Shared Parental Leave and Pay (Bereavement) Bill

Chris Elmore Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 26th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

When I first discovered that I had been successful in the ballot, as other Members have been during this Session, I received requests from organisations and groups on all manner of worthy issues, yet my overriding thought was that I hoped to take through legislation that would achieve meaningful change for individuals and families on a day-to-day basis, and make their lives that little bit less difficult. I put on record my thanks to organisations such as Gingerbread and the Fawcett Society, which have offered invaluable support and guidance in aiding the development of this Bill.

In the tradition of the House working at its best when it works cross party, I place on the record my thanks to the Minister, his officials and the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), who is often forgotten and never thanked for the invaluable work she does in supporting Members in the passing of private Members’ Bills. I sincerely thank the Minister and his officials for the constructive and open way in which they have engaged in finding consensus to reach this point.

I am confident that within the political DNA of all Members of this place is an aim to almost always undertake work that has the biggest impact—work that brings about the most meaningful change for the largest group of people in society we can reach. In doing so, however, we often miss the groups in society who are forgotten or who fall through the legislative cracks of loopholes in our laws. I am pleased to say that this Bill will not impact tens of thousands of people across the United Kingdom, because nobody in this House or in wider society would want it to. As its title states, it is fundamentally about the loss of a partner, wife or mother in childbirth, and about ensuring that more of those left behind have a right to leave in those most horrendous of circumstances.

The House rightly has an annual debate on child loss, which impacts too many people year after year. To me, it is an unimaginable grief, yet like so many issues, life events and tragedies, it can be left unsaid and undebated if it is not raised by a Member. As a husband and a parent, I cannot comprehend losing a partner in childbirth, or indeed what it is like for a child to lose either of their parents before their birth. The phrase, “It would make anyone’s blood run cold,” is probably a grave understatement. The trauma is unimaginable, yet every year a proportion of families must endure that most tragic of circumstances: the unimaginable joy of becoming a parent, but facing the devastating grief of losing the person you had planned the next part of your life with, and now having to somehow raise a child alone.

Like many colleagues across the House, my party has been committed to boosting and safeguarding employment and parental rights in recent decades. In recent years, Bills have been passed on neonatal care, supporting people with baby loss and, of course, shared parental leave, but there is always much more to do. The Bill I have tabled seeks to give a day-one right to leave for parents in the most tragic of circumstances who do not meet current continuity of service requirements, so that they have a guaranteed leave entitlement to process the grief and change in personal circumstances, along with a job to return to when they are able to do so.

I want to mention the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry), who led the charge on this issue when he introduced his ten-minute rule Bill in respect of his constituent Aaron. I will leave him to speak of those circumstances, but I pay tribute to him for the tenacious way that he has lobbied on this issue over the past year. Equally, in mentioning him I confess that this Bill is a little different—or perhaps a lot—from his original Bill, but for me this is about making progress on the issue. My sincere, genuine hope is that the Bill will be the start of a process and debate about making changes to a specific area of law in the months and years to come. I am pleased that the Labour party, if given the privilege to serve our country following the general election, whenever it comes, has a plan to improve employment rights, including those of new parents, so I hope I can lobby Labour Ministers in the years ahead.

The numbers behind this issue are concerning, and I am sorry to say that they are going in the wrong direction. Data released only a few weeks ago by MBRRACE, which monitors the cause of maternal deaths, stillbirths and infant deaths, highlights how the number of women dying each year during pregnancy, or soon after, has increased to its highest level in 20 years, with 3.41 deaths per 100,000 women. Even more troubling is that black, Asian and minority ethnic women, and those in economically deprived areas, are more severely affected. Women from ethnic backgrounds remain four times more likely to die during or after pregnancy, and those from Asian backgrounds are twice as likely to die compared with Caucasian women. Those are figures not seen since the early 2000s.

The UK Government’s stated ambition was to halve maternal mortality rates between 2010 and 2025, yet the numbers clearly paint a different picture. It is clear that with maternal deaths rising, more partners and spouses are being left in the unenviable and heart-wrenching circumstance of bringing up a newborn, planning a funeral and adjusting to life without their significant other. When dealing with such a trio of issues, the last thing many will want to be thinking and worrying about is leave from their employment. Parental leave is something we should be proud of in this country, but it is by no means perfect. Making it easier and more accessible for individuals in what can be incredibly difficult circumstances is something I am sure colleagues across the House will support.

When doing a deep dive into the issue of leave, I was shocked at just how low the take-up of shared parental leave is in this country. Only 1% of eligible employee mothers, at a time when maternal mortality rights are rising, and only 5% of eligible employees take up any shared parental leave, according to the parental rights survey of 2019. For many, even the process of getting set up on the scheme is too arduous, with nearly 10% of eligible mothers and fathers stating that it was too complex to set up and manage. Furthermore, due to the strict eligibility criteria for SPL, approximately 40% of working fathers are left without any leave entitlement. That includes, but is not limited to, fathers whose partner is not working or not entitled to maternity leave, fathers who are in insecure work, fathers who changed jobs after their partner became pregnant, and those fathers who are on lower incomes.

The Childhood Bereavement Network has made the important point that parents of babies may be particularly at risk of financial strain because they are younger. Their partner, who they have lost in childbirth, may have had less time to build up earnings, make mortgage payments or contribute to pension schemes, and is less likely to have planned future finances. Dads who are currently not entitled to SLP because of their own or their partner’s insecure employment prior to death may therefore be among the most vulnerable financially.

We have heard a lot about the stats and figures  behind this issue, but it is important to name and understand the lived experiences behind those figures. I want to read, in his own words, what happened to Simon Thorpe. His lived experience means that now, as an employer himself, he supports this change in the law:

“My wife and I had our first child in August 2020 and 6 months later my wife was diagnosed with terminal cancer. I worked for a medium-sized charity in the north west as general manager, and I immediately asked my chairman to go part-time and work flexibly so I could help out with childcare and hospital appointments. Working flexibly had become the new normal during covid anyway. My chairman and board agreed, and to be honest they didn’t have a choice, but I expect many other employers would not have been able to be so flexible.

After five months, it became clear I couldn’t carry on working in such a responsible position, and manage the childcare and hospital treatment requirements of my wife, so I resigned and left work in October 2021 and became a full-time carer and parent. Fortunately my wife was receiving full sick pay from her employer so I could afford to give up work.

My wife died in August 2022, and by not having a job I was in a better position to immediately deal with the aftermath, especially the childcare. Looking after my two-year-old son was the single most important task. However, as an employer myself, if one of my staff had been in my position of losing a partner, I would have been able to offer our standard three to five days’ compassionate leave. I now know first-hand that this would be totally inadequate, and would not even allow time to hold a funeral. It’s true that after the funeral is when bereavement often hits hardest. I’m sure some employers would be as flexible as possible and offer a period of unpaid leave. Three to five days might be fine for a distant relative, sibling, or even a parent, but for loss of a spouse or even a child it is completely unthinkable that a person could return usefully to the workplace. The only other option would be to be signed off sick by a GP.

I don’t think any legislation can ‘fix’ bereavement and every person responds to bereavement in a different way. There is no prescribable timescale for overcoming a significant loss and being ready to return to work. However, providing a statutory basis for leave following loss of a spouse, particularly in the case where there is a dependent child, seems a positive step. After all, there is two-week statutory paternity leave on birth of a child, but it is equally significant should a parent die that the surviving parent is able to be present at home in the immediate aftermath. It’s not just the emotional impact, it’s the practical aspects of organising a funeral, the “deathocracy” paperwork that goes on and on—probate, wills, liaising with school or preschool and so on. In these moments thinking about work is the last thing on one’s mind, but of course for many there will be a financial pressure, although Bereavement Support Payment has been a most unexpected source of income for me.”

The Bill sets out the following changes. It would make shared parental leave and pay for a father or partner, where the mother of the child has died, a day-one employment right. While I recognise that there is already provision in law for shared parental leave in the case of bereavement, that is subject to a strict continuity of employment test, as the Minister knows. As it stands, for a mother’s partner to take shared parental leave, they must have been working for at least 26 weeks of the 66 weeks before the baby was due, and they must have earned at least £390 in total across any 30 of the 66 weeks. The partner must also have been employed continuously by the same employer for at least 26 weeks by the end of the 15th week before the due date. They must also stay with the same employer until they start their leave period.

In short, that is a lot of fixed conditions in a world where people change jobs and careers more frequently than in previous generations. The Bill would allow the Secretary of State to remove that test through regulations. That would effectively close the loophole that, for example, resulted in the constituent of the hon. Member for Broxtowe not being entitled to shared parental leave.

According to research carried out by the Childhood Bereavement Network, a child’s need for stability following a parent’s death makes it vital for the surviving parent to be able to respond flexibly to them. The child’s adjustment is often closely associated with the parent’s capacity to care for them, including being physically available to them.

We know that, thankfully, only a small percentage of families each year find themselves in such a position. Therefore, after discussions with the Minister and his officials, it is envisaged that the Bill would not require a money resolution due to the relatively small financial cost incurred by the Government, as it links to leave only. However, as I stressed earlier in my speech, this is a first step. I have learned throughout my time in this place to not let the perfect get in the way of the good.

While the Bill aims to give a day-one right to leave to those in insecure work, I hope it will open a broader debate on the employment rights of not just those who work in secure roles, but the growing number of constituents who work in insecure roles. According to a report published by the TUC, the number of people in insecure work has increased from 3.2 million in 2016 to 3.9 million last year. Furthermore, there has been a startling 132% increase in absolute terms of black, Asian and minority ethnic persons in insecure work. Over the space of a decade, that figure has jumped from 360,241 in 2011 to 836,339. We also know that maternal mortality rates have been rising among the BAME community. Dads in insecure work, such as agency work and zero-hours contracts, are not eligible for leave, and those who are self-employed have little to no protections should they find themselves in such a situation.

I recognise that the Bill focuses on those in insecure work, but it is important to have a broad debate on paternity and maternity rights. That is especially so when the figures are as clear as day in highlighting the rapid rise in insecure work and mortality rates among pregnant women. I hope that if the Bill passes its Second Reading, it will open up that important debate.

At present, there is a loophole in legislation that is leaving some parents and guardians without sufficient time to grieve, plan and adjust to life without the mother of their child. I urge colleagues to give due consideration to the Bill’s passing at Second Reading. As I have stated, the Bill would make a massive difference to a small number of cases each year where families experience life-changing circumstances. Those are circumstances that none of us would want for anyone; thankfully, many never face them. Whether it is Aaron and his young son, or anyone who faces this tapestry of grief and joy, staring at a life never planned, I believe it is this place’s job to make life that little bit easier. I would argue that that is the very least we could do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Elmore]

With the leave of the House, I thank all the Members who have spoken today: the hon. Members for Bury North (James Daly), for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton), for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), as well as the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas). I thank the Minister for his closing remarks.

It is to the credit of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry) that he was able to convince an Opposition Whip to take forward a Bill from a Government Member, but actually this is not about party politics. Death and bereavement, as the hon. Member for Congleton said, affects every single one of us, and one of the misconceptions about politicians is that we are not human, but we all breathe and live the same lives and are impacted by many of the issues that the hon. Member for Broxtowe has championed over the past two years. I thank Members for their comments.

I want briefly to talk about what happened to Aaron and the 50 people in a year whom the Bill may impact, as the Minister referenced. I would rather this Bill was not needed, because I wish that there were no mortalities of mothers giving birth in this country, but the reality is that for those who face it, it becomes an unimaginable grief. There is the joy of having a child, while having to bury the person with whom they were planning the next chapter of life and the rest of their lives. Speaking as the parent of a child who will be three on Sunday, I cannot comprehend even three years into raising a toddler managing that without my wife. It is with that sense that I am glad there is cross-party support.

I am glad to have been able to work cross-party with the Minister to ensure that we make this progress. He and I worked on a number of issues over the years before he gained the dizzy heights of high office. As I said in my speech, we must not let the perfect get in the way of the good. I will carry on championing this issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West, who I hope will be on the Government Benches following the general election, to ensure that we bring about more change. I will also carry on working with Conservative Members to support people in bereavement, talk about it and ensure that the issue is always raised as something that everyone faces across the political divide.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).

Shared Parental Leave and Pay (Bereavement) Bill: Instruction

Chris Elmore Excerpts

Instruction
Tuesday 5th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

I rise in support of the Minister’s motion. I thank him for the constructive way in which he, his officials and—dare I say it?—the Government Whips Office have engaged with me during the passage of this Bill. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) for his and his team’s support.

As the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry) said, this Bill will not impact many people. No one in this House wants it to impact many people, because nobody should face what some of our constituents have in recent years and long before. Becoming a parent should be a moment of joy, not a moment of grief and sorrow. I welcome the Minister’s intervention to broaden the scope of the Bill. It is hugely important to a small number of people, and I look forward to dealing with the number of amendments that will come forward when the Bill is in Committee at the end of the month.

Question put and agreed to.

Shared Parental Leave and Pay (Bereavement) Bill

Chris Elmore Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 20th March 2024 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Clause 2 stand part.

Amendment 3, in clause 3, page 1, line 15, at end insert—

“(2A) Regulations under subsection (2) are to be made by statutory instrument.”

This amendment would require commencement regulations to be made by statutory instrument.

Amendment 4, in clause 3, page 1, line 16, leave out

“Shared Parental Leave and Pay”

and insert “Paternity Leave”.

This amendment is consequential on NC1.

Clause 3 stand part.

New clause 1—Paternity leave: special provision in cases of bereavement—

“(1) The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 80A (entitlement to paternity leave: birth), after subsection (6) insert—

‘(6A) In relation to cases where a child’s mother dies, this section has effect as if—

(a) subsection (1)(a) were omitted;

(b) after subsection (1) there were inserted—

“(1A) But in a case where both the child and the mother die, the regulations may provide that an employee who satisfies those conditions is entitled to leave under this section despite the fact that the leave cannot be taken for that purpose.”;

(c) subsection (4A) were omitted.’

(3) In section 80B (entitlement to paternity leave: adoption), after subsection (6B) insert—

‘(6C) In relation to cases where a person with whom a child is placed or expected to be placed for adoption dies, this section has effect as if—

(a) subsection (1)(a) were omitted;

(b) after subsection (1) there were inserted—

“(1A) But in a case where that person dies and the child—

(a) dies, or

(b) is, having been placed for adoption, returned, the regulations may provide that an employee who satisfies those conditions is entitled to leave under this section despite the fact that the leave cannot be taken for that purpose.”;

(c) subsection (4A) were omitted.’

(4) In section 80D (special cases)—

(a) after subsection (1) insert—

‘(1A) Regulations under section 80A or 80B may—

(a) make provision specifying circumstances in which a bereaved employee may work for the employer during a period of leave under that section without bringing the particular period of leave, or the employee’s entitlement to leave under that section, to an end;

(b) make provision about redundancy of a bereaved employee after a period of leave under that section.’;

(b) in subsection (2), after ‘subsection (1)’ insert ‘or (1A)(b)’;

(c) after subsection (2) insert—

‘(3) In subsection (1A), “bereaved employee” means an employee who—

(a) takes leave under section 80A in a case where the child’s mother dies, or

(b) takes leave under section 80B in a case where a person with whom the child is placed or expected to be placed for adoption dies.’”

This new clause would make special provision for paternity leave in cases where a mother (in the case of birth) or a person with whom a child is placed or expected to be placed for adoption (in the case of adoption) dies.

Amendment 5, in title, line 1, leave out from “about” to end of line 2 and insert

“paternity leave in cases where a mother, or a person with whom a child is placed or expected to be placed for adoption, dies”.

This amendment is consequential on NC1.

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley? That is especially true as Members from Northern Ireland spoke on Second Reading to express their hope that if the Bill became law at some point, it could also be adopted in Northern Ireland. I genuinely hope that can be the case.

Upon learning of my success in the ballot, my ambition was to champion a legislative measure that could bring about lasting change and meaningful improvements in the lives of individuals and families to make their lives a little easier. I extend my gratitude to organisations such as Gingerbread, the Fawcett Society and the Childhood Bereavement Network for their invaluable support and guidance through this process.

I also place on record my thanks to and support for the hon. Member for Broxtowe, who was instrumental in leading the work on this vital issue when he introduced his ten-minute rule Bill. The hon. Gentleman has campaigned tirelessly on behalf of his constituent, Aaron, who, I am pleased to say—although I know we are not meant make reference to this—is in the Public Gallery this morning. When Aaron tragically lost his wife Bernadette shortly after the birth of their son, Tim, he did not have access to a statutory leave right because he had moved employer in the months before Tim’s birth. The current rules put Aaron, and other parents in this tragic position, without access to leave to care for their child, safe in the knowledge that they have a job to come back to when they are ready and able to do so.

I also put on record my thanks to Simon Thorpe, who had to endure the heartache of losing his partner not long after the birth of their child. Simon has made it clear that as an employer now, he would not have been able to offer any more than five days’ compassionate leave if a member of his team found themselves in the same circumstances. Surviving partners and spouses should not be left at the mercy of whether they have an understanding employer. I hope the Bill will remedy that.

The Bill will put on the statute book a right to leave on the first day of the bereaved partner’s employment, providing them with the support and protection they need. It will introduce this entitlement and provide support and security to employed parents in the tragic circumstance of losing their partner around the same time as becoming a new parent, if they do not meet the continuity of service requirement to qualify for a statutory parental leave entitlement—in other words, if they have not been in their job for the required length of time to qualify.

The loss of a partner in a life-altering ordeal and navigating that profound grief alongside the demands of caring for a new child must undoubtedly pose an immense challenge. My heartfelt condolences go to those who find themselves in this terrible position. As the father of a three-year-old, I genuinely cannot think of anything worse than losing my wife and the mother of my son while having to raise him alone, as well as managing with the idea of whether I can keep my job.

Thankfully, only a small number of individuals find themselves in this situation, with around 180 maternal deaths within 12 months of childbirth a year. However, the most recent data published by MBRRACE, which monitors maternal deaths, stillbirths and infant deaths, highlights how maternal death during pregnancy is currently at a 20-year high. While the numbers are still mercifully low, it is important that parents in this position need not rely on the good will of their employer to take time away from work to care for their child and, indeed, to grieve.

As Members will have seen, the amendments make extensive changes to the Bill as introduced. Rather than going through which clauses will stand part of the Bill, I will therefore focus on amendments and, in doing so, detail what the Bill as revised will contain, and which parts of it will stand part of the revised Bill.

Let me begin by setting out the detail in new clause 1 which, as the Committee will have seen, makes substantive changes to chapter 3 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which deals with paternity leave. The new clause has several purposes, all of which are integral to the Bill.

First, the new clause establishes that paternity leave will be used as the vehicle to deliver the entitlement. Having discussed that matter with the Government, I have concluded that paternity leave is a more appropriate vehicle to deliver the entitlement, a key reason being that the central feature of a shared parental leave scheme is that the mother or adoptive parent is already entitled to maternity or adoption leave or pay, and curtails that entitlement in order to create an entitlement to shared parental leave. For a bereaved partner to qualify for shared parental leave, then, the deceased parent must have had a recent history of employment. If the deceased parent did not have such a history—for example, in the case of a stay-at-home mum—there would be no shared parental leave entitlement for the surviving parent to access. By contrast, paternity leave entitlements are independent of whatever entitlement the other parent has, so the choice of this mechanism brings more parents, such as surviving partners of deceased stay-at-home mums, into the scope of the entitlement.

Secondly, the entitlement establishes that the surviving partner of a parent who has opted to take adoption leave is in the scope of the entitlement. That allows the surviving parents of adopted children and of children born through surrogacy arrangements to be included, meaning that we can offer the entitlement to a wider range of parents, who will also benefit from it at a very challenging time for them.

Thirdly, the removal of the requirement that the regulations stipulate a continuity-of-service requirement will enable surviving parents to take leave from their first day in a new job, in the tragic situation in which their partner has died and they need to care for their child. That is essential to deliver the intention behind the Bill and ensure that continuity of service is no bar to taking this kind of leave when it is needed.

Fourthly, the new clause removes the requirement that regulations must provide that a parent who has taken shared parental leave cannot then take paternity leave. This gives the Secretary of State the power to provide that a parent who took shared parental leave before the death of their partner can still take paternity leave.

Fifthly, the new clause allows provision to be made for situations in which the child also dies. It gives the regulation the flexibility in such cases to allow the employee to stay on paternity leave for a period, despite the fact that they would not be taking the leave for the required purpose of supporting the mother or caring for the child.

Finally, the new clause introduces two new powers, the first of which provides the ability to introduce, through regulations, enhanced redundancy protection to bereaved employees when they return from extended paternity leave. The second power enables regulations to be made to allow bereaved parents to have keep-in-touch days during their extended paternity leave. For the Committee’s understanding, KIT days enable employees to work for their employer for a limited number of days without their right to paternal leave and pay being affected.

As I have set out, new clause 1 forms the heart of the Bill, as it contains its most important provisions. On that basis, I propose that the Committee accepts it and adds it to the Bill. I also propose that amendment 4, which is consequential on new clause 1, is accepted.

Amendment 1 removes clause 1, as the changes made by new clause 1 will effectively replace its context. I tabled amendment 1 to indicate my intention to vote against clause 1. Amendment 1 has not been selected by the Chair, but we can achieve the same effect by voting against clause 1.

Amendment 5 amends the long title, because it needs changing to more accurately represent the amended scope of the Bill’s content as a result of the changes made by new clause 1. I propose that the Committee accepts the amendment.

I have tabled amendment 2 to indicate my intention to vote against clause 2. I am enjoying looking across at Members who seem confused by what I am saying about voting against and for different amendments. I speak as a long-serving Whip, so if I find it confusing, there is not much hope for other Members, but I do think I am following it, thanks to the Clerk’s advice. Amendment 2 has not been selected by the Chair, but we can achieve the same effect by voting against clause 2.

Currently, clause 2(1) contains a broad Henry VIII power that enables the amendment of any Act of Parliament previously passed. I am sure the Committee will agree that the removal of such a broad Henry VIII power is a good thing. Clause 2 also includes other unnecessary provisions, such as a power to make transitional and saving provisions, and a stipulation that the affirmative procedure will apply to the regulations. To clarify to the Committee, that stipulation is unnecessary because the powers of the Employment Rights Act 1996 that are being amended by the Bill are already subject to the affirmative procedure.

Clause 3 sets out the extent of the Bill, which is England, Wales and Scotland. It also gives the Secretary of State the power to commence the Bill in regulations. Those two provisions have not been amended. Amendment 3 adds a standard legal provision to clause 3, setting out that the commencement regulations must be made by statutory instrument. I propose that amendment 3 is accepted, and that clause 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill. I will wait for Members’ remarks and close as the process allows.

[Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I thank the hon. Member for Ogmore and will keep my remarks brief as I know we do not have much time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend makes some very strong and worthwhile points, and I thank her for those.

To conclude, I would like to thank the Committee members for their valuable contributions. This Bill is an important extension of support and protection for parents facing one of the most challenging situations of their lives. The Government take pride in endorsing this private Member’s Bill, aligning our efforts with an unwavering commitment to bolstering workers’ support and to cultivating a high-skilled, high-productivity, high-wage economy.

I thank all hon. Members, but I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe and the hon. Member for Ogmore for working with me to develop this Bill into a piece of legislation that will work effectively for parents and businesses alike. I look forward to working with them during the future stages of the Bill.

[Chris Elmore]

I start by thanking the Minister most sincerely. There is a process with private Members’ Bills —perhaps I am issuing state secrets from the Government and Opposition Whips Offices—where handout Bills are worked through to ensure that private Members’ Bills can be delivered. This was not one of those Bills. I say this sincerely: the Minister, and indeed his officials, have been incredibly constructive in working with me to ensure that we do not let the perfect get in the way of the good, as the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands—I call her my right hon. Friend—says a lot in her Procedure Committee work, although I do not think that she invented the phrase. This Bill is that; we have made a significant step in the right direction, and, throughout the course of employment rights legislation, these things often started as leave, and then moved to the next step, and so on and so forth. Indeed, I do not think that shared parental leave was in legislation until the Cameron Administration, and I think that paternity leave was invented by the Blair Administration. These things move and change throughout history, regardless of party politics.

That brings me to my broader point. I pay tribute again to the hon. Member for Broxtowe, because he has been a huge advocate for his constituents, but he has also been very good in lobbying me—a skill in itself—to convince me to take on the Bill. However, as I said on Second Reading, I do not want this Bill to help many people, because the whole point of it is to support people in their darkest hour, and nobody—Conservative, Labour, Scottish National party or Plaid Cymru—would want anybody to face this horror: the joy of being a parent and the unimaginable loss of losing a partner. Being a parent should be nothing but joy—and exhaustion, particularly when they are first born. It should not be about just blind grief. I am trying to understand how that feels, but I cannot imagine it, and I hope that I never have to face it. The numbers are small—and thank God for that—and I hope that they always remain small.

I would like to place on the record, although I mentioned them briefly, the Minister’s officials. I have had an insight into the work of the civil service over the past few weeks, and all I can say is that I am hugely impressed by it. The work that they have done has been wonderful. I also thank my staff, particularly my researcher, Alex Williams, who has spent many an hour working through this Bill, including with civil servants—I thank him for that. It is always nice to get one’s staff in the Hansard records, as it is not always something that we manage to do.

I thank all Members for their contributions. It is right to say that this House works best when it works cross party. These are the things that are not seen. This is genuinely a Government and Opposition Bill, and that is how these Bills should be; they should be about cross-party working as often as we can.

To move to a technical point, I reiterate the importance of this piece of legislation, and I hope that as we move to our decisions, under your stewardship, Mr Paisley, we will get the noes and ayes in the correct place—we will see how this works out. I hope that the Bill can proceed successfully to the next stage, to Report and Third Reading. It is my intention to vote against clause 1; I understand the procedural reasons for that. Good luck, Mr Paisley.

[The Chair]

Thank you, Mr Elmore. I am sure that colleagues were listening very closely to Mr Elmore as he made the argument about where no means aye—reaffirmed by the Minister. Therefore, when the Question is put, colleagues will hopefully respond in the way that both Mr Elmore and the Minister have argued and reasoned for today.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 1 accordingly disagreed to.