Work and Families Bill

Perhaps I could give the Secretary of State an opportunity to intervene to clarify the matter. There seems to be complete confusion on the Government Benches. Labour Members seem remarkably reluctant to get to their feet. I am giving them the opportunity, here and now, to intervene. Let us hope that we will have a response when the Minister winds up. I am sure that he will have got his act together by then. I shall deal with some of the key measures in the Bill. First, there is maternity pay. The provisions will extend the maximum period to a year. By regulation, that will be phased in with the introduction of 39 weeks from 1 April 2007. Representations have been made by a number of groups, and one of the issues is the level of income that maternity pay provides. For many women, the provision is at an inadequate level for them to take the full opportunity that the extension to a year provides. I share the view that has been expressed by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) that a degree of flexibility would be a good thing. There should be the entitlement to take the full amount of pay over the entire period. Over a shorter period, there should be the entitlement to take that pay at a higher rate. That seems potentially to benefit employers because they will have the employee back in employment earlier. At the same time, it gives the employee a real opportunity to take advantage of their leave if they are unable to afford to take it at the rate of £106. For many people, that is an inadequate level to enable them to take advantage of the scheme. At the last election, the Liberal Democrats proposed the introduction of a maternity income guarantee for the first child, which would have guaranteed at least £4,420 for the first 26 weeks. That would have helped lower-paid women in particular, and it is something that the Government should consider. There are also the proposed changes to adoption leave and pay, which mirror what is happening to maternity leave. That is entirely welcome. As the Secretary of State said, it is remarkable that it has taken so long for us to reach the point where people who adopt children have such rights. It is particularly important for them to have time to get to know their new child. I move on to paternity leave and pay. I shall deal first with the existing entitlement of two weeks. There is a case for making that right more flexible in its take-up. Indeed, there is a fairly low take-up. The Secretary of State said that it is encouraging, but I understand that it is still less than 50 per cent. That is partly because the figure is only £106 a week. That is inadequate for many fathers, given the burden of paying a mortgage and so forth. I am told that many people lose out because they are unaware of the notice requirements. By the time that they decide that they want to take paternity leave, they have missed the requirements. If an employer chooses to be difficult, they can be denied the right to leave. There is something of a straitjacket, and if someone chooses to take one week rather than two weeks they will lose their entitlement to the second week. It is not a week that can be taken later. As the Secretary of State will know, there have been many calls for an extension to the entitlement rather than for the substitution entitlement. As part of the assessment to determine whether the substitution entitlement is workable, the regulations will have to be analysed closely. Many people fear that it will be administratively burdensome. At least two employers—more than two if people have two types of part-time employment—will have to liaise and exchange paperwork to ensure that the father is entitled to take paternity leave because the mother has returned to work for another employer. The Secretary of State said that the Bill is unlikely to have an enormous impact, but that is because the pay is only £106 a week. The regulatory impact assessment suggests that as few as 9,000 people a year may take up the entitlement to paid paternity leave. Inevitably, they will tend to be those who are better off. People on lower incomes will not be able to afford it. Again, I think that the Government should consider allowing people to claim the total amount over a shorter period at a higher weekly rate. It might well suit someone to take a month of paternity leave at a higher rate of pay. Some fathers will not benefit because the mothers were not working when pregnant and were therefore not entitled to maternity leave. Four out of 10 mothers are not in paid employment during pregnancy. The Equal Opportunities Commission has suggested extending entitlement to fathers whose partners return to work after the birth but who are not eligible for maternity leave. Would the Government consider doing that? Although the provision for circumstances in which a mother dies after childbirth will affect only about 300 couples, it is a valuable and long-overdue measure, allowing fathers to take the full equivalent of maternity leave. As for the flexible working provision, it is, as I have said, a light touch, and is appropriate for that reason. I fully support the extension of the right to carers but, as many have pointed out—including the hon. Member for Erewash—it all comes down to the definition of ““carer””. The Secretary of State did not respond to my question about whether he intended the definition to be broad. If it is narrow, it will be of little value. It must be broad to meet the expectations of many people who have welcomed the new right in general. On the concerns of the Parkinson’s Disease Society, I understand why employers do not want a multiplicity of applications—but following the extension of the provisions to carers there may be circumstances in which the needs of a cared-for person change a great deal. Will the Government consider an increase in the frequency of applications, perhaps to once every six months? Earlier, I mentioned the possibility of extending the entitlement to cover children aged up to 17. As has been argued by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development and many others, we may in time reach a point at which every employee will have the right to request entitlement. We heard earlier of the risk that employees without family or caring responsibilities might begin to resent all the new rights in the workplace. The right to request flexible working is light-touch, however, and the employer can refuse the request without fear of a legal claim. Employees will have a greater chance to discuss the matter with their employers in order to get the balance right and to secure a level of employment that will enable them to be fully committed and productive. Surveys show that most employers are already willing to consider applications for flexible working from a wider group than those who are entitled to request it, and I think that that is worth building on. Overall, the Bill presents a good package that addresses the need for us to balance the needs of families with those of the economy. We will support it.