That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23 February be approved.

Relevant Documents: 9th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

My Lords, in moving this Motion, I shall, with the leave of the House, speak to the other five Motions in my name.

In the past decade, the Government have substantially improved help for new parents, especially by increasing maternity pay and leave and by introducing both paid paternity leave and adoption leave. A growing number of fathers, however, are keen to be more heavily involved in raising their child during its first year. As it stands, all employed mothers and adopters are entitled to 52 weeks of maternity or adoption leave, 39 of which may be paid. Fathers, though, can claim just two weeks of paid paternity leave. It makes clear sense to provide fathers with greater opportunities to spend time with their baby. When fathers are instrumental in the upbringing of children, those children do better in school and are less likely to get caught up in criminal activity. In cases where mothers earn more money than their partner, greater flexibility in childcare arrangements could have a significant impact on the family income.

These regulations will entitle fathers to up to six months of leave to care for a child where the child’s mother, or primary adopter, returns to work without using her full entitlement to maternity or adoption leave. Some of this leave may be paid if taken during the mother’s statutory maternity pay period. The six instruments that we are examining today are part of a package that will ensure that the scheme is consistent with existing statutory payments and covers all employees. In line with this, the rate of pay will be linked to the basic rate of statutory maternity pay, maternity allowance, statutory paternity pay and statutory adoption pay. Right now, this is £123.06 per week. It rises to £124.88 next month for all these statutory payments.

The effectiveness of these regulations depends on them applying across all organisations, irrespective of size. The Government recognise the concerns of some small businesses regarding further regulation. We recognise that the absence of staff in a small company could have a disproportionate impact, although our estimates are that less than 1 per cent of small businesses will be affected in any one year. For this reason, small businesses will be able to recover 104.5 per cent of statutory payments made, as they can already for statutory maternity, paternity and adoption pay.

In addition, we have consciously designed the scheme to be light-touch, by building on existing arrangements for employees who take ordinary paternity leave. Parents will be able to self-certify their entitlement and to provide details which will allow employers to calculate their own entitlement. Our goal is to reduce the administrative and financial burden on SMEs. However, a light touch is not the same as a soft touch. We believe that the system proposed presents minimal risk of fraud and abuse. As with other statutory payments, we will conduct compliance checks and impose financial penalties on those who break the law.

We have taken one further step to address the concerns of some employers, by delaying the introduction of these regulations. They will come into effect for parents of babies due from April 2011, giving businesses an extra year to prepare for the change. We are already working with employers to ensure that they are ready. Guidance will be publicly available well before the implementation date. We estimate that around 400,000 men a year will qualify for additional paternity leave: 400,000 fathers who will have the opportunity, should they so wish, to play a more central role in what is arguably the most critical year of a child’s life.

These regulations are indicative of the Government’s commitment to families, to fairness and to choice at work. I commend them to the House.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining these regulations. As noble Lords will know, we on these Benches place considerable importance on the institution of the family, whether or not within a marriage, because we believe strongly in the importance of a stable and committed relationship as the best basis for bringing up a child. We are therefore sympathetic to giving parents flexibility, including in the context of parental leave, provided a sensible and pragmatic balance is struck with the interests of the employer. The Minister referred to this himself.

I was an employer myself until a few years ago and I well remember a situation where one of our employees became pregnant and took maternity leave. We were very anxious to make life as easy as possible for her, not least because we were keen to have her back when she was ready to come back, so what I say now should be seen in the light of my understanding of the need for a balance.

Our concerns are in the following areas. First, a welter of employment law—I think a dozen separate pieces—will come into force in 2011. Will the Minister kindly explain how the detail of all of that coming into force has been, or will be, carefully explained to employers, to make it as easy as possible for them to understand and abide by it?

Secondly, I understand that EU directives dealing with parental leave and with pregnant workers are imminent. Can the Minister say what is the expected timing of this, what the expected requirements of these directives are and how they will tie in with the regulations we are dealing with today?

Thirdly, yesterday in another place my honourable friend Jonathan Djanogly raised the issue of the extent to which the employer has an obligation to verify that someone posing as a father is indeed the relevant father. Confirmation of the position on that from the Minister would be helpful.

Lastly, a question that was not raised in another place yesterday is how the employer of one parent—say, the father—is supposed to know that the other parent, the mother, is not also claiming simultaneously. Related to that, what is the obligation on the employer of a father to give him parental leave if the wife is not working?

As I have said, we are sympathetic to giving parents flexibility in the context of parental leave, so I look forward to the Minister’s responses on these points.

My Lords, taken overall, these measures are to be welcomed, which we do from these Benches. Some people will have concerns about the details but the principles are right. I am glad, though, that the Minister referred to small businesses when he introduced them.

As has been said so often, it is unfair that one parent, the mother, has to take the full burden of looking after a child and unfair that many fathers are desperate to spend more time with their child but are just unable to do so. I am not sure where this statistic comes from, but it is said that nearly two-thirds of fathers think that they should spend more time caring for their child or children. On that basis, it could also be said that one-third of fathers do not share this outlook. That is as it may or may not be, but, by changing the present situation, as it becomes the norm for fathers to have the opportunity of sharing the parental role, these measures in themselves over time will, one hopes, encourage fathers who are not engaged to think more about their role in life.

There is a lot of concern about how children are brought up. From time to time we see the results of parenting that is failing or is not up to the mark, such as dysfunctional families or disturbed youngsters, and the social impact that they have on society. These measures encourage fathers to take part and encourage both parents to share the load.

Welcome as they are, though, it is important that for paternity and maternity rules there should be clarity. The Minister spoke about guidance. I say from these Benches that this is an important issue. I have raised concerns in the past, as the Minister may be aware, about the detail and the length of guidance that is given. In this connection, I refer the Minister particularly to a document entitled Terms and Conditions of Employment: The Additional Statutory Paternity Pay (Weekly Rates) Regulations 2010. On the first page, under the heading, “Weekly rate of payment of additional statutory paternity pay”, it says:

“The weekly rate of payment of additional statutory paternity pay shall be the smaller of the following two amounts— (a) £124.88; (b) 90 per cent of the normal weekly earnings of the person claiming”.

In effect, it is saying £124.88 or 90 per cent of the normal weekly earnings.

I may have got this wrong, but on the second page, under the heading, “Explanatory note”—for further explanation and clarification, I take it—it says:

“Regulation 2 sets the weekly rate of payment of additional statutory paternity pay at the smaller of £124.88 and 90 per cent of the employee’s normal weekly earnings”—

rather than “or”, so someone will be getting £124.88 plus 90 per cent of their normal weekly earnings. The Minister’s officials may be able to help him in this respect. If I have got this wrong, then I am sure that someone will put me right; if not, I would hope the Minister will take it on board and see that it is corrected, because it calls the accuracy of the guidance into question. I have already raised the issue of the Inland Revenue website and how employers and others have difficulty finding the specific guidance they need. The website needs to be improved; and if this information should be included, it would appear to be contradictory. I therefore hope for a response from the Minister either now or in the future.

My Lords, with those contributions we have clearly made up in quality what we lacked in quantity. I had thought that my reply could be very short, but it seems that it might take a little longer—the points raised by noble Lords merit an answer and I will try to deal with them all.

The noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, expressed his welcome sympathy for the approach but raised a number of understandable issues, for example how paternity leave and pay will impact on employers, particularly SMEs. The timings for introducing the scheme have been chosen to give employers a longer lead-in period to allow them to understand and prepare for the legislation. We believe that implementation in April 2011 provides a suitable period for businesses to prepare effectively for the additional paternity leave. We have designed the administration of the scheme to be as light touch as possible to minimise the burden placed on businesses, as I said, and to give them an opportunity to claim back more than the 104.5 per cent of additional statutory paternity pay payments or the 92 per cent which can be claimed by larger employers.

The noble Lord also asked about the risk of fraud and the responsibility of employers. HMRC, which is responsible for the administration of the other statutory payments, acknowledges the risk of fraudulent claims but regards the risk and the consequences for taxpayers’ funds as likely to be relatively limited. We will work to minimise the risk and the level of abuse in an appropriate and proportionate way. As with other statutory payments, such as statutory maternity pay, HMRC will conduct compliance checks with sanctions in the form of financial penalties for those employers or employees who abuse the system, details of which will be set out in guidance to be developed in 2010. If employers have suspicions about the validity of a claim—a point which I think the noble Lord was concerned about—they can refuse to pay and must then explain their reason to the employee in writing; the employee can then refer the matter to HMRC.

The question of the impact of the changes in Europe was also raised. There are two measures currently subject to revision in Europe but they are of a different nature. The pregnant workers directive essentially concerns pregnant mothers and maternity leave; parental leave is a separate entitlement. Political agreement was reached on the revised parental leave directive at the end of 2009. The revised directive extends the minimum amount of parental leave from three months to four. These directives are different from this measure which gives new fathers a right to additional paternity leave; accordingly additional paternity leave will give parents further choice.

The noble Lord was also concerned about what he described as a welter of legislation coming down the tracks in 2011. We wanted to give employers a longer lead-in period so that they could understand and prepare for the introduction of additional parental leave and pay. We were criticised from other quarters for doing that, but we believed that it was right.

We believe that implementation in April 2011 provides a suitable period for businesses to prepare effectively for the changes. To further support businesses, guidance will be developed by October this year which will provide employers with clear instructions—I emphasise “clear” in the light of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cotter. I hope that by then we will have removed any ambiguities regarding their responsibilities.

The next phase of better regulation will address a range of issues affecting businesses in relation to employing people, including obligations within employment law in general. We recognise the problem; the Government are committed to reducing administrative and policy burdens on business. We have the same motivation—we want businesses to grow more jobs.

On the expectations of employers in verifying claims, all employees who have self-certified that they are entitled to additional paternity leave will be considered to have met the conditions. No further checks are required; however, employers may if they wish request a copy of the child’s birth certificate or adoption notification and details of the mother’s employer or a doctor to support that claim. If that information is requested, it must be provided in order for the claim to be valid.

If, after her return to work, a mother stops work again and resumes her entitlement to maternity pay, a father’s entitlement to leave and pay is not brought to an end. Equally, where a mother leaves her employment and starts working for another employer, the father’s entitlement to additional paternity leave continues. As to whether two fathers—for example, a natural father and a stepfather—can be eligible for additional paternity leave at the same time, more than one person taking additional paternity leave in respect of the same child goes against the policy intention of preventing more than one person being out of the labour market at any one time. Therefore, we have made it clear in the regulations that the mother can allow only one person to take additional paternity leave as a result of her ceasing to receive maternity payment. This will be reiterated in related guidance.

We are developing plans to publicise additional paternity leave as part of a wider work and families communication strategy. This will involve a targeted set of activities aimed at improving awareness of help for fathers as well as mothers to balance work and family responsibilities. These activities will include putting in place improved guidance for families and employers on the businesslink and directgov websites and refreshing the pregnancy and work leaflet in the Bounty packs provided to all expectant mothers to include more details of rights for new fathers. HMRC will also be introducing, updating and disseminating guidance for employers through its usual channels. Again, we need to make sure that that is free of ambiguity.

The noble Lord, Lord Cotter, made an interesting point about changing attitudes, pointing out that fathers who are not yet engaged will do so. That is absolutely right; we have seen significant changes in attitude among fathers, which is to be welcomed. We agree with the analysis that this is another step that will encourage the process, with all the positive benefits that will flow from that. Parenting will be seen as something to be shared by both parents and not just the responsibility of the mother.

The direction of travel is right; we could wish that it was slightly faster, but it will give employers a chance to get used to the process. I was pleased with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, about a small business employing somebody who goes on maternity leave; there is a recognition that this is a skilled person whom the business has invested in, and that the individual has invested their livelihood. We want to get these people back. That is a really positive attitude and let us hope that, over a period of time, paternity leave will be seen in the same positive light as assisting another skilled worker whom we want to encourage to return to work.

Approaches to childcare have changed over time. Primary care, as I have said, is no longer seen to be largely the woman’s responsibility. Fathers play an increasingly significant role, with 93 per cent taking time off around birth—maybe not a long period of time but they are engaging. Evidence published by the National Equality Panel shows that 44 per cent of women now earn as much or more than their partners, which is an interesting statistic. Early involvement by fathers in the upbringing of their children leads to a number of positive outcomes, and continued involvement throughout the child’s life leads to the reduced likelihood of the child’s involvement in criminal activity and increased educational attainment.

Regarding the weekly rate of additional statutory paternity pay, it will be the smaller of the following two amounts: £124.88 or 90 per cent of normal weekly earnings. It is clearly meant to be “or” and not “and”. We will scrutinise that and if there is any error we will make sure that it is corrected. I have endeavoured to answer all the questions raised. If I have not covered everything, I will write to noble Lords. In closing, I thank all those who participated in today’s debate—a small but quality group. The introduction of additional paternity leave and pay will create flexibility in childcare arrangements that will allow fathers to spend more time with their babies. It is right that we give careful consideration to these issues which are so important to family life. I commend these regulations to the House.