Work and Families Bill

Not again, sorry. It is important that mothers, where they wish to do so, take maternity leave. It is also important that mothers should not be pressurised into thinking that they are being neglectful or inadequate if they feel that they cannot take maternity leave and they wish to go back to work, whether for their personal and professional development or because their families cannot afford for them to take maternity leave. I implore the Minister to take on board the ideas put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead and endorsed by the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), that more flexibility should be attached to maternity leave. The Secretary of State pointed out that on the continent there are much more successful models of women being encouraged by family-friendly policies. There is a correlation between those countries where there are such family-friendly policies and the success of women at work. They are much more generous in maternity leave than we presently are in the UK. Therefore, a system whereby a woman can take six months’ maternity leave but roll up the money she would receive to £212 a week, rather than the £106 a week for taking a year’s maternity leave, might enable many more women to access maternity leave. That will begin to match the provision in other countries that are more successful at encouraging women to take maternity leave and to return to the work force at the level they left it without having to take career breaks, which inevitably mean that women fall back in the race for the top jobs. It is desirable that, where women want to, they stay at home to look after their children. As my right hon. Friend said, it is a shame that this Bill and the Childcare Bill, the Standing Committee of which I will serve on tomorrow, were not put together. There is considerable and growing evidence of the importance of what is called the attachment theory, with which the Minister is doubtless very familiar. It is very important that babies and young children form a profound bond with their primary carer in order to have proper emotional development later. The studies on this subject are quite frightening, given the mistakes that have already been made in not encouraging such bonding to take place. Attachment theory is subject to no class or income barriers; it is as relevant to professional families as it is to low-income ones. We should recognise that women who are able to afford to take such time off and to work on their relationship with their baby might find their baby quite frightening to begin with. For those of us who have been used to living a professional life—having things done when we want them to be done, and having our entire environment work to a time scale that we are in control of—being at home with a child is a truly different experience. We should enable women to deal with that situation in a less stressful environment. Of course, the same point applies to paternity leave. The average male wage is some £505 a week, so in calculating the average female wage, we can take 20 per cent. off that figure, which gives us a female wage of about £400 a week. Given those figures, it is much more realistic for women to take such time off. Although I am in favour of more flexibility and enabling women to take time off work, I want also to put a little of the employer’s case. The hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) encouraged the Minister in somewhat the wrong direction in this regard. I do not dispute her motive in wanting women to be able to return to work without being required to accept more onerous and less attractive terms and conditions, but I want to draw attention to an issue that many employers mention to me. When a replacement employee comes in while someone is away on maternity leave, that creates a problem, particularly for small companies, which have much less flexibility in terms of the role played by other employees. This is a cost that society and business has to bear, and it is a fact of life if we want to carry on reproducing. However, extending maternity leave entitlement to one year creates an added difficulty. The person employed to take over that job for a year gets employment rights, because they are in post for the requisite period. Such rights cannot be got rid of—at least, not without a cost. The Minister is trying to work around this problem by doing something of which the hon. Member for Warrington, North is somewhat disapproving; nevertheless, I urge him to be cognisant of this issue when framing his proposals. After all, small businesses cannot afford to take someone on, only to have to get rid of them in an expensive and uncomfortable fashion because they have to maintain the right of the original employee to return to work. I am not saying that there is an easy answer to this problem; I am simply pointing out that the problem is a very real one for small businesses, and that in framing the law, we need to consider it. I welcome the Government’s initiative enabling women to keep in touch with the workplace. Many women who are at home with their babies genuinely want to be kept in touch with the normal world that they were used to. It is good to be kept aware of what is going on in the company, rather than simply gossiping with one’s old friends. The two-month, rather than one-month, notification period for returning to work will also help in dealing with the difficult issue of the replacement employee. Like other Members, I agree that the Government’s giving carers the right to request flexible working has proved a very good idea, and I applaud their creating this opportunity for parents. There is no doubt that it has been successful, so we should say ““Well done.”” It was successful because the Government were flexible—they are not always flexible—and created not a right to flexible working, but a right to ask for it. That helped to foster good relations between both parties, and to create an environment in which the employee can continue at work while dealing with their other responsibilities, and in which the employer can gain the value of their skills. It is right that carers, who have similar responsibilities, be included under this provision; however, the Government are right to phase in such rights. We live in a society in which many people have caring responsibilities, and that they fulfil them is wonderful for all concerned, but we need to consider how swiftly to phase in these new rights. I urge a little caution on the Minister; we must not swamp the system. It is right that such requests be annual, rather than frequent. Frequent requests would be unfair, given that employers have other considerations on their minds. We should extend the right to request flexibility to all the work force, as some employers already do, given that we will always come up against difficult child care cases. Children up to the age of 17 might well be dependent on their carers because they have schizophrenia or other mental health problems, for example. Of course, such problems do not go away: they continue into adulthood, and the parent may feel that they still need to care for their son or daughter well into their adult life. We want society to go in that direction, and some employers have already been successful in that regard; others should be given a little gentle encouragement to do the same. In concluding, I apologise to the next speaker for my having to rush off.