| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
12.41 pm
Helen Jackson (Sheffield, Hillsborough): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) on the work and effort that she has put into this issue and on gaining this debate this morning. I am grateful to her for allowing me to make a few comments.
I first took up this issue in March 1995 on a cross-party basis with the support of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), who raised it in 1993 in the
House and who, free from her ministerial responsibility, remains supportive and may now be able to join the campaign again. The problem was brought to me by a constituent who had asked for unpaid leave from her employer during the settling-in period when she and her partner adopted a small baby. She had a responsible job as company secretary of a small manufacturing firm. She was refused time off, but, as she was determined to make the adoption work, she took time off and was summarily sacked. She had no right of redress as the law stands.
Shortly afterwards, the then Secretary of State for Health made a statement on adoption to the House, stressing the importance of a bonding period to ensure that adoption worked and developed. She was, however, unable to justify or even comment on the lack of an adoptive parent's right to leave, because that was the remit of the Employment Minister, or on paternity allowance, because that was the remit of the Social Security Minister. The issue therefore crosses departmental responsibilities.
The basic fairness of giving adoptive parents equivalent time and space to adjust to the arrival of a new child or baby seems plain to all. Between 6,000 and 7,000 adoptions take place each year and a small proportion of those are of children under the age of five.
It is as well to distinguish between the elements that we are discussing. First, adoptive parents should have the right of leave from work at the time of adoption. I am aware that not all employers take the attitude of the firm in my constituency, but no employer should have the right to take that attitude. An adoptive parent's right to leave involves minimal costs to an employer, none to the Exchequer, and can hardly be said to threaten Britain's competitiveness.
The European directive on parental leave now encompasses that right and it is to the new Government's credit that their determination to sign up to the social chapter to incorporate European employment directives should now ensure that no one can be sacked on those grounds in the future. We shall now join France, Germany, Spain and Sweden, among others, in having a statutory right to parental leave. However, we should go further and offer paid leave on the grounds of both principle and practicality.
We now know much more than we used to about the importance of strong parental love and family ties, and their fundamental link to a growing youngster's future emotional, educational and social development. Paid leave for parents at the time of adoption strengthens those family ties. A strong family unit is of the same importance to families that adopt as it is for all other families. To deny the rights enjoyed by natural parents to adoptive parents is simply discrimination.
Naturally, some costs are involved in introducing paid adoption leave, but the number of people involved is small. My hon. Friend spelt out the figures and, as I discovered back in 1995, they amount to less than half of 1 per cent. of the total budget for maternity pay for those who adopt a child under school age. In the overall run of things, that is minuscule, given that encouraging adoption, as the measure will, saves the state the cost of keeping children in care--it costs more than £48,000 to maintain a child in residential care--and given that the measure will save money by reducing unnecessary staff turnover and the £12 billion cost of absenteeism.
As my hon. Friend said, some employers say that the lack of statutory entitlement to adoption leave is a hindrance to their business as they cannot insure for adoption leave as they can for maternity leave. The previous Administration used to label such costs as burdens--burdens on business or on the Government--but we now live under a new regime with a new approach and, I hope, a new language. Such expenditure is justified, not only because it is fair but because it represents sound value for money.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney):
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) on securing this debate. I am well aware of her sustained interest in leave rights for adoptive parents. I have recently been in correspondence with her and with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) on this subject. I recognise the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) in his intervention earlier in the debate.
May I say from the outset that we recognise the invaluable role that adoptive parents play in society. Parents who adopt children do so for the most compelling reasons. There is no higher calling in society than to provide a home and affection to children who would otherwise be deprived of family care. The benefits to the children are immeasurable. Some children may experience emotional or other difficulties as a result of not being brought up with their natural parents. That point was well made by my hon. Friend in the debate on this issue earlier this year.
Before commenting further, may I say that I would be more than happy to meet my hon. Friends to discuss their views, and I hope that they will take up my offer.
There are also benefits to the adoptive parents, particularly those who do not already have children of their own. Such a role can be immensely fulfilling. Society benefits, too. Children brought up in a loving family environment will be able to make a positive contribution to society.
I believe that I am the youngest grandfather in the House. My grandparenting responsibilities have somewhat gone by the wayside since I became a Minister of State in the Department of Trade and Industry. Perhaps my grandchildren will be looking for an adoptive granddad, unless I waken my ideas up over the summer recess.
I recognise the well-intentioned motives of my hon. Friend in focusing on the position of adoptive parents. She argued convincingly that the position of adoptive parents requires special attention. I do not have an easy task in responding to the many persuasive points made by my hon. Friends during the debate, but I shall do my best to deal with the strong arguments that were put forward.
One of the Government's key aims is to promote measures that will help people to balance the demands of work and family life. That includes the implementation of the parental leave directive, which will provide three months' unpaid leave to natural and adoptive parents. That is a welcome development, and one that explicitly recognises the needs of adoptive parents.
We aim to encourage employers to provide flexible working arrangements in the workplace. That includes part-time or flexible hours, job sharing and term-time working, working from home and career breaks. We will ensure proper protection for homeworkers and an enhancement of their role.
We are committed to producing a national child care strategy, which will help parents, especially women, to balance family and working life. We also have in hand a new initiative to help to integrate education and child care. That will provide early-education places for four- year-olds whose parents want one for their child.
All those measures are designed to underpin family life and to encourage a more flexible approach to working life. This family of initiatives reflects the Government's passionate commitment to balancing the needs of family and work. It also reflects our more positive approach to the social chapter, enabling us to benefit from European social policy initiatives. Opting in ensures that we will play an active part in developing such initiatives, rather than being left on the side-lines, carping and being ignored.
The Labour Government will do all that they can to encourage improvements in the workplace generally. We will aim to ensure that fair minimum standards are available to all employees, including adoptive parents. Part of our longer-term task is to create a fresh approach--a cultural change--based on partnership, rather than conflict.
Maternity health and safety issues are fundamental to the current maternity rights regime. The maternity leave provisions apply to all pregnant employees and are based on the pregnant workers directive. In addition, the directive requires employers to carry out a risk assessment, which is intended to assess the health and safety risks to the pregnant employee. Employers are required to offer alternative work if a risk exists. If necessary, they are required to suspend the employee for her own good and that of her unborn child.
The absence and return to work of an employee in those circumstances should not be compared with the circumstances of an adoptive parent. If there is a case for adoptive leave, it must be based on a different premise, as it does not contain the same element of health and safety for the new parent or the child.
The Government provide various forms of support to pregnant employees. Statutory maternity pay--SMP--is based on average earnings for the first six weeks of maternity leave, and after that on a flat rate of £55.70 per week for the remaining 12 weeks.
Maternity allowance is provided for employees who do not qualify for SMP, but who have paid sufficient national insurance contributions. It is also paid to the self- employed. The current rate is £55.70 for employees, and £48.35 for the self-employed.
The social fund maternity payments scheme is available for adoptive parents. It is available to families on low incomes or in receipt of disability working allowance. There were 216,000 such payments in 1995-96. The sums set aside for this fund are considerable: £22 million for 1996-97 and for 1997-98; and £23 million for 1998-99.
There is scope for local authorities to make discretionary payments in the form of an allowance related to the needs of the adopted child.
The idea of providing similar benefits to adoptive parents, especially those who adopt babies, is at first glance attractive. I understand the value of allowing time off work for adoptive parents to establish bonds of affection with young adopted children. Personally, I have much sympathy for the views expressed by my hon. Friends.
However, it is worth making a general point. The benefits paid to natural mothers are not intended to facilitate bonding, or even to provide financial support for the additional costs of looking after children. Benefits are intended to encourage pregnant employees to take up their maternity rights, so that they are not under pressure to stay on or to return to work too soon. Such pressures could lead to health and safety risks.
We can make much progress on the issue, but it will require a different approach which could usefully include a number of the points mentioned earlier. We need to recognise that existing maternity provisions are based on health and safety considerations, and that those considerations do not apply to adoptive mothers. Maternity benefits are intended to encourage pregnant employees to avail themselves of their leave entitlements. Again, that is linked to health and safety considerations. It is right that state benefits should be provided to pregnant employees who will inevitably have their earnings interrupted by giving birth.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |