Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Carol Monaghan and Alison Thewliss

Monday 20th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Carol Monaghan]

That would be substantial if it were coming to Scotland, so when will we see action on the Scottish cluster?

The Chancellor also made a song and dance last week about R&D tax credits. That system has been grossly mismanaged and therefore abused in the past. I would like more detail on how the new system will provide more value for money for both taxpayers and genuine researchers. How will it be managed? What checks and balances will be taking place? We need to make sure, once again, that the mistakes of the past are not repeated.

The ambitions of the Secretary of State, and indeed the Prime Minister, in science are laudable. However, they fail to mention the key issue: the people. That issue cannot be solved by cash alone. Supposed commitments to science clash entirely with this Government’s hostile environment on immigration, and the lack of progress on association to Horizon is having a huge impact. While the Secretary of State dithers about whether association represents value for money, researchers are leaving the UK for better opportunities abroad, where they can develop rich collaborations and enjoy freedom of movement.

In response to last week’s Budget, Sir Adrian Smith, president of the Royal Society, said:

“After a prolonged period of uncertainty, the Government urgently needs to deliver on its pledge to associate to Horizon Europe, and set out a longer-term, cross-party plan for science. This is vital to restore confidence among global research talent and investors that they should build their futures in the UK.”

Stephen Phipson, the head of Make UK, said that Horizon had

“always been one of those areas of the EU budget where the UK gets more out than it puts in”.

A number of other notable organisations in the UK —including the CBI, the British Heart Foundation, the Russell Group, the University Alliance and Cancer Research UK—and in EU R&D sectors have signed a joint statement to the UK Government, urging rapid progress on association to EU programmes, including Horizon Europe, Copernicus and Euratom.

However, there were worrying reports last week that the Prime Minister is unconvinced on Horizon, with the Financial Times reporting that “senior colleagues” said the Prime Minister was “sceptical” about the value of Horizon Europe and the cost of participation. Researchers need to know where the UK is headed. Is the dithering on Horizon a deliberate attempt to kick the can down the road? More than anything, Horizon is about people; there is no monetary replacement for this. So will this Government keep blaming the EU while projects and collaborations are lost?

However, there are areas where money is important and where I would have wanted to see action in the Budget. We heard from the Secretary of State about financially stable families. Let us assume that I am a quantum researcher from somewhere in the EU, I am at the top of my field and I have an invitation to join a team at one of the UK quantum hubs. I will, first, have to apply for my global talent visa, at a cost of £623, and that will also cost me £623 for my spouse and for each of my children. I have two children under 18, so my costs are now £2,492. I have to pay the annual health surcharge for myself, my spouse and my children, so that is £624 for myself and my spouse. There is great news, as children get a discount and so it is only £470 for each of them. We are now at £4,680 for me to come here under the global talent scheme, although that assumes that I have only two children—I know the Government like to pretend that people do not have any more than two children, but many of us do.

As an EU researcher, I have many options, so why would I put myself through the hassle of such an immigration regime? That is hardly how we attract the brightest and best. If the Government are serious about science, those fees have to be dropped. It would not be costly and it would have great benefits.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making excellent points about the cost involved in people coming to our city to work and share their talents. Is she as concerned as I am about stories from constituents of mine who have been here already and have been asked to take on a job with a promotion, but who have almost lost that opportunity because of Home Office delays?

[Carol Monaghan]

I do share those concerns. I have heard stories about individuals who were invited here and who were hoping to come, but the delays meant that that opportunity was lost. These people have been asked to come to the UK because of their particular skills. We are losing talent time and again.

While we are at it, international students seem to be a target again. The return of the post-study work visa took a lot of effort on the part of Members—from both sides of the House, it has to be said—but there is now news that the Home Secretary is talking about cutting it again. Many people who work in science first came here as international students and on the promise of a post-study work visa. There must be no change to the current system.

A commitment to research and development means a commitment to people, to international collaboration and to developing an immigration environment that supports companies, research groups and individuals to contribute. Ultimately, if that cannot happen in the UK, the powers should be given to Scotland. We will develop an immigration system that works for our science sector.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Carol Monaghan and Alison Thewliss

Wednesday 12th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

10. What recent discussions he has had with (a) Cabinet colleagues and (b) the Scottish Government on the cost of living crisis in Scotland.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

11. What recent discussions he has had with (a) Cabinet colleagues and (b) the Scottish Government on the cost of living crisis in Scotland.

Public Services

Debate between Carol Monaghan and Alison Thewliss

Wednesday 16th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss]

I have a long speech to get through; I will see if I can get the hon. Lady in later.

I recently joined the police in my constituency for the Give a Day to Policing initiative. It was incredibly interesting to see how things work on the frontline, including officers booking people into custody. When doing so, they have access to important EU databases that guarantee safety, because if somebody has been booked into custody and the police officer at the desk does not know whether they have outstanding warrants for violence in other countries, they will not be able to make an appropriate judgment about how that prisoner is treated in custody. It is very important that we have continued access to those databases.

The Guardian reported in July that the National Crime Agency was harvesting EU databases, just in case it did not have access to them in the event of Brexit. There is a fundamental issue about how we treat crime agencies in the UK. I noted recently a case in Govanhill in my constituency in which it took five years to bring to justice those involved in people trafficking from Slovakia to Glasgow only because of the co-operation of Police Scotland, UK forces, Europol, Eurojust and the Slovakian police force. I contend that, in the event of Brexit, and certainly a no-deal Brexit, that case would have been far more difficult to resolve. There will be cases going through the criminal process now that might not be concluded. We will be a lot less safe as a result of Brexit if those databases cannot be accessed.

Brexit also puts further pressure on our police services. It has been widely reported that police leave at the end of this month has been cancelled in many cases. That will have a huge impact on staff morale and the ability of forces to respond to everyday issues of crime on our doorsteps. The police need to be able to provide that service and to go about their job. They should not have to defend people who may end up trying to raid their local shop for bread because food supplies cannot get through. The Government have put people in a ludicrous position. In 2019 we should not be discussing the possibility of civil contingencies such as the Army coming to support the police on our streets, but that is the situation that this Government have driven us to.

I welcome the UK Government’s approach to the serious violence Bill. In Scotland and in Glasgow, we have significant experience of the impact of knife crime and what can be done to tackle it. It is welcome that the UK is following Scotland’s lead, but we await further details as to the effectiveness of that policy. The violence reduction unit in Scotland worked because it was organic; it came from grassroots experts who knew what they were doing, such as Medics Against Violence and the police; it was sustained; and it was a long-term plan. The UK Government need to think about the long term and to work across agencies in a truly co-operative fashion to make sure that the policy is successful.

For example, we have people in hospitals who can sit down with victims of knife crime when they come into A&E and make an intervention at that vulnerable time. We do not want people to walk out the door and go on to commit an act of revenge or further violence. Those mentors are very important in violence prevention. The UK Government would do well to look at that model. As a result, the murder rate in Glasgow has dropped by 60%, but we cannot be complacent about knife crime. We need to make sure that that is sustained.

I also ask the UK Government to look to Scotland with regard to the Sentencing (Pre-consolidation Amendments) Bill. In Scotland, we have a presumption—not a ban—against short sentences. They are ineffective, because they put people into a cycle of prison. We need to make sure that people do not enter that cycle, because it is incredibly difficult for them to get out once they are in that system. I ask the UK Government to move away from the populism of, “Let’s lock everybody up.” Instead, they should consider the purpose of prison and the criminal justice system and look at models that move towards rehabilitation.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making an important speech. The former Justice Minister, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), was looking to Scotland and the good work being done there on short sentencing. We are seeing that our reoffending rates have dropped. Does she agree that it is so important for the new Cabinet to continue their predecessor’s work?

[Alison Thewliss]

I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a lot to be learned from that. We should be in the business of closing prisons down, not building more. We should look at the reasons people are driven into the criminal justice system—at the causes of poverty and inequality, which drive so many people into it.

I look with interest and some despair at the immigration and social security Bill. We see immigration as positive. It is a good thing for our country and it is very good for public services in our country. Brexit will have a huge and damaging effect on our public services, because often the people who provide them have done us the huge honour of coming to our country.

The NHS in particular will suffer as a result of Brexit. Recently, The Independent quoted research by Medbelle that said that EU doctors and nurses have been worth more than £3 billion to the UK economy over the past five years. There has already been a 91% fall in EU registrations to the Nursing & Midwifery Council since 2016, and more than 7,000 nurses have left that register. What impact do the Government think that will have on the most vulnerable? How do they expect our NHS to cope with the shock of that sudden drop? According to Medbelle’s analysis, educating more than 30,000 British nurses to replace EU nationals would cost £1.2 billion. If and when we finally see a Budget, how will the Chancellor provide for that?

Age UK has raised concerns about the adult social care Bill. From the announcements so far, it thinks that the Bill is too restricted in being just for the elderly and that it should be extended right across the board. I urge the Minister to look at Scotland, where there is already free personal care and where we are moving towards making non-residential social care free as well, because it is desperately important to people. EU nationals are at the forefront of providing that service.

Social Media and Health

Debate between Carol Monaghan and Alison Thewliss

Tuesday 30th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

rose—

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

rose—

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Debate between Carol Monaghan and Alison Thewliss

Wednesday 9th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Carol Monaghan]

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the contributions from SNP Members over the past couple of years, he will see that when we have talked about salary thresholds, the message we have sent has been strong, clear and consistent. Salary thresholds do not work, and they specifically do not work in Scotland, where people earn less than in parts of the south-east of England. It would be good if the hon. Gentleman joined us in calling for the scrapping of these salary thresholds.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the salary thresholds. My experience of dealing with many constituents, who are treated very shabbily by the Home Office, is that they work all the hours God sends and still cannot reach the thresholds to get their families to come over from other countries. I have a constituent who missed out by a matter of pounds and was not able to bring over their family.

[Carol Monaghan]

My hon. Friend confirms the point that I was making.

I want to move on to Euratom. Since the vote in 2016, I have regularly raised issues about Euratom. When I have asked about the arrangements for importing radioactive sources for medical scans and cancer treatments, I have been accused of scaremongering. Let us be clear: Euratom regulates nuclear facilities and materials. Outside Euratom it is still possible to carry out such regulation, but Euratom also guarantees a supply of medical radioisotopes. There are only a few reactors worldwide that actually produce them. They have short half-lives and have to get from production to use point very quickly, and Euratom guarantees that. What arrangements is the UK putting in place to make sure that we can get them here very quickly? If we do not have them, the 500,000 diagnostic scans and 10,000 cancer treatments that take place every year will not be able to happen. That is fundamental, and we have not had answers. Articles 79 to 85 of the draft agreement talk about Euratom, but there is nothing in it about future supplies and no answers about future arrangements.

I will not be voting for this deal because of the impact on our universities and our research collaborations, because we have not had any answers about the medical radioisotopes that are currently supplied by Euratom and because of the economic dangers to Scotland in being removed from the single market and the customs union but, ultimately and fundamentally, because of the removal of freedom of movement, which we on the SNP Benches hold so dear.

Universal Credit and Child Tax Credit: Two-child Limit

Debate between Carol Monaghan and Alison Thewliss

Tuesday 27th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Alison Thewliss]

Absolutely. I will return to the issue of the policy’s objectives and how unmeetable they are, given the child poverty that will result from the policy.

It is absolutely clear that nothing in the policy fits with the Government’s objective of giving people a more stable family life. In fact, it plunges families further into uncertainty and crisis, and puts them under tremendous strain.

It is also clear that it will be children who lose out as a result of this policy. It is estimated that this policy will affect—in time, when transitional protections run out—around 3 million children. The Church of England estimates that in my constituency alone 1,600 families and 5,500 children will be affected, which amounts to 36% of the children there. I cannot begin to say what impact this policy will have on the health, education and life chances of those young people.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

Once again, my hon. Friend is making a passionate speech on this issue. Does she share my concerns that there is another issue here, namely that families expecting a third child might be forced to have an abortion as a result of this policy? Often, those are people in faith communities, who are likely to have larger families.

[Alison Thewliss]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and there is clear evidence on this issue, which I will touch on later in my speech. The ends that this Government are forcing families into, and the decisions that those families are being forced to make, are really disturbing.

The cut in this benefit is £2,780 per child, per year, which is a sum that families will struggle to make up through taking on extra work. The Church of England calculates that a single parent with three children who is working 16 hours at the minimum wage—I should say the Chancellor’s pretendy “living wage”, because it is not an actual living wage that one could live on—would need to work 45 hours to compensate for the loss of income and for this Government’s cut. That is assuming that work is available to them in their community and that their children can be looked after by somebody when they are not home. If not, who will do the homework with those children? Who will tuck them into bed at night? Who will make sure that the family is looked after? And what is the mental health impact on that family and the impact on the physical health of the parent, who will be absolutely exhausted after working 45 hours a week and looking after three children, which is a job in itself? The impact on family life must be taken into consideration by the Minister.

There are also real disincentives within this policy, because it will be much harder for families to move into work. The policy will take away the incentive to try to get around the benefit cap, as families will end up losing more if they try to work more.

There is also a disproportionate hit on particular minority groups. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has found that families of Bangladeshi and Pakistani origin are particularly badly hit by this policy, losing thousands of pounds. For years now, I have been flagging up concerns that 60% of Muslim families and 52% of Jewish families have more than two children. There are also concerns, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) mentioned, among religious faiths that will not use contraception for moral reasons and clearly cannot access abortion services. Therefore, they have very little choice in the decisions that face them.

Of course, this is a particular issue for women in Northern Ireland, where family size is traditionally larger than in the rest of the UK and where, as we in this House well know, women cannot access abortion services on the same basis as we can here. I wonder what the Minister expects women to do in such circumstances.

I want to mention a further point about abortion, because it is becoming the reality for many women. I would like to read directly from the testimonies of women who have spoken to the benefits helpline, Turn2us, because they are absolutely stark and I want the Minister to pay particular attention to them. One woman said she had

“to have an abortion as”

she “can’t afford” another child. Another said:

“It makes me want to give up my child for adoption.”

Another woman said she was:

“already due another baby when the new tax credit cap came into play. Now I worry I can’t afford to budget for a baby as I won’t get any extra help.”

Another said:

“I found out I was 5 months pregnant and now in a complete panic. I’m too far on for an abortion but I have no way of supporting this child. I was taking precautions and definitely did not plan or expect to have any more children. The marina coil is meant to be more effective than being sterilised.”

One woman said she was

“worried that I will not be able to afford the child. I am pregnant at the moment but I am worried it may be twins.”

Another woman said:

“I was already pregnant so I could not reconsider.”

Another said:

“I didn’t plan this child but it’s beaten all the odds to get here and I believe in things happening for a reason and also do not believe in abortion, so here we are expecting our 3rd child any day and no help financially. I have worked since I was 15 years old and I can’t get help when I need it.”

Another woman said:

“This was a surprise and an unplanned pregnancy and I only found out at 20 weeks that I was pregnant due to an NHS mistake and I don’t have the money to raise a child. But due to religious reasons I cannot terminate the pregnancy, especially this far along.”

How can the Minister possibly justify that? Could he look each woman in these circumstances in the eye and tell them that this policy is about fairness?

Furthermore, Refuge has outlined the risk of this policy to women who are at risk of domestic violence, because the two-child limit exacerbates the control that perpetrators of abuse have over a woman and puts more pressure and risk on the woman. [Interruption.] I would like to share that experience, too, with the Minister, if he wants to stop shuffling his papers and pay attention. Refuge has said:

“Women have felt more trapped and unable to stay as there was no available money to help them move and leave. The 2 child cap means that some women will be pressured into having more children and becoming financially reliant on the partners for support.”

One resident said that

“whilst pregnant with a 3rd child her ex demanded she have an abortion because he said they could not get any more money for it and when she said she didn’t”

want one

“he tried being violent to enforce a miscarriage.”

Refuge also said:

“Women struggling to manage after fleeing if they have three children feel like they have no support and no money to support the family. It means they feel like they should stay or return to the perpetrator.”

I remind Members that the rape clause form itself states that women are not eligible for support if they are living with the father of the child, which forces women to leave their home before they can do so safely, and we all know that the evidence suggests that that is the most dangerous time—the time that women are most likely to be murdered—if they leave without any kind of safety planning.

Before I finish, I want to tackle the suggestion that the Scottish Government should set about mitigating the two-child limit. First of all, we do not have full control over the welfare benefits system. Why not? Because Labour, through the Smith Commission, would not trust us to have it. We therefore end up being lumbered with a system that Scotland did not design, with policies that Scotland did not vote for, and with the ability only to tinker round the edges, thanks to the work of the Labour party.

For those on child tax credits, which is still the majority of people within the system, we have no way of mitigating these things, because that is a function of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. For universal credit, at the moment we have “administrative flexibilities”. The Scottish Government have changed payment schedules and allowed for direct payment to landlords and separate payments to tackle financial abuse. However, the use of those flexibilities incurs a payment to the Department for Work and Pensions for the administration of them—money I am sure all of us agree could be spent directly on the frontline.

I want to make it absolutely clear that I want this policy to go everywhere and not just throughout Scotland. I have campaigned on a cross-party basis to that end, particularly for women in Northern Ireland, who have often been unrepresented in this place and who have to fill out a separate rape clause form, because they were at risk of prosecution just for filling out the original form. That is why I want to make sure that no woman in the UK gets left behind by this policy. We should be campaigning against this Tory Government and focusing all our fire on the Conservative party, which wants to make women go through this trauma.

However, let us not forget that the Labour party’s official position back in 2015 was to support the two-child limit. Perhaps if Labour Members had voted with us back then on the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016, we would not be here—three years, four months and 20 days later—discussing this issue today.

PACE Trial: People with ME

Debate between Carol Monaghan and Alison Thewliss

Tuesday 20th February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Carol Monaghan]

Many parents who try to home school their children also face local authority intervention, trying to get the children back to school. We must listen to patients.

This disease is very easy to ignore. All too often, those living with ME are housebound, and suffer from what they refer to as “brain fog”, which makes it difficult to mount an organised campaign. That means that much about ME remains unknown. There is some evidence that it could be grouped with auto-immune conditions such as multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis. Some people have reported that certain anti-viral drugs improve their condition, but without properly conducted scientific research, we do not have the answers. Ultimately, the impact of the PACE trial on those with ME has been devastating.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

rose—

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Carol Monaghan]

I give way to my hon. Friend.

[Alison Thewliss]

My hon. Friend makes a good case. My constituent Carol Ann McGregor has had ME since 1996 and has been bedbound for seven years. She says that she has

“lost my life, health, husband, my career and my home”.

Does my hon. Friend agree with my long-term family friend Maureen Bivard that the cover-up, and the way in which the PACE trial was carried out, amounts to a miscarriage of justice for patients?

[Carol Monaghan]

I think that when the full details of the trial become known, it will be considered one of the biggest medical scandals of the 21st century.

Petitions

Debate between Carol Monaghan and Alison Thewliss

Wednesday 8th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

The petition states:

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of residents of Glasgow Central,

Declares that the Department for Work and Pensions’ plan to close Bridgeton Jobcentre and half of all Jobcentre Plus offices in Glasgow is morally outrageous; express our concerns that the city is being used as the testing ground for more devastating cuts across the UK; further that the proposals to close eight of the 16 Jobcentre offices across Glasgow, will impact on tens of thousands of people in receipt of Jobseeker’s Allowance, Employment Support Allowance and Universal Credit; further that the UK Government has already indicated that 20% of the Jobcentre estate will see closures, and Glasgow has been handpicked to take a disproportionate hit of 50% closures; further that it will result in the poorest communities not being serviced by a Jobcentre and make it even harder for those seeking employment to get support; further that thousands of people could also have to travel further at additional cost to attend their appointments; further that the UK Government have brought forward these proposals without carrying out an Equality Impact Assessment and without consulting the Scottish Government; and further that any Jobcentre closures in Glasgow will see one of the most deprived parts of the UK starved of a vital service that should be available in communities; impacting both on Scottish workers at these centres and also those most disadvantaged in need of benefits.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to halt any moves to close Bridgeton Jobcentre, or at the very least carry out an Equality Impact Assessment immediately prior to a full public consultation across Scotland.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P002006]

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

The petition states:

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of residents of Glasgow North West,

Declares that the Department for Work and Pensions’ plan to close Anniesland Jobcentre and half of all Jobcentre Plus offices in Glasgow is morally outrageous; express our concerns that the city is being used as the testing ground for more devastating cuts across the UK; further that the proposals to close eight of the 16 Jobcentre offices across Glasgow, will impact on tens of thousands of people in receipt of Jobseeker's Allowance, Employment Support Allowance and Universal Credit; further that the UK Government has already indicated that 20% of the Jobcentre estate will see closures, and Glasgow has been handpicked to take a disproportionate hit of 50% closures; further that it will result in the poorest communities not being serviced by a Jobcentre and make it even harder for those seeking employment to get support; further that thousands of people could also have to travel further at additional cost to attend their appointments; further that the UK Government have brought forward these proposals without carrying out an Equality Impact Assessment and without consulting the Scottish Government; and further that any Jobcentre closures in Glasgow will see one of the most deprived parts of the UK starved of a vital service that should be available in communities; impacting both on Scottish workers at these centres and also those most disadvantaged in need of benefits.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to halt any moves to close Anniesland Jobcentre, or at the very least carry out an Equality Impact Assessment immediately prior to a full public consultation across Scotland.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P002008]