Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

We must not lose sight of the fact that small businesses form the backbone of our economy. They are not large corporations with legal teams and flexible cashflow. They operate on tight margins; they need certainty, predictability and time to prepare. I beg to move.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

76: After Clause 17, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of parental leave(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, commence a review of paid parental leave.(2) The review under subsection (1) must explore—(a) the introduction of a statutory period of reserved, non-transferable paid parental leave for—(i) fathers;(ii) mothers’ partners;(iii) “second parent” adopters.(b) the level of statutory pay available to the parents listed in paragraph (a), through paternity leave, other reserved leave for fathers considered by the review or shared parental leave, and whether it is sufficient to encourage high take-up;(c) options for making paid leave available to self-employed fathers, and others ineligible for statutory support because they are not in regular employment, for example through a paternity allowance similar to the maternity allowance, currently available for mothers;(d) the extension of full employment rights, including redundancy protections, to fathers who take paternity leave and any other reserved leave considered by the review;(e) international examples of best practice in parental leave policy design.(3) The Secretary of State must lay the review before Parliament within 18 months of the day on which this Act is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment specifies a number of issues that the proposed review of parental leave should consider, in particular a reserved, non-transferable period for fathers paid at a rate sufficient to encourage high take up. It also requires such a review to take place.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to those colleagues who have added their names to Amendment 76 and to the Fatherhood Institute for its help.

I welcome the Bill’s improvements to paternity and parental leave, but they only scratch the surface of a policy that is letting fathers down badly. Moreover, it is disappointing to discover that paternity pay will not be a day one right—an issue addressed by Amendment 139 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, which I support. Could my noble friend the Minister explain in her summing up why it will not be?

The amendment calls for a review of parental leave, which was required for drafting purposes, although I know that, in the Commons, the Minister reaffirmed an earlier welcome commitment to a review. The purpose now is to ensure that the review covers a number of key issues relating to fathers’ entitlement to paid leave in their baby’s first year, namely measures designed to improve fathers’ take-up of parental leave, including a “use it or lose it” period and adequate payment, taking account of international examples of best practice; the inclusion of self-employed fathers, who are currently excluded, and others currently ineligible for statutory support; the protection through full employment rights of fathers who take the leave; and the commitment to publish adequate take-up data in future years.

The aim is a simple one, on which I hope we will all agree: to strengthen the rights of fathers/“second parents” to be active parents, which, as I will argue, would thereby also strengthen mothers and prospective mothers’ labour market position. In doing so, it would further the Government’s own aspiration to achieve greater gender equality.

The current situation is pretty woeful as far as fathers are concerned. This has practical and cultural, symbolic effects: it is, in effect, saying that fatherhood is of lesser importance to family life and that, in so far as the labour market accommodates responsibilities for childcare, it need do so only for mothers. If we want to surround boys with positive symbolic messages about masculinity, what better place to start than to give their fathers the time they need to build strong relationships in infancy that last a lifetime, thereby showing that fatherhood is valued?

I do not have the time to give details of what fathers are entitled to compared with mothers, but suffice it to quote the Fatherhood Institute’s evidence to the Women and Equalities Committee’s current inquiry into the issue:

“As well as offering one of the least generous statutory paternity offers in the OECD … the UK is an outlier, especially among higher income countries, in the huge gap (50 weeks) between mothers’ and fathers’ entitlements to leave in the baby’s first year. By 2022 most countries in western Europe had a gap of 12 weeks or less”.


The partial extension of day-one rights does not touch the sides when it comes to the current shoddy treatment of fathers, which has resulted in low paternal take-up of paternity and shared parental leave. Paternity leave is dealt with by the other amendments in this group, so I will focus just on shared parental leave.

Take-up among fathers of the shared parental leave scheme, introduced 10 years ago, is a pitiful 5% of eligible fathers, according to a 2023 government report. The scheme is also skewed against lower-income families, with just 5% of the tiny population of SPL users coming from the bottom 50% of earners. Shared parental leave does not constitute an independent right for fathers: it depends on an entitled mother transferring part of her leave. The Government were warned at the time that this was going to fail in the aim of encouraging fathers to take the leave, and it did. This is in part because of the way the scheme is constructed, in part because the low rate of payment means that many fathers cannot afford to take it, and in part because some, such as self-employed fathers, are excluded altogether.

This matters for fathers, mothers, children and family life, as well as for the Government’s number one priority of economic growth. It matters for fathers because it makes it very difficult for them to play an equal, hands-on role in the upbringing of their infant children, which, increasingly, fathers wish to do. It matters for mothers because, to quote the Women’s Budget Group, of which I am a member:

“Unpaid care is the root cause of women’s economic inequality”.


So long as women carry so much of the responsibility for childcare in the private sphere, they enter the public sphere of the labour market with one hand tied behind their back. Too many women’s careers fall off a cliff when they become mothers. As the Women and Equalities Committee’s call for evidence states:

“Unequal division of childcaring responsibilities is a key driver of … gender inequality and the gender pay gap”.


It matters for children in two-parent families, not just for their relationship with their fathers but also, the evidence suggests, for their educational and cognitive development and overall family relationships. Research indicates that paternal engagement during the first year can foster ongoing engagement until a child is aged at least 11 and that this positive effect builds over time. It matters for families, as it can affect family well-being and stability.

It matters, too, for economic growth. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Centre for Progressive Policy calculate that more generous provision for fathers, earmarked for six weeks, could deliver nearly £2.7 billion net to the wider economy as a result of strengthening mothers’ labour market position.

The amendment requires a review to take account of international examples of best practice, because we have so much to learn from the many countries that are way ahead of us on this issue. In particular, the experience of the Nordic countries and some others, which have for some years included a reserved period of parental leave for fathers on a use-it-or-lose-it basis in their schemes, suggests that this model, together with adequate payment—I emphasise that—is the best way of ensuring fathers take up the leave, leading to a more equitable division of childcare responsibility between parents and enabling mothers to participate in the labour market on more equal terms.

Most see this as a better and more effective model than extending paternity leave, because it separates out the caregiving function of parental leave from the health and safety function of maternity/paternity leave and, after the first two weeks, it signals clearly that the father can take it at a later date, ideally on his own, helping more mothers resume their employment earlier. As the Fatherhood Institute notes:

“Reserved parental leave for fathers is seen as key to reducing both the gender wage gap and the gendered gap in men’s and women’s participation in paid employment – both of which act as an impediment to economic growth”.


In a book I wrote many years ago on feminist approaches to citizenship, I identified such schemes as a key social policy lever for promoting greater gender equality and recognising the importance of care to men as well as women and to wider society.

Much as I would like to see this as one result of the review, I should stress that the amendment in no way ties the Government’s hands as to this or any other outcome, apart from the provision of adequate take-up data. It could be seen as the soft-cop amendment to the hard-cop amendments by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, which would require action now—I do have some sympathy for those, but we are where we are. That said, if the review fails adequately to consider the issues that Amendment 76 raises, then I fear it will be met with widespread derision.

I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will feel able to accept the amendment, in this or some other form, as a signal of intent. If not, at the very least, I would ask her to make clear on the record the Government’s acceptance that the current situation disadvantages farmers unfairly and that it must be a clear and explicit aim of the review to create a system that properly supports fathers and other second parents to play a full role in their children’s lives.

At Second Reading, my noble friend she expressed respect for the points that I and the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, made about parental leave and the desire to go further. However, she said that

“we must strike the right balance, while continuing to ensure that this remains a pro-worker, pro-business Bill”.—[Official Report, 27/3/25; cols. 1925-26.]

But the current situation is totally unbalanced as between the rights of fathers and mothers. Moreover, workers are gendered beings, and thorough reform of parental leave is in no way anti-business. Indeed, it would help ensure business can benefit fully from the contribution of female as well as male workers and would, as I have said, thereby contribute to economic growth.

Thus, on gender justice and pragmatic economic grounds, I hope the Government will accept the amendment and send a strong symbolic message to male workers that their role as fathers is fully recognised and valued. I beg to move.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendments 80 and 136 in my name. These purely clarify an entitlement to paternity leave and really follow on from the remarks by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on Amendment 76. Amendment 80 would extend statutory paternity leave to six weeks and allow new fathers to take this leave at any point within the first year after their child’s birth, rather than being restricted to the current 56-day window. At present, eligible fathers are entitled to just two weeks of leave, paid at a rate of less than half of full-time earnings at minimum wage. Take-up remains low and affordability is a major factor; 62% of fathers say they would take more leave if statutory paternity pay was higher.

Greater equality in parenting is essential to achieving greater equality in the workplace. At present, the unequal distribution of caring responsibilities is a major driver of the gender pay gap. On average, a woman’s earnings fall by approximately 40% following the birth of her first child and often do not recover. By contrast, men’s earnings remain largely unaffected.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 27th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, this Bill is very welcome, especially the provisions aimed at tackling poor job security. Recent research underlines the importance of job security to workers and the effects insecurity can have on the well-being of low-paid workers.

One way in which this Bill enhances security is through the welcome improvement to statutory sick pay. However, there is an unintended consequence: a loss for some of the lowest paid employees, especially women and disabled people, who are sick too long to be compensated by payment of SSP from day one of sickness. Although it is true, as the Minister told the Commons, that most employees will not be worse off, surely the aim of such a change should be to leave no low-paid employee worse off. I cannot believe that the Government intended this.

It is also disappointing that there is no indication of any future increase in the SSP rate. The continued payment of such a low rate, which came into sharp relief during the pandemic, will blunt the impact that the positive changes will have.

In her letter to Peers, my noble friend the Minister emphasised that the Bill places the family at its heart, by increasing the baseline set of rights for employees with parental or other caring responsibilities. As it is still largely women who bear the main burden of balancing paid work and caring responsibilities, it is women who will benefit most. However, there are some holes here that I hope it may be possible to fill—and perhaps here I stand as Olivia Twist.

The first concerns carer’s leave. Carers are now entitled to five days’ leave a year, but, as we have heard, it is unpaid, so many carers simply cannot afford to take it. The case for paid leave rests not simply on the huge difference it would make to the lives, health and well-being of carers—the social and moral case—but on the strong economic and business case made by employers, such as TSB.

The Government’s estimate of the economic cost of caring through lost production puts it at a massive £37 billion a year. Just a couple of years ago, a Front-Bench spokesman told the Commons that the next Labour Government would be committed to introducing a right to paid carer’s leave, but recently on Report the Minister could say only that, because the right to unpaid leave was enacted recently,

“we are reviewing this measure and considering whether further support is required”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/3/25; col. 952.]

I accept that the Government have to consider how paid leave should be designed, not least because we can learn from other countries, but what is there to consider with regard to the need for further support, given that we already have ample evidence? Surely we can show our commitment to unpaid carers by writing into the Bill an in-principle provision to introduce paid leave. This would be in line with its spirit and with the Government’s missions, not least the pursuit of economic growth, while demonstrating support for a group at considerable risk of poverty.

The other main hole concerns parental and paternity leave, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. The Women’s Budget Group, of which I am a member, in welcoming the Bill as potentially an important contribution to a more gender-equal economy, warns that it needs to tackle the unequal distribution of unpaid care work and structural inequalities, because unpaid care is the root cause of women’s economic inequality.

I have long argued that parental leave with a period restricted to fathers on a use-it-or-lose-it basis is a key social policy lever here—good for mothers, fathers and children. Instead, the current shared parental leave scheme is a joke, with only about 4% of fathers having used it at the last count. In the Commons, the Minister confirmed the promised review of parental leave, but said that it would be separate from the Bill. Why is it separate? A firm declaration of intent in the Bill to reform parental leave, with the aim of strengthening the rights for fathers, would send a message to men and boys in the face of concern that they feel undervalued.

A final hole concerns stronger workplace rights for domestic abuse survivors. The APPG on Domestic Violence and Abuse, of which I am an officer, called for an obligation to be placed on employers to take reasonable steps to support employees affected by domestic abuse in place of the much weaker existing advisory statutory provision, which it would seem many employers ignore.

In conclusion, I strongly support this Bill, but I hope we can fill the holes I have identified, in line with the Government’s missions, without affecting its basic architecture.