Work and Families Bill

moved Amendment No. 1:"Page 1, line 7, at end insert—" ““(   )   In section 35(1) for the words before paragraph (a) substitute— ““(1)   A woman shall be entitled to maternity allowance at a weekly rate as equal to, or greater than, thirty-five hours of pay at the highest level of the national minimum wage, if-.”” (   )   In section 166(3) (which specifies the rate of statutory maternity pay), after second ““rate”” insert ““as equal to, or greater than, thirty-five hours of pay at the highest level of the national minimum wage, as set out in the National Minimum Wage Regulations””.”” The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 1 aims to tie the minimum level of statutory maternity—and, by default, paternity—pay to the national minimum wage. This is because the current low rate of pay leads to a low rate of take-up of the leave. With pay at the rate of £106, or, now, £108 a week, many mothers and fathers will be unable to take up the leave extensions proposed in this Bill, and will have no choice but to continue to work to make ends meet. Indeed, even with the current entitlement, research shows that seven out of 10 mothers currently return to work for financial reasons before their leave period expires, yet only one of those seven would say that she really wanted, or was ready, to do so. Similarly, the Equal Opportunities Commission, who support this amendment, did some research that showed that only 28 per cent of fathers said they would take leave at the current level of £106 or £108 a week, and of course only about 17 per cent do; but 80 per cent of them would do so if it were increased to the £200 a week proposed by the EOC. Without tying statutory pay at least to the minimum wage level, which I believe is about £177 a week, extensions to maternity and paternity leave will only be a paper exercise for most parents, particularly lone parents and those from low income families who have no chance to build up a nest-egg while they are working to tide them through several months on only £106 a week. During the House of Commons Committee stages, Meg Munn MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, said:"““The first principle is that maternity pay is wage replacement””.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/12/05; col. 16.]" If wage replacement is the first principle of statutory pay, it is illogical for it to be below the national minimum wage. Just as an agreed minimum wage level aims to maintain decent standards of living and fairness for workers, so should those standards be offered to parents, whose cost of living can only increase when a baby is born. Yesterday the Government announced their failure to reach their target to get 1 million children out of poverty. This is despite the Government’s best endeavours, which I welcome. Surely it is sensible therefore to ensure, at the beginning of a child’s life, that the mother can look forward to a decent standard of living, will take her full maternity leave and then go back to work. The Government have linked child poverty to workless families. They should therefore consider the benefit rights of working parents right from the beginning of the child’s life. Your Lordships will know that the Liberal Democrats always put their money where their mouth is. To illustrate the point, I shall mention what we did in our manifesto at the last general election: we put in a maternity income guarantee, which did not go anywhere near far enough, but went as far as we felt we could, having costed it. The manifesto said that for the first six months of maternity leave, for the first child only, the mother would get the equivalent of a 35-hour working week on the minimum wage. We somehow found the money to support that, because our manifesto is always fully costed. It was nowhere near enough, but it was at least a step in the right direction. What steps in the right direction are the Government going to make towards this surely desirable standard? Parents’ contributions to society should be valued just as much as workers’ contributions, but, with the statutory pay not tied to the national minimum wage, parents will continue to be financially disadvantaged and their contribution to society will remain under-recognised and under-supported. I beg to move.