Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady O’Grady and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, for their support for Amendment 72, and to the Safe Sick Pay campaign and the Health Foundation for their help. The amendment is a probing one, aimed at facilitating a debate about the future of statutory sick pay—from a rather different perspective than that of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom—to which the Bill makes very welcome improvements. Nevertheless, the scheme will still fail to provide adequate protection in sickness, especially for workers on lower incomes and who belong to marginalised groups. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to review the rate of SSP prior to this year’s Budget and to ensure that no one is worse off as a result of the otherwise positive changes made in the Bill. Starting with the latter, I very much appreciate the time that my noble friend the Minister gave me and my noble friend Lady O’Grady to discuss the unintended consequences of the Bill’s welcome removal of the lower earnings limit and its replacement by the rule that employees will receive 80% of their average weekly earnings or the flat rate SSP, whichever is lower. The problem is that this new rule means that a small number of low-paid employees will be worse off than now. Because of the also welcome removal of the waiting period, the loss will be limited to those who have been off work sick for more than three weeks. According to the DWP, we are talking about 13% of all sickness absences. I accept that this is a small proportion, but, by definition, we are talking about people with more serious illnesses. In its fact sheet, the DWP itself gives the example of a cleaner, working 11 hours across 5 days at the national living wage, who takes three months off for cancer treatment and who would lose £65 in total in SSP. The DWP assumes that the cleaner could potentially make up some of that in universal credit, but what if the cleaner were married to someone whose wages are not low enough to qualify for UC? She will lose some of her independent income. While £65 may not sound like that much to those on decent incomes, it could make a real difference to someone on a low income, particularly where a worker’s earnings are not shared fairly within the family. It is women in particular who are likely to lose out as a result of this unintended consequence. I understand why the Government have rejected the alternative that has been put forward hitherto, but I would ask them to look again at the proposal made by a number of trade unions and charities that the formula use a 95 % rather than 80% replacement rate, which seems to be the most straightforward way of dealing with this. I believe that it is incumbent on the Government to come up with a solution to ensure that no one is made worse off due to the unintended consequence of the otherwise positive change made by the Bill. After all, Labour’s plan to make work pay promised that: “We will ensure the new system provides fair earnings replacement for people earning below the current rate of statutory sick pay”. On the rate of SSP, the final report of the Health Foundation’s Commission for Healthier Lives noted that the expansion of SSP under the Bill “does not address a fundamental issue: statutory sick pay remains too low to provide meaningful financial security during illness”. Last year, the Work and Pensions Committee similarly concluded that SSP “does not currently provide adequate protection for those who most need protecting from financial hardship during periods of sickness absence. It consequently fails to perform its primary function of providing a basic level of income protection”. At £118.75, it represents an earnings replacement rate of only 19% for an employee on average earnings, or 28% for an employee on a full-time minimum wage salary, one of the lowest rates in the OECD. The interim report of the Mayfield Keep Britain Working Review pointed out that our European counterparts typically pay around 70% to 80% of an employee’s wage when they are sick. The low rate of SSP in the UK all too often spells real hardship and financial insecurity, especially for lower-paid workers, including women, disabled workers and members of racially minoritised communities. Analysis by Citizens Advice shows that four out of five households in the bottom three deciles would not be able to afford essentials such as bills and food after four weeks on SSP. The Work and Pensions Committee noted that there was “almost complete agreement among witnesses that it was too low and not enough to live on”. This included 90% of members surveyed by the Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals. Cancer charities have pointed to how far cancer patients fall below the minimum standard needed to live a dignified life at a socially acceptable standard as measured by my colleagues at Loughborough University. In a briefing, the charities quote a patient with leukaemia who says: “What people don’t realise is that your costs also go up when you get cancer”. Going on to SSP meant a “ huge drop” in his income that he was not able to replace with benefits. The result was, he wrote: “I was an emotional wreck and it was a very, very bad time”. Mind found that two in three people with a mental health problem surveyed who received SSP faced financial difficulties and that over one-quarter specifically mentioned that relying on SSP had affected their ability to pay bills and buy food, which hardly helps their recovery. Indeed, three-fifths of respondents believed that the reduction in their income as a result of receipt of SSP had had a negative impact on their mental health. This is illustrated by a research respondent quoted by the Health Foundation: “If sick pay had been enough, I think I would’ve been able to return to work, but instead my condition worsened drastically ... and I ended up in the worst state, mental health-wise, that I have ever been in, forcing me to claim PIP … and be unemployed for the past year and a half”. The hardship associated with receipt of SSP, particularly for those on lower incomes, can result in presenteeism—people coming into work when sick and, where it is contagious, potentially spreading sickness. This is bad for them, bad for their fellow workers and bad for employers. According to government analysis, presenteeism costs businesses 44 days of lost productivity per year. Poor sick pay undermines the Government’s overriding objective of economic growth. Analysis by WPI Economics suggests that improved SSP could boost the economy by over £4 billion a year and would reduce the pressure on the NHS. The Health Foundation warns that inadequate SSP can create an incentive for some workers to move quickly into the social security system without a clear route back into work, the very opposite of what government policies are trying to achieve. It points out: “When workers are financially supported during sickness absence, they are more able to recover, take part in rehabilitation and return to work safely and sustainably”. The implications of presenteeism became horribly visible during the pandemic, which, as my noble friend the Minister told the Committee only last week, “exposed just how precarious work and life are for those on low incomes, with many forced to choose between their health and financial hardship”.—[Official Report, 8/5/25; col. 1789.] Far too many people felt that they simply could not afford to stay at home when they were infectious. Countries with more generous sick pay saw higher isolation compliance and better health outcomes. We are told by the experts that it is only a matter of time until the next pandemic. One way we can prepare is by ensuring that SSP is adequate now. This amendment merely asks the Government to look again at how to ensure that no one loses out as a result of the Bill’s welcome improvements to SSP, and to undertake a quick review of its level. I am sure this would be welcomed by a wide range of charities, the TUC and major trade unions, as well as the more than 185 parliamentarians who support the Safe Sick Pay campaign. A New Deal for Working People stated unequivocally: “Labour will raise Statutory Sick Pay”. The amendment builds on the much weaker assurance in the Commons from the Minister for Social Security and Disability that the Government would monitor how effectively the Bill’s SSP reforms will support employees. We do not need monitoring to tell us that SSP is simply too low, especially in view of the recent Work and Pensions Committee inquiry. The Commission for Healthier Working Lives calls for a review that will result in an increase in SSP “to a fairer level while giving businesses the time and support they need to adapt”. I hope my noble friend the Minister will at least be able to provide some assurances on both issues.