Statutory Maternity and Paternity Pay

Michelle Welsh Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. When a child is born the world changes, not just for the parents but for the child, whose entire development begins right there in those first precious moments. The period from conception to age two—what we call the first 1,001 days—is the most critical window for brain development and emotional security. That profound scientific truth forms the ultimate moral argument for generous, equitable maternity and paternity pay. This is not a conversation about employment benefits; it is a conversation about human development and our country’s future.

The foundation for a child’s future health, wellbeing and capacity to learn is laid down in those first 1,001 days, and the very first days and weeks are perhaps the most vital. Why? Because that is the time when the baby’s brain makes billions of connections, shaped by their environment. The primary input they need is secure attachment, which comes from a loving, available and responsive parent. Let me be clear: as many in this room will know, those first few days, weeks and months are hard. I am fed up with mothers being treated as second-class citizens.

For the mother, maternity pay is crucial for physical and mental recovery from childbirth, to allow for uninterrupted bonding and to establish feeding routines, which are the cornerstones of that secure attachment. It ensures that exhaustion and financial anxiety do not hijack this delicate foundational relationship. For the father or non-birthing parent, that early time is just as essential. Their presence facilitates critical family adjustment, supports the birthing parent’s recovery and enables their own essential bonding—a key factor in reducing post-natal depression for both parents.

When parental pay is too low, parents are forced back to work too early. They are forced to prioritise their pay over their child’s neurological and emotional development. Historically, our policies have had a clear gender bias. Maternity pay, perhaps somewhat improving, still often sees the mother bear the financial penalty of taking long leave. Paternity pay, however, is also often a token gesture—a week or two at statutory minimum—sending a damaging message that the role of the father or birthing partner is secondary. The moral failure has consequences; it perpetuates gender inequality, penalises the mother’s career, entrenches her as the default primary carer and contributes directly to the gender pay gap. It limits the father’s role—it effectively blocks fathers who wish to be highly involved from the start, hindering their bond with the child.

The moral solution is equal, well-paid, non-transferable parental leave for both parents. We must elevate the financial value of the mother’s or father’s presence from a mere detriment to an essential contribution, thereby normalising co-parenting and supporting the mother. Parental pay is not a cost to the economy; it is a strategic investment in our human capital. When we support parents during that first 1,001 days, we are investing in our public health. Secure attachment leads to improved mental health outcomes for both parents and children, reducing the long-term strain on healthcare and social services. A stronger workforce in which parents feel supported would mean that they return to work more focused, loyal and productive. Generous parental leave is a key tool for talent attraction and retention.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Second sitting)

Michelle Welsh Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mike Wood]

Q Following that, the document states that

“if Parliament is to be asked to enact statutory provisions relating to a code,”

which appears to be the case in this instance,

“a draft of the proposed code should if at all possible be made available so that the appropriateness of the statutory provisions can be properly considered.”

Obviously, that is part of the legislative process. Should we not have that information? Why should only the House of Lords be provided with that?

Andrew Western: I suspect that at that point you are asking a procedural question, so I am not best placed to answer it.

[Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)]

Q My question is quite straightforward. How much will the Bill save the taxpayer in the welfare fraud space?

Andrew Western: In the DWP space, we estimate that the amount would be £1.5 billion over the forecast period. That roughly equates to around £950 million on the eligibility verification measure, with the overwhelming majority of the rest—in fact, almost all of it—coming from the debt recovery power. There are also potentially significant savings over time that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office may want to outline with regard to the PSFA powers. I realise that they are scalable; they start off small-scale. Minister Gould, would you like to come in on the potential?

Georgia Gould: They are more modest in the first instance. We are estimating just under £60 million-worth of savings. We are testing the new models. If the model is successful, there is potential to scale that up. We think that this is the first time we are introducing powers to take on fraud in the wider public sector outside tax and welfare. A huge amount of fraud has gone uninvestigated. We think the deterrent impact of this will be substantial.

[Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)]

Q We heard earlier from Anna from the Money and Pensions Service, who believes that the relationship between the service and the DWP is good. She said that a link has been established with Jobcentre Plus advisers to make sure that people are referred for advice to do with debts if needed. How important is that kind of person-centred approach in the practical application of the Bill, particularly in the case of error and the preventive measures we have spoken about—the wraparound care so that people do not get into problems with error much further down the line?

Andrew Western: As I have highlighted in my questions to witnesses throughout the day, there is the potential, through the eligibility verification measure, for a number of overpayments to be detected earlier than they would have been otherwise, thereby avoiding the large numbers that we have seen people rack up in overpayments through, for instance, the carer’s allowance challenges that we have seen in recent years.

The breadth of the conversation we are looking to have with people who are in debt with the Department is significant. We heard about the MoneyHelper service, on which the Money and Pensions Service works with us. That is just one of a range of organisations and packages that we utilise to support people who are in debt. We know that, whatever the reason—whether it is fraud or error, but particularly, as you say, if it is error—it is an incredibly stressful time for people.

In debt recovery terms, the power that we are taking is intended to be a power of last resort. What we always want to do, having been through all the things that you would expect us to do—the vulnerability management framework that was referenced earlier and the assessment that we make of people’s ability to pay—is to agree an affordable repayment plan. By the time we reach the point where we are looking for a direct deduction order, we would have looked to engage somebody on multiple occasions, contacting them several times and trying to agree that plan. This is for people we have no other means of engaging. It is as much a lever to try to bring them to the table and have the sorts of conversations you referenced as anything else.

This is also about addressing the existing fundamental unfairness. We can directly deduct from somebody in receipt of benefits, by deducting from that benefit entitlement, and we can do the same for someone in pay-as-you-earn employment, but we do not have that opportunity for people in receipt of income through other means—most obviously, but not exclusively, self-employed people. There is a fundamental point about addressing that inequity in the system. Having made those financial assessments, we know that these are people who can afford to pay. We have tried to reach out with the wraparound support that you suggested, and ultimately, they continue to refuse to engage.