COMPLIANCE
"This was an amazing opportunity to represent the payroll profession and CIPP members in Parliament, hopefully making a difference to future policy and legislation"
The key findings from the survey were as follows: l 75% of respondents would welcome a higher rate of SSP paid for a shorter duration l 47% believe the three waiting days should be removed l 60% agree that SSP is currently well implemented and enforced l 81% suggest allowing SSP to be paid for part days, to allow for better processing and improved uptake of phased returns to work l 45% don’t believe SSP should be extended to those earning under the LEL l there’s a resounding desire for the government to reimburse SSP to support employers (especially from smaller businesses), up to the rate of 103% l many believe the linking periods of incapacity for work (PIW) should be removed or amended to allow for phased returns to work. The CIPP’s response was formally submitted to the Work and Pensions Select Committee on 8 December 2023. If you would like to read the full response, please head over to the Policy Hub area of the website². Oral evidence Following the formal inquiry response submission, the policy team was asked to attend the House of Commons, to provide oral evidence to the Work and Pensions Select Committee on 31 January 2024. Ironically, Samantha couldn’t attend the committee due to sickness, therefore Mathew joined instead. This was an amazing opportunity to represent the payroll profession and CIPP members in Parliament, hopefully making a difference to future policy and legislation. Joining the CIPP on the committee were: l Tina McKenzie from the Federation of Small Business l Rebecca Deegan from the Association of British Insurers
l Rachel Suff from the Chartered Institute for Personnel Development . The discussion began with an overview of the purpose of SSP and consideration of whether it was fit for purpose. There was general agreement that SSP’s main function is to set a minimum amount employers must pay to protect workers and to provide a suitable level of income while off sick. However, while our members agreed that the scheme is generally well run and enforced, they also felt that the actual rate isn’t sufficient to assist those in need of SSP. "Employers don’t think the current rate is sufficient, but a raise to that rate would unfortunately When exploring how SSP could be changed to better support the country, the CIPP was keen to encourage consideration of aligning SSP rates with other statutory payment rates, such as maternity and paternity pay rates. It was also highlighted that SSP changes were quickly and effectively implemented during the pandemic, when the political will to make change was strong. The mechanisms brought in during that time also allowed for payment from day one without allowing payment for sickness periods that didn’t put some smaller employers under additional pressure"
create a PIW. This is a potential avenue to explore, which opposes the often-heard argument that no waiting days would result in more frequent short-term sickness. Much of the conversation was dominated by the needs of small businesses and the potential for SSP to once again be refunded by the government, as with other statutory payments. Whether this rebate could be extended exclusively to small or micro- businesses was considered, as they’re the ones most vulnerable to sudden sickness in staff and the cost of remedies in those situations. The current, often used, threshold for SMEs of 500 employees isn’t necessarily useful in this context. Tina McKenzie pointed out that there’s a big difference between a local business of three people and a national outfit of 300. Yet both would be categorised as an SME. There’s a lot to explore in this area for the inquiry. However, to sum it up, employers don’t think the current rate is sufficient, but a raise to that rate would unfortunately put some smaller employers under additional pressure. The government must find a way to balance these things and to raise SSP standards. The CIPP will continue to push for progress in this area and will endeavour to represent our members in government wherever possible. If you wish to watch the session back, you can view the recording here³. n
Links corner ¹ https://ow.ly/ZnFM50QFb0A ² https://ow.ly/5j9J50QFb2h ³ https://ow.ly/UEcQ50QFb3p.
Responses to the CIPP's Quick Poll regarding changes to SSP
Answer
Responses %
Be paid at a higher rate
63
Be payable from day one of sickness absence
53
Not be subject to the LEL
26
Allow for flexible returns to work (i.e. part days)
42
Be left as it is
11
17
| Professional in Payroll, Pensions and Reward |
Issue 99 | April 2024
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker