Legally, at present, all employees with 26 weeks’ continuous service with their employer have the right to request flexible working. 

The Government is working to strengthen day one employment rights and increase the productivity of businesses. Under plans to modernise the way we work, employees will have the right to request flexible working from day one. Delivering on a commitment set out in the Government’s 2019 manifesto, around 2.2 million more people will be given the right to request flexible working.

The proposals, which were open to consultation up to December 2021, considered whether the current limit of one flexible working application per year continues to represent the best balance between individual and business needs. The consultation also looked at cutting the current three-month period an employer has to consider any request. 

If an employer cannot accommodate a request, as may be the case, they would need to think about what alternatives they could offer. For example, if they couldn’t change their employee’s hours on all working days, they could consider making the change for certain days instead.

Research has shown companies that embrace flexible working can attract more talent, improve staff motivation and reduce staff turnover. In addition, flexible working can boost a business’ productivity and competitiveness. 

However, there are some circumstances where businesses will not be able to offer flexible working and therefore there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach. An employer should still be able to reject a request if they have sound business reasons. Therefore, is important that government does not prescribe specific arrangements in legislation. Instead, the new plans would provide a strengthened legislative framework that seeks to encourage conversations around flexible working to be more two-sided, balancing the needs of employee and employer. It also shifts the focus to what may be possible, rather than what is not.

DS

The Government provided funding for free parking in hospital car parks for NHS staff during the pandemic. This temporary measure gave much needed assistance during such a difficult time, but in light of the wider changes to the Government’s Covid-19 response, this has come to an end. However, over 94 per cent of NHS Trusts that charge for car parking have implemented free parking for those in greatest need, including NHS staff working overnight.

DS

Gambling is for many people an enjoyable pastime, but equally for some it can become a serious problem. While we all want a healthy gambling industry that makes an important contribution to the economy, we must also do everything we can to protect those that use it from harm.

Operators providing gambling facilities to customers in Great Britain must be licensed by the Gambling Commission and comply with the conditions of their operating licences. In recent years, the Gambling Commission has also introduced a number of licence conditions specifically in relation to online gambling to ensure the protection of children and vulnerable people. In 2019, the Gambling Commission introduced new age and identity verification rules to ensure operators verify customers’ age and identity details quickly and robustly. Furthermore, in 2020, the Government and Commission strengthened these protections further, including a ban on credit card gambling, making participation in the self-exclusion scheme GAMSTOP mandatory for online operators, as well as issuing new guidance for operators to address the potential for some customers to be at heightened risk during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Gambling Commission is looking at the role technology and data can play in preventing harm from arising and it will soon publish its enhanced requirements for customer interaction, thereby making sure gambling operators are doing proper checks, and the Government is looking at this in their review too. 

DS.

The following is from a speech I made in the House of Commons in 1999 on the topic of water fluoridisation:

The existing state of the law governing the addition of fluoride to the water supply is most unsatisfactory. The water industry resents the discretion—and, therefore, the responsibility—that is placed upon it. Those who oppose the addition of fluoride to water resent very much the power and influence that is placed in the hands of health authorities and water companies. For my part, I share the natural suspicion of any free man with respect to the presumption of health professionals to decide what is good for me and whether or not I should consume it. Are we horses to be led to water and forced to drink?

I am happy to take advice, from any informed source, about what may be good for me with respect to medicine or diet, but I reject utterly the notion that the decision about whether to consume should rest in any other mind than my own. However, it is not that philosophical question upon which I wish to dwell this evening.

My initiation of the debate results from the persistent lobbying of my constituent, Dr. Anthony Dunstan Fox, who practises in Barton-on-Sea. He has drawn my attention to the fact that fluoride compounds are a poison, so much so that I am persuaded that we should be taking considerable steps to remove fluoride compounds from our environment, not providing yet another source of them.

The state of the debate in this country is rather quaint. The Government pride themselves on their modernisations, so it is odd that we still appear to be addressing in this debate the preoccupations, fads and fashions of the 1960s and the 1970s. In the United States, for example, localities and cities are discontinuing their former policy of adding fluoride to the water. In Europe, that trend is equally apparent. Indeed, Germany—which is so much the model for the Government’s modernisations—has abandoned the policy of adding fluoride to the water.

That trend is a consequence of a growing consensus—a growing body of evidence—that fluoride compounds are a poison. In the United States, the Food and Drugs Administration has required since June 1997 the makers of any toothpaste product containing fluoride compounds to publish a health warning on the packaging. Consumers who ingest the product are advised to seek the advice of a poison control centre. The National Treasury Employees Union, which represents the Government’s most prominent scientists, toxicologists and lawyers, has voted unanimously to oppose any fluoridation of the water.

There is a growing volume of evidence of the poisonous consequences of fluoride compounds. In this brief debate, I cannot possibly do any justice to that evidence, nor am I qualified to do so, but I draw the attention of the House to the work of Dr. Phyllis Mollenix, the toxicologist at the Boston children’s hospital in Massachusetts. Her work attempts to define a causal relationship between the presence of fluoride products and changes in brain activity that may give rise to hyperactivity and learning difficulties. Hon. Members may be aware of the work of Professor Shusheela, who has tried to find a causal relationship between the presence of fluoride compounds in very small quantities and irritable bowel syndrome, anaemia, bone weaknesses, dental and skeletal fluorosis, genetic damage, still-birth and miscarriage.

However, the medical establishment in this country is still wedded to the notion that fluoride compounds are good for us and should be put into the water supply. It is either unwilling or incapable of addressing the growing volume of evidence. That may be due to intellectual laziness, but if it is, it is strange that it is wedded to a campaigning zeal. Its unwillingness to consider the evidence goes back a long way. As far back as 1970, the British Dental Journal contained an article which stated:

“Perhaps the greatest deterrent to meaningful political engagement of dentists in the promotion of water fluoridation is the mistaken but widespread assumption that to do so they must have full and complete knowledge of the detailed and voluminous scientific literature on the relationship of water fluoridation to dental and general health. They do not … as soon as dentists recognise their responsibility in the politics of fluoridation, their performance will be outstanding…the emphasis is on propagandising rather than education.”

I doubt that any of the Government’s spin doctors could have put the point better. Indeed, it is an opinion of which Dr. Goebbels would have been proud.

All I can say about my party’s position on fluoridation is that it was inherited from the previous Administration. My party believes that there are benefits from fluoridation—a view I regard as curious—but the decision to add fluoride compounds to the water should be taken locally. I believe that it should be taken at a very local level—by the consumer. Whether any meaningful locality could be defined for the purposes of a water supply is problematical.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) for opening up the debate on this subject. He has asked the medical establishment—the British Medical Association in particular—to produce new evidence to prove that fluoride compounds are good for our dental and general health, and that they are not bad for us. I welcome his initiative but, when surfing the internet, I noted that the website of the pro-fluoridation lobby names him as one of its supporters. As I understand it, that is not his position, and I urge him to correct that.

The medical establishment clings to the tenuous belief that fluoride compounds are good for our dental and general health, despite the fact that the evidence is pretty thin. If fluoride compounds attack the bacteria that would otherwise decay our teeth, it is probably because they attack all living organisms, including us. I cannot imagine why any mammal would ingest fluoride compounds. They are pollutants and are increasingly evident in our environment largely as a result of industrial and agro-chemical processes, such as fertilisers. We should make strenuous efforts to remove those compounds from our environment rather than add another source. If we add fluoride to our water, it will be in our milk; it will be in our cereals; it will be in our vegetables; it will be in our soup; it will be in our tea; it will be in our beer.

It would be legitimate for the advocates of fluoride compounds to ask, “Where are the casualties? Where are the sick children, and the sick elderly people, who must be consequences of the fact that fluoride compounds are added to 10 per cent. of our water supply?” I would answer that question with another question: “What resources has the Minister’s Department—have we—put into identifying the victims? What new studies have we initiated to update ourselves about evidence of the damage that is being done by fluoride compounds?”

In that context, let me draw attention to the findings of Dr. Schatz. Dr. Schatz is no ordinary physician: he discovered streptomycin. In 1993, Dr. Schatz said that artificial fluoridation

“may well dwarf the thalidomide tragedy, which was dramatic because it produced crippled children who are living testimonials to what that drug has done. Many victims of artificial fluoridation, on the other hand, die quietly during the first year of their lives, or at a later age under conditions where their deaths are attributed to some other cause.”

I urge any water authority and any water company seeking to acquiesce to a health authority’s suggestion that fluoride should be added to water to bear those words in mind. I urge the Minister to consider them before introducing any measure that would ensure that my constituents and their children had to drink water to which fluoride compounds had been added.

DS.

Thanks. The Government’s plan for adult social care will protect individuals and families from unpredictable and potentially catastrophic care costs.

From October 2023, no eligible person starting adult social care will have to pay more than £86,000 for personal care over their lifetime. The reformed means test, which is the best way to help make care affordable, will increase the threshold above which people must meet the full cost of their care to £100,000. This is more than four times the current limit of £23,250, and the number of people receiving state support in the social care system will increase from around half to two thirds.

In designing these reforms, the priority has been the creating a more generous means-testing system, which benefits those with low to moderate wealth. The new social care reforms are clear, fair and reduce complexity. Only the amount that an individual contributes towards their personal care will count towards the cap, and a much more generous means test will better support those with lower levels of assets. Fewer people will be unable to pay for social care without selling their home under the reforms to the social care charging system compared to the existing system. These reforms will complement the existing system which ensures that nobody will have to sell their home to pay for their care in their lifetime. People are able to take out a Deferred Payment Agreement so that payments can be deducted from their estate after they die. And if someone or their spouse lives in their home, they will not be forced to sell it to pay for care.

DS.

Cash remains vital to the day-to-day lives of individuals in local communities across our country, and particularly to those in rural areas.

At present, LINK, the scheme responsible for ATM provision in our country, provides a top-up subsidy for free-to-use ATMs in remote areas. The upper limit on these top-up subsidies rose from 30 pence to £2.75. This is expected to benefit up to 3,500 free-to-use ATMs across the country. As of September 2019, there were approximately 45,000 free-to-use cash machines across the UK, which represents a 13 per cent increase from a decade ago.

UK Finance launched its Community Access to Cash initiative to help local communities to identify and secure access to cash and payment services. This follows UK Finance’s engagement with consumer representatives, local authority representatives and market participants on the cash needs of local communities.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury has met key parties of interest so that communities can engage with UK Finance to ensure that people have access to cash. The Payment Systems Regulator has previously used its power to hold LINK to account over its commitment to communities, ensuring that there is a continued high level of access.

The Financial Conduct Authority has been made ultimately responsible for ensuring the cash system works for consumers and businesses. Following this, in September 2020, the FCA published guidance setting out expectation that firms should consider the impact of branch and ATM closures on their customers’ everyday banking needs and consider the availability and provision of alternatives.

The Government legislated through the Financial Services Act 2021 to facilitate the widespread adoption of cashback without a purchase. Further work is ongoing to prepare future legislation designed to protect access to cash and ensuring that the UK’s cash infrastructure is sustainable for the long term.

DS.