Work and Families Bill |
|
Norman Lamb: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I accept her point, and that the Bill’s purpose is to address that problem. However, if the Government assume that only 9,000 fathers will take paternity leave, it will not do much to address that problem. So I want to find a way of facilitating fathers taking time off in practice, not just in terms of gestures. I am sure that the hon. Lady would agree that if the consequence of my amendment was that more fathers took perhaps eight weeks off—rather than no time at all—it must be a good thing. Surely it is good to find ways to encourage fathers to take an element of their entitlement, rather than nothing. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve. To deal with another point, the hon. Member for Tooting raised the suggestion, in an intervention on the Conservative spokesman, that the amendment somehow sought to undermine the rights of low-paid people to take the full period. It does not, because the power is put completely into the hands of the mother or father. If either wants to take the full period, at the rate of £106 per week, that is their entitlement. I would be delighted if people did that, but it is simply an acknowledgment of economic reality that many people will not. The RIA accepts that, and I am seeking ways to ensure that people take advantage of the good entitlement that the Bill provides. In summary, my amendment was a probing one in a group of amendments. I do not seek to press it to a vote, because it is currently incomplete, but I hope that the Government will do some further thinking on ways to increase flexibility. On the point about complexity for employers, it seems rather simple to me; if every employer knows that the entitlement is the full amount of statutory maternity, statutory adoption or statutory paternity pay, it is not really a complicated matter. Everyone would get to know the full entitlement for every employee taking time off. I do not see that that is any great complication for an employer to have to deal with. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Meg Munn: Clause 1 extends the maximum period for the payment of statutory maternity pay that may be prescribed in regulations from 26 weeks to 52 weeks. We aim to achieve our goal of 52 weeks by the end of the Parliament. As a first step we will increase the period of payment to 39 weeks for women expecting babies on or after 1 April 2007. Column Number: 21 Mr. Prisk: Is the Minister in a position to give us some information on the phasing of that? Clarity is crucial and employers will want to know what they are planning for. The Minister has referred to the end of the Parliament; that could be four or five years away depending on events in Government and within the ministerial ranks. I wonder whether she could give employers the opportunity to understand what she expects. If she cannot, when will employers know when 39 weeks will become 52? How much warning time will they get? Meg Munn: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is referring to when he talks about events in the ministerial team. Mr. Prisk: The Chancellor may change. Meg Munn: Thank you. Well, there we go. The hon. Gentleman needs to take heart from the process with which we are involved at the moment. We are starting the process and giving employers notice that we will introduce the provision of 39 weeks on 1 April 2007. We want to assess how that goes and to remain in consultation. As I have said, employers know that our aim is 52 weeks by the end of the Parliament, but we will continue to consult and will give sufficient notice in line with the better regulation principles to which we adhere. As I was about to say, this is an important change for working mothers and is part of our continuing drive to help pregnant working women and parents achieve a better balance in their home and working lives. An extra 13 weeks paid maternity leave will be worth nearly £1,400 to the majority of women. We set out our commitment to extend maternity pay in our consultation document “Work and Families: Choice and Flexibility.” The document was well received, with all sides recognising that any extra time that the mother has at home with her baby will be beneficial to the child but will also allow the mother greater opportunity to secure child care arrangements and to smooth her path to return to work. That will also be beneficial to her employer. We recognise that some employers, and particularly small employers, are concerned that the absence of an employee over a long period can cause difficulties. We believe, however, that the increased availability of paid leave will make it easier for women to return to work and stay at work because they will have the opportunity to take the amount of paid maternity leave that they feel they need. Businesses will benefit because they will retain the skills and services of employees that they might otherwise lose, avoiding recruitment and training costs. We will, however, ensure that the views of employers are taken into account and that the impact of these important changes is fully understood and considered before any further extension of the pay period to 52 weeks is implemented. Mr. Prisk: I am grateful to the Minister and I welcome her point about consultation. Will she undertake to ensure that she and her colleagues meet with all the small business organisations prior to the
11.45 amMeg Munn: Of course. There is regular consultation with such organisations not only on this matter but on other issues. Of course, there are costs in the short term, both in paying statutory maternity pay and in arranging cover for absent employees, but those costs should be seen in context as an investment in the future for the employer. The taxpayer, through the Revenue, reimburses large employers 92 per cent. of the statutory maternity pay that they pay out and small employers get back all of the statutory maternity pay that they pay out plus an additional payment of 4.5 per cent. to meet their national insurance costs. We widened the definition of small employer in April 2004. Now, 60 per cent. of employers who pay statutory maternity pay in any year get back 104.5 per cent. of the statutory maternity pay paid out. In this Bill, we are making it easier for employers to operate statutory maternity pay. We will address that in more detail when we discuss the relevant schedule. We are amending the start date of the maternity pay period to align it with the start of maternity leave. In addition, we are making it possible for statutory maternity pay to be paid at a daily rate, to make it easier for employers to align SMP payments with their employees’ usual pay period. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is introducing an extensive package of support for employers; I referred to that earlier, and I am happy to give more detail to the hon. Gentleman now. The aim is to eliminate manual SMP calculation, and to make the assessment process easier to understand. For example, the electronic calculators that are already available are being improved, as is guidance, and plans are being worked on to help employers calculate SMP over the telephone via their employer helpline service. The telephone conversation will then be followed up with a written confirmation of the SMP calculation to the employer, thereby considerably easing employers’ concerns over the calculation. This measure will benefit more than 390,000 women a year—about 317,000 who receive SMP, and a further 76,000 who receive maternity allowance. The payment period for maternity allowance is dependent on that for SMP, so the maximum maternity allowance period will also automatically be extended to 52 weeks as a result of this clause. Some 20,000 women a year who receive maternity allowance have not been employed long enough to qualify for additional maternity leave. They will therefore not have the right to take time off work and benefit from the proposed extra 13 weeks of maternity allowance. We are extending the eligibility condition attached to additional maternity leave so that all women who currently get ordinary maternity leave will get additional maternity leave and will be able to take the extra pay. Column Number: 23 I shall now deal with how the clause works. It amends the regulation-making power in section 165(1) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 to allow the maternity pay period to be a maximum of 52 weeks. The length of the maternity allowance period automatically follows by virtue of section 35(2) of that Act, which provides that the maternity allowance period will be the same as the maternity pay period. The extension of the maternity pay period—and, in consequence, the maternity allowance period—to 39 weeks will be specified in regulations. The extension of the maternity pay period forms a crucial part of a broad package of measures that will help parents choose how best to combine parenthood with their responsibilities towards their employer. Question put and agreed to. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 Adoption pay period Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Meg Munn: Clause 2 extends the maximum period for the payment of statutory adoption pay that may be prescribed in regulations from 26 weeks to 52 weeks; 52 weeks is the goal that we aim to achieve by the end of this Parliament. As a first step, we will increase the period of payment to 39 weeks for adoptions where the child is placed for adoption on or after 1 April 2007. That is an important change for prospective adoptive parents who are working, and it is part of our continuing drive to help working parents achieve a better balance between their home and working lives, while ensuring that adopters continue broadly to benefit from the same entitlements as birth mothers. An extra 13 weeks’ statutory adoption pay will be worth nearly £1,400 in the majority of cases. We set out our commitment to extend adoption pay, mirroring the extensions to maternity pay and maternity allowance, in our consultation document, “Work and Families: Choice and Flexibility”. That document was well received, with all sides recognising that any extra time that the adopter has at home with his or her child will allow them greater opportunity to settle the child into their new family, to make any child care arrangements, and to ensure that they can return to work having taken the appropriate steps for their family. Adopters do an important job for society, and ensuring that they can return to work successfully is beneficial for them and their employers. We recognise that some employers, particularly small employers, are concerned about the absence of an employee over a long period. However, the increased availability of paid leave will make it easier for adopters to return to work after the end of their leave, because they are more likely to have had the opportunity to take the amount of paid maternity
Businesses will benefit because they will retain the skills and services of the employee whom they might otherwise lose, thus avoiding any new or further recruitment and training costs. We will ensure that the views of employers are taken into account and that the impact of these important changes are fully understood and considered before any further extension of the pay period to 52 weeks is implemented. There are costs in the short term, both in paying statutory adoption pay and in arranging cover for absent employees, but those should be seen as an investment in the future. The taxpayer, through the Revenue, reimburses larger employers 92 per cent. of the statutory adoption pay and small employers get back all the statutory adoption pay plus an additional payment of 4.5 per cent. to meet their national insurance costs. We have widened the definition of a small employer in April 2004, so more employers benefit. The Bill also makes it easier for employers to manage and administer statutory adoption pay. We are making it possible for statutory adoption pay to be paid at a daily rate, to make it easier for employers to align those payments with their employees’ usual pay period. That measure will benefit more than 4,000 adopters per year. Clause 2 amends the regulation-making power in section 171ZN(2) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 to allow the adoption pay period to be a maximum of 52 weeks. The extension of the adoption pay period to 39 weeks will be specified in regulations. The extension to the adoption pay period forms a crucial part of a range of measures that will help parents choose how best to combine parenthood with their responsibilities towards their employer. Mr. Prisk: Will the Minister just confirm, as she did generously on the previous clause, that all the small business representatives will have the opportunity to look at the draft regulations? We do not have that chance, but it is important that they should do so and have a chance to contribute to the regulations before they are brought to the House. Meg Munn: I am happy to do that. That is our practice with regulations. Norman Lamb: We strongly support this extension. It is remarkable that people adopting a child have not had rights until recently. It is shocking that life has been made so difficult for them in that adopting process. This is a crucial right for parents adopting a child. Mrs. Laing: Once again, I concur with the hon. Gentleman. It is good to see the Minister bringing forward this provision, because encouraging people to adopt is crucial. There are so many children who need
It is incredible to think that we have not previously treated adoptive parents in the same way as birth parents. We support the clause. Question put and agreed to. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3 Additional paternity leave: adoption Kitty Ussher: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in clause 3, page 2, line 24, after ‘child’, insert
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 23, in clause 3, page 2, line 27, leave out paragraph (a). No. 35, in clause 3, page 2, line 46, at end insert—
No. 36, in schedule 1, page 18, line 36, at end insert—
No. 30, in schedule 1, page 18, line 45, at end insert—
No. 31, in schedule 1, page 19, line 2, leave out from ‘(2)’ to end of line 4 and insert—
No. 32, in schedule 1, page 19, line 13, at end insert—
Kitty Ussher: It is an honour to move my first amendment under your chairmanship, Mr. Bayley. This is a probing amendment to elicit a little more elucidation from my hon. Friends on the Front Bench as to their intention when laying down regulations determining the precise nature of mainly fathers’ ability to take paternity rights. In the pre-Budget report a year ago, the Chancellor said that the Government would allow mothers to transfer part of their leave to fathers. That was all that was said at that point. The impression was given that it would be quite a flexible arrangement so that at any point in the maternity leave if both parents wanted it the leave could be transferred to the father, who could take over the responsibility for the young child. Since then the Government have consulted on their
My amendment would return us to the spirit of the original announcement so that it would be entirely flexible. If a woman wished to return to work before six months, the father would take up the leave if he wanted to at that point. This is important because otherwise, if both parents wished to swap over, it would be denied to them. That could be a problem where the woman wanted to go back to work because it was important to her identity and happiness or where it was financially sensible for her to do so. Although the majority of cases may not be like this, as was emphasised in our earlier debate, she may earn more and it may be in the financial interests of the family, and therefore the child, for her to return earlier if she wants to. The mother may be in such a position in her organisation—perhaps a small business or even a large corporation—that she wants to return early for fear of what might happen to that organisation if she does not continue to be at the helm. I must declare a small interest here, as a female Member of Parliament with a small child. I wished to return to work and my constituents wished me to do so, but under the current legislation my husband had to resign his job in order to take over the care of our child. If we do not accept the spirit of this amendment in regulations, we shall be in an anomalous situation where parents would have to introduce an alternative form of child care for the period from three to six months, which would seem unnecessarily disruptive if a father wished to take over. Alternatively, the Government would make it more likely that a small business with a mother at the helm would fail, which is not what we are attempting to do. The mother would be forced to remain at home until her husband was able to take over. I understand that there has been considerable consultation on this. I should like to give my response on what I think some of the issues are. Obviously, Department of Health guidelines and World Health Organisation guidelines state that women should be encouraged to breastfeed for the first six months. However, it is not law that they should do so. If that is what we intend, we should legislate for it. The Department of Health makes all sorts of other recommendations about eating five portions of fruit and veg each day, not smoking, not drinking too much and so on. Ultimately it is a matter of choice. It is also technically possible to return to work and breastfeed through expressing milk. It is tedious, but it is possible. Indeed, in other parts of the statute book we make it easier for mothers to do that through the legal requirement on employers to provide places where they can express milk and so on. I understand that businesses may find it complex to have to keep track of what the mother is doing when a father asks to exercise his paternal rights. However,
12 noonNorman Lamb: I am sure that the hon. Lady will not want me to say it, but the amendment seems to be intended to introduce the same sort of flexibility that I was aiming for in my amendments. I support her aim of eliciting elucidation, as I think she put it. There should be flexibility for mothers and fathers to make the relevant judgments themselves, rather than having a straitjacket placed on them. Despite the pay gap that, as I pointed out, sadly still exists, there are, none the less, many households where the woman earns more money, or is in a more responsible and more onerous job than the father. There may be many circumstances in which it suits that household for the woman to return early to work and hand over to the father. The Bill seems to introduce a real block by requiring that if the woman of a household has very good personal reasons for wanting to return to work after, say, three months, a period of another three months would have to intervene in which another carer would look after the child, before the father could take his entitlement to paternity leave. I am sure that the Government would want to avoid that consequence. It does not seem a good approach to the care of the child to have the mother caring for him or her for three months, a carer for the second three months, and the father thereafter. We should all try to avoid that outcome. I should have thought that, given that the sharing of maternity and paternity leave—the substitution that the Bill provides for—introduces a complexity that employers will have to deal with at some stage in any case, it would make no difference if they had to deal with that task after three months rather than after seven or eight, or whatever period would need to be clocked up under the Bill and the expected regulations. As the hon. Lady said, the signs are that the regulations would provide for the right to paternity leave only after six months. The Bill should provide the flexibility to facilitate matters for those households in which, for good reasons, the choice is made for the mother to return to work earlier and the father to take over. At the moment, the impression we get from the Government is that that flexibility would be blocked. Column Number: 28 Mrs. Laing: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Burnley (Kitty Ussher) for tabling the amendment and speaking to it so eloquently. It raises an important issue about the way in which the Bill is designed to operate. It comes back again to flexibility, choice and the fact that each family is different. The hon. Lady herself is a good example of what I am talking about, and having been in a similar position I have every sympathy with her. As Members of Parliament, we are fortunate; although we work very long hours in comparison with the average, we have a bit of flexibility in how we arrange our days and weeks. In our job, it is possible to give birth to a baby, look after it and continue working. I was amazed to find that that was possible. I am sure that the hon. Lady has much more confidence than I, but somehow or other I have managed to muddle my way through and I now have a happy, healthy four-year-old. I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree that flexibility and choice are vital. As she was explaining why she tabled her amendment and the possibilities that could arise, something occurred to me: what if the mother of a new baby became ill? That is not unusual. Last week, I had a meeting with the Epping Forest mental health trust and we discussed where its resources should be used and so on. I discovered that the incidence of post-natal depression is much higher than anyone imagines. I am sure that we can all think of cases in which, for some reason or other, mothers simply cannot look after their babies and need help. In such cases, the natural next person to look after the child is its father, so the Bill should make provision for a father to begin looking after a child as soon as it is born. Perhaps the mother will not have gone back to work, but is ill and unable to look after her child—I use post-natal depression only as an example; there are all sorts of ways in which that could happen. That the father is not able to take paternity leave immediately, should that be necessary, simply does not make sense. The hon. Lady’s amendment and the others in this group are therefore worthy of consideration. I am sure that the Minister will consider the points made in the spirit in which they are meant. In my case, I want to improve the Bill, not change the intention behind it or increase costs and complicate matters for employers, especially small employers. I simply want to give flexibility and choice, so that any family can respond at any time to the circumstances in which it finds itself. Norman Lamb: I appreciate your forbearance, Mr. Bayley. I should acknowledge that the Minister with responsibility for employment relations, consumers and fair markets, who is a good friend, pointed out from a sedentary position that I had not spoken to my amendments in this group. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly to them. The group of amendments deals with keeping-in-touch days, which are a good part of the Bill. The concept is that during a period of ordinary or additional maternity leave, of the different types of adoption leave or of additional paternity leave, it is perfectly appropriate for an employee to go into work
However, there is a concern, expressed by Citizens Advice, that unscrupulous employers might seek to put too much pressure on employees to come back for too many days. The purpose of this group of amendments, which covers all the different sorts of leave in the Bill, is to set a framework within which the discussion between employer and employee can take place, and to limit the number of keeping-in-touch days provided for in the regulations. Within that maximum number, the employer and the employee can negotiate without any risk of the employer seeking to exploit the opportunity to force the employee to work too much during the period of leave. We again seek to set a framework within which the two sides can negotiate a reasonable arrangement. The proposal in no way seeks to undermine the good concept of introducing the right to have keeping-in-touch days. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 14 December 2005 |