Work and Families Bill

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 3 might appear somewhat opaque, but it would require clauses 3 to 10 to be reviewed after one year. We touched on some of the issues in our debate on new clause 1, but this proposal deals specifically with additional paternity leave and additional statutory paternity pay. The Bill goes much further than the Government’s original proposals, which suggested that mothers’ rights to maternity leave and maternity pay would be transferred to fathers. In effect, it creates new rights for fathers. We are not against paternity pay in principle. We accept that it is good for families if new fathers can be with their babies in the months after they are born. It is especially important for working mothers to have the support of fathers when a child is very small. That is a crucial time, and the Government’s proposals are absolutely right in principle but, as ever, the question is one of balance. As I said in the debate on new clause 1, it is very important to balance the needs and rights of employers, and especially small employers, with those of employees. Only by striking the right balance will we be able to achieve the optimum result for the economy and for society. It is true, of course, that a work force that is treated well will be more efficient, and that employers who treat employees reasonably will get better employees and run better businesses. We accept that all the proposals under discussion today have an economic as well as a social imperative, but we have tabled new clause 3 because we remain concerned about the mechanics of how paternity leave and paternity pay will work. We support the principle, but no one knows what will happen in practice. The debate on new clause 1 revealed a stark and unarguable truth—that no one knows how much it will cost businesses to administer the proposals in respect of maternity and paternity pay and leave. It may cost £400,000 every year, or £5 million—the gap is enormous. Were the monetary costs involved estimated at a ball-park figure of between £500,000 and £2 million, it would be reasonable to accept them, and we should do so happily enough. However, there is not a ball park but a whole town of difference between the estimates. I think that even the Minister will accept that we have no idea of how much the proposals in the Bill will cost business. If I am wrong, I should be happy to give way to him.