Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill

Debate between Chris Philp and Lord Harrington of Watford

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 11th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Richard Harrington]

My hon. Friend is right: we must lead by example. Offering full pay to our own employees who lose a child means that we are a good employer, but it also provides a best-practice model for other employers to follow.

In relation to amendment 7, my hon. Friend raised an important point about consistency with other family-related leave entitlements. The Bill as drafted makes clear which contractual elements are applicable to parental bereavement leave or pay.

Let me now turn to amendment 8. I will begin with words that you have heard already, Madam Deputy Speaker: I agree with the comments made by many Members. It has been made clear that there is no desire to deviate from frameworks supporting existing measures in the landscape of family-related leave and pay, but that must not be at the expense of fairness and proportionality. Someone may be on family-related leave for many different reasons, and the forms of leave involved are a variety of lengths. They can be taken back to back. Sometimes it is natural for that to be the case, but sometimes it is not.

If the amendment were accepted, it might be possible for a bereaved parent who had been on leave for an extended period—perhaps consisting partly of maternity leave and partly of parental bereavement leave—to be entitled to return to the job that they had before going on leave, whereas a colleague who had been on other forms of family-related leave for the same period of time would not have quite the same right to return. We would not want a fixed “right to return” that was out of kilter with the other, existing “rights to return”.

The Government need the flexibility to set all this out through regulation after they have had time to consider all the various forms of leave and how they could interact with each other. I know that that sounds pedantic. Earlier this week, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) accused me of being a nit-picker—there should probably be a Royal Society of Nit-pickers—but in this instance we have to nit-pick, because the detail is critically important. We should set out the rules only after we have considered the issue. That is, after all, the approach taken in the existing legislation on family-related leave and pay rights.

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) suggested the extension of leave to parents of premature babies. As I have said, all family leave provisions represent a floor. Employers are encouraged to go beyond the minimum when they can. Last year the Government worked with ACAS to produce new guidance on support for staff who have premature babies. The UK offers generous maternity-leave entitlements —some of the best in the world—and I think that they provide for a variety of circumstances. Parents also have access to other types of leave, such as shared parental and annual leave.

[Chris Philp]

I appreciate the Minister’s response to my earlier comments. I would point out, however, that the parents of very premature babies have additional caring responsibilities—particularly when the babies are in a neonatal intensive care unit—over and above the ordinary parental requirements involving a normal newborn baby. I therefore ask the Government to consider, at some future time, an additional leave right, over and above the normal one, for parents in those circumstances, when it is necessary for them to be present with the baby as much as possible.

[Richard Harrington]

I know that my hon. Friend has personal experience in that regard, as his twins were born prematurely. I was born quite prematurely myself. Some of us look as though we were not born prematurely. My hon. Friend has made a serious point, however, and I will definitely consider it.

Amendments 9 to 11 and 15 to 17 deal with notice requirements. In this context, we have to stop and think about what the word “reasonable” means. It looks sensible in drafting and in amendments, because people think, “Well, what’s reasonable is reasonable”, but it is very subjective. It is a word that remains open to interpretation and genuinely means different things to different people. If I was challenged on the grounds of reasonableness—for example, on the length of this speech—what would the outcome be? It is a serious point with a number of scenarios and thought processes, with the usual outcome that something can be considered reasonable or unreasonable for any number of reasons when viewed from multiple perspectives.

The amendment might inadvertently make it difficult for those who seek to rely on the provision to know exactly what it means for them. We cannot create a situation in which the issue of reasonableness ends up being a sticking point between employer and employee. Then we would have questions of whether it should go to an employment tribunal or how would it be arbitrated, when that would be the last thing that anyone wanted on top of dealing with the terrible tragedy of a child’s death. It would be the worst of all outcomes and I am sure that no Member would want to see it.

I understand the aim of the amendment, however, and I sympathise with its spirit. But given that we are dealing with such a delicate issue, in which clarity is key, we should keep the text of the schedule as it is.