Oral Answers to Questions
Carol Monaghan Excerpts(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
David Duguid
The UK, like Europe and other countries around the world, has been forced to respond decisively to the challenges posed by high energy prices resulting from, among other things, Russia’s weaponisation of energy markets. Because of action taken by this Government, the most vulnerable households will get at least £1,200—some much more—of cost of living support this year on top of the benefit of the energy price guarantee. Of course, the hon. Lady is absolutely right that this Government and the devolved Administrations must work together to make sure that the most vulnerable get the most support.
Carol Monaghan
According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, if the Government do not uprate benefits in line with inflation, then claimants, many of whom are working, will experience the biggest ever real-terms cut to benefits in a single year. Is it not the case that the Minister’s Government are prioritising growing the wealth of the richest while not doing enough for the vulnerable, including the elderly, in our communities in Scotland?
David Duguid
Again, it will come as no surprise that I do not totally agree with everything that an hon. Member said. The hon. Lady asked about raising benefits in line with inflation. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is looking at that—as she would do on an annual basis in any case—and will announce in due course the decision on benefits uprating.
Tributes to Her Late Majesty The Queen
Carol Monaghan Excerpts(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
On behalf of my constituents, the people of Glasgow and my fellow Glasgow MPs, I wish to pay tribute to Elizabeth, Queen of Scots. Her passing is a time of profound sadness. Queen Elizabeth was a constant in our lives, the only Head of State we have known.
Unlike most of the other Members who have spoken this afternoon, I never met the Queen, although as a young girl I went to see her at her silver jubilee, when she came to Glasgow and visited Kelvingrove Art Gallery. The crowds were so big that I could not see her, so my dad put me up on his shoulders and I was able to wave at this beautiful big car and the Queen as she came out. Many people in Glasgow have similar memories to that.
It is right that we remember and pay tribute to Her Majesty’s tireless work, her dedication to her role and her strong sense of duty. For members of the armed forces, she was their commander-in-chief. My husband’s commission parchment from Her Majesty hangs proudly in our home.
Like many in Glasgow, I have strong Irish connections. Many Members this afternoon have spoken of her wit and her ability to view a situation with clarity and wisdom. I am reminded of her visit to Dublin in 2011, the first by a reigning monarch for a century. The Queen understood that it was an historic event and that it required some delicacy. She wished to address the President, Mary McAleese, in Irish, but had been warned against attempting it for fear that she might make a mistake and the gesture would be misinterpreted. Undaunted, she began: “A Uachtaráin, agus a chairde”—President and friends. Instantly, all tension was lifted. President McAleese mouthed “Wow!” and the audience at Dublin Castle burst into applause. Wisdom, understanding and respect such as that were why the Queen was loved by monarchists and republicans, and by people of all faiths and those of none.
To finish, I extend my sympathy and that of my constituents and of the people of Glasgow, and our prayers, to the entire royal family, who will most acutely feel this loss of a much-loved mother, grandmother and great-grandmother. May she rest in peace.
UK Energy Costs
Carol Monaghan Excerpts(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs May
I am just about to finish.
People need help with their bills today, and that is what the Government are providing. But Britain led the world through the industrial revolution. If we grasp the opportunity now, we can lead the world in a cleaner, greener form of growth.
Ian Blackford
Yes, I do. We need to reflect that energy bills are rising in an energy-rich Scotland. The damage done by the UK Government’s choices—choices that have been imposed on us—make the choice about Scotland’s future ever clearer. Scotland is energy rich, so we simply should not be facing an energy emergency. It may surprise some in this House, but Scotland produces six times more gas than we consume and almost 100% of our entire electricity production comes from renewables. That is not attention-seeking, I would say to the Prime Minister; these are the facts. Scotland has the energy, but we just simply do not have the powers. We are stuck in a UK market that prices our electricity on the basis of the price of wholesale gas, and the power to change the system lies with Westminster.
Carol Monaghan
My right hon. Friend will also know that, although we are producing almost 100% of our energy from renewable sources, the grid connection charge—£7.36 per megawatt-hour compared with 40p per megawatt-hour in England—does not help further investment. We need these grid connection charges to be reduced, because my constituents want to know, when they can see wind turbines outside their windows, why their prices are going up.
Ian Blackford
Again, my hon. Friend makes a very important point. We are being ripped off on Scotland’s ability to deliver green renewable energy, but it is even worse than that. For those of us who live in the north of Scotland, because we have a regional distribution market, we pay a premium for the electricity that is sent south and then have to pay the highest prices to get it back. That is the cost to people in Scotland of Westminster’s control of our energy market.
What is needed—this is most crucial of all, and it is glaringly lacking in this energy plan—is a fundamental overhaul of the energy market to break the link between the cost of gas and the price of renewable and low-carbon electricity. The reality is that an independent and energy-rich Scotland with the normal powers to act in our own interests could have cushioned our economy from this cost of living crisis. Through independence, Scotland could use our energy well for the benefit of our people, so for households and businesses in Scotland the cost of living crisis is literally the cost of living with Westminster. It is a cost we can no longer afford and it is a price we are no longer willing to pay. It is why Scotland’s people will choose independence.
Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests Resignation
Carol Monaghan Excerpts(2 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Ellis
I realise that it is challenging, but if Labour Members wish a change of Prime Minister, they ought to try to win a general election; they are not going to be able to do it.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Is there any point in appointing a new ethics adviser for a Prime Minister with no ethics?
Michael Ellis
Of course, the Prime Minister maintains the highest standards in public life and will continue to do so. Despite all the scurrilous suggestions otherwise, the hon. Lady has given no evidence to indicate in what way she is referring to a lack of ethics.
Debate on the Address
Carol Monaghan Excerpts(2 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
May I first add my voice to the many who have expressed their good wishes to Her Majesty the Queen? Our monarch is a truly remarkable and great lady, and I hope that she will be back in rude health in time not only to participate in but to enjoy her platinum jubilee celebrations. May I also say how good it is to see the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan) back in her place? I am sure that we all wish her a full recovery as well.
The Queen’s Speech contains a long-overdue planning Bill, which, we are told, will allow greater local input into development. It is a sad fact that under previous planning regimes the desire to build houses—I accept, of course, that people need houses to live in—seems to have overridden local planning desires. The speech also contains a Bill to promote sustainable and efficient farming and food production. The two issues must be compatible. It is not possible to have sustainable food and farming if we are going to build all over our grade 1 and grade 2 agricultural land, which is what is happening in Thanet at this very moment. That has to stop. I hope that those on the Front Bench will take account of the fact that that circle must be squared, which is incredibly important.
The speech contains many mentions of the increase in the cost of living, and I have full confidence in our Chancellor’s ability to get things right. I understand entirely why he probably wants to wait until the autumn to address fuel price rises, but I say to him that people are hurting now. In constituencies such as North Thanet, families are facing real hardship. These are normal, hard-working families that ordinarily would expect to be able to heat their homes, put food on the table, and maybe have a little bit left over to enjoy themselves. That has practically gone out of the window, so I hope that the Chancellor will take on board the need for urgent action now as well as action at the autumn Budget.
The Queen’s Speech also refers to Brexit freedoms and the fact that we should be allowed to control more of our laws. I was under the impression that one of the advantages of Brexit was that we would be able to take control of much more of the legislation that affects, for example, animal welfare. I was saddened to find that the speech contains virtually no reference to animal welfare. However, upon further inquiry, I am pleased to learn that at least the animals abroad Bill, although not mentioned in the speech, will be introduced and that the ban on the import of body parts—otherwise known as trophies—from hunting will be brought in.
It strikes me as strange, however, that we are allowed to ban, for example, the production of foie gras in the United Kingdom and that we can control the import of fur, but there is a reluctance to ban products produced elsewhere in the world under circumstances that we would not permit in the UK. Such issues must be addressed, and I hope that we shall find time to deal with some of them as we move down this line of legislation.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concerns that bear fur from Canada will still be imported for use in ceremonial caps in the Army?
Sir Roger Gale
The hon. Lady may or may not know that I am one of the patrons of the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, which is campaigning for the use of faux fur. In this jubilee year, it strikes me as strange that when Her Majesty the Queen has eschewed the use of real fur in favour of faux fur in all her new garments, and when we now use faux fur skins for bandsmen’s outfits under the big bass drum, as a replacement for tiger skins and leopard skins, we are still using real fur for guardsmen’s caps. I understand the pride with which those caps are worn and the need to make sure that any faux fur replacement is suited to and fit for the purpose, but so far the Ministry of Defence, which has got so many other things right, seems reluctant to go down this road. I hope that if we can demonstrate that there is a viable faux fur alternative, that also will change.
The Queen’s Speech makes reference to “our gallant Armed Forces”, and by God they are gallant. It is vital that we continue to make the maximum affordable possible contribution to the war effort in Ukraine and to continue to give, across the House, our fullest possible support to those who are fighting so bravely for the freedom of their country.
Finally, I come to the issue of Channel 4 privatisation. As a former broadcaster, television producer and director, I am fiercely committed to free speech. As an aside, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Anna Cookson and the team on BBC Radio Kent’s “The Wake Up Call” on, a week ago, winning an ARIA—Audio and Radio Industry Award—in the teeth of competition from, I believe, the “Today” programme, Radio 5 Live and others. That demonstrates two things: the importance of that free speech; and the value of public service broadcasting. I am not philosophically opposed to the privatisation of Channel 4, but I do believe we are in danger of throwing a baby out with the bathwater. I hope very much that if we are going to continue to go down this road, we take great care to seek to secure the future of the independent production industry that Channel 4 has fostered.
Easter Recess: Government Update
Carol Monaghan Excerpts(2 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
May I respectfully say to the hon. Member that I think the real choice that this Government —this House of Commons—should follow is getting on with the job of serving the people we were elected to serve and helping them with the costs of living? That is what we are doing.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
At Prime Minister’s questions on Wednesday 8 December, the Prime Minister said
“there was no party and…no covid rules were broken.”—[Official Report, 8 December 2021; Vol. 705, c. 372.]
Today, he refers to his lawbreaking as a “mistake”. Can the Prime Minister explain to my constituents, and indeed to children across these isles, what the difference is between a lie and a mistake?
The Prime Minister
I have apologised deeply for what I got wrong, and I have explained to the House why I spoke as I did on that occasion and others.
Oral Answers to Questions
Carol Monaghan Excerpts(2 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
That is absolutely right, and I thank my hon. Friend very much for his bravery in going to see for himself only the other day. It is right that we should double down on military defensive support in the way that we are. By the way, can anyone imagine a Labour Government, eight of whose Front Benchers voted to get rid of our nuclear deterrent—[Interruption.] Yes, they did, and recently. Can anyone imagine them doing the same? We will go on with that. What we will also do, and I hope we have the support of the Opposition in this, is ensure there is no backsliding on sanctions by any of our friends and partners around the world. In fact, we need now to ratchet up the economic pressure on Vladimir Putin, and it is certainly inconceivable that any sanctions could be taken off simply because there was a ceasefire. That would be absolutely unthinkable, in my view.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
Scotland’s renewables sector is leading the world. I am grateful to the Scottish Government for all the help and support they are giving in developing that incredible resource in the North sea. By the way, I think there is also a role for hydrocarbons as we transition. We need to ensure that we have a grid that enables us to take that electricity onshore and transmit it around the country, and that is what I will be setting out in the British energy security strategy—the long-term investment that this country needs and that the parties opposite completely fail to address.
Sue Gray Report
Carol Monaghan Excerpts(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
It is clear that the Prime Minister has used these parties, like many an under-par manager, to buy popularity and favour. Can the Prime Minister tell us if he is using the same techniques when negotiating treaties and trade deals with international leaders?
Covid-19 Update
Carol Monaghan Excerpts(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is asking an excellent question. The difference between the situation when plan B came in and today is the sheer level of vaccination in this country, including in his constituency. That, combined with the direction of travel of the figures, as I said to the hon. Member for Ilford North, is what gives us the confidence to take the steps we are taking now.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
It is disappointing that the Prime Minister’s statement did not include measures to recover the £4.3 billion fraudulently claimed through coronavirus support schemes. With the £20 a week cut to universal credit, inflation at over 5% and energy prices going through roof, ordinary families are not experiencing coronavirus recovery in the same boozy way as the Prime Minister, so will he now commit to supporting those families to the tune of £4.3 billion, in the same way as criminals have been supported?
The Prime Minister
We continue to support people throughout the pandemic, and we can be very proud of the speed with which we not only did the vaccine roll-out, but secured 17 billion items of personal protective equipment for the use of people across this country.
Armed Forces Bill
Carol Monaghan ExcerptsMonday 13th December 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces Act 2021 View all Armed Forces Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 13 December 2021 - (13 Dec 2021)
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I am pleased to speak in this important debate. The Armed Forces Act 2006, which the Minister mentioned, needs to be upgraded, so the Bill needs to pass in this House. It was introduced in January and here we are, almost at Christmas. I will stand corrected—perhaps he can clarify—but if we do not pass it, the armed forces are not beholden to Parliament. Given the experience of Parliament and Government in recent weeks, it would be unwise to have an untethered armed forces at this juncture.
Bills often ping-pong backwards and forwards between here and the other place, but we should bear in mind who it was in the other place that actually scrutinised this Bill. They are senior figures in the justice system, but they are also ex-senior military, who understand the very issue in detail. This has not been thrown back to us just to test the will of this House; it has been thrown back, now for a second time, because there is something serious going on here. I think the Government now find themselves in isolation, and on their own compared with all the charity groups, the Opposition and indeed—dare I say it—the Defence Committee. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), who has taken through, over the last 18 months, the women in the armed forces inquiry, which reported only last week. The Minister has very kindly responded to that—not least here in this House, but also in a Westminster Hall debate—but we know all the arguments and what is on either side of this.
The Minister mentioned salami slicing, saying that if we were to go down the road of allowing the civilian courts to deal with murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, child abuse, rape and sexual assault, it would somehow dilute our ability to hold the armed forces to account. By their very nature, our armed forces are expeditionary in what they do, but he knows perfectly well that the yellow card, and indeed the rules of engagement, work extremely well overseas. This is to do with what happens here in the UK, and there is a disjunction between those who actually go through the civilian courts and those who go through the military courts. I am afraid that there is an absence of military experience in dealing with such difficult cases, which is why we are seeing such a disconnect between the conviction rates for civilians and those for the military.
I look to the Minister and say thank you for moving this far, but time is running out and we need to get this Bill through. I do hope that he will hear the concerns not just of this House and of the Committee, but of Justice Lyons. He did a service justice review for the armed forces when I was in the Veterans Minister’s shoes. When I was sitting on the Front Bench as Minister for the Armed Forces, I asked Justice Lyons to consider where this should go and what was his conclusion. His recommendation was exactly what we are calling for today. So I ask the Minister to recognise the wealth of encouragement, and also to recognise that this is nothing to do with salami slicing. This is to do with services for our armed forces personnel, and that is what we are calling for today.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
There is a debt of gratitude that we owe to members of the armed forces, and we have seen that acutely over the last few days as they mobilised to help with the vaccine booster campaign. I received my booster on Friday, and there was certainly a large armed forces presence there. As well as thanking members of the NHS, I would like to extend my gratitude to members of the armed forces who are contributing to that campaign over the next few weeks.
As we renew the Armed Forces Act, it would have been great if we had done so with some provisions that delivered a real impact for members of the armed forces. I suppose the litmus test for this is: will members of the armed forces notice any real difference as a result of this legislation? I think that for the majority the answer, sadly, is no, and that is disappointing.
The Lords amendments today are a final attempt by those in the other place to flesh out the provisions of this Bill, and to attempt to improve what had been billed as a great opportunity to improve our offerings to those who serve. It is disappointing that the expertise of Members of the other place, which was mentioned by the Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), has essentially been disregarded. That is not how this should work. I am not a great fan of the other place myself, but I must admit that there is real legal and military expertise there that was not listened to or paid attention to, which is disappointing.
What would we have liked to see? We would have liked to see improvements in service accommodation. As the Bill progressed, the SNP put forward very modest amendments on this, such as asking that the basic standards of accommodation for social housing should also apply to members of the armed forces. That was a reasonable amendment, but it was thrown out. We saw no movement on visa fees for Commonwealth service personnel. There was the idea that they should serve for 12 years before we even consider this, but that is utterly unrealistic; it is not a reasonable position for us to take.
Sir Robert Neill
I shall be brief, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I welcome my hon. and gallant Friend the Minister’s tone. He has sought to be constructive. I appreciate that he has made a number of concessions, and I am glad the Government have done that. In particular, I welcome his tribute to the noble Lord Mackay and others. Anyone who knows anything about the law and Government does not lightly mix with James Mackay, and I am glad that has been recognised. I also welcome and endorse the comments made about the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) in this regard.
On defence justice issues, I rather agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), the Chair of the Defence Committee. There has been movement and I am glad about that, but I am still not convinced by the salami-slicing point. I cannot for the life of me see how Lords amendment 1B creates any difficulty.
My real concern—the additional point I was going to make beyond the interventions I have already made—is about the way the defence serious crimes unit will be structured. Hopefully, there will not be a large number of cases to prosecute, but those involving rape and serious sexual offences in particular will almost invariably require great sensitivity in handling the investigation and the presentation in court, both in prosecution and in defending. Inevitably, such cases—where a member of the forces is either a complainant or a victim, or perhaps both—will by their nature, very properly, engage the highest level of public interest in the broadest sense. The concern is whether a small prosecuting body will ever be able to gather the critical mass of expertise to adequately do justice in those cases, whatever the good intentions.
Carol Monaghan
Does the hon. Gentleman share the other concern raised regarding the gender composition of courts martial? Unless we have gender parity, it is very difficult for all-male or majority male courts to understand properly the experience women may have had in that situation.
Sir Robert Neill
I understand the point, and I am sure that as more women advance into the senior ranks of the armed forces that will be dealt with. In fairness, however, I should say that if those cases were to be dealt with by a jury in the civilian justice system, there is not a quota on gender parity in juries either. So while I take the thrust of the hon. Lady’s point, I do not think there is an exact comparison to be made.
My bigger concern is that I hope the Minister will accept that the sensible thing to do would be for the service system, at the very least, to bring in expertise from the independent Bar, from the independent legal sector, to deal with these cases, rather than try to do something and not admit that we may not have the capacity to do it effectively ourselves. There are plenty of experienced people who could do that, and that would be an important step forward.
There are also other bits of unfinished business. It would be helpful if the Minister committed to bringing forward the remaining items of the Henriques review that are not covered in the Bill. That would give us a comprehensive approach. Nobody wants to delay the Bill, but I hope the Minister will reflect on my regret that we have not taken up one of the key points of the review by His Honour Judge Shaun Lyons. Just as one does not trifle lightly with Lord Mackay of Clashfern, it is difficult to think of anyone who has had more experience, both as a naval officer—as a lieutenant commander and so on for a number of years—and then as a senior circuit judge licensed to try all cases relating to murder, rape and serious sexual offences. I do not know of anyone else in my legal career who combines the two in a greater degree than Shaun Lyons. I am therefore disappointed that, having accepted so much else, we have not followed through on the final and critical element of his report. I hope the Minister will accept that the Ministry should not be too grand as to close the door to that, because I have not yet heard a convincing argument as to why that element of Judge Lyons’s recommendation was not taken forward.