Work and Families Bill

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I was not aware of those figures, and I hope that in the wind up the Secretary of State or the Minister will confirm that that analysis will be shared with the Committee from the start, so that we can debate those issues properly. Another concern for employers has always been the complicated procedures and time limits for a woman seeking to return to work. It is welcome that the Government propose to extend the period required for notification of a return. As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, the law remains complex in this area and there could be a much more comprehensive assessment of the legal provisions. For a long time, for example, there has been a provision with regard to indirect sex discrimination, where women are disproportionately affected by a particular rule. That has resulted in a lot of claims being brought by women seeking the right to return to work from maternity leave on reduced hours. In effect, it has created a right for many women to have reduced hours—not a right to request, but a right to have. That overlays the right to request, which is much more light-touch. Many employers simply are not aware of the extra burden of the law on indirect sex discrimination, and the juxtaposition of those two competing rights is a matter that the Government need to consider further as it causes complication for both employers and employees. It seems to me that entitlements only really exist if people understand what they are. In raising concerns on the part of employers, it is worth acknowledging that the proposed changes are not necessarily all bad news. The Secretary of State suggested that, overall, the concept of embracing flexible working is good for the economy. In my constituency there is a company called Listawood, which, from the start, has embraced the idea of flexible working. It has enabled women to work different hours during term time and during the summer holidays. They have been able to change their shift patterns to facilitate caring for their children while they are on holiday. They have been enabled to take time out of work to watch their children playing sport at school, including sports’ days. The concept from the start has been flexible working. Rather than that being a burden that has driven the company into liquidation, the process has been a fantastic economic success. The company has won award after award, not only for family-friendly policies but because of its financial acumen and financial success. It can be a win-win for employers fully to embrace these measures, and there is the potential that they could lead to more motivated staff and greater productivity if people are working hours that suit them. There is also the potential for greater retention of staff and assistance with recruitment. If a company has a reputation for embracing the entire concept of flexible working, it is much more likely to recruit motivated staff. The idea of keeping-in-touch days and the clarification that the Bill provides of the ability to maintain contact during maternity leave are good things. To an extent, the Bill depends for implementation upon regulations. The issue has been raised already by the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) in interventions. Although that provides the opportunity for some flexibility in that provisions will be able to be changed as time goes by, the process will make scrutiny more difficult. The devil will be in the detail of the regulations. The Secretary of State indicated that he would try to ensure that the draft regulations would be available before the end of the Bill’s consideration in Committee. However, if there is to be a proper debate in Committee, surely we should have the draft regulations available at the start of that consideration.