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

Will Quince Excerpts

Wednesday 7th February 2018 Public Bill Committees

[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.

[Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)]

That is certainly something I gave due consideration to when drafting the first incarnation of the Bill. I have huge sympathy with the points that the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran made about flexibility. We have heard lots of very good representations from charities and different organisations in the field, but we have not heard from business. We have always said that we have to be fair to business and to those who have suffered this tragic loss.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend makes a good point: we need to engage with all the stakeholders in the consultation to ensure we get it right. I heed the calls of many hon. Members, especially the hon. Members for Lincoln (Karen Lee) and for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who have made such points in previous debates.

If the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran agrees to withdraw the amendment, I ask that she and other hon. Members work closely with officials and the Department to feed into the consultation, which will be held later this year to consider some of these points in more detail, including the period in which leave may be taken and how flexibly it may be taken. I am very sympathetic to a longer period, but I ask that we deal with it in that way.

[Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)]

I echo the comments of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran. It is right that flexibility be given. Having listened to those comments, another consultation seems like a frustration. This is quite a simple ask. Grief can affect people in many different ways. It can manifest and culminate at different times for different people depending on their support network, what has happened to them and their child, and the delay of the trauma.

As noted in amendment 11, it is crucial that the parent or carer should not have to take those days concurrently, but could use them as they wished, in agreement with their manager. That is where we would achieve balance: the right would exist, but a manager would have to agree to those times.

When I was a team manager, one of my members of staff found out that her daughter had diabetes. We worked week by week on what the needs of the child were for getting to grips with that disease. That is where the balance could come. It is not too much of an imposition, just an ask for some flexibility.

Flexibility would undoubtedly be beneficial for the employer, because the employee would not just take a two-week block within two months of the trauma, after which they would be expected to return to work. The time could be used as a phased return, as has been mentioned, or stored up for when a particularly bad period arose, which would otherwise probably, and understandably, be taken as a sick day by that employee. I therefore think that this is a very reasonable amendment.

[Will Quince]

I thank the hon. Lady for kindly giving way on her very last word. Does she agree that this is quite a large change? We are introducing one of the best workers’ rights in the world, so it will be a big change for business and will therefore come as somewhat of a shock. We want this to be an absolute bare minimum that businesses provide, so it is therefore really important that we take the business community with us and absolutely sell why this is such an important thing to do and why, as she rightly says, it will be beneficial to their businesses. That is why consulting is probably the right way forward.

[Laura Pidcock]

I know that all this comes, as we mentioned last week, from a place of anxiety of wanting to make sure the Bill passes with ease. I have to politely disagree: I am not sure that this would be a massive shock to business. When I was a manager of a team, albeit within a charity, I still had to make sure that there was enough money in to pay the wages. We very much had to operate like a business.

I hope the new legislation never has to be used, but where it does the entitlement will still be two weeks’ bereavement leave. That is not a considerable time in people’s working lives. Using the time flexibly would have positives for the employer because members of staff, if they were unable to use the entitlement, would often have to call in sick because they were so down and were unable to come in to work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The difficulties would be in redrafting legislation and ensuring consideration of the needs of employers. There are issues with HMRC to do with how payments are made and the ability to look at a single day, rather than two single-week blocks or a two-week block. It makes things more complicated for both the provisions and the regulations. I go back to the point about employers—the Bill is a signal to employers, although I absolutely accept what the hon. Lady is saying. Would any reasonable employer giver their employee time off for a funeral? The answer has to be yes.

[Will Quince]

rose—

[The Chair]

Order. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton is intervening on the hon. Member for North West Durham.

[Laura Pidcock]

Thank you, Mr Gray. It is all getting a bit confusing.

Let me say a few tiny words in response to that answer. I understand that it would take a very brave employer to come forth and say that they would not agree with this. I also think we have to bear in mind that although this is painful to every single individual, we are talking about a minority of people who will have a child who dies, and a minority of employers who would be abusive by not allowing a day off for a funeral, so this is about small numbers.

[Will Quince]

The vast majority of employers are rightly compassionate enough to give their staff a day’s leave for a funeral. That is paid, ordinarily, at their full pay rate. If this measure is included in the Bill, the danger is that that would only be at the equivalent of statutory paternity or maternity pay, so we might actually be penalising the people we are trying to protect.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Will Quince]

I will speak to amendments 14 and 15. One of the hardest elements of the Bill is the definition of a child. Amendments 14 and 15 would define a child as a person under the age of 18 or in full-time education, or both. These are probing amendments and I do not intend to press them to a vote, for all of the reasons that I have set out in our previous sessions.

In my ten-minute rule Bill, I defined a child as a person under the age of 18, in compulsory full-time education, or both. I think my amendments are fundamentally flawed, because they say, “in full-time education, or both” but of course somebody can go back to full-time education at a later stage—they could be a mature student. Somebody in their 30s, 40s or 50s could be caught under the scope of the amendments, and that is certainly not the intention.

What I want is to get us all talking about where we should set the legal definition. The hon. Member for Glasgow East referenced teenagers in his points about teenage cancer, but of course teenagers are pre-18 and post-18, because someone who is 19 is also a teenager. The age of 18 is the point at which we all accept that there is a legal responsibility for dependents, and it is also when we can leave full-time education. However, as we all know from our days at school, people can be old for their class—they could be 18 and still in secondary school doing their A-levels. We have to consider that.

I hope the Minister can take the amendments away and look at them. There is that element of “compulsory” —those who are still at school; that would not catch people who are at university. However, there is an argument for doing so, because many students are still wholly dependent on their parents. There is also the issue of apprenticeships and so on, which are not necessarily compulsory post-18; nevertheless, students are on a relatively low income, so will be dependent on their parents. They are often living at home.

I hope the Committee will consider the amendments in more depth, so that we can work out what the right age is. Certainly, considering compulsory full-time education might be one of the potential solutions.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

I shall speak to amendments 18 and 19, which would add the words

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

The Bill applies to children under the age of 18, for all the reasons raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester. Amendments 18 and 19 would extend the definition of “child” for the purposes of parental bereavement leave and pay to those under the age of 25 with a lifelong disability and recognised dependency.

From my own experience with the children’s hospices that work in my area, they have a cut-off of around the age of 25 for those with disability or illness—they are classified as still entitled to attend the children’s hospice as opposed an adults’ hospice up to that point.

Therefore, there should be an extension to cover disability and dependency. We know that the care offered by parents to those with a disability or a recognised dependency is very often very high, and they will have provided extensive love and support to their child. There are many parents who have children with a disability or a lifelong dependency who, sadly, do not make it to the age of 25. I question whether my amendment should be limited to 25 for such cases—

--- Later in debate ---

Division 2

Ayes: 6

---

Labour: 3
Scottish National Party: 3

Noes: 9

---

Conservative: 8

[Will Quince]

I beg to move amendment 25, in the schedule, page 2, line 35, at end insert

“(see also section 80EE for the application of this Chapter in relation to stillbirths)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 26.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 26, in the schedule, page 4, leave out lines 29 to 35 and insert—

“80EE Application in relation to stillbirths

In this Chapter—

(a) references to a child include a child stillborn after twenty-four weeks of pregnancy, and

(b) references to the death of a child are to be read, in relation to a stillborn child, as references to the birth of the child.”

This amendment extends the provisions about parental bereavement leave to bereaved parents of stillborn children.

Amendment 8, in the schedule, page 4, line 30, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment would give the Secretary of State a duty, rather than a power, to extend parental bereavement leave to cases where a child is stillborn after twenty-four weeks of pregnancy.

Amendment 27, in the schedule, page 4, line 37, leave out “, 80EE”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 26.

Amendment 28, in the schedule, page 9, line 18, at end insert

“(see also section 171ZZ15 for the application of this Part in relation to stillbirths)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 29.

Amendment 29, in the schedule, page 10, leave out lines 40 to 46 and insert—

“171ZZ15 Application in relation to stillbirths

In this Part—

(a) references to a child include a child stillborn after twenty-four weeks of pregnancy, and

(b) references to the death of a child are to be read, in relation to a stillborn child, as references to the birth of the child.”

This amendment extends the provisions about statutory parental bereavement pay to bereaved parents of stillborn children.

Amendment 9, in the schedule, page 10, line 41, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment would give the Secretary of State a duty, rather than a power, to extend parental bereavement pay to cases where a child is stillborn after twenty-four weeks of pregnancy.

Amendment 30, in the schedule, page 11, leave out line 3.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 29.

[Will Quince]

It seems greedy to table so many amendments on such an important subject: the inclusion of bereaved parents of stillborn babies. The amendments are probing because I want the Committee to give the subject due consideration. For Members who are not aware, a stillbirth is defined as a child stillborn after the 24th week of pregnancy. Anyone who suffers a stillbirth after 24 weeks is entitled to full maternity or paternity leave in the same way that any parent that loses a child who is technically born, who draws breath, is entitled to the same statutory paternity or maternity leave.

As the Bill is drafted, the parents of babies that draw breath would be entitled to statutory parental bereavement leave in addition to their statutory paternity and maternity leave, whereas the parents of stillborn babies would not. The Bill by its nature must have arbitrary cut-offs. We have just debated eligibility in terms of definition, and to some extent this is no different. There is currently a disparity between parents of a child who drew breath and those of a child who did not. Luckily, parents of all babies, whether stillborn or those who die neonatally, would be entitled to those rights afforded at present as part of the statutory maternity and paternity; the discrepancy is between a stillbirth and a live birth. There is a piece of work to be done on including parents of stillborn children, because at the moment there is an unfairness between them and those who lose a child neonatally.

There would be a financial implication from including parents who suffer a stillbirth as well as those who suffer a neonatal death, but it is worth considering nevertheless. For parents who lose a child neonatally, some would say, “Why should they get statutory paternity leave, because they are already entitled to their maternity or paternity rights?” I would argue that it would be bolted on in any event, but do not forget that a lot of parents—men in particular—may take paternity leave and lose their child after those two weeks. It is therefore right that fathers in particular should be entitled to those additional two weeks, and it should also be afforded to mothers in addition to their maternity leave. We should seriously consider including those parents who suffer a stillbirth in the scope of the Bill.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am not entirely clear about the protocol, so I will ask your advice, Mr Gray. At various stages of the Bill, we have heard moving stories about lives lost of both children who have lived and those who were stillborn. Of course, many of those stories have come from members of the Committee, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Eddisbury and for Banbury and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester made an impassioned contribution. If I may, I would like to listen to further remarks before I make my contributions and we decide on any amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am very grateful to the Minister for his consideration. This is something that we have discussed much in our deliberations, both with Committee members and in the House at various stages.

Stillbirth was first brought to my attention because of my constituents Annika and James Dowson—my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury and for Eddisbury are very aware of their case—and their little daughter, Gypsy. They said they had never heard their baby cry, which must be a desperate state of affairs for anyone who has been through those tragic events. They directed their grief into a very positive campaign to raise money to fund a bereavement suite at Scarborough hospital. It is tremendous to see the resilience and determination that people show in these circumstances; I am not sure I could do the same.

Luke and Ruthie Heron are also constituents of mine. Their little son, Eli, was brought into this world at 23 weeks and six days. He lived for two days. He was stillborn. Had he not lived for those two days, it would have been defined as a miscarriage. This is being discussed in relation to legislation going through the House at the moment. I have constituents who have experience of this.

I am delighted that the Government have agreed to support the amendments. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran was the first hon. Member to table an amendment on the matter. I am sure that the Government’s support for the other amendment is a purely technical decision, not a political one—it is about drafting. They have done a tremendous job of ensuring that we get the legislation right, so that we do not suffer any negative consequences later on. I ask the hon. Members for North Ayrshire, for Glasgow East and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North not to press their amendments and instead to support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester.

[Will Quince]

I place on record my huge thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton. It is actually a bit of a surprise that the Government support my amendment, which I tabled relatively speculatively because there was a debate to be had. However, the fact that the Government have accepted the argument will be of huge benefit to the parents of the circa 3,000 children who are stillborn every year in this country. I hope that that number will go down year on year; the all-party group on baby loss is certainly working on that. I thank the Minister for his support and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran for her amendments, which are in a similar vein to mine and would have largely the same effect. We are all on the same page, so I thank all hon. Members for their cross-party support.

Amendment 25 agreed to.

Amendments made: 26, in schedule, page 4, leave out lines 29 to 35 and insert—

“80EE Application in relation to stillbirths

In this Chapter—

(a) references to a child include a child stillborn after twenty-four weeks of pregnancy, and

(b) references to the death of a child are to be read, in relation to a stillborn child, as references to the birth of the child.”

This amendment extends the provisions about parental bereavement leave to bereaved parents of stillborn children.

Amendment 27, in schedule, page 4, line 37, leave out “, 80EE”.—(Will Quince.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 26.

[David Linden]

I beg to move amendment 4, in schedule, page 5, leave out lines 10 to 12.

This amendment would remove the condition that an employee needs to be with an employer for a continuous period of 26 weeks in order to receive parental bereavement pay.