The Jersey Retail Association and the Jersey Chamber of Commerce both told the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel yesterday that existing social security rights that allow employers to only take maternity allowance – currently £216.86 per week for up to 18 weeks – off what they pay new mothers on leave were not compatible with proposed legislation extending family rights.
Under the Social Security Minister’s proposals, both parents, as well as surrogate and adoptive parents, would be entitled to six weeks of paid leave covered by employers.
However, only women who have given birth are currently entitled to an allowance paid by the States and there are no plans for that to be extended.
Lorie Rault, chief executive of the Jersey Retail Association, said not extending the allowance to other parents covered by the proposed new legislation sent out the wrong message that some people would be ‘worth more’ than others. Such a situation would go against the very aims of the legislation to promote diversity and equality, she added.
‘It is a bit of a strange message,’ she said.
Lorna Pestana, chairwoman of Chamber’s HR committee, said a ‘quick win’ to improve the minister’s proposals would be to extend social security benefits to all those entitled to paid leave under the legislation.
‘The only person that can [currently] claim any benefit is a female who has given birth and this legislation covers a lot more than that,’ she said.
Both organisations said they were broadly supportive of the principles behind the proposed legislation but their members had concerns about the practicalities.
The JRA said it had received ‘mixed responses’ to the proposals, with different concerns from smaller and large businesses.
However, Ms Rault added: ‘The most uniformed response was a frustration that the businesses would be bearing the brunt of the costs. Actually the industry were very receptive to the concept behind the legislation.’
She said that members were concerned about the proposals to allow parents up to 52 weeks of leave in up to four blocks over three years because they did not know how they would be able to find cover.
Extending a licence exemption to a year to allow businesses to take on cover without the member of staff needing to be entitled to work could be a way to help, she said.
Ultimately, however, Ms Rault told the panel she did not think the legislation should be delayed.
‘In this very competitive jobs market I don’t think we can afford to wait – we have to be competitive and put family first,’ she said.
Graeme Smith, chief executive of Jersey Business, agreed and added: ‘Whereas I would do it slightly differently, I don’t think we should slow the process.’
However, he said there needed to be some recognition that the proposals would be a new extra cost on businesses.
Chamber also raised concerns about the burden on business, saying that the proposals were the latest in a long list of extra costs being forced on employers by the States.
The organisation, which represents 550 businesses, called for more flexibility, for example by providing employers with more notice ahead of leave being taken and the consideration of qualifying periods of up to 26 weeks for some rights. It also wants the proposals delayed by a year to give businesses time to feed back about the impact of changes introduced in September 2018.
President Eliot Lincoln said the States could ease the burden on employers by considering social security contribution breaks when staff were off on family leave and being able to recoup some of the costs of finding cover via the tax system.
Chief executive Murray Norton said: ‘There has never been any push-back on the desirability of family-friendly legislation. I think everybody agrees it is desirable. But there is a huge difference between what is desirable and what is practical and workable.’
Debate on the proposals, which was delayed following concerns by Chamber, is due to take place on 30 April.
