---

Column 222

Spencer, Sir Derek

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Spink, Dr Robert

Spring, Richard

Sproat, Iain

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Steen, Anthony

Stephen, Michael

Stewart, Allan

Streeter, Gary

Sumberg, David

Sweeney, Walter

Sykes, John

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Thomason, Roy

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Thurnham, Peter

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

Tracey, Richard

Tredinnick, David

Trend, Michael

Twinn, Dr Ian

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Walden, George

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Waller, Gary

Ward, John

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Waterson, Nigel

Watts, John

Wells, Bowen

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Whittingdale, John

Widdecombe, Ann

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Willetts, David

Wilshire, David

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Wolfson, Mark

Wood, Timothy

Yeo, Tim

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Tellers for the Noes :

Mr. David Lightbown and

Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 5

Paternity rights

.--(1) An employee whose wife or partner has given birth shall be entitled to take ten working days leave (referred to in this section as paternity leave).

(2) Paternity leave can be taken at any time from the birth until the end of three months following the birth.

(3) An employee on paternity leave shall be entitled to full pay. (4) The employee has the right to decide when to take paternity leave except that the employer must be given :

(a) 21 days' notice of the expected week of confinement of the employee's spouse, and

(b) reasonable notice of the time when paternity leave is taken where that is practicable.

(5) For the purposes of this section a partner includes a man and woman who are not married to each other but are living together as man and wife.'.-- [Ms. Quin.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Ms. Joyce Quin (Gateshead, East) : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris) : With this, I understand that it will be convenient to take the following : New clause 11-- Parental leave --

( ).--(1) Following the period of maternity leave laid down in section 19 above, each parent shall be entitled to a period of parental leave of either three months full time or six months part-time, such leave not to be taken by both parents concurrently. (2) The parental leave referred to in subsection (1) above must be completed before the second birthday of the child, save where a registered general medical practitioner certifies that the health of the child requires an extended permit.

(3) The parental leave referred to in subsections (1) and (2) above shall also be available to adoptive parents.'.

---

Column 223

New clause 10-- Maternity employment rights report

(1) The Secretary of State shall publish a report to Parliament annually, to be called "The maternity employment rights report" on the effects of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993.

(2) The Report shall assess the effects of the Act on : (a) the employment opportunities for pregnant working women (b) access to time off for ante- natal care (including relaxation classes and parentcraft classes)

(c) the operation of remuneration during 14 weeks maternity leave (d) the number of women returning to work after the 14 weeks maternity leave

(e) the adequacy of 14 weeks maternity leave for the health of the mother and the baby.

(f) the operation and complexity of the scheme

(g) the number of women successfully claiming unfair dismissal because of pregnancy under this Act

(h) the number of women medically suspended for health and safety reasons each year

(3) Before publishing the Report, the Secretary of State shall consult such organisations as appear to him to be concerned.'. Government amendments Nos. 1 to 3.

Amendment No. 63, in clause 19, page 37, line 26, leave out fourteen' and insert eighteen'.

Government amendments Nos. 37, 38 and 4.

Amendment No. 71, in page 38, line 19, at end insert

(1A) An employer may apply to an industrial tribunal to set aside this provision on the ground that greater unfairness would be caused to another employee.'.

Government amendments Nos. 5, 6, 43, 44, 39 to 41, 7, 8 and 42.

Ms. Quin : New clause 5 heads a group of new clauses and amendments that deal with maternity rights for women at work, sharing family responsibilities by recognising fathers' rights to paternity and parental leave, and the need for society to support adoptive parents and to take account of their contribution to children's welfare and to that of the community.

In Committee, the Opposition sought via amendments and new clauses to create a comprehensive system of maternity rights. We also aimed to create a system that would be easy to understand and to implement--in stark contrast to the existing confusing and complex system, which in some ways will be made more complex by the introduction of the clauses relating to maternity rights in the Bill.

Opposition Members believe that we should seek to create an effective system of rights that would at least equal, if not surpass, best practice in Europe--something that the Opposition are determined eventually to implement for working women in our country. New clause 5 deals with paternity leave and stipulates that : "An employee whose wife or partner has given birth shall be entitled to take ten working days leave Paternity leave can be taken at any time from the birth until the end of three months following the birth An employee on paternity leave shall be entitled to full pay."

The new clause also deals with the notification requirements that we envisage would be a feasible means of introducing a system of paternity leave.

One of the reasons why we have tabled the new clause is that we deplore the present situation in which fathers have no legal right to paid leave at the time of the birth of their children. That is not good news for fathers, mothers

---

Column 224

or babies. Paternity leave requirements of the kind envisaged would allow the sharing of child care responsibilities and would help to establish strong paternal bonds at the birth of the child. An Equal Opportunities Commission study found that 91 per cent. of fathers favoured the introduction of statutory paternity leave. By introducing such leave, the Government would be taking a step towards implementing article 6 of the European Council's recommendations on child care, which I understand that they supported when it was dealt with in the European Council of Ministers.

The cost of introducing paternity leave would be modest. In a workplace of 500 employees, consisting of 60 per cent. men and 40 per cent. women, it has been calculated that 12 or 13 employees are likely to use it in a year. We believe that the cost would be negligible, and the good will created by employers introducing paternity leave would be great.

A number of paternity leave arrangements already exist in many firms throughout the country. The Minister may respond to the new clause by referring to the good practice that already exists on a voluntary basis, where employers have decided to introduce such arrangements. Although I am glad that some employers are enlightened, the argument that was effectively advanced by my hon. Friends in the previous debate about the abolition of wages councils--that the good employer will be undercut by the bad--is just as valid for paternity and parental leave.

9.30 pm

New clause 11 deals with the subject of parental leave. The ideas contained in the new clause are taken from the proposed European Community directive on parental leave which was blocked by the Government in the European Council of Ministers six years ago. We do not pretend that the wording of new clause 11 is perfect. We wanted to embody the principle of parental leave in the new clause. If the Government were prepared to accept the new clause, we would be delighted to negotiate with them and come to a common agreement about the details of the parental leave system.

It is highly regrettable that the Government have always chosen to block the initiative in the European Council of Ministers. That may explain why some of our partners are so keen on the social chapter, which at least allows the other 11 countries to make progress on many of the matters that have been blocked by our Government's negative stance on so much social legislation in the European Community. Parental leave is common in other European countries. When the matter was last debated in Parliament--I think it was in 1985--10 out of 12 European Community countries already had some form of parental leave entitlement. It is interesting to recall that in the other place their Lordships also favoured the introduction of a statutory period of parental leave. I think that they were in favour of paid parental leave for one month. They certainly did not rule the European proposals out of court in the way that the Government unfortunately did, and continue to do.

Some of the comments that I made about paternity leave on new clause 5 also apply to new clause 11, which specifically refers to the rights of adoptive parents to have some form of parental leave. The European Community draft directive stipulated that adoptive parents would be

---

Column 225

able to have such leave at any time within the child's first five years of life, taking into account some of the special circumstances that can surround adoption and the fact that parents do not always adopt newly born babies.

The European Community directive also referred to longer leave for single parents, parents of a handicapped child or where difficulties existed. The Equal Opportunities Commission produced lengthy reports and recommendations supporting the parental leave directive. They are a few years old, but I believe that they are still valid. It also did a cost analysis of the possible effects of introducing parental leave. It said that it would increase the total wages and salaries bills by less than 0.01 per cent. The costs were contested in the House at the time. However, we believe that the Equal Opportunities Commission undertook a serious study on the subject which deserves the Government's attention.

Unfortunately, there has been no progress on the matter since 1986. That is very sad and shows the hypocritical attitude of the Government, who have introduced such initiatives as Opportunity 2000, and who supposedly have a commitment to equal opportunities policy. The sharing of family responsibilities is a crucial way of ensuring that women can play a full part in the workplace. Such measures are vital if having a baby is not to penalise a working woman, and cause her and her family to miss out financially.

I have mentioned leave for adoptive parents. We had an interesting debate on that in Committee : it was one of the occasions when Opposition Members were supported by certain Conservative Members--although, unfortunately, they were not supported by the Minister. The new clause on adoptive parents was tabled by the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), and was strongly supported by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) and one or two other Conservative Members.

Sadly, the Minister turned a deaf ear to our views. I should be delighted if he announced tonight that he had been converted, for this is yet another area in which we are out of step with many other European countries. Most of them make some provision for leave for adoptive parents. Although some companies in Britain adopt good practice in that respect, the Government's offer in Committee to publicise examples of best practice among employers generally goes nowhere near meeting our concerns. We remain strongly attached to the idea of a statutory right for adoptive parents, and I hope that some Conservative Members will support us.

New clause 10 proposes a maternity employment rights report. We are anxious that the Bill--which, unfortunately, seems likely to come into effect in the form that the Government wish--should at least be evaluated in terms of its effects on women at work, especially in regard to maternity rights. In new clause 10, we ask the Secretary of State to publish an annual report to Parliament on maternity employment rights, and specifically request that the report assess the effects of the Bill--when it is enacted--on different aspects of maternity rights.

For example, we want the report to consider the effects on employment opportunities for pregnant working women, and on access to time off for ante-natal care, including relaxation classes and parentcraft classes. We feel that the Minister's response in Committee was unsatisfactory. He said then that existing United Kingdom legislation was adequate, but he missed the point that

---