UK Parliament / Open data

Work and Families Bill

Proceeding contribution from Mike Weir (Scottish National Party) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 18 January 2006. It occurred during Debate on bills on Work and Families Bill.
The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) was a little hard on the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), who made some interesting points in her speech, although I cannot support the new clause, as I shall explain. The introduction of paternity leave is most important, as I have said before. When my youngest daughter was born my wife had to stay in hospital before and after the birth, which made things difficult. I had a young daughter to look after and had to change my work patterns. As I was self-employed I was able to do so by working late some nights, but many husbands do not have that opportunity. Far from making excuses, it is actually difficult for many men to take paternity leave for practical reasons so the introduction of statutory paternity leave is important for them. I am concerned about the wording of the new clause:"““The Secretary of State shall review and publish a report on the effectiveness of regulations””." I was not entirely clear what the hon. Member for Epping Forest meant by ““effectiveness””; she referred several times to the effect on business and the costs to business, but that is only one side. There may be an effect on business, but I am interested in the effect on families and employees and how they react to and deal with things. Effectiveness goes two ways; it is not just about cost. My worry about the wording is: what happens if after a review we find that the measure is costing business x millions and the situation cannot continue? Are we seriously saying that having granted paternity leave to employees we should tell them that it costs too much and we shall abolish it? That is not a practical proposition.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
441 c882-3 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Back to top