Work and Families Bill

My Lords, as the Minister will be aware, it is customary in debates on trade and industry Bills for each noble Lord or noble Baroness who speaks to start by re-declaring their interests in the members’ register. I do not think I need to declare an interest as the father of a daughter about to produce her first child in April, as presumably the regulations will not come into effect in time for her to benefit. Nevertheless, I join with other noble Lords in welcoming this Bill. The fact that Members of all political parties now generally accept the need for these very welcome provisions shows that there has clearly been a significant cultural change in our society. The Government’s policies since they came to power in 1997 have no doubt contributed to that change, and I welcome that. As the Minister will know, we on these Benches have supported the Government’s efforts to that effect. By way of introduction, I thank a number of the organisations that have given very helpful briefings to noble Lords. It has been interesting while listening to realise the effect those organisations have had on the remarks of noble Lords from all sides of the House. In particular the NSPCC, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux have made some helpful comments that have illuminated the remarks of colleagues from all quarters of the House. I do not wish to repeat the arguments on a number of points of detail, other than to say that I agree with them, but then at the end I want to spend a bit more time on two rather more fundamental points of principle. First, in no particular order, I agree with the comments made by my noble friend Lady Walmsley regarding the extension of flexible working to parents with children who are under 18. We accept the argument made by a number of NGOs that it is not logical to restrict the flexible working time to parents of children under six. All sides of the House would like to see the extension to parents of children up to the age of 18. The arguments have already been made eloquently from all quarters of the House, and I agree with them. Secondly, I also agree with the point that a number of noble Lords have made, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, that flexible working should be extended to all carers with significant caring responsibilities. As the Bill progresses through the House that is an area of detail that we could look at and to which the Government might be sympathetic. There is a general feeling that the provisions for additional paternity leave and pay will not have the impact which the Government hope. It is suggested that the Government themselves are predicting a negligible take-up rate of additional paternity leave and pay of just 1 per cent, which seems a little silly in the context of what is clearly a desirable reform. The Liberal Democrats support the Government’s stated aim of making it easier for working fathers to take time off to be with and care for their children, but we accept the argument, which I believe the citizens advice bureaux made, that that would be better achieved by enhancing the existing legal right to ordinary paternity leave, as it is now to be known. We argue that that might be increased from two to at least four weeks, that it should be more flexible and that, along with the statutory maternity and adoption leave, it should be better paid. The difficulty that we have with the statutory paternity leave is that, given the proposed rate of £106 per week, the take-up rate is likely to be very low. The Equal Opportunities Commission calculates that only 28 per cent of fathers would take statutory paternity leave at £106 per week. However, its research demonstrates that, were the Government to increase that sum to £200 per week, the take-up rate would rise to 80 per cent. We shall want to probe that area in Committee. We are concerned also—a number of noble Lords have indicated this—that the mechanism for paternity leave will make it very difficult for fathers to take it up, largely because of the length of notice that they have to give to take their ordinary paternity leave and the fact that it cannot be taken in separate blocks. That is an area on which we shall press the Government in Committee. In winding up I want to concentrate on two further fundamental issues of principle, both of which were raised in another place by my honourable friend Norman Lamb, the Member for North Norfolk. First, the new right to maternity leave extending from six months initially to nine months and then to a year, is unlikely to produce the effect that the Government would like if the £106 rate is not increased significantly. My honourable friend Norman Lamb suggested that the Government might follow the Swedish approach which would introduce more flexibility and enable a woman to choose how she will take the leave by simply allowing the mother to take the same amount of payment spread over a shorter period. If somebody wanted to take only three months off, they could have the maternity leave pay to which they would be entitled. The Swedish experience is that that increases the number of people who take up maternity leave rather than not taking it up at all. The argument used against that—which I think the Minister used in another place—was that that provided an incentive for people to spend less time with their children. However, the counter argument to that—this is certainly the European experience and particularly the Swedish experience—is that in those circumstances a number of people will take up maternity leave who would not take it up otherwise. The Government ought to look at that area. When the Government were pressed in another place on whether they had done a calculation on the financial impact of such an amendment, the answer was that they had not. I hope that in Committee the Government will indicate any extra costs that would be involved in that regard. Secondly, the effect of these provisions on small businesses has been touched on by a number of noble Lords. It is not simply a case of this provision applying unsatisfactorily in a lot of ways for small businesses, in that the costs are added to small businesses, but it touches on the general principle of regulation, which noble Lords from these Benches and Liberal Democrat Members in another place have been addressing for some time. Starting with the PAYE regulations and the impact of the collection of PAYE that was imposed on business when it was introduced after the Second World War, there has always been a significant cost of regulation, particularly in the collection of taxes, imposed on business, which is a cost that many of us would argue ought to be borne by the Revenue and by the Government rather than by small businesses. In another place, my honourable friend Norman Lamb, the Member for North Norfolk, introduced an amendment that regulations should be brought in by the Government to compensate any employer with fewer than 50 people for the cost of implementing these provisions. That amendment was supported by the Conservative Benches. That is a fundamental point; the Government are always saying that they are going to do something about the burden of regulation on business, and every time new legislation is brought in, albeit with beneficial consequences, it involves extra costs for business. Unless a line is drawn in the sand as we go through each Bill and people say, ““No, we are not going to impose that cost on small business and we are going to compensate them””, the burden of regulation on business will continue. In Committee, these Benches will propose a similar amendment to that proposed in the other place, and we hope that the Conservative Opposition will support us on it. I welcome the Bill, but the most fundamental point, apart from the details that have been touched on by other noble Lords, is whether we can draw the line here and give compensation to small business for the cost of implementing these regulations.