Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Bill — House of Lords, 2021-02-22
Topic: Civil Rights
Anita Gale (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, while I welcome this Bill, I think it a shame that it has taken so long to acknowledge that maternity leave should be granted to Ministers, and that it is being rushed through both Houses, meaning there is not enough time to scrutinise the Bill I welcome the Bill, but even though it is very narrow there are some flaws. For example, there has been no equality impact assessment—why? Is it because it is being rushed though As the Government have recognised that women holding ministerial office should have paid maternity leave, this should be an opportunity to look at the wider case of improving paid maternity leave for all pregnant working women. I hope that there will be another maternity Bill before us soon so that we can look at improving the lot of all pregnant working women. The Bill should be an impetus to address low statutory maternity pay, which is around £151 per week, or lower in some cases—less than half of the national minimum wage, so the pregnant woman’s income is reduced at a time when she is preparing for the birth of her child. The Government have done the right thing by the Attorney-General and women Cabinet Ministers. I hope they will put things right for the rest of the pregnant women in the country It is surprising to me, and to many others, that the word "woman" is not used in this Bill but instead the word "person" is used, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, explained so well. I certainly agree with her. Considering that only women can get pregnant and give birth, I cannot see any reason why "woman" cannot be used. I believe in using gender-neutral language where appropriate, but I do not believe it is appropriate in this Bill. In his letter to Peers, the Minister explained that "person" "reflects modern drafting convention and guidance, in place since 2007, and common across much of our legislation" I note that the Minister says "much", which I assume means "not all" Jack Straw, as Leader of the House of Commons, in 2007 made a Written Statement to the House of Commons dealing with using gender-neutral language in legislation. It was not debated, but this has become the guidance, and in many respects was good, as no longer in legislation would we see the male gender used when it should have referred to men and women But there are examples, such as in the Bill, when the word "woman" should be used rather than "person". I give the example of the Equality Act 2010, which uses "woman", not "person", throughout and in all sections related to pregnancy, maternity and lactation. I refer again to the Minister’s letter: "We recognise that a drafting convention that was originally designed to avoid denigrating women should not result in the erasure of women from our public discourse." As a result, the Explanatory Notes have been changed, using "Minister" instead of "person" in several places. I just wonder about that. The Minister recognised that it was not appropriate to use "person" and changed it to "Minister", but why could it not have been changed to "woman" On the issue of language, at Second Reading in the Commons the Paymaster-General, Penny Mordaunt, said that she would provide further explanation in Committee but that she understood "how offensive the word ‘person’ or ‘persons’ can be in this context". Commenting further, she said: "I hope that we can make some changes, if not to the legislation then to the explanatory notes, that will address some of" these "issues." However, she said that the Government could put the word "Minister" in the Explanatory Notes and stated that: "Although that is still gender-neutral language, it is a much less jarring term than ‘person’.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/2/21; cols. 559-94.] When legislation is intended only for women and not for men, I hope that the Minister will accept that "woman" should always be used in place of "person" It is not too late for the Government to come forward and amend the Bill to right a wrong. I hope that the Minister will take note of the criticism and of how offensive it is to women, bearing in mind that this is the second Bill before us in recent months in which the word "woman" has been written out of the legislation, as in the Domestic Abuse Bill. Having said that, I support every other aspect of the Bill and look forward to the Minister’s response.