Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Smith of Llanfaes Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes]

348: After Clause 109, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to prevent illegal violence and harassment in the workplace(1) Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (general duties of employers to their employees) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (2)(e) insert—“(f) the adoption of proactive and preventative measures to protect all persons working in their workplace from illegal violence and harassment, including—(i) gender-based violence;(ii) sexual harassment;(iii) illegal psychological and emotional abuse;(iv) physical and sexual abuse;(v) stalking and illegal harassment, including online illegal harassment;(vi) threats of illegal violence.”.(3) After subsection (3) insert—“(3A) It shall be the duty of every employer to prepare, and as often as may be appropriate revise, an assessment to identify potential risks of illegal violence and harassment in the workplace and implement policies and procedures to eliminate these risks so far as is reasonably practicable.(3B) It shall be the duty of every employer to provide training to all employees on recognising and preventing illegal violence and harassment in the workplace, with a focus on gender-responsive approaches.(3C) In subsection (3B) a “gender-responsive approach” means taking into account the various needs, interests, and experiences of people of different gender identities, including women and girls, when designing and implementing policies and procedures.(3D) In this section, “persons working in the workplace” includes—(a) employees,(b) full-time, part-time, and temporary workers, and(c) interns and apprentices.(3E) In subsection (2)(f) and subsections (3A) and (3B), a reference to the workplace includes remote and hybrid work environments.”.”

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 348 and 349, in my name. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Hendy, for adding their names. These amendments seek to tackle one of the most pressing issues in our society, gender-based violence and harassment, with a clear focus on workplaces. As I open this debate, I look forward to hearing contributions from across the Committee on how we can strengthen protections for workers and make our workplaces truly safe.

Amendments 348 and 349 would establish a health and safety framework to address violence against women and girls in the workplace and create a new duty on employers to prevent violence and harassment by amending Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act. This is not the first time I have brought this proposal before noble Lords. During the passage of the Employment Rights Bill, we had a constructive debate on the proposal. Since then, support has grown both inside and outside Parliament. Just last month, the End Not Defend campaign held an event here in Parliament attended by Peers and Members of the other place. Survivors shared harrowing experiences of how the law is failing them. Trade unions, specialist organisations and survivors themselves are calling for action. Their courage in sharing their experiences demands a response from us.

This Bill already introduces a new offence to protect retail workers. It is a welcome step, but why stop there? Violence and harassment affect workers across all sectors. If we are serious about halving violence against women and girls within the next decade, as His Majesty’s Government have pledged, we need a cross-departmental approach that moves beyond a sole focus on criminalisation to prevention and tackling the root causes. Leveraging health and safety law is one way to achieve this. It would make VAWG prevention everybody’s business. These amendments were co-written with the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and Rights of Women—organisations with decades of experience in supporting victims. The amendments’ aims are also supported by several workers unions.

Current legislation falls short. The Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 introduced a preventive duty on sexual harassment, but in practice enforcement occurs only after harm has happened. The Employment Rights Bill will strengthen this requirement when it introduces protections around third-party harassment. However, enforcement can occur only after sexual harassment has been experienced, limiting its preventive function. It also excludes other forms of violence against women and girls in the workplace, such as other forms of harassment and all forms of violence, including physical, psychological and emotional abuse.

The UK ratified ILO Convention No. 190, which requires a gender-responsive approach to workplace safety, yet our laws do not reflect this obligation. Recent cases show the urgency of this, including the tragic murder of Gracie Spinks by a colleague who stalked her, despite repeated reports. Female NHS surgeons report harassment and even rape in operating theatres, described as “surgery’s open secret”. Royal Artillery Gunner Jaysley Beck took her own life after relentless harassment by her superior. There have been reports of sexual assault and rape at Harrods, the CBI, the BBC and McDonald’s.

The Harrods case was not a failure of individual courage; it was a failure of structural responsibility. Multiple institutions had sight of risk, but none had a duty to prevent it. Harrods looked like a modern employer, but it functioned as a closed environment in which power went unchecked and young women were left unprotected. These amendments would have required the risk assessments that never happened. Survivors of al-Fayed’s abuse, represented by no one above, say the same thing again and again: no one stopped him. Legislators must ensure that no workplace in the UK can ever operate with that level of impunity again. Where accountability is optional, exploitation becomes operational. The Harrods redress scheme shows exactly why voluntary arrangements cannot substitute for enforceable duties on employers.

These are not isolated incidents. Rights of Women reports that 56% of calls to its advice line involve harassment or violence from colleagues. The Suzy Lamplugh Trust found that women are eight times more likely than men to experience sexual misconduct at work, yet there is no government data collection, no reporting requirement, and outdated attitudes persist that VAWG is a private matter.

I would like to illustrate the lack of regulation for VAWG in the workplace and why these amendments are necessary. The Equality Act addresses sexual harassment as discrimination but excludes other forms of VAWG, leaving significant safety issues unregulated by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Employers can adopt domestic abuse policies voluntarily, as recommended by the EHRC in guidance to employers on domestic abuse—although the Welsh version is actually over a decade old. However, much of the currently available guidance assumes domestic abuse occurs outside the workplace and outside the remit of the employer’s liability. This does not align with the statutory guidance to employers in the Domestic Abuse Act, which states that employers should consider the impact of domestic abuse on their employees as part of their duty of care under health and safety law, as regulated by the Health and Safety Executive.

Despite the growing evidence that gender-based violence and harassment harm workers’ health and safety, the Health and Safety Executive does not recognise gender-based violence as a workplace hazard. In its evidence to the Women and Equalities Select Committee 2018 inquiry on sexual harassment, the Health and Safety Executive stated clearly that it has a policy of not applying the Health and Safety at Work Act when it deems that other agencies or regulators have more specific responsibilities. The Health and Safety Executive is currently advising workers to report harassment to bodies that lack enforcement powers. This must change, and harassment and violence in the workplace should be recognised as a health and safety at work matter.

Health and safety frameworks provide a structured, enforceable approach. Updating them to include VAWG would ensure employers have a positive duty to prevent harm, not just to respond after an incident. As with existing health and safety duties, this would be proportionate. These amendments are practical and scalable. They would require risk assessment, clear policies, training, and confidential reporting mechanisms—all proportionate to the size and risk profile of the workplace and consistent with the existing health and safety frameworks.

Amendments 348 and 349 prioritise prevention and victim protection. They reflect expert advice and growing public demand. They align with the Government’s own commitment to halving violence against women and girls within the next decade. Tomorrow, the VAWG strategy will be published. The Safeguarding Minister in the other place said on Monday that

“the strategy has to be for everybody … It has to be for employers as well. It is for businesses, charities—everybody in society”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/12/25; col. 651.]

I hope that these amendments are viewed as one way to make that vision a reality.

We know what happens when accountability is optional. We have seen it in shops, in hospitals, in the Armed Forces, and we owe it to those who have spoken up and to those who still feel unable to, to act. I look forward to the Minister’s response and hope His Majesty’s Government will consider these arguments as the Crime and Policing Bill progresses through this House. I beg to move.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I was happy once again to add my name to these two amendments from the noble Baroness, because we had a very similar debate on 21 May during the passage of the Employment Rights Bill. On 11 July, the noble Baroness followed up with a letter to the then Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Jones—laying out the case very clearly.

The Government have the laudable intention of trying to reduce violence against women and girls by 50%, but there is a strange incongruence in respect of that ambition. I wonder if noble Lords are aware of how much time people, if they are fortunate enough to be employed, spend in the workplace during an average year? It is 52% of the year. In a year, more than half of an average employee’s time is spent in and around the workplace. Therefore, when one is putting together a comprehensive strategy to try and reduce violence against women and girls, excluding the workplace from close scrutiny and oversight seems somewhat of an oversight. What the noble Baroness is suggesting in these two amendments therefore seems eminently sensible. Without looking at this very carefully and ensuring that it is effectively included within the strategy in some way, shape or form, the strategy will be fundamentally flawed from the start.

The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, which is often cited by Governments of whatever persuasion as being the bedrock of trying to ensure rights in the workplace, is now exactly 51 years old. I am sure the Government will wheel out, as they have on previous occasions, the many other Acts and regulations that have been put on the statute book at various points over the past 51 years. However, during the last 51 years, for better or worse—I think for worse—the situation in the workplace, for women and girls in particular but also for men, has fundamentally changed, and the regulations and legislation have not kept up. There is clearly an imbalance.

One need only look at the range of organisations that have suffered quite a lot of reputational damage as a result of not trying to put in place regulations and rules and of not instilling, primarily through leadership, a culture to ensure that the sort of behaviour that we are talking about and trying to stop is called out. I could go through an exhaustive list, but we can look at the embarrassment that various police forces have had to endure in the last few years. We can also look at the embarrassment that the Church of England has had to face and is still facing; that is an institution that not only finds it extraordinarily difficult to acknowledge the existence of that sort of behaviour within its ranks but has the strange anomaly that it is an organisation part of whose purpose in life is to forgive. However, it is not enough to forgive things going wrong if you are not prioritising the needs of those who are being wronged, and that is unfortunately the case in the Church of England and, of course, in the Roman Catholic Church throughout the world, as is very well known.

The military is also an embarrassing example. To have lost a First Sea Lord through impropriety at work is not exactly an example of stellar leadership. It makes one wonder how it was possible for an individual to reach that level of rank—with fundamental and comprehensive reviews and training taking place, in theory, right the way through their career—and to arrive at the pinnacle of their military profession only then to be publicly found very wanting. Clearly, there was something fundamentally wrong with the culture there. We have also had Cabinet Ministers who have had to resign on the basis of inappropriate behaviour in the workplace, particularly harassment and bullying. This is a problem that is endemic; to ignore it is simply not acceptable.

I hope and expect that the Minister’s reply will not be a carbon copy of the answer that the noble Lord, Lord Leong, gave in the debate on the 21 May. That answer was, in effect, a list of all the various regulations and legislation that, in theory, are meant to enable one to address and stop this, but which clearly are not working. To try and defend it, when clearly it is not working, makes one feel that the Minister, if he does do that, is unfortunately taking King Canute as a role model. It is simply not acceptable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I suggested then that I was not happy with the wording of an amendment, and it has simply been repeated. I made a speech that I thought was reasonable at the time. This is actually not the same speech, but I am raising some of the issues. I ask, as I asked earlier, why would we use that approach to protecting women and girls when women in the workplace are at present actually the victims of some of these gender-related policies? Therefore, if the amendment comes back as a more straightforward, narrowly defined amendment about sexual harassment at work, I would be much more interested in hearing about it. It is the amendment that is repeated, not just my speech. It is exactly the same wording that I objected to before. No account has been taken of any of the criticisms made in Committee, at the probing stage, so I think I can reasonably say that I would like us all to not repeat ourselves, including with this amendment.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

I want to come back really briefly on the language of “gender-responsive approach”. That is not a “gender-inclusive approach”: it is based on the ILO convention that our Government ratified, along with the rest of the global community, and relates to the fact that more women than men face misconduct at work. I wanted to clarify the language there, but I do take those points.

[Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my support for these probing amendments and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for her work on this issue. I strongly welcome the Government’s promise to launch the largest crackdown in history to reduce violence against women and girls. While of course the misery of experiencing violence and harassment is not exclusive to women, surveys from the TUC and others have shown that it is overwhelmingly women who suffer this abuse. I also welcome the Government’s recognition that we need a whole-system approach that places prevention and survivors at its heart. As we have heard already, every part of society has to step up if we are to achieve the goal of every woman feeling safe everywhere, and that must include action to make the workplace a place of safety for women, too.

I had hoped that we had moved on from the notion that violence against women is somehow a private or domestic matter, but let us take the practical example of the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations. This is the UK’s health and safety law that requires employers to report specific serious work-related incidents, such as fatalities and major injuries, to the Health and Safety Executive. These reports help the HSE track risks and prevent future harm, making it a vital legal duty to maintain workplace safety and accountability. But, if you look at it today, you see that the HSE website explicitly states that, while acts of violence to a person at work that result in death or a major injury are reportable, a physical injury inflicted on one employee by another during a dispute about a so-called “personal matter”, or an employee at work

“being injured by a relative or a friend who visits them at work about a domestic matter”

is not reportable. So, the HSE has no responsibility to track violence against women that happens in the workplace which is deemed to be a personal or domestic matter. I find that pretty shocking. You have to question why women’s experience of violence at work is disregarded in this way.

As we have also heard, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has responsibility for the duty on employers to prevent sexual harassment, but it is open and public that it will investigate only what it describes as “strategic cases”, as it simply does not have adequate resources to deliver comprehensive enforcement. Surely, health and safety inspectors who have the powers and ability to go into workplaces have a role to play in enforcing prevention of sexual harassment.

The UK has fallen far behind the ILO’s recommended standard for the ratio of labour inspectors to the size of workforce. In effect, the safety and welfare of British workers has been deprioritised over the last decade and more compared with other countries. But it seems that the safety and welfare of women workers have been deprioritised even more. There is an opportunity for an update and a reset. The new fair work agency and boosting the number of labour inspectors will be vital, but we must get the health and safety framework right, too. For the sake of women workers, I hope the Minister will talk to other colleagues, for sure, but also give careful consideration to the amendments before us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

It is very clear, from what we have heard in this debate, that the status quo is not working, so what does the Minister propose that the Government actually do to improve this? As we have heard, the Minister has listed all these pieces of legislation, which are clearly not working because so many women still face these issues in the workplace.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that, and I hope I can give her assurance. My honourable friend Jess Phillips is the Minister directly responsible for the violence against women and girls strategy, although I obviously account to this House for it. She has a history of ensuring that we focus on the reduction of violence against women and girls. The strategy she will publish tomorrow is a strategy for across the piece; it is not just, as we have discussed today, for domestic or public violence against women and girls but a comprehensive strategy. I hope the noble Baroness will give my colleague the benefit of the doubt that she shares the view to reduce and eliminate domestic violence or violence in a workplace setting against women and girls. I speak for the Government in expressing that view.

I therefore hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment and examine in detail the strategy which will be published tomorrow. I will make sure my honourable friend Jess Phillips sees the debate we have had and looks at the points made by noble Lords from across the Committee on how the Health and Safety Executive operates, particularly on the personal basis that has been discussed today.

I hope, with those reassurances, that the noble Baroness will know that this Government are committed to taking action to reduce violence against women and girls by half over a decade. The points she has raised about the workplace are valid but we believe the measures are there to ensure enforcement takes place. I am sure we can reflect with colleague Ministers on how the Health and Safety Executive operates its responsibilities to help achieve the objectives the Government have set in the VAWG strategy.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. I say in response to the Minister that I welcome the publication of the VAWG strategy tomorrow and will look in detail for anything which addresses the workplace.

I turn back to this debate. These specific probing amendments have set out a clear objective and I am grateful to all those who have contributed. It is clear that the Committee agrees with the objective these amendments are trying to achieve, yet they perhaps need more work in terms of the wording.

I will respond to a few of the comments made by noble Lords. The reminder by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, of just how much time individuals spend in the workplace highlights how we cannot achieve the Government’s aim to halve violence against women and girls within this decade by ignoring the workplace and how important it is.

In response to the point from the Conservative Front Bench on employers, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, raised an interesting point about how having a framework of this kind can help protect employers. That is a positive. Having more guidance, a framework and risk assessments also protects employers’ liability in the future. There were a few points raised there—

[Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)]

I remind the noble Baroness that, in withdrawing amendments, statements need to be brief. She does not need to summarise the debate.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

I appreciate those comments. However, this is about how we will take the amendments further. This has been a really useful discussion in Committee and I value the contributions that people have made. I will not press my amendments today. However, this is not the end of this discussion. I value the comments from the Minister about how we will progress this, particularly with the wording of the amendments and by taking on board the comments raised by noble Lords in this debate. I hope that His Majesty’s Government will reflect on the debate— I am grateful that this will be shared with the Minister in the other place, Jess Phillips—and I would welcome further engagement. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 348 withdrawn.

Police Reform

Baroness Smith of Llanfaes Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

If the noble Viscount cannot persuade Mrs Thatcher, I do not know who he can persuade. The issue with Lincolnshire is interesting, because Humberside Police includes parts of the mayoralty of Greater Lincolnshire, such as Grimsby and Scunthorpe, but the rest of Lincolnshire is separate. Some discussion must be had about what we settle on and how.

A police settlement will appear in draft form before Christmas, following which the noble Lord can again make representations around the police settlement for his county. We are trying to make sure that we deal with rural as well as urban policing. Tremendous effort has been put in place to look at rural crime, and some of the measures we have in the Crime and Policing Bill deal specifically with that. Issues on the Government’s agenda include livestock worrying, equipment theft, and small villages being subject to a great deal of shop theft and intimidation. However, we will have to look at the circumstances around Lincolnshire specifically, given the model that we are trying to drive forward: there is a mayor in Hull and a mayor in Lincolnshire, but the police forces currently overlap both. That subject is for another day.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, the Statement describes policing in Wales as “unique”. Perhaps that actually furthers and strengthens the case for the devolution of policing to Wales. I welcome the news that discussions are to take place with the Welsh Government on new arrangements to replace PCCs in Wales. We do not have mayors in Wales, so that is not an option. May I ask the Minister how much better off Wales would be if police funding was devolved and funded through Barnett?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The issue of devolution is not part of this Statement. We are looking at the governance of policing, not the devolution of policing. There are no mayors in Wales—that is a vital point to make. The Policing Minister and I have had discussions with Jane Hutt, the Minister in the Welsh Government responsible for this area. We want to look at how we can build a better model of policing boards in Wales. That is a matter for discussion, but there is general agreement that police and crime commissioners will not happen in Wales. There will continue to be different political views from different political parties on devolution, but it is not on the agenda in this Statement.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025

Baroness Smith of Llanfaes Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, I would like to make a point about why so many people across the UK, particularly young people, have joined Palestine Action. It is important that we recognise their frustrations at the current time. Direct action at military bases is nothing new, as many noble Lords have pointed out. Welsh women marched from Cardiff to Greenham Common and were joined by thousands more women along the way. They did not just march. They used a range of direct action tactics, including blockading the base and cutting the fence, to protest against nuclear weapons being held at that base. There is a long history of direct action across the UK that is perhaps not comfortable. The actions of Palestine Action are the direct actions of a civil disobedience group, not a terrorist group. That is why I support this regret amendment.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, was brave in moving this regret amendment, and she should have been heard with more respect. I was one of those who suggested that she should give way, but I know it can seem like bullying in this House, and I think we should reflect on that. It is not a very good thing to gang up on someone who has a difficult job to do.

I would also like to mention two others who have contributed and for whom I have great respect. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, joined the Cabinet in 2002, as I remember, as Secretary of State for Wales. He was a successful Secretary of State for Wales and then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Terrorism Act 2000 was in existence in 2002. Offences were added and other legislation was introduced while he was in the Cabinet, and I do not recall any occasion on which, publicly at least, the noble Lord protested, objected or resigned as a result of the creation of the body of terrorism law that now we have—he is confirming that—so I think that what he has said today is perhaps a little inconsistent with his history. Forgive me for saying so.

I also commend the Minister strongly. I thought he gave a very balanced description, which in factual terms nobody has contradicted. He said that three bodies are being proscribed now. It is interesting that objections have not been made in relation to two of those bodies—probably because noble Lords do not really like what they do very much, because they are extreme right-wing terrorists—but exactly the same process has been gone through with them as with Palestine Action. What is that process? To examine intelligence that no doubt exists, but that we have not heard about. In this House, we have to be responsible and take it that there is an intelligence case behind what is proposed. Material evidence has been brought together that shows that this organisation, Palestine Action, like the other two, has carried out activities that fall within the definition of crime that can, and I emphasise “can”, be treated as terrorist.

The context is that what has happened since the Terrorism Act 2000—since 9/11, in fact—is quite different from the world in which the suffragettes, the Greenham women and all the other examples that have been mentioned, including very successful anti-apartheid demonstrators such as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, lived. It is a given. That has not been objected to. Even the noble Baroness has not said that Palestine Action does not commit crimes that qualify as terrorist crimes, if they are prosecuted as such.

Noble Lords should not assume that every time a crime is committed that could be prosecuted as such, it is. The Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions have to make a decision. One of the most important protections in our constitution, which we talk about all too rarely, is the discretion of the DPP not to prosecute in the public interest or for other reasons covered by the two-stage code test. It may well be that if silly supporters of the criminal acts of Palestine Action or these other two bodies are interviewed by the police, they will not be prosecuted under the Terrorism Act. We have to trust juries, and magistrates in summary cases, to ensure that the prosecution system is run fairly. In this House, and particularly in the other place, there is a huge amount of control available over the prosecution system.

Let us be clear. If we do not like the definition of terrorism we have in our law, it is our duty as legislators to change it—and we have all decided not to change it. When it suits us, we encourage it to be used: something has to be done. When it is a bit inconvenient, we say that it is the most terrible thing on earth. The truth is the middle road, which has been given to us by the Minister. I urge your Lordships to act responsibly today, listening carefully to what has been said, taking into account what we can do in future, but accepting this instrument.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Smith of Llanfaes Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 127, 128 and 139 in the name of my noble friend Lady Penn. In so doing, I declare my interests as an employer and as the father of a four month-old son.

The amendments in this group seek to deliver a fairer, more modern and more economically rational approach to paternity leave in this country. They 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 grant mothers 52 weeks of maternity leave. Fathers receive just two weeks and are paid a mere £187.18 per week for it, which is less than half the national living wage. That is not support, it is a symbolic gesture, and one that fails our families, our economy and our vision for a truly modern and inclusive society. As we have heard, the UK has the least generous paternity leave system in Europe and we rank 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?

The amendments seek to correct that imbalance. They would do three vital things: make statutory paternity pay a day-one right, just like paternity leave will be under the Bill; increase paternity leave from two weeks to six 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 the publication of their parental leave policies. Each of those proposed reforms is supported by robust evidence, each is economically justified and, perhaps most importantly, each is backed by overwhelming public support.

The Government rightly propose to make paternity leave a day-one right, yet they do not extend that logic to pay. What message does that send—that a father may take time off but must go without income to do so? Incidentally, it is worth noting that that is currently the arrangement in your Lordships’ House. Perhaps if the Government are about fairness and workers’ rights, as they purport to be, that may be something that they wish to take up with the commission.

Research shows that the biggest barrier to fathers taking paternity leave is affordability. Nearly three-quarters of those who cut their leave short did so 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? It is because we know, from the experience of countries such as Sweden, Germany, Spain and beyond, that reserved well-paid leave for fathers leads to profound benefits for families, for women’s equality, for children and for 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 women’s labour force participation is 3.7% higher. Why? It is because shared caregiving allows mothers to return to work sooner and on fairer terms.

However, this is not just a women’s issue; it is 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, while increasing paternity leave to six weeks at 90% pay could generate an immediate economic benefit of £2.6 billion. That is based on sound modelling endorsed by reputable analysts, including the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Moreover, 90% of businesses surveyed by the CBI say that inclusive workplace practices help them to attract and retain talent. Nearly three-quarters of employers that offer enhanced paternity leave report higher productivity—we were discussing productivity rates in this country in earlier groups; this is a solution to help that—and employee engagement. So let us discard the myth that this would be a bureaucratic cost; in truth, it would be a smart investment for business.

Let us also remember the human case. Better paternity leave benefits children. As my noble friend Lord Bailey said earlier, children with engaged fathers show higher academic achievement, greater resilience and stronger social skills. It benefits mothers: when care is shared, women can more easily return to the workplace and pursue their careers. It benefits fathers: longer paternity leave leads to better mental health—something that we also heard about earlier—stronger father-child bonds 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.

The public are with us on this point. Some 81% agree that more generous paternity leave is good for families and for the country. Support crosses party lines: Labour, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP and Reform all back this measure. This is not a fringe issue; it a mainstream demand and a moral necessity.

We have what is perhaps a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reshape the way this country supports fathers, mothers and children in their earliest days together. The proposed amendments are reasonable, grounded in evidence and long overdue. I urge the Government to accept them.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, who made a compelling case for these amendments. I rise to speak in strong support of Amendments 139 and 76, tabled respectively by the noble Baronesses, Lady Penn and Lady Lister.

The UK’s statutory paternity leave—just two weeks, paid at £187.18 per week—is the most limited in Europe. In many OECD countries, six weeks’ leave at the equivalent of full pay is standard. By comparison, our offer is inadequate and outdated.

Eligibility for paternity leave is also restricted. It requires continuous employment with the same employer for 26 weeks before the 15th week prior to the due date. That excludes many fathers, especially those in insecure work, the self-employed, or those working in gig economy roles. 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 reports that over 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 from Pregnant Then Screwed found that 70% of fathers who did not take their full leave had to cut it short due to cost.

This is not just about finances; it affects bonding with the child and support for the mother or birthing partner, and it reinforces gender inequality in unpaid care. The lack of accessible leave for fathers limits shared parenting and is a contributor to the gender pay gap and future pension pot inequality.

The Employment Rights Bill includes provisions to address some of these issues. Clauses 15 and 16 remove the qualifying periods for unpaid parental and paternity leave. Clause 17 removes the requirement to take paternity or adoption leave before parental leave, allowing paternity and adoption leave to be taken following shared parental leave. However, these clauses fail to tackle the low level of statutory paternity pay, or to extend fathers’ and second parents’ leave entitlement past two weeks.

While the Labour Party committed in its manifesto to review the parental leave system more broadly, the Employment Rights Bill provides an opportunity in the here and now to implement changes that would make a real difference to families and people considering having children. The noble Lord, Lord Bailey, mentioned the lower birth rate—an important context that we must take into account in considering in these amendments.

Amendment 139 from the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, offers a practical and immediate step forward. It would require statutory paternity pay to be a day one right, removing unnecessary barriers for thousands of working parents.

Amendment 76 from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, backed by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, would mandate a comprehensive review of paid parental leave within six months of the Bill becoming law. Importantly, it sets the terms of that review: to consider a statutory, non-transferable period of paid leave for second parents, to raise pay levels, and to include the self-employed.

This is not merely a social issue; it is an economic one. Many noble Lords have mentioned the modelling by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Centre for Progressive Policy, which suggests that increasing paternity leave to six weeks at 90% of earnings could contribute £2.68 billion to the UK economy by supporting more mothers to return to work and encouraging shared care from the outset.

Countries with more than six weeks’ paid paternity leave have significantly smaller gender pay and participation gaps, as we heard in the international examples shared by a number of noble Lords during this debate. The benefits are clear, and the public support reform—only 18% believe the current two-week offer is sufficient.

Other amendments in this group have been powerfully spoken to, such as Amendment 80 from the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and Amendment 127 from the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, which both propose extended leave and fairer pay.

The case for reform has been compellingly made in this group. The Employment Rights Bill offers a real opportunity to modernise paternity leave, benefiting families, the economy and gender equality at work. I urge the Minister to consider the strength of the arguments presented today and to respond with the action that it deserves.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendments 127, 128 and 139 in the name in my noble friend Lady Penn.

I would like to think that the birth of any child is an important day in the eyes of the father as well as the mother; yet, when it comes to the parental leave granted by companies, they are treated very differently: up to 52 weeks 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 more than six weeks, paid at the equivalent of 100% of salary.

The Government’s weekly rate of statutory pay, for the two weeks that it is paid to fathers in this country, is currently the lesser of £187.18 or 90% of average weekly earnings. This is a modest amount by any measure, given that the average full-time working man is paid just under £700 per week.

We have heard from other noble Lords of the benefits to fathers themselves, as well as mothers and children, when fathers are permitted to spend longer with the family in the early period of a child’s life.

I wish to draw on my personal experience. As I have said before, the company that I work for—Marsh, a very large insurance broker—now has a mature policy on paternity leave. Fathers are allowed to take up to 16 weeks’ leave, and the company ensures that they continue to be paid the equivalent of 100% of their salary during their time away from the workplace. Importantly, their job remains open for this period to facilitate their return. This benefit was not available to me when my sons were born in the 1990s—unlike the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, I have not yet reached grandfatherhood.

The time allowed must be taken within 52 weeks of the birth of the child, or children in the event of a multiple birth. I am sure that our competitors offer something similar, as competition for staff is an ongoing issue, and benefits count enormously in any discussion should a member of staff wish to change employer. Such a policy helps to define the culture of a company that cares not only for itself but also for the lives of its colleagues.

I do not believe that Amendment 128, which asks for parental leave policies to be published by large companies, is making an onerous request; indeed, publishing them would enable meaningful comparisons, inform jobseekers and encourage best practice across industry. I support it.

As I mentioned in an earlier group, happy staff tend to do good work. This is certainly a stressful time in any family’s life, and the mental health of staff is important, as we have heard today from my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington and others. It is one thing for a large company with the ability to cover a colleague’s workload to offer such a period of paternity leave, but this is obviously more challenging for smaller companies.

I am not suggesting for one moment that all companies should offer such generous periods of paternity leave as my own, much as I would have enjoyed it in my time. The birth of any child is, I hope, an exciting experience. It is also, in my experience, a somewhat nerve-wracking one, which can be ameliorated by parents being able to spend more time together during this period.

Two weeks of paternity leave is simply not enough. I encourage the Government to extend the statutory period for paternity leave to six weeks, as suggested in Amendment 127, and to provide a more generous level of salary. I hope that this will encourage fathers to take off this period, which, as I have demonstrated, is exceeded in some workplaces.

Finally, I will look briefly at Amendment 139, again in the name of my noble friend Lady Penn, on which I have changed my opinion during this debate. I believe that companies of all sizes feel that day one paternity leave is a step too far when the new employee has not even walked through the door. However, if the Government insist on this, it seems only right that fathers should receive statutory pay as a minimum. Companies obviously still have the opportunity to decide whether to go further, as would be the case for employees who have been part of the workforce for a certain period of time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 134 from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. She has highlighted that there is a glaring gap in our welfare system. It fails to provide adequate, immediate support for parents whose children fall seriously ill. Although the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act rightly recognised the need for non-means tested leave and pay when a child is critically ill at or shortly after birth, that protection vanishes as the child grows older. Parents whose children fall seriously ill beyond the neonatal period are left navigating benefits that are not suited to the immediate support they require.

Currently, there are only three options available for parents seeking that financial support. The first is universal credit, which is means tested and not easily accessible. The second, disability living allowance, was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. It can only be applied for three months after a diagnosis and then takes an additional 20 weeks—approaching half a year altogether—to process. DLA is also a requirement for claiming a blue badge—just to give an example of how long this process takes. The third option is 18 weeks of unpaid parental leave taken in four-week blocks within a calendar year.

So, there is a gap from day one to day 90 before a parent can apply for financial help. In these cases, it appears families face an impossible choice—financial insecurity or being at their child’s side during the most traumatic moment of their young lives. This amendment addresses that gap, providing a grant to the parents of a chronically sick child from day one. The grant will be limited to the first one to three months, and approved quickly by the consultant, with a renewal every month.

According to data from the Treasury, there are approximately 4,000 children each year who could be expected to have a hospital stay of two months or more. The cost of caring for a chronically ill child is estimated to be around £750 per month. According to estimates by the charity It’s Never You, if the Government were to provide two months of support during this gap period, it would cost around £6 million—a significant amount, but at the lower end of national spending in revenue terms compared with many of the options talked about today.

This amendment seeks to extend the principles of the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act to children up to the age of 16 in cases of serious illness. It builds on a clear precedent and introduces a compassionate, practical solution—non-means tested support—at that moment of crisis.

The impact on employers will be minimal, affecting, as I have stated, only a few thousand families a year. But 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 urge the Government to consider this amendment, which is in keeping with the spirit of this legislation.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, before I deliver my remarks in relation to the amendments that I have signed, I will add my support to the amendment on miscarriage leave from the noble Lord, Lord Brennan of Canton. My Plaid Cymru colleagues in the other place also supported that amendment, so I am glad to see that it has made its way to this House, too.

Amendment 135, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, would establish carer’s leave as a paid entitlement. I will keep my remarks brief, but I speak from lived experience. I became an unpaid carer at the age of 12. I know what it means to juggle education, work and caring responsibilities while having to repeat my story to NHS staff, college tutors, employers and the DWP. The obstacles I faced are not unique. I know that a number of carers who I spoke to in the past, and continue to do so, continue to face these obstacles. Those experiences led me to campaign on those issues, and I am proud to have influenced positive policy changes in Wales that make life a little easier for young carers trying to stay in education.

Amendment 135 would help build a safety net for the millions of people with unpaid caring responsibilities —people like I once was. The Government have made it clear that getting people back into work is a priority, and they also recognise that unpaid carers’ inability to work costs the economy £37 billion a year. Supporting carers to enter and stay in employment must therefore be seen not only as a social priority but an economic one. Introducing paid carer’s leave is not an expensive proposal. Modelling by Carers UK suggests it would cost between £5.5 million and £32 million per year, depending on the rate of compensation. Set against the cost of lost productivity, high turnover and pressure on health and social care systems, this is a modest and worthwhile investment.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Baroness Smith of Llanfaes Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 26th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I would like to say a quick word about Amendment 3 from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. It has the attraction of introducing the word “safe” into the Bill, which does not appear anywhere else. The Bill uses the word “safety” and talks about minimising risk and so on. It recognises that products may involve some element of risk, whereas the amendment suggested by the noble Lord talks about eliminating risk. It is a desirable aim in itself, but I am not quite sure how that can be achieved. The noble Lord asked the Minister to say that the Bill is saying the same thing as he is, so he will not have to press his amendment. It seems to me that there is a real difference, and it is a very interesting difference, so I think that may be stretching the matter too far.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, I apologise for not being involved in earlier discussions on the Bill. I rise in support of Amendment 26, which attracted me to contribute to today’s discussion. As a young woman and a user of these products, I was very shocked and surprised to hear about the different chemicals in them. A lot of young women would also be surprised and shocked to know about these chemicals, that they are not advertised, and that this information is not shared with the products’ users. I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on bringing forward this very important amendment, and I urge the House to support it.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, we are on Report, and I draw this House’s attention to the report by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which I am on. We certainly put the Minister through his paces and took the unusual step of asking him to give us evidence, because we felt that the Bill was skeletal and had regulatory powers, which we will come on to in a later group of amendments.

I want to use our latest discussion on Report to address support for Amendment 9. The importance of consultation has been brought up. I am most grateful— I am speaking personally and not on behalf of the committee—to the Minister for meeting with me and others from the committee to draw the consultation phases to our attention.

I hope that in summing up, the Minister will also cover the issue of consultation where there is a potential mismatch of products. The problem with lithium batteries is that people buy the batteries and chargers separately; it is when they put them together that the chance of a fire goes up dramatically, not when the right charger is bought with the right battery. We are dealing with a complex world, and I am well aware that there are an enormous number of regulations to be made, potentially, some of which are very complicated. Consultation will be critical to make sure that they are appropriate.