Child Poverty in Scotland

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Will Quince

Wednesday 30th October 2019 Westminster Hall

[Will Quince]

It is not the case that we have just pushed people into low-paid and insecure, part-time work—I do not know whether that is the point the hon. Lady is making. However, it is important to stress that around three quarters of the growth in employment since 2010 has been in full-time work. We know, because I shared the statistics, that being in full-time work substantially reduces the risk of being in poverty. There is only around a 7% chance of a child being in relative poverty if both parents work full time, compared with 66% for two-parent families with only part-time work.

Several hon. Members raised universal credit, which I do not think I have time to touch on in the detail I would like. However, universal credit supports full-time work through smooth incentives to increase hours, a general expectation that lone parents and partners should work—unless caring for young children or a disabled person—and generous childcare subsidies. It is important to note that we have also gone much further to support working families than previous Governments.

[Patricia Gibson]

I thank the Minister for giving way; I know he is short of time. He touched on universal credit. Will he commit to looking at the five-week wait and people having to take out loans, which pushes them further and deeper into persistent poverty? People’s ability to repay them is not considered, and families and children suffer tremendously as a result. Will he commit to taking that up with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions?

[Will Quince]

I look closely at all elements within my portfolio. Universal credit is probably the largest element of my portfolio, newly added in the most recent reshuffle. On the first assessment period, it is important to stress that it is not a loan but an advance of the first indicative award, and it is interest-free and repayable over a 12-month period. We are already going further, because that will go up to 16 months, and I am exploring ways in which we could potentially increase that further. At present, around 60% of people take that up. The issue the hon. Lady raises is often raised with me by a number of the stakeholders and organisations that the Department works closely with. I am looking at it, of course, but fundamentally we can have a system based either on advances or on arrears.

We now also have a two-week roll-on of housing benefit for those moving on to universal credit, and as of 2021 that will include a two-week run-on of income support, jobseeker’s allowance and employment support allowance. This month we are reducing the maximum level of deductions from 40% to 30%. We are listening and we do make changes, but those changes can only be made within fiscal events. Of course, as I mentioned at the beginning, it will come as no surprise to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran to hear that I am looking at a number of measures ahead of the next fiscal event to improve universal credit, because we do listen to Members from across the House and to the stakeholders that feed into the Department.

I am conscious of the time, and I want the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill to have an opportunity to wind up the debate, so I will conclude. I reaffirm our view that the long-term approach that we are taking is the right one if we are to deliver lasting change. However, we are not complacent; this is an area of real focus for me and the Department. The Government believe that work provides economic independence, pride in having a job and improved wellbeing. I look forward to continuing to work with colleagues from across the House, the Scottish Government and other devolved Administrations and charities to tackle poverty in all its forms.

National Bereavement Care Pathway

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Will Quince

Tuesday 24th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Will Quince]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I thank him for the support he has given to the APPG since its formation. He is right that just one stillbirth or neonatal death is one too many, and while we should rightly campaign for reductions—we have ambitious targets in that regard—it is absolutely right to ensure that even if we hit those targets, as I will come to later, we make sure we have world-class bereavement care for those parents and families who sadly suffer the loss of a child. Through the pathway, we can work to ensure that they receive the best-quality bereavement care that the NHS can deliver.

Bereavement care has been a priority for the APPG for two reasons. First, there is sadly an inconsistency in the quality and standard of bereavement care across the country. Every parent and family who suffer the loss of a child should receive the same high-quality bereavement care no matter where they live, yet that is not the case at the moment. A report from Sands in 2016 found that only 46% of trusts with maternity units provided mandatory bereavement care training for maternity unit staff. Further, of those who did provide the training, 86% provided their staff with just one hour or less of training each year.

A separate report by Bliss in 2015 on neonatal units found that 41% of units had no access to trained mental health workers and that while some units had dedicated bereavement facilities, many relied on normal accommodation or quiet rooms. That is very important. In the case of 50% of bereaved mothers, care after their baby had died was considered poor enough to have affected their psychosocial wellbeing and any plans that they might have for a future baby. We should therefore be ensuring that parents who suffer the loss of a child receive the best possible care wherever they are in the country, and that is exactly what the bereavement care pathway does.

The second reason, however, is that 15 babies sadly die every single day before, during, or shortly after birth. This takes me to the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Even given the Government’s ambitious target of a 50% reduction in stillbirth and infant death by 2025, there will still be tens of thousands of stillbirths and neonatal deaths, and tens of thousands of parents, grandparents and wider family members will still go through the tragedy of baby loss. While it is right that we work to reduce baby loss rates by, for instance, tackling smoking among pregnant women, we also need to ensure that there is high quality-care throughout the NHS for the parents who do, sadly, lose a child.

Last month, I had the opportunity to visit one of the first pathway pilot sites, established by Chelsea and Westminster and West Middlesex University hospitals, to see it in action. It was great to chat with staff and discuss what challenges they faced in implementing the pathway, and what benefits they had found for parents. My experience during that visit has been backed up by the recent early evaluation of the first phase of the pathway. Feedback from the pilot sites found that it had helped to raise the profile of bereavement care in hospitals—a vital change, now that that will be assessed as part of inspections by the Care Quality Commission—and that it had also encouraged different teams in hospitals and departments to work more closely together.

That independent report showed not only the need for the programme, but its obvious impact. For example, where bereavement midwives are in post, they are making a significant and positive difference in their trusts. However, more work is clearly needed to ensure that good practice is shared across hospital trusts, so that all staff who come into contact with bereaved parents are equipped and helped to deliver the high-quality care that we all want to see. The findings show the huge potential for improving bereavement care in pregnancy and baby loss, something that I, and the all-party parliamentary group, will continue to proudly support. It has also been useful for healthcare professionals to suggest ways in which the pathway can be refined, and, in particular, how it can be ensured that the documents and guidance that are issued are more practical in terms of implementation.

Last Monday, our APPG hosted a reception to mark the launch of the second wave of pathway sites. A further 21 trusts are now piloting the pathway, providing sites where bereaved parents will be able to experience better care.

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

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate and on all the work that he has done in this field, including his work in the all-party group. Earlier, he gave the chilling statistic that 15 babies die each day in the United Kingdom. Of course we all know that the loss of a baby—the death of a child—is the last taboo. The irony is that, although the rolling out of bereavement pathway sites throughout the UK is welcome and much needed, it is because baby loss is so hard to discuss that it has taken us so long to reach this point.

[Will Quince]

The hon. Lady—and I will call her my hon. Friend—has made a very valid point, and I thank her for all her contributions to the formation and the continuing work of the APPG. She is right: there is a taboo surrounding baby loss, and we must break it. I remember the first debate about it that we held here, in November 2015, and the floods of e-mails and messages that we received from parents out there who were saying, “Thank heavens, someone is now talking about baby loss.” They had felt so enclosed, and unable to talk about it, to the extent that people would cross the street to avoid having to have that awkward conversation.

That is exactly why the pathway is so important. Although NHS professionals up and down our country are caring and compassionate to their very core, not everyone has experienced this kind of grief. It is important that the pathway is parent-led, because that enables parents to share the experience of what they went through, how they were feeling, and how things could possibly improve in the future. I encourage the hon. Lady to continue her work in the APPG and continue to participate in debates like this, because that shows the country as a whole that we are willing, ready and able to talk about baby loss, and will not stop talking about it until as have addressed some of these big issues.

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

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Will Quince

Wednesday 7th February 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Patricia Gibson]

Previous discussions in this Committee have made me fearful of asking for much, but amendments 6 and 7 are really important. They refuse to put the loss of a son or daughter on a sliding scale of grief, which I know is not the intention behind the Bill, but I fear may be its unintended consequence. The loss of a son or daughter is traumatic and life-changing, no matter how old they are. It is clear from our sittings last week that we all understand that it is against the natural order of events for any parent to bury their own child. We have the opportunity to recognise that in the Bill. I am sure that no Committee member would accept or even suggest that losing a son or daughter aged 17 is a tragedy that should be treated differently from losing a son or daughter aged 19, 21 or 23.

Amendments 14 and 15 address the Bill’s distinction between offspring who are and are not in full-time education. Such distinctions are artificial, and I do not think that they are appropriate in the context of the death of a son or daughter. Loss is loss, whether or not someone’s son or daughter is their dependant. I ask the Committee to keep in mind that the Bill’s focus—its starting point—is parents, not the circumstances or the age of the child lost.

When a son or daughter is lost at an older age, the discussion becomes more academic—the older they are, the more likely it is that their parents will be retired anyway and will therefore not be covered by the Bill. But imagine losing a daughter aged 24 who has a young child of her own and is perhaps even bringing up that child on her own. As the Bill stands, her bereaved parents will not have the support that the Bill could offer, even though there may be 1,000 reasons why they will need bereavement leave, given the support that their grandchildren may need.

The parents of, say, a son aged 25 years old would not be covered by the Bill. Let us say that that son is serving abroad in the British Army in a fragile area, doing a tour of duty in an area of instability. Do his parents not deserve to be covered by the provisions in the Bill, because he happens to be 25 and not a dependant? I do not think that that is the intention of the Bill, which is why I tabled the amendment.

[Will Quince]

This question was always at the forefront of our minds in preparing and drafting all incarnations of the Bill. The hon. Lady raises a very good question about why we focus on an arbitrary limit—18, in this case, although I think we are coming on in a moment to amendments that consider that in more detail. The question that I would pose back to her is: why then stop at parents? Why are we not including spouses? She rightly raises the example of a 25 or 28-year-old. In such instances, a spouse would be equally traumatised by the death as a parent.

[Patricia Gibson]

I would not want to diminish in any way the loss of a husband or wife, but the Bill was introduced in the first place because of the particularly unnatural order of circumstances in which someone buries their own child. It is entirely different. I do not pretend to judge whether one grief is worse than the other, but it goes against nature for someone to bury their own child. It does not necessarily go against nature to bury a husband or wife. That is in the normal scheme of things that we ultimately all have to face, but nobody expects to bury their own children. A child is a person’s investment in the future. I really do not see the equivalence; otherwise, we could have a Bill about bereavement, not a parental bereavement Bill. It is a parental bereavement Bill because we, as a Parliament, recognise the particular circumstances of someone burying their own son or daughter. I hope that I have answered the question that the hon. Gentleman put to me.

I really hope that the Minister and the whole Committee will reflect on this matter, and consider my amendment a worthy addition to the Bill. As I said last week, the benefits, both social and emotional, will surely outweigh any financial costs, which I really do not think will be significant in terms of overall Treasury spend. The Minister will no doubt want to correct me on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson]

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

[Will Quince]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful case. She rightly says that the amendment would make a statement, but passing this Bill in itself would make a far greater statement. It has taken a long time to get to this position and my worry is that her request to increase the cost sixfold compared with the Treasury’s current modelling will kill this Bill; the Government would have to withdraw their support, and we would move into the next Parliament. It could come back, but I would feel sad if there was such a delay just because of this amendment.

[Patricia Gibson]

The hon. Gentleman brings me back to earth with a bump; as everybody knows, nobody wants to be responsible for signing this Bill’s death warrant. I do feel strongly about this issue, but I will not do anything to jeopardise the Bill: the important thing is to get it on the statute books—if we have to have a bunfight later, we can.

I urge everybody to reflect on the value of this issue. I am an eternal optimist: if every single one of us agreed to the amendment, I would hope that the Treasury would look at it and say, “Well, this is the right way to go,” because of the weight of that agreement. Maybe I am an eternal optimist. I am walking on glass; I will not do anything to destroy the Bill. However, I would be very sad if the measure was not in the Bill—if not today, then at the end of the process. That is all I have to say.