Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Bill

Debate between Stuart C McDonald and Richard Fuller

3rd reading
Friday 20th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her support and her intervention, which I fully agree with.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

It is commonplace to congratulate Members for the passage of their Bill, but the hon. Gentleman will have sincere support from all sides, and I support his Bill. I hope he will allow me to probe a little, as I was not on the Bill Committee. He is talking about the benefits to employees and to families. Obviously, there is a burden on companies that will have to pay for those benefits. Could he advise the House of whether there was a discussion in Committee about those burdens? What is his understanding of what the additional burdens on companies may be?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support. He asks a perfectly fair question that I will come to in a little more detail later on. In essence, the provisions for businesses will be the same as for other existing rights. There will be reimbursement of 103% for small businesses, and up to 93% percent for larger businesses. For those businesses who already follow good practice, there will be a benefit because they will be reimbursed for what they are already doing. At the same time, feedback from employers shows that they benefit because they have a better relationship with employees, and the return to work is much smoother and more successful. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question.

I will continue to describe the main provisions of the Bill. For parents who meet continuity of service and minimum earnings tests, the expectation is that neonatal pay will be paid during the leave at the statutory rate, which is just shy of £160, or 90% of the employee’s average wages—whichever is lower. Hopefully, that will be uprated in line with increases to statutory payments—something that we will monitor closely. That mirrors existing family leave and pay provisions such as paternity, shared parental and adoption and maternity after the first six weeks. The process for reimbursing employers will also mirror existing schemes.

There will be flexibility about when the leave is taken. The likelihood is that many fathers who have only two weeks of paternity leave will want to take their neonatal leave immediately thereafter, while their child is still in neonatal care. The situation for mothers is a little different, because once maternity leave commences, a mother cannot stop that maternity leave to take neonatal care leave, otherwise she will lose her remaining maternity leave. Neonatal care leave is therefore to be flexible in order that mothers can add it to the end of their maternity leave and any other forms of parental leave they might be entitled to. With that in mind, the Bill provides for the window of time within which neonatal care leave can be taken to be set out in regulations. However, the window will be six to eight weeks following the child’s birth, which ensures that mothers and fathers have sufficient time to take their neonatal care leave alongside other leave rights that they might be entitled to, rather than losing out on any other such entitlements.

Finally, I want to explain the amendments that were made in Committee. First, clause 2 was amended to remove the power to amend primary legislation via secondary legislation—a so-called Henry VIII power. That was originally included to ensure that the Bill, on becoming law, worked effectively alongside other legislation that is going through Parliament. Upon further assessment and examination, it seems that this power is not required, and the clause now only empowers amendments to secondary legislation. Given that I spend an awful lot of my time as an Opposition MP shouting about excessive and inappropriate use of Henry VIII powers, it is pleasing to have been able to take at least one of them out of this Bill.

Secondly, and perhaps more significantly, part 2 of the schedule to the Bill was amended by changing the definition of “relevant week” in proposed new section 171ZZ16 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. The definition of “relevant week” is important because it fixes a point at which it is assessed whether a person is entitled to neonatal care pay. The Bill, on introduction, defined the relevant week as the one immediately prior to the week in which neonatal care started, which is similar to the drafting of equivalent provisions for parental bereavement pay. However, if a parent was already receiving statutory pay—for example, maternity pay—in the relevant week before their child enters neonatal care, their income could end up being lower than usual, negatively impacting their ability to qualify for neonatal care pay.

For those employees who are eligible for other parental pay entitlements such as maternity, paternity or adoption pay, the amendment made in Committee changes the definition of “relevant week” for neonatal care pay, to align it with the definition of “relevant week” in these existing entitlements. Amending the Bill in this way ensures that parents who are already low earners and perhaps only just above the earnings threshold do not miss out on the entitlement to statutory neonatal care pay simply because they are already receiving another type of family-related pay when their minimum earnings for neonatal care pay are assessed. Where an employee would not qualify for any of the other statutory parental pay, the relevant week will continue to be defined as the week immediately before the week in which neonatal care starts.

[Richard Fuller]

I was not in Committee, so I want to ask a particular question, and I am going to sound very smart. In subsection (2)(a) of proposed new section 171ZZ16, “Entitlement”, of part 12ZE of the 1992 Act, there is reference to

“a child who is receiving, or has received, neonatal care”.

The hon. Gentleman has been very clear on the Henry VIII powers and how the entitlement to this pay is aligned with other funding that is provided, but what is the definition of “neonatal care” in practice? It will be defined in regulations, but in practice, is it limited to parents of children who have been in neonatal intensive care units and other hospital facilities, or is there a broader definition?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The definition in the Bill encompasses neonatal care up to the 28th day of the new baby’s life. Further thought has to be given to whether we limit that to care on a neonatal ward or whether we go further than that, and I hope that we do, because there will, for example, be families who have babies at home but are regularly required to be at hospital appointments or have regular interventions and people visiting to provide care and treatment. We have to think about how we define it in a way that makes it clear but does not exclude people simply because they are not physically in a hospital 24 hours a day. That is a fair point, and further work needs to be done before we come to a final conclusion on exactly how this should look.

In concluding, I want to reiterate that what we are debating here is the traumatic and stressful experiences faced by families with wee ones in neonatal care, and at the heart of this proposed legislation are vulnerable babies who need us to do more to help their parents at a crucial time. We need to ensure as far as we can that those parents have the time and resources to focus on their babies, without the additional burden of worries about money and time off work. There are tens of thousands of families each year counting on us to get this done and get it right, and I ask Members across the House to give this Bill their support.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Stuart C McDonald and Richard Fuller

2nd reading
Monday 19th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller]

My right hon. Friend speaks very wise words.

Let me just say to Opposition Members that there is no monopoly on compassion, and that it does not mean saying that the system must apply to everyone in a particular process. Compassion applies to an individual claim. The importance of our system is that we get to that individual and do not lose sight of him or her. In a previous life as a Member of Parliament, I spoke in a debate on another immigration Bill and bemoaned the lack of compassion in our immigration system. It was encouraging to hear the Home Secretary use the word “compassion” so often, and to hear stories of compassion from other Conservative Members, whether they were about how a council looks after the people who are claiming asylum or about people’s feelings about the system. So there is no monopoly on compassion here, and I look forward to working with Opposition Members in finding ways in which we can make it work more deeply in the Bill.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I have a lot of respect for the hon. Member, particularly for his stance on immigration detention and his campaigning for time limits on it. The Home Secretary talks about compassion, but at the end of the day—I have said this a few times, but people do not seem even to acknowledge it—the Bill would criminalise people it recognises as refugees, strip them of their family reunion rights, strip them of recourse to public funds, limit the amount of leave that they are allowed here and never let them even apply for settlement. That is not remotely compassionate. We are talking about refugees.

[Richard Fuller]

I look forward to the hon. Gentleman talking about specifics, because again there was a bit of broad generalisation there. However, one thing that I will say for SNP Members is that at least they have some ideas, whereas 10 minutes into the shadow Home Secretary’s speech he said, “Let me tell you what the Labour party will do”—and in the rest of his speech he came up with one idea, which was to set a legal target for how quickly asylum claims get processed. Is that it? Is that all the Labour party has to offer? I see that it is, so let us work with the SNP.

Let me tell the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East where I think we can work together. Let us have some compassion for victims of slavery; there is plenty of support on the Conservative Benches for that. Let us have some compassion in how we treat children in the Bill; there is lots of support on both sides of the House for that. Let us have some compassion for how the particular issues of women will be affected by the separation of regular from irregular routes. And let us have some compassion, Minister, by ending indefinite detention once and for all.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Stuart C McDonald and Richard Fuller

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald]

We have done our best to make the Bill slightly more palatable, but even with all our amendments I regret to say that we would still find the damage that the Bill will cause unacceptable. Regardless of what happens today, therefore, we will be voting against Third Reading.

New clause 17, would repeal the right-to-rent provisions introduced by the Immigration Act 2014, provisions which, like their successor provisions in this Bill, will have limited effect on the Government’s pretend net migration target, but are none the less deemed necessary to make the Government look tough on immigration. As I said on Second Reading, it is in reality immigration theatre—acting out the part of immigration enforcer. But while there is little evidence that it will achieve much in terms of immigration control, its consequences on cohesion could be significant.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman talks about looking tough and effective. Does he not agree that that is the challenge for the Government in the Bill? We want to see immigration measures that are effective, not that just appear to be tough.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I agree that we need to enforce the immigration rules and laws that we have put in place, but the problem is that the resources and manpower are not being put in to do that. We do not need new powers and rules; we simply need resources to enforce the rules that already exist. I suggest that some of the rules already go far too far.

New clause 16 is a modest response to clause 13, which creates wide powers for immigration officials to close premises for 48 hours before any court involvement is required in certain cases of suspected illegal working. These could have very significant consequences, including for perfectly innocent workers whose place of work is closed for up to two days. Provision for statutory compensation, which our amendment would introduce, is designed to ensure that notices are not issued in an oppressive manner by immigration officials.

New clause 17 is without doubt the more significant of the two new clauses. It would remove the right-to-rent provisions in the 2014 Act. We have signed other amendments in relation to right to rent, starting with the crucial amendment 35, which would remove the criminal sanctions and what we regard as Dickensian eviction processes from the Bill. Amendment 46 is designed to prevent those letting out rooms on essentially a charitable basis from being criminalised. Finally amendments 54 to 57 remove powers for the Secretary of State to legislate by way of regulations for new Scottish right-to-rent provisions, with immense effect on devolved Scottish housing law.

We also support changes proposed by Labour Members such as amendment 22, which seems designed to fix what we can only presume to be a drafting anomaly under which a landlord or landlady would be guilty of an offence for renting to a person with no right to rent, even during the period of 28 days when they could not evict that person. We also fully back their amendments 23 to 26, which would remove the obscene proposals that would see landlords and landladies turned into not only immigration officers but High Court judges, and would see summary evictions without judicial oversight.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) will have more—much more—to say on these dreadful and draconian measures if given the opportunity, Madam Deputy Speaker. Our view is essentially the same as it was on Second Reading. Right to rent is not evidence-based, but in fact flies in the face of the evidence provided by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, and indeed parts of the Government’s own pilot review. It is unfair to place these duties and now criminal sanctions on landlords, and it will lead to inadvertent discrimination or racism, with foreign nationals and even British citizens without documents at risk of being rejected from a tenancy whenever there is a safe and easy option of a British passport holder to rent to. It will push more families away from authorities and immigration control, making enforcement harder, not easier.

The one part of the Bill from which something useful might actually emerge is the first few clauses of part 1, and the provisions for a Director of Labour Market Enforcement, which we welcome. It is sad that its presence in an immigration Bill suggests that the new role might be seen as one primarily concerned with enforcing immigration laws, so we have joined our Labour colleagues in supporting amendment 18, which is designed to ensure that the functions of the director are exercised for the purpose of protecting the victims of labour market exploitation.

More fundamental is amendment 19, which seeks to remove the offence of illegal working. We share the widespread concerns that, like other offences, it will have little effect in terms of immigration control, but will have other significant adverse effects. In this case, the negative consequence is to undermine the decent work that the Government have been doing to tackle slavery and trafficking. The Bill will drive exploited, undocumented workers further underground, and leave them more at risk of exploitation, rather than less.

While on this issue, we know that James Ewins’ report on domestic workers is with the Government but as yet not available to Members. We question why that is the case, and when we will be able to see and debate it in order to inform what should happen with this Bill if it gets a Third Reading.

Finally, in relation to part 1 of the Act, amendment 33 seeks to ensure that employers who innocently and inadvertently employ a person without the right to work are not criminalised by the Bill. It does so by applying a threshold of “knowingly or recklessly” to the offence of employing an adult without permission to work, instead of merely requiring that they have “reasonable cause to believe” that the employee may be such a person. We are concerned that the current test might catch people who are not the intended target.

There are two further sets of amendments in this first grouping that I need to speak to. The first set relates to how a number of these provisions would be implemented in Scotland. Clauses 10, 11 and 16 all include what I am told are referred to as Henry VIII clauses—broad powers to legislate for Scotland, and indeed Northern Ireland and in one case Wales. Whereas provisions on licensed premises, private hire vehicles and right to rent are set out in significant detail in schedules to the Bill, and subject to full legislative scrutiny, that is not the case for Scotland. Instead, the Secretary of State is given the sweeping power to legislate in a similar way for Scotland by way of regulation. The power includes the ability to amend Acts of the Scottish Parliament, without any consideration of that Parliament’s view on the matter—and that is despite the fact that liquor licensing, private hire car licensing and housing are all devolved matters.

I understand that Parliament has long been hostile to Henry VIII clauses, and rightly so. These clauses are particularly pernicious for the reasons given, and so should be rejected. That can be done by supporting amendments 47 to 53, which would remove the power to regulate for Scotland in this way, thereby requiring primary legislation and the full scrutiny that that entails. Alternatively, amendment 41 requires that any such regulations would require the consent of the Scottish Parliament, again enabling proper scrutiny. That is surely only right and proper in the circumstances.

Finally, on new clause 13 and amendment 32, this House witnessed a powerful Backbench Business debate back in September, led by the hon. Members for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), for Bedford (Richard Fuller) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), who I know will all want, if they can, to speak on the issue again today. On that day there were strong speeches on all sides of the House as it united to tell the Government that immigration detention without a fixed and certain time limit was no longer acceptable. We are the only country in the EU without a time limit so it is inexcusable for this country not to operate one. We on the SNP Benches would prefer that we move straight to a position where immigration bail is granted after 28 days, as set out in amendment 32. Alternatively, we will support new clause 13 to see progress towards that goal.