Work and Families Bill

My Lords, when this Government came to power in 1997, they recognised to their great credit the changes which are taking place in our society. They recognised also that these changes must be reconciled with the child’s need for attachment and secure, loving relationships—my noble friend Lord Listowel has just referred to them—particularly in the first months and years of his life. Since 1997, a great deal more good research has confirmed the importance of these early relationships. A secure, loving relationship with both parents, and the extended family where possible, is a good omen for a child’s future: for his doing well in school and for his success in later life. This Bill takes forward the Government’s policy in this area by helping and enabling parents as far as possible to reconcile those demands, and for that reason I strongly support the Bill, but I have two points that I should like to discuss. The first point relates to key employees in small businesses. There has been a lot of discussion this afternoon about the effect of these provisions on employers and there has been talk of small businesses, but I want to stress the role of key employees in small businesses, such as the only accountant or salesman in the business. When that person goes away for six months, it is very difficult and expensive to find someone even to fill the gap; it is hugely difficult or impossible to replace the personal contacts that that person has, whether with clients, suppliers or staff, or the personal knowledge of the business, which enables them to produce satisfactory budgets to convince their colleagues of the financial exigencies, and so forth. Several noble Lords have mentioned that 97 per cent of this country’s businesses are small businesses but, in the Work and Families Bill research paper, the figure is 99 per cent. It also mentioned that more than one-third of the country’s workforce is employed by these small businesses, so we would be very foolish if we ignored the danger of destroying small businesses. In the process of making arrangements that are satisfactory to parents, we must not destroy businesses because, if we do, we shall destroy employment. The role of employers is to provide employment. In the context of what I have just said, can the Minister give an assurance that the regulations that the Government propose under Clause 3(7)(c), (d) and (e) and Clause 12 in relation to part-time working will enable an employer faced with the prospect of a long absence by a key member of his staff to have the right to insist that that person at least comes in for a few hours a week or on some other agreed basis to retain personal contacts and to contribute to decisions that need strategic knowledge of the business? In that context, would the Government consider introducing a category of worker in small businesses who might be designated a key employee—someone like the only accountant or salesman in the business—so that when they sign up and take on the job they accept that they are a key employee and may have to accept special terms and conditions for leave? My second point relates to the proposals in the Bill for additional paternity leave. There is general agreement among experts and professionals that it is in the best interests of the child to bond at an early age with their father as well as their mother. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, commented on that. That is particularly important in our society today, when we have the prospect that more than 50 per cent of children will see their parents’ partnership break up during their minority. When that happens, a good basic attachment to both parents is so often the key to the child’s emotional survival. The Bill as drafted gives very limited rights to the father to take time off over and above the normal two weeks’ paternity leave. Two weeks’ paternity leave in the first two weeks of the child’s life gives jolly little opportunity for the man to bond with the child. Unless the mother decides that she wants to return to work and wants the father to take over the caring role, the father has no other opportunity to take leave for that purpose. That is not satisfactory and, in my view, it is not fair on the child. My point is that the ability to bond early with the child has favourable results right the way through the life of the family together. I give an example from Scandinavia. In Norway, there was, until 1993, well paid parental leave available to either parent, but use by fathers was less than 4 per cent. That is the situation that we shall be in if this Bill goes through in its present form. In 1993, one month of this parental leave was made available for use by fathers only, which was matched by a month of parental leave solely available for mothers. In 1994, use by fathers of parental leave was 40 per cent; by 1998, it was 80 per cent. In other words, the chances of the father using the leave are very much greater if that leave is predicated to him only and is paid leave. There will, of course, be circumstances in which it is better for all concerned if the father works and the mother cares for the child; the converse also may be true. However, that decision is best made by both parents acting together, not simply by putting it in the hands of the mother. There is also a case for more flexibility in the way in which paternity and maternity leave can be taken. Two weeks at the very beginning is not entirely satisfactory. Why, for example, should a father not take an equivalent number of days by taking every Friday off for a longer period? If the father has a three-day weekend, that may be a much more useful contribution to family life and cause much less disruption to a small business than if he takes two weeks off—or, as I very much hope, six weeks off—all in one block. I believe that, in a society in which so many children now have to rely for emotional support on two parents living apart, there is a very strong case for investing in paternal, as well as maternal, attachment, especially in the first year of life. Today we are living in a new world and we have to make it work.