Work and Families Bill

Indeed, I believe that is right. That is one way, but if that is not done, complex processes have to take place for that responsibility to be established. I think that is now quite common and many parents choose to do it. A father whose name does not appear on the birth certificate can apply for parental responsibility through the courts and a parental responsibility order can be issued. This could also be a problem for step-parents and same-sex partners who might well be in a position where they have to apply for parental responsibility. While a mother can agree to give parental responsibility, an agreement would have to be drawn up and certified by a solicitor. This could all add to the complexity of the scheme, which we want to avoid and we do not think it would be right for a father, step-parent or same-sex partner to have to go through this possible process to establish eligibility to take additional paternity leave and pay. The intention of this policy is to improve the possibilities for caring for the child and ensure that the right person is caring for the child. We do not want to include additional steps for someone to qualify and maintain that the same definition we have for a father to be eligible for ordinary paternity leave is the most appropriate definition. These amendments seek to narrow the definition and would reduce the number of fathers eligible to take additional paternity leave. Introducing a requirement that a father has to be related to the mother by being a co-habitor at the time the child is born, and for the time when additional paternity leave is taken, and is contributing to the maintenance of the child or the mother, would further limit the number of eligible fathers. This would not necessarily ensure that the right person is eligible to take additional paternity leave and be able to care for the child. Circumstances change and it is not always the father who is paying maintenance who has any caring responsibilities, or wishes to have any responsibilities for his child. It is important for the benefit of the child that the right person is caring for the child and we believe that the definition I have outlined is the correct definition to allow the most appropriate person to care for the child. We expect that in the vast majority of cases, parents will cohabit, but we want to reflect a range of personal choices that people can make. We do not believe that linking maintenance payments to the care of the child is necessarily an ideal approach and would question the relevance of this requirement. The definition we propose already provides that the person taking additional paternity leave and receiving additional statutory paternity pay must be responsible for the child’s upbringing and can take additional paternity leave only to care for the child. Furthermore, including a link to the maintenance payment could result in further complexities about how this is proved and would not keep the scheme straightforward. We recognise that employers and taxpayers would want to be sure that the scheme was robust and that we were not enabling multiple payments or increasing the risk of wrongful payments. In the additional paternity leave and pay consultation published on 8 March—I accept that noble Lords may not have had the chance to peruse that in detail yet—we sought views on issues surrounding this. For example, we have asked for views on whether it should be mandatory for a father to produce evidence of the birth or adoption of the baby or child, prior to additional paternity leave being taken. Under the existing two weeks’ paternity leave and pay arrangements a father is required only to self-certify that they have a child to qualify for the leave and pay entitlement. An employer may ask for evidence if they feel that there are grounds to do so. We want to ensure that we get the balance right, making the administration of the additional paternity leave scheme as straightforward as possible, while limiting the potential for abuse. We will continue to listen to the views of stakeholders and work with employers on this aspect following the consultation. We believe that it is important not to have the definition of a father to qualify for additional paternity leave included in the primary legislation. The definition of a father is not included in primary legislation for ordinary paternity leave and the sensible approach would be to set out the definition in the secondary regulations, which we will develop once the detail of the policy is finalised following further consultation and consideration. Turning to Amendment No. 4, we recognise that how the additional paternity leave and pay scheme actually works is very important, and we want to ensure that we get it right. In the consultation, there is a whole section devoted to the administration of the scheme and this section asks for views on how the transfer of information, which is a vital part of the process, is carried out, and seeks views on sanctions and compliance. We have committed to keeping the administration ““light touch””, but recognise that this has to be balanced with ensuring that the scheme is robust. Obtaining the views of employers is especially important in developing the administration of the scheme. Following the consultation, we will be working closely with employer representative groups and specialist HR and payroll personnel to assist in making the administration straightforward in terms of understanding and process. In the Work and Families: Choice and Flexibility consultation published in February 2005, we asked for views on the procedure for administering the transferable leave and pay scheme, which was being considered at that time. We gave three options: self certification by the mother and father of their eligibility; self certification by the parents combined with confirmation by the mother’s employer; and Inland Revenue compliance checks, which would require Inland Revenue—now HMRC—to undertake an additional check to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the system. From that consultation, it became clear that self certification by the mother and father of their eligibility with confirmation from the mother’s employer that the mother was entitled to maternity leave and/or pay and has notified her intention to return to work was the preferred option, as it provided a balance between keeping the bureaucracy to a minimum while limiting the potential for errors in payment or abuse of the system, through providing an additional check by employers. This principle can also be applied to the administration of the additional paternity leave and pay scheme. We want to minimise direct contact between the mother’s employer and the father’s employer and believe that this can be avoided, but we want to ensure this is what employers and employees also want. The amendment as drafted would not work in so far as the mother would not be able to confirm that a father was entitled to additional paternity leave and pay. While the mother could confirm that the father was the child’s father or her partner and responsible for the upbringing of the child, the mother could not confirm the length of service a father had provided to their employer, or provide confirmation of the father’s earnings, which are also eligibility criteria. This information would have to come through the father’s employer. The amendment could lead to a more complicated administration arrangement. Where possible, we want to build on existing administration arrangements for maternity and paternity leave, as that will assist in keeping the scheme straightforward and should mean that many employers already have an understanding of the system. That, along with new guidance will, I am sure, make the administration straightforward and the scheme a success. It is crucial that we do not rush into making decisions about who is responsible for providing certain information and how that information is exchanged until we have had time to fully consult and explore the options. We want the scheme to be a success, as I am sure that other noble Lords do; we believe that these amendments should not be part of the Bill and that the issue should be left for further consultation and consideration before the regulations are drafted. Accordingly, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.