Asylum Applicants: Mental Health and Wellbeing

Debate between Jim Shannon and Gareth Bacon

Tuesday 27th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Gareth Bacon]

I do agree with the hon. Gentleman, and the point of my bringing this case to the House is to highlight the fact that Home Office officials simply are not approaching the issue with anything like sufficient urgency to sort it out. I reiterate the point I made earlier: I make no criticism of Ministers in this regard, because I do not doubt for one second that every Home Office Minister is straining every sinew to make this a reality. My criticism, such as it is, is aimed squarely at the officials, who do not seem to see these people as people; they see them as problems they will get to when they have time.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward an issue that is important to him, and congratulate him on being so assiduous. Does he not agree that our obligations—and, I believe, our moral duty—must mean that, as well as feeding and sheltering asylum seekers, we ensure they are supported to survive in this land, which is foreign to them, and are given help to assimilate, rather than being left voiceless and frightened in a hotel room with their children, wondering for weeks what is going to happen next?

[Gareth Bacon]

I have a lot of sympathy with that point. It is critical that we process asylum claims much more quickly because while those claims are in abeyance, the asylum seekers are living in stasis. It might be that people who come to claim asylum are not asylum seekers, but economic migrants. That does not make them bad people, but it does mean that they are illegal immigrants, and they should be returned. What should not happen, as in the case of my constituent, is that they live in a state of limbo for years. That should not be acceptable in any way, shape or form.

I became aware of Mr A’s case on 14 March 2022, when a constituent made contact to request that I engage with the Home Office. Back then, my constituent had already noted Mr A’s deteriorating mental health. However, despite my office’s regular efforts to obtain updates, it was not until August 2022—five months later—that the Home Office responded, and only to say that Mr A would have to wait a further six months for an update.

I am sure the House can imagine the effect that that message had on Mr A. Indeed, only a few days after receiving that news, he climbed up Tower Bridge with the intention of attempting to kill himself. Fortunately, he was talked down. He was taken to hospital and later returned to the accommodation with which he had been provided in Biggin Hill. Given the elevated risk of harm displayed by Mr A, my office contacted the Home Office to alert it, in the hope that a sense of urgency would be felt by those in charge of processing the case. However, several more months went by without a resolution of any kind.

In January, therefore, I met with Mr A and another of my constituents, who had been helping him. During our meeting, Mr A presented me with evidence for his asylum claim. That included X-ray images of his body. Disturbingly, the images showed a large amount of metal shrapnel lodged in his torso and limbs as a result of being shot at by the Syrian regime. The evidence also included photographs of him after he had been beaten with an iron bar. Faced with this disturbing evidence and having no success at all in persuading Home Office officials to progress Mr A’s case, my office informed officials that if no progress had been made in two weeks—that is, by 3 February—I would seek a meeting with the Home Secretary to personally brief her on the situation, place the entire file in her hands and ask her to intervene. I hoped that that might lift the all-pervading sense of disinterest and inertia.

No such luck: on 31 January, I received an email from Home Office officials that gave no additional information and no indication as to when a decision would be made, and that claimed to have sent a response to Mr A on 16 January. Neither Mr A nor my other constituent who attended the meeting with me on 20 January—four days after the Home Office letter was allegedly sent—had mentioned that letter. On 1 February, my office called the Home Office hotline to request a copy of it. The response we received was that the Home Office was unable to locate the letter, and the officials stated that it had not been uploaded to the system. When they asked my staff member if he would like to request that they find the letter and send it to him, and he said he would indeed like them to do that, he was told that that would be treated as a new query and it would be sent to my office within 20 working days. You could not make this stuff up.

Later that day, I informed my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey), who is a Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Home Office, of my intention to seek a meeting with the Home Secretary. He chased my request diligently, and three weeks later, on the morning of 22 February, he informed me that he had made progress on securing the meeting and asked me for Mr A’s date of birth and case reference number, which I passed to him a short while later. At 6 pm, he informed me that he had secured a meeting with the Home Secretary in her office in the House, scheduled for 6.45 pm that evening.

When I turned up for the meeting, I was brusquely turned away by a Home Office special adviser called Jake Ryan, who refused to allow me in. When my hon. Friend told him that that was unacceptable, the special adviser swore in his face. The high-handed arrogance of this unelected political appointee was staggering. I gather that my hon. Friend escalated the situation to higher authorities because at last there was movement on Mr A’s case. When I finally attended a meeting with the Home Secretary on 1 March, she informed me that officials had determined Mr A’s case. He would be granted 30 months to remain in the country and his application for asylum was refused on account of him being a Chilean national. The House will recall that I had been informed that, while Mr A had a Chilean grandmother, he is not a Chilean national, has no living Chilean relatives and, indeed, has never visited Chile.

Giving Mr A limited leave to remain means that he cannot regularise his life here or bring his family. Furthermore, giving him limited leave to remain, after which he will presumably be returned to Syria or sent to Chile, which apparently has a returns arrangement with Syria, is terrible news for Mr A because it significantly increases the likelihood of him being returned to a country where there is a direct threat to his life. The fact that the special adviser refused to allow me to see the Home Secretary on 1 March is extraordinarily frustrating, because had he not done so, I would have been able to alert her to those facts and it is possible that a different outcome to Mr A’s case would have been achieved.

In the meeting on 1 March, I asked the Home Secretary for the case to be looked at again by officials, and she assured me that it would be. Two weeks later, on 15 March, I received formal notification from the Home Office of the decision it had taken. The relevant sections of the letter read:

“On 3rd November 2020, Mr A submitted a claim for asylum; I apologise for the delay in progressing this case and any distress this may have caused.”

For the avoidance of doubt, that letter was written in March 2023. The delay referred to amounted to two years and four months. The letter continued:

“Mr A had a series of significant safeguarding issues (suicide attempts); We take the mental health and wellbeing of asylum seekers very seriously. We discussed Mr A’s case with officials and there were a number of delays due to the sensitivities and complexities of the case.”

The claim that Home Office officials take these issues seriously is one that I treat with a great deal of scepticism, certainly in the context of this particular case. Again, for the avoidance of doubt, it was the disinterest and protracted institutional inertia of Home Office officials that caused the safeguarding issues that they referred to.

The letter then stated:

“Mr A’s application was fully considered and the asylum and Humanitarian Protection aspect of the claim has been refused as Mr A does not have any individual protection needs in Chile.

However, we will be granting Mr A a period of leave of 30 months on the basis of his private life as, given his vulnerabilities, there would be insurmountable obstacles to him establishing himself in Chile.”

So on the one hand the Home Office accepts that Mr A would be unable to establish himself in Chile, but on the other it is refusing him asylum here, thereby condemning him to suffer another two and a half years of the purgatory.

Epidermolysis Bullosa: Drug Repurposing Trials

Debate between Jim Shannon and Gareth Bacon

Tuesday 9th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

Epidermolysis bullosa is dreadful. It is often referred to as butterfly skin. It is a little known and rare genetic skin blistering condition, which causes skin to blister and tear at the slightest touch. BE—I will be kind to myself and refer to it in the rest of my speech as BE—causes excruciating, lifelong pain, and can have a devastating impact on the physical and mental wellbeing of patients. It can also greatly affect patients’ families because of the constant treatment needed. In many cases, this means several hours of bandaging and unbandaging the most affected parts of the body daily. In its most severe form, EB also affects internal organs and eyes, causes severe problems when it comes to eating and drinking, and requires extensive healthcare—and there is no cure. It is believed that EB affects around 5,000 people in the UK, although there is limited information available from the NHS. Although that is a relatively small number, the severity of the condition is such that it has a deep impact.

I was asked to secure this Adjournment debate by some of my constituents, DEBRA, which is a UK-wide charity supporting people with EB and their care givers, healthcare professionals and researchers who work with EB. The charity exists to improve quality of life for people living with EB, and to fund pioneering research to find effective treatments. The charity works in partnership with the NHS to deliver EB healthcare services. There are four centres of excellence delivering specialist care in the UK, along with additional hospital care and clinics at other locations. The charity has a proud record of funding EB research in the UK and internationally, funding the first clinical trials in gene therapy. Its current focus is on fulfilling its mission to help people with EB live a life free of pain, a point I will return to later in my speech.

Many colleagues may be familiar with DEBRA from some of its network of more than 100 charity shops, which are the main source of the charity’s income. I was able to visit one of the DEBRA shops, located in Locksbottom in my Orpington constituency, a few months ago, and I met not only the volunteers there, but a local constituent called Wendy, who suffers with EB. This particular lady has been suffering from EB since birth, and she told me of her experience and the experience of others who have an even more severe type of the condition.

As a child and even as a young lady, Wendy did not know that she had EB because doctors had not diagnosed the condition, which, particularly in the early years, is difficult to spot. She did, however, suffer constantly from blisters on her feet and her legs. Wendy told me about how, while she was growing up in constant pain, she would try to hide her wounds from friends and classmates, and would avoid wearing skirts to avoid causing unpleasant reactions from others. Yet as terrible as this sounds, Wendy told me her case was not uncommon and not as severe as it was for other patients.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate forward. He raises an issue that affects not only his constituents, but mine and those of others across Northern Ireland, so I commend him. Does he not agree that this dreadful disease, which is named the butterfly disease because it is unusual, has the capacity to limit life and the quality of life, and that the funding for the treatments he refers to, which can provide relief to constituents in all of our constituencies—in his, mine and those of others in this House—is vital? Would he urge the Minister, who is a very compassionate man and understands the issue very well, to give even the smallest bit of funding towards research to try to find a cure for the disease and to help the lives of those who have it?

[Gareth Bacon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words and the way he expressed them, and I agree entirely with those sentiments. Without giving out too many spoilers at this stage, there will be a request for a small amount of funding towards the end of my speech.

What I learned during the visit I referred to was truly moving, and I am particularly grateful to have met Wendy. I also thank DEBRA’s director of research, Dr Sagair Hussain, and the excellent staff at the charity shop in my constituency, for inviting me to visit them and learn more about how they help individuals who live with this painful condition. In the spirit of thanking people, I also thank the Minister for his interest in this subject and for being here this evening to respond to the debate, and the Minister for Social Care for recently answering a written parliamentary question that I tabled about EB.

I stress that we cannot merely wait for a cure for this condition. We need to make a difference for patients who are suffering today and those who will be living with the condition for the foreseeable future. All EB patients are crying out for better therapeutic treatments, which have the potential vastly to improve their lives. DEBRA has set an objective of securing two to three treatments from drugs that are already licensed for other conditions, to radically improve the quality of life experienced by people with EB. In reply to my recent written question, the Minister for Social Care said that medicines that are potential candidates for repurposing in this way should be put forward for consideration for support from the Medicines Repurposing Programme. I am grateful for her guidance, and officials from the MRP have been in touch with DEBRA since to talk about the programme’s work. That is excellent news.

In addition, I was delighted to hear that some innovative treatments for EB are either in trials or are being considered by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Specifically, NHS England is working with NICE on the evaluation of two products for EB: birch bark extract for skin wounds, and a gene therapy with a name that I find particularly difficult to pronounce, although I will give it a shot—beremagene geperpavec. I have almost certainly mispronounced that, but it is still encouraging news. However, my understanding is that those two treatments will be available only to a fraction of the total number of people suffering from EB. That is why the repurposing process for more mainstream therapeutics is so important.

DEBRA has identified six anti-inflammatory drugs that could help with EB. Several of those are already available for people with more common skin conditions such as eczema and psoriasis, but for people with EB they could be nothing short of life-changing. They have the potential to transform thousands of lives by improving wound healing, reducing pain, and lowering the burden on the family members and carers of those with EB.

Public Landmarks Review

Debate between Jim Shannon and Gareth Bacon

Thursday 18th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Bacon]

Great British heroes such as Vice Admiral Horatio Nelson and Sir Winston Churchill, who were until comparatively recently almost universally regarded in a highly favourable light, now have their reputations besmirched.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter to the House. When we record greatness, we celebrate men and women who are inherently imperfect. When I look at Churchill’s statue in Parliament Square, I honour what Churchill represented: duty, fortitude and an unwavering belief that when we British stood together, we could not be defeated. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that these are worthy of celebration and honour today, and that by tearing them down we make no statement other than that we will not acknowledge our past, which makes me fear for our future?

[Gareth Bacon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I agree with him unreservedly. I would also like to acknowledge the honour of being intervened on by him. I gather this is a rite of passage for any Member of Parliament: you are not really a Member of Parliament until you have been intervened upon by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), so I am very grateful to him.

Britain, a small country on the north-western edge of the European continent that led the world in the fields of science, industry, democracy, trade, law, the arts and much more besides, and that stood and fought, often for long periods alone, for freedom against European tyranny in the shape of Napoleon and Nazism and successfully opposed Soviet Communism, is reinterpreted in the woke perspective solely as a slave-owning force of oppression and evil. The slanted views of the woke perspective focus firmly on the past. Its preoccupation is with rewriting that past in order to alter the present. By rewriting Britain’s long and varied history to focus solely on slavery, without any acknowledgement of Britain’s huge role in stamping it out, the woke perspective seeks historical justification for its ideological belief that modern Britain is inherently racist, with an entirely shameful past.

Climate Protests in Cambridge: Police Response

Debate between Jim Shannon and Gareth Bacon

Tuesday 3rd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

I rise to support the sentiments expressed so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne). In doing so, I acknowledge that we face a conundrum. I believe that all Members in this House support the right to peaceful protest, and I do not think that anything said here today should diminish that right, but a balance needs to be struck, because certain pressure groups have extended that right to the point where they are abusing it. There is a danger that some of them are becoming a law unto themselves.

Speaking as a Member who represents a constituency within the boundaries of Greater London, I can say that London has had more than its fair share of this. Last year, in the first Extinction Rebellion protest, we saw a wholesale attempt to shut down the city of London, including major transport hubs. That had several impacts, which were all deliberately intended. The first was impact on the police themselves. I have spoken to my local borough commander, and he tells me that they had to extract an entire shift, one of the three they have, in order to send it to central London to provide cover and bolster the support provided simply to contain the level of protest. That has a knock-on effect back in the boroughs: they are unable to respond as speedily as they would otherwise; the watches they have on duty are massively overstretched; and local residents get a much worse service. The implication of that is a danger of crime spikes and people’s safety goes down significantly.

There is also an impact on the emergency services. In the areas where the protests were taking place ambulances were unable to get through, despite being on blue-light calls—that is scandalous. There was a huge economic impact in London. The cost of the protest just in terms of policing was in excess of £40 million. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire has said, there are dangers of this escalating. Just yesterday, people from Greenpeace took it upon themselves to superglue shut the doors of 85 Barclays bank branches and hammer nails into those doors to prevent them from being opened. That was on the first day of the month, so it had a big impact, not only on private customers but on business. Greenpeace is not known for that kind of direct action, so it is clearly an escalation based on what it saw Extinction Rebellion getting away with at the end of last year.

On a more sinister level is the escalation in reaction against these protests. When the police are standing by and being seen not to enforce the law, there is a great danger that local citizens will take it upon themselves to do so. We saw a clear example—it can still be seen on social media now—of what happened when Extinction Rebellion decided to stop people commuting in Canning Town. A protestor marching along the roof of a train was dragged off quite violently and received a kicking on the platform, apparently to the cheering applause of the people standing around. That is sinister. If that starts to happen and to get public approval, the danger is that this will become very significant. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) expressed the danger of what happens when hotheads take control; I have set out an example of what can happen, and it can only get worse.

[Jim Shannon]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman has been careful in what he is saying, because it is about balance and respecting other people. Those who protest have to respect those they inconvenience.

[Mr Bacon]

I entirely agree; that sentiment should be shared completely. I come back to my opening remark about the right to peaceful protest: that needs to be respected on all sides, including by the protesters themselves. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire elucidated very eloquently, they have to respect the rights of other people. When they seek to trample on those rights, they increase the danger of escalation.

There is a problem for the police that is partly down to the state of the law. They are able to prohibit public processions such as marches—we have seen the cancellation by the police of proposed far-right marches because they felt that public safety could not be guaranteed—but that aspect of the Public Order Act 1986 does not extend to people who stay put somewhere, which is to say to the right to assembly. Such people do not have to give six days’ notice and do not have to declare where they are going to be. That is a weakness. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner—the most senior police officer in the country—has asked for the 1986 Act to be amended to take that into account, and that suggestion has been supported by Nick Ferrari on his LBC show, with his Enough Is Enough campaign. There is some merit in that position and I call on the Government to pay attention to it.

Another thing is required: over many years now, the police have tried to do a very difficult job without feeling that they have the political top cover to do it. There are myriad things—I could go off into all sorts of different examples of the failings of the Independent Office for Police Conduct and the risks that police officers have to run on a daily basis, but that would take us well off topic, so I shall not. In conjunction with the Government’s looking at the 1986 Act, there needs to be a quid pro quo: the police need to be provided with political top cover, but in exchange we need the police to stand up and do their job, which is to enforce the law without fear or favour.