Labour's ‘right to switch off' faces axe this week
Ministers are expected to axe plans to give people a right to 'switch off' outside work hours, reports have suggested.
The policy - which was a central part of Sir Keir Starmer's manifesto promise of a 'New Deal for Working People' aimed at strengthening employment rights - would allow workers to ignore work-related emails and calls outside office hours, including the right to refuse to take on extra work at the weekends.
Labour had previously said the policy, inspired by models in Ireland and Belgium, would ensure that 'working from home does not become homes turning into 24/7 offices'.
While it did not appear in the Employment Bill which is currently making its way through Parliament, there were promises from ministers it would emerge in future.
However, that has now changed, and ministers are expected to say in the coming week that the policy has been dropped, when they table a series of amendments to the Bill, according to the Sunday Times newspaper.
A Government source told the newspaper the 'right to switch off is dead'.
Ministers are said to be making the change in a bid to boost business confidence, after the Budget placed extra costs on employers in the form of the national insurance contributions hike.
The Government source added: 'Growth that puts money in people's pockets is the number one priority of this Government's plan for change.
'That means making Britain the best country in the world to do business and a key part of that is removing unnecessary barriers.'
The plan had received renewed backing from Starmer in August, with the prime minister's deputy spokesperson saying: 'This is about ensuring people have some time to rest.'
'Good employers understand that for workers to stay motivated and productive they do need to be able to switch off, and a culture presenteeism can be damaging to productivity.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
30 minutes ago
- Spectator
US urges UK to U-turn on Israeli sanctions
As if the Labour government didn't have enough on its plate with Rachel Reeves's spending review to be announced at midday, it is also facing pressure from the US over sanctions imposed on two Israeli cabinet ministers. Late last night, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned that the travel ban and asset freezes imposed on security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and finance minister Bezalel Smotrich 'Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that the asset freezes and travel bans on Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich 'do not advance US-led efforts to achieve a ceasefire, bring all hostages home, and end the war'. Rubio hasn't just taken aim at the UK – President Donald Trump's man has also urged Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Norway to row back on their sanctions, while Israel has slammed yesterday's sanctions as 'outrageous'. The move by the UK and allied countries came after remarks made by Ben-Gvir and Smotrich were deemed to have 'incited extremist violence and serious abuses of Palestinian human rights' by Foreign Secretary David Lammy.
BBC News
37 minutes ago
- BBC News
David Lammy holds Gibraltar talks ahead of potential EU deal
The foreign secretary has visited Gibraltar for talks ahead of a potential post-Brexit deal for the Lammy and Europe Minister Stephen Doughty met Gibraltar's chief minister Fabian Picardo and his cabinet on Wednesday, and the three are now heading to Brussels for discussions with EU and Spanish on rules governing the border of Spain and Gibraltar have been ongoing since Britain left the European Union in 2020, but an agreement has not yet been reached.A Foreign Office source said that a deal was not yet finalised and that a number of sticking points remained. Writing on X, Picardo said it was "time to try to finalise arrangements for lasting, stable relationship between Gibraltar and the EU/Spain which is safe, secure and beneficial".Announcing the new UK-EU deal last month, Sir Keir Starmer and EU Council President António Costa said that the two were "not very far" from concluding a separate deal on which is a British Overseas Territory, is a 2.6 square mile headland to the south of UK has had sovereignty over Gibraltar since 1713, although this is disputed by Spain, who claim the territory as their territory's status and that of its border with Spain has been a key sticking point and has remained unresolved since estimated 15,000 people cross the Gibraltar-Spain border every day for work and leisure. Currently, Gibraltar residents can cross using residence cards without needing to have their passports stamped. Spanish citizens can cross using a government ID there were concerns this would end with the introduction of the EU's Entry/Exit system later this year, causing huge delays at the border. Last month's deal UK-EU deal included confirmation there will be no legal barriers to UK citizens using e-gates, which should mean there won't be a return to passport a separate Gibraltar deal could reportedly make the territory an associate member of the Schengen zone, allowing people to cross freely and see physical border infrastructure opinion in Gibraltar, which has a population of 32,000 according to its government, is in favour of keeping British sovereignty. The most recent referendum, held in 2002, saw almost 99% of voters reject a proposal to share sovereignty with Spain.
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Reform and SNP are two sides of the same coin
PA Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Like most political animals, I have always enjoyed the drama of by-elections. Whilst seldom making a difference to who actually governs us in the short-term, they can be clear indicators of the mood music amongst the public towards parties vying for power, particularly when the next national election is not so far away. That said, I didn't stay up for the result in the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election last week, not expecting much in the way of drama. My expectation was that there would be a fairly comfortable SNP victory, with the only real interest being whether Reform would finish third or manage to beat Labour into second place. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad I woke up in the morning to a WhatsApp message from a colleague expressing surprise at the outcome, and when I checked the numbers I had to share that sentiment. Few saw the Labour candidate Davy Russell's victory coming, and it is all the more to his credit, and that of his campaign team, that they were able to pull off a quite dramatic victory against the odds. So congratulations are due first of all to Labour in delivering a result which undoubtedly is a boost to Anas Sarwar. Having been written off by the pundits, and with a candidate widely ridiculed for his refusal to participate in TV debates, it demonstrated the importance of a strong, local narrative in winning votes. The Scottish Conservatives had an equally strong local candidate in Cllr Richard Nelson from Larkhall who fought an energetic campaign albeit one we knew never had any realistic prospect of victory. Fourth place was always the best place we could hope for in this seat, as our voters were squeezed to vote tactically either for Labour or for Reform to beat the SNP. On the doorstep we met loyal Conservative voters who told us that they would be using this by-election to 'send a message' to the SNP by voting tactically for whoever they thought was best placed to defeat them, but at next year's Holyrood election would be back voting for us again. That said, we know there is work to be done in presenting a compelling message to maximise our vote for Holyrood in 2026. The real losers on the night were, of course, the SNP. All the polls suggested that this is a seat that they would hold, and the party poured in resources, with numerous visits by leadership figures from the First Minister John Swinney downwards. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The SNP strategy appeared politically clever, if essentially dishonest, in attempting to portray the contest as a two-horse race between them and Reform. This was designed to squeeze Labour voters, in particular, into voting SNP as the lesser of two evils. It backfired spectacularly. The Reform vote was indeed substantial, but if we analyse the figures, it seems that Reform's gains were not so much at the expense of Labour, or even the Conservatives. The 26 per cent of the vote achieved by Reform, at a time when Labour's vote share hardly moved, can only be explained by looking at the 17 per cent drop in the SNP vote. There was a direct transfer from one party to another. Perhaps this should not surprise us. Both SNP and Reform are essentially parties of protest, who have spent years pointing the blame elsewhere for the country's troubles – in the case of Reform, to the EU and immigrants, and in the case of the SNP, to Westminster governments. I can well remember at a previous election meeting on a doorstep in Perthshire one voter who we had previously identified as a regular Conservative supporter, who came out red-faced and angry to lambast me for the failings of the Tory government. 'You've let me down', he shouted, 'letting far too many immigrants in. That's it, I've had it with you lot. From now on I'm voting SNP'. It was an encounter indicative of a particular type of individual who rages at the world around them. These will be some of the people who were motivated to vote for independence in 2014 on the basis that anything must be better than what we currently have. And it will be some of the same people who were amongst the 2 in 5 Scots who voted for Brexit in 2016. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad For years the SNP have played the part of a populist party, simultaneously in government and in opposition, blaming all Scotland's ills not on their own failings but on big, bad Westminster. Now we have the new entrants on the scene in Reform, singing a different song to the same tune. To change the metaphor, the two Parties are essentially opposite sides of the same coin. They are parties who seek not to find solutions to the complex issues that face our country, but rather resort to simplistic slogans appealing to the basest level. Little wonder, then, that voters have little difficulty in switching between the two. Swinney's claim that Reform's values are antithetical to Scotland now look ridiculous, when his Party was not only defeated in Hamilton, but finished a mere 869 votes ahead of Farage's. Scottish exceptionalism has never had such a rude awakening. Over the last 18 years, the SNP have demonstrated how far populist politics can take you. Now, the rise of Reform shows they have a significant competitor for that segment of the population who are content to blame others for the country's woes. Fortunately, there is an alternative: the serious parties prepared to do the heavy lifting in proposing credible solutions to fix the problems in our society.
