Jeremy Corbyn MP
working for you in Islington North

Jeremy Corbyn: I am pleased that we are having this debate and hope that at the meeting in Brussels the Government will not use their veto and lead us into the danger of supplying arms to Syria. For some time now the Foreign Office has been chatting quite openly about the possibility of supplying arms. Indeed, in a letter to me of 22 April the Minister stated:

“As things stand today, there is going to be a strong case as we come towards the end of May, for the lifting of the arms embargo on the Syrian National Coalition, or some very serious amendment of the EU arms embargo”.

I just make the point, as others have, that we would be supplying arms to people we do not know. We do not know where those arms would end up or how much worse the conflict would get as a result. Anyone who doubts the leakage of arms should think carefully about the way the USA raced to supply any amount of arms to any opposition in Afghanistan in 1979, which gave birth to the Taliban and, ultimately, al-Qaeda. We should think very seriously before doing that. I hope that we do not end up with any arms supplies, or indeed any UK involvement in the conflict.

There is obviously a horrific situation in Syria, with tens of thousands dead already and hundreds of thousands of refugees in neighbouring countries, and the situation will probably get far worse for them all. That is not to say, however, that there are not huge internal conflicts within Syria or that the Assad regime has not committed enormous human rights abuses, but the west has a very selective memory on this. There was a time when western Governments were happy to co-operate with President Assad on many issues. The Assad regime received very large numbers of refugees from Iraq—mainly Palestinians driven out of Iraq after the US invasion. One thinks of the plight of Palestinian people who have been driven from country to country for the past 60 years. The anger in those refugee camps will be the start of the conflicts and wars of tomorrow. There has to be a recognition of human rights and human justice.

However, this war is becoming a proxy war for all kinds of interests. Let us just think of the countries and organisations already involved, by supplying arms, funding or what is euphemistically called non-lethal assistance. The European Union is clearly very involved, as is the United States, and Russia is clearly involved in supplying arms to the Assad Government and protecting its own base there. The Gulf Co-operation Council countries, particularly Saudi Arabia and Qatar, are supplying vast amounts of money and arms to the area. Iran feels under threat and thinks that it is next on the western countries’ hit list, so it is presumably helping the Assad regime in some form. Turkey is a neighbouring country that is both receiving refugees and supplying some weaponry and assistance. Israel has now got involved, with reports of the bombing that took place last week. In today’s edition of The Guardian there is a report of a land incursion near the Golan Heights that was beaten off by certain forces, we know not which.

This is a time, surely, to reflect on the western strategy in dealing with all the issues with which we have been confronted since 2001. In Afghanistan, we have spent a lot of money and lost a lot of soldiers. Lots of civilians have died, and the country remains poor, corrupt and divided. Iraq is a place that can hardly be called at peace. In Libya, we went in with the no-fly zone and spent an awful lot of money and time bombing large numbers of people, and one could hardly say that there is a western-style liberal democracy there at present. Syria was a colonial creation. The French were very good at oppressing Syrian nationalism in the 1920s, and now the country is in danger of splitting apart altogether.

If there is to be a political solution, which the Minister says that he wants, the conference that is being planned looks increasingly like a conference to impose some kind of victorious solution. A conference must include all the countries of the region and all the parties that are in any way involved in this conflict, obviously including Iran, and must recognise the role that Israel is playing. The west was incapable of getting the nuclear non-proliferation treaty conference for a nuclear-free middle east going, so I hope that it is more successful in getting this conference going.

Finally, will the Minister give an absolute assurance that there will be a debate and a vote in this House before any precipitate action is taken and before any arms are supplied to anybody, so that those of us who disagree with that proposal will get the chance to express our dissent?

Friday 7^th June, 2 – 4 p.m.
Durham Road Community Rooms, Under 32-43 Bolton Walk, N.7.
Appointments only, please ring after 2^nd June to book.

Monday 17^th June, 10 – 12 noon.
Mildmay Library, 21-13 Mildmay Park, London, N.1.
No appointment necessary but please be prepared to wait

If you prefer, you could write to Jeremy with details of your problem.  His temporary address for casework is: Jeremy Corbyn MP, House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA.  Please telephone 020 7561 7488.

Jeremy Corbyn Like all the other Members who have spoken, I welcome the debate. It is important for us to have it, and I hope that it will become an annual event. It is a way of reducing the stigma that is attached to mental illness, increasing understanding of it, and also, quite correctly, holding the Government to account on how their policies develop.

There is still an enormous amount of discrimination against people who have suffered from some kind of mental illness or breakdown, or have spent time in a long-stay institution. Like all discrimination, it is incredibly wasteful of resources, because it means that those people cannot contribute to society in the way that we want, and as a result we all lose out.

I want to raise two points. The first relates to local experiences, and the second to national policies. My borough has an image as being relatively wealthy and high-achieving, and there are certainly some wealthy and high-achieving people in it. Islington council, however, undertook an interesting exercise: it set up a fairness commission to examine the quality of the delivery of public services to everyone in the borough, with the aim of ensuring that the purpose of the council’s policies, including health policies, was to reduce inequality.

According to a briefing that the council gave me before the debate, it is estimated that in my borough

“30,000 adults experience depression or anxiety disorders in any one week…. Mental ill health among 5 to 17 year olds is estimated to be 36% higher…than the national average”.

The briefing states that more than one in eight children are

“experiencing mental health problems at any one time.”

It also states:

“The suicide rate is… 8 per 100,000…second highest in London”,

and broadly

“similar to the national average”.

Physical ill health is often related to mental health problems. According to the briefing,

“Poor mental health was found in 43% of all Islington patients who died of cardiovascular disease before the age of 75. As people live longer, there are an increasing number of people with dementia, although Islington has a relatively smaller number of older people”

—only 9% of the population. Islington has a 70%—higher than average—rate of diagnosis of dementia. Increasingly, as others have pointed out, people who care for adults with mental health problems are much older people who find it extremely difficult to cope. Those carers need more support, so that they are better able to look after people who are becoming more and more dependent.

Both my local council, in its study, and the Mental Health Trust draw attention to the enormous over-representation of people from black and minority ethnic communities in the context of diagnosis and, in particular, the context of long-stay institutions. We should ask whether there is, in fact, a higher level of prevalence, or whether there is a perception that it is somehow OK to put black and minority ethnic people into long-stay institutions, whereas it would not be OK in the case of other people.

Indeed, I urge Members to visit long-stay institutions and talk to people resident in them. I get the impression some of them have had very difficult lives and very little support, and that they have led very isolated existences. I also get the impression that many of them have very few friends and very little representation, and whereas those who come from a fairly stable family background with a series of understanding relatives are able to get representation and often win their cases where there has been a section order, others do not get the same quality of representation and consequently do not win any tribunal cases.

In an earlier speech, I made an intervention about the role of the voluntary sector in dealing with mental health conditions. As I have pointed out, my borough has considerable problems in dealing with mental health, but we have a number of very good local organisations that often deal with mental health issues in an innovative and supportive way, and are often very successful. Nafsiyat, an intercultural therapy centre based in Finsbury Park which was founded by the late Jafar Kareem, was groundbreaking in its ideas of looking at the cultural background and ensuring culturally appropriate treatment of people with mental illness, for example by making sure there are people who speak the necessary languages and understand something of the specific cultural background. The Maya Centre, which particularly relates to women, does much of the same work, as does ICAP or Immigrant Counselling and Psychotherapy, a counselling and psychotherapy centre originally founded by people in the Irish community that now deals with a much wider community.

We also have a considerable refugee population. A very good group called Room to Heal deals with people who have achieved asylum status in this country. They have often been through the most dreadful experiences of torture, which are frequently dealt with in a community way. People meet regularly and do things together, such as gardening and taking trips. Many of them improve a great deal and get through the terrible traumas they have suffered. I find it very interesting talking to people from different countries all around the world who have all experienced torture in one form or another and who have benefited from these activities. We also have the Refugee Therapy Centre and the Women’s Therapy Centre, which also provide therapy on a culturally sensitive basis. Finally, we have the Holloway Neighbourhood Group stress project.

These are all valuable groups, and they all depend on contracts obtained either from the local health authority or neighbouring health authorities. All of them spend a great deal of time filling in forms in order to gain what are often relatively small sums of money for relatively short-term contracts. Health authorities must value these organisations and look to use them. We should give out the message that we recognise that the voluntary sector has a very important complementary role to play in supporting statutory services in the treatment of mental illness. I do not see them as competitors or rivals; I see them as complementary.

Mr Kevan Jones: I agree with what my hon. Friend says about the smaller contracts these organisations get and the bureaucracy they have to deal with. Does he agree that some of them could bid for larger contracts to provide services as well, but the bureaucracy and financial hurdles involved in bids for such contracts make it very difficult for them to do so?

Jeremy Corbyn: I agree. The bureaucracy involved and the skewing of the contract culture frequently means voluntary organisations that have a tradition of the voluntary provision of services—often in an effective and innovative way, as I have described—are debarred by the contracting process. Instead, very large private sector medical companies come in to privatise those services and run them in a profit-related way, rather than the voluntary sector, which is motivated not by profit, but by the care of the individuals. I urge Ministers to look very carefully at how services are contracted out to the private sector, which is motivated by profit, as opposed to voluntary sector organisations, which often have a very good record in looking after people who need help and support.

We must also recognise that if we are to deal with mental illness problems in any community, there must be a level of understanding that goes wider than just what GPs, hospital doctors and the statutory services do. There is the question of signposting. I pay tribute to local organisations—voluntary groups, churches, mosques —that understand the situation and help signpost people into getting help and support, because many people in our society with some degree of mental illness get no support whatever. This debate may well help us to understand that that is needed.

We must also recognise that there is a cost involved. The cost to health budgets of dealing with mental health is very high. Unfortunately, the policy of community care for the mentally ill has often resulted in lack of care, and in deep isolation and serious problems for the individuals concerned.

I recall a debate in the House in 1986. The Select Committee on Health was looking in an interesting and critical way at the closing down of large asylums and long-stay institutions, such as Friern Barnet and Napsbury, that existed all around London, and, indeed, all around the country. The Committee warned that community care should not be seen as a cheap option, saying it should instead be seen as an option and an opportunity, but also as requiring comprehensive support, support workers and care.

I am sure all MPs have talked at their surgeries with neighbours of those with mental health problems who have come to complain about noise and inappropriate behaviour. Many of them say to me they are sympathetic to the plight of the individual, and recognise there is a lack of support. We should not see community care as the cheap option. It is an option that can be followed, but a great deal of support is also required to carry it through.

Mr Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend also agree that under the new NHS structure, local councils will have to do a lot more in terms of understanding the needs of people with mental health conditions?

Jeremy Corbyn: Absolutely, which is why I referred in my opening remarks to the strategy adopted by my local authority. It has taken the issue very seriously, and has developed a strategy that involves signposting, understanding, support for care in the community and a close relationship with the mental health trust locally. I suspect many local authorities are not particularly well geared up for that role, and they need to address that quickly.

We must recognise that children and young people suffer a great deal of diagnosable mental health conditions. The Mental Health Foundation estimates that one in 10 children suffer from them. One in six young adults aged between 16 and 24 are also suffering from them at any one time. It is very hard for young adults and teenagers to admit they have mental health problems. It is very difficult for them to go to a GP and say they have a mental health problem. Peer group rivalry and peer group abuse—abuse in schools and colleges—is nasty, dangerous, damaging and very hurtful, and can ultimately lead to suicide. The old saying “Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names cannot hurt me” is wrong. Names do hurt. Name calling does hurt. It can lead to young people becoming isolated, and in extreme situations it can lead to suicide.

Mike Crockart: The all-party group on social mobility has looked at that issue, and we found that one of the major things holding children back from realising their full potential was not necessarily access to the right type of education—further education or higher education—or to funding for such education. Instead, it is their having the social and emotional resilience to be able to bounce back from such problems and take their careers forward.

Jeremy Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in what he says. Bouncing back from these things and then getting on in education or any career is very important. I hope that debates such as this one and the remarks made by hon. Members who have been through mental health problems and depression begin to help give a greater understanding in the much wider community.

I wish to make only a couple more points, because I know that other colleagues wish to contribute to this debate. I intervened earlier about the number of suicides that take place in prisons and the number of people in our prisons who are suffering mental illness. Although such people may be there on the basis of a crime, they need mental health support rather than incarceration in a prison. Today’s edition of The Guardian contains a helpful reproduction of a map of suicides in British prisons. Although the number of suicides has reduced, 833 prisoners committed suicide in the decade up to 2011. When a prisoner commits suicide it is traumatic for the prison and for the prison officers concerned, and devastating for the rest of the prison population. We need to look much more seriously at how our prisons operate, the training that is given to prison officers and the mental health issues that need to be assessed much more carefully by the courts and by the prison services. We also need to examine whether it is really necessary or appropriate to put someone who has a mental health condition into a prison, at any level of security, knowing that there is a real danger of their committing suicide. They are not going to become less better because of this approach; they are probably going to get considerably worse.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) made an important point about people’s availability for work interviews undertaken by Atos on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions. I am sure that every hon. Member has had people come to their constituency surgery who have been through the misery of an Atos interview when they are suffering from a mental health condition. Whether on a good day or a bad day, nearly all of them get assessed as being capable of work. They therefore start losing benefits and then go through an appeal. Usually, these people eventually win the appeal, but the trauma caused during that process has led to suicides, to deep depression and to deep fear among them.

When I intervened on my hon. Friend, I suggested that instead of automatically calling those with mental health conditions in for an interview, just as every other person with a disability is called in, medical records should be looked at first and a much more sympathetic and appropriate way forward should be taken. Where someone is able to work and an employer is able to take them on, as there is a job, that is clearly good—we want and welcome that—but we should not force them into it. We should not force people to try to hide mental health conditions. Instead, we should be supportive and sympathetic towards them. I hope that the message we can send from the debate is that that is the direction in which we want to go.

This is a valuable and timely debate on an issue that can affect any of us at any time. We all know people who are affected by mental health conditions and as a society we should stop the name calling, stop the abuse and start understanding this as a condition that we can all suffer from and that we can also, generally speaking, always get over.

 This Saturday (18th May) will see a huge demonstration in London called by many NHS campaigns including west London, south London and my own local Defend Whittington Hospital group.

It will bring together groups trying to defend local hospitals, A&E departments and the very principles of the National Health Service.

It’s welcome that this is a London-wide demonstration, supported by the Labour Party, the TUC and all the trade unions.

But it’s high time we had a national campaign to defend our health service, which has been so grievously damaged by the Con-Dem coalition’s Health and Social Care Act.

Despite the warm words Prime Minister David Cameron frequently utters about the NHS his government is presiding over the destruction of a universal health service free at the point of use for everyone.

It’s handing commissioning roles to GPs who are themselves already contractors to the service.

It’s requiring most NHS work to be done by the private sector.

And the enforced establishment of foundation trusts is allowing the easy sale of assets and services, again to the private sector.

As this process goes on the NHS will eventually become a mere symbol behind which private companies lurk, making vast profits at public expense.

And it will encourage people to take out expensive private health insurance in order to bypass the increasingly rationed state provision, meaning only the wealthy will end up receiving the best care.

The pattern for this strongly resembles the very limited health care system President Barack Obama has provided in the United States – essentially, a state subsidy to the private health insurance industry.

No-one holds up the US as a model of health care – so how did we get here?

Saturday’s demo is strongly supported by the labour movement, but we must cast a critical eye over the health policies the Con-Dems inherited from the last Labour government.

The first health secretary after Labour came to power in 1997, Frank Dobson, did a great job in linking the issue of poverty with ill health – addressing the inequality in health spending that he inherited from the Thatcher and Major governments.

He also promoted a hospital investment building programme. Dobson was a secretary of state who truly and passionately believed in an NHS free at the point of use, with directly employed staff delivering the service.

However, the baleful influence of new Labour took over later on. Subsequent ministers pushed the private finance initiative (PFI) very strongly. Now PFI debt is a millstone round many hospitals across Britain.

As Allyson Pollock, who continues to do fantastic work in exposing the financial nonsense that is PFI, pointed out in a Guardian article last year, “the NHS is generating huge profits and bonuses for the financial services industry under PFI contracts, while repayment terms for the debts are crippling the NHS.”

She went on to give the example of the South London hospital trust, where debt payments on the Bromley site are increasing by £1 million a year even as the trust’s income has fallen by £20m over three years.

It’s not surprising that vast numbers of people from south London, especially Lewisham, will be on the march on Saturday to defend their hospital.

Unison, which has studied the effects of PFI, has raised another shocking example – the £411m PFI deal struck by Peterborough Hospital, which will have cost £1.96 billion by the time it’s paid off in 2043.

In other words over several indebted decades the hospital will have had to repay more than five times its original cost.

The madness continues – last November the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge presided over the opening of a new, and near-bankrupt, PFI hospital.

The Con-Dems’ new PFI deal, known as PF2, does nothing to address the issues of secrecy and profiteering from PFI contracts.

An incoming Labour government in 2015 will have to act very fast to save the National Health Service and return it to a primary employer and provider of services, rather than an instrument for private financial profit.

This is one of the issues on which the vast majority of the public are united. People recognise the value to public health and security that the NHS gives and they are alarmed by the current government’s destructive course. But Labour paved the way for all this, and will have to do a lot better next time.

As Claire Rayner – a former nurse at my local and much-loved Whittington hospital – so memorably put it when asked how she would like to be remembered, “Tell David Cameron that if he screws up my beloved NHS I’ll come back and bloody haunt him.”

She will be turning in her grave – as will Aneurin Bevan, who said that the NHS would last as long as “there were folk left with the faith to fight for it.”

We owe it to them and to future generations to show that faith this Saturday.

Those who established the National Health Service in 1947 did so as the culmination of a half-century debate about the role of public services in people’s lives.

They aimed to make access to health care a right for all citizens. It was an enormous step forward.

It is a tragedy that this service is being eaten alive by financial predators with voracious appetites.

It is a scandal that Parliament has passed legislation allowing this to happen.

The march on Saturday is about London’s health. But let’s get to work on preparing a national march to celebrate and defend one of the most civilised aspects of this country.

• Rally at 12 noon in Jubilee Gardens, Waterloo, for the Defend London’s NHS demo this Saturday May 18.

—-

On Thursday in the House of Commons there will be a debate on mental health on the initiative of a group of backbenchers.

They hope to draw attention to what is often the Cinderella of health expenditure.

Mental health problems affect one adult in six and one child in 10 every year. Studies by the Centre for Mental Health suggest it costs the economy £105bn a year in England alone.

The key issue is tackling discrimination against those who have suffered mental illness and the often inadequate care that many of those who are allocated to “care in the community” receive due to insufficient staff and budgets too squeezed to meet their needs.

Sadly, much mental ill health is unrecognised and 75 per cent of people with depression, for example, never receive treatment.

It is estimated that there are 4.6 million people in this country who have long-term mental health and related physical conditions.

Those with mental health problems live on average 20 years less than the rest of the population.

It’s also worth noting that 90 per cent of prisoners have at least one mental health condition and 10 per cent have severe conditions – 10 times the level in the wider population.

In order to address mental health and its treatment we need to end all stigma surrounding the topic and applaud those public figures who have been prepared to discuss their own issues in order to help battle prejudice.

A former Norwegian prime minister was once given significant leave of absence in order to recover from a severe bout of depression before returning to his job.

I wish our society was as mature in accepting that mental health is a condition which could come to affect any of us at any time.

• Jeremy Corbyn is Labour MP for Islington North.

This report covers two months and therefore is slightly longer than usual.

The first week in April has been a desperate time for many people as the combination of the benefit cap and tax changes were introduced at the same time. Anyone earning over £1m a year is about £100,000 better off. In contrast, anyone on a low wage or out of work is about £1,000 per year worse off. This is a massive redistribution of wealth in the wrong direction.

The process of austerity and cuts is not working as the latest unemployment figures show that the jobless total is on the rise and the forecast for growth has once again, been downgraded. This indicates that the government’s austerity program and tax cuts for the richest have no beneficial effect whatsoever on the general population.

I’ve been particularly concerned about housing issues and have introduced a private rented sector regulation bill. I strongly support our local authority in building new council homes, and also in its very good decision to maintain council rents at the normal, social rented model rather than supporting the government’s proposal of the marketisation of council rents which would lead to a more than doubling of all council rents.

I’d like to congratulate the new councillors Kaya Schwartz and Kat Fletcher on their elections, and my report below covers a large number of local issues I’ve been dealing with. Of particular concern is the proposed closure of two fire stations locally, Clerkenwell and Kingsland Road, and the proposed franchising off and closure of some of our local post offices.

Below I have included some of the events I have attended over the past couple of months. As well as this diary, I have continued to hold regular advice sessions on an almost weekly basis for constituents.

February 15th – 23rd: Delegation to Gaza/Palestine: Invited by Interpal, and accompanied by Liberal Democrat MP Sarah Teather and Conservative MP Philip Hollobone I visited Gaza to see aid and development projects about which I’ve written in the article which I attach to this report.
24th: Upon my return from Gaza I addressed a meeting organised by Interpal entitled “When Palestine was once free” where I shared the account of my visit.
25th: I joined councillors and activists outside Islington Town Hall who were meeting to join a bus taking them to City Hall to protest against Boris Johnson’s cuts to fire services in Islington.
I was interviewed by Russia Today television commenting on John Kerry’s visit to London and US foreign policy in general.
It was a pleasure to meet with representatives from the newly formed Islington Private Rented Tenants’ Association on the eve of presenting my Ten Minute Rule Bill.
26th: I presented my Ten Minute Rule Bill on Regulation of the Private Rented Sector to the Commons’ chamber; the full speech is below in the parliamentary contributions.
I hosted a meeting for MPs with Daniel Ortega-Pacheco, the Ministerial Advisor in the Ecuador Ministry of Foreign Affairs updating colleagues about the issues ahead of their presidential elections in Ecuador.
The General Secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, Matt Wrack, was in parliament briefing MPs on issues their union is concerned about, significantly, fire station closures in London. After this meeting the Fire Brigades Union Parliamentary Group met with the minister Brandon Lewis and raised their concerns.
27th: I hosted a small roundtable discussion for parliamentary colleagues with Sami Abu Shehadeh – a Palestinian PhD student at Tel Aviv University focussing on Jaffa as an Arab Cultural centre during Mandate Palestine 1920-1948. Sami is a leading activist in the Balad Party and a member of the Tel Aviv-Jaffa Municipality Council representing Jaffa. He discussed the results of the Israeli elections and the future for Palestinian citizens of Israel.
I met with Mesut Tek, the leader of Kurdish Socialist Party and I am delighted that there is a growing sense of community between all Kurdish parties reflected in the Newroz celebrations in Finsbury Park this year (I attended in March).
It was a pleasure to address Islington Trades Unions and the Fight Against Austerity public meeting at the Italian Trades Union Centre in Highbury.
28th: Cambridge Union debated This House Believes the “American Century” has been Bad for the World and I was invited to argue in favour of the proposition alongside Seamus Milne from the Guardian. The opposite view was put by Richard Ottaway MP, the chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and I am pleased to say that the motion was carried 150 -71.

March 1st: I have regular meetings with local job centres and today I met with Highgate Job Centre Plus and raised some comments I received from constituents on the facility.
It is always a pleasure to meet with students at local education centres and I visited City and Islington College and spoke with young people there about politics.
I attended and said a few words at the book launch for local author Dawn Reeves’ latest book Hard Change. It is a gripping account of a crime committed in an unnamed Midlands local authority but it has a strong supportive message about local authorities – well done Dawn.
2nd: I made one of the opening speeches at Unite Against Fascism’s conference, warning of the rise of racism in our society through UKIP’s inheritance of BNP support.
4th: The Dalit Solidarity meeting with Meena Varma followed by a demonstration against caste discrimination about which I later spoke in parliament (included in the parliamentary contribution section of this report).
5th: I spoke to a group of civil service students about the role of an MP.
I spoke at a public meeting regarding the sackings of London Metropolitan University staff Steve Jefferys, Max Watson and Jarred Botmeh; all of them have since been reinstated. 6th: I attended the Inter Parliamentary Union discussion with the Saudi Arabian delegation; it was a very interesting discussion about human rights and the death penalty.
I took part in a television interview on Al Jazeera discussing the death of Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez. Later in the day I gave a similar interview to the BBC News channel.
The All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Bolivia held a meeting with Jose Mantel, the vice president of Comibol State Mining Company. It was an interesting discussion on the environmental impact of mining.
I attended a Patrons’ meeting of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.
I took part in the Politics Show debate on LBC Radio discussing the political events of the week with colleagues.
7th: I addressed a Venezuela Solidarity Campaign vigil by the by the statue of Bolivar here in London, at which I spoke about Hugo Chavez’s legacy.
8th: “Speak your Mind” was a great community event organised by Islington Arts and Media School where local primary schools Montem, Pakeman, Ambler and Duncombe children all came in and presented a film and an idea – it was lovely! David Lammy MP and I were asked to judge the schools but we decided they were all winners.
I met with Steven Cheung, Students’ Union President at City and Islington College who is organising for students to come to Parliament in May for a forum where we will discuss, among other things, transport.
Led by my constituent Alison Marshall, a group of constituents came to visit me on behalf of the IF Campaign, which is against global hunger. They were lobbying to ensure the Chancellor’s Budget included a legal commitment to 0.7% GDP spend on overseas aid.
It was a pleasure to speak at “Life in Gaza” photo event put on by University College London (UCL), London School of Economics (LSE), and Westminster University Palestine Solidarity Societies.
9th: I addressed the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of Labour Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) on the case for cancelling Trident renewal.
10th: It was an honour to be invited to address the Scottish Morning Star Spring Conference on international politics case, and against Trident renewal.
11th: I took part in a television interview with Russia Today discussing the latest on the Chagos Islands (I chair the APPG). I chaired a meeting organised by CND on the issue of Nuclear Power.
I took part in a debate on BBC Radio 5 Live on youth justice.
12th: Along with Andy Slaughter MP who is Labour’s spokesman on legal affairs, I met with JENGBA (Joint Enterprise: Not Guilty By Association) to discuss the law about joint Enterprise.
I attended the transport trade union, ASLEF’s Parliamentary Reception.
13th: I chaired a meeting of the CND Parliamentary Group. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) held a discussion on Papua New Guinea with the international delegation who had returned and the High Commissioner.
I have twice visited Papua New Guinea when my late brother Andrew worked there. I met with constituents on the Tibet annual lobby of parliament and I strongly support recognition.
Every year the LSE hosts an annual event for graduates from Mexico and I host a discussion in parliament on UK relations for them.
The Socialist Campaign Group of MPs invited guest speaker Professor Prem Sikka to address the group on the subject of tax avoidance / the Labour policy on the economy. It was a very informative meeting.
14th: It is always a delight to attend events at local primary schools and I was especially pleased to attend a science event with Gillespie School students where there is excellent science teaching.
15th: I led a discussion on “Making Parliament Work for International Human Rights” at the University of Essex with a group of graduate students.
16th: I met with Alexis Tsipras, leader of Greece’s left party – Syriza – at Congress House. Thank you to all who came along and supported the Whittington Hospital demonstration, which was a huge success despite the rain. The determination, love and solidarity of people for this hospital knows no bounds.
I attended the unveiling of the Islington People’s Plaque to Jack Kennedy. He was a great friend of mine who was a builder/worker who campaigned tirelessly for the Birmingham Six who were eventually released.
18th: I met with Richard Arthur, Chair of Camden & Islington Foundation Trust in a regular meeting we have. This time I expressed concerns over the lack of funding for mental health provision locally.
Along with other local MPs I coordinated a meeting with the Whittington Hospital CEO and her team, to express our ongoing concerns. I attended the Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East annual parliamentary reception. 19th: I was interviewed by Russia Today on the anniversary of the Iraq War. It was an honour to address a meeting called by IHOOPS (Islington Hands Off Our Public Services) on benefit changes.
20th: Today was Budget Day. With Stop the War Coalition I delivered a letter to Foreign Office calling on the government to stop wasting money on wars.
After this I joined CND for a photo opportunity in Old Palace Yard calling for the money used on renewing Trident to be put to better use (photo at the end of the report). I did not go into Parliament because the PCS trade union were on strike to protect jobs and I don’t cross their picket lines. Instead I showed by solidarity with them at their rally in support of strike action on job losses outside Parliament.
21st: There were two Islington Council by-elections in Junction and St Georges wards where Labour held one seat and won another. Well done Kaya Schwartz and Kat Fletcher.
23rd: I took part in an LBC Radio interview discussing Ed Miliband’s speech, as part of a general political discussion. Despite the snow, the Barnet Spring march against the local Council’s decision to outsource services to Capita went ahead.
24th: I addressed the annual NEWROZ gathering at Finsbury Park. I spoke about my recent trip to Gaza at the “Palestine through the ages” event.
25th: With the Justice Select Committee I visited Liverpool Style women’s prison and Adelaide House, a probation service locally.
26th I was very pleased to address the re-launch of North London Stop the War Coalition.
27th: I took part in a television interview with BBC World, with Avaaz, discussing protests.
I went to visit Wessex Dance Company, a project for young offenders who undergo dance training, and I stayed for their performance.
28th: Bob Drinkwater, the manager at Hilldrop Community Centre and I had a (routine) general catch-up.
As Chair of the Western Sahara APPG I was interviewed by a journalist who had just returned from the region.
30th: I joined local Communications Workers Union (CWU) members on the picket line outside Holloway Post Office who are concerned about the future of the post offices and job losses.
I went along to the wonderful Saturday Night Project at the Sobel Centre which is a free night for young people organised by the Sobel and Aquaterra.

April 1^st: Easter Monday: today was the Aldermaston CND Demonstration (in the freezing cold) around the Aldermaston nuclear weapons base. I spoke on a platform with Walter Wolfgang and Bruce Kent.
4^th: I took part in an interview with Aljazeera English on the benefits debate, against the Adam Smith Institute.
I was interviewed by Egyptian TV on the nature of democracy in Egypt, and secularism in politics.
LBC Radio interviewed me on the nuclear armaments debate.
5^th: I met with a local campaign group concerned about the security company G4S and their treatment of women in the UK where they provide security for residential developments; I am supporting their launch of a report next month.
6^th: This was a busy day as I moved between CND Council meeting and the Stop The War Steering Committee where campaigns were planned at both.
7^th: Thank you to all who helped organise the Islington North Labour Party’s Sunday lunch and all who came along and supported the Party.
9^th: I received an update from National Grid about their substation work in Finsbury Park.
The Islington Somali Banadir Association invited me along to one of their events and as always, I was pleased to meet with them again.
11^th: We are all sad to see Islington Labour’s organiser Richard Bennett leave us to work for the London Labour Party. Richard’s hard work has really paid off and is reflected in the extraordinary electoral success we are having locally. Good luck Richard.
I was interviewed by the Islam Chanel about Thatcher’s legacy.
12^th:  The BBC interviewed me on the Indian caste system and calls for legislation to protect people in the UK from discrimination on this basis.
13^th: I addressed the Palestine Solidarity Campaign Conference on Gaza at the School of African and Oriental Studies, London University.
The Mildmay Centre had their AGM which I attended and I continue to support this project.
16^th: Along with colleagues from the APPG Western Sahara we met with the Rwandan Ambassador to discuss the latest situation there.  A UN decision on the Minurso mandate was due at any time and so we were busy lobbying for a human rights monitoring clause to be included therein (which we subsequently lost).
I joined the Dalit Solidarity protest outside parliament ahead of the debate in parliament on caste discrimination (which we subsequently won).
17^th: I went along to the open day at the Hilldrop Community Centre.
Along with colleagues from the Socialist Campaign Group of MPs I met with the Director of Labour Campaign for a Referendum (on Europe)

Sadly
On 9^th April I attended the funeral of my good friend Brian Craze at St Mellitus Church.
Brian was a good man to so many, including myself.  He always supported his members in the Union and will be remembered for his solidarity. I have made my appreciation of him clear to his family and friends.

Jeremy Corbyn:

Friday 05 April 2013

George Osborne was a day late with his speech this week.

The benefit changes came in on Monday. He had to leave it to his sycophants in the media to trail his “vision” of a new world of welfare – or rather without welfare.

He rocked up afterwards at a Morrison’s distribution centre to lecture his captive audience, looking beyond today into tomorrow and ever onwards.

His Budget has given every multimillionaire in Britain about £100,000 a year more. This is being paid for by the poorest people in the country.

There’s no economic logic to this, just as government policy has nothing to do with the debt or government borrowing. It’s just Tory and Lib Dem ideology, moving us towards a fundamentally more unequal society.

To give Osborne a bit of a boost right on cue, the Daily Mail splashed on how the horrific death of six children at the hands of their dangerous father Mick Philpott was a product of the welfare system.

We are in the midst of a new phase of the demonisation of anyone who receives any benefits, while the government is busy removing all safeguards against exploitation for those in or out of work.

“Make work pay!” is the government’s mantra as it hammers the incomes of the poorest.

So it was interesting to see a nicely planted story this week showing the Tories are mooting either removing the minimum wage altogether or forcing it down.

The minimum wage is little enough anyway. We need to fight for a living wage. But as with workfare it seems the government prefers people to work for nothing.

It’s been a terrible week. Someone on Twitter borrowed Franklin Roosevelt’s remark about Pearl Harbour to describe April 1 2013: “A day that will live in infamy.”

It will indeed go down in history as a day our whole society went backwards.

Four London boroughs are about to be forced to trial the £500 a week household benefit cap. In London rent levels in the private sector are so high that this will force even more families out of their homes to distant, cheaper places, disrupting schools, communities and for many their jobs and job prospects.

The rest of the country is to follow later. When this move is complete it will have “saved” £275 million.

For the disabled, already suffering from the massively discredited Atos assessments, going through terrible trauma as they are “assessed,” frequently wrongly, as fit for work and often having these rulings overturned after costly appeals, a whole new attack looms. The new “personal independence payments” will see 170,000 people receive less. By 2015, this will have “saved” £240m.

The bedroom tax kicked in, meaning every family in social housing deemed to “underoccupy” their home will be fined through the benefit system. Strangely neither Osborne nor Iain Duncan Smith seems remotely concerned at the large number of very expensive private houses, mainly in London, which are kept empty for their distant occupiers’ occasional visits, but the poorest with more space than the government says they need will get it in the neck. Across Britain at least 600,000 people are affected by this, David Cameron’s poll tax.

On top of that the housing benefit restrictions will affect 600,000 who will lose an average £14 a week; “saving” £490m.

Adding to the grief of Miserable Monday, the legal aid changes also kicked in. Britain’s most senior judge Lord Neuberger has said these will “undermine the rule of law,” as access to legal aid is denied for many family cases.

The “saving” here is £350m. As the law came into force the Bar Council published a new guide to “litigants in person,” so those with no money for a solicitor and no access to legal aid can try to represent themselves.

The imbalance in case after case will be obvious as the other side hires barristers to speak for it. A returned Charles Dickens would instantly recognise the hypocrisy and injustice of all this.

As ever, the introduction of the law has been accompanied by a media onslaught on the often low-paid legal aid solicitors, labelled “fat-cat lawyers.”

Osborne defends his bid to cut benefits for people in work by saying recipients will have to work longer hours, thus receiving less from the state. And the changes to tax credit will cut state help to people in low-paid work. It will cost single-parent families the most – a sort of market moralism against one-parent households that the Victorians would have been proud of.

The low-paid are under attack from all sides. To threats to the minimum wage and reduced tax credits add soaring unemployment, especially among the young, people are forced into part-time work. Or, made redundant, they have to take a pay cut to find a new job. There’s no bargaining power with jobs so hard to come by.

The Tories and Lib Dems have been allowed to make the running for far too long on the “shirkers and skivers” agenda. The argument that all on benefits are scroungers has seeped into the national consciousness for want of an attack on the inequalities of modern Britain.

Of course, that doesn’t make Tory policies popular. Duncan Smith, for example, is a very strange man. After his disastrous spell as Tory leader he tried to reinvent himself as a friend of the deserving poor, visiting Easterhouse where he proclaimed his new vision for helping people out of poverty and welfare dependence. That was in the days of Cameron hugging huskies and putting a wind generator on top of his house in wind-free Notting Hill to remove his “nasty party” image.

That image is certainly back – Duncan Smith’s curious claim that he would be happy to live on £53 a week resulted in an invitation from over 400,000 people – so far – to do just that.

But this isn’t enough.

We won’t beat this rabble until we recognise the need for an economy providing full, productive employment and guarding everyone against destitution and poverty.

That was the principle of the post-war Labour government and ought to be the guiding principle of the labour movement.

TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady put it well on Tuesday when she supported families in work and in receipt of tax credits, which help low-income households to survive.

But the Labour Party needs to catch up. Abstaining on a Bill forcing those on benefits to undertake lengthy periods of unpaid work was hardly the stuff of root-and-branch opposition to the government’s savage “reforms.”

Market and bank solutions to the economic crises of Europe are not about book-keeping but ideology. The near-total destruction of welfare security in Greece and the wholesale theft of savings in Cyprus are part of the same assault as the attacks on the most vulnerable in Britain.

To create a more equal society requires redistribution of wealth. Poverty and discrimination waste lives and resources. We all lose as a result.

To be a credible alternative in 2015 Labour needs a credible strategy – one that eliminates poverty, does not blame the poor for a crisis caused by the rich but defends those who need support rather than accepting the Tory agenda of demonisation and marginalisation of those in need.

The People’s Assembly on June 22 this year gives us our opportunity to promote a new agenda, mobilising opinion and putting real pressure for change on our political system.

• Jeremy Corbyn is Labour MP for Islington North.

If you have enjoyed this article then please consider donating to the Morning Star’s Fighting Fund to ensure we can keep publishing your paper.

Due to unforeseen circumstances, my Durham Road office is temporarily closed.

If you are: a constituent with a problem telephone 020 561 7488 or email corbynj@parliament.uk
If you are a constituent with a policy issue telephone 020 7219 3545 and email as above.
For anything else, please phone 020 7219 3545 or email as above.

Advice Sessions continue as usual, and here is the routine timetable (keeping in mind that there are no advice sessions in the 5th week of the month, or bank holidays and August.

First Friday of the month 2-4pm
(appointments only, please ring 020 7 561 7488)

Monday before the third Friday of the month 10-12 noon
(walk-in) Mildmay Library, 21-23 Mildmay Park, N1

Third Friday of the month 4-6pm
(walk-in) Old Fire Station, 84 Mayton St, N7

Thursday of the next week, 10-12 noon
(appointments only, please ring 020 7 5617488)
Caxton House, 129 St John’s Way, N19

Thank you.

Jeremy

We’re in a recession. Unemployment is rising. Public spending is being cut. The government is unpopular, and the respectable face of racism known as Ukip is on the rise. So what happens?

The Prime Minister makes a heavily trailed speech telling us that the problems of the National Health Service and housing can be laid at the door of immigrants.

Both front benches in Parliament agree that immigration is a problem and a whole atmosphere of abuse and intolerance is generated almost overnight.

Not to be outdone, last week Nick Clegg on behalf of the Lib Dems backed Theresa May’s scheme for migrants from certain countries to hand over a £1,000 cash bond, repayable only when they leave the country.

The galloping tide of xenophobia and racism has to be stopped. We have to assert some human values.

We live in a multicultural society and migration to Britain since World War II has been of enormous economic benefit to the country.

Far from being a drain on resources it is essential to the running of the health and transport services and many of our industries.

When Nigel Farage complains about immigration, like David Cameron and many others, and tries to get out of his obligations on the free movement of labour across Europe, he seems to forget that large numbers of British people have also migrated to other places and made their homes in other parts of the world.

International migration is a fact of life and should not be seen as a threat in the way that it’s being presented by Cameron and Clegg.

The PM had barely finished his speech when his strange claim that the National Health Service was “owed £200 million by health tourists” was undermined. The Department of Health admitted that the figure was speculation based on an insurance report, and could actually be about a third of that sum.

Cameron went on to claim that a large proportion of social housing was taken up by migrants. Immigrants should have to prove five years of local and national residence in the country before being allowed access to social housing.

The reality is that there is no priority given to foreign nationals in housing – it’s allocated according to need, as Cameron probably knows full well.

Immigration is seen as a “get out of jail free” card by politicians when they are having trouble in other areas.

The recession we’re in was not caused by immigration or emigration but by the global movement of capital and an out-of-control banking system which has been bailed out several times over by British governments. In return the population as a whole is paying the price through unemployment and cuts to public services.

The way forward is not to look for scapegoats among ordinary people but to demand investment in public services and infrastructure, equal rights for all and a society based on the needs and aspirations of all, not the prejudices of a few.

I am proud to represent a multicultural community. And as Dennis Skinner rightly pointed out in the Commons on Monday, any hospital represents a team of people from all over the world working together to improve health and save lives.

A picket line is not made stronger by blaming migrant workers. It is the unity of all workers of whatever cultural background that changes things and wins us social progress.

Cameron might play fast and loose with the figures and some Labour politicians have begun agreeing with the Tories that immigration is a huge problem.

It’s time they remembered the universality of human rights and justice and not the narrowness of racism and xenophobia.

History shows us where blaming minorities leads.

• Jeremy Corbyn is Labour MP for Islington North.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am pleased to be able to take part in this debate. My speech will relate largely to my constituency and my city, but overall the Budget will increase inequality in this country, rather than reduce it. It also contains many inconsistencies, such as spending on a carbon capture scheme while at the same time reducing restrictions on emissions and environmental costs in other industries. We need to be careful about that. If we are serious about protecting the environment, it needs to be an international initiative rather than what I suspect the Chancellor is trying to do, which is to reduce restrictions and conditions in this country, as he is doing with corporation tax. That will lead to a race to the bottom with very damaging consequences for our social infrastructure.

According to the latest unemployment count, 3,700 people in my constituency are on jobseeker’s allowance, 1,000 of whom have been on it for more than a year. Nearly 1,000 young people are also looking for work. At the same time there are enormous problems of inequality throughout London and, indeed, society. If Members look at the tax tables helpfully produced by a number of newspapers, they will see that there is no benefit whatsoever in this Budget or the planned tax changes over the next three years for most people on below average, average or even above average incomes, and that those who earn more than £500,000 a year will gain at least £2,000 a month in most cases, while some will gain considerably more depending on their own personal circumstances.

There is no question but that this Budget will lead to greater inequality in our society, not less. At the bottom end, a lot of people are trying to survive on frozen or reduced wages in part-time work or on zero-hours contracts. At the other end of the scale, those on very high salaries or with large levels of unearned income will do extremely well out of the Budget and they are able to place their money somewhere where they pay much less tax on the savings that they manage to muster. We have to do better than that. I look to a future Labour Government to commit themselves to the principle of reducing inequality in our society, partly through taxation and partly through investment and expenditure that will help the poorest people through social spending.

My main concern—I think this is true of all other London Members—is the housing problems and the housing crisis in London. My borough of Islington is one of the smaller London boroughs, but it has at least 13,000 families on the priority needs list. The council, to its absolute credit, is doing a great deal to build new council housing, which is of high quality, innovative, energy efficient and imaginatively designed, often in restricted and small spaces. However, it is nowhere near meeting the demands and needs of large numbers of people in priority need. Therefore, my borough, like every other borough, puts people into the private sector, where rents are not restricted. The benefit cap will make it impossible for tenants to pay those rents and they will be asked to make a contribution themselves.

A local authority report notes that a large number of our schoolchildren—1,000 of them—are affected by the benefit cap and that, in the worst-case scenarios, some families are being asked to find £200 a week to contribute to their private sector rent. If they are on benefits, it is obviously impossible for them to find that money—it is £10,000 a year. The only way they can be accommodated is to move them out of the borough. Those in my borough are always offered a place in Greater London. Nevertheless, that means disruption for children in schools, and the break-up of family and community networks, which is damaging and corrosive to the whole of our society.

Other boroughs far less concerned about human needs than Islington dump people outside London. A good friend of mine who lives in north Kent tells me of the misery and poverty of large numbers of people who have been dumped in seaside towns such as Margate, in very poor quality, private rented accommodation, far away from their communities, and with obvious damaging effects to children and families as a whole.

How do we deal with the housing crisis in London? One way not to deal with it is what the Chancellor suggested this week: a charter for those with great money and resources to be subsidised into yet more purchasing of private sector homes. It is yet another escalator on the house price index, using housing as a form of investment and return on capital, rather than meeting the social needs of people in constituencies such as mine. I ask the Government to think seriously about how the housing benefit cap is being introduced and operated, and about how it acts as an agent for the social cleansing of poor and vulnerable people throughout central London to the London suburbs and further afield. It will not be long before the same process starts to happen in every other constituency in the country. This will not start and end in London; the whole process will go elsewhere.

The Government say, quite rightly, that the housing benefit bill is too big: I agree. The previous Government said it was too big: I agree. Why is it too big? Is it because council rents are so high? No, it is because of the high level of private rents in this country, and the lack of any control or real conditions on the private rented sector. We need legislation to control rents and ensure a fair rent strategy, security of tenure and decent housing for people who desperately need it.

Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab): I agree with everything my hon. Friend is saying, but does he agree that a significant proportion of the private rented sector should be municipalised so that it can be improved and proper rents charged?

Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend is right. We need controls on the private rented sector and on the levels of rent charged, but to deal with this housing crisis—and it is a crisis—we must empower local authorities to take over private rented accommodation that is badly run or ludicrously expensive, and also give them enhanced powers to take over the large numbers of empty properties that are part of land banking throughout London. We have the insulting aspect of people in desperate need living in overcrowded accommodation while nearby properties are often deliberately kept vacant by wealthy, often foreign, investors, who see it as land banking for some speculative gain in the future. What is going on is simply wrong. Housing must be a priority and a right for everyone. If every child had somewhere decent, safe and secure to live, that would be a real legacy, not this gift to those who wish to make a great deal of money out of housing speculation, which is what the Budget offers.

Parliamentary Contributions

Written Questions

School meals, 21st January

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps his Department is taking to ensure the availability of breakfasts and lunches to all children in primary school.

Elizabeth Truss: Schools must provide school lunches (if a request is made and it is reasonable to do so) and are required to provide free school meals to eligible pupils. Schools are, free to provide breakfast, on a free or paid basis, as part of an offer of wraparound care. The Childcare Commission, established in 2012, is considering wraparound care alongside other forms of childcare and will publish its report shortly.

We recognise that there is more to do to improve school food in England, and that is why we have asked Henry Dimbleby and John Vincent to carry out a review of school food in England: the School Food Plan. They will make recommendations this year.

Morning Star, 21^st January

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has held with the Morning Star as part of her consultation on the future of the newspaper industry in relation to the Leveson Inquiry.

Mr Vaizey: None.

Railways: Nature Conservation, 23^rd January

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many incidents of Network Rail operations have led to prosecution or threat of prosecutions within the terms of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement; [138844]

 (2) what reports he has received on the number of Network Rail lineside operations which have been halted by the presence of nesting birds in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement [138845]

Mr Simon Burns: The Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Mr McLoughlin), has received neither reports nor statistics relating to Network Rail’s adherence over the last three years to the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as amended. Network Rail is a private sector company limited by guarantee, and its line-side works are operational matters for the company, in which Ministers have no powers to intervene.

British Indian Ocean Territory, 28^th January

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he plans to contest the ruling of the Information Commissioner on the application of Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations 2004 to information held by his Department relating to the British Indian Ocean Territory; and when this information will be released. [140053]

Mark Simmonds: Further to my answer of 20 December 2012, Official Report, column 886W. We will not be appealing the Decision Notice of 6 November 2012. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 do not apply to Overseas Territories. The Information Commissioner has accepted that the Governments of the British Indian Ocean Territory and the UK are constitutionally separate. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) have accepted that information related to the British Indian Ocean Territory stored on FCO systems is subject to requests made to the FCO under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the ceiling on the costs to his Department of litigation concerning the desire of the Chagos Islanders to return to the Islands is including the Marine Protected Area. [140054]

Mark Simmonds: There is no ceiling. While it has not instigated these cases, the Government will continue to defend them where we consider that to be the right course of action.

Asylum, 28^th January

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are supported by the National Asylum Support Service; and what the equivalent number was in (a) 2009, (b) 2010 and (c) 2011. [140052]

Mr Harper: The National Asylum Support Service was disbanded in 2006. Asylum support is now managed through regional asylum teams. The legislation in respect of eligibility for asylum support, and the categories of support available, has not changed.

Support may be provided under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute until their asylum claim is determined. Section 95 support can be provided as both accommodation and subsistence, or accommodation or subsistence only.

At the end of Q3 2012, the most recent published figure available, 19,366 asylum seekers were in receipt of Section 95 support.

Corresponding figures for previous years are:

Figures on Section 95 support are published on a quarterly basis. Latest figures are available in Table as.16.q of the release ‘Immigration Statistics, July to September 2012′ which is available from the Library of the House and from the Home Office Science website at:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/immigration-asylum-research/immigration-q3-2012/

British Indian Ocean Territory, 29^th January

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the answer of 17 January 2013, Official Report, column 909W, on British Indian Ocean Territory, if he will commission an independent study to re-evaluate the science and practicalities of resettlement of the British Indian Ocean Territory. [139652]

Mark Simmonds: Following the end of the European Convention on Human Rights litigation in December, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), said the Government will now take stock of our policy towards the resettlement of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). as we have always said we would. There are fundamental difficulties with resettlement in BIOT, but we will be as positive as possible in our engagement with Chagossian groups and all interested parties. No decision has yet been taken on whether to commission a further study of the issues raised by resettlement. While climate change and sea levels are of concern because the islands are low-lying, it is important to note that science is only one of a very large number of factors influencing the practicalities and costs of different forms of resettlement.

Life Insurance, 31^st January

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will assess the extent to which life assurance companies can claim that policy illustrations convey meaningful information to the policyholders in the absence of probabilities that each projection will appertain in practice. [140020]

Greg Clark: The claims which life assurance companies can make about illustrations of likely future returns are prescribed by long standing Financial Services Authority rules. These rules set out how illustrations should be calculated and presented. They also require that illustrations be accompanied by appropriate risk warnings, including warnings about volatility and the degree to which any figures can be relied upon.

North Africa, 5^th February

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent (a) discussions and (b) contacts he or any UK diplomatic representative has had with representatives of Touareg groups in north Africa. [141626]

Alistair Burt: In the course of their duties, members of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office meet with a diverse range of officials and people from north Africa. This includes leaders from various tribes within the north African region including Arab, Berber, Tuareg, and other groups indigenous to the region. We continue to encourage governments to work with their regional neighbours on issues of common interest and concern, including security. We continue to support reform as the path to the region’s long-term stability.

Mali, 6^th February

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many UK forces from each service have been deployed in Mali to date. [141622]

Mr Robathan [holding answer 5 February 2013]: There are currently around 20 personnel deployed in Bamako as part of a tri-service team supporting operations.

The precise number of personnel deployed may fluctuate on a daily basis for a variety of reasons, including the roulement of forces, visits and a range of other factors. We do not, therefore, publish actual figures for personnel deployed or, for deployments of this size, a breakdown by service.

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total cost is of UK involvement in Mali to date; from which budget this is drawn; and whether any funding has yet been recouped from the government of France. [141624]

Mr Robathan [holding answer 5 February 2013]: As this is an emerging operation the costs are currently being compiled, and will be available in due course. The source of funding is being discussed with the Treasury. The UK has not charged the Government of France for our contribution to operations in Mali.

Mali, 7^th February

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he first received a request from the French government for military support in operations in Mali. [141623]

Mr Robathan [holding answer 5 February 2013]: The Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), first received a request from the French Government for military support to operations in Mali on 12 January 2013.

Algeria, 7^th February

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British military personnel are currently deployed in Algeria; and what their purpose is. [141625]

Mr Robathan [holding answer 5 February 2013]:There are currently six British military personnel in Algeria: the defence attaché whose role is defence engagement; a sergeant who is a temporary augmentee assisting the defence attaché; and four members of a close protection team for Her Majesty’s ambassador to Algeria.

Whittington Hospital NHS Trust, 13^th February

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions his Department has had with the Whittington Hospital on (a) its future status and (b) the financial requirements necessary for it to achieve trust status. [143035]

Anna Soubry: The Department has had no discussions with Whittington Health NHS Trust about its future. The trust is currently developing its application to become a foundation trust. Approval of the trust’s application is the responsibility of the NHS Trust Development Authority (TDA) prior to being passed to Monitor for its consideration. Both the TDA and Monitor require assurance against a wide range of criteria, including the financial viability of the trust, before it achieves foundation trust status.

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what disposal of (a) land and (b) buildings held by (i) freehold and (ii) leasehold has taken place at the Whittington Hospital sites in each of the last 10 years. [143036]

Dr Poulter: The information requested is not centrally held. This is a matter for the local NHS. The hon. Member may wish to contact the Whittington Health NHS Trust for further information.

Shaker Aamer, 13^th February

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to his US counterpart on the condition of Shaker Aamer in Guantánamo Bay; and when he now expects Mr Aamer to be released. [143037]

Alistair Burt: The British Government remains committed to engagement with the US with the aim of securing Mr Aamer’s release and return to the UK as soon as possible. Ministers and senior officials continue to raise Mr Aamer’s case with their US counterparts.

Previous legislation passed by the US Congress, namely the 2011 National Defense Authorisation Act (NDAA), all but precluded transfers out of Guantanamo Bay. This legislation was renewed by the US Government for 2012, allowing for the US Secretary of Defense to exercise a waiver should stringent conditions be met. Despite the British Government’s best endeavours Mr Aamer was not released in 2012.

The NDAA has now been renewed for 2013. We continue to work with US counterparts to consider the implications of the NDAA 2013 for Mr Aamer’s case. Ultimately, any decision regarding Mr Aamer’s release remains in the hands of the United States Government.

National Archives, 13^th February

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many files are held in the National Archives which are exempted from the 30 year rule; and how many of those files relate to (a) alleged membership of the Communist Party or associated organisations, (b) uses of espionage and (c) people who are still alive.[143064]

Jeremy Wright: The National Archives’ catalogue lists over 11 million records. Of these 118,609 files more than 30 years old are currently closed to public access. Access to these records can be requested under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Titles and descriptions for closed records appear on The National Archives’ online catalogue at nationalarchives.gov.uk/Discovery. These are searchable by a variety of criteria including keywords. However, to determine how many closed files relate to (a), (b) and (c), the contents of each file would need to be examined in detail. This is because files may contain information about certain subjects or individuals that is not included in their catalogue title. Therefore it would incur a disproportionate cost to provide the answer to (a), (b) and (c).

Oral Questions and Debates

Statement from Prime Minister on Algeria, 18^th January 2013

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. Obviously, the situation facing those in the gas plant is appalling. What consideration is he giving to greater British military involvement anywhere in the region, including Mali, and what will be the possible consequences for the future of the whole region and the possibilities of long-term political peace?

The Prime Minister: We have offered logistical and other assistance to the French, along the lines I have set out—C-17 planes and other logistical support. We are also looking at the EU training mission and how we could contribute to that. I do not believe that in Mali we are talking remotely about combat troops or that sort of approach; that is not the role we see for ourselves in that conflict. I will say again that I think we should strongly support what the French and the west African countries are trying to do in Mali, which is to push back the rebel forces who are backed by al-Qaeda and ensure that they cannot take control of that country. I would very much caution against anyone who believes that if somehow we stayed out of these issues and just said, “This has got nothing to do with us”, that would somehow make us safer. I do not believe that is the case.

Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb—AQM—is out to harm, kill, maim and do the worst it can against western interests, including British interests, and we have to bear that in mind. We face a terrorist threat that is made worse when we have so much ungoverned space in Mali at the same time.

Foreign Office Questions, 22^nd January

Jeremy Corbyn: What contact are the Government having with the Government of Iran, and what are they doing to ensure that the aspiration of a middle east nuclear weapon free zone conference takes place, given that the one due in Helsinki was postponed?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt): As co-sponsor of the conference, we are determined to see it progress. It was not possible to hold it by the end of last year, but I remain in contact with Minister Laavaja, the facilitator, to see whether it can make progress. It is the United Kingdom’s intention to continue to press for this.

Private Rented Sector, 23^rd January

Jeremy Corbyn: I am delighted that we are having this debate, and very sad that it is so short, meaning that so many colleagues can speak only for a short time.

This is an enormous issue. As I pointed out in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), a third of my constituents now live in private rented accommodation. I keep a tally at my advice bureau every week of the highest rent I have come across in comparison with the rent that would have been paid if the house had remained a council property. Last week, I came across the following example. Flat A was a council tenancy, had been fully refurbished to the decent homes standard and was £100 a week. The tenancy was secure, the family was happy—so was everybody—and the children were doing well. The flat next door was £440 a week and repairs were not done. The ex-council tenant lives in Southend or wherever else and can apparently live comfortably off the income from one flat bought under right to buy. What is going on in the rented housing sector is disgusting and obscene.

Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab): Will my hon. Friend give way?

Jeremy Corbyn: Unfortunately, I will not give way to anyone as it will prevent others from speaking. We need an understanding of the urgency of regulation of the private rented sector to ensure that those people who go into it as tenants can be assured of getting their deposit back, which they often do not, of not being charged excessive search fees by the agencies, of not being harassed out of the property, and of its being maintained. Local authorities have some powers in that regard but we need far more powers for them to intervene and ensure that conditions are decent.

The experience in my constituency and that of my neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), is that there is a large amount of funny money going into London. People are buying up large quantities of property, mainly in west London, and that has a knock-on effect on the whole private sector across London, leading to excessive rent rises. My constituents cannot afford to remain living in the area where their children go to school, or where they work, and they cannot afford to stay there if members of their family are unemployed but have caring duties relating to the wider family, so there is enormous population turnover. Having short-term tenancies with very high rents corrodes community and family life, and is fundamentally very damaging for all of us in the long run.

The local authority faces huge housing demands; it has 13,000 families on the priority list, and the council cannot possibly house them in its housing stock of 30,000 homes, so it has to house them in the private sector. On some occasions, there is a rent deposit scheme, but that is quite rare. On most occasions, the council is forced to house people in the private sector, wherever it can find homes. Very few people are rehoused in the borough; the local authority’s responsibilities are discharged all across London. Some London boroughs discharge those responsibilities to places well outside London.

Unless we build more council houses, regulate the private sector and guarantee that all our children will have somewhere decent, safe and warm to live, study and grow up, we pay the price—in ill health, in under-achievement in schools, in family break-up, and in crime. It is up to us to do something about that. We should start with regulation, because there will always be some private sector involvement, but we should then move on, particularly through investment in council housing, which will help us to solve this problem.

Deployment to Mali, 29^th January

Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Secretary of State recognise that Mali is in a post-colonial situation and there is great tension between the north and the south, and that the failure of successive Governments in Mali to address the wishes of the Tuareg people has led to this conflict, as has the exploitation of the country’s minerals? Does he not accept that unless there is a political solution to those issues in Mali, western forces will be there for a very long time and we will be sucked into a horrible war from which we will end up ultimately having to make a humiliating retreat?

Mr Hammond: I do not accept the last part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, but I of course accept that, for there to be a sustainable peaceful situation in Mali over the longer term, there will have to a political solution to the tensions that exist between the north and the south of the country—tensions that, frankly, were created by a colonial map drawer and were pretty predictable when one looks at the ethnic and religious make-up of that country. But the fact that the regional powers are prepared to deploy in support of the Malian army is something that we should very much celebrate and support. Let there be a regional solution to the short-term problems in Mali, and by all means let us be active and forward-leaning in our support for a long-term political solution to the problem.

Business of the House, 31^st January

Jeremy Corbyn: I am obliged to you, Mr Speaker. I have always felt that travel broadens the mind.

The Leader of the House will have heard the request from the shadow Leader of the House for a debate on the situation in north Africa. May I ask the Government, once again, to table a votable motion on the increasing deployment and involvement of British armed forces in what could become an unpleasant, long, drawn-out, guerrilla-like conflict into which this country, inevitably, will be sucked deeper and deeper? The precedent for holding a vote was set before the Iraq invasion in 2003 and it is now the norm that the significant deployment of British troops in a war requires the consent of Parliament. I hope that the Leader of the House will recognise that and that the Government will table an appropriate motion for debate, so that many of us can express our concerns about the depth of our involvement.

Mr Lansley: In the first instance, I simply reiterate to the hon. Gentleman and the House that I believe Ministers have had several substantive opportunities to explain the nature and circumstances of our engagement, and to be questioned on that. I am not sure that I take the analogy with Iraq, or indeed Afghanistan; as my hon. Friends and Ministers have said at the Dispatch Box, an analogy with the situation in Somalia is probably closer.

As the Government have made clear, we will observe the existing convention that before UK troops are committed to conflict, the House of Commons should have an opportunity to debate and vote on the matter, except when there is an emergency and such action would not be appropriate. One should also recognise, as my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary said in the House this week, that the role of British troops is clearly not a combat role and it is not our intention to deploy combat troops. We are clear about the risks of mission creep—that was the nature of the question being asked—and have defined carefully the support that we are willing and able to provide to the French and Malian authorities. I would not carry the analogy to the point where the convention is engaged in the sense of a requirement for a debate and vote in this House.

Point of Order, 6^th February

Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There is a lack of recent Government statements on the deployment of British forces in Mali and other parts of north Africa. Last weekend, the Prime Minister undertook an arduous visit to the area, which included serious discussions with the Algerian Government and others. When the initial statements on Mali were made, we were promised that the House would be regularly updated. Nearly 400 British service personnel are now involved in the operation and we have not had a statement in the House for almost a week. I believe we deserve one.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans): I thank you for the point of order, Mr Corbyn. I have received no notification that any statement will be made on that issue today. Should that alter, the House will be notified in the usual manner, but I am sure those on the Treasury Bench have heard your request.

Business of the House, 7^th February

Jeremy Corbyn: Last week, I raised with the Leader of the House the issue of the deployment of British troops in Mali and north Africa and he promised me that the House would be kept updated. I raised the question again yesterday on a point of order following the Prime Minister’s extensive visit to the area last weekend and apparently all we will get is a written statement. That is not good enough and is not acceptable. We need a full statement and a full debate on the significant deployment of British troops in that area, which might last for a very long time and should be of great concern to everybody in this House. I ask him again: may we have a debate with a votable motion so that we can discuss the situation and the long-term objectives of the British deployment?

Mr Lansley: I noted the hon. Gentleman’s point of order yesterday and I will reiterate what I said to the shadow Leader of the House earlier: I and my colleagues will ensure that there is a report to the House next week before the House rises. I will not reiterate all that I said last week, but we continue to look carefully to ensure that we meet fully the convention that before there is a commitment of our armed forces to conflict and combat for any substantial period, when it is not an emergency, this House should have the opportunity to debate that. As the hon. Gentleman understands from what I said previously, this involvement has an urgent character but it is not the Government’s intention or plan to commit our forces to combat and conflict.

Accident and Emergency Departments, 7^th February

Jeremy Corbyn: I will try to be as brief as possible so that the debate can be properly concluded.

This debate goes to the heart of what the NHS is about. Many Members of Parliament are deeply frustrated about health plans being hatched in their constituencies, but they have very little power to influence events. The health service is being atomised by a large number of private interests through private finance initiatives, and by a large number of trusts with competing interests. We need a properly planned health service rather than the internal market and competition, which are at the heart of so many of our problems.

If the hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) were still in his place, I could tell him something that would make him even more depressed about the future of Chase Farm hospital. As a former member of the late Enfield and Haringey area health authority in the 1970s, I recall debates on whether Chase Farm should be closed. There are agendas—colleagues will recognise such agendas all over the country—that live on beyond past directors, trusts and reconfigurations: somebody always has an aspiration to close something and centralise something else. If hon. Members think politics in the House of Commons is robust, they should try NHS politics, which is far more robust and nastier than anything we experience here.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) on opening and securing this debate, and on the campaign he is running on behalf of the people of his constituency. Many Members are involved in that campaign in west London and the one in south London. What is going on in London is outrageous. I ask the House to consider what my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) said. London has a fast growing population, great health inequalities and poverty, and a fast growing number of people in the daytime: the population of central London goes up phenomenally during the day because of people commuting to work, going to cultural or sporting events, or simply passing through the capital city. If we start closing A and E departments and saying that everything should go out into the community, and thus that hospitals can be reduced and closed, we are making the future very dangerous for our communities.

As the House is well aware, I represent Islington North. The Whittington hospital is in my constituency. Anything I say about the hospital is not a criticism of it or its wonderful staff—I absolutely support them and their work. Some three years ago, we discovered that the A and E department was due to be closed. As ever, there were denials all over the place. I tell the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) to be ever so sceptical when told that an A and E department is not closing, because closure is closing in a plan somewhere.

We exposed the plan to close the Whittington A and E and eventually had the most bizarre general election rally ever in 2010, when the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), the hon. Members for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), my right hon. Friends the Members for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) and for Tottenham, and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and I were on a platform pledging to save the A and E department, which was duly saved. However, time moves on. The hospital wants to become a trust and has begun putting together a financial package, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham referred. The package involves the sale of a quarter of the site—apparently, £17 million is to be made from that—the loss of 500 jobs and a reduction of the number of beds in the hospital to 177, which is about half what it was five years ago.

We asked whether an A and E department with a hospital of only 177 beds behind it was viable. Is that not a plan to remove the Whittington as an overall local district general hospital with an A and E department in future? The Camden New Journal and Islington Tribune reported on this with great alacrity last week. I congratulate Tom Foot and all those who put the story together, because I suspect the issue would not otherwise have reached the light of day. At a public meeting next Tuesday, friends, neighbouring MPs and many others from the local community will be questioning the chief executive and others from the hospital, and taking part in a big campaign to protect our hospital.

We all face issues of health care. I think there is a consensus that we all respect and value the principles of the national health service, but if we allow buildings to be sold off and A and E departments to close, we will end up with the health service becoming a service of last resort and with the promotion of private medicine at the expense of the NHS. We will end up with much poorer societies and much greater health inequalities, and that is in nobody’s interest. Let us get control of this in a democratic way, so that we can control what goes on in the health service in our name.

European Council, 11^th February

Jeremy Corbyn: During the summit the Prime Minister clearly had talks with President Hollande about the situation in Mali, but strangely he has made no statement to the House of Commons on this. Can he tell us how long the French troops intend to be there, how many more British troops are going, the cost of them, and above all, the military objective of the British participation in this enterprise?

The Prime Minister: There was a brief discussion about Mali, which President Hollande led, and I did have a discussion with him. I strongly support what the French have done. I do not believe it is their intention to keep their troops there a moment longer than they have to. The intention is to train up African forces from the west African states. Britain is prepared to contribute some 200 troops to that purpose. I spoke this morning to President Goodluck Jonathan of Nigeria to offer our support to train Nigerian troops. It is our intention and that of the French that those west African troops will replace the French troops. Then two things need to happen—a political agreement in Mali that helps to bring that country together, and the rapid training of Malian forces so that they can take responsibility for their own security. No one wants foreign troops to stay in Mali a second longer than is necessary, and that is certainly not our intention.

Early Day Motions (EDM)

EDM 990: Whittington Hospital, 29^th January 2013