Statutory Menstrual Leave
Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
You will not be surprised to hear me say, Mr Mundell, that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for the way in which he introduced this debate, and other hon. Members for the excellent speeches that followed.
I recently met a constituent who lives in Chesser and has adenomyosis. During our meeting, she told me about the debilitating impact of the condition on her personal life and her work life, and it was a real insight for me. On some days, her pain is so severe that she struggles to walk or move around her home, even to reach the toilet. She also reminded me just how common endometriosis and adenomyosis are: given that around 10% of menstruators suffer from one of the two conditions, there could be thousands of people in Edinburgh South West who currently suffer from the regular and excruciating pain that they cause.
Although my constituent now has an employer who understands and accommodates her health needs and allows her to work from home or take leave for her condition, that has not always been the case. She recounted the degrading experience of having to explain her health issues in detail to a former employer, just for taking time off. Despite that, she was still given a written warning. It is such inconsistency among employers that motivated her to sign the petition and to meet me to ask, very politely, that I attend this debate on her behalf.
As we have already heard, up to one in six women with endometriosis have to leave the workplace due to their condition. For some women, that will be because they really cannot work due to the pain they suffer. Sadly, for other women, who can work and want to work, it may come down to a lack of accommodating workplaces. We have to be honest about that situation and say that it is discrimination.
I recognise the Government’s position that the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 should ensure the flexibility that is required for women affected by these conditions to take leave or for adjustments to be made for them. However, laws are only useful if they are respected and enforced. None the less, I hope that the reforms introduced in the Employment Rights Act 2025, including statutory sick pay, will ensure that further accommodations can be made.
I hope that the Minister will give some guarantee today that the Government will look at menstrual leave schemes abroad to inform the evidence-based best practice that we need in the UK. I also hope that the Government will do what they can to support businesses or organisations that decide to introduce such practice in the interim, simply because it is the right thing to do. I must be honest and say that I had not heard of the endometriosis-friendly employer scheme before, so it would also be interesting to hear what the Government are doing to support that scheme.
The data from the schemes implemented abroad show that they are unlikely to be abused. Although the petition we are discussing today relates to the scheme in Portugal, the introduction of a similar menstrual leave policy in Spain has not led to an avalanche of sick days being taken as a result. Although I know there have been some concerns about how easy it is to access that scheme, the Spanish allowance has been used just 1,550 times. It will hardly have a significant impact on the Spanish economy, but it will be a huge benefit to the women who are able to access it.
Equally, such schemes can help employees avoid having repeatedly to justify in detail absences that they require. With the Portuguese system of requiring only one initial confirmation of diagnosis, employees will likely be spared uncomfortable and degrading conversations with superiors and work colleagues about this medical condition.
I hope the Government will look to the positive impact of those schemes abroad and build up best practice for the UK. I want to make one last point: when I spoke about this debate on my Facebook page, many women who responded said that they were keener for GPs to be better informed about the condition, and for diagnosis to happen much quicker. I could not believe it took just over nine months for a diagnosis to take place—
Dr Arthur
Nine years—apologies. It took just over nine years for a diagnosis to take place, given the pain we have heard about. We have heard in this debate about the real human impact that delay causes. That must be impacting our economy too, so I hope the Government will commit to studying the effect of these conditions on the economy, and perhaps that will justify action in this domain.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for his opening remarks, and for his compassion and solidarity. He is absolutely right that every man should have a say in these issues and challenge them. As well as the fact that nearly half the global population will menstruate at some point in their lifetime, and on any given day 850 million people across the world are menstruating, we are all here because a woman somewhere had a menstrual cycle, so it is a concern for absolutely everybody.
For something so universal, menstruation remains shrouded in coded language, embarrassment and unnecessary shame. We call it “the time of month”, “the painters are in”, “my cousin has come to stay”—anything but what it actually is. We pass around tampons and pads as if they are some sort of contraband that no one should see. That evasion is not accidental: it is the product of centuries of conditioning that told women their bodies were problems to be managed in silence and shame.
Listening to my fellow hon. Friends speaking about their own experience, all I keep thinking is that, if young women had been flagged when they had painful periods, things would have been different for a lot of the conditions we are talking about, certainly in terms of the length of time to diagnosis. I am really pleased to contribute to this debate and support statutory menstrual leave, not as a radical policy but as a practical, compassionate and long-overdue step towards a fairer and healthier working society.
We already see where progress has been made and where things have been championed in this House. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare) on the ten-minute rule Bill she introduced recently and her consistent campaigning for improved endometriosis care. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) on her work as the chair of the APPG on endometriosis. All that work matters and it is making a difference.
Scotland became the first country in the world to legislate for free menstrual products, and across the UK we rightly abolished VAT on sanitary products in 2021, finally ending the so-called tampon tax. Steps like those matter, but they are not the end of the journey—not by a long way. Here is the truth: we have made it cheaper to menstruate, but we have not made it safe to admit that someone is struggling because of it.
Menstrual stigma continues to socially condition people to conceal their pain, push through it and stay silent at work. The cost of that silence is not abstract; for those living with endometriosis, dysmenorrhoea, adenomyosis or premenstrual dysphoric disorder, that silence means working through debilitating pain or losing earnings when they cannot, and in some cases losing jobs altogether. Those are real conditions. They are painful and often severe, and they exist within a system where female reproductive health has been chronically under-researched, underfunded and far too often dismissed.
Kirsteen Sullivan
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful point. Does she agree that the impact on women’s mental health is rarely spoken about? Women feel ignored and dismissed, but they are living in constant pain and the anticipation of it, which just wears them down. The mental health point is rarely acknowledged but must be addressed.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I say that as someone who lives with endometriosis and constantly experiences that pain, thinking about what I can and cannot do, and what I will be able to manage this week or that week. I know what it is to sit in a meeting, stand through our many votes and carry on a role that demands my full presence when my body is screaming otherwise. I know from listening to other Members and so many different women speaking about it that I am far from alone.
It is not a competition of who receives more health funding, but we have to say that men have won consistently. When my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) was speaking, I looked up some figures for the amount of investment into things such as Viagra. Everyone should look at them when they can; they are shocking in comparison with what is spent on certain things in men’s and women’s health. Let us be honest about what that under-investment has cost us: endometriosis alone affects around 1.5 million people in the UK, taking an average of nearly nine years to diagnose, as we have heard. That is not a gap in the system, but a failure of the system; it is a failure rooted in a long-standing tendency to deprioritise women’s pain.
Statutory menstrual leave would allow someone to take time off when they were genuinely unable to work due to menstruation, without fear of judgment, without risking their job security and without having to lie about why they are absent. Crucially, it would also begin to normalise the conversation and to challenge the stigma rather than reinforce it, because the answer to workplace discrimination is never to remain invisible.
As we have heard, menstrual leave policies already exist across the globe: in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, China, Indonesia, Zambia, Mexico and, most recently, Portugal. They are not fringe experiments, but functioning workplace policies in countries with vastly different cultures and economies. The evidence that this is workable is already there. Here at home, our Employment Rights Act has introduced major reforms, including a day one right to sick pay. Menstrual leave would sit naturally alongside those changes if we were to implement it; it is consistent with the direction of travel and is the next logical step.
The policy also offers vital protection for those who are too often overlooked, including transgender men and non-binary and gender-diverse people who menstruate. For many, disclosure of menstrual status can expose them to discrimination or worse. A clear statutory framework would provide safety, privacy and the reassurance that their needs were seen and protected by law.
There are those who argue that menstrual leave would undermine women in the workplace, and that employers would discriminate against people who menstruate when hiring. I take that concern seriously, but that argument has been made against every single piece of workplace equality legislation in history: it was made against maternity leave, it was made against equal pay, and it was made against flexible working. In every case, the answer was not to abandon the protection, but to make the legal framework strong enough to prevent the discrimination. That is what we have to do here too.
The ultimate goal is job security, wellbeing and genuine equality. Menstrual leave alone will not get us all the way there, but it is a serious, evidence-backed and compassionate step in the right direction. I urge this House to take it.
Sale of Fireworks
Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. When I come to Parliament, I try to bring my constituents with me—not just their names on a petition, but their views, experiences and the reality of life on their streets. In shaping my contribution to this debate, I asked constituents to share their thoughts and experiences of fireworks as they are used today. Many people spoke about animals and their pets: dogs and cats traumatised by loud bangs, hiding for days, injuring themselves in panic or becoming permanently anxious. Other people raised the wider impact on wildlife and livestock, and the distress caused when explosions happen without warning. I also heard from parents about their children with autism and other disabilities, for whom the noise is overwhelming and frightening, often leading to meltdowns and heightened anxiety. Many people expressed concerns about the impact on veterans and others living with PTSD.
Fireworks are no longer confined to one or two predicable nights. Constituents describe them being set off throughout the year, often late at night and often without notice. That unpredictability makes it almost impossible to prepare—to calm a distressed animal, support a vulnerable child or simply feel settled in one’s own home. Fireworks are explosives, and we already accept that they need regulation, but the clear message from my constituents is that the balance is no longer right. No one who contacted me wants fireworks banned outright; they ask for better regulation that reflects how fireworks are used today. There is strong support for quieter fireworks, including silent options, and for a shift towards organised, licensed displays with clear start and end times. These approaches do not end tradition; they make it safer, more predictable and more considerate of others. We have a strong tradition of celebration and commemoration in this country, from bonfire night at Thelwall parish hall to ringing in the new year with Big Ben and celebrating Diwali and lunar new year.
[Christine Jardine in the Chair]
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
I love new year’s fireworks, and I recall how enjoyable my local council-run fireworks always were. However, as someone who has had fireworks thrown at them and gets similar reports from constituents, I know how terrifying they can be. It definitely seems that we need more regulation. Constituents complain that because fireworks are not considered serious, the police do not necessarily come when called, or they only come a few days later.
Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the appeal of personal firework displays is that many local councils such as my own have had to cut their budget for firework displays and can no longer hold them, while other firework displays end up being ticketed so people across the area cannot necessarily participate?
Oral Answers to Questions
Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Alexander
As I was saying, let me deal with both the failed Governments who have been letting Scotland down in the last decade. Frankly, if the hon. Gentleman wants to advance the case that there has been a decade of prosperity in Scotland, good luck to him. The reality is that it is very hard to think of a single aspect of Scottish public life that has improved over the last 10 years. Take the case of ferries. Take the case of hospitals. Take the case of our schools or, indeed, the broader business environment.
On Brexit, I recognise that there is a need for a fundamental reset with the European Union, and in recent days I have been taking forward that work. I welcome the work that the Prime Minister has been undertaking, but that is the task of a Labour Government. As so often on so many issues, the SNP talks and Labour delivers.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)
In little more than 100 days in government, this Department and its Secretary of State, who is flying to Doha today, have set about delivering on the promises made in our manifesto. We have turned up the dial on growth and published our Green Paper on the modern industrial strategy, which will channel support to key sectors, work across our nations and regions with the private sector, and deliver the conditions for investment and good jobs. We have delivered a huge vote of confidence in the UK by securing £63 billion of investment at our international investment summit, boosted by investment ploughing into our aerospace, automotive and life sciences sectors, as announced in yesterday’s Budget. We have also kept our promises by publishing the Employment Rights Bill, which represents the biggest upgrade in workers’ rights in a generation. We are a pro-innovation, pro-worker and pro-wealth creation Government, and are investing all our time in growing the economy for the long term and turning round 14 years of failure.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
A four-day week with no loss of pay has proven to have benefits for employers and employees alike, and a recent report by the Autonomy Institute and Alda suggests that it can have a hugely positive impact on the economy. The report concludes that Iceland’s economy has outperformed most of Europe since adopting a shorter working week, and now has one of the lowest unemployment rates. With even more UK businesses beginning a four-day week trial on Monday as part of the 4 Day Week Campaign’s autumn pilot, what assessment has the Department made of the Icelandic report and of the potential impact that a four-day week could have on UK businesses and our economy?
Sarah Jones
The Government have no plans to undertake any trials on a four-day week for five days of pay. It is for employers and employees to reach agreements that fit their specific circumstances, but we want to get the balance right and make sure that we work with employers and employees. That is why the Employment Rights Bill will support both parties to reach agreements, where they are feasible.
Arms Export Licences: Israel
Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts(2 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Zarah Sultana
Many hands are going up—I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy)
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this extremely important debate. She has touched on the arms sales, which have continued over a number of years, and on the fact that the UK has continued to supply arms to Israel, which I believe makes us complicit in the occupation of the west bank and the use of arms to suppress people there. She said she was going to talk about the precedents we have had for suspending arms sales where it is clear that there are concerns about their benefiting human rights violations. Does my hon. Friend agree that this could be very much like the time the UK had an embargo on the sale of arms to Israel from 1982 to 1984, following the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.
Zarah Sultana
Yes, I agree. In the past, we have shown that we can take leadership, and I mentioned the example of when David Cameron stopped arms sales, although we resumed them afterwards. On this occasion, we can see that clear violations of international law are taking place, and we cannot continue arms sales.
I will make a bit of progress. What makes the Government’s refusal to suspend arms sales even more horrifying is that Israeli officials have been quite open about their intent in Gaza. At the beginning of the assault, an Israeli military spokesperson said that “the emphasis” of bombing was on
“damage and not on accuracy”.
Another official promised to turn Gaza into a “city of tents”, while the former head of the Israeli National Security Council said that the aim was to make Gaza
“a place where no human being can exist.”
The National Security Minister said that the only thing that should enter Gaza is
“not a gram of humanitarian aid”
but
“hundreds of tons of explosives”.
More recently, an Israeli Minister said that the war would be “Gaza’s Nakba”, which is a reference to the 1948 catastrophe in which hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were forcibly expelled from their homes and never allowed to return. Given that stated intent, and actions to match it, UN experts have warned of a “genocide in the making”. Let us be clear: if this is a genocide in the making, British-made weapons are almost certainly part of making that genocide happen.
None of that is to deny or downplay Hamas’s appalling attack on 7 October, when 1,200 people—the majority civilians—were killed. I condemn that attack once again, as I have done repeatedly in the Chamber, and call again for the release of all hostages. As I have also said before, echoing the words of the UN Secretary-General, those crimes do not excuse what we have witnessed since.
Unlike those awful crimes, Israel’s assault on Gaza has been carried out with the Government’s unequivocal support and with British-made weapons. Disgracefully, selling arms for war crimes is not new for British Governments. Following Israel’s Operation Protective Edge in 2014, which human rights organisations said violated international law, the Conservative-led coalition Government undertook an investigation into arms sales to Israel, finding that those arms could have been used by the Israeli military in Gaza. That resulted in the Government committing to suspend sales if Israel resumed its military assault.
Autumn Statement Resolutions
Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts(2 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
The Government have presided over a crash in the economy of Titanic proportions. They saw the iceberg of stagnation, persistently high inflation and falling living standards, and they decided to head straight for it. Yet they refuse to do the one thing left that would be useful to the rest of the country: abandon ship.
The Chancellor talked a great deal about the need for growth and called this his “autumn statement for growth” yesterday, but what is the reality? The OBR has cut the growth forecast for next year to just 0.7%. In fact, it has cut the growth forecast for the next three years. If it is right—I remind the House that it was the Government’s decision to devolve forecasting to the OBR—we will not hit a 2% real GDP growth target in the foreseeable future. Worse still, this will go down in history as the only Parliament where living standards were lower at the end of it than at the beginning. How is that a policy for growth? I do, however, agree with the Chancellor on one thing, that strong public services depend on a strong economy, but on the official forecasts we will have neither. I do not think I could be any more damning of the Government’s record and the economic legacy they will leave than the OBR itself. It says that, faced with weak growth and the giveaways in this statement, the Chancellor’s spending plans rely on implausible levels of austerity in local government and public services.
Implausible levels of austerity mean enormous levels of cuts, when we know that local government spending has already been cut to the bone. That is why councils of every political stripe up and down the country are now facing bankruptcy. At the same time, our public services are in crisis. People are now more likely to be on an NHS waiting list than ever before and our schools are literally falling apart. I could go on. The Chancellor’s policy for the crisis of funding for public and local services is typically Conservative—even more cuts.
In passing, we should explode the myth that a pre-election bribe is anything but the most cynical type of politics. More importantly, the voters will see through it. The Foreign Secretary, also known as the former, former, former, former Prime Minister and his Chancellor Osborne had a one-off increase in Government spending and investment in 2014 and then reimposed austerity once they were re-elected in 2015. I have no doubt that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor hope to emulate that con trick. The British public, however, will not be taken for mugs, not least because on the Labour Benches we will warn them of it. The reality is that this is part of another bout of austerity, just as the OBR warns. The shiny bauble of cutting national insurance is to get the Conservative party through to the election without tearing itself apart—then the axe will fall.
As for the carrots to business to invest, we know they will not work. One reason they will not work is that the Government are cutting public investment. Why does that matter? Because the state sector is the single biggest investor in the economy. The whole notion that it crowds out private investment is nonsense and one of the many idiocies of the Thatcher era. Government have been “getting out of the way of business investing” for well over 40 years now. As a result, we have an abysmal record on investment, one of the worst in the industrialised world.
It is hard to imagine that any of the measures in the autumn statement were properly assessed for their impact on equalities in accordance with any of our laws. Despite literally being lawmakers, the Government have a strained relationship with complying with any of them. To prove it, we do not have to look much further than the callous announcements regarding disability benefits. In a cost of living crisis of the Government’s own making, an estimated 370,000 people with disabilities and debilitating chronic health conditions will be forced to work from home in jobs that do not exist whether they are physically or mentally able to or not, or lose up to £5,000 in income a year. How are they expected to survive, and how much more inhumanity dressed up as policy can this Government drag through the House before the country has an opportunity to vote them out? In case we have forgotten, they obviously want to remind us that they are the nasty party—nastier than ever.
Any reasonable equality assessment in accordance with our laws would have the author of this Budget sent back to the drawing board. In any scenario in which real incomes and living standards are falling, those at the bottom—those who are already facing discrimination and hardship—will be even worse off. This is the Conservatives’ economic legacy, and it is a shameful one.