---

Work and Families Bill

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for introducing these amendments and acknowledge that they ameliorate those she produced earlier and are based on agreement with the employer. We have listened to all sides in our consultations and discussions, but, obviously, there is not always agreement particularly on the practicalities. Of course we want as many fathers as possible to take up the opportunity available for ordinary paternity leave, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, indicated, there is a balance to be struck. Before turning to the detail of the amendment, it may be helpful to reflect briefly on the way in which paternity leave and pay is working. It is the Government’s view that the historic new entitlements introduced three years ago for working fathers have been widely welcomed, are working well and are not presenting significant administrative difficulties to either employers or to new fathers. Three years on, research evidence is helping us to build a clearer picture. The maternity and paternity right and benefits survey of 2005, published earlier this year, contained some encouraging facts. Fathers are now taking more leave around the birth of their child, with the vast majority—93 per cent—taking time off around the time of the birth, and four-fifths of those taking up their entitlement to paternity leave. The survey asked those fathers who did not take advantage of paternity leave and pay why they had not done so. Of the answers given in the survey, none gave as a reason a problem with flexibility or with the notice they had been required to give. In short, the facts do not bear out the argument that large numbers of fathers are being denied their entitlement because of inflexible regulations and administrative arrangements. Against this must be weighed the disruption to employers of having to absorb more changes to the rules. These amendments seek to make significant changes to the way the existing right to paternity leave is structured. First, they seek to allow paternity leave to be taken not in whole weeks but in as little as individual days. The current regulations require that paternity leave is taken in weekly blocks—either one week or two consecutive weeks—and we consulted on that structure before it was introduced. It was felt that, on balance, providing employers with clarity and certainty over how the leave would be taken was the approach that best balanced the interests and needs of both employees and the businesses that employed them. At the time, there was some concern among employers that allowing the leave to be taken in smaller, separate units could prove administratively complicated. I appreciate that the noble Baroness’s amendment would allow such flexibility only by agreement between employer and employee. I accept that some employers might see some attractions in being able to arrange fathers’ leave this way. However, we would need to consider carefully whether, even with this caveat, pressure to allow greater flexibility might grow on many employers who did not see a business case for changing the existing system. The Government are always happy to listen and we have certainly not ruled out looking again at flexibility. But the principles of better regulation demand that we would be very sure that a good case exists for introducing further changes to employment law and that the implications have been properly thought through. I am not convinced that such a case has been made. I must add that accepting this change would also require a consequential amendment to the primary paternity pay legislation. Statutory paternity pay is a weekly payment made in respect of a period of one or two weeks. To make the change proposed would mean that anyone taking their leave in anything other than weekly blocks would be left without an entitlement to pay for that leave. That is a significant technical issue. I turn now to the time during which the paternity leave may be taken. I will repeat the arguments that I advanced at Report. Arguing that the two weeks’ ordinary paternity leave should be taken at a time of the father’s choosing, up to a year following the birth, is, I am afraid, to confuse the distinct purposes of ordinary and the proposed additional paternity leave. The entitlement to the current two weeks exists to allow the father time off work to support the mother and care for the child soon after the birth; a time which is highly demanding of both parents and during which the support that the father can provide, both to the mother and to the new child, is very often hugely valuable. 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. The purpose of that additional leave is not the same. As I said at Report, our view is that a period of 56 days allows a sensible degree of flexibility for the employee to choose when best to take the leave, while at the same time ensuring that the leave is taken soon after the birth. The amendment would allow those two weeks to be taken anywhere from birth to between six months and a year after the date of birth of the child. We contend that that would place far too great a burden on the employer. The third part of the amendment seeks to reduce the amount of notice which an employee must give of their intention to take paternity leave. I do not intend to rehearse again the various good arguments against accepting such an amendment, other than to say that, although I recognise that in laying this amendment the noble Baroness has looked to the proposed notice period for additional paternity leave, the point at which a father must give notice of his entitlement to paternity leave and the expected date of child birth reflects the point at which a mother must give notice of her maternity leave. At this point the mother will be 24 weeks into her pregnancy. There is therefore a point of consistency here, although that is not the only reason for resisting the amendment. The point I made in my opening remarks—that we are not aware that the existing system is preventing fathers taking their leave—holds here. Employers are, of course, free to accept a shorter period of notice if they wish and indeed must accept shorter notice if it is not reasonably practicable for the employee to give the notice set out in the regulations. On top of that the employee need give only four weeks’ notice of his intention to change his plans. This does not mean, though, as was suggested at Report, that the employer does not benefit from being told before that point that the father intends to take leave. The current regulations give both parties the right balance of flexibility and certainty. The work and families package is a balanced one. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, recognised that point. Its success lies in that balance: there are measures in the Bill for both employers and employees. For that reason the package has commanded the support of a wide variety of stakeholders, including business. I do not believe that the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness respond to a real problem with the way the current rules work in practice—indeed, as I have said, paternity leave and pay have been a very great success—and for that reason I do not believe that it would be right to ask employers to plan for and adjust to further changes in the overall package of legislation. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that and that the amendment will be withdrawn.