Tag: Carol Monaghan

  • Carol Monaghan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Carol Monaghan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Carol Monaghan on 2016-03-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether she plans to relax the Government’s position on the settlement of refugees in Calais to allow the settlement of unaccompanied children in the UK.

    James Brokenshire

    Individuals in France in need of international protection should claim asylum there in line with established EU and international principles. Once asylum has been claimed in France or in any other European country participating in the Dublin Regulation the UK will uphold all obligations to consider requests to take charge of an application on the grounds of family unity. Asylum must be claimed in France to begin this process and we have no plans to change our position on this.

    The UK-France Joint Declaration of 20 August has committed our two governments to establishing a permanent official contact group focused on ensuring that the efficient and effective use of the Dublin Regulation, including the provisions on family unity.

    A senior Home Office official has been seconded to the Interior Ministry’s Dublin Unit in Paris in part to assist with the identification of potential requests for the UK to take charge of asylum seeking children in France and to bring them into the Dublin Regulation procedure without delay.

  • Carol Monaghan – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Carol Monaghan – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Carol Monaghan on 2015-11-23.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what research his Department has conducted on the disincentives to prescribing off-patent repurposed drugs.

    George Freeman

    The Department has conducted no such research. Current arrangements already allow off-patent drugs to be prescribed for new purposes where this is the most appropriate clinical treatment course for a patient. Prescribing decisions are a matter for the clinical judgement of the prescriber concerned.

  • Carol Monaghan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Carol Monaghan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Carol Monaghan on 2016-03-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what discussions she has had with her French counterpart on that country’s current policy of dismantling the refugee camp in Calais.

    James Brokenshire

    The UK Government is in regular contact with French counterparts on the migrant situation in Calais.

    Steps taken by French authorities to clear sections of the migrant camp in Calais are consistent with the shared strategy to encourage those in need of protection to claim asylum in France and to return those not in need to their home country. The French Government, with support from the UK, has made huge efforts to provide decent accommodation in France for all those that need it, including for women and children.

  • Carol Monaghan – 2022 Speech on Asylum Seeker Employment and the Cost of Living

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

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

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

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

    Christian Wakeford

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

    Carol Monaghan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Carol Monaghan – 2022 Parliamentary Question on the Cost of Living for Defence Personnel

    Carol Monaghan – 2022 Parliamentary Question on the Cost of Living for Defence Personnel

    The parliamentary question asked by Carol Monaghan, the SNP MP for Glasgow North West, in the House of Commons on 12 December 2022.

    Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)

    What recent assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of the rise in the cost of living on armed forces personnel.

    The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)

    The Ministry of Defence has introduced a series of measures to support our people to cope with the cost of living, including: implementing the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body’s 2022 pay award recommendations in full; capping subsidised accommodation charges at 1%; freezing food charges; and increasing travel allowances by 7%. More than 32,000 service personnel have received a £150 contribution in lieu of the council tax rebate, families can save around £3,400 per child per year through our wraparound childcare, and our people in service family accommodation are receiving a £400 non-repayable discount to help with energy costs.

    Carol Monaghan

    I thank the Minister for his response, but nearly 3,000 personnel are already claiming universal credit, and food and heating costs are soaring for everyone. In addition to what he has already said, what discussions is he having with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that all personnel who are entitled to claim universal credit are doing so? What discussions is he having with the Treasury to ensure that personnel are further supported where required?

    Dr Murrison

    The hon. Lady will know that universal credit is an in-work benefit and is dependent on income, family size, type of accommodation and a raft of other issues. She will probably be interested to know about the further investment we are putting into family accommodation, which will help with many of the problems that have been reported to me in relation to heating and the cost of energy, especially through insulation. I suspect her constituents will probably be most appreciative of that.

    Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)

    The cost of living crisis is no doubt affecting all those in the armed forces, and so, too, will the call on them to help out during all these strikes. Will the Government reward those who so generously give of their time? I know they are assigned to work over Christmas and new year, but are there any signs of some sort of reward or thank you to those who, yet again, have been called on to fill a hole?

    Dr Murrison

    My hon. Friend takes a close interest in the armed forces, and I think I can assure him that conversations on this subject are happening across Whitehall.

    Mr Speaker

    I call the shadow Minister.

    Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)

    The Army’s most senior soldier says personnel are turning to food banks and second jobs this Christmas, just to make ends meet. Six months ago, I raised the alarm that some troops are having to take second jobs at McDonald’s because of the cost of living crisis. I know the Minister says he is supporting our armed forces during the cost of living crisis, but why is the Ministry of Defence still not collecting data on the number of service personnel using food vouchers and food banks or taking second jobs?

    Dr Murrison

    I visited the food bank in my own constituency and discussed the reasons that people use them, which are often complicated. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have accepted the Armed Forces Pay Review Body’s recommendation in full, in recognition of the work that men and women of our armed forces do. He will be aware of the very real big incentives to remain within the armed forces, including a generous non-contributory pension, subsidised accommodation and all the rest of it. He will also be aware of the Haythornthwaite review, which I hope will report soon on what more we can do to incentivise people not only to join but to stay.

  • Carol Monaghan – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Carol Monaghan – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Carol Monaghan on 2015-10-22.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, whether any of her Department’s spending will be counted towards the target of spending 2 per cent of gross national income on defence.

    Justine Greening

    In 2014/15, the Ministry of Defence provided fantastic support to DFID to support humanitarian activities, contributing £32million, and was therefore reimbursed from the ODA budget. This spending will count towards the target to spend 2 per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defence.

  • Carol Monaghan – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Free School Meals in England and Scotland

    Carol Monaghan – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Free School Meals in England and Scotland

    The parliamentary question asked by Carol Monaghan, the SNP MP for Glasgow North West, in the House of Commons on 28 November 2022.

    Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)

    I welcome the Secretary of State to her new position, and indeed her team.

    It was deplorable that the Chancellor failed to expand free school meals in his autumn statement. It means that at least 100,000 schoolchildren in poverty in England will continue to be denied a nutritious meal at school, which puts additional pressure on parents trying to provide for them. Will the Secretary of State urge the Chancellor to replicate the work of the Scottish Government, who have committed to providing universal free school meals to all primary children?

    Gillian Keegan

    We understand the pressures that many households are under, and that is why we are spending more than £1.6 billion per year so that children have access to nutritious meals during the school day and in holidays. The Government have indeed expanded free school meals more than any other Government in recent decades. We have put in place generous protection that means families on universal credit will also retain their free school meal eligibility. We now have a third of children in this country on free school meals, and I know that is very welcome for the families. We will have extended free school meals, and we will continue to support further education students with them as well.

  • Carol Monaghan – 2022 Speech on the Contribution to the UK Made by International Students

    Carol Monaghan – 2022 Speech on the Contribution to the UK Made by International Students

    The speech made by Carol Monaghan, the SNP MP for Glasgow North West, in Westminster Hall on 2 November 2022.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) for securing this debate. It is unusual that we have so much consensus in a debate. Mind you, we do not have any speakers on the Government’s side other than the Minister. I hope that we get some consensus from him as well.

    I do not have a university in my constituency, but I do have a huge number of international students living there. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) has pointed out that, in Glasgow, as well as the University of Glasgow, we have the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow Caledonian University, the Glasgow School of Art and the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland, and, of course, very close to Glasgow, we have the University of the West of Scotland. We also have Glasgow Kelvin College, Glasgow Clyde College and City of Glasgow College within the city, all of which attract huge numbers of international students. It is impossible to underestimate the contribution that they make to the economy. All Members have made that point, but I think the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) really hammered home the financial aspect and the economic multipliers that come as a result of having those students in our communities.

    It is not just about the financial contribution. International students make critical contributions, particularly in areas such as science, technology, engineering and maths, where we are short of skills. They also contribute to the teaching staff of many universities. It is impossible to overestimate the damage that this Government have done to our international student community. As a result of this Government’s actions, the demographic has changed considerably. We have heard mention of the make-up of international students. We have seen a huge increase in the number of Chinese students coming to our universities. While, of course, they are very welcome, we have to appreciate that if the geopolitical situation is changed or disturbed we suddenly have a huge shortfall because we have not been recruiting actively enough in countries where we would have recruited in the past. That has to change. All the eggs have been put in one basket, and it is a pretty shaky basket at the moment.

    The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) made a point about the decision made by the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), to scrap the post-study work visas. That decision was entirely illogical; it spoke to a certain type of person, but it certainly did not speak to anybody who was hoping to develop new businesses or to bring in new skills and talent. That decision exacerbated skill shortages, again particularly in science and technology. That hostile immigration policy worked against the public interest.

    I am pleased that the Government have finally recognised their short-sightedness and reintroduced the post-study work visa. However, the ramifications of that initial decision are still being felt. When the UK closed its doors to that talent, individuals looked and went elsewhere, as the hon. Member for Sheffield Central mentioned. Other countries recognised those skills and benefited from them. As mentioned by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), it is not just our academic institutions that are casualties of that policy; it is also the wider community. We have lost brain power and entrepreneurs—we are still on the back foot today. Our academic institutions are trying to re-establish links with those countries, but that will take time. At a critical point, when we are trying to re-establish those links, the Home Secretary talks about reducing numbers. It is economically stupid, and it causes more reputational damage.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling talked about the European institutions that are under threat, and our membership of those institutions is not guaranteed. That is not just about the money that we get from Horizon Europe, it is about the rich collaborations with organisations such as Euratom, Copernicus and Galileo. As a result of Brexit, EU students are now forced to pay international student fees and, as a result, we have seen a 73% decline in EU students coming to the UK. That is a huge hit to us and changes our demographic. Students from the EU are more likely to come and contribute and stay longer. If we do not have them here in the first place—not to mention the loss of Erasmus—we have a problem.

    I will finish by talking about the rhetoric. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and the hon. Member for Sheffield Central talked about the Home Secretary’s recent comments. The rhetoric is problematic and it has to change. International students enrich our campuses and make a vital, positive contribution to our economy, culture and society. Research from Universities UK found that in my constituency alone, for one year, the economic benefit of international students was nearly £50 million. The fact that the Home Secretary may seek to limit international students and the wealth of knowledge and talent that they offer this country is hugely damaging. I welcome the Minister to his place; will he make representations to the Home Secretary in his new role to ensure that we can keep the flow of international students coming to enrich our communities?

  • Carol Monaghan – 2022 Tribute to HM Queen Elizabeth II

    Carol Monaghan – 2022 Tribute to HM Queen Elizabeth II

    The tribute made by Carol Monaghan, the SNP MP for Glasgow North West, in the House of Commons on 9 September 2022.

    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.

  • Carol Monaghan – 2022 Speech on Asylum Seekers Gaining Work

    Carol Monaghan – 2022 Speech on Asylum Seekers Gaining Work

    The speech made by Carol Monaghan, the SNP MP for Glasgow North West, in the House of Commons on 29 June 2022.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for granting permission to work to asylum seekers who have waited six months for a decision on their asylum application; and for connected purposes.

    Over the last few months, we have been enjoying returning to normal life—going to shops, on holiday, or to pubs and restaurants. However, staff shortages caused both by Brexit, and by companies struggling to recruit post-pandemic, have meant that the return to normality has not always been as smooth as we would have hoped. Meanwhile, we have a willing resource within many of our communities: asylum seekers who have fled war, persecution and violence, coming here to build a new life. The problem is that, except in a small number of shortage—[Interruption.] I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. It appears that some Members are not able to follow the conventions of the House. The problem is that, except in a small number of shortage occupations, asylum seekers are currently banned from working. That ban is a clear example of the Government’s hostile immigration environment—a hostility that includes criminalising those seeking refuge, with barbaric detention centres and GPS trackers. Such policies may please those of a UKIP mindset, but they certainly do not support our communities.

    The benefits of lifting the ban would be significant. We could increase the workforce in areas of most need, allowing asylum seekers to take up roles as HGV drivers, baggage handlers and farm labourers, or even as civil servants, processing passport applications and driving licences. There are good financial reasons why that makes sense. Lift the Ban’s most recent calculations show that over the last 10 years, the Treasury has wasted nearly £1 billion as a result of preventing people from working. If even 50% of those currently waiting more than six months for a decision were able to work full time on an average salary, the Chancellor would receive more than £190 million annually in tax and national insurance contributions, and that is before we consider the staggering amount of money—£120 million—that was frittered away on the disastrous Rwandan deal. Instead of wasting stupid amounts of money on ineffective policies, it is time that this Government implemented policies that make economic sense, and the right to work is just that.

    Currently, asylum seekers may apply for permission to work only if they have been waiting for a decision on their asylum claim for more than 12 months. Even then, there are only a small number of occupations that they can work in—as a geophysicist, for example, or a ballet dancer. Why is the current situation a problem? According to the Government’s own statistics, 76% of people waiting for a decision on their asylum claim are now waiting for more than six months, and people are left with no other option than to claim asylum support of £5.84 per day. But that masks a much bigger problem, because many are waiting year upon year for that decision, and meanwhile their life prospects and wellbeing are put on hold. Those Home Office delays force people to live in utter poverty, and sadly, in such circumstances, some people become victims of trafficking.

    Some would have us believe that asylum seekers are here to “scrounge off the state” and—paradoxically—to “steal all our jobs”. In truth, however, the vast majority of asylum seekers in this country are willing and committed to work, and to contribute. According to a survey by Lift The Ban, 94% of individuals with experience of the asylum system would work if they were given the chance to do so. The Bill simply asks that they are afforded that dignity.

    Today, this Government continue to talk about making asylum claims through “safe and legal means” and about the so-called “pull factor” of the UK’s asylum system, although it is, in fact, one of the least generous in the western world. For most people seeking asylum, there are no safe and legal routes. The UK’s immigration rules make no provision for people to come, or apply to come to the UK to claim asylum. Home Office policy is explicit that for someone to claim asylum in the UK, they must already be in the UK. The current situation in Afghanistan is an example of that. It is important to recognise that many of those fleeing war and persecution are coming from parts of the world where Britain has had, or continues to have, an influence. We cannot embark on foreign wars without accepting our responsibility to those who are then displaced or forced to leave. Rather than interfere and then wash our hands of the resultant chaos, this Government could take seriously their responsibility by rebuilding such countries and supporting those who have left.

    Working while awaiting an asylum decision would not only allow asylum seekers to function independently but facilitate language learning and the formation of bonds between people from different cultures. Early intervention, including access to the labour market, is crucial for the successful integration of refugees. The Government have hailed the post-Brexit era as one of “global Britain” that is both open and outward-looking, and giving those seeking sanctuary the chance to integrate into communities is crucial to delivering that promise. Internationally, the UK lags far behind almost all its counterparts in Europe and North America. Countries such as Canada and Sweden allow near immediate access to the labour market, and Germany and Belgium grant access after three and four months respectively. If the UK were to reduce the 12-month waiting threshold to six months, it would join ranks with the United States, France, Spain, the Netherlands, and Denmark. There is no reason for us to remain an outlier.

    The justification given by this Government, which is that there could be pull factors if the rules were liberalised, has no basis in evidence. Those fleeing trauma, war and persecution have no inclination that they will be banned from working when they arrive in the UK; they simply seek safety, and often hope to reunite with family members already here. Although the claimed pull factor is the core argument put forward to rebut calls for change, the Government have yet to produce a single shred of evidence for it. Despite the Government’s hostility, lifting the work ban has great public support, with a recent YouGov poll reporting public backing of 81%. Indeed, the Deputy Prime Minister himself has made his “open-mindedness” towards lifting the ban well known.

    This Bill is a small contribution to a policy area that demands considerable reform. We must apply common sense. There is nothing controversial or unreasonable in the contents of the Bill, and those who object to it are basing their arguments on fear or populism, rather than on facts and public opinion. In the context of a global pandemic, a shambolic Brexit and a well-documented worker shortage, the untapped potential of asylum seekers is especially pertinent. Are we really in a position where this Government would further damage the economy rather than soften their hard-line immigration policy? It makes little practical or political sense to prevent asylum seekers from working, and I hope Members across the House will join me in calling for the ban to be lifted. This is a small change that will transform lives and communities.