Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Patrick Grady

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 15th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Gibson]

I rise to support Lords amendments 1 and 2. The Tory Government’s abandonment of the link between earnings and pensions, smashing the triple-lock manifesto commitment, is truly disgraceful. We are told this is necessary because this year’s earnings measure is “skewed and distorted”. There are many things swirling around Westminster that are skewed and distorted, but the triple lock is not one of them. The UK Government commitment to the triple lock remains, we have been told today by the Minister, but he will understand that that assurance is met with widespread scepticism because today he is here to tell us why their breaking the triple lock must proceed.

We in the SNP tabled an amendment to this Bill requiring the Secretary of State to assess, and be held accountable on, the impact that the legislation would have on levels of poverty among pensioners in each of the devolved nations. It was shamefully voted down by the Tories, and Labour abstained, which it will have to justify to pensioners across the UK. Pensioners across the UK, and certainly in Scotland, have been watching carefully and will not easily forgive that betrayal.

This Government have not listened to pensioners and they have not listened to Members of this House who have defended the triple lock. I doubt they will listen to the Lords either, but I sincerely hope the Minister will prove me wrong.

We have been told today by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) that this would be “reckless” with taxpayers’ money. I find that insulting and wrong-headed, as will many of my constituents. What we have heard shows that the fiscal restraint we are told is necessary is being balanced on the back of pensioners, such as those in my constituency. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) about how money can always be found, and we need only look at the DUP deal to see that. Money can be found when it is considered necessary.

Politics is about choices and choosing to break promises. Hard commitments made to pensioners about the triple lock are being broken. We are watching and our constituents are watching and they do not approve. The Government tell us that wages are rising, as we have heard, and we know that inflation is rising, so what justification is there to break the triple lock—to change the goalposts in the middle of the game?

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Not only are the Government breaking their manifesto commitment and doing away with the triple lock, but already pensioners—our constituents—are in receipt of one of the lowest state pensions in the whole of Europe. Does my hon. Friend share my confusion that Conservative Members often seem to think that the current state pension is an argument for the Union, as if, if Scotland were independent, it would be even worse?

[Patricia Gibson]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that one of the so-called Union dividends is a pension that is a pithy amount compared with those in other developed nations.

There is genuine fear that this abandonment of the triple lock will lead to permanent and more damaging actions against pensioner incomes. The state pension is by far the largest source of income for millions of UK pensioners, and the triple lock has kept that secure throughout the pandemic. To break it now, as inflation creeps up and the cost of living becomes increasingly challenging, is a shocking attack on pensioner incomes, and it is part of a wider and increasingly obvious narrative from this Government. It is crystal clear, because we have the evidence. We know that women born in the 1950s had their pension age increased with little or no notice; we have seen unacceptable state pension payment delays for new retirees, causing genuine financial hardship and suffering; we have more than 2 million older people living in poverty; and with the triple lock abandoned, many pensioners are set to be £520 less well off next year. All of that will do untold damage to pensioners.

I again urge the Government to stop attacking pensioner incomes and at least keep one of their promises to the electorate by retaining the triple lock and preventing more of our pensioners from suffering hardship in old age. There is an opportunity today to do the right thing. The Government must take this opportunity, and they must take it with good grace.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Patrick Grady

Monday 1st February 2021 Commons Chamber

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

What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Patrick Grady

Monday 30th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

What assessment she has made of the implications for her Department’s policies of the spending review 2020.

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

What assessment she has made of the implications for her Department’s policies of the spending review 2020.

Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Patrick Grady

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 11th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Gibson]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, and I was just about to move on to that. I agree wholeheartedly with his insightful remarks.

It is simply not appropriate or desirable to set an early time frame as to when bereavement leave should be taken. Some parents may feel the need for leave only when they have had time—it can be months later—to deal with the enormity of the loss, and when the reality of the loss has sunk in.

Much of the discussion around this Bill seems to be predicated on the loss of a child after illness. Yes, it is true, far too many families are devastated by watching a child ravaged by some terrible, unforgiving disease against which they have so few resources to defend themselves, but let us not forget that children die in a variety of circumstances. The sudden and unexpected loss of a child is no less traumatic. When a parent loses their child in dramatic and sudden circumstances, they will have had no idea that the last time they saw their child would be the last time that they saw them alive. Then there is some horrific accident—perhaps a car accident or some other type of accident—and in a moment, families are destroyed by grief and the cruel random nature of events.

We need flexibility not just to allow parents to grieve in their own way in their own time, but, as the hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) said, to deal with a fatal accident inquiry, which is what would happen in Scotland, or a coroner’s inquiry in England. There may be a court case; perhaps even a trial. We have to consider all of those circumstances. There may be a significant gap between the loss of the child and the burial. There is a whole host of reasons why leave for bereaved parents must be flexible. If it is not, I fear that bereaved parents, whose employers—a small minority of them—are not as sympathetic as they might be, may face losing their jobs as well as losing their child. Bereaved parents must have the full protection of the law. I urge the Minister to consider this carefully. I am sure that he will, because he is a reasonable fellow.

Amendments 24 and 25 seek to recognise that the loss of a son or daughter is traumatic and life-changing no matter how old, or what age, that son or daughter may be. I think 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 this Bill. I am sure that everyone in this House, and beyond it, would agree that losing a son or daughter aged 17 is a tragedy that should not and must not be treated differently from losing a son or daughter aged 19, 21, 23 or 25—we can pick whatever age we like.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I pay tribute to the hard work that my hon. Friend has put into this Bill and the passion with which she is speaking. She has had very personal experiences that have led to her commitment to taking all this forward.

This amendment is important because the relationship between parents and their offspring is changing. Nowadays, children may go back to live with their parents at much later ages—indeed, well into their adult lives—due to a range of changing societal circumstances. Those wider societal changes make the amendment much more important and relevant to the modern world. I hope that the Minister will consider that.

[Patricia Gibson]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We have to bear it in mind that the relationship between a parent and a child, even as the child grows up and becomes an adult themselves, is rather special. As he says, the traditional picture of young people growing up and moving out is no longer borne out in the statistics, for a variety of reasons. The relationship of parents and children living in the same house has to be recognised at any age, but also even when they are not living in the same house.

I understand why the Government have put this into the Bill, but drawing the line at the age of 18 when we are talking about the death of a child appears to me to be quite random and artificial. I do not think that such a distinction is appropriate in the context of the loss of a son or daughter. Loss is loss, whether or not someone’s son or daughter is their dependant. I ask the Minister and the whole House to keep it in mind that this Bill’s focus and starting point—we need only look at the title—is the bereaved parent, not the child. It is not about the circumstances of the age at which the child is lost—it is about protecting parents.

When a son or daughter is lost at an older age, the discussion—in relation to this Bill, at least—becomes more academic. As the hon. Member for Torbay pointed out, the older a parent is when they lose their son or daughter, the more likely it is that they will be retired anyway and will not need the protection of this Bill.