Columnist urges end to statutory sick pay to curb rising absence, sparking debate over incentives and public health

Daniel Hannan, writing in the Daily Mail, argued this week that ending the right to statutory sick pay would reduce rising sickness absence in Britain, citing a range of post‑pandemic statistics to support his case.

Hannan said employers and policy makers should change incentives because, he wrote, Britain has seen a sharp rise in days lost to illness and long‑term incapacity claims since the coronavirus lockdowns. He cited figures that, he said, showed about 30,000 people a day being issued sick notes and an average of 9.4 sick days taken per worker a year compared with 5.9 before the pandemic. He also referred to a government forecast, reported in his column, that the number of people claiming incapacity and invalidity benefits could rise from 3.3 million to 4.1 million by the end of the current parliament.

In his column, Hannan blamed cultural and policy shifts since the pandemic for the change, saying that lockdowns normalised staying at home when unwell and taught many workers how to access benefits. He argued that the expansion of hybrid working and a greater willingness to stay away from the workplace during transport strikes and other disruptions had altered norms around attendance. Quoting the investment maxim, “Show me the incentive and I’ll show you the outcome,” Hannan said that where benefits and conditionalities make it possible to earn similar sums at home, some people will choose not to work.

Hannan pointed to additional data he said illustrated the problem: an NHS Confederation finding that around 60,000 recent university graduates were moving straight to long‑term sickness benefits; a Centre for Social Justice estimate that by 2026 it could be possible to earn more on benefits than on minimum‑wage full‑time work in some cases; and a reported 69 percent rise in long‑term sickness claims among 25‑ to 34‑year‑olds over five years. He wrote that in parts of the country, including Birmingham, up to one in four working‑age adults was inactive, and he contrasted Britain’s reported post‑pandemic GDP growth with that of the United States, Australia and New Zealand.

Hannan proposed that statutory sick pay be scrapped and that sick pay be left to negotiation between employers and employees. He argued that doing so would change incentives and reduce absenteeism, and questioned whether it should be the employer’s responsibility to pay workers who do not attend work because of illness.

His prescription has prompted debate over competing priorities: while proponents of Hannan’s view frame the issue in terms of incentives, productivity and fiscal cost, many public‑health experts, trade unions and welfare advocates warn that removing statutory sick pay could carry significant harms.

Critics say paid sick leave plays a role in preventing the spread of infectious disease, supports early recovery, and reduces the financial pressure that can force people to work while ill. Unions and worker‑representative bodies have previously warned that weakening workplace protections could increase presenteeism, worsen health outcomes for low‑paid workers and shift costs onto social security systems. Public‑health researchers and campaigners have also argued that income security during illness is associated with better public‑health outcomes, especially during infectious outbreaks.

The suggestion also touches on wider, contested debates about welfare, employment law and post‑pandemic social behaviour. Hannan linked changes in absence behaviour to the pandemic and to the expansion of remote and flexible work, while noting that past policy measures to tighten benefits and alter taxes in 2010 were credited by supporters with increasing employment among some groups.

Lawmakers and ministers face a trade‑off between tackling perceived increases in absence and safeguarding worker health and income. Any move to alter statutory sick pay would require consideration of legal, economic and public‑health consequences and is likely to provoke a politically charged debate involving employers, unions, health bodies and charities.

Policymakers have not announced changes in response to the column. The discussion highlights the wider policy challenges of balancing incentives, worker protections and public‑health priorities in the post‑pandemic era.