Cass Review
Debate between Kirsten Oswald and Baroness Winterton of Doncaster(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I am grateful for advance sight of the statement.
Nobody’s identity should be up for debate, and nor should it be used as a political football. Dr Cass said in her report:
“Polarisation and stifling of debate do nothing to help the young people caught in the middle of a stormy social discourse, and in the long run will also hamper the research that is essential to finding the best way of supporting them to thrive.”
That polarisation is the last thing needed by young people in accessing care, their families and the NHS staff working hard to care for them. Does the Secretary of State agree that we must all remain respectful at all times when discussing these important issues, and that decisions on this and any other type of treatment should rightly be made by clinicians, not politicians?
Dr Cass explicitly makes the point that her report is not about questioning trans identities or rolling back access to healthcare for young trans people. Indeed, supporting and improving the gender identity healthcare system for all, including children and young people, is what we should be focused on. So can the Secretary of State confirm today whether any additional funding will be made available to ensure that young trans people can access the quality healthcare they need and deserve?
Finally, on conversion practices, the Government Equalities Office said last month in an answer to a written question:
“The Government expects to deliver a draft Bill that takes account of the independent Cass review”.
Can the Secretary of State provide an update on what conversations she has had with Cabinet colleagues on how the Cass review will influence the UK Government’s legislative proposals on banning conversion practices, and when can we expect them to be published?
International Women’s Day: Language in Politics
Debate between Kirsten Oswald and Baroness Winterton of Doncaster(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I am pleased to follow all these excellent speeches. It has been a worthwhile debate, and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) for bringing it here today.
Debating the language that is used in politics is important, particularly as we approach an election. As we have heard, we cannot debate that without speaking about the reality of the impact of the language that is used about us and to us. The language in the political sphere has a profound impact on women in politics now and on those who may or may not want to jump into what is sometimes just a swamp. That sounds a bit dramatic, but it is not really. Although it is the biggest privilege to represent our communities—I am sure we all feel that very sincerely—the challenge is the discourse, including in here, the language and the abuse. To hear her talking, I think the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) the Member for Swansea must be using my social media. Unfortunately, we all also recognise the targeted harassment and security concerns that go along with some of this.
Important research by the Fawcett Society points out that the safety and security of elected representatives, and the issues around that, are highly gendered. The fact is that we are not representative. Women make up more than half the population, but only 34% of MPs. We need to do better there. I applaud the new Scottish Government Cabinet. It has been gender balanced for many years now, but the new Cabinet is, I think, 70% female. That is a significant and important step. It is welcome to see all these capable women taking their places.
It is telling that the debate today follows on from statements on the security of elected representatives and on the Angiolini inquiry into the circumstances around the murder of Sarah Everard. Although I have been glad to participate in the last few International Women’s Day debates, there is an undercurrent, which was brought into stark focus again today by the Angiolini inquiry report. We need to reflect on the awful reality of where the normalisation of behaviours, and the amplification of language and attitudes, can lead to. My very deep sympathies are with the family of Sarah Everard. They are also with the family of Emma Caldwell, whose killer was sentenced yesterday to 36 years’ imprisonment for her murder in 2005. Their ordeal has been so awful. They have waited so long for answers, but those answers, while very important, will not bring their much-loved Emma back. Emma was reportedly someone with many friends, who, despite having a very difficult time in life, was appreciated, valued and loved. I appreciate any and all headlines that manage something that should not be so difficult: when talking about Emma, to use her name and not just describe her as “sex worker”—Sky News, you must do better. I do hope that Emma’s very brave family can now find peace.
Every hon. Member who has spoken today has, unsurprisingly, noted the impact of online abuse on their participation in democracy. The right hon. Member for Basingstoke eloquently pointed out that robust debate is not the same as abuse. We could be here all day—probably all week or more—if we started down the road of giving examples that are far from even pretending to be debate. The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) was right to say that what starts in fringe spaces does not end there.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) spoke well about language. There is our language here— I am thinking of the recent remarks by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), not made in this Chamber, but the context was that of an MP speaking. That was a powerful and unfortunate example of the power of language. What we say and how we say it does not just reflect on or influence us, but enables people—men, mainly—to abuse women, including not only politicians, but other women who have the audacity to have opinions and to want to express them. That is regrettable, because of the likely impact of turning women off politics and the democratic process. Glimmer of light and all that, though: I was at the St Ninian’s High School careers fair a couple of weeks ago, and the number of powerful, articulate and smart young women interested in careers in democracy, politics, research and so on was heart- warming. I wish them all every success.
There is space to welcome some positives, but I will touch on some other women we need to mention before I close, not least the women in the middle east. We know about the awful and disproportionate impact on women, and that is horribly clear as we watch with horror what is unfolding there: the Israeli women caught up in the Hamas terror attack, the hostages and their families—it is impossible to imagine how they are coping; and the women in Gaza dealing with unimaginable things—with the death, destruction, privations that we cannot begin to imagine, and childbirth without hospitals or medical facilities, these women are suffering beyond belief.
I would like to end on a more upbeat note and to speak about the women of East Renfrewshire who do so much good. I do not have time to speak about many of these brilliant women, but I would like mention the women in my office team, Carolyn, Nix, Freya, Katie and Sampurna, who all deliver every day for our community—I am fortunate to work with them—and my East Renfrewshire councillor colleagues, Councillors Angela Convery, Caroline Bamforth and Annette Ireland, who are all women of substance and hugely committed to improving their communities.
I must also mention two special women commemorated just last week at the 20th anniversary event of the Auchenback Resource Centre. They are memorialised on lovely benches that sit outside the front of the centre. I think that the House would want to join me in reflecting on the great work that Rita Connelly and Irene Simpson did for the people of Auchenback and on how much of a difference those powerful women made to the people who lived in their area. That is a useful point at which to conclude. We all understand that this is a challenging time, but we must ensure that as well as pointing out the difficulties and challenges, we celebrate powerful women like these, who make a real difference.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call the shadow Secretary of State, I remind Members again that if they are going to refer to other Members, they should notify them. Criticism of other hon. Members should only be on a substantive motion.
LGBT Veterans Independent Review
Debate between Kirsten Oswald and Baroness Winterton of Doncaster(11 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. In it he said:
“The treatment of those armed forces personnel perceived to be LGBT between 1967 and 2000 has long been a stain on the conscience of the nation.”
It has also been a stain on the conscience of this place, so I welcome his statement today and the work of Lord Etherton. The apologies the Minister spoke of are welcome, but they will never take away the hurt or the terrible impact on the lives of those affected by this institutional homophobia. We must remember that while homosexuality was decriminalised in 1967, the ban on LGBT people in the armed forces remained for 33 more years. That is three decades of additional harm. The reality is that all our veterans deserve respect and proper support, and all the more so those ostracised and shamed in that way.
I recognise what the Minister said on reparations, but what assessment has he made of the adequacy of the reparations cap? I wonder how that arbitrary cap on reparations payments will work, particularly when, as he said, we are asking people to come forward. How can he set a cap at this stage? He said he is throwing open the doors today, but that needs to be done in a way that is as easy as possible for people to navigate and that works for all those affected. No one must be left behind.
My colleague Keith Brown MSP, himself a veteran, is leading a Members’ business debate in the Scottish Parliament today on Fighting With Pride. I was pleased that the Minister spoke about Fighting With Pride and I would be keen to hear more about his reassurances that he will continue to work with that group and others to make sure that all LGBT veterans are properly and adequately supported in the way that is right for each of them individually.
Gender Recognition
Debate between Kirsten Oswald and Baroness Winterton of Doncaster(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement, although I would have welcomed a good deal more detail. I do not know whether it is because the UK Government have been missing in action on their own commitment to ban conversion therapy for the last five years, but they seem much more interested in culture wars than in looking after the rights of some of the most vulnerable people. Of course, this is the same UK Government who are intent on blocking the democratic will, expressed across parties, of the Scottish Parliament. Again, they seem to be more interested in constitutional shenanigans than in human rights.
The Minister talked about unintended consequences. Has she undertaken an impact assessment of the impact of this change on the safety, health and wellbeing of those affected? What conversations has she had with international counterparts, and what specific evidence did she receive ahead of the change that made her decide to remove these named territories? Can she tell us exactly what will happen to those already living here, and living under their new gender, who come from the places that she is now removing from the list? Can she say where this leaves the motion of reciprocal arrangements? What of those from the UK who are living elsewhere? Does she recognise that the UK is travelling rapidly backwards on the rights of LGBT people and that this decision is very much out of step with other progressive countries around the world? What consideration has she given to the UK’s international reputation?
From sending vulnerable refugees to Rwanda, placing barriers in front of care workers who want to come to the UK and now this, we can see the dearth of compassion at the heart of the UK Government writ large. We have all heard the reports that the Conservative party intends to fight the general election on the trans debate and culture wars, but nobody’s identity should be in question. As the Minister herself said, nobody’s identity should be used as a political football. We need to stop that. She needs to reflect and she needs to change tack.
Birth Trauma
Debate between Kirsten Oswald and Baroness Winterton of Doncaster(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
It is a real privilege to follow such a powerful speech by the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory). I put on the record my gratitude to the hon. Member for Stafford (Theo Clarke), who opened the debate. She has my utter admiration for her bravery in coming here and sharing her experience. It must have been extremely difficult, but she got her important points across none the less. All the speeches today have been powerful.
It is important that we discuss the significant trauma that too many women experience. It can be caused by a whole range of things, as has come through powerfully. There is no one-size-fits-all formula, as the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth pointed out, but that is all the more reason for us to take seriously the shocks and trauma that can follow birth.
Let me also record my great admiration for the tireless, immense and important work of my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), who has just made an unscripted arrival in the Chamber, to support women affected by the terrible trauma of stillbirth and baby loss.
Research shows that 4% to 5% of women who give birth develop post-traumatic stress disorder. We have heard about the Birth Trauma Association’s vital work to convey the difficulties for women and, indeed, fathers—partners. I was glad that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists provided a briefing for the debate, in which it talks in detail about some of the challenges that people face. Up to 9 in 10 first-time mothers who have a vaginal birth will experience some sort of tear. We have heard in detail about some of the significant injuries and traumas that can happen. We must not underestimate the impact of those and other traumas. The hon. Member for Stafford set out clearly the broad range of trauma with respect to both the physical and the mental wellbeing of mothers, as well as the long-term impact of lots of the traumas that women experience.
Like other speakers, I have been contacted by a number of women who wanted to share their story. I will concentrate on one particular story, which dates back to 2006. The woman who was in touch with me described her experience as “horrendous”. As far as she and her partner could see, things had been going along smoothly, everything was planned, and they were not made aware of any risk factors, but things started to go wrong. She experienced an unconsented “stetch and sweep” of the cervix—“while I’m in there anyway” was how it was put to them. She correctly asks how many patients in any other circumstance would feel that it was okay for a medical professional to perform an additional unconsented procedure just because they were in that area of the anatomy anyway.
Of course, such utter lack of care is not the norm—all the great NHS staff who work in this area have my admiration—but in the small number of situations in which it occurs it can have a big impact on women. The lady who was in touch with me said that the pain she experienced during the birth was
“visceral, white-hot soul destroying misery.”
She was unable to return to work because of the impact and she needed further time off for surgeries. She eventually received a diagnosis of PTSD. She pointed out that women are not listened to, a point that others have made and one that I will come back to, but she also pointed out the long-lasting impact of her experience. As well as looking forward to the children who were delivered going forward into adulthood, she and her partner are still looking back on that trauma, which continues to have an effect on their lives.
I have not experienced what that lady did. I am fortunate that the emergency caesarean section that I had was one of the calmest experiences of my life—that is my good luck, I think—but I remember how acutely vulnerable I felt giving birth and being in hospital. I do not know how I would have coped with the additional challenges that we have heard about today.
I am glad that we have heard about the particular challenges faced by black and Asian women. Statistically, they face significantly more challenges, including the greater number of women who die during pregnancy or shortly thereafter. Significant work is needed on that. We cannot just shake our heads at the statistics; we need to make sure that they lead to action.
It is probably timely also to mention the worry that I am sure we all feel for mums and expectant mums in places in the world where things are much more challenging. I have no doubt that we are thinking of the mums in Israel and Gaza who are dealing with the most challenging of situations.
The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) spoke about how we are expected to grin and bear it in the situations that we have been discussing. That is absolutely unreasonable, but there is a narrative in some quarters that this is just what women have to put up with and they should just take it. I do not think that that is acceptable at all. As a number of Members said, we need to listen. The hon. Members for Moray (Douglas Ross) and for Truro and Falmouth made that point eloquently.
I spent yesterday at the Women and Equalities Committee talking about women’s experience of not being listened to in the context of their reproductive health. The impact of that on women’s lives can be profound and last many years. We are dealing with the very same situation here. Most of the time, women give birth in an uncomplicated and unchallenging way, and things go well. We are grateful for that. But often enough, things do not go the way that they should. One key way that we can make that better is by actively listening to women and taking their opinions into account, given that the care for them and their children will be impacted.
Under-age Vaping
Debate between Kirsten Oswald and Baroness Winterton of Doncaster(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I would gently say that the hon. Lady has made a long contribution, and I do have two other speakers to get in. That is the only problem.
Ministerial and other Maternal Allowances Bill
Debate between Kirsten Oswald and Baroness Winterton of DoncasterThursday 11th February 2021
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Act 2021 View all Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the Whole House Amendments as at 11 February 2021 - (11 Feb 2021)
Kirsten Oswald [V]
I beg to move amendment 3, in page 1, line 5, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
The intention of this amendment is to make paid maternity absence mandatory for qualifying Ministerial office-holders.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 15, in page 1, line 5, leave out “a person as”.
Amendment 16, in page 1, line 14, leave out “person” and insert “minister”.
Amendment 18, in page 1, line 14, leave out “person” and insert “woman”.
Amendment 17, in page 1, line 16, leave out “person” and insert “minister”
Amendment 19, in page 1, line 16, leave out “person” and insert “woman”.
Amendment 4, in page 2, line 1, leave out “6” and insert “12”.
The intention of this amendment is to extend the period of paid maternity absence from 6 to 12 months.
Clause 1 stand part.
Amendment 5, in clause 2, page 2, line 7, leave out “6” and insert “12”.
The intention of this amendment is to extend the period of paid maternity absence from 6 to 12 months.
Amendment 6, in clause 2, page 2, line 10, leave out “6” and insert “12”.
The intention of this amendment is to extend the period of paid maternity absence from 6 to 12 months.
Amendment 7, in clause 2, page 2, line 19, leave out “6” and insert “12”.
The intention of this amendment is to extend the period of paid maternity absence from 6 to 12 months.
Amendment 1, in clause 2, page 2, line 20, at end insert—
‘(4A) Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Paymaster General must lay before both Houses of Parliament a draft of regulations to make provision for continuity of any paid maternity leave in the event of a Minister on Leave ceasing to hold the designated ministerial office whilst on maternity leave.”
This amendment would require the Paymaster General to act to ensure a commitment to continuity of provision of maternity pay which a Minister on Leave would be entitled to in the event of ceasing to hold the designated ministerial office whilst on maternity leave, or in the event of being moved to a position which results in monies being recouped.
Amendment 8, in clause 2, page 2, line 21, leave out “6-month period” and insert “12-month period”.
The intention of this amendment is to extend the period of paid maternity absence from 6 to 12 months.
Amendment 9, in clause 2, page 2, line 21, leave out “6 months” and insert “12 months”.
The intention of this amendment is to extend the period of paid maternity absence from 6 to 12 months.
Clause 2 stand part.
Clause 3 stand part.
Amendment 10, in clause 4, page 3, line 20, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
The intention of this amendment is to make paid maternity absence mandatory for qualifying Opposition office-holders in the House of Commons.
Amendment 11, in clause 4, page 3, line 22, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
The intention of this amendment is to make paid maternity absence mandatory for qualifying Opposition office-holders in the House of Lords
Amendment 12, in clause 4, page 3, line 24, leave out
“may be made only at a time”
and insert “must be made”.
The intention of this amendment is to make paid maternity absence mandatory for qualifying Opposition office-holders.
Amendment 13, in clause 4, page 3, line 32, leave out “6” and insert “12”.
The intention of this amendment is to extend the period of paid maternity cover from 6 to 12 months.
Amendment 14, in clause 4, page 3, line 38, leave out “6” and insert “12”.
The intention of this amendment is to extend the period of paid maternity cover from 6 to 12 months.
Clause 4 stand part.
Amendment 2, in clause 5, page 4, line 6, at end insert—
‘(2A) Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Paymaster General must lay before both Houses of Parliament a draft of regulations to make provision for continuity of any paid maternity allowance in the event of an Opposition office-holder ceasing to hold an opposition office whilst on maternity leave.”
This amendment would require the Paymaster General to act to ensure a commitment to continuity of provision of maternity cover which an Opposition office-holder would be entitled to in the event of ceasing to hold an opposition office whilst on maternity leave, or in the event of being moved to a position which results in monies being recouped.
Clause 5 stand part.
Clause 6 stand part.
Clause 7 stand part.
New clause 1—Equalities impact assessment—
‘(1) Within three months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Prime Minister must complete and lay before Parliament an equality impact assessment of the provisions of this Act.
(2) The equality impact assessment must include consideration of the implications of this Act for participation in public life.
(3) Within three months of the date on which the equality impact assessment is laid before Parliament, the Prime Minister must make an oral statement to the House of Commons on the action which the Government intends to take as a consequence of the assessment.
Kirsten Oswald
I am pleased to move the amendments that stand in my name, and also to confirm my support for new clause 1 in the name of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and others.
In the time available to us—which, as I think has been acknowledged many times from those in all parts of the House, does not allow for full consideration of the Bill’s defects and omissions—it is important that the Committee sets out clearly what it believes the direction of travel should be on this issue. The general principle of the House addressing issues of maternity leave is important, although the devil will clearly be in the promised detail, and we will all be watching for the progress that has been discussed by so many Members.
As it stands, this halfway house of a Bill provides for maternity leave in specific circumstances, but as the Minister herself noted, only with the by-your-leave of the Prime Minister, and only for a maximum of six months. That is not really what we should be endorsing as a long-term solution to the present inadequate situation. Indeed, it should not even be a medium-term solution. That is why the SNP tabled these amendments, and why we are happy to support new clause 1 in addition.
It is inconceivable that if an equalities impact assessment had been done, the Bill would have seen the light of day in its current form. I look forward to such an assessment being completed before we return to this issue. As the hon. Member for Walthamstow said, we have barely scratched the surface of the issues that we need to address if policy is to deal with the proper engagement of those in public life with family life.
Amendment 2 was tabled because the approach adopted in the Bill is wrong. It is unhelpful to those of us who want to address the significant structural issues that exist. I know that there are many on the Government Benches who would like us to revise our approach, who see the international standards on human rights as inconvenient and who perhaps hanker after days when this House and the Government it supported decided who deserved which treatment or benefit and who did not. But we have moved beyond that, as is recognised in the European convention on human rights statement at the head of the Bill. As a matter of principle, we recognise that women should not be discriminated against in the workplace, including on the grounds of pregnancy or maternity.
The Bill, as drafted, envisages that the Prime Minister would—in theory—be entitled to withhold maternity leave from a woman even when she was within 12 weeks of the expected week of birth or within four weeks of having given birth. As a matter of principle, that is wrong. No appeal to how reasonable Prime Ministers would deal with this is satisfactory enough for us to accept such a defect in the Bill. The right to maternity leave is important because it shows the value that society places on our right to family life. That is more fundamental than the role we play in the workplace, no matter how important or exalted our role may be.
There is a macho view that seems to value the idea that we should all work right up until the days of giving birth, particularly if we are in high-powered jobs, and the understanding is that we should return just as quickly. That is to misunderstand the importance for most families—for parents and children—of that vital transitional period from pregnancy through to early parenthood. As one Member said earlier, it also misunderstands the colossal impact of pregnancy and parenthood on life more broadly. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) said about the importance of supporting new parents in the early years, and this House has a role to play in setting an example.
While there may be mothers and families for whom a speedy period of maternity leave works, and they are entitled to choose that route if they wish, it is absolutely not our job here to put into place or to perpetuate policies that make that seem the norm. That can only be detrimental to families across the country. We really need to look forward. We need to accept that things are simply not good enough here for Ministers, MPs or, as we have heard, members of staff.
More broadly—this cannot be emphasised enough—we cannot leave this debate thinking that maternity leave is all working well away from this place. I mentioned earlier the terrifying statistic that over 60% of women who took part in the Pregnant Then Screwed survey last year believe that their redundancy is because of their maternity leave. That is a shocking statistic, and it should cause us to reflect seriously on the situation affecting these women.
The poor state of statutory pay must not be left behind in this discussion either. We cannot just deal with one person, however sensible it is to put this provision in place, and leave everyone else hanging on by their fingertips because of the impossible financial provisions that they have to deal with. The effect of that kind of financial pressure and the lack of support can be seen in how many women do not take up their full entitlement to maternity leave. In its recent report, “The impact of Covid-19 on maternity and parental leave”, the Petitions Committee noted:
“It appears then that current entitlements are only generous to those who can afford to use them.”
We should reflect on that point. Covid and the precarious nature of so many employment relationships at present bring into sharp focus the need for proper provisions for maternity leave, parental leave and the support that families need at this particularly difficult time, which will also be so vital as we move forward out of the pandemic.
The Petitions Committee also highlighted research commissioned by the Department for Work and Pensions in 2008, which suggested that less than a quarter—23%—of mothers taking maternity leave took the full 52 weeks. Only 45% took 40 weeks or more, and I suspect it is unlikely that the situation has improved significantly since then.
The reason for tabling amendment 3 is that an organisation of the scale of the UK Government should not add to that pressure by adopting a standard that says to women, “Your maternity leave is a benefit that may or may not be conferred by your boss,” who in this case is the Prime Minister. Through legislation, we should aim to reflect the standard that we expect Government to meet, which is that women are entitled to their maternity leave and organisations need to put in place proper mechanisms for supporting that.
On the wider front, this House needs to act on the continued abuse of pregnancy as an opportunity to disadvantage in the workplace, whether financially or even by removing people from their posts. That issue also affects those taking parental leave and those with family and caring responsibilities, particularly for young children, which Members on all sides have called on the Minister to look at.
That brings me to the second issue raised in the amendments tabled by the SNP, which is the duration of leave. A simple click on the gov.uk website would have told the drafters of the Bill that statutory maternity leave in the UK is 52 weeks, split into two chunks of 26 weeks. It is not clear to me why the starting point for the arrangements for designating a Minister on leave was taken to be six months instead of 12 months, and it does not speak well of what we are saying to the outside world.
Perhaps the only way to solve that mystery is to notice that there might be a pattern to the Government’s behaviour. In order to win support, they talk about the new freedoms that the UK apparently now enjoys, casting them as an opportunity to set our own standards, free from outside interference, and to set them standards higher. However, when a choice needs to be made as to whether to go for higher or lower standards, the instinct of the UK Government is to go low—to reduce standards, or to fail to act as they should.
That has been clearly shown by the dither and delay following the Government’s defeat in the High Court on the subject of personal protective equipment and health and safety protection for limb (b) workers. That growing part of our workforce, who find themselves with significantly fewer rights than their directly employed colleagues, now find that the Government are failing to act. Many of these precarious workers may find it even more challenging to deal with issues of maternity.
Those of us who are committed to maintaining high standards, whether in the field of employment, the environment or consumer rights, need to be on our guard here, or slowly but surely, hard-won protections we have enjoyed for many years will be reduced or swept away in pursuit of the so-called flexibility that we are now being told is what the UK needs as it pursues life beyond Brexit.
The amendments are about setting a marker. We can see, working from the most vulnerable members of our workforce right up to the Cabinet table, that change can be seen as an opportunity to roll back the clock and reduce and reset established rights. The Scottish National party does not consent to that process.
I will comment briefly on the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow. Her amendment 2 seems to offer appropriate clarification of an aspect of support for Opposition Members. It addresses the issue of someone being disadvantaged as a result of change in circumstance while on maternity leave, which strikes me as an important principle. While on maternity leave, we should not be concerned about the impact of changes at work, so I am happy to support that amendment. I ask the Minister to look at embedding the principle of no detriment in future action in this area.
There is no doubt that an equalities impact assessment is a vital way of dealing with some of the issues with the Bill. The recent Petitions Committee report that we have spoken about highlights some of the issues that need to be addressed when introducing reforms in this area. Recognising that the eyes of the country will be on the changes, we need to avoid creating a two-tier system. We cannot have a good system for Ministers and holders of other high-powered posts and a second-rate system for everyone else.
An equality impact assessment might have thrown up the need to address some of the wider issues in order to avoid that two-tier perception. It would also have highlighted that parental leave more broadly is vital to shattering the glass ceiling, and that too many barriers are still in place relating to caring responsibilities. When this Bill comes back, as the Minister has promised it will, it needs to address those issues.
If we had the equality impact assessment, we might also have noted that wider action is needed to increase the uptake of maternity leave to closer to the one-year statutory limit, because so many parents cannot afford to take the leave to which they are entitled. To address that gap between entitlement and uptake in the wider workforce, it is clear that maternity pay needs to increase, with the SNP proposing 100% of average weekly earnings for the first 12 weeks, then 90% or £150 for 40 weeks, whichever is lower.