§ 11 am
§ Mr. Parmjit Dhanda (Gloucester) (Lab)I welcome you back from the summer recess, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and hope that you and other hon. Members have had a good break.
I am delighted to have secured this debate on an issue of direct importance to 12 million parents and their dependent children. All parents have a responsibility to provide financially for their families through work; however, parenthood is about not just time, but emotional support and practical help when times get tough. The debate is of great significance to many hon. Members, as well as to those outside Parliament; my predecessor stood down after one term in the House because, as is well recorded, she had a young family.
I shall be brief, as in addition to spokesmen for the opposition parties, other hon. Members wish to contribute. I shall outline the background, assess the effectiveness of the legal framework and offer suggestions that I hope the Minister will find helpful about the steps that can be taken to enable parents to fulfil their responsibilities to themselves, their families and the wider society.
First, I pay tribute to the hard work of colleagues such as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), who is keen to try to come and play a part in this debate. She has tabled a number of questions on this topic, and I shall say something about them and about the answers that she has received. Secondly, I pay tribute to the trade unions—I know that the Minister will wish to do the same—especially my union, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, which has campaigned tirelessly on the issue, and Connect, the union for professionals in communications, of which I am also a member and a former employee.
The Equal Opportunities Commission, too, has played a leading role in forming a coalition of almost 40 organisations, all calling for greater support for parents and carers. They have campaigned actively for working parents to have the opportunity to achieve a sustainable work-life balance, and their campaigns are more relevant now than ever before.
The context of the debate is one in which millions of mothers and fathers constantly juggle their responsibilities in an attempt to achieve a semblance of a work-life balance. Thanks to this Government's policies since 1997, approximately 10 million parents are in work, including 58 per cent. of women with pre-school children and 78 per cent. of women with children aged between six and 13. There may be more people in work, but that has thrown up a number of new issues. A third of fathers work more than 50 hours a week and 14 per cent. of fathers work 60 hours or more a week.
As hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise, what is at issue is not just the need of parents to spend quality time with their children. We must also acknowledge that there are unforeseen and unpredictable circumstances in which parents need time off, such as when a child or child minder is sick, or when a child has to be taken for an emergency medical appointment. In addition, there are routine occasions such as meetings with teachers, sports days, assemblies 206WH and so on, and times when children just need extra time and support from their parents. As is well documented, those who do not receive such support can go on to develop serious behavioural problems. Much of the work that the Government have tried to do over the past seven years has aimed to create that bond in the early years so that parents and children can enjoy that nurturing experience that it is to be hoped will make society a better place for tomorrow.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe)My hon. Friend will acknowledge the Government's attempt to deal with the long hours culture by signing up to the working time directive. We have an argument about the opt-out clause, but the directive restricts people to working 48 hours a week.
§ Mr. DhandaI certainly do. My hon. Friend makes a good point. I was working in the trade union movement when we signed up to the directive. It was one of those champagne moments of the Labour Government. I will talk later about that directive and other European directives that are particularly relevant to parental leave.
What is the Government's role in this whole area of parental leave? At one end of the spectrum is the view that parents' responsibility to their children is an entirely individual matter, that there is no need for Government support and that any obligation on business will be inherently detrimental to enterprise and the operation of a free market. I strongly oppose that view, and I would like to think that hon. Members on both sides of the House do too. At the other end of the spectrum is the argument that able parents should be entirely free to stay at home while drawing a full income from their employer or the taxpayer and that this obviates the need for them financially to support their families themselves. I will not subscribe to that position either. However, sometimes parents need help and support for their children.
The Government should not take on parents' duties for them, and I do not think anyone argues that they should, but they should enable parents to fulfil their duties. That is important. Parental leave provides one such avenue, but the issue is much wider than that. Since 1997, the Government have taken a holistic approach. My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned one of the measures that have been introduced—the working time directive. In 1999, the Government introduced provisions of the European directive on parental leave, which entitled parents who had worked for the same employer for at least a year to 13 weeks' unpaid parental leave if their child was born on or after 15 December 1999 and had not yet reached the age of five. Subsequently, as my hon. Friend will be aware, the TUC challenged the ruling and the scope of the directive was widened so that it applies to all parents with children under five who get a proportion of that paid leave. I hope he agrees that that was a welcome measure.
Each parent of a disabled child under the age of 18 for whom disability living allowance is paid is entitled to 18 weeks' unpaid parental leave. Parents also have the right to take time off for dependants, although it is unpaid. As with all these forms of parental leave, that is a stumbling block for low-paid workers—a point on 207WH which I shall elaborate later. The measures have none the less been a great stride forward since 1997. It is also important to recognise that these policies fit into a much wider approach to families, of which child care is one part.
Since 1997, more than 920,000 new child care places have been created, benefiting well over 1.6 million children. Free part-time nursery provision has guaranteed education for all four-year-olds and now all three-year-olds too. The 524 new local Sure Start programmes for families living in disadvantaged areas have made a huge difference, not least through the five programmes in my constituency. I know that those programmes have made a huge difference throughout the country.
Let us not consider parental leave in isolation; there are many ways in which different Departments are striving to make work-life balance a reality. Many of the provisions that came into being in 1999 under the European directive on parental leave—particularly the ones I have described— apply to children under the age of five. It is the view of many in this House, and of trade unions such as USDAW, that those provisions should be extended. The Government should consider extending them to those above the age of five, and even to those up to the age of 16.
The Government make the good point that we need to invest more in the early years to invest in our society's future. I agree with that, but in dealing with society today, we find that a great deal of legislation is focused on antisocial behaviour. Any parent will say that one of the most difficult times to be a parent is when one's child is a teenager. I see the Minister nodding. I am happy to give way to him; he can tell us of his experiences.
§ Mr. SutcliffeThe reason why I had my head in my hands is that I have a 15-year-old son, so I know exactly what my hon. Friend means about the difficulties of teenage years. He is a wonderful son. I have two other sons, aged 31 and 29, and it does not get any easier.
§ Mr. DhandaI will take the Minister's word for it. I got married only last year, and I do not have any kids yet, so it is not a direct problem for me.
I want to talk about the take-up of paid and unpaid parental leave. Figures produced by the Department of Trade and Industry in 2001 showed that just 3 per cent. of parents had exercised their right to take parental leave. In a written answer on 15 June, my hon. Friend the Minister stated that take-up was 8 per cent. of eligible female employees and 10 per cent. of eligible male employees among those whose employers provided parental leave. However, that figure was based on employees who were aware that their employer provided parental leave.
According to a Department for Work and Pensions survey, barely a third of eligible men and women were aware that they were entitled to parental leave. Only a quarter of mothers and fathers were fully aware that they had the right to take 13 weeks' unpaid parental leave after working for the same employer for one year. Interestingly, awareness and take-up of the right were much higher in higher paid, more highly educated 208WH groups and in workplaces with more pro-work-life policies and trade union recognition. I am sure that the Minister will have something to say about that, because it is particularly relevant that there is a greater awareness where there is trade union recognition.
Such a level of take-up will be considered unacceptable by many people in this House, including me, and especially those of us with a passionate interest in the welfare of people facing low pay and poor conditions. I would be grateful if the Minister advised us of the steps that his Department will take to increase take-up.
The problem is replicated in the take-up of paid leave as well. Some employers provide payment for parental leave and take-up is much higher among employees who are entitled to partly or fully paid leave, particularly among men, who are paid disproportionately more than women. We have talked about how low take-up can be in respect of unpaid, but there is a significant increase in the case of paid leave. If we consider some of the statistics in relation to take-up, we find that 22 per cent. of women took the opportunity to have parental leave when it was partly paid, and 40 per cent. when it was fully paid. When we examine the figures relating to men, we see that take-up of partly paid leave goes up to 34 per cent., and for fully paid leave among men it is a whopping 57 per cent. That is hugely significant. It shows the much greater demand for parental leave if the financial sacrifice can be alleviated, especially among men, whose salaries are usually greater—although I know that the Government are looking to introduce measures to equalise the gender pay gap.
However, relatively few parents take that entitlement to paid leave. Awareness of entitlement is much higher among women than among men. Statistics purely on awareness show that three times as many women as men are aware of part-paid leave but that the gender gap reduces to half in respect of fully paid leave, of which far more people are aware. Those findings suggest that payment for parental leave could be a means of significantly increasing its take-up. I will welcome the views of my hon. Friend the Minister on that.
My office has done a lot of work with the House of Commons Library to find out what is going on with parental leave around the world. There is already provision for paid parental leave in many countries. In Austria, a flat-rate allowance funded by the state is available for working couples during parental leave. In Canada, parental leave is paid by unemployment insurance, where a family is eligible for unemployment benefits. In Denmark, parental leave is paid by the state at a flat rate equivalent to unemployment benefit. Such a system can work, and has worked, elsewhere. USDAW is urging the Government to build on their successes by extending paid parental leave, and I would appreciate the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister on that issue. Is his Department actively considering that approach, and what work has been carried out to establish the effectiveness and feasibility of paid parental leave? What conclusions, if any, has he drawn from any such analysis at this stage?
An understandable concern is that putting further obligations on businesses could harm their ability to make profits and create jobs. Those of us from a trade union background are all familiar with that argument. It should not be dismissed lightly, but neither should it 209WH be taken as a given. There is a strong business case for paid family leave. It can help to reduce sickness absence. Claims of unwarranted sickies have been in the headlines recently, as they often are, but they are not just about stereotypical malingering workers wanting a day off. When a child is sick, parents put them first and take time off work to be with them. If the only basis for them to do so is to take sick leave, they will choose that option, as a recent survey by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has shown. I understand that the Government's research confirms that where there is some form of paid family leave, there is less unauthorised absence and less unplanned lateness.
In addition, the Industrial Relations Service has found that two thirds of employers said that recruitment, retention and employee commitment and motivation had all improved following the introduction of family-friendly working practices. Paid parental leave could therefore aid the health and stability of businesses.
Looking at the bigger picture into which parental leave fits, I want to consider other ways in which the Government could improve the work-life balance for parents. I know that some such measures fall outside the DTI's remit, so I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to speak in detail about them, but it is important to raise them because this is a cross-Government matter. I want to highlight the fact that this is a wide issue that requires the support of many Departments and other agencies. For example, longer school opening hours to provide wrap-around education and child care could help working parents enormously. The Department for Education and Skills has already released funding for 250 fully operational wrap-around schools, which will be set up by 2006. Two thirds of schools offer some kind of out-of-hours support for parents; extending that provision will enable us to maximise the potential of children while helping parents to go out to work.
I have already mentioned the EOC, which has been campaigning on the highly relevant issue of pregnancy discrimination. That term refers directly to any disadvantage a woman can face at work that is caused wholly or partly by pregnancy. Each year, up to 1,000 women in England and Wales take legal action claiming that they were sacked because they were pregnant. Others have faced pay cuts, demotion or hostile treatment—and not just at the hands of the United Kingdom Independence party. I want there to be more support for families and also to provide more support for employers by making them aware of the law and giving them the help they need to prevent pregnancy discrimination. I would welcome any information that my hon. Friend could give about what the Government plan to do in this area.
My message is a positive one. Parental leave is not a zero sum game between the rights of parents and the needs of business. Bosses benefit from productive, motivated and happy employees. Children benefit from having parents with the time to nurture them. Making it easier for parents to take leave can aid the stability of business and the emotional development of children, and support the strong families on which our communities and our society rest.
§ Beverley Hughes (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)I greatly welcome the opportunity to contribute, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) on his foresight in seeking a debate on this very important topic and on his success in securing it. I also join him in acknowledging the work of USDAW in representing the interests of people—mainly women—in the retail sector, for whom this is a very important issue.
Balancing the care of children with paid employment is a daily problem for many working parents, as most of us who have been there recognise. Parents do not want just to juggle those things in the precarious way that many of us have had to do. They want to ensure the best possible care for their children. Many families want to enable both parents to keep a toehold in the world of work and need to do so in ways that maximise their family income.
Trying to achieve those three objectives presents many parents with challenges on a scale that they find overwhelming. As family structures are diversifying and employment patterns, particularly for women, continue to evolve, it is unsurprising that the tension at the interface of these two worlds has become ever more acute for many parents.
We should disabuse ourselves at the outset of any impression there might be—not here, but outside this place that this is a difficult issue only for professional parents juggling children with two well-paid jobs. It is of course an even more difficult issue for lone parents and parents with limited earning power; for them, the options are even more limited. This matter is as much about social justice and extending opportunities to lower-income parents as anything else.
Some may still argue that this is essentially a private matter, and in terms of the particular arrangements that individual parents make, I agree that it is. However, I want to construct most of my arguments around the belief that what happens in practice when parents try to arrange child care and juggle it with work matters particularly profoundly in three areas that I hope nobody would disagree are very important parts of public policy.
The first area is outcomes for children. Children's experiences during their earliest years have profound and enduring impacts on their life chances and opportunity for social mobility later on. Their performances in tests at 22 and 42 months, before they even get to school, are very strong predictors of educational attainment by the age of 25 or 26, when life chances and social mobility are largely set. So in those early years, the quality of the care that young children receive—how stimulating and emotionally responsive it is—is critical. That is one of the important issues that justify the Government's role.
The second issue, of course, is gender inequality at work. The pay gap has been mentioned and it is perhaps the clearest example of employment inequality, although there are others, including career progression for women. In large part, the gap is due to mothers' role in the labour market and the highly gendered division of labour that flows from it in the domestic sphere. We all agree that this area of public policy needs addressing, 211WH and the extent to which we help parents—not just mothers, but fathers, too—to share child care and paid work is critical.
Last but not least, it is bad for UK productivity and, in particular, for individual businesses if those businesses must lose valued employees simply because options for combining child care and work are limited. Those three social and economic issues—outcomes for children, gender inequality at work and the success of British business— are crucial, and no responsible political party can ignore them. The Government must provide a range of options from which parents can construct their own arrangements, while promoting progressive, modern solutions to those social and economic issues.
I congratulate the Government on their progress so far. They are the first Government for many years to have put such issues centre stage in a programme of policy. All three and four-year-olds are now guaranteed a publicly funded nursery place, and take-up is high. The extension of Sure Start and the development of children's centres will take that provision further.
Women's participation in the labour market is among the highest in Europe, with 65 per cent. of mothers in paid employment, usually part-time. Maternity leave has been extended, and provision for two weeks' paid paternity leave has been introduced. A small but increasing number of fathers choose to work part-time. Parents now have the right to ask to work flexibly. New tax credits and, of course, the minimum wage help lower-paid parents with their family finances.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester that there is a lack of clarity about some details, particularly regarding parental leave arrangements, but a recent ICM/Guardian poll showed that about 70 per cent. of parents had a good overall grasp of the wide range of Government reforms. Interestingly, however, 66 per cent. wanted the Government to go further, which reflects the continuing difficulty that many parents have in squaring the circle, although things have got better. The problem is particularly acute for parents with very young babies, who want, ideally, to opt for home-based care until their children reach nursery age. Recent research has questioned the suitability of group care for very young children and babies, whose needs are arguably best met by parents or by one or two consistent, emotionally responsive carers at home. That goes back to the argument about the quality of arrangements for children.
The present arrangements have gone a considerable way to helping parents, but it is still difficult for many parents to juggle their responsibilities. That has led to a situation in which there are limited options for age-appropriate child care, particularly when children are very young. Mothers also tend to work part-time, exacerbating the gender pay gap, which is already among the most significant in Europe. Furthermore, men are restricted differentially to full-time, long-hours jobs, when many are calling for fathers' distinctive role to be recognised. That makes it more difficult for businesses to retain women employees.
212WH On the basis of the Government's progress so far, people are ready for and want another step change, in addition to what has already been achieved, to extend choice to working parents. If we are to achieve it, we must embrace several objectives. I realise that they are not all in this Minister's province, but as my hon. Friend said, we need a cross-Government approach if we are to hit all the right buttons. First, we need high-quality and age-appropriate arrangements for child care. Secondly, we need improved satisfaction, pay and career progression for women at work. Thirdly, we need opportunities for child care to be shared between both parents and a distinctive focus on fathers. We need establish the wider business case for flexible employment practices.
If we can address those issues, we will need to do a number of things. On child care, we must try to see whether we can diversify and improve the quality of the arrangements that are made, particularly for young children. I think—hon. Members may well share this view—that it is hard to contemplate leaving a young baby with somebody else. It is a wrench that many people go through. That view may reflect my position, because 25 years ago, when I had my first child, my husband and I both worked part-time for about eight years until our third child went to nursery, and it was much more difficult for him than for me. I would like to think that that is now an easier option for some parents to consider, but we must make it easier for fathers to follow such arrangements with their partners.
The quality and diversity of arrangements for child care must be addressed, including home-based care for young babies, nursery care and education for three to five-year-olds, and much more wrap-around provision for children at school. We must also address the quality assurance of child care, because parents need to know that the place where they are leaving their children is safe and high quality. One of the greatest fears is what is happening when the children are out of sight, and how they are being spoken to and the quality of interaction between them and their carers. Most child care is high quality, but each parent needs to know that the child care that they have is high quality.
Secondly, support for parents at work must be extended, and we have introduced extensions in paternity and maternity leave. The issue of the level of pay during leave is important. There is some evidence, as cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, that if pay increases, so too does the take-up, particularly for people from poorer families. I would like to see the introduction of some extended paid parental leave entitlement, on an equal basis for men and women. The lessons in Norway are instructive, because take-up by fathers increased dramatically when they were given a specific entitlement on a take it or lose it basis.
I welcome the Government's arrangements for people to have the right to request flexible hours. If I remember rightly, the monitoring in the first tranche showed that 80 per cent. of such requests were agreed. That is a great step forward. However, that still presumably means that one in five were turned down, and I wonder what those parents had to do. I would welcome it if the Government continue to monitor that provision to see whether it needs to be strengthened.
213WH The third area that we must address is making employment practices father friendly as well as mother friendly. That means reinforcing the attitude that a father's involvement is important in its own right, for children and men, and not just as a support for mothers. There is a range of options, including flexible hours, annualised hours and term-time working for men and women. If such arrangements were more the norm, they could transform options for parents and benefit many employers by reducing sickness absence, unauthorised absence and lateness, and by improving recruitment, retention and productivity. Nobody works harder than a part-time worker in my experience, having been one for many years.
As a precursor, as the variants of such a package are considerable, it would be welcome if the Government, employers and trade unions could work together to evaluate the options and talk to parents. That should include the potential impact—real or perceived—on other employees of extending rights to working parents.
§ Mr. DhandaI am in total agreement with my right hon. Friend on the packages that are out there working and delivering. Does she agree that part of the difficulty is ensuring a level of equity between different social groups' ability to buy into the packages? Unfortunately, the way things are and the way in which knowledge tends to be dispersed to those who can afford it means that the greatest beneficiaries tend to be those with better pay and conditions. One of the things that we need to do is find other mechanisms to reach out to ensure that those on lower pay benefit from some of the measures that she outlined.
§ Beverley HughesI agree absolutely. I remind my hon. Friend that I started my speech by saying that, for me, the issue is one of social justice. If we are serious about extending opportunities to all, we must make sure that such provisions reach the people who, arguably, need them most and not simply those who are better informed and able to access them. That must be an important part of the equation.
It is important to demonstrate and establish the business case and the wider social and economic case for the measures. I suspect that the benefits may go well beyond the more limited benefit of enabling parents to work and care at the same time. I think that the potential benefits for children—potentially for boys and girls differentially—of living in families in which both parents are being seen to share the care and work could be profound.
In conclusion, I welcome the progress that we have already made in taking the arrangements into a new dimension. I hope that we can now work on the next steps, along the lines that my hon. Friend has been addressing. If we can, I think that we will not only do the best by children, but address gender inequality in the workplace and help British business to make the most of the talents of all our people in the interests of the British economy.
§ Brian Cotter (Weston-super-Mare) (LD)I thank the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) for initiating the debate, which is very important. There are 214WH many difficulties that still need resolving, and one cannot say merely that they are black and white and let that be the end of it. I thank him for the clarity with which he drew attention to the issues and pressures that people have in their lives nowadays that are different from how things used to be.
Child care places have been referred to, as has the importance of early years—an issue that, in particular, the right hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes) addressed. There are many such issues and questions. The question of how to juggle our personal lives with our daily working commitments is becoming increasingly pressured in today's modern society, when financial pressures on both parents are to the fore. Moreover, young women are no longer trapped by the old-fashioned stereotype that once confined them to the home in the role of full-time housewife and mother. Society has rightly moved on, so that both men and women can pursue the career of their choice and increasingly tend to share the practical responsibilities of parenthood.
In discussing the changing needs of working parents, we must remember the wider debate about the value of flexible, friendly working patterns for others. With an increasingly elderly population, many people are stepping in to fulfil the state's traditional role and are providing much-needed care for elderly and sick relatives. The Prime Minister has indicated that he wishes to consider that area and how to balance those needs with existing employment commitments. The debate is welcome, as it deals with an important issue that is becoming an increasing concern to many people in society. In responding to those new challenges and needs, it is imperative that we achieve co-operation and consensus among employers, workers and the state. Without such agreement, we will fail to create a competitive and flexible labour market that reflects Britain's 21st century needs.
Until recently, before I entered Parliament, I ran a small company. I was at the sharp end and I have experienced the need for flexibility, understanding and co-operation. It is important to change the old business culture of "them and us" and "You're on the shop floor and we're up here." I have had to address those problems, and I could give examples of other difficult issues that I have had to solve. This is an important matter, which is not black and white. We must work co-operatively.
I shall put the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) in the spotlight, perhaps unfairly, since I have no quotation that refers to her, but I must point out that the Conservatives' usual dismissal of family-friendly policies is particularly unhelpful in view of what this debate is about, as it fails to address the changing nature of the British workplace. At last year's Conservative party conference in Blackpool, the then shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), said that a Conservative Government would consider repealing newly won rights to extra maternity and paternity leave, prompting the chair of the Equal Opportunities Commission, Julie Mellor, to question whether he was
completely out of touch with public opinion.Considering the results of last month's ICM poll, it seems that the Conservatives are out of touch with public opinion. The poll showed overwhelming 215WH sympathy for young families trying to balance work-life responsibilities, with 66 per cent. of respondents arguing that the Government should allow either parent to take up to six months' paid leave.
I wonder whether the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), who is unfortunately not present, but speaks on behalf of the Conservatives on small business, would want to reconsider the categorical statement he made in the latest issue of the journal, Business Adviser, when he pledged that there would be absolutely
no more work-life balance initiatives or employment legislationunder a Tory Government.There have been many announcements over the summer break from the official Opposition, and it is plain from this debate that some clear statements have been made in the past. Whether they will be changed I am not sure. Although there is an argument for questioning how well current legislation is working, I hardly think that refusing ever to take any further action, as if the world will stand still, will help working parents or employers to cope with sociological and cultural changes affecting how we work.
I modestly and quietly suggest that the Conservatives should remember that we no longer live in an era in which men go off to work in cloth caps, leaving women at home to put a meal on the table and look after the children. None the less, it is right to highlight the problems that small businesses have in implementing employment law, particularly given the increasing burden of red tape in recent years. Under Labour the burden has soared.
§ Mr. SutcliffeI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, as I cannot let him continue without asking this obvious question: which of the employment regulations introduced since 1997 would the Liberal party remove?
§ Brian CotterI have made it quite clear that as a party we are not into repealing sensible employment regulation; we are into ensuring that there has been proper consultation beforehand and an assessment of how Bills will impact on businesses and others. Since I entered Parliament, I and other colleagues have identified that issue. I credit the Government with having improved their impact assessments, but a lot of legislation has been introduced without being properly assessed and adjusted accordingly.
Legislation disproportionately presses down on small businesses. An Office World report published in July 2003 found that 36 per cent. of small business owners with up to five employees reported a negative effect on their health as a result of complying with employment regulations.
Returning to the poor Conservatives, we should not forget that, for all their claims about getting rid of regulation, in their time they piled on as many if not more regulations as this Government have done. We will perhaps hear more about that. It was a Conservative Government who first transferred the cost of statutory sick pay from the state to the employer, and John Major's Government were actively considering 216WH switching the full cost of funding maternity pay from the state to employers in summer 1995. Those are just some examples that we should be concerned about.
It is clear that many small businesses are having problems complying with parental leave regulation. Godfrey Bloom, the UKIP MEP, is quoted as saying:
No self-respecting small businessman … would ever employ a lady of child-bearing agebecause it is too risky. That may be a grossly outdated and offensive view, but it struck a chord with many small business people none the less.As politicians, we owe it to both parents and employers to address any problems that small businesses are having in dealing with parental leave requirements. Parents should not be punished if unnecessary bureaucracy is standing in the way of small business owners fulfilling their role as reasonable employers. Young women should not be discriminated against because small employers are deterred from hiring them due to overburdensome maternity leave regulations. I say to the Minister that there are problems that need to be addressed: he nods and agrees, as we all do.
The latest report published by the Equal Opportunities Commission makes particularly alarming reading. "Tip of the Iceberg" found that more than 1,000 women take legal action each year claiming that they have been sacked for being pregnant. Like many statistics, that figure stands on its own but has behind it lots of different issues with their pros and cons. I know that that is the case, and I will not take up too much of the House's time on the matter. I had to deal with such an issue when I was an employer, and it was difficult, so I am not saying that such things are easy.
I am pleased that the EOC is consulting various groups as part of a wider investigation of the issue, including the question whether the state should provide support to small firms, spread the costs of pregnancy and remove some of their fears. I hope that the Government will study the conclusions of the investigation carefully.
Small firms should not face crippling costs or burdens on their business due to the lack of resources that they have in comparison with larger firms in implementing parental leave regulations. One small business owner complained in The Sunday Times at the beginning of August that he was struggling to reclaim from the Inland Revenue the maternity pay that he had given to his employee. For small businesses, which often have a limited cash flow, such a situation is unacceptable, and it is important that such cases are examined. I do not know the detail—I am simply highlighting something that has been said—but it is deplorable if firms cannot claim back promptly and easily the maternity pay that they have paid out.
Administrative burdens in implementing the regulation need to be as light as possible, and small firms need easy access to guidance on the law. If small firms continue to have problems with red tape on parental leave, the Government must address the matter so that parents do not end up losing out as a result. Statutory requirements must be of a pace that can be absorbed at every level, which might even require the Government to provide financial assistance to small businesses. I put that forward just as a "might".
217WH It is also vital that the 2006 review of employment law does not merely focus on extending the various parental leave measures introduced in 2003, but considers how well they are working in practice and how to iron out any difficulties that small firms are having. If the Government fail to address problems associated with red tape, the inequality between the rights of employees in small firms and those in large firms will be most obvious.
To return to family-friendly policies, only last month the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the leader of the Conservative party, referred to the important role that fathers play in the development of their children. He drew a connection between their involvement and reducing crime. It is therefore a mystery why the Conservatives have tended to be so critical of various parental leave measures, given that benefits such as paid paternity leave encourage men to play a greater role in the child's life. We must all address that issue.
As the hon. Member for Gloucester said, there are concerns about take-up and awareness. I hope that this debate will help to publicise benefits that are there to be taken up. Many people argue that statutory leave after a birth requires examining, and my party agrees.
Finally, the one thing that really makes a dramatic improvement in the lives of working parents is provision of decent and affordable child care. I will not say more about that, except that it is a big concern. Liberal Democrats believe that money from the Chancellor's child trust fund, for example, should be diverted towards child care. That is a political issue about which I shall make just that small point, but there are many concerns about child care, as I learned when I went around my constituency during the summer.
In conclusion, we must recognise that the patterns of work and family life are changing. That is why this debate is so very important.
§ Mrs. Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)I congratulate the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) on securing this debate and on introducing it at such an excellent time—the beginning of the political year, when everyone is agog to know what we are talking about. I am absolutely delighted that this very important subject is being aired here on day one.
I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said, although he might be surprised to hear me say it. He has clearly given a great deal of thought to the question, which is one of balance. The issue affects almost every family in this country. The right hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes) is absolutely correct in saying that the whole issue of parents in the workplace, mothers, maternity and parental leave and the work-life balance affects everyone at every level of employment. We are seeing high-profile cases in which ladies in the City are taking expensive legal action— enormous amounts of money are at stake—in cases of unfair dismissal, discrimination and so on. At the same time, we all know of women who want to go out to work, but who simply cannot do so after they have children because child care costs take up almost all their earned income after tax. I completely agree with the right hon. Lady that the matter affects people at every level of employment.
218WH I am grateful to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter) for throwing down the gauntlet on my party's policy on these issues. It gives me the opportunity to clear up a few misunderstandings. I shall have a word later with my hon. Friends the Members for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) and for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), but I make it absolutely clear that my party is examining many aspects of work-life balance and the difficulties that people in a modern society have in balancing their duties to their families, including not only their children, but their parents. Carers of elderly, disabled and infirm people have just as much difficulty as parents, and sometimes more, in balancing their work life and their home life. If someone has a small child, they at least know that they have small child to care for, but people's parents can become unwell very suddenly. At some point or other, we have all had to balance these great difficulties.
It is simply wrong to say that the Conservative party is not aware of these issues and is not addressing them. We most certainly are addressing them in our development of future policy. I must make it absolutely clear that we are not against parental leave, and I shall speak about that in more detail later. Without any doubt, we recognise that producing, nurturing and educating future generations is an extremely important role. The role of parent is not just incidental to the rest of life; it is vital. It sounds so obvious that it hardly needs to be said, but I feel that I have to say it because the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare has quoted some articles from journals that have put the wrong emphasis on certain things that may or may not have been said by some of my hon. Friends. I am not blaming him. He has quoted the media, and we all know that they are not necessarily 100 per cent. accurate.
§ Mr. DhandaI appreciate the calm and measured way in which the hon. Lady is making her points. She makes a point about quoting the media, rather than referring to things that have been said directly by spokespersons. When she goes away from this debate and meets people on her Front Bench who are directly involved in formulating the policies in this area, she might remind them that it was the last-but-one leader of her party who said at the Dispatch Box that he would do away with Sure Start. In the same calm and measured way in which she has handled herself in this debate, I urge her to go back to her colleagues to tell them not to propose policies that would repeal some good measures that have been introduced since 1997.
§ Mrs. LaingI appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, but time moves on and whatever was said by the last-but-one leader of the Conservative party does not necessarily stand today. Some aspects of the Sure Start scheme now work reasonably well. I was very sceptical about it at the beginning because all I could see were glossy orange and yellow brochures, lots of money being spent and not an awful lot of results for the people who really needed them. However, as the scheme has settled down, I can see that there are some aspects that are not necessarily wrong. I hope that that satisfies him for the time being.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare, who would have been considering his remarks before he arrived today and wanting to suggest that the 219WH Conservative party is out of touch with public opinion on these matters, must have been rather disappointed to see me sitting here. I can assure him and the House that I am most certainly not out of touch with public opinion on balancing work life with motherhood and family life.
I entirely welcome the excellent report by the Equal Opportunities Commission. It is an investigation of discrimination against new and expectant mothers in the workplace. When I was an expectant mother some three and a half years ago, it occurred to me that I might consider telling the electorate of Epping Forest as the general election approached that I would not be mounting a campaign because I was statutorily entitled to maternity leave. Despite my doctor saying that it was time to go home and put my feet up, however, I did exactly the opposite by fighting and, as is obviously evidenced by the fact that I am standing here, winning a general election campaign exactly one week before I gave birth to my son. That was pretty bad timing, but such matters are in the hands of the gods and the Prime Minister and were not my fault. I am happy to report that my son was and continues to be very healthy. At the age of three and a bit he continues to need an awful lot of care from his mother. He sometimes disapproves when mummy leaves him to go to what he calls "tick tock", otherwise known as the House of Commons. So I am far from out of touch on these matters, as indeed is the Conservative party.
I welcome the Equal Opportunities Commission report that was published yesterday, which was extremely good timing. It makes four key recommendations, most of which I will be happy to support. It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that a
written statement of rights and responsibilitiesshould be providedto every pregnant woman and her employer.That is a perfectly reasonable suggestion that should be followed through.Secondly, the report suggests that there should be a
practical toolkit for employers, underpinned by a statutory Code of Practice to clarify the complicated jigsaw of existing law and help with planning.I am always reluctant to call for something that requires legislation, and a statutory code of practice would do that. Since it seems that over the next few weeks—I quote the newspapers—we will spend most of our time in Parliament talking about foxhunting, I would not call at this point for anything that requires primary legislation because it will be ages in coming. It would be much better if we could get on with it and have a voluntary code of practice.We could also consider
an extension of the three-month time limit for filing a pregnancy-related employment tribunal claim to give more women access to justice, as many women find it difficult to go through this process around the time of childbirth.That would be absolutely correct. I would have to look into it in greater detail before asking the Minister to carry it out, but it is certainly worth considering.Finally, the Equal Opportunities Commission report of course mentions better child care. I think that we are reaching a party political consensus on child care. The 220WH Opposition are examining policy on child care, and especially on supply side measures, and the Government and Liberal Democrats are doing likewise. When I ask working women what we can do to make their life and their family's life easier, 90 per cent. of the time the answer is child care. We pay attention to what people tell us around the country. I look forward to examining the Equal Opportunities Commission's investigation in more detail, as I am sure the Minister does, because it contains a lot of important material.
When considering parental leave and issues of family and work, it is important to achieve a balance. There must be a reasonable balance between the employee and the employer. In speaking up for the employer, as I often do, especially in respect of small businesses that are less able to cope with more Government regulation, one is not necessarily criticising the employee. I stress that it is a question of balance. If the pendulum swings too far in one direction, it is not fair to the parent, the family or the child. If it swings too far in the other, it is not fair to the reasonable employer. I do not want over-regulation.
§ Mr. SutcliffeI do not doubt the hon. Lady's sincerity, and her contribution leads us to a crucial point. In intervening on the hon. Member for Weston-superMare, I asked which regulations his party would withdraw. Warm words are fine, but on that issue of balance, which of the existing employment rights affecting maternity or paternity would the Conservative party remove?
§ Mrs. LaingThe Minister is right to put me on the spot about that issue. I refer him to announcements that have been made during the past few weeks by the shadow spokesman on industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), who has examined these matters in great detail, because we recognise that parts of British industry are finding it difficult to operate to the best of their ability because of regulation and red tape, which, I am sure the Minister will freely admit, has emerged from his Government by the tonne.
My party will do nothing to undermine the position of parents, and mothers in particular, in the workplace. We recognise that the work-life balance is vital. Of course, we must have regulation to protect women in the workplace. However, if in seeking to protect them, the pendulum swings too far in favour of overbearing regulations and those regulations are too strident, the otherwise reasonable employer will simply not employ women of child-bearing age. That is the last thing that I want and it would be quite wrong. That is why getting the balance right is so important, and that is what we are striving for.
I am worried about some of the high-profile cases that are being brought by City women, because the position of women of the next generation who are striving to break through the glass ceiling, as the right hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston has done and as I strive to do, will be more difficult if employers are afraid of employing women of child-bearing age or, indeed, of employing women at all. I do not want that to happen.
However, it is without a doubt in the interests of good employers to protect their own investment in human capital—the employees. Training and 221WH experience at all levels of employment enhances human capital. Where a woman comes into an employer's work force in her mid-20s, works, gets promoted, learns the ways of the company, increases her experience and her ability, and then, in her early-30s, has children, surely the best business case for that employer is to welcome her back into the workplace, because she will still have the 10 years of valuable experience that she had before her children were born.
I can assure hon. Members that a woman's brain does not deteriorate because of childbirth, as I am sure the right hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston agrees. If any hon. Gentlemen wish to disagree, we can discuss the matter when we do not have to be quite so polite to one another. There is no such effect, however, and let us be reasonable about it. We therefore have to encourage employers to protect their own investment in human capital, and indeed to enhance it by being reasonable about parental leave for both mothers and fathers.
Women producing children should not be criticised. They should not be told that, if they have a child, that should be their only priority and they should not do anything else. Of course one's child is always one's first priority—there is no doubt about it—but women who are producing children and are also in the workplace should be congratulated, because they are doing two vital jobs at once. Once we recognise that, all other policy in this matter will flow from it.
It simply does not make sense to give equal opportunity in education to girls and boys, and then to young men and women, and to invest our society's assets and taxpayers' money in highly educating women, and then to say that, when they have children, their education is not worth as much as that of a man. Of course it is, which is why the delicate balance of protecting the employer and employee must be respected. As a society, we invest in the 52 per cent. of the population who are women, and it would not make sense not to recognise their full potential value in the workplace.
My party and I are in favour of parental leave. We believe in keeping that delicate balance, encouraging the productivity of British industry and helping companies do the best they can, while also helping them to treat their employees as well as they possibly can, because that is in everyone's interests—the interests not only of the economy, but of families and future generations.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe)I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in our first trade and industry debate after the summer recess. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) has secured the debate, and I am grateful that he has raised this issue. I have had many good times with my hon. Friend on the football field and elsewhere, and I know that he is passionate in everything he does.
This has been an important debate, which has covered many issues that I would like to address. I thank all Members for their contributions. I do not doubt the sincerity of the hon. Members for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter) and for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), and I will return to the substance of their points. However, I cannot let this part of the debate go by without answering the political points that have been raised.
222WH The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare said that there is too much regulation from this Government; he went on to say, rightly, that the last Tory Government had produced more regulations. However, the warm words and the experiences that he portrayed have to be measured against what his party says. His party wishes to do away with the Department of Trade and Industry. It made announcements this morning about its plans to fund future pension schemes through the demise of the DTI. That begs the question how and where the work on employment rights would continue. The hon. Gentleman will want to give me an answer, and I am sure that he will do so in a later debate.
I pose the question on regulation to both Members because we keep hearing this attack on over-regulation, burdens on business and red tape. However, each of the political parties then says how wonderful it is because of the work carried out by the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Government and various other bodies. The question will continually be raised which of the regulations passed by the Government either party does not want to pursue. I was interested in the comments of the hon. Member for Epping Forest on the work-life balance; we look forward to the proposals that I am sure will be made in the not-too-distant future. I particularly welcome the broad support for the EOC; the Government will look at the outcome of the report and respond in due course. The leader of the hon. Lady's party and the shadow Chancellor have already told us that there will be reductions in public spending, so the hon. Lady will have to be careful about how she balances those choices.
I come to an issue that is clearly important to all involved in this debate: how we help working parents to balance work and family life. That is important to us all, because we have all been involved in that in some way. We were grateful to hear the experiences of hon. Members, and particularly those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes) and the hon. Member for Epping Forest, who spoke on the issues of women at work and childbearing.
I accept the point that was made on child care—quality of child care is important. As a parent and grandparent, I know that that is the major factor when people are deciding whether to take the risk of leaving children with others.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester in expressing support for, and congratulations to, all the bodies working on the subject, notably the trade unions that he mentioned, USDAW and Connect, the Equal Opportunities Commission and an organisation for which I have presented awards, Parents at Work, which makes the business case for greater flexibility as regards leave and greater involvement in the issue in the workplace.
Today's debate has essentially been about parental leave but, as my hon. Friend said, the issue should not be seen in isolation. It is one of a wide range of policies that we have introduced to help parents to participate and remain in the work force. Those policies give parents more choices in balancing their work and family life, enabling women to stay in their jobs and fathers to take a bigger role in parenting. I agree with hon. Members that the role of the father is important.
223WH Before 1999, provision for working parents was limited to 14 weeks' maternity leave; there was no provision at all for fathers or adopters. I am glad that we have come a long way since then. In 1999, we began to introduce a series of new rights and entitlements that support working parents as they balance their work and child care responsibilities. As my hon. Friend said, we introduced a "day one" right to time off for dependants, which allows all employees to take time off to deal with an emergency and make any necessary longer term arrangements. Of course, we also established new rights, which give parental leave to fathers as well as mothers and to adopters as well as birth parents.
Parental leave gives parents the right to time off to look after their child, make arrangements for the child's welfare or simply spend more time with their children. They can take time off knowing they have the right to return to their job at the end of their leave. They can concentrate on family life without having to worry about whether there will be a job for them when they return.
Parents are entitled to 13 weeks' leave for each child, which can be taken up to the child's fifth birthday. Initially the right benefited only parents of children born or placed for adoption on or after the date when the right was introduced, but, as my hon. Friend said, in January 2002 we extended parental leave to parents of all the children under five on that day. For parents of disabled children we increased the leave to 18 weeks; that leave can be taken up until the child's 18th birthday.
Parental leave was designed to be flexible. Employers and employees are encouraged to agree on how the scheme will work for them. For example, some companies offer a period of paid parental leave or widen the scheme to include more parents. Unions can also negotiate collective agreements on parental leave with employers. We want that balance to work, and we want schemes that meet the requirements of particular workplaces, but where there is no such agreement, we have to use a fall-back scheme. That provides key elements of how parental leave will work, including how much leave can be taken in a year and what notice should be given. It is intended to support parents without disadvantaging their employers.
Parents must give their employer 21 days' notice of their leave. That provides both employer and employee with a degree of certainty and helps them to plan for the absence. Leave can be taken only in blocks of a week, although parents of disabled children are able to take leave a day at a time. Employers can postpone parental leave for up to six months if the employee's absence would unduly disrupt the business.
The fall-back scheme was designed to balance the needs of parents with those of employers. As hon. Members have said, that is always a difficult balancing act, but I think that, across the range of family friendly measures, we have made the right decisions. We are helping parents to remain in the work force.
I want to consider the mother gap, which is a key issue. The mother gap is a term to describe the difference in incomes between childless women and those with children over their lifetimes. The reasons for the mother gap include fewer years in employment, shorter hours 224WH due to part-time work, lost experience and the part-time penalty. A mother gap in earnings of £140,000 is experienced by a typical mid-skilled mother of two throughout a lifetime.
The mother gap is narrowing because more women than ever are returning to work within a year of childbirth. We know that returning to the same job is key to reducing the mother gap. To succeed in that effort, we have made parental leave one of the options open to mothers who wish to return to work. However, as I have said, parental leave is only one part of the picture. The Government introduced paid annual leave as a statutory right for all workers, and all workers are now entitled to four weeks' paid holiday. That entitlement begins from their first day of employment and gives parents a further option for taking time off to spend with their children.
In April 2003, following extensive consultation with parents, employers, unions, charities and other interested parties, we introduced the biggest ever package of legal changes to help parents to balance work and family life. The changes are compatible with business and business supports it. They include paid paternity leave; the biggest increase in statutory maternity pay since it was introduced in 1948; an increase in maternity leave to one year; the right to request flexible working for fathers as well as mothers of young and disabled children; and, for the first time, comparable rights for parents who adopt.
Paid parental leave was one of the possible options considered in the working parents Green Paper and the consultation exercise in 2000. Although paid parental leave was supported by some employer representatives and family groups, as my hon. Friend said, employers of all sizes maintained a high level of opposition to its introduction on the grounds of cost and the impact of absence from the workplace. Parents themselves gave a higher priority to other options. We believe that we are likely to be more successful if we continue the route that we have chosen to develop awareness.
§ Mr. DhandaI appreciate what my hon. Friend is saying. When he returns to his Department, will he take on board the points that have been made during the debate about what is happening in Austria, Canada and Denmark, where they have made a fist of it and where such action has not been detrimental to businesses in those countries or to the economy?
§ Mr. SutcliffeI will do that. My hon. Friend will know that, as we discuss the manifesto that will be put to people in the United Kingdom, my colleagues in the DTI and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider the whole range of options that are available to us in respect of family friendly employment and women at work. I clearly undertake to examine the points made in the debate and the evidence that my hon. Friend and others will produce on what happens elsewhere.
My hon. Friend referred to the number of people who do not take up such opportunities and use their rights, and asked what the Government are doing to increase take-up. Throughout 2003, the Department ran a series of newspaper advertisements to raise awareness of the new laws that cover parental leave. We spent £2.7 million on the campaign. At the beginning of this year, 225WH we directly mailed nearly 250,000 employers of small and medium-sized businesses with information on the new laws. Again, that covered parental leave. Information is also available on the DTI website. I agree with my hon. Friend and ACAS that we must ensure that we get the message through to people about their rights.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston said, initial evidence shows that many parents are already benefiting from the new laws. In the past year, almost a million parents have asked for a change in their working hours, which is a quarter of all parents with children under the age of six. We have made huge strides in supporting parents in the workplace. They now have more opportunity to choose how and when they spend time with their children. It may never seem enough time, but it is a vast improvement on what was available in 1997.
As has been said, however, such action is only part of what we have done for families. Six million families are benefiting from the new tax credits, and 524 Sure Start programmes offer services to about 400,000 under-fours in disadvantaged areas, including a third of all those living in poverty. There are more than 1,200 neighbourhood nurseries providing more than 43,000 day-care places.
We are committed to providing, by 2008, an additional 100,000 child care places, through the Sure Start and children's centres, offering integrated early education, child care, and health and family support services for the 20 per cent. of wards that are most disadvantaged and for many pockets of deprivation outside those areas.
Our approach has always encompassed more than legislation to establish minimum fair standards in the workplace. Since 2000, the Government have led a concerted effort to change the culture and to create a consensus that work-life balance and flexible working opportunities benefit everyone: employers and employees.
226WH Many employers tell me and my colleagues that it makes good business sense to provide flexible working opportunities for their staff, as well as assisting the demographic situation. It helps them to retain skilled staff, raise staff morale and decrease absenteeism. They are convinced that it is best business practice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester said that parents still struggle to balance work and family responsibilities. We must therefore continue to examine where we can go next. In April, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State launched a debate to look at what more we could do to support families. We have been listening to the views of parents and carers on how they juggle work and family responsibilities, and to employers' views on how they respond to increasing flexibility in the workplace. With input from a citizens jury, analysis of research and other evidence, we will look closely at the options that work for families and for business.
We made a commitment that we would not make any changes to the 2003 employment laws for three years, and we will stick to that commitment. However, we want to begin to examine what we could do, and that will include an examination of parental leave. We have to make tough choices, because we cannot do everything.
This has been an important debate on an issue that relates to the world of work both now and in the future and how people react to it. Mention was made of the ICM poll—it is clear that people want to see a change in working practices. That change will benefit the UK's productivity, and it will benefit businesses and families. The general debate will continue, but I hope that the contribution from today's debate will mean that parents in the UK will be able to juggle the difficult task of bringing up their children while ensuring that the UK stays ahead in productivity.
§ Sitting suspended until two o'clock.