Work and Families Bill

moved Amendment No. 3:"Page 2, line 10, at end insert—" ““(   )   For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) and (c), the relationship with the child must be that of the biological father and the relationship with the mother shall be that of co-habitor at the time the child is born and for the time when the additional paternity leave is taken and contributing directly or indirectly to the maintenance of the child or its mother.”” The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 4. Clause 3 gives entitlement to additional paternity leave on the birth of a child. It is said that it is a wise child who knows his own father. How much wiser must an employer be to know which putative father is the person entitled to the benefit of additional paternity leave. Let us consider the possible permutations: both biological parents living together; both biological parents living apart; the biological mother living apart from the father but now living with another man who is performing parental duties, whether or not assuming any financial responsibilities; and the biological mother unable to state who is the father. In all these cases, we must assume that the person claiming the additional paternity leave is not employed by the same person as the mother. Indeed, the mother may not be employed by anyone. The purpose of the amendment is to define who among possible claimants is specifically entitled to the benefit and to relieve the employer, or possibly several employers, from having to determine who is entitled to it. The amendment lays down specific conditions for entitlement: the claimant must be the biological father, not some other man who has merely been living with the mother when the child was conceived or has begun to do so after that event. Alternatively, he must be living with the mother both at the time when the child is born and at the time when the leave is taken. In other words, this valuable provision should not be available to part-time separated fathers simply acting as occasional babysitters. He must actually be contributing to the maintenance of either the child or its mother. There is no justice in a father who is contributing nothing to the upkeep of either the child or its mother having this neglect rewarded by being granted an undeserved paid holiday. The Explanatory Notes explicitly state:"““An employee is eligible for paternity leave if he has or expects to have responsibility for the baby’s upbringing””." The amendment spells out this excellent and very necessary qualification without waiting for the Secretary of State to define it by the regulations which he intends to make. Amendment No. 4 would resolve another problem raised by the clause as originally drafted. As I pointed out in my opening remarks on this group of amendments, how does an employer know whether the person claiming the leave is really entitled to it? How does an employer who grants the leave and makes the payments in good faith know that he is not a victim of some fraud? How can an employer acting in good faith be protected against a refusal of reimbursement by the Inland Revenue on the grounds that another person was receiving that benefit? The combination of this amendment and the strict wording of the qualifications laid down by Amendment No. 3 would protect employers and the state alike against fraudulent claims. I am not suggesting by any means that this is a perfect defence—nothing is—but it is a little more so than the Bill provides. I beg to move.