Statutory Maternity and Paternity Pay

Andrew Cooper Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jacob Collier]

Yes, absolutely. My hon. Friend is a real champion of his constituents, and I too welcome the Government’s commitment.

Shared parental leave was designed to bring flexibility, but in practice very few families can afford to take it at the current levels. The House of Commons Library notes that only 5% of eligible fathers take it up, with most saying that they cannot afford it. The United Kingdom offers one of the longest periods of maternity leave in the developed world, yet one of the lowest payment rates. The outcome is predictable: mothers often return to work earlier than they would like, fathers and partners take little to no time off and the unequal division of care that begins at birth shapes the patterns of earnings and progression for the years afterwards.

Recent research by the University of Bath and its partners, Working Families and the Fatherhood Institute, tested the impact of a more generous and flexible leave offer for fathers and modelled what would happen if paternity leave were extended from two to six weeks, to be taken flexibly within the first year and paid at a meaningful rate. The findings were striking. Better pay produced much higher take-up by fathers, improved wellbeing for both parents, maintained a closer connection of women to the workforce and lowered staff turnover for employers. When only jobs and earnings were considered, the policy still brought a net gain to the economy; when wellbeing and family outcomes were added, those benefits rose sharply. In every scenario, families and employers were better off when parental leave was properly paid.

Those are not just numbers. They mean families spending real time together, children getting a better start and businesses keeping valued staff. The evidence is clear: when leave is paid at a level parents can afford, everyone benefits.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

I have been contacted by a number of constituents concerned about the requirement to have worked continuously with the same employer to qualify for statutory maternity pay. Women who change jobs shortly before pregnancy are excluded from statutory maternity pay. They miss out on the six weeks at 90% of average weekly earnings and instead receive a lower maternity allowance. That creates a financial strain, forcing people to return to work early and harming the wellbeing of mothers and children. Does my hon. Friend agree that that issue must be addressed and that we need to provide fair support for all working mothers?

[Jacob Collier]

I agree. The day one rights that the Government will introduce will be helpful in the context that my hon. Friend sets out. Ministers have rightly said that they want to remove the barriers that discourage people from having the children that they would like to, and parental leave and pay are at the centre of that effort. If families feel that taking leave means that they cannot get by, they will delay decisions. We know that the support needs to be in place so that they can make those choices freely. Changing the system is therefore about supporting families and maternal health and sustaining a strong economy that is built on fairness and security.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Western]

That is indeed one of a number of important pieces of work that we are feeding into the review. My hon. Friend tempts me to promise that we will go further immediately, but I am not able to do so today for the reason that I have set out: we want to get the review right and to take the time to bring forward changes and recommendations, and the pathway to change, in a measured way.

[Andrew Cooper]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Andrew Western]

I will, after which I hope that Members will accept that I need to make some progress.

[Andrew Cooper]

I am sure everybody recognises how important it is to do this once and do it right. Is the Minister able to commit to legislating in this Parliament?

[Andrew Western]

We will need to see what comes out of the review, but we are committed to setting out a roadmap to change as a result of the review. I understand my hon. Friend’s point and note his desire, and that of other Members, for action to be taken as swiftly as possible.

I appreciate that parental leave and pay are vital to new mums and dads, giving them the space to spend time together as a new family. The first months and moments are critical in ensuring that a child is happy, healthy and well adjusted. It is something that runs deeper than pound signs and percentage points. Bringing a child into the world or into our home is a major event in anyone’s life. It is one that parents should enjoy free from the stresses of the workplace. However, we know that the current system is not working for everyone.

It is almost 40 years since statutory maternity pay was introduced for working women in 1987. It is half a century since maternity leave was introduced in 1975, and almost 75 years since the start of maternity allowance in 1948. In the years since, the world of work and the world at large have changed beyond recognition. Gone are the age-old stereotypes about men belonging in the workplace and women in the home. The lines between home and work have never been more blurred. As times have changed, there have been tweaks and updates: paternity leave and adoption leave in 2003; shared parental leave and pay in 2014; and neonatal care leave just this year. But, like a road network that evolves over time, the process is no longer as simple to navigate. We need something that is purpose-built for people’s journeys today.

In July, in partnership with the Department for Business and Trade, we launched the parental leave and pay review. It is time to go back to first principles, to work out exactly what the system needs to deliver and for whom—mums, dads and others—and to consider all the options before mapping out a new way forward. That starts with our remembering why maternity pay was introduced in the first place. It was primarily about the health and safety of women and their babies during pregnancy and in the months following childbirth. That is why, as the review progresses, the first objective that we have in mind for the parental leave and pay system, although not the only one, is ensuring that it supports maternal health by making sure women have enough money and time off work to stay healthy—physically and mentally—during the latter stages of their pregnancy and while recovering from birth.

Secondly, the approach needs to promote economic growth. When we give more new parents the freedom to stay and progress in work, it is not just mums, dads and kids who benefit; employers, too, benefit from keeping parents’ skills and experience. At present, just over half of new mothers go back to their old job following the birth of their child. We want to build a system in which every mother feels supported if they make that choice. New figures show that five years after a first birth, the average mother’s earnings will have dropped by more than £1,000 a month. Mothers deserve better.

Our third objective is to help children to get the best start in life by giving new parents the resources and space to give the care and attention their new arrivals need. Fourthly, we need to support parents’ childcare choices so that parents can balance care and work in a way that works for them, enabling co-parenting and reflecting the realities of modern work. Ultimately, we want a system that is fairer and easier to use, and that works better for parents and employers.

Green Book Review

Andrew Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell) for securing this timely debate. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Loughborough (Dr Sandher), for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) and for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody). I do not believe that there is any rule about repetition in this Chamber, but I will none the less do my best to express my points in a new and interesting way.

The Green Book is part of a colourful spectrum of current Government guidance and standards documents, which alongside the Aqua Book, the Magenta Book, the Orange Book and 19 other publications and pieces of supplementary guidance forms the basis of how the Treasury appraises policies, programmes and projects. On top of that, several Departments have issued their own interpretation of the guidance as it applies to them, thankfully avoiding extending the colourful metaphors any further.

That complexity—well over 1,000 pages of guidance—is at the root of the criticism of the small industry and almost mysticism around navigating the assessment process and of the poor outcomes to which it leads. Local authorities and other public bodies, which have been grappling with cuts to their non-statutory functions for more than a decade, are the ones putting forward investment cases, yet they often lack the capability and capacity to deal with that complexity, which has several unintended consequences.

My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton referred to the expensive consultant bonanza that that complexity has created. It also creates a world in which those organisations that do have the capacity, or indeed the consultancy budget, are more likely to succeed, not necessarily those areas that are most in need of investment.

Most importantly, that complexity has led to an over-reliance on benefit-to-cost ratio to drive decision making. Because salaries are higher in London and the south-east, and because high-value sectors tend to be located here, it will always be easier to demonstrate a higher return on investment than elsewhere in the country.

We have a few decades of evidence that says that that is exactly what happens. Over the period from 2008 to 2024, had Governments instead chosen to fund the greater south-east at the same level as the England-wide average for growth spending, they would have freed up over £100 billion. That money could have been used to invest in infrastructure and people, narrow inequalities and address specific regional needs.

The Johnson Government’s review into the Green Book in 2020 was supposed to fix that. It said:

“Current appraisal practice risks undermining the Government’s ambition to ‘level up’ poorer regions and to achieve other strategic objectives unless there is a step change improvement.”

It went on to make a series of recommendations to improve practice. However, it is widely recognised that little has actually changed. The Department for Transport guidance, for example, still includes value-for-money categories derived entirely from the BCR. Local authorities tell me it is still common practice for response letters to open with sentences such as, “We note that the BCR for the proposed scheme is 1.8.” That belies the intent of the 2020 review.

To my knowledge, the terms of reference for the 2025 review have not been published, but when they are they must seek to address those points on culture. The review must end the arbitrary BCR thresholds across Government. It must simplify, increase public transparency on calculations and require publication of judgments on why conclusions have been drawn and decisions made.

Most importantly, we must not lose sight of what we are trying to achieve. It is imperative that we address regional inequality. Doing so is a moral, political and economic necessity. We have allowed some parts of the country to be left out, to the detriment of economic regeneration and social cohesion. We have overheated other parts of the country, leading to a housing crisis and even more pressure on the cost of living.

We should seize the opportunity to rebalance public spending, drive economic growth in areas that have suffered from under-investment, and use the strategic focus that comes with devolution to make investment go further. This is the moment—the opportunity—not just to talk about handing power and money to our regions, but to set the rules to ensure that that happens.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

That was an excellent example of a four-minute speech, with no repetition either—well done.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)]

It is a pleasure to have you overseeing us today, Mr Pritchard. Like everybody else, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell) on securing the debate. I also thank all Members for setting out their views, which are in themselves important contributions to the Green Book review that His Majesty’s Treasury is undertaking, and which is our focus this afternoon. Before I respond to the specific points raised, I will spell out what the Green Book is and what it is for.

The Green Book is a technical guidance on how to assess the costs and benefits, and the opportunities and risks, of different options to achieve Government objectives. It is not a decision-making algorithm or a test that must be passed. It is a framework for identifying and assessing different options. It is an important framework but, as lots of Members have rightly pointed out, it should be just one input into decision making. It is ultimately for Government, both national and regional—who are held to account by this place, in our case—to decide on policy objectives and spending choices. We must not evade our responsibilities behind technical frameworks.

This Government have listened to the concerns raised about that framework, such as concerns from our mayors, including my friend Steve Rotheram, and Members present today. That is exactly why the Chancellor announced a review in January: to ensure that all regions get a fair hearing when it comes to the allocation of public funds. The review is looking at potential problems with the guidance itself, as well as how that guidance is being applied by the Treasury, and how it is being applied by other Departments or public bodies. Since January, the Treasury has been in conversations with a whole range of organisations and individuals, regional and national, and this debate offers us the opportunity to hear the well-considered views and perspectives of Members. I assure all Members that what they have said today will have been heard in the Treasury, and will influence that review as it is finalised ahead of the spending review in June.

The frustration that many people feel on this subject is entirely understandable. It is rooted ultimately not in technical questions about cost-benefit analyses, but in unacceptable outcomes, not least flatlining wages for the UK as a whole over the past decade and a half—and, for some areas, abandoned during the 1980s and sidelined during 2010s, for far, far longer.

The frustration is understandable, when low investment manages to combine being both the cause of this economic decline and a visible sign that it is taking place, not least when our roads are riddled with potholes, our trains—whether they are Pacers or not—are unreliable and our housing stock is deeply inadequate. Public, not to mention private, investment has simply been far too low for far too long. It has too often not reached every part of the country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) set out and as any rail user in Wales—particularly in Swansea, since the electrification does not reach our great city—will say.

For this Government, growth in every part of the country is the goal, because Britain is scarred by deep regional inequalities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) set out eloquently. Our shared growth is the goal, and higher investment is a necessary, if not sufficient, condition for it. That is why we have ended the public investment boom-and-bust cycle, with £113 billion higher investment this Parliament, sustaining public investment at levels not seen since the 1970s. We will work side by side with our mayors, local leaders and devolved Governments to support all regions to achieve their potential, investing for the long term in the infrastructure, transport and housing needed to ensure that all parts of the UK benefit from growth.

We are supporting empowered local leadership with the publication of the English devolution Bill, which my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton mentioned, and we are moving away from the short-termist, competitive approach to local funding so that we can instead support local leaders to drive growth in their areas. That includes implementing this month the first integrated settlements for Greater Manchester and the West Midlands combined authorities, ahead of the roll-out to other mayoral areas.

We are investing in economic infrastructure across the country: we are committed to the trans-Pennine upgrade—the largest investment in northern rail for decades, with a further £415 million announced last week; we are backing West Yorkshire mass transit; and £4.8 billion for the strategic road network will deliver critical road schemes across the country. We are working with Doncaster council and the Mayor of South Yorkshire on their plans to reopen the south Yorkshire airport. There are places outside the north-west that will also classify themselves as being in the north and feel left out by this discussion, so I am getting some of them in too; we will set out further details of our plans for infrastructure across the whole UK in the 10-year infrastructure strategy, which is to be published in June.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) both rightly noted that we must care about a wider range of social factors, including deprivation, when making investment decisions. They are both right.

My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton raised the issue of consultants—an issue that is emerging again in the review that is under way. Of course, while there are times when the use of consultants is value for money, more needs to be done to improve the capacity of local government in this area, and by national Government to ensure that their asks in that regard are proportionate and sensible.

Other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody), have made a powerful case for specific projects, particularly transport projects. I am sure that they will continue to bend the ears of each and every Department for Transport Minister, or, in some cases, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, where they are the appropriate decision maker, and I was glad to hear that everybody recognised that that should happen within important public spending constraints.

[Andrew Cooper]

Does the Minister agree that in recent years we have seen such a reduction in local government funding that local governments have lost the capacity to develop long-term transport projects and a pipeline of projects, so when the Department for Transport comes along and says, “We’ve got 20 million quid burning a hole in our pocket—what can you spend it on?” many authorities are not in a position to be able to do that? Is that something he thinks needs to be rectified as part of the comprehensive spending review in the 10-year transport plan?

[Torsten Bell]

My hon. Friend is completely right about both points. We need to address that, partly by providing decent funding for local government. Members will have seen that being laid out over the last few months since the autumn Budget, but it needs to continue. We need to make sure that, instead of setting out short notice, competitive pots between areas, we empower local leaders to decide the right answers for their areas—and that is exactly the approach we are taking.

My hon. Friends the Members for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) and for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) rightly noted that we need to consider the dynamic effects of investments—a point also powerfully made by Diane Coyle in recent years. I agree. There are questions about whether the implementation of the 2020 review has been followed through in that regard. I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough that the Department for Transport does use the same value for commuter time for all parts of the country. He may think it is not enough or that it is too much, but it is the same pounds and pence in every part of the country for commuter times specifically.

I can reassure the hon. Member for Hazel Grove that the Green Book is not preventing this Government from delivering a step change in green investment. If the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) had had time, I am sure he would have said that we are investing too much in green projects—or at least his party’s leader would.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) noted that there are real dangers of overreliance on BCRs. He is right: decision-making should always be rooted in strategic objectives, or what he called, “What are we trying to achieve?” Closing regional gaps is exactly what our objective should be, and it is for this Government.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire, took his life in his hands by listing the investments happening in his part of the south—broadly defined—although he may have saved himself by pointing out that maybe it was excessive. I look forward to his letter.

As we have heard, investment matters, and it matters that all parts of this country get a fair hearing when it comes to infrastructure investment. This Government understand that, which is exactly why we are acting to support growth across all regions. Once again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton on securing this debate.

Food Banks

Andrew Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) on securing this crucial debate.

The alarming fact is that after 14 years of Tory Government, food bank use is a significant problem in every constituency in every corner of the country, as we have heard. We are lucky in Winsford, Northwich and Middlewich to have some truly dedicated volunteers keeping our food banks going. We also have charities, such as Changing Lives Together, that run no-food-waste projects which, in addition to reducing the amount of perfectly good food that is disposed of, offer people the dignity of choice while paying a small contribution towards their food.

At Mid Cheshire food bank, nearly 6,600 parcels of food were distributed in the last 12 months, with 38% of them having gone to children. These are not just troubling statistics: they reflect the struggles faced by countless individuals and families in the communities I represent. They may be struggling to cope with debts, changes in their benefit entitlement, ill health, domestic violence or family breakdown. Over recent years, the previous Tory Government’s cost of living crisis has left more and more people grappling with the soaring prices of essential goods; skyrocketing energy bills have strained tight budgets; rising housing costs have burdened those who were already stretched thin, making it increasingly difficult to find safe, decent and affordable accommodation; and stagnating wages and the prevalence of insecure work have only compounded the challenges, leaving people in a perpetual state of uncertainty. This has got to change.

We now have a Government in place that will prioritise the wellbeing of individuals, families and entire communities; a Government that will address the root causes of poverty and food security; and a Government that will ensure that everybody has access to fair wages, affordable housing and secure employment opportunities, thereby raising living standards and lifting people out of poverty. We must continue to strive to create a society in which every individual has access to the basic necessities and no one is forced to rely on a food bank to survive.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Cooper Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

Two constituents have contacted me with separate but similar cases relating to obtaining child maintenance payments from abusive ex-partners. In both cases, their abusers have been able to use features of the system to avoid paying their fair share to their victims and their children, leaving my constituents with a shortfall of thousands of pounds. Can my hon. Friend tell me what steps are being taken to reform the child maintenance system to protect victims of abuse, such as my constituents?

[Andrew Western]

The Department takes domestic abuse extremely seriously. My hon. Friend will be keen to hear that the recently concluded consultation I referenced in my previous answer looked to address some of the issues with the direct pay service. Indeed, it consulted on the potential removal of that service moving forward. That service has been open to abuse and has led to victims of domestic abuse continuing to be terrorised. That is unacceptable, and we will look to address it moving forward.