Michelle Scrogham MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Jun 2025 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I recently met the mother of Jaysley Beck, who tragically took her own life after being sexually assaulted and abused within the services. I was really impressed by her mother’s strength and her campaign. Does the Minister agree that the Bill will give more powers to family members, and that maybe we can avoid these tragic incidents in future?

• 2 Jun 2025 · Strategic Defence Review · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure that the whole House is in no doubt about just how proud we are in Barrow and Furness to be building the submarines that keep our nation safe. The commitment to expanding this country’s submarine programme, with up to 12 SSN-AUKUS boats to be built in our shipyard, is the start of the next chapter of that illustrious career. Does my right hon. Friend agree that defence spending under this Labour Government means investment in British companies, in local supply chains and in the very fabric of our communities?

• 7 May 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q7. I thank the Prime Minister for recently visiting the now royal port of Barrow in my constituency to lay the keel for the new Dreadnought-class submarines. He will have seen how proud we are to build our nuclear deterrent, which keeps us safe. As we move forward with our plan for change, does he agree that Barrow and Furness could provide a blueprint for the whole country, with defence investment creating jobs, growth and prosperity in communities across the UK?

• 30 Apr 2025 · UK Airstrike: Houthi Military Facility · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. We have had a long-standing relationship with the US, which is our closest security ally. Does he agree that our continued work on AUKUS will help to deepen and strengthen that for all the nations involved?

• 28 Apr 2025 · Scientific and Regulatory Procedures: Use of Dogs · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. The use of dogs in scientific and regulatory procedures is an issue that rightly draws strong public interest, with over 235,000 people signing the petition that we are debating. It is not just a small outcry, but a clear signal that action is needed. Like so many other dogs, my much-loved working cocker spaniel Charlie is a clear example of how sentient and intelligent dogs truly are—and I am sure that he would want me to put on the record today that he is a very handsome dog. I was also thrilled to see Jennie enter the room today. We can feel the response in the room when a dog enters the Chamber. They bring more to our lives. Dogs form deep emotional bonds, show remarkable sensitivity and learn with incredible ease. As with most dogs, Charlie is not just a pet; he is a member of my family, alongside my two cats, Merlot and Jags—I hesitate to add that I did not name the first cat. It is precisely that connection that makes the idea of using dogs like Charlie in laboratory experiments impossible to justify. However, the case should not be made only on ethical and emotional grounds, but on the grounds of practicality and scientific validity. A growing body of evidence points to the limited translational value of data from dogs, as we have heard, in predicting human responses to drugs and chemicals. It is particularly concerning when we discover the pace of innovation in non-animal methods, including organ-on-a-chip technology, advanced cell cultures and AI-driven modelling systems. Those approaches are not only more humane, but frequently more accurate and cost-effective, begging the question: why have we not moved on this issue already? Despite advances in biomedical research, dogs continue to be used in procedures that often cause significant suffering. They may be force-fed substances for toxicity tests, restrained for long periods and ultimately euthanised—as almost every Member has mentioned. Those are not minor interventions; they are often serious intrusions on an animal’s welfare, and they occur even as the scientific merit of such tests is increasingly being questioned. While the Government have stated their commitment to phasing out animal testing where scientifically possible, many would argue that we have already reached that point, at least in the case of dogs. The infrastructure, knowledge and tools exist; what we now need is the determination to act on them. I understand that regulatory change takes time, but we must be clear in our direction of travel. The continued use of dogs in research is increasingly difficult to defend in the light of alternatives, shifting public opinion and our broader responsibilities under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, as well as scientific best practice. We have the opportunity to show leadership on this issue by supporting innovation, upholding ethical standards and responding to the concerns of hundreds of thousands of our constituents. It is time to set a clear path towards ending the use of dogs in research and to invest in alternatives that will define a more humane and modern scientific future.

• 12 Apr 2025 · Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?

• 26 Mar 2025 · Spring Statement · Hansard source

  More

  Communities such as mine in Barrow and Furness feel very acutely the failures of the previous Government, as they left us in a dreadful state. Does the Chancellor agree that it is through this Government’s commitment to, and funding in, Barrow and Furness and our defence sector that we can transform things on the ground, which will mean that Barrow can be a blueprint for how the defence pound can be better spent across our constituencies?

• 17 Mar 2025 · Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for opening the debate. I first want to acknowledge the tireless campaigning of the Barrow and Furness WASPI women. They have worked tenaciously to advocate for fairness and justice for all those affected. WASPI women did not ask for this change, and they had no say in how it was implemented, but they are the ones left to cope with the consequences: the financial strain, the anxiety and the uncertainty. The issue is not about opposing pension reform. No one denies that we need a sustainable and fair pension system, but we must recognise that the way these changes were carried out was deeply unfair to those who had no ability to prepare. It is also important to recognise the context in which the Government find themselves. This mess was not created by this Government but, as in all too many cases right now, they have been left with the difficult task of clearing it up. There is no easy solution, but the findings of the ombudsman’s report provided a critical assessment of the way the previous Government handled the pension age changes. The report confirmed what many of us had long suspected: that the communication of these changes was inadequate and misleading. Those findings underline the need for a fair and swift resolution to ensure that the WASPI women are not left to bear the consequences of these failures alone. I commend the excellent work of the all-party parliamentary group on state pension inequality for women, and encourage Members across all parties to continue to work with it. It remains a vital forum for dialogue and understanding. There is still time to deliver a fair and equitable compensation package for these women. This is the time to right this wrong. The way forward is continued collaboration, where Ministers keep the door open to those who have legitimate concerns and wish to find a fair resolution. Ongoing dialogue is essential to ensuring that the affected women are heard and that a fair and just solution is found. There are many WASPI women in my constituency. I pledged to back those women, and I will stand by that pledge until justice is served.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T10. The previous Government’s mismanagement has left our flood defences unfit for purpose, which has a huge impact on my constituents. Will the Chancellor set out what the Government are doing to increase community resilience against flooding and coastal erosion?

• 4 Mar 2025 · Regional Growth: England · Hansard source

  More

  At the autumn Budget, the Government announced a range of support measures for small businesses, including vital support for the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors. Will the Minister confirm the measures being taken to support the independent and important craft brewing and distillery sector in Cumbria?

• 4 Mar 2025 · Regional Growth: England · Hansard source

  More

  16. What fiscal reforms she has made to help increase economic growth in Cumbria.

• 26 Feb 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Barrow and Furness has always been ahead of the times in high-skilled engineering. In the light of the Prime Minister’s historic commitment to raise defence spending—the biggest increase since the end of the cold war—I invite him to visit and see the many small and medium-sized enterprises who can support this vital supply chain. Does the Prime Minister agree that investing in those businesses will not only deliver our nuclear deterrent but improve security and the economy for us all?

• 4 Feb 2025 · Apprenticeships · Hansard source

  More

  Like me, my hon. Friend is a passionate advocate for apprenticeships, which play a huge role in Barrow and Furness and are vital for the workforce needed for the defence sector. BAE has an incredible 94% completion rate, whereas the national average is 51%. Does he agree that the Government’s much-needed reforms are vital for improving access to good, skilled jobs in growing industries such as the defence sector. What thought has been given to improving the national completion rate?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Road Safety: Young Drivers · Hansard source

  More

  My constituent, Sharron Huddleston, has been campaigning after tragically losing her daughter Caitlin in 2017. She was one of those children on rural roads who tragically lost her life as a passenger in a young novice’s car. Sharon founded the Forget-me-not Families Uniting group. They campaign for restrictions on the number of passengers that young drivers can carry in the car, and on night-time driving. What haunts me is the fact that had we listened to people campaigning on this issue more than 40 years ago, Caitlin would still be here today. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time we looked at this issue seriously and put in place restrictions to protect young drivers and other people on the road?

• 22 Jan 2025 · Russian Maritime Activity and UK Response · Hansard source

  More

  Over recent years, we have seen a large increase in Russian activity of this type, and it is clear that the need for subsurface protection is critical and increasing. The UK sub fleet is built at BAE Systems in my constituency, and we play a vital role in countering this threat. Will the Secretary of State comment on the support that the Government will continue to provide to ensure that the submarine fleet continues to play this central role in the defence of our nation?

• 9 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T3. In Barrow and Furness, we often joke that we live at the end of the longest cul-de-sac in the UK. The A590 and the A595 are lifelines for people in my constituency. Our future growth, the nuclear deterrent and the emergency services depend on the roads working well, but we are often cut off. Will the Minister therefore confirm the Government’s commitment to investing in the improved reliability of such critical pieces of infrastructure?

• 12 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  To refer back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North said, the amendment does say that the commissioner’s staff “must” include a King’s counsel. That would effectively tie the hands of the commissioner, firmly setting that budget. I would much rather that they had flexibility, so that they could choose who they wanted to serve within their staff; should they need a KC, they would be very welcome to get one. Including that they “must” would eat that budget, which could be used elsewhere if needed.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Do you have any concerns about the transition from the ombudsman to the new commissioner? Abby Dryden: I do not have any specific concerns about that. I would generally have concerns about any change in process, as the shortcomings of a process can sometimes be identified quite easily, but it can be quite difficult to create something in its place that functions effectively from the start. I would just be concerned about the transition, but I would not have any specific concerns.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Do you think anything is needed to ensure a successful handover? Abby Dryden: Numerous things are probably needed to ensure success. I cannot comment on those things directly, as I do not have enough experience to comment reasonably.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q The commissioner can access unannounced any of the sites within the UK, but the Secretary of State has the power to restrict access. How will that work in practice? Luke Pollard: When the commissioner’s office is stood up, there will be a ways of working agreement between the commissioner and the single services about how things work. I am not expecting the Armed Forces Commissioner to use their unannounced powers frequently. If you look at the German model, the armed forces commissioner in Germany spends about a third of her year undertaking visits, of which nearly all are planned. The ability to make an unannounced visit in the commissioner’s toolbox makes those powers even more prominent, because if an issue is reaching a certain threshold, they can decide to make an unannounced visit. The powers on national security that we have included in the Bill come from the importance of making sure that in the proper exercising of their duties, the commissioner is focusing on general service welfare matters. What we do not want to see the commissioner doing, as you heard when the current SCOAF presented earlier, is looking at the secret squirrel elements. I do not want them looking into the intelligence services or secret squirrel locations, such as the operational design of missions. That all sits outside their remit; their remit is solely focused on general service welfare. The ability to define that via secondary legislation is a prudent and proportionate power that we have in the Bill. I suspect what will actually happen in most cases is, once the secondary legislation that details that has been published, a ways of working approach will be established. I cannot really imagine any Armed Forces Commissioner having a remit or operations that step outside that clearly defined general service welfare lane, but if there are concerns, there is also a power in the Bill for the Secretary of State to exercise that caution on visits, especially if there is a national security consideration. We would not expect that, given the welfare focus, but it is a proportionate safeguarding power, just in case.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q How do you envisage this Bill improving service life? You mentioned the importance of communications and getting the information to service personnel. How do you see your role in that? Maria Lyle: I was thinking about that element beforehand. It depends on how the process pans out, in terms of how strategic or how tactical the role of the commissioner’s office is. We want this Bill to be a really helpful change in how military families and personnel are supported, so we want there to be as useful a working relationship with the Armed Forces Commissioner as possible. For example, we would be really keen to share with the commissioner on a regular basis the information and evidence that we receive all year. There is a rich pattern of data across the sector—the third sector that deals with families—that could be brought to bear in terms of identifying exactly where the big issues are that the Armed Forces Commissioner could shine a light on, perhaps leaning in with Government Departments. The change in this Bill is the report to Parliament. The armed forces covenant also provides for a report to Parliament every year. That is not necessarily independent; it is Government reporting on themselves. The legislation gives a layer of independence. If we can use this mechanism and get behind it to help the commissioner to have the evidence they need to enact change, that is certainly how we see our role and work with the commissioner’s office. Sarah Clewes: Just to add to that, I think evidence is absolutely key. If we were to go for a scattergun approach and ask several charities, they would have an opinion. However, is that helpful? The families federations work very hard to provide evidence so that we can find the themes and find out what matters most. That is not to say that we discount other things that may be in the margin, but I think it is so important to have an evidence base on which to make decisions. Otherwise we could just go for a scattergun approach, tie ourselves up in knots and jump on things that perhaps are important to some, but are they as important for others? We need a certain amount of prioritisation, and that is exactly what we have been doing for a number of years. The opportunity to build on that and funnel some of the information upwards for decision making is most welcome. Collette Musgrave: Just to build on my colleagues’ comments, I think many—not all, but many—of the issues that face service personnel and their families, and that impact positively or negatively on their decisions about whether to join and stay in the armed forces, are fairly well known and have been looked at in the past from a number of angles. As Sarah and Maria say, there is a rich level of evidence already in place. It is a question of using that, but really trying to understand the scale and depth of the issues. The issues are all well known, and there are many of us who will get behind a certain one at a certain time, or there will be an external event that prompts examination. But it is a question of understanding, across that broad range, which ones are really impacting rather than being an irritation. What is making a real difference, and what is the depth and scale? Getting in behind those issues is where the Armed Forces Commissioner could bring real value. Galvanising all the various bodies externally, and across defence and across Government, to co-ordinate and co-operate to do that could be quite a significant and positive change.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q It has all gone very quiet on the national veterans commissioner. All the devolved Governments have one; when will we get one here? Luke Pollard: The Minister for Veterans and People has been looking at the system and will be taking steps to see what the most appropriate representation or system to put in place is. We inherited a system that has national veterans commissioners in some locations, but not all. Al Carns will look at that in due course. We have deliberately not specified the interaction between any established commissioner for veterans or veterans group and the commissioner in the Bill, because we want the Armed Forces Commissioner to make an independent judgment. My expectation, however, is that there would be regular meetings between the commissioner and the variety of stakeholder groups that operate in the wider armed forces community, partly to check in on issues, but also, importantly, to check in on the progress of their recommendations and how they are being implemented. A key part of this process is shining a spotlight on an issue, and in my mind it is not sufficient to say, “Here is an issue,” and just present it to Parliament. There needs to be an understanding of what happens next with it, and that is where that interaction would probably be most found.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q What should we be learning from the German model to make improvements here? Mariette Hughes: For me, the best thing from the German model that I would like us to learn from and take forward is the voice that Dr Högl has within the German Parliament. She has a permanent seat; she sits in all the sessions. I am not saying that the commissioner should have that, but they should certainly have the ability to lay reports directly or have them laid in the House so that more focus is placed on this. There is absolutely no point having all this access and information and creating the reports if they do not go anywhere and nobody talks about them. That level of parliamentary oversight and visibility is what we should mirror from the German system.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Can I ask for your views on the German armed forces commissioner? Obviously, this measure has been modelled on that. Mariette Hughes: You can, of course. I know Dr Eva Högl quite well. We are both members of the International Conference of Ombuds Institutions for the Armed Forces, which is a mouthful, so I will say ICOAF. We have a conference every year. She is an absolutely incredible person and has done really good things with that office. It is an interesting model for this to be based on. There are some differences that we have to be alive to. The key one for me—apologies if this comes up later—is around the terminology. Dr Högl is the Commissioner for the Armed Forces. Germany does not have a fully established ombudsman scheme in the same way that the UK does. We have 22 established schemes under the Ombudsman Association. On Eva’s website, she describes herself as “the ombudsman for the armed forces”. It is simply that the title “parliamentary commissioner” fits with their legal framework. There are also some interesting differences. Eva has had these powers for a long time and uses them very well. However, she does not have the oversight of service complaints that I have, so this would be an extended remit compared with the German model. It is brilliant to draw inspiration from it. Being members of those communities together, we are always looking at best practice in other countries. There are necessarily some differences in this country, but it is certainly a good starting point.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Do you think the German model will translate to the UK? Mariette Hughes: I think we have to build our own model; we have to look at what our key issues are. Germany is a different landscape and a different framework and has been operating for a huge number of years. We cannot just pick it up and start doing things the way they do. We need to start with what our key focuses are and how we think we can have the most impact and scale up operations, and go from that. We might end up looking at things slightly differently. A lot of Dr Högl’s focus is on investment in defence and pushing for bigger budgets. Does that necessarily tie in with what we are seeing about the welfare of service personnel? There may be issues that cross over into that, but we would have a slightly different focus from the German parliamentary commissioner.