Parents who lose pregnancy before 24 weeks to be entitled to bereavement leave
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'.
'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
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
‘We need real change, not fiddling at the edges': voters on Labour's first year
For Aiden Robertson, a 35-year-old consultant from Burnley, Labour's first year back in government can only be summed up as 'incredibly disappointing'. The year had been marked, he felt, by 'dreadful communication, a lack of clear purpose, zero vision', while Labour had been 'pandering to Reform voters who will never back them'. 'This just feels like continuity Tories. As a man who has voted Labour at every single election since 2010, this is the first time where I now feel I can no longer support them.' Robertson was among hundreds of people who shared their verdict of Keir Starmer's first year in No 10 with the Guardian. The responses – many of them excoriating – hammered home why the government is struggling to win the approval of a deeply divided public. While hundreds of people on the left branded the prime minister's approach so far as a 'betrayal' and an alienation of Labour's traditional socialist base, hundreds of others expressed scathing disappointment about the new government's failure to use its substantial parliamentary majority to reform the country and balance the books more. Unsurprisingly, many retired respondents, unpaid carers, or people in receipt of welfare support clamoured for tax increases to better fund benefits, public services and radical socialist reform. Overstretched workers, middle class professionals, business owners and families meanwhile wondered why their income continued to be taxed harshly instead of the wealth and assets of 'the rich' – and lamented the perceived absence of fiscal discipline and meaningful economic upswing. Progressive voters decried the government's approach to Donald Trump and Reform voters, its stance on Israel, attempted welfare reforms, lack of convincing solutions to tackle the climate crisis, the housing crisis and education, and the prime minister's 'island of strangers' speech. But others believed that Labour had failed to limit immigration – an issue many respondents described as a top concern. Of those who felt positively about the government's achievements over the past 12 months, many felt that 'grownups' were now back in charge, citing their agreement with Labour's attempts to reform the welfare state, its rail nationalisation plan, Starmer's performance on the international stage – such as his handling of Trump being a factor in the reduction of tariffs for Britain – resolved public sector strikes after increased pay awards, and the commitment to higher defence spending. A widely held view was that an overly critical press was 'undermining' the new government and 'playing into the hands of Reform'. Mary, a 61-year-old local council employee from near Hull, felt the Starmer government had faced a lot of unfair criticism. 'I agree with the change in tax for farmers and also winter fuel payments,' she said. 'I live in a wealthy area and know so many people who absolutely do not need that money. All benefits should be means tested and not given out willy-nilly. I accept that the threshold of £11,500 was too low, but feel £35,000 is too high. 'Change in Pip (personal independent payments) is also needed as the growth in the number of people receiving it has been off the scale – something obviously isn't working with the assessment process. This all seems common sense to me. I personally think Starmer is the best leader we have had in a very long time – he has integrity and he does the right thing even when that's difficult. He's navigating the relationship with Trump and the EU really well.' 'I think they're doing a good job,' said James, a 21-year-old from South Tyneside. 'Starmer represents a serious break from gerontocracy, and has attempted to rewire the British economy in favour of those in work. 'Dealing with a public which wants lower taxes, higher spending and lower debt, an insurgent populist right and a rowdy backbench, Starmer has secured three trade deals, reduced NHS waiting lists, and ended the Rwanda deal [to name a few]. He is doing a good job, if [people] let him.' Jonathan Dyson, 65, a pensioner from Huddersfield, stressed that Labour had been burdened by 'an extremely difficult inheritance'. 'It's going to take several years before any significant progress can be seen, despite the constant demand for Deliveroo policies,' he said. 'I don't think that they are getting enough credit for what they are trying to achieve,' said Melanie, an architect from Edinburgh. 'They're tackling emotive issues that have to be addressed. I still have faith in them and I think that they could accomplish significant change.' Although various people described the Labour leader as 'unprincipled' or 'flip-flopping', others felt drawn to the prime minister's approach. 'I like the idea of Starmer not having a fixed ideology, but instead going around fixing things,' said Chris Hurd, a 48-year-old accountant and small business owner from Wiltshire. Dozens of people felt that the government had been spectacularly poor at controlling the narrative and making the case for many of its policies, among them Noel, a retired college principal from Otley, West Yorkshire. 'The very policies they are being criticised for, inheritance tax rises, winter fuel allowance cuts, welfare reform, etc, are the right policies, but they were introduced badly without sensitivity and without being sold properly. Each could have been widely supported,' he said. 'Basically Labour need to do much more to sell their policies and crow about the achievements.' Craig, 44, a father of three and data analyst living in Leicester, was one of many who felt that no coherent change agenda for an ambitious future had been communicated. 'I was excited to see Labour come to power. I remember the hope and optimism the last time Labour won under Blair,' he said. 'This time, though, it just feels like there's no plan. I'm really concerned about the country's finances, that we're continuing to pay more and more in debt interest because of our deficit. I worry about the country my kids will grow up in. 'I do believe some hard decisions need to be made to balance the books more. But Labour hasn't offered a bold message to address this. Where are the exciting ideas for the future? Where's the investment now that pays off later?' Respondents who felt decidedly negative about the government's first year were split into those who desired a far more radical socialist governing approach and those who felt the government had ignored the will of the public in favour of left-wing concessions. Much of the outrage was aimed at the government's attempts to cut winter fuel for elderly people and Pip for some disabled people, and keeping the two-child benefit cap. 'I think they've leaned too heavily into trying to appease the right,' said Holly, a 24-year-old from London who works in PR. 'As a young, disabled and neurodivergent woman I despair at these [planned] cuts – I even cancelled my Pip application because I thought the chances of me getting it were so low. 'I miss when we had a real opposition – this government has left me feeling like we don't live in a functioning democracy. Even without the authoritarian crackdown on legal and peaceful protest, who can I vote for that actually represents me and has a chance of getting into parliament?' Holly said she would in theory vote for the Greens or a new party led by Jeremy Corbyn but would vote tactically for Labour if she lived in a seat 'at risk of going Conservative or Reform'. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion 'We voted Labour and got the Conservatives, but nastier,' said Richard Jewell, 56, a carer from Northampton. 'There's a real danger we could end up with Nigel Farage as PM at the next general election. The thought fills me with dread, but if it should happen we all know who will be to blame – Keir Starmer. '[This government] seems to have no moral compass when it comes to either foreign or domestic affairs,' said 60-year-old Timothy Willcocks, a school administrator from Hastings. 'It is avoiding taxing wealth and hitting the poorest and most vulnerable [ … ] trying to 'out reform' Reform, rather than pursuing solid socialist policies to counter the far right. The first year has been utterly disappointing, made even more so by the significant majority Labour enjoy.' Paola Adeitan, 31, a mother of three and law graduate from Wiltshire, described the new government as 'treacherous'. 'Adopting a Trumpian approach on the issue of human rights and the government's rhetoric and support of Israel's airstrikes against Iran makes me hate politics,' she said. Seventy-seven-year-old Howard Gould, a retired civil servant from south London, was among scores who said they had been Labour voters for years but would not vote for the party again. '[I'm] appalled at the approach over Gaza, the snuggling up to Trump, [the] cutting [of] overseas aid and welfare cuts. [I] cannot understand why taxes [are] not raised. It has left me so frustrated over who I can vote for – certainly not Labour as of now, and never for Tories or Reform. But I understand why some are similarly frustrated and willing to consider Reform.' While many complained about Labour's move to the right on immigration, many others felt the prime minister had not done nearly enough to reduce net migration, particularly illegal immigration. 'Within my circle of friends and family and beyond I don't know one single person who is happy with the state of this nation, one single solitary person who is not voting Reform at the next election,' said Lizzie Quinlan, 64, a retired registered nurse from the West Midlands. 'I think it's without exception the worst ever first year of any government I can recall.' Quinlan was among scores who questioned why the government had targeted welfare budgets for elderly and disabled people at a time of record small boat arrivals. 'What leader punishes the elderly, disabled and disadvantaged in favour of legal and illegal [people] arriving on these shores? The next election cannot come quickly enough.' 'Their policies are cruel and ill thought out,' said Sally Scarfe, 64, from Edlington, Lincolnshire, who used to work as a hairdresser, in retail, catering and as a cleaner before becoming a full-time carer for her mother. She was one of many who felt the prime minister had prioritised his role on the world stage while neglecting the struggles of his electorate at home. 'Starmer is weak, and nearly every time you put the news on, he's somewhere other than in the country. He's enjoying the big role of the statesman but doesn't seem to realise the crisis that this country's in. He doesn't listen to how worried and angry we are about mass illegal immigration – which we're paying for, while they're trying to make welfare cuts.' 'I voted them in hoping for change, mainly on immigration – small boat crossings. I don't see change and in fact, the issue is worsening with no real plan put forward,' said Damien Seaborne, 42, who works in a laundry factory, from Caerphilly, south Wales. 'I was also hoping a new government would be less wasteful on our taxes.' 'Business confidence has collapsed,' said Jason Clark, a restaurant owner from Stockton-on-Tees, who was among scores of respondents who felt the new government had damaged Britain's economic outlook with an 'anti-growth' agenda. 'Rachel Reeves' crazy anti-business budget was like a hammer. Many businesses in this area are now no longer recruiting new staff. I thought about closing and various business friends are contemplating the same, off the back of the employers' national insurance (NI) hike. 'Like many others, I've reduced my trading hours to manage costs, so my wage bill is going to be 12 to 15% lower this year. People's spending power has reduced in the last 12 months, footfall is down a third, while costs are amazingly high. Some months I'm not taking a salary. Why would you take the risk of starting a business? For many, it's just no longer viable to take on staff.' 'The tax levels are the worst,' said a 54-year-old professional in the tech sector from London. 'The government made a couple of early errors by treating the private sector as a piggybank and increasing [employer] NI rates, but giving out large pay awards to public sector workers. It shows how little they understand how to grow the economy.' Ruth, a professional in her 60s from Cambridge, felt Labour's first year in government had been 'tragic' amid 'misfiring good intentions'. The country, she said, needed 'a mature debate about the trade-offs involved' in its desire to improve public services, increase defence spending and not increase taxes. 'We cannot continue pretending the big issues can be solved by three-word slogans,' she said. Michael Morwood, 40, a disabled author from London, predicted political consequences for Labour and the country that chimed with remarks of hundreds of others. 'We need real change, not fiddling at the edges,' he said. 'Adding X million into the NHS won't fix it. Reforming planning permission laws won't solve the housing crisis. These are things that need to happen, but they're inadequate given the scale of the problems. 'We're often told we need to get on board with Labour or we'll wind up with a Reform government. The thing is, if Labour continue as they are, we'll wind up with Reform sooner or later, guaranteed. The UK is in real, serious trouble, and Labour don't have the clarity of vision, the principles, or the spine to actually fix any of the systemic problems. 'I'd love for Labour to discover a bold new vision for the country, but the current leadership don't seem to even understand why such a vision is needed.'
Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
'Parents are battling a broken system that's failing special needs children'
Labour's Helen Hayes, who chairs the Commons Education Committee, said ministers' failure to confirm they won't cut education, health and care plans (EHCPs) was causing alarm Parents whose confidence has been eroded by the special educational needs system are "very, very fearful" support could be scaled back, a top MP has warned. Labour 's Helen Hayes, who chairs the Commons Education Committee, said ministers' failure to confirm they won't cut education, health and care plans (EHCPs) was causing alarm for families. She said the "broken" system needed reform but warned the Government it risked repeating the same mistakes that forced Keir Starmer into a humiliating climbdown over disability benefit cuts. The Government plans to publish a white paper in the autumn detailing reforms to the special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) system. But it is shaping up to be a fresh battle between the Prime Minister and backbenchers. Ministers however have tried to reassure parents they have "absolutely" nothing to fear over support being reduced. But in a warning this morning, Ms Hayes told BBC Radio Four: "I hope the government will learn the lessons from the welfare bill and the events that we saw last week in Parliament and understand that the best way to get effective reform of the system, that also delivers for the public finances, is to work directly and closely with the people who are most affected by the system you're wanting to reform, and that is what we haven't seen so far with the question of SEND reform." An EHCP is for children and young people aged up to 25 who need more support than is available through special educational needs support. It is a legally binding document which sets out the support a child is entitled to. Ms Hayes said many families have had to battle the system to get an EHCP, which has impacted their trust in the authorities. And she said, despite it not being a perfect process, EHCPs still provide important legal protection for parents in holding authorities, schools and other services to account over the support their child should receive. "I think it is understandable that many parents would feel very, very fearful when the government won't confirm absolutely the EHCPs and all of the accountabilities that surround them will remain in place," she said. Admitting the EHCP system was failing families, Ms Hayes went on: "We have a system that is broken. It is failing families, and the government will be wanting to look at how that system can be made to work better. "But I think they have to take this issue of the lack of trust and confidence and that the fear that parents have and the impact that it has on the daily lives of families. This is an everyday, lived reality if you are battling a system that is failing your child. "EHCPs provide statutory certainty for some parents. It isn't a perfect system. I've heard from many parents who get an EHCP for their child and then find that it isn't being implemented properly and it's hard to sort that out, or they then find that the resources that should be there aren't really there. And it is also a system that many families who don't necessarily have resources to fight through the EHCP system fall by the wayside at the moment." She added: "So it's not a system that's working perfectly at all, but it does provide important statutory protection and accountability. If you have a community who simply don't trust the system, any suggestion of the erosion of those rights and accountabilities is just the wrong place to start." Early years education minister Stephen Morgan this morning refused to confirm whether scrapping EHCPs were on or off the table in talks about SEND reforms. Asked if EHCPs will remain, he told LBC: 'We're working through everything at the moment. I'm not going to get into the detail around what the measures will be in terms of improving outcomes for children. I want to listen to experts. I want to listen to parents. I want to listen to teachers to get it right for the future.' But he assured parents should have "absolutely" no fear that support for children with special needs will be scaled back. Pressed by LBC if campaigners and charities should have no fear about the future of SEND support for children, Mr Morgan said: "Absolutely. What we want to do is make sure we've got a better system in place as a result of the reform that we're doing that improves outcomes for children with additional needs."
South Wales Guardian
an hour ago
- South Wales Guardian
Ministers fail to rule out cutting Send school plans after campaigners' concerns
Education minister Stephen Morgan insisted parents should have 'absolutely' no fear that support for children with special needs or disabilities (Send) will be scaled back. But he could not guarantee that the current system of education, health and care plans (EHCPs), which are issued to give children specialist classroom support, would remain in place. In a letter shared with the Guardian newspaper, campaigners have said that without the documents in mainstream schools, 'many thousands of children risk being denied vital provision, or losing access to education altogether'. On Monday, Mr Morgan told broadcaster LBC the current system of support is 'failing children, it's failing parents'. Asked if concerned campaigners could have no fear that Send support will be scaled back, Mr Morgan replied: 'Absolutely. What we want to do is make sure we've got a better system in place as a result of the reform that we're doing that improves outcomes for children with additional needs.' But pressed whether the reforms could include scrapping ECHPs, Mr Morgan replied: 'We're looking at all things in the round. 'I'm not going to get into the mechanics today, but this is about strengthening support for system.' On Sunday, Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson would similarly not be drawn on whether the plans will be retained. 'What I can say very clearly is that we will strengthen and put in place better support for children,' she told the BBC. The Government plans to publish a white paper in the autumn detailing how it will reform support for Send, according to Mr Morgan. Requests for Send support have risen year-on-year. In total, there were 638,745 EHCPs in place in January 2025, up 10.8% on the same point last year. The number of new plans which started during 2024 also grew by 15.8% on the previous year, to 97,747. Requests for children to be assessed for EHCPs rose by 11.8% to 154,489 in 2024. In a letter to the Guardian, campaigners including the heads of charities, professors, Send parents including actor Sally Phillips, and campaigners including broadcaster Chris Packham warned against scrapping ECHPs as part of any overhaul of support. 'Whatever the Send system's problems, the answer is not to remove the rights of children and young people. Families cannot afford to lose these precious legal protections,' they said. MPs have warned ministers have not been clear about their plans, and could face a rebellion akin to last week's welfare Bill revolt, according to the Guardian. In a signal the Government is willing to square up to its rebellious backbenchers, Mr Morgan told ITV's Good Morning Britain that Labour MPs had 'stood on a platform a manifesto commitment to reform the Send system'. He also would not be drawn into suggestions by Good Morning Britain that the reforms were a cost-cutting measure being driven by the Treasury. 'Well, look at the figures. We've actually put more money into the Send system, the £1 billion for high needs announced last year,' he replied to the question. Amid mounting pressure from MPs to scrap the two-child benefit cap, the minister said 'nothing has changed' in the Government's plans, which will see a child poverty strategy report back in the autumn. Mr Morgan added: 'We're looking at all levers to bring down child poverty, but that's got to be fiscally done well, and obviously we need to grow our economy.'
