Work and Families Bill

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this Bill. We on these Benches welcome its provisions since they go some way to developing a change in the UK’s working culture that recognises children’s well-being as an important and relevant consideration in public policy. We want to see all workers, but particularly parents, having real choices about their working arrangements, such that they can improve their work/life balance and spend more time with their children. This is also for the good of the country, our economy and the development of peaceful, crime-free communities, since the input of good parenting is vital if children are to grow up responsible and productive members of society. We particularly welcome the extension of the ability to ask for flexible working to carers, but the Government should have been bolder. Like the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, we see no good reason why this right should not be extended to all genuine carers, subject to proof of their caring responsibilities. Providing care in the public sector is always more expensive and less satisfactory than providing the care that comes from a loving relationship in the patient’s own, or a family, home. Why, then, limit it as the Government have? We welcome the measures to extend maternity leave to 39, and eventually 52, weeks, and to extend the rights of fathers and husbands or partners, but strongly believe that, to provide a real choice for working families, the amount of maternity or paternity pay needs to be increased. We also believe we should move towards an earnings-related situation, in order to encourage more parents to take it up—parents like Mr David Cameron, the Leader of the Opposition in the Commons, whom I congratulate on the birth of his son today. After all, the current rate is only £106 per week, while the average weekly wage for men is £505. Most families cannot afford such a sacrifice, so it is unsurprising that the take-up of paternity leave is so low. At the general election, the Liberal Democrat manifesto made a maternity income guarantee, based on the minimum wage for a 35-hour week, to begin to address this problem. It amounted to £170 per week for the first six months, for the first baby. This was only a start compared to what we would like to do. We note that, according to the Equal Opportunities Commission, only 28 per cent of fathers say that they would take up their entitlement at the current level, but 80 per cent say that they would do so if it went up to £200 per week. That is something to which all parties should clearly aspire. In the mean time, we support the extension to nine, and eventually 12, months maternity leave. However, we are concerned at the inflexibility and grossly disproportionate notice period of the paternity paid leave regulations. It seems wrong that, for a short period of one or two weeks, a father has to give the same 15-week notice as the expectant mother. When the notice period for statutory annual leave of a period of one or two weeks is only two weeks—presumably because it is deemed that this gives the employer sufficient time to make alternative arrangements—it seems ridiculous to require 15 weeks just because of the specific reason for the leave. Many lower-paid men are unaware of this regulation and so lose out on their right to ordinary paternity leave. That is why I agree with the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux that much more benefit would be gained by families if the Government enhanced the existing right to ordinary paternity leave as well as, or instead of, the new additional paternity leave. We welcome the move to allow fathers, in effect, to take up some of the mother’s leave entitlement, if she returns to work, in the form of additional paternity leave. That has long been Liberal Democrat policy, though we would quarrel with the Government’s restriction of this to a period beyond the first few months after the baby’s birth. Fathers need to bond too, and we believe that it should be up to the parents to choose how to distribute the leave entitlement between the two of them. At least four out of 10 new fathers would not benefit at all from this arrangement since the mother has not worked prior to the birth. His entitlement is entirely dependent on hers. For couples in this situation, mothers are locked into their role as full-time carer and fathers are locked into the breadwinner role. Surely, in this day and age, public policy should not do something like that. It is another good reason for extending the ordinary paternity leave to four weeks and allowing it to be taken in single weeks, if required. I note that the Government have predicted a negligible take-up of just 1 per cent, and no wonder. These arrangements, well-meaning though they are, are simply not good enough to benefit most families. I do, however, very much welcome the fact that the Government now give the same entitlements to adoptive parents as to birth parents. For those children for whom staying with their birth family is not an option, the model of care which is by far the best, where possible, is adoption. Children need a secure family for the long term. Fostering can be an excellent option and, of course, is the best answer where the need is temporary. I have the most enormous respect for foster parents, who deserve better than we give them. However, in providing a permanent family for a child in need, adoptive parents do a great service to society as well as to the child. They deserve our great thanks and admiration and as much help as we can possibly give them. I move now to say something about the right to ask for flexible working for parents. This is an area where the Bill has missed an opportunity. The need to have working arrangements to suit the children does not end at the age of six, and I strongly believe that it should be available to parents of all children, at least of statutory school age, if not 18. Parents in this country work very long and often unsocial hours, and it is the children who suffer. According to a presentation I heard recently from the Relationships Foundation, in nine out of 10 two-parent families, someone is working unsocial hours and three-quarters of those do not do it out of choice; four out of 10 parents of dependent children work regularly at weekends; 400,000 parents both work Saturdays and Sundays; and 47 per cent of parents are unhappy with their work/life balance. Parenting is rightly high on the public policy agenda. The Government are taking some action on this through the respect action plan, parenting orders and other initiatives. There is strong evidence that parental input has a major effect on educational attainment and behaviour. All authorities, including the Government I think, are agreed that preventive measures need a stronger role in public policy when it comes to dealing with children and young people who are failing to reach their own best potential or even falling into the criminal justice system. Why then have the Government failed to take the opportunity presented by this Bill to extend to all parents the right to ask for flexible working? I can hardly believe it is the business community that has deterred them, given the many benefits of treating employees like human beings. Let me give noble Lords one shining example of how well this can work. Farrelly Facilities and Engineering is a manufacturing company in the West Midlands, supplying design, installation and maintenance of heating, ventilation and air-conditioning systems. While the construction industry is often synonymous with long hours and a high turnover of staff, Farrelly has set a priority on work/life balance that has not only benefited its employees but also increased its sales and profits. In 1998, Gerry and John Farrelly decided that the focus of the firm needed to switch from profits to people. Gerry states:"““Although we were paying our people good money and good benefits, we were not focusing on them as individuals, with individual requirements. For example, one might have two young children and another might have older children, creating different demands on their home life””." The first step was to reduce working hours from the norm of 50 to 60 down to 37. Further family-friendly policies were also introduced, such as opportunities to take time for children’s medical treatment and flexibility around child care and school arrangements. They said:"““If someone has to work on a Sunday then they definitely wouldn’t have to work on the Saturday, maybe not even the Friday before. We try to empower people to look after their own time””." Since implementing those policies, staff retention has improved dramatically; sickness absence has virtually reduced to zero; customer complaints are rare; and the turnover has increased from £2 million to £8 million. Because the staff are treated well, they treat their customers well. Not only are they less stressed, they are also more motivated to work well and get the job right the first time. The result, in one typical case, is that maintenance call-outs have dropped by 80 per cent. The upcoming education Bill following the recent schools White Paper is expected to say that, when a child is excluded from school, the parent must be responsible for keeping them at home for the first five days. Of course, I would maintain that, in a system of managed exclusions, alternative provision should be made immediately. However, given the current system, how can the Government justify that if they do not at the same time provide a statutory framework that allows parents to ask their employers for flexible working to enable them to manage such a situation? It is also right to propose that an independent tribunal should be set up to look into cases where an employer has refused flexible working for no good reason. While on the subject of compliance and enforcement, may I put in a word about the need to ensure that workers get their current statutory rights, let alone the extended ones in the Bill? According to the NACAB, for many low income families the daily juggling of their caring and working commitments is less a case of enjoying a good work/life balance than of enduring a work/life compromise. The legal protection offered to many workers by the employment tribunal system is rendered meaningless by the inaccessibility of that system or the worker’s fear of victimisation or dismissal, even for raising the subject of their statutory rights with their employer. The Government’s strategy in relation to workplace rights must include steps to ensure more universal compliance by small employers and more pro-active enforcement measures against rogue employers.