Lords Chamber

Tuesday 13th May 2025

(began 2 months ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:40
None Portrait Introduction(s): Lord Harper and Lord Massey of Hampstead
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles Charles III, Charles III, by Charles III, by the Charles III, by the grace Charles III, by the grace of Charles III, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of our other realms and territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, to all Lords Spiritual and Temporal and all other our subjects whatsoever to whom these present shall come, greeting. Know ye that we of our especial grace, certain knowledge and mere motion, in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act 1958 and of all other powers in that behalf us enabling do, by these presence advance, create and prefer our trusty and well beloved, Mark James Harper to the state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baron Harper of the Forest of Dean in our county of Worcestershire.

And for us, our heirs and successors, do appoint, give and grant unto him the said name, state, degree, style, dignity, name, state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baron Harper to have and to hold unto him for his life. Willing and by these presence granting, for us, our heirs and successors that he may have, hold and possess a seat, place and voice in the Parliaments and Public Assemblies and Councils of us, our heirs and successors, within our United Kingdom, amongst the Barons.

And also that he may enjoy and use all the rights, privileges, preeminences, immunities and advantages to the degree of a Baron, duly and of right belonging, which Barons of our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed or as they do at present use and enjoy. In witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent, witness ourself at Westminster in the full moon of the 12th day of May in the third year of our reign. By warrant under the Kings sign manual.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I, Mark Lord Harper, do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law. So

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles III, Charles III, by Charles III, by the Charles III, by the grace Charles III, by the grace of Charles III, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of our other realms and territories our other realms and territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, to all Lords Defender of the Faith, to all Lords Spiritual and Temporal and all other our subjects whatsoever to whom these present shall come, greeting.

these present shall come, greeting. Know ye that we of our especial grace, certain knowledge and mere motion, in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act 1958 and of all other Peerages Act 1958 and of all other powers in that behalf us enabling do, by these presence advance, create and prefer our trusty and create and prefer our trusty and create and prefer our trusty and well beloved, Stephen Leigh Massey To the state, degree, style, To the state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baron Massey And for us, our heirs and successors, do appoint, give and grant unto him the said name, state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baron Massey to have and to hold unto him for his life.

Willing and by these presence granting, for us, our heirs and successors that he may have, hold and possess a seat, place and voice in the Parliaments and Public Assemblies and Councils of us, our heirs and successors, within our United Kingdom, amongst the Barons. And also that he may enjoy and use all the rights, privileges, preeminences, immunities and advantages to the degree of a Baron, duly and of right belonging, which Barons of our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed or as In witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent, witness ourself at Westminster in the afternoon of the 12th day of May.

In the third year of our reign. By warrant under the King's sign- By warrant under the King's sign- !, Stephen Leigh Massey, do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law. So First First Oral First Oral Question. First Oral Question. First Oral Question.
14:50
14:50
14:51
14:52
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:01
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Portrait Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
I thank the Minister for the answer. In March 2024, there were £4.4 billion of unpaid criminal court fines, compensation orders and surcharges. Does the Minister agree that steps should be taken urgently to deal with this unacceptable situation, which is grossly unfair on those who do actually pay up and leads to scepticism in the judiciary and society at large the effectiveness of non-custodial

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sentences? I thank my noble friend for the supplementary question. Of the £4.4 billion which she referred to, £2.7 billion which she referred to, £2.7 billion is confiscation orders. And billion is confiscation orders. And of that figure, £1.2 billion is purely interest full stop interest purely interest full stop interest is paid at 8% on the confiscation order amount. There are legislative order amount. There are legislative changes which are in the Crime and changes which are in the Crime and Policing Bill which is currently in the other place.

I think it is worth the other place. I think it is worth pointing out to my noble friend that in existing legislation there are in existing legislation there are only very limited circumstances where a Crown Court can judicially where a Crown Court can judicially cancel and and order and it contains cancel and and order and it contains no powers to enter confiscation order which means it accrues over the years including the interest. With respect to financial penalties, the picture is very different.

Over a five year period, 80% of all a five year period, 80% of all financial penalties, of orb finds a financial penalties, of orb finds a means, are collected. And that figure of 80% has remained flat over figure of 80% has remained flat over the last few years. So while I accept that the overall number is increasing, I think that gives an increasing, I think that gives an unfair picture of the current situation, and the government is addressing the reasons why that is an unfair reflection of the position.

position.
15:03
15:04
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:14
Lord Vallance of Balham Portrait Lord Vallance of Balham, Minister of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)
-
-
government planned to launch an initiative in this field. Could we please have a date on which this is going to be published? Could we have clarity on whether it will target American academics have become very unsettled by the assault on academic freedom in the United States? Could he also tell us whether the recent announcements on immigration by the prime minister will have any adverse consequences for what was originally planned? As I said in answer to an earlier question, I'm very keen to make sure I'm keen to make sure we have a robust system to attract the best talent from all over the world.

I will be making announcements about that very shortly. In terms of the that very shortly. In terms of the Integration White Paper, the Global Integration White Paper, the Global Talent visa rules are ones that have been pulled out as ones that will become easier, they will be facilitated to make this happen. And facilitated to make this happen. And another eyeless areas as well. So in terms of the highly skilled individuals we need, both for the individuals we need, both for the service sector and for that tech sector and the companies, I think sector and the companies, I think there are measures in the White Paper that make that easier.

Paper that make that easier. Is my noble friend aware of the large number of charities that support research that bring overseas senior academics to the UK? We mentioned the Royal Society Wilson Fellowships, and scientific group in Israel, and there are a large number of others was to contribute of others was to contribute of others was to contribute

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There are a number of schemes. Over 200 million of funding goes to Over 200 million of funding goes to the National academies to support core activities, the vast majority is spent on research and talent schemes, and 400 million was given schemes, and 400 million was given to the Royal Society and Royal Academy engineering for their specific fellowship schemes in terms of an endowment. The Faraday discovery Fellowship and engineers from the Green Futures Fellowship, from the Green Futures Fellowship, there are many challenges which contribute and we are fortunate to contribute and we are fortunate to have a charities, including bottom trust, which provide substantial

**** Possible New Speaker ****

funding for fellowship schemes. Other countries have been very quick to act decisively in light of the severe by the Trump administration to US science administration to US science budgets. Is it not a real danger of UK falling behind, is it not something that should be addressed urgently.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am going to reiterate the point I made, it is important we make schemes available to people from all over the world, it is not about over the world, it is not about targeting a specific country, we will do so, we are working on schemes at the moment to make attractive offers to individuals and attractive offers to individuals and groups. This is an important area,
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:25
15:26
15:27
15:27
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Last week, the Palestinian authority declared a famine in Gaza. It was not caused by a flood, it was It was not caused by a flood, it was not caused by a drought or any natural causes, it is entirely man- natural causes, it is entirely man- made. I welcome what the noble Baroness said about the conference being held next week, can the UK government ensure that we point out that there are aid workers already on the ground in Gaza who has been working for years, ceaselessly, to help the Palestinians, and they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

should very much be part of the solution. The noble Lady is right, this is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lady is right, this is not... Different aid is not something you can do on a whim, these are people who are these are people who are experienced, who have expertise and the -- and note the areas on the ground. When I referred to the ground. When I referred to the conference, the 1 Taking Pl today in New York, but she is right, there is aid at the borders that could be delivered. People, one in five of the population, are facing the population, are facing starvation.

It is critical, the starvation. It is critical, the sooner we can get the aid in the, the quickest way of doing so is to stop blocking the aid select can be stop blocking the aid select can be delivered to those who are in desperate, dire need of it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

desperate, dire need of it. Will the Leader of the House except that the sidelining of trusted aid agencies and the militarisation of aid under the militarisation of aid under the scheme will lead to large parts of Gaza where the most vulnerable and least mobile people live are without

**** Possible New Speaker ****

supplies. The noble Lady says there is a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lady says there is a scheme in place, I'm not sure there is another scheme, there are is another scheme, there are discussions about it but I have not seen any details. But there cannot be any aid mechanism that does not have delivering humanitarian aid as
15:29
15:30
15:30
None Portrait Business of the House
-

quickly as possible save lives. I said in the beginning, the UK funded... All of our funded aid looks at every possible mechanism to ensure the aid gets to where it is needed which is most vulnerable. We will always do that and DfT we can will always do that and DfT we can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They have passed the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, to which they desire the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bill, to which they desire the agreement of your Lordships. My Lords, the Border Security,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, I beg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Asylum and Immigration Bill, I beg to move that this bill be read a first time. This will be read a first time. As many are of that opinion say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content". The contents have it. This may be a convenient moment for the Lordships who wish to leave for the Lordships who wish to leave the chamber to do so, as I said

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Third Third reading Third reading of Third reading of the Third reading of the Norwich Livestock Market Bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Livestock Market Bill. My Lords I beg to move to move that this bill be read 1/3 time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that this bill be read 1/3 time. The question is that this will be read 1/3 time. As many are of that opinion say, "Content". Of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. I beg to move this bill do now
15:34
15:34
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
Infrastructure Planning (Onshore Wind and Solar Generation) Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I beg to move the Motion standing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in my name on the order paper. The question is that this motion be agreed to. As many are of that be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Question to answer on an Urgent Question asked in the on an Urgent Question asked in the House of Commons yesterday on the protection of prison staff. protection of prison staff.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, on 3 April, 'The Times' reported that Islamist gangs had created Gross dysfunction in HMP Frankland in which large numbers of convicted terrorists are held. Just convicted terrorists are held. Just nine days later, on 12th April, the Manchester bomber, detained in the Manchester bomber, detained in the same prison, through hot oil over a same prison, through hot oil over a prison officer. Then, on eighth May, the Southport killer, detained in HMP Belmarsh through boiling water over an officer there.

Both these terrible attacks work by radical Islamist in category A prisons. My questions are these, what steps will questions are these, what steps will be taken to isolate such prisoners from access to such dangerous from access to such dangerous substances? Will tasers be issued in substances? Will tasers be issued in category A prisons? When will stab vests be provided? vests be provided?
15:35
15:36
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:41
None Portrait Legislation: Employment Rights Bill - committee stage (day 3) - part one
-

they are and do all we can to limit their activities. One of the things that we also know is that the best way of dealing with these complex people is by trusting the staff and expertise at dealing with it. We need to make sure we give them every tool at their disposal to make sure that these people are not dangerous to themselves, to other prisoners,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and importantly, to staff. House to be again in committee on the Employment Rights Bill. Baroness Jones of Whitchurch.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jones of Whitchurch. My Lords, I beg to move that the House now resolvers of into a committee on the bill. committee on the bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

committee on the bill. The question is that the House resolve itself into a committee upon the bill. As many are of that the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Lord Sharpe Lord Sharpe of Lord Sharpe of Epsom. My Lords, I rise to speak to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 71 A, 71B and 75 standing in my name. According to latest statistics, and appear employees fell by 33,000 in April, or 106,000 over the year. The number of job vacancies also fell. Wage growth has slowed. This evidence suggests that the OBR was right and the provisions in this bill are already creating net negative impact. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development latest survey was widely cited at the weekend was it confirms that employers confidence is at the lowest level since the pandemic.

And one quarter of employers are planning to make redundancies in the next quarter. Their economist was quoted as saying, " Employment Rights Bill is landing in a fundamentally different landscape to the one expected when it formed part of Labour's manifesto last year. " This picture was also confirmed in KPMG's recruitment and employment Confederation report. Recruitment activity across the UK continues to weaken at the start of the second quarter. The chief executive of the RAC Neil Carberry has said it is a time for real changes to address employer fears to boost hiring full stop sensible timetable and practical changes that due to redtape firms complying with the bill will go a long way towards becoming nervous about taking a chance on someone.

Last week the noble Lord called for this bill to go on vacation because we need to get it. This raft of new statistics proves his prescience. And perhaps the vacation ought to be permanent. Instead we are being asked to consider further obligations to employers changes to Statutory Sick Pay. A number of businesses across sectors and made it clear that while they support the principle of Statutory Sick Pay, they are concerned about the rate and structure being proposed. Many have called for the rate of Statutory Sick Pay to be set at 60% rather than 80% as a more sustainable and proportionate figure.

The government claims to have consulted widely with businesses, with trade unions, and with various stakeholder groups, to try to strike a fair balance. But based on the data and concerns
15:45
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
raised, we believe the right answer particularly for the initial period absence is 60%. To look at some of the other evidence, the British the other evidence, the British Chamber of Commerce 2024 workplace survey, 54% of respondents said they survey, 54% of respondents said they would be negatively impacted by the proposal for Statutory Sick Pay entitlement from day one. That is a entitlement from day one. That is a clear warning sign that the proposed structure may have unintended structure may have unintended consequences.

Further, in a survey with the London Chamber of Commerce, with the London Chamber of Commerce, 38% of firms said they would have to freeze hiring as a direct result of freeze hiring as a direct result of the Statutory Sick Pay changes. 30% expect a reduction in profits, and expect a reduction in profits, and 33% anticipate lower wage increases for their existing staff. These are not abstract figures, they point to a real-world economic decisions, that is being made in response to uncertainty and increased cost pressures.

The government has rightly emphasised its goal of encouraging people back into the workforce, particularly after the long-term disruption caused by the long-term disruption caused by the pandemic. We obviously support the same but to do so effectively we must create the right environment. And support employees when they are genuinely unwell whilst giving employers the confidence affects ability to hire. Amendment 70 1A Amendment 71 A6 to do exactly that. This amendment proposes the Statutory Sick Pay should be paid at 60% for the first three qualifying days, and raised to 80% thereafter.

This reflects the reality that short-term absence imposes different challenges on business than long- term illness. It also ensures that those who are acutely unwell and suffering from long-term conditions still receive the full financial support they need and deserve. This approach reflects the principle that incentives should be tailored are not uniform. Not one-size-fits-all. We need a more flexible and weighted approach to sick pay and one that reflects the real operational pressures businesses face while maintaining adequate protections for workers. We believe this amendment strike that balance.

It is also worth noting that during early discussions around the bill, the government itself indicated that a range between 60% and 80% was under consideration. This amendment is therefore not a radical departure from the government's own thinking from the government's own thinking I would also turn the attention of the House to concerns raised by UK Hospitality. Take, for example, the pub sector, which employs over 600,000 people across full-time and part-time roles. The latest Statutory Sick Pay proposals are predicted to add up words of 10 million to this sector, which is already struggling.

Currently, some sickness days unpaid duty employees falling below the lower earnings limit. However, stricter reporting requirements are likely to increase the costs even further. I ought to remind the House that the government's own impact assessment states, and I quote, overall, we have seen the direct increase in cost as a direct transfer to employees in the terms of sector pay and is neutral on a net basis but will improve equality. The wider impact are deemed uncertain given the difficulty of predicting behavioural impacts.

Remember, this impact assessment was conducted in a fundamentally different landscape. We appreciate that the government might not see amendment 71 with a flat 60% rate that is workable, that is why we are offering amendment 70 1A 71 AS a constructive alternative. It recognises that long-term sickness requires stronger protection whilst addressing employer concerns about short-term absence. It provides incentives for people to return to work, encourages the genuine use of sick leave and gives employers confidence to invest in their workforce.

Turning to amendment 75, as I mentioned, the government's own impact assessment has stated that small businesses will face a disproportionate cost as a result of measures. The 5 billion figure is, in our view, likely to be an understatement and it entirely relates to increased administer burdens whilst failing to calculate the knock-on effect on business costs and hiring behaviour. Particularly the impact of making it more expensive to employ people. The impact assessment goes so far as to admit that the net effect on society is, and I quote, uncertain, due to uncertainty on behavioural impacts.

What a damning phrase, that level of ambiguity is troubling, especially when the stakes are so high for the smallest enterprises. So, we make no apology for repeating that there is much too much uncertainty in this Bill, which weighs heavily on Small and medium sized enterprises. This concern extends to the proposals regarding SSP. Let me be clear, we do not oppose SSP, on the contrary, we recognise its importance. It is critical that workers have financial support during periods of sickness and that is a matter of basic decency and fairness.

However, the reason for amendment 75 is grounded in magnetism. Small business cannot plan, budget or comply. Without that clarity, we are asking them to commit to obligations that might make them structurally unequipped. We must not lose sight of the fact that small businesses form the that small businesses form the backbone of our economy, they are not large corporations with legal teams. They operate on time margins teams. They operate on time margins and the need certainty, predict ability and time to repair.

I beg to move. move.
15:50
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Portrait Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)
-
-
Amendment proposed, page 11, clause 37, leave out lines 21 to 24 and insert the words as mentioned on the Marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment 72.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment 72. I am grateful for the support and the safe sick pay campaign and the safe sick pay campaign and Health Foundation for their help. The amendment is a probing one. From The amendment is a probing one. From a different perspective than the a different perspective than the noble Lord. To which the bill makes very welcome improvements. Nevertheless, this scheme will fail to provide adequate protection. Especially for workers on low Especially for workers on low incomes who belong to marginalised groups.

The amendment requires groups. The amendment requires detectives to review the rate of SSP prior to this year's budget to ensure that nobody is worse off as a result of the otherwise positive result of the otherwise positive changes made in the Bill. Starting with the latter, I appreciate the time that my noble friend, the time that my noble friend, the Minister, gave myself and my noble friend, Lady O'Grady, to discuss the unintended consequences of the unintended consequences of the welcome removal of the Lower Earnings Limit and the replacement by the rule that employees will receive 80% of the average weekly earnings or the flat rate SSP, whichever is lower.

The problem is, the new rule means that a small number of low-paid employees will be worse off than now. Because of the welcome removal of the waiting period, the loss will be limited to those of work sick for more than three weeks. According to DWP, we are talking about 13% of all sickness absences. I accept this is a small proportion, but by definition, we are talking about people with more serious illnesses. In the fact sheet, the DBP gives an example of a cleaner working 11 hours across five days at national living wage, takes three months off for cancer treatment, who would lose £65 in total.

In SSP. They assumed the cleaner could make up some of it in Universal Credit. What if the cleaner was married to somebody whose wages are not low enough to qualify for UC? She would lose some of her independent income, and £65 might not sound like that much, to those on decent incomes, but it can make a real difference to somebody on a low income, particularly where a worker's earnings are not shared fairly within the family. It is women in particular who are likely to lose out as a result of this unintended consequence.

I understand why the government has rejected the alternative that has been put forward. But I would ask them to look again at the proposal made by a number of trade unions and charities that the formula uses a 95% rather than 80% replacement rate. We seem to be the most straightforward way of dealing with this. I believe it is incumbent on the committee to come up with a solution to ensure that nobody is made worse off as a result of the intended consequences, of the otherwise positive change made by the Bill.

After all, the Plan to Make Work Pay, we will ensure the new system provides fair and replacement for people earning below the current rate. Turning to the rate of SSP, the final report of the commission noted that the expansion of SSP and the bill does not address the fundamental issue, Statutory Sick Pay remains too low to provide meaningful financial security during illness. Last year, the work and pension site with concluded that SSP does not currently provide adequate protection for those who most need protecting from financial hardship during periods of absence.

It consequently fails to perform the primary function providing a basic level of income protection. £118.75, it represents an earning replacement rate of only 19% for an employee on average earnings for 20% on a full- time Minimum Wage Act. One of the lowest rates in the OECD. The interim reported the keep Britain working review pointed out our European counterparts pay around 70 to 80% of an employee's wage when they ask. The low rate in the UK all too often spells real hardship and financial insecurity.

Especially for lower paid workers, women, disabled workers, and members of racially minority communities. Analysis by Citizens Advice shows that 4/5 households in the bottom 3 deciles would not be able to afford the essentials such as bills and food after four weeks on SSP. The Work and Pensions Committee noted there was almost complete agreement among witnesses to its enquiry that it was too low and not enough to live on. This included 90% of members surveyed by the professionals. Cancer charities have wanted to how far cancer patients for below the minimum standard needed to live a dignified life at a socially acceptable standard as measured by my colleagues at Loughborough University.

In a briefing, the quote a patient with leukaemia who says what people don't realise is that costs also go up when you get cancer. A huge drop in income, that he was not able to replace the benefits, the result was that he wrote he was an emotional wreck and it was a very bad time. Mind found that two in three people with a mental health program -- problem surveyed faced financial difficulties. The court mentioned in on SSP which affected the ability to pay bills, which hardly helps the recovery.

Indeed, 3/5 of respondents believe the reduction in income, as a result of receipt of SSP had a negative impact on the mental health. This is illustrated by a research respondent, quoted by the Health Foundation, if sick pay have been enough, I would have been able to return to work. But instead, my condition worsened drastically. I ended up in the last state, mental health wise, I have ever been in. Forcing me to claim PIP and be unemployed for the past year and 1/2.

The hardship associated with receipt of SSP, particular need for those on low incomes can result in present years, people coming into work when sick, where it is contagious, spreading sickness. But for them, their workers and employers. Present years and cost businesses 44 days lost productivity per year. Poor sick pay and minds the objective of economic growth. Analysis by WPI suggests improve SSP could boost the economy by over £4 billion per year. And reduce the pressure on the NHS.

The Health Foundation ones that inadequate SSP can create an incentive for some workers to move into the Social Security system without a clear route back into work. The opposite of what government policies how to she. They point out that when workers are financially supported during sickness absence, they are more able to recover, take part in rehabilitation and return to work safely, and sustainably. The implications of present years am visible during the pandemic. Which, as the Minister told the committee last week, exposed how precarious work and life are for those on low incomes.

Many forced to choose between the health and financial hardship. Far too many people felt that they could not afford to stay that they could not afford to stay at home when they were infectious. Contrary to more generous sick pay for better health outcomes. We are told by the experts, it is only a matter of time until the next pandemic. One way that we can prepare is by ensuring that SSP is adequate. So, my Lords, this amendment asks government to look again at how to ensure nobody loses out as a result of the improvements to SSP and undertake a quick review of its levels.

Welcomed by the wide range of charities, the TUC, and major trade unions, as well over 100... Over 180 parliamentarians, all of whom support the safe sick pay campaign. The New Deal for working people says unequivocally that Labour will raise Statutory Sick Pay. The amendment built on the Ricoh assurance in the Commons from the Minister that the government would monitor how effectively the bills performed will support employees. We do not need monitoring to tell us that SSP is too low.

Especially in the recent enquiry. The commission for healthier lives called for a review that will result in an increase of SSP to a fairer level by giving businesses the time and support they need to adapt. I do hope that my noble friend, the Minister, will be able to provide Minister, will be able to provide
16:01
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
I would like to speak to amendment 73 tabled in my name, and it is regarding SMEs and an SSP rebate scheme. I have made myself a drafting error by calling it four days, it should have been three days. My Lords, occupational health is a key factor both in helping people to stay in work, but also in trying to prevent some of the illnesses but also getting back into work quickly. It has been for some time a key part of the strategy for successful business to do that.

I'm also conscious that particular SMEs are not always well displaced currently to access. That is why more recent strategies, that expanding that capability has been a key part of DWP, which the present administration has continued. Sickness rates significantly lower in the private sector compared to the public sector. But what is common to both is there is an increasing prevalence of the primary reason for people being off sick due to mental well-being. I am conscious that this is not an easy situation to often challenge or interact with if you don't have the experience to do that.

That is why increasing occupational health is needed. Why is occupational so relevant to this? It used to be the case that Statutory Sick Pay you could reclaim from the government the amount of money that you may have paid out, used to be able to get a rebate for that Statutory Sick Pay element for businesses. I know that because I used to fill out the claims myself when I was working in industry. Over time that had been whittled down. But it was finally abolished in 2014.

Instead though what the government did was create a new health and work service, which was designed to be referred to by SMEs for people who had been ill for a few weeks. Again, as almost a provision operated by government, facilitated by government. One of the challenges is this is continuing to be an issue. Many particularly small businesses believe, certainly in the submissions made to me, that they are worried about this starting from day one of people being unwell.

As a consequence, I do think it is important that we should investigate the opportunity to get a rebate scheme for SMEs to try and keep the status quo as it is today. It is in the interests of government support SMEs when we are thinking, as we have already heard, the statistics show that unfortunately payroll employment is falling full stop I was very pleased in office that we actually saw it increasing, and indeed, I am certain that, in wanting the government to succeed in its ambition to get 80% employment rate that it needs SMEs to be taking on people to work.

For me, this Bill, I have already explained, I don't think it will help with that but I think one modest way to go towards this in alleviating some of the issues would be to introduce a straightforward rebate scheme for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

SMEs. I want to speak in support of my
16:04
Lord Davies of Brixton Portrait Lord Davies of Brixton (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I want to speak in support of my noble colleague Baroness Lister, in noble colleague Baroness Lister, in support of more being done in terms of Statutory Sick Pay. Of course I welcome the government's commitment to strengthen Statutory Sick Pay, by removing the Lower Earnings Limit, and removing the waiting period. But government must go further to ensure people with mental health problems have a secure safety net when they need time off work. And a pathway back into work when they recover.

The UK has one of the least generous sick pay schemes in the OECD in terms of this. It forces people to remain in work when they are unwell which risks them becoming more unwell and eventually falling out of work. Because Statutory Sick Pay is there, people who rely on it are often remaining going into work when they are unwell. This risks them getting more unwell to the point that they fall out of implant altogether. So we need a sick pay system that provides real security.

Also a sick pay system that is more compassionate, and that gives people the time they need to get better and supports them to return to when they are ready. Reforming Statutory Sick Pay is beneficial to the economy, to businesses, and to people with mental health problems. As my noble friend has emphasised, presenteeism, going to work when unwell, is costing the UK economy £24 billion a year, figures induced by Deloittes. It reduces productivity and business competitiveness, as well as aggravating a person's illness.

Introducing a flexible Statutory Sick Pay model which allows for partial payments alongside wages would help people to gradually return to after a period of sickness, or allow people to reduce their hours when they need to without being signed off completely. Not only is this beneficial for the employer, as employees are able to return to works sooner, but it also keeps the employee connected to their workplace, and reduces the likelihood that they will fall out of employment altogether.

Extending the length of Statutory Sick Pay being paid from 28 weeks to 52 weeks, will enable more people to stay in employment, reducing rehiring costs for businesses, and preventing people falling out of employment and needing support from employment and needing support from the benefits system. Ultimately we need to see a higher level of need to see a higher level of Statutory Sick Pay, and I see no reason why, when you are sick, you reason why, when you are sick, you should get any less than the National Minimum Wage.

National Minimum Wage.
16:08
Baroness Noakes Portrait Baroness Noakes (Conservative)
-
-
... The changes to Statutory Sick Pay in this bill is the impact on smaller businesses, which is why I support the amendments in this group in the names of my noble Friend lady coffee and Fox which provide for coffee and Fox which provide for rebates. I refer to this because it clearly undoes the harms that this bill will cause. I could not find very much data on how much businesses actually pay in Statutory Sick Pay.

I suspect that unless an employer is unlucky enough to get an employee that has 'Long-duration energy storage: get on with it' sickness, most will be paid relatively little at present because the absence is less than four days. Most sickness absence, that is what the data does show, are for minor illnesses. These are unlikely to exceed three days. The average days lost per worker per year in 2023, the most recent date I could find, was just short of eight days.

Amongst small and micro businesses, that falls to around five days. Extending that days for which payment is made is likely to increase the number of days lost to sickness, as the current incentive to work if the illness is mild will simply disappear. The government say they have no idea what the behavioural impact of the changes will be, whether they will be positive or negative. But I would be prepared to bet that there will be far more short duration absences which will qualify for Statutory Sick Pay than they were before.

If I am right that most SMEs don't currently pay much in the way of Statutory Sick Pay, the changes in this bill will straightforwardly increase their costs. An average small business, of between 10 and 49 employees, has about 20 employees. That means the average for a small business will be paying for at least 100 days of sickness which they don't currently have. And that would cover, it would amount to around £2000 in additional costs each year.

Even if no additional sick days were taken which I doubt. That is not a huge amount per business, but it does add up to many millions of does add up to many millions of pounds across the whole economy. It also of course comes on top of the jobs tax and are significant increases in the National Minimum Wage. Which leads me to the likely real consequences of this change on top of the others. And put simply, SMEs will not be hiring workers unless they absolutely have to.

We can already see the remnants of this from the survey of small businesses, and in weakening labour market, my noble friend gave an up-to-date view on that, and this will only get worse. Furthermore, all of those groups which we as a nation wants to get back into work, in particular those who are long-term sick, will simply not be attractive to employers. Any hint of an illness record in a job applicant's background will count against them going forward.

Because no employer will want to take on the additional costs that would automatically come with that employee. I am sure I don't need to remind the committee that SMEs employ nearly half of the private sector workforce. Reluctance to hire amongst SMEs will kill growth, and will kill opportunities for many of the groups that we need to be employed in this country. to be employed in this country. There is a simple way to solve this There is a simple way to solve this problem, and it is set out in Amendment 73, 74, the government Amendment 73, 74, the government would be wise to go down that route.
16:12
Baroness Lawlor Portrait Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak in support of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak in support of Amendment 71 and 71A and 71B in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom and to name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom and to support Amendment 73 in the name of support Amendment 73 in the name of Baroness Coffey an amendment 74 brought by Lord Fox. Lord Sharpe's amendment proposed a sensible modification to clause 11. And strike a more affordable approach strike a more affordable approach for a business paying the employee full-time not worked as well as for the compliance and record-keeping involved.

I say more affordable rather than fair because many rather than fair because many businesses, particularly small and micro businesses, as we continue to micro businesses, as we continue to hear at committee, will struggle to hear at committee, will struggle to stay afloat and keep in business, given the juggernaut of additional costs and burdens, increased obligations imposed by this bill. Including those on, in this clause and of course the previous clauses that we have discussed. In clause 11, such costs are to be imposed for those below the Lower Earnings Limit as we have heard.

These will add to the extra costs paid by employers. They will potentially open for the problems raised in the impact assessment. The modelling for which suggests a rosier picture for business and the available evidence warrants. But it also raises questions of behavioural response. Indeed, this consideration was a fundamental principle addressed in the welfare state proposals by Sir William Beveridge in his blueprint in 1942. With the original National Insurance act framed as it contributory scheme with strict conditions on benefit to avoid creating perverse incentives.

Here, the impact assessment, and this measure which models outcomes on the basis of a variety of factors including some unproven assumptions suggests that while there is evidence suggesting overall sickness absence may be reduced, but on the basis of evidence considered from other countries says, it is possible that regulation changes induced behavioural response. And that studies from other countries have found that the incidence of sickness absences are higher when sick pay is more generous. There could be an increased number of sickness absence days taken due to improved financial protection.

We can read that in whatever way we like, and we have heard different interpretations of more generous Statutory Sick Pay. I think it is incumbent on government to consider a return to some of the original intervals in the National Insurance system in this country, and to think further about not and to think further about not There is one of the reason why There is one of the reason why I would like to support these amendments, clause 11 implies those low the lower earnings level can do as well as those on higher earnings without improvements in their skills and productivity levels.

The government modelling has been based on productive at present rather low skills level. That premise, and the overall... That overall reflected by this Bill is misguided in that additional cost to be borne by employers alone are to be paid for without productivity gains. And with no regard for the wider context of the overall economy. Or its buoyancy. Rather, the bill, including clause 11, locks the UK labour market into being the lowest productivity economy amongst similar, G7 economies.

In the lowest productive output per hour for the UK economy. Not only has the UK disproportionately hired no skilled labour and people earning low wages, but in topping up benefits, including Statutory Sick Pay, T levels or for higher earners, it offers no incentive to improve skills. Such an approach in the UK labour market means lower earners by failing to encourage incentives to Aspire higher, improve skills and education and ultimately lead to their being... They will ultimately not be employable.

I will not go through the GDP rates per hour, but they make depressing reading, with the US earning the highest GDP per hour, in purchasing power, and France and Germany earning more than the UK. The UK productivity was around 19% lower than that of the US. We improve productivity by having an incentive-based pay scheme and that must be based on higher skills and higher aspirations. I support the amendment for these reasons because not only because they would mitigate, slightly, the burden on business, and could mitigate against potential behavioural changes, I would go faster than my noble friends amendment and argue that a lower proportion differential for the Lower Earnings Limit should be built into the measure as an incentive to low skilled employees to improve their earning capacity by training and education.

On my noble friend's amendment, 73, and amendment 74, a rebate scheme, I support these. Cover up for lost income for sickness goes back historically 1911. It was again, enshrined in the blueprint by beverage. With elements of contributing social insurance then in existence, extended right across into a single system of contributing insurance under the national insurance act. Statutory Sick Pay was based on a three-way contributory benefit paid by the employer. The employee and the taxpayer, for the best part of 100 years.

To help working people with income to cover sickness. Throughout the period, the employee contribution arrangements were designed as part of a three-way scheme to promote incentive, maintain a link between contribution and benefits and keep costs and claims under control and link benefits to contribution. As the employee element was eroded and in the 1980s and 90s, during the twists and turns of attempts to control escalating public expenditure, limits were introduced, and we have heard about the limits from my noble friends, Baroness coffee.

They were whittled down between 1983, to 1991, I will spare you the triggers, from 1994, we arrived at the 80% investment rate. 100% commencing after four weeks, instead of six weeks. In April 1995, that was abolished, but there was a percentage threshold scheme put in its place. But all the time, it was recognised that employers were compensated for high levels of sickness absence, they could recover part of Statutory Sick Pay costs, when the had a specified percentage of total class I.

The amount reimbursed being the excess of Statutory Sick Pay paid above the percentage threshold. So, for these reasons, I support the amendments. And in lieu of the fact that contributions continue, and have in the retrograde manner, been increased considerably under the NIC act, which went through this House earlier this year. Increase disproportionately with the damage already seen to the labour market, which we continue to hear about and businesses who are more reluctant to employ the very people we need to employ, I suggest it is fair and proportionate that there should be a rebate as proposed in the modest amendment of my noble friends, and the more ambitious one of Lord Fox.
16:22
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Portrait Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Labour)
-
-
I write in support of Lady Lister and amendment 72, and I add my thanks to the safe sick campaign, the Health Foundation and other organisations. I heartily welcome the commitment to strengthening SSP by removing the Lower Earnings Limit and the waiting period. Nationally representative survey, conducted for the TUC, found that around half of employees get their full pay, as usual, when sick. But around 28% were forced to rely on SSP alone. It also found a clear, class divide.

When it comes to who gets what. Eight in 10 of higher earners, over 50 grand per year, get full pay. Compared to only one third of lower earners. The pandemic exposed just how precarious life is for those in insecure, low-paid work. We do not know how many preventable illnesses were caused by people struggling to work and spreading virus because they could not afford to stay at home. But we do know, as we heard, forcing people back to work, when they are ill, is bad for workers and bad for business, it puts pressure on the NHS, and it is costly for the economy.

I am very grateful to the Minister for taking time to meet Baroness Lister and myself to discuss our concern that the formula adopted by the government could leave low-paid workers, who are just above the Lower Earnings Limit, worse off. The DWP's answer, has been that the abolition of the working days ensures that for the first three weeks, those losses have been offset. Surely the policy intention of the government and commitment to abolish the waiting days is not to make up for losses caused by its own formula.

Surely the policy intention should be to ensure that every single worker, who relies on SSP, is in fact better off. And surely we need to protect those on long-term sickness, who are, for example, receiving cancer treatment. I note the government's concern that the formula must be designed in such a way to avoid workers getting more in sick pay than they would in wages, and to avoid a cliff edge. I remain unconvinced that it is beyond the wit of DWP to come up with an approach which both protects that position, without penalising a group of low-paid workers.

Secondly, as we have heard, this amendment seeks a review of the rate of Statutory Sick Pay, as the Resolution Foundation has pointed out, unlike many, many other European countries, the rate is not linked to earnings. Apparently, at £180 -- £118.75 p, SSP equates to 27% of the National Minimum Wage. In 1999, SSP was equivalent to 43% of the National Minimum Wage. That is a big drop for a decade and more, SSP has failed to keep up with the cost of living or increases in the living wage.

The work and pension Select Committee has confirmed that the SSP rate is not enough to live on and the Covid public enquiry hearing in December 2023... Matt Hancock was quizzed by Sam Jacobs, who is counsel for the TUC, and former Health Secretary agreed that the rate of SSP should be higher. How could he argue otherwise, when the UK has languished at the bottom of the OECD league for Statutory Sick Pay under the previous government and when we know that such a low rate of SSP is a danger to public health.

Now, I understand that perfection must not be the enemy of the good. But an SSP rate that works out at around three pounds per hour is some way short of either perfection or good. This amendment implicitly recognises that this wilful legacy of neglect, tackling it, will not be achieved overnight. But it would be welcome if the Minister could reassure us today that both the formula and the rate of Statutory Sick Pay will be reviewed before the Autumn Budget and rightly so.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I would like to start

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I would like to start by declaring interests, I am an employer, found on enlisted business, mind gym, a behavioural business, mind gym, a behavioural science business and an expert in science business and an expert in corporate training, to improve employee well-being and productivity. I am also a productivity. I am also a commissioner at the EHRC. I rise to support the opposition amendments in
16:28
Baroness Cash Portrait Baroness Cash (Conservative)
-
-
support the opposition amendments in this group, 71, A and B, 70 -- 74, A and B and C. I want to make clear that I understand all of us here, everyone here is driven by compassion for those who need protection. And I pay tribute to the speeches from the benches opposite. And from my noble peers. I am very concerned about these proposals. And I am grateful to Baroness O'Grady for drawing attention to the Resolution Foundation report on this because they have identified that some of the points, which support the amendments on this side of the House, and I will return to this, the government has said come on record, it wants growth.

We support that goal. It wants businesses to succeed, we support that goal. It also wants... I said, it wants to reduce the number of people out of the workforce on long-term sickness. Currently, 2.8 million. We support that goal. What we do not understand is how a nurse the government believes that this legislation, and these proposals, are going to achieve any of that. They are based on compassion, I have no doubt, but they are pursuing a culture of incapacity and dependency that will impede the stated aims.

I will explain why. Because we are referring to SSP and not to long- term sickness. But they are related to each other in our culture. Our sicknote culture in Britain today. Mental health, now accounts for 50% of all new sickness claims. Bear in mind, when we are talking about SSP, we are talking about 50% of those being mental health issues. What qualifies? A diagnosis of stress? No root? Burnout? All of these are signed off on a GP sicknote. They are transient, there is confusion between transient, life, because -- life difficulty and clinical Simon Wessely has put it like this.

We are apologising normal human experience, grief, worry, frustration and now all treated as medical conditions. The new statutory sick proposals run against all of the scientific evidence, in which I have declared I have been immersed for the last 10 years. Also the sociological data from other countries, which show that what is intended by this act isn't going to be achieved by the way it is being framed. I appeal to my noble peers on all benches, to please, if it is helpful, I will share the research, I will happily meet and talk with any member of the government benches.

As a number of neuroscientists and psychologists, over the last 20 years, the last five, have identified what is happening, why we have this massive increase in people being sick, long term. Professor Lisa Feldman Barrett, a leading neuroscientist has shown that our brains are due don't them from context, she tells the most extraordinary story of a young teenage girl who lives in a tribe of the word and she is in a culture and I am not for a second advocating this, it is such a striking story about how the brain works.

She is in a culture where women are treated very badly, the women all think they are pests. That women all think they are pests. That is how they deal with it. They go about their lives and she is getting good grades at school and she is sleeping night and doing fantastically well, to succeed in her life. She then watches a Netflix documentary that tells her about domestic abuse. I concepts, which in this tribe had never worn fruition. It may well have done so, but in the context of the documentary, domestic abuse was shown to cause certain things.

Guess what, her exam grades dropped. She stopped sleeping, she became very, very ill. Her brain suddenly predicted, from the different context that she should be feeling differently to how she was feeling before. That is what happens. When we set the cultural context. I am excited, if I am, my husband would have words. We are excited about an event, we are anxious or taking an exam. The same physiological measures show up, on the data. We are predicting the emotion differently.

This is what is happening, in our workplaces, in our lives, up and down the country and we are destroying the future of this country and levelling it with debt, further young because we are not addressing this and we are worsening it with these proposals, facilitating it. Daniel Kahneman, I can go on and on, with the research. He has shown a behaviour is shaped by a framing disengagement, if disengagement is framed as a safe, or sanctioned, or subsidised, it becomes a default under pressure.

I go back to the Resolution Foundation's report, as referenced by Baroness O'Grady, what she didn't mention there is that when there is more generous in Statutory Sick Pay, there is more absence. When, in other countries, where they have a day one writes, they have reduced percentage rate of payment, to ensure they balance that tension between going off sick, unnecessarily, for reasons they do not need to use. Martin Solomon, also talks about learnt health and was that when people face stress with the agency or structure, they stop trying, even when recovery is possible.

Belief in our ability to function is critical to actually doing so. I can go on and on. The evidence is so clear that if we demand nothing, we will get nothing. To be very clear, this is mental health we are talking about and contextualising mental health. I know it is not what the opposition benches would like to hear. I urge you to listen. My opposition, not the government benches, thank you. So the government benches and may not want to hear this, but I am urging you to think about what you are trying to achieve, with this legislation and what the outcomes are likely to be.

We do have to immerse ourselves only in the academic research, because there is a sociological data, proof of what I'm saying, from looking at other countries. In Sweden, they did, what this government is proposing to do. They made generous sick pay provisions and reforms and it led to a rocketing absence level, until they had to go back in reform again. Introducing a tightened eligibility, reimposing assessments and setting a fixed sick leave durations. That, then is what these absence levels came down, no increase in hospitalisation.

In Denmark, where hospitalisation. In Denmark, where encouragement to return to work is filled into sick leave, requiring people to stay connected and take part in phase returns, meant outcomes are far better than in the UK and dependency is lower. And in the Netherlands, employers, only get support for sick leave, where they are required to keep really engaged and have proof that that is part of the whole system. These new additional entitlements aren't being kind to people. They are not being kind to a generation of young who are watching economic inactivity in their homes.

Of course there will be people that need to be a specifically categorised with physical illness. Of course there are people who are really very sick. It with a 50% mental health sickness rate, I urge the government to reflect again, on these clauses.
16:37
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes Portrait Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (Plaid Cymru)
-
-
I rise to speak in support of Amendment 72, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister and I with the noble Baroness, Lady O'Grady signed it. This would require a review of the rate of Statutory Sick Pay and the head of his Majesty's government Autumn Budget, 2025. It requires the Secretary of State to determine, following that review whether the rate should be changed, alongside a written statement, setting out the reasons over that determination. I think it is important for us to remind ourselves about what this amendment entails.

As my noble Lords are aware, statutory sick pay is a government scheme, requiring employers to provide a most employees, in the UK that are absent from work, due to sickness, with a minimum level of pay, during that period of absence. Statutory sick pay or SSP numbers £118, 75p per week, following an increase last month, which an eligible employee can receive the four days if they are ill and not working, except for the first three days of that sick leave.

To be eligible, one must be classed as an employee and have done some work for the employer, and at least an average of £125 per week, previously £123 and had been ill for more than three days, in a row. It is only on the fourth day that they receive SSP. The scheme, as it stands is ineffective and causes hardship. And as we have heard, from the noble Baroness, Lady O'Grady, according to the tea you see, 28% of employees receive only basic SSP, when ill.

Meaning they are reliant on this very small amount during that period of illness. They add that there are one point one union workers earning below the previous SSP amount of £123, per week, who are not even eligible for SSP, with Considering also the penalty of the three-day delay, until an eligible employee can claim SSP, it is clear that reforming SSP is both necessary and overdue. I therefore welcome the provisions under the Employment Rights Bill that we see SSP payable from the first day of incapacity to work, by way of clauses 10 and 12.

And the removal of the lower earnings limit that is the requirement to earn at least £125 per week, through clauses 11 and 13. Clauses 11 and 13 of this bill also certain legislation that the rate of SSP would be set at the lower of £118.75, or 80% of the employees are normally included earnings. That payment is extremely low, by international standards, as we have heard, like many laws, it is one of the lowest rates in the OECD.

And if you were to divide this amount, by a typical 40 hours worked, by full- time employees, in a week, this provides under 3 pounds, per hour, to employees that are ill. Of course many workers, will work more than 40 hours per week, decreasing this hourly amount even further. In the context and I think we all must remember this, in the context of rising housing costs, food prices, energy and household bills, such a small payment is adequate to meet basic living standards.

And I ask your Lordships' House macro, do we believe that those people can survive on a 3 pounds an hour. I think that is an important question that we must consider as part of a when we look at this amendment. In fact, in the context of Universal Credit, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimates are that to afford essentials, the adults, in a household, a single adult requires at least £120 a week and a couple £205 a week, just for the basic essentials, alone.

It is clear that a review of the adequacy of the SSP rate is crucial, to ensure people are not plunged into poverty, just for becoming ill. Which is something that happens to all of us. Subsection 7, under amendment 72, makes provisions for the Secretary of State to ensure that no employee receives less Statutory Sick Pay than they would have received, before this bill is enacted, as a result of changes, under clause 11 this is important, because according to the TUC, and 80% replacement rate, as in the bill would see 300,000 workers entitled to a lower 300,000 workers entitled to a lower rate of SSP, than currently.

Many of these individuals work for multiple employers, work part-time and received no wages. And according to the save the sick pay campaign, three quarters of those impacted will be women. Disabled people will be disproportionately affected and almost half are between 20 and 54. Using the SSP amounts in place before April, the save six pay campaign outline an example of an employee who would now lose out. That employee working for multiple employers, earning £123 a week, with their employers would have received £116.75 a week, other Statutory Sick Pay, because they earned above the Lower Earnings Limit.

Following this bill as it stands, that same employee would see a 16% reduction in their entitlement and receive only £98 a week, as this would represent 80% of their earnings. Many workers, particularly those in low paid positions already struggle to avoid the shortfall caused by SSP, when ill. And increasing that shortfall will make it more unlikely that workers will have adequate savings to mitigate the loss in their income. Subsection 7 of amendment 72 provides a way for the Secretary of State to rectify the situation and ensure no one is worse off as a result of SSP changes, as part of this bill.

It is vital that his Majesty's government does not intentionally or unintentionally cut sick pay for hundreds of thousands of workers. So I will now briefly turn to some of the other amendments in this group and also some of the debate that we have had so far as part of this group. Amendment 73, in the name of Lady Baroness, Baroness Coffey and amendment 74, in the name of Lord Fox, call for the establishment of a scheme for reimbursement of Statutory Sick Pay course, incurred by companies, with fewer than 250 employees.

This is an interesting proposal, as we have heard from Baroness, Lady coffee and we are yet to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I look forward to hearing and the Minister's response in terms of the practicalities of such a proposal. And, just one other thing I would like to note as part of this debate is I feel very strongly that the mental health is the health and this also isn't just to do with those facing mental health conditions, at all. This is wider than that.

I think it is important just to note that this is about all workers who have been signed off of work due to lots of different types of reasons, in terms of why they might be ill from work. That does include mental health. Of course the aims of these amendments are different to that of amendment 72. In them and 72 would help address gaps in the bill, as it stands on the matter of adequate sick pay for workers. Gaps that cause some concern, in relation to the consequential effects on a low And I hope the Minister, when responding to this debate will address the concerns that I've highlighted, in my speech.

Namely the adequacy of the rate of SSP, as set out under this bill. Her assessment of the effect on low income workers, without relying on the welfare system to offset that effect. And if his Majesty's government will commit to a review of SSP rates, so that workers are not punished, by measures, as part of the bill, expected to strengthen their workplace rights. Thank you

**** Possible New Speaker ****

very much. Very brief. I think there is actually been some excellent debate actually been some excellent debate in this group and I wanted to ask for some clarification, maybe from for some clarification, maybe from the government, in particular, about something I'm confused about. I'm something I'm confused about. I'm something I'm confused about. I'm I think the noble Baroness made a I think the noble Baroness made a really useful, insightful contribution to this discussion that contribution to this discussion that brought another layer to it because I think there is a danger of us talking about these discussions technically on the one hand and also in a rather old-fashioned way, and I in a rather old-fashioned way, and I think now there is a lot more evidence and new phenomena we need evidence and new phenomena we need to take into account.

The reason I wanted to think about this amendment wanted to think about this amendment is because it's looking at the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

impact on... I'm sorry to interrupt. We are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not debating 74A at the moment. I've got the right group, I just

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I've got the right group, I just said the wrong thing. It's the wrong group... Are right, thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

group... Are right, thank you. I think -- I thank all noble Lords have spoken in what has been a Lords have spoken in what has been a very interesting debate. We close last week with a couple of de-
16:48
Lord Fox Portrait Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
last week with a couple of de- grouped Conservative amendments and I promised to speak about Statutory Sick Pay. Last week, noble Lords spoke firmly against the government's proposed changes. I think, for my part, I have seen evidence that businesses are arguing strongly for the status quo or to the threshold. But I'm not a behavioural scientist -- while I'm not a behavioural scientist, I can read through. The party with the majority in the Commons have made it clear where they stand on that issue and that has been reasserted with some of the stronger comments we heard from the benches opposite.

Businesses, I think, have drawn the same conclusion. Most businesses I have spoken to are seeking ways to ameliorate this rather than eliminate it, which is probably unlikely. I was interested to hear the noble Lords from the Conservative frontbench speak to 71A and B. Their version of amelioration seems to be to reduce the amount of SSP or at least severely limit the amount of SSP. We heard a different story from the noble Baroness Lister and the noble Baroness O'Grady who set out the reasons why SSP is important and the rate is meaningful.

To contextualise poverty, we are talking about the poorest people who are working people but still extremely poor. It seems to me difficult to overestimate the generosity of this scheme, but that appears to be what I've heard from several of the -- several on the Conservative benches. This is a very modest offer and I think the Baroness Lister with her statistics set that out, as did the noble Baroness Smith. Before I talk to my own amendment 74 and 73, I will just deal with the others.

The noble Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt called on amendment 75 for a reviewer to report within two years. I mentioned there is a subsequent group, which has also impact assessment in it so not sure where were debating them separately. Rather like Baroness Fox, I'm going Rather like Baroness Fox, I'm going to mention 74A to C. There is a slight mismatch of timings. Amendment 75 is after two years, 74 B and C there is a slight mismatch of timings.

Amendment 75 is after two years, 70 6:04 months and 75 after one year. There need to be impact assessments whatever your Lordships site. Perhaps, it will be a more systematic calendar than the one suggested. There needs to be pre-emptive impact assessments. It would be good to hear the Minister spell out the detail of the impact assessment of business on the current proposed measures. If, as the Minister says, the cost will be relatively modest, than the cost of amendment 73 or 74 would also be relatively modest, which takes me to the point in question.

As we've heard very eloquently from the noble Baroness coffee, she and I have come with very similar suggestions in terms of amelioration, which is what I was talking about earlier. And like the noble Baroness Noakes, I prefer the noble Baroness's version. We need to sit down and work out a way whereby a rebate scheme can be introduced. We care deeply about SMEs. They drive a huge part of our economy. This is a way of making sure they do not get disadvantaged as employees and get what they deserve as SSP.

I hope that the Baroness will be able to make a positive noise about that and we can sit down and have that conversation. I think what we've heard today is that SSP is absolutely vital for a section of society who are themselves already massively disadvantaged. I do not think we should be drawing lines and pushing them further down. We should be finding ways of making sure that they are not disadvantaged even more. At the same time, we should find ways of making sure that our SME sector is not also disadvantaged.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I think we've had a really good debate on these issues really good debate on these issues and I hope that I can do justice to and I hope that I can do justice to the questions and points raised. If I begin first with amendment 75, tabled by Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt on independent reviews into the on independent reviews into the effects of SSP reforms on small and effects of SSP reforms on small and medium enterprises.

As the noble Lords will be aware, the government has already undertaken a regulatory has already undertaken a regulatory impact assessment, which was published on 21 November, 2024, and published on 21 November, 2024, and can be found on guv.uk. -- gov.uk. can be found on guv.uk. -- gov.uk. In the regulatory impact assessment, the government estimated that the cost of delivering these measures cost of delivering these measures will cost businesses a modest £15 extra per employee. Can I assure noble Lords that the government remains committed to monitoring the impact of these SSP measures.

We intend to conduct a post- implementation review of the measures in the Employment Rights Bill within five years of implementation. Additionally, the Department for Work and Pensions conduct regular employer and employee surveys and will continue to do so, providing further monitoring of the impact of SSP changes on a range of employers and employees. I would also draw attention to the Keep Britain Working review. This independent review will consider recommendations to support and empower -- enable employers to promote healthy and inclusive workplaces.

It will support more people to stay in and return to work after periods of sicknesses and help people with sicknesses and conditions. Whilst I'm on the variety of sicknesses that people on disability and care. -- incur. Our proposals have to be seen in the wider context of the bill. What this bill is intending to do is to improve the experience of employees at work so measures like taxable working, guaranteed hours and protection from harassment could and we believe will reduce stress at work, potentially leading to fewer incidents of burnout and therefore if you were related absences.

First, that is an important challenge that we intend to monitor. If I now turn to amendment 73 in the name of Noble Baronesses Coffey, this would introduce a rebate scheme to reimburse SMEs. I think it was four days but she clarified she meant three days as her intention. I thank the noble lady for her interest in SSP and I appreciate her extensive knowledge and experience with this area as the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. As previously mentioned, regarding waiting days, the changes we are making to SSP will cost businesses around an additional £15 per employee.

A relatively modest amount in comparison to the benefits of reduced present ESM and the positive impact this will have on the West paid embers of society -- presenteeism. We previously delivered rebate schemes. This was abolished duty SMEs under using it and feedback that the administrative burden was complex and time- consuming. So I would suggest that a rebate scheme that only covered the first three days of sickness and absence would also be quite administratively burdensome, both for businesses to claim and for the government to process.

Previous SSP rebate schemes also did not encourage employers to support their employees. We know that employers having responsibility for paying sick leave helps maintain a strong link between the workplace and the employee, with employers encouraged to support employees to return to work when they are able. And if I then stick with the team -- theme of rebate schemes and return to Lord Fox's amendment 74. This rebate scheme... I would reiterate the point I made earlier about SSP changes and the experience of previous rebate schemes.

I have to say that I would agree with the noble Lady that we have moved away from the Average System of social
16:59
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
insurance and the cost and the insurance and the cost and the -- Beveridge system. I -- Beveridge system. I don't -- Beveridge system. I don't believe a rebate is the best way to support SMEs at this time. We will be SMEs at this time. We will be considering the findings of the aforementioned review which is expected to produce a final report expected to produce a final report of recommendations in Alton. The noble Lord Lord Fox through a challenge to me which is we should challenge to me which is we should keep talking about this and, of course, I'm very happy to do so.

course, I'm very happy to do so. Turning to amendment 71A and 72B Turning to amendment 71A and 72B There was no clear consensus from stakeholders on the percentage rate. stakeholders on the percentage rate. The government believes that the 80% rate strikes the right balance between providing financial security to the lowest paid employees when they need to take time off work to recover from illness and limiting the cost of business. Otherwise, as the noble Lord Lord Fox says, if we are not careful, we will be penalising the very poorest in our society.

And crucially, the total amount saved by businesses if the rate was set at 60% compared to 80% was wrong is around 30 million. This is a pound difference per employee per year. Specifically, on the noble Lords amendment 71 A to set the rate at 70% for the first days, the amounts saved by businesses become even smaller, with the difference in cost being a matter of pennies. Given the minimal savings for businesses, the complexity for employees and administrating different rates is difficult to justify.

The noble Lady Baroness Noakes asked about the data we had on the duration of sickness absence. The DWP employee survey from 2023 showed that 64% of individuals don't take any sick 's absence at all and of those that did, 87% have absences of three weeks or under. Therefore, for short-term absences, the removal of waiting days is likely to offset for the 300,000 who could earn less If I now go on to amendment 72, this has been tabled by my noble friend, Baroness Lister of Burgess said.

As I have just said, it is designed to balance support for the employee with the cost of the employer. Lord Lister, Lord Davies, Baroness O'Grady and the noble Baroness Smith raised a more fundamental challenge And indeed made very compelling cases. As a noble Lords porno the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions already carefully reviews and sets the rates for Statutory Sick Pay, each year, as part of the Social Security rating process and this rate is agreed by Parliament. The formula and the rate of SSP, if we do change it, will be reviewed throughout this process.

I would also say to my noble friend Baroness Lister and others that removing the waiting period means that all employees will receive a £60 extra at the start of their absence, rising to £150, if they work two days per week, compared to the current system. We also know that increasing the rate of SSP substantially increases costs, for example a rate of 18% of the National Living Wage, and cost businesses an extra £1.3 billion, a With the changes were already making throughout this bill, we believe that the current rate is fair and achieves the right balance between providing support for employees, whilst minimising the cost to employers.

Now I understand my noble friend has included in her amendment provision for ensuring that no employee will receive less SSP as a result of these changes. This was the point raised by Baroness That by removing the waiting period, no employee will be entitled to less SSP, for the first three weeks of sickness absence, which from a survey of UK employees represent 80% of all sickness absence. In fact the vast majority will receive more than they do now, as a result of these changes.

So I can assure the noble Lady, Baroness Smith, that we are not cutting SSP, for hundreds of thousands of workers. Baroness O'Grady, challenged the DWP to come up with a more comprehensive formula. I can assure her that this has been looked at in detail and I know she knows, because we discussed it when we met and produced a fact sheet to support this. It is more complicated than we would like to think. And the truth is it has to be a scheme that is simple enough to be easily implemented by employers.

I hear what she says. I wish it was that simple, but unfortunately it isn't. However, those who additionally, who need additional financial support, whilst off sick may also be able to claim more help through the welfare system. DWP recently published a fact sheet, which I hope my noble friend has which I hope my noble friend has found useful. I can assure my noble friend that the government does of course remain committed to monitoring the impact of the changes we are making, to strengthen the statutory sick pay and how the SSP is used by employers and how it supports employees, including a lower paid employees.

So, this is an issue that will be kept under review, but My Lords, in the meantime, I hope the amendments can be withdrawn.
17:05
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
I would like to thank the noble Lady the Minister very much indeed for her response and indeed all noble Lords for their contributions to what has been a very thoughtful and I think a valuable debate. In particular, noble friends Baroness Noakes, Baroness Coffey, Baroness Lawler and Baroness Cash, for bringing her unique expertise in the area of behavioural science, to this debate. It is crucial that the government fully recognises the many provisions in this bill are interlinked, as we've heard from all sides of the House.

Changes in one area can have unintended ripple effects in others. As I have said, we support Statutory Sick Pay, but we must also acknowledge that these proposed changes will result in higher costs, for employers. My moments were an attempt to find, noble foxes words, to ameliorate some of those costs. To find some sensible compromises. I'm disappointed that the government has chosen to reject them. Businesses cannot plan, cannot invest and cannot hire with confidence. As I pointed out opening remarks, the facts are plain, jobs are being lost now.

Regarding an SME rebate scheme, as highlighted by my noble friend, Baroness Coffey, in her amendment 73 and spoken to by my noble friends and spoken to by my noble friends Baroness Noakes and Baroness Lawler. Also, Lord Fox and his amendment, 74. The government has stated that final decisions will follow consultation with business, through secondary legislation. The impact assessment plans for an extensive engagement with small and medium- sized businesses to test where mitigations can be made. SMEs have spoken, they have asked for a rebate scheme as a use during the pandemic.

It is therefore disappointing that the Government is not accepted the amendments to provide that support. I would suggest that the noble Lady the Minister takes up the offer to talk more on the subject, a conversation we would like to be party to. I'm pretty sure we will be returning at report. If I may just paraphrase Baroness O'Grady, the wit of man, to design a simple scheme that works. I beg leave to withdraw

**** Possible New Speaker ****

my amendment. Is it your Lordship's pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. And they're amendment and 71 B, Lord Sharpe, not moved? 72, Baroness Lister, not moved? 72, Baroness Lister, not moved. The question is other clause 11 at stand part of the bill? As many as are of that opinion, say, many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. After clause 11, Amendment two 73, After clause 11, Amendment two 73, Baroness Coffey? Not moved.

And 74, Baroness Coffey? Not moved. And 74, Lord Fox? Not moved. In that case we moved to 70 for a, Lord Sharpe of moved to 70 for a, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. -- 74 a.
17:08
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Epsom. -- 74 a. After what has been a fascinating, wide ranging and fascinating, wide ranging and important debate on Statutory Sick Pay, I just would like to focus on the impact that these changes are going to have. In particular on absenteeism, on short notice shifts and on enhanced sick pay schemes. So I rise to speak to amendment 74 a, 74 B and 74 C. We will continue to make the point that this bill does bring with it a raft of unintended consequences.

Turning to 74 A, the importance of this amendment cannot be overstated. Absenteeism is a critical issue for many businesses, especially those in hospitality, retail and other service-based industries. Where staff shortages can lead to disruption, cancellations and even closures. With the removal of a waiting list for SSP and the expansion of eligibility, it is essential that all of us should understand fully how these changes are going to affect absenteeism patterns, across various sectors.

And one of the sectors most concerned, with the potential rise in absenteeism, that these changes will cause, is of course hospitality. Many businesses, in this sector, do rely on the part time, hourly or zero hour contracts, employing younger workers, students, or those with fewer financial or those with fewer financial responsibilities. As we know, the significant portion of the workforce in hospitality earns below the lower earnings threshold, for Statutory Sick Pay. And also, may only be employed for a limited amount of hours.

These workers are typically less dependent on their income, often are still living at home, or with fewer financial obligations. This brings us to a major concern. If these workers know that they will still receive the statutory sick pay, regardless of their financial needs, then there may be little incentive for them to attend work, they feel under the weather, or if they simply feel they would prefer a day off. The concern is that the reforms could result in workers taking sick leave when it may not strictly necessary.

As at the financial implications of their doing so would be mitigated by the statutory sick pay payment. For example, if a student worker, or part-time employee knows that they will still receive statutory sick pay, even if they don't meet the earnings threshold. They may not feel the same level of obligation to feel the same level of obligation to attend work. This is particularly true in a sector such as hospitality, where work provides either temporary or supplementary income.

As such, the absence of a financial pressure could lead to increased absenteeism, in the short term, which could, in turn, lead to operational challenges, for hospitality businesses. Especially those that already operate with small teams, a high turnover of staff, or both. As I've mentioned, we believe that it is essential for the government to thoroughly evaluate how these Statutory Sick Pay provisions would affect absenteeism. Particularly, as I've said already, sectors like hospitality, where the risks of absenteeism are most pronounced.

The impact assessment called for, in amendment 74 a will enable us to better understand the extent to which these reforms would result in higher absenteeism rate and whether there are any other unintended and undesirable consequences, such as workforce disengagement, or a lack of motivation to work in sectors where employees may not be so financially reliant on their income. So, in particular, it is vital to understand, one ) How absenteeism levels might change, especially in sectors where a younger less financially reliant workforce.

Secondly, the operational challenges, businesses would face, due to potential increases in absenteeism. And thirdly, a wider economic effect of these changes. Including potential impacts on service quality, customer satisfaction and employee morale. Turning to amendment 74 the proposal to remove the waiting period for statutory sick pay and the Lower Earnings Limit, represents a substantial shift in how sick pay obligations are structured. -- 72 B. It carries serious financial implications, particularly for low margin sectors.

Such as retail, hospitality and for small and medium sized enterprises, more broadly. So this amendment seeks a modest but necessary safeguard. It asks the government to publish within six months, a report on the impact of the Statutory Sick Pay reforms, on employers ability to offer enhanced sick pay and occupational health and well-being services. As of 2024, 28% of UK employers offer occupational health services. While 27% provide sick pay, that goes beyond statutory minimums.

While we certainly want to see those numbers improve, we must, surely, understand why provision remains relatively low. A survey conducted, last year, found that 43% of business leaders cite financial constraints as the primary barrier to offering enhanced sick pay. Others highlighted legal complexity, that was a 31% and administrative burden, 28% and staffing challenges, Rather than addressing those challenges, the government has to recognise that this bill threatens to amplify them.

The government's Statutory Sick Pay proposals risk undermining businesses that are already striving to do more for their staff, for the quarter of employers offering enhanced schemes, rising baseline costs may make those schemes unsustainable. For those not currently able to offer more than a statutory minimum is, this bill then moves the possibility of enhanced provision even further out of reach. Moreover, many employers have developed flexible, tailored schemes, adapting to the needs of their workforce and industry.

These schemes recognise that one size fits all rarely works in practice. If costs increase further without corresponding support, these personalised schemes may be scaled back or scrap entirely. -- Scrapped entirely. Let make make clear that improvements do not guarantee competition. Businesses will often choose to enhance their benefits to attract and retain talent but this only happens when they have the financial headroom to do so. When taxes are lower and regulatory burdens are predictable, businesses are incentivised to invest in occupational health and better sick pay, but the current Statutory Sick Pay proposals on top of national insurance increases and other cost pressures leave micro, small and medium-sized businesses stuck at the margin without the means or the flexibility to compete on workforce support.

All this, I must add, is being pushed forward with an absence of clarity. The government's own impact assessment admits that the behavioural impact of these measures remain uncertain yet the costs are all too real and immediate. That is why this amendment is so important. Doesn't ask for the policy to be reversed, on the that its consequences be measured. It offers a chance to step back, evaluate and understand how the reforms are impacting employer behaviour, benefit provision and ultimately workforce health.

And finally, amendment 74 C, the proposed changes to statutory sick a, particularly the removal of waiting days and the lower earnings remit -- limit are intended to support workers by providing them with access to sick pay. These changes will create significant operational challenges for businesses, especially in the context of short notice shift scheduling. The government's approach to short notice payments is that workers should be eligible for payment if they are expected to work a shift even without formal confirmation.

While we understand the need for flexibility in the scheduling of shifts, particularly in sectors such as retail, hospitality and transport, the proposed reforms could exacerbate some already considerable logistical challenges. As the legislation stands, with more workers potentially qualifying for SSP from day one of illness, businesses will likely face an increase in short- term absences. This will require employers to adjust shifts at the last minute, possibly without the certainty of knowing when SSP applies.

This leads to a direct conflict between the two approaches. First, the flexibility proposed by the government in short notice payment provisions could make it more difficult for businesses to manage absenteeism, increased absenteeism due to illness. When workers can call in sick and expect SSP from day one, businesses will inevitably be forced to deal with more absences at short notice. This situation could leave employers uncertain about when to issue SSP payments. This would increase the administrative burden.

Secondly, with SSP reforms increasing eligibility for sick pay, the potential for last-minute cancellations and redeployments grows. For businesses already facing tight margins, especially in sectors where flexibility is essential, this could create confusion and financial strain, as workers would be expected -- would expect to be paid for shifts for which they have not been fully confirmed but had reasonably been expected to work. Moreover, the interaction between these changes could create competing obligations. Whilst the predictable terms and conditions act requires clear scheduling notice, the SSP provisions could create a situation where businesses are caught between the need for flexibility and staffing, unpredictability and payments.

Employers may be forced to choose between ensuring flexibility and staffing and avoiding non- compliance with the new rules of the SSP. In conclusion, we support the principle that providing better support for sick workers, we must recognise that these changes, especially when combined, coupled with the increase in at short notice absences, these are going to play place significant burdens on businesses if not properly aligned with existing regulations, such as those introduced by the workers trade -- terms and conditions act.

It will make it harder for employers effectively to manage both sick pay and shift scheduling. I do, therefore, urged the Noble Baronesses the Minister to continue -- to consider the potential conflicts between these provisions and look for ways to align them to avoid creating undue burden on businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises. I beg to move.
17:23
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Amendment proposed. After clause 11, insert the following new clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in the words as printed on the Marshalled List. I actually should have spoken in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I actually should have spoken in the other debate, even though... But the other debate, even though... But I will carry on. I also want to I will carry on. I also want to refer to the issue of absenteeism but I feel as though I wondered into the skivers debate and I don't necessarily want to be involved in necessarily want to be involved in that. I am not worried that sick pay that. I am not worried that sick pay will create a nation of skivers or will create a nation of skivers or everybody saying they are sick.

everybody saying they are sick. There seems to be a conflict in government priorities in relation to our attitude to work and our our attitude to work and our attitude to sickness. There do seem to be some tensions between the to be some tensions between the discussion around the welfare system and PIP, for example. And the and PIP, for example. And the concerns raised about -- in the debate about larger numbers claiming disability benefits, especially for mental illness. I actually thought that the questions asked by the...

Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, in terms of the problem of overdiagnosis, encouraging a culture in working age adults, especially young people, feel themselves to be incapacitated and dependent on the state in a demoralising way, in such a way that they are written off, it is actually a very mature way to look at that discussion. I thought that it was something we should consider. In relation to our discussion, I think we have to acknowledge as well a phenomenal that we discussed quite a lot in the Mental Health Bill of it becoming -- being unwell, particularly being mentally unwell as integral to many people's identities, and the figures that we are given in the earlier debate but I was meant to speak, which was when Baroness Cass made the point about, and other made the point about huge numbers of people who are now off from work or in terms of disability due to mental ill-health would indicate note that there is an increase in mental ill- health but there is an increase in new cultural phenomena of people feeling they are not able to cope in some capacity.

The reason why I raised this in relation to this bill as I think the government are having a mature and interesting discussion on welfare over there, but I cannot see how this is in conflict with the Statutory Sick Pay provisions and the debate we've had in relation to this bill. So I did therefore think that amendment 74A which calls for an impact in relation to absenteeism, I'm concerned in a different way from the absenteeism, which is if it is the case that Liz Kendall is the Minister or Wes Streeting incentivises or encourages people who have been on long-term sick leave to return to the workforce, may be others care home jobs that have just been created.

But will they willingly do that or will they take advantage of this new flexible sick leave from -- sick pay from day one? I'd like to know whether that would be likely to happen. How would employers be encouraged to employ them? I think Baroness Noakes made this point. How would they be encouraged to employ somebody who has been on long-term sick leave? If you say to them you can have sick pay from day one, it becomes a bigger risk for the employer to take on that particular person.

The very people that we or the government wants to get back into work. And for their own sake, they should be in work because it's not doing them any good. Just finish on this, I think we just need to be honest in this discussion that having time off sick at the moment is something that was so hard fought for for all those years to get sick pay. We do live in a different period were sickness is viewed differently. It's almost like a badge of honour in some instances.

It's also become a kind of way of coping. I will just give an example. When I was involved in further education as a teacher, it was the first time I ever came across, 25 years ago, people were starting to take stress-related sick time. And it was often when there had been a political dispute at work or there had been some big row at work or some disciplinary action that happen. Instead of it being dealt with politically, people took stress-related leave. Stress-related sickness, I mean.

Fair enough. That was fine but it was one or two people. At one point in the further education Department of humanities, one third of the staff were of with stress. It was a dysfunctional department, as you can imagine. I agreed with the Minister when she said earlier that we were hoping that a happier workplace, we can that a happier workplace, we can have less stress. I agree with that point. I genuinely think that there is something else going on. I think that sickness has become a way that people express their problems in a range of ways.

People lose the habit of work. My concern is that what is happening with this bill, particularly in relation to some of the less flexible ways that it has been dealt with and sick pay in this instance is that, actually, we incentivise those regressive ways that people are retreating from the workplace. There was a report out today, by the way, that says Gen Z believe the workplace itself makes them ill and that workaphobia needs to be taken into consideration.

It's an academic study, so the language is a bit odd. That's why people should be treated with leniency about not going into the workplace because they themselves find going into the workplace and attracting far too stressful. Is that kind of nonsense, to be frank, that I hope we won't encourage inadvertently with this bill.
17:30
Lord Vaux of Harrowden Portrait Lord Vaux of Harrowden (Crossbench)
-
-
I'm also a bit puzzled by the groupings, like the noble Lord Lord Fox. I'd like to speak to this group rather than the last one. Everything I say to this group applies just as This group requires impact assessments were carried out on the various effects of the bill that Frankly a lot of this would not be necessary if the bill had been properly thought through from the beginning. If there wasn't so much detailed to be filled in later by regulation and in particular for proper risk assessment having carried out in the various changes proposed.

This bill, would buy the government's own admission put disproportionate impact of over £5 billion. It will have potential impacts on the employment opportunities for those with poor employment records. So it really is a deeply unsatisfactory that it should have not been properly impact assessed. The Regulatory Policy Committee rated the impact assessment is not for the purpose. I think it's worth reminding noble Lords what they actually said. "Given the number of each of the measures will be proportionate to undertake the labour market and broader analysis to understand the broader analysis to understand the overall impact on employment, wages and output and particularly the passthrough of employer cost to employees.

" The eight individual IA's and the summary IA need to provide us analysis and evidence, in relation to the rationale for intervention, identification of options, including the impact on small or micro businesses and justification for the preferred way forward. It is a damning that was not done before this bill was presented to us. Before the noble Lady the Minister pointed this out I do have to proceed that the statutory sick pay individual impact assessment, within the impact assessment is in fact the only one of 23 that is rated as good.

In itself a pretty damning statistic. However, the monitoring and evaluation plan, for the Statutory Sick Pay part is rated as weak. So, the noble Lord Hunt has already referred to the potential unintended behaviour aspects, that arise, which are not in any way covered in the impact assessment. In fact there is a complete copout, it says it can't do this, because of the behavioural impact. So sadly these proposed amendments and amendment 75, in the previous group are clearly necessary.

As are the others that we are going to be debating later on today and throughout the committee process. The five year review that the noble Lady the Minister referred to frankly doesn't cut it. Given the significance of the measures, in this bill and how quickly they will have an impact, 5 Years Is Way too long to wait to understand whether it has been damaging or not. I do not wish to test the patience of the House by repeating this speech multiple times, during the process of the committee, so I would ask the noble Lady the Minister to take my support for proper and timely reviews and impact assessments, of the impact of this bill, as we go forward.
17:34
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, as a noble Lords of identified we are now continuing the debate on Statutory Sick Pay and to specifically address at the impact of these measures on businesses. I believe it is important to highlight that statutory sick pay system and the changes we brought about, as part of this bill, is designed to balance providing support for the individual, whilst minimising the cost to the employer. This group of amendments, 74 A, 74 B and 74 C, tabled by Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt seem to require impact assessments on absenteeism, enhanced sick pay schemes, occupational health and short notice should pay working.

As I mentioned earlier and is the noble Lord, Lord Fox has already identified, the government has already taken, undertaken a Regulatory Impact Assessments Bill which considered the likely direct business impact on SSP changes. This included considering the impact on a small and medium enterprises and In the red glittery impact assessment, the government estimated that the cost of delivering these measures would be, as I said before, approximately £15 extra, per employee. A relatively modest amount, when compared to the positive impact changes it will have on employees and overall productivity.

And I have to say that I do thank the noble Lord, for these are three amendments, tabled, all of which require impact assessments. And I'm looking forward to debating those with the other 23 also requests for impact assessments that the opposition have already tabled. So I think we have a pillar four of request for impact assessments. And I do reassure the noble Lord that we are, of course, at the same time, updating our Regulatory Impact Assessments Bill and operating a post-implementation review of the measures.

So I think probably there the opposition requests are not the opposition requests are not necessary. If I start with amendment 74 A, requiring an assessment on impact and the changes to SSP and absenteeism. We do acknowledge that the overall sickness absence may increase as a result of the bill. This isn't a loophole. Nor is that the government not considering the There is a very objective of these changes are to enable the lowest paid employees to take time off, when they are sick.

Under the new system, employees will be able to take the time they need to recover from short-term illness, without struggling through work. And often risking the spread of infectious diseases, such as influenza. Similarly, employees with long-term, or fluctuating conditions should feel able to take a day of the sickness absence to manage their conditions, to prevent it from worsening. Noble Lord, Lord Hunt suggested employees might be encouraged to misuse of the system. I have to say that if employers have the right policies and practices in place, that risk of inappropriate absenteeism can and should be mitigated.

Additionally I believe that noble Lords amendment would be quite difficult to deliver in practice. There is not a standard measure of absenteeism, vs legitimate sickness absence. And in many instances, it would depend on whether you asked employer or the employee. The government does intend to build upon the red glittery impact assessment and as I have said, you do intend to conduct a post-implementation review of the measures, in the employment rights bill. If I turn to amendment 74 B, to assess the impact of the reforms, in this bill on employee ability to confirm enhanced sick pay and occupational health services, particularly low margin sectors like I appreciate the novel's concern about the potential impact on this matter.

And the government certainly agree that it would not be in anyone's interest for there to be a rollback of occupational sick pay, or occupational health provision. However the government's view is that these changes should only serve to strengthen the link between the workplace and the employee. I would question why any business would want to use these changes, as a reason to reduce the support they provide their employees to help them stay in and return to work. The noble Lady, Baroness Fox asked about the government's policy of getting people back to work and she was I think we are talking about a balance here, where people are sick, they should have the right to be of sick.

I also accept the point that she is making that being at work can in itself be a healing experience. We shouldn't lose sight of that. There is a positive, there can be a positive health impact, from being at work. And I would, once again, draw noble Lords attention to the written working review, as they settled earlier, in the debate, the Charlie Mayfield, considering recommendations on how the government can support and enable employers to promote healthy and inclusive workplaces. I support more people to stay in, or return to work, after periods of sickness, absence.

That review is expected to produce a final report, in the autumn of this year. I believe that much of the keep Britain working review will address other noble Lords concerns. I hope this reassures them that the Government is taking the matter seriously and we look forward to the results of that review. Finally, I tend to amendment 74 C, to review the effects of the SSP changes on ship management, at short notice scheduling in the workplace. As discussed in the moment 74 A, the number of sixes absences may go up as a result of these changes.

This is because it will enable employees to take time off when they are six. May I again reassured noble Lords that the government is committed to understanding the impact of these We intend to conduct a post- implementation review, of these measures, in the Employment Rights Bill, within five years of implementation. Additionally, as I set out earlier, in the earlier debate, the Department for Work and Pensions conduct regular employer and employee surveys, that will continue to do so, providing a further impact of SSP changes, and a range of employers and employees.

However, this amendment would require the government to collect a significant amount of data, from businesses on what the House will understand is a wide range of issues. We believe this would be challenging for them to provide, typically with less than six months. This is the very thing that the noble Lord is seeking to avoid, extra bureaucracy that he is talked about. For example asking employers including SMEs to accurately record and report to government, the frequency of shift cancellations and redeployments, because of sickness absence isn't practical, or reasonable.

So I think we have had a worthwhile debate, a short debate on these issues. I hope you have persuaded noble Lords and that we are on the case and it these issues and I hope, therefore, that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments can be withdrawn. The Minister said, during her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Minister said, during her remarks, that it would be a cost per employee of a £15 stop she said that employee of a £15 stop she said that in the earlier group as well. I ask the noble Lord the Minister if she can provide any more information on this? It seems counterintuitive, if this? It seems counterintuitive, if the average six days per employee is around eight days, which is what the most recent survey data showed. That implies that the employers, they are already bearing the cost of something like seven point five days and are only going to be paying for an extra half day, which doesn't an extra half day, which doesn't seem to be consistent with the evidence of the nature of absences that also exist.

Most are at the that also exist. Most are at the shorter end and probably going to be below the level at which they are currently being reimbursed by Statutory Sick Pay. This has been Statutory Sick Pay. This has been troubling me for some time, but I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to provide some further information. I do not expect it from the dispatch box, I would be delighted if it were to come from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Dispatch Box right now, if she could write to me, I would be most grateful. I suppose that the simple answer to that is it is in the regulatory to that is it is in the regulatory to that is it is in the regulatory The noble Lord did acknowledge. One of the things that we got a fair rating for. I referred the noble Lady to that, which I think will give more details.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give more details. I have read it and there is no more detail in the impact assessment, on the £15. That is why

**** Possible New Speaker ****

assessment, on the £15. That is why am I asking the noble Baroness the Minister if she can provide further detail on how that £15 is arrived at. I'm happy to write to the noble Lady.
17:43
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lady. The other frontbenchers, that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The other frontbenchers, that I'm very grateful to the noble I'm very grateful to the noble Baroness, the Minister. I think we have had a very important debate. I'm particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Berkeley. Because, we haven't really Berkeley. Because, we haven't really spent enough time worrying about the people who were just unable to work. Working conditions have changed so Working conditions have changed so much and stress related sick leave is a huge issue.

As is what the noble Baroness referred to as losing noble Baroness referred to as losing the habit of work. These are issues that we have to think about very that we have to think about very carefully. There is an important and complex issue of so-called present which deserves greater attention in our discussions about workplace our discussions about workplace health and productivity. -- presentism. I did have in mind some research carried out by Robinson Cooper. Their 2023 data, drawn from over 3,000 UK respondents, 60% of employees recorded working while they were unwell.

So-called present to use them, in the last three months. That is an important issue which has to be taken into account, in any impact assessment. The distinction is essential because not all forms of working while unwell are inherently harmful. Some such as pragmatic or therapeutic persons can be beneficial for both the employer and the employee. The challenge lies and the employee. The challenge lies in when it becomes a detrimental and ensuring that workplace policy including Statutory Sick Pay reform support businesses in managing that balance effectively.

I'm also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks on, in reminding us in the finding of the Regulatory Policy Committee. We just need to be aware of the severe criticism that was meted out about a bill which is making such profound changes, whilst in the gleam of uncertainty -- Lord Coe. None of us can be sure what effect these changes are going to have. I think it is been a valuable debate, and grateful to the noble Baroness the Minister.

I would just Baroness the Minister. I would just like her to ponder, as to what discussions, what conversations the government has had, with businesses who are currently providing enhanced sick pay, or occupational health And how have those this -- those businesses described the risk? Particularly in relation to their ability to sustain or expand those schemes. As we have discussed under earlier amendments, the interaction between SSP changes and short notice shift management remains alive concern.

Many businesses, especially in hospitality, care and retail, operate in high turnover and dynamic scheduling, so it would be helpful at some stage to know what feedback the government has received from employers in these sectors about the potential conflict in increased SSP eligibility and their ability to manage short notice absences. We manage short notice absences. We

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will I am sure return to this issue at Report Stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Is it your Lordships leisure that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordships leisure that the amendment be withdrawn? It is by the amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 74 B, leave withdrawn. Amendment 74 B, Lord Hunt, and 74C. The question is Lord Hunt, and 74C. The question is that the amendments stand en bloc. All of those in favour say, All of those in favour say, "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 75, not moved. have it.

Amendment 75, not moved. The question is that clauses 14-17 The question is that clauses 14-17 stand as part of the bill en bloc. All of those in favour say, "Content". Those in the contrary
17:48
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Portrait Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)
-
-
"Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not content". The contents have it. After close 17, amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

76, Baroness Lister. I rise to speak to amendment 76

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment 76 in my name. I'm grateful to those colleagues who have added their colleagues who have added their names to the -- and to the Fatherhood Institute for their help. The only scratch the surface of a policy that is letting fathers down policy that is letting fathers down badly. It is disappointing to discover that paternity pay will not be paid from day one. Could my noble be paid from day one. Could my noble friend the Minister explain why it friend the Minister explain why it won't be? The amendment goes through a review of parental grave -- a review of parental grave -- parental leave.

The purpose now is parental leave. The purpose now is to ensure that it covers a number of key issues relating to fathers key issues relating to fathers entitled to paid leave in their baby's first year, mainly measures designed to prove fathers -- improve the take-up by fathers, taking into account examples of taxes. -- Best practice. The aims are simple. I hope we will all agree. To strengthen the rights of fathers or second parents to be active parents, which will also strengthen mothers and respect of mother's labour position.

This will in turn achieve greater gender equality. The situation is pretty woeful as far as fathers are concerned. This has practical, cultural and symbolic effects. It is in fact saying that fatherhood is of less importance to family life. Insofar as the labour market accommodates responsibilities for childcare and need only do so for mothers. If we want to surround boys with positive symbolic messages about masculinity, what better place to start than to give their fathers the time they need to build strong relationships during infancy that last a lifetime, thereby ensuring that fatherhood is valued.

I don't have the time to give details of what fathers are entitled to what fathers are entitled to compared to mothers. As well as offering one of the lease offers in the OCD, the UK has a huge gap between mothers and fathers entitlement to leave in the baby's first year. I 2022, most countries in Western Europe had 12 weeks or less. The partial extension of day when rates does not touch the sides when it comes to the current, shoddy treatment of fathers, which has resulted in low paternal take-up of both paternity and shared parental leave.

Paternity leave is dealt with by other amendments in this group, so I will focus just on parental leave. Take-up among fathers of the shared parental leave scheme shared parental leave scheme introduced 10 years ago is a pitiful 5% of eligible fathers, according to a 2023 government report. The scheme is also skewed against the lower income families with just 5% of the tiny population of SPL users coming from the bottom 50% of earners. Shared parental leave does not constitute an independent right for fathers, it depends on the entitled mother transferring part of her leave.

The government warned at the time that this was going to fail in its aim of encouraging fathers to take the leave and so it did. This is in part because of the way the scheme was structured, part because of the low rate of payment means that many fathers can't afford to take it, and in part because some fathers are excluded altogether. This matters for fathers, mothers, children and family life. As well as for the government's number one parity of economic growth.

It matters for fathers because it takes it very difficult for them to play and equal hands-on role in the upbringing of their infant children, which increasingly fathers wish to do. Matters for mothers because to quote the women's budget group unpaid care is a root cause of women's economic inequality. So long as women carry so much of the responsibility for childcare in the private sphere, the enter the public sphere with one hand tied behind their back.

To many women's career -- career is full of the cliff where they become mothers. Unequal division of childcare responsibilities as a key driver of gender inequality and the gender pay gap. It matters with children in two-parent families, not just for the relationship with their fathers but also the evidence suggest that for educational and cognitive development and for family relationships. Research indicates that paternal engagement during the first year can foster ongoing engagement until a child is aged at least 11, and that this positive effect builds over time.

Matters for families as it can affect family well-being and stability. It matters for economic growth as well. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation for progressive policy calculated that more generous provision for fathers earmarked for six weeks could deliver nearly 2.7 billion net to the wider economy as a result of strengthening mothers labour market position. The amendment requires a review to take account of international examples of best practice because we have so much to learn from the many countries who are way ahead of us on this issue, particularly the Nordic and some other countries who have for years included a reserve period of parental leave for fathers on a use it or lose it basis in their schemes.

To suggest that this model together with adequate payment, and I emphasise that, is the best way of ensuring fathers take up the leave. This would lead to our more equitable division of childcare responsibility between parents and enabling mothers to participate in the labour market on more equal terms. Mostly, it is a better and more effective model and extending parental paternity leave -- model of extending paternity leave. For the first two weeks, it signals clearly that the father can take it at a later date, ideally on his own, helping more mothers resume employment any.

As the Father Institute notes, fathers are seen as key to reducing the gender wage gap and the gap in men and women's participation in paid employment. Both of these act as an impediment to economic growth. In a book I wrote many years ago on feminist approaches as -- approaches to citizenship, I identified such schemes as a key policy lever for promoting greater gender equality and recognising the importance of care to men as well as women, and also to the wider society.

Much as I'd like to see this as one result of the review, I should stress that the amendment in no way ties the government's hands as to this or any other outcome apart from the provision of adequate take-up data. It could be seen as soft amendment to run Microsoft Corp. Amendment -- soft cop amendment. I fear it will be met with vision. I hope that my friend will be able to accept the amendment in this or some other form as a signal of intent.

If not, at the very least, I would ask you to make clear on the record the government's acceptance that the current situation disadvantages fathers unfairly and that there must be a clear explicit aim of the review to create a system that properly supports fathers and other second parents to play a full role in their infant children's lives. At second reading, she expressed respect for the points that I and the noble Baroness lady pen made about parental leave and the desire to go further -- Penn.

However, she also said that we need to go further. The current situation is totally unbalanced, as between the rights of fathers and mothers. Moreover, workers are gendered beings and Toro reform of parental leave is no way antibusiness. -- Is in no way antibusiness. -- thorough reform. It would contribute to economic growth. Thus, on both gender justice and pragmatic, economic grounds, I hope the government will accept the amendment and send a strong, symbolic message to mill workers that their role as fathers is fully recognised and valued.

I beg to move. -- male workers.
17:59
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Portrait Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Amendment proposed. Insert is printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment 76

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment 76 -- 86 in my name. This follows on from Baroness Lister's remarks on amendment 76. Amendment 80 would amendment 76. Amendment 80 would extend statutory paternity leave to six weeks and allow new fathers to six weeks and allow new fathers to take this leave at any point within the first year after the child's the first year after the child's birth. This is rather than being restricted to the current 56 day window. At present, eligible fathers window.

At present, eligible fathers are entitled to just two weeks of leave, paid at a rate of less than half of full-time earnings at minimum wage. The take-up remains low and affordability is a major factor. 62% of fathers say they factor. 62% of fathers say they would take more leave if statutory paternity pay was higher. Greater equality in parenting is essential to achieving greater equality in the workplace. At present, the unequal distribution of caring responsibilities is a major driver of the gender pay gap.

On average, women's earnings fall by approximately 40% following the birth of her first child and often do not recover. By contrast, men's In 2013, the Liberal Democrats led a significant step forward. It gave families option to shelter 50 weeks of leave, 37 weeks of paid. However, it was only a first step and further reform is clearly needed. Take up of both the shared parental leave and paternity leave remains far too low. Affordability is the central Affordability is the central barrier, a poll conducted recently found that 62% of fathers would take more leave if a statutory pay will increase.

The current statutory rate, as I said, less than half the full-time earning of a minimum wage is insufficient to allow families with a meaningful choice. This amendment reflects long standing Liberal Democrat proposals, calling for a more general and flexible system, in addition to extending the duration of paternity leave, with support increasing statutory paternity pay to 90% of earnings, a cap for higher earnings. Also advocating for requiring large employers to publish their parental leave and ensuring greater transparency and accountability from hell parental leave is often across the workplace.

This is a practical and necessary reform that would support early bonding between fathers and their children, reduce the financial penalty of caregiving and promote greater gender equality, both at home and in the workplace. My Lords, turning briefly to amendment one three six in my name. This purely deals with the gap in the legislation and extends statutory adoption to their self- employed contractors, taking into account the fact that many are required to work, not an employer employee relationship. I also wish to briefly comment on and show support for amendment of one three nine, which is in this group in Baroness Penn's name which would make a statutory paternity pay a day one right for new fathers and families.

Present eligibility for and paternity pay allows for six months of consistent services. This allows far too many fathers, vertically those in part-time or agency work excluded at the very moment their support is most needed. This isn't just about fairness in the workplace. It is about supporting families in those precious first days. It is about allowing both parents to share the load, bond with their child and begin family life on equal footing. The current system entrenches outdated assumptions about who provides care, making paternity pay available from day one would send a powerful signal that would value roles in early childhood and every child regardless of their payments parents history deserves a good start.

I hope they will consider this amendment thoroughly and
18:05
Baroness Penn Portrait Baroness Penn (Conservative)
-
-
consider with this bill. Amid those consider with this bill. Amid those consider with this bill. Amid those I will speak to members 127, 128 and 139 in my name. But before doing so I would like to add my support to all the amendments in this group, particularly Baroness Lister particularly Baroness Lister particularly Baroness Lister Zimmermann 76, to which I've also added my name. As we have heard already our current system parental already our current system parental leave is in a desperate need of reform.

And for some of that reform I accept a review is necessary. How can we improve the shared parental can we improve the shared parental leave, something that I was proud to have worked on in the coalition have worked on in the coalition government. But I think I and the noble Lord had accept hasn't delivered the change that we want to see. And how to extend parental leave to self-employed people, mums, dads and adoptive parents at a dads and adoptive parents at a proper rate of pay.

As the noble Lady Baroness Lister will no, I do think she is being too generous to the government with her mind, when this government first took office, the employment rights Minister committed to the review of parental leave being completed, within their first year. Now it is meant to be launched within their first year. In a report in the Commons and the Minister only committed to a launch This This bill. This bill. I This bill. I think This bill. I think even This bill.

I think even on This bill. I think even on the This bill. I think even on the most optimistic timetable will be after 4 July. So, as well as giving important clarity, to the point that the noble Lady, Baroness Lister has called for, that the review will cover key issues including measures designed to improve fathers a take- up of parental leave, such as a dedicated period of leave and adequate payment and the inclusion of self-employed fathers, could the noble Lord the Minister give us a reassurance on timelines, will the review be launched within this first year in government and how long will the review be.

Six months with seem like a reasonable period of time to report back on its outcomes, but I look forward to hearing from the Minister, what the government's plan Perhaps, while necessary in some areas, it is important not to confuse a review, with action. The Minister kindly met with me, last week to discuss my amendments and it was clear, and that meeting, that the review would not be a consultation on specific proposals, that would have to come later. So added to any timelines for action, consultation on the outcomes of the review and then subject to its In reality we are talking about the timeline extending over several years.

So am afraid that is not good enough on areas where there is clear evidence to support action, now. And that is on improving paternity leave. It has been said that we are On how bad are paternity leave is in the UK and how unequal our provision is, between mums, dads and a second parents. And yet if you increased paternity leave to 6 weeks pay at 90%, of the salary, capture average earnings, as my amendment 127 does, the evidence of the benefits, is overwhelming. As Baroness Lister has said, it will improve things for dads, this week is mental health awareness week and according to research by downshift in November, more than half a dads experience multiple symptoms of depression in the year that the baby is yawn.

82% of that better paternity leave is the number one thing that the government can do to protect dads mental health. We have heard how it will support a new mums and kids too. It will support economic growth and that is supposed to be this government's number one priority. government's number one priority. This week it is important and I'm acutely aware that in our discussions on this bill, that we have heard of the concerns from employers that they have expressed about many different aspects of this government's plans.

But, in the context of our earlier debate, on a Statutory Sick Pay, it is important to remember the statutory paternity pay is reimbursed, for businesses. At a rate of 92% for larger businesses and 108 point 5%, for those who qualify for small business really. And of course, it is not only the pay that affects business, it is the prospect of more administration and disruption, which can be a concern, which is why, for small businesses, the government small businesses, the government Because we are so far behind, many other countries when it comes to paternity leave we can look at whether those concerns have been borne out in practice, when leave is more generous.

And the short answer is, that they haven't. A study done by the National bureau of economic research in the US on a Danish parental leave said no reduction in output and decline in well-being when parents took time off, the One of the reasons of the better paternity leave has a potential to bring such significant economic gains is that although you lose the dad economic output for the time he is off, the losses are limited to that period, only, while for mothers you see an increase in the labour market participation and hours work, on a sustained basis.

Increasing the level of economic activity, overall. I think the clock with research. Reimbursing paternity pay would have course, the cost to government, but again increased economic activity as a result of the policy would offset Tells Tells employees Tells employees that Tells employees that that's Tells employees that that's all Tells employees that that's all they can expect. The Government inverses re-employers. If a firm wants to go further than statutory entitlements, they burden the cost. That is particularly difficult. While there are long-term benefits, we get benefits to society for supporting people to start and grow their families.

We should recognise that. The CIPD asked employers about their views on paternity leave, in 2022 and 2024 and almost half are supported extending the statutory paternity leave, with only 24% Briefly turned to other amendments in this group, which make smaller but nonetheless important improvements to our system paternity leave. First amendment 139 which takes a new day one right paternity leave is included in this bill, and makes it paid. I have to confess, from everything this government said, I thought it would be paid. As they always talk about extending the right paternity leave and unpaid parental leave.

Parental leave is always unpaid, so by specifying it for one but not the other. It feels a little misleading. It also makes no policy sense. We know the biggest Of paternity leave is financial. The current statutory rate may be low, but it is far better than nothing at all, particularly at such a point of financial stress and family's lives. It makes no sense to me that Ministers and the government acknowledged that paternity leave should be a right, but introducing it in a way that makes it hard, if not impossible for those who most needed to actually take it up.

And the subject, the subject of costs to business at My Lords, this would be minimal, as I've said, they are reimbursed for this course. And them at 128 will require businesses, 250 or more employees to publish their website. That would help people when the thinking about job me to have transparency on what their entitlements are and it would help create a race to the top. The companies we need to keep pace with their competitors to attract talent. I like almost every other measure in this bill, this policy has actually been consulted on.

And it showed that 98% of respondents supported the proposal, including a 96% of businesses and business One of the consultees could be considered, so Keir Starmer he was asked about this policy, by mums netting 2020 and said, "I completely support this, in fact I'm really surprised it hasn't already happened. I will wholeheartedly support this. So perhaps, in responding to this debate, the level of the Minister can explain to the Prime Minister why this hasn't happened already and why his government doesn't want to take the opportunity on this bill, to correct it.
18:14
Baroness Morrissey Portrait Baroness Morrissey (Conservative)
-
-
I am also pleased to support and them at 76, in the name of Baroness Lister and to add my voice to others in the chamber, parental leave in this country. To concern the number of multinational businesses that have fallen behind the practices of other countries. I appreciate as my colleague Baroness Penn is really said, some members of this House might consider this to be a matter best lead to businesses, rather than government policy. Unfortunately, in my experience, many British employers, not the ones, cited by Baroness Penn, but the others take a very old-fashioned view of paternity leave, leaving the UK a risk of continuing with this unusually gendered approach to parenting and child care.

Which is ultimately detrimental to society, to women, to detrimental to society, to women, to men and to the economy. As set out in my register of interest, chair the diversity project, which seeks to future proof, the investment industry's ability to attract and develop the very best talent. We have been working, with almost 120 member firms, on enhance paternity leave and paid. There are a number of early adopters, Aviva, Mercers, Janice Henderson and Gia spare who have all reported positive impacts on culture, retention and staff morale.

Dragons Den style, I see the Lord shivering there. A competition at our international women's day, somewhat ironically enhance paternity leave was voted overwhelmingly by the audience as a single biggest game changer for women's change. I endorse Baroness Lister's point and others that this would help drive gender equality. The diversity project has practices mentioned by others. I would look to the evidence of the impact of enhanced parental leave on jobs, on society and businesses. One such study entitled the economics of paid parental leave, published in America found that over 90% of US employers, of all sizes, including small and medium-sized businesses offered equal paid parental leave to men and equal paid parental leave to men and women.

90% reported no discernible women. 90% reported no discernible With Britain now as an outlier, I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to amendment 76, which calls for a proper review of the current situation and to bring the current situation and to bring back proposals to Parliament to modernise Britain's family leave policies, encourage and support the role of fathers and family life, encourage more career progression encourage more career progression for women, create more positive cultures that support Britain's long-term economic success.

long-term economic success.
18:17
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
I rise to speak to amendment 127, 128 and 129. In fact, all of the amendments in this group have real value. In my relatively long life, when I have argued endlessly for human rights, I think there can only be one or two times when I have stood up and argued for men's rights because I feel they have 20 of them and they do their own arguing that. Here, of course, this is a human rights issue.

It's not just men's rights, it's women's rights as well. The women, the mothers will benefit if the fathers have parental leave because statutory paternity leave doesn't only support families in their first weeks. It helps to rebalance society by moving away from a statutory parental leave the system which sends a strong message that parenting is a women's job and that men should keep working and stay out of the home. That idea is not just present in the legislation. It's embedded deeply, deeply rooted in many people's prejudices.

The imbalance between maternity and paternity leave is structurally embedding gender differences which do not benefit society. This legislation can set young families up for a stronger start ensuring that new fathers have plenty of playtime -- paid time off work in those first crucial months of a child's development. I do hope the child's development. I do hope the Prime Minister was listening to the noble Lady 's remarks and that he noble Lady 's remarks and that he will perhaps urge this House to adopt at least some of these amendments.
18:19
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
I put my name to amendment 76 in the name of Baroness Lister and amendments 127 and 128 and the name amendments 127 and 128 and the name of Baroness I rise as one of the only two fathers in this debate so far and I think the only grandfather. I thought it might be helpful to have a balance in the group of amendments which is about an imbalance in the respective roles of fathers and mothers. It seems to me that there are three key reasons to act, rather than to think, and dance on the head of an ever smaller pin.

The first is the early years argument. I, together with other noble lords and ladies, will be arguing the case for the early years being included and thought about very deeply in the children's well- being and Schools Bill. And indeed, the Secretary of State for Education said that early years was her first priority. It is an arguable that changing our approach to paternity pay and giving fathers the opportunity to have a much greater presence in the lives of their children in the early years and also very importantly in support of their partner and spouse, particularly if she is working or is attempting to work, is frankly a no-brainer.

So, in that context, I think that is a very good first reason. I think the second reason is that the economic arguments for this are also very, very strong. The report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation which came out literally only three weeks ago, which was mentioned I think by the noble Lady Baroness Lister, is fairly convincing. I quote from it. Building on the evidence from other countries and the impact of paternity leave, the Centre for Progressive policy, one would imagine that her Majesty's government would be in favour of an Institute with a name like that, modelled the economic costs and benefits of more generous paternity leave options.

This model was built to help policymakers understand the labour market effects and associated economic and tax costs of varying paternity leave terms in the UK. Its conclusions were very simple. The modelling shows a positive economy wide affect of 2.68 billion, driven by the gains achieved when more women move into work and work more women move into work and work more The modelling also shows that the increase in labour market outputs for this policy option is mainly driven by those at the bottom and middle of the labour market.

Policy you would think was very close to the government side. The third and final reason is that for 31 years I was professionally a head hunter. As a head hunter, you become relatively expert in what I might call the psychology of attraction and repulsion. What it is that makes people attracted to particular types of employment or employer, and what it is that detracts from that degree of attraction. I do think that there is evidence to show increasingly that companies which are thoughtful and which are progressive and transparent about the offering they are making to both fathers and mothers stand a much better chance in this labour market, first of all of attracting people a real talent who have many choices they could follow up on, and secondly, very importantly, relating back to some comments that Baroness Fox make -- made in a previous group, that many individuals who have a degree of trepidation about looking at going into work for potential employers because they are uncertain of the working environment and how it might impact on their ability to have a full part in family life, is indeed an important element.

For those three key reasons I support having not only a hard look at paternity leave, because as the noble Lady said, we have been looking at this longer than is necessary or good for us. So, for the good families and us. So, for the good families and good of children, please, can we good of children, please, can we just get on with it? -- for the good of families and for the good of children.
18:24
18:25
Lord Bailey of Paddington Portrait Lord Bailey of Paddington (Conservative)
-
-
I rise in support of amendments 127, one to eight and 139 by Baroness Penn. I am also a father so I have an interest their. These amendments will be very useful because currently, as it stands, it is only the well-paid who get access to serious paternity leave. As someone who comes from a community that has suffered horribly, horribly from the absence of fathers, that early bonding is very important. The impact it has on educational outcomes and finances of the family are hugely important.

My community is more than three times more likely to be involved in poverty and all the downsides that poverty provides because of that lack of paternal connection to the family in the first place. Were also in a country that is facing a very low birthrate. Many young men in this country will tell you they cannot afford to have children and paternity leave will be a big part of that. So the idea that we want to support our birthrate in this country, a demographic timebomb, is very important.

Also, the mental health of men in this country has been poor for a very long time. Art of turning that around is raising how fatherhood is perceived in order for those men, particularly young man, to lean into that role and also give them upright around being a father that has a very strong knock-on effect for the women involved, help to return to their own career, as we heard from so many members of Your Lordships' House, and in the poorest immunities, many of the real breadwinners are actually the women in the household.

If they could be supported back to work, that has a profound effect on the mental well- being of the entire family. I have been on a journey to make this a day one right. Because of the profound effect that a lack of fatherhood and a lack of father's presence has on many in society, it should be a day one right. Basically, some things are just worth paying for. If this has a cost to the government, so be it, because the benefits, the upsides, socially and financially, are massive and beyond measurement.

The last thing to say as well is the benefit to companies is profound. It has been well documented. Many have already said that. The challenge will be for smaller companies were one or two people are a significant proportion of the workforce. That is where this conversation has to be sold. That is where the rhetoric around this is very important. If smaller companies can adopted, I believe it will happen. Companies already know the benefits for the workforce.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move the debate on this amendment be adjourned. The question is that the house be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the house be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the house be resumed. As many... The question is the debate on the amendment be the debate on the amendment be adjourned. All of those in favour say, "Content". Those in the say, "Content". Those in the We should allow the Minister to continue other businesses and -- outside the house. I beg to move outside the house. I beg to move that the house be resumed to consider the statement.

We won't consider the statement. We won't return to the bill before 19:08.
18:29
18:30
Lord Bailey of Paddington Portrait Lord Bailey of Paddington (Conservative)
-
-
the group in the next five minutes, then that would be... But we've had a good debate on this, and it's an important topic and I think it supported the houses able to finish having the hearing with any other backbenchers that might wish to contribute, and also hear from the Minister. All the House may not be aware, but we've agreed through the usual channels we have a dinner break to accommodate having the statement and hear from the Minister and statement from the House.

We are ultimately in the whole House is hands, but that's why we are breaking out. I know it's not usual to break midway through group, but as I said it's been agreed through the usual channels would take a dinner break at 6: 30. It will take priority. So perhaps we could see if

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this could be resolved. I have had confirmation from my side that usual channels have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed. I think the Noble Lord for his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the Noble Lord for his explanation. And stop groaning, you. explanation. And stop groaning, you. The normal practice is if it says at a convenient point, that means at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the end of a group. Surely. As I said to the noble Lady

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As I said to the noble Lady

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As I said to the noble Lady Baroness Jones, said the whole House excuse me, I understand this is not unusual, but this is in no way unprecedented as I understand it. We unprecedented as I understand it. We have broken in the middle of groups have broken in the middle of groups before. It's not ideal, but we are where we are undertakers in the best interests of the whole House, especially agreed through the usual channels to be able to hear from both front benches and any other backbenchers on this group in good time and also in the meantime hear time and also in the meantime hear from the Minister on repeat statements if we get the best of all worlds.

I'm sorry this is in our usual practice and intend not to do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it in future committee days. At the question again. The question is that the House be
18:32
18:33
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
sixth May on trade negotiations.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We on these benches welcome free trade. It is a cornerstone of a trade. It is a cornerstone of a prosperous and competitive economy. It benefits everyone from workers to businesses and from consumers to businesses and from consumers to industry sectors. Trade allows us to access a broader market to promote access a broader market to promote innovation and to create jobs. When done right it provides opportunities for UK to grow and to succeed on the global stage. This deal is a global stage.

This deal is a reminder of one of the key benefits of Brexit. No longer bound by the limitations of collective EU limitations of collective EU decision-making we now have the freedom to forge our own trade agreements, tailored to the strengths of our economy and aligned with our national interest. That with our national interest. That sovereignty over trade policy is a fundamental asset and one that used fundamental asset and one that used wisely can bring real and lasting prosperity. So I have to confess I'm at a loss to understand what the at a loss to understand what the government has repeatedly said that this is a matter of opinion and not fact.

However what we acknowledge the importance of trade agreements and the positive elements of this UK US steel, we must approach it with a critical eye and an understanding of the broader context. Trade deals are not simply about negotiating numbers or quotas. They must also be about fairness, sustainability and long- term growth. And in this case I'm concerned that the deal while a step in the right direction does not go far enough in delivering the kind of comprehensive ambitious agreement we need. The agreement announced with United States contain some very welcome steps, for example tariff reductions on cars, access for UK beef producers and the removal of punitive levies on British steel and aluminium to name but a few.

And the government is right to highlight the thousands of jobs that will benefit from these provisions. But for example, take the automotive sector. There are more questions that need answers. Reducing Terrace from 27.5 to 10% is undoubtedly welcome, but this deal only covers a relatively small quota of 100,000 cars. A figure that represents just a fraction of total UK car exports. What happens when that quota is reached? Are we going to see tariffs increase again, and whether the long-term assurances for our manufacturers and workers? And more strategic and forwardthinking approach is needed.

Also this cannot be the end of the road. If we are to make the most of our new trading freedoms, we must push for a composite free-trade agreement, one that goes beyond quotas and partial tariff relief and that delivers true long-term certainty for British businesses across every sector. The 10% reciprocal tariff on a range of UK exports remains in place, affecting sectors that are critical to our industrial base and our export strength. The government must be clear, when will negotiations begin to eliminate these tariffs? Or have they already started? We urge ministers to move beyond vague commitments that work will continue and to set out a clear timetable and a strategy for achieving a more ambitious deal.

There is particular disappointment in the pharmaceutical sector for example where the UK has not yet secured a carveout from remaining tariffs. This is an industry where Britain leads the world and we are talking about jobs, innovation and the secure delivery of life-saving medicines, so we must see more urgency from the government on this front. And what of the creative industries, specifically film and television? The failure to secure any protection for the sector is alarming. The threat of 100% levies on UK made films exported to the US remains a serious concern.

This is a world leading industry with the potential to deliver billions to our economy and showcase British culture on the global stage. It deserves far greater attention from the government. We on these benches are not here to oppose free trade. We champion it. But we do want to see trade deals that are ambitious, balanced and compressive, deals that reflect the best of Britain and support all our key sectors from farmers to filmmakers, sectors from farmers to filmmakers, from scientists to steelworkers.

The Noble Lord the Minister was also somewhat vague in answer to the Noble Lord Purvis of Tweed's question yesterday on parliamentary scrutiny of the deal. In an effort to save her from writing many letters, perhaps she can update us on this now. This deal is a good start, and that deserves to be recognised that the government must recognised that the government must now finish the job. We call for greater transparency, clear timelines and firm commitments to extend this agreement into a full extend this agreement into a full and fair free-trade deal that truly reflects the potential of post Brexit Britain.

Brexit Britain.
18:37
Lord Purvis of Tweed Portrait Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I look forward to the Minister answering the Noble Lord's question answering the Noble Lord's question to me. Referring exclusively to India agreement. We have debated in this House on a number of occasions, UK India trade, and on those occasions I have expressed the long-standing idea that free trade is a long-standing part of our country, benefits consumers and businesses alike and the means by which it is Fair Trade and is inclusive means that trade can be beneficial for wider policy ambitions on climate sustainability reduction of poverty, and social justice, and these are the parameters of which we will judge any agreement that this government signs with other governments as we did with the previous administration, and specifically on agreement on India.

We started because from the position that we would wish this agreement well and the government in ensuring that it is the basis upon which India trade can develop. This is a complex time in international trade with it being buffeted by policies and chaos and uncertainty from the United States, and the fact that India has now signed an agreement with UK and on Monday this week the second -- round of negotiations between India and the European Union on FDA showed those of us who believe in whitening free trade around the world need to ensure that we redouble our efforts to reinforce the global trading environment, and the rules upon which it is based.

The India agreement has been launched with a high degree of boosters last seen under the Boris Johnson administration, and of course we would be a world leader in trade, if press release was a commodity. The government says we have a series of anticipated benefits as a result of this agreement, no doubt the Minister will rehearse some of those in her text and reply to the Noble Lord and myself, but looking carefully at the government's technical papers, and not the press release, we can see that the cash figures of potential GDP growth, she may quote them in a moment, are purely a mathematical extrapolation of potential global trade in 2040 which the government has then converted into pounds to, taking a starting point of 2023.

So it doesn't take into account the Trump administration's disruption of global trade. All of the cash figures presented are purely illustrative. The technical papers also helpfully suggest that the government made a policy decision to round up to 0.1% for the growth figures, rounding up to 0.1% highlights that there is probably likely to be modest results as a result. Furthermore, very deep in the governance papers is that the government to get its very ambitious figures on UK trade growth, they've taken the starting point as the baseline of 2019.

Which doesn't take into consideration the pandemic, the Ukraine war, the Trump supply chain issues. So it started at High Point in order to get higher. All of this means that we don't necessarily oppose the agreement in principle, but we look at it from perhaps a more realistic and sober perspective. And the issue then becomes how we will support our businesses to take advantage of the new market access arrangements. According to the United Nations data figures, India has seen its exports rise over the last 10 years by 13.2%.

This is an export market where obviously the UK consumer wishes to benefit from. UK exports over the same time have expanded by only 5.1%. This is marginal growth over a decade, so it's right that we want to be part of a growing market. But the European Union export growth has expanded by over 9.5% over the same period, nearly double the UK rate. So we now have barriers erected, additional cost, more bureaucracy with the European Union, and we are trying to reduce them to India.

So the fundamental issue is not that we have a tariff agreement, is how British businesses will see the Indian market as barrier free, open and accessible across all states, reliable under a rule of law with less corruption, more transparency so that we can trade more and businesses are supported more to access the market, which this agreement theoretically facilitates, so I'd be grateful if the Minister could say the practical steps of actively supporting businesses that will take advantage of this agreement. Because there is little reference so far in what the government has said, I hope the Minister can confirm that the agreement will include a human rights chapter.

With clearly articulated mechanisms to address human rights supply chain concerns that have been raised in this House on number of occasions including by myself, for example on broadcasting and Civil Liberties. So if there is to be market access on digital and media and broadcasting, then are we ensuring that that is reciprocated and the restrictions that have been put in place for media have been lifted? Will the Minister confirmed that there will be a climate chapter in the agreement and that demonstrates this agreement reduces emissions rather than contributes? And given the fact that as a reference -- as I referenced on reference -- as I referenced on Monday, India and the UK and EU announce their intent for an agreement by the fourth quarter of this year, and whether or not this happens is out of the governments hands, complete you understand, but any comparative advantage that we are likely to have as a result of this agreement is likely to be impacted if there is indeed an agreement between India and the European Union and on rules of origin and other areas of standards, how will we triangulate between India and EU trade? Finally, can I ask the Minister with regard to potential trade diversion, and to preference erosion as a result of this agreement? In the previous government's scoping document, it had in annex nine of the technical paper, and the House is well aware I look for all the juicy details in all these agreements is in annexes, and typically after page 200, and that showed that with all of the likely potential trade benefits for the UK of over £5 billion, which is very similar to this government's estimate, it's likely there will be trade preference and trade erosion of over 3.25 of over £3.25 billion.

That means that we have to discount all of the benefits from the India agreement with the diversion of trade and the preference erosion from other countries. Primarily, Bangladesh and Pakistan, Kenyan and Senegal, Ghana, Indonesia, Philippines and Jamaica. From alone, the previous government estimated that trade erosion would be £1.5 billion less trade with the UK. So I hope that the government will have an impact assessment which clearly articulates the likely trade erosion and trade preference. And yes, I do ask the government whether or not there will be primary legislation required as a result of this and the extent of it and when we are likely extent of it and when we are likely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank noble Lords for their responses to the question and the Ministers policy statement. It is
18:46
Baroness Gustafsson Portrait Baroness Gustafsson, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
Ministers policy statement. It is lovely to see the support for trade that we all share. I'm happy to answer questions but I would like to step back and consider the agreement we are due to discuss in context. Fundamentally, as Lord Purvis says, the UK is a trading nation. The issue is deeply rooted within our DNA. Stronger trade ties with partners around the world in championing free, fair and open trade delivers back here generating growth, boosting wages and supporting wages in every corner of the UK.

This openness to trade has cemented the UK's reputation with the home of iconic brand sought- after around the world, but it is why we have been clear eyed pursuing a deal with India, one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Despite the strong ties linking our nations, there is space to strengthen with economic connections. This is a modern, compressive agreement that will increase UK GDP by £4.8 billion in the long run and bilateral trade which is already £43 billion will increase by 25.5 billion.

15.7 billion of which is expected to be UK. For the first day this deal enters into force, India agreed to cut tariffs worth 400 million times and it will jump to £900 million after 10 years. It has unlocked unprecedented access to the procurement market in India giving access to 40,000 tenders worth £48 billion. New commitments in customs and digital trade will make it easier and cheaper to deal with India than ever before. I hear the challenge about how the spreadsheets work and the models that sit behind it, and are we being optimistic? These are very realistic measures, but ultimately an approximation of the benefit this opportunity will bring us.

It is also not a limit. We will benefit above and beyond, but I can assure you this is based on modelling worldwide standards, but at the signing of the trade deal, and impact assessment will be published to give you some more small print to go through which I know you will enjoy. We looked in access to service companies and stronger ties in areas like anticorruption and provided business with the certainty at the time it is dearly lacking. I welcome the support this deal has had from across the House and those who recognised it for what it is, a landmark agreement with one of the most exciting and dynamic economies in the world.

I have been warned by the support from the businesses who will use this deal including British Chambers of Commerce, the Institute of directors, the Scotch whiskey association, National Farmers Union, Food and Drink Federation, techUK, the Premier League, Standard Chartered, and more. I want to address the double contributions convention which we agreed to negotiate, implement and parallel with this free trade agreement. There has been speculation and misinformation regarding this element of the agreement. To set the record straight, it is reciprocal and designed to prevent the double payment of social security contributions for those workers known as detached workers, sent by workers on a temporary basis and long-term jobs are based in their original country.

This is for the benefit of both countries and the UK agreed numerous GCC over recent years including Iceland, Norway and Lycian sign in 2023, Switzerland in -- -- DCC. -- DCC. -- -- DCC. -- Iceland. -- DCC. -- Iceland. There -- DCC. -- Iceland. There have -- DCC. -- Iceland. There have been claims the agreement undercuts UK workers. The double contributions convention supports UK workers particularly those in the world- class service sector. The agreement will boost wages in the UK by £2.2 billion, putting money into the pockets of working people right across the country.

I'm well aware that many in the House will be keen to understand the intricacy of the agreement and have a knife in detail. They published a summary document that looks at every part of the agreement. --- an eye for detail. As with any free trade agreement, parliamentarians will have ample opportunity to scrutinise the deal which is subject to the usual ratification procedures under the government act in 2010. It will also be scrutinised by Parliament via the standard processes outlined in the CRAG act.

It will be scrutinised and passed by Parliament in the usual way before ratification. I hear the challenge about human rights record and the UK is a leading advocate for human rights around the world and we remain committed to the promotion of universal human rights. Where we have concerns, they are raised with the government of India including at ministerial level. It has been undertaken separately to trade negotiations but they are part of building open and trusting relationships with important partners.

I feel the avenue for communal trade support our ability to work in those matters greatly. There is also a question about if we are eroding the trade and how that will be received. We send out further information on the impact assessment. The free trade agreement will include India's first ever trading development chapter in an FTA, but the UK and India will monitor the effect of the agreement on developing countries and facilitate effective dialogue in this space will undermine our search and funding and look at future development programs.

To conclude, the trade minister outlined in the other place that the UK business, certainty and stability during a time of global uncertainty and instability and it will give British businesses access to the biggest markets abroad while raising wages and driving growth at home.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to thank the noble lady for the account of the agreement, with India and with the agreement, with India and with the agreement, with India and with the United States. The process will be for the India deal with respect of for the India deal with respect of the House and the arrangements will be triggered, but she said nothing about the deal with the United States. Could she reply to the question what parliamentary scrutiny question what parliamentary scrutiny process will be applied to the deal with the United States? And with the United States? And secondly, could she say if the United States deal is consistent United States deal is consistent with the UK most-favoured-nation with the UK most-favoured-nation treaty treatment under the General agreement on tariffs and trade.

agreement on tariffs and trade. Also, whether the US agreement will Also, whether the US agreement will fulfil the provisions to give a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

waiver to any discrimination? I said I would follow-up in writing in respect of that which I will do so in the response as I will do so in the response as I commented yesterday. My parliamentary knowledge is not yet

**** Possible New Speaker ****

at section 24. I warmly welcome this statement, particularly in its emphasis in negotiations with India or the Scottish whiskey injury and the Scottish whiskey injury and the benefits it will leave the Scottish
18:55
18:55
18:56
18:57
18:58
Baroness Hoey Portrait Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)
-
-
The rule is that the government commits that the international agreement Committee said the deal should be debated, the treaty debated by the House, that debate takes place before the government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

proceeds to ratification? Would you mind if I follow-up on that one? Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that one? Thank you. The Minister will know not all these trade deals apply to Northern these trade deals apply to Northern Ireland. In the other place yesterday, the Secretary of State yesterday, the Secretary of State for business said basically it was because of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement and the Windsor Framework Agreement and the Windsor Framework and we need to protect the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. What Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. What is the detail of businesses in Northern Ireland treated differently in the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement in the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement and we should be left within the European Union courts and rules in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement? Perhaps the noble lady would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Perhaps the noble lady would accept we are getting tied of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement being

**** Possible New Speaker ****

used in so many different ways. I hear the frustration and we want businesses in Northern Ireland want businesses in Northern Ireland to benefit to the fullest extent they can and that is what we expect. Businesses in Northern Ireland exporting goods and services benefit from this free trade agreement just as businesses elsewhere in the United Kingdom will. Businesses exporting from Northern Ireland will benefit from the free trade agreement and it should be a good news story. When we think about businesses importing into Northern Ireland from India, with Indian originating grids entering Northern Ireland, they will do so under the free trade agreement providing that the goods are not at risk of entering the EU.

This is where the Windsor Framework kicks in and that will make sure that under the usual process of the Windsor Framework process of the Windsor Framework that that is protected, but business operating within Northern Ireland operating within Northern Ireland will benefit from the terms of the free trade agreement.
19:00
Baroness Gustafsson Portrait Baroness Gustafsson, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
To welcome these trade agreements, I congratulate the government on achieving them. I note that my dioceses in Manchester has a large Indian diaspora community will work hard to help exports as a result of this when they have the result of this when they have the result of this when they have the opportunity. I do not know if the question from the LibDem bench was answered a few moments ago, answered a few moments ago, referencing human rights and climate change.

I would like to widen that slightly and think of this upcoming slightly and think of this upcoming trade strategy that the statement referred to, asking if there is any ethical component, moral matters, considerations in any part or if considerations in any part or if considerations in any part or if Element to commit a little bit on the environmental aspect, and I think this is Indian's first-ever chapter on the environment within a free-trade agreement, so it really is a plus for them, and it's going further than ever before.

It requires India to promote high and continually improving levels of environment protection, reaffirms our joint Commitment to the Paris agreement and standards through non-derogation commitments. It's a great step and it's a big first step, but a free-trade agreement step, but a free-trade agreement can't fix all environmental issues, and we are clear that the environment issues that are most effectively tackled when we work directly and closely with our partners through this international partners through this international approach. And I think having a deal like this really solidifies our relationship and provides much broader access and opportunity to exert their influence.
19:02
19:03
19:04
19:05
19:06
19:07
19:08
19:09
19:10
19:10
19:10
19:11
19:13
19:13
Lord Harlech Portrait Lord Harlech (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak in support of amendments 127, 128, and 139 in the name of my Noble Friend Baroness Penn and in so doing declare my interests as an employer and also the father of a four-month-old son. The amendments in this group seem to deliver a fairer, more modern and more economically rational approach to paternity leave in this country. These amendments are modest in scope but transformative in impact. They are not about political ideology. They are about justice, equality, family well-being, and economic prudence.

The case for action is overwhelming. Today in the United Kingdom we grandmother is 52 weeks of maternity leave, fathers receive just two weeks. And they are paid a mere £187, 18p per week for it, which is less than half the national living wage. That's not support. That's a symbolic gesture. And it's one that fails our families, fails our economy and fails our vision for a truly modern and inclusive society. As we heard, the UK has the least generous paternity leave system in Europe.

And we ranked 40th out of 43 OECD nations. While 22 OECD countries offer six weeks or more of well-paid reserved paternity leave, the UK offers just 0.4 weeks of full-time equivalent paid leave. Is that the legacy that we wish to defend? These amendments seek to correct that imbalance. They do three vital things. Make statutory paternity pay day one right, just like paternity leave will be under the bill. Increase paternity leave from two to six weeks and raise the rate of pay to 90% of the father's salary, capped at median earnings.

And require transparency from large employers by mandating publication Each of these reforms is supported by robust evidence and economically justified and most importantly backed by overwhelming public support. The government rightly proposes to make paternity leave a day one right, yet it does not extend that logic to pay. What message does that send? That a father may take time off but go without income to do so. This is that the arrangement in the House and perhaps if the government is about fairness and workers rights, it may be something it wishes to take up with the commission.

Research shows the biggest barrier to fathers taking paternity leave is affordability. Nearly 3/4 of those cut leave short because they could not afford to stay off work any longer. What use is leave if it is unpaid? Why six weeks and why 90% pay? We know from Sweden, Germany and beyond the reserves well paid leave for fathers leads to profound benefit for families, women's equality, for children and national prosperity. OECD data shows that in countries offering fathers six weeks or more of well paid leave the gender wage gap is 4% smaller and the women's labour force participation is higher.

Why? Because shared caregiving allows mothers to return to work soon and on fairer terms. It is not just a women's issue, but a fairness issue for all parents and smart economic policy. The economic argument is striking. Closing the gender pay gap could boost UK economic output by 23 billion and increase paternity leave to six weeks or 90% pay would generate an economic benefit of 2.6 billion. This is based off of sound modelling endorsed by reputable analysts including the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Moreover, 90% of businesses surveyed by the CBI say inclusive workplace practices help them attract and retain talent. Nearly 3/4 of employers who offer enhanced paternity leave report higher productivity, something we were discussing in this country in earlier groups and this is a solution to help it, and employee engagement. Let us discard the myth that this is a bureaucratic cost, but really it is a smart investment for business. Let us remember the human case. Better paternity leave benefits children.

Children with engaged fathers like Lord Bailey was saying earlier benefits children. Children with engaged fathers show a higher academic achievement, greater resilience and stronger social skills. It benefits mothers when care is shared and women can more easily return to the workplace and pursue their career. It benefits fathers, longer paternity leave leads to better mental-health, something we were hearing about earlier, stronger father-child bond and more engaged parenting throughout childhood. If we want to build a society where men are not just allowed but expected and supported to care for their children, then this is the place to start.

I will close with a final point, the public is with us on this point. 81% agree that more generous paternity leave is good for families and the country. Support is across party lines and all back the measure. This is not a fringe issue. It is a mainstream demand and a moral necessity. We have an opportunity, perhaps a once in a generation opportunity, to reshape the way this country supports fathers, mothers and children in their earliest days together.

A proposed amendment is reasonable, grounded in evidence and long overdue. I urge the government to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

accept them. It is a pleasure to follow the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a pleasure to follow the compelling case for these amendments. I rise to speak in
19:20
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes Portrait Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (Plaid Cymru)
-
-
amendments. I rise to speak in strong support of Amendment 76 and 139 tabled by Baroness Penn and Baroness Lister. The UK statutory paternity leave just two weeks paid at £187 just two weeks paid at £187.18 p per week is the most limited in Europe. In many OECD countries, six weeks leave is at the equivalent of full pay and is standard. By comparison, our offer is inadequate and outdated. Eligibility for paternity leave is restrictive and requires continuous employment with the same employer for 26 weeks before the 15th week prior to the due date, excluding many fathers especially those in insecure work, the self-employed, or those working in the gig economy.

Many are forced to take unpaid leave or use holiday just to be present at the start of their child's life. The impact is significant. The TUC report half of families struggle financially when a parent takes paternity leave and one in five do not take the leave they are entitled to, mostly for financial reasons. Research found that 70% of fathers who did not take full leave had to cut it short due to cost. This is not just about finances and affects bonding with the child, support for the mother or birthing.

The lack of accessible leave limits shared parenting and is a contributor to the gender pay gap and pension pot inequality in their future. The Employment Rights Bill includes provision to address some of these issues. Clause 15 and 16 removes the qualifying period for unpaid parental paternity leave and clause 17 removes the requirement to take adoption leave before parental leave allowing paternity adoption leave to be taken followed parental leave. This clause fails to tackle the lower amount of statutory paternity pay and fails to extend fathers and second parents, leave entitlement past two weeks.

While the Labour Party committed a manifesto to review the parental leave system more broadly I believe the Employment Rights Bill divides an opportunity in the here and now to implement changes that will make a real difference to families and people considering having children. As Lord Bailey mentioned in terms of the lower birthrates at the moment and that is an important context to consider in these amendments. Amendment 139 from Baroness Penn is a practical and immediate step forward, and would require statutory paternity pay to be a Day 1 right, removing unnecessary barriers to the thousands of working parents.

Amendment 76 from Baroness Lister backed also by Baroness Penn with mandate and comprehensive review of paid parental leave in six months of the bill becoming law. Importantly, it sets the terms to consider a statutory non-transfer payment of paid leave for second parents. Raised pay levels and includes the self-employed. This is not a social issue but an economic one and many noble Lords mentioned the modelling by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the scent of progressive policy which suggests increasing paternity leave to six weeks at 90% of earnings could contribute to .68 billion to the UK economy by supporting mothers to return to work and encourage shared care from the outset.

Countries with more than six week paid paternity leave have a smaller gender pay and participation gap. The international example shared by noble Lords during this debate, and benefits are clear and public supports reform. Only 18% believe the current offer is sufficient. Other amendments have been spoken to, including amendment 18 from Lord Palmer and amendment 127 from Baroness Penn proposing extended leave and further paid. The case for reform is clear and compelling and has been made in this group.

The Employment Rights Bill offers an opportunity to modernise paternity leave, benefiting families, the economy, and gender equality at work. I urge the Minister to consider the strength of the argument presented today and respond with the action it deserves. respond with the action it deserves.
19:25
Lord Ashcombe Portrait Lord Ashcombe (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak in support of Amendment 127, 128 and 139 in the name of Baroness Penn. I would like to think the birth of any child is an important day in the eyes of the father as well, yet when it comes to parental leave, granted by companies, they are treated very differently. 52-week for the mother and two weeks for the father. On this basis as we have heard, the United Kingdom compares very unfavourably with other European nations.

In addition, 22 OECD nations offer six weeks pay, and the equivalent of 100% salary. Statutory pay for these two weeks, this country is currently the lesser of the government weekly rate and £187.18 p or 90% of the average weekly earnings. A modest amount by any measure and the average hard- working man is paid just under £700 a week. We have heard from other noble Lords the benefits to fathers themselves, mothers and children when fathers are permitted to spend a longer period of time with the family in the earlier period of the child's life.

I wish to draw on my personal experience and as I have said before the company I work for, the large insurance broker, has a very mature policy on maternity leave with fathers being allowed to take up to 16 weeks when the company will ensure they continue to be paid the equivalent of 100% salary for the time away from the workplace. Importantly, the job remains open for this period of time in order to facilitate retirement. This is not available to me when my son was born in the 1990s.

I have not yet reached in the 1990s. I have not yet reached grandfather Lord Woolf of Liverpool. I am sure our competitors offer something similar as competition for staff is always an ongoing issue and benefits count enormously in any discussion should a member of staff wish to move. It helps to find the culture of the company which cares not only for itself but also the lives of their colleagues. I do not believe as suggested in amendment 128 asking for parental leave policies to be published by large companies.

An owner's request and enables comparable and encourage best practices across the industry and I support it. -- onerus. Happy staff tend to do good work and this is a stressful time in family life. Mental health of staff is important as we refer to Lord Bailey of Paddington and others this afternoon. It is one thing for a large company to offer a long period of paternity leave with the balancing of colleague workload. But it becomes more challenging as the company gets smaller.

I am not suggesting for a moment that all companies should offer generous periods of paternity leave as my own as much as I would have enjoyed at the time. The birth of any child I hope is an exciting and nerve wracking experience which can be ameliorated by parents being able to spend more time together during this period. Two weeks of eternity leave is simply not enough and I would encourage the government to extend this statutory period for paternity leave as suggested in the amendment to six weeks with a more generous level of salary that will hopefully encourage fathers to take time off as proposed in amendment 127 which I demonstrated is often exceeded in many workplaces.

I would like to look briefly at amendment 139 and I change my opinion during the debate in the name of Baroness Penn. I believe companies of all sizes feel Day 1 paternity leave is a step too far as a new employee has not even walked through the door. However if the government insists on this, it only seems right that fathers should receive statutory pay as a minimum. Companies obviously still have the opportunity to decide if they go further as would be the case for employees who have been part of a workforce for a certain period of time.
19:30
Lord Gascoigne Portrait Lord Gascoigne (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to support Baroness Penn in support of Amendment 127 and in doing so declare I have an interest and I'm increasingly discovering it is a growing financial interest in the form of my two daughters who say the form of my two daughters who say I confess I'm glad that does my Noble Friend Baroness Penn leading the charge here on this amendment and the noble Baroness Baroness Lister leading the group. Because I rise with some trepidation, and unconscious though I'm not alone in this, that in speaking to this amendment as a man I am putting myself slightly in the firing line that somehow I imply that a man who should have the exact same as the woman who is this just carried and given birth to the child.

But as has been said, this isn't about more rights for the man. It's more than that. It's about ensuring a dad can But to crucially be there for the mama. And I'm lucky and immensely grateful that on both occasions when my wife gave birth to our children that I had to supportive bosses, one of him I'm delighted to still be my boss in the form of the opposition Chief Whip. When the time came my Noble Friend worked with me to give me support in time I wanted to be with my family and long with other colleagues when I was in the government website is, two of whom I'm pleased to say I see here in the form of Lord Evans and Lord Hollick, we all work together to ensure that we all work together to ensure that we all got the time we wanted to be home, but especially me.

This is an unique but I was lucky that it was offered, lucky that it was an open dialogue, that I can ask for what I like without recourse and was complete understood, and lucky that support extended beyond the time I was at home. I was also lucky that my child was healthy and that I had my in-laws to help out. To me as with so many in the country, I want to be at home to help but also share those early moments. I think as was said earlier about the precious moments in a young child's life.

I was there to help, tidy, ferry, feed, give cover and support my wife who was recovering after surgery, and if I made to give a personal, expect personal circumstances, on both circumstances in which my children were born, the birth wasn't simple. The first required emergency surgery, only to return for another stay in hospital a week after returning home, and was second child again it was, get it despite being a planned cesarean. The surgery didn't go and are required weeks of continuing hospital visits.

There is no way at all that my wife on her return could have looked after a newborn child, never mind our eldest or indeed herself. And I say this not for sympathy, not to say that I'm special or unique or that I deserve any better support than others. The general statistics show that labour on average can run up to 18 hours and whilst around 46% of women who give birth in England stay one day in postnatal care, around 40% of women stayed two days, there is an increase over the last decade of Caesareans, amounting to over 40% of births.

And here it is worth reflecting that the advice on the back of Caesareans is that they should be weeks for the mother of not lifting anything heavier than your own baby. And not everyone is able to have a family network or wider family network to rally in support, so whilst I was lucky I had that support from work, some aren't lucky. They can't and don't have a choice and have to return to work sooner than they would like as the noble Baroness Smith was saying just recently.

And to divert online the other day the one that was back working 24 hours after the child was born. I'm a realist and know that money doesn't grow on trees and many businesses already provide longer and better parental leave. Some may say that they have concerns about the impact of business and the economy, and I won't comment on the bill as a whole but is busily right that each and every day we should be supporting and helping businesses to grow. They pay the taxes and employ people.

Research shows that three quarters of employers who offer extended leave see an increase in productivity and dating and also 100% of father's advice ability is a deal breaker when looking for employment. So in conclusion, as my Noble Friend was saying earlier, Baroness Penn, it is good for parents that they help so they can help and support one another. It's good for the child to ensure that support is there for them to build bonds as part of a new unit, and it's good for forming another special bond, a bond between an employer and employee, and I hope that all Noble Lords, including my own party, especially my own party, recognise the merits of this amendment as something good for both business and families.
19:35
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Portrait Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Labour)
-
-
I only wanted to speak very briefly, but I did want to observe how heartening it is to hear right across the House support for the amendments in this group, and in particular I wanted to just speak to Lady Lister's and Lady Penn's, as I've already shared with Lady Penn, when I was at the TUC, I very vividly remember having conversations with young men who were working as riders and delivery drivers, and they really really wanted to be good dads.

They had young babies, young children. And what was most important to them, and I hope others would also reflect this in paying attention to how we make working families lives better, they wanted predictability of shifts, wanted guaranteed hours so they knew how much money they could earn, but they also really wanted paid paternity leave. So to keep it really brief, I just had a couple of questions for my Noble Friend the Minister before she responds.

And the first is really whether we can accept that the starting point for a review would be to recognise that the UK compared to other countries is so ungenerous in its paid paternity leave. We don't need a huge review. In fact know that. That's our starting point. And if we are to move into the 21st-century, we also need to recognise that new dads from all sorts of backgrounds really want time to bond with their babies and be involved more equally in their care.

Secondly, whether this review will focus specifically on paid paternity leave. And on the simple premise that unless it is paid, there are a whole swathes of new dads who simply cannot afford to take it. And I've been really encouraged by the discussion around the House because I think there is a cross-party consensus that actually we all want to see new dads having that opportunity, but also we all know the benefits that will bring for women, closing the gender pay gap, opportunities for children, having a better life too.
19:38
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
I'd like to begin by thanking my Noble Friend Baroness Penn for her very thoughtful amendments in this group. And also acknowledge the valuable contributions from all Noble Lords in this debate. In particular the noble Lady Baroness Lister for introducing her amendment, but also to the noble Lord Palmer for introducing his. And perhaps more importantly, reminding the House of the coalition government's work in this area, the Conservative led coalition government's work in this area. Although I note that he didn't heap praise on the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions my right honourable friend Iain Duncan Smith.

We fully recognise and support the intention behind these proposals to strengthen support for families and particular to enhance the role of paternity leave in allowing fathers to spend essential early time with their children. This is a laudable aim and one that clearly finds broad sympathy across the House. However, while the objective is clear and commendable we must also consider the practical implications of how such policies are implement it. Particularly in relation to the impact on businesses. Many employers large and small continue to face significant challenges in the current economic climate as we've discussed at length this evening already.

The introduction of new requirements even when Ltd to large employers must be approached with care and I acknowledge my Noble Friend Baroness Penn addressed many of those concerns directly in her speech. With regard to the reporting obligations set out in amendment 128 by my Noble Friend, I know that these would apply to businesses with 250 employees or more. And while this threshold does help to focus the requirement on larger organisations, we should still be mindful of the potential administrative and financial burden such reporting could entail.

Even in such reporting could entail. Even in that category, the result is significant and may be as equipped equally to take on new reporting functions. A pointy thing was also addressed by Noble Friends Lord Bailey and Lord Ashcombe. That said, transparency and data collection can play a valuable role in shaping effective policy and if it can be clearly demonstrated that these measures will bring mutual benefits, improving employee well-being and retention for example but without imposing disproportionate costs on employers, it certainly something we should pre-prepared to consider further.

Optimally we have to strike the right balance ensuring mean for support for families whilst also safeguarding the viability and fix ability of the businesses that ability of the businesses that employ them, and that is the lens through which we should view not through which we should view not through which we should view not just this amendment but the wider bill.
19:41
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-
This has been a wide-ranging and exciting debate. I'm very grateful and thank all Noble Lords who have contributed and I take this opportunity to congratulate the Noble Lords Lord Harlech on his four-year-old son. Four month old son. Sorry. I would like to begin by recognising the key role that parental leave plays in supporting families, and wish it was available when I became a much older father some 18 years ago. I'd like to also thank the Noble Lord Lord Gascoigne for sharing his story about the difficult time he had with the birth of his children.

This government understands that the my arrival of a child whether it's through birth or adoption is the most transformative time in a family's life. We also understand that the current parental leave system needs changing. So that it better supports working families. We have committed to do this and are taking action in a number of different ways. Through this bill the government is making paternity leave and parental leave day one writes. Meaning that employees will be eligible to give notice of the intent to take leave from the first day of employment.

Which I hope many Noble Lords will welcome this position. This brings leave in line with maternity and adoption leave,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

some find the system.... The nibble of the Minister said

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The nibble of the Minister said that this brings paternity leave in that this brings paternity leave in line with maternity leave, but the maternity leave, the right to pay is also a day one right, 70 acknowledge

**** Possible New Speaker ****

also a day one right, 70 acknowledge that the bill does not create that alignment between maternity and paternity? Noble Ladies absolutely right. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noble Ladies absolutely right. I just say the leave is the same with just say the leave is the same with maternity leave, but not the pay. So maternity leave, but not the pay. So this brings the centre line with maternity leave and adoption leave, thereby some find the system. We also remove the restriction preventing paternity leave and pay preventing paternity leave and pay from being taken after shared parental leave and pay to further parental leave and pay to further support working parents in assessing entitlements available to them.

Separate from the spill, planning work is under way for the parental work is under way for the parental leave review, which will explore how well the current system supports working families and what improvements could be made. Let me turn to amendments one to seven, 81, 139 and 139. This amendments seek to make changes to paternity leave and pay. Amendments 127 and 139 are both in the name of noble Baroness Baroness Penn. Amendment 127, statutory paid to six weeks and decrease the rate of pay to the level of 90% or National Minimum Wage or pay rather, although the drafting relates specifically to pay.

And in 1396 to make statutory paternity pay day one writes all employees by removing the current continuity of working requirements. The Noble Lord Lord Palmer has laid to similar amendments, 80 and 138. Amendment 80 would also increase the minimum length of paternity leave from two to six weeks a required regulation to introduce the ability to take paternity leave at any time in at least the first year following birth or adoption. Amendment 138 calls for extent on the existing flat rate of statutory parental payments to be increased from doubling the rate from 184 23 £68.06 p.

I hope to reassure both the noble lady and the Noble Lord in part by highlighting several reforms to paternity leave and pay which took effect in April last year. These changes now allow eligible parents to take their leave and pay into nonconsecutive weeks, take their leave and pay at any point in the first year after birth or adoption of a child, rather than only within the first eight weeks as was previously the case. And to give short notice for each period of I hope Lord Palmer will agree that while well intended, amendment 80 is not necessary if paternity leave is taken for the reasons I just explained.

Moving to parental pay, amendment 139 makes statutory paternity pay a day one right, and current no pay entitlement is available from day one including maternity pay. Parental pay

**** Possible New Speaker ****

entitlement require employees... Did he just say there was no day

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Did he just say there was no day one right to parental pay including for maternity?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for maternity? I will read it again. Amendment 13 Nate makes statutory paternity 13 Nate makes statutory paternity pay a day one right. Currently no parental pay entitlement is available from day one including

**** Possible New Speaker ****

paternity pay. The allowance is available from day one and that is a same rate of pay as statutory paternity pay.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pay as statutory paternity pay. She is right, paternity is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

She is right, paternity is available from day one. Parental pay entitlement makes an average earning entitlement makes an average earning test calculating if newly employed parents have met this threshold will present a significant challenge to present a significant challenge to employers who administer parental employers who administer parental payments. Amendment one 127 and 139 presents a burden while finances are under pressure. Increasing the level of pay generally, any changes will need to take account of the economic situation, financial impact on employers and the need of parents and in consultation with business and stakeholder.

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is required by law to undertake an annual review of benefits and state pension including statutory payment. This is based on a review of trends in prices and earnings in the preceding year, generally as the benefit of parental payment is in line the CPI. Statutory Maternity Pay, statutory paternity pay, and statutory adoption pay all increase by 1.7% in April 2025 in line with September 2024 CPI figures.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would the noble Lord acknowledge licking the payments to CPI, what is licking the payments to CPI, what is happening is we have a bigger gap between statutory payment and salary as the minimum wage increases by a as the minimum wage increases by a greater degree. The process the Minister laid out increases the Minister laid out increases the problem of pain not coming anywhere close to replacing wages. close to replacing wages.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

close to replacing wages. I thank her for that. That is the situation as it is now. Until it situation as it is now. Until it changes, this is what it says. Depending on individual circumstances, there is additional financial support available to parents, universal credit, child parents, universal credit, child benefit and an assured maternity grant and is available alongside grant and is available alongside statutory parental pay. Turning to the issue of Shared Parental Leave where farmers and partners -- where farmers and partners -- fathers and partners want a longer period of shared pay and Shared Parental Leave and pay offers 50 weeks of leave and 37 weeks of pay which can be created for parents to share of the maternity entitlement the mother does not intend to use.

They can take leave together for nearly 6 months or interspersed periods of leave with periods of work. I turn to amendment 136 laid by Lord Palmer and supported by Baroness Whitaker which calls for individuals who are self-employed and within six months of the passage of the bill. It requires the contractors to be defied in regulation to set up a clear description of who would qualify for statutory adoption pay in this statutory adoption pay in this eligibility.

I would reiterate the gratitude to all adoptive parents who provide learning and stable homes to children who are unable to live with the birth parent. Currently, parental leave and pay entitlements are generally not available to the self-employed. This focus on providing parental leave and paid to employees is rooted in understanding that employees have less flexibility and control over working conditions compared to those who are self-employed. There is the exception of maternity allowance which is available to the self- employed mothers as an important health and safety provision, making sure mothers take time away from working to recover from childbirth, bond with the child and establish breastfeeding if they wish to do so.

For parents that do not qualify for adoption pay, those who are self- employed or contractors, statutory adoption guidance and advice for local authority to consider making payment similar to maternity allowance. In November 24, the government published keeping children safe and helping families strive as we allocated £49 million to the adoption and special guardian support fund for the financial year. This enables local authorities and adoptive agencies to offer a wide- ranging of tailored support including physiotherapy, family therapy and creative family therapy to adoptive parents.

We also look at adoptive family needs. I turn to amendment 128 tabled by Baroness Penn which commits the government to introduce in regulation required organisation who employ more than 250 people to publish information about parental leave and pay policies. It is true parental leave and pay policies are not extras, but essential policies that manage the professional and personal responsibilities and play a huge role in addressing social and economic issues. The bill contains a number of different issues with support of working families most notably by putting in place legislation that makes it unlawful to dismiss a pregnant woman, mother son maternity leave and mothers who come back to work after a six-month period except in specific circumstances.

Making flexible working the default except where not reasonably feasible and the requirement that large employers look at the action plan and we feel we are striking the right balance between doing more to help working families while ensuring this changes it for employees to respond and adapt to and we do not believe this is the right time to legislate to require publication of parental policy. I turn to amendment 76 tabled by Baroness Lister which makes it the legal requirement for the Secretary of State to begin a review of paid parental leave within six months of Royal Assent and lay it before Parliament within 18 months.

As I share the desire of noble Lords and Baronesses that made the amendment today, I want to see changes in the parental leave system to better support families and I thank them for clear dedication to improving the lives of parents and children. I recognise their concerns at the current system reinforces updated gender roles. The responsibility for children remains for some families with the mother. For many, this is through choice, but it is also reflected on those fathers and partners a short period of time to be with partner and child during the first year of life.

Shared parental leave is available to qualifying fathers and partners who take the longer period but take up remains low. Family life has changed dramatically since the 1970s when they passed employment protection act that established the right to maternity for working mothers. We all agree the improvement needs to be made and this government has worked and made parental leave a day one right of the bill. This removes the layer of complexity and makes the system more accessible.

More needs to be done and I recognise the point raised by Baroness Lister in amendment 76 that looks at the disparities in the current system. The plan to make work pay and a manifesto commitment committed to a review of parental leave system within the first year of the Labour government to ensure it supports working families. Planning is underway and we hope to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

provide further details soon. Just to confirm, the government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just to confirm, the government will meet the manifesto commitment to start that review within the to start that review within the first year and could the Minister give a timescale for not just when the review will start, but when it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the review will start, but when it will be completed? I can give commitment that we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I can give commitment that we will do this in the first year of government. We are conducting and planning the review within the first year of Labour government. It would be premature to make further legislation in this space before the parental leave review has taken place. We will take the ideas from the noble lady and take them into consideration and I look forward to updating the House on the review. Before I conclude, we understand the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

concerns... Before he exits the review, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before he exits the review, the review clearly reflects on a number of issues in this bill and it makes an awful lot of sense if you are going to do this in the first year which by the way is not very much longer to be able to present us with the findings of that view and we can reflect them in what we bring back

**** Possible New Speaker ****

at report stage. I thank him for the intervention and I will speak to officials and update noble Lords on this review. update noble Lords on this review. We understand the concerns raised by micro and small businesses about micro and small businesses about proposed day one rights to paternity leave and these employers work with lean teams and tight margins. Any lean teams and tight margins. Any perceived increase will raise questions about cost and continuity. Introducing day one right is about fairness and consistency and ensures fairness and consistency and ensures all fathers regardless of tenure have the opportunity to support

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have the opportunity to support family at a critical time. I would like to interrupted again because he talked about the because he talked about the importance of day one rights to paternity leave and giving fathers the right to take that leave, but as Baroness O'Grady said, unless it is paid, swathes of dad will not be paid, swathes of dad will not be able to afford it. -- Dads. Why will they not make it paid?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank her for this, but as I said in my previous paragraph, we said in my previous paragraph, we are making day one rights the review are making day one rights the review and we look at all of the issues and we look at all of the issues brought forward and until we get the review done I cannot comment on anything at this stage. If we look anything at this stage. If we look at businesses, this supports loyalty at businesses, this supports loyalty and improves retention in a competitive hiring environment, demonstrating commitment to family friendly practices and attracts and friendly practices and attracts and keeps skilled employees.

We encourage the workforce planning across training and flexible staffing arrangements can mitigate disruption during short absences and small employers have managed a similar situation around the holiday similar situation around the holiday leave and illness stop this is not about adding burdens but building a about adding burdens but building a workplace culture where they build value from the start. We are committed to working with small businesses to ensure transition is smooth, supported and sustainable. I reassure all noble Lords of government commitment to parental leave and respectfully ask the amendment is withdrawn.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before he sits down, could I make an observation having listened to him reading from the brief, I wonder him reading from the brief, I wonder how many who have read the brief how many who have read the brief have been able to take paternity leave? It didn't sound like it. As Baroness O'Grady said inherent invention she was very happy with invention she was very happy with the support across the House for paternity leave being changed and
19:59
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Portrait Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)
-
-
changed quickly. Those of us in the House in front and to the side of the Minister were able to witness the body language of backbenchers. As he looked at the body language, I would suggest that going and sitting down with them as a group between now and report stage might be helpful.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for that. I will take

**** Possible New Speaker ****

him up on that idea. I would like to thank everybody who contributed to this debate. I who contributed to this debate. I particularly thank the fathers who did and made it very much an issue for fathers and brought your for fathers and brought your personal experience to it. That is very important and I value it. I very important and I value it. I don't think Baroness Penn pushed on the question in the timeline. I do the question in the timeline.

I do the question in the timeline. I do not think we really got... It is starting to happen, it will start starting to happen, it will start within the first year of a Labour government, but it remains a government, but it remains a question about when it will finish and perhaps the Minister can take and perhaps the Minister can take away that question and see if he could bring back in a letter a clear idea of what the timeline will be and what it will look like before report stage because I must say, if the scenario that Baroness Penn laid out is how it is going to be a would find it very disappointing and it would be very disappointing for many people in this House who supported the raft of amendments so And could I ask, suggest that a copy of this debate is given to the Minister who is responsible for this review? Because I think it would help that minister, whoever it is, see just how strongly all across this House is the feeling that this needs looking at.

And looking at in particular from the perspective of fathers. And the raw deal that they get. As the noble Baroness Jones pointed out, this is a human rights issue. And I too I mean I'm more used to talking about women's rights than men's rights, but I hear this is one of those issues where the two come together, and one supports the other, and it's so good to see it kind of acknowledged across the House in that way. And I have to admit that I kind of, I mean my noble friend the Minister said he hoped we would be reassured, but I have to admit I wasn't reassured, I'm sorry, but I felt that there was a lot of talk about better support for working families, of course.

But what I didn't really hear, and I will read Hansard, is a kind of clear acknowledgement that this is about a better deal for fathers, and then from that flows a better deal for mothers, a better deal for children, a better deal for families and also the economy and the Noble Lord sharp talked a bit about the costs, but actually this could be good for the economy, good for business. And I think perhaps that needs to be recognised more.

So I won't say any more now, but I would ask that my suggestion that this debate brought the attention of the Minister responsible for the review is taken seriously. Thank you very much for nodding at the Frontbench there in front of me. I can't speak for the body language of all my colleagues here on the backbenches, but I think it's been a very good debate. It's been worth having. We need to think about what we want to do at report.

But perhaps, I'm sure it will come back in some form of report, and I would ask that the officials perhaps give more thought to what is really motivating this debate in what they then, is presented at report stage back to us because I'm not sure really that they got it. And this is too important for it not to be God. So I will leave it at that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, and look forward to continuing the forward to continuing the conversation across the House.
20:04
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Portrait Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Is a geologic spacer the amendment 70 6B withdrawn? By leave withdrawn. Amendment 77, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not moved. I'm sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm sorry. I distracted him.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, I apologise.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, I apologise. I beg to move my amendments, and I'm speaking on amendment 77, 78, I'm speaking on amendment 77, 78, 79, 135 and 144. In my name. So amendment 77 extends to foster carers, the leave given to carers, carers, the leave given to carers, and I hope Noble Lords will see this as a necessary clarification, which as a necessary clarification, which is all it is. Amendments 70 and 79 focus specifically on kinship carers and on requiring larger employers, those with over 250 staff to review those with over 250 staff to review the support they offer to unpaid the support they offer to unpaid carers.

Amendment 70 and 79 table to my name seek to address a significant gap in employment rights for kinship carers by introducing a new entitlement to kinship care leave. Amendment 78 proposes a provision to establish its right while amendment 79 links the proposed entitlement to the broad prohibitions of the bill. These amendments respond to a pressing social need. Over 130,000 children across the UK are currently being raised in kinship care arrangements, more than three times the number in foster care.

Despite the critical role kinship carers play, often stepping in during times of crisis to prevent children from entering the care system, they receive far less support. Including in the workplace. Introducing a specific entitlement to kinship care leave would provide families with much needed time and space to adjust. To make necessary arrangements and to ensure the child's well-being, which Not only will this help Children and Families Act also help relieve pressure on the formal care system costs are often excessive and emotional toll I'm sure is significant.

In enabling kinship carers to remain in employment while fulfilling their caregiving responsibilities, these amendments recognise the long-term social value of keeping children within loving familiar family environments. Amendment 70 and 79 introduce a right to kinship care leave, and link it to broader employment provisions. 130,000 children in the UK as I say are in kinship care, more than three times the number in foster care. Kinship carers often step into family crises, preventing children from entering state care, yet they lack formal workplace protections.

These amendments would provide time for families to adjust and support children's transition, especially vital in the sudden or emergency situations. I maintain that supporting kinship care is cost-effective and reduces reliance on costly private care providers profiting from a family meltdown. This is about reshaping workplace culture to reflect the reality of modern families and assure children can remain in loving stable homes. These proposals align with broader efforts to reform the care system and should be viewed as part of a compassionate pragmatic approach to child welfare.

Amendment 135 would make carers leave a paid entitlement. I don't really need to add more to it than that. But turning to amendment 144, I will speak to the amendment which would require employers with more than 250 employees to consider what support they offer to unpaid carers within their workforce when publishing their gender equality action plans. This is a modest, very modest but important step towards recognising the hidden pressures faced by most employees, most often women who juggle paid work with unpaid caring responsibilities.

Unpaid carers are the backbone of our social care system will stop where would we be without them? Yet the contribution is routinely overlooked and workplace policies, policies of the gender pay gap reporting. By including consideration of unpaid carers in gender equality action plans, we would acknowledge that real-life factors contribute to disparities in career progression, earnings and job security. Employers cannot meaningfully address gender inequality without addressing the care but in that disproportionally fulsome women. This is a practical and proportionate way to ensure that unpaid carers are no longer invisible and workplace policies.

Drafting my words to say today, this late evening, I didn't realise how important kinship care was. One talks about the mothers, the fathers, but very often it's the aunts, the uncles, the grandmothers, people who are keen to the child -- kin who were not recognised in the system within which our system

**** Possible New Speaker ****

requires in the hope Noble Lords will support my amendments in my name, which I beg to move. Proposed after clause 17 insert the new clause on foster carer's the new clause on foster carer's leave, the words of which are on pages 6 and seven of the marshalled list. Amendment 77.
20:11
Lord Brennan of Canton Portrait Lord Brennan of Canton (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

list. Amendment 77. I beg to speak in relation to my amendment. It's a privilege to be able to rise to move amendment 81, although the amendment stands in my name, I'm just a vessel in this case. The credit for getting this amendment to this stage and in this shape should go to the members of the House of Commons women's and equality committee, but in particular to the wonderful chair of that committee, my good friend Sarah Owen MP. Her tireless and passionate advocacy in raising the issue of the need for bereavement leave following pregnancy loss has successfully I believe persuaded the government that action is necessary on this particular matter.

And therefore I hope that the end of this group amendments are when my Noble Friend the Mr replies, that they will be able to indicate support for amendment 81. Or confirm at the very least that the government will bring forward the equivalent amendments at report. Listening to and reading the stories of women and their partners affected by pregnancy loss is very moving and to a very powerful experience. But unlike other parts of the pregnancy journey, for example IVF, there is often a cloud of secrecy around miscarriage.

Leading sometimes to a feeling that many women have that it is somehow their fault when pregnancy loss occurs. Sarah herself, who has spoken publicly with great courage, emotion and eloquence about her own experiences of pregnancy loss, has referred to this feeling. And that feeling is compounded if having miscarried and experienced the related physical and emotional trauma, a woman is expected to apply for sick leave in order to deal with the bereavement of pregnancy loss. Miscarriage is not a sickness.

It's not a disease. It's not the equivalent of having a heavy cold or any other infectious condition, but having to take sick leave to deal with the heartbreak of miscarriage trauma reinforces the idea that there is something wrong with the woman. That is the evidence that Sarah Owens committee received when they did their enquiry into this matter. And it's also the case that taking sick leave will often trigger an HR process from an employer, which can enhance the feeling of insecurity of employment at a time of great probability that the woman concerned.

Pregnancy loss bereavement should be treated the same way as any other kind of bereavement suffered by workers. And should therefore be a right in law and enacted through this bill. In addition, this measure would help lift that veil of secrecy and guilt around miscarriage and build more compassionate and human workplace environments. Sarah Owen herself has spoken movingly about this when describing and discussing her own experience of miscarriage. And she said in the Commons, " I experienced pregnancy loss when I was an MP, and the kindness of colleagues in this place got me through.

But at no point did any of them wrap their arms around me and say, get well soon. They all said, I'm sorry for your loss." I believe this amendment can help to drain that well loneliness that can be felt when pregnancy losses left acknowledged. In employment law. And in the workplace, particularly as it is such a common occurrence. And of course partners need to be involved too. The committee heard compelling testimony from women who had experienced miscarriage that partners needed time to grieve their loss as well as to accompany partners to doctor's appointments and so one command they had from a witness nearly bled to death on the way to hospital because her husband Questions arise about cost to employers, but there are those welcoming the change.

Smaller businesses wanting a level playing field in order to do the right thing. The NHS, largest public sector employer of women has been offering paid bereavement leave for the last year and the Women and Equalities Committee say that cost Equalities Committee say that cost is an extra. -- Inexorable. I hope that they introduce the statutory entitlement to bereavement leave and pregnancy loss before 24 weeks will stop and to reassert our values of humanity, compassion and a desire for fairness and equality.

I know that if it does so this will be a moment of both sadness and joy for those who experienced miscarriage. Sadness at the reminder of their loss and of what they had to go through without this provision. Joy at knowing that in future pregnancy at knowing that in future pregnancy loss bereavement will be a right for leave so that women and partners will not have to experience the added pain of not having a right to statutory leave at the time of the greatest trauma.

I thank Sarah as a friend and comrades for entrusting me with carrying this amendment forward on her behalf in the House. An exceptional person, a brilliant MP and I'm glad to tell everyone also a wonderful mother.
20:17
Baroness Grey-Thompson Portrait Baroness Grey-Thompson (Crossbench)
-
-
I speak to amendment 134 in my name. The aim of the amendment is simple but vital, seeking to provide day one financial support for parents and children diagnosed with serious or life limiting illness, creating statutory right for parents to take a period of paid leave to care for their child. This includes those aged between 29 days and 16 years old receiving or have received start types of medical or palliative care. The duration of the leave will be need to set out in regulation.

The amendment is tabled after a lot young boy named Hugh who lost his battle against cancer at just six years old. His parents founded the charity It's Never You to support parents and children diagnosed with a serious illness. They have been campaigning for three years to change the law and are in the gallery tonight to listen to the debate. Throughout the treatment, Kerry and Frances saw immense challenges faced by parents, not just emotional and physical strain, but also the severe financial but also the severe financial pressures that come with it.

Each year, 4000 families in the UK spend two months or more in hospital with their child undergoing treatment for a life-threatening owners. These parents are being forced to make the impossible choice of earning a living or being with their child. The current system leaves them unsupported at eight most vulnerable moment in their lives. They sell their homes and clothes and go to sites like GoFundMe to cover basic living costs that can go against them in an application for universal credit. No parent is entitled to financial support in the first 90 days of a child's illness.

After that, they can apply for Disability Living Allowance which helps with the cost of caring for a sick child, but even then successful applications can take up to 20 weeks to be approved. 90% found that immediate financial support would have made a critical difference to the hardship they faced following diagnosis and treatment. The amendment builds on an important progress made to the neonatal care leave and pay act and under this act parents and babies are admitted within the first 28 days of life and require a hospital stay of seven continuous days or more are entitled up to 12 weeks of statutory leave with pay eligible.

This is in addition to existing maternity and paternity entitlement. Regarding these recent legislative changes, the employment rights Minister said no parent should have to choose between being with a vulnerable newborn or returning to work. We are giving parents peace of mind to focus on their family. Considering the statement, I would like to ask the Minister one question. The government recognises no parent should have to make a choice between their child's health and employment, so why are they so reluctant to provide financial support to vulnerable parents in an equally devastating situation?
20:21
Lord Watson of Invergowrie Portrait Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Labour)
-
-
I rise to speak on amendment seven. Amendment 77 and amendment 79. I congratulate Lord Palmer bringing this forward. Both types of carers serve a huge... Provide a huge service allowing children to remain in loving family settings. Both types of carers are subject to wider consideration as children's welfare and the Schools Bill, but there is a need to ensure the essential caring role is acknowledged by making provision to have a right to leave as do employees.

Foster carers at least receive fares and allowances and are looking at the fostering network with the local authority being less than the national allowance to foster carers and even those are out of date and failed to meet the cost of caring for a child. It is a sense of recognition allowing them to enable to respond to situations and leave work as the same way birth parents are able to do. There are over 150,000 children in kinship care in England and yet there is a lack of understanding amongst the general public as to what kinship care is and involves.

It is any situation a child has been raised in the care of a friend or family member who is not their parent. May be temporarily or long-term. Kinship care is need employment because they step up in times of crisis to provide love and care for children who may otherwise be sent to the care system and that situation has gone about because of tragedy or trauma. They move in with the family and it can be difficult and they need support, but often it is not planned to take on parenting responsibility so they may need to spend time attending children's services and be involved in court proceedings, find a nursery or make arrangements with the child's school and GP.

Sometimes children's services place an expectation of kinship carers where they temporarily stop working. If they think it is necessary to meet the needs of the child. If they look at local authority support and a financial sense if the situation is dependent on where the carer lives, the type of arrangement and if the child or was previously in the care system. Kinship carers often become dependent on Social Security which is simply not right or fair. Surveys by the Family Rights Group charity have found a charity have found 1/3 of working age kinship carers are not in paid employment because of care responsibilities.

Six in 10 give up work or give up their hours to care for a child. A doctor is entitled to 52 weeks of leave and 39 weeks of pay to settle a child into their home with 90% of average weekly earnings for the first six weeks followed by a payment that stands at £184 a week and employers can usually reclaim almost all of those costs. There is no equivalent in payment for kinship carers and there should be an amendment that introduces significant steps towards that.

Providing kinship care with paid leave provides families of financial security and the need to direct it to the Treasury for kinship carers remaining in employment, reduce and not to mention wider social benefits in well-being and GDP. Foster carers and kinship carers don't simply provide a service to the children they look after but the government by listening to the bans on children's services and saving on public expenditure. I hope my noble friend recognises this given the assurance that she will bring forward the government amendment to write a very obvious wrong in terms write a very obvious wrong in terms of leave for foster carers, kinship carers and recognise a vital service that they provide.

that they provide.
20:26
Lord Bishop of Sheffield Portrait The Lord Bishop of Sheffield (Bishops)
-
-
I thank Lord Palmer for tabling an amendment 78 and 79 to which I have added my name in support. My comments will be brief. I would like to add my voice to other noble Lords in the chamber in appreciation of the debate we have heard today on the detail of the bill which I think in many ways indicates the interrelatedness of the issues before us and what it is to live well together and enable the flourishing of every person throughout their whole life.

I am grateful to the Minister for her engagement with me on the matter of kinship care over several months. I acknowledge the evolving view of how best to ensure sustainable support for kinship carers. I appreciate the Minister is open to further conversation and I look forward to these. Part of the challenge is about finding an agreed workable definition of kinship care but there is more work to be done on this, recognising amendment 79 sets out in some way to go about this task.

It is about finding the right balance to achieve what is needed in supporting kinship carers and not so open as to be unworkable in law and unrealistic and affordability. -- In affordability. It is about what kinship care is, but I do not think this challenge is unresolvable. The longer we take to get to this point, the more lives being impacted. Kinship carers are overrepresented in health, education and the social care sector so to withdraw from the labour market has an obvious impact on wider society.

The north-eastern region I serve has the highest rates of children in kinship care and the impact of this in real terms given multiple and systemic factors of inequality is immense. Amendment 78 grants kinship care as the right to take statutory paid leave as Lord Palmer said akin to the title meant -- entitlement of adoptive parents with protected time with children entering care as they settle in to the new arrangement. Further, it would enable caregivers to remain in employment while they adjust new responsibilities of continually contributing to the economic growth of this government and what it strives for.

In conclusion, I wish to thank the Minister for her willingness to meet with me and engage with these amendments and urge her to consider the difference these amendments would make to the lives of kinship carers, to those growing up in their loving care and to wider society. to wider society.
20:29
Lord Young of Cookham Portrait Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
-
The Right Reverend Prelate makes a strong point of more support for kinship carers. I added my name to 135 and 144 to demonstrate cross- party support for a square deal for party support for a square deal for carers. Before adding a brief road to what has already been said about carers, a quick word about amendment 77 on foster care. My wife and I were registered foster parents in the borough of Lambeth and we did short-term fostering. Typically when a mother went into hospital and somebody needed to look after her existing child or children.

It isn't clear from the wording of amendment 77 how short-term foster parents might qualify for the amendment that became law. If the definition of amendment 78 that the fostering of a child had to last for a year, then they would qualify even though they might have been doing short-term fostering for up to a year with a series of different children. Short-term fostering can last from two days for up to two years. But two days of short-term fostering may qualify for leave on its own, but probably not.

I think we need some clarity on entitlement if this is to go further. A quick word on amendment 135 and I declare an interest as part of the All Party Parliamentary Group on young carers, young adult carers. What this amendment would do is change the carers leave act which didn't include remuneration as a matter that had to be considered in an employment contract. I note that during the package of the carers leave act which was a Private Members' Bill supported by the then government, but then in opposition and now the government challenged the previous government on why it was not producing carers leave as a paid entitlement, and in second reading on March third 2023 Baroness Blake responding to the Labour frontbench said " we fully support the bill although we believe carers leave should be paid.

We have to ask why it has taken the government so long to introduce legislation and necessitate its introduction in a The Labour spokesman in the Commons was even more forthcoming. On 21st October, 2022, he said, again responding from Labour's front bench, and I quote, we of course support the bill but it falls short of what paid -- unpaid carers really need which is paid carers leave. We need to sort out a new deal for working people.

The next Labour will legislate to introduce is that to ensure that working people can respond to family emergencies as and when they arise without being left out of pocket. Despite these commitments, such a provision is completely absent from this bill. Perhaps the Minister can explain why. Now, I understand all the reservations about putting it more obligations on employers, even though some leading employers already do this. They do paid Carer's Leave on its nonstatutory basis. Perhaps the Minister could explain what the practice is in that department.

I note in passing that it would be a 1.8 billion gained through increased worker retention, reduced recruitment and so on, from this measure. A similar case to that which we heard made in the previous debate on paternity leave. I welcome the government's determination to support people back to work and to aim at 8% -- at 80% of employment rate. That together with the recent recognition that carers an ability to work is costing the economy makes a strong case for this amendment.

I think the case for this amendment has been transformed by yesterday's White Paper on immigration, with its restriction on recruitment from overseas for those working in social care, particularly in care homes. We've already heard the concerns of those who run these homes that this key source of recruitment will be cut. There is no sign at all that social service departments will be able to afford the higher cost of care if we are to recruit and train enough people locally. And the NHS social care have a high number of working carers.

Many people leave because of a lack of flexibility and support if they are at the same time unpaid carers. Some may be entitled to Carer's Allowance if they qualify under the rule and that makes no sense. I believe there's an opportunity here to retain existing carers and recruit new ones if there was more flexibility than there is at the moment. And finally, the government has committed to review the implementation of the Carer's Leave Act 2023 and examine all the benefits of introducing paid Carer's Leave.

Finally, I ask how is that review progressing? Will V take account of the changed situation since yesterday?
20:34
Baroness Pitkeathley Portrait Baroness Pitkeathley (Labour)
-
-
I rise in support of amendments relating to unpaid carers. It's always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord young -- Young. I declare an interest. The amendments in question would in turn provide employees with a statutory right to paid Carer's Leave and require employees from employers with over 250 employees -- require employers with over 250 employees to pay Carer's Leave. And please it received cross-party support. I have long campaigned for greater long campaigned for greater employment rights for those with unpaid care responsibilities.

This bill is very welcome and includes many provisions which have a positive impact on working carers. Millions of people are now doing this juggling act. Paid work with their unpaid caring responsibilities. This juggling act is very difficult to maintain. Despite pockets of good practice, a lack of support and understanding from many employers and too few rights in the workplace too often leaves carers with no choice but to give up work or turn to part-time or insecure work. Many people are estimated to quit work to provide unpaid care every day with real and lasting consequences for them and their families.

That's not only bad for them but add for their employers and bad for the economy. As recently as March, the government provided a new estimate of the cost to the economy of carers being unable to work which Lord Young quoted. It was a staggering £350 billion -- £37 billion a year. A huge figure. We have made good progress in recent years. Indeed, the entitlement to a week of unpaid Carer's Leave was secured through the Carer's Leave Act in 2023 and it was a positive step in the right direction.

However, it was always intended to be just that, and we said this endlessly during the passage of the bill, as some noble Lords will remember. It was a first step to be built on. I welcome that the government is committed to review the implementation of the current right to unpaid Carer's Leave under the Carer's Leave Act 2023. I consider whether there is a need for paid Carer's Leave. However, I urge the government to go further and faster to seize the opportunity that is there in front of it.

Indeed, it is clear to me that we should be doing everything we can to ensure all carers who are able and wish to work are able to do so. This is part of what the government is trying to do in other areas. Encourage people back into the workforce. Carers UK 's evidence shows that 80% of carers say that additional Carer's Leave would better help them to juggle work and unpaid care. And 50% of carers would find it easier to return to work after a period of absence if they had access to paid Carer's Leave.

Almost half of those who've given up work or retired early, and many people take early retirement specifically to take up caring responsibilities, said that Carer's Leave would help them to stay in employment for longer had it been available at the time. The modelling that Carers UK has undertaken based on existing practice estimates it would cost the government between 5.5 million and £32 million annually to introduce paid Carer's Leave, depending on the rate of compensation employees receive. I know that a large figure but it is in fact a small price to pay when compared with the huge contribution made to our economy by carers.

Amendment 144 relating to equality action plans as necessary due to the gendered nation -- nature of caring. Women are still much more involved than men. The impact this has on women's employment specifically is huge. Anderson the government has been engaging with carer friendly employers lately. -- I understand. These include TSB, Centrica. That support should not be the preserve of employees who happen, just happen to work for certain employers. I agree with the government that this bill is pro- business and pro-worker.

These amendments are as well, and that's why I hope they will be supported by the government. the government.
20:40
Lord Hogan-Howe Portrait Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)
-
-
I would like to support Baroness Grey-Thompson in her amendment 134. She is highlighted there is a glaring gap in our welfare system. It fails to provide adequate immediate support for parents whose children are full seriously ill. Well the neonatal care act recognised the need for a non-means tested leave and payment when a child is critically kill -- critically ill, that vanishes when the child grows older. Parents whose children full seriously ill will be navigating benefits not suited to their immediate requirements.

Currently, there are three options available to parents seeking that support. The first is Universal Credit, which is means tested and is not easily accessible. The second was mentioned by Baroness Grey- Thompson. Disability living allowance, which can only be applied for three months after a diagnosis and then takes an additional 20 weeks, so approaching half a year to weeks, so approaching half a year to process. DLA is also required... The third option is 18 weeks of unpaid parental leave taken in blocks throughout the calendar year.

In these cases, families face an impossible choice. Financial insecurity or being at their child side during watches -- what is the most dramatic time of their life. This amendment addresses that gap, providing a grant to the parents of a chronically ill child. It will be approved quickly by the consultant with renewal every month. According to data from the Treasury, there are drugs data from the Treasury -- according to data from the Treasury, the cost of caring of a chronically ill child estimated to be around £750 per month.

According to estimates from a charity, if the government were to provide during this Period, it would cost around £6 million. Significant amount but compared to many of the options that have been talked about today at the lower end of national spending in terms of revenue. So this amendment seeks to extend the principles of the neonatal care act two children under the age of 16 in cases of serious illness. It builds on a clear precedent and introduces a compassionate, practical solution, and non-means tested support at the moment of crisis.

The impact on employers will be minimal, affecting only a few thousand families a year. The benefit to those families would be profound. This is precisely the kind of change where legislation can make a life changing difference at very little cost. I would urge the government to consider this amendment which is in keeping with the spirit of this legislation.
20:43
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes Portrait Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (Plaid Cymru)
-
-
I rise to give my remarks in relation to these amendments. I would like to add support to the noble Lords amendment on a miscarriage lead. I'm glad to see that it has made its way in this House. Firstly, I would like to speak to amendment 135 tabled by Lord Palmer, which would establish Carer's Leave as a paid entitlement. I will keep my remarks brief in this regard but I speak from lived experience. I became an unpaid care at the age of 12.

I know means to juggle education, work and caring responsibilities while having to repeat my story to NHS staff, college tutors, employers, and DWP. The obstacles faced are not unique. I know that a number of carers I spoke to in the past and continue to do so continue to face these obstacles, but what those experiences taught me is it led me to campaign on those issues. And proud to have influenced positive policy changes in Wales that make life a bit easier for young carers trying to stay in education.

Would be helpful to millions of young people with caring responsibilities. People I was. The government has made it clear that getting people back into work as a priority, yet it also recognises that unpaid carers inability to work costs the economy £37 billion a year. Supporting carers into and to stay in employment must be seen not only as a social priority but also an economic one. Introducing paid Carer's Leave is not an expensive proposal. Modelling by Carers UK say it would cost between £5,500,000.30 2 million a year.

This depends on the rate of compensation. Set against the cost of lost productivity, height turnover and pressure on health and social systems, this is a modest and worthwhile investment. It would directly benefit over 2 million working carers. It would offer financial security, flexibility and dignity. It could mean billions in savings from reduced staff turnover savings from reduced staff turnover It could empower carers to apply for jobs they might otherwise feel shut out of, helping to broaden participation in the workforce and unlock that untapped potential.

Turning to amendment 144, also tabled by Lord Palmer, this would require employers with more than 250 employees to include within their gender equality action plans information on how they support unpaid carers in their workforce. We must not stop at simply getting carers into work, we must also ensure they are supported to stay in work. According to the census nearly one million working age unpaid carers have left employment because they could not manage their caring responsibilities alongside paid work.

Carers UK research also shows that as many of these individuals could have remained in employment if only they had received more support from their employer. That is why this amendment is not just sensible, it is necessary, requiring transparency from large employers and carer support ensures accountability and progress, particularly when many unpaid carers are women and gender inequality remains persistent in the workplace. Both of these amendments speak to revision of a more compassionate, inclusive and economically resilient inclusive and economically resilient society, one that recognises and values unpaid carers and removes the barriers that they face.

Sorry out barriers that they face. Sorry out of the House to support both of these amendments.
20:47
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Portrait Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)
-
-
Amendment 135 to which I have added my name, it's a pleasure to follow Baroness Smith especially given she spoke from lived experience. Which I think it's really important. I recently attended a policy breakfast about support for working parents and support for working parents and carers sponsored by the Centre for care Sheffield University. The unanimous view was that the leave has to be paid to make a real difference and that is the message received from carers themselves gathered by Carers UK.

Many, especially those on low income, many of whom as we have heard are women, of whom as we have heard are women, simply can't afford to take unpaid leave. In the words of the Centre for care statutory right to unpaid carers leave in the context of a gender segregated labour market with a substantial gender pay gap is likely to substantially exacerbate inequality. The evidence they have collected shows we compare badly with many other countries where paid carers leave is now taken for granted.

As I said at second reading, the case rests not simply on huge difference it would make to the lives, health and well-being of carers, social and moral case, but also in the strong economic case. It would increase the likelihood of carers, we've heard of carers entering or remaining in the labour force thereby supporting the government's aim to increase employment and promote economic growth. As the government supported task Finnish group noted supporting carers to remain in paid work represents an economic opportunity. TSB who provide their own carers support scheme are clear about the value provides for them as employers, and therefore is one of many organisations calling for the bill to include provision for paid carers leave.

It's not just big employers who are supportive, the CIPD consultation with its members that support among SMEs was not much lower than that among large employers. The original new deal for working people promised paid carers leave, I got a different quote than Lord Young of Cookham here. At the Commons third reading of the Private Members' bills which introduced unpaid leave just a couple of years ago, the Frontbench spokesperson said the next Labour government will be committed to building on this legislation and introducing a right to paid carers leave in our new deal for working people.

But although he responded sympathetically on the issue at report stage in this bill, in the Commons, the report, the Minister could only say that because the right to unpaid leave was and acted -- in acted recently we are reviewing this measure in considering whether further support is required, so I would echo the question of Lord Young, whether the Minister could explain this shift in attitude. I completely understand that the government needs to consider how paid leave should be designed, not least because we need to learn from other countries.

Is the consideration with regard to the need for further support given the body of existing evidence which overwhelmingly demonstrates the case for it. Surely we should show our commitment to unpaid carers by writing into the bill what is in effect a principle, and in principle provision to cover the introduction of paid leave wants a review of the details is completed. This would be wholly in line with the spirit of the bill, consistent with the government's emissions, not least its overriding pursuit of economic growth, while demonstrating support for a group at considerable risk of poverty.

The government have demonstrated their commitment to carers with action already taken on carer's allowance. Although I have to say it's loss for thousands of carers as a result of the planned cuts points in the opposite direction. All the more important therefore to use this bill to demonstrate our commitment to carers desperately trying to juggle responsibilities in the labour market and to their loved ones and our recognition of the importance of care to our society. care to our society.
20:52
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to command the various beaches that have been made particularly on care, but also on the challenges that carers face and I am sure the debate will continue about the issue of remuneration for carers leave. The reason I am contributing to this group of amendments is actually amendment 81 amendments is actually amendment 81 in the name of Lord Brennan. For me it seems quite an odd place for this to have been grouped alongside the other issues recognising the very serious situation of identity loss.

-- Pregnancy loss. What I wasn't aware before the noble Lord spoke is this was relating to an enquiry at the other end, I've only just started reading aspects of that report so I'm not fully informed as indeed he was and is in presenting this, but I'm conscious that there are some issues in here that I am concerned about. In terms of thinking through, there are only three other countries in the world that currently include this, parts of this pregnancy loss in terms of being formally considered for bereavement.

That's not a reason not to do it, but I think it's important to do it, but I think it's important to recognise that we would still be quite considerable outlier and I think it does need careful consideration, I'm not dismissing it in any way but I'm conscious that the government responded in March 2025, sorry March 25, I'm slightly disappointed we haven't yet seen an amendment tabled. I appreciate some of these things take a bit of time but I had hoped at Committee stage we'd be at the point of being able to consider what the government was going to table in this regard.

It is accurate to say as the government sets out its response to committee but has already set out in guidance, number of these issues are already covered in terms of pregnancy or maternity related illness. I heard what Lord Brennan said about this becoming a potential HR issue, it is absolutely scrim in a three -- discriminatory for any such illness in any way of which miscarriage clearly has one, and the other ectopic pregnancy would be covered very straightforwardly by that.

I think I have a particular concern about in his amendment to be a four where it widely castor that of any medical abortion. Already recognise that any abortion after 24 weeks is automatically covered in bereavement leave. The same is true of stillbirth which again in the UK is considered to be the loss of pregnancy 24 weeks and above. The two are not causal, they are not related there is a correlation in the timing but it's just so happens that we have our current abortion limits with certain exceptions to 24 weeks.

So I am concerned that in effect proactive abortions taken prior to up to 24 weeks would be covered in this potential amendment and I don't know if that is the intention of the government in its response, as I have said to the House already I have another chance yet to read the entire report from the Women and Equalities Committee. I think also when I look at two BB -- I have friends who have not always successfully had children through IVF.

Thankfully many people do but many people recognise when they enter into that some of the challenges that they definitely will face. In trying to have a child by IVF. As it stands on average success rate for a woman below 38 is about 35% success rate for any particular embryo transfer loss. Once a woman starts to go over the age of 40 that falls to, it's actually gone up from 2012 from eight% success rate to 10% success rate in 2022. I think it's that sort of careful consideration that needs to be thought about by the government and this House by your Lordships when we decide to extend certain entitlements while recognising the heartbreak that can happen at certain moments in people's life and these particularly sensitive moment, I'm conscious this is a sensitive issue to bring up at this point in the bill but I do believe that I would like to understand this in more detail, I will take the time to do some more will take the time to do some more research myself but I'm very keen to hear whether government is thinking because I appreciate it's given a certain kind of wording to the House certain kind of wording to the House of Commons select on this point but quite where this is stretching and further details to the House would be very welcome.
20:57
Lord Fox Portrait Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I thank all speakers from your Lordships house what I think has been an excellent debate and it's a genuine pleasure for me to participate hopefully quite briefly. Lord Brennan gave a moving speech which was made more moving by the knowledge that Sarah Owen is at the bar today and I would like to thank them for their contribution, but especially Sarah. Amendment 81 has our support not least as a catalyst to try to have the sort of debate that we need to have and the careful consideration that Baroness Coffey also alluded to but I hope it can start to move things forward.

We also support amendment 134 which was so ably explained by Baroness Grey- Thompson and supported by Lord Hogan-Howe, this again is an important issue that we would, we want to have more conversations about following this debate. My noble friend gave a very spirited and strong advocacy for kinship care and that was supported across the House from others, here is another area where there is absolutely clear and present need for carers to be brought into the carers community officially.

The point on fostering was also well made by my noble friend and the point made by Lord Young about short-term fostering is something that we should seek to bring in to that as well. All of these amendments are in a sense broadening the scope of carers and where we should be considering, all of them I hope the Minister will be able to stand up and say, let's have a debate following this particular group, let's talk with interested parties to see how some or all of this can start to be moved forward.

I hope you will excuse me if I focus on carers unpaid carers leave. I had the great honour of piloting Wendy Chamberlain's Private Members' bills through your Lordships house -- and paid. As Lord Young pointed out in one of his other guises the strong support of the Conservative government. During that time I had a chance to meet a lot of carers and a lot of employers of carers. Big companies, the noble Lord mentioned Centrica, and much smaller companies.

All of whom set out the advantages of having the proper strong relationship with their carers and the starting point that we established through that Private Members' bills of unpaid carers Members' bills of unpaid carers But this is an opportunity to take it to where it should be and I'm afraid the noble Lord Young and indeed Baroness Lister shut my Fox when I was going to come up with quotes from the then opposition and the now government on the necessity for this to become a paid leave.

Just briefly to explain why. Because unpaid carers are across our society everywhere. Many people at some point in their time but -- will become unpaid carers, whether it is for a manly member -- family member, partner or friend. It can take many forms. Can be physical care, washing, dressing, feeding for people who can't do that for themselves, and it can be other things like taking people to medical appointments and helping them to deal with the mechanics of a life.

There are huge pressures faced currently by the NHS with record levels of demand. Unpaid carers have never been more important in the daily lives of so many people in this country. That's why it was important to get that first bill on the stocks and that's why moving it to the next stage is really important. We know from the 2021 census that over 20 million people in the UK are juggling work and unpaid care, and every year, 1.9 million people become unpaid carers.

Staying in work whilst providing unpaid care leave for a relative or someone else can be incredibly challenging. We know that. But it means is that those pressures often either force hundreds of thousands of people out of work or force them to reduce their hours. So, that's why we are proud to push amendment 135, and that is why I am delighted with the support we've had across Your Lordships' House. This is the bill that can deliver a paid Carer's Leave.

This is the bill that should deliver a paid Carer's Leave, and I think Your Lordships' House has made it clear what it thinks the government should do in response to amendment 135.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I agree with the noble Lord Lord Fox, whose Fox has not been short. Fox, whose Fox has not been short. This has been such an interesting, This has been such an interesting, important, fascinating and deeply moving debate. And we owe a debt of moving debate. And we owe a debt of gratitude to Lord Palmer for gratitude to Lord Palmer for introducing in a very positive way the fact that unpaid carers are the the fact that unpaid carers are the backbone of the hall care system.

backbone of the hall care system. And also for bringing us up to date with the reality of families faulty with the reality of families faulty -- families. Have we not united in saying what we want now the saying what we want now the government to do? It will be very interesting to hear what the interesting to hear what the response is. I do hope the government will use every moment between now and Report Stage to be more specific on how they wish to respond to the issues that are being thrown up in this debate.

I would, like Lord Palmer, just want to acknowledge the importance of kinship carers. The grown parents, kinship carers. The grown parents, the ants, the ankles -- aunts, the siblings. These individuals do so often take on significant responsibilities with little preparation or so port and they always do so with compassion and commitment. Kinship carers and their contribution cannot be overstated. The Right Reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Newcastle, has reminded us that they help prevent children from entering care system.

They keep families together and they often do so at a great personal and financial cost. I also have to acknowledge the contribution of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, who had some wonderful specific quote to share with the house. There is a very important strategic alliance here, particularly with Baroness Lister and others. It will be important to respond positively to the points that they have made. I believe there is a genuine case for us to explore how we might better support those who take on these caring responsibilities in such difficult circumstances.

Whilst I appreciate that statutory leave may not be straightforward to implement, especially in the current economic climate, there is a rule, as Lord Fox suggested, for a wider conversation -- there is a room. Therefore, there should be further consultation on this matter with kinship carers themselves, with businesses, and with wider public, to understand the practicalities and to gather the necessary evidence. If we can find a solution that is proportionate, workable and rooted in the realities faced by both carers and employers, then I think, I believe it is something that deserves our consideration.

As Baroness Smith said there is room here for a modest move forward. This would make a significant contribution. We have, of course, to acknowledge the moving speech of the noble Lord about bereavement leave, and also how he spoke movingly of his Commons colleague, Sarah Owen, the MP for Luton North, who has blazed a trail of understanding some areas that previously have not been properly understood, and we need to respond positively to that.

I also felt that Baroness Grey-Thompson talking about serious childhood illness paid leave supported by Lord illness paid leave supported by Lord Hogan, how that is another area that we do need to explore how better we we do need to explore how better we can tackle these challenges. So in can tackle these challenges. So in all these areas, I am confident we can work towards a sustainable strategy.
21:09
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
This has been another wide- ranging debate and I'm grateful for the contribution of all noble others. It has been moving and profound. I would say there is unanimity across the house. We should do as much as we can to support carers. We have to ask ourselves how best we do that and we are indeed picking up the pattern from the last government and we have passed the care leavers act. I want to begin by joining in paying tribute to the noble Lord on the issue of kinship care and to the noble Baroness Grey Thompson for tabling her amendment.

Also, of course, thank you to my noble friend for tabling an amendment 81. I will try to do my best to get through them at a decent pace. I will begin with kinship care and speak to Lord Palmer's amendment. I want to begin by joining and emphasising how much I am the government appreciate kinship carers who offer loving homes to children who cannot live with their parents. I'm sure the whole house shares these sentiments. The government is committed to ensuring that all employers are employed parents and carers -- that all employed parents and carers are appreciated.

We seek to create legal definition of kinship care to establish eligibility thick kinship care the. As we heard from the Bishop of Newcastle, from my noble friend Lord Watson and indeed Lord Palmer himself, the amazing work done by kinship carers across the country supporting children at times of great stress and need in their own households and in doing so relieving local authorities in the wider system. We recognise the current support for families needs improvement. We have already begun to work to improve the system for kinship carers.

We are defining kinship care through other legislation that is currently in this house. Later this year, we will begin trialling kinship allowance and several local authorities. Just on that, I'm pleased to say that for the first time through the government's... We will create a definition of kinship care. And the duty to promote educational achievement of children in kinship care. This will help ensure all local authorities interpret the definition formally in relation to the duty for partnership information required, reducing ambiguity in potential disparities in information provided.

This will hopefully make life much easier at the sharp end of providing kinship care. This is a vital part of our commitment to keeping families together and supporting children to achieve and thrive. Am also very pleased to say the government has recently announced a £14 million package to trial a new kinship allowance. This is the single biggest investment made by any government on kinship care today. It is the first of its kind. This financial commitment could transform the lives of children who can no longer live at home.

It would enable children to be raised within their extended families and communities. As we heard from Lord Palmer, we must minimise disruption in their formative years and ensure they have a normal life. In addition, qualifying and applying kinship carers may already in a fit from workplace rights. This includes a day one right which grants... Unpaid parental leave which through this bill we are making a day one right. Employers may not automatically have the responsibility as a result of being a kinship care -- employees.

They may acquire parental responsibility through an order. The government has also committed to a review of the parental leave system to best support working families. This will be conducted separately and work is already underway for a silvery. Turning to amendment 170 174 amendment 77 on foster care. -- Turning to amendment 77 on foster care. At times when we were facing significant changes, foster parents often not only offer care and security but also emotional support and consistency.

I want to pay tribute to all those who step forward to provide foster carer, not least Lord Young of Cookham who has now changed his place but is very much with us in the chair. It is important to acknowledge that support already exist. They can respond swiftly to a range of issues such as caring for a foster child. If foster carers looking after a child with a long-term illness or disability, they are entitled to Carer's Leave. This provides them with up to a week of unpaid leave in a 12 month period to manage healthcare needs or attend appointments.

Those fostering with an intention of the ring may also be eligible for paid adoption leave providing they meet the necessary criteria. All employees are entitled to flexible working arrangements from day one of their employment. Given his existing provisions, it doesn't seem right to add a new entitlement without a proper assessment of the need for it and the impact it might have. I'm now going to turn to amendment 135 It would not be appropriate without an assessment, will such an assessment be undertaken because I think it's important.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Provide him with more details but I covered some of the issues around reviewing carers sleeping around later on in my speech. I thank him

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for his intervention. With all due respect this bill is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With all due respect this bill is full of situations where the consultation for the implementation consultation for the implementation of it is yet to be completed. One of it is yet to be completed. One more consultation in primary legislation having adopted the principal would hardly stain the principal would hardly stain the integrity of the spell so if the government wanted to could very well take on kinship care and fill in the details later, that's what it's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

doing with the rest of the bill. I think possibly we may be talking slightly cross purposes but talking slightly cross purposes but I would be very happy to write some I would be very happy to write some Forward. I'm going to turn to paid carers leave and amendment 135 which would introduce a statutory entitlement unpaid carers to receive their usual wage while taking Carer's Leave Bill. As drafted the responsibility for covering these costs would lie with the employer. Lord Palmer and Lord Young of Cookham spoke powerfully on the rock vital role played by unpaid carers during the second reading of the bill, and also tonight and I would also like to pay tribute to Baroness Pitkeathley for the work she has done on fighting for carers and also Baroness Smith hearing her direct experience of caring as Baroness Lister remarked it's the sort of lived experience that brings so much to our houses consideration.

I like to emphasise that the government is committed to supporting those who combine work with care. However there are not insignificant concerned with the amendment which hasn't changed since it was for -- first brought forward and the other place. It doesn't give due consideration to the potential significant costs on places and businesses and especially small businesses, and also this would create a situation of differential treatment between those taking leave A family member or lot one under the -- taking other forms of lead such as maternity or paternity leave.

Those taking Carer's Leave Bill be paid the normal wage what other forms of leave are paid at the statutory rate means unpaid carers will be treated more favourably. So what the government doesn't support this amendment for these reasons I want to assure noble Lord that His Majesty's Government is fully committed to ensuring unpaid carers able to combine work with their caring responsibilities. We are reviewing carers leave which was introduced in April 2024 and gave employed carers a new right to time off for work and we seem tonight as Lord Fox noted, the depths of feeling and concern that this has -- is done properly, we have as I said earlier had the but on of the carers leave passed over and we want to make sure we get this right hence

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the review we are undertaking. I'm sorry to enter up but I quite take my noble friend point but we take my noble friend point but we were very clear we weren't saying how it should be paid, we were just asking for an acknowledgement of the principle that it should be paid and principle that it should be paid and leaving it up to the government to then review the details of how it should be, so it would be good to have at least an acknowledgement have at least an acknowledgement that that perhaps is where the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government is heading. I'm afraid I may disappoint my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm afraid I may disappoint my noble friend slightly but I will say it's important that if we are going to review the things we review everything in the round and we don't pre-empt that review at the Dispatch pre-empt that review at the Dispatch Box. We are considering whether further support is needed including potential options for paid leave, whilst being mindful on potential impact on businesses. I think it impact on businesses. I think it would be worth to spend a little bit more time discussing the review has more time discussing the review has several noble Lord have asked about it, the review is now underway and the officials and the Department for Business and Trade have orally spoken to over 70 employers, third sector organisations and charities such as Carers UK in the course of undertaking the reports.

We've held events across the UK and Wales, England and Scotland and this in engagement will continuously review progresses alongside both qualitative and quantitative research stop to answer a couple of questions on the review, Baroness Coffey we will be considering international examples and Lord Young of Cookham, we will be taking into account the immigration white paper which he so keenly observed had just been published. The review will assess the impact of unpaid carers leave introduced last year and considering what further support is needed including potential options for paid leave while being mindful of any potential impact on businesses.

To respond again to Baroness Lister we don't want to pre-empt the outcome, we of the review we must allow it to run its course to ensure we make a considered evidence-based decision about what further support most benefits unpaid carers. Now going to turn as time runs on to speak to amendment 134. I want to begin by thanking Baroness Grey-Thompson and also Lord Hogan-Howe for bringing attention to this issue. Particularly paying tribute to the work done by their charity, it's never you, who have worked with Baroness Grey-Thompson on this amendment.

As she said I want to join in her paying tribute to the people who have so bravely campaigned tirelessly campaigned in memory of their son Hugh. I'm so pleased they could join us in the House to understand how seriously I think the whole house takes the issue they have raised and gives us again the opportunity to thank them for their hard work on the issue. This amendment would extend provisions on neonatal care leave paid to the parents of all children up to the age of 16 who are seriously elf an extended period of time entitling parents to pay time- of-flight -- paid time off work at the statutory neonatal paying that A full stop I acknowledge how difficult childhood illnesses can be for parents.

Equally I want to recognise the vital role played by parents and other family members who provide care in such circumstances will stop the importance of being able to spend time by the bedside of a loved one who is unwell cannot be overstated. Responding directly to Baroness Grey-Thompson, government is reviewing an existing as I've already mentioned entitlement to carers leave in considering whether further changes may be helpful in supporting those who provide care to loved ones alongside work. For instance employers are able to offer enhanced parental leave yonder the four weeks in the year and I would can encourage employers to consider doing this in unusual circumstances such as a child becoming seriously ill, it is important that parents and disabled children are supported to return to remaining work if this is what they choose to do.

Parents of seriously ill children may be protected under the Equality Act 20. These may well be more appropriate avenues through which to consider the issue. Whilst I'm afraid the government can't support the amendment at this present time I understand that officials in the palm of the business and trade have extended an invitation to the it's never you campaign in order to further discuss their proposals as part of their ongoing review of carers leave and I hope that noble Lord 's take that as a promissory note seriously we take the issue.

I certainly hope that they will be able to contribute their valuable perspective to this ongoing piece of work. Turning to amendment 144 on carers action plans this would inquire require employers to consider caring is a matter related to gender equality within equality to gender equality within equality To clause 31 of the bell. I thank Lord Palmer for drawing attention to the disproportionate impact felt by women when it comes to providing unpaid carers, particularly women in the workplace will stop this is undoubtedly an important issue for the provision is designed to emphasise gender equality issues but this risks inadvertently strengthening existing assumptions of who provides care within our homes families and society.

The clause can already accommodate consideration of the needs of carers we want to ensure that the variety of actions can be taken to support employees in a range of circumstances for top so we fully expect action plans to consider those with caring response butties. Action plans are a vital step in supporting employers to make progress on closing the gender pay gap, and acknowledging the needs of those who provide unpaid carers who will no doubt play an important role in this. Given that it's a significant contribution, contributing factor for the gap.

Finally I will speak to amendment 81 tabled by Lord Brennan of canton and I think I would like to say the whole house was moved with his words on the issue and he called himself a on the issue and he called himself a If you excuse my poor plan for this time of night the amendment will extend the scope of bereavement to include pregnancy loss before 24 weeks, this would apply to those experiencing miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, in molar pregnancy, termination underlined successful IVF due to embryo transfer loss.

The loss of a baby at any stage is incredibly sad and difficult. As Lord Brennan said is not a disease or an illness, the government acknowledges this is a clear gap in support for those who suffer pregnancy loss before 24 weeks and there is a need for time to grieve and recover. As many noble Lords across the House have recognised, was helpfully highlighted so helpfully highlighted by the work of the women and the qualities committee and it would be most remiss of me right now not to join my noble friend Lord Brennan indeed other noble Lords in paying tribute to the work of the committee but particularly the work of my own friend and comrade Sarah Owen who is so movingly told of her own experience and the wider peace around this very important and sensitive issue, we appreciate the way the committee has brought this way the committee has brought this issue forward.

We fully accept the principle of bereavement for pregnancy loss is raised in the amendment and we look forward to further discussions with my noble friend and other noble Lords as the bill continues in this House. As my noble friend Lord Brennan said, this can help bring a more compassionate, more human face to the workplace as people deal with events that frankly this current point in time carry far too much stigma, secrecy and basic Whilst...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Could the Minister confirm that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Could the Minister confirm that the meaning of his words then that it is the intention of the government to bring forward amendments he is about to get you at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

report stage in this regard? I think it won't come as a
21:27
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Portrait Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think it won't come as a surprise to my noble friend that we can't accept the amendment in front of us today, we are very happy to of us today, we are very happy to work with the noble Lord to ensure that your Lordships house can consider this most important issue again at the report stage and so I therefore respectfully ask that this amendment and the other amendments are withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I feel humbled by this debate. It started off for me with Lord Watson and the Right Reverend Prelate, and it went on on the same vein right it went on on the same vein right across the House. The feeling that there was this bill which is called there was this bill which is called the Employment Rights Bill, and to recognise that within employment rights there are carers who have rights there are carers who have been ignored and need to be paid for been ignored and need to be paid for what they are doing for people and for the system that they underwrite.

for the system that they underwrite. This bill, the government has really This bill, the government has really not replied in a positive enough terms on this. We will come back to terms on this. We will come back to this at report stage on specific amendments and by that time I hope amendments and by that time I hope the government, the ministers will go back to their colleagues in the go back to their colleagues in the other place and say across the House from all parts of this House there was the feeling that unpaid carers need to be recognised in the Employment Rights Bill and that kinship carers need to be recognised who have not been recognised before and we hope the government has heard this and we look forward to a positive response by report stage.

I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Is your Lordships pleasure that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is your Lordships pleasure that this amendment is withdrawn? Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendments 78 through 80 Lord Palmer not moved. Clause 18 amendment 81 not moved. Clause 18 amendment 81 Lord Brennan not moved. The question Lord Brennan not moved. The question is that clause 18 stand part of the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye", and of the contrary, "No". The "Contents" have it. We now "No". The "Contents" have it. We now come to amendment 82 Lord Hogan- Howe.
21:30
Lord Hogan-Howe Portrait Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Howe. I rise to speak to my amendment supported by Lord Paddick and Lord supported by Lord Paddick and Lord Evans for which I'm grateful. This amendment seeks to extend the group of people in the Criminal Justice System who have the right to time off to settle their duties to add special consuls. In 2018 section 50 of the point act was amended to include lay observers in prisons, immigration visiting committees for immigration centres, and short-term holding facilities.

This added to the right of magistrates and JPs to take time off from their employment. Of course each of these volunteering groups are essential to the functioning of effective functioning of the Criminal Justice System. Some of the special constables who have existed since being created by the special constables act 1831, but really today's version was crated by the police act of 1964. Special constables are special by name and special by nature in my view. They are unpaid volunteers who have all the powers of a regular Constable and take all the risks that their colleagues take as well.

Of being stabbed, assaulted, people abusing or spitting at them, they are paid expenses but of course this covers their outgoings and they make no profit. They deal with issues such as suicide, terrible road traffic collisions and many other things that officers regular officers have that officers regular officers have After being trained, they are usually expected to be on duty for at least four hours a month. Most do very much more than that. Some work every weekend.

During breaks in employment, they work almost full time hours. Some keep this up for 20 years. They were designed to be contingency for were, backfilling the police officers who would expected to join the armed forces. Given many of the internet -- uncertainties in the world at the moment comments are realistic to expect we might call on them in the For me, they have always been a weight of a community and the police station holding their colleagues to account and not captured by the police at the time.

20% go on to become full-time officers. It's not a bad way of testing whether they would like to be a police officer. Presently, their numbers are dropping quite dramatically. In September 2023, they were 600 602,030 -- over 6000. That is just one third of the figure it was 10 years ago. In this context, under the grounds of equity, we need to enhance the volunteer offer to encourage recruitment, retention and diversity. The government has said it wants to boost neighbourhood it wants to boost neighbourhood
21:38
21:42
21:42
21:44
21:50
21:58
21:58
21:58
21:58
21:58
21:58
22:00
22:00
22:02
22:02
22:03
22:03
22:04
22:04
22:04
22:05
22:05
22:05
22:07
None Portrait Oral questions: Encouraging scientists from around the world to do their research and work in the United Kingdom
-

22:07
22:07
22:08
22:08
22:10
22:10
22:11
22:11
22:12
22:12
22:14
22:14
22:15
22:15
22:16
22:17
None Portrait Oral questions: Gaza Humanitarian Foundation
-

22:17
22:17
22:19
22:19
22:21
22:21
22:22
22:22
22:23
22:23
22:24
22:24
22:26
22:26
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page