Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord De Mauley (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 18 March 2010. It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Additional Statutory Paternity Pay (General) Regulations 2010.


Additional Statutory Paternity Pay (General) Regulations 2010

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining these regulations. As noble Lords will know, we on these Benches place considerable importance on the institution of the family, whether or not within a marriage, because we believe strongly in the importance of a stable and committed relationship as the best basis for bringing up a child. We are therefore sympathetic to giving parents flexibility, including in the context of parental leave, provided a sensible and pragmatic balance is struck with the interests of the employer. The Minister referred to this himself. I was an employer myself until a few years ago and I well remember a situation where one of our employees became pregnant and took maternity leave. We were very anxious to make life as easy as possible for her, not least because we were keen to have her back when she was ready to come back, so what I say now should be seen in the light of my understanding of the need for a balance. Our concerns are in the following areas. First, a welter of employment law—I think a dozen separate pieces—will come into force in 2011. Will the Minister kindly explain how the detail of all of that coming into force has been, or will be, carefully explained to employers, to make it as easy as possible for them to understand and abide by it? Secondly, I understand that EU directives dealing with parental leave and with pregnant workers are imminent. Can the Minister say what is the expected timing of this, what the expected requirements of these directives are and how they will tie in with the regulations we are dealing with today? Thirdly, yesterday in another place my honourable friend Jonathan Djanogly raised the issue of the extent to which the employer has an obligation to verify that someone posing as a father is indeed the relevant father. Confirmation of the position on that from the Minister would be helpful. Lastly, a question that was not raised in another place yesterday is how the employer of one parent—say, the father—is supposed to know that the other parent, the mother, is not also claiming simultaneously. Related to that, what is the obligation on the employer of a father to give him parental leave if the wife is not working? As I have said, we are sympathetic to giving parents flexibility in the context of parental leave, so I look forward to the Minister’s responses on these points.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
718 c732-3 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Children Conditions of employment Adoption Fraud EU law Intercountry adoption Foreign nationals Fathers Parental leave Pay Paternity leave Staff Small businesses
Legislation
Additional Paternity Leave Regulations 2010
Additional Statutory Paternity Pay (Weekly Rates) Regulations 2010
Additional Statutory Paternity Pay (General) Regulations 2010
Additional Statutory Paternity Pay (Adoptions from Overseas) Regulations 2010
Additional Paternity Leave (Adoptions from Overseas) Regulations 2010
Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80BB to Adoptions from Overseas) Regulations 2010
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk