proud of the UK’s track record of supporting Ukraine and the Ukrainians both in Ukraine and abroad through the devastating illegal conflict that Russia and Putin have waged upon them. It is right that we provide military support, it is right that we rolled out an extensive set of sanctions against Russia, and it is right that we continue our international and diplomatic support for Ukrainians.

Oral Answers to Questions

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Monday 22nd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

Given the 56% rise in transphobic hate crime between 2021 and 2022, are the Government concerned, and what strategies will they put in place to get that horrifying number down?

[Miss Dines]

Transphobic crimes are hateful and, although people do not realise it, they represent as much as 3% of all hate crimes recorded. The Government are determined to stamp it out, which is why we are funding groups such as True Vision that are working hard in this area—I know my hon. Friend is working hard too—and funding initiatives such as the national online hate crime hub, an essential capability designed to allow individuals to have specialist intervention and work. We are also working on education, with £3 million of funding going to five anti-bullying organisations between August 2021 and March 2024. It is only with better education and the work of my hon. Friend that we will make progress in this area.

Points of Order

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Monday 22nd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last Thursday, there was a debate on psilocybin access rights, a technical and detailed area of policy, changes to which are hoped to transform the effectiveness of current mental health treatments. How can Back Benchers successfully use the procedures of this House to enable debate to hold the Government to account for proposed policy changes they will not make if the responsible Minister will not reply to the debate, particularly when the debate is led by colleagues who have long made personal study of that particular area of policy, such as the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) and myself, and not least when they are reinforced by the harrowing personal experience of hon. Members of this House such as the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols)?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Very briefly, I regret that I was not in Parliament at the time of the debate. I did give my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) advance notice of that. I was at the defence establishment in Porton Down at the time. As often happens, another Home Office Minister, the Minister for Immigration—a very capable Home Office Minister—replied. I have previously met one to one with the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) to discuss this in detail, and I replied to an Adjournment debate just a few weeks ago. As I said at the time, I have, subsequent to the debate and the meeting, asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to accelerate its work on removing barriers to research for all schedule 1 drugs, including psilocybin. So I take this opportunity to assure my hon. Friend that I have asked for that work to be accelerated, and the calls that he and other Members have made have been heard.

[Crispin Blunt]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I feel that the Minister has given quite a long response, but I call Crispin Blunt.

[Crispin Blunt]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I regret to say there was an inaccuracy in my right hon. Friend’s response. When I alerted him to the date of the second debate on psilocybin access rights, on 18 May, he told me that he had an engagement that day. However, it never occurred to me for a moment that he would put that engagement ahead of his duty replying to this House. I certainly got no communication at all that he had made a decision not to attend Parliament to reply to that debate.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that it is not my responsibility to decide which Ministers respond to debates, but I think it is courteous that the Minister has come here today and given an explanation. If the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with that response, I am sure he will pursue it with the Minister. Perhaps a meeting might be arranged.

[Crispin Blunt]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I do not want to prolong this too much further because we are in danger of going backwards and forwards over the same issue. The hon. Gentleman is clearly not happy that the Minister was not there for the debate, but the Minister has explained his reasons. The hon. Gentleman may not be happy with those reasons, but there is not a great deal I can do about that. But his point has been heard and I suggest we move on.

Psilocybin Treatments

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Thursday 18th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

I wholly concur with your words, Madam Deputy Speaker, about the speech of the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols). I also offer my thanks to those on the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate. They were plainly moved by the brilliant words crafted by the hon. Lady, which I was privileged to deliver to the Committee on her behalf. I also thank the 25 parliamentary colleagues from across the House who supported the application for this debate on a technical and—as we heard from your predecessor in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker—tricky-to-pronounce subject, which is of astonishing potential importance to the future of mental health treatment.

The debate helpfully falls during Mental Health Awareness Week. The Government are formally committed to evidence-based policymaking; that is stressed in the White Paper of 22 August 2022. There is an immediate need to act on all available evidence in respect of psilocybin. Having spent the last six years specialising in this country’s failing approach to drugs and drugs harms, and setting up a think-tank on the subject to provide me with expert advice on the issue, I know the challenges all too well.

On 14 March 2023, the Minister with responsibility for drugs, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), and I debated this very issue on the Adjournment. I purposely used that debate to raise the principal issues involved in this narrow question. I did not seek answers from the Minister on that occasion, but sought to give him a little time to look at options to resolve the question. It was already my intention to follow up with this debate to demonstrate publicly that this is not just my view but one that is widely shared, as the hon. Member for Warrington North said, including by the Royal College of Psychiatrists; mental health charities CALM and SANE; veterans’ charity Heroic Hearts, of which I happen to be a trustee; cluster headache organisation Clusterbusters; Drug Science, a drug charity chaired by the former chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, Professor David Nutt; and across this House.

I wanted to give the forewarned drugs Minister the opportunity, in responding to the debate, to show that His Majesty’s Government understand the potential improvement to mental health treatment, and that they are straining every bureaucratic and regulatory sinew to follow up the strongly indicative research evidence to date about its potential. I put that in terms in the previous debate. I said:

“I do not want or expect an answer this evening; these matters demand careful consideration. There will shortly be an application to the Backbench Business Committee, supported by more than a score of colleagues from across the House, for time for a fuller consideration. I hope by the time that debate is secured we can enjoy the news that this Minister is taking the available opportunities of his very tough policy inheritance.”—[Official Report, 14 March 2023; Vol. 729, c. 805.]

It is now two months since that debate and almost six years since the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs was first commissioned to look at the problem, so it is frustrating, to put it mildly, that it is the drugs Minister’s colleague who has been put forward to reply to this debate. I have the highest regard for the Minister for Immigration, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), and the quality of his attention to detail on issues he has been responsible for, such as planning, which is of immense importance to my constituency of Reigate, but this issue needs the policy Minister across the complexities engaged, and with the authority and confidence of his colleagues to carry them with his strategy, to enable the benefits that only bureaucratic inertia prevents.

Where is the drugs Minister? Having told him in terms of today’s opportunity and the date of this debate, when I had notice of it from the Backbench Business Committee, and of my expectation that he would have spent those ensuing two months engaged with these issues and able to come to the House today, what are we to make of his absence? What has he prioritised over Parliament, with notice? Does it remain his view that this issue is not a priority? Has he nothing new to say? Has he so little regard for the people who are raising this that he has prioritised the apparent visit scheduled for today, having initially tried to palm it off on the Minister for medicine, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), in the Department of Health and Social Care?

The Immigration Minister is now having to reply to this debate, and I already know the speech he is going to give on officials’ advice. The irony is that it should be the Minister for medicine replying to this debate, but the Department of Health and Social Care does not own this policy—the Home Office does—and that is part of the reason our drugs policy is in such an unforgivable mess. I am not sure who should be more insulted and put out by the drugs Minister’s dereliction of parliamentary duty: my right hon. Friend answering, with no new defence to offer, or myself, who tried to create this opportunity and deliver an incentive to his colleague to get the necessary focus to clear the bureaucratic hurdles to enabling this potential medicine.

What we can certainly conclude is that this Home Office, with the collective responsibility of all Government Ministers, can now be held accountable for the delay in delivering psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy and psychiatry as a new mental health treatment in the United Kingdom. Having heard the powerful opening speech from the hon. Member for Warrington North, it must be clear to any reasonable person that the duty on His Majesty’s Government to act and act now has been established.

The hon. Member for Warrington North, with personal courage of the highest order, has used her own massive trauma to advance the public interest engaged. She speaks for tens of thousands suffering from apparently untreatable, life-changing mental health trauma. How can my right hon. Friend the Minister look our parliamentary colleague in the eye and read his prepared script? She also speaks for 1.2 million of our fellow citizens with depression. One hundred and twenty five people end their battle every week by killing themselves. Knowing what they know, that makes the Government guilty of joint enterprise in those decisions, because we could and should now be on a path to avert them.

The hon. Lady speaks for about 2,500 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan who have PTSD from their service that is currently untreatable. She speaks for Scotty, the ex-paratrooper medically discharged after 15 years of service who presented himself with military dignity on my train home last week to his fellow passengers. He gave his Army number and his service record of five tours in Iraq and Afghanistan as he asked for food, not money, understanding his health condition to be untreatable. He was apparently medically discharged after 15 years’ service due to an untreatable mental health condition and a borderline personality disorder. His dignity in these appalling circumstances, when simply under the care of his GP, being prescribed every kind of chemical cosh going but with no hope of cure, was humbling. It is the absence of hope that I found so distressing.

The current cost of depression alone to the United Kingdom economy is estimated to be about £110 billion a year—5% of our GDP. Even if psilocybin delivered a fraction of what is hoped, the benefits to the economy would be immense, and giving hope to those suffering without it today would be priceless. The ask is simple: that psilocybin be placed in the same schedule as heroin and cocaine through an urgent review by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs of the evidence of its harms. The original controls were not based on a review of the available evidence but simply on the fact that no product had yet reached market, which itself is an accident of history. No review has ever been conducted since, for over half a century. In what other area of policy would that be acceptable? Where it has been assessed—in Australia and the United States, for example—change has happened.

It is especially shocking that psilocybin has never been subject to analysis of harm and utility, when the Government admit they are aware of the many studies regarding its potential therapeutic applications. Adding insult to injury, the Government have confirmed that they have no plans to commission the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to assess the scheduling of psilocybin because it is “not currently a priority”. The potential treatment of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of mental health patients is not a priority—really? Does the word “scandalous” do that position justice? If psilocybin treated a physical health condition such as cancer or epilepsy, Government inertia not to swiftly lift barriers to research and treatment would not be tolerated, given the level of clinical potential and safety.

Let us not forget that in the last four months alone, His Majesty’s Government have commissioned the ACMD to conduct rapid reviews of the evidence of the harms of both nitrous oxide and monkey dust. In the case of nitrous oxide, it took the ACMD four weeks to reply. It took the Home Office about four hours to formally ignore that advice, but we know it is possible to commission a rapid review of harms, so why not do so for psilocybin? The Royal College of Psychiatrists and various mental health charities wrote to the drugs Minister to say:

“It is unethical to wait any longer. Psilocybin’s schedule 1 designation is not morally, medically or economically appropriate.”

Now let me address the speech that we shall hear from the Immigration Minister. He will explain that research trials are possible under schedule 1. While research into schedule 1 drugs is possible, only a tiny fraction of the possible research actually takes place, almost all of which is conducted by large pharmaceutical companies trying to bring drugs to market. This red tape not only discourages competition, as only very big companies can afford to conduct the research; it also means that, as the research is unnecessarily expensive, it will be the taxpayer who ultimately picks up the bill through higher drug prices for the NHS. Moreover, leading UK academics have had to relocate to North America and Australia, where the research is easier, which is leading to a brain drain in this vital bioscience area, despite our desire to be a science superpower. Put simply, the Home Office is the enemy of the Prime Minister’s aim to make Britain a centre of global bioscience.

The Immigration Minister, reading his script, will explain that barriers to research are already being investigated and that the ACMD is currently undertaking a review of the barriers to research into controlled drugs beyond cannabinoids. We are told that the drugs Minister is apparently pressing for urgency on psilocybin, but it was six years ago, in 2017, that the Government first asked the ACMD to review this. There is no current deadline for the completion of the current report. In 2017, the Government rejected the ACMD’s recommendations, just as they did with nitrous oxide recently.

In the meantime, since 2017, 40,000 people with depression and trauma have taken their own lives. As butchers’ bills for Government inaction go, I hope that statistic alone will gain some attention. Are the Government hoping that this issue will simply go away? Let me tell them: it will not. Under the current procedures, even if the ACMD is supportive of rescheduling, the Government will still need to issue a further review to reschedule psilocybin under statute to the same schedule as heroin and cocaine, as the current review does not look at the evidence of harms for rescheduling specifically, meaning more delay, more deaths and more misery for those people suffering from depression, who will eventually get treated with pharmacology accompanying psychotherapy and psychiatry.

The Government have also taken the view that specific compounds will be rescheduled once a drug containing psilocybin reaches market authorisation. Nowhere in law, nor in the standard scheduling operating procedures for the ACMD, is that required. In truth, there are three routes to rescheduling: one is that market authorisation triggers a review of the scheduling of that product rather than the generic compound, as was the case with Sativex in 2018, but rescheduling can also take place through the ACMD self-commissioning a review of the evidence or the Home Office commissioning an ACMD review of the evidence. Waiting for a product to reach market authorisation produces a Catch-22 situation where a product cannot be researched in the first place because the barriers of schedule 1 are too high. More importantly, rescheduling only patented products could create a pharmaceutical monopoly on a compound that grows naturally in the United Kingdom, increasing waiting times for patients and costs to the NHS and, ultimately, the taxpayer.

The Home Office has the power to commission a review of the evidence, and there is precedent for commissioning such a review in cannabis-based products for medicinal use. Indeed, in 2018, the wretched situation of just two epileptic children enabled change to start the deployment of cannabis-based medicines, but the regulatory treatment of the psychedelics—psilocybin in particular—remains unaddressed. Perhaps the Minister might like to have a go at advancing an explanation of why 1.2 million people with depression can go hang, compared with the very deserving but relatively few epileptic children.

There is some good news, in that thanks to the Chancellor’s Budget measures, psychedelics will benefit from the expedited approvals of medicines via the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency announced in the Budget. While welcome, that would still leave UK patients without access until approval has been achieved abroad, leaving the UK trailing behind Canada, Australia and the United States. In this scenario, the United Kingdom has become a world bioscience follower and not a leader, with the Home Office seeking to deny competitive advantage to our prestigious universities and research companies—indeed, to impose disadvantage on them.

Finally, psilocybin has been consistently found to be one of the safest controlled drugs. It is physiologically non-toxic, and there is no evidence of diversion from schedule 2 substances of whatever danger from clinical research of any kind. Use of psilocybin-containing mushrooms is low, and there is no evidence of users developing a dependency. Psilocybin mushrooms grow wild throughout the United Kingdom, meaning that psilocybin does not represent an opportunity for profit-motivated gangs and criminal individuals. To argue that they might conceivably cause excessive damage to the population, especially when the ask is for medical use under medical supervision, is nonsense—not least when tobacco and alcohol are already legal.

If the Home Office is not prepared to act, it is surely now crucial that the ACMD demonstrates its independence and a proactive approach by prioritising the wellbeing of patients in the UK, particularly given that it is chaired by a practising psychiatrist who enjoys the support of his royal college. But today, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is perhaps time to reveal the Home Office’s true regard for the advice and guidance of the regulatory body responsible for advice on drugs policy, set under statute by this House. That body reports its total expenditure in 2019-20, the last year for which figures are available, as £46,067.34. That is to guide the Government on drugs harms that cost the country an estimated £20 billion a year. It is perhaps unsurprising that proactive advice from the ACMD is somewhat rare.

Surely now the Minister, who has so kindly stood in for his colleague, is appreciating the scale of the hospital pass he has received this afternoon. Add in the modest consideration that the size of the psychedelics market is set to grow to $10 billion by 2027, and the fact that today’s proposition enjoys four to one support with the public and has the potential to revolutionise the lives of millions, and the Minister is invited to defend the Government’s position, which is unethical, immoral and wholly counter to the national interest, however we express it. It will not stand the test of time—change it now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

May I add my voice to those who have paid tribute to the speech of the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols)? She said she was not asking for sympathy, but she has the sympathy of the House and, I am sure, of anybody who watches that speech on film, which I hope many will do. My heart goes out to her for all that she has been through. I also hope more people see the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), which deserves wide circulation. He is a tremendous campaigner on many issues, not all of which I join him on, but I sympathise with what he is trying to do today. I particularly acknowledge and want to add to my voice to his point about the suffering of our veterans. As a Member with a large military community, I echo that. Too many of our former servicepeople suffer appallingly from PTSD and we need to do more to help them. Psilocybin might be part of the answer.

Both the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend cited studies suggesting that the efficacy of psilocybin is similar or superior to that of pharmaceutical interventions, and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor drugs in particular. That is significant and we need more research to test that because, if true, it is tremendously positive news. Crucially, the evidence suggests that psilocybin is not dependency-forming and not toxic. I speak as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for prescribed drug dependence. Research by colleagues supporting that APPG has laid bare the degree of dependence on prescribed drugs that exists in our country. I am talking not about illegal drugs here, but about drugs administered by doctors, generally in response to mental health conditions, and depression most of all.

A fifth of the adult population is on some sort of dependency-forming drug, such as SSRIs. Many of those are absolutely appropriately prescribed—the hon. Member for Warrington North mentioned that she takes an SSRI—but that is a very high rate. Crucially, and most worryingly, many people who are taking prescribed drugs were only prescribed them, according to the guidance that accompanies them, for a certain number of months. However, because doctors repeat prescriptions and we have such an inadequate system of withdrawal support for people in this country, they are prescribed these drugs for years and years, well beyond the healthy and safe guidance that was given. Of course, if they try to withdraw on their own without the support they need, they suffer terribly. Often they are re-prescribed the drugs because the doctor thinks they are having a relapse, when actually all they are doing is going through the agonies of withdrawal.

We need to do so much more to support people who take these prescribed drugs. There is also a huge amount—at least £500 million a year—spent on prescribed drugs for people where the prescription has gone beyond the period in the guidance. They should not be receiving these drugs, but they are doing so and it is costing the taxpayer half a billion pounds a year. We can think of the knock-on effects in terms of the health costs, and my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate mentioned huge figures there, the welfare costs and the human cost. We need to go beyond these pills. We need to get to an approach to mental health that does not only rely on what he calls the chemical cosh.

I have some concerns about psilocybin being the next big thing or the next SSRI, treated and imagined as if it will be some sort of silver bullet—another pill and another shortcut to what is a profoundly complex set of mental health circumstances, which derive in many cases from trauma and deep-rooted adverse social and emotional conditions that cannot just be wished away by the administration of a new pill.

[Crispin Blunt]

rose—

[Danny Kruger]

I am happy to give way. I am about to repeat my own argument, but my hon. Friend will do it better than me.

[Crispin Blunt]

My hon. Friend was kind enough to reference the work that has already gone on. I could cheerfully read into the record the list of 15 separate studies where the evidence is gradually being developed, despite the schedule 1 status, about efficacy. That addresses his proper concern about treating this as another mythical silver bullet that solves the issue. There is only one way for us to fully establish this, but it is already evidentially established sufficiently that we should be doing everything we possibly can to enable this treatment to get under way.

[Danny Kruger]

I echo that point. The point I am making more generally is that I am concerned that we withdraw from a medicalised model. It is a bigger topic, but the way we approach health in general can often be over-medicalised, and that is particularly so for the mental health field. I echo my hon. Friend’s point that we have sufficient evidence to justify a more official review and I support the call for that. The hon. Member for Warrington North put the point very well. What we understand to be the case with psilocybin is that it creates this therapeutic window where talking therapies can be even more effective, or can be effective, because frankly often they are not effective at the moment.

If the administration of this non-toxic, naturally occurring substance can create an opportunity where talking therapy can be effective, that should be welcomed, and there is sufficient evidence to justify us looking at that. I am open to suggestions, and I am interested to hear what the Minister says—not from his script—about what might be done. It may be that the chief medical officer is the best office to review this. We need to be careful, and I retain my note of caution about leaping for another solution that might not deliver what we hope it will, but I also share the hope and inspiration that Members have mentioned.

I recognise the point—I do not know whether the Minister will make it—that it is possible to conduct research under schedule 1. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate said, it is difficult and expensive. In fact, it is usually just done by pharmaceutical companies that see the opportunity for big profit from new drugs. I am concerned that we do not class this research in that guise. In fact, I hope there will not be big profits to be made from this naturally occurring substance. This is another topic, but I am concerned about the MHRA, how it is funded and how it licenses treatments. I am not entirely sure we are doing the right thing by giving it the power to rubber-stamp licences that have been given abroad. I am not sure that speeding up approvals is always right, but in this case we need to conduct the research.

I find myself in the strange position not only of agreeing with my hon. Friend—actually, I do agree with him on many important matters, just not on others—but of taking inspiration from places such as Oregon and Colorado that I regard as unhelpful places, given the other things they are up to; they are the leading jurisdictions promoting assisted suicide, of which I strongly disapprove. I notice that Australia is also in the gang, and presumably Canada, if it is not so already, will be full steam ahead for psilocybin. Liberals do not get everything wrong, I suppose is my conclusion, because these places are paving the way and in this case we should follow them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) and the hon. Members for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) and for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) for their incredibly moving and well-informed speeches, and the Backbench Business Committee for supporting their application. I recognise the work that they have done for many years on this subject. As we know, in this place many Members take up individual causes that often do not get the numbers and publicity that they might warrant, but we are dogged in continuing to do that. I managed to avoid the comments that the Minister had about whether he was the appropriate person or not. I say simply that I am here on behalf of the Labour party. I am pleased to be here, I serve, it is beyond my paygrade as to who or why someone is here, but I am pleased to be here.

Like the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) I too needed to appraise myself of the details of this subject, and that is one advantage of being able to speak from the health team. For more than 50 years we have been investigating these drugs as potential treatments for a number of neurological and psychiatric conditions including, as we have heard, depression. There is now another wave of research into these drugs and the treatment of neuropsychiatric disorders such as treatment-resistant depression, anorexia and PTSD, and we have heard about that strongly today. Our priority is to improve treatment and prevention services and, in particular, to support research.

The point has been well made that this subject falls between Departments—Health and the Home Office—as is the case on many subjects. Wherever it falls, it is all of our responsibility, because at the heart of this, as we have heard strongly, is the needs of people—our constituents—for treatment of these conditions. As the motion says, we need evidence-led and data-driven interventions. That is why the last Labour Government established the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to balance care with value for money, to deliver for individuals and society. That involved rigorous and independent assessment of complex evidence. That is why, for the use of psilocybin and other treatments in the NHS, I strongly support an evidence-based approach and those processes.

This discussion highlights the opportunities available to us and to our constituents through a vibrant life sciences industry. Labour is committed to supporting our health sciences industry to improve the health and wealth of our country. That is why I am proud and hugely supportive of our fantastic academic and clinical colleagues in the NHS and UK higher institutions. They are doing world-leading research through the use of both experimental and gold-standard clinical trials to look at whether such treatments, among others, are helpful for those with severe and enduring mental health conditions. That includes interesting work on the use of psilocybin alongside talking therapies.

We hear much from the Government about their commitment to research and development, but it would be helpful to hear from the Minister about what pragmatic support the Government are giving to the research sector, universities and pharmaceutical companies to enable more research into this area.

It is clear that that work cannot sit in a silo. Following the Adjournment debate on this topic, which was responded to by the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), I would like to know what conversations the Minister has had with counterparts in the Home Office regarding the controlled drugs licensing regime to support research and clinical trials in the UK. Additionally, will he update the House on part 2 of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs’ advice, which was commissioned in December? That would be helpful. This is a cross-cutting issue, so he may have had conversations with Health colleagues on it, but I understand that it falls under his Department. Members on both sides of the House have come here today with good will to work cross-party—we have seen that in evidence this afternoon—and it is crucial that the Minister echoes that sentiment and outlines how the Departments are working collaboratively on this matter.

We cannot ignore the lack of a wider Government strategy on mental health, particularly in Mental Health Awareness Week. For far too long the Government have been dragging their heels on mental health. Last year they lauded themselves for putting together a 10-year Government mental health plan. However, like so much that comes from them at the moment, after months of consultations, pages of evidence and vital input from the public and experts, again we have more backsliding on those commitments. The Government must stop pushing things into the long grass and get serious about mental health.

The long-awaited reform of the Mental Health Act 1983 is a much-needed step in the right direction on improving people’s experiences with mental health services, but, despite the Joint Committee publishing its report on the draft Bill, there is still little progress. If we want to see patients having greater control over treatment options and accessing care tailored to their needs, the Government must get more serious about mental health services.

More than 7 million people are waiting for NHS treatment, and they are waiting longer than ever before, in pain and discomfort. The NHS went into the pandemic with record waiting lists and 100,000 vacancies, and there are more than 1.6 million people awaiting mental health treatment alone. Adults are waiting 5.4 million hours in A&E while we are experiencing a mental health crisis. We have heard about some of those crises today, and that is not the place for treatment. Without a proper plan for prevention and early intervention, and without a suitable workforce plan, patients will continue to be left behind.

Even where patients do get a referral, the appropriate course of action for their specific treatment needs is often not available. That accessibility to tailored mental health support goes to the core of why we are here. Across the NHS, there are frequently supply issues with antidepressants—medication that is already licensed—that people are dependent upon. Without secure supply chains, how can patients be secure in the knowledge that they will continue to receive their prescribed treatment? The anxiety that disruptions to treatment can cause patients cannot be ignored. That is why it is crucial that Ministers understand the importance of a variety of treatment options and of research and development. If the Minister could give an update on those supply issues and the assessment of stock availability, that will be welcomed by the people watching this debate.

The Government need to get a grip on mental health services. If they do not, we will. We will put prevention and early intervention at the forefront of our approach to mental health. We will place a mental health specialist in every school and an open access hub for young people in every community. We will double the number of district nurses qualifying every year and create additional nursing and midwifery placements in the health service. We will double the number of medical places so that we have the doctors that our NHS needs. We will guarantee mental health treatment within a month by recruiting an extra 8,500 mental health staff. We will reform the NHS to shift its focus to early diagnosis and intervention, as well as preventing ill health in the first place. Working with leading figures from research, life sciences and patient care will be a huge part of that.

[Crispin Blunt]

rose—

[Karin Smyth]

I want to give the time for the Minister to respond.

[The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)]

In the years that I have served as a Minister, I do not think I can recall a debate in which expectations were set so low about my response before I even stood up.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) and the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) for securing the debate. I am grateful to them and to all the other Members who have contributed. This is the first debate that I have participated in on this subject, as colleagues have said. The House has raised the topic of psilocybin and other psychedelic drugs with the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp). I appreciate the disappointment felt by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate that the Minister is unable to be with us today to respond directly to his concerns, but I am afraid he was drawn away on other departmental business. I recognise that this is a topic of substantial interest to Members of the House, who, again, have made the case with passion.

[Crispin Blunt]

Could the Minister give a bit of detail about the duties that have taken the drugs Minister away from the House?

[Robert Jenrick]

I am afraid I do not know the precise departmental visit that my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South is on. But knowing him, if he was here, he would certainly wish to be part of this debate and to continue the conversation that he has had with hon. Friend the Member for Reigate. It is only because of other departmental business that he was not able to join us today.

I want to begin by recognising, as others have done, the personal interest that the hon. Member for Warrington North has in this topic. I concur with your comments, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the hon. Member spoke with great conviction and very deeply. I have heard her speak on other subjects that we have a shared interest in, such as the fight against antisemitism, with the same eloquence and bravery that she showed today.

It may be helpful at the outset to remind the House that medicines policy, including the availability of medicines for prescribing, is led by the Department of Health and Social Care. Medicines are licensed and regulated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. However, the Home Office is responsible for controlled drugs legislation. Our controlled drugs licensing regime supports research and clinical trials in the UK. The two Departments work together on issues connected to controlled drugs in healthcare. I will endeavour to set out the Government’s position this afternoon.

Controlled drugs legislation seeks to prevent criminality while permitting access for legitimate use, including for medicines development. The Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 enable the use of controlled drugs in healthcare. The Home Office’s controlled drugs licensing regime enables the possession, supply, production, import and export of controlled drugs to support industry, pharmaceutical research and healthcare. These controls are subject to review in light of any emerging evidence and in consultation with the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which has been referenced many times this afternoon.

There is an established process for medicines, including those that contain controlled drugs, to be developed, evaluated in clinical trials and licensed, based on an assessment of their quality, safety and efficacy by the MHRA. The MHRA supports the safe and scientifically sound conduct of clinical trials in this area, and provides regulatory and scientific advice to companies at all stages of developing medicines. Should a company submit an application for a marketing authorisation, otherwise known as product licence, it will ultimately be a decision for the MHRA whether to license a product based on a psychedelic drug as a therapy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Crispin Blunt]

I hope by now, as he has read his text, my right hon. Friend is beginning to work out that the administration of drugs policy is suboptimal, shall we say. Can he explain why esketamine is approved in Scotland, but not in England?

[Robert Jenrick]

I do not know the answer to that question, but I will happily ask officials who are listening to respond. It sounds like a matter for the Department of Health and Social Care rather than the Home Office, but I shall be pleased to give my hon. Friend a full reply as soon as possible.

[Crispin Blunt]

May I explain the issue that lies beneath this?

[Robert Jenrick]

If my hon. Friend already knew the answer to his question, I wonder why he asked it in the first place.

[Crispin Blunt]

As my right hon. Friend well knows, one does not ask questions to which one does not know the answer. That is not a very wise thing to do in politics.

A point was raised with me by the public affairs director of a subsidiary of a major pharmaceutical company about the differential between physical and mental health treatments. This illustrates the difficulty of getting mental health treatments to the necessary standard for assessment by NICE, and is a further illustration of the different priorities given to the treatment of mental and physical health conditions.

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend has made his point very powerfully. Of course the Government’s ambition is to ensure that NICE, the MHRA and all our regulators work in the most research-friendly manner, and that applies to mental health treatments as much as to anything else.

If a manufacturer is successful in being granted a marketing authorisation by the MHRA for a medicine containing psilocybin, the Home Office is committed to swift action to remove psilocybin from schedule 1 and make it available for prescribing, subject to advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs on the appropriate scheduling and safeguards for the medicine. The same scrutiny should be applied to all potential medicines to ensure patient safety. While it is legally possible to enable prescribing in advance of marketing authorisation, the Government currently have no plans to move to that position.

Proscribed Psychedelic Drugs

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

This is the first occasion that the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) and I have had to debate an element of his new portfolio in public, a subject to which I have devoted much of my time over the past five years. I want to put him at his ease. I of all people know he has one of the toughest jobs in Government—I suspect his willingness to go out and bat for the Government on the most difficult of wickets is one reason he was chosen for these responsibilities—and I do not want to draw him on to ground where he has to defend the indefensible. Instead, I will use most of this brief debate to make the case as best I can for his positive intervention in a narrow but profoundly important and potentially positive part of his responsibilities.

I do not want or expect an answer this evening; these matters demand careful consideration. There will shortly be an application to the Backbench Business Committee, supported by more than a score of colleagues from across the House, for time for a fuller consideration. I hope by the time that debate is secured we can enjoy the news that this Minister is taking the available opportunities of his very tough policy inheritance.

Since the United States—directed by the FBI of Harry Anslinger under J. Edgar Hoover—corralled the world into agreeing a 1961 UN convention on comprehensive narcotic prohibition, global drug policy has a decent claim to being the greatest public policy failure since 1945. The casualties and costs, certainly, are cumulatively much greater than those of any conflict of the period.

In the future, historians will look back on the policy in stunned wonderment that the US, having had a decade and a half of prohibition of alcohol in its own country, thought it sensible, less than 30 years later, to press the rest of the world to prohibit everything but alcohol and tobacco, and expect a different outcome. This time, the scale was truly epic, affecting the entire world and everything that humans had come to use to make themselves feel better, driven by the same moral certainty that underpinned the temperance movement decades earlier. The scale of the cost and the toll of the casualties should have been entirely predictable. So great have been the investment in that policy around the world, the moral high ground of the political class, and the blood price paid by state security forces around the world, that it seems that only retired leaders engage properly in this first-order debate, and, based on their experience, now challenge the assumptions upon which they governed.

Today’s leaders face the particular problem of explaining to their electorates why the certainties on which self-evidently failing policies are based are in fact a mirage. The black-and-white simplicities that lend themselves to ease of political communication do not exist. They must also begin to put in place an alternative and more effective answer to reduce the harm done to humanity by narcotics than the simplicity of blanket prohibition. That will be complex and difficult, and will require communication skills and moral courage of an exceptional order. That global reordering will be for the future. The sooner we get there, the sooner the carnage can stop and the cost and benefits of our policy can be measured properly with a degree of disinterested academic rigour so absent over the past half century.

What policymakers can do immediately is to address the most obvious and damaging consequences of prohibition: access to medicine being lost and denied. Forgone medical treatment is just one element of the cost of blanket narcotic prohibition, but it is very great once we understand the treatments that we have denied ourselves amid the moral panic underpinning prohibition. For no class of drugs is that urgent repair more needed than for the psychedelics.

First, the opportunity for a major step change in mental health treatment is real. We are not talking here about simply improving the treatment of symptoms of mental ill health. We have the opportunity, with the psychedelic class of compounds, to make a step change in mental health treatment and, with a proper regard for the actual risks involved, drive access to medicines while facilitating the collection of data for their efficacy in the real world.

As Ministers around the world are now becoming aware, psychedelics, including psilocybin, are being investigated and found to have promising application as facilitators of psychotherapy for the treatment of the most debilitating and devastating mental health conditions suffered by people around the world. Unlike the treatment options that are currently available to patients, psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy does not foster dependence. It treats the underlying causes of mental ill health rather than simply covering the symptoms through emotional blunting, unlike selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors—antidepressants—on which patients can come to rely for decades, and to which they currently have no real alternative.

My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) is properly concerned about freeing people from the overuse and dependence on those treatments. When I sought his support for my application to the Backbench Business Committee, he cautioned me to stay my enthusiasm until we had solved that problem as the first priority. But that misses the point that assisted psychotherapy can give patients back their lives, allowing them to escape antidepressants in the first place by helping them to form and enjoy satisfying relationships with other people; to return to and thrive at work or study; to contribute fully to society; or even better, to help them to confront their fear of death and cope with end of life. It really is revolutionary and has the potential to dramatically improve the lives of millions of our fellow citizens. We must do both.

Addressing the missed opportunity of treatment over half a century will help address the miserable dependence of too many on SSRIs. It would be untenable for the Government to keep barriers to cancer research, for example. That should also be the case for psychedelics given their promise for mental health.

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate. Does he have any estimate of the number of people living with treatment-resistant depression in the UK and what the cost could be to the economy of not rescheduling psilocybin as he proposes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Crispin Blunt]

The cost is enormous if one considers that there are 1.2 million people suffering with depression and the number of those people who go on to commit suicide who could be treated. Approximately one third of armed servicemen who have come back from active service in Afghanistan and Iraq are beyond treatment for the trauma they have sustained. Of all people, to whom does the state owe a debt? The cost of this issue is enormous.

How did we get into this position? There was 20 years of documented medical research prior to the scientific blackout that followed the stringent terms of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. How did this awareness of the therapeutic potential of psychedelics not weigh in the balance to avoid the situation we are in today, where they are so tightly controlled that even researchers at world-class UK universities struggle to access them for research purposes? It is an unhappy accident of history that Government regulation of controlled drugs in the 1970s has impacted the public in ways that were completely unforeseen.

These extremely safe drugs are in the most stringently controlled class and schedule, based not on any historical or contemporary assessment of their toxicity or dangers, but simply because there were no submissions made to British or American regulators of medical products containing psilocybin before the instatement of the UN single convention through the UK’s Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. They were therefore assumed to be worthless for medicine. The historical use of cocaine and heroin in medicine prior to 1971 accounts for why those drugs, with far higher dangers and awful potential for abuse, reside in a lower schedule than the much more benign psilocybin and its fellow psychedelics.

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are in danger of taking psilocybin into the same arena as medical cannabis, where the medical profession blames politicians and politicians blame the medical profession, and rather than all looking for obstacles, we should be looking for constructive solutions?

[Crispin Blunt]

I have learned so much with the hon. Gentleman over the last five years, as well as with the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), who has joined this debate with personal testimony and the most enormous strength; I know that she has had conversations with the Minister, and I thank him for making time for these conversations and for learning.

It is the Minister to whom, inevitably, we now look for positive leadership in this space. That is why I do not want to push him this evening. I could have spoken for five minutes and then left him swinging on the hook, where we could beat him all around the Chamber trying to defend the indefensible of how we got into this position, but I do not want to do that. I want this debate to be a positive contribution, to lay out the challenge of why we are having to respond in this way and to give the Minister the room for manoeuvre to come forward with positive answers about all the opportunities of this policy.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman and I may have some differences of opinion on this. The Minister responsible in the previous Administration was the person who enabled my constituent, young Sophia Gibson, to get medicinal cannabis, which helped to stop the fits that that wee girl had. Today, her and her family have a better standard of life. While I understand that steps sometimes have to be taken, I would caution that we do not move forward until we are absolutely sure that there will be no side effects. In Sophia’s case, it worked, but it will not work in every case.

[Crispin Blunt]

I listened with care to the hon. Gentleman and thank him for attending this debate and for championing the cause of his constituent. It is part of a piece. Behind the consideration of psychedelics sits consideration of cannabis as a medicine and, indeed, a wellness treatment. There is a huge economic as well as a health opportunity. They are not completely unrelated. His points are well made, but we do not want to get ourselves into a place where we have so much anxiety about risk where risk does not really exist in reality that we create blocks to progress.

This is where we need to come back to the historical context that led to the irrationality of the position we are in, which of course was the thalidomide crisis. That crisis led to the tightening of a number of regulations concerning the testing of investigational drugs. The commendable intent of those regulations was to ensure that drugs came to the market safe and effective. Double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trials became the gold standard for testing emerging medicines, but because psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy is ultimately a form of psychotherapy, rather than a drug treatment in the traditional sense, strict adherence to those standards proved close to impossible to meet. The story of psychedelics is thus one of an extremely promising treatment modality that was lost in discussion over how to understand and evaluate therapeutic treatment effectiveness.

The primitive design of psychedelic trials in the 1950s and 1960s, as well as a lack of flexibility in how regulators evaluated more traditional pharmaceutical interventions, ultimately led to psychedelic-assisted therapies falling below the cut-off for approval as market-authorised medicines. Those drugs were completely novel to researchers and regulators. They troubled the distinction between biological psychiatry, with its pharmacological interventions, and the psychological arm of psychiatry and its psychotherapies. Given the novelty of the way in which these treatments work and the virtual impossibility of designing placebo controls for psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy, it is no wonder that the trials of those drugs did not meet the standards of regulators remaining faithful to the standards used to test pharmaceutical interventions on their own. These treatments are fundamentally forms of psychotherapy, and need to be tested as such.

A flexible and intelligent capacity to measure the efficacy of a drug that facilitated psychotherapy was simply not yet present in the culture of the regulators of the time. With the stigma surrounding those drugs fuelling the tabloid appetite for excitable exaggeration, misinformation abounded about these mysterious, mind-altering substances. They appeared to belong to indigenous communities in remote jungles—surely there was nothing to learn there. I think that, in the decades since, we have learned a great deal about learning from experiences elsewhere in the world. In reality, death and injury rates, both physical and psychological, from unadulterated psychedelics are extremely low. Teams of researchers from the United States, the UK, the EU and Australia have consistently found psychedelics to be of the lowest possible harm potential of all the controlled drugs to both user and society. Those studies considered the physiological toxicity of these drugs, as well as other risks.

However, these drugs are best administered within supportive psychotherapeutic environments; doing so reduces the risks yet further. The medical research shows that, when administered in such settings, psychedelics are associated with very positive psychotherapeutic outcomes. For example, research by Robin Carhart-Harris and others in 2016 showed a significant decrease in depressive symptoms for up to six months—that in a cohort already suffering from treatment-resistant depression. Research by Ross and others in 2016 showed significant decreases in anxiety and depression, and research by Johnson and others in 2014 showed that 80% of the cohort were abstinent from smoking following treatment with psilocybin. Mental health harm is estimated to cost the UK economy more than £110 billion a year annually, a staggering 5% of our gross domestic product. Smoking alone costs the economy £14.7 billion per year, £2.5 billion of which falls to the national health service. Even if psychedelics were to play a small role in improving outcomes in those areas, the impact would be huge, given the impact of those areas on society and the economy.

The safety of these drugs has been firmly demonstrated, too. Phase 3 trials are now under way, meaning that their safety is well enough established in healthy and clinical populations that regulators are allowing research into their effectiveness in clinical treatment. Psilocybin and the other psychedelics have been well enough established as safe—that is all but unquestioned within the scientific and medical literature—and when administered under the supervision of trained professionals in suitably controlled environments, we move from a risk range of “minimal” to one of “very significant benefit”. The method of achieving the maximum benefit for patients and its extent is yet to be established, but there is every indication that it will be remarkable compared with psychotherapy unassisted by pharmacology or today’s pharmacological assistance of antidepressants, from which a depressing number of patients—please excuse the pun, Mr Deputy Speaker—now need withdrawal services, something that my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes is campaigning to address.

Research methods have matured since prohibition, so the best and easiest way to obtain information on how effective psychedelic-assisted psychotherapies will be in the real world is to establish research and access to prescribing physicians and researchers, but we are already falling behind. The potential has been identified across the world. To our embarrassment as a nation committed to science, entrepreneurship and sustaining one of the world’s great financial sectors, not only has $7 billion been raised on the markets of North America to invest in this emerging bioscience technology—as compared with very little raised here—but our scientists, having largely owned this knowledge within the United Kingdom, are now following that investment.

The market for psychedelic substances is projected to grow from $2 billion in 2020 to $10.7 billion by 2027. Facilitating the investigation of these drugs in that way would have allowed the United Kingdom to become the leading country in the study of the therapeutic potential of the psychedelic class of drugs and simultaneously facilitate access for patients. Hopefully, it is not too late, but unless this science is noisily supported and championed in the UK, it will be too late for the United Kingdom to make its proper contribution in this area.

The use of psilocybin and other psychedelics in psychiatry is of even greater medical and scientific importance than simply their commercial promise, yet the Government still want to evaluate the evidence regarding safety, scheduling and classification. To add insult to injury, it seems that they will only do so following a successful application for a medical formulation containing psilocybin to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.

In practice, there appear to be three routes to the rescheduling of a substance within the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001, of which it seems the Home Office remains wedded to one: rescheduling being triggered following a market authorisation by the MHRA. The more evidence-based route—a self-commissioned review by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs—is effectively ruled out because of the AMCD’s lack of funding and capacity. The simple third route is for the Minister in the Home Office to take the initiative and commission such a review of evidence with a view to rescheduling by the ACMD.

The Minister, had I given him time, would no doubt have referred to his commissioning of the ACMD to investigate barriers to researching substances controlled under schedule 1, and especially psilocybin, which I welcome. Forgive me for offering him time to reflect further before responding to more colleagues than just me. In July 2017, the then Home Secretary commissioned a review of the barriers to research caused by drugs designated as schedule 1, only for the long-term recommendations of the ACMD to be rejected. The current review has already been ongoing since 2020. Is this delay without cost?

Members of Parliament from across the House have provided to me and others, including the Home Office, a proposal for the Minister to safely resolve the issue based on evidence and in a short space of time. Indeed, when cannabis-based products for medicinal use were rescheduled in 2018, it took a mere 12 weeks. When the evidence and need are so overwhelming, just as they were for cannabis-based products for medicinal use, for what reason can the Government wait to take decisive action? The letter of the laws that govern use in medicine and science of these controlled substances is designed to be flexible and permissive. As I understand it, nearly two years ago, when the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), endorsed advice from his policy unit to get this done, the Home Office dived for the weeds of process around an application for a medicine before contemplating changing scheduling or classification.

I have asked the Home Office on three occasions by written parliamentary question whether it has in its possession any evidence that supports the current scheduling of psilocybin. I am wholly certain the answer is none. The MHRA, the Food and Drugs Administration, the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration and the UK science and research community all know there is not that evidence. Every day that we do not act to support and enable the efforts of UK researchers, we hinder the progress of science and put what were our globally renowned research institutions at a growing disadvantage.

Perhaps most scandalously of all, this delay in the science now will be delay in the medicine deployed and the therapeutics established on the basis of those medicines. Some 1.2 million people with depression in the UK will continue to provide the grim reaper with 18 suicides a day. Our untreatable soldiers, traumatised from their active service in Iraq and Afghanistan, will continue to self-medicate with alcohol and other unsupervised drugs to the misery of themselves and their families. Addiction will be treated less effectively. Anxiety will not be addressed as it could be. That pain, and the scale of the economic cost to our country, demanded “Action This Day” a long time ago.

All that I have heard reinforces my hope that the Minister will break the logjam, which would be in direct accord with the Government’s 10-year drugs plan that aims to put evidence at the heart of drug policy. Behind the issue of psychedelics—practically and intellectually the easiest part of the drug policy thicket—sits the possibility of a legal cannabis and hemp industry, with huge economic and environmental positives to secure. The chance to seize that low-hanging fruit and reap the rewards presents itself to the Minister, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister has begun the machinery of government changes that should enable many departmental Ministers, as yet unrepresented in the councils and committees that in effect control our nation’s drug policy, to make a reality of that opportunity. If we make a reality of policy based on evidence, we can finally start to right the wrongs of 60 years of policy failure. The Minister has a historic opportunity to radically improve the lives of millions of his fellow citizens while helping the United Kingdom to be a world leader in medical research. Current drug policy has produced far more victims than successes; he can begin to reverse that.

[The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)]

In the short time that I have available, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) for securing the debate and for the thoughtful, knowledgeable and carefully considered manner in which he delivered his speech. I also recognise the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), who is in her place. I know that she has a deep personal interest in the topic, about which we had a detailed meeting a few days ago, so I am delighted to see her in the Chamber.

Of course, the Department of Health and Social Care leads on questions concerning the availability of medicines and prescribing, because medicines are licensed and regulated by the MHRA. The Home Office, however, is responsible for controlled drugs legislation and our controlled drugs licensing regime to support research and clinical trials in the UK, which is why I am responding rather than a Health Minister.

I am keen to encourage research into the use of drugs in the UK as far as we can. We have an internationally well-regarded research sector in universities and, of course, in commercial pharmaceutical companies. It can be a great source of national competitive advantage to make their research projects as straightforward as possible.

Drugs scheduled in schedule 1 can be used for research purposes, but with a licence. As I discussed with the hon. Member for Warrington North a few days ago, I know that some people feel that the process to obtain such a licence can be onerous, particularly for universities and NHS trusts. Clearly, for drugs scheduled in schedule 2 and higher, those restrictions do not apply in the same way. I am very aware of the point about research.

I am also aware that, to consider whether there are medical benefits that would support the rescheduling of drugs from schedule 1 to schedule 2 or higher, which might enable them to be prescribed to patients for medical purposes, there needs to be a research base. I accept that there is an element of chicken and egg or Catch-22 about the situation, because we need to do the research before there is an evidence base to justify the rescheduling that might be merited.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate said, I received part 1 of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs’ advice on reducing barriers to research with controlled drugs, which focused on synthetic cannabinoids. In December last year, so just a few weeks ago, I formally commissioned it to conduct part 2 of its review, which is designed and intended to consider, and will consider, research with schedule 1 drugs more widely. That of course includes LSD and MDMA. In my letter to the ACMD commissioning that work, I specifically highlighted psilocybin. It would be open to the Government, depending on the ACMD’s advice, to change the research rules to say that all schedule 1 drugs might be capable of being used for research purposes without the onerous requirements that currently apply, in the same way as happens with schedule 2 drugs and higher, or some variation of that. There is obviously quite a lot of policy detail that one would have to consider, but were that move to be made, it would clearly address the barriers to research that my hon. Friend highlighted. Were those barriers to research to be removed, the evidence base could then be developed, which might provide a basis for the MHRA to make a case that such a drug should be moved to schedule 2 or higher, and that would facilitate doctors prescribing these drugs to the patients who need them.

My hon. Friend very kindly said that he would not press me too hard, given that I am relatively new in this position. I think the comments I have made do suggest that there is a path forward. I do strongly support making it as easy as possible for UK institutions—universities, hospitals and private companies—to conduct research using not just psilocybin, but all drugs, and there is clearly a commercial as well as an academic benefit. I am looking forward to receiving the ACMD advice as soon as possible, and I can certainly assure my hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Warrington North and others that, when that is received, it will receive my prompt and positive attention.

[Crispin Blunt]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Philp]

I think you are indicating that we are almost out of time, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am sure my hon. Friend and I can speak briefly afterwards, and on that point, I will rest.

Question put and agreed to.

Independent Cultural Review of London Fire Brigade

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Monday 28th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

The right hon. Lady is nodding, so I am happy to raise that point again and see whether publication can be expedited.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

May I say how welcome it is that Commissioner Andy Roe commissioned this report and is finally leading and gripping this problem? We know that the Fire Brigades Union is particularly strong within the fire service across the country. What evidence is there of the FBU’s role in reinforcing or challenging this culture?

[Chris Philp]

As of when I came over today from the Home Office, I do not think the FBU had published or put out a formal statement responding to the report, so I am sure my hon. Friend and others in the House will study its report or respond carefully when it chooses to put one out.

Humanist Marriages

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Thursday 27th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, I remind Members to observe social distancing and wear masks. I think that officially went overnight; nevertheless, the advice is still to wear masks. I call Crispin Blunt to move the motion.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered humanist marriages in England and Wales.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate in response to my application just last week. I appreciate the Committee’s immediate response to the application, but inevitably, many of the supporters I named have been unable to rearrange their diaries to speak this afternoon. However, there is support on this issue from a broad section of the political spectrum, and I hope the quality of the debate will do justice to that support.

From my own party, we have support from my hon. Friends the Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan), for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell), for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), for Wycombe (Mr Baker) and for Shipley (Philip Davies), from my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies), who I see is in his place, and from my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mark Eastwood).

Today, 53 members of both Houses have written to the Lord Chancellor urging immediate legal recognition of humanist marriages, in the light of the recent move to recognise outdoor civil and religious marriages, which, as I will explain, has removed the last vestige of the arguments put forward by the Government for not getting on with what would be a welcome reform for so many people in our country.

Humanist weddings are non-religious wedding ceremonies that are conducted by humanist celebrants. Humanists UK defines a humanist as a non-religious person who trusts

“the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works”

and does not rely on

“the idea of the supernatural…makes their ethical decisions based on reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings and other sentient animals”

and

“believes that, in the absence of”

evidence for

“an afterlife and any discernible purpose to the universe, human beings can act to give their own lives meaning by seeking happiness in this life and helping others to do the same.”

Humanist ceremonies are a manifestation of what gives our lives meaning—the meaning we create for ourselves and the happiness we bring about in others. Ceremonies, then, are a reflection of what will be most meaningful to the participants. They are built around the idea that the best ceremonies are all about the participants—their beliefs, their values, their family, their friends and their wider place in the world—and they recognise the need to be inclusive of all those attending and their diverse religions and beliefs.

I chair the all-party parliamentary humanist group with the noble Baroness Bakewell, and the secretariat is provided by Humanists UK. Humanists UK trains and accredits celebrants, particularly in conducting weddings. Such celebrants are trained specifically in how to make ceremonies as meaningful as possible for the participants, and their expertise and experience contributes to making these important moments in our journey through life of the greatest relevance and meaning to those who choose them.

The process of creating a thoughtful, meaningful and personal wedding ceremony for a couple is extensive. It is not unusual for a humanist celebrant to spend 35 to 40 hours—often even more—working closely with the couple. That is quite a lot longer than the average for most people who preside over weddings, who, in many cases, may turn up only for the marriage itself. That is because the process the humanist celebrant is engaged in is lengthy and is focused on getting to know the couple well, finding out what matters to them collectively, and helping them explore what most matters to them about each other, so that the ceremony can be as meaningful, and have as strong and lasting an impact as possible. The impact of the ceremony is reinforced by the ceremony’s being in the location most meaningful to the couple. That often means the kinds of places that already get approved as premises for civil marriages; it could be the family’s back garden, or their local beach or park. I have even heard of couples choosing to have their wedding in the very spot they met or got engaged.

The consequence of this process is that humanist marriages are more likely to last. All parties recognise the public policy benefits of stable relationships, which ought to make the legal recognition of humanist marriages an uncontroversial public good. I understand that many couples, if not most, stay in touch with the humanist celebrant who conducted their wedding for years afterwards. They highly value the process in which they engaged in getting to the wedding day and the relationship that they built with the celebrant. I rather doubt that most participants in civil marriages are still in touch with the registrar who conducted their marriage or, frankly, can remember their name.

The training to become a humanist celebrant provided by Humanists UK is an extensive process, and those who embark on it do so with no guarantee of success. Humanists UK courses run for several months and include an induction day, residential training sessions, coursework and a mentor to support the training from the outset. Once accredited—many who start the programme are not—celebrants become part of a growing national network. They are quality assured and regulated by a code of conduct, and they have a transparent complaints procedure and mandatory ongoing professional development. A former Registrar General for England and Wales, Paul Pugh, has trained to be a humanist celebrant with Humanists UK in order to conduct funerals. He certainly believes that the training provided is rigorous enough to merit legal recognition for Humanists UK celebrants, as do the Northern Ireland Executive, who also deal with Humanists UK.

Given all this, it can hardly be a surprise that humanist marriages have taken off in jurisdictions where they have been legally recognised. In Scotland, they gained recognition as long ago as 2005. In 2019, they made up some 23% of all marriages—a truly impressive figure that I understand even includes some Members of this House. In 2012, such marriages gained recognition in the Republic of Ireland, where they now account for 10% of all marriages. Since 2018, they have gained legal recognition in Northern Ireland, Jersey and Guernsey. It is early days, but I understand that the number of humanist marriages in Northern Ireland—regardless of one’s impression of religious adherence and people’s enthusiasm for it in the Province—is following precisely the same trajectory as in Scotland and Ireland.

That brings me to England and Wales, where, at present, there is no legal recognition of humanist marriages. That means that couples who have a humanist wedding—around 1,400 do so with Humanists UK every year—must also have a civil marriage separately in order to gain legal recognition. That can be a big financial burden; if the couple wish to have their wedding and marriage at the weekend, many local authorities will charge upwards of £500 for a civil marriage. That is a burden that religious couples do not face.

In addition, many local authorities are making it increasingly difficult for people to access a cheaper ceremony. There is a statutory option of around £50 that local authorities must offer, but many have taken such options off their websites. Some restrict marriages to just one registry office—for example, North Yorkshire, which is the biggest authority in the country, restricts them to just Harrogate—and many severely limit what such ceremonies can entail. Humanists UK tells of local authorities restricting attendance to the couple and their two adult witnesses, meaning that if they have children, they cannot attend. Some have banned having flowers or even exchanging rings.

Either way, such couples face distressing questions from their loved ones about which is their real marriage or when their wedding anniversary is. It is very sad that the wedding that they wish to see as their real act of commitment is not the one that the state enables—and for what purpose? Why do we not have legal recognition here? I think there are two ways of answering that question. One is to reflect on what has happened over the last decade and the justifications that the Government have given at each point in time for their behaviour, and the other is to think about what might have been going through the Government’s mind but has not been made a matter of record.

The Government gained the power to extend legal recognition of humanist marriages all the way back in 2013. The power was given to them by Parliament through the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, and it was clear at the time that there was a majority in both Houses in favour of using that power. Indeed, what the Government said at the time suggested that they intended to do so. All that stood in the way was that the relevant part of the 2013 Act mandated that the Government must consult on the matter first. Indeed, it was proper that the Government did so to determine how best to use that order-making power. The Government duly consulted in 2014, and the consultation found over 95% of people in favour of a change in the law.

What happened next was where things went off script for people who were anticipating the opportunity to have their marriage and wedding in the way that they wanted. Instead of proceeding to draft the required statutory instrument, the Minister responsible for marriage at the time, Simon Hughes, decided to refer the matter to the Law Commission for further investigation. The Government’s response to the consultation gave the following justification for that decision:

“One key difficulty concerns where belief marriages would take place… allowing belief marriages to take place at unrestricted locations would create a further difference in treatment in our marriage law”

and

“would create an inequality for the majority of religious groups and couples who are restricted to their registered place of worship. Registration services report a growing demand for outdoor marriages, and the Government is aware that allowing belief marriages in unrestricted locations may also be seen as unfair by couples who are neither religious nor humanist but who also may want a greater choice of marriage venues.”

Marriage law at that time allowed for marriages to happen outdoors if they were conducted by Quakers, Jewish groups, the Church of England or the Church in Wales. Forms of marriage other than deathbed marriages were restricted to either registered places of worship in the case of religious marriages, or register offices and other indoor approved premises in the case of civil marriages. Relatedly, it was said that the kind of piecemeal legislation being sought, and the added complexity that it would bring, was undesirable given the apparent inconsistency in existing marriage law.

The inconsistency in marriage law is clearly problematic, but I hope that colleagues will see from what I have said why outdoor weddings are particularly important in the humanist tradition. At any rate, the inconsistency does not seem to me a good justification for blocking recognition of humanist marriages as a whole. None the less, that key difficulty was used as justification to refer the whole question to the Law Commission to examine further. The Government stated:

“We wish to avoid any negative consequences that may result from undertaking further piecemeal legislation… The Government will therefore ask the Law Commission if it will begin as soon as possible a broader review of the law concerning marriage ceremonies.”

That is where the issue got firmly stuck in the long grass. In 2015, the Law Commission produced its report. It did not conduct the broader review it had been tasked with; instead, it simply concluded that, although the fact that humanist marriages were not legally recognised was unfair, the inconsistency around outdoor marriages and concerns about piecemeal reform justified its asking to do a second and even more thorough review of marriage law as a whole.

Now, the Government did not appear to have an immediate appetite for that, as they did not respond to the Law Commission proposals for some two years. When they did finally respond, in 2017, they said no to taking things further. That was the end of the road until 2018, when a humanist couple threatened litigation over the failure to extend legal recognition to humanist marriages. It is a pretty sad state of affairs that a stated Government intention to move in this area in 2013 had, by 2018, resulted in the human rights courts having to be engaged in trying to establish this right for humanists in England and Wales. Shortly after that, the Government announced they would, after all, be commissioning the larger Law Commission review. There was then a further year’s delay while the Government and the Law Commission worked to agree the terms of reference for that review.

Perhaps, if my hon. Friend the Minister is familiar with “Yes Minister”—I appreciate that that was my generation’s early-evening television rather than his—he will see that there is a certain pattern emerging. The review was meant to conclude last year, but it has been delayed further by the pandemic, and it is now expected to conclude in July.

[Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He is making some excellent points. I am here having met my constituent Dawn Davies, who is a celebrant; I know that she has been frustrated by the timescales that my hon. Friend has just outlined. Assuming that the Law Commission report does come forward in July this year, when does he anticipate that there might be legislation forthcoming for England and Wales?

[Crispin Blunt]

Well, here, of course, we are in the hands of the Minister and his colleagues in Government. I am afraid that I have lost count of the number of Ministers—Ministers of State, Under-Secretaries of State and Justice Secretaries—I have engaged with on this issue over the last few years, but it is really quite a lot. I hope that I can convince the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), that he is going to be the one to finally get this done.

The case that I seek to make is that delay is no longer tolerable, fair or reasonable. In the end, the law will take its course in the courts if people are forced to go to the European Court of Human Rights to achieve their convention rights, when it is so evident what is happening in the rest of the country. I am absolutely confident that the Minister and the Justice Secretary will clearly understand the arguments and the situation, and will finally get on and deliver this long-overdue reform.

Not all the delays are the fault of the present Government, which came to power only after the second Law Commission review got under way. One can speculate as to why the previous two Governments did not bring about legal recognition. Prime Minister David Cameron acted bravely in grasping the nettle and bringing in same-sex marriages long before many other similar jurisdictions did. However, there may have been some feeling about religious groups’ displeasure with that measure, and that may have had some influence on the appetite within Government to bring about further reforms of marriage law. Of course, those reactions are now quite unjustifiable.

That is ironic, because the Second Church Estates Commissioner, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), said in his reply to me at oral questions this morning that the Church of England is not aware of any religious groups that oppose legal recognition of humanist marriages, and that in principle the Church of England is in favour of humanists having this power. It would have been better if my hon. Friend’s answer had been clearer and less equivocal—he referred back to all the practical difficulties for the Government that have been observed over the years since 2013—but it was useful to get it on the record that the Church of England is, in principle, in favour.

This Government are a strong champion of freedom, for both individuals and in terms of freedom of choice. As long as nothing moves on this issue, Her Majesty’s Government are continuing to obstruct this freedom for humanists, and for a growing share of the population who belong to no religion. Her Majesty’s Government have at the forefront of their agenda the need to level up different regions of the United Kingdom to provide equal opportunities for all. This situation is a plain example of where England and Wales need levelling up so that their citizens can enjoy the same freedoms and opportunities already enjoyed by the citizens of Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Finally, I turn my attention to what has happened under this Government, which inherited a court case from the previous Administration. Six couples were taking the matter before the High Court. They claimed discrimination, given that religious couples can have legally recognised marriages in line with their beliefs. The judge in that case agreed, ruling that

“the present law gives rise to…discrimination.”

She wrote that

“the discrimination suffered by the Claimants is real: the difference of treatment they experience in seeking to manifest their humanist beliefs through the ceremony of marriage is a matter of substance, not merely one of form.”

She also ruled that the Secretary of State for Justice could not

“simply sit on his hands”

and do nothing. However, given the ongoing Law Commission review, she also said that the Government’s refusal to act immediately could be justified at this time. She did so because she considered that the desire of the defendant—the Justice Secretary—

“to consider any reform on a wholesale, rather than piecemeal, basis”

was a legitimate aim. She wrote:

“In the present case, the Government has identified concerns as to the potential consequences of addressing one area of unequal treatment without doing so as part of a more general reform. Specifically, in relation to the treatment of humanist and other non-religious belief marriages, particular issues were identified relating to the location where the ceremony might take place…these were matters seen to potentially give rise to new species of discrimination if reform was only undertaken on a piecemeal basis.”

From that, she concluded:

“Although I may deprecate the delay that has occurred since 2015, I cannot ignore the fact that there is currently an on-going review of the law of marriage in this country”.

That brings us to what then happened last year. In June, the Government extended legal recognition to outdoor civil marriages on an interim basis. In December, they launched a consultation on making that move permanent, making the same move for religious marriages. Both can be done by statutory instrument. The moves limit marriages to outdoor parts of approved premises, but I understand that such a limitation is something that humanist celebrants would be happy with, on an initial basis, as a way to get things going for them.

These moves by the Government tear up the objection to piecemeal reform in general terms that the Government and their predecessors have given for not wanting to enact legal recognition of humanist marriages before the Law Commission completes its review this July. They can only maintain an objection to piecemeal reform if they do not undertake such piecemeal reform. These moves are the very piecemeal reform that the Government said was the reason why they could not enact legal recognition of humanist marriages.

Now that outdoor marriages are under way for others, what possible reason is left not to lay the statutory instrument bringing about recognition for marriages conducted by Humanists UK celebrants? Such a reform need only be interim. The law could be drafted explicitly with the intention that it is superseded by whatever follows the Law Commission review, if anything does. Legal recognition must follow that review, as I have explained. That is what the High Court ruled in 2020.

Making that change would remove an unnecessary burden for the 1,400 couples a year who have a humanist wedding at present, despite the fact that they have to have a double ceremony, with a civil marriage administered separately. For those couples, it would be particularly welcome.

During the pandemic—we do not know where the rules on that will take us; we are on a positive trend at the minute, but we have had some disagreeable surprises over the last two years—we have seen the whole problem for the wedding industry play out. Giving couples the opportunity to make their marriages really meaningful, by committing their resources to a ceremony that really means something for them, would be of obvious economic benefit for an important part of our hospitality sector. That change would greatly enhance the freedom of choice for the hundreds—if not thousands—of other couples who want a humanist wedding but decide that they simply cannot afford one because of the lack of legal recognition. Evidence from Scotland points to the legal recognition of humanist marriages coinciding with the end of the long-term decline in marriage numbers. Surely, more people getting married is something that this Government should strongly support. Indeed, I would imagine that every political party would want to support that. We ought to be trying to get that done now, as soon as possible, given the delays we have suffered.

Legal recognition would also help to deal with the current backlog and demand for civil registrars caused by the pandemic delaying many marriages. There simply are not enough registrars to go around, so many couples are reporting difficulties in being able to get married when they want. Expanding the range of people who can conduct legally recognised marriages would definitely assist in that.

All of that, as I have said before, will be a welcome boost to the wider wedding industry: the venues, the florists, the caterers, the photographers, the cake-makers, and so on—the cake-makers are very much at the forefront of our minds at the moment. Many of those are small, local businesses. Having more marriages is good for the economy and for families, and is clearly a matter of public policy when the public benefit is clear in every sense.

A possible statutory instrument to enact legal recognition has already been drafted. A previous Lord Chancellor suggested that I arrange for that to happen, so it was prepared in consultation with the counsel for domestic legislation. We have done it. The Government do not even need to it themselves; they just have to check our work.

The measure is modelled on the existing provisions for the Society of Friends. It applies specifically to Humanists UK, as the only organisation providing humanist weddings in England and Wales, and one that undoubtedly has the processes in place, and the good repute, to guarantee that ceremonies will be solemn and dignified, with no risk of sham weddings. That is not to say, however, that if another organisation was to emerge, with the sufficient standing and good repute to also merit it, it could not also gain legal recognition through another order—nor that a different system might come into place after the Law Commission review.

There is no good reason for further delays. The Government’s own actions have now removed whatever vestige of the thinnest of arguments that remained standing in the way of this reform, which would mean so much to so many who get married in the future. To what purpose are we adding to the now nine years’ worth of couples who have not enjoyed that freedom since Parliament gave the Government the power to deliver it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) on securing this debate and thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. The hon. Member explained very clearly what humanist beliefs are, and also talked about the care taken and the research conducted by a humanist celebrant in working with a couple to prepare for a marriage ceremony. He also set out the history of such marriages very clearly.

The most important point to make is that it is clear that the Government have undermined their own argument that all changes should wait until some sort of wholesale reform of marriage legislation. They have done so by making the temporary provisions for outdoor weddings into permanent ones. Therefore, that sets a precedent and blows out of the water the idea that everything has to wait for something that may never actually happen.

Of course, where there is a will, there is a way. The hon. Member mentioned the use of statutory instruments; indeed, in good “Blue Peter” fashion, he has one that he had prepared earlier all ready for the Minister. However, there are of course many precedents of the Government including a specific section on one topic in a Bill that mainly deals with rather different subject matter. Some Bills are the classic Christmas tree, with provisions to deal with all sorts of different matters included in them. I feel sure that the necessary will to make this change is what is needed and then an appropriate vehicle can be found, and that the skills of those drafting the Bill would prevent any problems with unintended consequences, which again has been given as an excuse for not making this change now but instead leaving it for some larger reform of marriage law.

[Crispin Blunt]

I thank the hon. Lady for her support on this issue. The statutory instrument or the powers are already there under the Act I referred to; we do not need another Bill. The Government can proceed at a time of their choosing.

[Nia Griffith]

Indeed—again, that was very well put.

We know that in Scotland, of course, under a Labour Scottish Government legal recognition was given to humanist marriages back in 2005; in the Republic of Ireland, it was given in 2012; and in Northern Ireland, it was given in 2018. In Wales, we do not have the devolved power to legislate for humanist marriages, but the Welsh Government are very supportive of the legal recognition of humanist marriages and would very much—

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

What a pleasure to speak in a debate chaired by my constituency neighbour, Dr Huq, I think for the first time. I congratulate the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) on bringing this important debate forward. I was intending to speak in it, before I was elevated—if that is the right word—to the spokesperson position. He has championed this issue, and others. Only this week, I was lobbied by the National Secular Society on his Education (Assemblies) Bill. He is the apostle of the secular, but never of the mundane.

I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) and for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), who have all spoken eloquently, with examples of how humanist marriage works and their own testimony as humanists. They have also, which has been a common theme in the debate, emphasised the logic of where the issue is going and the unfairness of the current situation.

There is really only one point for the Minister to address, which is to explain the puzzle of why the Government are dragging their feet. I hope we will hear a clear exposition on that. In the words of the letter from 53 MPs—including myself—that we have heard referred to, humanist couples in England and Wales simply ask to have the same freedom of choice to marry in line with their beliefs as their religious counterparts. I hope the Minister does not disagree with that.

I have another quote, this time from my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), about putting right

“a long-standing injustice in a simple and uncontroversial way.”—[Official Report, 21 May 2013; Vol. 563, c. 1074.]

The door is open, more than ajar, and the Government have only a small step to take through it. My hon. Friend said those words in a debate on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, to which she, from the Labour Front Bench, was proposing an amendment that would have extended legal recognition to humanist marriages. That is now nine years ago. As has been the case throughout, she was supported by colleagues from across the House.

Labour supported similar amendments during the passage of the Bill through the House of Lords. Its efforts led to section 14 of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, which gives the Government the power to enact legal recognition of humanist marriages by order. In other words, most of the groundwork has been done. Looking back at Hansard, I am struck by the fact that during an earlier debate, when the late Lord Eden of Winton was objecting to the attempt to get humanist marriage into the Bill, my noble Friend Baroness Thornton, speaking for the Labour Front Bench, intervened on him to ask:

“Does the noble Lord think that the humanists need to wait another 19 years for another Bill to come passing by?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 June 2013; Vol. 746, c. 303.]

Well, we are nine years later already, so nearly half of that time has elapsed, and humanists are still waiting.

The Government have been reviewing the matter ever since, with several more years anticipated before they are prepared to legislate. They have not even committed to do so all this time later—the Minister could put that right today. In the face of the High Court decision in Harrison, which now looks a little disingenuous, given the position the Government took in that case, it looks as if Baroness Thornton’s question will sadly prove prescient.

In November last year, I spoke for the Labour Front Bench in the main Chamber on the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Bill. There has been a piecemeal approach to marriage reform over the last few years. I mentioned in that speech that there had been good movement and progressive legislation on civil partnerships and same-sex marriage.

One Bill that I was involved in was a private Member’s Bill introduced by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and, indeed, enacted. It permitted opposite-sex couples to have civil partnerships. That was a peculiarity in the law and perhaps something that needed addressing. Again, it was a long struggle. My constituents Charles Keidan and Rebecca Steinfeld fought a four-year battle, going as far as the Supreme Court, for their right to have a civil partnership. The Government do not move easily on these matters, but they move in the end, and I wonder why they have to make it so difficult. With that in mind, my advice would be to learn from their past mistakes and stop dragging their feet by giving legal recognition to humanist marriage, instead of there being further delay.

To answer my question as to why humanists have been made to wait, in 2014 the Government conducted a consultation exercise about extending legal recognition in that way. The result was 95% in favour, but again the Government kicked it into the long grass. At that time, an article in The Sunday Times on the matter quoted a senior Government source as saying:

“Lynton Crosby and the Tories have basically said ‘no way’. They think this is a fringe issue and are saying, ‘why would we do this?’”

If that was an accurate report, Mr Crosby and his colleagues were wrong both to be so dismissive of the fundamental rights and freedoms of humanists and to think it was a fringe matter, given that humanist marriages have proven, even without legal status, to be hugely popular and have grown greatly in popularity in those jurisdictions where they are legally recognised.

As I mentioned, Labour has pledged to give legal recognition to humanist marriage, and that has been its consistent position for many years now. The Government have undermined their own position by introducing outdoor civil and religious marriages, as we have heard. Why are they okay? Why was that change made just a few week ago, but humanist marriage reform is not seen to be a priority? Why have humanists been at the back of the queue for so long, and what reason is there for making them wait any longer?

It is not only Labour that supports humanists and humanist marriages. As I said, colleagues from across the House support legal recognition of them—not just the Members who signed the letter that was published today but those who subscribed to speak in the debate, even if some of them have been unable to attend. The hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), who was for quite a period the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, introduced a Bill to bring about the legal recognition of humanist marriage in 2020. He said:

“The lack of legal recognition of humanist marriages in England and Wales is discrimination, pure and simple.”

[Crispin Blunt]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for reminding me that I had forgotten the request from my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) to make that precise point about how much he supports the Government moving on the issue.

[Andy Slaughter]

I am glad to have jogged the hon. Gentleman’s memory. To continue with the quotation, the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham went on to say:

“This matter has been under review for some seven years now”—

this was two years ago—

“and that’s more than long enough. My Bill would bring about legal recognition of humanist marriages within three months of its passage, thus enabling the many who want a legally recognised humanist marriage to be able to have one now. It would not prevent further changes to the law, after the completion of the present Law Commission review, but would remedy the present discrimination.”

It seems certain that there would have been majority support for such a move, were the Government to have given it sufficient parliamentary time two years ago.

That support can be seen around the rest of the UK. We have heard that humanist marriages were introduced in Scotland in 2005—under a Labour Government, I might add—when the Registrar General identified that he could bring them about by reinterpreting existing legislation that applied to religious marriages. Sadly, the wording of the law in England and Wales renders such an approach here impossible.

Support can also be seen in Northern Ireland, where humanist marriages have been legally recognised since 2018. That was initially brought about by a court case that was necessary as a result of Government inertia during the lengthy collapse of the Executive. However, I understand from Northern Ireland humanists that since the resumption of power sharing they have had nothing but friendly and supportive meetings with Members of the Legislative Assembly and Ministers from all parties.

It is worth noting that the Northern Ireland Executive is currently consulting on introducing legislation to put humanist marriages on a firmer statutory footing, rather than relying on the court decision, as at present. That strikes me as a sensible way to go about things: fix the fundamental discrimination of the lack of legal recognition of humanist marriages as early as possible, get such marriages going, and then look to develop legislation to put them on the firmest possible footing. Such an approach avoids nine years and counting of consultation, and of disappointment for couples such as Kate Harrison and Christopher Sanderson—Kate being the lead claimant in the 2020 court case. They are waiting for a change in the law before getting married, mirroring the example of my constituents in the civil partnership case, who had to wait years simply to get something that most people regard as a basic human right. They have been waiting for far too long.

We have heard about Wales. Unfortunately for the Welsh, marriage law is not a devolved matter. Last year, the Labour Government in Wales wrote to the UK Government demanding immediate legal recognition of humanist marriages or, failing that, for marriage law to be devolved so that the Welsh Government could act where the UK Government have not. It is manifestly past time for the UK Government to act. I hope that they will now do so.

The law is discriminatory. It treats humanists as second -class citizens. It imposes additional financial burdens on them. The excuse that the Government wish to comprehensively address the issue is clearly wrong because they are approaching matters in a piecemeal way. It would be extremely simple to make the change. On that basis, I simply ask the Minister whether he can confirm what the Government will do—not waiting for the Law Commission initially—to bring humanist marriages into legal effect as quickly as possible. I have received numerous letters from constituents this week and last week—like many Members present, I am sure—in anticipation of the debate, all asking those questions and others.

This is not the only issue outstanding; I also mentioned, the last time we debated marriage, the issue of common-law marriage. I am not suggesting that we wait until we sort that problem out, because that is a problem that affects 3 million couples—6 million people. It has quite significant, and in some cases devastating, financial effects on people who believe they have security but find out upon the death of a partner, or after separation, that they simply do not. There are a lot of further steps that the Government need to take, but that is not a reason for holding up the simple, straightforward and uncontroversial step of giving legal status to humanist marriages. I hope we will hear from the Minister today that that is about to be done with great speed and enthusiasm.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Tom Pursglove)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) for securing this debate, and for the way he has gone about representing his strongly held convictions on this issue. He is a tireless campaigner on the matter. I am grateful to colleagues from across the House who have attended the debate this afternoon to make the case for humanist marriage. I know that many right hon. and hon. Members who hold very strong views on this are not here this afternoon but regularly make the arguments for humanist marriage. I have no doubt that they will speak to me about it in the weeks and months ahead.

Marriage will always be one of our most important institutions, and the Government want to encourage the stability and commitment in family life that marriage and civil partnership provides. A wedding day is one of the most important days of a couple’s lives, and I understand that they want it to be personal and to reflect their beliefs and preferences—that will make their day all the more memorable. I have heard, and I recognise, the depth of feeling on the issue.

I personally see huge benefits to marriage: the commitment that marriage brings—that people are making that commitment to one another—and all the positive benefits that there are for children in a committed, loving family environment. That is very important and something that I am incredibly mindful of. I say that as someone who is not married, and has not been married—who knows what will happen in that regard in the future.

[Crispin Blunt]

I thank the Minister for his generous remarks about me and others, and also for what he has just said in a personal capacity. I cannot quite see any reason why he cannot say that as a member of Her Majesty’s Government. Surely, that must reflect our Government policy as well.

[Tom Pursglove]

It is fair to say that the Government certainly support the institution and the principle of marriage. I wanted to reflect my own personal sentiments in that regard, and to pick up on the point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), about there being a perception in some quarters that the issue of humanist marriage is a fringe issue. I want to provide my hon. Friend with reassurance that, as the Minister responsible for marriage, I do not see this issue through that lens—that would not be right. There are many people in this country who feel very passionately about this and who want to see reform. It is fair to say that I am mindful of their views and of the strength of feeling with which they express them. I will set out in further remarks what the Government’s intentions are.

We must consider very carefully the implications of any changes to the law in this area. Currently, couples can marry in England and Wales through a civil ceremony conducted by a superintendent registrar or a registrar, or through a religious ceremony conducted by authorised members of that religion. Humanists have asked for provision that would not be available to all groups. It would allow them to marry in a place meaningful to them, without restriction on the location of the ceremony. Other groups would not have the same choice, as the law on marriage solemnization is generally based largely on the building in which the relevant marriage takes place. We therefore need to consider the implications very carefully.

--- Later in debate ---

[Crispin Blunt]

I thank all hon. Friends and colleagues who have taken part in the debate. I listened to my hon. Friend the Minister with great interest. I am obviously pleased with the positivity he expressed personally around marriage. I made the point in an intervention that I am pretty certain that his is the Government position, as much as it is the position of all the Front Benches in the House.

The statistics the Minister used about what has happened with marriages in England and Wales bear quite interesting analysis if we simply project the Scottish experience on to them. We might need to look at this again, but certainly, about 10,000 couples a year will want to take advantage of the opportunity to have a humanist celebrant conduct the most important service and celebration of the most important legal relationship in their lives. Whereas it might be only 1,400 today, a very large number of people every year are not able to exercise the freedoms that they deserve.

That takes us to the other elements of the Minister’s speech. One could hear the legal drafting that had gone on of the pre-emptive defence of the Government’s position, piecemeal reform having ripped away the defence that was offered against the judgment in the Harrison case in 2020. As my hon. Friend continues his consideration of this area, let us get immediate relief to all the tens of thousands of people who are potentially engaged in this issue before there is conceivably time for primary legislation to be passed to address marriage reform in substance. There are loads of interesting things we can do. We can do the statutory instrument. We know that we can do these things at pace. I cannot see the public policy concerns that we should not get this done for the next two or three years for all those people who want to take advantage of it. We will certainly focus hard on making those arguments for him and his colleagues to consider.

I know how determined my hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice will be to get this done in the way that is intended. If we have to wait for the Law Commission response and the Government response, and then for the Government to present primary legislation to Parliament and for Parliament to pass it, an awful lot of people will not be able to exercise the freedoms that he and I should want for them and would support. This really is urgent. It could be done in isolation, before the Law Commission reports, as the hon. Members for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) and for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) suggested with respect to approved premises.

I hope that the Minister takes ownership of this matter and enables all the people who want to take advantage of humanist weddings to do so. I look forward to continuing to press these arguments, and to his active consideration of the issue. There is widespread interest, as is made clear by the letter to the Lord Chancellor today signed by so many parliamentary colleagues from both Houses, and by the strength of support for the application for this debate. I believe that the tone of the debate has reflected that, too. I look forward to engaging with the Minister and his colleagues further.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered humanist marriages in England and Wales.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security and Borders (Damian Hinds)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2021, which was laid before this House on 19 November, be approved.

This Government are committed to protecting the people of this country, and tackling terrorism in all its forms is clearly a critical and central part of that mission.

As the House will be aware, following the tragic death of our friend, Sir David Amess, last month, and the explosion outside Liverpool Women’s Hospital earlier this month, the independent Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre raised the threat level in the UK from substantial to severe on 15 November. A severe threat level means that an attack is highly likely.

Terrorism poses a persistent and enduring threat to our way of life. Public protection must be our No.1 priority and we continue to work very closely with counter-terrorism, policing and the intelligence and security agencies in pursuit of that vital endeavour. The Government’s position towards Hamas is well-documented.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

While my right hon. Friend is on the subject of the assessment of the terrorist threat, will he say whether there is any assessment at all of any threat to the United Kingdom from Hamas?

[Damian Hinds]

I will come to the reasoning for the proscription order in this case.

As I was saying, we have a no-contact policy now with the entirety of the group, but we proscribe only the military wing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which I will return to at the end of my remarks if I do not run out of time.

First, we need to put the measure in context. The nearest parallel is the proscription of both wings of Hezbollah. In terms of practicality, our engagement with Lebanon is very much less than it is with Palestine and Israel. We are unable to talk to the four Ministries that have Hezbollah Ministers and the French are then seen as the lead western European nation in that space. Our relative position in the very troubled country of Lebanon—we have made difficulties for ourselves because of the extent of the popular support for Hezbollah in Lebanon—is significantly reduced from that.

Of course, Hezbollah is only part of the Government of Lebanon. The difficulty we are giving ourselves here is that the jurisdiction of Gaza is run by Hamas. Nearly 2 million people are administered by the local Administration, who, strangely enough, have their own security forces. If you were responsible for administering Gaza, you might rather need them in one form or another, otherwise you would find organisations such as Islamic Jihad or Islamic State providing security instead. This, therefore, is a complex and difficult question that we have to address. We have already taken a position on what is plainly the stupid, illegitimate and immoral mortaring of people where you cannot tell where the targets are, simply flying weapons over the wall, because you do not have the capacity to engage in that targeting of what would be legitimate targets under international law as resistance. Of course those acts are illegitimate. That is why they have been proscribed.

However, we need to be careful because people do have a right to resist, and we must understand that we are talking about an occupied people. The history is very long, going back to the Balfour declaration in 1917. We delivered half of the Balfour declaration, perhaps one of the great moral projects of the 20th century, where we gave the Jewish people, who had suffered the most appalling, the greatest crime in human history in the holocaust, as well as the pogroms and all the other oppression in European history and elsewhere, a safe place in the state of Israel. Obviously half of that declaration is undelivered—the bit that said it would not be done at the cost of the rights of the people already there. Of course it has been. That is undone. That is why we have the Balfour project, led by our former consul-general in Jerusalem, Sir Vincent Feen, who is working away to draw attention to the fact that the work is half done and the United Kingdom still has to deliver the Balfour declaration. There is a duty on all of us to try to ensure that we assist—perhaps for the 21st century—a great process of reconciliation between the Palestinian and Jewish Israeli people to enable it to be an example of a great moral project where people come together to forge a future together. That is my hope.

My personal position is that the two-state solution is long gone. In the end, this will be resolved only by the peoples coming together, with us enabling and helping that to happen. I fear that the order does precisely the opposite.

[Mr Harper]

I do not want to misunderstand my hon. Friend. I have listened to him carefully. I agree with his last point about Britain wanting to encourage the Palestinian and the Israeli people to come together and live in harmony. When he was talking about the indiscriminate attacks that Hamas sends into Israel, he seemed to say that the only problem with them was that they were not more accurately targeted to kill certain Israelis, that they indiscriminately killed other Israelis, and that, if they targeted the weapons more accurately, that would be sort of okay. Did I hear him correctly? I fear that I may have misunderstood him but can he put me right? If that is so, I find that an offensive and extraordinary thing to say.

[Crispin Blunt]

Let us be careful what we are addressing on that narrow point. Under international law, you have a legal right to resist. Not only is the use of those weapons unlawful because they are untargeted and indiscriminate; it is also fantastically stupid because it gives the Israelis’ argument about the threat they face from the Palestinian people its raison d’être. I deplore violence of any kind from the Palestinians because they are going to get smashed if they try to resist under international law. It is completely the wrong thing to do. That is why I want to work to give Palestinians assistance in finding a route to justice through using the law and the moral and legal authority that the Palestinian position has. Violence is a road to nowhere. That is why it ought to be condemned in terms of practicality as well as under the law where use of it is indiscriminate. But there is a position where resistance is allowed. For me, that “but” is wholly qualified by its stupidity, its inappropriateness and its uselessness in furthering the Palestinian cause. However, let us get back to the balance between the two sides.

The Israelis have been in gross breach of the fourth Geneva convention ever since the occupation of the territories in 1967, and the ensuing settlements are a grievous breach of international law. What has the United Kingdom done about it? What is the United Kingdom going to do about it? This is building the two-state solution out of existence; it is also taking territory that does not belong to Israel in a way that is proscribed by the Geneva conventions that came into force after the second world war.

Let us look at the contemporary position. Six non-governmental organisations have been proscribed by Israel. As I understand it, no evidence has yet been given to the British Government as to why that has happened. Why not? United Nations Relief and Works Agency funding from the United Kingdom is going from £70 million to £20 million, which puts a huge responsibility on civil society to try to make up the difference because of the desperate, desperate situation in Gaza. What will the motion do? It will have a terrible, chilling effect on putting anything into Gaza, because Gaza is administered by the organisation that we are about to proscribe.

[Robert Jenrick]

As I understand it, my hon. Friend’s central argument is that by enacting this measure we will make it more difficult for the United Kingdom to interact with Hamas or other organisations to pursue the peace process, or for NGOs from the United Kingdom to provide humanitarian support within Gaza. Is that argument not undermined by the fact that this measure has already been in place in the whole European Union, in the United States and among a number of other significant players in the middle east conflict for several years?

[Crispin Blunt]

No, because the motion goes further: it leaves “support” undefined, so it will be up to the courts to define what support means. The European Union’s measures are very specific about finance and the movement of money, which can be traced and followed. This measure is much more far-reaching. We do not know exactly how far-reaching it will be or what its effect will be.

In the forthcoming vote of the UN General Assembly on the status of Jerusalem—a resolution sponsored by the Palestinians and the Jordanians—we appear to be about to change the long-standing British position of supporting the status quo in Jerusalem. The United Kingdom is apparently going to abstain; according to reports made to me, it is also actively working to get other countries to abstain and change their position. Why is all that happening? Let us look at the statement that the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs put out on 19 November:

“The announcement anticipated today is the conclusion of an intimate and successful dialogue between Israel and the United Kingdom led by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs”

and

“the security services”.

This will have a chilling effect on effective assistance to Gaza. The double standards of the west’s position will be even more visible around the world. I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who spoke about supporting the moderates: given who had the majority on the Palestinian Legislative Council when it was last elected in 2006, how many of the Palestinians does he want to identify as extremist? If the purpose of our policy should be to undermine and remove the reasons for turning to violence, give Palestinians a route to justice that is legal and moral, and lead towards a negotiated settlement, what will be the effect of applying today’s measure to the organisation that received most support the last time there was an election in Palestine?

Do I support Hamas? That is a little unlikely, speaking as the gay chair of the all-party parliamentary humanist group. But have I taken the trouble to try to understand political Islam? Yes, I have. When I was Chair of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, we completed an inquiry on it; our report is called “‘Political Islam’, and the Muslim Brotherhood Review”. I spent 20 years getting to know and trying to understand these people. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) said:

“I cannot reach into the heart of that individual”.

I say to him: no, but you deserve to make every effort to understand the movement around that individual and whether it relates to why he came to that perspective.

We owe it to ourselves to understand the perspective of political Islamists in order that we can try to draw them in and draw them away from violence. I fear that the motion will do precisely the opposite.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I obviously support the Government on this important matter. I also pay tribute to the Opposition for the sensible approach that they have taken. Some important points have been made. The leader of the Scottish National party—or rather the Scottish National party spokesman, the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith)—[Laughter.] Well, perhaps he will be the next leader; we will see! Anyway, I think that he may have been trying a little too hard to disagree while agreeing, but he made some important points. However, I think the Minister went some considerable way to addressing those points in his opening remarks, and I also point to the decisions of other Governments around the world that broadly mirror what we have done and their continued and much needed humanitarian support and aid for the people of Gaza, and indeed more generally in the region. We all would absolutely—100%—want to see that continue, but of course this measure is incredibly important.

I was somewhat disappointed by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt). He seemed as blind as a flittermoose to the facts on the ground. He talked about occupation, which of course ended in Gaza in 2005; there is a debate to be had about the continuing restrictions but, on the actual occupation, Israel left Gaza in 2005. He talked about how we had created and made good on Balfour, but seemed to forget the other part of the story as to why the other elements of it had not been made good on and the culpability of Israel’s neighbours in preventing the creation of a viable Arab state at the time of the creation of the state of Israel, so there was something lacking there. I was also slightly confused, as was my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), about his comments around weapons not being targeted enough and making them therefore legitimate to use against targets in Israel. I am sure he did not mean that, and I tried to decipher his response to my right hon. Friend but am still a bit confused about what he was saying.

Then of course there was a bit of an attack on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Israel, or so it seemed, which again is what too often happens in this debate: instead of having a conversation about what is a despotic antisemitic terror organisation, we again get back to talking about the activities of the Israeli Government, in this case a press release from the MFA. I think more important are comments by senior Hamas officials who say they want to cross the border and reach into the hearts of Jews and Israelis and rip them out. Those are the comments I am more interested in, rather than some press release from the MFA.

[Crispin Blunt]

First, I of course absolutely condemn violence—that is the only point I make on that. Secondly, it is hardly an attack on the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs to read out a tweet by the Israeli Foreign Minister.

[Andrew Percy]

I was commenting on the application of that in the context of why we have reached this decision in the UK today; that was my criticism. But I will not focus my comments on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel, because we are here to talk about the terror organisation Hamas.

Comments have been made today about the targeting of British nationals and the threat to Brits, and we saw with the murder of Eli Kay this weekend how attacks from Hamas are targeted indiscriminately not just at Israelis but Brits in the country. I myself have spent time in Israel in bomb shelters as rockets have rained over from Gaza; it is not a pleasant experience, but Israelis are at least to a great degree protected from that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

We keep proscription—including not only whether organisations that are not proscribed should be but whether the proscription of those that are remains the correct and proportionate approach—under constant review.

The shadow Home Secretary and others asked implicitly—in fact, the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith), who spoke for the SNP, asked explicitly—why now? It is because we keep the response to terrorism under continual review. It is entirely appropriate that we take all available opportunities to strengthen the UK’s response to domestic and international threats. The extension of the proscription of Hamas is part of that response. As I have said, the group in its entirety is assessed to be concerned with terrorism, with the lines that the Government had previously drawn between its constituent parts now being assessed as artificial.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) spoke movingly and with great passion about the terrible case of 26-year-old Eli Kay. Ultimately, it is a reminder of what we are discussing here—the end result of terror and why it is essential that our Government and Governments around the world be constantly attentive to the threat of terrorism and do what is required to mitigate that threat.

A number of colleagues across the House spoke about the position of NGOs and related matters. Implicitly, the question is, would this stop the work of UK NGOs or others in location? The shadow Home Secretary asked about that, as did the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and others. The Government recently published guidance to support our NGOs to operate overseas in high-risk jurisdictions while complying with the counter-terrorism legislative framework and sanctions regime. A specific section refers to proscription, including how to operate around what are known as sections 11 to 13 offences. That is guidance, and we encourage our NGOs to seek legal advice in relation to specific activities and ensure compliance with terrorism legislation.

The UK will continue to work with international partners and NGOs to support the people of Gaza, including through our long-standing support of the United Nations—

[Crispin Blunt]

I think we would all be grateful for clarity on one specific issue. If those of us who want to continue to engage with people whom we know are members of Hamas and who are in leadership positions—in order to try to draw them into peace negotiations, the unification of the Palestinian position and all the other things that we should be trying to do as parliamentarians engaged in that process—have made it clear that we have no support for Hamas as a movement, will we be at risk of prosecution?

[Damian Hinds]

I think my hon. Friend will appreciate that I am not in a position, standing at the Dispatch Box, to give guarantees about unspecified activities in which he or others may or may not be involved in the future. This is an order specifically to proscribe this organisation in its entirety. The legislation is clear about the activities that that covers, including support for the organisation, and particular ways of using emblems and so on in support of it, or in ways that would reasonably be considered to be in support of it, and I direct him to that guidance.

Let me come back to what I was saying about NGOs. We will continue to work with international partners and NGOs to support the people in Gaza. It is important to stress that a number of donor partners already list Hamas in its entirety and still continue to deliver significant humanitarian development programmes in the region. Specifically on the point raised—not with me, but with her colleague, the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith)—by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) about her charity work on breast cancer, for which I commend her, and more widely on the position of smaller NGOs, I am happy to follow that up with her separately if that is helpful.

Finally, a number of colleagues raised the overall position of the middle east peace process. The UK’s long-standing position on that has not changed. We support a negotiated settlement leading to a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, based on the 1967 borders, with agreed land swaps, Jerusalem as the shared capital of both states, and on a just, fair, agreed and realistic settlement for refugees. Proscription is not targeted at any particular faith, social grouping or ideological motivation. It is based on clear evidence that an organisation is concerned with terrorism as assessed by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre.

We are clear that, based on the available evidence, it is appropriate for the Home Secretary to exercise her discretion to proscribe Hamas in its entirety. It is our duty to support the order to protect the public from the noxious ideologies that Hamas holds. That being the case, I urge hon. and right hon. Members across the House to support the order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2021, which was laid before this House on 19 November, be approved.

Oral Answers to Questions

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Monday 18th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Ian Paisley. He is not here. I call Crispin Blunt.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

4. Whether her Department plans to take steps to reschedule psilocybin to schedule 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001. [R]

[The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)]

We currently have no plans to reschedule psilocybin to schedule 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has recently published stage 1 of its advice on reducing barriers to research on controlled drugs. We will consider the advice, including its implications for psilocybin, carefully before responding.

[Crispin Blunt]

Does my right hon. Friend understand the emerging potential of the psychedelic class of drugs, with psilocybin to the fore, to treat depression, trauma and addiction? Some of this science was emerging in the 1960s, before our current drugs laws closed it down. In 2019, 90,503 of our fellow citizens were driven to suicide by their depression or trauma, or their rock-bottom in addiction has been death. If there is any scale of potential for these drugs, and it appears that there is, any further delay in getting the science and research going is not defensible—in fact, it is a morally disgraceful abrogation of our duty to the public good.

[Kit Malthouse]

As a founder of the all-party group on life sciences, I am well aware of the potential of any number of compounds to assist us in the constant battle against mental and physical illness, and of the need for this country to lead in research that might alleviate the problem, not just here, but in the rest of the world. My hon. Friend will know that we reschedule particular compounds where medicines are approved on the advice of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and of the ACMD. He will know that, for example, in June last year we placed Epidyolex, a cannabis-based medicine used to treat certain forms of epilepsy, in schedule 5 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations, following exactly that sort of advice. There are ongoing trials and research studies into psilocybin taking place in the UK; a medicine has yet to be licensed by the MHRA, but if and when one is, we will consider rescheduling.

Afghanistan Policy

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Monday 13th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

Again, I regret that the right hon. Lady did not hear what I said earlier, which is that for those people in Afghanistan at the moment, it is a very fast-moving situation. At this point in time, I am not able to signpost constituents and parliamentarians in the way that I would normally be able to do, and that is one of the tough messages I have had to deliver today from the Dispatch Box. That does not mean that that will remain the case forever, and that is why the work of the FCDO, the Ministry of Defence and others in trying to secure safe passage out of Afghanistan is so critical.

In terms of bridging hotels, we have yet to complete the transfer of everybody from quarantine to bridging hotels, but the more offers of permanent accommodation we have, the sooner we will be moving people out of bridging accommodation. This is why we have to do things methodically, and this is why we are being very careful about the numbers of people we can welcome in the future.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

I welcome the explicit recognition of the position of LGBT people in her statement, following the Prime Minister’s statement a week ago. The absence of LGBT people being an identified cohort during the course of Op Pitting means that I fear nobody made it out under the conditions of Op Pitting who would and should have succeeded as LGBT people to make their application. Through me and through our noble Friend, Lord Herbert of South Downs, the Prime Minister’s envoy, will she enable a specific point of contact within her Department who can advise us and the NGOs and others who are helping LGBT Afghans to make applications, so that applications can be successfully made and Border Force’s questions properly satisfied? I fully understand the restrictions my hon. Friend placed on the operational advice that she gave earlier to my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), but that help will be much appreciated at the application phase.

[Victoria Atkins]

I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. We recognise the risk. We want to work with specialist organisations to ensure that we help the most vulnerable, which of course include minorities who are LGBT+.