Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Bill

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th September 2022 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 1, in clause 2, page 1, line 9, leave out subsection (2).

This amendment would exclude provision amending or repealing an Act of Parliament from the scope of the power in clause 2 to make consequential provision.

Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 1, line 13, leave out subsection (4).

This amendment is in consequence of Amendment 1.

Amendment 3, in clause 2, page 1, line 17, leave out “Any other” and insert “A”.

This amendment is in consequence of Amendment 1.

Clauses 2 and 3 stand part.

Amendment 4, in the schedule, page 6, line 40, leave out subsection (6) and insert—

“(6) In this section the ‘relevant week’—

(a) in any case where the person is entitled to statutory maternity pay under section 164 in respect of the child, is the week immediately preceding the 14th week before the expected week of confinement (within the meaning of Part 12);

(b) in any case where the person is entitled to statutory paternity pay under section 171ZA (birth) in respect of the child, is the same week as the relevant week for the purposes of section 171ZA(2) in that case;

(c) in any case where the person is entitled to statutory paternity pay under section 171ZB (adoption) in respect of the child, is the same week as the relevant week for the purposes of section 171ZB(2) in that case;

(d) in any case where the person is entitled to statutory adoption pay under section 171ZL in respect of the child, is the same week as the relevant week for the purposes of section 171ZL(2) in that case;

(e) in any other case, is the week immediately before the one in which the neonatal care starts.”

This amendment provides for the “relevant week” in section 171ZZ16 (for the purpose of determining whether particular conditions relating to eligibility for statutory neonatal care pay are satisfied) to, in cases where an employee is entitled to another type of statutory family pay, align with the week that is relevant to that entitlement.

That the schedule be the schedule to the Bill.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

Thank you very much, Ms Bardell. It is great to see you in the Chair, and this is the first time that I have had the pleasure of serving under your chairmanship. May I also say that it is a pleasure to see the Minister in her place? I cannot always say that about Ministers in this particular Government, but I genuinely mean that. I am very grateful to her and her predecessor and to their officials for all their co-operation and support as the Bill has progressed.

I also thank all hon. Members for giving their time this morning to take forward debate on the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Bill. I appreciate that this is a busy morning, with lots happening. I think that we have already lost one Committee member to promotion, so I will not take it too personally if one or two members are keeping a close eye on their phones just in case a call comes. I again express particular thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East and the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate, not just because they have been committed campaigners for neonatal care leave and pay for a considerable time, but also for their significant assistance in getting the Committee spaces filled up very quickly indeed in what was a stressful 12-hour period at the end of last term.

As hon. Members know, the Bill will put on the statute book an entitlement to paid leave for employed parents of babies who require neonatal care. As Members from both sides of the House agreed on Second Reading, that has the potential to make a big difference to the experience of parents at an incredibly stressful time and to deliver positive outcomes for their children. The leave and pay will apply to eligible parents of babies who are admitted to hospital within their first 28 days of life and who have a continuous stay in hospital or other agreed care setting of seven full days or more. The intention is that such parents will be able to take up to 12 weeks of paid leave on top of their other parental entitlements, such as maternity or paternity leave and pay. There will be one week of neonatal care leave for every week that the child spends in neonatal care. That leave will be protected, and a person should not suffer any form of detriment due to taking that leave.

Up to 12 weeks of statutory neonatal care pay will be available to employees who meet a continuity of service and a minimum earnings test. Neonatal care leave will be a day one right, available to an employee from their first day in a new job. Statutory neonatal care pay, like other family-related pay rights, would be available, as I said, to those employees who meet a continuity of service and a minimum earnings test.

The Bill sets out in considerable detail the legal framework for the entitlement. Large parts of that are very similar to other leave and pay entitlements that are already in operation, to avoid adding complexity. The Bill requires regulations to provide that eligible parents can take neonatal care leave and pay within at least a 68-week window following a child’s birth. That is designed to ensure that mothers and fathers have sufficient time to take their neonatal care leave on top of or after other leave rights to which they may be entitled.

I now turn to the amendments. As an Opposition MP, I have spent a lot of time bemoaning the use of Henry VIII clauses and arguing that they should be taken out of Bills, so it is quite nice today to be able to practise what I have preached, I hope. Amendments 1, 2 and 3 modify clause 2 of the Bill to remove the power to amend primary legislation via secondary legislation—a so-called Henry VIII power. The amendments remove subsections (2) and (4) from that clause and subsequently modify the text in subsection (5). Taken together, the amendments have the effect of changing the Henry VIII power to a power to amend secondary legislation only, which is of course common in primary legislation.

The Henry VIII power was originally included to ensure that the Bill, if it was successful in gaining Royal Assent, worked effectively alongside other legislation going through Parliament at the same time, in particular the Carer’s Leave Bill, which is being taken through by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain). On further assessment and examination, it is not thought that the power is required any more. On that basis, I invite the Committee to accept the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

What a shame.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I will simply commend part 3 to the Committee. I thank Members for their indulgence.

[Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)]

I am pleased that we are back here so soon after Second Reading. It is just a couple of days after recess, which shows how important it is to get a good position on the private Members’ Bill ballot. Again, I thank the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East for supporting the Bill and bringing it forward in the way he has. Today he has given a very comprehensive overview of the clauses and the amendments proposed.

I want to make a couple of very quick points. First, amendment 4 is very positive and makes complete sense. I thank the Minister for bringing it forward and supporting it. It will change the details around the qualifying criteria for neonatal care pay. I know there was concern raised by a couple of groups over the summer that certain parents, including women who were on statutory sick pay in particular, would be disadvantaged by the implementation of the Bill as it was drafted. The amendment makes a sensible change and brings the qualifying rules in line with maternity, paternity and adoption pay. It will hopefully receive unqualified support.

I also want to thank the Minister for the work she did over the summer looking into the point I raised on Second Reading about the seven-day trigger. I know it is a small point, but I was grateful that she took it away, looked at it and made sure the drafting was right. I am pleased to hear that it is, and I understand the reasons why it would not have been productive to have changed that in Committee today.

Lastly, I am slightly concerned about some of the noises that are coming out of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy about the implementation of the Bill. I think that 18 months after Royal Assent is too long and would essentially mean we were looking at implementation in 2025. Really, when all we are talking about is the upgrading of HM Revenue and Customs systems, which we have been talking about for a year or so now, it does not seem like there is any real reason why this has to go on. I know the Minister was very sympathetic when a number of us raised this point on Second Reading, so I am sure she has been pressing the Department over the summer.

There are clear advantages to delivering the money that was set aside from 2023 as quickly as we can. It makes sense to deliver it before a general election for all sorts of reasons, but mainly we want to deliver it quickly to make sure parents are not left in an impossible situation like that which so many have found and continue to find themselves in. I know we all want to see that come to an end as quickly as possible. Will the Minister update us today or in writing on her views about when implementation is likely? I am delighted the Bill is progressing so quickly and has had such unqualified support so far. I thank all members of the Committee for their attendance and for supporting the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

The Government continue to support the measures, which will provide invaluable support and protection for parents during some of the most stressful days of their lives, when their children are in neonatal care. Our support for the Bill is in line with our ongoing commitment to support workers and build a high-skill, high-productivity, high-wage economy, so I look forward to continued work with the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East to support the passage of the Bill. I conclude by thanking you, Ms Bardell, for your excellent chairing of the Committee. Thank you.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate, and I thank the Minister again for her support for the Bill and for the amendments.

The three points highlighted by the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate are exactly where our focus has been in discussions over the summer: amendment 4 in relation to the relevant week, the seven days—I am absolutely on the same page as him on that—and implementation. In fact, as I detect an absolute determination to get things done quickly, I think our focus should probably now be on HMRC rather than BEIS, so perhaps we can organise a cross-party delegation to HMRC at some point to make sure we are focusing on the right people.

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East, the first thing that I want to do is go and read the Hansard of yesterday’s debate on the devolution of employment law. He is right: there are times when we have fundamental disagreements, and we should have passionate debates and arguments, but there are good times when we are all on the same page, and it is nice to be able to work in that way as well.

I thank all Committee members for attending and for their contributions; I thank you, Ms Bardell, for your expert chairing; and I thank all supporters of the Bill, including those at Bliss, some of whom are here today—[Hon. Members: “ Hear, hear!]

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Amendments made: 1, in clause 2, page 1, line 9, leave out subsection (2).

This amendment would exclude provision amending or repealing an Act of Parliament from the scope of the power in clause 2 to make consequential provision.

Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 1, line 13, leave out subsection (4).

This amendment is in consequence of Amendment 1.

Amendment 3, in clause 2, page 1, line 17, leave out “Any other” and insert “A”.—(Stuart C. McDonald.)

This amendment is in consequence of Amendment 1.

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Amendment made: 4, in the schedule, page 6, line 40, leave out subsection (6) and insert—

“(6) In this section the ‘relevant week’—

(a) in any case where the person is entitled to statutory maternity pay under section 164 in respect of the child, is the week immediately preceding the 14th week before the expected week of confinement (within the meaning of Part 12);

(b) in any case where the person is entitled to statutory paternity pay under section 171ZA (birth) in respect of the child, is the same week as the relevant week for the purposes of section 171ZA(2) in that case;

(c) in any case where the person is entitled to statutory paternity pay under section 171ZB (adoption) in respect of the child, is the same week as the relevant week for the purposes of section 171ZB(2) in that case;

(d) in any case where the person is entitled to statutory adoption pay under section 171ZL in respect of the child, is the same week as the relevant week for the purposes of section 171ZL(2) in that case;

(e) in any other case, is the week immediately before the one in which the neonatal care starts.”—(Stuart C. McDonald.)

This amendment provides for the “relevant week” in section 171ZZ16 (for the purpose of determining whether particular conditions relating to eligibility for statutory neonatal care pay are satisfied) to, in cases where an employee is entitled to another type of statutory family pay, align with the week that is relevant to that entitlement.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

[The Chair]

Before I end the sitting, I thank all Committee members, the Government and all who have been involved in making sure that this historic Bill makes it through the House so quickly.