The Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Bill inserts a new Part 8B into the Employment Rights Act 1996 requiring the Secretary of State to make regulations that give employees who are victims of domestic abuse an entitlement to be absent from work on “safe leave.” The statutory instrument must set out a non-exhaustive list of qualifying reasons (for example, seeking legal advice, moving to alternative accommodation or accessing healthcare), and must guarantee at least 10 days of safe leave in each leave year.
The Bill goes beyond a declaratory right: regulations must ensure employers pay remuneration during safe leave and preserve relevant terms and conditions, provide a right to return to work of a specified kind, and create enforcement routes (including tribunal complaints and remedies). At the same time, the Bill delegates most detailed and contentious choices—pay level, leave-year calculation, and any reasonable conditions for taking leave—to the Secretary of State via affirmative secondary legislation and mandated consultations with victim and employer organisations.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Bill amends the Employment Rights Act 1996 to require regulations establishing a paid ‘safe leave’ entitlement for employees who are domestic abuse victims, covering a non-exhaustive set of purposes and guaranteeing at least 10 days per leave year. The regulations must require employers to pay remuneration during leave and provide return-to-work protections.
Who It Affects
Employees (as defined in law) who are victims of domestic abuse in England, Wales and Scotland; employers and their HR/compliance teams who must administer leave and pay; and employment tribunals that will enforce the new rights. The Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland and applies to ‘employees’ (not necessarily all ‘workers’ or the self-employed).
Why It Matters
This creates a novel, statutory workplace route for survivors to take paid time off to address abuse-related needs, codifies employer obligations to pay during that time, and channels disputes into employment tribunals. Because the Bill leaves substantive operational detail to regulations, the practical reach and generosity of the entitlement will depend on how the Secretary of State frames the secondary legislation.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Bill inserts a dedicated Part (labelled Part 8B) into the Employment Rights Act 1996 and tasks the Secretary of State with producing regulations that create an entitlement to ‘safe leave’ for employees who meet the statutory definition of a victim of domestic abuse. The statutory definition is imported from the Domestic Abuse Act 2021; the Bill then lists example purposes for leave—such as seeking legal advice, finding alternative accommodation, accessing healthcare and protecting family members—while allowing regulations to add other purposes.
A core mandatory parameter in the Bill is the minimum allowance: regulations must ensure an employee is entitled to at least 10 days of safe leave in each ‘leave year.’ The Bill anticipates that leave need not be taken in a single block and allows the regulations to specify how leave years are calculated. Regulations may include provisions about how leave is taken and may allow employers to attach “reasonable” conditions or require notice, but the Bill expressly forbids attaching a length-of-service requirement as a condition of eligibility.On pay and employment protections the Bill is explicit that regulations must provide for employers to pay remuneration during periods of safe leave and must preserve, to the extent specified, the terms and conditions that would have applied but for the absence.
The legislation creates a statutory right to return to a job of a specified kind after safe leave; regulations may fill in whether that covers seniority, pension rights and similar entitlements, and the Bill recognises overlap with other statutory leaves (maternity, paternity, adoption, shared parental and parental leave).The Bill also builds an enforcement and procedural framework into the regulatory power. Regulations may create consequences for employers who prevent or attempt to prevent safe leave, fail to pay remuneration, or otherwise breach the regulations.
They may enable employees to bring complaints to employment tribunals and provide remedies, including — where tied to the dismissal provisions — treating certain dismissals connected to safe leave as unfair under the existing unfair dismissal framework. Finally, the Bill requires that any regulations be made by affirmative statutory instrument and that the Secretary of State consult specified stakeholders (the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, victim organisations and employer bodies) before laying the draft.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Bill adds a new Part 8B to the Employment Rights Act 1996 (sections 80O–80S) creating a statutory framework for ‘safe leave’.
Regulations must guarantee employees at least 10 days of safe leave in each leave year; leave may be taken as separate periods rather than one continuous block.
The regulations must require the employer to pay the employee remuneration for periods of safe leave and preserve specified terms and conditions of employment during absence.
The Bill bars regulations from imposing a length-of-service eligibility condition but allows regulations to permit employers to attach other ‘reasonable’ conditions and require reasonably practicable notice.
Any regulations must be made by affirmative statutory instrument and the Secretary of State must consult the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, organisations representing victims and organisations representing employers before laying the draft.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Creates entitlement to 'safe leave' and sets scope
This section is the substantive hook: it directs the Secretary of State to make regulations giving employees who are victims of domestic abuse an entitlement to be absent from work for matters related to that abuse. It imports the domestic abuse definition from the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and supplies an illustrative list of qualifying reasons (legal action, accommodation, healthcare, welfare, protection of family members) while leaving the final scope to be expanded in regulations. Practically, employers will need to adapt absence policies to recognise this new category once the regulations specify how reasons are evidenced and how leave can be requested.
Pay, terms and return-to-work protections
Section 80P requires that regulations provide for the preservation of 'terms and conditions' during safe leave and — crucially — makes it the employer’s responsibility to pay remuneration for leave periods. The provision also mandates a right to return to a job ‘of a specified kind,’ but delegates detail (seniority, pension treatment, and exact contractual implications) to the regulations. Employers should expect guidance on what level of pay counts as 'remuneration' and how continuity of service is treated where safe leave overlaps with other statutory leaves.
Redundancy and dismissal during safe leave
This section gives the regulations power to address redundancy and dismissal issues arising during safe leave, including a power to require employers to offer alternative employment. It preserves the possibility that dismissal connected to safe leave can be treated as unfair dismissal via cross-reference to Part X, but leaves the thresholds and remedies to secondary legislation. That approach allows tailoring of protections but creates reliance on the regulatory drafting to prevent misuse of redundancy processes to evict protected employees.
Enforcement routes and remedies
80R authorises regulations to set out consequences where employers block the exercise of safe leave, fail to pay remuneration or breach other regulatory requirements. The principal enforcement mechanism contemplated is a complaint to an industrial (employment) tribunal, with regulations able to prescribe available remedies. The Bill therefore channels disputes into the tribunal system, which will raise questions about practicable remedies, time limits for claims and interaction with ACAS early-conciliation.
Consequential and amendment powers
This provision grants the Secretary of State a standard ‘consequential provision’ power to make regulations that modify other enactments to give effect to Part 8B. Expect this to be used to tidy up cross-references in employment law, clarify interplay with existing statutory leaves, and set incidental rules about pension or payroll administration.
Affirmative procedure and mandatory consultation
Section 80S imposes two important procedural constraints: a statutory instrument making the regulations must be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses, and the Secretary of State must consult specified stakeholders (the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, organisations representing victims and organisations representing employers) before laying the draft. The consultation list is not exhaustive and can include other persons the Secretary of State deems appropriate, which builds in stakeholder input but also hands political and consultative influence over key regulatory choices.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Employment across all five countries.
Explore Employment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Employed survivors of domestic abuse — gain paid time off to access legal, medical and housing support and a statutory right to return to work, improving short-term safety choices and economic stability.
- Employees with caring responsibilities or close family connections to abuse victims — benefit indirectly where household safety needs can be managed without immediate job loss or unpaid absence.
- Victim-support organisations and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner — obtain a formal consultative role and clearer legal hooks for partnership with employers and referrals.
- Large employers and organisations with established HR systems — stand to benefit from clearer rules that enable business continuity planning and may reduce long-term turnover if staff are retained through crisis.
Who Bears the Cost
- Employers of all sizes — bear the direct cost of paying remuneration during safe leave and the administrative burden of implementing new absence, recording and return-to-work procedures.
- Small and micro-businesses — face proportionally larger cashflow and staffing pressures from paid absences and may struggle to backfill roles during leave periods.
- Employment tribunals and dispute-resolution providers — likely to see an increased caseload of claims about entitlement, pay, and return-to-work disputes, creating capacity and timing issues.
- Workers outside the statutory ‘employee’ category (gig workers, many casuals and the self-employed) — will remain outside the Bill’s protections unless regulations or other laws extend coverage, leaving them to rely on private arrangements or charity support.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The Bill balances two legitimate aims — giving survivors a practical, paid route out of dangerous or destabilising situations and avoiding an unworkable cost and administrative burden for employers — by delegating detailed choices to regulations; that delegation forces a trade-off between speedy, flexible implementation and the risk that regulatory narrowness, low pay levels or constrained remedies will hollow out the statutory promise.
The Bill creates a structural right but delegates nearly every operational detail to regulations, which is efficient politically but leaves critical questions open. The regulations will have to decide the rate of remuneration (full pay, statutory sick-pay equivalent, or something else), how evidence of abuse is handled, and how permissive ‘reasonable conditions’ can be before they become de facto barriers.
Employers and counsel will want clarity on whether pay during safe leave counts as continuous service for all statutory entitlements and for pension accrual.
Another unresolved implementation risk is coverage. The Bill repeatedly refers to 'employees,' not 'workers,' which narrows the universe of eligible people; many precarious workers in sectors where domestic abuse risk is acute may be excluded.
The enforcement architecture similarly raises practical questions: directing disputes to employment tribunals creates a formal remedy route but tribunals are slow and remedies may be limited, and the Bill gives the Secretary of State latitude to calibrate how robust those remedies are. Finally, the Bill applies to England, Wales and Scotland but not Northern Ireland, creating cross-jurisdiction compliance complexity for UK-wide employers and potential inequities for workers depending on location.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.