Statutory Sick Pay

13:00:00

I will call Imran Hussain to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge and the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

I beg to move, That this House has considered the rate of Statutory Sick Pay. It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. Successive Governments have grappled with statutory sick pay, with report after report saying that we need fundamental, root-and-branch change to a system that is letting workers down every day. Frankly, successive Governments have failed to tackle this important issue head-on, with many actively avoiding or dodging it. I am therefore glad that, within their first 100 days, this Labour Government delivered on our pledges and introduced a transformative, once-in-a-generation Employment Rights Bill to drag workers’ rights into the 21st century. Although the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), who is largely responsible for the Bill, is not here today, I put on record my thanks to him. In a previous role, I had the pleasure of working alongside him in developing much of the policy outlined in the Bill, which will mean that workers’ rights in our country are fit for purpose. The Bill makes welcome changes to statutory sick pay. In 2022, a Trades Union Congress survey found that 80% of those earning more than £50,000 a year receive their full pay when sick, compared with only a third of those earning under £15,000. Around half of all employees in the UK get their full pay, just under a third get statutory sick pay, and one in 10 gets nothing at all. Most low-paid employees—around 8 million—are in the middle group, reliant on statutory sick pay. For those workers, the measures in the Employment Rights Bill are much welcome: removing the three-day waiting period so that workers are eligible for sick pay from day one; removing the lower earnings limit and extending sick pay eligibility to 1.3 million of the lowest-paid workers currently denied it due to the lower earnings limit of £123; and setting the 80% earnings replacement rate. However, as the TUC, the safe sick pay campaign and many others have said, we must not stop here. We must continue to be ambitious in strengthening workers’ rights.

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing a debate on this critical issue. In my constituency and probably his, many small and medium-sized businesses are struggling—let us be honest—with the rise in national insurance contributions. Does he agree that, building on Labour’s Employment Rights Bill, the Minister and the Government might need to step in to ensure that such businesses, which are facing rising national insurance contributions, can still deliver statutory sick pay for their small group of employees?

Absolutely. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He makes an important point that I will address more substantially later in my speech. He will also understand that having a healthier workforce and limiting presenteeism would massively increase the productivity of those small and medium-sized businesses in the long run. One of the huge issues we currently face is that people who are too sick to work are being forced to do so, because of the lack of support. That is not good for them or for businesses.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate and on running an important campaign to increase statutory sick pay so that it is a real sick pay on which people can rely. He talks in detail about the welcome advances on sick pay made in the Government’s recent Employment Rights Bill, but does he agree that a real concern about those proposals is that 300,000 of the poorest workers could lose out? Do the Government need to look at this again?

As ever, my hon. Friend makes an important and pertinent point. If he bears with me, I will address that later in my contribution. It is actually one of two points I want to address. Hon. Members will know that I tabled two amendments to the Employment Rights Bill to strengthen its provisions on statutory sick pay. The first sought to bring statutory sick pay into line with the national living wage, so that no full-time worker is forced to live in poverty while unwell. The second amendment aimed to guarantee that no worker would be worse off under the new system, regardless of their earnings—my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) made reference to that, and I will come on to it. First, I turn to the rate of statutory sick pay. For far too long, our statutory sick pay system has been one of inadequacy, and it has failed workers when they are at their most vulnerable. The pandemic laid bare just how broken the system is. Over a third of workers rely on statutory sick pay, and at a rate of £118.75 a week it is nothing more than a cruel joke—a poverty wage that leaves workers in financial insecurity, instead of being able to rest, recover and take the time they need to return to work fully fit. The current rate makes up a mere 16.5% of the average weekly wage in the UK, far behind our European counterparts. To name some, workers in Iceland, Norway and Luxembourg are entitled to up to 100% of their pay during sick leave. However, we do not trail far behind only our international counterparts. When statutory sick pay was introduced in the 1980s, it was equivalent to 35% of the average weekly wage—double what workers can expect today. No other financial responsibility in a worker’s life is ever slashed by 83%. When someone falls ill, their bills, their council tax, their electricity bill, their mortgage payments and their grocery bills do not suddenly go down. That poses the question: why does statutory sick pay remain such a paltry sum, forcing people to choose between their health and their financial survival? We know that the current rate pushes too many workers into the workplace when they are simply not well enough. It entrenches presenteeism, harming public health, reducing productivity and contributing to longer-term sickness and burnout, which makes workers drop out of the workforce entirely. The clear consensus is that the rate of statutory sick pay must increase, and it must increase in line with the national living wage. That call is echoed by unions such as Unite and Unison, and by organisations such as the Child Poverty Action Group, Scope, Mind and Disability Rights UK. It is also supported by the majority of the British public. I urge the Minister not to ignore the swell of public opinion or the needs of workers across the UK, and to share the next steps that the Government are taking to fairly recompense workers during periods of illness. The rate of statutory sick pay is not the only change that is urgently needed. Despite the Government’s best efforts, those on the lowest incomes, who do the hard and vital work in our economy, will be financially penalised for falling ill. These are the workers who are the backbone of our economy: cleaners, carers, drivers and retail workers. They are the very people who can least afford it. Low-paid workers—disproportionately women, young people and disabled workers—will still face the hardest burden. The reality is that the new 80% earnings replacement rate extends sick pay to those who were previously excluded, which is very welcome, but it risks creating a system where some workers are worse off. I have worked with the Minister for many years, and I am sure that this was not the Government’s intention. But under the new rules, the reality remains that more than 300,000 workers earning between £123 and £146 a week could see their sick pay cut, which is something that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East referred to. While previously a worker earning £123 a week was entitled to an earnings replacement of 95%, which is comparable to statutory maternity leave, for example, now a worker earning £124 for three days’ work a week will receive 80% from the first day of illness—£99.22 a week. Under the old rules they would have been entitled to the flat rate of £118.75 from the fourth day of illness. Under the new rules they will be worse off after five weeks. The fact that it takes five weeks to become worse off should not be seen as a mitigating factor, because this is not just about numbers. The new rules will directly affect workers with chronic illnesses, those recovering from serious surgery and those undergoing cancer treatment. In short, it affects the people who can least afford to take a financial hit at the most vulnerable time of their life. These are workers who rely on every penny that they earn, and they must not be left behind under the new rules. That is the bare minimum that working people should expect. I ask the Minister to outline how the Government will be supporting workers with chronic illnesses who fall sick, especially those who currently work and rely on disability benefits such as the personal independence payment to be able to dress, wash and get out and about in their daily lives. These workers have been left terrified by the recent announcement of changes to PIP eligibility criteria, and now they could also see statutory sick pay reduced, if they find themselves in that situation. I urge the Government to think again about making the most vulnerable in our society pay for economic instability that is not of their making. It is not just an economic issue but a moral one. We can and must go further to support workers during their most vulnerable times.

In my Horsham constituency office, I employ a member of staff who has ME. Fortunately, we can be very flexible with their working hours. However, under current law—where statutory sick pay is based on days worked not hours worked—an ME sufferer could easily miss out altogether on sick pay. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government should legislate to ensure that all employees are granted fair access to sick pay?

Absolutely—that is the crux. As I said before, I acknowledge that the Government have gone a considerable way. The Employment Rights Bill will make significant changes that allow millions of people to benefit from statutory sick pay when they would not have before. But the journey must not end there. The hon. Member is absolutely right that there are many people who are still missing out—there are 300,000 people who will significantly miss out, as I said. This is not just an economic issue, and it should not be viewed as one. It is a moral issue. The Government have the power to ensure that every worker—whether in an office, a hospital, a factory or on the frontline—can take the time they need to recover without fear of financial ruin. They also have the power to ensure that no worker, especially those with long-term illnesses, receives less under the new rules than they would have received before. Let me be clear: we cannot allow this opportunity to pass without ensuring that every worker benefits from the changes we have introduced. This is our chance to build a fairer society that treats working people with the dignity and respect they deserve. I hope the Minister, for whom I have much respect and regard, understands that I come at this from a place of support. He has a long track record of understanding these issues, and this is our opportunity. We must go further, because that is the only way we will address this matter, so I urge him to do so. Will he commit to reviewing SSP so that workers no longer have to rely on poverty pay when they are sick? Will he today commit to reviewing the impact of the new changes, specifically in relation to the 300,000 people who will be worse off under the new 80% replacement rate? On the second question in particular, I urge the Minister to provide information to allow the House to see the impact on those 300,000 people. I do not believe for one minute that the Government intend to make them worse off; but, equally, I do not think we can just ignore it. Finally, will the Minister outline exactly what steps he is taking to make sure that those with the most severe illnesses, and those who find themselves sick or in recovery for longer than five weeks, do not find themselves unfairly punished? The Minister knows that if we fail here, we will fail an entire generation of workers.

13:16:00

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) on securing this debate and on the thoughtful way he set out his case. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the fact that this issue has been dodged for a long time. Proposals for reform of statutory sick pay were brought forward in 2019; they were paused for the pandemic and never brought back. My hon. Friend and I agree that the Government inherited a statutory sick pay system that fosters economic insecurity at work, particularly for the lowest earners. The pandemic exposed just how precarious work and life are for people on low incomes, with many people forced to choose between health, including the health of others, and financial hardship—an impossible position. My hon. Friend focused on the rate of statutory sick pay, but I want to highlight the actions that the Government are taking to implement the plan to make work pay—the plan that he has referred to and supported—and ensure that the safety net of sick pay is available to those who need it. I think the change will meet exactly the point that the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) raised in his intervention. Insecure, low-paid and irregular work has been the lot of far too many people for far too long. The Employment Rights Bill, which had its Second Reading in the other place just before Easter—I echo my hon. Friend’s tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders)—will turn the tide. It is the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. It will boost living standards and improve our economic growth prospects, thanks to urgently needed reforms to our economy. Through the Bill, we are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East set out, extending statutory sick pay to those earning below the lower earnings limit, and also removing the waiting period, making it payable from the first rather than the fourth day of sickness absence. I think those two points, and in particular the removal of the waiting period, will address the concern raised by the hon. Member for Horsham. These are very important steps to strengthen statutory sick pay, and I am glad to hear the strong support from my hon. Friend and others for the changes. I heard my hon. Friend’s calls for further reform of the system, including the call to increase the flat rate. The rate of statutory sick pay is designed to balance providing a basic level of support for employees when they are unable to work due to sickness with helping to manage the cost to employers. It is very important to get that balance right. That is where the debate is likely to focus. The changes through the Employment Rights Bill mean that up to 1.3 million low-paid employees will now be entitled to statutory sick pay, and all eligible employees will be paid from the first day of sickness absence, benefiting many millions. As part of removing the lower earnings limit we committed to a fair earnings replacement. We consulted on the percentage rate last year, and the conclusion from that exercise—the new rate: 80% of normal weekly earnings or the flat rate, whichever is the lower—strikes the right balance between providing financial security to employees while limiting additional cost to employers. That is important because, as set out in the regulatory impact assessment, the reforms will obviously increase the aggregate amount of sick pay that employees receive—an estimated increase of £420 million per year. At an individual level, the removal of the waiting period means that all employees will receive at least £60 extra at the start of their sickness absence; if they work just two days a week, they will get £150 extra compared with the current system. Removing the waiting period has the added advantage of making a phased return to work easier, which has always been one of the aims for reforming statutory sick pay. That can be a very effective way of helping people and making it possible for them to return from a period of absence and stay in work, reducing the flow into economic inactivity and the additional costs to business. The change also means that an employee who earns just below the lower earnings limit could now be entitled to up to £100, compared with nothing under the current system. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East set out potential benefits from going further for disabled people and people with health impairments. The concerns he set out are among the reasons we set up the Keep Britain Working independent review, which is being undertaken by Sir Charlie Mayfield, who used to run John Lewis, to consider what employers can do in order better to support disabled people and people with health impairments to work, and what the Government can do to promote improved practices on the part of employers. After conducting an initial phase of “discovery” of the underlying issues, the review has launched a call to all stakeholders to engage with the early review findings and to input views, including via a survey launched on gov.uk. I encourage everyone interested in today’s debate to look at the questions in the survey and respond to it. My hon. Friend suggested that the system ought to be aligned more closely with the national living wage and referred to the amendment to that effect that he tabled to the Employment Rights Bill on Report. The difficulty is that that would increase costs on business by some £1.3 billion per year on top of the changes that we are already making through the Bill, with no mechanism for employers to reclaim those costs. Given the quite substantial differences in how the national living wage and statutory sick pay are calculated, there would need to be big changes to the statutory sick pay system and further consultation with businesses and employees about that. It would also significantly impact the work and scope of the Low Pay Commission. But the big issue is the additional cost to business of going ahead with a proposal along the lines that my hon. Friend suggests and, for that reason, the Government have decided not to do that. Sometimes, in debates on this topic—my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East touched on this—the models for sick pay arrangements in other countries are highlighted. They provide a useful and informative comparison, and it is important to look at them. It is also important to recognise that sick pay arrangements sit within the context of different social security systems, different economies and different employment obligations and protections in different countries, so simply comparing sick pay arrangements can be a bit misleading. Of course, many employers already go beyond their statutory obligations by offering employees occupational or contractual sick pay. Around 60% of employees report being eligible for such arrangements from their employer during sickness absence, but some people will require further support during a period of sickness absence. They may need additional financial support. They may be able to claim more help through the social security system, in particular universal credit—my hon. Friend mentioned PIP as well—depending on their circumstances. We are determined that that support will continue to be available. My hon. Friend expressed concern that some employees might receive less under the new system than the current one—a point also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon). The removal of the waiting period will mean that all employees will be entitled to more statutory sick pay for the first three weeks. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East talked about five weeks, but with a significant payment up front there will clearly be a period during which people will receive more. Absences in the first three weeks represent 87% of all sickness absences, according to the Department’s 2023 employee survey. The number who are out of work on statutory sick pay for the longer period beyond the one that my hon. Friend referred to will be quite small. I am certainly not claiming that there will not be anybody, but it will be quite a small number. The changes we are bringing forward will help stop people being forced to work when they are unwell. They will also support very effectively the lowest paid employees, who will always receive the highest income replacement rate of 80%, having not been supported in the past. An alternative approach to removing the lower earnings limit has been suggested, and my hon. Friend touched on it, but we think that would create a pretty unfair system, because some employees would receive a greater earnings replacement rate—up to 100%—than people earning less than them. In an extreme case, 1p in average weekly earnings could potentially make nearly a £24-a-week difference in entitlement. I do not think that would be the right thing to do, and I think my hon. Friend would recognise that that would not be a very satisfactory state of affairs. I have not seen a model that guarantees that everybody will be better off that does not have that problem. The Department will, I hope later this week, publish a fact sheet on gov.uk that addresses those concerns in more detail. There has been discussion about whether there should be a rebate to employers to help them with the increased cost of statutory sick pay. There has been a rebate system in the past, but it was rather complicated, it was expensive to administer, it was not always taken up by small employers and it did not encourage employers to support their employees. By contrast, under the new system, employers stand to benefit from increased productivity among their employees offsetting the additional cost, which is reckoned to be about £15 per employee per year. I again congratulate and thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. I welcome his thoughtful engagement on the important matters that he has raised, not just in this debate, but in the Chamber on Report of the Employment Rights Bill and, I recall, directly with the Prime Minister. He is raising important points in a constructive and thoughtful way. As the changes to SSP being taken forward through the Employment Rights Bill move closer to implementation, we will continue working closely with employees, trade unions and businesses to deliver a system that is fair, supportive and effective for all. To pick up my hon. Friend’s point, we will monitor the impact of these measures to strengthen statutory sick pay, as well as how SSP is used by employers and how effectively it supports employees. I am grateful for the opportunity to set out the Government’s position and I am sure we will talk about it again. Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

13:30:00