Tag: 2022

Jim Shannon – 2022 Speech on Asylum Seeker Employment and the Cost of Living

The speech made by Jim Shannon, the DUP MP for Strangford, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 14 December 2022.

It is an absolute pleasure to speak in this debate on a subject that is very close to my heart. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who captured the exact reasons why we are here. It is because we believe there is a good case to be made, and I am going to make my case for my constituency, as he did for his.

All of the hon. Gentleman’s speech captured my attention, but the one particular point that I took out of it was the fact that many asylum seekers may have a connection with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They are well aware of what the country that they may see as their mother nation has to offer them. The hon. Gentleman captured the emotion of the occasion very well, as well as the importance of the case we are trying to put forward. It is because of issues relating to human rights and freedom of religious belief that many asylum seekers have fled from where they came from, whether that is Afghanistan, Syria or Ukraine, as is topical at this moment in time and very fresh and real in our memories.

I want to put forward the case for Strangford. I am going to name some of the firms in my constituency that have offered jobs. Their offers are on the record and I have made those companies’ names available to Ministers. I do not understand why people who are here have not been offered those jobs when they are available, but I will speak more on that in a minute.

The rise in the cost of living is having a severe impact on many across the United Kingdom. People in full-time employment with possible savings are still struggling to make ends meet. I say this respectfully to Government: I believe that there must be some element of compassion for those who are awaiting asylum decisions and living on incredibly low amounts of money. I have always had the belief that we must help those who do not have the capacity to help themselves. We are fortunate and privileged to be Members of Parliament. Our job is to speak up for those who do not have anyone to speak for them. We may never meet them, but that does not mean we will speak up for them any less. Each and every Member who has spoken so far in this debate has reiterated that point. I know that the shadow Ministers who will follow will also confirm the stance that we all share on this matter.

There are currently 97,717 people in the UK seeking asylum, often waiting well over six months for a decision—a sixfold increase from five years ago. Numerous concerns have been raised about the amount of money allocated to those awaiting asylum decisions just to survive. I challenge anybody in this place to survive on that amount of money.

The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) referred to Lift the Ban, which is a really good project. It focuses attention on this issue, and I have some questions for the Minister. The Lift the Ban campaign has given Northern Ireland businesses and others across the United Kingdom a real insight into the benefits that would come with allowing asylum seekers to work. One asylum seeker living in a hotel in Belfast stated, “Now, the asylum seeker receives just £8 a week—that is not enough.” He said, “An asylum seeker living in shared accommodation receives £37 a week—that is also not enough and, even worse, not fair.” I do not believe that it is fair, either. I am no more compassionate than anybody else in this Chamber, but I understand fairly well what everyone is trying to say. Relying on that amount of money per week to cover essentials such as food, clothing and travel has never been easy for people seeking asylum, especially given the financial turmoil that we have all faced in the last couple of months and will face in the months to come.

I greatly respect the Minister and we have been friends for some time, but has she seen the Lift the Ban campaign? If not, I respectfully ask her to take note of it and to look at the options and solutions that it has put forward to try to address this issue. Will the Minister adopt and promote the proposals espoused by the campaign?

With consumer prices rising by 11% since last year, there have been increasing calls from the Lift the Ban campaign and others to encourage the Government to allow asylum seekers out of inactivity and let them partake in some employment. It is probably no secret that I am a bit of a workaholic; I like to be busy. I suspect that other MPs like to be busy, too. Can you imagine sitting in a hotel or shared accommodation for seven days a week and only being able to go out for a wee stroll? Your mind does not function—I say that very respectfully—your body does not function, and you become depressed. Indeed, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale referred to asylum seekers being prescribed medication for depression.

We should allow those who are skilled and, more importantly, willing to work to get into employment and find some part-time or full-time work that requires little official training. I do not say that in a demeaning way; I say it because it would mean that asylum seekers could step into a job tomorrow, which would allow them to earn a little extra cash and make their daily lives easier. I have companies in my constituency of Strangford that are looking for workers, and I have conveyed that to Ministers on numerous occasions. Syrians, Afghans and Ukrainians in the asylum system have skills and there are job vacancies, so why not help them by giving them the opportunity to find employment? It would also give them some dignity and lift their confidence. Families would know that their breadwinner was out there earning for them, and it would keep families together—I am very conscious of that.

Carol Monaghan

As usual, the hon. Gentleman is giving a well-considered speech. Does he agree that it is the most natural thing in the world for human beings to have purpose and meaning in their day? Going out and earning a living gives them that purpose. Without that, asylum seekers are vulnerable to exploitation from those who would take advantage of the very vulnerable in our society.

Jim Shannon

The hon. Lady is absolutely right and I could not put it any better, because that is exactly how I feel. We should give them dignity and a purpose in life—I genuinely do not think that is too much to ask. That is why this debate is so important.

I will give another indication of the jobs that are available. The owner of a bar in Belfast revealed that they were crying out for staff. As we come up to Christmas, there are literally hundreds of jobs that could be taken advantage of in the hospitality industry in particular. Again, I just do not understand why those jobs are not being offered to people. If they cannot fill the jobs from the society we live in—whatever the reasons may be—there are plenty of people in hotels not too far away who would love that opportunity. There are people from Afghanistan sitting in a hotel in Bangor, which is a city in North Down. They have been there for over 15 months. My goodness. I am going to challenge everybody in this room: would anyone like to be sitting like that in a hotel? Bangor is nice, by the way, but that is not the point. It is not in my constituency, but I say that with honesty. Could anyone’s mind take that? Could anyone physically take that? I do not think so.

Carol Monaghan

On the hotel issue, this is portrayed as some sort of luxury. Can anyone imagine being in a hotel room? I stay in hotels here in London. It is bad enough doing two or three nights a week, but imagine that being your only place, with no cooking facilities, no place for the children to sleep, no separation of family members and no privacy. It would be hell.

Jim Shannon

I agree with the hon. Lady. I am not sure it would be hell. As a Christian, I think hell is a place you never want to be and worse than anything in this world.

Carol Monaghan

It would not be pleasant.

Jim Shannon

I understand the hon. Lady’s point. I did not say that to be judgmental, by the way. I just wanted to make that point.

Although I appreciate and respect the Government decisions on not permitting asylum seekers to work, I believe that schemes could be put in place by our Government—my Government—to allow them to get back to society. They want to get back to society. They want to do something. They want to be purposeful with their lives here in our country. For example, they could take part in community service and assistance by means of cleaning streets or doing local gardening—for those who just want to be physically active. It does not mean the job is demeaning. It is important. It helps us out.

I want to mention two companies. Willowbrook Foods has a number of jobs and I met the chief executive officer, John McCann. He told me to tell Government that he has jobs available. He has been trying to fill those jobs within our own constituency but has not been able to do so, so there are jobs and opportunities. The CEO of Mash Direct is Martin Hamilton. I heard the same thing from him. I think Willowbrook Foods employs about 260 to 270 people, and Mash Direct employs about 230 to 240. They have jobs available and they have specifically said that they want to help the Afghans, the Ukrainians and the Syrians get the jobs and make their lives better. I believe this allows for an improvement of local standards and improvement in the mental and physical health of asylum seekers. It would give them a way to give back to our community and a chance to make some money in order to get the essential items that they need and want.

Amid the cost of living crisis, the Government are taking steps to assist all aspects of our society. I ask that that includes those awaiting asylum decisions. To be asked to live on as little as £8 a week is shocking. Yes, accommodation and essential bills, such as for heating and electricity, are covered, but many of these families have young children. What about their schooling? What about the help for young children? They are just wee children, who look to their mum and dad for support, succour and help. But, at the end of the day, they also need to have active minds and bodies. Is that too much to ask? Some even have babies who require nappies, formula and baby food, which come at extortionate prices. In the last month I have become a grandfather again—it is the sixth time around. Rachael and Luke tell me that the price of baby stuff—they already have a child so they can compare it—is getting extortionate.

I strongly encourage and urge Government to consider the introduction of schemes, such as Lift the Ban and others, to ensure that asylum seekers have the possibility of earning some money for themselves while serving and working in our local communities, as well as dignity, understanding and opportunity. It is due time that Government understood that asylum seekers have abilities and skills and there are jobs available right now that they can do. To my mind, to give asylum seekers jobs is a win-win.

December 16, 2022
Tim Farron – 2022 Speech on Asylum Seeker Employment and the Cost of Living

The speech made by Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat MP for Westmorland and Lonsdale, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 14 December 2022.

It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I offer huge congratulations to the hon. Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) on securing this important debate and on making a brave and moving speech. I thank him for what he said.

The right to work is a frustrating issue. I find myself unable to get into the Government’s head on many parts of the discourse in this place about migration and how we treat refugees and asylum seekers, but the right to work is one area where the Government may be able to be pragmatic. I will make the case for that more fully if I have time at the end of my contribution, but to put it very bluntly and crudely, there are great left-wing and right-wing arguments for giving asylum seekers the right to work.

There are good bleeding-heart liberal reasons why we should care for people who are asylum seekers, as giving them dignity and the ability to integrate is a kind thing to do, but if the Conservatives, and the newspapers to which they tend to bow down, are really bothered about the cost of the asylum system, the answer is to allow people to pay their own way. There it is—I have solved the problem in one fell swoop: allow them to work, pay taxes and contribute to our society. That would be such an easy thing to do and I have a slight sense of hope from the Minister for Immigration, who was in Westminster Hall the other week responding to a debate on a related issue, that there may now be a little strain of pragmatism in the Home Office. I will continue to push for that, and I hope and pray that it might come to the fore.

Margaret Ferrier

Allowing refugees to work lets them integrate into their new communities faster. It could help tackle modern slavery. According to the campaign, Lift the Ban, it could hugely benefit the economy to the tune of £97.8 million per year in net gains for the Government. Does the hon. Member agree that allowing asylum seekers to work is beneficial for both them and the UK?

Tim Farron

It really is, and I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point. She is absolutely right, and I completely agree with her. It is worth bearing in mind the fact that some of the Government’s tough posturing on asylum seekers contributes towards modern slavery. For instance, the nonsense about deporting people to Rwanda—what will that do? Will that stop people coming to the UK? Nope—it will stop people claiming asylum when they get to the UK, and then they will end up in the black economy, involved in modern slavery, forced labour and exploitation.

The objections to giving asylum seekers the right to work, or allowing the UK to make use of their talents—let us put it that way—are bogus. Fundamentally, they focus on the nonsense of the pull factor. Let us deal with that, first and foremost. The idea that the UK is being swamped by asylum seekers is nonsense. The massive majority—up to 90% of refugees—remain in a country neighbouring the place they have fled. Of those who find their way to Europe, four times more asylum seekers are in Germany than are in the UK, and there are three times more in France than the UK. If we were briefly to put the UK back in the EU for league-table purposes, we are 17th out of 28 when it comes to the refugees we take per capita. We are neither overwhelmed nor swamped.

The extent to which we are is because of a broken asylum system, where we fail to triage people’s claims, and leave them rotting for months, even years, without an answer. That is absolutely outrageous. Yes, the cost of having people in hotels is huge, and it is entirely down to Government incompetence, not down to us being swamped by people seeking to invade and exploit us—and all that nonsense.

I have been to Calais, I have been to Paris to talk to displaced people from Calais, and out to some of the Greek islands where refugees first arrive in Europe. I talked to those who are seeking to come to the United Kingdom. First, they are a small minority. Secondly, when I dug down and asked why they wanted to come to the United Kingdom, their answer was family ties, and cultural reasons—particularly if people come from a country that was once part of the British Empire, and for whom this is the mother country. If that is the case, this is a place that people will seek to come to—but they are a relatively small minority.

With regards to all the hostile environment argument the Government comes up with to try to punish and dissuade people from coming here, there is no law that is dastardly enough even to remotely compete with the biggest “protection” this country has from asylum seekers—the small matter of being a flippin’ island. It is hard to get here—really hard. There is nothing that we could do that would be able to match that bar to coming here, which is probably why we are 17th on the European league table, and have nowhere near the numbers of France and Germany.

It is worth saying that there is one pull factor. There is a pull factor about Britain—it is our centuries-old reputation. That is something that makes me proud. When one listens to people who are heading here, they are not saying, “I want to cream off the taxpayer.” They are not saying, “I want benefits,” or “I can get free NHS treatment.” They are not even aware of those things. They are aware of Britain’s reputation as a place of sanctuary. These are people who have been persecuted because of who they are, what their beliefs might be or what ethnicity they might be. They see Britain as a place where they can have a family in peace and quiet, and earn a living.

Carol Monaghan

It is also because Britain may well have had a colonial footprint in the country that they are coming from, so they have a feeling of affinity with Britain.

Tim Farron

That is absolutely right. They probably speak English, or have been taught it, so there is a sense of Britain being the mother country. The reputation of Britain as a place of religious and political liberty—a place of freedom—where people can live a quiet life is the pull factor. No amount of ridiculous legislation from this Government or any other will scrub out several centuries of having that reputation—a reputation we should be proud of.

I spent a little time in the constituency of my neighbour and friend the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell), who is a Conservative MP—I will not say “but a decent human being”—and a decent human being. I went to one of the places where asylum seekers are being kept, and the people supporting them spoke highly of the hon. Member and his work supporting asylum seekers in their casework applications to have their cases heard. I came across people who had obviously gone through enormous trauma in the places they had fled, particularly those who fled through Libya, which is a place of terrible persecution and awful deprivation for those who have to pass through it to get to the Mediterranean. Many of them have post-traumatic stress disorder, and the mental health impact on them of having to wait for months on end is utterly intolerable. Many were not there because they were on antidepressants and simply could not get out of bed. My experience of meeting those people and seeing the talent they had made me think, “What a waste it is that that talent is not allowed to be deployed.”

Let us consider: why should the Government give asylum seekers the right to work? Why should the Government give the UK the right to benefit from asylum seekers’ talent? It is simply because they will pay their way. If we are worried about the cost of asylum seekers to the taxpayer, we can stop worrying about it by giving them the opportunity to work, so they will be less of a burden and, by paying tax, will actually be contributors. We should think what it would mean for their mental health and dignity, which is important, and for their ability to develop their English and fit in more. As others have said, over three quarters of asylum seekers will be granted refugee status or granted asylum in this country.

Christian Wakeford

I rise to intervene because while we have been speaking, there has been an incident in the channel. Forty-seven people have been in the water and unfortunately several have died. That shows the dangerous lengths people go to to come here. It is not just for economic benefit and migration; people are taking a serious risk for cultural and familial reasons, and all the reasons we are talking about in this debate. We are a proud, tolerant country that should be accepting and trying to abide by that. Unfortunately, I feel that in the rhetoric we are hearing if someone said, “Build a wall”, I would not be surprised, so we need to overcome that and show compassion now more than ever.

Tim Farron

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention. I know I have gone on for longer than I should, and I will wrap up in a minute. What he said was obviously heartbreaking, and it is a reminder that the reason why all the channel crossings happen is the lack of safe routes. If we allow people to apply when they are on dry land, they will not make ridiculous journeys like that. It is a minority of people who are fleeing who come to this country and, because we are protected by that body of water, people have to do dangerous things to get here. That is not a decision people take lightly. They take it because they are desperate and they see the United Kingdom as a place of safety for them. Giving asylum seekers the right to work will absolutely lessen the financial burden on the taxpayer. It will give the Government a defence for the many people encouraging them to be even more beastly because they are allowing them to share the cost of the system. It will help with integration, mental health and, as the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) rightly pointed out, workforce issues. One of the major reasons why our economy is in recession is that there are parts of the economy where there is more demand than we can meet—that is an outrage.

Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)

It is really disheartening to hear about those deaths from the hon. Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford). While the moral and economic justifications are obvious, allowing asylum seekers to work would, conversely, deprive the Government of propaganda that says, “Asylum seekers are a drain on the country and a detriment to our society”. We all know how much the right-wing mainstream media love to fall back on finger-pointing and othering the poor, the vulnerable and especially refugees. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) will agree that allowing asylum seekers to work would give them the opportunity to provide a better standard of living for themselves and their families and improve their participation, engagement and contribution in UK society.

Tim Farron

I completely agree with everything the hon. Lady has said.

In conclusion, I want quickly to make a point about workforce in my community. There is a stat I often reel out—I did it yesterday in the main Chamber—that comes from a survey of Cumbria Tourism members. The lakes is the second biggest visitor destination in the country outside London. We have 20 million visitors a year and a relatively low population, so workforce is an issue. Some 63% of tourism businesses in the lakes report operating below capacity because they cannot find the staff. I am not saying that giving asylum seekers the right to work is the only answer, but it would contribute and help us economically. There are good self-interested reasons for the country to do this, but it is also the right thing to do morally.

This is about leadership. The rhetoric and discourse from the Government on asylum in particular—how we treat those who come to us for sanctuary—are a failure of moral leadership and show a lack of courage. They say there are two forms of leadership: one is where the leader sees the direction the crowd is travelling in and goes down to the front and says, “I agree”, which is not leadership, by the way; the other is where the leader has the courage to make the case. Leaders should lead and make the case. There is a strong, hard-nosed conservative argument for doing this, as well as a bleeding-heart liberal reason. Would the Minister agree to look into the mechanisms that would need to be employed to give asylum seekers the right to work or, to flip it the other way round, to allow the United Kingdom to make use of the talents of those who come to us for sanctuary?

December 16, 2022
Carol Monaghan – 2022 Speech on Asylum Seeker Employment and the Cost of Living

The speech made by Carol Monaghan, the SNP MP for Glasgow North West, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 14 December 2022.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) on securing the debate. Its timing is particularly good, given that we are about to go into the Christmas recess. Many of us will enjoy time with our families, and at the same time we are asking people not just to exist on £5.84 per day but live in cold and often damp housing. It is not a time of cheer for those people.

Earlier this year, I presented my Asylum Seekers (Permission to Work) Bill for First Reading. I discussed many of the issues that hon. Members have raised this morning. Ultimately, if we strip all this back and look at what the actual issue is, it is the Home Office; that is the bottom line. It is not making decisions and people are kept in limbo. Yes, we might hear about people kept in limbo for months, but for many of them—including a lot of my constituents—it is year after year of living hell. They cannot move on with their lives and they cannot do anything; they are literally just stuck there.

Christian Wakeford

If the hon. Member’s inbox is anything like mine, she will have people who are waiting two or perhaps even three years. They come to my office literally every single day just to see if we have had any news whatsoever. Unfortunately, all that we can say is, “No, but we will chase it again.” It is not being able to actually get on with life; they do not have a life, because they are not able to. They are stuck in limbo, as she said. She is absolutely right; this is fundamentally a failure of the Home Office, and it needs to be corrected now.

Carol Monaghan

Absolutely. One of my constituents has been waiting seven years for a decision. Are they an asylum seeker? Well, they are an asylum seeker—but are they a refugee or not? Surely we can come to a decision on that faster than seven years. We have a duty. If these people are not genuinely refugees, let us allow them to move on with their lives, because they cannot do that.

This is also economically stupid. We hear about the cost of housing these poor individuals. What we should be looking at instead is this: if they are working, what tax revenues can we gain? In fact, if only half of those currently awaiting a decision from the Home Office were able to work, it would generate nearly £200 million a year in tax revenues. We do not hear that; that is never put on the front of the Daily Mail. While there has recently been an increase in the shortage occupations where people can seek employment, there are still glaring gaps. Members have already talked about hospitality; I also have businesses in my constituency that are having to close because they cannot get staff. Meanwhile, literally upstairs from the café that is having to close, we have housed asylum seekers who are desperate to work. It makes no sense; when that café works, it closes. People—native Glaswegians, in my case—are also losing out, and money for the local economy is being lost. Simply by not allowing the neighbours upstairs to work, we are causing businesses to fail. It is economically stupid, but it is what we have come to expect.

Teachers are allowed to work if they teach maths, physics, computing or Gaelic, which is useful in Scotland, but there are huge shortages of teaching staff across the UK and we should be able to allow those people to come in and help. We have also seen shortages of HGV drivers, yet those people are not allowed to do such work.

In the rhetoric that we hear it is interesting that these individuals are coming here to steal all our jobs, at the same time as claiming all our benefits. That is the paradox that neither the Daily Mail nor this Tory Government seem to be able to solve. In fact, the reality is that these people do neither of those things. The majority of people are simply looking for somewhere safe to get on with their lives, where they can contribute.

Contributing is important: if we allow them to work, they contribute to the community and become part of our society. We all benefit as a result. I pay tribute to my constituent, Jean, who worked very hard with the asylum-seeker community about 20 years ago in Glasgow, when the Home Office was trying to deport people. She mobilised the local community to stop that happening. The story was told as “Glasgow Girls”, and one of those Glasgow girls, Roza Salih, is now an SNP councillor in Glasgow. Jean was the power behind the movement to stop the deportations happening. Kingsway Community Connections and people such as Jean are working hard to help people integrate and learn the language, and to show that they are welcome, which they are, but all the time we are battling against the poisonous rhetoric that causes so much difficulty.

We also hear about safe and legal routes. I would love the Minister to tell me what the safe and legal route is for my constituent’s sister, who is women’s rights worker in Afghanistan. Her brother was shot in front of her a couple of months back, by people who told her they are coming back for her. What safe and legal route is available to her? She is literally under threat of execution at the moment.

Working while waiting for a decision on an asylum claim allows for better integration, is economically sensible and allows us to learn from other cultures. It provides economic benefits to our communities and allows them to thrive. Finally, I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury South once again on securing the debate and allowing us to put on record some of the issues.

December 16, 2022
Rachael Maskell – 2022 Speech on Asylum Seeker Employment and the Cost of Living

The speech made by Rachael Maskell, the Labour MP for York Central, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 14 December 2022.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) on securing this debate, and on making such a powerful speech. It took a lot of honesty and courage, and I believe it truly honours his constituents.

When we see people through the lens of how they were created, we do not see the labels that people have adhered to them. We find our brothers and sisters, our colleagues and friends. For that reason, it is so important to seek the very best for people who are at their very worst. I have serious concern about people who are not in education, employment or training. We know the impact that has on our constituents, no matter where they come from or their circumstances. We know about the impact on their mental health, their self-esteem and their dignity. We know about the impact on wider society, the local economy and the Treasury. The desire to work is instinctive in all of us. We want to contribute and make a difference to our society, and people who have come far want to make their contribution, too.

Margaret Ferrier

Not allowing asylum seekers to work means that the public perceive them as living off the state. Much of the public do not know about the work restrictions and the lack of access to welfare. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government’s approach to refugees contributes to misconceptions, and may lead to racism?

Rachael Maskell

I thank the hon. Lady for that point. There is a risk that that approach can be used to fuel a debate. That is why it is important to ensure that people who come to live in our communities are integrated into them, become part of our streets, families and society, and play a strong role by contributing and receiving, as we all do. That makes stronger societies. She makes a pertinent point.

People’s desire to work should be honoured, but as we know, across society, some of those people will be picked off by traffickers. Many people are trafficked to our country, and their securing good employment is one way to mitigate that. We know about the rise of modern slavery and exploitation. A black market is operating, and it would be far better for people to have the opportunity to contribute through legal employment than to be taken to darker places. When people are in employment, additional safety and accountability is placed around them. We hearing too many stories of people disappearing. That is not safe for them, or for wider society.

Let me look at another aspect of the argument. I hear constantly from employers in my constituency and across North Yorkshire that there is a serious labour shortage. I am thinking about the NHS and social care, where services are unsafe because they cannot be properly staffed. We have an NHS crisis; it needs to secure more and more people in work. I am thinking about our wider public services and the contribution that so many people could make to the UK, just as they contributed in the countries from which they fled. I am thinking about the opportunities in agriculture; we need to increase our food security. I am also thinking about logistics, in which, again, there are serious labour shortages.

So many of the people coming to our country could be part of the future economy. We have a climate crisis and are talking, at this very cold time, about the need to retrofit homes, yet we do not have the skills or the workforce to do that. We could train a new generation of workers to be part of the army that will be needed to address those issues. Construction and engineering are other examples. There are so many such areas.

In my constituency, many hospitality settings have to close for part of the week because they simply do not have enough labour. That lack of labour is having a significant impact on the economy. The Government have been challenged by productivity, yet people who desperately want to work are being denied that opportunity. They could bring a greater return to the Treasury and help the economy across the board to settle, so that inflation could be controlled and the cost of living crisis, into which we have all been plunged, addressed.

Asylum seekers have to wait 12 months before they get the opportunity to work. That demonstrates the crisis that has emerged, owing to the Home Office not having enough labour in place to process claims more quickly, and it costs people significantly. People’s talents are being wasted. I would fully support an employment programme that ensured that people had the opportunity to work. Last week, I met the Minister for Immigration to discuss that very issue, and to talk about the opportunities now that York has many asylum seekers coming to stay in our city. I offered our city, which is England’s only human rights city, as a city of sanctuary. There is an opportunity for people to come, and I suggested that in an orientation, they should receive the input and support that they need to address their trauma, and should receive any necessary language support.

We should also start to triage people, and to look at who would most benefit where—for example, for younger people, we should look at schools and colleges—and at where the skillsets are. For many people, it might be worth looking at the occupational shortage list; they could then move into skilled employment. Others should have the opportunity to undertake training, and work could then be identified for them. Alongside that, we should ensure that people have the accommodation that they need. If people are in employment, they can contribute to the cost of their accommodation and that of their family.

I also discussed a scheme that I would like the Government to adopt for people coming to the UK for asylum: homes for asylum seekers and refugees. That would give people the opportunity to integrate, and to live with families here. We have seen the success of the scheme for people coming from Ukraine, who have been able to integrate into communities. When 77% of asylum seekers have their applications granted, it obviously makes sense to get people ready for employment and for the opportunity to play a full part in our society as part of our communities. To deny those people that opportunity for 12 months is to deny them a year of their life, which is completely inappropriate. We know that work is therapeutic and healing, and it is one way of providing dignity for people. I have heard many stories of constituents who have come to me and begged for the opportunity to work, to provide and to be humanised through labour.

It is absolutely right that we now see the Government move; it is economically literate for them to do so, but it will also dignify people across society. It will build a stronger economy for the future, build better integration, take away the barriers that divide people and ultimately build a stronger society for all.

December 16, 2022
Christian Wakeford – 2022 Speech on Asylum Seeker Employment and the Cost of Living

The speech made by Christian Wakeford, the Labour MP for Bury South, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 14 December 2022.

I beg to move,

That this House has considered asylum seeker employment and the cost of living.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. My constituent Mary had to flee her home country of Kenya because of fear of persecution and sought asylum in the UK in 2017. I met Mary in August of this year and learned about her story and the barriers that she has faced since coming to the UK, one of which is the barrier to being able to work. Back in August, she told me:

“I was made to understand that I did not have the right to work as a person seeking asylum. This was…devastating for me as I knew I had some transferrable skills that I could use here to build my life and contribute to society.

Not being able to work really affected my mental health. It felt…demeaning for me especially being a parent and not being able to fully provide for my child. Most days, I was confined in the house, dealing with devastation and a lot of stress. There were days my daughter had to miss school when it was non-uniform…days”.

Mahmoud came to the UK in 2020, fearing for his life. He was forced to leave behind his wife and young son. Mahmoud was a civil servant and campaigner in Sierra Leone. He loved his job, but more importantly, he loved the fact that he was advocating for others. His life was sent into a spiral when the authorities began persecuting him. He said:

“Going hungry brings me some comfort. The money that could pay for my food has paid for the food my family is eating. My little son”—

Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. While inflation has pushed the cost of energy and food to a 40-year high, the asylum support allowance has risen by just 13p from last year. Does he share my concern that the Home Office has not adequately considered the harm done when refugees cannot afford the very basics, such as three meals a day?

Christian Wakeford

I thank the hon. Lady for the intervention. I was just coming on to that point, but I completely and wholeheartedly agree.

As Mahmoud said, going hungry brings him some comfort. The money that could pay for his food has meant that his little son will not go to bed hungry. That is the only comfort that it brings him. He used to spend £10 on his weekly grocery shop, but now, increasing costs are making that impossible. These are not one-off instances; this is the life of an asylum seeker in a cost of living crisis.

Close to 18 months ago, I was in a debate on the Nationality and Borders Bill. In that debate, I said that asylum seekers travel through many safe countries, and that they essentially have a shopping trolley as to what they want as economic migrants. I want to go on record here and say that it is important to admit when you are wrong. My meetings with Mary and others have shown me that I was wrong, and I am sorry for that. Every week, the Government use scapegoats, and as we continued to see even yesterday in the Prime Minister’s statement, asylum seekers have been one for this Government for far too long. I am sorry for playing my part in that narrative as well.

These people are not arbitrary numbers for newspaper editors to froth at the mouth about, or to stoke the fire of intolerance. They are human beings, and we all need to remember that. They have had their hopes and dreams for themselves and their children dashed, but they still have hope. They want a good education; they want to live life without fear of persecution; and more importantly, they need our help and assistance. The persecution may be for a religious or political belief, due to war or because of the sexuality of the person they love, but when I have met asylum seekers, one thing has always been constant: the need for dignity after all they have been through. I am sure that we can all agree that having a purpose through work brings dignity.

People seeking asylum in the UK are in effect prohibited from working, and are forced to rely on just £5.84 a day while they wait for a decision to be reached on their asylum claim. During the cost of living crisis, that small sum makes it impossible to cover what is needed. As the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) said, an increase of just 13p in a year seems miserly in the crisis that we face as a nation.

You have fled persecution, and you fear for your life. You have taken on a potentially near-death experience, crossing dangerous waters in an overflowing dinghy with both your children. You get to your destination, but all avenues are blocked. That £5.84 does not even buy two cups of coffee. It is not enough to feed or clothe yourself or your children, to travel to appointments, or to buy toiletries and sanitary products; that is not feasible. That just is not fair.

Immigration rules dictate that people can apply to work only after they have been waiting for a decision on their asylum claim for over a year. There are many reasons why lifting the ban on asylum seekers working in the UK is the right thing to do. Forcing people fleeing persecution to spend months of their lives in poverty is inhumane. It has a detrimental impact on their physical and, more importantly, mental health. Enabling people to work provides them with the human dignity of being able to support themselves and their families while they build a route out of poverty. There are moral and ethical reasons why that would be the right thing to do. Lifting the ban would also provide considerable fiscal benefits to the country.

Without the opportunity to work, many people seeking asylum are forced into unsafe and exploitative practices, including forced labour. Research by the OECD found that a lack of permission to work can lead some people seeking asylum to work unlawfully, and that type of work can lead to situations of exploitation and modern slavery, as they do not have recourse to health and safety measures, or even regulated employment practices.

The Lift the Ban coalition estimates that reform of the policy could save the UK economy more than £333 million a year. If 50% of people who have waited more than six months for a decision on their initial asylum application were able to work full time on the national average wage, the Government would receive almost £249 million from the tax and national insurance contributions alone. If they no longer required subsistence support but retained support for accommodation, the Government would save an additional £84 million.

By the end of 2022, the Treasury will have wasted nearly £1 billion over 10 years as a result of banning people seeking asylum from working. Lifting the ban would also bring us into line with other countries around the world. The restrictive approach that the UK takes on the right to work makes it an international outlier. In comparable countries across Europe and in Australia, people are given an opportunity to support themselves earlier, with fewer restrictions. In France and Spain, there is a six-month wait, and in Germany a three-month wait.

Employment figures continue to show tightness in the labour market; the CBI has identified that three quarters of businesses are being hit by labour shortages. The British Chambers of Commerce suggests that reform of the shortage occupation list is required to allow sectors facing an urgent demand for skills to get what they need. It makes no sense for business, or for this country, to prohibit thousands of people who have the necessary skills from filling vacancies in industries that are desperately in need of workers.

Members should not listen only to me; the Lift the Ban coalition brings together almost 270 members, including the TUC, Unison and Oxfam, as well as those famous lefties at the CBI, Bright Blue and the Adam Smith Institute. The Government’s own Migration Advisory Committee released its annual report on Monday. It found that banning asylum seekers from working results in their entering the informal economy on poorer wages and conditions, which leaves them open to exploitation. It states:

“We also recommended that the Government review their policy more generally on allowing asylum seekers to work.”

It is not only businesses but the public who support that. YouGov polling carried out in March 2022 found that 81% of the population support granting the right to work after someone has waited six months. According to Refugee Action, 97,717 people seeking asylum have waited more than six months for an initial decision on their application—a sixfold increase from five years ago.

We have heard many times about the asylum system being broken. The figures alone show that to be the case. Just over three quarters—77%—of asylum seekers will eventually have their asylum claim accepted. The cost of living crisis has illuminated the ongoing dangers and frustrations of the restrictive rules. Soaring food and energy prices have pushed inflation to a 40-year high, yet the rate of asylum support allowance has risen by just 13p since 2021. Without the option of supporting themselves and their families through work, many people seeking asylum experience poverty, destitution and homelessness, and develop serious physical and mental health issues. The Conservative mantra has always been that the best route out of poverty is through work, so why are asylum seekers left in destitution and not offered that route?

Labour supports granting asylum seekers the right to work after they have waited for six months. The Minister for Immigration admitted recently that although he did not think the policy should change due to pull-factor concerns, there are good arguments on both sides of the debate. The Government’s defence of the policy is that enabling asylum seekers to work would act as a pull factor, and that wider economic policy schemes could be seriously undermined if migrants were able to bypass work visa rules by lodging unfounded asylum claims in the UK, but that falls flat given that a leaked Home Office report showed that permission to work is not a pull factor. The report revealed that many people seeking asylum do not have a prior understanding of welfare policies or access to provisions before they come to a country, and they have little knowledge of economic conditions in destination countries.

Equally, the argument that economic migrants will make false claims in order to access the labour market is not a strong line of defence. A six-month waiting period would provide a strong safeguard against that. It is implausible that somebody would bring themselves to the attention of the authorities on the basis that there might be a chance that their asylum application will not be decided within six months. In reality, most people seeking asylum do not have a choice about the country to which they flee. Many of those who have come to the UK have done so because of cultural, family or community connections.

I pay particular thanks to Refugee Action for all the important work it does in supporting asylum seekers. It has been an invaluable source of information and, more importantly, education to me. I also thank World Jewish Relief; it set up its specialist training and employment programme in 2016, which helps refugees to gain language skills and qualifications, and to get training. It also provides one-to-one assistance in CV writing and interview skills.

We need an asylum system based on compassion. I hope the Minister has listened closely to the body of supportive evidence and takes heed of it. Human beings all need support at some point. Please do not leave these people behind.

December 16, 2022
Michael Gove – 2022 Statement on the Update on the Homes for Ukraine Scheme

The statement made by Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, in the House of Commons on 14 December 2022.

Today I announce measures to update the Homes for Ukraine scheme. This scheme has been a significant success. Although the initial roll-out of visas was slower than the Government would have liked, over 100,000 Ukrainian guests are now safe in the United Kingdom, and 37,500 more have valid visas and may choose to travel to the United Kingdom if circumstances change. The sheer number of applicants and of British families willing to open their homes to those seeking shelter is truly extraordinary.

The Government are committed to protecting this route to safety into its second year, but we need to do so in a way that is sustainable considering the wider pressures on public finances and the UK’s overseas development assistance budgets. We are therefore setting out today a series of updates. These measures taken together are designed to recognise the contribution made by sponsors while also ensuring the sustainability of the programme over the longer term and to provide certainty to all those who are supporting our guests here in the UK.

“Thank you” payments

Hosting is a very significant commitment. The Government are enormously grateful to all those who have volunteered to share their home with Ukrainian people fleeing war. Without the generosity of all our British sponsors, we simply would not have been able to give shelter to so many of those in need. In recognition of this, I am announcing today that the £350 “thank you” payments, will be extended from 12 months to a maximum duration of two years. The UK Government will also increase the minimum “thank you” payments for hosts from £350 per month to £500 per month, once a guest has been here in the UK for 12 months.

This additional financial support is aimed at helping existing hosts to continue with their sponsorship, as well as new hosts who come forward to offer a home to a Ukrainian individual or family.

Some local authorities are already uprating “thank you” payments using their own resource, and this is a measure we fully support. Our new package shows our strong desire to recognise the contribution made by sponsors, to help them with the rising cost of living and incentivise further sponsorships and rematching.

Funding for local authorities

Since the Homes for Ukraine scheme launched in March 2022, the UK Government have provided £1.1 billion to councils through a tariff for each arrival in their area. This funding is available for councils to support Ukrainian guests and their sponsors. Given a fraction of Ukrainian arrivals return to Ukraine, after arriving in the UK, and the need to manage public finances at a time of significant economic challenge for the UK and the global economy, the Government will reduce the tariff for each local authority. Councils will continue to receive the existing year 1 tariff to support those Ukrainians who have already arrived, as previously set out.

From 1 January 2023, councils will receive funding of £5,900 for each new arrival to support guests and their sponsors, in addition to the “thank you” paid to sponsors. Local authorities will continue to receive separate funding in 2022-23 for the Ukraine education tariff under the rates and terms previously set out—a per child tariff of £3,000 for early years, £6,580 for primary and £8,755 for secondary and payments calculated on a pro-rata basis—and the Ukrainians families will also continue to receive Government support on skills training, jobcentre access and welfare payments. The Department fully recognises the many pressures on local authority budgets and at the autumn statement the Government announced a further £6.5 billion to be made available for local government to deliver core services over the next two years.

The Department will also provide £150 million of new UK-wide funding in the 2023-24 financial year to local authorities and devolved Governments to help support Ukrainian guests move into their own homes and reduce the risk of homelessness. Local authorities are best placed to understand the support needed for local communities, and as is typically the case for various local authority funding, they will also be able to use this funding to support other people at risk of homelessness. This funding will be allocated between the different parts of the UK in relation to their proportion of Ukrainian guests. I will be writing to local authorities and my counterparts in the devolved Administrations with more details on this shortly.

Local authority housing fund

Today, I am also launching a £500 million local authority housing fund, which will provide capital funding directly to English councils in areas that are facing the most significant housing pressures as a result of recent Ukrainian arrivals. These local authorities are facing housing challenges on the back of their generosity, which unless alleviated will further impact existing housing pressures. This fund will allow them to address the immediate pressures as well as build a sustainable stock of affordable housing for the future. This fund will also be used to provide homes for up to 500 Afghan families currently living in bridging hotels at a significant cost to taxpayers. Whilst helping to fulfil the UK’s humanitarian duties to assist those fleeing war, the fund will create a lasting legacy for UK nationals by providing a new supply of accommodation for councils with which to address local housing and homelessness pressures.

The UK Government continues to work with the Ukrainian Government, the devolved Governments, local authorities and charities and voluntary groups to deliver the Homes for Ukraine scheme and support sponsors and their guests.

December 16, 2022
PRESS RELEASE : British military to receive 60 All-Terrain Vehicles under international agreement [December 2022]
The press release issued by the Ministry of Defence on 16 December 2022.

UK troops will receive 60 amphibious all-terrain armoured vehicles to support operations in the harshest environments, as part of a trilateral agreement.
£140 million contract to bolster ability to operate in harsh environments

60 new amphibious vehicles to be in service for 30 years

Purchase alongside key allies bolsters European interoperability

Under the international Collaborative All-Terrain Vehicle (CATV) programme – including Sweden and Germany – the UK Commando Force will receive 60 Future All-Terrain Vehicles (FATV) starting from February 2025, under a £140 million contract.

The deal will see a total of 463 of the vehicles delivered by BAE Systems across the three European partners, with the engines for all FATVs produced by Cummins in Darlington.

The vehicles will be used by the Navy’s Littoral Response Groups – bespoke, highly-mobile amphibious task groups designed to react to crises in regions strategically important to the UK.

Capable of operating in the harshest weather conditions and most remote environments, the amphibious, multi-role, armoured vehicle will include variants of vehicles for troop transport, logistics, medical evacuation, recovery, and command and control.

Defence Procurement Minister, Alex Chalk said:

We continue to equip our Armed Forces with the most mobile and resilient capabilities, to support them in operations around the world and Future All-Terrain Vehicles for the Royal Navy are another example of this.

This tri-lateral agreement with Sweden and Germany serves to strengthen key alliances and improve interoperability.

Working alongside our European and Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) Arctic partners in the High North, FATVs will be in-service until 2058, replacing the BV206 tracked and older BvS 10 ‘Viking’ models. Their articulated mobility systems provide optimal manoeuvrability across varying terrains so they can traverse snow, ice, rock, sand, mud or swamps, as well as steep mountain environments. The vehicles’ amphibious feature also allows them to swim in flooded areas or coastal waters, and a logistics variant can carry 6 tonnes of equipment.

Brigadier Mark Totten, Navy Deputy Director Acquisition, said:

The signing of the CATV contract is great news for UK Defence and for Commando Forces. This is a unique capability – fundamental for Commando Forces that are expert in operating in the extreme cold weather and across the littoral. The vehicle boasts a number of characteristics that make it perfect for the Future Commando Force: it is adept over snow, has amphibious swimming capability and protects its occupants from several threats.

Progressing to contract is a clear statement of the UK’s strong commitment to High North and to working alongside our NATO and JEF partners.

The FATV has a front cabin to accommodate the driver with three fully equipped marines, and a rear cabin which can carry eight fully equipped marines or be fitted for a variety of different purposes including short range air defence.
December 16, 2022
PRESS RELEASE : Appointment of Suffragan Bishop of Kingston [December 2022]

The press release issued by 10 Downing Street on 16 December 2022.

The King has approved the nomination of The Reverend Canon Dr Jonathan Martin Gainsborough, to the Suffragan See of Kingston, in the Diocese of Southwark.

The King has approved the nomination of The Reverend Canon Dr Jonathan Martin Gainsborough, Chaplain to the Bishop of Bristol, in the Diocese of Bristol, to the Suffragan See of Kingston, in the Diocese of Southwark, in succession to The Right Reverend Dr Richard Cheetham following his retirement.

Background

Martin was educated at the University of Bristol and The School of Oriental and African Studies and trained for ministry on the Southern Theological Education and Training Scheme. He served his title at St Luke’s, Barton Hill, in the Diocese of Bristol and was ordained Priest in 2011.

In 2013, Martin was appointed Priest-in-Charge at St Luke’s and in 2016 he became Canon Theologian at Bristol Cathedral. During this time, Martin was also Professor of Development Politics at the University of Bristol.

Martin took up his current role as Chaplain to the Bishop of Bristol in 2019.

December 16, 2022
PRESS RELEASE : New figures provide latest data on veterans suicide [December 2022]
The press release issued by the Cabinet Office on 16 December 2022.
New study by the University of Manchester finds that suicide risk amongst veterans overall is similar to the general population

Serving in the military for longer periods of time, and serving on operational tours were associated with reduced suicide risk; while younger veterans and those who left after a short career were more at risk

Study is one part of improving data and understanding of the causes and rates of suicide in veterans

A new study from the University of Manchester has found that veterans are at no greater risk of suicide than the general population, although some cohorts need additional support.

The study, which linked data between NHS and military records, also found that veterans over the age of 35 were at a lower risk of suicide than the general population, although younger veterans were at increased risk.

The new data was funded by the Ministry of Defence and NHS England. It looked at data for over 458,000 veterans between 1996 and 2018. During this period 1,086 (0.2%) veterans sadly took their own lives, which is similar to the overall rate in the general population.

The findings come as Veterans’ Affairs Minister Johnny Mercer calls for greater awareness of the support available, particularly as we head towards the Christmas period, where some may struggle with their mental health.

Minister for Veterans’ Affairs Johnny Mercer said:

This is an important study which will help us ensure we have targeted veterans care and support.

While it’s important to note that suicide rates amongst veterans are similar to the general population, any death is a tragedy and we must help those who need support.

I would strongly urge anyone who is struggling to reach out and help is available, including through Op COURAGE in England, dedicated NHS services in Scotland and Wales, and the Veterans’ Support Office in Northern Ireland.

Whilst overall suicide risk is similar to the general population, the study found suicide rates were 2-4 times higher for veterans under the age of 25, when compared with the general population of the same age group. However, suicide rates were lower than the general population for veterans over 35 years old.

Contrary to popular perceptions, the study also found that those who have served in a conflict had a reduced risk of suicide.

The study also found that being male, being discharged from the forces before the age of 34 years, being untrained, and having served for less than 10 years were risk factors for suicide. The research also showed that a quarter of veterans who had died by suicide had been in contact with specialist mental health services in the 12 months prior to their death.

Levels of unemployment, alcohol and drug misuse, and self-harm samples were also found to be similar to patients who had not served in the Armed Forces.

Cathryn Rodway, Lead Study Author and Programme Manager at the National Confidential Inquiry into Suicide and Safety (NCISH) said:

In this study we linked national databases of those who had left the Armed Forces and those who had died by suicide and compared the risk of suicide in nearly half a million veterans with the general population.

While public perception and some previous studies suggest combat-related experiences are associated with suicide, our findings paint a slightly different picture. We found suicide was no more common than it is in the general population although risk did appear to be higher in the youngest age groups and those with short lengths of service. Deployment to a conflict actually appeared to reduce suicide risk.

Professor Nav Kapur, Professor of Psychiatry and Population Health at The University of Manchester and senior author of the study said:

Young veterans with short lengths of service had higher rates of suicide than young people in the wider population and this might be the group with the most pressing needs. These findings are consistent with a much smaller study we carried out over a decade ago.

While some factors are specific to veterans, other aspects of the prevention challenge are similar to the general population.

We need to ensure we tackle mental health problems and alcohol misuse, have high quality services for self-harm, and address the other health and social factors which may contribute to suicide in both veterans and non-veterans.

The study is part of a wider body of research examining suicide in veterans. Veterans and families bereaved by suicide contributed to the study design. A forthcoming study by the same authors will explore the role of pre-service vulnerabilities, or factors that may have influenced later suicide risk by undertaking an in-depth examination of coroner records.

Other studies are involving veterans and their families in coproduction events to develop an integrated model of safety for the veteran community (“One is Too Many”), and conducting in-depth interviews with veterans’ families bereaved by suicide to develop an Armed Forces Suicide Bereavement pack.
December 16, 2022
PRESS RELEASE : Human rights in Russia – Joint statement to the OSCE [December 2022]

The press release issued by the Foreign Office on 16 December 2022.

Slovak Ambassador to the OSCE, Peter Mišik, highlights that Russia has systematically clamped down on its own people over the last two decades.

I am delivering this statement on behalf of the following 39 participating States, inter alia those that invoked the Moscow (Human Dimension) Mechanism on 28 July: Albania, Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, the Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, the United States and my own country Slovakia.

Human Rights Day is an occasion to celebrate the inalienable rights that everyone is entitled to as a human being. But Human Rights Day also reminds us to address the deficits.

The report under the Moscow Mechanism that our countries initiated concluded that the Russian Federation has systematically clamped down on its own people over the last two decades. In addition, with its internal clampdown on human rights and fundamental freedoms, the Russian Federation has helped prepare the ground for its war of aggression against Ukraine.

Repressive legislation and administrative practices are being used to restrict the exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms of people in Russia, most notably through the so-called “foreign agents” and “undesirable organisations” laws. The report found that “Russian legislation in this area is clearly incompatible with the rule of law.” Particularly, the foreign agents law, the report went on, “can be understood as one of the major tools for curbing civil society activities both of associations and individuals and for bringing them under control of the authorities.”

We need to bring this legislation to the attention of this council again because the Russian Federation has further toughened the foreign agents law through a legislative amendment of 14 July. Despite the clear guidance provided in the report, this legislative amendment entered into force on 1 December. Under this new legislation, it even constitutes criminal behaviour to “receive support and/or otherwise be under foreign influence”. The report explains the “very broad margin for interpretation” that this legislation provides, and the chilling effect it will have on participation in State affairs and public life.

The law thereby expands the definition of a so-called “foreign agent” to a point where almost any person or entity, regardless of nationality or location, could be designated as such. This makes it even easier for Russian Federation authorities to threaten critics, impose harsh restrictions on legitimate public activities and even ban them. It makes thoughtful public discourse about Russia’s past, present and future harder – yet not impossible, as also evidenced by the recent OSCE Parallel Civil Society Conference 2022 in Łódź.

The public discourse the Russian authorities are most desperately trying to suppress is the one on Russia’s unprovoked, unjustified and illegal war against Ukraine. In that regard, the Moscow Mechanism report identified the use of legislation on state secrets and treason as a “growing concern”. In October, the opposition activist and long-time champion of OSCE principles Vladimir Kara-Murza was charged with high treason. Investigators claim that Mr Kara-Murza committed high treason when he spoke against the war in Ukraine at public events in Lisbon, Oslo and Washington. Apparently, the crude logic goes, Mr Kara-Murza is deemed to have cooperated with NATO simply for expressing an anti-war stance in NATO countries. We reiterate our call to the Russian authorities to release Mr Kara-Murza and all political prisoners, and to stop their relentless attacks on dissidents and ordinary citizens who dare to express their opinions.

The rapporteur further notes that recently adopted legislation prohibiting the sharing of so-called fake news about the Russian military, statements “discrediting” the Russian Armed Forces, and calls for sanctions against Russia are politically motivated and instrumentalized by the Russian authorities to silence dissenting voices, leading to a “total information blackout on the war.” On 8 July, municipal deputy Aleksei Gorinov was sentenced to seven years for disseminating so-called “knowingly false information” for speaking out against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. On December 9, Russian opposition politician Ilya Yashin was sentenced to 8.5 years in prison for allegedly “spreading false information” about the Russian military by speaking the truth about atrocities committed by Russia’s forces in Bucha.

In the Moscow Mechanism report, the rapporteur noted with great concern the developments in Russia regarding the human rights of LGBTI individuals, particularly a new draft law of 18 July prohibiting the dissemination of information denying family values and propagating so-called non-traditional relationships, inter alia on the internet and in the cinema. Only last week, President Putin enacted the law with his signature after the State Duma had adopted the law on 24 November and the Federation Council had approved it. The law reinforces stigma and prejudice against LGBTI persons despite our OSCE commitments to combat intolerance and discrimination and to promote mutual respect and understanding.

The Russian Federation has failed to reverse its policy contrary to OSCE commitments in the field of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The Moscow Mechanism report reminded us that internal repression and external aggression are “connected to each other as if in a communicating tube”. The two OSCE Moscow Mechanism reports circulated on 13 April and 14 July 2022 documented violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law. Therefore, the exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Russia needs to remain under close international scrutiny. We are pleased that the UN Human Rights Council decided to implement the recommendation of the Moscow Mechanism report to appoint a special rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Russian Federation.

Russia cannot dispense with its international obligations by violating them. Our OSCE commitments stand and they will withstand the challenge by Russia’s government. We will continue to remind the Russian Federation of its OSCE commitments.

December 16, 2022