| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy, I will make one or two comments on the amount of time it has taken for this order to drop into our laps.
As the Minister pointed out, this order was first laid in February 2005. It has taken from February to December 2005 for it to come forward, and until now
9 Mar 2006 : Column 972
for it to reach both Houses. The Minister said that this was due to officials holding it up—that was the substance of what he said. It is unusual, however, because the expectation was that these orders would be laid,
and 13 months later does not seem to be as soon as may be.
Can the Minister give us a better explanation of why it has taken so long? What discussions were held with Ministers—not officials—on the implementation of the report, and why could the report not be implemented before the general election? The recommendations were all there in time for the general election, but somehow the implementation seems to have escaped that important date.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, it brings back a lot of memories to go through the various parts of constituencies that I have fought so many times. There have been considerable changes to Wrexham and West Flint in the meantime.
I am not entirely happy with some of the spelling. I suggest that the spelling is checked before this order is finalised, because I note that, for my home area, the electors of Brymbo would be surprised to find themselves coming from a community called "Byrmbo", on page 5. I would not have them disenfranchised on that basis. I think "Betws-y-Coed" should also be checked.
I commend the work of the commissioners. It is an important job to try to get fair constituencies together, and they have successfully preserved the historic areas of Aberconwy, Arfon and Dwyfor Meironnydd in such a way that they are all voting together. The changes are perfectly acceptable; I doubt whether there would have been any change in the general election had this order been in force at the time.
I am particularly pleased that, although the provisional constituencies cross the boundaries of the current electoral regions for the Welsh Assembly, they have been adjusted in a satisfactory way so as to bring together the areas in north-west Wales which properly run together; also in mid and west Wales; and on the boundary between South Wales West and South Wales Central. There is a great deal of controversy about those electoral regions, which no doubt the Minister and I will be exploring shortly on the Government of Wales Bill. At least we have a firm basis on which to work, thanks to the work of the Electoral Commission. I commend its staff on their results.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, again I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for their general welcome to the order. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, is not happy with the explanation that I gave for the delay. When I said that officials decided, I was not blaming the officials or avoiding ministerial responsibility. Officials felt it would cause great difficulties for the political parties and the candidates
9 Mar 2006 : Column 973
to bring in the report for the general election at such short notice. The noble Baroness has raised a point. I will talk again to officials and write to her if there is any further explanation for the 13-month delay.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for pointing out spelling errors. They will be checked and corrected and I am sure the Electoral
9 Mar 2006 : Column 974
Commission will be extremely grateful for the compliment he has paid to its valuable work. We will discuss the issues with slightly more heat when the Government of Wales Bill appears in the House. I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at seven minutes past six o'clock.
9 Mar 2006 : Column 325
Thursday, 9 March 2006.
Grand Committee
The Committee met at two of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (BARONESS TURNER OF CAMDEN) in the Chair.]
Work and Families Bill
Title postponed.
Clause 1 [Maternity pay period]:
Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 1:
"( ) In section 35(1) for the words before paragraph (a) substitute—
"(1) A woman shall be entitled to maternity allowance at a weekly rate as equal to, or greater than, thirty-five hours of pay at the highest level of the national minimum wage, if-."
( ) In section 166(3) (which specifies the rate of statutory maternity pay), after second "rate" insert "as equal to, or greater than, thirty-five hours of pay at the highest level of the national minimum wage, as set out in the National Minimum Wage Regulations"."
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 1 aims to tie the minimum level of statutory maternity—and, by default, paternity—pay to the national minimum wage. This is because the current low rate of pay leads to a low rate of take-up of the leave. With pay at the rate of £106, or, now, £108 a week, many mothers and fathers will be unable to take up the leave extensions proposed in this Bill, and will have no choice but to continue to work to make ends meet. Indeed, even with the current entitlement, research shows that seven out of 10 mothers currently return to work for financial reasons before their leave period expires, yet only one of those seven would say that she really wanted, or was ready, to do so.
Similarly, the Equal Opportunities Commission, who support this amendment, did some research that showed that only 28 per cent of fathers said they would take leave at the current level of £106 or £108 a week, and of course only about 17 per cent do; but 80 per cent of them would do so if it were increased to the £200 a week proposed by the EOC. Without tying statutory pay at least to the minimum wage level, which I believe is about £177 a week, extensions to maternity and paternity leave will only be a paper exercise for most parents, particularly lone parents and those from low income families who have no chance to build up a nest-egg while they are working to tide them through several months on only £106 a week.
During the House of Commons Committee stages, Meg Munn MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, said:
"The first principle is that maternity pay is wage replacement".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/12/05; col. 16.]
If wage replacement is the first principle of statutory pay, it is illogical for it to be below the national minimum wage. Just as an agreed minimum wage level
9 Mar 2006 : Column GC326
aims to maintain decent standards of living and fairness for workers, so should those standards be offered to parents, whose cost of living can only increase when a baby is born.
Yesterday the Government announced their failure to reach their target to get 1 million children out of poverty. This is despite the Government's best endeavours, which I welcome. Surely it is sensible therefore to ensure, at the beginning of a child's life, that the mother can look forward to a decent standard of living, will take her full maternity leave and then go back to work. The Government have linked child poverty to workless families. They should therefore consider the benefit rights of working parents right from the beginning of the child's life.
Your Lordships will know that the Liberal Democrats always put their money where their mouth is. To illustrate the point, I shall mention what we did in our manifesto at the last general election: we put in a maternity income guarantee, which did not go anywhere near far enough, but went as far as we felt we could, having costed it. The manifesto said that for the first six months of maternity leave, for the first child only, the mother would get the equivalent of a 35-hour working week on the minimum wage. We somehow found the money to support that, because our manifesto is always fully costed. It was nowhere near enough, but it was at least a step in the right direction. What steps in the right direction are the Government going to make towards this surely desirable standard?
Parents' contributions to society should be valued just as much as workers' contributions, but, with the statutory pay not tied to the national minimum wage, parents will continue to be financially disadvantaged and their contribution to society will remain under-recognised and under-supported. I beg to move.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |