My Lords, the need to put us back to where we believed we were arises from the judgment of the court. Up until that judgment, we believed that the position that we will now be in if these regulations are passed was where we always were.
The noble Lord asked about the rates of employment and support allowance and the rates of SSP. The basic rate of the employment and support allowance, after the initial 13 week period, has been set at £84.50. That is not for the support group. Noble Lords will remember that there is a higher rate of allowance. Statutory sick pay is currently £74.50 per week, so there is a difference between those two. He also asked about part-time workers. The number of hours an employee works does not affect entitlement to SSP. Part-time workers are covered by the scheme and by this amendment to it. They are entitled to SSP from their employers if all the qualifying conditions are met. Of course, SSP is subject to a qualifying condition that an employee’s average earnings in the eight weeks prior to sickness have been at least at the lower earnings limit—currently £90 a week, which is the point at which earnings become relevant for national insurance contributions. The fact that they may be part-time does not preclude statutory sick pay becoming due.
The noble Lord referred to my figure below £40 million. It was £13.5 million which we believe is the cost to employers. Obviously, there will be some agencies that do not bear the cost of statutory sick pay for people with contracts below 13 weeks currently and that will cause them to have to meet those costs. I was referring to that figure. He also asked about what recourse a person has to state benefit beyond the end of the period at the end of their contract. Once the contract has terminated or entitlement to SSP has been exhausted, a person can claim employment and support allowance or incapacity benefit or even income support in the normal way if they have insufficient income or no entitlement to employment and support allowance or incapacity benefit as the case may be. The normal benefits would potentially kick in.
The noble Lord also asked about the right to return for benefits for up to two years after claiming. The right to return to benefit is important for two reasons. First, it applies only to people who have been receiving incapacity benefit—that will be the position in the future with employment and support allowance—for longer than six months before leaving that benefit to take up work again. It gives them the confidence to enter the workforce again without the fear of returning to a lower level of benefit should their condition worsen shortly after returning to work. Secondly, of course, it gives employers the confidence to take on such workers without the burden of having to pay statutory sick pay for two years. We believe that this is a straightforward approach and avoids having different rules depending on circumstances, length or type of illness. It is encouragement for people to move into work. Noble Lords may recall that we touched on that from time to time in relation to our debates on the Welfare Reform Bill last year.
The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, offered his support, for which I am grateful. He asked whether the 2,000 reams of paper were per year. The answer is yes. He also asked about the DWP's ability to recycle. We have robust policies on recycling in the DWP, as elsewhere in government. He tempted me to comment on today's article in the Independent and its speculation about the future of a range of policies. I can assure the noble Lord that we have agreement with BERR, as I indicated earlier, in moving and supporting these regulations. That agreement is welcome indeed and thoroughly anticipated from BERR, it being the progressive department that it is.
I believe I have dealt with each of the points raised. I am grateful for the support of noble Lords. We are determined to ensure that workers have equal entitlement to statutory sick pay so that no one group is marginalised.
Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) (Amendment) Regulations 2008
Proceeding contribution from
Lord McKenzie of Luton
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 20 October 2008.
It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) (Amendment) Regulations 2008.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
704 c1023-4 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 00:48:37 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_501588
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_501588
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_501588