Maternity Leave for Ministers Bill - Clause 1

Welcomes the Bill and notes that it is a particularly difficult time for new parents, especially due to the lockdown. Asks if there will be extended time for maternity pay and incentives for companies to extend such leave.

Supports the Bill but questions why it refers to 'a person' rather than 'a woman'. Asks if this is due to gender ideology and whether there should be a transparent debate on the matter.

The Opposition supports the Bill as it is a step towards updating legislation for parental leave. The speaker emphasises that further changes are necessary to ensure paternity leave entitlement, adoption leave, and shared parental leave. She raises concerns about the representation of women in Parliament and highlights historical challenges faced by female MPs in balancing work and family life. Rachel Reeves also stresses the need for cross-party support to bring Westminster closer to best practice standards in parental leave policies.

Intervened to express agreement with the shadow Minister's call for further reform, emphasising that such reforms should extend beyond Parliament to include other elected representatives in devolved Administrations and local councils.

Welcomed the Opposition's push for reform and highlighted that this House should take a leadership role in promoting paternity leave and shared parental leave across the country.

Joined Rachel Reeves in paying tribute to Aileen Campbell, the first Minister in the Scottish Government to take maternity leave. Emphasised that while progress has been made, more support is needed for women in politics.

Supports the Bill which allows the Attorney General to take maternity leave, but questions why it was necessary only now. Caroline Nokes expresses concern about its narrow scope and calls for broader protections for pregnant women and new mothers. She suggests the Government should introduce legislation addressing redundancy protection, adoption leave, surrogacy, and miscarriage leave in future Bills.

Welcomes the Bill but notes it does not go far enough. Emphasises the need for statutory maternity leave as a right, not a discretionary benefit. Raises concerns about the Prime Minister’s power to grant or deny leave. Criticises the low maternity allowance and slow progress on this issue. Proposes extending Ministers’ maternity leave from six to 12 months in line with wider society expectations. Urges the Government to conduct equalities impact assessments before returning to the House.

Mackrory supports the Bill as a step towards improving maternal health and well-being, noting its importance in reducing pregnancy and maternity discrimination. She cites statistics from a 2016 report indicating that around 54,000 mothers annually are forced to leave their jobs due to unfair treatment during pregnancy or maternity leave.

Harman strongly supports the Bill and recognises its importance in valuing women's work and commitment, including at high levels of Government. She emphasises that statutory maternity pay is inadequate and suggests that if men had babies, it would likely be higher. Harman calls for the Attorney General to champion maternal rights when she returns from leave.

Doyle-Price welcomes the Bill as an advance in women’s rights but raises concerns about its language, suggesting that it should be more sensitive to the anxieties of women regarding their rights. She argues for reflecting on and challenging non-gender-specific terms which may cause distress among some women.

Critiques the Bill for failing to address broader issues of pregnancy discrimination faced by thousands of women. It risks creating a two-tier system and does not ensure maternity leave as a right but rather as a perk.

Expresses best wishes for Stella Creasy on her pregnancy, implicitly supporting the Bill's intention to support pregnant Ministers.

Welcomes the Bill as a step towards addressing the issue of pregnancy discrimination but calls for wider protections for all women, not just ministers. Emphasises that the protection of pregnant women's jobs is necessary and urgent.

Supports the Bill in principle but stresses the need for it to be part of a broader effort to remove barriers for women in politics. Highlights the importance of shared parental leave and criticises the drafting of the Bill as potentially insensitive.

While supporting the Bill's principle, Wera Hobhouse highlights that it should prompt wider conversations about workplace rights for pregnant women and new parents across the UK. The Government must revisit this issue with broader legislation to create proper legal rights for paternity and adoption leave, as well as maternity leave. Proper paid maternity leave in the UK is among the lowest in Europe.

The Bill should be welcomed for its long-overdue and necessary purpose, though Feryal Clark expresses reservations. The Government missed an opportunity by making the Bill applicable only to Cabinet-level positions; it must reflect a welcoming place for all who work across the system. This sends a dangerous message that women are secondary to organisational needs. Additionally, as an expectant first-time mother and MP, she fears political repercussions from taking informal maternity leave.

Welcomes the legislation, emphasising its importance in ensuring that having a family does not prevent individuals from getting involved in politics at all levels. Highlights the need to end the stigma associated with public figures having families and advocates for men's role in child-rearing as crucial.

Supports the legislation, welcoming the inclusion of those who have had stillborn children. He also emphasises the need to address shared parental leave issues affecting working couples across the country.

Welcomes the move but criticises the necessity of speedy legislation. Emphasises the need for comprehensive and systematic changes to address equality in political structures.

Welcomes the legislation but criticises its limitations. Highlights issues like lack of provision for fathers, adoption leave, parliamentary matters, councillors' rights, and ongoing discrimination against women in workplaces. Provides personal experience from 2001 to illustrate the difficulties faced by female ministers taking maternity leave.

Welcomes the Bill but expresses concerns about its ideological language and lack of mention of women. Criticises it for not complying with Equality Act 2010, which uses terms like 'woman'. Argues that biological sex is a protected characteristic under the law.

Supports the Bill but finds it insufficient, lacking provisions for paternity leave and adoptive parents. Advocates for an equalities impact assessment of proposals to ensure work practices that create new cultural norms towards gender equality.

The speaker expressed frustration with the Bill, arguing it does not go far enough in addressing issues faced by working parents during the pandemic. She cited examples of women losing out on maternity pay and annual leave due to government policies. She also raised concerns about NHS exemptions for dental care post-pregnancy and called for more action on these issues.

The speaker supported the Bill but criticised its limitations, expressing disappointment that it does not include rights for paternity, adoption, or premature baby leave. She highlighted the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on women's careers and called for more comprehensive protections against redundancy for pregnant women and new parents.

Ms Hillier supported the passing of the Bill, recognising its importance to put maternity provisions on a proper footing. She noted that Ministers have had maternity leave in the past and it is right for this provision to be formally established.