Clause 1 - Maternity pay period
Work and Families Bill
10:30 am
Norman Lamb (Shadow Secretary of State for Trade & Industry, Trade & Industry; North Norfolk, Liberal Democrat)
As I was saying, the Liberal Democrats very much support the increase in maternity leave proposed in the Bill. It seeks to increase the maximum period of maternity leave to one year. The indication is that that would be introduced by a phrased approach, by way of regulation. First, there would be an increase, by regulation, to nine months and then subsequently to a year by the end of this Parliament. That is a thoroughly sensible way of proceeding.
There is a problem with this new right, which, in a sense, relates to the level of pay. The level of pay for the bulk of the maternity leave is low: £106 at present. There is inevitably a risk that, for many people, it will be impossible to take the full period of maternity leave to which they will be entitled. It may be that there should be a long-term objective of raising that level of pay in a way that is achievable given overall Government expenditure.
In the meantime, however, it seems that it is worth trying to find ways of putting the power into the hands of the woman taking maternity leave to choose, if she wants, to take a shorter period of maternity leave than the maximum at a higher rate of weekly pay. In other words, every woman who takes maternity leave should be entitled to the full amount of maternity pay that she would receive under the period allowed by the Bill—ultimately, one year. However, if she chooses, she should be able to take it over a shorter period at a higher weekly rate. That follows the Swedish approach, introducing more flexibility and enabling the woman to choose how she will take the leave while ensuring that every woman is entitled to the maximum amount of maternity pay that can be provided for over the maternity pay period.
Some women might not take the full maternity period, but, if my amendment is accepted, they might take more than they would be able to take financially under the unamended Bill. The risk that we face is that the entitlement that the Bill provides will be meaningless for a group of women who cannot afford to take the full period at £106 per week. I appreciate that that figure will increase marginally year by year.
In my model, which introduces greater flexibility for the woman taking maternity leave, we may well see a situation in which a woman chooses to take nine months rather than a full year of maternity leave, but combines that with a request to the employer on returning for flexible working. In other words, we could envisage a phased return to the hours the woman chooses to work. Perhaps the woman could take nine months rather than a year, return on an agreed basis of flexible working to work two days a week and, if she is a full-time worker, increase that progressively until she is back full-time. In other words, it is about putting the power in the hands of the individual who is taking maternity leave.
I suspect that, under my proposal, the total bill for maternity pay that the Government would have to meet would be higher. In effect, we would be saying that every woman would be entitled to the full amount of statutory maternity pay, but that she might be able to take it over a shorter period. Will the Minister tell us whether a calculation has been done of the extra cost of the amendment? It would be a pity if it were rejected on cost grounds because the Government are facilitating women taking the full period of maternity leave. Therefore, in theory, they must support women being entitled to the full amount of statutory maternity pay. The reality under the Bill will be that not all women will be able to take that for economic and financial reasons.