Sick note Britain will get worse under workers' rights reforms, Lords warn
Sick note Britain will get worse under Labour's workers' rights reforms as those who 'would prefer a day off' can more easily stay at home, Lords have warned.
Lord Hunt of Wirral said that the Employment Rights Bill, which promises to make more staff eligible for statutory sick pay (SSP), could increase absenteeism by encouraging more workers to call in sick 'when it may not be strictly necessary'.
'There may be little incentive to attend work when they feel under the weather or even when they simply feel they would prefer a day off,' he said, warning that hospitality businesses that rely on younger, part-time workers could be particularly hard hit.
'The absence of financial pressure could lead to increased absenteeism in the short-term, which could lead to operational challenges.'
Under the Government's plans, which are being overseen by Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, workers will be able to claim sick pay from the first day of their illness, instead of the fourth. A threshold to earn at least £123 a week to qualify for sick pay will also be abolished.
Recruiters have already warned that staff could risk losing their jobs under the overhaul, amid concerns that the extra costs could overwhelm small businesses.
During a debate on the Bill in the Lords on Tuesday, Baroness Cash also raised concerns about the changes, noting that mental health now accounts for half of all new sickness claims.
'What qualifies? A diagnosis of stress, low mood, burnout – all of these are now signed off on GP sick notes. There's a confusion between transient life difficulty and clinical disorder,' she argued.
'In Sweden they did what this government is proposing to do and it led to rocketing absence levels.'
A record 185.6m working days were lost to sickness or injury in Britain in 2022, the most recent year the Office for National Statistics has published data for.
Peers have been raising concerns about various parts of the reforms in recent weeks, as the House of Lords continues to examine individual parts of the Bill.
The legislation will greatly strengthen the power of workers and trade unions. As well as offering broader eligibility for sick pay, the Bill also includes a greater entitlement to flexible work, a crackdown on zero-hour contracts and full employment rights from the first day in a job.
The Bill is currently making its way through Parliament and will continue to face scrutiny in the Lords, where more amendments can be made.
Baroness Meyer has previously warned that the Bill would put the country at risk of 'being held to ransom' by unions and could take Britain back to the 'economic chaos of the 1970s'.
Last week Conservative peer Lord Sharpe of Epsom said that the Bill could 'unintentionally create significant risks to national security' if Britain's security services were given greater powers to request flexible working.
Bosses have been spooked by the package of changes, with data this week showing that business confidence had hit a record low. A quarter of employers plan to make redundancies in the next quarter, the survey by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) found, as fears mount over the impact of the additional red tape.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
26 minutes ago
- Sky News
How the assisted dying debate is dividing doctors as politicians prepare to vote on bill
There are few issues more controversial, more divisive. Assisted dying polarises opinion. But it's a difficult conversation that needs to be had because ultimately death affects us all. Even if you are fortunate enough to never be directly impacted by an assisted death you will almost certainly be indirectly affected if the End of Life Bill passes into law. It would be the biggest social change to British society many of us would ever see in our lifetimes. And after patients and their immediate families, it's the country's doctors who will be the most affected by any change in the law. Like society, the medical community is divided on the issue. One senior doctor said: "It's like Brexit, but worse." Another told me: "Emotions are running high". These are the milder, reportable comments. There is bitterness and mistrust. The deep-rooted anger leads to each side accusing the other of deliberately spreading misinformation, "what-iffery" and "shenanigans" in the lead-up to the final vote next week. We asked two senior doctors to share their views on assisted dying with us and each other. Dr Mark Lee is a consultant in palliative care. "I have worked in this field for 25 years and looked after thousands of patients at the end of their lives. I am against the assisted dying bill because I believe it poses risks to patients, to families, to doctors and to palliative care." 'We can get this right' Dr Jacky Davis is a consultant radiologist and a campaigner for assisted dying legislation in this country. One of the arguments put forward by opponents of assisted dying is that Britain ranks highest among countries in its delivery of palliative care. And there is no need for such a radical change in end of life care. It is not an argument Dr Davis accepts. She said: "The status quo at the moment means a number of people are dying bad deaths every day. 300 million people around the world have access to assisted dying and more legislation is in the pipeline and no place that has taken up a law on assisted dying has ever reversed it. So we can learn from other places, we can get this right, we can offer people a compassionate choice at the end of life." Most deaths in palliative care 'peaceful' Dr Lee accepts palliative care has its limitations but this is a result of underfunding. This national conversation, he argues, is an opportunity to address some of those failings and improve end of life care. "I think the NHS currently is not resourcing the situation enough to be able to provide the patients with the choice that they need to get the care that they needed and that is because they are not getting the choice and because palliative care is patchy. But in my day-to-day work, and I've worked in palliative care for 25 years, normal death is peaceful, comfortable, and does not involve people dying in pain." "I absolutely agree with Mark," Dr Davis responded. "The vast majority of people will die a peaceful death and do not have the need for an assisted death. And I absolutely am with him that palliative care in this country has been treated abysmally. Nobody should have to hold a jumble sale in order to fund a hospice. That's terrible. "What I didn't hear from Mark is, while the vast majority of people will die a peaceful death and have got nothing to fear facing death, there are people who have diagnoses where they know that they are likely to face a difficult death and will face a difficult death. "What are you offering to the people who aren't going to die a peaceful death? And what are you offering to people who are so afraid that that's going to happen that they will take their own lives or will go abroad to seek an assisted death?" Concerns about pressure on NHS One important voice that has been missing from the national assisted dying debate is that of the NHS. Senior leaders will not speak on the issue until the fate of the bill is decided. And its understandable why. It is not clear what role the health service would have if the bill passes. 0:32 Dr Lee warned that his NHS colleagues were "extremely worried", going further to say assisted dying would "break the NHS". He added, that the country's already under-pressure hospice sector would struggle to cope with staff "walking away from the job if they are forced to be involved in any way". Dr Davis refuses to accept these warnings, arguing that the challenge to the health service is being overstated. "I think it's really important to take a step back and say this would be a very small number of deaths. And this is very small in terms of the other things that are coming through big drug discoveries, big new surgeries, all the rest of it this would be very small in terms in terms of money." The two doctors did agree on one thing. That every patient is entitled to a pain free and dignified death. 1:12 Dr Lee said: "I look at the whites of the eyes of people every day with that. I stand in that place every day. And that is shameful that anyone in this day and age should die in that position. Jacky and I can agree on that. That is unacceptable. But it still doesn't justify the response that we meet suffering with killing someone, rather than addressing the needs that are in front of us." Dr Davis responded by saying: "You say you've looked in the whites of patients' eyes at the end, and I'd say looking into the whites of patients eyes and listening to what they're asking for when they've been offered everything that you can offer them and they're still saying, 'I've had enough', then we should follow the example of other countries and say, 'we will help you'." These are the two very divided opinions of two NHS doctors, but these are the same arguments that will be taking place in hospitals, hospices, offices, factories and living rooms across the country. In about a week's time, it will be down to the politicians to decide.
The Independent
4 hours ago
- The Independent
Chancellor unveils £6bn NHS funding after health-centred spending review
Some £6 billion will be spent on speeding up testing and treatment in the NHS, Rachel Reeves has announced, after she placed the health service at the heart of Government spending plans. The Chancellor unveiled the investment, which includes new scanners, ambulances and urgent treatment centres aimed at providing an extra four million appointments in England over the next five years, after Wednesday's spending review. The funding is aimed at reducing waiting lists and reaching Labour's 'milestone' of ensuring the health service carries out 92% of routine operations within 18 weeks. In the review, Ms Reeves set out day-to-day spending across Government for the next three years, as well as plans for capital investment over the next four years. The NHS and defence were seen as the winners from the settlement, as both will see higher than average rises in public spending. This comes at cost of squeezing the budgets of other Whitehall departments and experts have warned tax rises may be needed later this year. The Chancellor and Sir Keir Starmer both sought to portray the review as a 'new phase' for the Government, following the criticism Labour has faced during its first year in power, including over cuts to winter fuel allowance. Ms Reeves claimed the NHS had been 'put on its knees' as a result of under-investment by the previous government, adding: 'We are investing in Britain's renewal, and we will turn that around.' The new £6 billion investment will come from the capital settlement for the NHS and will also help to speed up diagnoses with scans and treatment available in places such as shopping centres and high streets. The scale of day-to-day spending for the NHS is akin to an extra £29 billion a year. In a broadcast interview on Wednesday evening, Ms Reeves said the Government was 'confident' it could meet its pledge to reduce waiting lists after the boost to NHS spending. But while health and defence have benefited from the review, the Home Office, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Department for Transport and Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are all in line for real-terms cuts in day-to-day spending. The Foreign Office is also in line for real-terms cuts, mainly as a result of a reduction in the overseas aid budget, which was slashed as part of the commitment to boost defence spending to 2.6% of gross domestic product – including the intelligence agencies – from 2027. Ms Reeves acknowledged 'not everyone has been able to get exactly what they want' following Cabinet squabbling over departmental budgets. She said 'every penny' of the spending increases had been funded through the tax and borrowing changes she had announced in her first budget. The Chancellor also insisted she would not need to mount another tax raid to pay for her plans, but experts warned the money for the NHS might still not be enough and the Government is under international pressure to boost defence funding further. Paul Johnson, of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, described the hospital waiting times target as 'enormously ambitious', adding: 'And on defence, it's entirely possible that an increase in the Nato spending target will mean that maintaining defence spending at 2.6% of GDP no longer cuts the mustard.' At a summit later this month Nato members will consider calls to increase spending to 3.5% on defence, with a future 1.5% on defence-related measures. Steven Millard, interim director of the NIESR economic research institute, said the Chancellor's non-negotiable fiscal rules, coupled with the 'small amount of headroom' in her spending plans, meant 'it is now almost inevitable that if she is to keep to her fiscal rules, she will have to raise taxes in the autumn budget'. Elsewhere, policing leaders warned forces may need to make deep cuts after their settlement was announced. The spending review provides more than £2 billion for forces, but ministers have acknowledged some of that 'spending power' will come from council tax hikes.
The Sun
4 hours ago
- The Sun
Addiction to ketamine rises eight-fold in a decade as powerful tranquiliser becomes popular with Gen Z
DOCTORS have sounded the alarm over an eight-fold rise in ketamine addiction in a decade. The powerful tranquilliser is popular with Generation Z because of its relatively low cost, experts say. Clinics in England treated 3,609 people of all ages for addiction last year, eight times more than 426 in 2014, figures reveal. Ketamine, also referred to as 'K' or 'Ket', numbs pain and can cause a trippy high. Dealers sell it in powder form for around £20 to £40 a gram compared with £40 to £60 a gram for low-quality cocaine. Doctors say heavy use can cause liver disease and permanently damage the bladder and kidneys. It is linked to constipation, depression and loss of mental sharpness. Many medics fail to understand how addictive it can be, an NHS report said. Led by Dr Irene Guerrini of the South London and Maudsley NHS Trust, it called the drug's prevalence 'concerning'. It said: 'As ketamine use increases, more individuals are seeking treatment for addiction. 'Long-term use can seriously harm both physical and mental health, diminishing quality of life, affecting personal relationships and impairing academic or professional performance.' Dr Guerrini called for stricter guidelines on how the NHS uses the drug and more funds for treatment and prevention. Ministers are considering uprating 34878330from a Class B to Class A drug.
