Standing Committee E
Tuesday 23 February 1999
(Afternoon)
[Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody in the Chair]
Schedule 3
Leave for Family and Domestic Reasons
4.30 pm
Mr. David Chidgey (Eastleigh): I beg to move amendment No. 59, in page 50, line 6, leave out `or expecting to have'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 68, in page 50, line 6, leave out `responsibility' and insert `day-to-day responsibility to care'.
No. 36, in page 50, line 7, at end insert
`, provided that the child in question is related to the employee as either a natural or adoptive child or grandchild, or that the employer has been appointed to foster the child or is otherwise in loco parentis.'
No. 37, in page 50, leave out lines 9 and 10.
No. 38, in page 50, line 11, at end insert
` . but the entitlement to parental leave shall cease to apply when the child has reached compulsory school age, unless that child is either an adoptive child or has special educational needs.'.
Mr. Chidgey: Good afternoon, Mrs. Dunwoody. It seems appropriate that we should be talking about parental care under your benevolent stewardship, which gives me a reassuring feeling. I am sure that you will exercise due weight of authority as our proceedings develop. Having finished the pleasantries, I have been told to get on, so I shall—quickly, ma'am. After speaking to my amendment, I shall address similar points raised by amendment No. 38.
The amendment, which is a probing one, proposes the deletion of the words ``or expecting to have''. It is important to specify the parent who has care when considering a parental leave entitlement, or problems could in several circumstances arise. First, parents may unfortunately be separated or divorced and share responsibility for the care of a child. Many hon. Members will have come across instances in their constituencies when dealing with Child Support Agency cases, of parents who sometimes manipulate the concept and definition of shared care. Depending on who has what proportion of the responsibility for care, the costs attributable to the support of a child, as defined by the CSA, change and battles go on as to who is responsibile for how many nights a week, and so on. We are therefore talking about something that has a major impact on that aspect of social life. Trying to define who is responsible for a child when determining entitlement to parental leave could also have a major impact.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): In the cases that the hon. Gentleman is speaking about, we should separate those who have parental responsibility for financial contributions and have access to the child from those who have a financial responsibility but do not, for a range of reasons, have access to the child or who have been prevented from having such access.
Mr. Chidgey: I have agree with the Minister; I was going to make that distinction. However, we must determine precisely what ``expecting to have responsibility'' means. It could mean that one or other parent is planning to go into hospital—not for an emergency case, an eventuality that is dealt with in another part of the Bill—which clearly requires the other parent to be responsible. It could mean that there is a regular arrangement, not involving financial transactions, for a child with separated or divorced parents to stay with one or other of them; the expectation of responsibility in such a case would be clear to all concerned. However, for a host of reasons, those who have expectation of responsibility may not fall into the same category as those who have true entitlement to parental leave; there could be an expectation of responsibility for a child which, in the event, may not materialise. That is my concern: the use of the word ``expecting''. What checks and balances will employers have to verify such expectation? Is it intended that statements or evidence should be required from an employee not normally the parent with care to justify a change or expected change in circumstances? The Bill is not clear about who is entitled to claim parental leave. It is not in the spirit of the Bill that an employer should have to decide the basis of a relationship between two parents and a child. The employer needs to have clear eligibility criteria. Employers should be able to expect the Bill to allow them to exercise discretion, as most reasonable employers would.
I want to know what the Minister has in mind, but a case can be made for the regulations to set out precisely and clearly a list of those entitled to claim parental leave, based on their responsibility for a child. Such a list would clearly include natural or adoptive parents. Step-parents and legal guardians would obviously be entitled to make a claim for parental leave. However, others could claim to have parental responsibilities, as defined in the Children Act 1989, if a residence order has been made. Such an order need not have a financial connotation, but it would certainly imply some responsibility.
The concept of responsibility in the Bill could create much uncertainty for employers. It will be difficult for them to establish who has genuine responsibility and therefore who has the right to claim parental leave. It does not take much imagination to envisage a case where both parents are working, the responsibility for the care of the children being shared at different times between themselves, grandparents, aunts or even friends. Each of those people could, as the Bill is written, claim responsibility for the care of the children and therefore be entitled to parental leave. If each was entitled to claim an element of parental leave, if would be a complex matter for the employer to determine exactly who had the right to the benefit.
It becomes even more complex if we consider the right to transfer different elements of parental leave rights. I think, for instance, of workers who have the short-term care of children, particularly those who undertake short-term foster care. It is an admirable thing to do, and I certainly applaud and support those who take on such responsibilities. Clearly, it is valuable for children of unsettled background. In the context of the Bill, however, we need to know whether it is intended that parental leave rights should extend to foster carers, even if their responsibility is short term—perhaps even less than three months, as I am sure sometimes happens. Employers need to have a precise definition of responsibility for care, or the expectation of responsibility, because it could be suggested that a foster parent would expect to have continual responsibility for a number of children over a number of years, but for a relatively short time in respect of each.
It is worth pointing out that the European Community directive from which the regulation and the Bill emanate sets out the intention of giving parents the right to claim parental leave. Employers will be placed in the position of trying to determine the expectation of a responsibility of care, and will need a way of monitoring whether the employee is making a reasonable claim for leave. What type of evidence can the employer call for under the Bill to confirm that the employee's claim is justified? What reasonable evidence is it intended that the employee should present to the employer to justify an expectation of responsibility? A birth certificate? A birth certificate and a marriage certificate? It would hardly be appropriate in our modern society to say that only those who can produce a birth certificate and a marriage certificate should be entitled to parental leave. Complexities begin to mount when an employer legitimately tries to determine whether a claim for parental leave on the basis of expectation of responsibility for a child is justified. The concept of responsibility is difficult to define and, in some cases, difficult to prove, and even more difficult to regulate through the Bill.
I spent a heavily involved lunch ensuring that what I had to say on amendment No. 38 was right. Only a sandwich passed my lips; I hardly had time for anything else.
The Chairman: I am sure that this is a most responsible and sober Committee.
Mr. Chidgey: I would not dare attend if it were any other.
Other Opposition Members, too, will discuss amendment No. 38, which raises the problem of defining at what age the entitlement to parental leave should cease. A clear case exists for defining in the Bill that the entitlement should cease when the child has reached compulsory school age—I do not want to tread on anyone's toes; the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) will no doubt go into some detail on the matter—especially when related to the directive, which, as hon. Members will know, allows leave to be taken up to the child's eighth birthday. However, I believe that that definition in the directive recognises that in different countries in the European Union, children start their formal education at different ages. The directive is therefore quite loose and open, to account for those different characteristics in the education system.
If the Government intend that parental leave should in general be taken before a child's compulsory formal education starts, the Bill should be clear about that. As it stands, it is not. Even in our confined consideration of our own system, no guarantee exists that formal, compulsory education will continue to start at the age of five. I therefore believe that we should specify compulsory education, rather than the age of the child. Considerable support exists in Parliament and elsewhere to reduce the compulsory starting age for school to below five. Strong support exists for early-years education, which means children starting school at four years old. In years to come, compulsory education may start earlier than five years old.
|
