Child Food Poverty

Mhairi Black Excerpts

Monday 24th May 2021 Westminster Hall

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP) [V]]

This year alone, Renfrewshire food bank has provided more than 9,000 food parcels. Of those parcels, 2,500 went to children. According to the Government’s own statistics, the number of children in my constituency living in poverty is 2,598. I mention that because, comparing the Government’s figure with the number of food parcels that the food bank provided to children, we see a difference of only eight, yet this Government maintain with a straight face that there is no link between their policies and the rise in food bank dependency. There is clear uptake by people who never expected to be dependent on its services during the pandemic, particularly those who have been left out of any Government support.

The reality is that poverty can pounce on anyone at any time. Once it seeps into someone’s life, the ramifications are painful, debilitating and long-lasting, both physically and mentally. Thanks to our Scottish Parliament, we are seeing some relief in Scotland, where we already have free school meals and are now seeing that extended to all children in Scotland. The difference in direction of our Governments could not be starker: while the Scottish Government set a target to eradicate child poverty in statute, the UK Government have scrapped targets altogether.

Since I was elected, we have had 29 debates on child poverty. This is the 30th. I am tired of this Government’s indifference to the consequences of their actions. I am tired of the Scottish Government having to spend millions protecting people from policies that they did not vote for. I am tired of local unpaid volunteers having to plug the holes gouged out by this Government. But I am still nowhere near as tired as the children living in poverty, because, most of all, poverty is exhausting.

In my maiden speech, I said:

“Food banks are not part of the welfare state—they are a symbol that the welfare state is failing.—[Official Report, 14 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 775.]

Six years on, what has changed? The fact that this Government knowingly force people to be dependent on the generosity of strangers to literally eat is barbaric. We cannot punish people out of poverty; we have to support and empower them. People in poverty are not the problem; the Government who ignore them are. And if this Government still will not act after 30 debates, then it is time they moved aside for those of us who will.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mhairi Black Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I think the hon. Gentleman would like his own dedicated and exclusive Question Time.

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

In 2010, the Post Office chief executive said that in Paisley the cost of the refurbishment of the post office had been £439,000. That money was spent making significant changes to “improve service to customers and enhance the profitability of the Crown network”. Given that it is now planned that the post office will move from this upgraded high-quality unit to the wholly inaccessible and inadequate WH Smith, will the Minister please justify to me and my constituents why the money was spent on refurbishment in the first place?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Life Sciences (George Freeman)]

I will keep it brief, Mr Speaker.

The hon. Lady tabled a named day question on this matter and I have replied to explain that this is a matter for the chief executive of the Post Office, Paula Vennells. She has written a letter to the hon. Lady, which is in the House of Commons Library. For the benefit of the House, I can confirm that through the £13 million investment in our 50 Crown post offices, £440,000 has been spent on the Paisley branch. Through the Crown transformation plan, we have a Post Office that is more stable and closer to breaking even than ever. There are 11,500 branches, 200,000 extra opening hours and 3,800 branches open on Sundays. The people of Paisley have a strong and secure post office.

Age Discrimination: National Living Wage

Mhairi Black Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered age discrimination and the national living wage.

May I say how delighted I am that you are chairing this debate, Mr Davies?

One of the biggest challenges facing this Government has been the persistence of low-paid work, and I welcome any and all measures to address that, including the national living wage. However, young workers under the age of 25 rightly feel a sense of injustice at having been left out of the pay rise. As of last month, many workers under 25 will have discovered that their pay package is substantially less than that of their older colleagues. About 6 million young people aged 18 to 24 in the UK could be affected. I sought this debate to provide an opportunity to examine the inequality underpinning that decision and to ask the Government to plan for an extension of the national living wage to under-25s.

As it stands, those between the ages of 21 and 24 are currently paid 50p less than the living wage per hour. That is predicted to rise to a difference of £1.21 per hour by October 2020. The margin is greater again for those between 18 and 21, who are paid £1.90 less an hour. It has been estimated that under-25s on the minimum wage will earn just over £11,000 less than an older colleague over the next five years.

We all welcome the recent rise in youth employment. It is up by 94,000 as stated by a Treasury Minister in the main Chamber yesterday. However, this debate is about the value of work. The Resolution Foundation suggests that wages have fallen significantly for young people in recent years, with incomes for 22 to 29-year-olds falling by 12.5% between 2009 and 2014, so I am asking the Government to use the living wage as a means to put that right.

I am sure that the Minister will accept that comments made by the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General have rubbed salt in the wounds of young workers, who were already demoralised at being left behind in relation to the living wage. When he outlined at the Conservative party conference the Government’s rationale for taking the decision, he said:

“It was an active choice not to cover the under 25s.”

He continued:

“Anybody who has employed people knows that younger people, especially in their first jobs, are not as productive, on average.”

What a kick in the teeth for the next generation. We know that young people are often the ones asked to work the longer shifts, lift the heavier packages and work the antisocial hours. I know that from personal experience. When I graduated from university, I started working for a business in my home town dealing with sales both overseas and across the UK. My boss was a good man, but as one of the few employees who at the time was young, unmarried and without children, I was regularly asked to travel at short notice and work out of hours, at evenings and weekends.

Young people are regularly asked to work harder and longer hours because of their youth and are often keen to oblige through a desire to prove themselves and to move up the ladder, but sometimes they feel that they have little choice. Sometimes their circumstances mean that it is easier for their employers to ask them to work the more antisocial shifts rather than older members of staff, who might have commitments at home, so when the Government say that young people are not as productive, how are the Government measuring productivity? What does an underproductive young employee look like? Shockingly, when I asked the Government in a written question for their figures to back up their claims that young workers are unproductive, I was told that they have absolutely no evidence to prove that. In his answer, the Minister told me that

“there are no official statistics estimating the productivity of workers by their age.”

So we know that the Government cannot provide evidence for that claim.

I accept that those embarking on a new role often require training and support from their employers and perhaps represent initially a reduced return on the investment for an employer. However, that could be said of any employee, of any age, taking on a new role or returning to the workplace. I ask the Government to avoid making generalisations that single out the under-25s, and I will give an example of how unjust that could be in practice.

Let us imagine a young person who takes their A-levels at 18 and goes either into training in the workplace or directly into employment. They could potentially be in a job for six years before being entitled to the living wage, but a new employee could start in the same role, sit at the next desk and be paid the living wage, at 50p more an hour, with six years’ less experience, simply because they are over 25.

Alternatively, a young person might study hard at school and decide to pursue an academic route, going to university. Research undertaken by Which? indicates that a typical student on a three-year course outside London might expect to graduate with about £35,000 to £40,000 of student loan debt. Most students on a three-year course graduate at the age of 21. The Office for National Statistics has identified that about 47% of graduates are employed in non-graduate roles, a trend that has steadily increased since the 2009 recession. So a young graduate, who has done all the right things by working hard and getting a degree, is saddled with up to £40,000 of debt as a result, has only a 53% chance of securing a graduate job and is not even entitled to the new living wage. Up and down the country there are countless examples of young people who give it their all and are a huge asset to their firms, yet now face the demoralising prospect of unequal pay.

Having raised this issue in the debate on implementation of the living wage in the main Chamber in April and having asked for a debate on this issue in business questions, I can say that it feels as though the Government have sought hastily to move away from the comments by the Cabinet Office Minister about falling short on productivity and are instead arguing that the ability to pay the under-25s less will incentivise firms to hire young workers. Indeed, when I asked the Leader of the House for a debate on this issue, he replied:

“I…think it is important to do everything that we can to incentivise employers to take on young people.”—[Official Report, 28 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 1564.]

Tackling youth unemployment is a goal that I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House support, but organisations including the Federation of Small Businesses have pointed out that the Government’s approach could see employers wandering into legally precarious territory. Any employer that actively seeks to recruit under-25s to cut wage costs will almost certainly fall foul of age discrimination legislation. The Equality Act 2010 prohibits discrimination on a number of grounds, referred to as protected characteristics, with section 5 of the Act recognising that age is one of those characteristics. It is direct discrimination if, because of a protected characteristic, one person is treated less favourably than another. The House of Commons Library has confirmed that to recruit workers on the basis of their age would constitute direct age discrimination.

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

As someone who is under 25, I can say that everybody who is elected in this room is paid on the same basis. Therefore, I find it completely unjustifiable that the same principle does not apply to the outside world. Does the hon. Lady agree that this is yet another example of the Conservative Government’s attitude that there should be one rule for us and another for people outwith this Parliament?

[Holly Lynch]

Hon. Members might remember that in the living wage implementation debates, I highlighted that, at times, William Pitt the Younger makes us all feel like underachievers, as he was Prime Minister at such a young age. There are great examples of young people doing well in this place, as well as out in the real world.

Firms interviewing for a role are legally required to choose the best candidate for a position, regardless of age. The employer is forbidden from acting on the financial incentive to hire the younger applicant so how, exactly, do the Government anticipate the incentive will work in practice? In its evidence to the Low Pay Commission, the Federation of Small Businesses said

“our survey data suggests that some businesses may focus their recruitment on the under 25s. However by doing this they run the risk of potentially breaching age discrimination legislation, which should lead many employers to re-evaluate this stance.”

It can only be described as shambolic when the FSB feels compelled to advise its members to avoid acting on those very incentives.

I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify the Government’s intention around the 25-year-olds threshold as a financial incentive and if he could respond to the advice of the FSB. If, as a result of the Equality Act 2010, the under-25s threshold is not permitted to serve any purpose in boosting youth employment rates, why have a lower rate at all?

Thankfully, many companies recognise the contributions made by under-25s and are opting to pay them more than the minimum wage. Nestlé employs up to 1,000 people in my constituency and was accredited by the Living Wage Foundation in June 2014 as the first mainstream manufacturer in the UK to become a living wage employer, paying at least £8.25 an hour from the age of 18.

Nestlé’s senior public affairs manager told me that, as part of its European youth employment initiative, Nestlé decided to go above and beyond the basic requirements of becoming an accredited employer, extending its living wage commitment to apply to graduates, interns and those on its fast-start school leaver programme. It said:

“As a major employer in Halifax and across the UK, we know this is the right thing to do. Not only does it benefit our people but also the communities they live and work in.”

Nestlé has joined 2,575 living wage employers up and down the country to recognise that, regardless of age, young people are hard workers. The company knows that it is important to maintain morale in the workforce, and that young workers deserve respect. The Living Wage Foundation is explicit in outlining that the living wage should apply to everyone over the age of 18.

I anticipate that the Minister will most likely point out the difference between the Living Wage Foundation’s living wage, adopted by Nestlé, and the Government’s living wage, and he would be absolutely right. However, the Government did not decide to call their increase in the minimum wage a living wage by accident. Therefore, I am asking the Government to consider adopting the Living Wage Foundation’s principle that fair pay for fair work starts at 18, in the same way that it has adopted its name.

Given that there are several examples of best practice, such as Nestlé, which has independently recognised the benefits of an equitable pay scheme, why have the Government taken the decision to set the bar lower than the standard that many of our more responsible employers are already attaining? In his 2015 Budget, the Chancellor announced that, with the living wage, he wanted to move towards a higher wage and lower welfare country. However, although the living wage has delivered a benefit to thousands, under-25s are the exception. With this Government benchmark, we risk undermining the good work of trailblazers who are going above and beyond in the market place, with the potential to suppress wages for the under-25s.

In April, when the living wage was introduced, The Guardian ran a story about Anthony, who is 23 and works in a London warehouse. He was quoted as saying:

“I was already getting £7.20 an hour … I’m now on £6.70. It’s been cut just because I’m 23 and not 25…I’m getting less for doing the same job…I feel so worthless.”

I think we can all agree that that is shocking and I do not believe that the Government intended for wages to be cut in any way, but that is not to deny that that is the very real danger in sending out the message that it is okay to pay young workers less for no reason other than their age.

I am, of course, willing to accept that minimum wage rates must be set at a rate that firms are able to support, but previous rises in minimum wage rates for young people have not had an adverse effect on employment. Indeed, that was the case when 21-year-olds covered by the youth development rate were moved on to the adult minimum wage in 2010. That is the perfect case study for measuring the effects of a large increase in wages of a certain age group; in that case, it was a rise of 22.8%. The Low Pay Commission has reviewed that case, saying:

“Looking specifically at 21 year olds, there was an absence of negative employment effects in 2011; on the contrary their employment rates, which had been falling, stabilised until the end of 2011”.

When giving evidence to the Low Pay Commission earlier this year, the TUC voiced its opposition to a lower rate for under-25s, saying:

“We strongly oppose a separate rate for 21-24 year olds. The key point here is that while it is true they have higher unemployment and lower pay, their rate of improvement in employment is impressive and faster than for 25-29 year olds. Their rate of labour market improvement shows they can bear increases in line with the National Living wage.”

The TUC was keen to point out that, by setting the threshold at 25, the Government had adopted the highest threshold for being paid the standard adult rate in the developed world, matched only by Greece. Hon. Members might be interested to hear that Japan, Canada, Turkey and Spain start the adult rate at 16, while France, Ireland, Germany and New Zealand pay the full adult rate from 18. Even in America, there is no age threshold apart from the option to pay workers under the age of 20 a lower rate for their first few months of employment. Only the UK and Greece have set the threshold at 25. If the policy worked, surely we would see it reflected across the developed world, but that is not the case.

Looking back to the introduction of the national minimum wage, John Major told his party in 1996 that the minimum wage should be opposed as it would

“price job-seekers out of the market”

and was a policy to “destroy jobs”. I urge the Government to avoid making the same arguments in the current debate because, just three years after Major gave that speech, the Conservatives embraced the minimum wage after it had so clearly boosted wages without harming employment.

There is support for extending the living wage. In a recent poll by Survation, 66% of voters stated that they believe the new higher rate should also be given to workers under 25. There was support from across the political spectrum, with 55% of Tories and 74% of Labour supporters in favour. Even 69% of UK Independence party voters supported extending the living wage.

In conclusion, nearly 6 million young people could be affected by the lower wage rates and it is an absolute outrage that they have been told they are not worth £7.20 an hour, with unevidenced claims about poor productivity combined with arguments about low pay incentives that could see employers who act on them being open to legal challenge.

We would all like to see youth unemployment improve, but debt and low wages are not a sustainable solution. The Government’s adoption of a higher minimum wage is welcome but, unless under-25s are included, that flagship policy will have a great unfairness at its heart. Once again, the Government are on the wrong side of the equal pay for equal work debate. That has to change and I will work with young people and colleagues from across the country to ask the Government to rethink their unjust and unworkable decision, and extend the living wage to under-25s.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

No. I heard a lot from the hon. Lady.

It is especially important that young people are given early opportunities, which explains the original construction of the national minimum wage. Opposition Members surely recognise that the Low Pay Commission is an independent body charged with advising the Government on what is a responsible increase for the national minimum wage. The commission is charged with looking in particular at what is called—forgive me for the rather unpleasant jargon—the varying bites of minimum wage rises. That refers to the percentage of the median wage for someone of that age that the national minimum wage would represent at that particular level. I am sure everybody can understand, because it is a matter of common sense, that the closer the national minimum wage rate for somebody of that age gets to the median wage, the greater the risk that raising the national minimum wage rate will reduce employment opportunities.

[Mhairi Black]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Boles]

I am not going to give way. I listened to the hon. Lady intently and I am trying to cover all the points raised in a longish debate.

It is critical to understand that although the national minimum wage bite—the percentage of the median wage—for 25 to 30-year-olds in 2015, before the national living wage came in, was only 59%, the bite for 21 to 24-year-olds was 78.7%. That is nearly 80% of the median wage, and that is before the substantial increase in the national minimum wage that was recently introduced for people under 25. There was a significant risk that, had the Government introduced the national living wage for everyone, including those under 25, that would have had a substantial and negative effect on those under-25s’ employment opportunities.

The hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) referred to the apprentice minimum wage. It is important to note that in 2015 the apprentice minimum wage rose by 21%. We had inherited from the previous Government, which she supported, an extremely low apprentice national minimum wage. Employers make a substantial investment in apprentices, so we understand that it is important not to choke off their willingness to make that investment by setting legal minimum wages that are too high.

Nevertheless, in Government—at the time, the coalition—we felt that the level of the national minimum wage for apprentices was egregiously and unfairly low. On one of the few occasions when any Government of either, or any, stripe have rejected a recommendation of the Low Pay Commission, we rejected its recommendation for a small increase in the apprentice national minimum wage, and we instead increased it in one year by 21%, the equivalent of a £1,185 pay rise for a full-time apprentice working 40 hours a week. So we acted on the apprentice minimum wage.

We have taken the advice of the Low Pay Commission and also acted on the national minimum wage rates that apply to people under the age of 25. This year, we accepted all of the Low Pay Commission’s recommendations for national minimum wage rates to come into force from this October. The main national minimum wage rate for 21 to 24-year-olds will increase by 25p, or 3.7%—substantially more than inflation or, indeed, average wage growth—to £6.95 per hour. That is the largest single increase in the main rate of the national minimum wage since 2008, in cash terms, with the expectation of the highest level ever in real terms.

Finally, hon. Members from the various Opposition parties may debate how discriminatory legislation brought in by the Labour Government was, but this Government will continue to invest in apprenticeships; to create millions of jobs, in particular for young people; and to increase wages of all working people, under and over the age of 25, through the national minimum wage and the new national living wage.

Trade Union Bill

Mhairi Black Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Catherine West]

rose—

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

rose—

[Robert Jenrick]

I will not give way, because Madam Deputy Speaker wishes me to finish my remarks.

My ancestor would be surprised and ashamed by what some of the current trade union leaders have become.

In conclusion, there is unease among working people in this country about their economic lives and the economic situation around them. Much of that is to do with concentrations of power: the banks, the utility companies, and the housing market favouring existing owners. Organisations such as the CBI, the BBC or monopolistic companies such as BT Openreach speak loudly, but it is unclear whom they represent. Such organisations protect the interests of the privileged few. The Bill must be seen as part of a wider effort to move our economy and our society away from vested interests and the stifling effects of corporatism and back in favour of the common good of all working people in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davis]

The reason those comments resonate with me is that my grandfather, who brought me up, was as a young man blacklisted and unemployed for 17 years because he was an organiser in the coalfields in the north-east. The House will understand that I am a little sensitive to some of the impingements on civil liberties that can come out of industrial relations.

It is a particular pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle. I keep calling him my right hon. Friend. He was a fabulously good trade union leader. As we just heard, he is a great debater, but he and I have also served occasionally on the same side in negotiations. Every single time, we managed to get an outcome that was helpful to the workforce and to the companies we were dealing with. That does not mean, however, that he has everything right here.

I have been very helpful to the Labour party in some of the comments I have made, but I will say this: there is an issue when a monopoly—it does not matter whether it is a private or public sector monopoly—goes on strike. The victim is then the public. It is not the workforce, because they tend to get their money back in overtime, and it is certainly not the owners, because their market share does not go away and they do not lose anything. The public, however, have nowhere else to go. I have some sympathy with much of Labour Members’ criticisms of the Bill, but they have to address this issue: how do we deal with a problem where action by a trade union, without proper and sufficient support from its membership, discomforts the public very badly?

[Mhairi Black]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Davis]

No, I am going to be very brisk.

The word “discomfort” is a very soft word to use. Not being able to go to work, to hospital or to school is more than a discomfort.

I would like to come on to my primary criticisms of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the proposals relating to picketing. I am particularly offended by the idea that a picket organiser needs to give his name to the police force. I have discussed this with the Minister and know that this provision has been included in previous legislation. I am ashamed to say that I missed it last time, otherwise I would have voted against it. This is a serious restriction of freedom of association. It is not the same as getting the organiser of a big demonstration to give his name to the police. There is all the difference in the world between 500,000 people clogging up London and half a dozen pickets shivering around a brazier while trying to maintain a strike.

This issue is incredibly important, and we do not want to get on to a slippery slope. I say to the Minister that I will be seeking—and I am not alone—to alter the measure during the Bill’s progress. Doing that will improve the Bill; it will not make it worse or take away anything fundamental. It will, however, remove the suggestion, made time and again by the Opposition, that this is somehow a vindictive anti-union Bill. It is not. This should be a Bill for the people, not against the unions. That is what fits with our approach.

I also want to raise the issue—it is in consultation at the moment, but because the consultation has been fast it may turn up as a Government amendment later—of restricting the actions of unions on social media. This proposal strikes me as both impractical—how on earth would it be done?—and asking for judicial trouble. There will be judicial review if this line is pursued. It has been argued that the measure is there to stop bullying. Well, fine—then pass a law to stop bullying and intimidation, but make it affect everybody, not just trade unions. We already have quite a lot of laws to prevent intimidation.

They are two critical elements and weaknesses in the Bill. I say to the Minister that I will seek to prevent both of them making it through to Third Reading. I will vote for the Bill today, but I am afraid that if it still contains those measures on Third Reading, I will vote against it. I say again to him that I doubt I will be alone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), I shall begin by declaring an interest. I also have a family link to trade unions: my grandfather was a trade union activist. He was known as Red Harry, and his obituary appeared in Socialist Worker. I mention him not only to declare an interest but to draw attention to what has changed in our industrial relations. When he was a trade union activist, during the first half of the last century, the principal conflict was between workers and capital. Much was achieved by the combined work of the Labour party and the trade unions in enhancing workers’ rights, but Labour Members, some of whom tend to use rather over-the-top language, should recognise that things have changed quite a lot in the past 50 or 60 years.

When trade unions choose to go on strike, it is often other workers who are adversely affected by the industrial action. The Conservatives are a party of workers, which is why we have committed ourselves to introducing a national living wage, to increasing the tax allowance for the lowest earners so that they can earn money tax-free, and to providing people with free childcare. As part of that commitment to workers, we also need to think about the impact of strikes on other workers.

Let me give the House an example from my constituency. If a teachers’ strike is called, it is other workers who feel the consequences. The working lives of the mums and dads are disrupted. They have to pay for alternative childcare and go through the stress and hassle of not being able to pick up their children from school and not knowing who will do so. It is right that we should balance the interests of the two groups of workers.

[Mhairi Black]

Saying that strikes are disruptive is not an argument against trade unions. They are meant to cause some kind of disruption, in order to show how strongly people feel and the lengths they are prepared to go to.

[Oliver Dowden]

Of course strikes are intended to be disruptive, but one of the fallacies that has been put forward by Labour Members is that the Bill proposes to take away people’s right to strike. It simply seeks to balance the interests of the workers in the trade union against those of other workers who are subjected to the effects of the strike.