Parents who lose pregnancy before 24 weeks to be entitled to bereavement leave
Angela Rayner has said that the change will give 'people time away from work to grieve'.
Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner said 'no-one who is going through the heartbreak of pregnancy loss should have to go back to work before they are ready' (Leon Neal/PA)
Under current rules, parents are entitled to up to two weeks of bereavement leave if a child dies before they turn 18, or they experience a stillbirth after 24 weeks of pregnancy.
Amendments to the Employment Rights Bill, will see the right to 'at least one week's leave' expanded to people who lose a pregnancy before 24 weeks. The exact length of the leave will be specified in later legislation after a consultation.
The Bill already makes provision to expand bereavement leave, giving employees protected time off to grieve the loss of a loved one.
Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds has said that the amendments will offer 'dignity and respect'.
Grief doesn't follow a timetable, and expanding rights to leave for pregnancy loss will ensure every family gets the time they need to heal without worrying about their job Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds
'For many families, including mine, that have been affected by pregnancy loss, the decision around returning to work or taking sick leave to grieve properly can make an already painful experience even more difficult,' he said.
'Grief doesn't follow a timetable, and expanding rights to leave for pregnancy loss will ensure every family gets the time they need to heal without worrying about their job.'
Deputy Prime Minister Ms Rayner similarly said that 'no-one who is going through the heartbreak of pregnancy loss should have to go back to work before they are ready'.
'I am proud that this Government is introducing a day-one right to protected time off work after experiencing pregnancy loss, giving people time away from work to grieve and spend time with their families,' she said.
Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said the amendments would offer 'dignity and respect' (Jordan Pettitt/PA)
Vicki Robinson, chief executive of the Miscarriage Association, welcomed the announcement, saying it was 'a hugely important step that acknowledges the often very significant impact of pre-24-week loss, not only for those experiencing the physical loss, but for their partners too'.
It comes after ministers announced they would review the system of parental leave, declaring that the current system is 'not working' for families.
Mr Reynolds said the Government will investigate the whole system for supporting new parents to take time off work when they have a baby, including maternity leave, paternity leave and shared arrangements.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Western Telegraph
10 minutes ago
- Western Telegraph
Government ‘sympathetic' to Post Office inquiry's 19 recommendations
The Government will respond 'properly' to Sir Wyn's recommendations by the inquiry's October 10 deadline, Gareth Thomas pledged at the despatch box. 'I cannot assuage the anger of the victims, nor will the anger I feel on their behalf ever be assuaged,' business minister Mr Thomas told the Commons. 'But we are determined to do more on redress and beyond, and to do it quickly, to give more of the victims of this appalling scandal, at least, a measure of the peace they so rightly deserve.' Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry chairman Sir Wyn published the first volume of his final report on Tuesday. He found a 'number of senior people' at the Post Office were aware the Legacy Horizon system was capable of error up until it was changed in 2010, with several employees also aware the updated system, Horizon Online, also had bugs and defects. Among his 19 recommendations in the report was that the Government and Post Office should make a public announcement about what they mean by 'full and fair redress'. Mr Thomas told MPs: 'Blameless people were impoverished, bankrupted, stressed beyond belief, lost their jobs, their marriages, their reputations, their mental health, in some cases lost their lives.' He added: 'To be clear, I am very sympathetic to Sir Wyn's 19 recommendations today. 'Clearly, a number of them require careful consideration.' Mr Thomas said the Government already accepts a recommendation that the 'best offer principle' should apply where claimants can receive money through the High Court Group Litigation Order (GLO) scheme. Claimants 'should be able to bank the best offer they get', Mr Thomas said, including if they disagree with their award and lodge an appeal with an independent panel. 'We will provide redress for family members of postmasters who suffered because of the scandal,' the minister continued. He said: 'Sir Wyn rightly recognises that designing a suitable compensation scheme for family members raises some very difficult issues. 'Nonetheless, we want to look after those family members who suffered most, meeting Sir Wyn's recommendation that we should give, and I quote, 'redress to close family members of the most adversely affected by Horizon'.' Mr Thomas later said: 'Sir Wyn argues that there should be a standing public body to deliver redress in any further scandal. I have a considerable amount of sympathy with that argument, but clearly we shall need to analyse the options fully before we commit to it. 'We will reflect on how to address those twin challenges, and will bring our conclusions back to the House.' Ian Byrne pressed the Government on Labour's manifesto pledge to bring forward a Hillsborough law, named after the 1989 stadium crush in Sheffield, which would place a legal duty of candour on public servants and authorities and provide legal aid for victims of disasters or state-related deaths. The Labour MP for Liverpool West Derby said: 'The publication of the report confirms the scale – the heartbreaking scale – of the human impact of this shocking miscarriage of justice.' He warned that the Post Office scandal 'follows a familiar pattern, where institutions deceive and distort because they put their reputations before truth and justice'. Mr Byrne, who has proposed his own Hillsborough law, having tabled the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill, asked: 'Does the minister agree that this report again shows why the Government must honour its pledge and promise to enact the Hillsborough law in full, and end this culture of cover-ups which does so much damage to the innocent victims' families and this country's reputation?' Mr Thomas replied: 'We need to see in full who was responsible for this disaster and why. 'Sir Wyn Williams's work in this regard is critical. We are awaiting his final report which will look at what happened and why it happened, and who was responsible, and that transparency will be hugely important in terms of helping the Post Office to learn the lessons from this appalling scandal, but for also the country as a whole to learn the lessons from the scandal. 'And if there are measures that we need to bring forward to make sure the Post Office is never in a position like this again, then we will certainly look to bring those forwards.' Conservative former minister Sir Andrew Mitchell said 'many' of his colleagues had raised Horizon redress 'for years' and added: 'It took the ITV drama of January 1 2024 (Mr Bates vs The Post Office) for the earth to move, which rather begs the question, what is the point of Parliament and its elected representatives?' He also asked: 'Isn't it about time that the institutions of the state got out the handcuffs and held the tax-funded villains who perpetrated this monstrous injustice to full and total account?' Mr Thomas said: 'Sir Wyn's further report will lay bare who is responsible, that and the work of the police. 'Their work is ongoing. There are 100 police officers working on this case. They are in touch with subpostmaster representatives and they have identified a series of people who are of interest to their inquiry.'
Telegraph
12 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Wealth tax will penalise savers, Labour warned
A wealth tax would punish savers and hit the middle class, the Government has been warned by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS). Introducing a levy on the assets of the rich would not be 'sensible', the IFS said, in a rebuff to Labour backbenchers. Taxing the same wealth each year would 'penalise' people for saving and making investments, leaving the country poorer in the long run. It would also likely hit the middle classes once property and pension wealth are factored in, the think tank warned. 'It is difficult to make the case that an annual tax on wealth would be a sensible part of the tax system even in principle,' said Stuart Adam, a senior economist at IFS. No 10 repeatedly refused to rule out introducing a new levy on wealthy taxpayers on Monday after Lord Kinnock, the former Labour leader, said the party was 'willing to explore' the idea. Some of Labour's biggest union paymasters have also called for the Government to introduce a 2pc tax on people's assets above £10m. A YouGov poll published on Tuesday found 75pc of the public supported the idea of a tax of 2pc on wealth above £10m. But the IFS cautioned that a range of countries had previously introduced a wealth tax but ultimately abandoned the policy, including Sweden, Finland and Luxembourg. 'International experience of annual wealth taxes is not encouraging,' Mr Adam said. 'There are strong reasons to radically reform how we currently tax the sources and uses of wealth; this includes reforming capital income taxes in order to properly tax high returns. An annual wealth tax would be a poor substitute for doing that.' 'Less attractive place to live' In a 2021 paper, the IFS concluded there were 'economically superior' ways of targeting the assets of the wealthy, including reforming capital gains tax. A new wealth levy would lead to a raid on Britain's middle class, the IFS warned. Mr Adam said: 'An annual wealth tax would need to apply broadly to all assets to ensure that it was not easy to avoid. Such a tax could raise significant revenue if it applied to the bulk of the UK's wealth – that would include the homes and pensions of the middle class.' The influential think tank also cautioned that trying to raise large amounts of revenue from only the very wealthy would make the country 'a less attractive place for those people to live'. The comments add to warnings from business chiefs that a new levy would drive people abroad and trigger a fresh exodus of the rich from Britain. Many wealthy residents are already moving abroad after Rachel Reeves scrapped non-dom status and introduced inheritance tax on overseas trusts earlier this year. Hotelier Sir Rocco Forte told The Telegraph earlier this week: 'Labour has already seen a huge exodus of wealthy people which is ongoing, with many more due to leave before the Budget. A wealth tax will further exacerbate the problem.' Growing Labour unrest Pressure to consider a wealth tax has been mounting after a series of costly U-turns by the Government that have left the Chancellor scrambling to find billions of pounds. Cabinet ministers have been told that the Chancellor will have to raise taxes in her autumn Budget. Last week's rebellion over the welfare cuts package has forced the Treasury to find new savings and emboldened hard-Left Labour backbenchers to push for more policy changes. A Treasury spokesman said: 'Tax decisions are taken at the Budget and, as you would expect, we are not going to comment on tax speculation. 'We have made our manifesto promises to protect working people and we took the decision last autumn to deliver the change the British people voted for.'
BBC News
33 minutes ago
- BBC News
Ministers ditch pet insurance rule for renters in England
The government has shelved plans to allow landlords in England to require their tenants to take out special insurance if they own measure was proposed alongside stronger legal rights for tenants to keep animals in the Renters' Rights Bill announced last Labour ministers have now ditched the idea, arguing that appropriate insurance products may not become widely available quickly change was confirmed on Monday night, with the government amending its own legislation in the House of prompted Tory peers to back a plan to make tenants pay an extra 'pet deposit' instead - setting up a fresh battle for when the bill returns to the Commons. Peers voted narrowly to approve an additional amendment that would allow landlords to charge up to three weeks' rent as a returnable deposit, to cover potential damage caused by pets during a move passed by 206 votes to 198, after the Conservatives teamed up with a group of crossbench peers to defeat the government and the Liberal Democrats, who voted against the shadow housing minister Baroness Scott of Bybrook said the "additional risks" posed by pets exceeded traditional deposits paid by tenants, which have been capped at five weeks' rent since added it would give landlords an "essential route to recoup costs" now that the insurance requirement has been the three-week pet deposit idea is almost certain to be overturned when MPs vote on the Lords' changes in the coming weeks, given the Labour government's huge majority in the House of Commons. 'Impractical conditions' The original version of the bill would have granted landlords new powers to require private tenants to take out pet damage insurance, or recoup "reasonable costs" from the tenant for obtaining such insurance was meant to sit alongside strengthened rights for renters, under which landlords will need a reasonable justification to deny prospective tenants the right to live with their pets. When the draft law was introduced, Housing Secretary Angela Rayner told MPs the insurance requirement would ensure "landlords are protected" as renters' rights were speaking on Monday, Housing Minister Baroness Taylor of Stevenage said it was now being dropped after feedback from insurers."Although our view was that a new market will develop for insurance products, following further engagement with the sector we now accept that this may not happen at the scale necessary," she told peers."We do not want to leave tenants in a position where they are unable to comply with impractical conditions that a landlord may place on the tenant as part of their pet consent".She said that, following evidence given during scrutiny on the bill, ministers now believed traditional deposits were enough to sufficiently protect ministers would consider introducing bigger deposit fees if costs from pet damage "frequently" exceeded deposit amounts, she added. 'Shoddy and outrageous' The decision to drop the insurance requirement has been made as the bill nears the end of its passage through Parliament, in its final stage in the House of NRLA, which represents landlords, has called the move a "shoddy and outrageous way to make law" that will force their members to "shoulder even greater risks" when letting out the change has been backed by the Renters' Reform Coalition, a campaign group, which has argued the requirement for additional insurance is group told the BBC it also opposed the idea of a three-week pet deposit, arguing it "could rule out pet ownership for many renters"."Three in four landlords don't experience pet damage at all, and when it happens the average cost is much lower than three weeks' worth of rent," added spokesman Paul Shanks. Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to keep up with the inner workings of Westminster and beyond.
