Partner and Spousal Visas: Minimum Income

Debate between Jim Shannon and Alison Thewliss

Tuesday 23rd April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir George.

I speak very much in opposition to the higher threshold, which is discriminatory. Over the years since I was elected, many of my constituents have come to me because they have struggled to make the £18,600 threshold and have been separated from their family and loved ones as a result, despite working multiple jobs to try to reach that target. There have been people who have missed out on the target by the equivalent of an hour’s overtime and consequently have been unable to bring their loved ones to live with them.

The announcement of an increase in the threshold to £29,000, to £34,000 and eventually, it is believed, to £38,700 just before Christmas has caused great distress among my constituents, which has been echoed in the many contributions by Members this morning. People were extremely distressed because they did not know what that would mean for them, their families and their ability to have a family life. I want to put it on the record that the people affected by this change are our friends, our families, our neighbours and our constituents. I thank them all for the honour they have paid to Scotland by choosing it as their home. They deserve much better than having a price put on love and family life by the Conservative Government.

Many of these people do valuable jobs; they are not necessarily well-paid jobs, but they are indeed valuable to our economy and our society. As hon. Members have already highlighted, these jobs are in a wide range of sectors. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) talked about people in the hospitality sector and other Members have talked about the impact on universities. The £38,700 threshold that has been talked about is well above the salaries of most post-doctoral researchers, so it will undermine Scotland’s ability to compete and attract people to work in science and technology, which are the great sectors where we want people to come and innovate. Such people are already hampered by the impact of Brexit, but they will be further hindered by the inability to attract people to come here.

Such a researcher visited my surgery quite recently. He had two teenaged children and sought to bring them here; eventually he hoped that his children would attain British citizenship. He had that all planned in his head as to how it would work. He knew it would be phenomenally expensive for a family of four to come here and do that, especially when we take into account the fact that they would have to renew their visas every two and a half years and the immigration health surcharge. Nevertheless, he was prepared to do that. However, the difficulties put in his way by the Home Office have led him to think, “Why am I doing this? Why would I incur so much expense when the Government make me feel as if it is not worth it and that I am not welcome?” That is an awful message for this Government to send out. As other Members have said, the system is already extremely expensive and people see little reward in it.

I was also contacted by an Australian-born British citizen who, over the years, has lived in both Scotland and Australia. He says that he wants to come here and bring his family with him, to bring up his children in Scotland. However, he has found the system prohibitively expensive and, once again, he wonders why he should engage with it. How many skills will we lose because this Government cannot see the value in what those people bring to our society?

Members have also pointed out that there is a disproportionate impact of the discriminatory and expensive proposal from the Government on women, people from ethnic minority backgrounds, young people and people who live in places where average earnings are not very high, particularly in Scotland. The Government have produced no equality impact assessment—I have not seen one—to say what the impact of this policy will be on people in different geographies, on women, ethnic minorities, self-employed people and young people. It seems absolutely ludicrous that they have gone ahead with this policy without publishing an equality impact assessment.



I had an email from somebody whose family had moved abroad, who is worried that the door is now being closed on such families to prevent them from ever returning. He writes:

“My British-born nephew living in Canada and married to a Canadian citizen would never be able to return to the UK with his family”.

This measure is not about a group of foreigners who want to come here. This affects people who are already here and people who moved abroad for work, love or study. They have had the door closed upon them by this Government. It is absolutely appalling.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) for bringing this debate to the House. I apologise to him for not being able to come down immediately; this is my day on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I want to put on the record my support for those across the United Kingdom who have the same problem as we do in Northern Ireland. I have fought a number of spousal and partner cases over the years, involving countries such as South Africa and the United States, where the issue of money has been critical. What the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and others have outlined is replicated in Northern Ireland, unfortunately, with greater severity, primarily because people in Northern Ireland have a smaller income than people in the rest of the United Kingdom, so for us it is critical. I commend both hon. Members for what they have said.

[Alison Thewliss]

As ever, the hon. Gentleman makes a very pertinent point. I would like to hear from the Minister what consideration he has taken of the effect on the nations of the United Kingdom. There does not seem to me to be any objective assessment of what this will mean and the impact it will have. The Scottish Government have expressed concerns. We in Scotland have presented an alternative to the UK’s hostile environment and awful, expensive immigration system, which damage Scotland’s economy and society. We would like to see devolution in the short term, and full control over the immigration system in the long term. At the moment, it certainly does not benefit the people of Scotland or work in our interests.

The impact on hospitality, retail and tourism of ending freedom of movement has been huge. The Labour party wants to continue that economically and socially devastating policy. A recent newspaper report about an Italian restaurant in London, where there is a better level of pay, said that the end of freedom of movement and visa thresholds were catastrophic for the industry. I have heard the same for many years from people working in Indian restaurants who want to bring particularly skilled chefs over from India, Pakistan or Bangladesh. This barrier in their path has an impact on the sustainability of those businesses. They cannot pay wages at the higher £38,700 level.

Will the Minister say why the salary threshold is £38,700? That figure has not yet been justified. Was it plucked out of air? We know that it did not come from the Migration Advisory Committee. I would like to know the evidence it is based on. If that is the minimum that anybody needs to live, why are wages in this country not £38,700 per person? Why has that been selected and plucked out of the air?

It is not that these people are a burden on the state, as the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) mentioned. They cannot be, because they have no recourse to public funds; they cannot claim benefits. They pay into the NHS through the immigration health surcharge, which the Government have recently increased. They are not any kind of burden on the state; it is a complete untruth and deeply unfair to say they are. I would like the Government to tell us on what basis they consider that might be the case, because they have been deeply unclear about that.

In an excellent contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) talked about this policy being a means test on marriage. It is absolutely true that it is a tax on love. He talked of the impact on children, which I see regularly at my constituency surgeries in children who have been separated from their parents for a very long time. He spoke powerfully about the impact on children’s mental and physical health.

The Government claim that theirs is a family party, but it is not a family party if the only people picked are born in Britain and happen to be white. It is not a family party if it discriminates against people who happen to have been born somewhere else, or who fall in love with someone from somewhere else and have a family with them. The Government should think about the discriminatory impact of their policy and the message that that sends out about the status of Britain in the world. It does not happen in Scotland’s name. We seek an alternative—an independent Scotland where we can value everybody who comes, contributes, works, settles and lives in Scotland. We thank them for doing that. We do not close the door and make them feel unwelcome.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Jim Shannon and Alison Thewliss

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 22nd April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I rise again to put on the record the SNP’s opposition to this awful Bill. We do not support the state-sponsored people-trafficking Bill on Rwanda, and we will oppose it in any way we can.

I was quite disappointed to hear the Labour Lords caving on the Afghan amendment. If they think that this is some kind of concession, I have some magic beans to sell them—honestly, it is pathetic. Holly Bancroft, a journalist at The Independent who has done so much work to expose the weaknesses of the Government’s Afghan schemes, says:

“This review is already happening and is only for Afghans with links to specialist units. The Home Office is saying they won’t deport the Triples granted leave to remain in the UK by the MoD, who came here irregularly. The number of people in this situation will be very small.”

Before I came into the Chamber, I was phoned by Councillor Abdul Bostani of Glasgow Afghan United. He wanted to know what was happening in this place and what protections there will be for the Afghans he is constant contact with. He wants to know what happens to the journalists, the interpreters, the people who put their lives in danger to safeguard the UK’s mission in Afghanistan, and their children and families? He says: “Those people who the UK left behind, nobody is listening to them, nobody is replying. The safe and legal routes are not there.”

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I make this point because it is important and I want it recorded in Hansard. My constituent Trevor Young worked for the British Army in Afghanistan, alongside his comrade and friend, an Afghan who now happens to be in Pakistan because he had to leave Afghanistan after threats to him and his wife and children. The police have removed his phone, and he faces deportation from Pakistan back to Afghanistan. This is so important for my constituent. Minister, my constituent’s friend, an Afghan soldier, has been forgotten about by the British Government. I make a plea for him because he is not covered by the legislation.

Afghanistan: UK Government Policy

Debate between Jim Shannon and Alison Thewliss

Wednesday 10th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Alison Thewliss]

I do, and I understand where that comes from. I also understand that we can say or do things that we later come to reflect and change our mind on and regret. In politics, we should be allowed to say we have made a mistake or changed our mind. There should be space for that, but I had comments at the time from my constituents about this, and they felt it very deeply indeed. It is important that the views of my constituents and friends are reflected in this place.

I also want to use this opportunity to talk about the paucity of response from the Home Office. I appreciate that the Minister here is not a Home Office Minister, but I still have constituents coming to me every single week who are experiencing severe delays and difficulties with family reunion visas, for example because their family member has moved out of Afghanistan and is in Pakistan or Iran or somewhere else and is waiting for the paperwork to be completed. They are extremely disturbed and upset when they come to see me because of the inexcusable delays these people face in coming to safety and being reunited with, often, the only family they have left. The ARAP and the Afghan citizens resettlement schemes are failing to do what the Government had asked them to do. That is very much reflected in the many Afghans coming over in small boats, because they see no other alternative to get to the UK. The schemes that they were promised would help to get them to safety have failed repeatedly to do so.

A constituent of mine, Mr d’Angelo, has repeatedly raised the case of somebody he worked with in Afghanistan who has been trying to get over on the schemes now for the best part of two years. I wrote to the Veterans Minister, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), a month ago, and I have yet to receive even an acknowledgement of that letter. This is somebody who is fearful for their own survival in Afghanistan. I urge the Minister to put more pressure on ARAP and on ACRS to ensure that people who need that safety can get here.

I remind Members that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees says that the UK has taken only 0.2% of the total of Afghan refugees. More than 6 million fled Afghanistan, but only 0.2% have actually made it here to the UK, so there is certainly a lot more that we could and should be doing. Those left behind include those who worked for the British Council as teachers, those who worked in the armed forces for the Triples, and those who provided various services to British forces in Afghanistan. I spoke to scores of constituents at the fall of Afghanistan—people whose family members had done something as simple as supply goods and services to the British armed forces. The Taliban saw no distinction between somebody who served in an active frontline role and somebody who supplied plates. All those people were tarnished by their association with the British forces. There is an awful lot more that could and should be done to ensure that those people who put their faith and trust in us see it returned.

Like the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), I will briefly mention the 20 female Afghan medical students whom the Linda Norgrove Foundation wishes to bring to safety in Scotland. There is no excuse for them still to be waiting. The foundation was told that these women would be entitled to resettlement under ACRS in January last year. It has been waiting a full year. It was told that the women would be brought to the UK in August, but they are still waiting now, so I ask the Minister to get personally involved in this case. The women should be allowed to come to Scotland to complete their important studies and become the medical professionals they wish to be, because it is not something that will ever be possible for them in Afghanistan in the short or even medium term. They will be welcome, and we have the places. All they need is permission from the Government to come and start their studies, so I urge the Minister to make some progress on that.

Finally, will the Minister provide us with an update on the prospects for people who are stuck in Pakistan and whom the Pakistani Government wish to remove and send back to Afghanistan? Many of the folk who have been in touch with me are waiting for the British Government to process the paperwork. I have had cases where the visa centre in Islamabad had processed all but one of a family’s applications and the family did not want to leave that one member behind. I do not know whether that was deliberate or due to incompetence, or what it was that went wrong with the paperwork, but I am aware of so many cases where people are stuck waiting in Pakistan for the Government to have the processed paperwork, so that they can come to safety. It serves nobody well that they are still waiting, two years after the fall of Afghanistan.

[Jim Shannon]

Given the situation with the Post Office/Horizon scandal, we all recognise that if there is a willingness, there is a way of making it happen. I endorse what the hon. Lady has said, and I referred earlier to the example of my constituent. He is living in Pakistan with his wife and four children. I met him in Pakistan in February last year, when I was there on an APPG visit, and I understand his worries and the threat he is under. I know what my constituent has done for our United Kingdom and the British Army, and the hon. Lady is so right. Honest to goodness, if we can address the Post Office/Horizon scandal, we can bring Afghans to safety in this country.

[Alison Thewliss]

We absolutely can. The Homes for Ukraine scheme shows what can be done in a pinch when there is an emergency, but nothing has been done to the same extent for the people of Afghanistan.

For many people, there is not a simple route to come to safety in the UK. I have people who find that the very strict criteria for family reunion do not allow them to come. They have been told that they are not eligible for ARAP and ACRS, and their family members in Glasgow live in constant fear about what will happen to them. They do not know. Will the Minister explore with the Home Office routes for people who have family links and support networks? They do not need to rely on public services, because they are well provided for by their families. How can they be brought to safety, so that we can fulfil our duty to families who have relatives in Scotland?

Government Support for Breastfeeding and the 2023 Lancet Series

Debate between Jim Shannon and Alison Thewliss

Monday 20th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I have repeatedly brought matters to this House concerning infant feeding. For an issue that concerns every child ever born, it generally gets remarkably little attention from Governments. Madam Deputy Speaker, I can assure you that breastfeeding is an issue of the utmost importance. According to the World Health Organisation, breastfeeding has the potential to prevent 800,000 child deaths globally each year. As The Lancet paper editorial states:

“Breastfeeding has proven health benefits across high-income and low-income settings alike: it reduces childhood infectious diseases, mortality, and malnutrition, and the risk of later obesity; mothers who breastfeed have decreased risk of breast and ovarian cancers, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.”

Yet despite those clear health benefits, around the world and here in the UK, we see a growth and embedding of commercial milk formula in our culture.

I stress that this is not a criticism of individual parents, or a value judgment. This is not about formula versus breastfeeding; it is a structural issue, relating to recognition of the importance of breastfeeding and to the lax regulations that have allowed a commercial industry to flourish. The recently published Lancet papers tackle the structural reasons for which breastfeeding does or does not happen. Commercial milk formula is a multibillion-dollar industry which directly targets families with multifaceted and sophisticated marketing practices—practices that influence our beliefs and values, prey on our insecurities and weaknesses, and are exacerbated by the absence of comprehensive Government support for breastfeeding.

There are three Lancet papers, each highlighting the impact of several aspects of commercial milk formula marketing. The second states:

“The marketing of commercial milk formula…for use in the first 3 years of life has negatively altered the infant and young child feeding ecosystem.”

Successful breastfeeding depends on a network of policy and society responses. It is the responsibility of Government to regulate the industry, and to implement structural policies to mitigate the impact of formula marketing. Women who do breastfeed do so despite billions of pounds’ worth of marketing designed specifically to undermine them.

However, this commercialisation does not just affect breastfed babies and their families. The cost of the marketing literally adds to the price of commercial formula on supermarket shelves. Research by Leicester Mammas—presented recently to the all-party parliamentary group on infant feeding and inequalities, which I chair—shows the influence of advertising, with many parents choosing the most heavily advertised first- stage formula rather than the cheapest. All first-stage formulas are exactly the same by law.

In 2018, the APPG produced a report highlighting the significant impact of the cost of commercial milk formula on family budgets. Inflationary pressures are much worse now than they were in 2018, with profound consequences. Feed UK has highlighted the increased costs in its own more recent research, and just yesterday an article in The Guardian revealed that supermarkets such as the Co-op are now keeping formula behind the counter to prevent shoplifting. It said:

“The cost of infant formula has soared over the past year - with the price of the cheapest brand increasing by 22%. Even if a parent is able to access the cheapest brand, Aldi’s own label, the cash value of Healthy Start vouchers, £8.50 a week, is no longer enough to pay for the amount of infant formula needed to safely feed a baby in the first six months of their life.”

That is a very difficult increase for many families to bear. The Minister should be concerned about the risks of parents’ watering down formula, feeding babies under a year old cows’ milk, or thickening milk with porridge because they simply cannot keep up with the spiralling costs of infant formula. Inadequate nutrition at an early stage can have devastating long-term health and developmental impacts. I have raised this matter with Ministers before, and I encourage them to take it seriously. I am presenting the debate this evening because I feel that it is important for the Government to engage meaningfully with the findings of The Lancet report.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for initiating the debate, and for the leadership that she brings to the APPG. Her voice on behalf of breastfeeding women throughout the United Kingdom has been welcome.

In Northern Ireland, our community midwives team are extremely focused on aiding breastfeeding, yet, as the hon. Lady will know, we have the lowest breastfeeding rates in the UK. Does she agree that providing breast-milk pumps for women in low-income families who are put off by the prohibitive cost of the pumping equipment, but who need their child to be minded after the end of their all too short maternity leave, may be a useful tool to help mums to realise that “breast is best” can work in tandem with their return to work?

[Alison Thewliss]

The provision of those pumps can indeed make a huge difference to working families by giving women the flexibility to return to work. Many of them want to breastfeed, but find that returning to work presents a barrier to it. I will say a little more about the pressures from maternity leave later in my speech.

In this post-Brexit landscape, health industry professionals are making it clear that there should be no reduction in regulation on commercial milk formula. Existing regulations should be maintained as a minimum, and work should be conducted to improve on them.

Let me now take a bit of time to discuss the different angles of the three papers. The first explores the challenges of breastfeeding in a market-driven context. Many of us will be familiar with the stress of having a newborn: are they feeding enough, too much, too little? Are we getting enough sleep? Why are they still crying? Commercial milk formula companies thrive on this self-doubt. They want to exploit what are normal developmental phases and present them as problems to which only they can provide a solution. Online forums and baby clubs, apps, emails and pop-up ads are rife. They consistently undermine parents’ confidence, so that a product can be sold as the answer to their problems. When you are exhausted and your baby has been crying for hours, commercial milk formula companies are there to sell you a good night’s sleep, peace of mind, or a special type of formula to stop your baby fussing.

No one would judge parents in that position. We have all been there, and would gladly hand over all the money in our wallets to get that peace of mind. Companies have stepped into this space to offer specialist formulas in a quite unregulated way: formulas sit on the supermarket shelf offering solutions to colic and spitting up, for “hungry babies”, and to deal with allergies. The truth is, however, that there is no solution—not one that comes in a tin, anyway. Fussing and crying and disrupted sleep patterns are all extremely normal parts of human development and baby behaviour. Normal sleep patterns of babies sadly do not align with the sleep patterns of adults, no matter how they are fed. The responsibility lies on us, as policymakers, to ensure that parents are informed and helped to make the best choices for their babies. We need to ensure that any vacuum of information is not filled by aggressive marketing.

The second paper looks at the marketing playbook used by commercial milk formula companies. I should say at the outset that I am not arguing that marketing is inherently bad, or that companies should not make profits, but there is a case for an overhaul of the regulations. When marketing impacts human development and health outcomes to such an extent, Governments need to step up to the plate.

Commercial milk formula sales were worth $55.6 billion in 2019. Let me put that figure in context: it far exceeds the Scottish Government’s budget in the same year. Sales per capita have increased substantially across the world over the last decade. There are many reasons for that—poor breastfeeding support, work constraints, perceived issues with milk supply or fussiness—but the major contributor is marketing. Between $2.6 billion and $3.5 billion is spent on milk formula marketing every year, and that is likely to be the tip of the iceberg, because it does not include the costs of lobbying, social media or sponsorship of health workers, all of which are key entry points in shaping beliefs and altering consumer decisions. Industry lobby groups work to influence policy environments in favour of the milk formula industry and their shareholders.

Medical professionals are targeted as well, through deliberate efforts by formula companies to encourage the diagnosis of health issues which they claim that their products can alleviate. Dr Chris van Tulleken is among several health professionals who have explained how this has led to over-diagnosis of health issues such as cows’ milk protein allergy, an activity that is being led by formula companies presenting their products as a “solution” to normal baby behaviour. He found that, astonishingly, between

“2006 and 2016, prescriptions of specialist formula milks for infants with CMPA increased by nearly 500% from 105,029 to over 600,000, while NHS spending on these products increased by nearly 700% from £8.1m to over £60m annually.”

There is little evidence to suggest that prevalence has increased, but it is clear from those figures that industry influence has. This is a cost to the NHS of which the Government should be mindful.

The report finds that the World Health Organisation’s “The International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes” has been routinely blocked, reinterpreted, circumvented, or ignored entirely in order for companies to achieve astronomical profits. One example is the creation of follow-on milks as a response to the marketing constraints that do exist: they are completely unnecessary, and often contain additional harmful sugars. The aim is to sell them to promote first-stage formulas that cannot be advertised on television. In the UK, the existing regulations are poorly enforced, and could well end up being scrapped in the bonfire of regulation that is the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. I seek an assurance from the Government that that will not happen. I also ask the Government to use their voice at the meeting of the Codex Alimentarius Commission to tighten regulations globally, instead of allowing industry to have its own way.

The third paper highlights the way in which the political economy influences breastfeeding outcomes. The paper finds that inadequate maternity rights and poor working conditions make it difficult for many mothers to breastfeed, and, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), a rise in insecure and underpaid work has made it even more difficult. There is evidence from around the world that where Governments fail to protect maternity rights, formula companies thrive.

This paper highlights how women’s labour is systematically undervalued. If a tin of formula is purchased in a shop, that contributes to GDP figures, which the Government record as an expression of national wealth. If that same baby is breastfed, it does not count towards GDP because women’s time is just not valued the same way as a commercial product. The paper found that if we were to put a monetary value on the milk produced by breastfeeding women globally, it would amount to an astonishing $3.6 trillion. Commercial milk formula companies are aware of that, and this report exposes how their interests are aligned with poorer maternity protections. The incentives and resources are there for lobbying companies to persuade Governments to reduce workplace rights. This acts as a distortion on the labour market and needs to be actively resisted.

Scotland has legislation specifically protecting breastfeeding in public, for which I thank the former Labour MSP Elaine Smith. The SNP Scottish Government also put breastfeeding into their programme for government, with investment which led to an increase in breastfeeding rates. It is progress, but so much more needs to be done. As I hope I have outlined, this matter goes far beyond individual choice. Ultimately, a healthier population is a positive externality: it benefits everyone, saving money for the NHS through infant and maternal health, a healthier workforce and better outcomes in education. Encouraging breastfeeding and regulating formula effectively should be seen not as a drain on the public purse but as an investment for the future.

I have some asks for the Minister. Almost exactly six years ago, I published my Feeding Products for Babies and Children (Advertising and Promotion) Bill, and I would be glad to speak to the Minister further about it, because it presented the Government with credible options that could make a difference. As I mentioned earlier, we are also at an important juncture with the retained EU law Bill, which could see current infant formula regulations being scrapped. Let us not forget that these important regulations across Scotland, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland protect the health of our youngest citizens. They must be retained, but they must also be strengthened.

Prior to Brexit, when I asked about the prospect of the UK Government joining the countries that have fully implemented the World Health Organisation’s international code of marketing of breastmilk substitutes, I was told that our membership of the EU presented a barrier to doing that. That excuse has now vanished, so I would like the Minster to tell me tonight when he aims to implement the code in full.

Will the Minister meet the authors of The Lancet reports and representatives of the all-party parliamentary group on infant feeding and inequalities to discuss further what the Government intend to do in response to these findings? Will he accept that child and maternal health should come before the profits of commercial milk formula producers? Will he commit today to exploring the role of the UK Government in stopping the aggressive marketing of the formula milk industry? As The Lancet so clearly set out, superficial slogans to encourage breastfeeding are a poor substitute for addressing the sociocultural, economic and commercial determinants of infant and young child feeding. I urge the UK Government to engage with the reports and to do much better by our youngest citizens.

Working Tax Credit and Universal Credit: Two-Child Limit

Debate between Jim Shannon and Alison Thewliss

Thursday 21st April 2022 Westminster Hall

[Alison Thewliss]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member on that point and with those religious leaders who wrote that letter then and who continue to campaign on the issue now. I will touch on some of that a little later.

The effect of the two-tier policy that has been created is that a family with three children, the youngest being six, will receive support. However, a family with three children, the youngest being four, will not. The needs of these families are exactly the same, but this Government have decided that they are not entitled to the same support. Previous research on the issue has found that in some cases older siblings can come to resent the new baby in the family, because they have lost out on their activities, their sports clubs and the things they used to do because the family no longer has the money to get by. It is desperately unfair that children are already losing out on wider life experiences because of this discriminatory policy, as well as now on the very basics because of the cost of living crisis.

I will describe some of the other inconsistencies in the policy in some detail, because every time I explain them to people they are absolutely baffled; I would like to hear the Minister’s answer to the mad exemptions that exist. On the exemption policy for multiple births, if someone happens to have twins after having a single birth, there is an exemption to the policy, which is fine. If they have twins first and then go on to have another baby, they are not entitled to support, presumably because they should have known better. There are three children in each scenario, but different support.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) mentioned, the rape clause is even more pernicious. For this exemption, a woman has to fill in a form and have her traumatic experience verified by an official to say that her third child was conceived through rape or a coercive relationship. This form exists and has to be signed off by a professional to verify that someone has had a child in that circumstance. However, it can be claimed only if the person is not living with the parent of that child.

We know that forcing a woman to leave a relationship can put her and her children in danger, but that reality does not appear to trouble the Department for Work and Pensions. Some 1,330 women claimed under the exemption in 2021. The really perverse part of this pernicious and stigmatising policy is that it applies only to third and subsequent children. If someone’s first child was conceived as the result of rape and they went on to have two more children, that is just unlucky for them as far as the DWP is concerned.

The exemptions around adoption are also perverse. There is no additional support for an adopted child if they are adopted from abroad, or if a person and their partner were that child’s parent or step-parent immediately before they adopted them. Why on earth would this Government want to disincentivise adoption? The exemption for kinship carers, who were losing out on support for their own children because they had been so good as to care for others, was only granted after the Government were taken to court. It should not take legal action for this Government to recognise and fix their mistakes, but we know the DWP repeats this pattern again and again.

The effect of this policy is well documented and well assessed, and I pay tribute to the Child Poverty Action Group, the Church of England and other faith groups including the Interlink Foundation, which represents the orthodox Jewish community. As my hon. Friend mentioned, there is a discrimination at the heart of this policy that affects people of faith. It sticks in my craw to see Easter greetings from Members of this place—the Holy Willies of this place—when their faith does not extend to supporting children, who they are instead actively pushing into poverty through the policies they advocate. How does the Minister believe this policy affects people of differing backgrounds and faiths, and how can he say the policy is fair in this context?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am normally pleased to hear the hon. Lady speak on any issue, but particularly so on this issue, given her knowledge and expertise. On her point about faith, does the hon. Lady feel that a human rights issue could well be at stake here? While that is not a direct responsibility of the Minister, it is a part of this debate that must be considered. By enforcing this rule, the Government are creating a human rights issue for people who do not want to be under that law.

[Alison Thewliss]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct to point that out. There are particular issues with this policy for women in Northern Ireland, related to the rape clause and issues of abortion. When this policy was brought in and was being implemented, Northern Ireland particularly was an afterthought to this Government, just as faith groups have been. Children are regarded as a blessing—not just by people of faith, but particularly by them. Therefore, the policy of this Government to limit support to the first two children in a family has a disproportionate effect on people of orthodox Jewish, Muslim or Catholic faith, for whom abortion and contraception just are not options. We already know that this policy is forcing some of those families into significant poverty.

We all know that contraception is not infallible, even for those who actively choose it. In one of its reports, CPAG has quoted a parent who said:

“I got pregnant despite having an implant. When I found out it was too late for [an] abortion. I’m struggling since then as I had to give up my work”.

I very much support a woman’s right to choose, but a Government welfare policy should not be forcing people into abortions. The British Pregnancy Advisory Service has carried out its own research on this issue and found that it was a factor in the decision making of women who were aware of the policy. BPAS has said:

“We have warned the government that the two-child limit is forcing some women to end what would otherwise be wanted pregnancies. Since 2016, the number of abortions performed to women with two or more existing children has risen by 24%, compared with an increase of 11% performed to women with one existing child.”

I would like the Minister to comment specifically on how he is monitoring the impact of this policy on women’s decisions, and why he considers this to be an appropriate part of social security policy.

We are in a cost of living crisis, and the impact of that crisis on larger families is particularly acute. Energy and food prices are soaring, and this Government did little in the spring statement to hand out a lifeline to people who are struggling right now. Can the Minister outline what, five years in, is the ongoing monitoring of this policy? What consideration has been given to removing it altogether? What conversations has he had with the Chancellor about this policy? When the modelling of its impact on child poverty is so clear—I almost wish we were in one of those American Senate hearings where I could show the graph, because it is absolutely crystal clear—why are this Government, dystopian as they are, continuing to pursue a policy that they know has failed in its objectives? It is simply causing more hardship in every passing year. Almost half of all children living in families with more than two children are in poverty, and the Government must know that. I want to know why they refuse to act.

The Scottish Government have done their best to support families with the Scottish child payment, which we brought in and are increasing, and on which there is no two-child limit, under the social security powers we have. With 85% of social security powers still held in this place, the UK Government bear a responsibility to do what they can. In the face of the UK Government cutting giant holes in the safety net, tackling poverty and making Scotland the best place in the world to grow up in is a challenge. Our devolved powers go only so far. We need all the powers of a normal nation to ensure that we can support all our people and value every child, and not just the first two.

Breastfeeding: Government Support

Debate between Jim Shannon and Alison Thewliss

Tuesday 8th March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for breastfeeding.

It is pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I thank all Members present for making it to the debate this afternoon. It feels particularly appropriate that this debate on Government support for breastfeeding is happening on International Women’s Day. It is an issue that matters to so many women, and I have had lots of people in touch about it. However, today, as with every day of late, I have thought of the women of Ukraine and their babies; I wonder how they are coping and I hope that they can get to safety soon.

I send my very best wishes to everyone who is feeding their wee one and to those who are proud of meeting their breastfeeding goals. I also send my love and thoughts to those who have struggled and felt let down, and to those who carry those feelings around with them for the rest of their lives. We all know that breastfeeding is natural, but it is certainly not easy.

In this debate, I want to talk about the wider context for supporting breastfeeding, because it does not happen on its own. It takes a range of support, across Government, in employment law, equalities legislation and financial support for the maternity, health visiting, peer support and tongue-tie services that are so necessary. I know that Scotland is not perfect, but we have placed breastfeeding support in our programme for Government and engaged positively in the “Becoming Breastfeeding Friendly” international programme. Our investment is paying off, with the data showing an increase in breastfeeding rates. Almost two thirds—66%—of babies born in Scotland in 2020-21 were breastfed for at least some time after their birth. More than half of babies—55%—were being breastfed at 10 to 14 days of age in 2020-21. That has increased from 44% in 2002-03, so it shows what a difference that investment can make. I was also glad to see in the Scottish data that 21% of toddlers were receiving some form of breastmilk. We know that because Scotland has invested in that data, whereas the English infant feeding study was cancelled some years ago. It needs to be reinstated so that that can be tracked.

I was really glad that the UK Government announced a £50 million investment in breastfeeding, but I would be grateful if the Minister could share some more detail on how exactly that will be spent, and how the spend will be monitored. There are many fears that, although it sounds like an awful lot of money, and in some ways it is, it could be spread too thinly across services across England. We also need to regulate the factors that can dissuade and diminish breastfeeding, such as aggressive marketing of infant formula—a global issue, but one on which the UK Government can play a leading role.

I thank Parliament’s digital engagement team for its support in putting out a survey for the debate. It had a whopping 2,618 responses in the very short time that the survey was running, so I thank each and every person who responded for doing so, and for helping to inform the debate. I also thank those who contacted me directly. I hope that I will be able to fit in all the concerns that they raised. Following that social media request, in response to the question “What policies would have encouraged or supported you, your family or friends in breastfeeding?” respondents came back with a number of remarks and policy suggestions around several key themes. The first was better information and guidance through classes and healthcare professionals. Lauren responded to say:

“Covid meant there were no antenatal classes available, however midwives did not discuss breastfeeding other than asking if I intended to do it. There was no feeding support offered in hospital and no information about what feeding support is available. If literature had been available as to what support is available and how to access this, including infant feeding teams and information around tongue-tie, this would be helpful.”

That lack of information, particularly around the time of covid, has been felt by many people who responded to the survey, and indeed people in my own family. It is still going on, with mums from Newham complaining about not being able to be with their babies, and restrictions being unfairly put in place. That continues to this day. Others pointed out the importance of the provision of lactation consultants, with Georgie saying:

“I had access to a lactation consultant because I’m lucky enough to have that privilege but for my friend who did take the ill advice of her midwives, she was misdirected and her breastfeeding journey ended after four weeks.”

There are too many whose journeys finish too soon.

Workplace support is also vital to support women on their breastfeeding journey. Katie said:

“Women need to be supported so that when they return to work they have a dedicated space that they can pump and store milk so that they continue to breastfeed.”

Billie-Jean said:

“Too many workplaces don’t have suitable rooms so women have to choose between returning to work or not working to be able to keep providing breast milk for their children.”

Looking more widely at public education, Susannah said:

“Policies within education in schools—lessons around conception/fertility—breastfeeding should be learnt about accurately from a scientific view so children learn its value and importance and it is normalised.”

I know that the breastfeeding network in Ayrshire does a huge amount of work to ensure that it gets into schools to tell young people about breastfeeding.

To move to the global context on breastfeeding, the international code of marketing of breastmilk substitutes is 41 this year. It was written in response to the aggressive marketing of infant formula, which is of course to the detriment of breastfeeding. I know that it can be a really sensitive issue, so I would like to be absolutely clear that I believe that formula is an essential item that must be available to those who need it. People using formula deserve to receive impartial support and advice, not marketing and advertising.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward this debate. She has certainly been a champion on this issue—that word is used often in this House, but it is applicable to her. Following on from my work with her in the all-party parliamentary group on infant feeding and inequalities, I met a lady called Claire Flynn—a Breastival board member from Belfast—who I think the hon. Lady knows. She said that breastfeeding strategies and plans vary across Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland. Does the hon. Lady agree that there is a real need to reinstate the infant feeding survey? We understand that work on that is under way at Public Health England. Northern Ireland must be included and funding must be made available to enable that. Through the hon. Lady, I ask the Minister to consider a UK-wide approach.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Jim Shannon and Alison Thewliss

2nd reading
Tuesday 20th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I wish not only to speak about the Bill, but to describe the type of Bill that I would like it to be. The Minister and I have similar opinions on many matters, and I know that he has spoken about these matters before, so I am fairly hopeful that in Committee we can make changes to bring about what I would like to see in place.

I am ever minded that children from the Kindertransport came to my constituency during the second world war. They came to my constituency because they had nowhere else to go. When it comes to speaking in debates on this topic—and I have spoken in many—I express my belief that there is a right to flee persecution on religious grounds. We want to see the safer legal route to which the Government have referred; I certainly do, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. We speak up for those with Christian beliefs, those with other beliefs and those with no beliefs.

Across the world, so many people find themselves in positions where they cannot practise their religion, or enjoy the human rights that we enjoy in this country. When it comes to putting a legal system and an immigration system in place, I look to the Minister, because I see in him someone who encapsulates what I believe to be a system that helps people in other parts of the world to relocate here because of the persecution they have been experiencing.

[Alison Thewliss]

The hon. Gentleman is making a good point about religious persecution. Does he agree that sometimes it is the very Governments of the countries that people are from who engage in and endorse such persecution? That makes it all the more important that we have safe and legal routes, because those Governments would not allow people to leave their country.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I agree with her.

The Minister knows that I have been a great supporter of the Syrian resettlement scheme throughout. I was glad whenever we were able to send people to Newtonards town and families were able to relocate. The Government bodies and the Churches that were there brought communities together to help. Those people are well settled today. None of them want to go home. Their home is now Newtonards in my constituency. Will there be more opportunities through the Syrian resettlement scheme? If there are, I believe we can produce a safe haven in Strangford and across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The world is a dangerous place. People are persecuted because of their religious views. Their human rights are abused. I would like to think that the United Kingdom has a reputation for being a generous country, and part of that lies with having a fair and efficient asylum process for those who need it. Recent stats show that in the year ending March 2021 the UK received 26,903 asylum applications, meaning that possibly that number of people needed a better life with better choices and better opportunities. There has been a lack of direction in the past number of years regarding the position of asylum seekers, meaning that people are left in disarray, unable to seek work or resettle. I want to see that system improved in the future; access to the UK asylum system should be based on need, not ability to pay people smugglers, to whom other hon. Members have referred.

Detention Action—a charity that dedicates much time to ensuring fairness for asylum seekers—has used a great slogan to describe the situation. It says:

“It is political will—rather than legislation—”.

That is wholeheartedly accurate. Welfare should be at the core of legislation. In 2019, 24,400 people entered immigration detention in the UK—the lowest figure since 2009. However, I am not classifying that figure as necessarily low.

Another major issue surrounding the Bill is that young children are being placed in immigration detention. I made that point to the Secretary of State yesterday. I make it again today because it is a key issue for me and where I am. I want to see young children getting opportunities. They are often separated from their parents and family members. They come here and are sent straight into detention. The Secretary of State mentioned it yesterday, and I very much look forward to seeing changes on that. I wish to see legislation to protect children, particularly those who are fleeing persecution.

The Government have stated that they will support victims of modern slavery. What they have said so far is good news, and it is important that we have on record where we are on that. The Government have also stated that they wish to give people the opportunity to come here if they are under any distress in other countries. While asylum seeking is something that we should take seriously, illegal immigration also needs to be taken into consideration when discussing the Bill. In the year 2020-21 alone—I conclude with this comment, Mr Deputy Speaker, ever mindful of your request about time—3,500 people are said to have crossed the Channel to enter the UK illegally to work and live without the correct documentation. Both issues need to be given the same importance, and I urge the Minister to shed some light on the steps that he will be taking to address both. A humane approach must be used when discussing such a sensitive issue. Individuals should not be criminalised for seeking asylum. A sustainable system needs to be in place for those who want to enter the UK and can legally do so. There should not be a prolonged process. More important, asylum seekers should not be mistreated.

I call on the Home Office and the Minister to provide the necessary assurance that the United Kingdom can and will deliver a trustworthy haven for those who seek asylum. I wish to see in the legislation that we give protection for those overseas who are persecuted because of their religion and whose human rights are abused.

Protection of Jobs and Businesses

Debate between Jim Shannon and Alison Thewliss

Wednesday 9th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss]

The hon. Member ignores the fact that the SNP Government do not have the full range of powers that we need to protect our economy and which only independence can give us. He knows that is the case.

This is no ordinary economic downturn. The UK Government, on clear and urgent public health grounds, instructed and required many profitable, productive and sustainable firms to close. In sectors, such as hospitality, events, tourism, aviation, culture and the arts, these limitations will remain for the foreseeable future.

[Jim Shannon]

One thing we have not yet considered in this debate is the proposal for a four-day working week. Does the hon. Lady think a four-day working week could enable the economy to maintain its position and get beyond the dark spots of next January, February and March?

[Alison Thewliss]

The hon. Member makes a very good and well-considered point. There are lots of opportunities the Government have not considered for how we might spread around the limited and reducing number of jobs we have in order to keep people in employment.

The Federation of Small Businesses has noted that tourism and retail account for nearly half a million jobs in Scotland, many of them seasonal and rural, and many of them now facing the furlough scheme’s winding down at the very time business is at its quietest. As we have seen from local lockdowns, such as those in Leicester, Aberdeen and Greater Manchester, there is an urgent need to put in place more flexible and enduring support—exactly the type of further action the Chancellor promised he would take. Aberdeen, for example, only managed to raise £232,000 via the “eat out to help out” scheme because of the local lockdown imposed on hospitality there. That compares with over £1 million each in Glasgow and Edinburgh. We need to look at whether the schemes in place are flexible enough when local lockdowns happen.

A further spike and further local restrictions seem inevitable, so ending support now is incredibly short-sighted. Until public health grounds for closure are removed, the SNP believes that the Government have a clear responsibility to assist and support wherever they can. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury mentioned some additional schemes at the tail end of his remarks, but I would ask him to think very carefully: could he live on the money he proposes for those asked to self-isolate? If he ran a business, could he survive and pay wages, pay for stock, the rent and all the bills on the grants he has announced? He probably could not, and many businesses cannot and will fold as a result without support.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury talked about phases of this crisis. The coronavirus is not done with us yet. Life is not going back to normal any time soon. The British Chambers of Commerce’s quarterly recruitment outlook revealed that 29% of firms expect to axe jobs over the third quarter—a record high. At the same time, the number of new job opportunities is also depressed across almost all sectors, as is reflected in the various vacancies data. For example, the Office for National Statistics and Adzuna data show the number of online job vacancies for Scotland for the week to 21 August to be almost half the 2019 average—down 49 percentage points—and the Office for Budget Responsibility has warned that UK unemployment could surpass the peaks of the 1980s after weaker than expected economic growth. The Chancellor and his Treasury team have a duty to prevent this kind of economic scarring. The devastation of the 1980s still haunts many communities, and I urge them not to gamble with the life chances of the people we are here to represent.

The Economy

Debate between Jim Shannon and Alison Thewliss

Wednesday 8th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss]

I agree with the hon. Member. Not all industries are in exactly the same position. Some cannot open now. Some will not be able to open for some months. As hon. Members said earlier, some might not open fully until next year. The International Monetary Fund has said that the UK’s GDP could drop by 10.2%, and the scale of the response must meet the scale of the challenge we face, or we could be looking at years of unemployment and hardship across the UK.

Simon Jack, the BBC’s business editor, made a very interesting point about the scale of the challenge facing business and the gamble that business are now taking. As he said, the calculation facing business owners is: are they prepared to pay 5% of the wages of furloughed workers in August, 15% in September and 24% in October, plus £1,560 from November, to get a £1,000 bonus in January? It will depend on demand that the Chancellor is trying to stimulate with food discounts and VAT cuts. It is a gamble for many businesses, and we can see from all the job cuts in the past week, that gamble means people losing their jobs now.

[Jim Shannon]

It is about not just businesses but charities. The Government have said that £750 million is for charities, but unfortunately they are not helping those charities involved in research and clinical testing. Without the clinical testing, we do not have the medicines that can save lives, which will help this community in the future.

[Alison Thewliss]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct to make that point.

We are all aware that the crisis will inevitably see an increase in public debt, and my ears pricked up at the Chancellor’s mention of the medium-term public finances being put back on a sustainable footing. That better had not mean more austerity, because after the 2008 crisis we saw that the contractionary policy does not work. It spread misery and hardship, and does more long-term damage to the country’s fiscal position. As we move out of the reactionary emergency policy and into more deliberate methods of restarting and rebuilding the economy, a more radical approach from the UK is needed. Growing the economy and tackling the inequalities we have seen during this crisis must be the priority over deficit reduction.

The past few months have seen measures that would not have seemed possible only a few months ago. Although some of the Chancellor’s announcements today are welcome, we need that bigger, bolder and fresher thinking. We cannot rely merely on the private sector to stimulate the economy; the Government must take the lead. The Chancellor’s statement made mention of the green recovery, vouchers and other types of ideas. Let me expand on what I said to the Chancellor about what Germany has done through the KfW Development Bank, which has changed the whole conversation about energy-efficiency in its buildings. The Chancellor could start to do some of that, not by way of vouchers, but by a cut on VAT on building repairs, as that would encourage people to invest in their properties, in energy-efficiency measures and other types of such activity; it could make a real, lasting difference, rather than just being a voucher.

We support policies such as an employment guarantee for young people, and we welcome a temporary cut to VAT to boost consumption, with low rates for the hospitality and tourism sectors. We hope that that will be sustained beyond the six months, if required. Policies such as a 2p cut to employers’ national insurance contributions would also protect jobs and reduce the cost of hiring staff. We also want to see a national debt plan to deal with the debt that businesses and individuals are suffering, in a way that promotes fairness as well as economic recovery. That would mean working with lenders to ensure that loans, mortgages and rent holidays could be extended to those experiencing financial hardship as a result of the crisis and that alternative payment plans are put in place to help prevent people from losing their homes.

I would be keen to see the pilot on no-interest loans for people on particularly low incomes, which has previously been considered by the Treasury, because it would provide alternatives to high-cost credit, which is exploitative and predatory and ruins lives in my constituency and elsewhere. The reason people are often forced to turn to that high-cost credit is the shameful five-week wait for universal credit, which has been named as one of the biggest drivers of food bank usage and rent arrears in recent years. We could be forgiven for thinking that it is just part of the system, so inflexible have the UK Government been on this issue, but it is a choice and they could change it if they wanted to do so. I very much urge them to do that and to look at the fact that there has been no increase in legacy benefits, because many of the people affected have not seen an uplift and are struggling. The Government need to make the choice to spend the money, cut the wait and lift families out of poverty. The single most effective policy in reducing child poverty would be to increase UC payments, and Scottish National party Members are calling for an increase of £20 a week in UC and child tax credits as part of any stimulus package. Such an increase is supported by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Save the Children and many others, and we need to make sure that these families are not left behind as a result of this crisis. The Government should also look at the position for those people who are not entitled to that—people with no recourse to public funds—many of whom have been left with nothing.

The policies put forward today are attractive to those who have disposable income, but we have not seen many policies for those who have very little income. For families in Scotland it is too often the case that the Scottish Government have been the grown-ups in the room, presenting a clear and focused strategy for delivering economic growth, while tackling inequalities. It is unfortunate that we have had to look at a Government down here lurching from scandal to scandal to self-inflicted crisis. It is little wonder, therefore, that over the past week we have seen in the polls a majority for independence, at up to 54%. It is no wonder that the Government seem so rattled by that, because it is clearly a direction of travel, so perhaps they would like to reflect on those polls when considering the support given by the UK Government to the people of Scotland.

St Patrick’s Day

Debate between Jim Shannon and Alison Thewliss

Tuesday 17th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

I am very happy to let people celebrate in whatever way they wish, and I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. It is all about moderation, so let us celebrate in moderation.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene on him. In a different kind of celebration, because the people involved are younger, St Patrick’s Primary School in my constituency has also been celebrating St Patrick’s Day today. It is located next to St Patrick’s Church in Anderston. Would he like to extend his congratulations to the young people at the school who have been celebrating today, despite the coronavirus?

[Jim Shannon]

I am very pleased to do so. It is good to know that, across all four regions today, young and old are celebrating the story of St Patrick.