Employment Rights: Terminal Illness

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron) for securing this important debate on the employment rights of people with a terminal illness. I pay tribute to his tireless advocacy on behalf of workers facing unimaginable challenges.

Receiving a terminal diagnosis is one of the most devastating things that can happen to a person. In that moment, the focus should be on spending precious time with loved ones, seeking medical care and living the life you have left. As a humanist, I believe we have only one life, so a good life and a good death are very important to me.

Unfortunately, for too many people a terminal diagnosis is compounded by the fear of losing their livelihood and the security that employment provides. As things stand, it is still legal in this country to dismiss someone with a terminal illness on grounds of capability. That is not only deeply unjust, but fundamentally inhumane. The last thing that anyone with a terminal illness should have to worry about is how they will keep a roof over their head or provide for their family. People’s lives do not end at the moment they get a terminal diagnosis. They are still mums, dads, colleagues and breadwinners.

Many people with a terminal illness live longer than six months. I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery). I also acknowledge the Dying to Work campaign, which has already secured protections for more than 1.5 million workers through its voluntary charter. The charter, developed in partnership with the TUC, encourages employers to commit to supporting workers with a terminal illness, ensuring that they have the choice to remain in work for as long as they wish, without the fear of dismissal. The campaign’s success demonstrates that compassion and practicality can go hand in hand in the workplace.

The voluntary charter is laudable, but it is not enough. It is not right that the ability to work at the end of life depends on the good will of individual employers. Workers should not have to rely on luck to ensure that their rights are protected at the most vulnerable time of their life. The current patchwork approach creates inequality. Perhaps larger employers with more resources are more likely to sign up to the Dying to Work charter; perhaps smaller employers do not have the capacity or simply do not know about it. This disparity underscores the need for consistent, nationwide standards to ensure that no worker with a terminal illness is left behind.

Some may argue that mandatory protections could place an undue burden on businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises. I think we can find a balance. Being offered reasonable adjustments, flexible working and the ability to work from home can enable terminally ill employees to continue contributing in ways that are meaningful for them and for their employer. Many employers already see the value of retaining experienced workers who want to stay engaged.

Let me share some statistics from my constituency of Morecambe and Lunesdale. According to recent figures, over 25% of the workforce in my area are employed in industries such as retail and hospitality, where job security is often already precarious. Those sectors also report higher levels of sickness, making the need for robust protections even more pressing. Additionally, local advocacy groups have highlighted that the financial strain of a terminal diagnosis can have a disproportionate impact on low-income families, with many struggling to take on the extra costs of a terminal diagnosis, particularly in the light of the recent cost of living crisis. The lived experience behind those numbers is a stark reminder of the urgency of the issue.

Ensuring that terminally ill workers in Morecambe and Lunesdale and across the country are protected from unfair dismissal is not just about individual dignity; it is about strengthening the social fabric of our communities. There is also a compelling economic case for action. Retaining employees with terminal illnesses can reduce turnover costs, maintain productivity and strengthen workplace morale by fostering a culture of compassion and respect. Even beyond those practical considerations, the moral imperative is clear. A just society does not abandon its citizens in their greatest time of need.

As policymakers, we must lead the way in ensuring that every worker facing a terminal diagnosis has the legal protection that they deserve. That includes the right to remain in employment, if they want, for as long as they wish; access to reasonable adjustments; and the reassurance that their job and their dignity are secure. I urge the Government to take inspiration from the Dying to Work charter and enshrine its principles in law. Let us send a clear message that terminal illness is not a reason to strip someone of their livelihood. Let us ensure that no worker faces the additional burden of financial insecurity or social isolation as they navigate the most challenging period of their life.

In closing, I want to reflect on the experience of those who have lived this reality. Work is not just a means of earning a living; it is often a source of identity, purpose and community. For those facing a terminal illness, having the choice to continue working or to leave should not be a luxury. It should be a right.

Fireworks: Sale and Use

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve here in Westminster Hall today under your chairship, and I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for introducing this important debate.

I will speak about the impact of fireworks on my constituents in Morecambe and Lunesdale. I have to declare an interest, as I absolutely love fireworks; I cannot get enough of them. I am also a heavy metal fan, so maybe I just like loud bangs in the dark. [Laughter.]

However, hearing from constituents who are deeply affected by the weeks and weeks of fireworks that we get at certain times of the year has persuaded me that we need to have this debate. Constituents tell me of terrified animals and terrified humans, and they also tell me about the weeks of fireworks surrounding bonfire night and new year’s eve. Because that lasts for weeks and weeks, it gives them no opportunity to plan and to feel safe. My joy in fireworks is their terror.

What specific action needs to be taken is up for debate. The petitioners have asked for a ban on sales of fireworks to the public and there are excellent arguments for that, which have been made here today and through the petitions. Initially, I was instinctively reluctant even to consider a ban on all public sales as a first step, because although fireworks can be deeply harmful, they also bring families and communities together in celebration.

I thought, “Is there an alternative?” Maybe it could be limiting the number of days per year that fireworks are allowed, for example on bonfire night and the nearest Saturday, replicating that across the year for important events such as new year or Diwali. Would enforcing such a system ruthlessly and alongside age verification allow people the freedom to enjoy fireworks but also minimise harm, which is the desired impact? My constituents tell me that if they can plan for the fireworks, it minimises the harm they experience, so the situation would not be so bad.

However, as I wrote this speech, I really thought the issue through. On balance, and having heard the stories of fireworks being used as weapons and the harrowing story of the Smiths, I believe that it is right to examine all options to regulate the sale of fireworks. A change in regulation may also create market incentives to develop more options and cheaper options, such as silent fireworks, drones or laser shows. Those options would allow families to come together to enjoy a show, but they would also protect people and pets from some of the devastating impacts of the misuse of fireworks.