Defending the UK and Allies
Owen Thompson Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I agree with everything my hon. Friend says. He is absolutely right that there is a risk in inaction. To have done nothing in the face of these attacks would have been to damage the security of our people and our interests.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to protecting the fundamental tenets of international law and upholding the fundamental principles of the United Nations, but is it equally as distinct and limited to this action as it to all other situations?
The Prime Minister
I did not completely follow what the hon. Gentleman said, but I said that our actions in this case were specific to the case at hand. We acted in self-defence because there were escalating attacks from the Houthis and defiance of international diplomacy. It was right that we took action to protect the security and interests of our people.
Veterans Welfare Services
Owen Thompson Excerpts(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Johnny Mercer
That is very kind. I try to get around as many such centres as possible. The RBL has done an incredible job over many years with a lot of Battle Back Centres. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I became a Member of Parliament after my experiences in conflict in 2006, 2008, 2009 and 2010. I am here now in 2023 and veterans’ care has been transformed, whichever way we look at it. On dedicated pathways for mental health and physical health, ending homelessness, the criminal justice system and sector initiatives into employment, there has never been a better time to be a veteran. However, we continue to press hard, because we want to make this the best country in the world to be a veteran. I am absolutely determined that we will get there.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
Simply rebranding Veterans UK seems like a superficial move. I am not clear how just changing the name recognises the deep problems that exist in that set-up. What assurances can the Minister give the House and the many veterans who contact me regularly that there will be a root-and-branch review to ensure that existing complaints are dealt with and that veterans receive the service they richly deserve?
Johnny Mercer
I am just looking over my statement again and at no stage have I said that this is a rebranding exercise. The Veterans UK brand is being retired, absolutely, but that is not a rebranding exercise, because then we would have come forward with something else that would be exactly the same. The overarching organisation is being removed, as well as the interrelationships under that between the bereavement services, the compensation services and the welfare services that operate out of Norcross. Look, if people want to take it as a rebrand, that’s fine. I have not said that and that is not what it is going to mean for veterans, but if it fits their narrative, that’s fine by me.
Oral Answers to Questions
Owen Thompson Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Saqib Bhatti)
The Online Safety Act 2023, which recently received Royal Assent, has been designed to keep pace with emerging technologies. The Act will regulate AI-generated content in much the same way that it does content created by humans. It covers AI-generated content shared by users with other users, search results generated by AI and AI-generated pornography. In addition, the Act will criminalise the sharing of deepfake intimate image abuse, including when that is AI-generated.
Saqib Bhatti
I thank the hon. Member—I will embarrass her and say that we are friends. However, I respectfully disagree, because the Scottish people were represented by the UK Government.
Owen Thompson
Meta, having recognised the threat that unrestricted use of AI could represent in elections and democracy, has banned the use of generative AI in its political adverts. Why does a private company seem to be doing more to curb the spread of electoral misinformation than this Government?
Saqib Bhatti
The Government take the integrity and security of our democratic processes very seriously. We will continue to safeguard against future risks, strengthen our resilience and ensure that the regulatory framework is as effective as possible. DSIT supports wider cross-Government efforts to protect UK democratic processes, including through the defending democracy taskforce and election cell, and will be working closely with social media platforms to ensure that the right systems are in place to identify and remove harmful material, including deepfakes, where it breaches platform terms of service.
Honesty in Politics
Owen Thompson Excerpts(6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for opening the debate and for bringing the petitions before us, and I thank all those who signed them. They have to be commended for their foresight, given that they signed up before many of the issues touched on this afternoon even came to light.
We live in strange and turbulent times, and there is a danger that we are slipping into an era of post-truth politics. We need only look across the Atlantic at the situation in the United States, where a former President is still denying the outcome of an election years after it happened; we can see the impact that is having on society. If we do not do something—I am not saying that I have all the answers—there is a danger of sliding down the same slope.
As has been touched on, the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, lied to the public and Parliament. He was found by independent ethics advisers to have broken the ministerial code after being found guilty by a Met police investigation, yet nobody in this place could call him out for lying. Surely it is our job to come to this place to hold people and systems to account. To paraphrase an Australian politician who used a much pithier phrase, we need to keep the scoundrels honest.
The public are sick and fed up of politicians who think they can have one rule for themselves and another for everyone else. They want politicians to be honest and to have integrity, which is surely the very least that the public should be able to expect from us. It was interesting that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) suggested that we need to throw out the “dead cat” strategy, and I entirely agree with him. Perhaps one or two Lib Dem bar charts could go with it, but that is perhaps another matter altogether.
University College London research published last year revealed that the UK public want politicians who, over and above delivering outcomes, operate within the rules. UCL’s report, entitled “What Kind of Democracy Do People Want?”, details the responses of 6,500 people who are representative of the voting-age population across the whole UK, who were surveyed in July 2021. It is the most in-depth report to date on what roles people think institutions should play. It shows that UK voters care about how those in power are held to account, and there is notably higher support for judicial intervention than is often supposed. It reveals that people do not want power concentrated in the hands of a few, but would like it shared among Parliament, judges, regulators, civil servants and the public.
When respondents were asked whether they agreed that
“healthy democracy requires that politicians always act within the rules”,
or that
“healthy democracy means getting things done, even if that sometimes requires politicians to break the rules”,
75% chose the former and just 6% the latter. Professor Alan Renwick, the deputy director of the UCL’s Constitution Unit, said:
“It’s true that few people pay much attention to the fine details of democratic institutions…But people do want a system in which politicians act with integrity and where power isn’t unduly concentrated with ministers in government. Most people, across different political affiliations, think that’s not the case at present.”
These findings show that voters care deeply about integrity and do not want power to be unduly concentrated in the hands of the Executive.
It is beyond doubt that the trust gap between public and politicians is threatening our democracy; as I say, Donald Trump and Boris Johnson have accelerated the slide. Unless we halt the political disinformation, democracy will be in deep trouble. I have previously highlighted the possible need for a truth tsar or truth commissioner to fact-check MPs and hold us to account, and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that idea. Clearly, we cannot have a situation where we do that ourselves. In an ideal world we would, but that is what we have got just now and it is not working.
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) is right that it would be entirely unfair to expect the Speaker to take on that role, but somebody has to, and we need to give that serious consideration. There could be an independent body entirely separate from the political system, which could give confidence not only to those of us in this place but to the public at large. It could have the power to investigate allegations of dishonesty against MPs and recommend sanctions, such as suspension from the House. That would be more than naming and shaming MPs who make mistakes, because mistakes happen in every workplace and every organisation. There is huge merit in the Bill that the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) introduced, which I hope will progress with a lot of support. We need to do something; if we do not, the entire foundations of our democracy are in danger of falling into disrepair.
I will give a case in point. Recently, a Minister—I will not name anyone—commented in the Chamber that Scotland “does not house refugees”. If someone was being fair, they could argue that that was a throwaway line or a flippant comment, but factually it is entirely untrue. I pointed that out through a point of order, but I have not yet seen a correction to the record. That was a very simple case, where somebody could look at the facts and check the statement, and the easiest solution would be for the record to be corrected, but at the moment there is nothing to make that happen.
There are other moves afoot. In Iceland, all major political parties have agreed to a code of conduct, which includes provisions for transparency, accountability and ethical behaviour. Perhaps we could look at that existing model, at least to bring ourselves a bit further forward in terms of what actions we could take.
Public anger about dishonesty in politics runs deep; there is a deep-seated view that there is one rule for politicians and another for everyone else. A small number of people making wildly flamboyant claims undermines all of us; it impacts every single one of us. It is in all our interests to try to do everything we can to get this right.
The UCL experts showed that most people are outraged at the suggestion that they should have to use up the one vote they get every four or five years to make what they think should be the blindingly obvious point that lying in Parliament ought to be punished. They expect politicians to step up and enforce the rules. If that does not happen, they could increasingly support more stringent and perhaps problematic external constraints on Parliament. There would be nothing in that for any of us, so it is in all our interests to get this right.
Oral Answers to Questions
Owen Thompson Excerpts(9 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Chloe Smith)
Our White Paper set out how we will regulate AI through a flexible framework underpinned by five principles. This proportionate and adaptable approach has been welcomed by British business. It includes new monitoring functions allowing us to update our approach in response to a rapidly evolving technology. The Government will come back with proposals in the autumn following the White Paper consultation.
Owen Thompson
AI has been used by public authorities in a wide range of contexts that affect individual rights, from facial recognition technology used by police to the system used by the Department for Work and Pensions to investigate benefits claimants. Does the Secretary of State agree that public trust in the state of AI is essential and that any changes to the law will require public support and, therefore, greater consultation to ensure that that trust is not undermined?
Chloe Smith
The hon. Gentleman makes a thoughtful point. He is right that we need a comprehensive public debate on many of these points. He named some risks that concern him. I would marry those with consideration about opportunities. For example, my colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions are also looking at how the technology can help with job matching and ensuring that people have information about the job market. I look forward to further conversations, as he said, as we go forward with this critical technology.
Oral Answers to Questions
Owen Thompson Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
The Welsh Government are well-funded to deliver public services in Wales. As a result of the autumn statement, Welsh Government funding is increasing by around £1.2 billion over the next two years. That is on top of the additional £2.5 billion a year on average announced at spending review. The Prime Minister has also been clear that we will halve inflation to ease the cost of living.
David T. C. Davies
The overall funding amounts for the devolved Administrations, including the Welsh Government, have still increased in real terms over the period despite the impact of inflation. If the hon. Gentleman is serious about dealing with inflation, I hope he will support this Government as they propose to halve inflation over the coming year. In doing so, we will need to carefully control public spending in areas such as pay.
Owen Thompson
The Institute of Welsh Affairs says that budgetary pressures highlight the impotence of Welsh devolution and that tax scheme changes by the Scottish Government are a model that would help Wales’s financial situation. If the UK Government will not provide vital increases to devolved budgets, will the Secretary of State explore devolving similar tax-bearing powers to Wales, as in Scotland, to help the Welsh Government mitigate the Tory mismanagement from this place?
David T. C. Davies
I am not quite sure I follow what the hon. Gentleman is saying, because of course the Welsh Government do actually have tax-bearing powers. They have chosen not to use them, because the Welsh Government recognise that taxes have already increased as far as is sensible, and that means that all of us have to deal with the constraints that have come about as a result of the very difficult economic situation we face due to covid and the impact of a land war in Ukraine.
Oral Answers to Questions
Owen Thompson Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Coffey
I know my hon. Friend has long been concerned about this and he is right to be so. That is why we will continue to work with high-level ambition partners, and work towards our 30 by 30 ambitions around the world, which will also preserve the Arctic and Antarctic.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
Throughout the UK’s presidency, my right hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) has engaged with all parties, including co-operating closely with the upcoming Egyptian presidency on the issue of loss and damage. Addressing loss and damage will continue to be a priority for the UK presidency in the run-up to, and at, COP27.
Owen Thompson
The Egyptian presidency of COP27 has hailed Scotland as leading the world in taking steps in the right direction regarding loss and damage. Scotland’s First Minister has called it a moral responsibility finally to acknowledge the damage done by developed nations through emissions, and to contribute towards loss and damage funding. What more can this Government do to follow the lead of the Scottish Government in tackling that important issue?
Early General Election
Owen Thompson Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. It is a bit of a challenge to prepare for a debate like this, because we are living through the most unprecedented series of political earthquakes, with the ground constantly shifting beneath our feet. It is almost as though we are living in a time when the longevity of a Prime Minister or Chancellor of the Exchequer is measured in hours rather than months or years, so please forgive me if I keep an eye on my phone to ensure that Ministers and policies remain the same as they were when I rose to speak. It is good to see this Minister in his place. He is certainly not hiding under any desks, as it may have been suggested that others were.
This short-lived Government have pivoted so many times already—there have been so many U-turns—that we have absolutely no idea what direction we are travelling in, but we are lurching speedily towards a cliff edge. In effect, all the promises and pledges so firmly given by the Prime Minister during the long and tedious leadership campaign and reinforced several times over the last couple of weeks have been abandoned. We have been left wondering whether the notorious mini-Budget was a mere mirage to our collective consciences. The tax cut for the wealthiest, the basic rate cut, the dividend tax cut and the corporation tax cut are all gone—along with the former Chancellor himself. The only positive bit, I guess, was the two-year energy cap, which provided some much-needed certainty to struggling households, but it is also gone; even it is not there now. So what next? Who knows? The Prime Minister might even have gone by the time I finish speaking and sit down, although who would take the poisoned chalice is another matter.
Even for an Opposition Member, it is at times almost too painful to watch this embarrassing farce of a Government limping on. It feels like a particularly shambolic episode of “The Apprentice”, and at this stage I do not think I would be surprised if Lord Sugar suddenly appeared and fired the lot of them. It is certainly beyond any parody that could be imagined in “The Thick of It”. I am sure that a few of us could imagine, or begin to imagine, what might be coming out of the mouth of Malcolm Tucker if he were having to deal with such a situation.
We know that it has gone too far when we can no longer tell the satire from the ridiculous reality, but the gross economic incompetence of it all has deadly serious consequences for millions of people across the UK. There are people who are working 40 hours or more a week and are still unable to make ends meet. Established businesses are at risk of going under because they cannot afford to pay soaring energy bills. Families are going hungry or are afraid of losing their homes.
I held a cost of living event in Gorebridge in my constituency just on Friday past. I had invited the Prime Minister to attend so that she might be able to answer constituents’ concerns directly. However, despite watching out for her, I regret to inform the House that she did not attend—a bit like earlier today. I was hearing harrowing stories from many people struggling simply to make ends meet. They did not know where to turn. We have a fantastic sense of community in Midlothian and we had a great range of partners in attendance, so we were able to point people to some of the right places. But what can people do when the Government fail so spectacularly the people they are meant to serve?
I therefore completely understand where the petition has come from and why it has gathered such a high number of signatures. It is now 633,000 and continuing to rise—I am watching the petition clock up signatures as I stand here. That number includes more than 1,000 people in my own constituency of Midlothian. People are absolutely scunnered by what they have witnessed. At a time of crisis, they want a competent Government of their own choosing, not a Prime Minister chosen by a few.
In response to the petition, the Government argued that the UK’s is not a presidential system. I am glad that they finally acknowledge that, because the Prime Minister and her predecessor—whose paw prints are all over the mess that we are in—do not seem to have much truck with collective decision making. They blatantly disregard evidence and seem reluctant to inform Cabinet colleagues of their latest back-of-a-fag-packet policy. For some time, there has been an unhealthy trend in the UK towards more personality-based politics—something that perhaps needs to be reflected on in calmer times.
Of course, having a Government we did not vote for is not something new for those of us in Scotland; it is the normal state over the last number of years. I am very grateful that we at least have a clear exit route in front of us to escape from this bourach: we have a modern, proportional parliamentary system working well at Holyrood already and a Scottish Government ready with an alternative plan for our future should the people choose it. Independence for Scotland is not a threat to the rest of the UK or the social bonds that we cherish. It is an opportunity for a more equal partnership, whereby Scotland could demonstrate to the rest of these isles the genuine alternative to the status quo.
We could protect the fabric of our communities, look after vulnerable citizens and protect our landscapes and nature. We could build a new, greener industrial base, becoming the renewable powerhouse of Europe and rejoining our European partners in free trade and travel across the continent. We could value everyone, no matter where they come from, and create a fairer, wealthier and more equal society. That will create sustainable, shared prosperity far better than any trickle-down economics—relying on scraps from a rich man’s table—ever could.
In Scotland, we have a cast-iron mandate for a referendum on our future, yet this discredited Government and—disappointingly, I have to say—the official Opposition still seem to block all democratic paths to achieve it. Choice is the key issue here, and that is something that seems to have been forgotten in the corridors of power in this place. The right to self-determination is a fundamental and inalienable right of all people. It is enshrined in international law, the UN charter and the international covenant on civil and political rights. The UK Government support that principle for other countries, but not, it seems, for Scotland. For this chaotic and unpopular Government to continue to say no to a referendum is more like the actions of a dictatorship than those of a democracy, and I hope the next Prime Minister will reconsider that position, whoever they are and whenever they come along.
While I agree with the growing call for a general election, it is not a long-term solution for our broken system. I urge all democrats, whether or not they support independence, to get behind Scotland’s right to choose. Democracy is not a one-time event—the Prime Minister has been able to change her mind on her policies in the space of a matter of days, so why should the people of Scotland not be able to change their mind after eight years of broken promises? The ground has shifted many times. All the big claims from Better Together have been spectacularly wrong: staying in the UK did not keep us in the European Union, it did not protect energy prices, and it most certainly did not keep the economy on a steady course. The future of Scots’ mortgages and pensions has never been more uncertain than it is today. When circumstances change, the people have a right to change their mind, as the current Prime Minister demonstrates again and again with U-turn after U-turn.
Whatever the party of government chooses to do next, we have to remember that the crisis we face did not begin with the current Prime Minister—the one who was Prime Minister at the time of writing, at least—and it will not end when she goes, if indeed she is still in post. We have had 12 years of Conservative mismanagement. We have energy policies that are unfit for purpose, and austerity policies bringing public services to their knees. We have no solution to the continued chaos from Brexit, which has been a disaster for our businesses, public sector, education and research, holidaymakers, travel and cultural life. Sadly, Labour has no answer to that point. Another general election might put a plaster on some of those wounds, but it will not heal the UK’s chronic problems. Independence for Scotland is an idea whose time has come, and it cannot come soon enough.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Brendan Clarke-Smith)
As always, it is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for bringing this debate before us.
The nation and the world face the challenges not just of Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine, but of recovering from the covid-19 pandemic. Putin’s war has caused a global economic crisis, with interest rates rising around the world. I am sure that nobody in this country would like a general election more than Vladimir Putin.
Families and businesses are feeling the impact across the country, from the cost of their supermarket shop to their energy bills, as hon. Members have mentioned. In these tough times, therefore, the Government are taking decisive action to get Britain moving.
Owen Thompson
I am sorry to intervene so early, but will the Minister tell us how Vladimir Putin caused mortgage rates to shoot up to such an extent?
Brendan Clarke-Smith
We need to look at interest rates around the world, the strength of the US dollar and inflation rates around Europe. Curbing inflation is important to us, and I will come on to that and what the Chancellor is talking about today.
Families were facing bills of up to £6,000 this winter. Tesco, which has been mentioned a lot today, says, “Every little helps”, but we think we can do better than that, because a little is not enough for many families around the country. That is why we took such decisive action with our comprehensive package, so that families would not face that. It has substantially reduced the expected peak inflation that we might have been looking at. We have supported the families who needed it the most, have been dealing with the tax burden and have cut the national insurance contributions of 28 million people as a result.
Global economic conditions are worsening, so we have had to adjust our programme. That is the sign of a pragmatic Government. We are still going for growth, but need to change how we approach it. The Government are committed to investment zones, speeding up road projects, standing up to Russia and increasing our energy supplies so that we are never in this situation again. We are making it easier for businesses to take advantage of Brexit freedoms, so that they may do things more easily, leading to lower costs, lower prices and of course higher wages. The Government are on the side of hard-working people who do the right thing, and it is for them that we are delivering.
We are putting our great country on to the path of long-term success. We are taking on the anti-growth coalition, from Labour and the Lib Dems to the protestors stopping people going to work by grinding roads and rail to a halt, as we have seen outside today. The Government’s focus is on bringing economic and political stability to the country. That will lower interest rates and restore confidence in sterling. We cannot afford any drift to delay that mission. Therefore, the last thing that we need now is a general election.
The Government have several priorities for the remainder of this Parliament. We will use the power of free enterprise and free markets to level up the country and spread opportunity. We will drive reform and rebuild our economy to unleash our country’s full potential. We will cut onerous EU regulations that smother business and investment.
A mandate is one of the reasons we are in Westminster Hall today. The Conservative party was elected with a majority in 2019. Recently, we have been through a process of electing a leader of our party who is committed to delivering that Conservative programme in government. We face significant global events that have changed our economic circumstances. We cannot ignore the impact of covid or Putin’s deplorable war in Ukraine, which has created much of the economic hardship that has pushed up the price of energy, not just for us but for the world. The Government acted immediately to provide energy support for families who needed it the most by laying out a plan for economic growth.
The UK, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson), is a parliamentary democracy and does not have a presidential system. Prime Ministers hold their position by virtue of their ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons. Consequently, a change in the leader of the governing party does not trigger a general election.
The fact that a change in the leader of the governing party does not necessitate an election is well established. There is precedent among both Labour and Conservative Prime Ministers in the past. Indeed, five of the last seven Prime Ministers, including my right hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) and for Maidenhead (Mrs May), Gordon Brown and John Major, began their tenure in office without the need for a general election.
In many cases the next election followed several years after a Prime Minister had been in office. In the post-war era, that has become very common. Gordon Brown was in office for three years before the 2010 election, and John Major for two between 1990 and 1992. Jim Callaghan held office in the 1970s without holding an election, just as Douglas-Home held office for a year without one in the 1960s. Prior to that, Harold Macmillan was Prime Minister for two years before calling an election in 1959. Famously, Winston Churchill’s wartime Administration were in office for five years, in exceptional circumstances, without an election taking place. I could go on. Chamberlain, Lloyd George, Asquith and Balfour are all relevant examples. My point is that Prime Ministers hold their position by virtue of their ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons. There is no requirement for an incoming Prime Minister to call an election immediately on assuming office.
Brendan Clarke-Smith
People want stability and certainty, and that is also what the markets wanted, which is why we have acted decisively. The Prime Minister has been clear and has acted pragmatically. She has appreciated when things have not worked and has changed tack as a result. That is a sign of a strong Government, and I fully support the Prime Minister in those efforts.
The hon. Member for Midlothian said that he also wanted another independence referendum for Scotland. I would argue that Scotland has already had a referendum and that people made a choice. They want the same stability; they want to know what the future holds for them. They made their choice and they see it as being part of that stability. They worry about their interest rates and their houses, and about inflation. We want to govern for the whole Union.
Owen Thompson
I find this slightly perplexing. A lot of the Minister’s argument has been about the strong decisions of the Government in changing their mind, and about the ability of the Prime Minister to change her mind and take a different direction. He then makes exactly the opposite argument when it comes to Scotland and deciding the constitutional future of our nation. How can the Prime Minister and the UK Government change their mind in a matter of weeks, but the people of Scotland—despite every promise that was made eight years ago during the 2014 referendum campaign—are not allowed to make a different decision?
Brendan Clarke-Smith
I bring the hon. Gentleman back to the point that we are in an ever-changing world: nobody expected the covid-19 pandemic or what Vladimir Putin has done in Ukraine. I take the point that circumstances change, but people want stability—they want to be able to support their families and pay their bills—and we believe that supporting the devolved Governments, working together and protecting our Union is the best way to ensure that.
Oral Answers to Questions
Owen Thompson Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
The Home Secretary is committed to dealing with this very difficult issue of the small boats in the channel. We do need to sort it out. We are committed to legislating and to getting an agreement with the French Government. I did discuss it with President Macron last week, and the Home Secretary is following up.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
I completely understand that families are struggling. That is why this Government acted within a week of coming into office to put in place the energy price guarantee so that people are not facing £6,000 bills. That is why we reversed the increase in national insurance and why we are cutting basic rate tax so that families are keeping more of their own money. We are also making sure that the most vulnerable households get an extra £1,200 of support. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will communicate that to his constituents.
Tributes to Her Late Majesty The Queen
Owen Thompson Excerpts(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
I am here to offer the condolences of the people of Midlothian on this very sad occasion. Among the ebb and flow of people, politics and power, Queen Elizabeth has always been there, a steadfast figure in our shared history. With quiet dignity, she made her mark on momentous global events but, perhaps more importantly, she touched people in a very personal way. Across these isles, the Queen is part of the backdrop of the stories of all our lives.
The Queen brought grace, warmth, dignity and humour to her role, which in turn brought her respect from people across political divides. Her passing brings an unsettling time, a time of grief and reflection, and for many a reminder of loved ones lost. People across the nations may understandably feel like they have lost a loved one of their own, yet preparations are already under way and the duty occupies the new King Charles III, showing that, in the immortal words of Terry Pratchett, it is true that the only thing known to travel faster than ordinary light is monarchy.
Regardless of our views on monarchy, the Queen is respected for her remarkable dignity, with which she held herself throughout trying times. We appreciate the twinkle in her eye, her humour, her love of animals and the humility with which she held a far-from-humble office.
She was the first Queen Elizabeth in Scotland, of course, with a lineage stretching back to the Stuart dynasty and Mary, Queen of Scots. It is said that in Scotland, hosting barbecues in the hills of Balmoral, was where she was happiest. Older generations will fondly remember the royal tour of Midlothian back in 1961, where she was out and about across the county, viewing aspects of everyday life and visiting Rosslyn chapel, the rural housing schemes at Temple, the carpet factory in Bonnyrigg and the Loanhead memorial park. There was no standing room left in the streets of Dalkeith at that time, with crowds climbing on the roof of the bus station to seek a glimpse of the young queen.
More recently, she was warmly welcomed back to Midlothian to the reopening of the Borders railway, unveiling a plaque at the station in Newtongrange, where she was welcomed with a wonderful performance by the Newtongrange Silver Band, who express their condolences at this time. People from all walks of life in Midlothian wish to convey their respect, to make it clear just how fondly the Queen is remembered. Condolences have been expressed online by community groups across Midlothian, in addition to Midlothian’s lord lieutenant and provost, who have already held local tributes and, in line with many other places, opened up books of condolence across council venues in Midlothian to allow people to pay their own tributes.
As a previous member and current chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the Boys’ Brigade, I have always been keenly aware of Her Majesty’s role as the organisation’s patron. I know that all in the Boys’ Brigade world, the entire Boys’ Brigade family, wish to pass on their thoughts and prayers at this time.
We are all now getting our heads around the changes that this will make to the basic things that we all took for granted. The ground has shifted beneath our feet. The lads at my local post office in Loanhead said, “Every day we send hundreds of letters and parcels bearing the Queen’s head.” This will now be no more. May she rest in peace.