Orders of the Day — Work and Families Bill

House of Commons, 5 December 2005.

Alan Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

This Government back Britain's families and back Britain's businesses. Those aims are not mutually exclusive, but mutually supportive. Flexible working raises employment levels for our economy, widens the talent pool for business and improves people's standards of living. It enables parents and other carers not only to stay in work, but to advance at work as well. It seeks to ensure that every child gets the best possible start in life.

The Bill has four main parts. It will extend paid maternity and adoption leave, extend the successful right to request flexible working to carers of adults, help fathers to play more of a role in their child's upbringing if the mother returns to work, and make it easier for employers to manage the administration of those rights.

The Bill is about fairness, social justice and genuine choice. It is a necessary response to unprecedented change within our society, to unprecedented change within our economy, with the growth of Asia, to advances in technology, and to huge shifts in demographics. It is also a response to unprecedented change in our homes. The old formula dictated that all mothers gave up work completely on childbirth, while fathers sometimes had to work longer hours to make up for the loss of income, particularly if the mother was the higher earner. Increasingly, fathers want to play a more active role in child care, beyond the first few weeks of the baby's life, and more and more mothers want to return to the workplace after having a child, often because of a financial imperative, but also because they see work as an important part of a fulfilled life.

Around half of all mothers now return to work after having a child compared with a quarter a generation ago. Men now take on a third of all child care. So the birth of a child need not be the end of the mother's career. Mothers should not be forced out of the work force when they would rather stay on, and businesses should not be deprived of highly skilled, highly trained, highly capable staff when they want to retain them.

Michael Weir (Scottish National Party, Angus)

I understand what the Secretary of State says and very much support the Bill, but one small group—those who have a family by means of surrogacy—has been missed out, and I have taken up a constituency case with Ministers in the light of employment relations. The Bill covers only natural birth and adoption. Will he consider including that small group within the ambit of the rights?

Alan Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)

I would be prepared to consider that again. We found some complications with it, but there is every opportunity to look into that in Committee.

Providing genuine choice is important for the individuals concerned and for the companies for which they work, but it is also important for the country's continued economic prosperity. The Government are determined to increase the proportion of people in work from 75 per cent., which is the highest of any G7 country, to 80 per cent., a level achieved only in Iceland—that is the country, incidentally, not the retail outlet.

The so-called family-friendly agenda, which has a crucial economic dimension, was neglected for too long. When we came into power in 1997, a father could watch the birth of his child in the evening and be compelled to go to work the next morning. We established the entitlement to paid paternity leave for the first time in this country.

Norman Lamb (Liberal Democrat, North Norfolk)

Will the Secretary of State give an idea of the current take-up of the entitlement to two weeks' paternity pay? There is a great deal of concern that because the pay is quite low, and because of the straitjacket in terms of notice requirements and so on, the take-up is low.

Alan Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)

I do not have the exact figure, but take-up is encouraging and high. The matter does not relate just to those people taking paid paternity leave under legislation, but to the number of companies that accept that paternity leave should be a normal part of employment rights. Many companies that have had arrangements for maternity leave have their own arrangements for paternity leave. I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets the correct figure, perhaps during the wind-up, but it is encouraging.

In 1997, a working mother could receive a phone call from school saying her child was ill and her employer could still insist that she stay at work. We introduced a right to time off to deal with family and domestic emergencies. In 1997, adoptive parents—incredibly—were given no help whatsoever, despite the huge benefits to society of taking children out of institutions and placing them in a loving family environment. We have given adoptive parents broadly the same rights to pay and leave as natural parents. In 1997, paid maternity leave was 18 weeks. By the end of this Parliament, it will be 52 weeks. In 1997, maternity pay was £55 a week. Today, it is £106 a week.

Mark Prisk (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

The Secretary of State rightly suggests that the Bill should be about fairness. Is it fair that families who run small businesses should have to pay for the administrative costs of the changes that he is trying to implement?

Alan Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)

In terms of maternity leave, the hon. Gentleman well knows that small businesses get 104.5 per cent. reimbursed, unlike larger companies. He was a distinguished member of the Committee that considered the Employment Bill. We also increased the level of national insurance contributions that determines the 104.5 per cent. so that more small firms managed to benefit from it. We have been meticulous in trying to keep the cost of the arrangements to an absolute minimum. In terms of maternity leave and its extension, we have introduced, as small businesses wanted us to, various arrangements to give practical assistance.

Mark Prisk (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

rose—

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

rose—

Alan Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)

I want to make one final point.

In relation to paternity leave, we are taking a power in the Bill. We intend to consult widely on the regulations to enact that. A large part of that will be to determine how small businesses are affected.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

Although small businesses can reclaim contributions, does the Secretary of State appreciate the significant impact such leave has on them? As 95 per cent. have five employees or fewer, the loss of manpower and skills could be considerable. Although much in the Bill is to be credited, many might interpret it as tokenistic. A true family-friendly policy should be within the taxation system, to give proper recognition of single-earner households and to benefit them.

Alan Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)

I do not accept that. Interestingly, the hon. Gentleman mentions manpower, so I presume he is talking about paternity leave. We do not initially expect a large queue of people waiting to take the leave. We think that it will apply to 16,000 to 18,000, and about one in 700 small businesses will be affected every couple of years. It is unlikely to have an enormous impact.

I want to stress the positive impact on the employment market and small businesses in particular. Many small businesses, including a small business man, Simon Topman, helped us to shape much of what we have done on work-life balance since we came into power. It is about ensuring that small businesses do not lose valued members of staff. People, usually women, found it difficult to balance their working life with their domestic requirements. Many small businesses have been pleased that the legislation has been implemented because it helps to retain staff.

Alan Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)

I shall give way to the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow).

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I have just taken a short and enjoyable period of paternity leave and I might plan to take some more, to the obvious and understandable delight of the Whips. With reference to the secondary legislation provided for in clauses 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, will the regulations be subject to the negative procedure of the House or to its affirmative counterpart?

Alan Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)

The regulations will be subject to the affirmative counterpart.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Excellent.

Alan Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)

Although we would all miss the hon. Gentleman when he goes on paternity leave, I hope that he takes it.

Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

To return to the point made by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk), does my right hon. Friend agree that small businesses benefit from offering flexibility to their staff, because they might otherwise lose experienced staff whose replacements would be expensive to train? The logic behind the provision is that by offering staff flexibility, a business retains their skills.

Alan Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In fact, the average cost, for example, of the right to request flexible working is £80 whereas the average cost of recruiting a new employee is £4,800.

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

I am concerned about the Minister's statements on how the measure will affect small businesses. Is he not worried that if more burdens are placed on small businesses, they will design their work force to avoid the people who might receive paternity and maternity rights? [Interruption.]

Alan Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)

As the chorus behind me is pointing out, that would be illegal. The hon. Gentleman makes the argument that we heard when we introduced the right to request, when we introduced the national minimum wage, when we introduced adoptive leave—in fact, on every occasion when we have tackled that agenda. Conservative Members such as the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) and the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) recognise that it is an important agenda. It is about time their party adopted a positive approach to it. As soon as we get anywhere near setting up decent, civilised, minimum standards in the workplace, we hear a chorus of, "This will reduce people's ability to recruit staff." Yes, that is a crucial concern that needs to be tackled and we have tried very hard to ensure that it is, with some success.

Helen Jones (Labour, Warrington North)

In addition to emphasising the benefits to small businesses of the measures in the Bill, will my right hon. Friend resist the siren calls to deal with the matter purely through the tax system, which is a regressive way of dealing with it? Maternity rights and benefits have benefited a lot of low-earning families and dealing with the matter through the tax system will benefit only those who can afford to live on one wage.

Alan Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point more eloquently than I could. We must consider that during our debate.

Mark Prisk (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

Some time ago, when answering my original question, the Secretary of State said that small business organisations had made clear representations that they favoured elements of the Bill.

Gerry Sutcliffe (Labour, Bradford South)

indicated assent.

Mark Prisk (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

I see the Under-Secretary of State nod. Unfortunately, he has just given me a reply to a written question that states that he is not aware of what the representations from small businesses were. Will the Secretary of State now answer a simple question? A moment ago, he told the House that he understood that the small business community was very much in favour of the changes, especially the maternity leave provisions. Will he therefore explain why 80 per cent. of the respondents to a survey conducted by the British Chambers of Commerce said that they had grave reservations and opposed those changes? I, like the right hon. Gentleman, want to do the right thing for parents, but we must do the right thing for businesses as well.

Alan Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)

I think that that survey, if it is accurate, was about interchangeable leave, which has now turned into additional paternity leave, and the idea that small businesses would have to police a system in which they had to know that the mother had returned to work before they could give authority for the father to take the additional paternity leave. That is why we have taken a power in the Bill to ensure that we are able to consult widely. We have ideas, which will probably emerge during this debate, about how to achieve that using a very light touch.

The issues that small businesses mentioned to us included the rule that maternity leave and maternity pay start on different days and the complication that that produces. Small businesses asked why it could not all start on the same day and whether the rate could be a daily rate, rather than a weekly one. The latter would help with another issue that they raised, which was that if a woman was going to be away from the workplace for up to 12 months, there should be an opportunity to bring her back in—for a day's training, for example—with the agreement of both sides and without penalty. If that happens now, the woman loses a week's maternity pay, just for coming back for a refresher day to get used to new technology. Those are practical considerations, as is small businesses' request that a woman who returns from maternity leave before the end of that leave should have to give more than four weeks' notice, which is all she has to give now. We have therefore doubled that requirement to eight weeks, because that is a legitimate and practical thing to do. In that and many other ways, we have shown that we are keen to help small businesses to deal with these matters.

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

Before moving on will the Secretary of State answer what I feel is an illogical point in the arguments made by some Labour Members? If he is right and the measures will be of great benefit to small businesses, because it would cost them £80 to process an application for maternity leave whereas it would cost some £4,000 to train high-value staff, why cannot businesses work that out for themselves, without his law making them do it?

Alan Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)

I was talking about right to request costing £80. When we introduced the right to request—I see several faces familiar from the time spent scrutinising that legislation—we were told that it would be the end of civilisation itself, that it would be horrendously bureaucratic and would affect people's jobs, but that simply has not happened.

The cost to business of the maternity leave provisions has hardly figured in the representations. Concerns have been voiced about paternity leave and the extension of right to request, but little concern has been expressed about providing that a mother should have nine months' paid maternity leave instead of six months and that that should eventually increase to 12 months. That has widespread support.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The Secretary of State is being extremely generous in giving way. In clause 13, which deals with annual leave, he is proposing to be able in certain situations to introduce regulations to prescribe certain periods—presumably minimum periods—of annual leave to be allowed. I ask in all seriousness, is the intention to apply the power relatively narrowly in order to cater to the interests of groups of workers who have either no annual leave entitlement to speak of, or a very modest entitlement? I refer, for example, to the cleaners contracted to work for the House of Commons, who have a pathetically inadequate annual leave period of 12 days. If the intention were to deal with that situation, there could be a lot to be said for the clause. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain.

Alan Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)

The intention is to fulfil a manifesto commitment that employers will no longer be allowed to take bank holidays into account as part of employees' four-weeks statutory entitlement to annual leave. Bank and public holidays must be additional to the four weeks' paid leave. That is the reason for the clause.

So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I return—

Norman Lamb (Liberal Democrat, North Norfolk)

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Alan Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)

Well, I almost returned to my script—[Laughter.] I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Norman Lamb (Liberal Democrat, North Norfolk)

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his generosity. On the point that he just made, the Confederation of British Industry has suggested that any increase in annual leave entitlement to deal with bank holidays should be phased in to allow businesses to adjust. Does he have in mind such a phasing-in?

Alan Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)

Again, we have taken a power in the Bill because we want to consult widely and listen to such arguments. That will be an important part of the debate on that part of the Bill.

Since 1997 we have trebled the financial support that a working family gets in the first year of a child's life from £2,610 in 1997 to more than £8,000 by April 2007. We have created 1.2 million additional child care places and guaranteed all three and four-year-olds a free part-time nursery place. It is worth remembering that the Conservative party opposed every single one of those measures.

The Bill has four principal parts. The first part will allow us to extend paid maternity leave and adoption leave from six months to nine months from April 2007. By the end of this Parliament, we intend to extend that to a full 12 months' paid maternity leave. The second part will extend paternity leave and paternity pay. Paternity leave will increase by up to six months in the second half of the baby's first year if the mother returns to work. The third part of the Bill will extend the right to request flexible working from April 2007 so that it covers carers of adults, as well as parents of small children and disabled children up to 18 years of age. The right to request has been an enormous success and has been taken up by almost one in four parents—almost 1 million parents in total. Eighty per cent. of all requests for more flexible working have been agreed immediately, with a further 10 per cent. agreed with modification as a result of discussions between employer and employee. Only one in 10 requests have been refused.

Most respondents to our consultation said that carers of adults should be the priority in extending the right to request. Some 6.6 million people have caring responsibilities and 3.5 million of them have jobs. Their role in society has become more important, given the ageing population and a growing need for family care rather than institutional care. That is why this aspect of the Bill will make an important contribution to the economic as well as the social environment.

Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)

I hope that the Secretary of State will not finish his introductory remarks without placing on record his appreciation of mothers who decide to stay at home to bring up their children. Where in the Bill are there proposals to improve their pension entitlements when they eventually retire, perhaps after going back to work once their children have grown up?

Alan Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)

They are not in this Bill, but they are in the Turner report, and we will have to wait for the response to Turner. As I said earlier, the Bill is about genuine choice. If a mother's genuine choice is to stay at home with her child, that is fine—that is exactly as it should be. However, we do not want women being forced to stay at home because they have no alternative and having to give up their career. Nor do employers want that; it is bad for society and for the employment market in general, but it happened quite regularly before these measures were introduced.

Barbara Keeley (Labour, Worsley)

The Secretary of State said that the right to request flexible working would be extended to carers, and I applaud that vital step. As he said, we are talking about 10 per cent. of the population, or about 6 million carers. Friday was carers' rights day, and I met carers in my constituency who were juggling work and caring, which is difficult. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what definition of caring he intends to use in the regulations, because it is important that that definition remains as simple and flexible as possible?

Alan Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)

I agree with my hon. Friend. We have not yet decided precisely how we will define it. Obviously, we cannot be simplistic and say that it applies just to elderly parents; siblings also have to be looked after. We cannot say that people have to live in the same house; they could live in another house nearby. We therefore aim to publish draft regulations as the Bill goes through the House so that people can see at all stages what our ideas are and so that we can bring the proposals to fruition for their introduction in April 2007, as we promised in our manifesto.

Kitty Ussher (Labour, Burnley)

My right hon. Friend said that he wanted to support women in their choices. When he issues the regulations during the passage of the Bill, I urge him to bear in mind those women who want to go back to work before the six month period. They may simply want to return to work, but they may also be the higher earner in the relationship or run a business that would go to the wall if they did not take a hands-on approach. In those circumstances, I very much hope that my right hon. Friend agrees that fathers who want to exercise their paternity rights before the end of the six month period should be allowed to do so.

Alan Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)

We will certainly reflect on that. The result of the consultation that we published in February was a clear preference to protect that first six months, not least because of the World Health Organisation drive, to which we subscribe, to encourage women to breastfeed for the first six months of a child's life. That was the overwhelming response to the consultation. However, as the Bill proceeds through Parliament, we will listen to representations to see whether we should be more flexible.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

The Secretary of State helpfully said that draft regulations would be published while the Bill proceeds through the House. The timetabling motion says that the Bill will complete its Committee stage by Tuesday 20 December. Does he intend to make those draft regulations available to the Committee before it finishes its work?

Alan Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)

We can try. The timetable is a little tight, but I hope that we can publish those regulations before the Committee rises. That is probably a heroic ambition, but I hope that we can publish the regulations while the Bill completes its remaining stages and certainly by the time that it returns from the Lords.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the consultation on the regulations is important, particularly in relation to carers for adults and disabled people, many of whom do not regard themselves as carers at all? They would not immediately recognise that they are entitled to a request for flexible working, for example, because they are motivated by a sense of duty and loyalty, and they do not regard themselves as carers.

Alan Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)

Once the Bill has completed its passage through the House, we must ensure that people, including carers, understand the provisions that are designed to help them. When the right to request was originally introduced in 2002, it quickly became a well-known factor in the workplace. Indeed, many carers asked us at an early stage whether it could be extended to them. There is therefore quite a high level of awareness, but I accept the important point that my hon. Friend made. We must work to ensure that awareness is increased.

I was talking about the important role of carers in society, which is a significant aspect of the Bill.

Jim McGovern (Labour, Dundee West)

To pursue the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Kitty Ussher) about a mother wanting to return to work before the end of the six-month period, does my right hon. Friend agree that a mother who wants to extend maternity leave beyond the six-month period may feel that she is being forced to return to work, even though she does not necessarily want to do so, to allow some father and child bonding to occur and because, otherwise, the father will not be able to use his paternity leave?

Alan Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)

Given the way in which we plan to introduce the legislation, that will not be a concern. Two criteria must be satisfied for the provision to be implemented. First, the father must be working and in employment and, secondly, the mother must take maternity leave, then return to work. The point made by my hon. Friend is one reason why people suggested that we should keep the six months exclusively for the mother. I do not accept that the danger he outlined will arise, but we will look at the provision more carefully as the Bill proceeds through the House.

Norman Lamb (Liberal Democrat, North Norfolk)

To return to the issue of flexible working and carers, the right hon. Gentleman's response to an earlier intervention suggests that he is looking at a wide definition rather than one that applies to a narrow group of people, which would be of little value. Will he confirm that that is the case? The Parkinson's Disease Society points out that it is problematic to make a request only once a year, particularly with conditions that vary over time. Will the right hon. Gentleman reflect on that to ensure that there is sufficient flexibility for people who care for individuals with conditions that may change over time so that they can return to their employer to discuss alterations to their arrangements?

Alan Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)

We will reflect further on that point—the hon. Gentleman has said that that means that we will not do so, but that is not the case. We think that one request is correct, because it would be difficult for employers and, indeed, employees if such requests were to become six-weekly rituals. In that case, someone who had been granted flexible working would have to ask for it again a little while later. Furthermore, if a dialogue were to take place in which everyone accepted that a company could not work like that, it is unlikely that that company would be able to grant a flexible working request two months later. Those are the reasons why we originally limited requests to one a year, but, obviously, if the society that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned wants to make a representation on that point, we can re-examine the matter.

Fourthly, the Bill includes a number of deregulatory measures to help business manage absences related to child care. Businesses said that they need more notice of when women who do not want to take their full entitlement plan to return from maternity leave. As I have said, we have increased the period of notice from one month to two, which provides the kind of certainty that will greatly assist employers. Employers also said that they would like to calculate maternity, adoption and paternity pay in daily as well as weekly amounts, because the rules on maternity leave and pay were out of sync and were creating problems. As I have said, we intend to address those employers' concerns.

Businesses also said that the rules about contact were too restrictive, meaning that employees were missing out on things that they wanted to do, such as training. The Bill contains a power to allow "keeping-in-touch days", so that where employers and employees agree, a limited number of days of work can be done without employees sacrificing pay or ending their leave. We will follow that up by introducing regulations that make it clear that employers can make reasonable contact with their employees on maternity leave and adoption leave.

Finally, the Bill also includes a power to deliver our manifesto commitments on annual leave. While many people already get bank holidays in addition to their statutory leave, some do not, and the powers in the Bill will enable us to rectify that. However, we do not underestimate the complexity of the matter and will consult fully before exercising those powers.

Mark Prisk (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether those powers are retrospective? I assume that they are not, but the legislation does not make the matter clear.

Alan Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)

The hon. Gentleman's assumption is correct—those powers are not retrospective.

In closing, there is a myth about the family friendly agenda that it will stop employers taking on women, and we have touched on that point in interventions. Yet female employment rates are rising, and countries with more family friendly policies have more women in jobs and senior positions than elsewhere. The best businesses are competing to offer more flexible working patterns, because they know that such working patterns are good for business.

The Bill promotes, rather than hampers, competitiveness; it broadens, rather than narrows, choice; it is good for business; it is good for families; and, most importantly, it is good for children. It is a Bill that progressive politicians on both sides of the House should support, and I commend it to the House.

Theresa May (Conservative, Maidenhead)

I am pleased to say that we agree with many of the aims of this Bill and some of the proposals within it. However, I am bound to tell the Secretary of State that I am disappointed by the complete lack of joined-up government. I shall repeat a point that I made only a week ago in this House, when we debated the Childcare Bill and discussed how it could help parents to achieve a work-life balance: this Bill is also about helping parents to achieve a better work-life balance, so surely the two should have been put together in one Bill, which would have enabled us to examine and debate both sides of the issue. Instead, the Government have chosen to introduce this separate Bill, which has only 20 clauses.

Given the Government's insistence that the two Bills should be handled separately, it is surprising that they appear to have had such difficulty in deciding who should lead for them tonight—during the course of today, we have been told about three different ministerial line-ups, but I am pleased that the Secretary of State has led for the Government in tonight's debate.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

We are gratified.

Theresa May (Conservative, Maidenhead)

It sounds like my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) is rather too easily gratified.

In my role as shadow Secretary of State for the family, I have opened both debates for the official Opposition, which shows that we are more interested than the Government in joined-up thinking. The fact that I have been joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), who is a member of our Department of Trade and Industry Front-Bench team, shows that we want to achieve a balance between family and business needs. I urge the Government to ensure that while they are going through interesting and difficult times—the leadership, pensions reform and education reform—they do not lose sight of delivering the important aims of both this Bill and the Childcare Bill, which will have a significant impact on both families and businesses across the country.

The Secretary of State has referred to the movement among many businesses up and down the country to understand and deliver on the need for more flexible working practices. Small businesses often find it difficult to enact such provisions, but they often provide flexible working, although they would not perceive it as such—they perceive it as ensuring that long-standing or expert members of their work force can be kept within the workplace.

Conservative Members recognise that for many families, balancing the demands of family and career is incredibly difficult. Recent polling by the Equal Opportunities Commission found that nearly seven in 10 women and men agreed or agreed strongly that women's and men's lives are becoming more alike in terms of their need to balance work and family life. The poll also found that 70 per cent. of people were concerned about what family life would be like for their children and grandchildren, and more than six in 10 were concerned about spending enough time with their family. Indeed, the EOC polling showed that people were more concerned about those issues than they were about the state of the health service or crime in their local area. Many families simply have no choice about whether one or both parents goes out to work, and the kind of support that we were discussing last week on the Childcare Bill and now on this Bill can make the difference for families between coping and not.

Many new mothers want to get back to work as quickly as possible. They want to enjoy a good career and a good relationship with their children, but they sometimes find it hard to do so, because of the prohibitive costs of child care. Other mothers would like to take longer off work to care for their newborn child, but simply do not feel that they can afford the absence from work. Both are equally valid choices, and both put mothers under enormous strain.

We all recognise that the early months in a child's life are incredibly important and that the positive effects on a child's development from time spent at home with their mother can be hugely beneficial in many cases, which is why we support the Government's intention to extend the period of maternity pay to 39 weeks. Measures which give parents more choice will continue to gain our backing, but many parents will still feel unable to take so long off work. Sometimes they do not want to be away from their jobs for such a long time, but in many cases they are forced back to work earlier than they might wish because they cannot afford to stay at home on the current provision.

We have always said that new parents should have a real choice about whether and for how long they stay at home with their newborn child. All families are different, and their needs and priorities are different, and the system of maternity pay should be as flexible as possible to meet those needs. Many families will find that the pay offered over the nine-month period is still not enough, which is why we announced plans at the last election to give mothers the option of receiving the total sum that the Government propose to pay over nine months over six months instead. They would thereby have had a significantly increased sum of maternity pay over those six months. We wanted to offer parents a real choice between that significantly increased maternity pay for six months and the current level of maternity pay over nine months and to put them back in control of whether and when they go back to work.

Earlier this year, in an article in The House Magazine, my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) set out several proposals that he believed the Government should be pursuing in order to ensure that businesses were protected as regards maternity and paternity pay. He cited:

"An increase to the current 28 days notice period for all women returning to work . . . Central administration of maternity benefits with the opportunity for larger businesses to opt out of a central scheme"

and

"clearer guidelines for communication between employers and employees during the maternity leave period."

I am pleased that the Secretary of State said that the Government will move on at least two of those points, notably on the increased period of notice, which will be welcomed by all employers, and on communication between employers and employers during the maternity leave period. For many mothers, it is extremely important to continue to have contact with the workplace, not only to keep abreast of developments but to feel that they are still in touch with the workplace and have not been forgotten and left to one side.

I note that those matters are to be taken up in regulations instead of being covered in the Bill. I return to the point that was ably made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, who cited several clauses that refer to regulations. A significant amount of the Bill's detail is subject to regulations. I welcome the Secretary of State's commitment to publishing draft regulations as soon as possible. It would be preferable if that could be dealt with in Committee, but at least we should be able to look at the detail when the Bill returns on Report. This is a short Bill, and an awful lot of it will be subject to what those regulations say.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her remarks. The Secretary of State responded to my intervention dextrously and without a moment's hesitation, as is his wont, but I am not entirely certain that his answer was correct. I specifically asked him about the order-making powers in clauses 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, where no reference to the affirmative procedure is made, in marked contrast to provisions in later clauses. If I am wrong, I am happy to concede that, but I do not think that I am.

Theresa May (Conservative, Maidenhead)

I understood the Secretary of State to indicate that all the regulations in those clauses would be subject to the affirmative procedure, notwithstanding that that is not mentioned in the Bill. Perhaps he could clarify that.

Alan Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)

I shall try to be as dextrous as possible. I am pretty sure that that applies to all the clauses. The point to which I gave a quick answer concerned paternity leave, which will be subject to affirmative resolution.

Theresa May (Conservative, Maidenhead)

I suspect that we will return to this in Committee.

We recognise that the right to request has been successful since it was introduced. Everyone, including employers' organisations such as the CBI, agrees that it has worked in balancing the needs of employers and employees. It is encouraging that 90 per cent. of requests are being accommodated by employers. That has had a positive impact on the families who have benefited and on business. In looking to extend it, it is right that the Government should do so only one group at a time.

As the Secretary of State acknowledged, Britain's carers make a significant contribution to our society. Indeed, it is estimated that they save the Treasury about £57 billion a year. They deserve the same life chances that we all take for granted—to enjoy a fulfilling career and to have a healthy life and financial stability in old age. Many carers want to continue working and enjoy the independence and the break from their caring responsibilities that work provides. More than 2.5 million of the 6 million or more carers juggle care with paid work, but as many as 50 per cent. have been forced to give up work because of their caring responsibilities.

Flexible working and the promotion of family-friendly policies are good for employers and benefit business, with improved employee relations, greater staff retention, lower recruitment costs and a happier, more motivated work force. That is why we will support the Government's aim of extending the right to request to carers. We are, however, concerned that the definition of "carer" needs careful consideration. As the hon. Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) said, we must ensure that we get it correct. What plans do the Government have to work with carers' groups and businesses to ensure that it not only benefits the groups that it is intended to benefit but is workable for the businesses that will put this into practice?

It is clear that some employees feel increasingly put upon or hard done by as a result of parents or carers being allowed rights such as the right to request. Many of these new rights work only because of the goodwill of work colleagues who do the extra shifts or accommodate the changes in work patterns for employees. It is important to ensure that the system does not build up resentment in the workplace. Many businesses are now seeing the case for allowing all employees the right to request flexible working. I would be interested to hear what discussions the Government are having with the CBI and others on extending these rights further in due course.

As I said, we support moves to help families and to give them greater control over their working and family lives. However, we all recognise that any family-friendly policies in the workplace will be successful only if they help business to innovate and to stay competitive. The measures that we have talked about, along with better child care and increased support for parents, allow business to make better use of its work force. They allow employers to retain skilled and effective staff and to keep up morale. The business case has been proven. That is why, in so many cases, business has been leading the way. We should pay tribute to that. Many businesses have found yet more innovative ways to help their staff and to get the best out of them. But the Government's measures will not work if they affect competitiveness. There is no point in being family-friendly if we are not job-friendly.

When the Secretary of State went on the "Today" programme to herald the Bill, he prayed in aid the CBI and claimed that the Bill was supported by business, but that is not quite the case. Yes, the CBI supports the extension of paid maternity leave and the extension of flexible working, as well as the increase from 28 days to two months of the notice period for employers when the mother intends to return to work, and the clarification about reasonable contact. However, business has grave concerns about other parts of the Bill. As the CBI said in the briefing that it sent out today:

"Serious concerns remain over Additional Paternity Leave and whether the Government will deliver significant support for employers".

In the words of John Cridland, the CBI's deputy director general:

"The government cannot have its cake and eat it".

Employers were originally told that this would be a "balanced" Bill giving increased rights to employees, with greater powers for and decreased burdens on business. However, several of the measures set to help business that the Government flagged up at an earlier stage have been dropped, seriously affecting the balance between family-friendly and employer-friendly policies.

Why did the Government decide not to proceed with the proposed transferable maternity leave and pay scheme that they outlined in their election manifesto earlier this year? The hon. Member for Burnley (Kitty Ussher) mentioned that in her intervention on the Secretary of State. Do officials believe that there is a significant risk that the manifesto pledge on transferability would contravene equality legislation? It would be interesting for Members who will serve on the Committee to see the legal advice that the Government received. The Government have a habit of ditching manifesto commitments, but it is unusual to see it so early after a general election. There is genuine concern in business that the Government are not, as they first proposed, implementing transferable maternity leave, which the CBI accepted as long as it was administratively simple, but are instead introducing a new right to paternity leave. There is a real difference between those two things.

Alan Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)

We have been at pains to explain to the CBI and others that the paternity leave proposals will introduce precisely what would have applied under interchangeability. European and domestic law is tight on protecting the rights of women, so providing for some interchangeability and for them to be allowed to give up some of their leave was difficult legally. We have found another way to achieve that: the woman must be back at work for her partner, the father, to pick up the remaining leave. We always intended—because it was the result of the consultation—for that to happen in the second six months of the baby's first year. The actual outcome is therefore exactly as we pledged it in the manifesto. It is simply not interchangeability, which we originally envisaged, because of the legal problems.

Theresa May (Conservative, Maidenhead)

I am grateful for that clarification and I accept that an element of transferability remains in the Government's introduction of the additional paternity leave. However, the way in which it is being done in the Bill creates a new right to paternity leave and many employers are concerned about that. They are not necessarily worried about the transferability element but about the potential requirements for the paternity leave further down the line. I remain attracted to the concept of interchangeability. Indeed, we proposed that for consideration more than a year ago. The hon. Member for Burnley set out some of the circumstances in which a family may feel that it makes sense for them for the transferability to happen earlier than at the end of the first six months. I am sure that we shall revert to transferability and its legal aspects when we consider the Bill in more detail in Committee.

Earlier, I referred to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Havant. One of his suggestions to the Government related to the central administration of maternity benefits. Small employers in particular find the statutory maternity pay calculation and the paperwork involved complex. As has been widely discussed in the past, small firms should focus on winning new business, not filling in forms for the Government. They would greatly benefit if the administration of statutory maternity pay were handed back to the Revenue, assuming that a simple procedure for supplying the information to the Government could be developed.

Many larger firms are happy to continue to administer statutory maternity pay because they are more aware of the rules and more likely to pay occupational maternity pay and they have already invested in the systems that enable them to do that easily. However, many small businesses would perceive the central administration of maternity pay as a significant opportunity to reduce the burden of maternity leave. I continue to believe that it would make sense for the Government to allow firms to choose whether they hand back the administration of statutory maternity pay to the Revenue, providing employers, especially small businesses, with much-needed extra support to help them cope with the significant extra and unexpected burdens.

Alan Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)

I accept that Opposition Members have not had time to absorb the figures but does the right hon. Lady agree that, if direct payments cost the taxpayer £75 million for a saving to business of £1.1 million and only £400,000 to small businesses—those figures are the outcome of extensive discussions with businesses—it is not worth proceeding with the idea?

Theresa May (Conservative, Maidenhead)

I have only recently heard those figures. I have not seen the calculation and I do not therefore necessarily accept them. I acknowledge that the Government wish to make a balanced judgment on the cost to the taxpayer and that to small business. However, I find it surprising that the benefit to small business is as small as the Secretary of State suggests. Business organisations have asked questions about the validity of the Government's figures.

Mark Prisk (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

I accept that the figures are recent and that the Secretary of State's offer to make the process more transparent is welcome. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a shame that the regulatory impact assessments appear to make several omissions? Indeed, no calculation is made for time loss. For businesses, time equals money. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Government regulatory impact assessments make a huge mistake in not including the cost to business of the loss of time?

Theresa May (Conservative, Maidenhead)

I agree with my hon. Friend's analysis of the problems with the figures that the Government provide. That is precisely why I am reluctant to accept the figures that the Secretary of State cited at the Dispatch Box today.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

It strikes me that the Secretary of State's statement clearly shows that private business can do things a lot better than the Government. However, it probably also shows that the Government have grossly underestimated the cost to small businesses. There must be some mechanism whereby small businesses get additional payments if they are to continue to do the administration.

Theresa May (Conservative, Maidenhead)

My hon. Friend makes some valid points about the genuine impact of legislation on small businesses. Our debate is about getting the balance right between the need to encourage greater ability for families to find the work-life balance that will suit them and to ensure that, in doing so, we are not restricting the competitiveness of British business.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

The Secretary of State produced a fascinating set of figures. If they are accurate, it is difficult to argue with his case. However, it might help us to form a judgment if we knew whether the figures had come from the Treasury or the Department of Trade and Industry. That would colour my interpretation of them.

Theresa May (Conservative, Maidenhead)

My understanding is that the Treasury, not the Department of Trade and Industry, did the major work on the figures. That may colour both the figures and my hon. Friend's view of them.

Although we support measures that make parents more able to spend time with their children, we remain to be convinced that the Government can introduce a system for managing paternity pay that allows the necessary checks to prevent abuse but is not overly bureaucratic for employers to administer. On past form, we are doubtful that the Government will deliver.

We also seek greater clarification of the proposals, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) referred, for introducing regulations to give the Government the power through secondary legislation to bring in new rules on leave entitlement.

In his responses to interventions, the Secretary of State made it clear that the Government intended to introduce powers to ensure that the annual leave entitlement for employees did not include the UK's eight bank holidays. If my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham is correct, the House authorities will have to pay some attention to that proposal.

I am sure that most employers want to ensure that their staff have adequate paid holiday and will support the need to provide it for their employees, but that move will impose a substantial cost on some businesses and I doubt that many will relish the thought of giving the Government carte blanche to change the rules. Although the Secretary of State was specific about the intention of clause 13, the provision is vague and simply gives the Secretary of State the power to introduce secondary legislation that can affect the rules on leave entitlement. We will want to press the Government on that. If they have a specific intention, it should be in the Bill. Many employers might accept what the Government and the Secretary of State say about bank holidays as part of annual leave entitlement, but they would be worried about giving the Government a simple power to introduce—at some stage in the future—other regulations on leave entitlement.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

As a general principle, there should be even-handedness between the treatment of the private sector and the public sector. Or, to put it another way, it is certainly not reasonable to impose on the private sector financial costs that it is not judged proper to impose on the public sector. In that context, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be useful to know, in regard to clause 13(4), whether the Government intend to apply the provisions to persons in Crown employment?

Theresa May (Conservative, Maidenhead)

Perhaps the Minister will clarify that point for my hon. Friend when he winds up the debate. The power in clause 13 would certainly give the Government the right to do that. I accept my hon. Friend's overall point about the need to ensure that we strike a balance between the public and private sectors. Indeed, many people are exercised at the moment about the balance between public and private sector pension entitlements. There is a significant and growing gap there, and the Secretary of State has recently made decisions that will encourage that gap to grow. It is incumbent on the Government to look upon themselves as an employer, and to ensure that their house is in order. Another area in which I am afraid they do not come up to the standard that we would expect is that of equal pay. I understand that, while the pay gap in this country is generally between 17 and 18 per cent., it is 21 per cent. in the civil service. The Government really need to look at these issues, and to put their house in order.

On the regulations that the Government will use to introduce the rules on leave entitlement, it is important that they should discuss with business the impact that any sudden change would have, and that they ensure that any change is introduced in a way that would reduce the severity of that impact on business. A balance needs to be struck between meeting the needs of employees and ensuring that any new provision does not have a detrimental impact on keeping the business environment competitive.

Families are increasingly looking to us in Parliament to provide a framework to help them cope with the pressures of modern life. Businesses are looking to us to ensure that we do not tie their hands and make them unable to compete in a fiercely competitive global market. It is up to us in this place to ensure that we strike the right balance between being family friendly and business friendly. We on this side of the House will work constructively to achieve that.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. May I remind right hon. and hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches in this debate?

Liz Blackman (Labour, Erewash)

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker for calling me. I do not think that I shall use up all my allotted time this evening.

I e-mailed an officer from the National Autistic Society—which supports the aims of the all-party group on autism—for a briefing on the Bill. He e-mailed me back to say:

"We focus on clause 12 on flexible working, and it is short because we are basically happy with it!"

I should like to tell the Secretary of State that I am pleased, too. Clause 12 builds on the flexible working provisions in the Employment Act 2002, which confers on parents of children under six, or of youngsters up to 18 with a disability, a statutory right to request a change in their terms and conditions, so that they can move into either part-time or home working, or some other mode of flexible working that fits in with their needs. The Act places on employers a duty seriously to consider such requests, while also providing them with certain grounds for refusing them. It is worth reading those provisions. They aim to protect the employment base and have increased the confidence of employers to move into flexible working, which has led to greater productivity in the business world.

It was inevitable that the provisions in clause 12 would be introduced after they had been signalled in 2004, and they are the result of extensive consultation. They extend the right to request flexible working to those people who care for sick and disabled adults, and they will come into force in 2007. That represents a ground-breaking change, and it has been introduced in response to the relevant evidence. According to the Equal Opportunities Commission, there are 4.4 million carers of working age in this country, one in five of whom have either left a job or been unable to take one because they could not balance all the different responsibilities involved. Some 2 million people take on a caring responsibility each year, and the demographic trend forecasts that more and more of us will become carers. This provision in the Bill will give such people the right to balance their lives.

There is also a sound economic case for businesses to take such people into their work force under these conditions, given the wasted potential of carers with skills and talents who could be contributing to the economy in a tight labour market. It is grossly wasteful not to use them. The provisions will also offer carers, many of whom are on low incomes, the opportunity to boost their income and to put aside a little more for their pension provision.

Several hon. Members have mentioned the fact that we must get right the definition of carers, and I am extremely pleased that this knotty problem is to go out to significant consultation before any definition is decided on. Such a definition needs to capture the full army of carers whom we are seeking to encompass in the Bill. The preferred definition of Employers for Carers, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the National Autistic Society is:

"Carers are employees with significant caring responsibilities that have a substantial impact on their working lives. These employees are responsible for the care and support of disabled, elderly or sick partners, relatives or friends who are unable to care for themselves."

I understand that there is no point in having a consultation if we alight on a particular definition right at the outset, but I hope that the Secretary of State will consider that definition as the basis of a working consultation process.

How are the provisions working at the moment? It is one thing to introduce a good piece of legislation; it is another for it to translate into effective action. Many employers already offer flexible working to groups outside the scope of the existing law. According to the Office for National Statistics, however, only a quarter of employees who are eligible to request flexible working have done so; four fifths of them have been successful. The Work Foundation report found that parents on low incomes were less successful in having their requests accepted. All those statistics illustrate that we still have a long way to go and that we need to be more proactive, particularly in helping carers who are not already in work or who do not belong to carers' groups. They fall below the radar, so we need to think more proactively about how we can inform them and engage with them.

Another aspect of the debate on clause 12 relates to including the carers of children aged six to 18 who do not fall within the disabled category in the right to request flexible working. The phasing in of different groups is sensible, but I hope that we can look at this issue sooner rather than later. Many children do not fall into the categories for which we are legislating, but need their parents to be around more than other children do. There are issues such as family breakdown, young children and older children with mental health problems, 16 and 17-year-olds who are beginning to develop schizophrenia, young girls who develop anorexia and teenagers with drug dependency.

That said, the Bill will make an enormous difference to carers because it will enable them to spend the time that they need with the people who are important to them, and either to stay in or to take up work. For them, that is not just an economic advantage; it provides a sense of self.

Norman Lamb (Liberal Democrat, North Norfolk)

To pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) about flexible working for parents of teenage children, as the father of two teenagers I am acutely aware of the pressures of being a parent of children of that age. There is a strong case to extend the right to that group of parents, as well as to carers, at some stage. I hope that the Government will consider the timing of introducing that.

It is a pleasure to return to some of the issues that we debated back in 2002, on the Employment Bill, when the Secretary of State was not in his current elevated position. It is fair to say that the introduction in that Bill, now the Employment Act 2002, of the right to flexible working has been a real success. That is because it has a light-touch approach, it does not impose too heavy a burden on employers and it has helped to change the culture of the workplace. That is a good thing.

The Liberal Democrats broadly support the Bill. We have questions about a number of aspects of it, and we believe that further measures can be taken to lighten the administrative burden, simplify procedures and simplify the law, which remains complex in this area. However, we broadly support the package of measures and will vote for it at this stage should there be a Division. Although there are reservations among the wide group of interested organisations, to which the Conservative spokesman referred earlier, it is none the less interesting that, with reservations, the CBI, the Equal Opportunities Commission, Citizens Advice and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development have all broadly welcomed large aspects of the Bill. That is a good thing.

Why is the Bill important? It is important because getting the balance right between work and family is critical. We would all recognise that the pressures on families have grown considerably. There has been a revolution in the workplace since the days when there was a sole male breadwinner and the mother was at home looking after the children. Now, more than ever, both parents work, which can mean insufficient time to look after and care for children. It is therefore in all our interests to do more to get the balance right. If the Bill helps in that direction, that is a good thing.

For children who need time with parents and for the increasing number of people who are now cared for at home rather than in institutions—disabled adults, elderly people and so on—the Bill is of great importance. It is also of importance in terms of maintaining the sanity of those parents and carers and trying to balance the pressures of work and caring, whether for a small child or an adult loved one. It seems to me entirely legitimate for the state to be concerned about setting the right legal framework to balance all those competing interests.

It is also important, as the Conservative spokesman rightly pointed out, to ensure that we balance the interests of employers in this area. Broadly, the step-by-step, light-touch approach is the right one. The right to request is the obvious example of how that applies, and it seems to me that trying to get employer and employee to discuss and reach agreement about flexible working is much better than the approach taken from the working time directive of seeking to impose an absolute limit on working hours, which the Government rejected, and on which I supported them. There are some questions around trying to lighten the burden on employers. Is enough being done to limit the bureaucratic burden, particularly for small employers? In terms of the cost and the time taken to recruit replacements for those who go on maternity leave, the burden is considerable.

As the Conservative spokesman suggested, more consideration should be given to the right to opt for a transfer of administration of the payment of maternity and paternity pay to the state, particularly for small employers. I was interested in the exchange about the costs of the private sector doing that as opposed to the state. More analysis needs to be done, and I am not entirely convinced that, as one other speaker suggested, the time cost to smaller employers is analysed sufficiently. I know what it is like for someone employing two or three people to have to cope, in terms of time, with the administration of those payments. Is the analysis to which the Secretary of State referred sufficiently robust in identifying what those costs really are to small businesses?

Mark Prisk (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

The hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State and I are all former members of the Standing Committee that considered the Employment Act 2002. That camaraderie aside, does he share my concern that the Secretary of State suddenly leapt up to the Dispatch Box with a set of figures of which, I suspect, most Members of the House and of the Committee are not aware? Does he agree that it is necessary for the House to have complete transparency in relation to the figures, rather than having the legislation apparently rushed through Committee by 25 December?

Norman Lamb (Liberal Democrat, North Norfolk)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I was not aware of those figures, and I hope that in the wind up the Secretary of State or the Minister will confirm that that analysis will be shared with the Committee from the start, so that we can debate those issues properly.

Another concern for employers has always been the complicated procedures and time limits for a woman seeking to return to work. It is welcome that the Government propose to extend the period required for notification of a return.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, the law remains complex in this area and there could be a much more comprehensive assessment of the legal provisions. For a long time, for example, there has been a provision with regard to indirect sex discrimination, where women are disproportionately affected by a particular rule. That has resulted in a lot of claims being brought by women seeking the right to return to work from maternity leave on reduced hours. In effect, it has created a right for many women to have reduced hours—not a right to request, but a right to have. That overlays the right to request, which is much more light-touch. Many employers simply are not aware of the extra burden of the law on indirect sex discrimination, and the juxtaposition of those two competing rights is a matter that the Government need to consider further as it causes complication for both employers and employees. It seems to me that entitlements only really exist if people understand what they are.

In raising concerns on the part of employers, it is worth acknowledging that the proposed changes are not necessarily all bad news. The Secretary of State suggested that, overall, the concept of embracing flexible working is good for the economy. In my constituency there is a company called Listawood, which, from the start, has embraced the idea of flexible working. It has enabled women to work different hours during term time and during the summer holidays. They have been able to change their shift patterns to facilitate caring for their children while they are on holiday. They have been enabled to take time out of work to watch their children playing sport at school, including sports' days. The concept from the start has been flexible working. Rather than that being a burden that has driven the company into liquidation, the process has been a fantastic economic success. The company has won award after award, not only for family-friendly policies but because of its financial acumen and financial success.

It can be a win-win for employers fully to embrace these measures, and there is the potential that they could lead to more motivated staff and greater productivity if people are working hours that suit them. There is also the potential for greater retention of staff and assistance with recruitment. If a company has a reputation for embracing the entire concept of flexible working, it is much more likely to recruit motivated staff. The idea of keeping-in-touch days and the clarification that the Bill provides of the ability to maintain contact during maternity leave are good things.

To an extent, the Bill depends for implementation upon regulations. The issue has been raised already by the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) in interventions. Although that provides the opportunity for some flexibility in that provisions will be able to be changed as time goes by, the process will make scrutiny more difficult. The devil will be in the detail of the regulations. The Secretary of State indicated that he would try to ensure that the draft regulations would be available before the end of the Bill's consideration in Committee. However, if there is to be a proper debate in Committee, surely we should have the draft regulations available at the start of that consideration.

Gerry Sutcliffe (Labour, Bradford South)

We need to nail the point about regulation. The principles that we are trying to implement are set out in the Bill. The Government are criticised for not consulting widely on the detail of the impact on business. That is what the secondary process of legislation is all about. There is the opportunity during that process for the Government to be questioned on the validity of regulations. Surely that is a way forward for better scrutiny.

Norman Lamb (Liberal Democrat, North Norfolk)

Indeed; it is to be hoped that that will be the case. Consultation can take place on the detail before a Bill is presented as well as before regulations. At this stage, while considering the Bill, we are not aware of much of the detail in the proposed legislation other than by way of indications and hints. I suggest that that is not entirely satisfactory.

Mark Prisk (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman detects in the decent manner of the Minister that perhaps there is the scintilla of an opportunity in this instance. The need for the 20 December date is set only by a programme motion. If we are to have proper scrutiny, to which the Minister referred, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there could be merit in a small slippage in the timing of consideration in Committee to allow the statutory order to be before Members so that they might give it due consideration?

Norman Lamb (Liberal Democrat, North Norfolk)

I entirely agree with that suggestion, which was well made. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to it. I am sure that he will.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

While the hon. Gentleman is making the point, perhaps he will explore the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow). The Secretary of State gave partial clarification in response to a helpful intervention. The regulations that will come under clauses 3, 4 and 6 are apparently not affirmative while the regulations under clauses 13 and 14 are affirmative. The reason for that difference escapes me.

Norman Lamb (Liberal Democrat, North Norfolk)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He reminded me of something with which I wanted to deal. Clearly, the Minister must respond as the two responses by the Secretary of State were inconsistent. The right hon. Gentleman said that everything was subject to the affirmative process. Later, he confined the process to the paternity leave provisions. There is no logic to the affirmative procedure applying only to the paternity leave provisions and not to other provisions. If the Minister will confirm that the Secretary of State's first answer is the right one and that the affirmative procedure applies to everything, that would be of great assistance. I know that the Minister is always co-operative and helpful. I am sure that Conservative Members share my optimism that he will respond positively.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

I sense that the Secretary of State may be reading a note from the Box. I could be wrong on that. If I am wrong, so be it. I was trying to be helpful in giving him more time. As I understand it, affirmative regulations refer to annual leave in clause 13, and an increase in the maximum amount of weeks pay for certain purposes in clause 14, and not paternity pay. I could be wrong about that.

Norman Lamb (Liberal Democrat, North Norfolk)

Perhaps I could give the Secretary of State an opportunity to intervene to clarify the matter. There seems to be complete confusion on the Government Benches. Labour Members seem remarkably reluctant to get to their feet. I am giving them the opportunity, here and now, to intervene. Let us hope that we will have a response when the Minister winds up. I am sure that he will have got his act together by then.

I shall deal with some of the key measures in the Bill. First, there is maternity pay. The provisions will extend the maximum period to a year. By regulation, that will be phased in with the introduction of 39 weeks from 1 April 2007. Representations have been made by a number of groups, and one of the issues is the level of income that maternity pay provides. For many women, the provision is at an inadequate level for them to take the full opportunity that the extension to a year provides. I share the view that has been expressed by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) that a degree of flexibility would be a good thing. There should be the entitlement to take the full amount of pay over the entire period. Over a shorter period, there should be the entitlement to take that pay at a higher rate. That seems potentially to benefit employers because they will have the employee back in employment earlier. At the same time, it gives the employee a real opportunity to take advantage of their leave if they are unable to afford to take it at the rate of £106. For many people, that is an inadequate level to enable them to take advantage of the scheme.

At the last election, the Liberal Democrats proposed the introduction of a maternity income guarantee for the first child, which would have guaranteed at least £4,420 for the first 26 weeks. That would have helped lower-paid women in particular, and it is something that the Government should consider. There are also the proposed changes to adoption leave and pay, which mirror what is happening to maternity leave. That is entirely welcome. As the Secretary of State said, it is remarkable that it has taken so long for us to reach the point where people who adopt children have such rights. It is particularly important for them to have time to get to know their new child.

I move on to paternity leave and pay. I shall deal first with the existing entitlement of two weeks. There is a case for making that right more flexible in its take-up. Indeed, there is a fairly low take-up. The Secretary of State said that it is encouraging, but I understand that it is still less than 50 per cent. That is partly because the figure is only £106 a week. That is inadequate for many fathers, given the burden of paying a mortgage and so forth. I am told that many people lose out because they are unaware of the notice requirements. By the time that they decide that they want to take paternity leave, they have missed the requirements. If an employer chooses to be difficult, they can be denied the right to leave. There is something of a straitjacket, and if someone chooses to take one week rather than two weeks they will lose their entitlement to the second week. It is not a week that can be taken later. As the Secretary of State will know, there have been many calls for an extension to the entitlement rather than for the substitution entitlement. As part of the assessment to determine whether the substitution entitlement is workable, the regulations will have to be analysed closely. Many people fear that it will be administratively burdensome. At least two employers—more than two if people have two types of part-time employment—will have to liaise and exchange paperwork to ensure that the father is entitled to take paternity leave because the mother has returned to work for another employer.

The Secretary of State said that the Bill is unlikely to have an enormous impact, but that is because the pay is only £106 a week. The regulatory impact assessment suggests that as few as 9,000 people a year may take up the entitlement to paid paternity leave. Inevitably, they will tend to be those who are better off. People on lower incomes will not be able to afford it. Again, I think that the Government should consider allowing people to claim the total amount over a shorter period at a higher weekly rate. It might well suit someone to take a month of paternity leave at a higher rate of pay. Some fathers will not benefit because the mothers were not working when pregnant and were therefore not entitled to maternity leave. Four out of 10 mothers are not in paid employment during pregnancy. The Equal Opportunities Commission has suggested extending entitlement to fathers whose partners return to work after the birth but who are not eligible for maternity leave. Would the Government consider doing that?

Although the provision for circumstances in which a mother dies after childbirth will affect only about 300 couples, it is a valuable and long-overdue measure, allowing fathers to take the full equivalent of maternity leave. As for the flexible working provision, it is, as I have said, a light touch, and is appropriate for that reason. I fully support the extension of the right to carers but, as many have pointed out—including the hon. Member for Erewash—it all comes down to the definition of "carer". The Secretary of State did not respond to my question about whether he intended the definition to be broad. If it is narrow, it will be of little value. It must be broad to meet the expectations of many people who have welcomed the new right in general.

On the concerns of the Parkinson's Disease Society, I understand why employers do not want a multiplicity of applications—but following the extension of the provisions to carers there may be circumstances in which the needs of a cared-for person change a great deal. Will the Government consider an increase in the frequency of applications, perhaps to once every six months?

Earlier, I mentioned the possibility of extending the entitlement to cover children aged up to 17. As has been argued by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development and many others, we may in time reach a point at which every employee will have the right to request entitlement. We heard earlier of the risk that employees without family or caring responsibilities might begin to resent all the new rights in the workplace. The right to request flexible working is light-touch, however, and the employer can refuse the request without fear of a legal claim. Employees will have a greater chance to discuss the matter with their employers in order to get the balance right and to secure a level of employment that will enable them to be fully committed and productive. Surveys show that most employers are already willing to consider applications for flexible working from a wider group than those who are entitled to request it, and I think that that is worth building on.

Overall, the Bill presents a good package that addresses the need for us to balance the needs of families with those of the economy. We will support it.

Helen Jones (Labour, Warrington North)

I am grateful for the opportunity to comment briefly on what I consider to be a good Bill. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that it is good for families, employers and society as a whole. I am sometimes bemused by the rather grudging tone of the Opposition, who present themselves as the party of the family but who, when we try to give families more rights, sound as if we are doing something dreadful.

Let me begin by making the business case for what we are doing. It builds on what the Government have already done, but, as my right hon. Friend said, it is also good for businesses. Employees perform better when they know that their child care needs, or the needs of those caring for their dependants, are being taken care of so that they can focus on their work. It is also much more valuable to businesses to keep staff whom they have trained and skilled than to lose them and have to re-employ and retrain others. Skills will be kept in the business.

The needs of society as a whole must also be considered. If we want to create a good society, we must first create good citizens. That means investing time in our young people. We do that through education and, I hope, through the youth service, but it is most important to do it through the family. As a parent, I know that the most important thing we can give our children is time. That is particularly true during the important first year of life, but it is also true when children are ill, have special needs, or are particularly dependent on us in any way.

The Bill represents an important step. It will help people to balance the demands of work and family life. One of the Government's great achievements has been to get so many people back to work. My constituency, parts of which were experiencing second or third-generation unemployment, now has almost full employment. Rightly, however, people are demanding more of us. They demand the ability to manage work and family responsibilities sensibly. The Bill will help us to provide that, and I welcome the extensions of maternity, paternity and adoption leave.

I also welcome the clause that allows the Secretary of State to make provisions relating to annual leave, but I want to ask a question about it. I understand that it arises from the need to ensure that everyone is entitled to bank holidays, and that such holidays are not deemed to be part of annual leave. Currently, about 2.75 million people are not granted the bank holidays that most of us take for granted. I would be grateful if the Minister told us whether it is his intention that there should be a right to paid bank holidays, so that people who take a bank holiday as a day's leave receive holiday pay for it, and those who have to work on a bank holiday are entitled to a paid day's holiday in lieu.

I want to raise a couple of questions on what is happening with maternity leave. Currently, six months is classed as ordinary maternity leave, and six months is classed as additional maternity leave. The right to additional leave is not much used at the moment, but I believe that it will be when three months of it becomes paid from 2007. However, I cannot see why we maintain the distinction between ordinary and additional maternity leave. I understand the need to protect the first six months to ensure that the mother is not pressurised to go back to work too early, but maintaining the distinction brings a number of unintended consequences that are a problem, particularly for poorer families.

For example, a mother has the right to get her job back if she returns to work after ordinary maternity leave. If she returns after additional maternity leave, she has that right so far as is reasonably practical and, if she cannot have her old job back, she is entitled to one that is not substantially less favourable—I think that that is the phrase. Apart from creating a lot of work for employment tribunals that try to define those terms, evidence is accumulating that, particularly in the retail trade, women are being offered jobs on very different hours from those that they had previously worked and, often, it is difficult for them to manage on those hours. Therefore, they are being forced to reject those jobs and are falling into the poverty trap. I do not think that that is what the Government intended and we should examine that.

The other problem is that, although those on ordinary maternity leave are classed as being in full-time work and therefore entitled to tax credits, those on additional maternity leave are not. Again, that impacts on poorer families, single parents, a parent whose partner works for fewer than 16 hours a week, or even parents who wish to go back to work part-time for fewer than 16 hours—many mothers may wish to do so, particularly if they are still breast-feeding—and whose partner then cannot claim the tax credits when the leave is transferred. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will undertake to examine those issues as the Bill goes through the House.

On the tragic cases of mothers who die during child birth or shortly after, I am not sure that the comments of the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) were accurate. As I understand it, currently, a father in those tragic circumstances is still entitled to only two weeks' paid paternity leave and four weeks' unpaid. The problem is that, when a family has been tragically bereaved, there are real problems not only in finding child care but perhaps in caring for other children. It is difficult to find child care for babies under three months old, and even with children over three months one usually has to make plans very early on, so we are forcing more stress on families that are already under great stress.

Those cases are rare. I think that there were only 261 child birth-related deaths between 1999 and 2002—229 babies were born and more than 500 other children needed care. For that reason, I am sure that it is possible to ensure that families in those tragic circumstances are catered for. Since the Bill enshrines the right to transfer some form of maternity leave, I wonder whether the Minister would undertake to consider in Committee fathers who find themselves in that tragic situation and to see whether it is possible to transfer the mother's rights to leave to those fathers. That would help those families at a very stressful time and prevent more families from falling into the poverty trap. If that is not done, fathers will often end up coming out of the work force to care for their children and find it difficult to get back into it.

As I said, this is a very good Bill. It builds on what the Government have done, but there are one or two issues that I hope the Minister will undertake to consider as the Bill goes through Committee. If those issues were looked at, it would make it an even better Bill, provide better services for families and help to protect some of our most vulnerable children.

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

I am particularly grateful to be called at this point. I think someone on the Conservative Benches had a little word in your ear, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I am hoping to get home to say goodnight to my little boy, which I try to do every evening, although the demands of the House make it difficult on occasions. I wish no discourtesy to you and to the next hon. Member to make a speech, but I will be chasing off after my remarks. Obviously, I hope to be back to listen to the Minister's response to our concerns and to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing).

On the whole, I welcome what the Government are doing. I echo the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) as to what the Government are seeking to do. The Government were right on taking office to extend the time for maternity leave and to extend payments for women seeking to take maternity leave. Labour Members always pretend that the gain would have stopped in 1997 and that the Conservative party might not have made equal progress on many of these matters, but time moves on and, given the wonderfully performing economy that was left at the time, clearly these things could have been more easily afforded.

Kitty Ussher (Labour, Burnley)

In that case why did the Conservatives oppose our policies on the working tax credit, the child tax credit, extending maternity leave to 26 weeks, two weeks' paid paternity leave, three months' adoption leave, the right to flexible working, increased maternity pay, giving part-time workers the same rights as full-time workers, four weeks' paid leave and the national minimum wage?

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

I am not sure whether new Members should always follow the Whips' brief, because I am told by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest, who is sitting on the Front Bench, that we certainly did not oppose all those measures. If the hon. Lady had been listening, she would have heard that I included some of those measures in my remarks. We opposed some, but not all. However, as Back Benchers have a limited time to make their contributions and as I wish to get home tonight, I will proceed.

Kitty Ussher (Labour, Burnley)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

Not again, sorry.

It is important that mothers, where they wish to do so, take maternity leave. It is also important that mothers should not be pressurised into thinking that they are being neglectful or inadequate if they feel that they cannot take maternity leave and they wish to go back to work, whether for their personal and professional development or because their families cannot afford for them to take maternity leave.

I implore the Minister to take on board the ideas put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead and endorsed by the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), that more flexibility should be attached to maternity leave. The Secretary of State pointed out that on the continent there are much more successful models of women being encouraged by family-friendly policies. There is a correlation between those countries where there are such family-friendly policies and the success of women at work. They are much more generous in maternity leave than we presently are in the UK. Therefore, a system whereby a woman can take six months' maternity leave but roll up the money she would receive to £212 a week, rather than the £106 a week for taking a year's maternity leave, might enable many more women to access maternity leave. That would begin to match the provision in other countries that are more successful at encouraging women to take maternity leave and to return to the work force at the level they left it without having to take career breaks, which inevitably mean that women fall back in the race for the top jobs.

It is desirable that, where women want to, they stay at home to look after their children. As my right hon. Friend said, it is a shame that this Bill and the Childcare Bill, the Standing Committee of which I will serve on tomorrow, were not put together. There is considerable and growing evidence of the importance of what is called the attachment theory, with which the Minister is doubtless very familiar. It is very important that babies and young children form a profound bond with their primary carer in order to have proper emotional development later. The studies on this subject are quite frightening, given the mistakes that have already been made in not encouraging such bonding to take place. Attachment theory is subject to no class or income barriers; it is as relevant to professional families as it is to low-income ones.

We should recognise that women who are able to afford to take such time off and to work on their relationship with their baby might find their baby quite frightening to begin with. For those of us who have been used to living a professional life—having things done when we want them to be done, and having our entire environment work to a time scale that we are in control of—being at home with a child is a truly different experience. We should enable women to deal with that situation in a less stressful environment. Of course, the same point applies to paternity leave. The average male wage is some £505 a week, so in calculating the average female wage, we can take 20 per cent. off that figure, which gives us a female wage of about £400 a week. Given those figures, it is much more realistic for women to take such time off.

Although I am in favour of more flexibility and enabling women to take time off work, I want also to put a little of the employer's case. The hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) encouraged the Minister in somewhat the wrong direction in this regard. I do not dispute her motive in wanting women to be able to return to work without being required to accept more onerous and less attractive terms and conditions, but I want to draw attention to an issue that many employers mention to me. When a replacement employee comes in while someone is away on maternity leave, that creates a problem, particularly for small companies, which have much less flexibility in terms of the role played by other employees. This is a cost that society and business has to bear, and it is a fact of life if we want to carry on reproducing. However, extending maternity leave entitlement to one year creates an added difficulty. The person employed to take over that job for a year gets employment rights, because they are in post for the requisite period. Such rights cannot be got rid of—at least, not without a cost.

The Minister is trying to work around this problem by doing something of which the hon. Member for Warrington, North is somewhat disapproving; nevertheless, I urge him to be cognisant of this issue when framing his proposals. After all, small businesses cannot afford to take someone on, only to have to get rid of them in an expensive and uncomfortable fashion because they have to maintain the right of the original employee to return to work. I am not saying that there is an easy answer to this problem; I am simply pointing out that the problem is a very real one for small businesses, and that in framing the law, we need to consider it.

I welcome the Government's initiative enabling women to keep in touch with the workplace. Many women who are at home with their babies genuinely want to be kept in touch with the normal world that they were used to. It is good to be kept aware of what is going on in the company, rather than simply gossiping with one's old friends. The two-month, rather than one-month, notification period for returning to work will also help in dealing with the difficult issue of the replacement employee.

Like other Members, I agree that the Government's giving carers the right to request flexible working has proved a very good idea, and I applaud their creating this opportunity for parents. There is no doubt that it has been successful, so we should say "Well done." It was successful because the Government were flexible—they are not always flexible—and created not a right to flexible working, but a right to ask for it. That helped to foster good relations between both parties, and to create an environment in which the employee can continue at work while dealing with their other responsibilities, and in which the employer can gain the value of their skills.

It is right that carers, who have similar responsibilities, be included under this provision; however, the Government are right to phase in such rights. We live in a society in which many people have caring responsibilities, and that they fulfil them is wonderful for all concerned, but we need to consider how swiftly to phase in these new rights. I urge a little caution on the Minister; we must not swamp the system. It is right that such requests be annual, rather than frequent. Frequent requests would be unfair, given that employers have other considerations on their minds.

We should extend the right to request flexibility to all the work force, as some employers already do, given that we will always come up against difficult child care cases. Children up to the age of 17 might well be dependent on their carers because they have schizophrenia or other mental health problems, for example. Of course, such problems do not go away: they continue into adulthood, and the parent may feel that they still need to care for their son or daughter well into their adult life. We want society to go in that direction, and some employers have already been successful in that regard; others should be given a little gentle encouragement to do the same.

In concluding, I apologise to the next speaker for my having to rush off.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

I am very pleased to welcome another progressive Bill. Last week, we considered the Childcare Bill, and we recently considered the Equality Bill. All these Bills will contribute to a healthier, happier society and to the country's economic prosperity by ensuring a diverse and more contented work force; they will also ensure that the diverse needs of parents and carers are more recognised than ever.

I want in particular to discuss clause 12 and the part of the Bill that deals with carers of adults. I am very pleased that the existing law will be amended so that carers of adults can apply for flexible working. I must declare an interest, in that I have been the carer of my 94-year-old mother for five years, since she was severely disabled by a stroke. I have managed to continue in the very demanding job of Member of Parliament with the help of an army of paid carers—I pay tribute to the people, mainly women, who work in the caring professions—and with a lot of understanding and support both here and at home. However, I meet many carers who are isolated and are struggling to do their best for their relatives, often at the expense of their own health and well-being. It is well recognised that the health of carers suffers; most reports on carers have shown the strain that caring for somebody can impose.

Many carers are in employment and have to give up their job because they cannot manage both roles. There is now much greater recognition of the importance of caring for older and disabled people, but, as I said in an earlier intervention, many carers do not think of themselves as carers in a formal sense; they think of carers as being paid people. They are doing what they regard as their duty, and what they want to do for members of their family—for people whom they love. Nor do the many people who are working and caring for adults recognise their huge contribution to the welfare state—the billions of pounds that they save the welfare state. The Carers (Equal Opportunities) Bill, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis), recognised the need for carers to have access to the education and employment opportunities enjoyed by those who are not carers. This Bill partly addresses that issue.

The Employment Act 2002 introduced flexible working rights for parents of young or disabled children and, as everybody has said today, that has been a success, despite concerns that it granted only the right to make the request. I was very concerned at the time of the debate on the Act that the provision would not be strong enough and that employers would not respond properly. The employer has to consider the request and take certain factors into consideration when deciding whether to allow flexible working. In any case, as many hon. Members have said, the Act has been a tremendous success and only about 10 per cent. of requests are refused.

The Government did the right thing, because the Act has made it much easier for parents of young or disabled children to continue to work. It has also brought benefits for the employer. I declare an interest, as my two daughters have benefited from the provision. After they had children, they requested flexible working and benefited from it. It is logical, therefore, that the right to request flexible working should be extended to carers of adult relatives or others, and I am pleased that the Government propose to introduce that right from April 2007. Several hon. Members have suggested that the right to request flexible working should be extended to all employees, and I believe that the consultation by the Equal Opportunities Commission has reached that conclusion.

When we talk about family friendly policies, we tend to think of the family as a unit with dependent children, but in the UK more adults care for elderly relatives than for children. The Government have concentrated on work-life balance as one of their priorities, the benefits of which are as great for the carers of adults as they are for the carers of children. Many hon. Members have mentioned the benefits to employers of family friendly practices, such as reduced sickness absence, better staff retention, greater productivity, and better morale and commitment. Those are real and important points.

I remember the stress of juggling bringing up children and working as a local authority social worker. When the Government first took office, we undertook a major consultation of women, and it revealed that work-life balance was one of the primary concerns. Women wanted us to do something about it, and all the measures in the Bill will help. They will also involve fathers more meaningfully, and I very much welcome the paternity leave provisions.

I am glad that the Government recognise that families are not just those with children. My hon. Friend the Minister and other hon. Members spoke of the importance of the definition of "carer". I hope that the definition will be flexible and will take into account the many varied ways in which carers cope and provide support. I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say that a carer does not necessarily have to live in the same house as the person for whom he or she cares. I can think of many carers in my constituency who hold down full-time jobs yet support elderly or disabled parents in their own homes. I hope that such carers will benefit from the Bill.

It is also important that the Government consult closely with carers' groups. The UK has some well established carers' groups, such as Carers UK, whose members know the reality of caring. We will have to consider their needs when we examine how clause 12 will work in practice. One of the big issues for carers who care for adults is lack of sleep. We all go through sleep deprivation when we have small children and, like many, I am used to getting up frequently in the night. However, if one has to do it for an adult, one knows that the situation will not change—indeed, it may get worse, not better—but children grow out of it and allow their carer to have a good night's sleep. However, it is difficult to give one's best to one's job without a good night's sleep and we need to talk about that issue with carers. The lack of sleep is one of the major issues raised with me by carers in my constituency. We must take such issues on board.

People cope with caring in many varied ways, and we have to try to address that. It will not be easy, and the regulations will have to be as flexible as possible. Presumably, we will have to consider the amount of time that people spend caring. Some, for example, are not actually physically present, but keep in frequent phone contact to check whether everything is okay. They may get a response that means that they have to alter the pattern of their day, so we will need to be flexible to address that issue.

I congratulate the Government on the Bill, especially clause 12, and I think that we are making progress towards a society in which everyone can make a greater contribution than they have been able to make in the past. The Bill will be of benefit to society as a whole.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

It is a pleasure to follow the civilised speech from the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) and I am glad that, like earlier speakers, she emphasised the role of carers. This is an important issue and I agree with much of what she said. Having said that, I fear that my speech will probably fall into the category that the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) described as "grudging".

It is important that work is made family friendly, that mothers can take a decent amount of maternity leave, that fathers should spend a decent amount of time with newly born or adopted children, and that carers should have the right to flexible working hours. It is important that the House protects those rights. As the son of a single mother, I benefited from the flexible arrangements that were possible in our small family stationery business, which largely meant that as a latch-key child at the age of eight or nine I could attend my mother in her place of work—the ultimate flexibility. I understand, therefore, the benefits that flow from flexibility in such circumstances, but I am not as clear as Labour Members that the House is always best placed to judge what employers should do to protect their economic interests.

We must be careful about balancing the needs of employees against those of employers. Indeed, I met two very senior ladies from a FTSE-100 company this morning who expressed the same reservations about the Bill. I am concerned more by the summary of the regulatory impact assessment than by the RIA itself. The summary often cites the benefits that will flow to those affected by the Bill to justify the costs being imposed on employers. My understanding is that the RIA should be much more neutral in its tone and consider the costs imposed on employers and the state by such regulations. I am disappointed by the way in which the RIA so regularly seeks to justify the Bill by reference to the benefits that will flow to employees.

I recognise that much of the Bill will bring benefits to business, as well as employees, such as the keeping in touch days, which will ensure reasonable contact between employer and employee; the extension of the period of notice that a woman has to give when returning from maternity leave; and the detailed changes to the payment of statutory maternity pay, on which the Secretary of State placed so much stress. However, some people are sounding notes of caution. Richard Smith, employment services director at Croner, which is an expert adviser in employment law, warns that the pendulum may have swung too far. He says:

"Employers are facing a legal maze of parental legislation over government proposals in the Work and Families Bill. The law could be shifting too far in favour of family needs, bringing into question a basic principle of employment law that supports the employer's need for the work to be done."

My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), in her opening remarks, talked of the reservations of bodies such as the CBI. A Library research paper tells us that the CBI said, in its response to the consultation on the Bill:

"CBI members accept in principle the Government's desire to extend family friendly rights further but believe there should be compensating changes to reflect the increased burden on employers."

That is really my central point. The Bill probably does good, important and useful things that the House should support, but every time we add new legislative burdens to business, especially small and medium-sized businesses, we should operate the one in, one out principle. What real relief will be given to employers for the new burdens they will have to bear under the measure?

Some say that one consequence of the Bill and similar measures will be an increasing reluctance by businesses to employ women of child-bearing age. When that point was made earlier, the cry came from the Labour Benches, "It's illegal". It may be illegal, but that does not mean that it is not a problem. The recruitment industry says that many businesses, particularly small ones, now routinely avoid women in their late 20s and early 30s precisely because of the increased costs of maternity leave and temporary cover. It may be against the law, but it is happening.

The Recruitment and Employment Confederation recently reported that 75 per cent. of its members had been told by a business not to send them female job candidates in their late 20s or early 30s. More than one in 10 said that they discriminated against pregnant women or those likely to be planning to have children. That is actually happening and it is difficult for the law to catch.

I have a rather cynical view: perhaps the measure is the beginning of an attempt to level up fathers' rights to make it less unattractive to employ women. I was interested to hear the Secretary of State say that only a few men in small businesses would be eligible for parental rights. I have a horrid fear that in a couple of years we shall be told that as so few men are taking advantage of those rights, we shall make them even more attractive for men, thereby further increasing the burden on businesses. I hope that my cynicism is misplaced.

The hon. Member for Burnley (Kitty Ussher) reeled off a list of things—regulatory burdens imposed on business, as I would describe them, even though there might be good reasons for them—and challenged us to say whether we would support them. I was one of those who opposed the minimum wage. I now accept that the level at which it was introduced did not cause a problem for business, but it is slowly being ratcheted up. Only this morning, the newspapers reported that the British Retail Consortium is expressing concerns about the latest increase, saying that it will lead to job losses. The minimum wage was brought in at a benign level that had little if any economic impact, but it is now being increased. We must be extremely careful about such issues.

I pay tribute to the Government for their attempts at robust protection of British business from the impact of the working time directive, but I have in my hand a list provided by the Engineering Employers Federation that I will rattle through. For the benefit of the Hansard writers, I shall give them a full copy. These are the reasons for which employees can currently have days off work: sick leave, annual leave, reasonable time for public duties; if they are a member of a local authority, a statutory tribunal, a police authority, the service authority for the national criminal intelligence service or the National Crime Squad, a board of prison visitors, a health authority, a "relevant education body", the Environment Agency or a water customer consultation panel. They can have time off for antenatal care and reasonable time off for trade union duties or training. There is time off for pension scheme trustees, for employee representatives, for members of European work councils and for domestic information and consultation representatives.

There is not enough time to read out the whole list. It is a jolly list and depending on how we count up the categories, there are 21, 30, 34 or 36 different existing rights for employees to have time off from their place of employment. In fact, I am told that the No. 10 policy adviser in this field was recently reported to have said jokingly that one day the Government would have to legislate for employers to have the right to request employees to come to work.

Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Can the hon. Gentleman pick out from the list that he half read out which of those rights would be an unreasonable request?

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

That is the problem. Each and every one on its own is perfectly reasonable, yet their sum total is unreasonable. To govern is to choose, and some of them will probably have to go, or some other regulations that are burdens on employers will have to go in their place. My contention is that the burden is getting dangerously heavy.

Kitty Ussher (Labour, Burnley)

I am delighted that I made such a huge impression on the hon. Gentleman. He said that regulations would have to go. Which ones? Can he be more specific?

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

I shall not do that in the short time available, although I would happily discuss it with the hon. Lady over a drink later. When the Government are imposing new burdens in a heavily regulated area they should adopt the principle of one in, one out. We have reached the point when that principle should be respected. The CBI was asking for that. The hon. Lady looks disbelieving, or disapproving, but that is what I believe.

Britain faces huge competitive challenges in the world economy, yet in this Chamber we often behave as though they do not exist. Under the Government, we have already slipped from fourth to 13th place in the world competitive table compiled by the World Economic Forum, and it is no laughing matter. We face huge competitive challenges and we cannot afford to be complacent in the face of them. We cannot afford to behave as though the world owes us a living: it does not. We owe ourselves a living and it is only by our own hard work that we shall actually get things right.

My concern is that there will come a moment when some legislation will be introduced to give new rights to employees that is the straw that breaks the camel's back. I do not know when that point will come. I have cried wolf before about this—I plead guilty—but the moment will come. I am fond of cricket, Mr. Deputy Speaker, like one of your colleagues. It is odd that when one watches a game of cricket one thinks that one side is winning, but in retrospect one realises that the other side has started to win. One cannot quite pin down the moment, but it happens. There will come a moment when Britain's competitive advantage has eroded so much that we shall start to lose in the world economy.

These questions are important and I do not deride the Bill. I respect what it seeks to do. I am a passionate believer in the family, and as has been said I do not believe that we can do everything through the fiscal system. There is a need for rights in this field, but the issues are complex and I am perturbed about the short timetable for the Committee, especially if the draft regulations are not available. Often, I respect the reason for drawing up Bills that leave so much to secondary legislation, but in such an important field it would be much better for the Committee to have access to the regulations. The Bill will be out of Committee before Christmas and that is too short a time.

The Bill is literally motherhood and apple pie—perhaps fatherhood and apple pie. Apple pie is a good thing, especially if made with fine Worcestershire apples, but if the meal that comes before it is too large, there may not be room for it. We need to eat a little less of the other courses to make room for something else that is desirable. That is the fundamental point. Bad legislation and bad regulations are always unwelcome, but sometimes good regulations are unwelcome, too. This may be one of those occasions.

There is too little time for the Committee to consider such important questions, and the Bill would have been much better if it had been accompanied by a clear statement from the Government of which other regulations they were removing from the shoulders of British business.

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I listened with particular care to the contributions of Opposition Members. I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Kitty Ussher) listed the approaches that they had taken in recent years on the range of employment legislation that has been introduced. It was enlightening and very different from several of the contributions that have been made.

I want to talk about the context for the measure. I was a lawyer before I entered the House of Commons. I worked in law centres, mainly advising low-paid and non-unionised employees about their employment rights. Statutory employment rights were important to that group, as they did not have the benefit of strong contractual terms and conditions. One of my clients was a security guard in his 30s, with a young family. He came to see me after he had worked for nine months without a day off and asked whether he had a right to annual leave and time off. I had to advise him that he had no rights because the then Government did not want to introduce the social chapter. His only rights were those he had negotiated with his employer and at that time the security industry was, to a large extent, non-unionised. I had to tell him that his rights were minimal.

Good employers have always recognised the right to annual leave and time off, but bad employers have not. That gentleman, whose name was Andy, had to wait until 1998 when we introduced the working time regulations, which gave the right to annual leave and a limit to the working week. It is outrageous that less than 10 years ago a person could have been in his position. Since 1997, the Government have been committed to fairness at work, which includes recognition of the need for not only economic efficiency but social justice in the workplace. As I said earlier, I am very pleased that we had read into the record a list of the legislation that the Conservative party has opposed since 1997, including rights in respect of annual leave, flexibility in the workplace, part-time workers and extended maternity leave.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

No, I will continue because I have only a short amount of time.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It may help the hon. Lady to know that, if she gives way, extra time is added to her speech.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware that, if she gives way, time is added to her speech, so she does not miss out by giving way twice, after which, things are rather different.

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I am grateful to you for that information, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The Bill is important in setting out a floor of statutory rights.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

On the basis of the information that I have just been given, I will gladly give way.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way so graciously. I wonder whether she will explain why she is so intent on talking about past times and past legislation. The Conservative party does not oppose the Bill. Should we not get on with making the Bill better, rather than harking back to the past?

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. When debating such Bills, it is important to consider the context and to ask why we want to implement such provisions. We need to set the record straight about how we have reached this point. It is great credit to the Government that, since 1997, employment rights have been extended while economic efficiency has grown and more people are in work than ever before.

Clause 13 is an enabling provision to introduce the right for the additional public and bank holidays to be included in addition to the 20 days' annual leave to which employees now have the right. As I said when I gave the example of a client that I had years ago, unscrupulous employers have included the eight public holidays in those 20 days. Those who legislated on the issue were clear that that was not what they intended. I am very pleased indeed that clause 13 includes the right to have the additional eight days' public holiday.

Clauses 1 to 6 extend maternity and paternity leave and the right to adoption leave with pay, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said clearly in his opening remarks. It is shocking that employers still discriminate against women who are pregnant. I have been appalled by some of the comments made in the debate about the actions of certain employers who have either not interviewed or not considered pregnant women or women of child-bearing age for employment. That is very wrong and clearly a very poor business decision. Such employers miss the talent of a whole group of women. I am very concerned that certain Members think that that is acceptable.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

I wish to put on record that I have never suggested that that was acceptable. It is never acceptable to break the law. I agree with the hon. Lady that many businesses face an economic cost if they take such a foolish decision, but my point was that the evidence shows that things are happening in substantial numbers.

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

With the greatest respect, the hon. Gentleman was not the only hon. Member to raise that point. I am glad that he was able to clarify his position, but other Members seemed to imply earlier in the debate that they understood why decisions were taken that clearly amount to discrimination that should be challenged in tribunals.

I am very pleased indeed that we recognise that maternity leave should be extended to nine months from April 2007 and, I hope, to one year by the end of this Parliament. Of course, that will benefit about 400,000 women in this country.

Clause 2, as other hon. Members have said, brings into line the rules about adopting parents. All hon. Members would agree that parents who adopt should be given the same consideration and rights as other parents.

Clause 6 deals with the entitlement to additional paternity pay, about which the Equal Opportunities Commission has carried out extensive research. About 70 to 80 per cent. of new mums and dads support the opportunity for paternity pay to be used over a six-month period if any of the woman's maternity pay entitlement is unexpired. That is obviously very useful.

A number of hon. Members have spoken about clause 12, and it is absolutely right that carers are included in the provision to request flexible working. There are more than 6 million carers in this country. As time goes on, the right to flexible working will be extended to other groups, but the Government are taking the right approach by extending such rights piece by piece.

Hon. Members have put forward various arguments about business efficiency and the problems of small businesses in dealing with maternity and paternity matters. The provisions on the keeping-in-touch days for women on maternity leave are welcome, but some consideration must be given to the reasonableness of those days. Obviously, we do not want to overburden women during their maternity leave, and I hope that those days will be determined by agreement and used positively and constructively.

The view that a written statement of the rights and responsibilities of employees and employers should be given is very positive. It is certainly my experience that people find great difficulty in understanding the complexities of maternity and paternity law, so clear written statements would be useful. I agree that the request that a woman should give two months' notice of her return date is the right way to do things. That will provide clarity on both sides.

The Department of Trade and Industry has indicated that it will work to try to reduce that bureaucratic burden of SMP, SPP and SAP. Again, that is absolutely right. There is a need to make the calculations easier—in particular, I remember trying years ago to work out when statutory maternity pay should start. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has indicated, SMP does not necessarily start on the same day that maternity leave commences. Those matters must be simplified and sorted out. Overall, the Bill is very welcome. It adds to the range of employment rights that we need. It is good for business; it is good for employees; and it is very good for families.

Mark Prisk (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Ms Johnson), who clearly showed the House her expertise as a former employment rights lawyer, and I am sure that all hon. Members welcome her contribution.

This is indeed a Bill of good intentions. For that reason, I support many of the intentions that were expressed so ably by the Secretary of State at the beginning of the debate. He was right to suggest that the concept of fairness should be at the heart of such legislation. That is why I say, with some disappointment, that there is a large group of families for whom fairness does not appear to be at the heart of the Bill. I refer to the 3 million or so families who run and own small businesses. All too often in such legislation, we tend to talk about families generally and we forget the peculiar circumstances of an owner-managed enterprise. I say that as both a grandson and a son of the owner of such an enterprise. It is therefore my intention in the short time that I have available to try to express the views of that group of families, rather than the others to which hon. Members have already referred.

It is true to say that the Bill comes in a long line of similar legislation. We have had many employment and similar regulatory measures in the past few years. Indeed, since 1997, there has been a 53 per cent. increase in the regulatory burden on businesses, small and otherwise, and the net result is an additional 15 new regulations every working day. The cost to business, which the Government have accepted and is recognised among the leading experts in business, is now equated to £14 billion. That figure comes from the British Chambers of Commerce. Given that 97 per cent. of all enterprises are small businesses, it is clear that the brunt of those costs fall on those firms.

When we consider regulations, it is important to remember that these kinds of measures have a disproportionately large impact on the smallest firms. I highlight that in the context of the Bill by referring to an excellent survey by the Federation of Small Businesses on the amount of time that firms spend trying to comply with Government requests for information and regulations. Prior to the past six months or so, that figure had reached 28 hours for each firm every month. Each firm thus loses 336 hours a year.

We normally discuss the productivity and competitiveness question, but we should also consider the time lost to the families of those who own and manage such enterprises. Families lose evenings, and fathers and mothers are sometimes unable to be part of a family Sunday. I used to run my own business, so I well recall the number of Sunday afternoons that I lost filling in the dreaded quarterly VAT return and a raft of other forms. I am worried that although we often—quite rightly—talk about the need to engage parents in bringing up their children, we forget that such legislation not only has a monetary cost for small businesses, but leads to people losing time in which they can participate in their children's upbringing.

The irony is that the small firms to which I am referring often have the flexibility for which the Bill tries to legislate. They are the ones that lead because their owners know their employees. I can think of at least three businesses in my constituency that are owned and managed by people going back through several generations and have employees going back through several generations. The owners know about their employees' family situations, so they are able to work around them and to be flexible and engaging. I suspect that the response of the small businesses who read the Bill will be to say, "Hang on a moment. We are already doing this. Please don't restrain us by the dead hand of legislation." Of course there are enterprises that do not do such things, and they need to be examined and encouraged to change their habits. However, legislation is all too often a pair of handcuffs that does not enable change in the way in which I suspect that hon. Members would wish it to.

Let me refer to several specific aspects of the Bill. We have debated the question of maternity leave, but I do not think that the scale of the change has been truly considered. We are talking about increasing maternity leave through two steps from six months to 12 months, which is a doubling of the amount and thus a significant change. The previous Bill, for which the Secretary of State was the Minister, increased the time period from 18 weeks to six months. That was manageable, but an increase from six months to 12 months is a different ball game altogether. The crossover to other legislation and the change in rights that that might well create have been referred to.

I suspect that the Government did not take account of several matters when they considered the change. If a firm with two or three people loses a key worker for a year, it is tremendously disruptive. One must also take account of the cost of training a new individual, let alone the agency fees that are often incurred when employing that person. Of course, there will also be training costs involved when people return to work. I am not sure whether the Government have seriously considered the full costs involved. When the Minister winds up the debate, will he confirm whether the costs to which I have referred are specifically included in the regulatory impact assessment? I could not see that they were, but perhaps he has a sharper eye than me. I ask that question simply because if we are genuinely to understand the benefits and costs of the Bill, we must have the full information before us.

Let me turn to what is loosely described as the transfer of parental leave. I appreciate that the provisions in the Bill do not reflect the Labour party's original intention. The concept of mothers and fathers sharing parental leave is good in principle, but what about the practicalities? It is likely that a mum and dad will work for different employers, so we must ask how the measure will be implemented. The Federation of Small Businesses said:

"we fear that the plans will be highly complex and virtually impossible to enforce, with small employers facing an administrative nightmare as they try to comply."

I have a question in my mind as the consultation proceeds. At the moment, it appears that the onus is on small businesses to manage the process, but why should that be the case? Small businesses are already asked to be unpaid tax collectors and unpaid benefit offices. Why should they now administer the Government's social policies? There could be a dangerous precedent. I do not want to make wild forecasts—the Minister knows that I will not try to do so—but I would like to know whether the Government have really thought the measure through.

Given the inherent complexity of the measure, would it not be fairer if the Government took some responsibility for their own policies and introduced direct payment of both statutory maternity and paternity pay from state to employee? I know that the Minister touched on the matter earlier in the debate, but I would welcome any clarity that he can bring to our deliberations.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The full regulatory impact assessment seems to cost in remarkable detail the burdens on Government, but the burdens on small and medium-sized companies are set out in sketchy detail.

Mark Prisk (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

I wish that I were surprised, but I suspect that on closer examination—when the Committee gets its teeth into the matter—we will find further omissions. My hon. Friend makes a sensible point.

I have repeatedly raised the question of the cost of the Bill during the debate. Hon. Members might not have noticed this, but apparently the Government expect to spend £369 million more each year, as an employer, as a direct result of the Bill. It is thus expected that during the next Parliament, there will be a £1.8 billion increase in the cost of employing the same people who are employed today, although I suspect that there will be no noticeable change in the delivery of public services.

There are costs for private employers, too. The cost will be £208 million in the first year, and that will rise to £284 million in each and every year following that. As the mathematicians among us will realise, that represents £1.3 billion over the course of the next full Parliament, which is a substantial sum. Given the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff) has just made, our earlier exchanges with the Secretary of State and the omissions that we have clearly identified, I am worried that the Bill will lead to substantial costs. I have identified £3.1 billion of costs to begin with that do not seem to have been fully considered during the deliberations on the Bill. However, I know that the Minister is a reasonable man and will want to make sure that we have such information, so I look forward to receiving it.

I have had insufficient time to consider many of the Bill's positive aspects. I make no bones about that because it is important that we try to tease out the weaknesses of legislation during our scrutiny. I fully accept that there is a need to balance our work and family lives, but we need to make sure that that balance extends to all families, especially those involved in small business and those of entrepreneurs. The Secretary of State promised us in his opening remarks that the Bill would be good for business and good for families. Conservative Members agree with those sentiments, so we intend to ensure that he keeps his word.

Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

We heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explain the Government's intentions in introducing the Bill, including extending the maximum period for which maternity pay, maternity allowance and adoption pay are payable from 26 weeks to 52 weeks during the course of this Parliament, as well as introducing a new scheme that provides certain employees with a new entitlement to take leave to care for a child. In listening to the Secretary of State's remarks, I found myself drawn back to the time when my daughters were born and the position in which I, along with other mothers and, indeed, fathers, were in. I hope that the House bears with me if I draw a little on my personal experience. My daughters were born in 1981 and 1985, when the Conservatives were in power, and my entitlement was just 29 weeks post-confinement, supported by a payment of 90 per cent. of income over just six weeks. I was employed in a further education college and my husband was a town planner. Neither of us earned generous salaries and there was clearly a need for both of us to work. However, because I wanted to stay at home initially with my first child, I resigned from my full-time post and had to face finding a suitable part-time job and child care when the financial imperative kicked in and I needed to go back to work. After the birth of my second child, I returned to work immediately at the end of the statutory period, but I would have welcomed the keeping-in-touch days that are proposed.

In a perfect world, I would have preferred to have had the option of remaining at home for a longer period or, indeed, of allowing my husband to take part of the leave to care for our children, a subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Kitty Ussher). Although the evidence suggests that the number of fathers wishing to take up the option is small, there are, none the less, those for whom it would be a very welcome option. Some 24 years on from my experience, there is clear evidence to show that both mothers and fathers believe that it should be the norm for there to be greater paternal involvement in the early months of their child's life. Indeed, in a recent Equal Opportunities Commission survey, seven out of 10 women and men agreed or agreed strongly that women's and men's lives are becoming more alike in terms of their need to balance work and family life.

Opportunities to improve the work and caring balance have been lost in the past. For example, in November 1985, shortly after the birth of my second child, there was a debate in the House on parental and family leave. The then Conservative Government could have accepted a European Economic Community directive extending paternity rights, but they chose simply to note the directive. As that great campaigner for equal rights, the late Jo Richardson, commented at the time, it showed how out of touch they were with the day-to-day reality of people's lives. Unfortunately, one or two Conservative Members are still a little out of touch, although I acknowledge the positive comments from the Front Bench.

A significant number of fathers probably want to take paternity leave but are unclear about their rights early enough in the process to plan properly. Evidence suggests that, in parallel to the powers in the Bill, an information campaign needs to take place to inform them of their rights. I am concerned that fathers whose earnings are below £20,000 per annum are less likely to find out about their rights prior to the birth of their child than those fathers whose income exceeds that figure.

Given the findings of the Equal Opportunities Commission's survey "Dads and their babies", which was funded in part by the Department of Trade and Industry, I would welcome the Minister's comments on whether he accepts that there is a real job of work to be done to ensure that fathers are properly informed of their paternity rights from formal sources, rather than simply relying on friends and family for that information. Given that many of these important proposals require change via regulations, I also seek reassurance that there will be no significant delay in introducing them, allowing, of course, for the caveat that we need to consult on some of them.

The Bill addresses not only the period immediately following the child's birth, but the need for further amendments to existing legislation to allow a wider range of individuals greater flexibility of working. Clause 12, which has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members, gives carers the right to request flexible working for the first time. We know that in the region of 3.5 million carers are struggling to work as well as care. I share the support that my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) and the National Autistic Society have given to the clause. Without that flexibility, we lose a number of highly skilled workers who have to make a difficult decision between work and caring. Our economy can ill afford to lose the expertise of those workers, especially at a time of skills shortage. The cost to employers of recruiting and training new employees to fill their shoes is a burden, and I refer the House to the figures given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Enabling people to remain in the workplace also has the added advantage of enabling them to continue to build a better pension for themselves. I also welcome the proposed extension of rights to carers of adult dependants, but hope that in due course that freedom will be extended to parents of older children through the use of the regulatory powers in the Bill.

It is still a little unclear where the age definition will fall, something that was mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the House. We need greater clarity on the definition of the relationship between the employee and the child or person over 18 who requires care. A number of employers, both large and small, already encourage flexible working, but there are different definitions of what they understand a carer to be. Let me give some examples. In Centrica's view:

"If you are a carer, you have responsibilities, which have an impact on your working life. You will be responsible for the care and support of a disabled, elderly or sick partner, relative or close friend who is unable to care for themselves as they are ill, frail or have a disability."

According to British Telecom:

"A carer is an employee with significant caring responsibilities, which have a substantial impact on their working life. These employees will be responsible for the care and support of a disabled, elderly or sick partner, relative or friend",

and HSBC defines carers as:

"Employees who are the prime carer of a sick child, elderly, disabled or chronically sick relative or other close dependant."

Each has a slightly different understanding of what a carer is, so it is important that we provide as simple and as flexible a definition as possible.

That said, I warmly welcome the Bill and look forward to the Minister's closing remarks.

Michael Weir (Scottish National Party, Angus)

The Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru welcome the Bill. We recognise that the rights it gives are an important step forward for men and women in employment. I should like to comment on one or two aspects.

I join in the general welcome for clause 12. The extension to carers of the right to ask for flexible working is extremely important. I have met many carers in my time as a Member of Parliament and I have been struck by how many had to give up work to look after sick children or relatives and ended up relying on state benefits. When, sadly, their elderly relative dies, they often find it very difficult to get back into work. If the clause helps people to stay in work, it is very welcome and long overdue.

I also welcome the provisions on paternity leave, but I ask the Minister to consider creating greater flexibility. I know that it will be difficult, but several hon. Members have mentioned that point. I look back to the time when my children were born. I was self-employed and was able to change my work patterns to tie in with what was needed and to be with my wife when our children were just babies. It was an important and useful thing to be able to do. As I see it, the problem with the Minister's proposal is that there no cross-over period—the mother will have the first six months and the father the second. We should find a way to work in a little flexibility to allow both parents to stay at home, especially when a child is first born. That could be very important, because it is often difficult for new and young parents, or in some cases not-so-young parents, to come to terms with the changes in their lives that a baby brings.

It is also important that employers understand the rights in the Bill. Although we give employees rights, enforcing them is often a different matter. Good employers will always try to keep good employees and will bend over backwards to give them the consideration they need, but that is not true of all employers, and that is a problem. Other hon. Members will have received Citizens Advice's excellent booklet on the Bill, "Hard labour: Making maternity and paternity at rights at work a reality for all". Some of the case studies it contains are disturbing, but Citizens Advice also makes the valid point that

"the Government's strategy in relation to these and other statutory workplace rights must include steps to ensure more universal compliance by small employers, including more pro-active enforcement against rogue employers."

Although it is possible to take employers to an industrial tribunal, it is often not easy to do so. It is time consuming and many employees find the process of taking an employer to an industrial tribunal extremely difficult and daunting. I know from my experience as a solicitor representing people at industrial tribunals that it can also take a very long time.

One group that does not appear to be adequately covered at present is those who are, as the Library note puts it, somewhat coldly,

"commissioning parents in surrogacy arrangements."

I was encouraged by the Secretary of State saying in response to my earlier intervention that he would look again at that matter. My interest was prompted by a constituency case. My constituent could not obtain a decision from her employer about what, if any, rights she had to take time off to spend with her new baby. The case did not appear to be covered by either maternity or adoption leave legislation, and the couple were left in limbo. When they approached me, I thought that the matter should be treated in the same way as adoption, with which it had many similarities. However, that is not the case under the existing legislation, and there was no automatic right to leave or pay. I intervened with the employer—a major public sector employer—which, to its credit, accepted that the situation should be treated in the same way as adoption and agreed to do so. However—and this is the point I wish to make—that was at its discretion, and my constituent did not have any automatic rights, which is unfair.

I took the matter up with the Minister, who confirmed the legal position in a letter:

"There is no specific statutory right for parents who have a child through surrogacy to take time off following the birth of their child, and currently no plans to change this."

To be fair, he explained that maternity rights were originally a health and safety issue, but things have moved on. We are now talking about a work-life balance for families, and surrogacy is an important issue. The number of people involved is low, but the matter should be given due consideration.

The Bill does not change the position, as the Minister accepted. When the Bill was published I asked the Library to prepare a briefing note, which confirmed that nothing has changed. That note now appears in the Library research paper, so perhaps I have secured my place in history by achieving a mention of the subject in such a paper. I urge the Minister to consider the particular circumstances of surrogacy as parents in that category appear to suffer discrimination.

When I first became involved in the matter I assumed, perhaps naively, that some form of adoption would be required, but there are several different methods of dealing with surrogacy. The Library briefing cites the submission to the Government's original consultation by the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers, which puts the matter very well:

"In these circumstances the commissioning mother usually has the baby soon after the birth but cannot formally adopt until six weeks after the birth. Clearly she will need to take leave from the date she receives the baby but currently she has no statutory rights to any pay or leave, even after the formal adoption."

If that is indeed the case, the mother is in a disadvantaged position. Had there been no surrogacy agreement but only an adoption, she would have been entitled to rights under adoption regulations. However, because of the surrogacy she has no rights whatsoever.

Various legislative proposals apply in surrogacy arrangements, and different means by which parental rights are given to the intended parents and the parental rights of the surrogate mother extinguished. As well as formal adoption, parental orders can be imposed, allowing a married couple who commission the surrogate birth to apply for an order so that they are treated in law as the parents of the child. That is not necessarily a quick process because, as in all cases that involve children, the court would have to be convinced that the welfare of the child was secure. Similarly, it may be possible for a commissioning father to apply to the courts for a parental responsibility order by virtue of the fact that he is the genetic father of the child. I am not sure of the position in English law, but in Scotland such an order would have to be accompanied by a residency order to specify that the child is to reside with the father and his wife—the child's putative mother. If that order was not granted, the original order would not do much good. In any event, the parental responsibility order would not give any automatic rights to the wife of the applicant. Even though she would almost certainly be the main carer, she would not necessarily obtain any benefit though time off or pay. Those procedures may not work as intended.

It is particularly strange that that point has not been covered by the legislation as the legal frameworks for surrogacy and adoption are closely related. It is iniquitous that parents in a surrogacy arrangement should have no automatic legal rights, but must rely on their contract of employment. In my constituent's case that worked out—it might not in other cases—so I urge the Minister to reconsider the matter and ensure that all families are treated equally. After all, in his letter to hon. Members of 19 October, the Secretary of State specifically stated that the Bill would

"deliver our commitment to give parents more choice about how they balance their work and family life".

That should be as true of those seeking a family through surrogacy as it is of those seeking a family through any other means. For the sake of fairness and completeness, I urge the Minister to re-examine the matter and introduce proposals to include such a measure in the Bill.

Kitty Ussher (Labour, Burnley)

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I add my name to those of other hon. Members who support the Bill—I believe that supporting this legislation is something of which we should all be very proud. The Bill provides legislative support for what we all know deep down to be true: all parents, regardless of gender, may want to spend time with their young children—many do. It is crucial to our fight against discrimination that it should be seen as normal for both men and women to take time off for a new baby.

This evening, we have discussed whether the Bill will make it more or less likely that women of childbearing age will be discriminated against. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff) is no longer in his seat, but I note that he said that he has evidence of that practice taking place, in which case I hope that he will give it to the police.

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not here, because I wanted him to have the opportunity to withdraw his comment, which I found rather condescending, that we should have a drink and discuss the issues. A few minutes earlier, he did not even know my name—I wonder whether it is normal for him to invite ladies to go for drinks when he does not know their names.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I do not know whether the hon. Lady knows that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff) is Chairman of the Trade and Industry Committee, which is probably why he was interested in her views.

Kitty Ussher (Labour, Burnley)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. I am sure that the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire will mention it to me in person, if we ever discuss the matter.

I believe that the legislation will reduce discrimination against women of childbearing age, because if more men of the same age act as role models by taking greater paternity leave, it will become normal for all parents to do so. That is one of the reasons why I support the Bill, which will help us move towards a culture in which all people—male and female—can organise their lives to suit their caring responsibilities without fear of stigma in the workplace.

I am in the unusual position of agreeing with something that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) said—she said that the business case for the legislation is proven, which is true. Businesses will benefit by having higher staff retention if they make it easier through this legislation to allow their employees to balance their work and family commitments, and anecdotal evidence shows that productivity rises in such cases. They will also have access to greater talents not only among their existing employees, who will not have to leave their jobs when the time comes to look after their families, but among a larger pool of potential employees, because more people will want to apply for work, realising that they can more easily balance their work and family commitments.

I particularly support the measures in the Bill that give greater parental rights to fathers, which the evidence shows that they want. An Equal Opportunities Commission survey conducted earlier this year found that two thirds of fathers intend to take up their paternity rights, and nine out of 10 fathers take time off when their children are born. Crucially, half of fathers say that the existing legislation is not sufficient.

The Bill is good for men, but because it is good for men, it is potentially good for women, too. It will end the pernicious cycle by which young adults who form a couple and who are equal on the career ladder before they start a family inevitably end up in a situation in which the woman experiences a pay gap after the first or second child. At the moment, because only the mother can take a substantial period of time off when a child is born, it becomes financially logical for the father to work longer hours and seek promotion and for the mother to remain at home. Fathers often work harder when their child is in its first year until their pay rises. When the mother returns to work after six months or one year, a wedge has begun to be driven between the salary of the man and the salary of the woman.

Norman Lamb (Liberal Democrat, North Norfolk)

I agree with what the hon. Lady is saying about redressing the balance between men and women as women become increasingly unequal as a result of time off relating to childbirth. Does she recognise, however, that the Government estimate in their regulatory impact assessment that it is possible that as few as 9,000 people will take advantage of the right to paid paternity leave because, at £106 a week, it will be uneconomic for many fathers to do so? Does she see some merit in giving a father, like the mother, greater flexibility in taking a shorter time than the maximum but with a higher weekly rate than £106?

Kitty Ussher (Labour, Burnley)

I do not favour that, because it would send out the wrong signal. We should either support someone on parental leave or not support them. I note the hon. Gentleman's general point. I hope that take-up by new fathers will be high, because fathers and families would benefit from that. However, it is not up to the Government to tell families how they should organise their lives. We should provide an enabling environment so that they can make the choices that work for them.

The Bill will allow both parents to be equal at the end of the first year, if that is what they want. The mother can take the first six months off, during which time the father continues to work. The father can then take the second six months off while the mother returns to work to seek promotion opportunities and whatever else she wants to do. That is a wholly advantageous move that we should all support.

I want to take my example a little further. Earlier, I asked the Secretary of State about a situation in which a woman wants to go back to work after three months. We should not force her to do so, but I can imagine many situations where she might want to, perhaps because she likes working or because she is in a sufficiently senior position in the organisation that she is genuinely worried that there will be negative business effects if she does not go back—or, God forbid, she is a Member of Parliament whose constituents could not tolerate the idea of her having six months off. Colleagues will know that I have some experience of that.

It would be wrong if the mother wanted to go back to work when the baby was three months old and the father wanted to take over but the legislation or regulations did not allow it. The mother would have to remain at home for the second three months to wait for the father to be allowed to take over, thereby damaging her business, or they would have to employ another form of child care for that period. It would be unnecessarily disruptive for the child if both parents wanted to share the year between them. When I mentioned that to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, he said that it was not favoured in the consultations. I have read those, however, and some groups did favour it, particularly Fathers Direct, which claims to speak for a large interest group on this matter and should not be ignored.

Earlier, my right hon. Friend said that World Health Organisation guidelines suggest that women should breast-feed for six months—so does the Department of Health, but it also recommends several other things including not smoking, not drinking too much, and eating five portions of fruit and veg each day. In the end, it is up to individuals to decide how they wish to interpret such advice. If the Government really think that women should breast-feed for six months, they should legislate to that effect, but I am sure that they do not think that women should be forced to do so. In fact, the Government have, I am proud to say, introduced regulations that require employers to provide areas where women can breast-feed or—without troubling the House with too much technicality—express milk and so on. I therefore urge my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to consider as they consult further whether greater flexibility should be allowed on the matter.

In summary, the Bill will transform the culture of our workplaces, and that is excellent. It will help to provide male and female role models to whom young parents can look when they decide how to balance their work and family lives. It will lead to less, not more discrimination. It will be good for small and large companies as they realise that the measure requires them to think beyond their existing talent pool. That is good for our economy and for families in this country.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Burnley (Kitty Ussher), who made such a powerful speech. I agree with many of her points. However, I hope to deal with matters that have been touched on only briefly in the debate.

I read the Work and Families Bill with interest. It details how parents should have more choice through flexible working to create a better work-life balance. It advocates a longer period of paternity pay from 26 to 39 weeks from April 2007. It allows regulations to be made for additional statutory paternity leave and ties in with the Government's 10-year strategy for child care. That is all good and to be welcomed. However, the measure is incomplete—it is half a Bill. It does not mention those mothers who want to stay at home to bring up their children. What about mothers who are forced back to work for financial reasons but would prefer to stay at home to look after their children?

The measure is simply another Government initiative that will break down the family model, forcing parents to go out to work instead of giving them the genuine choice of looking after their children at home. It is a proven fact that children do better when they are brought up in a family environment and even better when one parent is at home to give them constant care and attention in the early years of their lives.

I have run the Listening to Wellingborough and Rushden campaign in my constituency for many years. It aims to seek the views of local people, groups and organisations and campaign on their behalf for change. I listen to people through surveys, public meetings, door-to-door canvassing and visiting local residents. Throughout the time that I have run the campaign, the length of maternity pay, paternity leave or flexible working has never come up. However, families' concern about the amount of tax that they have to pay comes up all the time. They are concerned about the detrimental effects of the inefficient and inconsistent tax credit system. They are worried that they would be financially better off if they lived apart.

The Government are determined to get parents back to work as soon as possible after a birth. They have now realised that they need to extend maternity and paternity leave. However, they still believe that, after a few months—whether nine or 12—parents should return to work. They have given no thought to mothers who decide not to work but to bring up their children.

Many parents are frustrated because there is no option to stay at home in the early years of their children's lives. I must declare an interest. I have a son, Thomas, who is nearly five years old. I also have two older children who are 23 and 21. My wife has spent time at home to bring them up. She returned to full-time working only since Thomas started school. As with our other two children, Jennie and I believed that it was vital that she was with them in the early years. We were in a position to do that, but the Government have ensured that that is not an option for most families in our country. Such woolly-minded, liberal thinking will lead to disaster.

The Government's desire to control everything, whether through their nought-to-five curriculum, their insistence on getting children into school as soon as possible or the pressure on mothers to go back to work, constitutes nanny-state, centralist intervention. It is socialist planning that might go down well with Labour Back Benchers, but it is not good for 21st century Britain. It has more in common with the state planning of the former Soviet Union than with a modern, 21st-century country. When will the Government trust families and allow them personal responsibility? When will they allow children to be brought up by their parents, rather than by the state?

I have no illusions; we are living in a changing world, and work and family life are very different from what they used to be. I completely understand that many women now choose to pursue a successful career, and that should be welcomed. However, my concerns rest with those women who want to be full-time mothers. The Government have removed the choice for such women to stay at home and bring up their children.

The Government have also discriminated against the family by introducing measures that benefit couples living apart. In a recent report published by the charity Care, the tax credit system is blamed as one of the drivers forcing mothers out to work even if they would prefer to look after their children at home. The Government do not regard running a home and bringing up children as a worthwhile career option. They do not believe that it constitutes work, let alone hard work. If Ministers were to spend a few weeks trying to run a home and look after two young children, there could be a rapid rethinking of Government policy.

Gerry Sutcliffe (Labour, Bradford South)

I do not want the hon. Gentleman to run away with the idea that Ministers do not have parental responsibilities. I have three boys, and I also have three grandchildren. I am well aware of the roles that parents and grandparents can play.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I am grateful to the Minister for that comment. However, if he had had to bring up those children at home, rather than working in the House of Commons, he would understand that it was actually rather hard work. When my wife was bringing up our first two children and I was working away from home, she was working exceptionally hard on something that was of great benefit not only to our family but, ultimately, to the nation.

The balance has now swung so far in favour of making people go out to work that there are huge financial disadvantages for the traditional family. The Care report examined 74 couples, and found that 64 of them would have been better off financially if they lived apart. It also showed that, on average, a couple lost £58 a week by staying together rather than living apart. One of the families studied, with average earnings of £25,000 a year, would gain £206 a week—yes, £206 a week—by splitting up. Where are the incentives in the Bill to keep families together? Children will always do better if they are brought up in a loving and secure family environment. I am not saying that financial reasons are the only factor involved when a couple split up, but they certainly play a big part.

The tax credit system is, by its very nature, flawed. Since coming to Parliament in May, I have been inundated by worried constituents who have been victims of a system that is so ambiguous and complicated, with so many forms to be filled in, that many of them have been penalised. Let me give the House a specific example. I have had a mother crying in my office, fearful that the family would have to sell their home because they had had their tax credits stopped and had received a demand from the Inland Revenue for thousands of pounds in overpaid tax credits. When I looked at the situation, I found that my constituents had done nothing wrong; it seemed to be a gross error by the tax credit office. However, that did little to relieve the despair and hurt caused to my constituents by the tax credit system.

The problem with this Government is that they believe that all mothers want to return to work for a career. They do not even consider the possibility that some mothers want to stay at home to bring up their children; that is not in their psyche. The Bill is only half a Bill; it addresses one issue but totally ignores the other.

Jim McGovern (Labour, Dundee West)

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on a welcome and important Bill. The research paper suggests that it has come on the back of a raft of policy documents and consultation papers. I am delighted that it also comes on the back of a manifesto commitment that came via the Warwick agreement, and I am glad that the Government are pursuing it so early in this Parliament. I look forward to seeing more manifesto commitments with regard to the Warwick agreement, such as an end to two-tier work forces and increased protection for migrant workers. One step at a time—

Jim Devine (Labour, Livingston)

Is it not embarrassing that in this place we have a two-tier work force for domestics, one of which is employed by this place and earns a good salary, while the other is employed by a private contractor and is clearly being exploited?

Jim McGovern (Labour, Dundee West)

I agree with my hon. Friend entirely. I am against two-tier work forces, regardless of where they exist, and the sooner we get the situation sorted in this place, the happier I will be.

The Bill is crucial—I am afraid that I must use the jargon—to the work-life balance in the 21st century. A recent ICM poll suggested that three out of five women today believe that it is more difficult for them to attain an acceptable work-life balance than it was for their mothers 30 years ago. Obviously, there are a number of reasons for that, not least of which is that many more women are working now than 30 years ago. I welcome the progress that the Government have made on variable working hours, job shares and part-time working, but there is much more to be done. I also want to remind the Minister that flexible working is not sustainable without addressing the pensions issue. In the light of last week's Turner report, I hope that any future debate on pensions will take due cognizance of the pension rights of women and carers.

Any Bill that will provide extra flexibility in relation to the period for which women can take maternity leave and in relation to fathers taking paternity leave must be welcomed. Obviously, the way in which families have been viewed in the context of work has undergone a massive sea change in the past 40 years. Again, there are many reasons for that. All too slowly, but at least surely, women have gradually gained more rights in the world of work.

My older sister was born in 1955 in a hospital in Dundee—unfortunately, the hospital is no longer there. My father went to work as normal that day. When I was born 14 months later in a hospital in Glasgow, my father again regarded it as a normal working day—he had to—and went to work. Five years later, when my mother was again due to give birth, she decided, to coin a phrase, on a "home delivery", and my father had to take the day off work, because he had to look after my sister and me. While my father, Tommy, my sister, Carol, and I sat in the kitchen—we were living in what was known as a room and kitchen in Maryhill road, Glasgow—my mother, ably assisted by our GP, Dr. John Fitzsimmons, who, incidentally, was also the Celtic football club doctor at the time—[Interruption.] I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Devine) comments from a sedentary position that that explains a lot. [Laughter.] My mother, ably assisted by Dr. Fitzsimmons, gave birth to my younger sister Angela, and my father had to take the day off, but simply lost a day's wages.

The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) said that in those days the man was expected to be the breadwinner, and the woman was expected to stay at home and look after the children. That was certainly how my father viewed it, and I am slightly ashamed to say that I do not think that his view has changed much since then. Obviously, however, as in most father-son relationships, we agree to differ on certain issues. I am glad that the days when women were regarded as going out to work for pin money are long gone. In most cases, women's work is now a requirement.

There are many reasons why a man would want to take paternity leave, and evidence seems to suggest that many men take their annual leave in the first few months of a baby's life. Obviously, that is not just to get to know the baby but to support the mother. There is also evidence that at least 20 per cent. of women suffer some sort of post-natal depression, so I would regard it as the father's right to be with the mother and the child at that time, and I hope that that can be considered. I am not sure whether I made myself clear in intervening on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his introductory remarks. However, many contributions since then seemed to confirm what I was trying to say. If a father can take paternity leave only on the second sixth months of the first year of the child's life, and that is dependent on the mother returning to work, that puts undue pressure on the mother to return to work, perhaps earlier than she would otherwise wish. I hope that the issue will be clarified when the Front Bench spokespersons respond. If the mother were allowed to take her additional maternity leave for the second six months and the father were allowed to take paternity leave, that would be a better proposition. My preferred option is that, if they so choose, both parents should be allowed to take their maternity and paternity leave concurrently, during the first six months of the child's life. If we are legislating for choice, surely we should not deny both parents the choice to be with the new addition to the family in the earliest stages of its life.

Discrimination has been mentioned. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff), who is no longer in his place, envisaged paternity leave being talked up to the same level as maternity leave, resulting in women no longer experiencing discrimination because they were of child-bearing age. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that. I think that that is desirable, but I am not sure that he would agree with me. I do not think that that is the point that he was trying to make.

I welcome the provisions that deal with redundancy. Before being elected to this place, I was a full-time trade union official. I dealt with numerous instances of long-serving employees being denied equal redundancy packages because they were six months over the age of 64. Anything that would remove such blatantly unfair practices is welcome.

Mention has been made of the eight statutory public holidays being added to the minimum of 20 days' annual leave. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to re-examine that. Some employers do not recognise public holidays. Employees of such companies will find that the change in the legislation will mean nothing to them. Perhaps my hon. Friend will consider two options. We can move to 28 days' minimum annual leave or we can add eight public holidays as a legal entitlement to the 20 days of annual leave; otherwise, there will be a large loophole.

The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) mentioned the CBI's desire to see extra days phased in over a period. As a former negotiator, I feel that if we closed the loophole on bank holidays, we could accommodate the CBI in phasing on the basis of two days each year.

I welcome the Bill. I ask right hon. and hon. Members to support it. I look forward to it being debated again early in the new year.

Madeleine Moon (Labour, Bridgend)

It is a great honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. McGovern), especially with his story of his father's management of the birth of his sister. Only recently, I had a discussion with my mother, who is 91. I talked about the birth of my younger sister and of overhearing my father saying to his employer over the telephone that he could not come into work because I had been misbehaving. He said that I had been behaving very badly following the birth of my younger sister. I told my mother that I had been shocked to hear that call. I had been given a wonderful present of some whimsies and I thought that I had been behaving well.

At 87, my mother told me rather belatedly, "Good grief, you were not behaving badly. It was just an excuse to get him off work because I needed him at home to look after you. We did not have all this leave in those days and your father had run out of his leave." For years, people had been lying to employers, managing employment situations and falsely creating impressions to manage family responsibilities. It is ludicrous that we lived in that world.

Last night, I watched Ian Hislop, who appeared in a programme about the way in which the role of women in society was changed by the great war, when they were needed to take on jobs and responsibilities because men were at the front. Years of suffrage had not secured women the vote. The experience of seeing how women rose to the challenge of the workplace led to suffrage being extended to women. That extension of suffrage changed British society. I see the Bill as being very much part of another great change that is taking place in British society. We need to recognise that parents and carers are critical to our future, and that as a society we should support them.

We heard from the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) that the Government were trying to force women into the workplace. There is an element of truth in what he said. We have a falling birth rate. We have a falling number of people in the pool of those available to work, because we have high levels of employment. We have an ageing society, and an increasing number of people need care and support. If we are to provide for those who want to work, those who need to work and those whose lifestyles have been limited by poverty, social isolation and caring responsibilities, we must engage in a new way of working. We must engage in a new relationship between society and working people, be they parents or carers of older people. We need to build into our work force regulation both flexibility and choice.

Last week I was in the Chamber debating the Childcare Bill, which recognised the importance of quality-based care for children, parents, employers and Government. Speaker after speaker acknowledged the importance of parents' spending time with their children in the early years. The Bill introduces a change in maternity and adoption pay, which will enable parents to remain at home for 39 weeks by April 2007. The goal of eventually providing a year's maternity leave is one that we should all embrace and welcome.

I ask the Minister, however, to consider a possible change. If we are to support the 61,000 people who adopt children each year, we must ensure that maternity pay and adoption pay are of equal value, recognising that the role that they play as parents is equally important. Statutory maternity pay is currently 90 per cent. of salary for the first six weeks, and £106 a week for the next 20 weeks. Statutory adoption pay is £106 a week for 26 weeks. I should like the first six weeks of statutory adoption pay to be 90 per cent. of salary, which would bring it into line with maternity pay and send adopters a clear message that their financial recognition as parents is equal, like their status in law.

I welcome the change that allows parents, particularly mothers, to return to work for training or appraisals while receiving maternity or adoption pay. For adopters in particular, a placement may be sudden. They and their employers must have time to adapt to their leave to take on child care responsibilities. That flexibility and choice is imperative for natural, birth parents and for adoptive parents.

I do not want to be seen as the Member of Parliament who always quotes from The Western Mail—[Hon. Members: "Oh, go on."] It is too late. Last week, The Western Mail—every Welsh Member's morning reading—reported that, according to the Equal Opportunities Commission in Wales, many women in Wales are still affected by poverty, isolation and exclusion. David Rosser, director of CBI Wales, admitted that women still dominate in child care responsibility, and that until men take equal caring responsibility in society, that will prove difficult to address. In 2005, we are still talking about women having a disproportionate experience of poverty, isolation and exclusion.

Paternity leave was the first step of both Government and society to move towards giving men equal caring responsibilities. I hope that we can introduce changes to make the two weeks' paternity leave more family friendly. Too many fathers are excluded from paternity leave because of the need to give 15 weeks' notice, which employers do not really need. Fathers can take paternity leave up to eight weeks after the birth. However, a father's support and care may be more appropriate later than eight weeks after the birth. The child may become ill. The mother may remain ill in hospital. As we all know, doting grandparents flock in after the birth. It may be more appropriate for the father to be around later on. Perhaps we could look at breaking down the two-week period into two separate one-week opportunities for a break. It would create no additional costs for employers, give employers and families greater flexibility and could be of far greater value to families.

In the Childcare Bill debate, I spoke of how families with children with disabilities are one of society's most disadvantaged groups, with 55 per cent. living in poverty, in serious debt and with both parents and children living in loneliness and social isolation. That picture of poverty and isolation can be extended to most people with caring responsibilities. I welcome the Bill's extension of the right to seek flexible working to all carers and adults. However, I believe that that right should be extended to cover all children until they have left school. As all parents know, children need the support of their parents at different stages of their lives. A child could be going through a period of illness, of difficulty at school or that most difficult of periods, adolescence, when they need a parent at home to give them the support and structure to guide them through that difficult process. If we do not have that flexibility, we are not building in the support that families, children and parents need.

There are 6 million carers in the United Kingdom, 3 million of whom are working, who will welcome the opportunity that the Bill provides to tackle the stress, social isolation and, for many, the poverty created by caring. The peak ages for becoming a carer are 45 to 64. Eighty per cent. of carers fall within that working age band. Their experience, skills—

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. The hon. Lady has had her 10 minutes.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

To finish the sentence of the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon), it is likely nowadays that someone may be a carer and a parent of young children at the same time. It is a serious matter that we must all recognise.

We welcome the intention of the Bill and we want it to work but we have, of course, some concerns about its detail. There are two points in particular. First, the Bill must be kept simple. If it leads to an explosion in red tape and bureaucracy and extra rules for businesses of all sizes and for employees as well as employers, it will not work because people will not have confidence in it. Secondly, we do not want the pendulum to swing so far that the Bill becomes counter-productive. As some of my hon. Friends have mentioned, it would be wrong if rights were created that required so much of employers, particularly small businesses, that they were unwilling to employ people who had family duties, particularly young women of child-bearing age. If that were to happen, and I hope that it does not, the Bill would backfire and it would not work. We want it to work. In everything I say, I want to ensure that the Bill is improved, so that those concerns are taken care of and the legislation will work.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) said earlier, the economic case for such a measure is proven. In today's work force, for the economy to work with maximum efficiency, it is absolutely necessary that every single person who is willing and able to work, and who has the experience and talent to do so, is able to use their abilities to their fullest extent.

Unusually, the Minister for Women and Equality, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn), is not here, although I am not surprised, given the burden of legislation that she has had to deal with in the past few weeks. I pay tribute to her for bringing to light a fascinating statistic, which I have mentioned several times in recent weeks in this Chamber and in Committees considering similar legislation. If all the women in the UK work force were working at the height of their capacity and to the best of their talents—instead of taking jobs of a lower standard because they want to work part-time; or taking a career break and subsequently being unable to slot in at their previous level—our gross domestic product would improve by 3 per cent. That is a stunning statistic: 3 per cent. of GDP is equal to our annual trade with Germany. That is an enormous sum and I am sure that the Chancellor would welcome such an improvement, given the awful figures that he was forced to announce to the House today. That said, I stress that we want this legislation to work.

The hon. Member for Bridgend made a very good point about people often having to tell white lies, let us say, in order to cope with a situation about which they should not have to tell lies. When I discovered last week that the Bill was to be given its Second Reading today and that I would have the great honour of winding up for the Opposition, I had to change some of my arrangements for this evening, which had included attending a very worthwhile charity event. I also had to change arrangements with my nanny, who looks after my small son. I told her this morning that unfortunately, I would be unable to go to the ball because I had to be here this evening, and she said, "Can't you just call in sick?" I had to explain that it does not work that way here, but at that point it occurred to me that, of course, that is what people have always done. People call in sick when in fact, if the employment arrangements were reasonable and flexible, there could be far more honesty, and both employer and employee could be above board about what is actually going on.

The hon. Member for Bridgend told a very good story about her father, but my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon) takes the prize in this regard. Just a few weeks ago, his wife gave birth to—a child. [Interruption.] My helpful hon. Friends tell me that it was a boy: my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury has a new son. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), who had to explain to the Whips in rather difficult circumstances that he intended to take paternity leave, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury simply fell over on his way out of the hospital and broke his leg. [Interruption.] I am inaccurate in that as well; apparently, he broke his foot, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) helpfully points out. The principle is that it should not be necessary for people to find excuses to be there for the first few weeks of their child's life, whether they are the mother or father.

We have had a constructive debate this evening. The hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) spoke passionately about carers and she was right to highlight the predicament of parents who have children who are in need of extra care but who may not be categorised as having special needs. They may still have extra needs that should be taken into consideration as far as their parents' employment is concerned. The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who spoke on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, was right to talk of the need to get the work-life balance right. I hope that that term has not become jargon, because it is important. We are trying to achieve a reasonable balance and, for once, I did not disagree with everything that the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats said. We may have a constructive time in Committee.

The hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) is right about the business case. She made a good case that was similar to what my hon. Friends and I have said, so I do not understand why she claims that the Opposition are unsupportive of the Bill. We welcome these provisions. She has listened to a small number of my colleagues, but not to me. Nor has she listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), who made a powerful speech. She understands these issues very well and she is right to have spent some time with her son this evening. We forgive her for not having been here for the whole of the debate, because that is what she was doing.

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

I am sure that my hon. Friend would like to know, as a good friend of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay), that before I got home, bath and tea had been provided, by someone who is not noted as a new man. Jimmy-jammies were on and it was straight to bed.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I am amazed and gobsmacked. The Bill has already had an effect if it has made my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) deal with putting his son to bed. I am extremely impressed.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

I have to let my hon. Friend into a secret. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) has already expressed his pleasure that the Trade and Industry Committee intends to visit India a week after his Committee goes elsewhere, so that he can look after the baby while his hon. Friend—in every sense of the word—the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) is away. He is really becoming a new man.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I am not sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell will be pleased to be called a new man, but he is clearly becoming the perfect father, and we should all commend him for that.

Jim Devine (Labour, Livingston)

Is it not silly to be talking about work-life balances when we are sitting here at half-past nine at night?

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but each hon. Member has a different hour at which they want to be somewhere else. The fact that I want to be at a charity ball right now is not the point—[Interruption.] I am not used to playing Cinderella. The time that mattered most to me was 7 o'clock, just before my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove left the Chamber having explained what she was going to do. I could not, of course, take that amount of time away from the debate, so I had to telephone my four-year-old son to say goodnight. As always, he asked me what I was doing and I said that I was about to make a speech at Big Ben—as he calls this place. He asked what the speech was about and I replied that it was about mummies having more time to spend with their children. He said, "Great, so you'll be able to come home and read my story then." That makes extremely well a point that others have made.

It annoys me that just because Conservative Members speak up for small businesses and analyse the economic effect of proposals such as these, some Labour Members suggest that we do not understand the needs of children and families as much as they do. We do.

Charles Walker (Conservative, Broxbourne)

I am very much a new man. Indeed, it was my daughter Charlotte's ninth birthday today and I managed to get home to south Hertfordshire for 45 minutes at 4.30 pm to wish her a happy birthday, so I am in favour of the work-life balance.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I am most impressed, although I will not encourage any more of my hon. Friends to display their new man credentials. The Bill has already had an effect.

The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) made a powerful speech about carers. She is absolutely right and we should pay attention to her example. It is worth looking further at whether the right to request should be extended to all employees. It is difficult to work out where the line should be drawn. I make no commitment to the Minister about exactly what our position will be, but the matter is certainly worth considering.

Gerry Sutcliffe (Labour, Bradford South)

rose—

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I will of course give way to the Minister as long as he understands that my speech will go on longer due to interventions.

Gerry Sutcliffe (Labour, Bradford South)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to intervene. I am sorry that she has missed the ball, as she has mentioned twice.

The hon. Lady is making an important point about the extension of the right to request and the work-life balance, and I welcome what she says, but we have been told by Opposition Members about the role of business and the CBI, so is she committing her party to supporting an extension of the right to request, even though organisations such as the CBI are opposed to it?

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

No. I am glad the Minister asked that question. I am not committing my party to anything; I was saying that it was worth looking at the point further. I am not ruling it out. It would be just as easy for me to say, "No, we absolutely rule it out", but we do not. The hon. Member for Cardiff, North made some important points and I hope that we shall have an opportunity to consider them further in Committee.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff) was right to stress the importance of the balance between employees and employers. He made the important point that just because discrimination against women is illegal does not mean that some employers will not find a way around the law. That is what lawyers are for, so I stress again the importance of keeping the legislation simple and balanced.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) put well the case for small businesses. It is vital that the Government respect their position. After all, most employees work for small businesses.

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck) was right in what she said. I do not disagree with the detail of the contributions made by Labour Members. We are all trying to achieve the best from the Bill and I hope that we can go into it in more detail in Committee.

The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) raised an issue that the Government had not taken into consideration: surrogacy. I hope that we can amend the Bill in Committee to take account of what he said. It is right that a child born of a surrogate mother should be treated appropriately, not exactly in the same way as the child of a birth mother or an adopted child, but not left out of the provisions altogether.

The hon. Gentleman also addressed the issue of enforcement through tribunals. We do not want to encourage more litigation as a result of the Bill. It is much better to have reasonable, balanced law that need not be broken by either side.

The hon. Member for Burnley (Kitty Ussher) also speaks with authority, because she probably has the youngest child of any female Member.

Kitty Ussher (Labour, Burnley)

I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) had her child first.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

The hon. Lady speaks with authority on this matter because she has a very small baby, and it is quite understandable that she will not have time to discuss any matter with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire because she cannot possibly have time while balancing her duties in the House and in her constituency with such a small baby.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) mentioned some vital aspects of the Bill. Parents' time with children is an essential part of helping to create and nurture children and therefore the next generation. Parents who have jobs are doing two jobs, especially the mothers of small children who also have a job outside the family, and we should respect that fact, but my hon. Friend is right: looking after a home and children is an important and extremely hard job. In my own humble opinion, it is the hardest job that there is, and I am glad that I do not have to do it full-time. We must respect women who choose to stay at home and look after their families. They must also have rights.

The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. McGovern) gave us a very good historical canter around what used to happen. I am glad that we live in more enlightened times.

Much of the Bill is reliant on subsequent regulations that we have not yet seen. This is the third Bill in a month to which I have spoken from the Dispatch Box—I assume therefore that this must apply to many more—for which there has been a very short period, usually eight days, between the debate on Second Reading and the beginning of consideration in Committee and for which the Committee stage will be commenced too early and be rushed. We have had to examine Bills in Committee without the benefit of having the regulations before us. I hope that that will not happen with this Bill. It is hard to imagine why the Government are in such haste to push the Bill through. Another couple of weeks so that we could have the regulations in front of us to give the Bill proper consideration would have been much better.

In conclusion, we all want the Bill to work, so it must have flexibility and balance between employer and employee because we have jobs to talk about in the context that we have been discussing them this evening only if we have a successful economy, and we have a successful economy only if we have competitive businesses. So if anything in the Bill undermines the competitiveness of businesses, the Bill will backfire. I do not want that to happen; I want the business community and families to have confidence in the legislation that we have examined this evening. We want to examine the Bill further in Committee. We therefore want it to have a Second Reading. We will not oppose it this evening, but we look forward to improving it.

Gerry Sutcliffe (Labour, Bradford South)

I have listened with great interest to the contributions of hon. Members from both sides of the House. We have heard contributions from the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) and for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan), the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff), my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Ms Johnson), the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk), my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck), the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Kitty Ussher), the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone), my hon. Friends the Members for Dundee, West (Mr. McGovern) and for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon) and, latterly, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing).

All hon. Members who have contributed to the debate understand what the Government are trying to achieve through the Bill. The Government have clearly set out their strategy in their three terms and they will develop it further in their fourth. Given the legacy of the previous Government, our first term was about getting people back into work. The second term was about fairness at work and getting the balance of fairness in the workplace right. The third term has been about the world of work.

All hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have said that the world of work has changed dramatically. This country faces demographic changes due to a reducing birth rate and the fact that people are, thankfully, living longer. We need to ensure that we get as many people back into work as possible. I was grateful and delighted that the Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen said that the business case had been made for the Bill because it is right and proper that that is the language in which we talk.

All hon. Members agree that every child deserves the best possible start in life. The Bill attempts to achieve that by providing more choice and flexibility for families when balancing work and caring responsibilities. However, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the Bill includes measures to help employers to manage the administration of leave and pay and to plan ahead with greater confidence and certainty. It will enable better interaction between parents and employers, which was surely the point that the hon. Member for North Norfolk made when he said that it was important to get employers and employees to sit down together so that they can work through the needs of the business and their own needs, too.

That is the context of the different style of approach on employment relations in this country that the Government have tried to introduce. We have tried to move away from the adversarial times of the 1970s and 1980s and towards more consensus. We face global challenges and demographic changes. There is a need for employers to understand the needs of their employees because the labour market is tight, more people are in work than ever before and we have such a low level of unemployment. However, employees must also understand the needs of business because they can change due to globalisation. The business case for the Bill has been made and it is important that there is a new regime of understanding by both employers and employees.

We all know that enabling people with caring responsibilities to work means that the UK economy benefits and that employers can recruit from a wider talent pool and retain the people in whom they have invested. The Bill will not only result in more choice and flexibility for families, but help to achieve greater equality by enabling men to spend more time caring for their children and encouraging women back into the workplace.

Many people have put their credentials as new men or women on the table, so I will put my credentials on the table. I am a parent of three boys and I have three grandchildren—[Hon. Members: "Surely not."] I know that it is hard to believe. I was thus a little taken aback when the hon. Member for Wellingborough said that Ministers do not understand the needs of youngsters and children and the requirements when bringing them up. I accept that some women make the choice to stay at home and bring up their children. Indeed, some men now want to stay at home to look after their children, especially in the first year of their lives. As the whole House has agreed, there is a benefit if people are with their children during those first 12 months.

The package is good news for working parents and employers. It represents a big step forward on giving children the best start in life and enabling all families to have genuine choices about how they balance their work and family caring responsibilities. The changes will support employers in recruiting and retaining the best people, thus keeping much needed skills and experience in the workplace. In February, we published the consultation document "Work and Families: Choice and Flexibility" and consulted widely on how to take forward the commitments set out in our 10-year child care strategy.

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

I hope that the Minister will address the point made by Conservative Members about flexibility and allowing women—or men, for that matter—to double up or increase the amount of money that they get a week by reducing the amount of time that they take off work. Will the Government consider that proposal?

Gerry Sutcliffe (Labour, Bradford South)

I hope to come on to that point later in my speech. However, we do not accept that the proposal that the Tories put forward at the last election would have been of any benefit to either employees or employers.

We consulted widely on choice and flexibility. Our aim was to establish and maintain a balanced framework of rights and responsibilities for both employers and employees. As well as providing more choice for employees, we are introducing measures to ease administration burdens for business in line with the Government's better regulation agenda.

The majority of the costs fall to the Government, as the Treasury reimburses business for statutory maternity, adoption or paternity pay at 92 per cent. for large businesses and 104.5 per cent. for smaller businesses. That is worth around £390 million a year. The net cost to business of the package is small once we take into account the savings and the increased productivity as a result of the measures. It will be about £40 million to £90 million in year 1 and £35 million to £70 million in year 2.

Throughout the consultation, we considered how we could help business to offset administrative burdens in line with the Government's better regulation agenda. We set up an external advisory group, made up of people with human resources expertise, to examine how to ease the compliance for employers. As a result of the Bill and subsequent regulations, the notice that mothers must give to their employers when changing the date of their return from maternity leave will be doubled from four weeks to eight weeks, and statutory maternity pay will start on the same day as maternity leave and be calculated on a daily basis, if that suits employers, to ease administration and align payments with employers' usual business practice.

Women will be able to come into work for a few days during their maternity leave without losing a week's statutory pay and can end their leave early if that is what they and their employer want. That will help them to keep in touch and to ease their return to work. Again, many hon. Members accepted that. It will be explicit in the maternity leave regulations that employers may make reasonable contact during maternity leave. We will improve the guidance provided to employers and employees.

Norman Lamb (Liberal Democrat, North Norfolk)

The Minister mentions regulations. I am sure that he is about to get to it, but will he confirm precisely which of the regulations will be subject to the affirmative process rather than the alternative?

Gerry Sutcliffe (Labour, Bradford South)

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me make my own speech and get to those points when I can.

We have had a great deal of dialogue on the Bill. It is not a case of pulling something out of thin air. We consulted a range of stakeholders, including employers, both large and small. Only my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West mentioned the role of trade unions. It is important that we have full buy-in from both sides of industry in ensuring that the Bill's contents are supported.

The right hon. Member for Maidenhead broadly welcomed the Bill, as did the hon. Member for Epping Forest. However, actions speak louder than words. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) said that had there been a Conservative Government in 1997, they would have eventually got around to measures on work and families.

Patricia Hewitt (Labour, Leicester West)

Eighteen years was too soon for that.

Gerry Sutcliffe (Labour, Bradford South)

It took the Conservatives a long time to get anywhere, and they did not get to the stage of benefiting working people.

We have ensured that there is the opportunity for broad consensus on the measures because of the change in economic circumstances and the need to get people back into work, if that is what they want to do. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead said that we should have put the provisions alongside the measures in the Childcare Bill that has come from the Department for Education and Skills. She will know that the scope of the Bills is different. The Opposition would have attacked us for not taking into account the interests of business had we put them together. She will understand why there is a separate Bill and why we need to look at it in detail.

The Bill sets out minimum standards. The reality is that most good employers already see the business case for ensuring that their employees are well treated and that they retain employment. Surely the Government's role is to set out a series of minimum standards so that people do not fall below what is expected.

My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) was grateful for the Government's work on the role and value of carers. She raised a particular issue on the definition of carers. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we will consider that in great detail and ensure that we listen to hon. Members on both sides of the House and to the various bodies that need to give us their view on what the definition should be. We need to balance the responsibilities and rights of employers and employees.

The point was made that some employers will not employ women of childbearing age. That is a disgrace. We need to highlight the bad business sense of doing that and ensure that people know that it is illegal to discriminate in that way.

My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North welcomed the Bill and asked whether the bank holiday entitlement would be paid. Our manifesto commitment was that bank holidays should be an additional, paid entitlement. She also asked us to consider what should happen in the tragic cases in which the mother dies after childbirth. I shall do that and I shall be interested to hear what my hon. Friend and others have to say about what we can do in such circumstances.

Unusually, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove welcomed the Government's progressive policies on work and families, but she asked for more flexibility in maternity leave. She explained the role of management and middle managers, who have to understand the need for maternity leave and for good employment practices to ensure that people are looked after. She asked about the changes to employment law relating to a replacement employee who might be in place for up to 12 months. She said that that person would get employment rights and asked what their situation would be. Clearly, a contract would be entered into at the outset of the replacement explaining the reasons for that period of employment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North also asked about the definition of carers. She gave a moving account of how she cares for her 94-year-old mother, with the help of an army of carers, mainly women. She made an important point about the way in which caring responsibilities affect carers' ability to advance their careers, or to obtain employment in the first place. She acknowledged the success of the Employment Act 2002, but also raised important issues relating to sleep deprivation and other factors that affect the work-life balance.

The Chairman of the Trade and Industry Committee, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire, spoke of his experience as the son of a single mother, commonly known as a latch-key kid. He emphasised the balance that we have to strike between the role of the employer and the role of the employee. He read out a list of things that he said are contributing to a lack of competitiveness in the job market by cumulatively putting a burden on business. The most notable item on that list was the national minimum wage, although he repented of having voted against the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. Good businesses want to ensure that they are not at a disadvantage compared with bad or rogue employers, and our debate has focused on what good employers should do and on ensuring that they are not disadvantaged because poor employers do not do those things. That is why the legislation is important.

The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford was scathing about the fact that the Government have not taken into account the costs of the Bill. He wants us to delay its implementation, but that is not appropriate. We have tried to ensure that the costs are reflected in the regulatory impact assessment and I am sure that the details will be examined in Committee.

A range of detailed issues have been raised this evening, and in the time allowed I cannot answer all of them. However, as is my wont, I shall write to hon. Members on those detailed issues. I know from previous experience that we will have the opportunity to discuss them in Committee. The good thing about tonight is that we have had the opportunity to discuss the Bill in the round. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.