Work and Families Bill

This has been an interesting debate. Like other noble Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for allowing us to have it. She was very persuasive. I was grateful for her remarks on the success of the flexible working law so far. She was very clear about some of the issues around family—some of the stresses and how a flexible approach to working may enable parents to be able to relate more to their children. The right reverend Prelate and the noble Earl as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, expanded on that theme. Noble Lords will know that I have ministerial responsibility for the Child Support Agency. Whatever the issues around the administration of the CSA—or even its IT programme, which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred to—at the heart of the CSA’s problem is the fact that they are dealing with parents who often refuse to behave responsibly to each other, with the child being the loser. The more we can do to encourage parents to behave responsibly towards their children, the less likely that we will need the CSA, and the less likely that we will see some of the consequences of family breakdown. So there is no disagreement between any of us. I am particularly interested in the debate about mental health issues. If one looks at the instance of workplace ill health, there is no question that mental health issues have become the number one problem. They have overtaken back pain and other musculoskeletal diseases, and therefore it is a matter of great concern. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, suggested, it is clear that good employers are focused on tackling these issues, and I can point to a number of companies and public sector organisations who have very good occupational health services, where, the moment an employee has issues of stress, they are referred to occupational health and there is an attempt to deal with the problem right at the start, rather than allowing it to fester. Flexible working may well be one of the answers to how we deal with stress. There is no doubt that there is much more that can be done. Any employee now has the right to ask to work flexibly, regardless of whether they have a statutory right to do so. The statutory right is a significant right to which the employer must respond in due process. It is possible for an employee to appeal to ACAS or an employment tribunal if they are dissatisfied with the approach taken by the employer. I suspect that the next amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, will come back to this issue, but I refer to it because we need to be clear that it is not simply a question of an employee having the right to ask for flexible working. Once that is done under the provisions of statute there is due process to be followed, and therefore it is a serious issue for an employer; it has to be taken seriously. That is why one has to recognise that seeking to extend flexibility has a consequence for business. Given that the Bill attempts to straddle the line between the needs of business and the needs of employees, we have to be very cautious before we enter into further commitments that might have a knock-on impact on business, which it is then unable to support. Keeping the consensus is very important here. From that, noble Lords will gather that I support what the Government have described as a targeted approach to extending flexible working. In 2002, we asked the Work and Parents Task Force, chaired by Professor Sir George Bain, to examine how parents’ desire for more flexible patterns could be met in a way that would be compatible with business efficiency. In order to ensure employer support, the task force recommended that a duty to consider flexible working based on existing best practice should be introduced cautiously. The aim was to allow both employers and employees to become familiar with the legislation and to evaluate how it worked in practice. The task force acknowledged the difficulty in setting an age limit. It recommended that the law should be targeted at people with young children, setting the age limit at six to cover the key stages of birth and starting school. It also suggested that the age limit should be set at 18 for parents of disabled children in recognition of the particular challenges that they face. We made a clear commitment to keep under review how this was working and what more could be done. In the Government’s Work and Families: Choice and Flexibility consultation paper, we asked what more could be done to help families to find working hours to match their caring responsibilities. The consultation responses highlighted that a key factor in the success of the law has been its targeted, rather than blanket, approach, enabling employers to manage and grow flexible working in their individual organisations. The retention of that principle is important to employers, as they expressed concerns about managing requests from a wider section of the workforce—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. The noble Baroness also made the point that small businesses in particular have stressed that their resources to meet an increase in demand are inevitably limited. That means that we have to be cautious about widening the scope of the law. Any increase in the scope of the legislation, where an employee has the right for his request to be dealt with by the step-by-step procedure set out in the regulations, must be done sensibly to ensure that the legislation remains a success and that we do not place undue burdens on business. Overall, respondents to the work and families consultation considered that carers should be the priority in any extension of the law. We have gone down that path. In maintaining a targeted approach, we think that we will retain employer support, which has been so critical to the success of the law so far. With the knowledge, based on experience to date, that it is likely to stimulate opportunities to work flexibly, we will provide employers with the ability to manage requests. I end by commenting on two points that were raised during the debate. First, I turn to the definition of a carer. I understand that the third amendment in this group is intended to enable as wide a definition as possible. I say to the noble Baroness that we are keen to adopt as broad a definition as is sensible and we are consulting on the possibilities. We are listening to stakeholders and will be taking their views into account. We want to ensure that the definition is easy and clear to understand for both employers and employees. It is very important that the law is straightforward in this regard. Secondly, I turn to the question of mental health in relation to teenagers in particular and children in general. I do not have with me the answer to the question raised by the noble Baroness but I shall see whether I can find anything. However, it is worth making the point that parents of children under the age of 18 with mental health problems can be covered if they fall within the definition of ““disabled””. In this context, that means that they are entitled to a disability living allowance within the meaning of Section 71 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. It may not go as far as noble Lords wish, but I hope that it will provide some comfort in relation to parents who are experiencing extreme stress if they are dealing with a highly disturbed teenager, as described by noble Lords. In conclusion, I do not think that anyone here has any problem with the general principle raised by the noble Baroness, but we think that a targeted approach, working cautiously and getting support from business is probably the best way forward.