Corby MP: Rights for terminally-ill staff 'a step closer'
An MP says better protection for workers with terminal illnesses could be implemented across government following his meeting with a minister.Labour's Lee Barron, who represents Corby and East Northamptonshire, wants terminal illness to become a protected characteristic.The move would stop bosses sacking people because they had been diagnosed with an incurable condition.Mr Barron says the Cabinet Office minister, Georgia Gould, signalled her intention "for the whole of Whitehall to sign up" to a charter guaranteeing the rights of workers with terminal illnesses.
Mr Barron, who led a debate on the issue in parliament last December, said: "It's legal in this country to sack a worker diagnosed with a terminal illness. "That is wrong." The Equality Act 2010 prevents employers from discriminating against people because of certain protected characteristics.At the moment, these include things like disability, religion and sexual orientation.Mr Barron told parliament that designating terminal illness as a protected characteristic would mean workers who have been diagnosed would not have to "worry about taking [their] workplace to a tribunal".
'Support, not sack'
He invited the minister to sign up to the TUC's Dying to Work Charter, which "means committing the employer, in this case the UK government, to support, not sack, terminally ill workers".He added that "getting central government endorsement is crucial if we are to change the law".A number of employers have already signed the charter, including RS Components, Wincanton and Royal Mail.Mr Barron said: "Listening to the minister's intention for the whole of Whitehall to sign up to the Charter is reason for much optimism."A government spokesperson said: "The Equality Act 2010 already provides protection for many people with a terminal illness, under the protected characteristic of disability."It is therefore unlawful for an employer to discriminate against them."
Follow Northamptonshire news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Courier
4 hours ago
- The Courier
How a Kinross woman's beloved pet dog is inspiring bid to change law
A campaigning mum from Kinross hopes the memory of her much-loved dog will help change the law for people who need 'emotional support animals'. Elizabeth Crammond took up the challenge to change UK equalities law after sadly losing Daisy in March. The Yorkshire terrier, who joined the family in 2009, was a constant companion and helped Elizabeth cope with stressful situations. She has fybromialgia and other debilitating conditions, and was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. The presence of her canine companion was a constant source of comfort after her own mother died from cancer in 2011. Daisy, classed as an emotional support animal with a doctor's note to prove it, would still be turned away from places including restaurants and public venues. 'After my mum passed away, Daisy was my emotional support,' Elizabeth told The Courier. 'She was the tiniest thing, she went everywhere with me to the point I lived my life around her. 'I was having a lot of anxiety and panic attacks, and that's where my fybromialgia would come in.' The condition flared up under stress, she says, causing even more anxiety about leaving the house and living a normal life. 'Daisy knew when an attack was coming and she would bring me back into the zone,' Elizabeth said. Daisy would even help support her own little daughter, now four, as she was growing up. Elizabeth, 42, who works in education, realised she would have to change the Equality Act 2010 to put support animals on the same footing as guide dogs. She's doing that by enlisting help from her local MP Pete Wishart and lodging a petition at Westminster to show UK-wide support. Elizabeth says the change of the law will also help people with unseen conditions, avoiding embarrassing situations in public places. Her petition – called Daisy Companion Law – is live on the Commons website.
Telegraph
8 hours ago
- Telegraph
Beware the employee activists threatening to bring down British business
This was also true of issues like trans rights, which 64pc of respondents told us they felt 'well prepared' to deal with. But our survey was conducted shortly before the Supreme Court handed down its seminal decision on the meaning of 'sex' under the Equality Act 2010. From the intense public interest the decision has generated, it is reasonable to assume that not all employers may have judged this correctly. Why does any of this matter? Well, for one thing, because getting it wrong can end up in expensive and reputation-damaging litigation that an employer is unlikely to win if they have not been paying attention to their obligations. And if employers already think the Bill is going to drive up business costs, then finding themselves in court won't help. But it also matters because we found that employers are confronting an increasingly politicised workforce where issues that may have no relationship to the workplace itself are becoming topics of intense debate. For every social issue we asked about, from climate change to Israel and Gaza, employers told us it had at least doubled in salience in recent years. And this was particularly likely to be the case if the employer had taken a position on certain issues in the past (say the Ukraine War or Black Lives Matter). We found that once the employer expressed a view on one issue, the more likely they were to be expected to have a position on every issue. This means employers are increasingly being drawn into contentious issues where strongly held views may conflict, and there is a heightened imperative to strike the right balance between competing perspectives. And yet we found that employers are very often getting that balance wrong. Take, for example, the use of social media. Almost 40pc of employers who have a social media policy told us that they routinely reviewed the social media posts of staff and a quarter told us that they had either sacked or disciplined a current member of staff on the basis of something they had written online. Asked why they had taken disciplinary action, and almost 70pc told us that this was because they feared that what the employee had written could cause 'reputational damage' to the business. Around 60pc said it was because it could 'cause offence to other employees', roughly twice the proportion who said they had considered whether it impacted on the employee in question's ability to discharge their professional duties. But from a legal point of view, all of this must be viewed through the prism of the Court of Appeal's landmark decision in Higgs v Farmor's School that was handed down in February of this year. In a decision that was viewed as a vindication of free speech, the Court held that to discipline or dismiss an employee because they had expressed a religious or protected philosophical belief (here, a 'gender critical' view and criticisms of same sex marriage) to which the employer objected, could be unfair and amount to unlawful discrimination. They said it was insufficient to say that other employees had been offended because the employer 'does not have carte blanche to interfere with an employee's right to express their beliefs simply because third parties find those beliefs offensive.' None of which is to say that employees are free to say what they like either. The court described a balancing exercise in which relevant considerations might include whether the comments were made on a professional or personal account, whether guidance had been given about their post, what they had actually said (as opposed to what a third party may have chosen to read into it) and whether their post impacted on their ability to perform their duties. All of which adds up to a tricky situation for employers facing a more politicised (and often polarised) workforce. Protecting one set of views against another not only risks confrontation with members of staff but could also break the law. More than ever, employers need to prepare themselves with sound legal advice, clear internal communications with staff and a robust crisis plan for dealing with these kinds of eventualities. Because getting it wrong in an era defined by employee activism isn't just a management problem, but one that could impact the share price, affect consumer trends or even hit the balance sheet.
Daily Mirror
2 days ago
- Daily Mirror
Voters overwhelmingly back tax on wealthy to protect public services
A poll commissioned by the Trades Union Congress (TUC), found the public support tax increases on the wealthy and big businesses by a margin of almost two to one - 58% to 28% Voters overwhelmingly back taxing the wealthy more in order to protect public services, a new poll found today. The research, commissioned by the Trades Union Congress (TUC), found the public support tax increases on the wealthy and big businesses by a margin of almost two to one - 58% to 28%. And the number rises among people who switched their vote from the Tories to Labour in last year's election - where a mammoth 71% said they supported the idea, compared to 23% who did not. And Labour voters who are now strongly considering voting Reform also backed it by 61% to 32%. The new polling comes ahead of the Spending Review, which the TUC says can be the "next key step" in the government's plan to rebuild Britain and deliver industrial renewal. The TUC said the findings highlight the public's appetite for rebuilding public services - and suggested a "fairer" tax system should be part of plan. General Secretary Paul Nowak said: 'The Spending Review can be the next key step in the government's plan to rebuild Britain and deliver industrial renewal. 'Communities are still crying out for meaningful change after more than a decade of Tory austerity and neglect. 'That's why the government must stay on track – building on the positive start it made at last year's Budget by providing sustained funding for our public services and infrastructure. 'The global outlook is challenging, but leaving our decimated public services without sufficient investment would risk both future growth and public trust." The poll also found nearly 6 in 10 voters - 59% - believe the wealthiest don't pay their fare share. And a clear majority - 56% - said big businesses don't pay their fare share. More than two thirds (67%) said there were too many tax loopholes that could be exploited by the wealthy. Asked how more could be raised from the richest, two thirds backed an annual wealth tax on estates over £10 million. Some 63% backed a windfall tax on banks, and half said they supported increasing capital gains tax - the tax people pay on the profits from selling assets like property. 'The message from voters is clear," Mr Nowak said. "They want the government to protect and rebuild our public services. 'If that means asking the wealthiest to pay more, the public are behind it. People are fed up with a system where those with the broadest shoulders don't pull their weight.' Pollsters Hold Sway surveyed 2000 adults in Great Britain online between 30 May and 2 June.
