Oral evidence: Pregnancy and maternity discrimination, HC 891Tuesday 26 April 2016
Oral evidence, 26 April 2016.
Witnesses
Sarah‑Jane Butler, Director, Parental Choice, Louise Handley, Head of Employee Relations, London School of Economics, and Mark McLane, Global Head of Diversity and Inclusion, Barclays, gave evidence.
Chair
We are now going on to our second panel of oral evidence in this inquiry, which is on the Equality and Human Rights Commission report on pregnancy and maternity discrimination and the Government’s response to that. I cannot thank you enough for giving up your time to be with us today. We are all very conscious of how much time it takes to prepare for a session like this, so thank you and thank you, in advance, for the evidence you will give. You will have seen that we go around asking a series of questions, but please start by giving your name and your organisation, and then Ruth is going to kick off this session of questions.
Louise Handley
My name is Louise Handley. I am the Head of the Employee Relations at the London School of Economics.
Mark McLane
Good morning. My name is Mark McLane. I am the head of diversity and inclusion for Barclays. Sarah‑Jane Butler: Good morning. My name is Sarah‑Jane Butler. I am the founder of Parental Choice, a small business of 12 people.
Ruth Cadbury
Thank you very much. We are very conscious that you are all examples of good employers or people who know what good practice should and could be. We are starting from the research that showed that 84% of employers believe that supporting women during pregnancy and maternity was in the interests of their organisation. On the other hand, 77% of mothers said they had had a negative or even discriminatory experience during their pregnancy, so we want to bear down on these issues. We would like from each of you examples of good practice that many, if not most, employers could and should implement.
Louise Handley
At the LSE, we have focused in the last few years on what has been our emerging strategy around these issues: to focus on working families rather than specifically mothers in the workplace. We have made it about parental provision and equalising, where we can, to allow our male members of staff to take advantage of some of those provisions as well, normalising that shared experience in the workplace. We have ensured that things like our shared parental leave policies have pay equity with our maternity policy. We also have paid paternity leave and time off for antenatal appointments. We have been particularly focusing on the barriers to female progression in academic careers. We have been looking at the various stages of the process, particularly around returning to work and the impact that taking time out has on your research. We have put in place provisions such as “research leave”, which is like sabbatical and enables time off to re‑establish your research after a period of parental leave. We have a range of support on balancing work with being a parent for people at different parts of their parental journey, from the very early stage, but we also allow people’s partners to attend, whether or not they are an employee of the LSE, the corresponding one that relates to them. Certainly our perspective on that is you support everyone in that unit to enable the woman to continue her career in the way that she sees fit. That has benefit for us as an organisation and those people as individuals. We do have more, and we are not saying these are things that work for everyone. We are conscious that we are an academic institution and that we certainly have different challenges from other people on the panel.
Ruth Cadbury
Do those policies apply to all staff at all levels? Obviously, some of those specific examples you mentioned are only relevant to academics, but in general do the policies apply across the board?
Louise Handley
Absolutely. Generally, other than the qualifying period of 26 weeks that you have around some of the maternity provisions, those are for all employees. We do have certain things that we have been moving forward with on the academic career side, but we are conscious that is a quarter of our workforce, if not less, and that we need to make sure we are levelling that out across the board.
Mark McLane
I will start with the methodology. You have to look at it across three areas: the first is policy and infrastructure, which has to be in place; the next is training at all levels, which was talked about in your earlier session; and the third is communication, because there is no real single entry point. If I look at what I think is having a positive impact for the greatest number of our colleagues, it would be around the training and communication. As the Unite union said earlier, Barclays has looked holistically around unconscious bias, but we have looked at it from a talent management standpoint, very holistically, about how unconscious bias affects each of us across different life stages and attributes. It is mandatory for all managing directors and directors globally, but then filtered down throughout the entire organisation through different delivery methods, so no one is left out. The second piece around communication is we have taken a campaign approach. I can think of two global campaigns today that are addressing the needs of colleagues around maternity, paternity, adoption and fostering—all parental needs. One part of the campaign is our partnership with the United Nations and the HeForShe campaign on women’s equality and rights, both internally and externally. The other is our Dynamic Working campaign, which is looking at all of the assets that are currently available for our colleagues and whether we, as individual colleagues, are taking the greatest advantage of those assets across life and career stages. When I talk about multiple communication opportunities, that is colleague‑driven. It is colleagues’ stories and colleagues helping other colleagues. Having a great HR department and the policies in place is the starting point; it is not the endpoint. How do I take the best advantage of those? That is really around dynamic working, and that looks at all of the opportunity and brings in external organisations, such as Working Families. We are looking at it across the entire organisation as not a best practice but what the best practices are and then, as a colleague, where would I most likely go to look for information, and being able to link those pieces together and not saying there is one avenue in. Those would be two examples: the HeForShe campaign and Dynamic Working. In addition, we have taken an open-door approach and so, with our customers and clients, are having sessions around some of the work we are doing and sharing best practice. Sarah‑Jane Butler: Everybody who works for me automatically works on a flexible working basis. They all have the opportunity either to work part‑time or full‑time. They have the option from day one. On maternity, they have a staggered return to work, so if they were previously working five days a week, they can take their time, three, four, five, and build it up as they go along. We have regular KIT days with people who have worked for us. I should say everyone who works for me is a woman—not by design, I hasten to add. It is not because we do not want to hire men; it is just because of the opportunities that we offer to mums who have suffered elsewhere. They can work for me and get the flexibility that they want while having the work‑life balance that they want. As I said, we offer regular KIT days. We keep in touch with them on a regular basis. We make sure that they are invited to any events that we are holding as a team. We only pay statutory maternity pay at the moment, but we do give an incentive of one month’s extra pay if they come back to work. We try to be as open as possible about what we can offer to them, but at the same time we make it very clear that their families and their lifestyles come first. Therefore, if they need to come in late because they have an antenatal appointment or because they have a child’s assembly or school play or whatever it might be, my view is that, as long as the work gets done, I am happy to be flexible about the times that you come into work.
Ruth Cadbury
Given the nature of what your company does, have you been able to assist any employers in shifting from bad to good in their performance on maternity and pregnancy? Sarah‑Jane Butler: The employers we provide our services to are very proactive already. Many of them are in the top 50 employers for women. They already see the advantages in supporting families and working parents. They would not come to us and ask for our services unless they were already of that mindset. Unfortunately, this does not mean that I have not come across, while pitching to other companies, a vast number of people who do not see the value in supporting working parents, who do not understand that there is a question of talent retention involved here, as Mark mentioned, and who do not see the benefits in supporting their women when they want flexible working or when they are on maternity leave.
Ruth Cadbury
Do any of you have any data or experiences that demonstrate the benefits to employers, your own or others, of having good anti‑discriminatory policies for maternity and pregnancy? Sarah‑Jane Butler: The Working Families charity and the Family and Childcare Trust have both done extensive reports on the benefits of supporting women. In fact, it is not just supporting women; this is a parent issue, but we are discussing women today, I know.
Ruth Cadbury
We are focusing particularly on maternity and pregnancy discrimination. Sarah‑Jane Butler: Working Families have done a lot of research into the benefit of supporting women and the retention levels afterwards, especially in companies like Ernst & Young, for example.
Mark McLane
At Barclays, we have put in an absolute protocol on how we are looking at maternity returners. Three years ago, our data was a bit loose and we did not really have any understanding of what our return rate was. We are happy to say that our maternity return rate is over 90% today. We also monitor that over the next year to see if there are any pinch points around where people have to make a decision that might be related to childcare or family need. Again, that is wrapped under how we continue to address individual needs for colleagues. I do not have it with me today, but I am more than happy to come back and monetise that for you, because I know we have improved at least five percentage points from 2013 to 2014. We can monetise that from the standpoint of talent retention, and I am happy to come back to the Committee, if there is a value in having that data.
Louise Handley
We are at a stage where we do not have an enormous amount of quantitative data over time to monitor. What we do have are some fantastic case studies emerging, which we have particularly used through our affiliation with Working Families. They are slightly more on the academic side, but we have real examples where couples at work have both taken advantage of shared parental leave, and have taken advantage of our research leave policy and have managed to keep their research going. Both shared childcare over the course of a year and beyond, and that has enabled them to maintain their position in their departments and with colleagues and so on. We are starting to collate the numbers, but at the minute we are seeing strong feedback.
Mark McLane
If I might add, there is a qualitative data point that is very difficult to capture. We think of retention as keeping folks in work, but I also look at it as brand affiliation and the value of working for an organisation like Barclays, and that is very difficult to qualify. To bring in the qualitative data, we have listening groups twice a year. We have one that is based just on gender, men and women, but we are also now doing them around maternity and paternity care. That gives us the incoming information on how we continue to improve. One might say that, if you have a retention rate of 90%‑plus, you could become a little idle and so, as we heard in the earlier evidence, it is about listening to colleagues, whether men or women, based on the need and then being able to action that. That is a great best practice that many employers could learn from.
Ruth Cadbury
The Times last week had a supplement about the best employers for women. Do you think those kinds of league tables incentivise employers to do better? Do they have a value?
Mark McLane
Speaking for us, yes, they have an absolute value on many levels. First, it is building brand awareness as an employer of choice. Secondly, it is a great benchmark, not just within industry but across industry: are we continuing to improve? Having an organisation recognise all the actions we are putting in place to be a best-practice employer across all aspects of diversity drives us to continuous improvement and then recognises us as a destination. Sarah‑Jane Butler: There are supplements like the Times’ top 50 employers for women, and Working Families has its own awards, under which all three of our organisations have been recognised. The Family and Childcare Trust has an accreditation that basically looks at companies’ internal and external policies as to whether they are family friendly, not only with regard to their internal working but how they are externally facing their clients. Gatwick, for instance, is a prime example and a clear candidate of a company that has tried its best to be family friendly, both internally and externally. For example, they have introduced a separate security lane dressed up as a castle for your children to go through. All these little signs make a difference, and people recognise that in the marketplace. Mark is completely right. People who are seeking to return to work will look at companies that have been recognised as being family friendly. They will look at companies that are making an effort to work on behalf of their working parents to support them, to train them, to encourage them to get back into work. Those who do not are obvious by their absence.
Ben Howlett
You probably will have gathered that I have a bit of a hobby horse in relation to access to information. You are not necessarily in this category, looking at your websites and the information I have seen thus far; you are probably leading the way, which is probably the reason you are here. In your experience, do you feel there is a correlation between employer attitudes and the extent to which there is a lack of information available? Sarah‑Jane, you are nodding. Sarah‑Jane Butler: Yes, I do, and it came up in the previous session talking to the unions and your previous session with Maternity Action and the NCT. The information is out there if you are looking for it. As a small business and all the way up, if you want to know how to deal with your employees who are pregnant or on maternity who want flexible working, there is plenty of information out there. The internet is full of information; the Government’s website, for one, is full of information. It is a bit of a cop-out to turn around and say, “I did not know”. Lack of knowledge is no excuse to following the law, as we all know, but there probably needs to be more direct, in-your-hand provision of information to both employers and employees. It used to be the case that, when you were on your first antenatal appointment, you were given information straight away about your rights and obligations and things like that. That should be restarted. When somebody hands in their MAT B1 form, it might be a bit late, to be fair, because a MAT B1 form is quite a long way down the line, but as soon as somebody has announced their pregnancy, the employer should have access immediately to either an online site or a booklet that goes to that particular employee’s direct line manager, so there is no excuse. There should not be any excuse for treating somebody poorly as a result of being pregnant or on maternity leave. Whether you are in a small business or in a big business like Barclays, anywhere down the line there should be no excuse, and lack of information is not a good one.
Mark McLane
I would have to agree. The lack of information continues to breed the fear of: “Where do I go? Who should I ask? Where do I start?” I look at each of these life events as being new to the individual, and there is so much fear and trepidation, depending on who you are or where you are in an organisation. Whether you are the individual going on maternity or paternity leave or the line manager or the HR colleague, making certain they have access to the information is vital. Also, having an opportunity to have dialogue across the information peer to peer, for me, seems to be the most effective way, because there is nothing like peer‑to‑peer learning. Having the information is vital, as is having multiple entry points, and then having ongoing communication as someone goes out on maternity or paternity leave also has to have multiple channels of communication. One of the things we have done, again as a best practice, is started a touchback app. Someone going out has an app on their phone where they are getting push information all the time. It is sort of the virtual version of a touchback day, should you want it, so there are two avenues back into the organisation. The more information that is available, the more at ease you put an organisation and an individual, and the more you take the fear and trepidation out of the system.
Ben Howlett
Louise, this is an interesting question for you. Do you sometimes feel there is a bit of an information overload? We deluge so many people with so much information that we miss the point of why the information is there in the first place, and we need to be focusing on the quality of the information to provide the right level of access and the right type of support.
Louise Handley
There is some truth in that. In my professional experience, which aside from LSE has all been in large‑scale public sector bodies, we have the benefit of having an HR division—I think, working in one—with equality and diversity colleagues who can filter that information and regurgitate it, for lack of a better word, to our internal audiences. We also have the trade unions, which provide that valuable role of giving information directly to individuals. That does not help those who are at the smaller end of the scale, who do not have access to those kinds of resources. There is no substitute for information being placed directly in the hands of the individual at the earliest possible stage. Sarah‑Jane Butler: At Parental Choice, we also have a payroll and employment contract service for parents who are employing nannies, and so they are themselves also small employers. We often get asked for advice when those nannies get pregnant, because clearly that parent has exactly the same obligations to their pregnant employee as I would or anyone else here has. We spend a lot of time educating parents who, funnily enough, have been through it themselves as employees but have not been through it as employers. We spend a lot of time, and it is on our website as well, educating them as to what each of the steps are, what they have to do, when the right for maternity leave starts and when the right to maternity pay starts. There are a lot of people who ask, “Can I make her redundant now? I do not want her there”. We face their bias and their discrimination as well, and we have to manage that, as a business, by giving them the right information to make sure that they are not acting in contravention of any discrimination Act.
Ben Howlett
Moving on to my second question on this, you have all read the EHRC report and the Government’s response to it. Do you think that report is going to benefit or help employers to be able to improve the quality of access to information or even to provide an improvement in employment advice?
Mark McLane
The report is a great starting point, but the implementation of the recommendations is what is going to make a difference. We were invited by the EHRC to look at the recommendations and what the execution and implementation could be. We have taken that up and I have responded positively, because that is most important: it is not just having the recommendations but how we are going to implement them. One of the recommendations that has some of the greatest potential is the collaboration of the public and private sector and how we answer some of the questions you have just asked around communication: where is the right entry point? Where does communication most effectively start? Having a synced-up approach will help with the information overload that you so rightly pointed out earlier. Going to a search engine is a starting point, but it is not the endpoint. The report is going to have its greatest impact in the execution. Sarah‑Jane Butler: The recommendations are a good starting point, but it takes a lot more. When I was first asked to join this inquiry, I thought about what further could be done from a legislative point of view, given the strides that have occurred recently—the extension of flexible working and the introduction of shared parental leave and so on. The greater emphasis has to be put back on to employers to bring them to account, because unfortunately it happens and it happens across the board. I am pretty sure it does not happen in my organisation, because there are only 12 of us and I would be slightly concerned if it was happening, but to the best of abilities it is happening everywhere and there is an awful lot of women who do not stand up. I am amazed that it is only 77%, because I myself suffered in exactly the same way. I was forced out of my previous job because I was pregnant and then I was on maternity leave, so I know exactly what it feels like and I can see both sides of this argument.
Ben Howlett
If I may just follow that up, what specific things would you like to see change? Sarah‑Jane Butler: There needs to be a carrot-and-stick approach towards employers. There has to be an encouragement for them to gender pay report, for example, publish their retention rates and stand up and be counted, and they should be highlighted if they are shown up as being a discriminatory employer. At the same time, there should also be rewards. For example, the recommendation of a collective insurance scheme for small businesses to help them is a very good one. Perhaps increasing the small employers rebate is another good one. You are not necessarily going to change at a legislative level only. It is definitely within employers and showing good employers like LSE and Barclays that they are the way to be—the precedents in the market.
Louise Handley
I agree with the views about the communications that are proposed as being a starting point. We were quite surprised to see in there that there was a rejection in principle to the idea of a one-stop-shop website and an acceptance that the information had to be disparate for disparate audiences. Certainly, in our experience, it has not been particularly helpful to have scattered information for managers, employers and the individuals themselves. Bringing some of those messages together organisationally that we try to push as a conversation is where things start, and the earlier you talk, the more likely you are to resolve any issues and identify needs along the way. Why can you not have antenatal appointments, advice for the individual and advice for the manager side by side? It seems defeatist at the outset.
Jo Churchill
Good afternoon. I am only playing devil’s advocate a bit with the insurance scheme and small employers, but you are saying “carrot and stick”. It has been supported by the FSB and, in conception, it is a good idea, but the Government have said that, as it is a commercial decision, it must be for the small business. As you know, small businesses already wear multiple hats. You are within this environment. If you were making widgets, it would be considerably harder to be providing this. If you are talking of this as a commercial decision to take that insurance on, how does the playing field get squared as to small enterprises within a sector not being penalised against a large provider, since they have to take on an additional cost that large employers are not going to have? Large employers can dissipate that cost across a broader workforce. Sarah‑Jane Butler: I agree there is an extra cost to a small employer. From my own perspective, as a business manager/owner, I probably would not use it, because we have never had an issue with it. That does not mean that there are not people out there who have asked for it, and therefore it is something perhaps to be looked into and considered. It is entirely up to an SME as to whether they wish to offer enhanced maternity pay, and most do not. They cannot afford it; that is quite clear. Most of them rely very heavily on the 103% that comes back. It might be a case of increasing that slightly for certain levels under Class 1 NICs, maybe to 105% or something, just to make that slightly easier. One of the things that I saw in the findings was that people said it was very difficult to manage when women are on maternity leave. There is no financial cost to them if they are an SME, because they do get the money back and it is quite straightforward. The cost is involved in getting somebody in to replace them if that person’s work cannot be disseminated among the remaining employees. The big cost would, therefore, be the recruitment cost to get somebody in to cover the maternity leave. That is where people might look at having an insurance scheme in place, just to cover that potential cost. I am on the fence about it. Some small businesses that I have spoken to have said it is a good idea. Personally, I would not use it for my business, so I just think it is something that needs to be considered.
Maria Caulfield
Following on from Jo’s question, I wanted to ask each of you whether you think it is easier for larger employers to manage women’s statutory rights compared with small businesses. I know, Sarah‑Jane, you have touched on that slightly, but is that opinion across the board?
Louise Handley
Yes. In my experience of only large organisations, instinctively that has to be true. That is where the focus is of most of our conversation about where we need to go next in preventing less-than-ideal treatment—because it is not to say that since we have good practice across the board, every individual and every line manager relationship plays out in the way that you would want. We are beyond looking at the statutory requirements. We are pretty confident that, by and large, those are met. It is the cultural experience. It is the way people are reintegrated to work and what happens afterwards that is where we are at. It is probably the luxury of being in a large organisation that our concerns are more about career progression and things like that, rather than whether people are being forced to leave when they are pregnant.
Maria Caulfield
Do you think that larger organisations are able to manage it better and add more value to that as well?
Louise Handley
I think so. We can take what is statutory provision and we are in a stronger position to say, “And how do we enhance this for things like talent management?” As well as the strong reasons around having a diverse and inclusive environment, this is something we want to do and build brand around. That is an easier position to take if you do not have the day-to-day operational issues that some statutory requirements may present to smaller businesses.
Mark McLane
I would agree. Most organisations should have more resource to be able to address the issues, but I do not think large businesses have it easier or harder. It is different. Addressing the needs of 130,000 colleagues globally brings in societal issues by geography that also have to be addressed. We have the infrastructure in place, but it is not easier or less complicated for a large or small organisation; it is just different.
Maria Caulfield
Sarah‑Jane, you are probably best placed to answer this and you have touched on it in answer to Jo’s question. Regarding the insurance scheme, I know you said that you would not use it for your business, but do you think there is a case to be made for making it a mandatory scheme for small businesses? Sarah‑Jane Butler: It comes down to the cost. With small businesses, everything comes down to cost. Cash flow is the problem. It is difficult in terms of management. I am a lawyer. It is my job. I retrained as an employment lawyer when I set up the business. It is my job to know how the statutory rights work. It is my job to understand the process—to know that you have to be employed for 26 weeks in the 15th week before the EWC. It is my job to know that. There are a lot of small businesses out there that just do not know it—that potentially do not know when they can apply at the MAT B1 stage for their small business maternity rebate. The question about an insurance scheme will come down to money. If you made it available, there are plenty of insurance companies out there that would probably love to jump at the chance to get some more money out of small businesses. It depends on the details of what the scheme offers and what it is meant to cover.
Mr Shuker
Thank you for all of that. Obviously, we will look to make specific recommendations, but there have been recommendations and responses already: the EHRC report and then the Government’s response. Turning to the Government’s response, do you think it was appropriate? Are there areas where you think it was weak? Are there areas where you think it should go further? It is an open question that allows you to tell me what you think we should do.
Mark McLane
I started to address that earlier. From a Government standpoint, there has to be greater collaboration. If I look at myself, in my role I work with many different departments within the Government, across multiple aspects around the workplace and inclusive workplace. There is a great opportunity with, for example, the BIS office and Department for Work and Pensions, in making sure that is synced up with the private sector so that they really understand we are working usually in parallel, because sometimes it feels as though resources are being stretched because we are working in parallel and not necessarily as joined up as we could be. When we talk about resource allocation, having a more synced up approach would be a huge first step. Sarah‑Jane Butler: For me, it comes down to education. The ladies from the unions mentioned earlier, and it came out in the report, that there are an awful lot of people who think, for example, that you should ask a woman during the recruitment process if she is going to have a child, or that somebody should announce whether they are pregnant or not: “They will never get a job, so forget it; it is not going to work”. There is a huge amount of bias still there and there are large companies you can work on. There are unconscious and conscious bias situations. By the way, the bias is not necessarily men against women. It is women against women as well. It is people thinking, “She is not as committed. She wants to work flexibly”. There are lots of men out there who want to work flexibly too. Flexible working is not a childcare issue. It comes down across the board. There are men out there who want to do triathlons or do charity work or whatever it is. You do not see them discriminated against in the same way women are. It is an education thing. There needs to be a lot more education out there. Unfortunately, and I know the Government have rejected the tribunal fees aspect of it, there are a lot of times when women are simply entering into compromise agreements and the whole thing is being brushed under the carpet. Women say, “Right, I will just leave. I have a new baby; I do not want the aggro. I will go and find somewhere else to work”, and they very quietly slip away and do not say anything about it. Although I understand the Government’s position on tribunal fees, there was a stick there that somebody could go after, if they needed to. There needs to be a greater penalty so that employers do not feel that they can act that way.
Mr Shuker
I would like to turn to that point precisely, because obviously it is the key area where the Government disagreed with the findings of the EHRC. Do you have experience of people abusing the tribunal system because it was a relatively cheap way of getting the outcome they wanted? Sarah‑Jane Butler: I do not think anybody voluntarily agrees to put themselves through a tribunal system unless they really have to. I would say most women would not want to have to go through all of that stress and, even if it is relatively cheap, have to pay that kind of money. They just want to be treated fairly within the workplace. They want to be able to come back to work. They are just as committed. Mothers are immensely good at juggling goodness knows how much and they have a huge amount of talents to offer. They are discriminated against simply because they are mothers. Nobody looks at how good they are. If not tribunal fees, then what? If the Government does not want to go down the tribunal fees route—okay, you have made that clear—what is out there that protects women who want to make a stand? What is there for women who do not want simply to enter into a compromise agreement and slide away but want to make a difference?
Mr Shuker
Mark, has the tribunal system helped in your work of trying to reinforce a positive culture, or do you view it as something that is an attack on your broader business?
Mark McLane
I do not see it as an attack. I do see it as being helpful, but I do think we have a duty of care to address issues and concerns long before it goes to tribunal, and every organisation the size of Barclays should have that infrastructure in place. I will not put this back on just the HR community. It is also line managers and having things such as our own ethics hotline and our own internal opportunity to be able to raise a concern long before it would go to tribunal. It is also a duty of care to look at organisational culture and help to shift it where you know it needs to be shifted, because being reactive is the last step. Being proactive really starts to answer all of the questions that were asked earlier about being recognised as an employer of choice. You do not get there by being reactive. That is the last step, and I do think we have a duty of care well within our organisation to address those needs.
Mr Shuker
Specifically on the issue of tribunal fees, do you think introducing those fees has been a helpful measure?
Mark McLane
I could not say whether it was helpful or not. I would have to go back and ask our employee relations group for specifics on that. They deal with it every day. It is not within my remit.
Mr Shuker
Okay. Louise, on tribunals and fees.
Louise Handley
It has not changed our thought process at all on how we would handle a particular case. In going through the thought process of what this would look like if it ended up in a tribunal, fees do not come into that equation. That would not make any difference to us, from an employer standpoint. That is not to suggest support for or against them as a concept, but they do not change our practice. All our practice is about early resolution of disputes in the workplace before they even reach our grievance procedure, ideally, let alone the tribunal stage.
Mr Shuker
Generally and finally from me, are there additional things that Government or other agencies should be doing to provide support and information for employers? If so, can you be as specific as possible in answering that, so that we can make decent recommendations around it? Sarah‑Jane Butler: Providing advice and information was mentioned earlier, whether it is an online site or information that goes directly to an employer upon receipt of the MAT B1 form. Ben mentioned information overload, but the more information someone has at their fingertips, provided the process is as simple and clear as possible, the better it will be for all concerned, so that they understand that women have a right to make antenatal appointments, and men have a right to join them, and that they have a right to ask for flexible working. It is set out quite clearly, so they do not have an excuse to say, “I did not know”. The more information you have, the better. Also, employees should have as much information as possible, possibly through hotlines in big organisations. Nobody wants it to go to tribunal. Nobody wants it to get that far. If a grievance comes up or somebody feels they are going to be negatively discriminated against or they are feeling negative about the whole thing—your emotions are all over the place when you are pregnant—they should have somewhere to go, whether it is your peer or an understanding line manager or something else. Those things need to be put in place. I am not sure how you do that from a legislative perspective. I know you are asking for concrete examples. I do not know whether there is best practice guidance that the Government can produce alongside the information that goes with it, but, for me, that is probably the key element.
Mark McLane
I can give you two best practices, one here in the UK and one in the US. Let me start with the US with the Clinton Global Initiative as an example. They are family-friendly commitments that Barclays has signed up for and is holding itself publicly accountable to achieve. That is a great example of a best practice. Here in the UK, one that comes to mind is the Disability Confident campaign that started a few years ago. We have taken part in that and have been able to bring that information both in‑house as part of our work around disability and accessibility, not just in the workplace but to our customers, and to the public at large. In fact, this has now helped us to move to a campaign around mental health and wellness with the Lord Mayor’s Office. The best thing is to have a governmental campaign approach that is multi‑year. We are finding as an organisation that a multi‑year approach is needed to embed the change we are looking for. I cannot talk to it from a legislative standpoint, but if you did not legislate past where you were today to make certain that the intent of the legislation in place is being delivered, a multi‑year campaign type approach around being family‑friendly, dynamic working and agile working—all of these aspects—could be a very valuable investment.
Louise Handley
From our point of view, we do not need more information, but sometimes we need better quality information. The shared parental leave legislation is a good piece of legislation, but we were all hanging on until quite a late point to really understand how it works. We spoke to our external lawyers and they were also hanging on. Things like that, where we would have liked to have been able to do more communication ourselves internally to promote it at the time, happened after the fact. There is something about the way those things happen. Earlier I touched on how some of the ambition around information in the Government’s response could have been stronger. There is an implicit suggestion, particularly around the pregnancy and recruitment discussion, that some of the views expressed by employers are purely on the basis of lack of information. As colleagues have touched on, much of it will be biases; it will not be for lack of information at all. Therefore, the campaign side feels very important, to be more challenging and more provocative in the way these things are dealt with, and just say, “If we tell you, ‘Don’t ask that question,’ you will just not do it”.
Sarah-Jane Butler
There is a certain element of a cultural shift change. For example, with the introduction of shared parental leave, it is becoming more normal for fathers to take more time off. That will gradually, bit by bit, work its way down. What you need to try to avoid is that men, similarly, do not get discriminated against for taking shared parental leave. I do not think that would happen necessarily in the larger organisations so much, but it definitely would within SMEs, where men feel they cannot ask for parental leave because they feel they are going to be discriminated against or not taken seriously within their jobs. They have seen exactly what has happened to their partners, so they will not necessarily do it. There is a gradual cultural shift, because more women are in the workforce and they stay longer. More women are breadwinners; more women are at university—all of those aspects are coming through. Gradually it will change. It is just unfortunate we are seeing a rise in discrimination, not a decrease.
Mark McLane
On the shared parental leave, I might take issue with the claim it is different in a larger organisation for men, because it is a societal bias based on generational difference. Regardless, there is a lot of work to be done around gender and shared parental leave. We have seen a good uptick in the ask for shared parental leave versus just paternity leave in the last year since it has been integrated, but nothing near what the need probably is. It goes back to the societal shift and addressing those biases.
Ben Howlett
That is very interesting and very similar to discussions we have within LGBT as well, particularly with employers. I know the work Barclays are doing on that with global employers. I have a very specific question to you, Mark, because you mentioned your app earlier, and I was really interested in this because I have seen some interesting technologies that have come out for improved communication around discrimination. People can, behind the scenes, without wishing to put their names into lights, go on to apps, click a button and say, “Look, I think I have been discriminated against”. Do you think this is something you want to roll out within your company? Do you have any examples of best practice, or is this something you could end up doing on that platform you have?
Mark McLane
I would have to go back and look specifically at the app, because I am not an app user in that sense. It is a great suggestion. Is there that capability within it today or should we expand it? I will take that on board and take a look. This dialogue we are having today is exactly the dialogue we try to have within the listening groups, where each of our colleagues come up with their view of or around a need. That is where the app came from; it was not our technology or HR group saying, “Here is the newest, latest and greatest that we have dreamed up”. The innovation comes from colleague need. It is a great suggestion. I will take it on board and see.
Ben Howlett
I use Barclays’ apps quite a lot myself for banking, and I have to say they are very good. If you do have an example, I am a bit of an app geek. I would love to have a look at it at some point.
Mark McLane
I will offer that. I do not have it on my phone. If any of the Committee would like to see the app in practice, I am happy to come back and show you that. If there is a value, I will get it for you.
Ben Howlett
Email over some screenshots or something.
Mark McLane
Okay. I will.
Maria Caulfield
Would it not be an idea to use a similar app with, for example, Acas or Citizens Advice to do something like that?
Mark McLane
Yes.
Jo Churchill
It could even be through accounts or even the bank being slightly altruistic, if I may dare say. If you have good employment practices, you could share that with your customers, particularly your business customers who, by virtue of the fact they bank with you, you know are businesses that employ. That would strike me as considerably more beneficial for society than a governmental lead that does not necessarily fit all sizes of businesses in all sectors. There is a concern that too much stick and not enough carrot penalises certain groups. I was really heartened by how well small businesses appear to be doing in a lot of these statistics. Big business and the public sector could be doing a lot better; they have resources, as you keep articulating.
Mark McLane
I would absolutely agree. I will go back to the campaign structure that we have put in place around this work and opening that up. We are being very proactive in opening the doors for other organisations to come in and share this information. We have just held roundtables around the This is Me campaign and exactly shared all of the infrastructure around mental health and wellness that we have at Barclays. This was not just for clients or customers; it was in general for any organisation. We are doing similar work around London Pride and the LGBT community. We are taking that same approach along the continuum across diversity in very specific ways. Having a campaign approach is a great way to be able to then hand over that information, instead of it being piecemeal. Today, for example, when one individual on the panel is really interested in the app, we can dive more deeply into that work. Additionally, we have an opportunity at Barclays to continue to get better from a supplier standpoint. Sometimes the supplier base, which is a lot of times SME driven, is an opportunity that we are now exploring much more actively and proactively. It is a part of our collective organisation that has been overlooked in the past.
Chair
I again exercise the Chair’s prerogative to ask a final question. I think it was Sarah-Jane who said the report was a good starting point but there are devils in the detail in terms of the implementation. As the good guys who are making this a priority in your business, you must be somewhat aggrieved that such a high percentage of women are experiencing negative, even discriminatory, experiences, mostly in other organisations but maybe in your own to a certain degree. Do you feel there are more things that this report from the EHRC could have done to encourage employers—small, medium and large—to be on the right track? We have talked a lot about tribunals, but let us remember that comes way down the track and at a time when it is very difficult for women to go through what is quite a gruelling process. Is there more that could be done to create the right incentives up front around requiring large firms to monitor and report to the Government on employees who leave their jobs during maternity or shared parental leave? Is there more to be done in looking at strengthening redundancy laws to protect pregnant women or prohibiting pregnant women from being dismissed at all? Do you think there is merit in looking at that? I know you are employers so you are going to come back with a certain set of views, but do you share a frustration here that there may be a need for more enforcement? Louise, you look like you are musing.
Louise Handley
In terms of legislative extensions, that is not where we would be thinking. There is something very interesting in the discussions around tribunals, dispute resolutions and that huge disparity between the experiences people are having, what is reported and what is dealt with. There is clearly a huge grey space in between, which is not things that are unlawful but experiences that are unpleasant, damaging, and affect career opportunities and self-esteem. If we focus on tribunal issues we are ignoring probably the vast range of experience, which has degrees of significance but ultimately has a huge impact on the way women feel about their employers and the world of work. I do not know what, but there needs to be something more around it not being just about tribunals. Where is the encouragement for employers to listen, engage and talk with staff on the issues? I do not know what that would be from a Government perspective but, echoing comments that colleagues have made earlier, we engage with our network groups and individual staff members on quite a regular basis. We have just done a research piece: a survey of one-to-one interviews with returners, and we do not see those as one-off things; they happen periodically. We need to be listening and understanding what they are, because clearly the formal mechanisms are not working. If we are not seeking the feedback, we will not get it. I do not know what my concluding point on that is, other than the 77% speaks of a lot more than unlawful behaviour.
Chair
More communication is what you would say. We are talking a lot about carrots here but, Mark, as a big employer, do you not think there should be a few more sticks for some of your competitors so they are doing the same as you?
Mark McLane
Part of the stick is recognising the best in class in employment. As big organisations, you may not want to be first but you certainly do not want to be last in an industry. I like being first, because I like the effectiveness of being a best-in-class employer, which makes us a more effective organisation in general. It also drives change across an industry. What dismays me, coming out of the report, is this disparity between—I may get this wrong—84% and 77%: the real perception. That is the hardest gap to close, because that is a culture gap, along with the fact that it is organisations that are not taking the legislation with its intent but just saying, “It already exists”. There is a great value—I will go back to the Disability Confident campaign—in being able to step up and share best practice. Inviting big organisations like Barclays to be able to do that does put pressure within an industry and across industry. The more that we do that and share best practice, it does start to help shift that gap or, as Louise said, that grey area, which is the most difficult. You cannot legislate that change. That is true culture change within an organisation. It goes back to encouraging organisations to be more proactive in their approach and less reliant on the legislative aspect.
Chair
Sarah-Jane, you cannot legislate for culture change, but in your job you know that sticks are pretty important in terms of making companies take these things seriously.
Sarah-Jane Butler
It is really disappointing that in this day and age, 100 years since women got the vote, we are in this situation. There are 77% of women out there who feel discriminated against, sometimes overtly and sometimes not; sometimes it can be the case they do not get given the work they did before they were pregnant. The fact that continues all the way through is quite disgusting: we live in an environment where everybody, from small businesses all the way up to big businesses, suffers in that way. It also has a massive economic impact. This is why the Government are going to stand up and take notice. For each women that decides, “This is too much for me. I have not gone back to work; I have not been given the responsibilities I had; I have been turned down for promotion and I have not been made partner, director”—or whatever it might be—“I have not been given the training or support that I wanted; childcare costs too much; I cannot do this anymore; I am going to stop”, that has an economic impact not only on the family but on the local community and then on the economy as a whole, because women then do not have the money that they used to have to spend. It is a vicious circle that goes round. Businesses need to be taken to account for this. There need to be campaigns out there that show what best practice is and try to educate those slight Neanderthals out there that still believe it is okay to treat women in this way. There needs to be better communication and better education. Perhaps there needs to be internal chastisements within companies where they know that line managers are treating their staff in this way; perhaps they need to be taken aside and told, “You cannot treat women in this way”. It is obviously not legislative; you cannot criminalise something like that. At the same time, you can make a difference and you can show up best practices so that it does not get to the tribunal stage. It should not have to get to the tribunal stage. It is all very well saying, “We do not agree with tribunal fees”. You need to stop that earlier. You need to change it at the beginning. There are plenty of us out there; there are a lot of small businesses that do recognise the importance of women and see a lot of talent there and, somehow, by liaising with big businesses and good employers, you need to ensure that talent is rewarded and retained.
Chair
On that note, which is a very good note to end on, can I thank you on behalf of all the members of the Committee for your very frank exchanges today? We really value that. Also, thank you for sharing with us the work you are doing in this area. It is incredibly good to hear. Thank you for coming in. Oral evidence: Pregnancy and maternity discrimination, HC 891 33