Work and Families Bill

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for tabling these amendments and giving us the opportunity to discuss these issues, and for the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. As was explained, the amendments would extend the period of existing paternity leave available to the father immediately after the birth from two weeks to four, and increase the period during which it may be taken to between six months and a year. They would also limit the notice periods prescribed in legislation to no more than two weeks for each week of paternity leave to be taken. Therefore, the notice period for two weeks’ paternity leave would be reduced from 15 weeks before the expected week of birth to no more than four weeks. When the Government introduced paid paternity leave as a result of the Employment Act 2002 it was rightly hailed as an important milestone. For the first time the law recognised the role played by fathers in the upbringing of new children. As the Committee will be aware, the Bill seeks to build further on this recognition, and clauses introducing a right to additional paternity leave and pay are being considered separately by the Committee. I will deal first of all with the question of the two weeks of paternity leave. Paternity leave is, of course, still a relatively new right. We have been extremely pleased by the fact that many thousands of employees have made use of it. Recent survey evidence from the Equal Opportunities Commission, extensively quoted in this debate, found that around nine out of 10 fathers take time off work to spend with a new child, and that more than two-thirds of fathers currently take up the paternity entitlements available to them. That is slightly at odds with the evidence quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. Survey evidence to be published by the Government in the next few weeks is expected to confirm similarly high levels of uptake. The new entitlement was structured following very careful consultation with stakeholders, including businesses. We took the view then that the maximum period of two weeks struck the right balance between the needs of employers and employees, and we remain of that view now. However, it is not just the Government’s view that two weeks is about right. Well over half the fathers in the EOC study said that they were satisfied with the amount of leave that they had taken around the time their child was born, and a fifth said that they were very satisfied. Two weeks off work soon after the time of the birth allows a father to provide support to both the mother and new child at the time they most need it, and to begin to play his important part in the child’s upbringing from the earliest opportunity. We know from research that many fathers actually take more time off work, combining the statutory two weeks with other entitlements, such as annual leave. On top of that, eligible fathers have a right to 13 weeks’ unpaid parental leave, which provides them with the flexibility to take extra weeks once the child is more than 8 weeks old. It can be taken until the child is five years old. It is absolutely necessary to balance the needs of employees with those of the businesses that employ them. The maximum statutory entitlement reflects that sensible balance, and the needs and views of those who contributed to the consultation prior to the introduction of the new law. On the question of the time during which the paternity leave may be taken, the law as it stands allows fathers to take up to two weeks in a single block at any time within 56 days—eight weeks—of the birth of the child. To allow this leave to be taken up to a year later would be to ignore the purpose of those two weeks of paternity leave. The entitlement is provided to allow the father time off work to support the mother and child at the vital time soon after the birth of the child, in recognition of the fact that both are likely to be most in need of that care and support during the first few weeks. To allow the leave to be taken up to a year later would be to fundamentally change the purpose of the entitlement. We are introducing additional paternity leave for those fathers who wish to take leave later on in the first year of the child’s life. Allowing up to eight weeks, in the Government’s opinion, allows a sensible degree of flexibility for the employee to choose when best to take the leave. The employer is expected to accommodate the request for those two weeks to be taken at the time that suits the employee. Most employers recognise their responsibilities and play a full part in this process. But to ask them to allow fathers to take their paternity leave over a significantly longer period than the current eight weeks—up to one year after the date of birth of the child as this amendment suggests—would be to place far too great a burden on the employer. Extending the time over which paternity leave can be taken would reduce certainty for employers at a time when we are bringing in other measures to increase it, such as extending the period of notice women must give if changing their return from maternity leave. I now turn to the question of notice to be given to the employer. At present, employees need to give their employer notice of their intention to take paternity leave by the 15th week before their baby is due. The amendment would have the effect of reducing that to no more than two weeks for each week of leave taken. In other words, there would be a maximum period of notice of no more than four weeks for a period of paternity leave of two weeks. The Government’s view is that the current notice requirements are an appropriate balance between the needs of employer and employee, and that the effect of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness would be to place an unjustifiable burden on employers. While eligible employees of course have an entitlement to paternity leave, it is, in our view, only right that their employers are given proper notice of an employee’s intentions so that they can plan ahead and provide cover or make alternative arrangements as necessary. We believe that there should be as much consistency as possible across the various statutory entitlements so that administration is kept as simple as possible. There is therefore a particular benefit to business of having the same notice period for both paternity and maternity leave: businesses do not need to remember different lengths of notice periods dependent on the type of leave taken. The point was raised about the provisions that might apply to additional paternity leave and the notice period relating to that. An eight-week notice period for the additional paternity leave will mirror the notice that a woman has to give for going back to work early. Again, there is a logical consistency to that. Employers may not always see the need for such notice periods. Noble Lords should be aware that such an employer is always free to accept a shorter notice period if they wish; indeed, they should in any event accept a notice period shorter than 15 weeks if it is not reasonably practicable for the employee to give the requisite notice. It is also worth noting that there is flexibility for an employee to change his mind about the date of his paternity leave so long as he gives his employer 28 days’ notice. I am aware that some argue that long notice periods mean that some fathers end up losing their entitlement to paternity leave because they do not realise they need to give notice until it is too late. In fact the evidence does not bear this out. Most fathers will obviously know well before the 15th week before birth that their partners are pregnant and, when those partners are employees, the fathers are likely to know that they are giving notice to take paternity leave. Further, the Equal Opportunities Commission’s survey, Dads and Their Babies: Leave Arrangements and the First Year, published in 2005 and part-funded by the DTI, found that nine out of 10 fathers take time off work to spend with a new child and that over two-thirds of fathers currently take up the paternity entitlements. The same report suggested that levels of awareness were good. Most fathers questioned in the EOC’s survey were aware of their rights before their child was born. However, we will of course continue working with employers, trade unions and others to ensure that the already high levels of awareness of these employment rights and responsibilities continue to improve. We all want to ensure that there is an understanding of what is required. The notice requirements for taking paternity leave were structured following careful consultation with employers, employees, trades unions and others. They reflect an appropriate balance between the needs of all those affected. In conclusion, the length of ordinary paternity leave, the timescale within which it may be taken, and the requirements for notice to be given to employers all reflect a sensible balance between the needs of employee, employer, child and child’s mother. Accordingly, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.