BHS

Debate between Hannah Bardell and Alison Thewliss

Thursday 20th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Hannah Bardell]

As ever, my hon. and learned Friend is absolutely spot on. A knighthood for thousands of pensions does not seem unreasonable. The 32 BHS stores that closed across Scotland included branches in Livingston, Hamilton, Kirkcaldy and Leith, and the closure resulted in more than 700 employees losing their jobs and livelihoods, and a place of work to which many, like my constituent Tracey, gave a huge chunk of their working lives.

When employees lose their jobs and pensions, their families are hit by that loss. Sir Philip understood the importance of providing financially for his family—he understood it very well. In fact, the entire Green family hugely benefited from BHS. Reports say that the Green family made around £2.7 billion in total out of BHS and Taveta. Mr Green paid substantial dividends offshore that financially benefited his wife. BHS employees want to be able to provide for their families, but Mr Green is clearly blind to the parallel. Sir Philip has done pretty well out of BHS and other investments. He has a helicopter, a jet and three yachts. I have nothing against someone spending their hard-earned money as they please, but that should not come at the cost of our constituents’ pension pots. If Sir Philip’s responsibilities do not include ensuring that his employees receive what they have earned, they will certainly not be enjoying the same luxuries as he; they will not even have a pension to retire on.

Beyond responsibility and respect, Philip Green’s actions and those of Dominic Chappell and the BHS directors simply fly in the face of good business practice. BHS’s collapse, coming amid trade negotiations for Brexit, reflects the dire need to encourage fair and inclusive business practices across the UK. This debate is about not only placing blame on Sir Philip Green, but doing what is right for BHS employees, who have been cheated out of their jobs and pensions, and other future employees. It is about ensuring that there are fair business models and regulations so that such a collapse can never occur again.

The Work and Pensions Committee’s announcement that it will examine the adequacy of the Pensions Regulator’s power in a further inquiry is a constructive start to the mission. My SNP colleagues and I have called repeatedly for the establishment of an independent pensions commission so that we can create an architecture under which the Philip Greens of this world can no longer run away with people’s hard-earned money. Now that EU workers’ rights will no longer be guaranteed and transferred to UK workers, it is more important than ever that we are proactive and ensure that our constituents are treated fairly by their employers. As the UK Government embark upon Brexit negotiations, there may be no running commentary, but we can be sure that there are running and ongoing concerns. Employees will remain uncertain about their rights, and the Government have a duty of care to all workers, including those put out of a BHS job and pension.

The Prime Minister claims that she will ensure that workers’ rights continue to be guaranteed in law as long as she is Prime Minister. I say to her and her Government that we require rights to be guaranteed far beyond her term or any of this Government.

[Alison Thewliss]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent case. Would workers’ rights be enhanced if employees were allowed on company boards?

[Hannah Bardell]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The Prime Minister has mooted that idea and I hope that she receives the support of her party.

Returning briefly to Sir Philip, as he is for the time being, he has responded to the criticism that has been waged against him by saying that England

“is a place where you get a lot of jealous, envious, you know, negative people.”

What a shoddy and shameful way to describe anyone, particularly when they are customers and consumers. I hope that Mr Green is listening when I say that my colleagues in the Chamber from England, Scotland and elsewhere in the UK are not jealous or envious of his gross mismanagement of BHS, but I think I am right to say on behalf of hon. Members from all parties that we do feel negative—negative about how hard Mr Green’s former employees, who are our constituents, will be hit by that mismanagement and his failure to make amends.

It all comes back to responsibility and respect. Sir Philip did not respect the hard work, loyalty and livelihoods of his employees, my constituents and the constituents of Members from across the Chamber. Just as a company is responsible for its employees, Parliament is responsible for its citizens. This is about responsible business practices and responsible regulatory practices. This is about holding businesses and individuals to account by any means possible and sending a strong, clear message that we will not accept such shoddy practices from our businesses towards our people.

Strip Philip Green of his knighthood. Take him to task. Maybe get him to sell a few of his superyachts so that my constituents and everyone else’s can get the pensions and retirement that they worked so hard for. We must have a proper, strong regulatory framework so that this dereliction of duty can never happen again.

Maternity Discrimination

Debate between Hannah Bardell and Alison Thewliss

Thursday 14th July 2016 Westminster Hall

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Buck. I thank the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) and those who signed the request to the Backbench Business Committee to secure this important debate. It is also a pleasure to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith). I look forward to testing the family-friendliness of this Parliament on Monday, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), as we are both bringing our children down next week. We will see how that goes.

I find it difficult to believe that we in this House continue to have to debate and protest about maternity discrimination. It says an awful lot about the way women and children are regarded in society, and we must all seek to improve the situation through our words and deeds, in this place and beyond. Maternity Action has said

“both pregnancy and maternity discrimination is both widespread and deeply entrenched, with a significant minority of employers holding outdated and wholly inappropriate attitudes.”

It is absolutely unacceptable that 77% of women experience discrimination or negative treatment during pregnancy or maternity, or on their return to work. Maternity discrimination is not a niche issue; it is something that can happen to any woman during pregnancy or while going through the early stages of IVF treatment. Equally, it can happen to people who are adopting, or those seeking paternity leave. It also applies to the period after birth and to breastfeeding, as I was glad to see the hon. Member for Harrow West highlight. There is no explicit legal obligation to provide breastfeeding breaks. One of Maternity Action’s excellent series of cards says:

“While there is no explicit legal right to breastfeeding breaks and facilities at work, employers must meet their obligations to a breastfeeding employee under health and safety, flexible working, and anti-discrimination law. And, not only is it simple and inexpensive for employers to do so, but it brings real business benefits such as increased productivity and staff loyalty.”

I absolutely concur with those sentiments. As someone who has breastfed both children at work, being away from them is very difficult and can be painful and embarrassing.

We need to think of ways to get around that and to support mothers when they return to work. We cannot have women giving up breastfeeding, which is so important to maternal and child health, because their employer will not make reasonable adjustments to allow them to do it. We cannot just accept that that discrimination happens. We must find a way of making that kind of discrimination as publicly unacceptable as any other. Ignoring this important issue leads to the extreme circumstances we saw in the Sports Direct case, in which a woman gave birth on a toilet floor. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the impact on child and maternal health during pregnancy and the early weeks of life can be significant and long-lasting, and we need to think about that when we consider this issue.

It was only recently that we were discussing this issue in this place, in November last year, just prior to the publication of the EHRC report and research from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. During that debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) made a number of reasonable demands on the Government, which I will briefly repeat. First, he asked that the Government take a key role in ensuring employers are well-informed and clear in their obligations and that smaller businesses in particular are supported; secondly, that the Government do all in their power to inform women of their rights, highlighting best practice and protecting vulnerable groups of women, particularly young women, ethnic minorities, those from other nations who might be unfamiliar with their rights under UK law, agency workers and those in non-unionised workplaces; and thirdly that the information services that support women be well-funded. We cannot rely only on trade unions or websites or on picking things up by chance. We need to fund the services that will actively represent and advise women. Fourthly and lastly, he asked that women be able to access justice via employment tribunals. Since fees were introduced in 2013, there has been a significant and disturbing drop in the number of cases brought. The hon. Member for Harrow West mentioned some of the statistics earlier on, so I shall not repeat them, but it can cost up to £1,200 to make an employment tribunal claim, which can rise to £5,700 if more than one person makes a claim, with further potential costs such as, for example, £1,600 if the decision is appealed.

Those costs represent an enormous barrier to justice, particularly at a time when women are at their most vulnerable. The number of women who actually reach that final tribunal is less than 1%. That is tiny. We need to do much better in ensuring women receive the justice they deserve. At the excellent event earlier on, hosted by Maternity Action, it was highlighted that there can be a gagging clause put in the settlement for women who settle out of court, so they cannot even talk about the experience they have had with that employers. Those employers will get away with that. Fellow women in that company might not know that has happened and other women seeking employment with that company will not be aware it is an employer they need to be wary of.

I am proud to say the Scottish Government are committed to abolishing tribunal fees, which is a significant step. We are not at all complacent in Scotland about the challenges. To that end, my good friend, Jamie Hepburn, the Minister for Employability and Training, announced at the end of June that he is going to chair a working group to identify action to tackle this unacceptable discrimination. That group will work with NHS Health Scotland to ensure that work environments are safe and healthy for pregnant women and new mothers and to provide employment rights information for pregnant women at that first contact. The group will also create guidelines for employers to ensure best practice in the recruitment, retention and development of pregnant workers. The Scottish Government also pledged earlier this year to improve public monitoring of pregnancy and maternity under the Scottish public sector equality duty. As might be expected, the EHRC has welcomed that announcement, saying:

“These commitments from the Scottish Government are very encouraging and show the leadership for change that is needed to create a positive workplace that supports pregnant women and women returning from maternity leave.”

I will briefly touch on some of the issues of returning to work after pregnancy. I asked on Twitter for people to share their experiences of returning to work after pregnancy. They are fairly typical and depressing. One woman said she had left her stressful workplace when pregnant because it was not worth the hassle to stay, while one commented on the discriminatory attitudes and mindset of her managers. Another woman who had worked for eight years with her employer in a reasonably senior role submitted a request on returning to work after maternity leave to go part time or job share, only to be told it was full time or resignation. She felt she was being asked to choose between her child and her job. Those are by no means the worst stories I have heard and colleagues will no doubt share more. They are very much the tip of the iceberg.

Joeli Brearley, of Pregnant Then Screwed, who is at the back of the room with her gorgeous little baby, has been collecting those examples. I urge the Minister and her team to look at the Pregnant Then Screwed website for those examples because they are absolutely brutal. They must be seen and they must be challenged. I encourage all women who are watching this debate to contact their MP and to contact Government Ministers to let them know it is happening. If we do not know which employers are involved we cannot challenge them and we cannot make change.

I also highlight a man who contacted me about paternity leave. He asked about paternity leave in his workplace, only to be met with the response, “Can we say no to that?” No, they cannot; that is not possible. There needs to be more education about the rights of families in the workplace more widely. I visited One Parent Families Scotland last weekend, which highlighted the treatment of pregnant women and new mothers by Jobcentre Plus. It has identified that women are being forced to come off the benefits they are on and encouraged to start thinking about going back to work. They are asked to attend appointments that are not necessary, but they are being called in anyway. That is something that needs to be looked at more widely.

I also highlight young women, in particular, and the EHRC’s “Power to the Bump” campaign, which is absolutely excellent. It highlights that, among all women, those under 25 are six times more likely to report being dismissed as a result of their pregnancy. Will the Minister reflect on that and see what more specifically we can do to support young women? Young women may not know their rights and may not expect to be pregnant. They might suddenly end up in circumstances in which they are having to make serious choices and perhaps there is something to be put in school curriculums to inform young people of their rights around the issue. There is a bit of a gap there because we are not doing that at the moment. All women should know what their rights are for when that time comes. School is a good place to start with that.

In their response to the EHRC report on maternity discrimination, the UK Government said they are

“committed to creating a strong workforce that is fit for the future. To do this we need to make sure that there are no barriers to everyone fulfilling their potential, enabling pregnant women and new mothers to participate fully if they choose to, and giving employers access to the widest possible pool of talent.”

As has been said, the Government accepted many of the report’s recommendations. However, they notably rejected some of those concerning maternity and pregnancy discrimination, in particular around making changes to the employment tribunal fee system to ensure fees are not a barrier for women experiencing pregnancy and maternity discrimination. They said:

“It is too soon to consider whether any action is needed here. In June 2015 the Government announced the start of the post-implementation review of the introduction of fees in the Employment Tribunal. This will consider, insofar as this is possible, any equality impacts that have resulted from the introduction of fees. The review is well underway and will report in due course.”

I urge the Minister to bring forward the response. We need to know the Government’s views and the results of that review.

The further Government response was that:

“There is no evidence from the responses to the research into pregnancy and maternity-related discrimination to suggest that there is a need to increase the time limit for a woman to bring an Employment Tribunal claim.”

As has been said earlier, three months is not good enough; perhaps even six months is not good enough. Some of the women whose cases I have seen only found out about their rights after the event, which is not good enough either. There needs to be less of a bar on that, so that employers do not get away with dismissing somebody because of their pregnancy.

[Hannah Bardell]

Does my hon. Friend agree that having access to justice is the bedrock of a civilised society? If we cannot offer that to our women and men, and to parents across the country, we are doing them a disservice and we do ourselves a disservice, in terms of our international standing.

[Alison Thewliss]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is so important that there is not only action, support and information, but that, if employers do not comply with the law, that there is recourse and a means of testing those employers and making them accountable for what they have done.

I hope what I and others have said in the debate will change the Government’s mind and will bring about improvements. Society and business are losing the talent and skills of women in those jobs. Women feel devalued. They may be lost to the labour market or end up in self-employment, not of their own choosing, which brings its own set of challenges. Maternity discrimination is the reinforcement and perpetuation of the gender pay gap, and it undermines women’s place in society. We have a new Prime Minister who claims to be a feminist. I call on her and on the Government to take leadership and to ensure that that is true in deeds and not just words.

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

Debate between Hannah Bardell and Alison Thewliss

Thursday 10th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I would like to put on the record my appreciation for the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) and the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) did to secure this important debate on TTIP. It is a matter of great concern to many of us across the House and it has been important to hear the varied contributions. I pay tribute, in particular, to my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin), whose contributions are always considered and colourful.

The position of the Scottish National party on the proposed trade deal has been clear and consistent, and was reached democratically by the membership of our party. I reflect the views of my hon. Friends, the membership of my party and many, many Scots when I say that we have real and legitimate concerns about a number of the proposed provisions in the trade agreement that would threaten the ability of elected Governments in Europe to act and regulate in the public interest. I will touch on those concerns later.

At the outset, I will address the value of international trade and foreign direct investment, which are vital to our economy. The debate on this trade agreement is not about the principles of free trade. I and my party are passionately pro-trade. Instead, this debate is about the need to achieve a balance. There must be a balance between securing opportunities for further international trade and doing so transparently, while protecting the integrity of democratically elected Governments to run public services and make decisions in the interests of the people they were elected to serve.

Scotland is an avowedly outward-looking and ambitious nation, and is punching well above its economic weight. According to Ernst & Young, Scotland was the UK’s most successful inward investment magnet outside London last year in terms of the number of investment projects secured. In all, 80 separate inward investment projects came to Scotland last year, almost half of which were from the United States. There is a pattern of competitive excellence. Over the past 10 years, Scotland has secured more than 37,000 jobs from foreign direct investment, making it a narrow second to London but well ahead of other parts of the UK. In the past six years, under the SNP Scottish Government, the value of international exports has increased by 40%. That is good for Scottish business, good for the Scottish economy and good for working people in Scotland. The internationalisation of Scottish business, boosting exports and attracting foreign direct investment remain key to Scotland’s economic strategy. My point is that Scotland is a proud and successful trading nation.

In the interests of balance, it would be remiss of me not to highlight the Conservative Government’s record on trade and exports. There were 4,000 fewer British businesses exporting in 2014 compared with the number that traded internationally in the previous year. Earlier this year, it emerged that the Chancellor has presided over the largest annual trade deficit since records began in 1948—a deficit of £92.9 billion, which is the equivalent of 5.1% of GDP at current market prices. The claim that the Government lay to economic credibility is a myth and it lies in tatters.

I highlight that trading record because it is important to recognise that the economic achievements of the SNP Scottish Government are characterised by an openness to trade with our partners and friends around the world. We welcome the opportunity to forge better trade links and encourage our businesses to release their international potential. However, TTIP represents better trade links at the expense of transparency and democracy, and potentially at the expense of good public services owned and managed by the public. I will address three specific concerns.

The first concern relates to the investor-state dispute settlement, which has been much talked about today. We have seen movement on this issue over the past few months from the European Commission, which has conducted somewhat of a rebranding exercise with its revised international court system, which replaces ISDS. Although the ICS proposals contain a number of important reforms of ISDS, the changes are nowhere near what is required to overhaul the inherently unfair system of extra-judicial rights for foreign investors. The fundamental question of why private companies require the ability to challenge public policy decisions made by democratically elected Governments remains unanswered.

This is not a fringe concern. Without intimating any political preference in the upcoming US presidential election, I highlight the comments of Hillary Clinton in her book, “Hard Choices”. I commend it to the House—it is a great read. She says of trade agreements that

“we should avoid some of the provisions sought by business interests, including our own, like giving them or their investors the power to sue foreign governments to weaken their environmental and public health rules”.

While I am talking about views in the US, it is interesting to note the letter of objection to ISDS, which claims that it weakens the rule of law, that was signed by eminent lawyers and academics such as Judith Resnik, professor of law at Yale, and Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz.

The SNP has repeatedly pressed the Government for an explicit exemption from the agreement for the national health service. There must be absolute clarity that although the UK is, for the time being, the member state, any decision it takes in the context of TTIP, such as opening up the NHS in England to greater private sector involvement, in no way interferes with the Scottish Parliament’s devolved responsibility for the Scottish NHS. I commend the campaigns that have stimulated public interest in the potential consequences for important public health services, particularly the People’s NHS campaign. I urge the Government to pursue meaningful exemptions for the NHS.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is concerning that the public information campaign on TTIP has been left to such grassroots organisations? They are going out and making the case to people on the streets on a voluntary basis, but there is no wider campaign.

[Hannah Bardell]

I share my hon. Friend’s concern. Perhaps we should draw on the experience of the Scottish referendum, which showed that full engagement and full transparency allow full participation in these processes. It is important that the public have all the information available to them.

My second concern about the potential impact on Scotland of a ratified TTIP is the effect on protected food names and geographical indicators.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Debate between Hannah Bardell and Alison Thewliss

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) to his position as I move across to the business brief. From his speech earlier, I am sure the social justice team has a very talented member.

I shall speak to amendments in this group tabled by my colleagues, particularly amendments 53, 54 and 55, which clearly state the SNP’s opposition to the Government’s two-child policy. The SNP wholeheartedly condemns the Tory Government’s intention to restrict tax credits to two children, which by definition excludes many of the poorest children in society from our social security system, going against the very principles for which it was set up. The Government’s proposals also stray into an area of policy making that I never thought I would see suggested by any Government who had a shred of compassion for their people. Hidden away in the Red Book were the words:

“The Department for Work and Pensions and HMRC will develop protections for women who have a third child as the result of rape, or other exceptional circumstances.”

No detail was provided. How much disrespect can this country take?

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is appalling not only that that appeared in the Budget statement, but that during the consideration of the Bill there has been no explanation of how that will work in practice?

[Hannah Bardell]

I could not agree more. The two- child policy will hit more than 872,000 families who receive support for third and subsequent children. The Government’s own national child poverty strategy recognises that the risk of poverty is much more significant in larger families than in smaller ones. Currently a third of children living in poverty live in families with three or more children. Perhaps that is why the Tory Government seek to airbrush child poverty from the statute books.

It is easy for this Tory Government to espouse theories and claim that reducing financial support to just two children will make poorer families rethink their “financial choices”. That is based on the falsehood that all children are planned and that it is possible to financially plan for children. I am sure we are aware that that is not the case. What if a second pregnancy turns out to be twins or even triplets? What about the many families who are supported or led by kinship carers? Perhaps the Tories need a biology lesson, or a simple lesson in humanity.

Such eventualities cannot be planned for, so are we telling families across these nations to stop having children, just in case? I have raised many times in Committee, and many of my colleagues have raised on the Floor of the House, the sensitive issue of children resulting from rape and the insensitive Government plan to make women justify their children in front of DWP caseworkers. Many domestic abuse charities have expressed grave concerns, and Rape Crisis Scotland has warned that the plan is “inherently unworkable”. It has asked how DWP workers will prove whether someone has or has not been raped, and said that many women would find explaining that situation extremely uncomfortable. Many women do not report to the police that they have been raped, or go years without reporting it or speaking about it, so they cannot be expected to explain it to a DWP worker.

What training will a DWP worker have to deal with rape victims? It is clear that this is an unrealistic, ill thought out and unhelpful proposal. In evidence before the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, stakeholders described it as “unpalatable”, and the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) wrote in The Guardian recently:

“A rape test for welfare is a chilling way to save money”.

I could not agree more. It just goes to show that at the height of the Tories’ insensitivity, they will quite literally leave no vulnerable group untouched in their scramble to, as they put it, balance the books. The policy will ultimately result in a complete abuse of rape victims’ privacy, leading to potentially serious emotional damage for children should they become aware that they are a child resulting from a rape. The SNP amendments would see the policy abolished, and we urge the Government to remove the two-child policy from tax credit and universal credit to ensure that no victim or child goes through the torment associated with having to justify a third child due to such an horrific crime being inflicted—