Holocaust Memorial Day 2021

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Thursday 28th January 2021 Commons Chamber

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

As we reflect today on the murder of six million Jews in the holocaust, we have heard today, shamefully, how antisemitism is still increasing. It is shameful that armed guards are often felt necessary to guard synagogues in London. That is something that should be part of our reflections today.

Currently, we see another genocide being carried out against the Uyghur population. It is unfolding before our very eyes, showing that great evil is still very much a feature of our world. The theme of this year’s commemorations, be the light in the darkness, is not just the light of goodness and hope, but the light that we must shine into the darkest corners of the world whether they be in Europe, Asia, Africa or anywhere else where hatred lurks and seeks to destroy others. Sadly, genocide is not something that is part of our history—it is with us today. The world rightly condemns the atrocities against the Uyghur population, which has chilling parallels to what happened in Europe in the 1940s. It is our moral duty to do everything in our power to stand up to those who violate basic human rights, however powerful they may be. In the world today, nation states that perpetrate such evil must not be glad-handed. They must not be gently coaxed as we seek to sign trade deals. States that perpetrate such evil must not be flattered because we believe them to be powerful and important. We must not tiptoe around leaders or regimes that preside over brutality.

There must be no doubt that we will not tolerate genocide, flagrant abuses of human rights, or hatred in any form. If we are truly serious about condemning such persecution, that must be reflected in this House’s supporting the amendment to the Trade Bill that seeks to terminate any trade deal with any country committing genocide. There can be no equivocation when it comes to dealing with evil.

The holocaust has taught us that hatred in all its forms does not appear overnight; it is the result of creeping, insidious, manipulative, predatory and strategic campaigning to turn one group against another. That is what happened in Germany in the 1940s to the Jewish people, and it is the pattern of all such campaigns of hatred, so we must always be aware. Let our light in the darkness be not just a light of hope but a beacon shining on evil, so that it can be fully exposed and challenged wherever it lurks.

Statutory Paid Bereavement Leave: Loss of Family Member

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I am delighted to have secured this Adjournment debate to highlight the need for statutory paid bereavement leave for all employees upon the sad loss of a close family member or partner. In recent years, I was privileged to be one of a number of MPs who worked cross-party to secure paid bereavement leave for parents on the loss of a child up to the age of 18 years old. That effort showed this place at its best when, finally, that right was enshrined in law as of April this year. As that work was going on, I said in this very Chamber that groundbreaking as that achievement was, it simply did not go far enough, and that I would immediately begin working to extend a similar two-week statutory right for paid bereavement leave to others. This debate is part of that effort.

It is true that the only two certainties in life are death and taxes, and while most of us are happy—comfortable, even—to talk about taxes, there remains a reticence to speak openly and honestly about death. I believe that is why the measures this House has already supported on parental bereavement leave for the loss of a child are only in their infancy, and why the measures under discussion tonight have not yet been adopted: we are too reticent to talk about death. Bereavement is a fact of life, and if only a fraction of the costs associated with it could be mitigated with better support at the right time, we could boost our economy and have a healthier society with a greater sense of wellbeing at its heart. Instead, we have the terrible situation where, in our society and, as a consequence, in our workplaces, people who are bereaved suffer in silence as they are expected to just get on with things. That is not healthy.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on having brought this issue forward. I am very aware of what she has said, and support it. I have long supported the idea of paid bereavement leave for families in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Does the hon. Lady agree that for some, getting back to work is a useful part of their grieving process; for others, they need time to work out how their world works without their loved one, and paid leave may well give someone the ability to take a breath without having to go to the doctor? It could be a way forward for their wellbeing and mental health.

[Patricia Gibson]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, and it is something I will return to in just a moment, if he will permit me.

According to research commissioned by the charity Sue Ryder, a third of employees who experienced a bereavement in the past year did not receive any communication from managers or the leadership of their organisation about bereavement. Only 32% of employees are aware of whether their employer has a bereavement policy, despite the fact that we are in the middle of a global health pandemic, with covid-19 linked to over 56,000 deaths across the UK since the end of March. Of those who felt well supported by their employer after experiencing a bereavement, 60% cited being allowed enough time off and not being pressured to return to work before they were ready as key actions their employer took. This debate is timely, since the global health pandemic—which has touched us all in various ways—has sharply reminded us about the fragility of life, and the profound and cruelly random nature of loss and bereavement.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this issue before the House this evening, and on her work on parental bereavement leave. Does she agree that the real issue we have at the moment is the ambiguity in the law? Essentially, it says that employers must offer a reasonable amount of time for employees to grieve. There are some examples of very good employers—Morrisons, I understand, gives two weeks’ paid leave—and other employers give less time, but it is the ambiguity that creates the problem for employees at the moment.

[Patricia Gibson]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. It is that ambiguity—that discretion—over something life-changing like a bereavement that is simply unfair. People deserve a level playing field; after all, death is the great leveller.

Across the UK, during this health pandemic, we have experienced bereavement on a distressing scale, and it has touched us all. That is why there has been such public support for the measures to try to control this virus: each of us has lost, or is in fear of losing, a loved one. This has had a significant impact on our workforce, as 7.9 million people in employment—24% of all employees —have experienced a bereavement in the past 12 months. It is estimated that for every death, six people experience intense grief. Taking into account the number of deaths in the UK each year and employment rates, we can say that bereavement causes nearly 2 million working people to suffer from intense grief each year. Such a profoundly life-changing experience brings with it potential long-term consequences for a person’s mental and physical health, and in some cases can trigger mental health conditions such as depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorders, as well as being linked to an increased likelihood of heart attacks, diabetes and increased mortality. The impacts of grief on society are huge, and cannot and must not be left to the discretion of employers to manage in the workplace.

As the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) mentioned, we all know that many employers are supportive and understanding when an employee suffers a close bereavement, but we also know that many employers are not perhaps as supportive as they could be. Sometimes those who are grieving are pressured to return to work when they are still in the midst of the initial shock and trauma of loss. Without any statutory rights for employees to paid bereavement leave, the time and space to grieve for too many people is determined by the good will of their employer. That cannot be right, and it is counterproductive in a number of ways.

Typically, UK employers offer three to five days’ compassionate leave for the death of a close relative, but the discretionary nature of this leave means potentially that thousands of employees are unable to take leave without fearing that it could undermine their job security. In addition, we know that those in less well-paid jobs are far less likely to receive any discretionary time off with pay when they suffer a bereavement or have any compassionate leave at all, and that is grossly unfair. Death is the great leveller in society, so the time and space to grieve without worrying about loss of pay or pressure to return to work too soon should be available to all. Those on low pay are much less able to absorb the losses associated with unpaid leave and the immediate financial burden of bereavement. They are also at greater risk of being dismissed from work for taking time off or not being able to focus on their work due to the fog of grief. All of this increases the pressure and financial stress on employees who are trying their best to cope with the loss of a close family member. There is also some evidence to suggest that those in more challenged socioeconomic circumstances are more likely to experience complicated or persistent grief, because they are likely to face more difficulties accessing appropriate services and information to help them cope with their feelings of loss and grief.

As well as humane and compassionate reasons for statutory bereavement leave, there are also economic reasons for this change. Research commissioned by Sue Ryder shows that grief experienced by employees who have lost a loved one costs the UK economy £23 billion per year and costs the Treasury nearly £8 billion per year. However, these costs could potentially reach as high as £49 billion to the economy and £18 billion to the Treasury. Most of the considerable economic impact arises from grieving employees being unable to work at their normal levels of productivity while they deal with the emotional, practical and financial aspects of coping with the loss of a close relative. That, in turn, leads to a cost to the Treasury in lost tax revenues and the fallout of reliance on NHS support, such as mental health and social care needs that can often follow. So although statutory bereavement leave for all those who lose a close family member will involve costs, this is actually preventive expenditure, as it will lead to a significant saving for the UK economy and the Treasury, a more productive and resilient workforce, and reduced staff absence. Such support will mean less cause to rely on NHS support, or perhaps even social security support, in the case of those employees who drop out of the workforce altogether following a close bereavement. So of course there are costs attached to statutory paid bereavement leave, but there are also significant costs to not doing this. It is in our interests as a society, and it is in the Treasury’s interests, to take full cognisance of the profound, debilitating effect grief can have on those who lose a loved one, and statutory paid bereavement leave is a progressive and enlightened thing for any society to have in place.

When an individual is suffering from grief, it not only has implications and consequences for the individual, although it undoubtedly does, it also has wider societal and economic consequences for all of us. Clearly, there are individuals who are pressured into returning to work before they are ready to do so. It is not in the employer’s interest, and it is not in our economy’s interest, to simply insist on presenteeism in the workplace. Presenteeism has significant impacts on employer revenue, employee income, tax revenues and total gross value added.

Statutory bereavement leave for the loss of a close relative is something that people across the UK support. In fact, 62% of people across the UK believe it is the right thing to do. The current arrangements allowing leave for family emergencies carry no statutory obligation that such leave should be paid—and it very often is not. The Minister will know that, in its consideration of the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill, a Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy impact assessment conceded that there appear

“to be large differences in what is currently offered to employees when they suffer a bereavement with the situation tending to be managed at the discretion of the employer and line managers.”

We can all agree that that is not satisfactory, which is why it is important that we put an end to what the report called the “large differences” between what employees are offered at the discretion of employers and what they should be entitled to.

We need to put bereavement leave for all who lose a close relative or partner on a statutory footing. That can be done if the political will is there to do it, and that political will certainly exists in our society. I suggest to the Minister that the vehicle for doing this could be the employment Bill, since the proposals put forward this evening indirectly relate to some of the Bill’s expected provisions.

I urge the Minister to study these proposals carefully for the sake of the wellbeing of our workforce and our economy. I urge him to support these progressive and compassionate measures, which would give the profound effects of bereavement the statutory recognition they need and deserve. If he were to do so, or to commit that the Government intend to seriously investigate doing so, while we are in the midst of this global health pandemic, that would send a signal that he and the Government are aware that we are all in this together and that we should come through this together. We need to look after each other, and this Parliament and this Government should take the opportunity to lead the way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson]

I want to press the Minister on one point and ask for his view on it. If those who are earning a comfortable salary feel that they need to take additional time off, unpaid, they are free to do that, and they are obviously able to absorb that cost. There is a concern about the people in low-paid jobs who cannot take unpaid leave and therefore do not have the choice to take additional time, unless, of course, it is in statute.

[Paul Scully]

It is essentially about getting the balance right. I talked about eligibility for statutory sick pay, which I know is not suitable for long periods of time, and access to universal credit. There is annual leave of 5.6 weeks per year. It is about getting the balance right between what may suit employees suffering different types of bereavement or having different reactions to bereavement, and employers, especially as we have seen the pressure on them at this moment in time. They may be at risk in relation to the future viability of the business. It is getting that balance right, which is why we continue to try to understand the modern-day employer and the things that we might include in the employment Bill as we reflect on the effect of covid.

There is a range of Government support for people who suffer from a bereavement. Employers can, and do, provide significant support to employees without being legally required to do so. We encourage employers to respond with flexibility and compassion. One of the cornerstones of the employment Bill will be to ensure flexible working by default. That will hopefully provide some succour or support to people who, although not necessarily taking full time off, will be able to arrange their working time around their particular current circumstances.

I thank the hon. Lady and the other hon. Members who contributed to the debate. I also thank everybody who has worked hard to raise awareness of the impact of death on the people left behind.

Question put and agreed to.

Fireworks

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2020 Westminster Hall

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

I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for her comprehensive setting out of the problems and challenges we face with this issue. I am delighted to take part in this debate, but in doing so I have a sense of déjà vu all over again. I have spoken several times on the issue of fireworks on behalf of my constituents since 2015. My view is, has always been and will continue to be that the sale of fireworks should be restricted to those with a licence to deliver organised community displays. That view is widely held across Parliament and the UK, and during the restrictions that we are all enduring because of covid-19, it is more important than ever.

As is always the case in these debates, no one has argued, and no one would seek to argue, that, when used correctly, fireworks are not an enjoyable spectacle. In normal times, some 10 million people across the UK each year see fireworks as a feature in big events in November, for weddings and in all sorts of other celebrations throughout the year. Anyone fortunate enough to have attended such an event will no doubt say that it was indeed a marvellous spectacle. However, we also need to take account of the alarm, distress, danger and anxiety that fireworks far too often cause for too many people and animals, and the disruption they cause to communities when purchased and used irresponsibly by individuals. We have heard much about that from Members from different parties.

We have also heard a lot about the accidents and injuries caused by fireworks, which are very sobering. We are all aware of the increased pressure that accidents associated with fireworks bring to bear on our public services in normal times; of course, we are not in normal times this year. Covid-19 has meant that it has been necessary for community firework displays to be cancelled across the United Kingdom, but that creates a problem. There are now genuine fears that personal use of fireworks will rise significantly this year, which is likely to lead to more accidents and will therefore lead to more pressure on our NHS staff at the worst possible time, during a global health pandemic—crystallising further, if it were required, that selling fireworks to the general public is increasingly hard to justify. We know the increased pressure that accidents cause in normal times, and this is a perfect opportunity for the Minister to do something now.

Every year, from October to January, we hear, as we have heard again today, from constituents who are disrupted and plagued by the irresponsible use of fireworks at all hours of the day and night. Under cover of darkness, too many people set out deliberately to cause mischief, thinking that it is quite funny—that it is a bit of a wheeze—to set off fireworks near housing, where children or whole families are shaken from their slumbers, cats and dogs are scared half to death, and elderly people are driven into a state of fear and alarm. The effect on horses is well documented, with fireworks literally scaring them to death. We have also heard about the effect on veterans who might be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder following active service. This is a catalogue of unacceptable consequences of the free sale of fireworks.

Since 2017, we have been told that the creation of the Office for Product Safety and Standards would address many of the concerns about fireworks that we hear every year. I am keen to hear of the progress that has been made on that issue, unless of course, and I hope I am wrong, the Minister is going to stand up today and tell us that nothing has been done since 2017. His predecessor told us that something would be done by the Office for Product Safety and Standards. Surely the Minister will not tell us that there has been no progress.

It is both ludicrous and frustrating that we do not have the power to do anything meaningful about the sale of fireworks in Scotland. This lack of control effectively leaves the Scottish Parliament footering at the edges of a problem, with no real power to properly address it despite the fact that, as we have heard, a recent consultation by the Scottish Government showed that 87% of people in Scotland would welcome a ban on the sale of fireworks to the public. I urge the Minister to carry out a similar consultation in England; I think he would find it quite informative.

Of course, the Scottish Parliament can restrict when fireworks can be set off, but we all know that irresponsible people who want to set off fireworks do not care about what time it is when they choose to set them off. They do not care whether it is legal to set off a firework at a certain time, and they do not care if it puts other people in a state of alarm or fear, or if it endangers their safety.

Fireworks cannot currently be sold to anyone under 18, but, as I have said several years in a row, so what? We know that children can get hold of them. We also know that people using fireworks irresponsibly are often perfectly entitled under the law, as it stands, to buy them. The irresponsible use of fireworks is not confined to those who get hold of them illegally, which is why more needs to be done to protect the elderly, people with pets, and a range of people in our communities.

Every single Member of Parliament will have had constituents telling them about the onslaught of fireworks, the profound effects that has had on their constituents’ quality of life, and the effect on their pets, which undergo trembling fits and become withdrawn and very frightened. Of course, this cannot be prepared for, because the outbursts of fireworks come from nowhere when someone has fireworks and thinks they will have a wee bit of fun. Some people think it is a great idea to set off fireworks up tenement entrances, or in shared entry ways to flats, in the middle of the night.

The sale of fireworks is tightly restricted in the Republic of Ireland. In Northern Ireland, fireworks have long been subjected to some of the strictest laws in the world.  Perhaps the Minister will tell us why the rest of the UK is denied similar or greater protection. Even the United States, which has liberal gun laws, believes that restrictions on fireworks need to be strict.

The current situation in Scotland is nothing short of bizarre. The use of fireworks is a devolved matter, but the sale of fireworks is reserved. It does not take a genius to work out that unless the sale of fireworks—who can get their hands on them—can be tackled, there is no meaningful influence over who uses them, which makes it extremely difficult to police them. Our local environmental health and antisocial behaviour teams work hard to tackle the misuse of fireworks in our communities, but that is dealing with the consequences of the wide availability of fireworks rather than tackling the fear, alarm and distress, fire risks and safety hazards that they cause, which we have heard so much about. We need to tackle the real issue of the sale to individuals—the problem at source—and be mindful of the fact that fireworks are far more powerful and prevalent today than they were in the past.

Organised and licensed displays allow—in normal times—the many people who wish to enjoy fireworks to do so safely. Importantly, they allow local residents to plan ahead and make arrangements to protect their pets and get on with their lives. The Dogs Trust says that when public displays are organised, 93% of pet owners alter their plans during the display time to minimise their pet’s trauma, which protects their pet’s welfare.

On helping pet owners to prepare for the use of fireworks in their neighbourhood, we cannot do so—it is not possible—when fireworks are going off randomly with no warning. Therefore, the solution, as we have heard across the Chamber, is patently obvious to anybody who chooses to look. We need greater restrictions on the sale of fireworks, instead of selling them to all and sundry over 18 years old. Organised public firework displays are a safer option for all our communities, and would become the accepted and welcome norm.

I hope the Minister appreciates that it is time to ban the free sale of fireworks, except for public licensed displays. Such a ban would mean we could still enjoy fireworks in our communities, with new year displays and at celebrations such as weddings, but they would be out of the hands of those who, by accident or design, put the fear of God into our communities, shaking our children and whole families awake in their beds, alarming older people and causing suffering—perhaps even injury—to animals.

We need to get the balance right. No one is asking for fireworks to be banned altogether, but I urge the Minister to consider a consultation similar to the one carried out in Scotland. Let us hear what the public think. They need to be part of the conversation, to inform how we proceed to improve the situation across the UK. Let us see a meaningful response to their concerns. I hope he will indicate his willingness to carry out such a consultation so that real progress can be made. If it cannot, give us the power in Scotland at least to protect our own communities.

Horizon: Sub-Postmaster Convictions

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the Scottish National party spokesperson, Patricia Gibson, who has one minute.

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

We can all agree with the Minister that the reputations, mental health and lives of the victims of this scandal have been ruined. Alan Bates, the former sub-postmaster who led the legal case against the Post Office, has been clear that the Post Office has not changed. It is six months since judges found major issues, including an excessive culture of secrecy and confidentiality generally in the Post Office, but specifically relating to Horizon, so can the Minister explain why we still are not getting a public inquiry into the scandal? The Prime Minister told the House on 26 February that such an inquiry would be established, but the proposals set out by the Minister today fall short of that. We welcome the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee inquiry into this issue, but we really need a full independent public inquiry.

Does the Minister understand the anger and disappointment at the length of time it is taking to get the truth about one of the largest miscarriages of justice in the UK’s history, amidst very serious allegations of perjury levelled against employees of Fujitsu, the company behind the system, and will he apologise to the hundreds of postmasters whose lives have been ruined—who have lost their homes, their livelihoods and their reputations as a result of inaction by this Government?

[Paul Scully]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for those questions. The review that we are putting in train covers the areas that a public inquiry would achieve. We want to find out exactly what is going on. We do not want to duplicate the effort, and we already have a number of words from Justice Fraser that point to exactly where the chairman of the independent review needs to look.

This situation has been going on for some 20-odd years. It is disgraceful that it has taken this time for Alan Bates and his fellow group-litigants to actually get to a settlement and that so many people have had to suffer as a result. What I am keen to do now—my tenure in this role has been brief—is push on and make sure that they can get the answers that they need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

I keep hearing that. I keep hearing the words “judge-led inquiry” and then I keep hearing that we need to move this on as quickly as possible. The point is that the terms of reference within this review are the same as a judge-led inquiry.

[Patricia Gibson]

Why not just have one?

[Paul Scully]

Because I do not want an inquiry that will last 13 years, with sub-postmasters coming back time and again with no justice. I have been pushing on this from the moment that I found out the details about it as postal affairs Minister. That is why I will drive this through to make sure that the answers are heard and that the independent chairman, who is independent of Government and independent of the Post Office, gets to the bottom of the case and gets some answers.

Post Office and Horizon Software

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2020 Westminster Hall

[Lucy Allan]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that vital point. Many of the postmasters thought that the £57 million would go to them, as was announced in the press. However, after the legal costs have been paid, it is unlikely that sufficient moneys will be left over to compensate even those from whom the Post Office extracted money when their tills did not balance. Even that money may not be refunded, never mind the costs for the actual losses suffered by postmasters. There will be nothing at all left for actual compensation.

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

I am sure the hon. Lady will agree that this whole episode has had far-reaching consequences for those affected by it. She will also be aware that the Select Committee on Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee is going to hold an inquiry. Does she share my view that there needs to be more than that? We need a full and comprehensive public inquiry, to ensure that this kind of shambles, which has cost so many people so much, never happens again.

[Lucy Allan]

The hon. Lady makes a very important point, which I will return to a little later in my speech. It is very welcome indeed that the BEIS Committee will look at this issue.

Terms and Conditions of Employment

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2020 Commons Chamber

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

It is no surprise that these parental bereavement pay and leave measures are warmly welcomed across the House and across the United Kingdom. Several of us in the House have had the tragic and life-changing experience of having to bury our own child. We talked much about this during the Committee stage of the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act 2018 in the previous Session of Parliament. We all understood not only the importance of the measures but that they were not for us—they were for all those men and women who in the future will have to undergo this agony. We in public life who have gone through this terrible experience have a duty—I believe it is a sacred and moral duty—to improve the situation for those who, in time to come, will suffer the same terrible fate of losing a child. I also pay tribute to the former Member for Eddisbury, Antoinette Sandbach; although she is no longer a Member of this House, she did much work on parental bereavement and baby loss, and it is important to remember that.

The legislation is non-partisan and that is exactly as it should be. It is no secret that, while I wholeheartedly support these measures, as far as they go—I hear what the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) said about this being an opening salvo in perhaps more comprehensive protection for bereaved parents—I do not think that they go far enough. But they are a start. The measures started life as that most fragile thing—a private Member’s Bill—and it is down in no small part to the hard work led by the hon. Member who sponsored the original Bill that they have come this far.

These measures right a wrong; they correct the injustice that bereaved parents who bury their son or daughter are, under the law, not entitled to any paid or unpaid time off work. That means that any leave taken in such circumstances was entirely at the discretion of employers. We know that most employers would be hugely sympathetic to a member of staff facing such a loss, not just as an employer but as a fellow human being. We also know that others may not be and we heard anecdotal evidence of such cases, particularly in the Bill Committee.

I was delighted that the amendment I tabled in the Bill Committee to cover parents who suffered a stillbirth was accepted—a clear sign of the careful and considered cross-party working that took the Bill as far as it got. To face the death of a son or daughter with no entitlement to paid leave under the law has been for too long a terrible, terrible injustice that generations of people before us have suffered. I am proud that that has now been addressed.

These measures set out a minimum leave period of two weeks. That is not very long, but given that up to this point there was no entitlement at all, it is a start. Importantly, it provides legal recognition that the response to a life-changing event can and should no longer be a matter of discretion for employers. This is one of those days when we can feel that we are making a real, practical difference to the lives of our constituents as they face perhaps the worst experience that they can ever face.

People cope with the devastation of losing their child in a variety of ways, as we know—there is no right or wrong way to grieve or cope with loss. That is why I had hoped, through the passage of the legislation, for more flexibility on when the paid leave could be taken, but I take on board and very much welcome the Minister’s comments a wee while back about flexibility, because it is very important. Parents need to grieve in their own way and in their own time as far as possible. The circumstances of the loss of a child will matter, and bereaved parents must have the full protection of the law. I hope that at some point the Government will revisit this to develop it into a more sensitive package than it currently is.

I also wanted these measures to cover offspring beyond the age limit of 18 years, as set out in the provisions. The measures are, after all, about bereaved parents and not the child who has been lost. This really ought not to be about the circumstances or the age at which the child is lost; it is about protecting the parents following the loss of a son or daughter—something that goes against the natural order of events.

These provisions are extremely welcome, but I look forward to the day—I hope the Minister is listening—when their scope is expanded in the ways I have set out. I will continue to work towards that end with anybody who is willing to work with me, for the sake of my own son who was stillborn at full term, baby Kenneth.