Petitions Spotlight Menstrual Leave and Child Safeguarding Reforms

High-Level Summary

Westminster Hall, chaired by David Mundell, held two e‑petition debates. The first examined statutory menstrual leave, with Members sharing lived experiences of endometriosis and adenomyosis, international examples of menstrual leave, and workplace support. The Minister and the shadow Minister both highlighted recent changes to day‑one statutory sick pay and stronger flexible working rights, while the shadow Minister argued a specific menstrual leave entitlement was unnecessary. The second debate considered “Maya’s law” proposals for a child risk disclosure scheme and wider safeguarding reforms; the Children and Families Minister outlined measures to strengthen Sarah’s law, create a child cruelty register and introduce a new duty to share safeguarding information. Both debates ended with formal resolutions that the House had considered the petitions; no divisions took place, and ministers pointed to next steps through ongoing legislation and guidance.

Detailed Summary

Statutory menstrual leave (e‑petition 732342)

Paul Davies moved the motion to consider statutory menstrual leave: “That this House has considered e-petition 732342 relating to statutory menstrual leave.”. He framed menstrual health as a workplace and equality issue, described endometriosis and adenomyosis, and highlighted delayed diagnosis — “the average waiting time being nine years and four months.”. He supported culture change and employer pledges, but said policy was also needed: “This is where statutory menstrual leave could play a vital role.”. He cautioned that reliance on diagnosis could exclude many because “only 15% of those with endometriosis symptoms have the formal diagnosis.”.

Contributors including Kirsteen Sullivan, Michelle Welsh, Emily Darlington, Scott Arthur, Bell Ribeiro‑Addy and Joshua Reynolds pressed for flexible work, reasonable adjustments, awareness and faster diagnosis. Sullivan warned against a uniform approach: “Women with endometriosis do not need a one-size-fits-all policy; they need flexibility, fairness and protection.”. Ribeiro‑Addy argued that statutory leave would reduce stigma and protect job security: “Statutory menstrual leave would allow someone to take time off when they were genuinely unable to work due to menstruation, without fear of judgment.”. International examples were cited: Sullivan set out policies in Vietnam, Spain and Portugal, and Arthur noted Spain’s allowance “has been used just 1,550 times.”.

The shadow Minister, Rebecca Paul, said targeted menstrual leave was unnecessary because day‑one statutory sick pay now covers short, cyclical absences: “the introduction of a specific menstrual leave is unnecessary as statutory sick pay already delivers what is being asked for.”. She contrasted the UK position with Portugal’s system. The Minister, Kate Dearden, highlighted reforms “extending statutory sick pay to employees on day one” and stronger rights to flexible working, with a consultation open until 30 April. She encouraged use of the endometriosis‑friendly employer scheme, noting two Departments have signed up, and pointed to expanded diagnostic access via 106 community diagnostic centres offering out‑of‑hours appointments. Outcome: “Question put and agreed to.” and “Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 732342 relating to statutory menstrual leave.”.

Disclosure and safeguarding mechanism for at‑risk children (e‑petition 731497)

Lewis Atkinson (for the Petitions Committee) opened the debate on proposals known as “Maya’s law” following the murder of two‑year‑old Maya Chappell: “That this House has considered e-petition 731497 relating to a disclosure and safeguarding mechanism for at-risk children.”. He set out four asks: to “Introduce a Child Risk Disclosure Scheme”; to “Require statutory services (police, social care, health) to disclose relevant past” information “to the child’s parent or legal guardian when a risk is identified.”; to “Establish multi-agency response protocols, particularly where child contact, custody, or unsupervised access is being considered.”; and to “Empower professionals to raise safeguarding alerts and initiate family court safeguarding interventions where known risks exist”. He asked about resourcing and implementation timelines, and highlighted gaps in health visiting.

Members including Liz Twist, Luke Akehurst, Mary Foy, Grahame Morris, Will Forster and Ashley Fox argued that current schemes can miss non‑sexual abuse risks and that concerns from families must be acted on. Twist said the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill “does not mandate the disclosure of any information to the protective non-abusive parent.”. Foy warned that “information is often kept in silos.”. The Children and Families Minister, Josh MacAlister, outlined three strands: “the Government are taking action to strengthen information sharing in particular in three separate but complimentary ways” — strengthening Sarah’s law by placing it on a statutory footing, creating “a new child cruelty register”, and “introducing a new information-sharing duty” in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. He said “any information that could protect a child should be shared at the earliest opportunity” and committed to involve Maya’s family in drafting guidance. Outcome: “Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 731497 relating to a disclosure and safeguarding mechanism for at-risk children.”.