My Lords, Amendments 266B and 266CA concern the father’s entitlement to and use of parental leave. Amendment 266B paves the way, again by means of secondary legislation, for a father quota. Such a quota would provide a father with an independent right to at least four weeks’ parental leave at 90% of his earnings for up to six weeks.
This is a probing amendment designed to air the issues, so I do not propose that we go into the precise wording. I am grateful to the Fatherhood Institute and Working Families for their support on the amendment, which also has the support of a long list of other organisations, and to the noble Viscount for engaging so constructively both in writing and in person. Lastly, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, for adding her name to the amendment, but she apologises that she cannot be here today for family reasons.
In my academic work on women’s citizenship in the broad sense of the term, I have concluded that women will achieve genuine equality in the public sphere of the labour market and the polis only when men play a greater role in the private domestic sphere of the home. To take one example, unequal sharing of caring work between the sexes has been identified as the largest single driver of the gender pay gap. Shifting what is called in academic jargon the “gender division of labour” is therefore critical to gender equality. As my noble friend Lord Touhig has just pointed out, we still have a long way to go.
From the perspective of children, the Minister acknowledged in his letter to me the important role that fathers have to play in childcare and the beneficial impact of their involvement in the early stages of their child’s life. Indeed, he has reiterated the point today. There is no disagreement between us on the end goal of enabling and encouraging fathers to be more closely involved in the care of their children, be that from the perspective of gender equality or the best interests of the child—or, as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report that I mentioned argued, tackling in-work poverty among families with children.
The cross-national evidence suggests that a key policy lever to achieve this goal is to preserve a period of adequately paid parental leave for fathers on a “use it or lose it” basis. A European Commission document on the role of men in gender equality states that,
“the ‘nordic’ model of parental leave (‘father quota’) has been adapted and implemented with growing success”,
and recommends its adoption across the Union. Even Germany, which hung on to a male breadwinner model longer than many other European countries, has gone down this path and, like a number of other countries, has added a bonus to the overall length of paid leave if the father takes a specified period. The UK is in danger of becoming a European laggard when it comes to a forward-looking parental leave policy.
The coalition Government’s Modern Workplaces consultation placed great emphasis on the value of shared parenting and proposed just such a scheme as a means of encouraging fathers to play a more active role in their children’s upbringing. It observed that,
“international evidence suggests that fathers’ usage of parental leave is higher under schemes that offer them targeted or reserved leave as opposed to just making shared leave available to the father”.
In Iceland and Norway, fathers using parental leave increased from tiny proportions to 80% and 90% respectively following the introduction of reserved leave. Iceland is particularly interesting because it provides for three months each for the mother and the father and three months to be shared between them as they wish, and it has just been agreed unanimously to move to a five-plus-five-plus-two model because it has been so successful. The average number of days of leave taken by fathers more than doubled between 2001 and 2008 as a result. According to the World Economic Forum, Iceland now ranks first in the world for gender equality.
More generally, the latest issue of the International Review of Leave Policies and Related Research conducted by the International Network on Leave Policies and Research concludes that it is striking that fathers’ use of leave responds to policy changes. There is also evidence to suggest that the more the father is involved when the child is very young, the more involved he is likely to be as the child grows older, to the benefit of fathers, mothers and children. Of course, as the Fatherhood Institute concedes, it is not possible to prove a causal relationship, but it suggests that the association is strong and consistent.
5.30 pm
I saw the Modern Workplaces consultation as a breakthrough, one which I and many others welcomed, but the Government got cold feet and subsequently
came forward with a scheme that does nothing to provide fathers with an independent right. Instead, their access to parental leave will be dependent on the mother. When the same amendment was proposed in the Commons, the Minister responded that much as she would “dearly love to accept” it,
“economic circumstances do not make that possible”.—[Official Report, Commons, Children and Families Bill Committee, 23/4/13; col. 730.]
Yet they were the same economic circumstances as when the consultation was published and, supposedly, economic circumstances are now improving. Nevertheless, we are told that this is not the time to place additional burdens on businesses. I fear that businesses will always say that for one reason or another it is not the time. The Fatherhood Institute points out:
“No parenting leave regime has ever been introduced with the overwhelming support of the business community”.
Opposition is always substantial, even though a strong business case can be made. Opposition has not stopped braver Governments from doing the right thing by families.
When I met the Minister, he said that the Government want to take this step by step and he pointed to the power in the Bill to use secondary legislation at a later date to extend paternity leave and pay if the Government believe that this is needed to stimulate the culture change of shared parenting. This is welcome as far as it goes, but maternity leave is not parental leave. At present, it has to be taken within the first eight weeks following the birth. The current government assumption appears to be that, if extended, it would still have to be taken at that time, because it is seen as leave primarily to support the mother rather than to care for the child. This is unlikely to have the desired culture change effect, since it is when fathers are left in sole charge of an infant for extended periods that they are most likely to make a substantial contribution to infant care or childcare once they have returned to work.
I ask the Minister for two assurances. The first is that, before Report, he will seriously consider including a similar power in secondary legislation to allow for the introduction of a period of independent parental leave reserved for fathers. This is about getting the architecture right, even if the Government are not yet ready to build. Secondly, should that not be possible, will the Minister give a commitment to do all that he can to ensure that, if paternity leave is extended, it can be taken at any point during the shared parental leave period and not just tacked on to the existing paternity leave? Will he accept that there is no firm legal barrier to doing so? In addition, could he tell noble Lords what plans the Government have to encourage fathers to take shared parental leave and to achieve the kind of culture change that we all want to see? Indeed, will he give a further assurance that he will consult on these plans and study the lessons to be learnt from the nordic experience?
Finally, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, has also expressed its disappointment that the Bill does not go further towards implementation of the obligation in Article 18.1 of the UNCRC to use,
“best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child”.
We therefore recommend that,
“the Government keep the take-up of parental leave by fathers under annual review”.
Amendment 266CA provides for this. In his letter to me, the Minister explained that,
“we expect take-up levels of shared parental leave to be quite low, and to increase as our culture changes. 2018 is the earliest possible point that we can conduct meaningful research into the take-up of shared parental leave and pay”.
I take the point, but 2018 is five years away and three years on from implementation. The impact assessment stated that the review would take place in 2017 and suggested that the basis of that review might be statutory, yet no review has been written into the legislation. Other amendments will expand on this point. Moreover, I do not share the Minister’s confidence that, as it stands, the legislation will help to achieve this culture change that we both want to see. It would be helpful to monitor progress annually from the word go and to place any review on a statutory basis. I beg to move.