Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 149, in page 15, leave out line 8.

Amendment No. 149 seeks to remove new section 171ZL(2)(c). This is simply to establish—once again it is a problem of language—that we are not talking in this case about a person being eligible for statutory adoption pay when that person has ceased to work for the employer in the ordinary sense of the word rather than the tortuous sense of the word that we have previously discussed. It is important for the Minister to clarify that. In our previous debate on the subject, we convinced ourselves that it was probably acceptable—just—to think of someone who had gone away for six months or a year as having ''ceased to work'', although they had a right to come back, but that it was implausible to think that of someone who had gone away for two weeks.

Can the Minister clarify which version of ''ceased to work'' we are talking about and whether the paragraph refers to a previous employer, to a person who has ''ceased to work'' for that employer in the everyday meaning of the term—that is, given up work for good—or to a person who has no intention of giving up working for that employer but has simply gone away to enjoy his or her rights to statutory leave? Can the Minister explain which case we are talking about here? The fact that the question has to be asked underlines the confusion about the language.

Mr Alan Johnson (Minister of State (Employment and the Regions), Department of Trade and Industry; Kingston upon Hull West & Hessle, Labour)

The purpose of the clause is to ensure that people claiming the allowance are not working at the same time. The amendment would not affect that as it is dealt with in new section 171ZN(3). However, the beauty of including the provision before us is that it establishes up front that someone cannot claim the allowance and carry on working. People get adoption pay for being home to care for the child who has been placed with them. They cannot work and continue to receive payment.

Subsection (2)(c) uses the expression ''ceased to work'' because it is widely understood in the context of statutory maternity pay. The language is taken from existing statutory maternity pay legislation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is satisfied enough with that explanation to withdraw the amendment.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I think that the Minister is telling us that ''ceased to work'' does not refer to someone who has ceased to work altogether, but to someone who is on adoption leave. That person has not ceased to be employed, but is not actually working. If the Minister, following the review that the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) has encouraged him to get going, eventually wants to change the definitions from ''employees'' to ''workers'', a person will not cease to be a worker but will have ceased to work. What the Minister is saying, in a nutshell, is that the provision is intended to mirror precisely the statutory maternity provisions. In that case, it is understandable, if still confusing in its language.

Mr Charles Hendry (Wealden, Conservative)

The wording of subsection (2)(c),

''that he has ceased to work for the employer'',

suggests that he has ceased to work for the employer with whom he was employed before. To my reading, it does not rule out people working for another employer on a part-time basis once they are receiving adoption pay.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

When the Minister referred to new section 171ZN, I quickly flipped to that page and found that I had made a note against that paragraph that I should clarify with the Minister whether it referred to a contract of service with that employer or to any contract of service. I think that that is my hon. Friend's point, and it is a good one.

The Minister has clarified the interpretation that we are to put on the rather unsatisfactory phrase ''ceased to work'' in this context, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 150, in page 15, in line 21, leave out from 'him' to 'has' in line 23 and insert

''and another person and the other person.'.

I confess that the amendment was drafted before the debate in which the Minister made it clear that only married couples can jointly adopt a child under existing legislation. Given what the Minister has just said about future-proofing legislation, I do not want to pre-empt the Government's legislation on adoption. It is clear that their intention is to allow non-married couples to jointly adopt—[Interruption.] I mean to say jointly to adopt, because, of course, I do not want to be accused of splitting infinitives. Has the Minister considered future-proofing the Bill by making neutral the reference to the civil status of the adopting couple?

Mr Alan Johnson (Minister of State (Employment and the Regions), Department of Trade and Industry; Kingston upon Hull West & Hessle, Labour)

If we have considered that, we have discounted it. We are discussing not paternity leave but 26 weeks' paid adoption leave for adopters. The drafting may be tortuous, and the hon. Gentleman is right to query it. Couples in a long-term relationship but who are not married cannot adopt at the moment. Only married couples or one person in an unmarried relationship can adopt. A married couple who adopt can choose which of them takes adoption leave and which takes paternity leave. The partner of a single person who adopts can take only paternity leave--there is no choice. The person with the matching certificate takes the adoption leave. Those are the present circumstances. Any couple can enjoy leave. Married couples can decide which of them should take which leave; with an unmarried couple the partner with the matching certificate will take the adoption leave and the partner will have take paternity leave.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I am not sure that I follow the Minister's argument. One condition for adoption pay under subsection (2) is that the person concerned must be a person with whom a child is or is expected to be placed for adoption. That is the first qualification. If subsection (4)(b) is to make sense, therefore, it is

absurd that to presuppose that the person addressed by the provision is not the adopter but the partner of the adopter. That seems to be superfluous.

Mr Alan Johnson (Minister of State (Employment and the Regions), Department of Trade and Industry; Kingston upon Hull West & Hessle, Labour)

I may be making a rod for my own back, but without going into the detail of the text I shall explain the problems of drafting legislation in such circumstances. I want to ensure that everyone understands that married couples may choose what leave they take, but that there is no such choice for unmarried couples. The text that the hon. Gentleman wants to amend states the situation clearly. When married couples adopt, only one spouse can choose to receive statutory adoption pay and then only if all the eligibility criteria set out in subsection (2) are met. That is what subsection (4)(b) states. In my view, it does so unambiguously and conveys its message clearly. As the amendment concerns only a difference in drafting, and I have explained that the Bill's wording is intended to provide clarity in a rather foggy situation, I believe that we have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's points and I ask him to seek to withdraw the amendment.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

In so far as one can absorb these things when they are being thrown at one in this way, I am probably persuaded that that makes sense. However, it is a shame that we are passing legislation destined to become obsolete when another Bill being considered just 20 yd down the Corridor, and probably coming out of Committee at about the same time as ours, goes on to the statute book.

My point was whether the Bill should be future-proofed in respect of adoption and the rules surrounding adoption, but I accept that the Minister does not want to explore that avenue any further, so I shall detain the Committee no longer. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 151, in page 15, line 24, leave out from '(5)' to end of line 26 and insert

'Where more than one child is placed or expected to be placed for adoption as part of the same arrangement, the entitlement to statutory adoption pay in respect of placements under that arrangement shall be as if there were one placement only under the arrangement.'.

This is another probing amendment to establish what is meant by the Bill's wording. It mirrors an earlier debate, but we cannot automatically assume that the Government's position on statutory adoption pay will be the same as it was on paternity.

The Bill states:

''A person's entitlement to statutory adoption pay shall not be affected by the placement, or expected placement, for adoption of more than one child as part of the same arrangement''—

in other words, a brother and sister, or a family placement. It is not clear to me whether ''shall not be affected'' means that pay will be treated as if there were only one child or, if there were three children, as if there were three separate placements. The attempt to insert a provision for the avoidance of doubt has created much more doubt. Perhaps the Minister can answer my point quickly by explaining whether, in a

multiple adoption, multiple periods of paid leave or multiple leave entitlements would be available. For example, if there were two children, would both adoptive parents be entitled to adoption pay? That is the essence of my point.

Mr Alan Johnson (Minister of State (Employment and the Regions), Department of Trade and Industry; Kingston upon Hull West & Hessle, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman is right: we have discussed this matter before. The wording that he seeks to amend reflects new section 171ZB(6), which the Committee has already approved. That provision deals with situations in which more than one child is placed as part of the same arrangement. It usually occurs with sibling groups, where two or three brothers or sisters may be placed together as part of a new family.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

Lest the Minister convey the wrong impression to the Committee, may I point out that he is right about new section 171ZB, but that deals with paternity leave for adoption—the two-week period? As I said, the Government will not necessarily take the same approach in relation to the substantive adoption.

Mr Alan Johnson (Minister of State (Employment and the Regions), Department of Trade and Industry; Kingston upon Hull West & Hessle, Labour)

That is a fair point, but I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we will do so.

Amendment No. 151 would remove subsection (5) and insert words—to the effect that one period of statutory adoption pay will apply no matter how many children are placed together—intended to clarify what will happen,. The amendment is not necessary to achieve that aim. Subsection (5) means that one period of statutory adoption pay will be available if an adoptive parent adopts one child or two or more children together. That reflects the established position for statutory maternity pay. Further periods of adoption pay will be available to that adoptive parent if he or she adopts another child or children in future. The amendment would add nothing; indeed, it was tabled simply to make it clear that we are taking the same approach that we took in relation to statutory paternity pay for adopters. I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that reassurance, and I hope that it helps him to withdraw the amendment.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I thank the Minister for clarifying the matter. He has, however, left us in the anomalous and unsatisfactory position that if a married couple adopt a brother and sister, only one of them would be entitled to statutory adoption pay, while an unmarried couple adopting a brother and sister—one adopting the brother and one adopting the sister—would each be entitled to statutory adoption pay.

Mr Alan Johnson (Minister of State (Employment and the Regions), Department of Trade and Industry; Kingston upon Hull West & Hessle, Labour)

As I understand it, the adoption rules would not allow that to happen. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the unmarried couple would get separate certificates of placement?

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

My example is slightly hypothetical. The children need not be brother and sister. Nevertheless, if two unmarried people living together as a couple each adopted a child, the Bill would entitle each to statutory adoption pay. Yet if their next-door neighbours, a married couple, adopted two children together as part of the same placement, they would not be entitled to two sets of statutory adoption pay.

Let me put another case to the Minister. The Bill refers specifically to

''more than one child as part of the same arrangement.''

Presumably, therefore, if a married couple adopted two unrelated children as two separate arrangements, perhaps through two separate social services departments, they would each be entitled to a period of statutory adoption pay.

I admit that these are artificially constructed examples. However, we discussed the case of multiple children before and we came up against unacceptable consequences in extreme circumstances where the dice appeared to be loaded against some people.

Mr Alan Johnson (Minister of State (Employment and the Regions), Department of Trade and Industry; Kingston upon Hull West & Hessle, Labour)

I am advised that it is unlikely that adoption agencies would place siblings separately with two adopters or place unrelated children in the same household with separate adopters. However, I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. It occurred to me that two women living together who were both pregnant and due to give birth would be entitled to separate periods of maternity leave.

We are trying to mirror the provisions that apply in maternity leave and we have to try to cater for all eventualities in regulations. We think that we have done that. I am sorry, Mr. Amess—this is an intervention and I am chattering on as if I were making a speech.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for his example, because it is rather better than any that I had thought of. However, it does not help his case. The logic of his example of two women living together who both give birth and are entitled to statutory maternity pay is that two people living together who adopt two children should both be entitled to adoption pay.

We are under pressure of time. Having probed the Minister on his intentions, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 155, in page 16, line 33, leave out from 'at' to end of line 36 and insert

'the rate from time to time prescribed under section 166 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 for statutory maternity pay.'.

The amendment seeks to make it explicit in new subsection 171ZN(1) that statutory adoption pay shall be payable at the statutory maternity pay rate. That is the Government's intention, and the Bill's general thrust is to create a regime for adoptive parents that mirrors the one that is already in place for natural mothers. If that is the case, and to emphasise that that is the case, it would be sensible to make an explicit link in the primary legislation between the rates of statutory adoption pay and statutory maternity pay. I wonder whether the Minister thinks that it is a good idea to send a clear signal about the intention to put adoptive parents on a par with natural parents.

Mr Alan Johnson (Minister of State (Employment and the Regions), Department of Trade and Industry; Kingston upon Hull West & Hessle, Labour)

We made it clear in our response to consultation and elsewhere that we intend statutory adoption pay to be paid at the same flat rate as statutory maternity pay, which would be £100 a week or 90 per cent. of average weekly earnings. I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that that is still our intention, but it is unnecessary to include it in the Bill because there is a difference in that we are not suggesting that the first six weeks should be paid at 90 per cent. of earnings, which is the case with maternity leave but not with our proposals on adoption leave. Adoption leave is £75 a week, but it will be £100 by the time the Bill becomes law, so there is a difference.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

Why?

Mr Alan Johnson (Minister of State (Employment and the Regions), Department of Trade and Industry; Kingston upon Hull West & Hessle, Labour)

That was touched on this morning. It is a health and safety issue because mothers must give birth and they must take that time off. There is no choice in the matter because it is compulsory to take up to four weeks off work to give birth to a child. The figure of 90 per cent. of earnings is relevant in that respect, but it does not relate to adoption leave.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I wish the Minister would continue because he is effectively unwinding the case that he has made in the past 10 to 20 minutes for aligning the adoption and maternity regimes. His statements on the importance of giving parents a chance to settle children in and of building relationships have been undermined by what he has just said. The Government say that the provision is not about giving adoptive parents the same entitlements as natural parents, but about giving adoptive parents a limited entitlement, and one that economics will often dictate they cannot take advantage of.

I am surprised that other members of the Committee do not seek to probe the Minister on that issue, but perhaps I am being harsh because they may do so on clause stand part—[Interruption.] I can hear the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) preparing himself for that. After all the fine words that have been spoken about the role that adoptive parents play, how they can contribute to building a better society, how they can relieve the state of some of its obligations and how important it is to create a regime for them that reflects the one already in place for natural mothers, it is brazen of the Minister to stand up and say, ''It is £100 a week for the adoptive parent.''

I cannot see the logic to the Minister's argument. He has made a health and safety case for requiring natural mothers to take a short period off work, and I would not disagree with that. We are, however, discussing a broader arrangement, and I am not convinced that his comments fit comfortably with the signals that he has been trying to send on adoption and encouraging support for adoptive parents.

If no one else wants to speak, I will move on by withdrawing the amendment, but I hope that my hon. Friends will further consider that general point in the clause stand part debate. I also hope that Labour Members will have something to say, and that is not an incitement to revolt. If the Minister has a good case, and his position that adoptive parents should receive only £100 a week is sound and supported by good

reasons, I hope that those hon. Members who have direct experience and expert knowledge will leap up and make that case for him. In my mind, I cannot make such a case, but if someone else makes it, I might understand it.

Mr Alan Johnson (Minister of State (Employment and the Regions), Department of Trade and Industry; Kingston upon Hull West & Hessle, Labour)

Perhaps the reason why Labour Members are looking relaxed is because the clause is no secret and I am not suddenly pulling a rabbit out of hat. Since November, we have made it absolutely clear that, in response to consultation and exhaustive debates, we will introduce a flat rate of statutory maternity pay—£100 from 2003—for adoptive parents during the whole 26 weeks of adoptive leave. Previous Governments—the hon. Gentleman's in particular—gave nothing to adoptive parents, and we have moved to give 26 weeks of paid statutory maternity leave, which we are increasing, a further 26 weeks of unpaid leave and paternity leave for the partner or spouse. It is no surprise that we are not allowing for the first six weeks of leave to be at 90 per cent. of earnings—although it may be a surprise to Opposition Members. It is wrong to say that that undermines a principle.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I am inclined to ask whether the Minister will give way in his intervention.

Mr Alan Johnson (Minister of State (Employment and the Regions), Department of Trade and Industry; Kingston upon Hull West & Hessle, Labour)

Sorry. During my very, very brief intervention, I need to make it clear that the idea is not new and is contained in the helpful research guide published by the Library a few weeks ago.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I think that I am right in saying that the exclusion from paternity pay of people earning below the national insurance contribution lower earnings level is also not new, but many Labour Members wanted to speak about it. Although the idea is not new, and we have read many things in guidance, explanatory notes and statements of Government intention, the problem is that the Bill contains little that one can get hold of. The Minister has acknowledged that it is perfectly legitimate for me to pose him questions so that he can read into the record statements on specific intentions that are not apparent in the Bill. We know of Government intentions because they have been written about outside the text of the Bill, but this is a significant issue that hon. Members should want to address. I will be surprised if no one says anything about it. However, I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the situation—at some length—for the Committee. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 164, in page 19, line 5, leave out first 'of'.

This is an important amendment. During my days working the health brief, I always found that I could help Ministers to find a place in a Bill for an amendment—an uncontroversial amendment—to which they could agree. I thought that I had found one in this Bill, and I have tabled a later amendment adding a comma, which is a necessary comma. Sadly, I have been advised that amendments that add punctuation are no longer selected. That was not the

case in the good, old days because I remember substantive debates with the then Minister of State, Department of Health—now the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs—on the insertion of punctuation. The right hon. Gentleman had to concede that the Health Act 1999 was fairly short on punctuation and deficient in a number of other respects, and we were able to do something about that.

The definition in new section 171ZS simply has one ''of'' too many. Instead of stating that ''the Board'' means the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, it states that

'''the Board' means of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue''.

I therefore invite the Minister to score a first by accepting an Opposition amendment.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

If this is such an important matter, why did the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge not table a similar amendment in respect of new section 171ZJ(1), which includes the same phrase? Is he simply playing games and wasting the Committee's time?

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

If I were wasting the Committee's time, Mr. Amess, you would be the first to have something to say, and the hon. Gentleman should be careful about in any way suggesting that you are not overseeing our proceedings properly. The answer is that I simply did not notice that the phrase is repeated in the new section to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I am afraid that we do not have available to us the vast army of civil servants—

Mr Ian Pearson (Assistant Whip (funded by HM Treasury); Dudley South, Labour)

Neither does he.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

Perhaps the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has nothing better to do with his time, but I certainly do.

There appears to have been a straightforward error, in that an extra word has been inserted. If not, perhaps the Minister will explain its significance.

Mr Alan Johnson (Minister of State (Employment and the Regions), Department of Trade and Industry; Kingston upon Hull West & Hessle, Labour)

A great moment has come. I have discussed our drafting with parliamentary counsel and it is not perfect. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on spotting an error, and I am perfectly happy to accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 166, in page 19, line 37, leave out

'subject to subsection (8) below'.

Mr David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 168, in page 19, line 41, leave out subsection (7).

No. 167, in page 19, line 43, leave out subsection (8).

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I can understand how those watching our proceedings might find it curious that such joy can be elicited by the acceptance of an amendment dealing with the simple deletion of a single word. However, had they thought up, written down and tabled some 180 to 190 amendments and had not a single one prove acceptable to the Government, they would perhaps understand a little better. On this

occasion, my joy has been compounded by the intervention of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. Apart from anything else, he has given me an idea for an amendment that I could table on Report. That would enable the Minister to repeat his trick—assuming that the hon. Gentleman does not table one first.

Amendment No. 166 must be taken together with amendment No. 167, which would delete new section 171ZS(8). Subsection (8) states:

''In such cases as may be prescribed, a person's normal weekly earnings shall be calculated in accordance with regulations.''

Subsection (6) states that

''a person's normal weekly earnings shall, subject to subsection (8) below, be taken to be the average weekly earnings which in the relevant period have been paid to him or paid for his benefit''.

We therefore return to a debate that we had this morning: ''normal weekly earnings'' means ''average weekly earnings'', except in such cases as may be prescribed. In the cases that may be prescribed,

''earnings shall be calculated in accordance with regulations.''

It is all clear. Normal earnings are average earnings unless the Secretary of State says by regulations says that they are something else, as yet unspecified.

That situation seems to me not entirely satisfactory, but no doubt the Minister has some explanation and can give us an example of a problem that he will need to address by making regulations that deal with particular cases in which ''normal weekly earnings'' cannot be ''average weekly earnings''. I take it that we are not talking here simply about the bonus example that we had this morning. [Interruption.] Perhaps we are talking simply about that, in which case we shall find out soon.

I shall now discuss amendment No. 168. Subsection (7) provides a definition for the purposes just of subsection (6) of ''earnings'' and ''relevant period''. Why does there need to be a different definition of those terms for subsection (6)? What is the distinction between subsection (6) and the rest of this part of the Act, in terms of the appropriate definition of ''earnings'' and ''relevant period''?

Mr Alan Johnson (Minister of State (Employment and the Regions), Department of Trade and Industry; Kingston upon Hull West & Hessle, Labour)

Amendments Nos. 166, 167 and 168 would remove provisions allowing us to specify in regulations how average weekly earnings are to be calculated. They would be unworkable, leaving it unclear to employers and employees how to determine whether an adopted parent had met the earnings conditions to qualify for statutory adoption pay and how much statutory adoption pay a parent was entitled to receive. Removing the subsections would open up numerous possibilities for misinterpretation of the way in which a person's normal weekly earnings and average weekly earnings should be calculated. The debate that we had this morning on amendment No. 127 and the amendments grouped with it is relevant here.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

The amendments do not leave out subsection (6), but merely delete the reference in subsection (6) to its being subject to subsection (8). They seek to leave out subsection (8) and the reference in subsection (6) to subsection (8).

Mr Alan Johnson (Minister of State (Employment and the Regions), Department of Trade and Industry; Kingston upon Hull West & Hessle, Labour)

Subsection (8) covers the situation in which a person is not paid weekly. Subsection (6) provides for calculation of weekly earnings. We need subsection (8) as well to deal with people who are paid monthly or over another period.

I have a long explanation of the way in which the calculation works, but as the hon. Gentleman is on a roll I do not want to punish him by going through all that. It is quite a complex calculation, but one on which we consulted widely. As I said previously, we proposed to change it and it was employers who said to leave it as it was.

As in so many other cases, the subsections reflect the approach taken for statutory maternity pay. Primary legislation for SMP similarly allows for calculation of a person's normal and average weekly earnings to be set out in regulations. I believe that that enables us to provide the detail of how such earnings are to be calculated that employers and employees need to avoid uncertainty. We shall make use of the regulation-making powers provided for in this part to explain in detail how weekly earnings should be calculated for the purpose of statutory adoption pay.

Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford & Stortford, Conservative)

If removing subsection (7) would cause greater confusion, could it not be that subsection (7), by giving the Minister future powers to change the definitions, could itself be the root cause of the confusion?

Mr Alan Johnson (Minister of State (Employment and the Regions), Department of Trade and Industry; Kingston upon Hull West & Hessle, Labour)

I do not think so. We have stuck rigidly to the tried and tested measures that we have used for statutory maternity pay. We have ensured that statutory adoption pay—and paternity pay—mirrors those procedures. It is a system to which employers are used and on which they have received advice and guidance over a long period. The amendments would be unworkable and would do a disservice to employers and employees. I hope that, with that clarification, the hon. Gentleman will seek to withdraw the amendment.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. In light of what he has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr George Osborne (Tatton, Conservative)

I am happy to speak on the amended clause—indeed, happy to speak on a clause that we have successfully amended. This is the first time in this Committee that we have done so. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge on spotting the mistake and getting the amendment accepted.

I cannot resist also congratulating the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. Earlier in the Committee he supported us when he was not supposed to and then he managed to oppose us when he was not supposed to do that either, but he, like me, is a new boy here, and we are learning as we go along.

As the briefing documents provided for the Bill show, there are 2,700 domestic adoptions each year. Although that is a small number in the overall scheme of things, it is incredibly important to the children concerned, to the families concerned—many of whom would otherwise be childless—and to society as a whole that society is seen to care for those children who cannot be cared for by their natural families.

I very much welcome the Government's stated intention of increasing the number of adoptions. I read that their target is to increase the number by a third. They say that by 2003 there may be as many as 3,850 adoptions. In all sincerity I wish them every success in achieving that target and hope that they exceed it. I believe that statutory paid adoption leave will help. I freely admit that it is not something that the Conservatives, or previous Labour Governments, did. One could argue that Governments of all persuasions have not done enough to make adoption easier for parents. Therefore, I very much welcome the provision.

Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford & Stortford, Conservative)

I share my hon. Friend's support for the principle, but does he in turn share my concern that in the debate on the clause there seemed to be a lack of consistency on the Government side? My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge argued that the Government had failed to be consistent. They have argued for consistency all the way through in maternity, paternity and adoption, and yet that has not been applied in the clause.

Mr George Osborne (Tatton, Conservative)

My hon. Friend makes a good point and anticipates my remarks. The crucial period for an adoptive family is the initial weeks when a child is placed with the family. It is arguable that it is even more important that time is given for an adoptive family, because the children are often not newborn, but may be one, two or three years old, or even older. They have to adjust to the new family that they find themselves in and the adoptive parents have to adjust to the new child that has arrived in their life, often much more grown up than would be the case in a natural family.

I therefore share the concern expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Runnymede and Weybridge and for Hertford and Stortford that statutory adoption pay will be set at only £100 a week for the majority of those who will claim it. This is a good opportunity to bring this new and welcome scheme of paid adoption leave into line with maternity leave. I cannot believe that there would be enormous costs to the Exchequer if people were allowed, for the first six weeks or so, to—

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

My hon. Friend might do the Committee a service if he were specifically to ask the Minister whether his Department has made an estimate of that cost.

Mr George Osborne (Tatton, Conservative)

I am happy to do so. I understand that the current estimate of the cost is £10 million to the Exchequer for the year 2003-04. I should be interested to know, if the Minister wishes to intervene, what the additional cost to the Exchequer would be if paid adoption leave were brought into line with paid maternity leave.

Mr Kevin Hughes (Doncaster North, Labour)

I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would enlighten the Committee. He is arguing for more money to be paid but the shadow Chancellor is on the record as saying that he would reduce Government spending. How does the hon. Gentleman's argument fit with the policy of the shadow Chancellor and the Tory party to cut public expenditure?

Mr George Osborne (Tatton, Conservative)

I am grateful for that helpful intervention. Sadly, at this early stage of my parliamentary career I am not yet in the position of drafting shadow Budgets. However, I want to make two points. First, my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor has decided, in light of recent experience, to put improvements in public services ahead of tax cuts. Secondly, under a Conservative Government the economy would grow much faster and there would be more tax receipts. There would certainly be enough to meet what would, I believe, be the small cost of bringing paid adoption leave into line with paid maternity leave.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

Will my hon. Friend also take on board the Minister's point that even on purely economic grounds, a case can be made for support for adoptive parents? They relieve the state of a significant financial burden. The point raised by the hon. Member for Doncaster, North has no obvious substance and it seems likely that creating a better regime of support for adoptive parents might be a saving to the public purse in the medium to long term.

Mr George Osborne (Tatton, Conservative)

My hon. Friend makes a valid point and it is sad that the Government have not apparently assessed the overall saving to the state that would arise if people were encouraged to adopt and to remove children from the state's charge. I am surprised that in their regulatory impact assessment the Government estimate a 100 per cent. take-up. That may be a device that the Exchequer is forcing on the relevant Department so that it knows the absolute total cost, but if families are offered only £100 a week, many will not be able to afford to lose the pay of one member for 26 weeks. It would be interesting to know what the cost to the Exchequer would be if paid adoption leave were brought into line with paid maternity leave. More people would be encouraged to take that valuable time off work; that would be better for the families involved and certainly better for the children. The measure is being introduced and we should take the opportunity to do it well.

Mr Charles Hendry (Wealden, Conservative)

I noticed you watching quizzically, Mr. Amess, during our debate on adoption and it is clearly something that has never crossed your mind, so you are evidently planning to populate the whole of Southend with people called Amess.

Mr David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

Order!

Mr Charles Hendry (Wealden, Conservative)

I shall now discuss the substance of the clause. I am sorry that the Minister has chosen to say that he has already replied. Clearly, doubts remain and my concern is that adoptive parents will feel that they are being treated as second-class citizens. Some aspects of adoption require more adjustment than natural parentage. When people go through a period of pregnancy, they plan every day for the birth of the child. They think about it and about the changes that it will mean to their lifestyle. Although they cannot adequately understand what difference it will make until it actually happens, they are clearly aware, day after day and month after month, that the change is going to happen.

When one is adopting a child, the change is much more unplanned and unexpected. Perhaps ''unplanned'' is the wrong word, but one does not have the ability to make the same adjustments and preparations. To tell people in those circumstances that they are worth £100 per week but that natural parents are worth significantly more is to give a misleading and unfortunate signal. I hope that the Minister will still, at this point, return to the matter and address it.

I want to pick up on the point covered by amendment No. 149. One of the conditions for receiving statutory adoption pay is that a person has

''ceased to work for the employer''.

The Minister told us that that was to stop a person moonlighting, but clearly that person, having stopped working for one employer, could continue to go out and get work elsewhere, part-time or even full-time. I think that the Minister nodded when I raised that point earlier. He is stopping people moonlighting for their original employer and we endorse that, but people may still moonlight in another capacity, working elsewhere. On that, I do not think that the Minister's position is as yet satisfactory. Perhaps the Minister will re-examine the issue and come back with a revised proposal when the Bill comes before the House again.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) mentioned the estimated figure of 100 per cent. take-up. I was going to ask the Minister to clarify what take-up of statutory adoption pay he expects. If it is 100 per cent., I would be pleased to hear him say so in Committee, because it is a ludicrous proposition. If it is somewhat lower than 100 per cent., I should be interested to hear how the Department has reached its conclusions about likely uptake, and what conclusions it and the Department of Health have drawn about the fact that uptake will probably be significantly lower than 100 per cent., given the financial support that will be available.

Mr Alan Johnson (Minister of State (Employment and the Regions), Department of Trade and Industry; Kingston upon Hull West & Hessle, Labour)

This is a fascinating and unexpected debate on clause stand part. Before I get on to the issues, I express my surprise, as I said in my intervention, that five people in the Room—and perhaps in the House—apparently did not realise that

proposals that had been perfectly clear from the start relate to paying the flat-rate statutory maternity pay for adoption leave. That has been no secret. It has not been buried and only just revealed.

The hon. Member for Tatton has passionately argued—or with as much passion as can be generated in a Committee Room at a quarter to 6—that we should change the provisions, but there is no amendment. I commend the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge for amendment No. 164. He has done a very diligent job, but what exasperates me is the idea that I have suddenly produced a rabbit from a hat.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

Given the architecture of the Bill, one cannot make amendments about the rate of pay—a matter that will be determined by the Minister in regulations. I tabled an amendment, with which he has already dealt, proposing to insert words, the effect of which would be to say that statutory adoption pay would be at the same rate as statutory maternity pay. We have indeed tabled an amendment to achieve precisely what my hon. Friends are arguing for. I do not know why the Minister is suggesting that we have not addressed the issue.

Mr Alan Johnson (Minister of State (Employment and the Regions), Department of Trade and Industry; Kingston upon Hull West & Hessle, Labour)

That is a good stab, but I get the distinct impression here that had I not said what I did on that amendment a few minutes ago, we would have had a totally supportive clause stand part debate on the issue. I think that there is an element of genuine surprise among Conservative Members, which worries me. All that I can do is to re-emphasise my point.

Mr George Osborne (Tatton, Conservative)

With great respect, this is the first parliamentary occasion that we have had to examine the Bill's clauses in detail. When were we supposed to make these representations if not here, in the Standing Committee of which we are all members?

Mr Alan Johnson (Minister of State (Employment and the Regions), Department of Trade and Industry; Kingston upon Hull West & Hessle, Labour)

There are things called probing amendments, and Conservative Members are capable—more than capable, in the case of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge—of using them to make a point. Incidentally, some of the points that have been made support the argument that we should keep these matters in regulations.

Conservative Members are trying to steal our clothes. It is disgraceful that they should try to assume the position of a successful party that won two elections. We got the Opposition's support for the independence of the Bank of England and the Portillo process gave us their support for the national minimum wage. [Interruption.] I remember that when the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) was shadow Chancellor he suddenly blurted out that the Conservative party supported the national minimum wage.

Mr Brian Cotter (Weston-Super-Mare, Liberal Democrat)

Does the Minister find it refreshing that Conservative Members are talking about increasing social benefits? Given that they changed their views on the national minimum wage, does he think that in due course they will revert to opposing social provision?

Mr Alan Johnson (Minister of State (Employment and the Regions), Department of Trade and Industry; Kingston upon Hull West & Hessle, Labour)

Who knows? Who knows whether the Liberal Democrats, who said that the minimum wage should be on a regional, not a national, basis and then ditched the idea, might return to it at some stage?

Labour Members are consistent. We believe in gradually pursuing a system in which people have minimum basic rights at work, and adoption leave is one of those rights.

Mr Kevin Hughes (Doncaster North, Labour)

Yes, we are consistent. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition are consistent as well, because when they were in government for 18 years they did absolutely nothing about the issue?

Mr Alan Johnson (Minister of State (Employment and the Regions), Department of Trade and Industry; Kingston upon Hull West & Hessle, Labour)

I do indeed, although they did one thing—in 1994, they reduced the 100 per cent. provision to 90 per cent.

Conservative Members argue that we have let down adoptive parents and that they are their friends, conveniently forgetting that they tried to prevent people who adopt from overseas from benefiting from the provisions. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) suggested that 26 weeks at £100 a week would not encourage people to take the leave. We are talking about the first six weeks. Our view, which we have made clear to everyone concerned, is that there is a difference between adoptive parents and mothers who go through natural childbirth.

We have introduced statutory paternity pay at the flat, standard rate of £100 a week. That does not marry up with earnings-related rates for health and safety reasons. Earnings-related provision is steered more towards the better-paid and would be more costly. It is difficult to estimate how much it would cost, because we do not know the average earnings of adopters, whereas we can calculate fairly accurately on the basis of the £100 a week flat rate of pay.

However, that is not the point. We are introducing this measure for the first time. There is a difference between the position of mothers, who have to take time off, and adoptive parents, who are moving from a position in which they get nothing at all to getting 26 weeks' paid leave. The six weeks are irrelevant; the other 20 weeks will be paid at exactly the same rate as maternity leave. People will get 26 weeks' unpaid leave and their spouse or partner will be able to take paternity leave.

Mr Charles Hendry (Wealden, Conservative)

Will the Minister give way?

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

Will the Minister give way?

Mr Alan Johnson (Minister of State (Employment and the Regions), Department of Trade and Industry; Kingston upon Hull West & Hessle, Labour)

Just a second. We are talking about a huge advance, and I do not want it to be diminished by contributions to this debate.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is making a good defensive case, saying, ''Look, it is 100 quid, and that is better than nothing.'' I agree that it may be better than nothing for some people, but for those who earn above a certain level and do not have the wherewithal to forgo their regular earnings it will be effectively the same as nothing, because they will not be able to claim it. The charge from these Benches to the Government is, ''If you want to talk the talk, walk the walk.'' During the

past few sittings of the Committee, the Minister has given the impression that the Government are extending to adoptive parents the full of range of benefits that is available to natural parents. Now he is being asked to face up to the fact that their proposals, which are outside the Bill, fall substantially short of that in a way in which will make a material difference to many adoptive parents.

Will the Minister answer my earlier question about expected take-up?

Mr Alan Johnson (Minister of State (Employment and the Regions), Department of Trade and Industry; Kingston upon Hull West & Hessle, Labour)

Yes, I will come to that. I am just getting into my peroration, for what it is worth, on this matter.

Mr Charles Hendry (Wealden, Conservative)

Just before the Minister perorates, will he consider the case of a family who are on the national minimum wage? During the six-week period to which he referred, their earnings would be about £1,100. He is suggesting that if they were adoptive parents they would get £600 over that period. Does he believe that they can sustain that loss of £500?

Mr Alan Johnson (Minister of State (Employment and the Regions), Department of Trade and Industry; Kingston upon Hull West & Hessle, Labour)

That brings me back to take-up. We expect 100 per cent. take-up because it is currently recommended best practice. All adoption agencies say to a couple who are adopting that at least one of them should take time off work at the time of the placement. The best practice guidance is already usually complied with, which is why it is such a crying shame that it has taken so long for the state to provide any help. The best estimate is that there will be 100 per cent. take-up of these provisions because, based on the advice of adoption agencies, it is already almost 100 per cent.

The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge says that I am making a defence that £100 is better than nothing. Statutory maternity pay, which we shall mirror here, is £75, and statutory maternity pay was stuck at £62 for year after year. In two years we shall have lifted it from £62 to £100, and we are mirroring that payment for both adoption leave and statutory paternity leave. It is a huge advance, and it is recognised as such. We have got that advance in the regulations. There is a difference about the six weeks, of which we have made no secret, and we shall keep the issue under review. It is a significant start on the road to giving adoptive parents help.

I must respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Wealden, which is different but important, concerning people who have more than one job. I need to clarify the situation of someone who is not moonlighting for the same employer, but who has another job elsewhere. The primary legislation on statutory maternity pay contains provisions allowing us to make regulations about women who work for more than one employer. We have used those provisions to cover a situation in which a woman works for more than one employer at the time that she qualifies for statutory pay.

That is best explained by taking the example of an employee who works for two employers at the time that they qualify for statutory maternity pay. In this case they may, if they choose, return to work earlier with one of their employers than with their other. That applies whether they receive statutory pay from both

employers or from just one. They cannot work for one employer and receive statutory pay from them at the same time, but they can return to work for one employer and receive statutory pay from their other employer. That applies whether they have received statutory pay from the employer for whom they have returned to work and that has now ceased, or whether they did not qualify for statutory pay with that employer in the first place. That is entirely reasonable. An employee who has two jobs may feel able to return earlier to one employer—perhaps where he or she works only a couple of hours a week. It is the point that I made to the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Lamb). That provision is used in maternity leave in particular to reintroduce people gradually back to the workplace after a long absence. It could just as well be used for adoption leave, which spans the same period. Therefore, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wealden for his prompt to put that clearly on the record.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

If I have understood the Minister correctly, he is identifying a positive situation in which it could be right for a person to treat his two separate contracts as two separate contracts and deal with them differently. Does he consider that the Secretary of State's power, for the purpose of statutory adoption pay, to regard two separate contracts as one could be significantly disadvantageous for those whom it affects?

Mr Alan Johnson (Minister of State (Employment and the Regions), Department of Trade and Industry; Kingston upon Hull West & Hessle, Labour)

I would not have thought so. This is a statutory earnings limit debate. Where a person has two separate contracts of employment for the same employer, which happens, they can be aggregated for lower earnings limit purposes. Where a person has two contracts of employment, one with an employer and another with a subsidiary of the company, they can be aggregated. That is what the provisions relate to, so I see no inconsistency there.

I am reminded of a further point, which is one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, about whose intervention the hon. Member for Tatton made a rather ungracious comment. My hon. Friend's intervention was spot on, because the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge noticed a problem in a different part of the Bill. Sometimes that is uncomfortable for Ministers, but it is an important part of the role. However, while the hon. Gentleman is right, the advice that I have received from parliamentary counsel, which we will need to consider, is that this can be treated as a typographical amendment. I thought that I would make it clear that he was right and congratulate him on his vigilance.

I hope that, with those comments, the Committee will agree to allow the clause to stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.