Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill (Second sitting)

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Wednesday 7th February 2018 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I welcome the Committee back to line-by-line consideration of the Bill. Before anyone asks the question, the two microphone recording devices are not spies or anything else; they are in fact Hansard picking up voices from that end of the Committee Room, so they are perfectly legitimate.

Schedule

Parental bereavement leave and pay

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 10, in the schedule, page 2, line 22, at end insert

“, including arrangements for taking the entitled leave at different points within the period specified in subsection (6).”

This amendment would ensure that regulations on parental bereavement leave provide flexibility on when the entitled leave can be taken.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 11, in the schedule, page 2, line 25, at end insert—

“(5A) Provision under subsection (4)(a) must secure that an employee’s entitlement to leave under this section will not be required to be taken consecutively and may be taken in blocks of one day at a time.”

This amendment would allow flexibility in the parental bereavement leave arrangements.

Amendment 3, in the schedule, page 2, line 27, leave out “56 days” and insert “52 weeks”.

This amendment would extend the period of time within which parental bereavement leave must be taken from 56 days to 52 weeks.

Amendment 20, in the schedule, page 2, line 27, leave out “56 days” and insert “26 weeks”.

This amendment would extend the minimum period of time within which parental bereavement leave must be taken from 56 days to 26 weeks.

[Patricia Gibson]

I wish to speak in support of amendment 10, because it is important that there be flexibility on when parental bereavement leave is taken. The loss of a child, if it is anything, is hugely traumatic. The first reaction is shock and disbelief, especially in the case of a sudden death. A parent may initially refuse to accept the loss and try to continue as normal, blocking out the experience, which is a common feature of trauma. Going on as far as possible as though the death is not real will be a reaction that helps some parents to cope. Keeping busy is a coping strategy that many use and one that, to a great extent, my own husband used when our baby was stillborn at full term.

Other people cope with the devastation of losing a child in a variety of ways. There is no right or wrong way to do so. I fear that if the amendment is not accepted, we will in effect, even if we do not wish to, be saying to bereaved parents, “We recognise the trauma of your loss and its life-changing nature, but it is important that you take your bereavement leave between these particular weeks, from this date to that, as set out in the Bill.” I honestly think we can do better.

It is not appropriate or desirable to set an early timeframe as to when bereavement leave should be taken. Some parents may feel the need of leave only some months later, when the enormity and the reality of the loss have truly sunk in. Others may prefer a phased return to work instead of taking the leave in one set block.

Much of the discussion that I have seen on the Bill seems to be predicated on the loss of a child after illness, and it is true that far too many children are lost in that way. Far too many families are devastated by watching a child ravaged by an unforgiving disease against which the child has few or no resources to defend itself. There is no doubt that to watch a child go through that—to watch your own child go through that—is beyond heartbreaking and beyond horrific, but we cannot forget that many children also die in a variety of other circumstances.

The sudden and unexpected loss of a child is no less traumatic when the parent had no idea when they last saw their child that that would be the last time they saw their child alive. There may be a car accident or some other horrific accident. A child is knocked down perhaps, and in a moment a family is destroyed by grief and the random cruelty of events.

I therefore believe that flexibility is needed not just to allow parents to grieve in their own way and in their own time, but because, depending on the circumstances, there might be a fatal accident inquiry following the death or, in England, a coroner’s inquiry. There might be a court case and perhaps even a trial. There might be a significant gap between the loss of the child and the burial. There is a host of reasons why leave for bereaved parents must be flexible. It should be remembered that not all bereaved parents will necessarily take any or all of this leave, but they must have the option, and the option must be flexible. I fear that if it is not, bereaved parents who work for the minority of employers who are not as sympathetic as we might wish them to be might face losing their job as well as their child. Bereaved parents need the full protection of the law. I urge the Minister to consider the amendment carefully, as we try to put on the statute book the best Bill possible for parents.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Gray. I understand the hon. Lady’s argument on making leave arrangements more flexible and I have much sympathy with it. Certainly, we heard such arguments from many different sources, including people who have been bereaved who contacted us through social media. Many charities, such as Cruse Bereavement Care, Elliot’s footprint, Together for Short Lives and the National Bereavement Alliance also made the point that the period of 52 days was too short and they wanted longer. That was for a number of reasons, some of which the hon. Lady outlined, such as autopsies and inquests, which can often happen well beyond those first 52 days.

There are substantive reasons why we might want to look at a longer timescale. We need to strike a balance, of course, between the needs of the employee and the understanding of the employer. We have said throughout consideration of the Bill in Committee that we expect these to be the minimum standards that employers might follow. It would be sensible to consult further on those measures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths]

That is exactly what I mean. I also commit to revisit this, and to see if there is a way that we can publish the consultation earlier and allow it to report before Third Reading. I will do my level best and I will talk to officials and see if that is possible. I want as wide a consultation as possible.

[Patricia Gibson]

For clarity—I ask the Minister to forgive me if he has already said this—is he saying that although he will not accept the amendments today, he is not closing the door and is vowing to return to them?

[Andrew Griffiths]

The hon. Lady hits the nail on the head. I want to make sure that we get this right. We have already heard that we have a number of different views on the number of days, so I want to allow everybody to consider, in a very calm way, the best advice possible and to come to a definitive decision about the days. I am closing nothing down. I am saying that all these options are on the table, and I am happy to consider all of them, should they be recommended by results of the consultation.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

In the light of what the Minister has said, and of the consensus and good will on both sides of the Committee—this is the first time I have served on a private Member’s Bill Committee, although I have served on Government Bill Committees before—I will not press amendment 3. I look forward to the Minister coming back with the consultation.

[Patricia Gibson]

As has already been said this week and last week, we are all treading very carefully on broken glass. We are terrified to do or ask for the wrong thing, in case it upsets the whole apple-cart. I draw comfort from the fact that the Minister is not saying no. From what I understand, he is saying not yet.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I think maybe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson]

I am really hopeful that we are still in the process of shaping the final Bill, and I draw great comfort from my sense that the Minister and everybody here wants this to be the best Bill possible. There is nothing to be gained by passing a Bill with which we and bereaved parents are not happy. In the light of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[David Linden]

I beg to move amendment 2, in schedule, page 2, line 25, leave out from “to” to end of line and insert—

“(a) at least two weeks’ leave, and

(b) at least one day’s leave for the day on which the child’s funeral takes place.”

This amendment would ensure that the minimum period of parental bereavement leave is two weeks plus an additional day for the day of the child’s funeral.

I will not detain the Committee for too long. Amendment 2, in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for North Ayrshire and Arran and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, would provide two weeks’ paid bereavement leave and one additional day dedicated for the child’s funeral. I am particularly grateful to CLIC Sargent, which has lobbied me and countless other hon. Members to table the amendment.

When I spoke to amendment 3, I referred to the sheer range of circumstances faced by parents. Amendment 2 was tabled in the knowledge that if the death of a child is unexplained, for example, there can be a longer period between death and burial or cremation. In Glasgow, there have been delays in post mortems due to hold-ups with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

Amendment 2 would give a bit more flexibility and acknowledge that the day of the funeral can be particularly stressful, busy and difficult. The funeral is in itself a milestone in the grieving process and should, in our view, be treated differently and more flexibly. To conclude, a number of charities, including CLIC Sargent, allow for an additional day for the funeral. On that basis I seek the support of the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson]

I just wanted to suggest to the Minister that if employers are already quite generous and understanding in such tragic circumstances, it shows that there is a recognition that such space should already be provided by the law, rather than employers having to make up policy for their own businesses. As a Parliament we should be taking a lead in saying that we recognise that employers, on the whole, realise and understand that this has to be done, so let us enshrine it in law because we all seem to agree. If there is the odd rogue employer that does not—you know?

[Andrew Griffiths]

What we would not want though is a situation where employers say that they do not need to have a policy in place because there is already a statutory requirement. In other areas, such as maternity, there is a statutory pay period and some businesses enhance that, but the vast majority do not. We need a consultation to properly understand, because I would hate for this to be the minimum and for that to be what is expected, rather than businesses stepping up to the plate and offering the generous terms that they already do. The hon. Member for North West Durham is itching to—

--- Later in debate ---

Division 1

Ayes: 5

---

Scottish National Party: 3
Labour: 2

Noes: 8

---

Conservative: 7

[Patricia Gibson]

I beg to move amendment 6, in schedule, page 2, line 35, leave out from “means” to end and insert

“a son or daughter of any age”.

This amendment would change the definition of “child”, for the purpose of parental bereavement leave, to a son or daughter of any age.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 12, in schedule, page 2, line 35, at end insert

“, or a person with a lifelong disability and a recognised dependency over the age of 18”.

This amendment would extend the definition of “child”, for the purposes of parental bereavement leave, to those over the age of 18 with a lifelong disability and recognised dependency.

Amendment 14, in schedule, page 2, line 35, at end insert

“, or in full time education, or both”.

This amendment would extend the definition of “child” for the purposes of parental bereavement leave, to those over the age of 18 who are in full time education.

Amendment 19, in schedule, page 2, line 35, at end insert

“, or a person under the age of 25 with a lifelong disability and a recognised dependency.”.

This amendment would extend the definition of “child” for the purposes of parental bereavement leave, to those under the age of 25 with a lifelong disability and recognised dependency.

Amendment 7, in schedule, page 9, line 18, leave out from “means” to end and insert

“a son or daughter of any age”.

This amendment would change the definition of “child”, for the purpose of parental bereavement pay, to a son or daughter of any age.

Amendment 13, in schedule, page 9, line 18, at end insert

“, or a person with a lifelong disability and a recognised dependency over the age of 18”.

This amendment would extend the definition of “child”, for the purposes of parental bereavement pay, to those over the age of 18 with a lifelong disability and recognised dependency.

Amendment 15, in schedule, page 9, line 18, at end insert

“, or in full time education, or both”.

This amendment would extend the definition of “child” for the purposes of parental bereavement pay, to those over the age of 18 who are in full time education.

Amendment 18, in schedule, page 9, line 18, at end insert

“, or a person under the age of 25 with a lifelong disability and a recognised dependency.”.

This amendment would extend the definition of “child”, for the purposes of parental bereavement pay, to those under the age of 25 with a lifelong disability and recognised dependency.

[Patricia Gibson]

Previous discussions in this Committee have made me fearful of asking for much, but amendments 6 and 7 are really important. They refuse to put the loss of a son or daughter on a sliding scale of grief, which I know is not the intention behind the Bill, but I fear may be its unintended consequence. The loss of a son or daughter is traumatic and life-changing, no matter how old they are. It is clear from our sittings last week that we all understand that it is against the natural order of events for any parent to bury their own child. We have the opportunity to recognise that in the Bill. I am sure that no Committee member would accept or even suggest that losing a son or daughter aged 17 is a tragedy that should be treated differently from losing a son or daughter aged 19, 21 or 23.

Amendments 14 and 15 address the Bill’s distinction between offspring who are and are not in full-time education. Such distinctions are artificial, and I do not think that they are appropriate in the context of the death of a son or daughter. Loss is loss, whether or not someone’s son or daughter is their dependant. I ask the Committee to keep in mind that the Bill’s focus—its starting point—is parents, not the circumstances or the age of the child lost.

When a son or daughter is lost at an older age, the discussion becomes more academic—the older they are, the more likely it is that their parents will be retired anyway and will therefore not be covered by the Bill. But imagine losing a daughter aged 24 who has a young child of her own and is perhaps even bringing up that child on her own. As the Bill stands, her bereaved parents will not have the support that the Bill could offer, even though there may be 1,000 reasons why they will need bereavement leave, given the support that their grandchildren may need.

The parents of, say, a son aged 25 years old would not be covered by the Bill. Let us say that that son is serving abroad in the British Army in a fragile area, doing a tour of duty in an area of instability. Do his parents not deserve to be covered by the provisions in the Bill, because he happens to be 25 and not a dependant? I do not think that that is the intention of the Bill, which is why I tabled the amendment.

[Will Quince]

This question was always at the forefront of our minds in preparing and drafting all incarnations of the Bill. The hon. Lady raises a very good question about why we focus on an arbitrary limit—18, in this case, although I think we are coming on in a moment to amendments that consider that in more detail. The question that I would pose back to her is: why then stop at parents? Why are we not including spouses? She rightly raises the example of a 25 or 28-year-old. In such instances, a spouse would be equally traumatised by the death as a parent.

[Patricia Gibson]

I would not want to diminish in any way the loss of a husband or wife, but the Bill was introduced in the first place because of the particularly unnatural order of circumstances in which someone buries their own child. It is entirely different. I do not pretend to judge whether one grief is worse than the other, but it goes against nature for someone to bury their own child. It does not necessarily go against nature to bury a husband or wife. That is in the normal scheme of things that we ultimately all have to face, but nobody expects to bury their own children. A child is a person’s investment in the future. I really do not see the equivalence; otherwise, we could have a Bill about bereavement, not a parental bereavement Bill. It is a parental bereavement Bill because we, as a Parliament, recognise the particular circumstances of someone burying their own son or daughter. I hope that I have answered the question that the hon. Gentleman put to me.

I really hope that the Minister and the whole Committee will reflect on this matter, and consider my amendment a worthy addition to the Bill. As I said last week, the benefits, both social and emotional, will surely outweigh any financial costs, which I really do not think will be significant in terms of overall Treasury spend. The Minister will no doubt want to correct me on that.

[Andrew Griffiths]

The hon. Lady says she does not think it will be significant. Does she have any evidence or figures to back up her amendment?

[Patricia Gibson]

I would simply refer the Minister to what I said last week: we know that people who lose sons or daughters are eight times more likely than their peers to divorce. We know that there is a social cost of divorce. There is also a cost to the Government in terms of economic activity if people fall out of the workforce because they are not coping. That is why support is so important at that critical stage of vulnerability and grief.

[Laura Pidcock]

I asked the Library to do an academic exercise on extending the entitlement to those between the ages of nought to 40, which would pull in 29,918 people, based on the figures for nought to 18. Obviously, that is a very crude exercise, and not incredibly accurate, but it gives us some idea that it is not a huge increase. Of course, not all 40-year-olds who die will have parents in employment.

[Patricia Gibson]

I thank the hon. Lady for that very helpful intervention. I already said that the older the son or daughter is when they die, the more likely it is that the parents will be retired anyway and will not need the protection of the Bill. I am sure that the Minister will know far better than I that there is a social cost, and a financial cost to the Treasury, when families break down. There is a cost to the country when people become economically inactive. We are talking about £140 per week, not lottery wins.

[Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)]

My understanding is that one of the reasons for having a fairly arbitrary age range was to recognise that, at that point, the parents are the sole people responsible for that individual. However, beyond the age of 18 it is not completely unreasonable to think that the person would have a spouse, a partner or other individuals who would also take on responsibility for them, perhaps in funeral planning arrangements.

[Patricia Gibson]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me to say what he is perhaps arguing for, although I am not: that those who do not have a significant other or spouse should be covered by this Bill, no matter what age they are. He is suggesting that they would have somebody else to make the arrangements for them.

It is perfectly possible for somebody to be over the age of 18 and to be responsible for themselves, but not to have a significant partner to take on that responsibility. That is a huge assumption. Many people live on their own; we know that single occupancy is rising, even amongst young people. It is at record levels. We cannot assume that people are always attached. I again draw the Committee’s attention to the example I gave, which is not beyond the bounds of possibility: a young man or woman serving as a British soldier in foreign lands facing a traumatic and awful death, and the impact that would have on the parents if that soldier were over 18 and did not have a significant other. These are the situations we need to think about if we are trying to get this Bill right.

Given the economic cost to the country of family breakdown, the Bill should cover people who are not married or in a significant relationship. The reason why it is called the Parental Bereavement Bill is that we are talking about parents and the unnatural experience of having to bury your child. That loss is not tempered if your child is older; I do not see a distinction there.

[David Linden]

In response to what the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire said, I should say that the national health service does not stop treating people at 18 for teenage cancer. There is an issue of consistency here. The NHS does not recognise at just 18. Is my hon. Friend aware of that?

[Patricia Gibson]

That is an important point. Maybe it is a failure in myself, but I do not understand why the issue should be about the age of 18 or financial dependency. This is ultimately a Bill about grief—about losing a son or daughter. The focus is on parents, not the financial circumstances or marital status of the person who is being buried. I cannot get my head round that. It is difficult to choose, but perhaps of all the amendments this one means the most to me because it is making a statement about the enormity of the loss of burying a child, and how that goes against the natural order.

[Will Quince]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful case. She rightly says that the amendment would make a statement, but passing this Bill in itself would make a far greater statement. It has taken a long time to get to this position and my worry is that her request to increase the cost sixfold compared with the Treasury’s current modelling will kill this Bill; the Government would have to withdraw their support, and we would move into the next Parliament. It could come back, but I would feel sad if there was such a delay just because of this amendment.

[Patricia Gibson]

The hon. Gentleman brings me back to earth with a bump; as everybody knows, nobody wants to be responsible for signing this Bill’s death warrant. I do feel strongly about this issue, but I will not do anything to jeopardise the Bill: the important thing is to get it on the statute books—if we have to have a bunfight later, we can.

I urge everybody to reflect on the value of this issue. I am an eternal optimist: if every single one of us agreed to the amendment, I would hope that the Treasury would look at it and say, “Well, this is the right way to go,” because of the weight of that agreement. Maybe I am an eternal optimist. I am walking on glass; I will not do anything to destroy the Bill. However, I would be very sad if the measure was not in the Bill—if not today, then at the end of the process. That is all I have to say.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Like everybody in the room, I was moved by the fine speech and impassioned words of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran. A family that includes one of my closest friends lost their daughter, sister, niece and granddaughter in the most horrific of circumstances only a couple of years ago. I spent a lot of time with them through that process. Their child was 30, and their grief was no different from how it would have been at any other point in that child’s life. I quite understand what the hon. Lady is saying.

I have children either side of the line: a 21-year-old and 20-year-old, and a 14-year-old and 10-year-old, so I can see it from both sides. If I look at my own children—I would never want to contemplate the circumstances—there is a slight difference in dependency; I feel more responsible for the ones under 18. The hon. Lady spoke about everyone in the room, and we were all moved by what she said, but it is not just everyone in the room we have to consider. It is sad to say, because these things are not about money, but we have to consider the taxpayer.

The hon. Member for North West Durham cited some interesting figures that I was not aware of, but on a raw calculation the amendment would increase the cost to the taxpayer five or sixfold—the cost would go from £2 million up to about £12 million. Despite the fact that the taxpayer is picking up the tab for the statutory pay, there is a cost to employers because they have to cover the time off for the person. That is £1.4 million or £1.5 million, and it would go up to £15 million. Members may well argue—I might well agree—that that is a drop in the ocean compared with the grief that might be mitigated by the changes, but the amendment would mean going back to the drawing board and talking to the Treasury. It would fundamentally and fatally stop the Bill in its tracks, and we might not have time to bring it forward again.

I say to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran that the Bill is a signal to employers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester said. That is key. The Bill does not do everything we would expect. I would expect any employer to give someone as much time off as they needed on full pay. That is what we have done in our business. With the Bill, we are trying to send a signal to the small minority of employers that are not compassionate, fair or understanding.

We have had a lot of engagement already with charities. None of them has said, “There should be no limit.” Some have suggested a slightly higher limit in certain circumstances, but no one has suggested having no limit, although we should not take that as read. That is an interesting point on some of the feedback we have had.

We have to consider employers in terms of cost and logistics. Members have understandably tabled a number of amendments. The hon. Member for North West Durham has tabled one on lifelong disability, and there are many different ways in which the legislation could be changed to improve it or to cover different circumstances. The amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester talks about children in full-time education. There are problems with the cut-off point and how the legislation would cater for that. The amendment would complicate the legislation.

I understand why Members have tabled the amendments, and I have a great deal of sympathy with many of them, but given the fragility and complexity of taking a private Member’s Bill through this House and the other place, I politely and respectfully ask them to withdraw their amendments so we can move the Bill forward.

--- Later in debate ---

We do not for one moment underestimate the devastation that the loss of a child at any age can cause, but the Government are committed to supporting the Bill and so I ask hon. Members to withdraw their amendments and engage with ACAS and officials in my Department to establish better practices for all employers in supporting all bereaved parents.

[Patricia Gibson]

The words that we started out with at the beginning of this process—perfect must not be the enemy of good—ring in all our ears, I am sure. I know that the Minister and the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton understand that all anybody wants is to make the Bill the best that it can be. Absolutely nobody wants to kill it. It is important—we know it is fragile—that this Bill can proceed to the Chamber as soon as possible. However, I know the Minister will not be surprised to hear me say that in the light of what he has said and the fragility of the entire process, we will withdraw—not happily, but we will do it—amendments 6 and 7, but when the Bill reaches the Floor of the House, and I hope to God it does, some of the amendments will resurface. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 12, in the schedule, page 2, line 35, at end insert  

“, or a person with a lifelong disability and a recognised dependency over the age of 18”.—(Laura Pidcock.)

This amendment would extend the definition of “child”, for the purposes of parental bereavement leave, to those over the age of 18 with a lifelong disability and recognised dependency.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Yes, it is perfectly in order to speak more than once.

[Patricia Gibson]

I will be brief. Scottish National party Members have tabled amendments 8 and 9, but I begin by agreeing with everything the hon. Member for Colchester said. There should not be any differentiation between stillbirths and babies who are lost to their parents shortly after birth.

We tabled amendments 8 and 9 because we too are concerned about stillbirth. As the hon. Gentleman said, stillbirths are currently covered by maternity and paternity leave, but will the Minister respond with thoughts on when and why regulations regarding stillbirths will need to be made under the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out? I ask him—I am really probing him—in the schedule, page 4, line 30, to leave out “may” and insert “must” so that we can all be assured that, as the hon. Gentleman set out eloquently, the relevant regulations to ensure provision for cases of stillbirth are every bit as robust as those for the death of any other child covered in the Bill.

We all know—many in the room know to their cost—that a stillbirth is every bit as traumatic as losing a child at any other age. It casts a shadow over bereaved parents for the rest of their lives. I think it is essential, as I hope we all do, that all aspects of employment law that the Bill covers take full cognisance of that, for the sake of the thousands of parents bereaved in this particular way every year.