Mr.
McFadden: The hon. Member for Huntingdon talked about a
ratchet effect and increased costs, and referred to the impact
assessment. If we do not amend the regulations in line with the Sex
Discrimination Act and the court judgment to which he referred, we will
leave employers open to discrimination law cases that can incur
unlimited compensation. Employers want clarity, and the regulations
will provide that in respect of the responsibilities and non-pay
contractual benefits to which they
refer. We
have heard time and again about regulations and costs. Of course, that
is a legitimate consideration. We must bear in mind the burden of costs
on business, but it is important to remember when talking about
statutory maternity pay that the majority of the costs are reclaimed
from the Exchequer. Furthermore, there is extra provision for small
businesses with national insurance contributions of less than some
£40,000 per year. There is a recognition that business is
reimbursed for the cost of the changes, but the importance of clarity
is not to be
diminished.
Mr.
John Baron (Billericay) (Con): The Minister is right to
talk about clarity, but will he accept that the figure produced by the
British Chambers of Commerce of 14 regulations a day has a
disproportionate impact, particularly on smaller businesses? Will he at
least have a look at that impact and assess the effect of regulations,
especially on small businesses? We accept that many regulations are
gold-plating of European Union regulations but, when small businesses
are struggling in such an environment, that number of
regulations has a disproportionately negative
effect.
Mr.
McFadden: I hesitate to repeat the debate that we had
yesterday on the Employment Bill, but the hon. Gentleman tempts me down
that road. Not all the regulations on the list of the British Chambers
of Commerce should be considered burdensome. For example, one such
regulationI used this example in the House
yesterdayconcerns access for disabled people to transport. Does
the hon. Gentleman think that a burden on business? If so, I have to
disagree. It is a regulation, but we cannot define all such regulations
as burdens on
business.
The
Chairman: Order. Will the Minister return to the topic of
the order: the alignment of non-pay terms and conditions for employees
on maternity
leave?
Mr.
McFadden: I will not give way in case we stray too
far from the path of righteousness as far as these regulations are
concerned, but I should point out that small employers can recover
104.5 per cent. of the cost of statutory maternity pay from the
state. The
hon. Member for Solihull talked about several things, including
equality.
Mr.
Djanogly: May I return the Minister to the issue of
gold-plating? The question that I putperhaps not very
wellwas in relation to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Were
the changes made to that Act under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975
(Amendment) Regulations 2008 gold-plating of European regulation? Were
they required to be put in place for any reason, or was it Government
policy to put them in place? If those regulations had not existed,
would we need to be here
today?
Mr.
McFadden: The changes to the Sex Discrimination Act to
which the hon. Gentleman referred are as a result of the High Court
challengethe Equal Opportunities Commission v. the
Department of Trade and Industry, as it was then called. The changes
that we are debating today bring the additional maternity and adoption
leave regulations in line with those changes. The consequence of not
making such changesI put the question back to the hon.
Gentleman if he is saying that he would not make those
changeswould be to leave employers open to challenges on
discrimination grounds, which could leave them open to a potentially
unlimited liability fine. Employers would not welcome that, which is
why clarity is
important. Let
me turn to the question of equality between men and women, raised by
the hon. Member for Solihull. There is a legitimate debate to be had
about flexibility in parental leave. It is also important to recognise
that the health of the mother is an issue, which can lead to maternity
leave being taken by the mother, certainly in the early period.
However, adoption leave incorporates
the flexibility that the hon. Lady talked about. Either parent can take
adoption leave because we are not dealing with the mother of a newborn
child.
Lorely
Burt: I am not following the Ministers argument
terribly well. I propose that the father and mother should make the
decision between themselves, taking into account a whole variety of
health and domestic circumstances. While the health of the mother is
clearly important, surely the Minister is not justifying 52
weeks leave purely on the ground of the health of the
mother?
Mr.
McFadden: We talk about 52 weeks, and there may be a
debate to be had about a period beyond a certain time. Maternity leave
is set out in this way because the health of the mother is a factor,
particularly in the early period after her baby is born. That is why
there is a difference and more flexibility in adoption leave. In later
periods, there is a legitimate debate about flexibility.
There is
another issue that was not mentioned by the hon. Lady when she talked
about this provision being a bit rigid. Predictability for the employer
must be a consideration, and that is why notice periods are important.
We talk about flexibility and swapping periods of leave, and allowing
the employer to know where they stand is a legitimate part of that. We
have heard about the help that the Government have given in extending
notice periodsthat is fair and right because the employer has a
legitimate interest.
The
Government have extended the help available to parents of newborn
children in a positive way. In 1997, 12 weeks of statutory maternity
pay were available at the rate of £55.70. The hon. Lady says
that the figure is below the minimum wageit is now 33 weeks at
£117. The gain per mother is more than £3,000, which is
substantial progress in terms of supporting
families.
Lorely
Burt: I appreciate the Ministers point about
flexibility for the family not necessarily being good for the employer.
However, that flexibility could be structured so that it does not have
to be a swap-about arrangement; it should be in full agreement with the
mothers employer and that of the father. The Minister is
institutionalising discrimination against women in the workplace. If
only the woman can take maternity
leave
The
Chairman: Order. That is a long intervention and is not on
the topic of the statutory instrument, which is non-pay terms and
conditions when employees are on maternity leave, additional maternity
leave, adoption leave and additional adoption leave. It is not on
paternity leave or anything that is not in the
regulations.
Mr.
McFadden: The precise purpose of the regulations is to
avoid discrimination, and they are in response to changes made to the
Sex Discrimination Act. I disagree with the characterisation of the
Governments position by the hon. Member for Solihull. Taking
your guidance, Mr. Taylor, I will not go over that again,
and on that note, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question
put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the
Committee has considered the draft Maternity and Parental Leave etc.
and the Paternity and Adoption Leave (Amendment) Regulations
2008. Committee
rose at three minutes past Five
oclock.
|