PARENTS AT WORK response to Green Paper

Click here to download this in word format

Parents and Work: competitiveness and choice - 6 March 2001

Introduction

PARENTS AT WORK welcomes the Green Paper as a very important step forward in helping parents to reconcile work and parenting. Our response is informed by the range of our work, from supporting our corporate members to advising parents on our helplines for low-income families and parents of children with disabilities. Over the last year we have given in-depth legal and financial advice to 900 disadvantaged parents, provided free factsheets to 8,000 parents and supported a network of 1,500 parents of disabled children. During 2000, 700 employers attended our 14 employer events and 400 employer members received information and support from our corporate team.  Our corporate team provides information on the full range of work life balance policies, including flexible working, carer leave and child care support and information.

We particularly welcome the options presented in the Green Paper on the right to flexible working, which is the main priority of parents contacting us. Through our Employer of the Year Awards and our Best Boss competition we come into contact with employers, both large and small, who have effective policies to enable parents to work flexibly.  However, it is clear from other contacts that a large number of employers are reluctant to consider any change in working hours. We therefore believe that a legal right to work reduced hours is a priority if more parents are to be helped to successfully balance work and home responsibilities.

We also welcome the options which would allow parents to spend more time with their children during the first year of life through increased maternity leave and pay. Extended maternity leave and increased statutory maternity pay would support parents and children and also help employers by increasing retention rates of employees following maternity leave.

We are very disappointed that there is little discussion in the Green Paper of the measures needed to make parental leave more effective. The focus on the first year of life is important but is not sufficient. We believe that for take up to be increased parental leave needs to be paid and to be available flexibly.  Improved parental leave rights would help parents to cope with crises and changes in family life and allow them to spend more time with their children beyond the first year. Many parents are forced to give up work after their children are one, particularly mothers returning to work full time, and it is our belief that an effective parental leave system could help to address this problem.

Many callers to our helpline have experienced problems taking time off to take children to hospital appointments. Fathers have also reported difficulties in taking time off work when their children are born. The suggestions in the Green Paper, which address these issues, are very welcome.

Flexible Working

Flexible working is the main concern of the parents in contact with PARENTS AT WORK. Parents need to work reduced or changed hours to help them balance the demands of work and home, while maintaining a sufficient income for their family. A recent Gallup poll commissioned by the Equal Opportunities Commission found that 79 % of respondents thought parents should have the right to work part time when their children were young. This increased for younger people possibly reflecting their own experiences of being cared for by two parents working full time.

Although best practice and guidelines can play an important role, we believe that legislation must underpin any best practice promotion. Incentives only work in times, areas and sectors where there is full employment. Any economic downturn will have a detrimental effect on employees access to flexible working practices. Lower paid and lower skilled employees find it more difficult to obtain even small changes to their hours, because of their lack of negotiating power. For those employees, legislation is essential.

The parents contacting us say time and time again that the right to work changed/reduced hours is important at particular moments in their lives. Our experience is that many different events may trigger a parent's need for flexibility or reduced hours. Returning from maternity leave is one of these points but is by no means the only one. Other potential triggers are- when parents separate, if children have health or emotional problems, when children start or change school or at exam time. PARENTS AT WORK believes that there is a strong need and support for a right for all employees to reduce/change hours in order to balance their work and family commitments. We believe this right should be subject to a harm test which would allow employers to turn down a request where there is a strong and genuine business reason for doing so.

Such a right already exists in other European countries such as Germany and the Netherlands. In the UK, the Sex Discrimination Act (SDA) provides some women with this right. However, taking a case under the SDA is complicated and expensive for both employee and employer when taken to a tribunal.  Furthermore, we find that callers to our helpline are frequently not aware that there is currently a limited right to change their hours. We strongly favour incorporating the existing legal rights into new legislation. This could extend the rights to men and simplify the position for women workers and for employers. Some employer organisations have been hostile to this proposal. However, we believe this is due, in large part, to a lack of understanding of the current legal position. We do not propose a move from no legal right to work reduced/ changed hours to an absolute right to do so. What we favour is a simplification of existing rights while maintaining a harm test for employers.

We do not accept the argument put forward by some employers that a legal right would open the floodgates to an unmanageable number of requests.  The DTI's research on the demand for flexible working showed that only 9% wanted to work fewer hours with 5% wanting to work more. It was also pointed out that a number of those saying they wanted to take up flexible working already had the option to do so but had not taken it. In any event the harm test would mean that an employer could, legitimately, turn down any request if the number of part timers/ flexible workers became impossible to manage. 

We oppose an exemption for small businesses. Our Best Boss competition and awards show that many small businesses are extremely flexible, and there is nothing inherent in a small business which makes it harder to implement flexibility. The government could ensure that small businesses had sufficient legal and human resources support to implement flexibility efficiently. When considering the harm test, the size of the business would, of course, be taken into account. Finally, many of the employees in small businesses are the lowest paid and most disadvantaged, those for whom a legal right to flexible working is most vital.  

The current system is complicated for employers and employees. It is particularly difficult for smaller businesses, without a human resources facility to understand the implications of the SDA case law. A simplification of the law would also benefit these employers.

Our favoured option of a right to reduced/changed hours for all employees is not included in the Green Paper. If it is the Government's position that a right to flexible/reduced hours working must be linked to maternity leave we would favour the proposal that both men and women be allowed to change their hours after the end of the maternity leave period. We support a harm test, because we recognise this is necessary to make the legislation workable, however we would be concerned to ensure the test was not unduly lenient to employers. We would also welcome a right to return on reduced hours limited to the remainder of the maternity leave period (assuming this is for women who return at 26 weeks or after). However we believe that maternity pay should be paid at a level which will enable all women to take a minimum of 26 weeks leave. We would not support measures which undermine this by offering incentives for women to return before 26 weeks. While this would not be our ideal option, it would provide a benefit to many mothers as well as developing a culture in which employers are encouraged to be open minded about flexible working.

Maternity Leave and Pay

PARENTS AT WORK favours the extension of maternity leave to one year but we believe that such an extension will only be effective if maternity pay is also increased. Taking unpaid leave is particularly difficult for those from disadvantaged groups. The low paid are unlikely to have savings or to have employers who will enhance their pay. The current flat rate of maternity pay is too low to provide adequate support for an extended period. Maternity pay should also be available to women earning less than £30 a week. 

We strongly support an increase in the length of time for which earnings related pay is available. This is crucial in order to ensure that women can benefit from an extension of the maternity leave period. An increase in SMP would also be of benefit to smaller employers who cannot afford to enhance their employees' maternity pay. A better rate of pay for a longer period makes it more likely that their employees will be able to return to work. We support the extension of the 105% reimbursement system for SMP to more small and medium size employers, as well as encouraging small employers to seek SMP payments in advance.

The DTI's own research showed that 51 % of women return from maternity leave after 18 weeks, 22% after 14 weeks or less. Of those who had a longer period of leave available to them 78 % said they had not been able to take it due to financial constraints. This correlates with our experience in advising women. Very few women return this early because they want to. Returning to work when your baby is only a few weeks old has consequences in terms of maternal and child health, and ability to breastfeed.

PARENTS AT WORK strongly supports both extending the period of maternity pay to 26 weeks and increasing the rate of maternity pay. The advantage of extending paid leave to 26 weeks is that it will encourage mothers to take longer leave and it may also change the culture of work, creating a greater acceptance from employers of longer leave. An extension of leave would encourage employers to extend their enhanced maternity pay to cover the period. It would also, as pointed out in the Green Paper, better match current regulations for the claiming of Working Families Tax Credit.

Women taking ordinary maternity leave are also forced to try and work as late as possible before the birth in order to have any reasonable amount of time off after the birth. The current legislation, which allows employers to trigger maternity leave at 34 weeks if the employee is ill, means that women can have to return to work when their baby is only 10 weeks old (if two weeks overdue). We believe this rule should be abolished.

We do not support the proposal that any extra leave must be split between both parents. It is likely that, for financial and other reasons, most families would find it difficult for fathers to take leave instead of mothers. The likely outcome of compelling the sharing of extra leave between the parents is that fathers would only take leave in exceptional circumstances and it would therefore be lost.  We do strongly support measures which allow fathers to spend time with their children, but believe this should be an individual right; splitting maternity leave rights would appear to be very complicated. One way in which fathers could be helped to take leave is through the payment of parental leave.

Adoption Leave

We support the right to paid adoption leave. We believe adoptive parents should receive the same leave and pay as that available to women on maternity leave. Adopters should be able to choose who takes the leave and have the choice to split the leave if they want to.

Parental Leave

We welcome the attention paid in the Green Paper to making it easier for parents to spend time with their children in the first year of life. We are concerned however that it be recognised that parents also need to spend time with older children, and we favour the extension of parental leave to children older than 5. Many of our callers with older children need parental leave, for instance because their child needs an operation or because childcare arrangements have suddenly broken down.  Disadvantaged parents, for instance lone parents and parents of disabled children, may have very pressing reasons for spending time with their children over the age of one, such as family breakdown or diagnosis of disability. Taking unpaid parental leave and unpaid emergency family leave can compound the family's problems, by exacerbating financial difficulties.

PARENTS AT WORK believe that an effective system of parental leave is vital to help parents to overcome short-term difficulties which impact on their ability to work. It should be possible for parental leave to be taken flexibly, in units of one day upwards. It is crucial that at least some of parental leave is paid. Without pay, disadvantaged parents often face an invidious choice between taking unpaid leave and getting into debt, or giving up work and becoming dependent on benefits. In the work we have done with New Deal for Lone Parents we find that worry about how they will manage if a crisis occurs often causes parents to postpone returning to work.

We welcome the suggestion that parents of disabled children should be entitled to more than 13 weeks parental leave. We know from the 1,500 parents in our network for parents of disabled children that they face many difficulties in reconciling work and home responsibilities. The result is that a far higher proportion of families with disabled children are dependent on benefits. Extended parental leave, particularly if accompanied by pay, would be very helpful in tackling this problem.

Time off for Dependants

This right has been of great benefit to parents. PARENTS AT WORK has advised many parents on the right to emergency family since its introduction. The DTI's research showed that many employers already granted leave in these circumstances before the introduction of a legal right. However, we have found that many of those who call us have experienced difficulty in securing this time off.

The most obvious gap left by the legislation is the lack of leave forroutine hospital appointments. We strongly favour the extension of the leave to cover these appointments. Many parents, especially those with children with disabilities, find that their whole annual leave entitlement is taken up with attending doctor/hospital appointments, thus leaving no time for a family holiday or for emergencies. Our questionnaire to parents of disabled children revealed that 52% had difficulty getting time off to attend their children's medical appointments.

PARENTS AT WORK also welcomes the plans to publicise the existence of emergency family leave. We have found that there is very low awareness of the right only 12% of callers to our helpline knew enough about the right to use it.

 

Paternity Leave

PARENTS AT WORK supports the introduction of paid paternity leave to enable fathers to spend time with the new baby and to support the mother and any other children at this crucial time. Although men can now take Parental Leave when their partners give birth, this is currently unpaid and is not available for those who have less than a year's service. Paid paternity leave is particularly important for the low paid who are also less likely to have employers who will enhance their paternity pay.

In order to make paternity leave a realistic option for low paid fathers it should be paid at 90% of normal pay. At the time when fathers would be taking this leave their partner may only be earning £60.20 a week, with the prospect of an extended period on that amount of money, possibly followed by a period of unpaid leave. At the same time there are many new expenses associated with the birth of a child. These factors would combine to make it very difficult for men to take paternity leave if it was not earnings related.

 

Childcare for disabled children

PARENTS AT WORK believes that the National Childcare Strategy is a very important step in creating a modern childcare infrastructure. While we welcome the measures which have been implemented in relation to the strategy we have a major concern about childcare for disabled children. This is the subject of much criticism from members of our disability network.

Childminders and Out of School Clubs provide childcare for many disabled children. One problem which parents continue to report is the difficulty in covering the higher costs of care where the child needs extra supervision and the childminder therefore charges a higher rate or the Club cannot take a child without the presence of a support worker. This problem is tackled in some areas through the availability of extra financial support from some Local Authorities, however, cash restrictions mean that the sums of money available are small and many parents report that in their local area there is no support available at all. There is also a concern that because a primary measure of success for Out of School Clubs is the number of places created, places for disabled children, which absorb more funding, are a lower priority.

Possible solutions are to earmark some of the money provided to EYDCPs to tackle the problem, either through a subsidy of the childcare place or by providing a wage to childminders or Out of School Club workers specialising in disability. Another approach would be to look at increasing the top limit of the childcare tax credit for disabled children with high childcare costs.

Difficulties often arise for parents around getting their children to childcare, particularly for children in special schools, few of which have Out of School clubs on their premises. One solution is for assistants at special schools to be paid extra hours to take the children to the Out of School Clubs.

For many disabled children the necessity for personal care or supervision does not diminish as they become older. Using mainstream childcare therefore becomes problematic for a larger proportion of disabled children as they become older. Again the need for extra personal care has cost implications.

For some disabled children care in the home is the best and sometimes the only practical option, at least for a period of time. The impossibility of claiming the childcare tax credit for care in the home has meant that only parents with higher incomes have been able to afford it.

When children leave school and go to college their parents find the hours they are at college are shorter than school hours and holidays are longer. The expectation is that young people at college will spend the remaining time in private study, but this is often not appropriate for children with special needs. Many parents of older disabled children find that having managed to remain in work while their children were younger they are forced to give up work when their children become teenagers or leave school.

 

Encouraging flexible businesses

PARENTS AT WORK supports the development of incentives to encourage employers to become more flexible, although we do not see incentives as taking the place of legislation.  Experience over the past ten years in our work-life balance Employer of the Year Awards has shown us that good employers use legislative compliance as the base point from which to develop best practice. Calls to our helpline for low-income parents consistently demonstrate the need for legislative protection for employees with less negotiating power.

Drawing on our work with employers, PARENTS AT WORK identifies two central needs: one, greater awareness of the opportunities and benefits of work-life balance good practice; two, help to turn good policy into actual practice.

We strongly support the suggestion of a work-life balance publicity campaign aimed at employers, and would hope that such a campaign would focus on compliance and business benefits, as well as on the help that is available.  We hope that such a campaign would be long running, to support the long-term process of culture-change which is necessary to make a real impact on work-life balance in all sectors of working life in the UK.

In particular, an awareness raising campaign could be very helpful in developing good practice in the SME sector.  We recognise from our contact with employers that some SMEs do have the views reported in the Green Paper, being more likely to feel that employees' work-life balance is none of their business, and more likely to be worried about possible backlash if work-life balance policies are introduced.  Levels of understanding about basic legislative compliance can be low, particularly in those organisations which are not large enough to have a staff member with HR or personnel expertise: frequently the first contact we have with an SME is a telephone call to ask advice about their first maternity leaver.

There is also a great deal of very good practice going on in the SME sector.  SMEs often find it easier to develop flexible working practices than do larger organisations: our involvement in the Striking the Balance project in the Royal Borough of Kingston, and our Best Boss Competition, have demonstrated the enormous benefits to be gained from a creative and flexible approach. We can identify many owner-managers who are enthusiastic advocates of work-life balance.  PARENTS AT WORK Best Boss 2000, Lin Arigho, runs a small design company with 17 staff, and said "I could have all my staff here from 9-5 but if they're not the right people, it wouldn't work for my business."

When it comes to implementation, in organisations of every size two issues in particular undercut some of the best work-life policy and may well contribute to a sense of unfairness or indeed backlash:

Many employers could do more to invest in communicating their policies to their employees. Too many expect the staff handbook to be the only communication tool they will need.

Problems and ill-feeling frequently arise when good policies are inconsistently applied by managers

We welcome the proposal to set up an easily accessible Internet Flexible Working Gateway, particularly if this is backed up by an effective publicity campaign aimed at SMEs.  We consider that it will be a major contribution if more employers are made aware of their responsibilities and also of the options available to them.

We strongly support the proposal that grants be made available to SMEs, in particular to help them turn policy into practice. Also in this context, we welcome the proposal to pump-prime a supply-chain initiative.  This is an area, which we have begun to look at within our Employer Awards as a natural and potentially very effective development to be considered by leading edge employers.  We would also welcome the production of sector-specific 'how to' guides.

We welcome the proposal to introduce a work-life kitemark, and agree that it should be simple and unbureaucratic.   Good practice employers are likely to welcome such a public endorsement of their commitment to work-life balance, although as one forward-thinking local authority told us in this connection, many employers are initiatived out.  Being sensitive to this, it might be most effective to build a work-life balance module into an existing standard such as IIP.  Alternatively we would commend a stand-alone model such as the Work-Life Standard which has been developed by West Dorset TEC, which is low-cost and accessible.

We are concerned to draw a distinction between a kitemark - an externally recognised and assessed accreditation - and many of the forms of self-assessment and benchmarking which are outlined in the Green Paper. Many of these suggestions, such as the use of self-assessment tools or anonymous staff surveys, could contribute to an employers gaining a kitemark, but only as long as they were externally validated by the accrediting body.   PARENTS AT WORK would not favour the suggestion that employers might to be able to offer only a certain percentage of flexible working options.  In our experience, best practice employers keep an open mind and rule nothing out.  We expect our Awards winners to offer the full range of flexible working options, unless there are very explicit business reasons why a particular option will demonstrably never be appropriate in that workplace

The Green Paper is an important step forward in helping parents and employers get the balance right. Our experience leads us to conclude that that good practice measures must be backed by legislation and strong enforcement measures.