Lords Chamber

Monday 14th July 2025

(began 4 hours, 14 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
14:36
14:37
14:38
14:39
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:43
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:47
None Portrait Oral questions: Increasing rail freight by 75 per cent by 2050
-

Second Oral Question. standing in my name on the Order Paper. Paper.
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:49
14:49
14:50
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:58
None Portrait Oral questions: Potential benefits of a tourism levy to alleviate funding pressures facing seaside and coastal communities
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

government is determined to allow that to happen. Third Oral Question.
14:58
14:58
14:58
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:19
15:21
None Portrait Business of the House
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Message Message from Message from the Message from the Commons Message from the Commons that they have passed the rare cancers bill, the secure 16 to 19 academy spell and the Unauthorised Entry To Football Matches Bill, to which they desire the agreement of your

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lordships. -- Rare Cancers Bill. I beg to move that this Bill now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that this Bill now be read a first time. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, say, "Content". Of the contrary,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

"Not content". The contents have it. 16 to 19 academies Bill, I beg to move that this Bill now be read a first time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

first time. Question is that this Bill now be read a first time. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Unauthorised Entry To Football Matches Bill, I beg to move that this Bill now be read a first time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this Bill now be read a first time. The question is that this Bill now be read a first time. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". Of the contrary, "Not content". Amivantamab. Questions on an answer to an urgent question asked in the House of Commons... Questions on an House of Commons... Questions on an answer to an urgent question asked in the House of Commons on Wednesday
15:22
None Portrait Urgent Question Repeat: Plans to restrict trial by jury through the creation of a Crown Court Bench Division and related sentencing changes
-

in the House of Commons on Wednesday ninth July, on the restriction of trial by jury through the creation of a Crown Court bench division and related sentencing changes.
15:22
15:22
15:24
15:24
15:26
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:32
15:33
Lord Goddard of Stockport Portrait Lord Goddard of Stockport (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I I welcome I welcome the I welcome the opportunity I welcome the opportunity to I welcome the opportunity to open this debate in the group and I intend to be brief as its report intend to be brief as its report stage. Let me begin by saying it's a clear cross party agreement that zero hours contracts must come to an zero hours contracts must come to an end. We in these benches unequivocally believe in the need to address the exploitive nature of address the exploitive nature of zero hours contracts which leads to many workers in precarious employment circumstances.

Our amendment reflects that shared objective while offering more objective while offering more practical and balanced view. The amendment changes legislation from an obligation to offer guaranteed hours to a right to request them. hours to a right to request them. Furthermore it maintains that when Furthermore it maintains that when it's made -- a request is made, the employer must granted. This allows employer must granted. This allows them to have guaranteed hours if they wish whilst enabling them to make the personal choice. At the same time it reduces the same time it reduces the administrative burden on employees, especially a sector which allows for flexibility.

Whilst we recognise flexibility. Whilst we recognise some hours do not want precarious zero hours contracts, they should not come at the expense of sectors were flexibility is essential. Many workers are content with those arrangements. This balances security for workers with necessary flexibility for employees in sectors which rely on flexibility. These include seasonal, tourist related workers, agricultural workers, hospitality, retail, theatre and other industries where work is inherently dynamic and demands fluctuate. The amendment ensures the new provisions are adaptable enough to function effectively across all those employment settings.

At Committee stage, members of the House raised concerns about what would happen if a request for guarantees are denied. Let me be clear, if this amendment, if the worker makes a formal request, the employer must make a guaranteed hours offer. It shows that all workers who want greater certainty are in power to secure it. At the same time, it avoids placing universal obligation on all employers to offer guaranteed hours in every instance which could place undue strain on the sectors that rely on that flexible staffing model.

In doing so it delivers a fair workable solution that reflects the rights of workers while acknowledging these industries. We also recognise the government made atonement -- its own amendment since Committee stage. In particular how new obligations will provide... These changes will help in the framework is clear, it is consistent and better understood by all lords affected. That said, the government is asking for industry and business who supports is vital for this to prepare for ultimately to comply with these provisions for the wider act without providing any details such as guaranteed hours or other key elements.

This is a lack of clarity that seems to run throughout this bill which makes it challenging for employers and workers to understand the rights and obligations that they have. Hindering effective implementation and planning is not acceptable. Such clarification particularly for reference. For guaranteed hours are critical if the industry is expected to prepare. We in these benches have raised concerns about the bill about the uncertainty caused by leaving key details. While we agree that some flexibility is needed, it is how it's implemented.

We believe clearer rules in the bill itself on the face will help worker and employer better prepare for the challenge. I wish to reiterate as I said at the beginning, we fully recognise the damage exploitative hours can cause, however addressing this issue must not cause --, at the effect... Our amendment seeks a fair balance protecting workers from balance protecting workers from being exploited while preserving the flexibility for crucial industries to function. I look forward to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister's response and I beg to move. Amendment proposed, clause 1, page 2, line 9, at the beginning insert if requested by an employee.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

insert if requested by an employee. I would just like to make a very brief comment on the First Amendment which replaces the right to have
15:38
Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill Portrait Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Labour)
-
-
guaranteed hours with the right to request. I very much fear that it undermines the purpose of the bill which is trying to deal with the problem of zero hours contracts for employees do not have predictability in their hours. I appreciate that the desire of the amendment is to reduce the burden of employers in working out the guaranteed hours would be only to find that an employee declines the offer. However, I don't think that is something that is likely to happen very often.

Obviously it is impossible to know what proportion of employees would turn down such an offer, but what we do know from surveys and most recently from a pole that TUC did last year, is that the majority of workers on zero hours contracts, consistently say that they would prefer to have guaranteed hours. It is very unlikely that large numbers of them would turn down an offer once it has been made. Perhaps more seriously, what the amendment doesn't take account of is the imbalance of power in workplaces.

And the characteristics of employees who are working on zero hours contracts. The latest figures from LNS tell us the zero hours contract workers are much more likely to be young, they are much more likely to be working in elementary occupations, they are much more likely to be working part-time and they are much more likely to be working in low-paid sectors. These are the least empowered workers in the workforce. They are unlikely to understand their rights, even if the employer has complied with the requirement to find information.

They are the least likely to be represented by a union and they are the least likely to know how to exercise their rights. The right to request guaranteed hours in those circumstances is not a real right at all. How many of those workers, vulnerable as they are, might come under pressure not to press for guaranteed hours? The vast majority of employers do right by their employees, but many do not. This formulation of the amendment leaves open the path some of those worst employers to ensure they don't end up offering guaranteed hours to workers on zero hours contracts.

So I don't think that the amendment does the intention to serve these workers any favours at all.
15:42
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
I rise to support all the amendments in this group, but actually especially amendment one. As we start report stage and also the first of several groups focusing on zero hours contracts, I just want to emphasise why getting the wording in balance in this part of the bill is important for both proportionality and to avoid unintended consequences. Many of us were originally supportive of this bill's commitment to tackle the rise and rise of zero hours contracts, especially in retail or hospitality.

Certainly tackling the way these have been used in an exploitative way is welcome. In the course of committee, the government acknowledged that they needs to be the offer of some flexibility and that is what certain cohorts of workers want. Relating to amendment one, the TUC's briefing on this bill complains that the vast majority who ask for guaranteed hours are turned it down. Surely the point of amendment one is the requirement that they will not be turned down that they will not be turned down and that actually the -- what is actually happening here is that there is a shift of the right to request guaranteed hours on the rights of the employee.

I thought what will be in the bill. I'm not sure how helpful it is that some in trade union circles and government circles I raise recently that this is on the side of bad bosses on zero hours contracts in fire, rehire. We are here to make law, not headlines. Law means accepting that the devil is indeed in the detail. The government knows there are lots of worries about unresolved aspects of this bill, indeed, Jonathan Reynolds, the Business Secretary, cited in the FT recently, assures us he is absolutely certain of addressing businesses concerns and he says either over statutory probation.

For this group of amendments that there is more than enough room to reach an amendment on guaranteed hours. To quote, he says, I have to have the bill passed before we go into implementation. I suggest that is the wrong way around. If there is more than enough room to reach agreement on things like guaranteed hours, then let's put this on the face of the bill. In other words, the amendments in this group are trying to pin down how a new right to guaranteed hours should be framed and regulations.

I think it brings clarity that these amendments are meant to help the government because I am worried that too many important details are being kicked down the road, hence avoiding democratic debates and scrutiny. But also creating a real mood of uncertainty amongst employers, and we have had warnings from business
15:48
15:52
15:57
16:07
16:12
16:15
16:27
16:29
None Portrait Deputy Lord Speaker. Viscount Colville of Culross (Crossbench)
-

16:29
None Portrait
-

16:29
None Portrait Legislation: Employment Rights Bill – report stage Amendment 1: Division.
-

16:41
16:41
None Portrait Amendment:10 Lord Goddard of Stockport (Liberal Democrat)
-

16:44
16:46
16:52
None Portrait Government Spokes. Lord Leong (Labour)
-

16:57
16:59
None Portrait Deputy Lord Speaker. Viscount Colville of Culross (Crossbench)
-

16:59
None Portrait Legislation: Employment Rights Bill – report stage :Amendment 10: Division.
-

Questionnaires Questionnaires Amendment Questionnaires Amendment 10 Questionnaires Amendment 10 is screechy. -- The question is. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The Contents will go to the right by the throne, the Not-

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that Amendment The question is that Amendment 10 They They have They have voted They have voted content, They have voted content, 267. They have voted content, 267. Not- contents, 153.

The "Not Contents" have it. -- The "Contents" have it. The "Not Contents" have it. -- The I I understand I understand it's I understand it's been I understand it's been agreed I understand it's been agreed that amendment 11 is consequential upon Amendment 10. The question therefore is that amendment 11 is agree to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have it. In schedule one, amendments 12 through 20 inclusive which have all been previously debated, Baroness Jones moved formally.

The question is that amendment 12 through 20 are agree to unblock. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have it. Amendment 21 Baroness Jones moved formally. Amendment proposed, in schedule one insert the words as printed on the marshalled List. As an amendment to 120 amendment 121 Baroness Noakes. Not moved. The question is that amendment 21 is agree to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content".

The "Contents" have it. Amendment 23 Baroness Jones moved formally. The question is that amendment 23 is agree to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have it. In clause 5 amendment 24 Lord Sharpe of Epsom.
17:10
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak to members 24 and 25 standing in my name and that of Lord Hunt. Amendment 24 ensures that for the purposes of this chapter agreements made with independent Employer Representative Bodies or stop associations where they are formally constituted and operate independently may be treated as equivalent to collective agreements. As we highlighted during committee, the government appears to hold an implicit bias in favour of trade unions as though they are the only legitimate body is capable of making rational decisions on behalf of workers.

This is clearly not the case one needs only to look at the chaos of the Birmingham bin strikes see that unions are not always acting the best interests of employees nor are they always representative of them. During the committee stage Baroness O'Grady remarked during the debate on clause 5 that and I quote, the whole point of trade union is that it is a democratic organisation of working people. If that is so then surely workers should be free to choose whether to be represented by union or by another independent body, because that's the essence of workplace democracy, choice.

If the noble Baroness and the government were committed to democratic representation I wonder whether she also supports government proposals to remove the 50% ballot threshold for strike action, a move which clearly undermines democratic standards rather than upholding them. On amendment 25 the law must have no gaps, no shadows and no hiding places. Where the old habits of industrial bullying can take root and flourish. Every loophole we leave open becomes a wound in the body politic of free employment. Every ambiguity we permit becomes a tool for those who return the noble art of collective bargaining into a weapon of exclusion.

That's why rights to speak in support of this amendment and wired to government not to dismiss it on the tired grounds that closed shops are already unlawful. Yes clothes chops are illegal on paper but were not here to legislate for the perfect world the statutory textbooks, we are to legislate the real world. In the real world pressure to join a union can exist. This amendment Sibley state what most of us would regard as common sense. That no worker should be treated differently under a collective agreement based It prohibits making membership a condition for the agreement terms to apply, it bans imposing any disadvantage on nonmembers and prevents contract terms being automatically imported purely because someone happens to hold a union card.

In other words it restores balance. It ensures the collective agreements function as they ought to as a negotiated protection to the workforce, not as a gatekeeping tool for union organisers. It doesn't therefore we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

can unions, it strengthens fairness. Amendment proposed clause 5 page 31 line 36 at the end insert the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

31 line 36 at the end insert the words printed on the marshalled List. I rise to briefly speak to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to briefly speak to amendment 25 in the name of Lord amendment 25 in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I like to reiterate Sharpe of Epsom. I like to reiterate the key point he raised which is
17:13
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
that the imperative is to make it clear that closed shop is not coming back. And that the government is committed to free bargaining but fair bargaining. Let's remember that closed shop has never actually been that popular. In United States the Taft Hartley act 1947 outlawed the closed shop and in the UK even before I was born in 1964 the rooks vs barnyard case involving British overseas aircraft Corporation became -- began the fightback against the close shop when that organisation sacked worker refused to join a trade union.

As noble Lords will know the trade unions the clothes chops was made illegal effectively by the 1990 employment in the 1992 trade union labour relations Consolidation act. I think the fact that we accept that the closed shop is damaging and an anachronism is as much as anything a reflection of the different working regimes that the 30 million or 40 million people in this country who are working people potentially working people existing, because the closed shop was very much of a time when manufacturing and heavy manufacturing, manual labour, heavily unionised workforce was very prevalent and that is now very different, we live in a working environment, particularly young people we have a much more modern, diverse, dynamic and disaggregated labour market where the closed shop is a throwback and an anachronism.

There are good reasons why is important to put on the face of primary legislation that even this government, which is legislating in a very negative way which will cost jobs and opportunities and force people not to hire workers, even they will not go back to the bad old days of the 1970s and institute a closed shop. There were good reasons. Labour market flexibility is reduced by the close shop, the capacity of employers to employ the best qualified candidates regardless of union membership, that inevitably leads to misallocation of labour resources, hire business costs higher prices and therefore ipso Also is an offence of court against freedom of conscience.

And that has been established over many years. But we are getting into the issue of compelled speech and the rights of association and my Noble Friend Lord Sharpe did allude to that and I am not saying this is common and I not saying this is universal, but, of course, there are examples of bullying, abuse, by union officials. And actually with a closed shop you have a much more restrictive and exclusionary regime in terms of people in the workplace and the workforce.

That it means that those union officials would be less responsive if they know that everyone has to be a member and people do not have a free choice to join a union. And I actually speak going back to amendment 24 I spoke with someone that was it member of the staff union which is a small staff association doing a fantastic job for me in somewhat tricky circumstances many years ago. And the point being that you do not have to be a big union like Unite, Prospect, or any of those other unions in order to deliver demonstrable benefits for your membership.

Obviously, also, with the closed shop potentially having an impact on innovation. And I not saying that collective solidarity is not important. Because it is. And it is important that we continue to move forward, but that cannot be at the expense of individual rights and individual performance and merit- based advancement and, I believe, that closed shopping is against that, so I will finish by saying that the German example, Germany exists very successfully on not having a closed shop system, and having a system of works councils of collaborative work between employers and employees and a number of voluntary unions, and therefore overall of those reasons I think it is absolutely vital that we explicitly, emphatically, throughout the closed shop.

This is the next amendment and I do hope that in the spirit we have seen this afternoon of collaboration and support across parties that our friends on the Liberal Democrats bench may support us as well because closed shop is not popular with any of filters, actually, and certainly not popular with Liberal Democrat voters, so I hope that they could see, perhaps, a way to support this amendment which is very sensible, does not undermine the bill, and that I believe stands up to the scrutiny and IM happy to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support amendment 24 and 25. I rise briefly to support amendment 25 particularly, that I amendment 25 particularly, that I support 24 as well. And this is about the freedom to be represented
17:19
Baroness Lawlor Portrait Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-
about the freedom to be represented by people who represent you and who are representative of your stance. 22% of employees in this country, only 22%, belong to a trade union, so surely it is right as my Noble Friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt proposed that a relative collective agreement for the purposes of clause 5 will be invalid unless it is open to being struck with a body which is independent of a trade union and which is not just a trade union.

Given that many workplaces, particularly small businesses, do not have a trade union representative, that people themselves are, 80% of our workers, themselves are, 80% of our workers, our employees, 80% of them do not belong to a trade union. There really is not any case in terms of freedom to restrict who should condone the collective bargaining and I think it is very important to send a signal that we believe in a free workforce and we respect the freedom of working people to join or not to join a trade union.

And I particularly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I put assistance to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I put assistance to the Noble Lord shop and his explanation for a man mince 24 and 25. And I note that these are similar to the note that these are similar to the amendments he tabled at Committee stage but with some of the safeguards and requirements removed. Whilst I respect the noble Lords views in these areas, I do feel this is going in the wrong direction. Staff associations and employee Staff associations and employee representative bodies can of course be a very positive move for staff and employers to engage, however we are not convinced the other suitable vehicle for deciding whether to modify or opt out of statutory employment rights.

While many maintain a good balance between positive engagement and constructive challenge, we are not persuaded that there will, in all cases, argue as there will, in all cases, argue as requested on behalf of of as a trade union ward and in addition without a trade union representative workers will not have as many protections if will not have as many protections if their employer does not deliver on this benefit and I have to say that this benefit and I have to say that this is nothing to do with the closed shop or industrial bullying but under the proposals that but under the proposals that employees will continue to have the right to be a member of a trade
17:23
17:23
17:23
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
made by trade unions that have been And certified as independent. And I would encourage any staff associations or employee representative body that wants to negotiate on behalf of its members negotiate on behalf of its members to register as a trade union and go through the steps to obtain a certificate of independence from the Certification Officer. The second part of the noble Lords amendment sets out to relevant collective agreement shall not be treated as valid if it meets condition such as imposing detriment or disadvantaged imposing detriment or disadvantaged on the worker who is not a member of on the worker who is not a member of a trade union and terms being corporate into workers contract corporate into workers contract solely by reason of union membership status.

We believe that these provisions are unnecessary, the trade union and relations Consolidation act 1992 already Consolidation act 1992 already provide sufficient protection by ensuring that workers cannot be ensuring that workers cannot be subject to detriment for the purpose of compelling them to join a trade union. Furthermore, the application union. Furthermore, the application of the terms of collective agreement to work generally depends on that willing cooperation of those into the workers contracts, either expressly or by implication, in line with well established contract law, rather than on the basis of trade union membership.

If I now turn to in my name amendments 26 and 27, currently when the terms of the collective agreements is to be incorporated the workers initial reference period and initial information. Recommences the next day, however in some cases there could be quite a gap between these and the work on XP employed by the employer to work. We had the strength of feeling around business burden and committee and where it is possible to make tweaks we will do so.

In this case, we believe it makes more sense for the reference. To start and extend the worker is employed by the employer. This avoids businesses having to consider making a guaranteed before it is sensible and necessary to do so. We are also tabling a minor technical amendment to section 27 before it is are also tabling a minor technical amendment to section 20 7DY8 before it is sensible and necessary to do so. We are also tabling a minor technical amendment to section 20 7DY82 reflect that the duty relating to the information right in the existing provisions will be on agencies to inform potential eligible agency holders about the writer guaranteed hours in any relevant information..

Turning finally to amendment 27, this amendment ensures that the zero hours measures in the bill apply as appropriate to special categories. This file is a long-standing precedent that these workers should be treated as distinct as they do not have atypical employment relationship or undertaking any type of work. In line with this precedent, the amendment ensures that the House of Commons and all that the House of Commons and all staff grant employees benefit from the protections the bill provides on zero hours.

It also ensures that duties made under the provisions of the bill do not apply where this would not be appropriate, merely in relation to service personnel at the Armed Forces and police officers, I'd ever ask the Noble Lord to withdraw amendment 24 and big to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move amendment 26 and 27. Firstly, I would like to thank my
17:25
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Firstly, I would like to thank my Noble Friend is Lord Jackson and Baroness Lawlor for their comments. Employee representation must be plural and not monopolised by trade unions. There are many places where independent staff associations are trusted and effective. These organisations are not less than the support unions, in fact there often less politicised and more flexible in resolving workplace issues and yet, disappointingly, the Noble Lady the Minister says they are not suitable. The idea that only the union can be trusted in negotiating terms is a fiction and we just have to look at Birmingham to see the results of that belief.

This amendment simply recognises reality that employee voices come in many forms of shutting out a judgement associations and secondly and just as crucially we cannot allow this legislation to leave space for any form of closed shop, not in the name of practice. It is true of course that compulsory union membership is already unlawful, as the noble Baroness the Minister pointed out, but this amendment ensures there are no backdoors also do not think the law should have any ambiguity on this, no agreement should've imposing detriment on the workers simply because they choose not to join a union and as my Noble Friend pointed out, that Georgie choose not to join the union, in fact the private sector at think the number is 87.7% that choose not to join a union.

No term should be granted only by virtue of membership. That is not freedom, that is coercion. So, we see again, collective farming should not become collective exclusion. These amendments uphold freedom of association in both directions, the right to join and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the right not to but for now I beg leave to withdraw. Is at your Lordships pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at your Lordships pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. 25, Lord Sharpe, not withdrawn. 25, Lord Sharpe, not moved. Amendment 26 and 27. moved. Amendment 26 and 27. Amendment 26 in clause 5. Baroness Jones, moved formally. The question Jones, moved formally. The question is that amendment 20 6B agreed to, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", to the contrary Of the contrary, "Not content", in schedule contrary, "Not content", in schedule contrary, "Not content", in schedule two, amendment 27, Baroness Jones, moved formally.

The question is that amendment 20 7B agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, as are of that opinion, say, "Content", of the Of the contrary,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

"Content", of the Of the contrary, "No", Lord Sharpe. My Lords, amendment 28 simply

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, amendment 28 simply asks for a degree of common sense. asks for a degree of common sense. It preserves a minimum one day waiting period for Statutory Sick
17:28
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
waiting period for Statutory Sick Pay by lowering the qualifying threshold from four days to two rather than removing the threshold entirely, as the Government now proposes. Well, we have heard a great deal from the benches opposite about employers and, indeed, there are some, but the Government must also acknowledge the other side of the coin. Just as some employers abuse the system, so to do some employees. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous and undermines the credibility of the entire framework.

In fact, before the Governments recent and embarrassing U-turn on the benefits reform, Ministers rightly spoke about the perverse incentives created by aspects of the welfare system. The logic there was sound and the same logic applies here. If you remove all barriers to claiming Statutory Sick Pay, even for a single day, you do so without checks or balances, you are creating a system that is not only vulnerable to abuse, but one that risks becoming a disincentive to return to work.

Let me be absolutely clear, work. Let me be absolutely clear, this is not about people that are genuinely unwell, it is about preserving the integrity of Statutory Sick Pay. So that it remains sustainable, trusted, and workable for businesses, particularly small ones. One day waiting period is a modest safeguard. Not a punishment. It would discourage spurious claims and uphold personal responsibility and give smaller employers a fighting chance in a tight and unpredictable I also want to raise a specific concern regarding agency work and Statutory Sick Pay abuse.

Which was addressed to some extent in a recent letter from the noble Baroness the Minister for which we are very grateful indeed. Whilst we appreciate the clarification of it, the current drafting of the bill and indeed of paragraph 2F of schedule 11 to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 does not fully address the issue. Let me clarify. The problem is not with legitimate Statutory Sick Pay claims from individuals working multiple jobs, it is with the lack of safeguards that would allow a worker to first go off sick with one employer and begin receiving Statutory Sick Pay.

Then start working for another employer while still drawing Statutory Sick Pay. And then potentially repeat this behaviour with others. There is no proper oversight mechanism. No way to cross-reference national insurance numbers across employers might no effective way to prevent simultaneous claims for Statutory Sick Pay. This is I believe a serious loophole, and one with real financial implications, particularly for the agency sector and for smaller businesses already struggling to absorb rising costs. Even retaining short waiting period, specifically for agency work, would be a minimal step that helps reduce opportunity for abuse whilst ensuring the system remains targeted at genuine need.

Turning now to amendment 29 which stands in my name and the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, seeks to introduce a very simple principle. Where an employer, already provides a contractual sick pay scheme that
17:34
None Portrait Amendment:28 Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-

pays at least 80% of normal weekly earnings, they should be exempt from the Statutory Sick Pay provisions introduced by this bill. The reason for this is straightforward. We must acknowledge that the costs of these new sick pay provisions will fall disproportionately on small and micro businesses. Those least equipped to absorb them. Yet paradoxically the bill would also apply these requirements to employers who already go above and beyond voluntarily and supporting their staff through illness.

According to the latest figures, 27% According to the latest figures, 27% of businesses already offer generous contractual sick pay arrangements, contractual sick pay arrangements, many of them paying far more than the statutory minimum. These are overwhelmingly medium and large businesses who provide such schemes in response to competition. And there is huge competition for talent, for attention and for reputation. That's how good employment standards should develop. Through innovation and market competition. Yet what this bill proposes is a levelling down, sweeping in companies already providing 90% or even 100 sent pay -- 100% pay and subjecting them to unnecessary bureaucracy as though the government knows better than the employer and employee what is fair and workable.

I feel it is deeply ironic that in its eagerness to legislate for protection, the government is undermining precisely the competitive mechanisms that have driven better employment practices in the first place. Competition raises standards, compulsion often
17:36
17:36
Baroness Noakes Portrait Baroness Noakes (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support amendment 28 which has been so well moved by Lord which has been so well moved by Lord Hunt of Wirral. My main problem with the statutory sick pay clauses in this bill is that the government are proceeding without a reliable evidence-based. The government do not collect data on sick leave taken by employees. Instead they relied on some modelling by that apartment for working and that modelling in turn rests on some surveys which are carried out by the DWP.

Those surveys have some problems which the DWP themselves own up to in terms of statistical quality. The Office for National Statistics also published some data on sickness absence, these data are labelled statistics in the course of development. We all know that the ONS currently has major problems with its labour market statistics. Nevertheless the government have used these data and made some challengeable assumptions of their own such as there will be no increase in sickness days taken off if the changes in clauses 10 to 14 go ahead.

They come up with an additional cost to business of £420 million. For which they then calculate as £50 per employee. I do not think that £15 -- £15. That passes the commonsense test, it implies that employers will bear the cost of not much more than an extra half a day of Statutory Sick Pay at the rate that specified in this bill. Part of the problem is that the government's calculations average those costs over 24 million employees which is roughly the size of the hole arrive at sector workforce.

Within that nearly one half of employees are employed in large businesses, many of which have their own sick pay arrangements and do not rely on the Statutory Sick Pay arrangements which Lord Hunt outlined. I tried to find the complete set of costs for small and complete set of costs for small and micro businesses. It looks as if the smaller end of the scale of businesses are roughly double the amount per employee, but it's very difficult to type down because there is an incomplete dataset that is available in public.

The government's own assessment as my noble friend has orally pointed out has owned up to the fact these costs will disproportionately bear on small and micro businesses. Even if we double the £15 per employee to £30 per employee I'm not sure even that sounds like a realistic estimate of the costs that will fall on individual businesses. Because it amounts to just a bit over a day of Statutory Sick Pay at this new rate in the bill and that does not seem to me to make any sense at all.

I believe that the government should have done studies of current sickness patterns costs for the various businesses that are affected by these clauses before going ahead, in particular I believe that the cost to small and micro businesses should have been evaluated before the clauses were proceeded with. Because the only thing for sure that Because the only thing for sure that we know about these clauses is the impact on small and micro businesses will be disproportionately large. I do recognise however that the government would probably have gone ahead with it, with these provisions even if they had gold standard data and analysis and even if that analysis showed that the cost was 10 times the amount that the government currently had and that's the reason I support my noble friend's amendment 28 with A1 day waiting period and a qualifying threshold of two days.

Because that would go some way to reducing the impact on smaller firms. Survey data shows that nearly 60% of sickness absences are accounted for by one or two days. This small change in my noble friend's amendment could have a major impact both in the financial impact on the businesses, but also in the bureaucratic burdens that they would have to bear. I also support amendment 30 which would reintroduce a Statutory Sick Pay scheme. I would have confined it to small and micro businesses because I think that's where the greatest harm is, but in this uncertain economic environment with costs being piled on businesses in all directions businesses deserve protection from the government's policies and for that reason I also support amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

30. I rise to support amendment 30

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support amendment 30 which was tabled by Lord Goddard of Stockport and it builds on something Stockport and it builds on something I raised in committee. I've been asked to do a statement for the asked to do a statement for the COVID enquiry regarding economic response so I started going through a variety of notes from five years a variety of notes from five years ago and one of the most successful things we did was to try and make things we did was to try and make sure that Statutory Sick Pay that we supported employers in that deployment of it by making sure deployment of it by making sure people could stay-at-home and not be spreading coronavirus at work.

For spreading coronavirus at work. For me that reinforced something that was obviously made sense of the country as a whole in terms of public health but also that it was public health but also that it was fair. It was fair to businesses that while the country was being asked to do something they were being asked do something they were being asked to do something as employers it was fair that the government helped with the cost of doing that. One of the the cost of doing that.

One of the things in this entire debate is all about the Fair Work Agency, about about the Fair Work Agency, about this is fairer for employees, apparently it will be fairer for employers, but actually I do recall, I don't want to repeat exactly what I said before on this, I do recall when they used to be in debate to try and recognise that this was the bare minimum by the way of course many employers pay a lot more than Statutory Sick Pay rates. It was that co-working in terms of recognising the people do believe they should be continue to pay when they are off ill but also that the government has an interest in that as well.

That's why I was particularly keen to sign the amendment of 30, unconscious some of the details could be worked out fine a point, but also amendment 28 in the name of my noble friend on the frontbench. Of the variety of changes that are happening through this bill which I remind the House could have been done through Statutory Instrument, the move to Statutory Instrument, the move to one of these when it comes to Statutory Sick Pay for one day, from Statutory Sick Pay for one day, from day one really has come up time and time again with most of the employers that I have met or have employers that I have met or have heard from.

The impact is really worrying to kilolitre people in the hospitality sector and the retail hospitality sector and the retail sector and so on, I just feel this is a step backwards too far in terms of going straight to day one that's of going straight to day one that's why I'm supporting my friends in the frontbench.
17:44
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
In the evidence and analysis document the government very helpfully gave out to us last week, it notes that up to 1.3 million employees will get a new entitlement Statutory Sick Pay and that will increase the amount of sick pay workers received by around 400 million year and in many ways face value you can think this is very positive step forward. But actually in that same document brought up some cultural issues which I would just like the Minister to reflect on whether day one will help tackle them.

It notes that employers, sorry that stress and depression and anxiety accounted for 17.5 accounted for 17.5 million working days lost in 22/23, the equivalent of the loss of 5.2 billion in output per year. And I did wonder whether there is a danger that one of the unintended consequences of this move that the amendments are trying to counter day one sickness would be to encourage people to to easily see themselves as not fit for work and I wondered whether the Minister could answer that.

In the same document it says that measures to improve workers well-being will result in happier, healthier and more productive workers, that could be worth billions of pounds per year which seems rather far-fetched. One of the things it might mean is that people actually just more easily go on the sick. I don't mean because they are in any way shirkers, but because we are creating a culture where that is are creating a culture where that is Following on from the noble Baroness I thought that the points about lockdown was actually that we encouraged particularly young people to think that if they got the slightest hint of being ill that they should not go in to work and we somehow have created a situation in which whereby we have made it OK for people to not go to work and I just thought that one of the shocking statistics that came out recently in a different context.

Last year 63,000 students went straight from university onto long-term sickness benefit, and that number of 24 to 34-year-olds in capacity benefits has risen by 69% in five years. My concern is that young people are now being almost incorporated into imagining that they can't cope with going to work. I know the Government knows this because I have listened to both the debate on welfare reforms, I have listened to the Health Secretary who said very similar things. My question to the noble Baroness the Minister is say the Government is successful in encouraging those young people that are waiting and have potential, the encourage them, they get a job, they turn up at work and on day one they go back on the sea, so you get them off the sick and then you put them into a position where you say OK, you can go on the sick again.

It does not seem to me to be a rejoined upset of thinking. I just wondered if the Minister might comment on some of the unintended cultural consequences of something that looks like a good idea, but actually might be disastrous. be disastrous.
17:47
Lord Goddard of Stockport Portrait Lord Goddard of Stockport (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I would like to speak on the important topic of Statutory Sick Pay, particularly relating to amendments in this group and I thank the Baroness Coffey for signing the amendment. And I did listen to her very closely at committee stage and again to get a flavour of what I am about to say now because she does have an excellent overview on these matters and I think the House would listen and burn as noble thought her forensic examination that this should never be undermined, these are emotional but there are costs to anything that anybody does and it is important that we understand where that balance lies, so I will speak predominantly to amendment 30 in my name which is a probing amendment.

We recognise that there are challenges available to those with different obligations depending on business sizes, and for that reason we will intend to press on this amendment for a division, however this amendment highlights the importance of recognising the potential impact that this might have on small and medium-sized enterprises with the costs they incur through Statutory Sick Pay. SMEs from the backbone of our economy and it is essential the Government policy takes full account of the financial pressures the businesses face expanding Statutory Sick Pay is an important and welcome goal and must be done with careful consideration about the additional costs and how they look at the prospects of SMEs, that is why meaningful consultation with these businesses throughout the implementation process is critical.

The Government should act actively with SMEs to ensure their concerns are understood and addressed so that any changes to Statutory Sick Pay are substantial and do not inadvertently place unburdened dues on a very common business the very people that are trying to drive them. I would ask that minister to confirm that as the Government continues to conduct its thorough consultation as part of the implementation of this bill, it does so directly and in close alignment with small and medium-sized businesses, not during the passage of the bill but throughout its full implementation.

Could the Minister provide reassurance that SMEs voices will be heard and their concerns will be addressed as the policy is ruled out because it is only through partnership with the SME community that we can ensure the statutory sick basis is fair for workers as a for business and I look forward to the Minister's response. the Minister's response.
17:50
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this, so if we start with amendment 28 which looks at retaining the waiting period, the Government believes that removing the waiting period is essential in ensuring that all eligible employees get the time of work to recover that they require 106. That is what they committed to in the manifesto. This is particularly true for employees with long-term or fluctuating conditions that should feel able to take a day of sickness absence to manage their condition or to prevent it from worsening.

And I have to say that the Noble Lord hunt said that the one day waiting period that he was proposing should not be the punishment but I have to say that is exactly what it would be under the proposals before us here. It is also worth saying that on the 25% of all employees work receiving only Statutory Sick Pay and many are forced to choose between their health and a genuine financial hardship during the first three days of sickness while they are not paid.

And make a tangible difference in ensuring the safety of sick pay is available to those that need it most. I understand that the Noble Lord is concerned about the wider impact on the business in these changes but without the amendments in the waiting period many employees will be forced to continue to come into the workforce when, in the workplace, when they are sick. The pandemic exposed how damaging this can be for businesses for individuals with WPI Economics modelling telling us that this can lead up to 12% of the work was becoming sick from the illness of a single employee.

While businesses may benefit from the overall productivity which can also contribute to a positive work culture that helps recruit and maintain staff. Of course, as we debated before, employers will need to manage sickness absence as they do at the moment. And I did listen to the Noble Lady Baroness Fox on the cultural issues and I would say that yes, some of those things that she identifies are real issues and these are things we are addressing across Government and providing ministerial colleagues plan to do that, but that does not alter that in this bill at the time this makes good sense to the lowest paid and I would remind noble Lords that the additional cost of the business of Statutory Sick Pay performing annually, air £15 per employer, by the DWP and the do have a reasonable track record and I do not think that those figures should be dismissed.

Turning to amendment 29 which seeks to exempt employers from having to pay the rate outlined if there already provided contractual schemes based on 80% of normal weekly earnings. The rate of Statutory Sick Pay is set out in this bill is the lower of 80% for employers on weekly earnings or £118.75. This already means that no employer will have to pay more than 80% for the employees normal weekly earnings, therefore an employer already befitting 80% of employees weekly earnings would be compliant with the statutory minimum set out in this bill.

As such, I am unclear on the intended impact of unclear on the intended impact of this amendment on employers as the entitlement but if we now turn in the probing amendment as I mentioned the changes we are making to Statutory Sick Pay will cost businesses around £15 per employee cost of this relatively modest amount with the costs of up to 600 million per yer for the sick pay at SMEs. And I accept the amendments that it this will depend on the complexity of the scheme.

However, we do have experience with these schemes and we previously delivered sick pay to those such as the percentage thresholds in the scheme and a review found that employers under used it and found it was complex and time-consuming to administer. Any system that maximises opportunity which I envisage would be that noble Lords intent of this amendment would collectively be costly for the taxpayer as well. Whereas the cost saving for individual employers is small and new administrative burden would be placed on them.

Previously schemes did not incentivise employers to support their employees back to work or invest in their employers health and well-being. This, in turn, can affect overall productivity and staff retention and we know that employers have responsibility for paying six pay and that maintains a strong link between the workplace and employee with workers encouraged to return to work when they are able and this I would also like to add that the Government have asked them to lead the keep Britain working review which will consider additions and how employers and the Government can work together to promote healthy workplaces and a final report with recommendations is expected in the autumn.

I therefore do not believe that a rebate scheme is the best way to support our SMEs at this time and in response to the Noble Lord Goddard of course we are continuing to hand dial with SMEs and take their concerns very seriously at this time, I therefore ask the Noble Lord shop and Lord Goddard to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw their amendment. I would like to thank all noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. And I am particularly this debate. And I am particularly grateful to my Noble Friend for reminding us all that one of the reminding us all that one of the great difficulties we have in great difficulties we have in debating a subject like this is the lack of a reliable space and that is lack of a reliable space and that is particularly relevant to the debate on these amendments.

And I also on these amendments. And I also found that the local baroness, quite found that the local baroness, quite rightly, drew our attention to the rightly, drew our attention to the unintended cultural issues which have poured so much into the noble Baroness the Minister having just Baroness the Minister having just referred to. But I do remain wholly unconvinced by the noble Baroness the Minister's response when the Minister's response when debating the removal of the waiting period for Statutory Sick Pay.

I just think that to remove any waiting period at all to introduce a day one entitlement without qualification is not just a step too far but an unnecessary one, having at least one waiting day does not undermine the government's stated intentions to support those who are genuinely unwell. It is a modest safeguard and one that reflects the balance they claim to seek. It's removal creates perverse incentives at a time when we should be doing all that we can to encourage people back into work.

And on the issue of agency work and Statutory Sick Pay I must say the Ministers response is equally unconvincing, and I did try to outline the scenario where individuals go off sick and then begin new assignments on continuing to receive sick pay from another employer and I do not believe the noble Baroness to minister could quickly address that point. And may I suggest to her that we ought to put our heads together and try and find another solution.

And I just think having listened carefully to the systemwide mechanism possibly administered by HMRC to cross check
18:00
18:01
18:02
18:02
18:02
None Portrait Amendment:31 Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (Liberal Democrat)
-

protections for kinship carers. It is long overdue that we legally recognise and reward the grandparents, the aunts, the uncles grandparents, the aunts, the uncles and other relatives who step in as and other relatives who step in as carers. Over 130,000 children in the carers. Over 130,000 children in the UK are in kinship care amazingly, three times the number that are in foster care. When family crises occur and they do occur, it is often kinship carers who step up to the plate preventing from being swept up into the formal care system.

The amendment 31 and 32 would allow families a breathing space in order to adjust and most importantly support the well-being of the child. Supported kinship care is cost- effective by reducing on an over tasked care system for is time to be compassionate for everyone's long- term benefit. I may well ask vote on this at the end. I would also like in this group to look at the government's amendment 34 which extends bereavement to include pregnancy loss. This amendment I will commend to the House.

Amendment 97 which we are not debating, not voting on now because has been the group in the name of Baroness Grey- Thompson gives a statutory right for paid leave for working parents who are forced to stop working to care for critically ill child over 28 days old. And described as Hughes law of the one he suffered in this way. I commend this amendment which will get you when it gets to its place in the grouping but it was originally in the section.

I now turn to to another amendments in my name, amendment 104, which is statutory carers leave. We are a great deal to unpaid carers who are the backbone of our society. Their support is worth a staggering £184 million a year to older, ill or disabled relatives or friends, support without which society would collapse. The reality is however this comes at a cost to them, around 600 per day give up work to care. 1.2 million face poverty and financial hardship research shows that the majority do not have a choice about caring because there are no terraces available.

Employers are losing skill labour every day because of caring. And the cost to their productivity. Some small employers which we spent a lot of time talking about losing skill workers can have an even bigger impact this amendment in my name provides the government to -- requires the government to publish data for employers particularly small employers. There is insufficient social care to plug the gap. Supporting carers sustain employment is cost-effective and many carers have told Carers UK they want to stay in work.

Polling carried out by Carers UK found that 80 8% of unpaid carers of working age said they needed paid carers leave the amendment we brought forward at committee has been refined for the better. Having received comments from the Minister that the original drafting old -- aligned the entitlements with statutory carers leave pay with other similar statutory entitlements. However very modest and would reflect critical step forward for unpaid carers. The modest entitlement would normally only be up to five days of paid leave, described as a week and a week may be described as up to five days.

Which is what is set out in the carers leave government can set the statutory rate of pay, the rate of statutory pay which again it could decide at what rate this assert. The estimated cost of statutory power carers leave based on Carers UK estimates are between £5,000,000.30 £2 million per annum and this is based on actual take-up rates of carers leave with employers. Centrica has two weeks of paid carers leave full pay but a further two weeks of matched leave. In Carers UK report, just 3.4 days are taken on average by employees as carers leave.

Government estimate of the cost of carers inability to work the cost of carers inability to work is £37 billion, the personal cost is even greater if carers have to give up work as they do in order to care. In advance of this bill Carers UK have been talking to carers about what paid carers leave would mean. One carer who is a bus driver has not had a holiday in seven years because of caring. He takes annual leave first because it's paid, then unpaid leave if he has to.

Work is extremely important to him and he says it keeps him going but he says it's hard caring for two people without a break. He has been to his counsel and he doesn't get much support. He is still waiting because the more trained care workers his son needs are not available. Another carer who works in the NHS is struggling to work in care, but he doesn't have paid carers leave. This leaves her burnt out and exhausted and she has to take her annual leave.

We cannot afford to lose valuable NHS staff as a result of providing unpaid carers. Paid carers leave is vital for those who cannot afford to take unpaid leave. What hope can the government give to people like this who juggle every day who need to support -- support like paid carers leave to care and keep working. Will the government go one step further to commit to building on the Carers Leave Act 2023 and introduce paid carers leave? Given that parental leave review has been published for consultation and engagement, can the Minister tell, and the House, what is the government message to unpaid carers and review of carers leave? Well the objectives and timetable be published, will the report and engagement be published? The carers are a valuable resource, they are not appreciated and it's time we in this House started appreciating
18:09
None Portrait Deputy Lord Speaker. Baroness Bull (Crossbench)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

them. I beg to move. Amendment proposed, article 17
18:09
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, article 17 insert the new clause is printed on the marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to the two amendments I have tabled and I will amendments I have tabled and I will start by saying the loss of Eddie's potential child is a massive grief I understand entirely why this bill has been brought forward. It was the Mr Wright honourable friend Jeremy Hunt to commission the independent review into pregnancy loss several years ago in a variety of actions have taken place including particularly thinking people with miscarriages because by law a stillbirth is anything from 24 weeks onwards, being able to register and effectively have a birth certificate in the same way for people who lose their foetus after 24 weeks was a good thing to do.

The reason for me standing today is to try and get some clarity from the government on what it is they are actually proposing. If this specific mentioned miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy or polar pregnancy I would not be standing up today although I would like to get some understanding for a amendment 35. Perhaps I will start with that first. I would be very grateful to the Minister to explain on amendment 34 what three AB is. The employee satisfies specified conditions as to relationship with a person who has suffered a pregnancy loss or child expected to be born had a pregnancy loss specified kind not occurred.

It would be useful to understand from the Minister why it's not been put on the face of the bill who this is expected to extend to, I don't know if it's the father, I don't know if it's a donor, I don't know if it's a sibling, I don't know if it's a grandmother, grandfather and so on. It would be useful to get a sense from the government that in this difficult time I completely understand why we want, they want to extend the bereavement for this very difficult moment and it isn't just the mother but it would be useful to get a sense from the government on that.

Probably the main reason I stood up today is my Amendment paragraph... Amendment 41. In particular this is defining the pregnancy loss to mean the end of a pregnancy less than 24 weeks of pregnancy anyway other than live birth will be the failure of an embryo to become implanted following a transfer carried out in the course of providing treatment services within the HFEA 1990. It feels genuinely want to understand from the government, unconscious it was a women and equality Select Committee report that made these recommendations, but to really understand what is in the mind of the government today.

It's quite a moment to in effect use an Employment Rights Bill to define in effect what a pregnancy is. The particular on the IVF, I know many people who have been through IVF and of course have disappointment when it doesn't work that month or that year and they will try again, but if I think about the fact that, I shed the statistics, it's roughly about 30% of IVF treatments are successful and so this leaves a whole range of other situations where this transplant hasn't happened and as I say, I'm somewhat concerned that almost the redefinition of pregnancy in this regard when we are considering the body of all women.

Furthermore when it comes to the ending of her pregnancy in anyway other than live birth, the last statistics published by the pardon for health and social care for 2022 stated that there were basically 1/4 of a million abortions in this country. Was up 17% from the before. Meanwhile specifically referred to, and again I can understand entirely aspects of fatal anomaly or risks to the health of the mother, according to Department of Health & Social Care statistics published and referenced in the common Select Committee report that was 3,300 abortions.

3,300 compared to 1/4 of a million is a very significant difference. As it stands today anyone who had an abortion, a legal abortion, would be counted in that statistic. Also I'm not aware the Department of Health & Social Care has yet decided how it is going to count in it statistics the number of abortions for pills through the post at the moment it doesn't count the number of pills even issued. I'm trying to get clarity from the government, is it really its intention that the person who had the abortion up to 1/4 million per year, would be entitled to bereavement? -- Leave.

Because that is what this primary legislation is saying. On other issues in this bill all sorts of things are being put in Henry VIII powers or regulations or other conditions, I'm seeking to understand why the government feels that this should be on the face of the bill. Obviously every loss undoubtedly brings horrific grief, I know I've had to care for people in that situation and similar and I understand why this is going ahead and despite the potential for sickness leave being open, recognising under the Equality Act any discrimination would be against the law, so I understand the steps the government is taking I be grateful for genuine huge level of detail on what is this setting out today in primary legislation.

I beg
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page