With the greatest respect, the hon. Gentleman was not the only hon. Member to raise that point. I am glad that he was able to clarify his position, but other Members seemed to imply earlier in the debate that they understood why decisions were taken that clearly amount to discrimination that should be challenged in tribunals.
I am very pleased indeed that we recognise that maternity leave should be extended to nine months from April 2007 and, I hope, to one year by the end of this Parliament. Of course, that will benefit about 400,000 women in this country.
Clause 2, as other hon. Members have said, brings into line the rules about adopting parents. All hon. Members would agree that parents who adopt should be given the same consideration and rights as other parents.
Clause 6 deals with the entitlement to additional paternity pay, about which the Equal Opportunities Commission has carried out extensive research. About 70 to 80 per cent. of new mums and dads support the opportunity for paternity pay to be used over a six-month period if any of the woman’s maternity pay entitlement is unexpired. That is obviously very useful.
A number of hon. Members have spoken about clause 12, and it is absolutely right that carers are included in the provision to request flexible working. There are more than 6 million carers in this country. As time goes on, the right to flexible working will be extended to other groups, but the Government are taking the right approach by extending such rights piece by piece.
Hon. Members have put forward various arguments about business efficiency and the problems of small businesses in dealing with maternity and paternity matters. The provisions on the keeping-in-touch days for women on maternity leave are welcome, but some consideration must be given to the reasonableness of those days. Obviously, we do not want to overburden women during their maternity leave, and I hope that those days will be determined by agreement and used positively and constructively.
The view that a written statement of the rights and responsibilities of employees and employers should be given is very positive. It is certainly my experience that people find great difficulty in understanding the complexities of maternity and paternity law, so clear written statements would be useful. I agree that the request that a woman should give two months’ notice of her return date is the right way to do things. That will provide clarity on both sides.
The Department of Trade and Industry has indicated that it will work to try to reduce that bureaucratic burden of SMP, SPP and SAP. Again, that is absolutely right. There is a need to make the calculations easier—in particular, I remember trying years ago to work out when statutory maternity pay should start. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has indicated, SMP does not necessarily start on the same day that maternity leave commences. Those matters must be simplified and sorted out. Overall, the Bill is very welcome. It adds to the range of employment rights that we need. It is good for business; it is good for employees; and it is very good for families.
Work and Families Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Alan Johnson
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 5 December 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Work and Families Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
440 c680-1 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:33:24 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_284105
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_284105
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_284105