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'.
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'.
'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.
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
Times
an hour ago
- Times
How could a UK wealth tax work? The impact examined
Rachel Reeves needs money. The government's successive U-turns on winter fuel payments and welfare combined with lower-than-expected growth forecasts mean she could be facing a £30 billion hole in the public finances come the autumn budget. So where will the money come from? Lord Kinnock, the former Labour leader, joined unions and left-wing MPs at the weekend in calling for a wealth tax. The political logic is clear: Kinnock and others on the left believe that the wealthiest should pay the most. The practicalities are complex. What assets would be taxed? How do you define wealth? Would it actually work, given the fact that wealthy people can choose to simply leave the country if they feel that the tax regime is too onerous. • Neil Kinnock: Labour should bring in 'wealth tax' to balance books A succession of countries have tried wealth taxes, only to reverse them following concerns about how much money they raised. So what are the potential options? Capital gains tax is paid on the profit made from the sale of assets such as property, shares and other investments. Presently, it is set at a lower rate than income tax, which critics say is inherently unfair. For example, a higher-rate taxpayer will pay just 24 per cent capital gains tax on the profit from selling a second home or shares, while if that money was income it would be taxed at 40 per cent. Critics say the system is flawed and benefits richer people whose income is derived from assets rather than work. Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, suggested when in opposition that it should be levelled after Rishi Sunak, then the prime minister, disclosed that he was receiving significant sums through capital gains tax. In a report last year, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said differences between capital gains tax and income tax were 'unfair', creating 'undesirable distortions, including to what people invest in and how they choose to work'. • No 10 and Treasury refuse to rule out wealth tax A recent report by the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation suggested that reforming capital gains tax, including the equalisation of rates, would raise an additional £14 billion. On Sunday, Kinnock suggested that Reeves should bring in a new tax on the assets of the super-wealthy that would be charged at a rate of 2 per cent on assets of more than £10 million. He suggested it could raise as much as £11 billion for the Treasury. Supporters say the new tax would affect just 20,000 people, who would have the ability to pay without experiencing a significant change in their financial situation. However, critics point out that the super-wealthy are also highly mobile and it could result in lower revenues for the Treasury if a significant number of those affected decide to leave the country. The additional rate of income tax for those earning more than £125,140 is levied at 45 per cent. Those on the left have consistently called for the rate to be raised to 50p, a rate last introduced by Labour in 2010 before being cut back in 2013 by the subsequent coalition government. Increasing the additional rate is a topic of significant contention. The Conservatives claim that a lower level brings in more income because it encourages wealthy people to stay in Britain. The IFS previously said that increasing it would make a 'marginal contribution' to the public finances. One of the biggest sources of wealth that most people have is their pension pots and successive chancellors have eyed this area as a potential source of additional income. The most radical option for Reeves would be to lower the rate of tax relief on pension contributions. At the moment, higher-rate taxpayers get 40 per cent tax relief on all contributions, while basic-rate taxpayers can claim 20 per cent. The IFS has calculated that limiting upfront relief to the basic rate of income tax would raise £15 billion a year. However, it would lead to claims of double taxation because people also pay income tax on their pensions. • Paul Johnson: Rachel Reeves will need to face up to fantasists on both sides One less controversial reform may be to cut or abolish the £268,275 that can be taken by people from their pension pot tax-free when they retire. This subsidy has an estimated long-run annual cost of £5.5 billion and 70 per cent of the relief goes to pensions accumulated by those in the top fifth of earners. Ed Miliband's 2015 Labour manifesto promised an annual levy on homes worth more than £2 million, promising to raise in excess of £1 billion a year. The plan would have affected tens of thousands of properties and raised concerns about 'asset-rich, cash-poor' pensioners being forced out of their homes. Associations with Labour's loss in the 2015 general election may dissuade ministers from returning to the idea, which progressives say should be broadened to include more fundamental reform of council taxes. Britain has some of the highest property taxes in the developed world, but the country's biggest homes get off lightly. Despite surging house prices over the past three decades, especially in London and the southeast, rates are still fixed on 1991 values. The biggest homes in an area pay only three times as much as the smallest, despite being far more valuable, while rates vary dramatically around the country. Infamous examples such as the three-bedroom semi in Hartlepool that pays more council tax than Buckingham Palace make the case for reform, but no government has dared since the poll tax, which contributed to the fall of Margaret Thatcher. Adjusting the tax to reflect today's values would result in a £60 fall for the poorest tenth of households and a £750 rise for the richest, the IFS estimates. Seeking to raise more money would push up bills further for wealthy homeowners, but lead to a furious political backlash.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Angela Rayner to ban businesses from using NDAs to cover up harassment and discrimination
UK businesses will be barred from using non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) to silence victims of harassment and discrimination as a part of the government's bid to boost workers' rights. Angela Rayne r has proposed an amendment to the Employment Rights Bill which would void and prohibit such agreements against employees in such situations to prevent people from having to 'suffer in silence'. The deputy prime minister said the government had 'heard the calls from victims of harassment and discrimination', as she announced the move following repeated calls from campaigners and Labour politicians. Zelda Perkins, Weinstein's former assistant and founder of the campaign group Can't Buy My Silence UK, said the move was 'a huge milestone'. She said: 'For years, we've heard empty promises from governments whilst victims have continued to be silenced, to see this Government accept the need for nationwide legal change shows that they have listened and understood the abuse of power taking place. 'Above all though, this victory belongs to people who broke their NDAs, who risked everything to speak the truth when they were told they couldn't. Without their courage, none of this would be happening.' And, last month, the Commons Women and Equalities Committee called on the Government to ban NDAs to tackle misogyny in the music industry. The change comes after several high-profile cases of NDAs being used to silence victims of sexual harassment or bullying. In the case of former Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, victims were forced to breach such agreements to come forward. Zelda Perkins, Weinstein's former assistant and founder of the campaign group Can't Buy My Silence UK, said the move was 'a huge milestone'. She said: 'For years, we've heard empty promises from governments whilst victims have continued to be silenced, to see this Government accept the need for nationwide legal change shows that they have listened and understood the abuse of power taking place. 'Above all though, this victory belongs to people who broke their NDAs, who risked everything to speak the truth when they were told they couldn't. Without their courage, none of this would be happening.' Ms Haigh, who has raised the issue several times in Parliament, said the decision was 'an incredible victory for victims and campaigners' after years of 'tireless campaigning'. She said: 'This victory belongs to them. Organisations like Can't Buy My Silence, led by the indefatigable Zelda Perkins, have exposed the harm caused by this toxic practice. 'Today's announcement will mean that bad employers can no longer hide behind legal practices that cover up their wrongdoing and prevent victims from getting justice.' Ministers had previously indicated they were considering a ban on NDAs in cases of harassment and discrimination, while employment minister Justin Madders also called for a 'cultural shift in employers' earlier this year. Announcing the amendments, Mr Madders said: 'The misuse of NDAs to silence victims of harassment or discrimination is an appalling practice that this Government has been determined to end. 'These amendments will give millions of workers confidence that inappropriate behaviour in the workplace will be dealt with, not hidden, allowing them to get on with building a prosperous and successful career.' Peers will debate the amendments when the Employment Rights Bill returns to the Lords on July 14 and, if passed, will need to be approved by MPs as well.
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Workplace misconduct and discrimination NDAs to be banned
Employers will be banned from using non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) to silence victims of workplace sexual misconduct or discrimination, the government has amendment to the Employment Rights Bill, which is expected to become law later this year, will void any confidentiality agreements seeking to prevent workers from speaking about allegations of harassment or Prime Minister Angela Rayner said it was "time we stamped this practice out".The use of NDAs to cover up criminality has been in the headlines ever since Zelda Perkins, the former assistant to Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein, broke her NDA in 2017 to accuse him of sexual abuse. More recently, the now deceased Mohamed Al Fayed, who used to own Harrods, was accused of deploying confidentiality clauses to silence women who accused him of rape and NDA is a legally binding document that protects confidential information between two parties. They can be used to protect intellectual property or other commercially sensitive information but over the years their uses have Perkins began campaigning for a change in the law more than seven years ago. She now runs the campaign group Can't Buy My Silence UK and said the amendment marked a ''huge milestone'' and that it showed the government had ''listened and understood the abuse of power taking place".But she said the victory ''belongs to the people who broke their NDAs, who risked everything to speak the truth when they were told they couldn't". The change in the law would bring the UK in line with Ireland, the United States, and some provinces in Canada, which have banned such agreements from being used to prevent the disclosure of sexual harassment and Perkins said that while the law was welcome, it was vital "to ensure the regulations are watertight and no one can be forced into silence again".Employment rights minister Justin Madders said there was "misuse of NDAs to silence victims", which he called "an appalling practice"."These amendments will give millions of workers confidence that inappropriate behaviour in the workplace will be dealt with, not hidden, allowing them to get on with building a prosperous and successful career," he will debate the amendments when the Employment Rights Bill returns to the House of Lords on 14 July and, if passed, will need to be approved by MPs as well.
