Shared Parental Leave and Pay (Bereavement) Bill

James Daly Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 26th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I pay tribute to the cross-party efforts led by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry) and the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) to correct an injustice for parents dealing with the challenges of losing their partner and gaining a child and then not qualifying for child leave or pay. They may even risk losing their livelihood. I pay particular tribute to individual campaigners such as the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe, Aaron Horsey, who had the courage and conviction to take up the cause on behalf of others while having to deal with the loss of Bernadette and bringing up his son Tim.

The backdrop to this important Bill—how we as a society handle bereavement—needs some attention. Death and grief are too often taboos that society struggles to handle, but all our lives will be affected by bereavement at some point, whatever our age, background, religion or belief. We must do more to provide support for those who are bereaved and, indeed, those who are facing bereavement.

As a Christian, I recall Zechariah 7:10 in the Bible:

“oppress not the widow, nor the fatherless, the stranger, nor the poor”.

Much debate, attention and action is directed to helping support the poor, the stranger and the fatherless, but perhaps less attention and action is given to the widow or the widower. I recall a number of young widowers known to me—such as Guy Hordern—who have had to face bereavement while raising small children without their wife and the mother alongside them, and then also having to face insecurity of employment.

I also pay tribute to the UK Commission on Bereavement and its 2022 report, “Bereavement is everyone’s business”. Bishops are not always in politicians’ good books, as the debate in the other place this week has demonstrated, but there are times for praise, and I want to praise the noble Lord Bishop of London, the chair of the commission. She said:

“All of us will experience grief through the course of our lives. It is a truly universal human experience, part and parcel of being mortal. And as with every aspect of life, we all experience it differently.”

She continued:

“The pandemic…had a profound effect on how those affected have experienced bereavement. Many people have been unable to see family and friends and…had limited access to formal support after their loved one died. Feeling alone in their grief due to lockdown or having to shield or self-isolate has had a devastating impact. At the same time, the pandemic has also spotlighted this universal human experience and presented an important opportunity to consider how well equipped we are”—

or perhaps are not—

“to support people through a bereavement and how we should work together to improve that support both now and in the future.”

In that context, the UK Commission on Bereavement was founded, bringing together 16 commissioners and an advisory group.

Through the commission’s work, taking detailed written and oral evidence from well over 1,000 people, it has conducted one of the largest ever consultations of bereaved people and professionals working with them. The commission saw time and again that we need to do more

“as a whole society to support all those affected by bereavement.”

However, ongoing taboos around grief and uncertainty about how to help inhibit support throughout our communities, in schools, colleges and workplaces, even among those whose job puts them in contact with bereaved people every day.

The report states:

“For those who need it, there are significant challenges to accessing formal emotional support. There’s not enough of it, it’s not accessible to all who need it, and certain groups in society are particularly poorly served. However, in addition to significant shortcomings in the provision of emotional support, people affected by bereavement often find it hard to get the support that they need with the ‘practical’ challenges they face day-to-day—from registering a death to accessing adequate financial support. Overall, many people are not getting the right support at the right time, with potentially serious consequences in all areas, from health and wellbeing to education and employment and even long term economic outcomes. We must seize the opportunity to change this for the better”.

This Bill is such an opportunity.

We must not lose sight of the fact that all our lives will be touched by bereavement. It is incumbent upon us all to work together to improve the experiences of bereaved people. The commission’s report set out clear recommendations for achieving that. The UK Government should establish and deliver a cross-departmental strategy for bereavement, as I believe the commission recommended.

By making grief taboo, fearing it and locking it away, we make it all the harder to comprehend and to support each other through it. We make it harder for people to access the help they need, be it simple flexibility from an employer, help with funeral costs or access to specialist bereavement support services. It is important that we do all we can to support those who suffer in this way.

Much in that report was not directly related to the Bill, so I will not test Mr Speaker’s patience further. Bereavement can often trigger financial insecurity and poverty. Many people who experience bereavement are at particular risk of financial hardship and changes to their material circumstances and living conditions. That is especially the case for bereaved parents or spouses, where the bereavement commonly results in the loss of household income, and sometimes even in the bereaved person or family losing their home. Such pressures add significantly to the stress already experienced. Overall, people are not getting the right support they need. A parent needs particular support in the early days, weeks and months with their child, and even more so when they have lost a partner.

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) made an incredibly touching speech. I think everyone in the House supports the Bill. My hon. Friend has been a leader in small businesses. On the fairly made point by the hon. Member for Ogmore on shared parental leave, how does my hon. Friend think small employers should approach these issues?

[Fiona Bruce]

For many years in my previous life I was a probate solicitor, so many bereaved people came to see me. There is real room for compassion when employers are faced with someone who has recently been bereaved. We all need to look at what we can do to support them. Other employees are probably more than willing to chip in and give the support that they can, which would be especially needed in a small business. That is also why, for many years, I have championed family hubs. I am delighted that Department for Education family hubs and start for life funding has enabled 75 family hubs to open and provide vital services for families with younger children. We need to ensure the hubs enable bereavement counselling and emotional and relational support for widowed parents, especially after tragic and traumatic loss in childbirth.

When enacted, the Bill will plug a vital gap in shared parental leave and pay for those who have not completed the six months of continuous service with an employer necessary to qualify. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have served their constituents and us well by shining a light on this issue and making it our business to sort it out. This Bill sends a wider message that bereavement is everyone’s business.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

I suspect the population of the United Kingdom are not gripped by Parliament TV at the moment, but I wish they were, because debates such as this show the humanity of Members of the House. This whole discussion is based on humanity, and it says a lot about the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) that he has taken on a Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry) has worked on to bring about positive change. When I became a Member of Parliament, I thought how difficult it was to change the lives of thousands of people in one go, but if we can change the life of one person in a positive way, even if it is in very tragic circumstances, it is a worthwhile thing for us to do, so I am pleased to take part in this debate.

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a practising solicitor and partner in a firm of solicitors. People have different views on whether that is a good or a bad thing, but I would like to think that I work hard as an MP. When we talk about employment rights, even in the most tragic of circumstances, I sometimes feel that the views of small employers, the backbone of our economy, are not represented, and I will give a few thoughts on that today. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe has rightly said, some of the commentary on the Bill has been about how employers would react to such circumstances. When I come down here to be a Member of Parliament, including on a Friday, I am very lucky that I have a wife who runs a business, looks after two children, looks after a dog, looks after a family, and does literally everything in respect of that. She has the pressures of life on her, and she maintains a business in challenging circumstances; we employ approximately 20 people. She is my template when I think what she would make of the Bill. We are a business that does not make vast fortunes of money; we rely on treasured and important employees being able to create incomes so that we can pay wages. None the less, I do not believe, unless my hon. Friend has been told something different, that a small business, even in the most challenging circumstances, would seek to terminate the employment of somebody who has gone through such a bereavement. We must have faith not only in the words that we say in this place, but in the humanity of the people we represent. Faced with these circumstances, the small businesses that I know up and down the country would, I think, rise to the challenge, and support in exactly the way that my hon. Friend has described.

It is sometimes difficult to talk in this Chamber about things of which we have no personal experience, but as Aaron is in the Public Gallery today, I can say that both he and Tim can be very proud and pleased that good will come from tragic circumstances.

On the wider issue, both parties share a commitment to shared parental leave and employment rights. I would like to say that it is not a political issue, but it is important to note that we have seen developments under this Government, such as carers’ leave and flexible working, to try to respond to the challenges, many of which came from covid. Those developments ensure that the nuances of people’s everyday lives are recognised and that they are supported, because they have much to contribute to our economy. In the circumstances we have heard about today, it is not anyone’s fault that a person is put in that position, but we cannot, through prejudice, hinder people who have so much to offer and so much to support local businesses with.

With regard to bereavement, the pandemic brought that very much to the fore for many of us. I have two children, Alexander and Teddy—we all take the opportunity to mention our children’s names. I cannot imagine—no, it is too much to think about. I lost my dad during the pandemic. My dad, who was a very rumbustious, lively man, was a big part of my life. When he passed away, sadly the covid regulations were in place, so we were perhaps unable to come to terms with his death, or to celebrate his life and speak to his friends and wider family in the way we would have liked.

Bereavement, in its widest sense, affects people in different ways in the workplace, and I think there is an ongoing debate. My friend the hon. Member for Ogmore said that this is a starting point for the debate, and the issue of how bereavement impacts people is very important. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) also made a valid point on that subject.

[Darren Henry]

Does my hon. Friend agree that what is proposed would actually benefit the employers who provide that, because they would retain the employee in the workforce in the long term, rather than losing them, which would have a negative impact on their business?

[James Daly]

I completely agree. The great challenge in the modern economy is productivity. I cannot express how difficult it is to recruit good staff who are productive—it is genuinely incredibly difficult. That takes me back to the point that employers will do just about anything to retain productive staff, which is what we want to see.

I was here last Friday, when the House was debating a different subject, and the question often asked is why we should legislate on such matters. It is important that this House, and through it our democratic will, guides employers on what we feel are matters of importance and priority, and this is another example of a Bill that does that. Making employers aware that this is an issue that our democratically elected Parliament feels is important is incredibly important.

[Darren Henry]

Does my hon. Friend agree that businesses also need to consider leave and pay if they are to retain good staff?

[James Daly]

That is absolutely correct. Obviously there are bad employers, but the colleagues I know who run their own businesses, who value their employees, would certainly not resile from their responsibilities to those employees. I appreciate the point about legislation, but we must have faith that employers will rise to the challenge. I think very few employers—I am sure there are some bad examples—would resile from that challenge.

Before us we have a Bill that states Parliament’s clear view that a grave injustice must be remedied. It is an honest Bill that says it is the start of a journey, a discussion not only about how we can build on the Bill, but how flexible working and other employment legislation can develop and respond to the modern economy. I have severe concerns about flexible working from home. My local authority tells me that a lot of people are no longer working in the town centre, which is having a hugely detrimental impact on the high street. The Bill is part of sensible and pragmatic employment legislation, and part of an ongoing response to the modern economy and modern needs that understands the nuances and differences in people’s lives.

Any Bill that touches a person’s life in a positive way should be fought for, and this is a good Bill. I encourage the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), to think about the points our hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) made about bereavement counselling. There is in my constituency a wonderful charity that deals with the consequences for parents of suicide and supports parents and carers in those circumstances. In this ongoing debate, we need to think about how the state can invest in services that give people the best chance to come to terms with horrific events. We are a good Parliament, ours is a good country, and this debate shows that. It shows humanity and reflects our belief that employers will rise to the challenge the Bill sets. I think Aaron and Tim will forever be proud of what has happened here today.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bury North (James Daly), who made some important points to which I will return. At the outset of my speech, however, I will take the opportunity to praise my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore). He already has a reputation as an impressive and skilful operator in the House, and the way he presented his Bill today will only add to that reputation. Labour Members want his Bill to make progress today, and perhaps to open up a broader debate about employment rights.

Having taken through a private Member’s Bill a long time ago, I know just how much work it takes to get such legislation through. The way my hon. Friend appears to have secured support across the House for the Bill to make progress today is certainly encouraging. The Bill is important because of the case the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry) has raised many times in this place, and again today, which does him credit. I believe he has raised the case in Parliament at least three times previously—in a 10-minute rule Bill, in a question to the Prime Minister, and in an Adjournment debate in December. I congratulate him on taking up from his constituency advice surgery the case of Aaron Horsey and pursuing it as he has.

I share my hon. Friend’s opinion that the situation Mr Horsey found himself in was truly awful. It certainly was not right that in those circumstances Mr Horsey was not entitled to any parental leave. Although he was clearly lucky in his employer, to whom we should give credit, it is right that we begin to close the loophole in the law that Mr Horsey’s case has exposed. Obviously that cannot bring Mr Horsey’s partner Bernadette back—and we pay tribute to and remember her today as well—but, although this is outside the scope of the Bill, her passing is a reminder of the need to keep maternal mortality at the forefront of our minds.

The Bill gives us a chance to consider the almost unimaginable grief of losing a partner who has just given birth to a new-born baby. It is clearly wrong to expect the other partner to bring up the baby alone while being worried about their employment status, and that needs to be resolved. Let me say again that I welcome the manner in which my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore has picked up the issue on which the hon. Member for Broxtowe has campaigned, and the fact that the House has an opportunity to begin to close that loophole.

Fortunately, the tragic scenario that Mr Horsey has brought to the House appears to be very rare—the death of a mother during or soon after childbirth is thankfully a very rare event in our country. Nevertheless, I understand that 261 mothers passed away within 42 days of giving birth between 2019 and 2021, and that is 261 too many. Each of those cases represents a tragic loss for their families and friends. In most of those cases the father or partner will have been eligible for shared parental leave because they met the eligibility requirements, and in most cases they could have taken over their partner’s parental leave and, crucially, the entitlement to statutory pay that would have been shared by both parents had the mother survived. In some cases, however, as my hon. Friend has explained, a father or partner who does not meet the continuity of employment test and is not entitled to shared parental leave is left in the awful position, potentially, of having to care for their new-born baby, while grieving the loss of their partner, and yet having no guarantee of parental leave. It is clearly right for us to close that gap.

Before I move on to the wider debate about rights to paternity leave and employment rights, I want to reflect on some of the other contributions that we have heard this morning. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) did the House a service by mentioning the work of the UK Commission on Bereavement and the challenges faced by her constituents when experiencing bereavements of this kind and then bringing up small children. She was also right to make a wider point about bereavement still being a taboo, and the difficulty of dealing with the issues of grief and loss that our friends and members of our communities feel. That needs to be explored. As she rightly said, thought must be given to how we provide better access to emotional support, and the bereavement commission is already doing important work to ensure that people have access to practical help and support and do not have to worry about their employment situation or, perhaps, access to benefits.

The hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) was also supportive of the Bill and made some positive comments in the debate. The hon. Member for Broxtowe has been quietly impressive when speaking about this issue in the House. Normally I would be holding a surgery on a Friday, and I think it right for Members, when it is appropriate, to bring the individual problems of those who attend their surgeries to the Floor of the House. That is one of the unique things about our democracy and, despite all its challenges, it is why our democratic system continues to be arguably the best in the world.

I commend the hon. Member for Broxtowe for his support for Mr Horsey, who I hope will take some comfort from the cross-party support for the work of his Member of Parliament and, indeed, for this Bill. The hon. Gentleman rightly raised the question of potential costs for employers and the fear that some might have about those costs, but he rightly noted that the cost implications are very limited, which is another reason to support the Bill.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) eloquently supported the case for the Bill. He rightly said how awful a prospect it would be for any of us to lose our partner, in any circumstance, particularly when our children are young and have round-the-clock needs. The trauma of losing a partner at the moment of a baby’s arrival is almost unimaginable.

The hon. Member for Bury North helpfully described the mutual humanity of Members on both sides of the House, and he spoke about the cross-party work to get the Bill to this stage. Cross-party work does not often get much attention and has plenty of detractors but, in this case, there is clear evidence of its benefits.

[James Daly]

I do not wish to put the hon. Gentleman on the spot, but I want to raise an issue in this ongoing conversation. Does he believe that the House should further consider bereavement leave? I mentioned the Big Fandango, a charity that supports families following a suicide. Older parents may well be grieving the loss of children in very tragic circumstances, so we need a wider debate on how we support people going through bereavement. This Bill is a good starting point.

[Gareth Thomas]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and it is one of the reasons why I was particularly keen to praise the work of the UK Commission on Bereavement, which the hon. Member for Congleton raised. I hope there will be a debate, and perhaps the Backbench Business Committee will be receptive to the case for one.

In 2003, my party introduced the first entitlement to paternity leave. I was very pleased to vote for it and, indeed, to take paternity leave following the births of my children. I welcomed the Government’s introduction of shared parental leave but—and I say this gently, because I do not want to spoil the positive, cross-party discussions on this Bill—it has perhaps not gone as well as we might all have hoped, with just 2.8% of partners deciding to take it up.

My understanding is that the Government’s evaluation of shared parental leave has noted a series of problems. Some seven in 10 employers, while being aware of shared parental leave, are not actively promoting it to their employees, and a third of mothers and nearly half of fathers who did not take shared parental leave had not even heard of it. There are clearly issues with the take-up of shared parental leave and, if not today, it would be good to hear from the Minister how the Government plan to address those issues.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore has secured support across the House for this important Bill, which will address a very particular loophole. We certainly want to see it progress and have its Second Reading.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

May I first thank the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) for bringing the Bill before the House, and all the other hon. Members who have spoken on this important matter today? He has been incredibly constructive and pragmatic in our deliberations on what we should do in this area, and I thank him for that. It is always a pleasure to work with him on this issue, and we have worked together on a number of issues over the years.

I would like to express my wholehearted agreement with the intent behind the hon. Member’s Bill. His speech was incredibly touching and he spoke passionately about the need for the Bill, but also about the devastating impact on individuals. His point about the future plans of one’s life suddenly going to ashes was incredibly powerful, and I express my sympathy for Mr Thorpe, whom he referred to in his speech.

It is always a great pleasure to take forward legislation that makes a meaningful difference. I was lucky enough to take through Parliament two private Member’s Bills prior to becoming a Minister. One was on parental bereavement leave, and people asked, “Why does this not exist in the first place?” When people say that to us, as I am sure they have said to the hon. Member about his Bill, we know we are on the right track. In my experience, we normally do not do these things on our own—we do them jointly—and his work with my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry) has been really important in bringing the Bill forward.

It is clear that we should look at what more we can do to support employed parents who lose their partner around the time of their child’s birth and who do not currently qualify for statutory leave entitlement because they do not meet continuity of service requirements—that is, they have not been in the job for the required length of time to qualify. The principle of this Bill has support across the House, and I was pleased to hear that reflected in the debate.

Again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe, who has long campaigned on this issue. We met his constituent in my early days as a Minister, and I thank him for bringing it to the House’s attention. We were always keen to do something when we could, and I am delighted to say that we now have the right time and space to do this. It was a pleasure to meet him and his constituent Mr Horsey, who is in the Gallery today, in the Department the year before last. I am sure the whole House will join me in expressing our condolences to Mr Horsey for the loss of his wife Bernadette and in sending our best wishes to him and their son Tim.

I will take the time to address some of the points raised by hon. Members today, but I will first put on the record why the Government support the intent behind this legislation. Losing a partner is a truly devastating experience for anyone. The combination of the terrible grief and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) said, loneliness in these situations—the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), called it “unimaginable”, which is an apt description—with the challenges of caring for a new baby must be incredibly hard. My deepest sympathies go out to anyone who finds themselves in this terrible position.

The United Kingdom has a generous range of entitlements and protections designed to support parents to balance their family and work commitments and maintain their place in the labour market while raising their children—for example, maternity leave and pay, paternity leave and pay, and shared parental leave and pay, among others. Maternity leave is rightly available from the first day of a woman’s employment, recognising the special circumstances of pregnant women and new mothers.

Parental leave and shared parental leave are not day-one leave entitlements for mothers, fathers and partners; all parents must meet continuity of service requirements. As such, if a mother dies in the first year of a child’s life, a father or partner who has not met continuity of service requirements for paternity leave or shared parental leave will not have the statutory right to take leave so that they can care for the child. In those tragic but, thankfully, rare circumstances, they will need to rely on the compassion of their employer to provide them with adequate leave and job security. As the hon. Member for Ogmore says, though, some of these people are falling through the cracks.

The intent of the Bill is to provide more support for the grieving and surviving parent when their spouse or partner has tragically passed away. The legislation will support people in those terrible circumstances to take time away from work to care for their new baby, without the risk and associated stress of being made to return to work before they are ready to do so. I am delighted that the Government are able to support this positive development in the parental leave and pay system.

However, as is the case with any legislation, it is crucial to ensure that it is not only well intentioned, but practical and effective in achieving its intended effect. It is therefore important that I set out to the House today, as I have previously discussed with the hon. Member for Ogmore, the Government’s view that the Bill will require amendment in Committee to fully achieve its intended changes and operate effectively alongside existing parental leave legislation. I am delighted that the hon. Member has agreed to work with me to do that, and that we have a shared understanding of the need to create a legislative framework that not only supports families in their time of need, but does so in a way that is clear, fair and effective. Committee stage provides us with the opportunity to fine-tune the details of the Bill and address any potential gaps, issues or inconsistencies to ensure that it achieves its intended purpose. I will, of course, provide more information on the necessary changes ahead of Committee stage, but I will take a moment to highlight some of the areas in which we are considering amendments.

First, we will need to consider what type of parental leave best meets the intention of the Bill. Secondly, we will need to analyse whether it is right to confine its scope to the death of the mother, or whether it should make broader provision for the death of other parents. Thirdly, we need to make sure that the changes we make integrate well into the wider framework of parental leave legislation. Finally, we intend to remove the pay element from this entitlement—I will explain why shortly. The hon. Member for Ogmore and I are in agreement on the removal of the pay element. As Members will have seen, the text of his Bill does not refer to pay, although I hear and understand his clear ambition to include it at a future stage. I concur with his point, though, that we should never let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

All the UK’s statutory parental pay entitlements have a continuity of service requirement, including statutory maternity pay, statutory paternity pay, statutory shared parental pay and statutory adoption pay. They are designed to ensure that a parent has made a reasonable contribution towards their employer’s business before that employer is required to administer statutory parental payments. Continuity of service requirements are designed to achieve a balance between the needs of employers and those of working parents.

I will be able to give more details in Committee on the changes we intend to make to the Bill. In the spirit of collaboration, I encourage all Members to engage constructively in Committee. Our priority is to work together to deliver a piece of legislation that meets the needs of bereaved families, providing them with the support they require during one of life’s most challenging chapters.

In response to the shadow Minister’s points about workers’ rights, the Government are committed to supporting the participation and progression of parents in the labour market to ensure that it is fair and works for parents. Our 2019 manifesto pledged changes to enhance workers’ rights and support people to stay in work. The Government have delivered on those commitments by supporting a package of six private Members’ Bills helping new parents, unpaid carers and hospitality workers; giving all employees easier access to flexible working; and giving workers a right to request a more predictable working pattern. We have been pleased with the successful progress of that legislation through Parliament, where it has received cross-party support, resulting in six Acts successfully receiving Royal Assent. The Government have already made good progress on laying secondary legislation in due course to implement those new Acts.

The Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Act 2023, for example, will give all employees with 26 weeks’ continuous service the right to request flexible working, empowering employees to ask for a working arrangement that suits them and their unique circumstances.

I take the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) about homeworking. Flexible working does not necessarily mean homeworking; it can mean different working times to suit people’s parental responsibilities—for example, different times during holidays—and it does not necessarily mean that people have to work from home. He is right to say that workers should work where they are most effective, and where employers require them to be.

The Protections from Redundancy (Pregnancy and Family Leave) Act 2023 will provide greater protection to women who are on maternity leave or an employee who is on adoption or shared parental leave in a redundancy situation. That legislation will help to clamp down on poor or inappropriate practices, such as discriminating against pregnant women or new mothers, or waiting for a woman to return from maternity leave, and when the current protected period ends making her redundant.

The Employment (Allocations of Tips) Act 2023 will make it unlawful for businesses to hold back tips, gratuities and service charges from employees, ensuring that staff receive the tips they have earned. This package of legislation will increase workforce participation, protect vulnerable workers, and level the playing field, ensuring that unscrupulous businesses do not have a competitive advantage. The legislation builds on the strengths of our flexible and dynamic labour market, and gives businesses the confidence to create jobs and invest in their workforce, allowing them to generate long-term prosperity and economic growth.

Protecting and enhancing workers’ rights while supporting business to grow remains a priority for this Government. We are determined to build a high-skilled, high-productivity, high-wage economy. A key part of the UK’s economic resilience is our strong, flexible, and dynamic labour market. It is a labour market that gives businesses the confidence to create jobs and invest in their workforce, and allows them to generate long-term prosperity and economic growth. It is a labour market that rightly bears down on unscrupulous employers, and protects those keeping to good working practices, promoting more competition in UK markets to build a high-skilled, high-productivity, high-wage economy.

[James Daly]

Does my hon. Friend agree with the point I raised my speech, that we should not denigrate employers? Most employers in this country support their staff, are keen to invest in skills to improve productivity, and are keen to ensure that they take whatever steps necessary to keep employees who are key to the future of the business, no matter what personal circumstances someone is facing at that time.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend has great experience, and it is great to hear from people with experience at the sharp end of business. It is not an easy place to be. I had a fairly long business career myself for 30 years before politics, and we know that people are our most precious assets. It is good business to look after our workforce, not only because of the individuals concerned and the loyalty that brings, but because of the loyalty of other members of the team when they see how someone is treating their staff. It is important to recognise that what we are legislating for is not a ceiling, but a floor. It is a minimum period of leave that people can be offered, and of course the minimum level of pay. Clearly an employer can pay more than that expected by law, and I know that many employers do so. I understand that Mr Horsey was well treated by his employer. That illustrates that most employers are good employers, and we in the House should always recognise that when we are legislating. We want a labour market that promotes competition and choice, so that consumers have confidence in markets, and businesses compete on a level playing field.

Turning to the specific points, the hon. Member for Ogmore raised a point about the numbers of people affected. Maternal deaths—the number of people who pass away during pregnancy or within 42 days of that—are around 290, as he said. Some will have continuity of service requirements. We therefore think that this legislation will benefit just under 50 people a year. That is our best guesstimate, because there are so many different moving parts, but that is the kind of number we are talking about. That is not a huge number, but the legislation is very important to those affected by it.

I noted the hon. Member’s points principally about pay. It is a first step on the road, but it is a very important step, and future Governments—of whatever colour they may be—may go further. He also raised the complexity and take-up of shared parental leave. Take-up is in line with estimates and has doubled over the past few years. In July 2021, the shared parental leave tool was deployed. The tool enables parents to check their eligibility and plan their leave, and it has been well received. I think that also covers the point raised by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow West.

The hon. Member for Ogmore also asked why parents with other employment statuses, such as the self-employed, are not entitled to this support. The Government’s support is focused on employed parents, as they do not generally have the same level of flexibility and autonomy over how and when they work as self-employed parents. Employees have a contractual requirement to work regular hours and have an employer who has control over when they work, where they work and how their work is done. Due to that, employees have the greatest level of employment protections, to balance the lack of flexibility that their employment type provides in other ways.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North talked in his intervention and his speech about the burdens on business. Obviously, all legislation should include an impact assessment, including a financial impact assessment on business. The impact assessment result was de minimis—I think that is below £5 million, which is not a significant impact. We therefore do not think that the changes will create a significant burden on businesses. We have engaged with business representative organisations and payroll professionals throughout the policy development of these changes. They have responded positively and understand how the changes will increase flexibility for families. We are working with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to plan communications with businesses to ensure that they fully understand the new arrangements, and we will continue to engage with them while we finalise guidance to ensure the smooth introduction of these changes.

My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton rightly talked about the UK Commission on Bereavement and the important work that it does. She also referred to a cross-departmental bereavement strategy, which may include bereavement counselling for people in key situations. That is a little outside my remit, but she may continue to press for that across Government.

Gender Recognition

James Daly Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s question. As a teacher, he knows how carefully we need to look after children, and how carefully we need to ensure we are safeguarding across the board. He is right, and this SI is just one step we are taking to provide clarity. There is more coming, and not all of it will be legislative. We will bring in measures to help people understand exactly what is going on. We should not assume that the knowledge we have in this House is present in the population. I have met people who do not understand the difference between being gay and being trans. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) is complaining that my answers are long. It is because I want people to hear the truth and to understand what the Government are doing.

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

The main feature of countries that have come off the list seems to be their adoption of laws that remove all safeguards on changing gender. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this approach is dangerous? What further steps is she taking to address its expansion?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I cannot control what other countries do. All we can do is emphasise our own policies. Across the House, we have conversations with international counterparts. There has been a lot of interest in what we are doing. I remember speaking to a Minister who said their country—I will not name the country—had brought in self-ID early because they thought we were going to do it, and that they were now thinking again. There are countries, even in Europe, that are taking steps to limit this, because they have seen the consequences and do not think that the benefits outweigh the disbenefits. I am glad that we in the UK are setting a standard for evidence-based policymaking and are showing others how to get this right.

Whistleblowing Awareness Week

James Daly Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mary Robinson]

My right hon. Friend has got right to the heart of this matter. If people do not know that they can come forward, or if they are in an organisation with a culture of fear and cover-up, they will not. Whistleblowing Awareness Week is about ensuring that people know what they can do, and about making organisations aware that they need to change. I am pushing for changes to legislation, as the Minister knows from our conversations —it is great to have him here today. My right hon. Friend is entirely right; it is about the culture in organisations.

The publication this week of Baroness Casey’s report into the Metropolitan police lays bare the tragic consequences of a culture of fear and cover-up, but if it were not this report, there would be another story in the headlines this week exposed by a whistleblower—or worse.

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful point. The Casey review highlights a very specific example that shows why this debate is so important. Sir Mark Rowley, the commissioner of the Metropolitan police, says he believes that he cannot sack officers who are either convicted of or under investigation for criminal offences. Why would whistleblowers come forward if there is no positive consequence to their actions?

[Mary Robinson]

That is at the heart of the problem. If people see that nothing is going to happen, why would they come forward? If they see that somebody is going to be bullied out of their job, why would they come forward? If they see that complaints or information about wrongdoing that they take to their senior leadership will not be acted on, why would they come forward? That is exactly at the heart of the problem.

We need to consider not just the impact of whistleblowers coming forward, making a complaint and letting people know what is going on, but also the impact of not doing that. We need to consider the impact when there is somebody in the police force who is known to indulge, or suspected of indulging, in bad or criminal behaviour, but nothing is done, nobody speaks out and the leadership does not act.

For this Whistleblowing Awareness Week, participants at a series of events in Westminster have heard from a wide range of whistleblowing experts from across the globe—legal, financial and human resources professionals, and those who have turned their lived, first-hand experience into action and passion for change. On Tuesday morning, my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) chaired a roundtable on whistleblowing in the healthcare sector. I hope she will speak about that later. We heard from a range of experts, including the national guardian for freedom to speak up in the NHS, Dr Jayne Chidgey-Clark. That role came out of the recommendations of the 2015 “Freedom to Speak Up” report by Sir Robert Francis KC, which found that NHS culture did not always encourage staff to speak up or facilitate their doing so. That failure had a direct and negative impact on patients and staff.

Time and again, we have seen the impact of that failure in health trusts across the country: people have been impacted by scandals and lives have been lost in tragic circumstances. The national guardian is tasked with leading the change in NHS culture—look, it must change. Her most recent report includes many positive voices, which is good, but it also highlights that 58.3% of freedom to speak up guardians believe that barriers to speaking up include the concern that nothing will be done, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) said. Alarmingly, 69% believe that a fear of retaliation or suffering as a result of speaking out is a deterrent. Clearly, there is more to be done to break down these barriers.

Patient safety depends on the success of a speaking-out culture, and that should sit alongside a learning culture where mistakes are not covered up for fear of blame. Doctors, nurses and other staff in healthcare settings have lives in their hands and they must feel comfortable, confident and able to report errors and mistakes.

It is often the whistleblowers themselves who give the most powerful testimony. Dr Chris Day is not only a whistleblower—he raised serious patient safety concerns while working as a junior doctor in an intensive care unit—but a change maker who exposed a gap in whistleblowing law that was subsequently reformed. After having blown the whistle on the understaffing that he witnessed, there was another battle on his hands: who can be held to account under existing legislation? As a junior doctor, his training and career were in the hands of Health Education England, who argued that as it did not directly employ Dr Day, the law did not apply to it. He challenged that, and the court found that junior doctors did come under the extended definition of worker. It also found that a worker could have two employers under whistleblowing legislation. Although the issues that he raised as a whistleblower have not been resolved, Dr Day’s actions have resulted in a change to the law.

During our roundtable on Wednesday this week, exploring the new approach to whistleblowing, we heard from Jonathan Taylor, who exposed bribery in the oil and gas industry. Although his disclosures resulted in SBM, a Dutch multinational, paying out more than $800 million in fines and related payments, his whistleblowing also put a stop to an economic crime that had run to hundreds of millions. A statistic that is shared many times in Parliament, including by me, is that 43% of economic crime is detected and exposed through whistleblowers. The Minister has previously said he believes that about 100% of economic crime detection could be attributed to whistleblowing. So, if we want to know where economic crime is being committed, we need to encourage whistle- blowers and others to speak out.

However, speaking up came at a huge personal and professional cost to Mr Taylor. Not only did he spend a year under house arrest in Croatia, but he lost his career. We cannot overestimate the mental and emotional toll that whistleblowing has on people, and he is not alone in his experience. It is no wonder, after having heard the detriment suffered by so many whistleblowers, that people are averse to speaking up.

We also had the pleasure of welcoming Zelda Perkins, who, in breaking her non-disclosure agreement, shone a light on sexual abuse in Hollywood and helped to expose a top film executive who would later be prosecuted for sexual assault and rape. She went on to co-found the Can’t Buy My Silence campaign, which seeks to make NDAs unenforceable except in the case of preventing the sharing of confidential business information and trade secrets, which was their original purpose. The campaign’s efforts contributed to the Department for Education’s introduction of its pledge to end the use of NDAs in universities. That is progress, but we need to go further.

NDAs are often used not just to settle employment disputes, but to silence people. Fraud, corruption, incompetence, environmental damage, abuse, avoidable deaths and cover-ups are silently buried through the use of those agreements. Instead, I would like to bury the use of NDAs for that purpose. We have a situation where some people want to speak up but are bound by such legal agreements, and we have others who could speak but fear reprisals and repercussions. Either way, wrongdoing goes unchallenged. So now what?

Baroness Casey’s Met police review highlights systemic and chronic problems that can arise across any organisation where there is a culture of fear and cover-up. We have a police force riddled with misogyny, racism and homophobia, with inadequate management structures, a lack of leadership and a culture of fear. She describes an organisation where:

“The culture of not speaking up has become so ingrained that even when senior officers actively seek candid views, there is a reluctance to speak up.”

Whistleblowers must have trust and confidence in internal processes, but whistleblowers often come from outside these organisations. I remain concerned that our lack of an inclusive and effective whistleblowing law will continue to hinder progress.

Colleagues may know that last year I brought forward a private Member’s Bill that would reform our whistleblowing legislation. Although it fell because of lack of time, I remain determined to see changes to how we support, encourage and protect the brave people who are prepared to speak out and report wrongdoing. The Bill proposed to create an office of the whistleblower, which would be responsible for setting, monitoring and enforcing standards in the management of whistleblowing cases. The office would provide advice services and a clear avenue for disclosure, and it would direct investigations and handle redress for whistleblowers. Importantly, it would support anyone blowing the whistle.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Daly]

Will my hon. Friend comment on this matter in respect of how the legislation is not working? Originally, the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 did not apply to police officers. However, whistleblowing provisions and protections came in through the Police Reform Act 2002, and they received whistleblowing protection from 1 April 2004. We have legislation in place that states police officers have whistleblowing protection. The situation has actually got worse, and that clearly shows that the legislation needs reforming immediately.

[Mary Robinson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that; we have seen it across various police forces. We are now further examining how the cultures are working, and that need for reform is there. It shows that the best intentions to bring in reforms do not always lead to the protections that we want people to have.

I welcome the review. However, as part of it, I ask the Minister and the Department to look at where this policy area falls and which Department should take responsibility. We have spoken already today about the NHS, policing, and different sectors and organisations. Although I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) is now the Minister responsible, given his extensive experience and his support for whistleblowers and legislative change, I hope that he and the Government will look at the issue in a different way. The existing law has constraints because it relates to only employment and business. Perhaps now is the time to look at the issue more holistically, because it crosses so many Departments.

As I have already set out, the issue cuts across industries and sectors. Importantly, anyone—not just an employee—can be a whistleblower. However, our laws have told us to look at it from only an employer-employee perspective. When it was introduced 25 years ago, the Public Interest Disclosure Act was heralded as world leading, with protections for whistleblowers at employment tribunals. However, as I just said to my hon. Friend, just 4% of employment cases are successful at tribunal. That further brings PIDA’s efficacy into question.

We are all familiar with gov.uk; it is where we get all our information. The gov.uk page on whistleblowing says:

“You’re a whistleblower if you’re a worker and you report certain types of wrongdoing. This will usually be something you’ve seen at work - though not always.

The wrongdoing you disclose must be in the public interest. This means it must affect others, for example the general public.”

By my interpretation, that means the Government consider only a limited part of the population to be whistleblowers.

I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Minister attended the launch of Whistleblowing Awareness Week on Monday. I am grateful for his comments and support. He has wide-ranging and in-depth knowledge in this area; I like to think that is partly due to his time as co-chair of the APPG on whistleblowing. I was interested to hear his comments on his business experience and the importance of customer complaints. However, if a customer witnesses wrongdoing in a business or organisation, they are not covered by PIDA. As my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash pointed out, a family member of an employee is not covered. Volunteers and contractors are not covered either.

Despite concerns expressed by some, this is not about stripping back employment rights. It is about extending those rights and protections to the wider population. It is about protecting victims of crime who may have evidence of wrongdoing within the police, protecting lawyers and accountants who have uncovered evidence of fraud, and protecting those associated with economic crime who may wish to inform law enforcement. Whistleblowing is more than an employment issue. It is a business issue, a safety issue and an issue for Government. I question whether its future belongs in employment law at all.

During Whistleblowing Awareness Week, we heard from some of those who have spoken out about their journey to expose the truth. Our discussions highlighted the urgent need for the Government to introduce new legislation that defines whistleblowing and puts in place meaningful measures to protect whistleblowers from retaliation. It is interesting that our existing legislation does not mention the word “whistleblower” at all.

For those in doubt about the urgency for reform, I hope I have made some of the moral arguments. Let us get to finance. Whistleblowers are acknowledged as the single most effective means of addressing fraud and corruption—not accountants, lawyers or anybody else, but whistleblowers. It is estimated that fraud and corruption costs the UK over £190 billion a year. To put that into perspective, that is more than the entire NHS budget. We cannot continue in this way.

The proposals backed by the APPG on whistleblowing and in the Bill that I brought forward last year will improve the rights of workers, give new rights to everyone, save lives and put an end to the costly and wasteful practice of cover up.

Whistleblowing Awareness Week was brought forward and launched to introduce and mobilise public opinion, influence legislators, celebrate those courageous whistle- blowers who have already given so much to society and seek to bring about a better world in which ordinary people will no longer have to have extraordinary courage to speak up. It is my hope that the conversations we have had this week will continue to move the dial towards legislative change, and I am grateful to have the time in this debate to be able to raise awareness of Whistleblowing Awareness Week.

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I have known my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) for a long time; there are good MPs and there are great MPs, and she is a great MP. I want to amplify the time, effort and courage that she has shown on this particular issue, because she has done some very important work and continues to do it to this day.

I am a member of the Home Affairs and Justice Committees, so I will talk about whistleblowing in that context. It is wonderful to see the Minister in his place. Before he took up his ministerial position, he did a lot of work in this House on economic crime, and he knows the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle. The Casey review has highlighted and amplified the importance of whistleblowers. Baroness Casey appeared before the Home Affairs Committee yesterday and outlined a whole set of horrific allegations and incidents that have happened in the Metropolitan police over a number of years. It is simply not good enough to say, “Yes, those were horrific. What can we do about that?” In my view, one of the reasons why the system was unable to deal with some of the problems we have seen in police forces throughout the country is that although there are some protections—I read out the Police Reform Act 2002 earlier—they are not good enough to encourage and give people the protection to speak out about the abominable acts they see around them.

In the Metropolitan police, officers were witnessing criminal behaviour, but they did not have the protection to be able to speak out about it. It is quite extraordinary when we think about it. This week—I think this was a recent statement, but this must put it into perspective— Sir Mark Rowley said:

“So I’ve got officers who we determined shouldn’t be police officers and yet I have to keep them. It sounds bizarre—I’m the commissioner, yet I can’t decide who my own workforce is.”

A witness to a criminal act might want to be a whistleblower, but why would they threaten their career progression or risk the breakdown of relationships with work colleagues if they knew there would be no consequences?

The situation is worse than that. In Greater Manchester police, there was a lady named Maggie Oliver, who I think all of us in the room know; my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle has done a lot of work with her. Maggie was involved for 15 years in the investigation of serious sexual offending in the Greater Manchester area. She had to resign from her job for stating—I will just say it as it is—that rapes were being carried out on teenagers in the Rochdale area and the police were refusing to do anything about it. Within the internal procedures and processes of the police force, she could not even have that matter dealt with. This is a matter of fact; this is not made up.

Maggie had to take the brave decision to leave a career that she loved after 15 years to state the obvious and honest facts of what was happening within the police. What has happened? She has been incredibly brave —she has set up the Maggie Oliver Foundation—but Greater Manchester police continued to say, “No, that’s not true”—they covered the whole thing up and made it incredibly difficult.

Both myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle have had various officers from Greater Manchester police come to us stating the most appalling things, but they are concerned that there is no protection because, even though there is some in PIDA and the other legislation, the actual culture in these organisations means that they will be hounded out of their jobs. In 2019, in Greater Manchester police, it was quite obvious to a number of us that the new, £27 million integrated operational policing system computer was falling apart. No police officer publicly criticised that. No police officer was able to go out and say, “This is a disaster.” But they came to various elected representatives and the local paper, the Manchester Evening News, to say that, as a result of what was happening, police and public safety was at risk. The chief constable of Greater Manchester police at the time said it was not true, and that everything was fine—but it was true.

Even with fundamental issues of public safety, when people are being brutalised in the most appalling manner, people in our police forces are not confident that they will have sufficient protections to enable them to protect the public. I cannot find the words to describe how appalling that is. There are things in the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 that are still applicable. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle said that the definition meant that the relevant person had to be an employee. The qualifying disclosures for which someone is covered and given protection are:

“a criminal offence has been committed…a person has failed, is failing or is likely to fail to comply with any legal obligation…a miscarriage of justice has occurred…the health or safety of any individual has been, is being or is likely to be endangered…the environment has been, is being or is likely to be damaged”.

That is a very broad description of what is in the public interest.

There are warm words on the statute book, but they do not work. They should apply outside of just employees, but even if we look at them on their own terms, they do not work. The evidence says they do not work. I suspect the Minister agrees with me, and feels that we have to find a different way to deal with such matters. We asked Baroness Casey how long it would be until we could assess the reform needed at the Metropolitan police; she answered that it would be at least two years. Who protects the public in those two years? We have had disasters in the Met for years and years. Whistleblowers are the protection for the public, and they will not come forward because the system does not protect them.

I argue strongly that we are in a very bad situation. I was going to say that we should treasure whistleblowers— I think that is the correct word. I cannot think of a circumstance where a whistleblower would take that brave step if it was not in the public interest and for a public good. We need a different way, and the private Member’s Bill put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle offers one. I say bluntly to the Minister that if we do not have those protections, we will have another report from another eminent person about another police force saying that appalling things have been happening, but officers have not had sufficient protection from internal management and procedures to come forward and do what is right. That needs to be changed. My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I support every single word she said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Ms McDonagh, and to speak on this important issue during the first Whistleblowing Awareness Week, which was launched in Parliament on Monday. I am pleased to add my voice to calls for organisations to change and for people to have the courage to come forward. There should be no fear or cover-up in organisations, and we need to look at how we change the law to enable and support that.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) on securing the debate. There is no greater champion in Parliament for the protection of whistle- blowers. We now also have colleagues in the Lords, whom we have mentioned today, who are taking forward the call for stronger legislation. I support the hon. Lady’s argument that UK standards should also be global standards. I thank WhistleblowersUK for its relentless advocacy in this space. I encourage everyone to be involved as much as possible in any remaining programmes and activity this week. I am sure that Whistleblowing Awareness Week will be an annual event; it is vital to keep a focus on the issue and keep Parliament’s mind focused on not just legislation, but perhaps how well that new legislation could be working. It was a pleasure to speak alongside WhistleblowersUK chief executive Georgina Halford-Hall at the start of the week, with the Minister also present at the event.

Most importantly, as I am sure the whole House and all who are present will agree, those in most need of our thanks this week are the whistleblowers themselves, for the extraordinary risks they take and the great sacrifices they make to uphold justice, transparency and accountability, in this country and internationally. It is clear from the contributions today that that sentiment is felt across the House.

The hon. Member for Cheadle laid out some of the new insights that were shared at roundtables this week and spoke about the misuse of non-disclosure agreements. There were also important contributions from the hon. Members for Bury North (James Daly) and for Erewash (Maggie Throup) and the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), who has her very own constituency connection to the passing of PIDA 25 years ago. The right hon. Lady called for clarity and, perhaps, more urgency on the Government’s next steps. I acknowledge and support the arguments made by colleagues and the connection with the harrowing Casey report that is out this week and is very much a part of all our lives, particularly those of us who are London Members of Parliament. I also thank the hon. Member for Erewash for chairing roundtables at some of the events this week. SNP colleagues have also been supportive, not just today but during the ongoing debates on the issue. 

The importance of whistleblowing in upholding transparency in opaque institutions and exposing law-breaking cannot be underestimated, whether that is regarding sexual abuse scandals, Grenfell, economic and financial crime, financial institutions, the police, Government Departments, sporting organisations, religious institutions or large multinational corporations—the list goes on. In every single one, at some point, whistleblowers have been responsible, sometimes solely, for drawing attention to wrongdoing and for bringing justice.

I reiterate the comments of the hon. Member for Cheadle on economic crime, an area in which I worked closely with the Minister, on the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill. The National Crime Agency estimates that fraud costs the UK economy £190 billion each year, including £40 billion to the public sector. Between 43% and 47% of serious economic crimes are exposed by whistleblowers. The numbers show the huge scale of the issue, the huge role that whistleblowers play in exposing economic crime, and the impact they could have on our economy, if they were granted more protection under legislation.

One example is the Danske Bank money laundering scheme, where criminals took advantage of UK limited liability partnerships. It was a whistleblower that exposed the $230 billion economic crime operation, halting a stream of Russian money laundering.

That is why better protection of whistleblowers is so important—because, in so many cases, they are the first line of defence. They deserve greater legal protections than they currently receive. Multiple Ministers have promised us that change is coming, but that is not a message currently commanding the greatest of confidence. The Minister is likely to say that he is reviewing the whistleblowing framework and moving forward as soon as possible. That is an area on which we have common ground.

[James Daly]

The hon. Member is making some valid points. As parliamentarians, we could come up with new legislation that could give new protections. The problem is that if certain organisations have toxic cultures, no matter what the legal protections are, people are intimidated and will not come forward. That is where the issue is, no matter the legislation. The Met is one example, but there are others. I wonder what she feels we can do on institutionalised attitudes.

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. Member raises a significant point, which I alluded to in my comments on the speech by the hon. Member for Cheadle. This issue needs serious leadership, commitment and accountability for change. The debates we have had in Parliament on the Casey report are some examples. Transparency and accountability at the very top really do matter.

When the Government bring forward measures, this is an area on which we will have common ground. The Minister knows we will support the Government on those measures, but I hope he will also understand that we want to see measures brought forward more quickly than is apparent at the moment—perhaps he will speak to that that in his remarks—because whistleblowers are being let down by inaction.

The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, which was referred to in the debate, was initially celebrated as groundbreaking. Now, only 4% of people who bring claims under its provisions succeed. There are arguments that it effectively discourages whistleblowing, and there are questions now about its scope. Independent data shows an overall decline in whistleblower reports across the public and private sectors, and reports of harassment against those threatening to whistleblow are increasing. That is utterly unacceptable.

Last year the International Bar Association, as has been mentioned, conducted the first review of its kind to assess countries with whistleblower legislation against compliance with international best practice. The UK ranked only 12th out of 16 countries. As the APPG for whistleblowing, chaired by the hon. Member for Cheadle, highlights in its recent report,

“Whistleblowers in general remain the subject of suspicion and scepticism and while organisations and official bodies sing the merits of whistleblowing and parade policies and procedures the lived experience of whistleblowers remains poor.”

It is clear that much more needs to be done if we are to adequately protect whistleblowers and ensure greater transparency in our public and private institutions. That is why during the passage of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill through the Commons, both in Committee and on Report, the Labour party supported the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Cheadle, which would have established an office of the whistleblower. That happens in the United States, so why not here?

The office would protect whistleblowers from detriment, ensure that disclosures by whistleblowers are investigated, and escalate information and evidence of wrongdoing outside of its remit to another appropriate authority. The objectives of the office would be to encourage and support people to make whistleblowing reports, to provide an independent, confidential and safe environment for making and receiving whistleblowing information, to provide information and advice on whistleblowing, and to act on evidence of detriment. As the hon. Member for Cheadle raised on Report, there is evidence that an office of whistleblowers incentivises and increases disclosures.

In 2020 the International Bar Association tested countries with whistleblowing legislation against a list of 20 best practices. The UK met just five. Meanwhile, the United States, which has an Office of the Whistleblower, met 16, and that office received 12,300 disclosures in 2022, nearly double the number of 2020.

The Labour Front Bench will join cross-party calls in Parliament to increase protections for whistleblowers at a time when it could not be needed more. I hope the Government will say more today about the steps that they will take. I note that during the passage of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill through the Commons the Security Minister said he agreed with the need for an office of the whistleblower. His exact words were:

“what the country needs is an office for whistleblowers, and what we need to do is ensure that we have the updates to the legislation that she”—

the hon. Member for Cheadle—

“so correctly highlighted.”—[Official Report, 25 January 2023; Vol. 726, c. 1094.]

So I ask the Minister: what progress have the Government made in carrying out that latest commitment?

I seek assurances from the Minister that action is on its way—not just a commitment to having a review, but genuine action. I look forward to his response and hope that the Government will get a grip of what is an important issue and make sure that there is support for whistleblowers and for the sacrifices that they make every day to uphold justice and transparency.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McDonagh. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) for all the work that she does on the all-party group. As she rightly points out, I was formerly the co-chair with her on that group. We can sometimes move from a Back-Bench position where we speak about an issue that we feel strongly about, and then we can be put in a ministerial position that covers that brief, but I can reassure Members that I am as ambitious as ever to make sure we get the right reforms for whistleblowing.

My hon. Friend had a reception, which I was pleased to attend. She has had a number of events this week, and I pay tribute to her for her work in drawing attention to the importance of whistleblowers for our society. Whistleblowers are clearly the eyes and ears of our organisations, in terms of potential wrongdoing. As my hon. Friend knows, I have had a number of experiences with constituents. Ian Foxley blew the whistle on GPT Special Project Management, and did an incredible job. Paul Moore blew the whistle at HBOS prior to its financial distress and collapse. Sally Masterton was the whistleblower of the HBOS Reading scandal, which took five years to reach court, where she was vindicated for her statements.

The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) referenced Danske Bank, and the £234 billion of money laundering. She is right to talk about some of the UK corporate vehicles used for that. We are working together on the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill to tighten up the opportunities people have to use those vehicles. One of the biggest scandals in that case was Danske Bank allowing that to happen on its watch. Howard Wilkinson was the whistleblower; the £234 billion of Russian money washing through Danske Bank in Estonia resulted in a $2 billion fine from the US authorities.

According to the statistics, 43% of economic crimes are highlighted by whistleblowers, but in my experience, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle stated, it is much higher than that. Every case of economic crime I have dealt with has come from a whistleblower, and I pay tribute to them. It is not just financial crime; my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) highlighted issues with the Met police, which might have been brought to light much sooner if people had felt more confident about the whistleblowing framework. My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) talked about Winterbourne View; that also might have come to light much sooner, with people being brought to justice much sooner, if people had more confidence.

It is right that we seek to more effectively protect and compensate whistleblowers for doing the right thing. It is excellent that we have so many top-quality parliamentarians in this debate who will throw their weight behind the campaign for change. I am keen to do so too.

Our whistleblowing framework was introduced through the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. It was intended to build openness and trust in workplaces by ensuring that workers can hold their employers to account, and are then treated fairly. It provides a route for workers to make disclosures of wrongdoing, including criminal offences, the endangerment of health and safety, causing damage to the environment, a miscarriage of justice, or a breach of any legal obligation. Disclosures usually need to be made to the employer, a lawyer or a prescribed person. Workers who believe they have been dismissed or otherwise detrimentally treated for making a protected disclosure can make a claim to an employment tribunal, which can award unlimited compensation.

Workers are often the first people to witness any type of wrongdoing within an organisation. Information that workers may uncover could prevent wrongdoing that may damage an organisation’s reputation or performance, and, in extreme circumstances, even save people from harm or death. In relation to whistleblowing protections, the standard employment law definition of a worker has been extended, and includes a wide range of employment relationships, such as agency workers; individuals under -taking work experience; self-employed doctors, dentists and pharmacists in the NHS; job applicants in the health sector; police officers; and student nurses and student midwives.

I fully understand that there are people who are not protected by the current legislation. Indeed, Ian Foxley was not covered by the legislation, and suffered hundreds of thousands of pounds of detriment for blowing the whistle. He spent 11 years without any employment, and he was a well-paid contractor prior to that time.

[James Daly]

What does the Minister mean by protected?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Protected from detriment. In Ian Foxley’s case, he feared for his life. It could be detriment in terms of loss of employment. There are a number of different detriments. Both protection and compensation should be fairly made.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Daly]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) said, there is a 4% success rate at employment tribunal. Those protections do not seem to be translating into ones that are enforceable in an employment tribunal, which is the problem.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will come on to what we are trying to do to make the legislation more effective. Do I think the legislation is where it needs to be today? No, I do not. That is the case for the changes we need to make. We need to look at all the different evidential points to ensure we move to the right place. Ian Foxley was a contractor, which is why he did not have the opportunity to get compensation in his case.

The SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) made a good point about volunteers. They may also be the eyes and ears we need. He made the alarming point that people who blow the whistle could lose everything, which all of us should take into account. People who clearly do not feel they will be properly protected or properly compensated should feel more assured that they will.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) pointed to the fact that the legislation was implemented 25 years ago by one of her predecessors. To give some reassurance, since the introduction of that legislation, the Government have continued to strengthen some of its provisions using non-legislative and legislative measures. We have produced guidance for whistleblowers and prescribed persons, as well as guidance and a code of practice for employers. We have produced guidance on how whistleblowers can make disclosures.

In 2017, we introduced a new requirement for most prescribed persons to produce an annual report on whistleblowing disclosures made to them. That duty is a direct response to concerns about the lack of transparency surrounding how disclosures were being handled. Most prescribed persons are now required to report on the number of disclosures, state whether they decided to take further action and give a summary of any action taken. We have also expanded the list of prescribed persons—the individuals and bodies to whom a worker can blow the whistle. In December 2022, I took forward some legislation to add six new bodies and all Members of the Scottish Parliament to the prescribed persons order. We continue to welcome proposals for appropriate additions to that order.

Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Bill

James Daly Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 24th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I am delighted that we are here today to take a further step towards introducing important changes to the right to request flexible working. The changes will help to set the right conditions for employees and employers to realise the benefits of flexible working.

Throughout the passage of the Bill, I have spoken of the importance of flexible working in helping to remove some of the invisible restrictions that hold people back in the workplace. These can include the need to live in high-cost accommodation in city centres or the need to maintain working arrangements that are hard to combine with caring responsibilities. Offering flexibility to balance work and home life can be key to ensuring participation and progression in the labour market and to opening up employment and promotion opportunities for everyone, regardless of their age, gender, disability or location.

The Bill is for the mothers who have to leave their jobs because those jobs do not support flexible working. The Bill is for those with chronic long-term conditions, the disabled and the most vulnerable in our society, who desperately need the flexibility so that they can continue to work while managing their health conditions and the toll that it can take on their mental health. The Bill is for working families—those with young children—who are working hard and trying to make ends meet in a cost of living crisis.

Throughout the Bill’s passage, Members from across the House have been keen to point out the business benefits associated with the take-up of flexible working arrangements. By removing these invisible restrictions, flexible working fosters a more diverse workforce, and evidence shows that this leads to improved financial returns for businesses. Furthermore, workers who have more flexibility are more motivated at work and are more likely to stay with their employer. Of course, there is a strong and unmet demand for more flexible jobs; research conducted by behavioural insight teams shows that offering flexible working can attract up to 30% more applicants for job vacancies.

The successful passage of this Bill would introduce changes to the existing right to request flexible working. That right was first introduced in 2003 for employed parents, and carers of children under the age of six and of disabled children under the age of 18. The legislation has since been amended several times, more recently as part of the Children and Families Act 2014; that was when the right was extended to all employees with 26 weeks of continuous service.

The right allows employees to request changes to their work arrangements and requires employers to properly consider those requests, although—and this is important—they do not have necessarily to agree to them. I recognise that not all organisations will be able to accommodate all forms of flexible working, so this Bill makes some changes to the legislation while retaining the fundamental approach of balancing the needs of both parties. It focuses on setting the right conditions so that employees and employers can have an open-minded conversation about what flexible working arrangements might be possible in any given context.

The Bill contains four measures. The first is to introduce a duty on employers to consult with their employees before rejecting their flexible working request. Put simply, the measure will prevent employers from defaulting to “no” without first engaging with the employee when responding to individual requests.

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

As the hon. Lady has just said, the word “consult” will be in the legislation; as a fellow lawyer, she will recognise that the matter will be litigated at great length before the employment tribunal. Will she go into more detail about what “consult” specifically means and about the requirements on the employer? Will it simply be a conversation or a formal meeting? What does “consult” mean if employers are to act in line with statutory requirements?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I think that in this context “consultation” means having a proper discussion with employees.

For many employers, what I have been discussing will already be a standard practice but the measure is an important step to ensure that we have consistency across the board. More positively, it will give both parties the opportunity to explore whether alternative workable options may be available before the conversation is closed and a final decision is reached.

The second measure will allow employees to make a second statutory flexible working request within any 12-month period. We all appreciate that a lot can happen in a year. Someone could unexpectedly become a carer or be diagnosed with a long-term health condition, meaning that their working arrangements are no long sustainable. The legislative framework needs to be sufficiently flexible to account for those realities. Amending it in this way will ensure that the right is more responsive to an individual’s needs and helps to avoid negative outcomes. The worst case scenario is when the individual feels that the only option is to drop out of work.

The third measure will reduce from three months to two months the statutory time frame in which employers are required to respond to a request. That is partly about encouraging responsiveness and partly about bringing the legislation up to date. In the event that an individual’s circumstances change unexpectedly, they will be likely to need a quick response so that they can adapt to the changes as efficiently and effectively as possible. More broadly, it is a fact that technology, processes and our understanding of flexible working have all advanced over the last decade and the legislation should be updated to reflect those changes.

The fourth measure will remove the requirement for employees to explain what effect the change applied for would have on the employer and how that effect might be dealt with. It seeks to make sure that the legislation does not unfairly favour those with more experience or who can better articulate themselves in written submissions.

I am pleased that, alongside the Bill, the Government have stayed true to their commitment to me and made the right to request flexible working apply from day one of employment. I am therefore grateful to Government Ministers for the position that they have taken on the Bill. As a package, these measures will help to secure more flexible working where it meets the needs of individuals and business, and will encourage a more constructive dialogue about different ways of working. The changes will also speed up the administrative process and, ultimately, provide more employees with better access to a diverse range of working arrangements.

I thank the organisations that have been a great support in the last few months, including those that have written to me and met me. To name a few, they are: Working Families, the MS Society, the TUC, Pregnant Then Screwed and Zurich Insurance. I especially thank the team in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy—the Department for Business and Trade, as we now call it—who have been tremendous in their support throughout the process. All three Ministers whom I have had the pleasure to deal with about the Bill have also been very supportive.

This is a policy area in which both the Labour party and the Conservative party have made commitments. We agree that more can and should be done to help people and businesses to find work arrangements that allow them to participate and prosper in the labour market. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members on both sides of the House will share my desire to ensure that the Bill succeeds.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a practising solicitor and a partner in a firm of solicitors, which may be relevant to some of the comments I make.

I remember those halcyon days when the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and I were in Bury magistrates court together. I tended to be defending the cases, and she tended to be prosecuting. How time goes by, because that is well over 10 years ago now. One of the things I have always known about her is that everything she does, as she has in the Bill she has put before the House and in the speech she made today, comes from a desire to change things for the better, and I congratulate her on that.

The reason I support the Bill—and I think any employer must accept the deficiencies within the system we have at the moment—is that, since before coming into this House, I have had an interest in young people on the autistic spectrum. One of the great scandals, apart from generally the support and treatment for young people who have conditions and challenges in their life, is lack of access to the labour market. Certainly, people on the autistic spectrum, who have so much to offer, not only have challenges getting into the labour market, but in many cases will need flexible working to be able to contribute by working.

[Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)]

My hon. Friend mentioned young people with autism and employment opportunities. Would he agree with me that, before employment, there needs to be a significant improvement in educational standards from primary right through to secondary?

[James Daly]

Absolutely; that is clearly correct. We have to recognise that there are individuals in our country who are being excluded from the labour market, and ways have to be found to ensure that they have an equal opportunity.

[Dean Russell]

On that point, does my hon. Friend applaud the Watford inclusive jobs fair, which took place just this week? Step2Skills, Hertfordshire County Council, Watford and West Herts chamber of commerce and many other organisations came together to make that happen. When I visited, it was amazing that it had had over 500 people apply to join and over 30 business were attending. Does he think that would be a good way forward for every other constituency?

[James Daly]

Obviously, I applaud everything Watford-based, but my hon. Friend makes a very serious point—it was also made by the hon. Member for Bolton South East—which is that in order to make a difference, we must have such events. We must ensure that employers and others involved in the local economy, whether in Watford or elsewhere, take these issues seriously.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because many Members are seeking to intervene on this for some reason. I just want to draw the House’s attention to a veterinary practice in Rackheath in my constituency, where the building itself has been constructed to be flexible for people with autism to work there, both as veterinary practitioners and in the support services. Does that not go to show how, with foresight, we can make accessible for people with autism those areas of employment that were previously inaccessible?

[James Daly]

There is not much else I can say about that, other than that it is very good news.

[Aaron Bell]

I must raise this point because I know that my hon. Friend has visited the institution concerned. May I take this opportunity to praise the work of John Caudwell, the founder of Phones 4u—the 4u group is based in Newcastle-under-Lyme—and the Caudwell Children centre in Newcastle-under-Lyme, which works with children with autism, and which I know my hon. Friend visited the other day? As a private sector entrepreneur, John Caudwell understands all too well the need for employment opportunities for those with autism. That is exactly the point my hon. Friend is making, and I could not let this opportunity pass without raising it.

[James Daly]

I think I am going to have to say “I agree” a lot in respect of these interventions.

[Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)]

My hon. Friend only has himself to blame for this: he has opened up a rich vein, because this is important. Only this week, I had the opportunity to sponsor an event in the House with the charity Hft, which works with people with learning difficulties, particularly on such simple issues as addressing obstacles to the workplace. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the work equation we all make, and that as employers we need to make as well, there are important things such as dignity and meaning attached to work, and reducing barriers and improving the flexibility of working arrangements is key to unlocking that for so many people?

[James Daly]

I agree. As has been said in relation to the importance of flexible working for family and all sorts of other reasons, it is important that a statement is made in law. Flexible working is already in the legislation that has been referred to, but we must make it very clear that this Parliament supports it if it can happen.

One of the things that concerns me about flexible working is the definition. We have already discussed the best form of flexible working, and there are sectors of the economy and parts of the workforce that are currently enjoying it, but I want to make this serious point. During the pandemic, flexible working was a necessity. My local authority decided to allow the vast majority of its staff to continue working from home. That may be a good or a bad thing—who knows?—but that was its decision.

However, there are considerations to be made. I have serious concerns about the impact of taking a huge sector of the workforce out of Bury town centre because the money that those people bring in to the urban centre is very important. I support flexibility in the sense that the hon. Member for Bolton South East set out, but it is not an open invitation to local authorities simply to continue arrangements that were put in place during the pandemic. What we are looking for is not flexibility for flexibility’s sake, but a system that allows proper access to the workforce for people who are being excluded and gives flexibility to people who have very good reasons to request it.

We often talk in the generality about a lot of things in this place, but the vast majority of the workforce in this country work in small and medium-sized enterprises of nine employees or fewer, such as in the sector that I worked in all my life. We must not underestimate the requirements on small businesses. Politicians can stand up and say words that make them feel good about themselves, but people still have to pay wages. There has to be a business there to allow flexible employment. Flexible employment cannot be imposed upon a business that cannot afford it. In vast sectors of the economy, it is simply impossible because people need to be in an office.

In my sector—this is why I mentioned my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—the challenges during the pandemic of being a conveyancing solicitor working from home were incredible. I would argue strongly that people in my sector need to be in the office. There needs to be that team environment, because it increases productivity. I am sure that it would work very well in other sectors of the economy, but we have to be open and honest about this. We cannot just impose principles on business if they cannot afford to pay the bills.

[Jerome Mayhew]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is a balance between the needs of the employer and the perfectly fair needs of the employees. Does he agree that this Bill seeks to get the balance right by imposing a duty of consultation, not an absolute right?

[James Daly]

That is the exact reason why I can support it. The administrative burden that it would place on employers would not concern them. Essentially, the law is changing very little from the current position, so I completely agree with that point.

We always talk about big employers with thousands of employees that can put in place all sorts of work models, but the self-employed and small businesses cannot take advantage of this. Too often, we miss those people out of the conversation when we talk about employment rights and other things that are crucial to those sectors. To be able to pay the bills in this place, we have to ensure that small businesses and the self-employed are not burdened by over-regulation. They must be able to flourish and support employees.

The other thing that is quite clear from my sector and, I suspect, most sectors of the economy is that, although we talk about flexible working, if an employer does not allow a skilled solicitor to have flexible working, they will get a job elsewhere in about five seconds. The question here is not simply about having flexibility for flexibility’s sake; it is about skills and the sector. With the market we have at the moment—there are the best part of a million vacancies—employers who do not take advantage of employees with the correct skillset for their area of work will lose them, and they cannot be replaced in the modern employment market. In many ways, the employment market is addressing this problem internally, but skills are absolutely essential to this discussion as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

As ever, my hon. Friend puts it far more eloquently than I could. He has hit the nail on the head, certainly on the seasonal aspect of some businesses and the changing times that we have all seen, not just through the pandemic but in recent years. If we want to have the most dynamic, growing, buoyant economy, we have to ensure that the paths into employment and by which people hold down employment—seasonal, permanent or whatever it might be—are allowed for in regulation. It is important that we do not dictate too firmly to businesses how they must go about their practices, but we must ensure that they are fair and open with their employees, so that nobody feels left behind, unable to enter the workplace or held back in some other way.

Indeed, that principle goes beyond business and into the public sector. To back up an argument I made a few moments ago, I am a member of the Transport Committee, which has looked at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency. All right hon. and hon. Members probably grappled with delays in the issuance of driving licences and heard nightmare stories from their constituents. One of the causes of those delays, stemming from the pandemic, was the inability of DVLA staff to access the weight of documents that people had posted to Swansea and to process them from home.

[James Daly]

This is a multidimensional issue, but my hon. Friend has put his finger on a real problem that we have to address and to be honest about. Productivity is the blight of the British economy and, as my hon. Friend rightly says, we must do everything we can as a Parliament to ensure that people can access careers. If somebody on flexible working in the private sector is not working to a high standard, that business will go bankrupt. What is my hon. Friend’s view on productivity in the state sector and these working requirements?

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. As we look at this legislation, it is important that we do not just think about it through the lens of the private sector, but talk about public sector jobs as well.

I can only highlight the point I made a few moments ago about the challenges involved in getting driving licences issued in the time that our constituents wanted them to be issued. The problem in that example was an inability to do the job from home. Not only had the original documents been posted as good old-fashioned snail mail to Swansea; even when staff in the office scanned those documents and transferred them to a digital format, so that other staff could process them and judge whether a driving licence could be issued, the files were so enormous that they were not necessarily able to get through to the person working from home. We have to ensure that productivity is included in this debate. As others have said, certain jobs simply cannot be done from home. The technology is not necessarily there for absolutely everyone to receive hundreds of megabytes and gigabytes of data in order to do their job, so I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North.

To conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker—

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to respond to the debate from the Opposition Front Bench. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) for bringing this important Bill to the House, and for working with Ministers, employers, trade unions and other organisations to get it to this stage. She made an excellent speech, and I commend her for her tireless campaigning for unpaid carers. She knows that the Bill will help many across the country to balance work with caring for their loved ones. Recognition must also go to the TUC for its Flex for All campaign, as well as to other organisations from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, to Working Families and Pregnant then Screwed for their campaigning on this issue and for holding the Government to account.

I reiterate what has been said at previous legislative stages of the Bill. The Bill has Labour’s full support, but we still expect much greater action from the Government to enhance workers’ rights. The data tell the story: there are currently 1.5 million more women out of and not looking for work than men. The number of economically inactive working-age women rose by 124,000 last year, compared with the previous year. Gaps in employment because of a lack of flexibility can cause a loss of confidence to return to work, as well as resulting in reduced pension entitlement and barriers to career progression, not to mention the gender pay gap.

Labour welcomes the provisions in the Bill, which will begin to help create the environment for a fairer and more equitable discussion between employers and employees about flexible working. The covid-19 pandemic has changed how we work, with both employers and employees recognising the business and personal opportunities created by flexible working. The Bill represents an important step to ensuring that legislation reflects where we are as a society.

Many Members have spoken on this common-sense Bill, particularly from the Government Benches, and we heard from the hon. Members for Watford (Dean Russell), for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell), for Bury North (James Daly), for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon), for Buckingham (Greg Smith), and for Aylesbury (Rob Butler). We also heard interventions from the  hon. Members for Dewsbury (Mark Eastwood), for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) and for Aberconwy (Robin Millar). Far be it from me to point out that they are all—as I am—from the 2019 intake, and therefore are the Conservative MPs with the most recent experience of the world of work. Perhaps they are getting their bids in early for when they return to the world of work in a year and a half or two years.

Improving access to flexible working will help the parents of young children, single parents, women, carers, older people and people with disabilities or health conditions. Accessing flexible work is not equal for all: a TUC poll found that one in three flexible working requests were turned down. People want to stay in work and earn a living, but too many are being forced out of the labour market. At present, one in five economically inactive people say that the reason they are economically inactive is that they are responsible for other family members. We know that many women are disproportionately affected by barriers to accessing flexible working, which are compounded by poor access to affordable childcare and to adequate parental leave.

The Bill will contribute to breaking down barriers to the workplace and will help employers to create stronger, more diverse workforces. I stress that flexible working is about not just working from home, but a fundamental change to working practices to improve the lives of all working people. The ability to work flexibly is crucial to achieving gender equality in the workplace and a fairer, growing economy to change our economy and the world of work for the better.

The Bill is a step in the right direction, but workers still need greater protections. Flexible working should not be a nice-to-have or a job perk, but an employment right. We need to see the Bill as a starting point, not the end point.

Following years of dragging their feet on their pledge to make flexible working the default, the Conservatives have agreed to back only these watered-down proposals. They pledged to include regulations on flexible working in their long-awaited employment Bill. That Bill was announced in the 2019 Queen’s Speech, and it was stated that it would

“make flexible working the default”,

but it was seemingly shelved in last year’s Queen’s Speech.

Beyond responding to this private Member’s Bill, the Government have repeatedly failed to follow through on their promises to promote flexible working. Labour is proudly committed to strengthening rights at work. Although the Government are willing to allow workers the right to request flexible working, Labour’s new deal for working people will ensure the right to secure flexible working for all workers, as default from day one, with employers required to accommodate that as far as is reasonable.

[James Daly]

Will the hon. Lady clarify that point? Is it the case that if, for good reason, a small or medium-sized employer cannot afford to accommodate flexible working, because of the nature of their business, a Labour Government would legislate to say that that is unlawful and that it had to, no matter the financial consequences for the business? [Interruption.]

[Rachel Hopkins]

The Minister chunters from a sedentary position. I beg to disagree: Labour is the friend of small businesses. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the end of my sentence before jumping to his feet, he would have heard me say, “as far as is reasonable”. There is a better balance to be had, but there is still a requirement to have a discussion and for it to be as far as is reasonable for the business.