Work and Families Bill

moved Amendment No. 23:"After Clause 12, insert the following new clause—" ““ANTE-NATAL APPOINTMENTS    After subsection (4) of section 55 of ERA 1996 (right to time off for ante-natal care) insert— ““(4A)   The Secretary of State shall make regulations entitling an employee who satisfies certain conditions— (a)   as to relationship with an expected child, and (b)   as to relationship with the expected child’s mother, to be absent from work on leave under this section for the purpose of attending ante-natal appointments.”””” . The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 23 establishes a new statutory right of fathers-to-be and other partners of expectant mothers, including female partners in same-sex couples, to paid time off work to accompany an expectant mother to antenatal appointments. Under Sections 55 and 56 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 an expectant mother can get time off work to attend such appointments. Antenatal care can include relaxation classes and parent-craft classes. The expectant mother should receive her normal rate of pay in respect of such time off work. For the second and subsequent appointments the employer can ask for proof that she is genuinely going to such appointments, perhaps from the doctor or health visitor. However, these rights are limited to women who are pregnant, and there is no legal right for fathers-to-be and other partners to have time off, paid or otherwise, to accompany expectant mothers to antenatal appointments. Yet all the available evidence suggests that allowing fathers paid time off to attend antenatal care not only allows them to support their partners during pregnancy by sharing problems, anxieties and concerns, but increases the likelihood of them taking an active role in the care of their children once they are born. The Government have acknowledged that families benefit from a father being involved in caring for his child from the earliest time, and that that can begin with his attendance at antenatal appointments. The DTI good practice guide encourages employers to allow fathers-to-be the flexibility to do that, as it will enable them to be involved with important decisions about pregnancy, birth and care of the baby after it is born. As long ago as January 2003 the Government stated that they were considering whether to allow fathers time off to attend antenatal care. I am disappointed that the Government have not taken the opportunity offered by this Bill to move forward on this point. If the Government are serious about wanting to engender a cultural shift so that fathers play a bigger role in caring for their young children, and we have no reason to doubt that that is the case, they should begin at the beginning and extend the right of paid time off to attend antenatal appointments. My amendment would establish such a right and would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations defining who is able to exercise it so as to include not only biological fathers, but also husbands who are not the biological fathers, or partners who are cohabiting who want to take parental responsibility for their children. That approach is already taken by the Government in relation to statutory rights to ordinary paternity and adoption leave. I hope the Government will bear in mind that many organisations feel that it would be very beneficial to go that little bit further: Citizens Advice, Working Families, the TUC, Fathers Direct, Working Parents Group, Mothers’ Union, the GMB, the T&GWU and many other such people. I cannot see that it would be an enormous additional cost burden on businesses because not a lot of time is required for the appointments, and not every father would want to attend them. I hope all new men would want to, because to be closely involved with the birth of their child can give them enormous satisfaction. To see the scan of the baby in the womb provides a great thrill to many young fathers I know, and they have proudly shown me the photographs. Seeing the photographs when the mother brings them home is one thing, but seeing the baby kick in the womb in the hospital is another. Low-paid fathers in particular cannot afford to take time off unpaid or to take a day’s holiday. People sometimes only have a few precious weeks’ holiday which they might want to save for when the baby is born, because ordinary paternity leave is only two weeks. I do not believe that this is an enormous burden, but it might provide some very happy workers who would be happy to stay in their jobs, be more productive and some of the other things that we have described in relation to flexible working. I beg to move.