Management of the Economy and Ministerial Severance Payments

Debate between David Linden and Patricia Gibson

Tuesday 15th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Gibson]

The hon. Gentleman cannot escape the fact that the markets went into meltdown after the mini-Budget. I know this Government want to pretend the mini-Budget, the consequent run on the pound and the near collapse of the pension system did not happen, but government is about taking responsibility and even saying sorry when mistakes are made.

[David Linden]

Would my hon. Friend also point out to the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) that the Government cannot have their cake and eat it? They sometimes talk in this Chamber about how Germany is over-reliant on Russian gas, but simply trying to use Germany as a comparator in this argument is rather like comparing apples and avocados, is it not?

[Patricia Gibson]

Absolutely, and I am sure the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) will be taking note and learning the lessons he needs to learn from that insight.

There is not expected to be a reduction in mortgage rates any time soon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has listened to a podcast or something and has not been listening to half of this debate. The point of today’s debate is that the instability created by this Government means that Ministers who have been in post for a matter of weeks are hoovering up huge payoffs. If he can tell me that there is a precedent for this level of instability, I am happy to sit down and let him explain it to me. I see that he is not attempting to do so, so perhaps he should sit there and reflect on the fact that he is attempting to defend tens of thousands of pounds being paid to Ministers who were in post for a matter of weeks. If he is happy to defend that, he certainly will not have the confidence of my constituents.

[David Linden]

Just to reassure my hon. Friend, I can confirm, as a keen and close watcher of Scottish politics, that in the Scottish Parliament Ministers do not resign on average every four days, as they appear to do in Westminster.

[Patricia Gibson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that, but the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) seems to think that this is okay and perfectly in order. Goodness knows what his constituents will make of it, but that is a matter for him.

If Labour Members are concerned about these obscene ministerial payments, they must support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), which would prevent this situation. That is really important, because we cannot allow this situation to continue. All of this adds up to an incompetent Government who have no direction or judgment. They have brought us into this mess—

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Linden and Patricia Gibson

Wednesday 19th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

5. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the cost of living crisis on (a) the devolved budget, (b) Welsh households, and (c) businesses in Wales.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

11. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the cost of living crisis on (a) the devolved budget, (b) Welsh households, and (c) businesses in Wales.

Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill

Debate between David Linden and Patricia Gibson

Committee stage & 3rd reading
Monday 20th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[David Linden]

I do not seek to detain the Committee for long, not least because I spoke on Second Reading and because there are only two amendments before us.

In speaking to my new clause 2, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friends, I also offer support to new clause 1, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). In truth, the two new clauses, although worded differently, seek to do much the same thing: hold the Tory Government’s feet to the fire, not simply allow them to stick their head in the sand when it comes to pensioner poverty.

I bitterly regret that the Bill got a Second Reading, particularly with the help of Scottish Tory MPs, but as the Bill will soon be an Act, it is now incumbent on us to ensure that at least Ministers fully understand the sheer impact of such bad legislation on our constituents and the consequences of this Government’s ditching yet another manifesto pledge to pensioners about the triple lock.

[Patricia Gibson]

Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment with the Minister, who talked earlier about how the Scottish Government should top up the income that pensioners would be deprived of? The Minister knows full well—if he does not, it is worrying— that section 28 of the Scotland Act 2016 forbids the Scottish Government from topping up pensioners’ benefits except

“by reason of old age.”

I am sure that the Minister is well aware of that.

Does my hon. Friend also share my view that rather than expecting the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament to continually clean up the injustices of this Government, we would be far better off having all the powers to prevent injustices in the first place?

[David Linden]

I would caution the Minister that my hon. Friend, a former teacher, is not someone whose office or classroom he would want to be summoned to for a telling off. She has quite eloquently set him right on what I am sure was inadvertent misleading of the Committee.

I will return to new clause 2, because I would not want to stray too far from matters before the Committee. My new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay before the House an assessment of the impact on levels of poverty of the uprating of state pensions next year by price inflation instead of earnings growth.

During the Brexit referendum, we were repeatedly told that Parliament would be taking back control. My new clause would merely require Ministers to be transparent and lay before Parliament an impact assessment of poverty, which I am sure any responsible Government would undertake. If indeed Parliament is taking back control, I am sure that agreeing to the new clause will be no problem at all for the Minister; I therefore hope that he will not oppose it. I commend new clause 2 to the Committee.

Universal Credit and Working Tax Credits

Debate between David Linden and Patricia Gibson

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[David Linden]

My hon. and learned Friend is right to place on record the impact of the pandemic on not just young people but women in particular, especially older women. On Monday we will have before us a Bill that suspends the triple lock; that is another betrayal of a manifesto commitment from the Conservatives—something that may not come as a surprise to those of us on these Benches.

I want to emphasise the sheer number of organisations that are campaigning for this uplift to be kept in place. One hundred organisations, including charities, children’s doctors, public health experts and research groups, have signed a letter calling on the Prime Minister to abandon the plans to cut universal credit. One such signatory was Bright Blue, a Conservative think-tank; some on the Government Benches are members of that very think-tank. We have also seen a letter signed by no fewer than six previous Conservative Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions who have condemned the proposed cuts. All the devolved Governments have also called for the £20 uplift to remain.

Analysis by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation shows that more than a third of working-age families in 413 parliamentary constituencies will be hit by the cut. Of those, 191 are represented by Tory MPs. The Scottish Conservative MPs on the Benches opposite me—if they have bothered to turn up for the debate—will know the consequences of the universal credit cut that they plan to reaffirm tonight. They know the statistics; they know the threat of poverty that hangs over their constituents; and yet they do not care.

In Moray, 6,110 households will be at risk of sliding into poverty. If he does not vote for the motion tonight, the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) clearly does not care. In West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, 3,620 households will be going into winter facing harsh decisions between heating and eating. If he does not vote for the motion tonight, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) does not care. In Banff and Buchan, 6,280 households will have to face relying on foodbanks to feed themselves this winter. If he does not vote for the motion tonight, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), does not care. In Dumfries and Galloway, 8,190 households will experience huge anxiety and worry over their financial futures, which will take an immense toll on their mental health. If he does not vote for the motion tonight, the right hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Jack) , does not care.

In Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, 7,150 households will have their incomes slashed by £1,040, a figure that has become increasingly necessary during the difficult months of the pandemic. If he does not vote for the motion tonight, the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) does not care. In Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, 6,050 households will be victims of this heartless Tory austerity policy, which will cement poverty and inequality in that community for years to come. If he does not vote for the motion tonight, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) does not care. It will be clear that the Scottish Conservatives do not care about some of the most vulnerable people in our constituencies.

[Patricia Gibson]

My hon. Friend has set out a powerful series of facts. Given what he has just said, does he agree that it is interesting that the Tories in the Scottish Parliament make great play of trying to address the attainment gap, something which cannot be done as long as children are living in poverty? The House of Commons Library tells us that inequality in Britain has been the worst in north-west Europe in every year of the 21st century for which figures are available.

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the difference between what the Conservatives say in the Scottish Parliament and what they do—that is, in Westminster, probably not vote for this motion tonight. Of course, there is a wider question: what is the purpose of devolution? Is it meant to be a sticking plaster for bad social security policy coming out of Westminster? The Scottish Government can introduce measures such as the game-changing Scottish child payment, and can go further and double that, but if the Government vote for this cut tonight, it will mean that the Scottish child payment is essentially nullified, and that will be in the hands of Scottish Conservative MPs.

Gender Pension Gap

Debate between David Linden and Patricia Gibson

Monday 19th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I am delighted to have secured this important debate on the gender pension gap, which stands at a shameful 40.3%—more than double the gender pay gap of 17.3%. That is truly shocking, and I hope that the debate will both highlight this terrible inequality and perhaps persuade the UK Government to take some fairly straightforward measures to address it if they are truly committed to pension justice and equality.

We are all aware of the justifications for women’s state pension age being raised, but equalising state pension ages is very different from pension equality. We could simply throw our hands in the air and exclaim that women have always had lower pensions than men, and that is just the way it is, but it need not be this way. It is simply unacceptable that all types of pension provision—whether state pensions, workplace pensions or private pensions—inherently discriminate against women. If they choose to do so, the UK Government could tackle this and thereby tackle the poverty that too many women face in old age. This can wait no longer, as an increasing proportion of women are simply not able to rely on their partner’s income in retirement, and nor should they be required to.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend most sincerely on securing the debate. The average woman in her 20s in the UK will have to work almost 40 years longer than her male counterpart to build up the same pension. Indeed, a female saver can expect to have £100,000 less in retirement savings thanks to time taken out of the workplace to raise children. In the previous debate, the Government spoke an awful lot about levelling up. Does she agree that, if the Government are serious about levelling up, the first thing they could do is tackle the injustice of the gender pension gap?

[Patricia Gibson]

Absolutely. I know that the Minister will be listening intently, and I hope he will take away the reasonable and straightforward suggestions that I will make this evening, so that we can truly level up in the way that the Government say they want to.

Women born in the 1950s—WASPI women, or Women Against State Pension Inequality—have suffered hugely as their state pension age was accelerated, giving them insufficient time to prepare for retirement. Despite the clamour of outrage, the Government have refused to do anything to address the hardship caused to the women affected. I wish I could say that that policy decision was the only one that targets women in retirement. I wish this was the only measure I could find that has transformed retirement into a time of financial uncertainty and fiscal pressure for women. Sadly, it is a mere continuation of policy choices that have contributed to—indeed, exacerbated—the gender pension gap under which too many women now labour.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Linden and Patricia Gibson

Monday 18th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

What assessment he has made of the effect of the end of the transition period on (a) further and (b) higher education.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

What assessment he has made of the effect of the end of the transition period on (a) further and (b) higher education.

Petitions

Debate between David Linden and Patricia Gibson

Tuesday 9th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Following the death of George Floyd, we have seen mass protests across the world, which have struck a chord with every single one of us, but we must do more than just protest. Those of us with a voice in this House must speak up for the voiceless. We need to consider our own role in tackling racism in all its forms and challenging the deeply uncomfortable history and legacy of racism and discrimination in these islands. We are not powerless. We can also act to stop the disproportionate force that has been unleashed on ordinary Americans demonstrating for justice who have been met with the brutality of UK-made riot equipment.

I rise tonight to present a petition on behalf of hundreds of constituents who want it heard loud and clear in this House that Black Lives Matter and that no action is no option.

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of the constituency of Glasgow East,

Declares that the current volatile situation in the United States of America following the death of George Floyd is of great concern to many people in Scotland; considers that Black Lives Matter protests have been largely peaceful but that a disproportionate and heavy-handed police response has further stoked tensions, resulting in many injured protestors; and further that President Donald Trump’s actions have not helped to de-escalate tensions.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to immediately suspend the sale of riot equipment to the United States of America and make representations to seek a de-escalation of tensions.

And the petitioners remain etc.

[P002571]

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

My constituents in North Ayrshire and Arran have watched the unfolding events in the United States. They have alarmed and appalled them and led them to reflect on inequality in the US and our own societies. They seek confirmation and affirmation from all in this House that Black Lives Matter, and matter to us all.

The petition says:

The Petition of residents of the United Kingdom,

Declares that the current volatile situation in the United States of America following the death of George Floyd is of great concern to many people in Scotland; considers that Black Lives Matter protests have been largely peaceful but that a disproportionate and heavy-handed police response has further stoked tensions, resulting in many injured protestors; and further that President Donald Trump’s actions have not helped to de-escalate tensions.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to immediately suspend the sale of riot equipment to the United States of America and make representations to seek a de-escalation of tensions.

And the petitioners remain etc.

[P002569]

Claim of Right for Scotland

Debate between David Linden and Patricia Gibson

Monday 27th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Gibson]

What I accept is that the people who voted for the Scottish National party want to have the debate and want to have the choice, and that matters. It is our job to persuade them over the line.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who comes into this debate with a degree of interest in it, may not be aware that there are now three Scottish Tory Members sitting in this House: the Minister, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), and the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont). Can my hon. Friend say whether their majority has gone up or down on the basis of their message saying no to indyref2?

[Patricia Gibson]

I do not wish to intrude on private grief, but I cannot help noticing that each of the three Tory MPs from Scotland rushed as though their behinds were on fire to leave Holyrood—Scotland’s Parliament—to come to this House, and I have to question why that might be.

If not winning over 50% of the popular vote is the only tool in the Government’s arsenal to deny the people of Scotland the right to choose their own future, then where is the democratic mandate for this Government to press ahead with their version of a damaging Brexit—a Brexit born out of a very narrow referendum result, with the Electoral Commission itself saying that the referendum was characterised by law-breaking, cheating and dishonesty? In last year’s general election, the Tories won 43.6% of the vote. If we follow the UK Government’s logic on indyref2, this Tory Government most certainly do not have a mandate for their version of Brexit either. Therein is crystallised the unsustainability of the Tory Government’s position. This might be a surprise to some Conservative Members, but the Government’s position is so unsustainable that even some Front-Bench Tory MPs are admitting it secretly, off the record. If the Government continue to hold on to the unsustainable position that Scotland should be denied its claim of right to exercise its democratic will to determine its own future, this will, and can only, deepen the current constitutional crisis. There is no doubt that England’s and Scotland’s elected representatives have quite different and diverging constitutional mandates, but be in no doubt—each mandate is as valid as the other.

Let me turn to the tired and frankly insulting mantra trotted out too often by Conservative Members: that the people of Scotland voted no to independence in 2014. They did; there is no denying that. It appears that, according to the beleaguered and very absent Secretary of State for Scotland, it matters not how the people of Scotland voted in the past five elections or how they may vote in future elections, because he has decided that independence for Scotland can be put to the people of Scotland only once in a generation, regardless of any democratic choice they may choose to make—summarised as, “You’ll have had your democracy, then.” This is quite frankly absurd and silly talk, and insulting to the people of Scotland.

The Secretary of State for Scotland has revealed that he either knows nothing of, or does not subscribe to, the claim of right for Scotland, or has clearly not read the report from the Smith commission—which is odd for a Secretary of State for Scotland. I wish I could say I am surprised about that. I hope that the Minister standing in for the beleaguered Secretary of State for Scotland tonight does not, when he gets to his feet, insult the House or the intelligence of the people of Scotland by repeating this once-in-a-generation nonsense. I draw his attention—he really ought to listen to this because it is important—to the final report from the Smith commission, and more specifically to paragraph 18 of chapter 2, which clearly states:

“It is agreed that nothing in this report prevents Scotland becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose.”

That seems pretty clear to me. No wonder the former Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, is blushing.

The unanimous verdict of the Smith commission was an implicit agreement that a second referendum vote was and is constitutionally valid. It is inconceivable that that would have been included in the final published report if the members of the Smith commission, a bare two months after the first vote, thought that the matter had been kicked into the long grass for a generation. Democracy is not an event. It is a growing, living, evolving, organic thing, and an expiration date cannot be put on it by this or any other Government.

Let us not forget that the appetite for a second independence referendum is easy to understand. The people of Scotland voted no to independence in 2014 because they were fed lies, mistruths and fear. They were told that, in order to remain in the EU, they would need to vote no. They were told that if they voted yes, they would lose their pensions. I do not have time to go through all the broken promises and lies. But this time, when the independence referendum comes—and come it will—Scotland will make a different choice. The people of Scotland will see through the snake oil salesmen and the spivs who perpetrated those lies the last time round. The people of Scotland will say to Conservative Members, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?”

I urge the Minister to remember the words of former Tory Prime Minister John Major:

“no nation could be held irrevocably in a Union against its will.”

The myth of a union of equals has been hopelessly exposed, and the people of Scotland realise that Scotland’s future must be as an independent nation. I urge this Government to do the right thing and respect democracy. Every day of denial only feeds the fire of independence and the case for a referendum on this issue, the momentum for which cannot be stayed.

I understand that this Government—whose Benches are empty—fear an independent Scotland building a more fair, more equal, more compassionate, more outward-looking country on their doorstep, but that is really a matter for them. No Westminster Government has the right to choose Scotland’s path, and how dare it even try! This Government must prepare themselves for what is coming, because their arrogance, intransigence and contempt for democracy show that the UK is fatally disunited and is about to lose Scotland. A sovereign people will not be silenced. We will not go quietly. The clock is ticking. This Union’s time is up, and well this Government know it.

20 Years of Devolution

Debate between David Linden and Patricia Gibson

Thursday 11th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Gibson]

I will not.

In Scotland, we think about politics differently. We do not consider this Parliament sovereign. We do not consider the Scottish Parliament sovereign. In Scotland, the people are sovereign. It is the duty of the Scottish Parliament and all who seek to serve Scotland in the political sphere to continue to work to improve the lives of the people of Scotland, and the voice of Scotland’s people must be heard.

The hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) lamented the lack of English MPs in the debate, but I put it to him that that might well be down to the fact that UK Governments of all colours have come to regard devolution as an inconvenient irritation. We know that not every political party in Scotland shares the SNP Government’s view of Scottish independence, but the Scottish Government stand ready to work across the political spectrum to continue to deliver improvements to the lives of the people of Scotland, despite the fact that some Tories have never really reconciled themselves to the existence of the Scottish Parliament. All we have to do is remember the words of former Tory Prime Minister John Major, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) and, of course, the former Tory leader and Member for Richmond (Yorks). I will not even talk about the behaviour of the elusive current leader of the Tories in Scotland. The Scottish Tories in this place love devolution so much that some of them could not wait to get out of the Scottish Parliament to come and sit in this Parliament.

The first 20 years of the Scottish Parliament has had a materially positive influence on the lives of the people of Scotland, and I am sure we will continue to see such improvements in the next 20 years. We were told by the once high-profile Labour MP Baron Robertson that devolution would kill nationalism stone dead. As he sits in the other place wrapped in ermine, he must surely at times reflect on his underestimating and misunderstanding of his fellow Scots. The fact is that Scotland is making more and more decisions for herself, and she likes it. There is no going back.

The process of devolution will one day, I am sure, lead Scots to demand their full independence, when we can complete our journey to a more prosperous, more just and more equal society. To complete that journey and to continue to improve the lives of the people of Scotland, we need all the levers of taxation and spending powers, and that day will come. The first 20 years have brought so much improvement, and as we embark on a new constitutional journey over the next 20 years, things can be—and, I believe, will be—even better. I pray that I am alive to bear witness to that, and that I will live to be part of a flourishing, just, equal, independent Scotland.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

rose—

Unpaid Work Trials

Debate between David Linden and Patricia Gibson

Tuesday 5th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald), not just on securing this debate but on the legislation he introduced under the private Member’s Bill process. It is an area of deep regret that that legislation has not been pursued. It highlights the absolute folly of the private Member’s Bill system in this place, but that is a debate for another day.

I rise to make similar points to those already made. We need action on this today. I think, “Okay, fine, great, guidelines,” but the reality is that we need this enshrined in law. In the time I have been in this House, I have already seen a number of areas of employment legislation and employment practice that do not do justice to our constituents, quite frankly. Some of it is about unpaid work trials, which I reckon will be even more of a thing after Brexit. The hospitality sector largely relies on EU nationals. When the drawbridge is brought up as a result of the Immigration Bill, the chances are that the hospitality sector is going to rely more on people in the local population working in those jobs. I would be very concerned if hotels and restaurants decided that they were going to deploy unpaid work trials.

[Patricia Gibson]

The UK Government have said that they are of the view that unpaid work trials are permissible in legitimate recruitment processes. Does he agree with me that the problem is that nobody is monitoring what is permissible and what is legitimate?

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point; that is something the Minister should consider. When we say that this place just does not deliver for workers’ rights, we look at the absolute lack of any action on zero-hours contracts. We look at, for example, the age discrimination in the national living wage, which is not applicable to those under 25. Those are areas where the Government have been told time and time again that Parliament wants action, but they sit back and say, “Oh well, we’ll do guidelines, or we’ll do consultations.” I certainly welcome consultations, but at this stage we need to see legislation.

The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) has made the point that, even though the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 is on the statute books, only 14 employers have been found in breach of the legislation since it came into force. I do not think that is helpful at all.

The point I would make, which people would expect to come from a Scottish Nationalist Member of Parliament, is that if Westminster is not willing to take action on better employment conditions, then surely it should look at devolving that legislation to the Scottish Parliament, where we have a track record of taking action. Take, for example, the business pledge, whereby companies make commitments to say that they are investing in youth, do not have zero-hours contracts and do not discriminate based on someone’s age. There is clearly action in Scotland that can and will be taken to provide better employment conditions for people.

I regret that a number of parties in this Parliament blocked the devolution of employment legislation. If hon. Members are going to stand up in this Chamber today and say that they want better employment rights for people, that is fine—I would like to see better employment rights for people across the UK—but I do not want to come to another debate and make this point again and be stonewalled by the Government. If the Government are not willing to do it, then the Scottish Government will.

State Pension: Women born in the 1950s

Debate between David Linden and Patricia Gibson

Thursday 22nd November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Patricia Gibson]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point well. It was recently said to me that it was interesting that the Government have chosen to pick a fight with women of a certain age, with a policy that will most harshly affect women in a lower income bracket. They will feel the most pain as a result of the policy, and were perhaps considered an easy target. Perhaps the Minister has views on that.

I have participated in every debate on the WASPI women since I was elected, and I repeatedly hear from whoever is responding for the Government—a variety of Ministers have done so—that the policy is about us all living longer. However, the debate is not about life expectancy, although we know that that has stalled; it is about women who had their pension age changed with little or no notice, directly causing considerable hardship.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend has been a consistent campaigner on this issue; there have been so many debates, and it is heartening to see her pressing it so often. She is absolutely right to press the point about life expectancy. Whenever we have had a debate on state pension inequality, the Pensions Minister has been unable to tell me what the life expectancy in my constituency is. Newspapers such as The Guardian like to talk about the life expectancy in Glasgow East, so I am surprised that the Minister does not know that it is not that high. The changes really affect people in my constituency.

[Patricia Gibson]

I suspect that the Minister knows fine well the life expectancy in Glasgow East and various parts of the UK, but it might make uncomfortable reading when trying to impose a one-size-fits-all policy and stealing people’s pensions. Many of the women in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and indeed in my own, will die before they are of age to collect.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out that more than one in five women—21.2%—in the group affected by the recent increases in the state pension age were in poverty, which is up 6.4% on the situation pre-reform. Meanwhile, analysis by the Centre for Longitudinal Studies found that the poorest pensioners are the least able to work into their later years. It concluded that both men and women who had been poor during their working lives were the most likely to leave the job market between the ages of 50 and 55, with poor health being the key driver.

With striking inequalities in life expectancy and health expectancy, there are great worries that the policy hits hardest the poorest and most vulnerable. That has been borne out by analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies that shows that a third of single women aged between 60 and 63 were in poverty after housing costs—up 13.5% since before the reforms. Similarly, nearly four out of 10 people who rent their homes are in poverty—up from around a quarter. The IFS also found that 1.1 million women had seen their individual incomes fall by an average of £50 a week. Increased income from earnings is simply not enough to offset the loss of pensions. TUC analysis shows that half a million workers who are within five years of state pension age have had to leave the workplace for medical reasons, and that those who have worked in the lowest-paid jobs are twice as likely as managers and professionals to stop working before retirement age, owing to sickness and disability.

In the absence of labour market reforms, it is hard to see how raising the state pension age will allow this group to continue working. Rather, it will mean greater reliance on working-age benefits, which the Government say they wish to avoid. That makes it even more indefensible—this point is key and I hope the Minister is listening, because I would really like him to address it in his reply—that the Government decided to implement the Cridland review’s recommendation to accelerate the rise in pension age to 68, but chose to ignore the welfare reforms that John Cridland said would be essential to cushion the impact of those changes. Will the Minister tell us why? The Government cannot just pick the bits they like; they should implement the whole review or none of it.

The Government have not listened, but that does not mean that these women are not suffering. Many of them have been left destitute. The Government may think that because they are ordinary women—organised, persistent and dignified as they are—they are easier to ignore than rich and powerful men, but the reality does not bear that out. These women have been robbed, betrayed, misrepresented and mistreated, and they will not go away. I repeat a question that I have asked the Government many times: where on earth do they expect these women to go?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Linden and Patricia Gibson

Thursday 1st November 2018 Commons Chamber

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

1. Whether he has provided the Prime Minister with legal advice on the rights of EU citizens after the UK has left the EU.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

5. Whether he has provided the Prime Minister with legal advice on the rights of EU citizens after the UK has left the EU.

Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between David Linden and Patricia Gibson

Wednesday 7th February 2018 Public Bill Committees

[David Linden]

In the light of what the Minister has said, and of the consensus and good will on both sides of the Committee—this is the first time I have served on a private Member’s Bill Committee, although I have served on Government Bill Committees before—I will not press amendment 3. I look forward to the Minister coming back with the consultation.

[Patricia Gibson]

As has already been said this week and last week, we are all treading very carefully on broken glass. We are terrified to do or ask for the wrong thing, in case it upsets the whole apple-cart. I draw comfort from the fact that the Minister is not saying no. From what I understand, he is saying not yet.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson]

I am really hopeful that we are still in the process of shaping the final Bill, and I draw great comfort from my sense that the Minister and everybody here wants this to be the best Bill possible. There is nothing to be gained by passing a Bill with which we and bereaved parents are not happy. In the light of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[David Linden]

I beg to move amendment 2, in schedule, page 2, line 25, leave out from “to” to end of line and insert—

“(a) at least two weeks’ leave, and

(b) at least one day’s leave for the day on which the child’s funeral takes place.”

This amendment would ensure that the minimum period of parental bereavement leave is two weeks plus an additional day for the day of the child’s funeral.

I will not detain the Committee for too long. Amendment 2, in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for North Ayrshire and Arran and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, would provide two weeks’ paid bereavement leave and one additional day dedicated for the child’s funeral. I am particularly grateful to CLIC Sargent, which has lobbied me and countless other hon. Members to table the amendment.

When I spoke to amendment 3, I referred to the sheer range of circumstances faced by parents. Amendment 2 was tabled in the knowledge that if the death of a child is unexplained, for example, there can be a longer period between death and burial or cremation. In Glasgow, there have been delays in post mortems due to hold-ups with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

Amendment 2 would give a bit more flexibility and acknowledge that the day of the funeral can be particularly stressful, busy and difficult. The funeral is in itself a milestone in the grieving process and should, in our view, be treated differently and more flexibly. To conclude, a number of charities, including CLIC Sargent, allow for an additional day for the funeral. On that basis I seek the support of the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me to say what he is perhaps arguing for, although I am not: that those who do not have a significant other or spouse should be covered by this Bill, no matter what age they are. He is suggesting that they would have somebody else to make the arrangements for them.

It is perfectly possible for somebody to be over the age of 18 and to be responsible for themselves, but not to have a significant partner to take on that responsibility. That is a huge assumption. Many people live on their own; we know that single occupancy is rising, even amongst young people. It is at record levels. We cannot assume that people are always attached. I again draw the Committee’s attention to the example I gave, which is not beyond the bounds of possibility: a young man or woman serving as a British soldier in foreign lands facing a traumatic and awful death, and the impact that would have on the parents if that soldier were over 18 and did not have a significant other. These are the situations we need to think about if we are trying to get this Bill right.

Given the economic cost to the country of family breakdown, the Bill should cover people who are not married or in a significant relationship. The reason why it is called the Parental Bereavement Bill is that we are talking about parents and the unnatural experience of having to bury your child. That loss is not tempered if your child is older; I do not see a distinction there.

[David Linden]

In response to what the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire said, I should say that the national health service does not stop treating people at 18 for teenage cancer. There is an issue of consistency here. The NHS does not recognise at just 18. Is my hon. Friend aware of that?

[Patricia Gibson]

That is an important point. Maybe it is a failure in myself, but I do not understand why the issue should be about the age of 18 or financial dependency. This is ultimately a Bill about grief—about losing a son or daughter. The focus is on parents, not the financial circumstances or marital status of the person who is being buried. I cannot get my head round that. It is difficult to choose, but perhaps of all the amendments this one means the most to me because it is making a statement about the enormity of the loss of burying a child, and how that goes against the natural order.