Work and Families Bill

I had intended to add my name to Amendment No. 3A, but yesterday afternoon I was diverted and did not do so in time. I support Amendment No. 3A as the alternative to Amendment No. 3. I agree with a great deal of what the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has said. I understand her concerns. They are absolutely genuine and well founded. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that a father does not have to be the biological father of a child to make a full commitment which will cost him money, time, effort, emotional energy and so on, in favour of a child in order to qualify for these benefits, as I think he should. I point out, in the presence of the right reverend Prelate, that St Joseph would not have qualified under Amendment No. 3, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. I also give cautious support to Amendment No. 4. I see where the noble Baroness is coming from. There is a need to ensure that it is not possible for two fathers to claim the same benefit. In such a situation there would be an opportunity for an employer to lose out if he inadvertently gave the benefit to the wrong father. I am a little worried about Amendment No. 4 as it may be possible for a market to develop among women who are prepared to sign documents that go to more than one employer enabling more than one man to claim benefit. I would quibble with one phrase the noble Baroness used. I do not think that looking after any young child is a paid holiday, even if one receives £106 a week. I certainly support the spirit of what she is trying to do, but I am just not sure that we are protected from the possibility of a market developing by the wording of her amendment.