| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Mike Hall (Warrington, South): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During Defence questions, I asked a question about RAF Burtonwood. The Minister of State said that no application had been made for an operator's licence at RAF Burtonwood by PDS International Ltd., but I can tell the House that the application for such a licence appeared in the "Warrington Mercury" on 6 February, and that the Ministry of Defence agents were aware of it. I therefore feel that the House has been misled.
Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order, as the hon. Gentleman must know. It is a point of argument. The hon. Gentleman might try tabling another question whereby he could make his point known, and have it published again in the Official Report.
Mr. James Couchman (Gillingham): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Further to the question to the Prime Minister that was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), have you received an application for the stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? As he has reached his 65th birthday, he will wish--as a good trade unionist--to give way to a younger and better man.
Madam Speaker: I am not sure what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has done, but such an application does not come to me; it goes to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I understand that the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) also has a birthday today. Although he may not be 65, perhaps we can have a joint pension-book party this week.
Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I regret that I have not had an opportunity to give you notice of my point of order, which concerns a change of policy announced by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). He told me in reply to a parliamentary question:
"It is policy, on grounds of confidentiality, for Ministers not to comment publicly on individual applications for entry clearance."--[Official Report, 6 February 1997; Vol. 289, c. 663.]
11 Feb 1997 : Column 142
Would you, Madam Speaker--as guardian of the rights of Members of Parliament--investigate how the change of policy has come about, and why the House was not given notice of it, still less any opportunity to debate it?
Madam Speaker:
As the hon. Gentleman said, I had no notice of his point of order, and I have not been able to look at the question to which he refers. I am not certain that there has been a change of policy, but I will of course look at the question and the answer that has been given.
Sir Jim Spicer (West Dorset):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have noticed during Defence questions that the Labour party's spin doctors had organised a campaign to get at the integrity and character of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. That is fair enough, because my right hon. Friend can look after himself; but may I refer to a particular remark made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)? He said that, while he was clutching a rifle--and God knows, I would be frightened to death if I saw him clutching a rifle anywhere at any time--my right hon. Friend was clutching a handful of white feathers. We all know the implication of that remark. Is it a parliamentary remark or not?
Madam Speaker:
I think that tolerant language is better used across the Floor of the House. I heard the remarks that the hon. Gentleman refers to, but I also heard the robust response by the Government Front-Bench spokesman.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(4) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Ms Margaret Hodge (Barking):
I beg to move,
In the past few weeks, I have talked to many despairing families who feel angry and frustrated. Lou teaches in Nottinghamshire. She adopted her first baby last year. She had to plead her case in front of a panel of colleagues. She deeply resented the fact that she had to talk about intimate personal matters, just to seek from her employers that which a birth mother would enjoy by right. She was granted adoption leave, but it was unpaid. She now wishes to complete her family by adopting another child, but her employer has told her that she will not be granted adoption leave again. She feels that she is being forced to choose between the family she loves and the job she needs.
Lou's story is repeated elsewhere. Yeter has worked for the Abbey National for nine years, but has been refused paid leave. Janet Alderson had to take ICI to an industrial tribunal after she was sacked while on unpaid adoption leave. Mrs. Harrison, a company secretary, was sacked by an engineering company in Sheffield, even though she offered to come in on Saturday mornings to make up for time off.
We all agree that giving children who, for whatever reason, cannot live with their natural parents, a loving home through adoption, is a good thing that we should encourage and promote. It gives those who adopt the opportunity to experience the joys of being parents, of creating a family and of watching the children develop and grow, and it gives the children the opportunity of a fresh start--perhaps the only chance to grow up as part of a loving and caring family. There are about 7,000 adoptions every year and about half of those are in existing families and to a step-parent, so about 3,500 children are adopted into new families, and not all those families will be affected, because not all the mothers will need or want to work.
More and more adoptions are of children who are older than a year. In 1975, 21 per cent. of adoptions were of babies under one; today, less than 7 per cent. come into that group. Furthermore, eight out of 10 children who are adopted into new families come out of the care system, so the alternative to adoption is often council care, which costs nearly £50,000 per child per year, whereas statutory maternity pay costs on average £1,700 per child as a one-off payment. That care involves being shunted between foster parents and institutions, rather than enjoying the security of a family.
Surely our job as legislators must be to remove any unnecessary obstacles that will keep children in care and prevent those children from having the chance of happiness in childhood. The Prime Minister has said that he wants to make adoptions easier. Giving adoptive mothers statutory maternity rights is one practical but important step that he could take to make good his intent, and supporting my Bill would give the proposal early effect.
There are those who say that only women who bear children need time off. That is nonsense. Gone are the days when having children was simply considered an illness. Maternity leave is about establishing loving bonds with one's child, adjusting to being in a family and learning to cope with sleepless nights. Adoptive parents need that time as much as birth mothers do, and one could even argue that often their need is greater. When a child has suffered from neglect or abuse, that child will need time and stability, particularly in the early days. All parents have to adjust to being a parent, whether or not they have physically borne the child.
In the past, the Government have made other specious arguments. Ministers have argued that extending maternity rights to adoptive parents is not possible, because parents who adopt cannot give their employers sufficient notice--but that is not necessarily true. It can take parents two years to go through the properly stringent procedures, to be accepted as suitable prospective parents, and employers will therefore know. If older children are adopted, there is a long period of contact between adoptive parents and child, and notice could be given in that period. Birth mothers currently need to give only 21 days' notice of when they want to start maternity leave.
In the past, Ministers have said that extending maternity rights would add to employers' costs. Again, that is short-sighted nonsense. Employers save money by retaining experienced and skilled staff; they lose money by advertising for, recruiting and training new staff. Good employers--such as Boots, the Body Shop and Marks and Spencer--have an adoption leave policy. The Body Shop also gives paid time off work for its employees to attend court for adoption proceedings.
Small employers now insure for statutory maternity rights, but as there is no statutory framework, they cannot insure for adoptions. Therefore, in the case of Shelagh--who works for a large charity and who adopted a brother and sister, aged three and four--her employers, although sympathetic, told her that they were not covered by insurance for adoption leave and could not afford to pay full maternity leave rates. Adoptive mothers pay national insurance, yet they cannot get statutory maternity pay. Even worse, if they take unpaid leave, they have to pay the employer's superannuation contribution during leave, whereas birth mothers are covered by the statutory scheme.
In the past, Ministers have said that it is too difficult to legislate and that it
I am supported on the Bill by a huge variety of organisations, including the Townswomen's Guild, the Mother's Union, Barnardos and the Association of Directors of Social Services. I am also supported by thousands of adoptive mothers and fathers, some of whom are in the Strangers Gallery today.
Finally, I should like to tell the House about Susan, who held a senior post on a leading women's journal. She adopted twin 11-year-old boys who had been in care and who had emotional difficulties. She asked her employer for some time off--some flexitime--simply to give her some space to help settle the children. When she approached her director of personnel to explain the situation, he said, "Why do you need time off? It's not as if they're babies." Women should not be discriminated against because they cannot have children. That cannot be right, and it cannot be just.
Adopting a child is not an easy choice to make for parents. For many children, it is, literally, a lifeline. By ending discrimination against adoptive parents on the issue of maternity leave, hon. Members can remove one obstacle that lies between a child who desperately needs a mother and a woman who wants to provide a loving home for that child. I commend the Bill to the House.
That the Grants for Pre-School Education (Social Security Information) (Scotland) Regulations 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 3078) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.--[Mr. Ottaway.]
Question agreed to.
3.34 pm
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for maternity leave for adoptive mothers and for connected persons.
When a child is born, her mother is entitled to time off work, to statutory maternity pay in most cases and to a guarantee that she can return to her job after her maternity leave. Adoptive mothers, however, are entitled to nothing. In bringing the Bill before the House, I wish to put right that gross injustice. In recent years, hon. Members on both sides of the House have made similar attempts, but have failed. We have waited too long. For the sake of the mothers, fathers and children who are directly disadvantaged and who do not enjoy the same choices as mothers who give birth to their children, we should act now.
"would not, in the Government's view, be justifiable, particularly in view of the relatively small number of cases involved."--[Official Report, 27 July 1993; Vol. 229, c. 997.]
What nonsense. Under the social fund, couples are entitled to a one-off maternity payment for each new child in the family, regardless of whether it is a birth baby or an adopted baby. If we can legislate for families on income
support, why not for families in which the mother works? If we wish to meet equal opportunities legislation, we can define adoption leave as being for the "principal carer" in the family, without referring to the gender of the parent.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |