Susan Murray MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 4 Mar 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. The Liberal Democrats would like to introduce new clause 7, because we want to strengthen cross-border co-operation and Britain’s role in that process. We also believe that we need to reverse some of the last Government’s roll-back of provisions to tackle gangs involved in modern slavery. The new clause would require the border commander to meet the executive director of Europol every three months, which would help to achieve those goals.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I want to let the Committee know that I know Daniel O’Malley from Scotland through the Liberal Democrats.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Medicinal Cannabis · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. It is undeniable that the United Kingdom’s relationship with cannabis remains fundamentally flawed. For too long, our prohibitionist stance has shaped public perception, linking cannabis with criminality instead of recognising its significant therapeutic value. Sometimes those who do recognise its therapeutic value are pushed into criminality. In reality, for many people across the UK, access to cannabis-based medicines can represent the difference between enduring chronic pain or multiple fits and leading a fulfilling life. That discrepancy is central to this debate. Although, in principle, current regulations permit cannabis prescriptions for severe epilepsy, chemotherapy-induced nausea, muscle stiffness or spasms related to multiple sclerosis, genuine accessibility remains elusive. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has already mentioned, between 2018 and 2022 fewer than five NHS prescriptions for unlicensed medical cannabis, with the resulting funding issues, were issued, while private providers supplied nearly 90,000. The stark contrast highlights the vast gulf between existing policy intentions and the lived experiences of patients seeking relief. Not only is this situation profoundly unjust for individuals who rely on cannabis to manage debilitating symptoms and have found no alternative, but it also entrenches an inherently two-tier healthcare system. Those with the financial means to travel for specialised appointments and cover private clinical expenses can access treatments that are virtually unobtainable for those who depend entirely on the NHS. While opinions on medical cannabis differ, I am sure we all agree that no one in Britain should be forced to pay exorbitant fees simply to secure a legally sanctioned and potentially life-changing medication. The situation is further compounded by the fact that our outdated perspective on cannabis continues to hold back domestic medical innovation and economic growth. At a time when the Government project a modern vision for the nation, Britain lags behind international counterparts who have embraced a more progressive approach to cannabis-based treatments. By clinging to outdated stigmas, we not only fail our patients but also forgo opportunities to develop a robust medical cannabis sector, stifling both financial potential and essential healthcare advantages. In the light of those realities, we must adopt a more compassionate and patient-centred strategy that does not penalise individuals for their economic circumstances. It is with this in mind that we must launch an investigation into the feasibility of GP prescribing of cannabis-based products, so that crucial treatments reach those who need them quickly. Such measures would reduce reliance on expensive private options, remove inequality and the push towards criminality, and alleviate unnecessary suffering of thousands of people nationwide. Given the clear shortcomings of the current system, my colleagues in the Liberal Democrats and I urge the Government to reform policy in practice around medicinal cannabis across the UK. By doing so, we can ensure that patients receive the care they deserve while fostering a modern healthcare environment that truly reflects Britain’s commitment to innovation, compassion and equity.

• 27 Jan 2025 · Creative Industries · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to stand here to talk about our creative industries. At a time when Britain’s international influence has been waning, those industries remain a powerful testament to what we can achieve, shaping our global reputation for innovation and cultural strength. Beyond the enormous economic value of more than £100 billion contributed to our economy each year, our creative sector exerts a profound soft power that showcases British excellence, from Venice to Osaka and in every corner of the world. Much of the spending in this area is devolved, but the principle and opportunities extend UK wide. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) mentioned David Tennant, who started out in Scotland. We are seeing the important role that the arts play in young people’s academic development in the move from a STEM approach, to one of science, technology, engineering and maths education also including the arts. Creative subjects foster development that enhances the learning of science and technology, producing innovation in industry as well as in the creative industries. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) mentioned how the creative industries have a broader influence in our social care sector, and I want to highlight how creative industries at the grassroots benefit our communities and reduce costs to the NHS and social care. My constituency contains numerous examples, such as the Kirkintilloch Players, the Antonine theatre group, and Creative Spark Theatre Arts. They connect young people, developing their confidence, creativity and social skills, using the power of the arts. Programmes such as the East Dunbartonshire initiative for creative therapy—EDICT—demonstrate the social benefits of arts funding, providing services to help people manage mental health challenges, and supporting those on the autism spectrum. By offering a creative outlet and constructive ways to cope, those organisations reduce the strain on our already stretched NHS and transform the lives of those who need it. However clear the social and cultural benefits provided by our creative industries are, serious challenges persist. Since 2010, funding for local arts and culture has fallen by £2.3 billion in real terms. While the UK cut its arts and culture provision by around 6%, other OECD countries such as Germany, France and Finland increased theirs in the same period by 22%, 25%, and 70% respectively. The loss of grassroots support threatens the stability and future growth of community-based arts organisations and the wellbeing of our communities. EDICT in my community experienced a 70% funding reduction at the end of last year. As Liberal Democrats we believe in funding the creative arts, including fine art, music, theatre, literature, film, digital and media, which are crucial to maintaining a talented skilled workforce and a healthy and vibrant economy.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Asylum Seeker Hotel Accommodation: Reopening · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the important issue of reopening hotels to accommodate asylum seekers. Despite repeated ministerial promises, we continue to see the result of a broken system—a system that has caused immense hardship for asylum seekers and communities and has placed a significant burden on taxpayers. Let us be clear that this debate arises only because of successive Conservative Governments having failed to deal efficiently with the growing backlog of asylum claims. According to the Migration Observatory, the number of outstanding asylum applications under the Conservatives soared from 27,000 in 2018 to 132,000 by 2022. As of September 2024, Home Office data indicates that over 97,000 cases involving 133,000 individuals still await an initial decision, with a further 127,000 in the appeals and removal process. Despite repeated assurances, most claimants still wait beyond six months for any clarity on their status. During that process, asylum seekers are trapped, unable to work, unable to integrate and forced to depend on Government funds. The reliance on contingency accommodation, whether in the form of hotels, barges or former military barracks, is an expensive sticking plaster to cover a deeper wound. It provides neither dignity for asylum seekers nor value for money for the taxpayer. We have heard Ministers assert that these hotels are only a short-term measure, yet Home Office figures show that there were over 35,000 individuals in hotel accommodation as of September 2024. Successive Governments have spoken of reducing dependency on this provision, yet the number of people in hotels remains persistently high. Worse still, the backlog remains alarmingly large and we are left grappling with new, reactive announcements rather than a cohesive plan. The situation benefits no one. The fundamental problem is the time it takes to make decisions on asylum claims, coupled with the ban on working. It is the worst of both worlds: forced inactivity for those seeking safety and to pay their fair share, and an unnecessary bill for the public purse. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research estimates that granting the right to work would generate £1.3 billion in additional tax revenue and would reduce expenditure by as much as £6.7 billion each year. We could address the backlog more effectively and reduce the public cost if we ended the rigid prohibition on work, yet time and again Governments have resisted such a solution. The Liberal Democrats have advocated a clear, sensible plan. First, we propose creating a dedicated, well-resourced processing unit that is separate from the Home Office, with a singular mission of resolving cases quickly. Secondly, we propose reinstating a six-month service standard so that claimants receive an initial decision quickly. Finally, we would grant asylum seekers the right to work after a set period, allowing them to pay their fair share instead of languishing in costly Government-funded accommodation or on street corners. As we consider whether to reopen asylum hotels for asylum seekers, we must remember that no one genuinely wants this. Asylum seekers deserve dignified conditions, local communities deserve to feel safe from people loitering with nothing to do and taxpayers deserve an end to the wasteful spending brought on by Government’s incompetence. I urge colleagues from all sides of the House to support practical reforms as proposed by the Liberal Democrats, which will finally clear the asylum backlog, end the expensive overreliance on temporary accommodation, such as asylum hotels, and allow those who are seeking refuge to stand on their own feet and contribute to society.

• 15 Jan 2025 · Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry, Dr Murrison. I was able to use my skills and abilities to become a councillor in 2022, and I am now looking forward to a much better retirement. However, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should do a U-turn and implement the ombudsman’s recommendation?

• 15 Jan 2025 · Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak as a WASPI woman myself, and I am very proud to associate myself with this campaign. I know that many people feel that perhaps we should perhaps not be entitled to compensation, because we were able to get mortgages and buy our own homes, we were able to generate more capital wealth, and many of us have private pensions. However, I personally had to stop work because my husband became ill, and I was looking forward to a retirement where my only income would have been the state pension. I am very thankful for my health; I knew that the retirement age had gone up, and when the right hon. Gentleman talks about skills and abilities—

• 13 Jan 2025 · Hospice and Palliative Care · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) for securing this debate on this important subject. As many people said during the assisted dying discussions, it is clear that the one thing that everybody has in common is a desire to see better palliative care being made more available across the country. Nearly a third of palliative care in Scotland is delivered by charities, and it is the same across the UK. In Scotland, hospice charities provide end of life care to over 20,000 people a year, ensuring compassion and care at the end of life. This figure is expected to rise by 40% in the next 15 years. My constituency does not have a hospice within its boundaries, but we have many people who work and volunteer in the hospice sector. There is concern that the lack of understanding of the core role and wide scope of palliative care, which has for too long been funded outside the NHS despite being a fundamental aspect of care, has led to a shortfall in services, including palliative care for children. For too long, hospices have struggled with insufficient funding from consecutive Scottish and UK Governments, with less than half the funding for hospice care coming from Government sources. While the £100 million extra is absolutely welcome, there is still a huge shortfall. The national insurance increase is projected to cost Scottish hospices an extra £2.5 million a year, and it comes at a time when Marie Curie has highlighted that one in four people across the UK are unable to access the necessary support. This increased financial burden will undoubtedly lead to fewer beds, reduced services and a diminished quality of care for some of our most vulnerable citizens at the end of life. Inevitably, this will compound the effects of the staff shortages already being faced by the care industry, further straining hospice care providers. Where palliative care is available, there are still shortages, especially in psychological support and spiritual care, plus the possibility of serious recruitment problems with any assisted dying provision and in the social care structures that support people in their own homes. Fourteen hospice care providers have already issued an open letter calling for cross-party consensus on sustainable hospice funding. Their plea highlights the urgent need for additional support to ensure that these vital institutions are not forced to ration care or to close their doors. I therefore urge the Government again to consider exempting hospices from the recent national insurance hike. This would be a practical step to alleviate the financial strain on hospices and hospice charities. By doing so, we would not remove crucial funding from palliative care which, as we have heard, is often raised by charitable donations. We must support palliative care services and ensure that all who need hospice care can access it, allowing them dignity and compassion in their end of life care.