Hansard

I thank the various groups who supplied briefings for the debate for those and for the outstanding support that they provide, which members have mentioned. I congratulate my colleague Alison Johnstone on securing the debate.

In a previous life, I was involved in dealing with the terms and conditions of police officers, which included maternity and paternity leave, in relation to which we had to put into practice hard-fought-for terms and conditions. It was a very male-dominated environment, particular in the senior ranks, and implementing the changes required a sizeable change in attitudes.

To this day, terms and conditions can be regarded as politically correct, trendy or downright frivolous, but many things that were regarded in that way in the past are now mainstream, such as those in relation to protected duties and reasonable adjustments. Things are far from perfect, but there has been progress in the past few decades, which I hope continues.

It is important that knowledge and understanding go hand in hand with such progress. Parents of premature babies are not entitled to additional maternity or paternity leave. Donald Cameron set out what parents are entitled to, but the significant point is that there are additional burdens and pressures on parents of premature babies, and the commendable proposal that is being considered at Westminster is for additional leave entitlement.

Dads are currently entitled to two weeks’ paternity leave. Any objective assessment of the impact of the Maternity and Paternity Leave (Premature Birth) Bill, if it were to be passed, would demonstrate that the beneficiaries would be not just the mothers, the fathers and the babies but the siblings, all of whom will require physical, psychological and social support. It is also the case that the approach would benefit employers—not that that is how I view the issue.

Many of the problems of delivering healthcare are compounded by rurality, and the proposed approach would go some way towards offsetting some of the challenges in that regard—I accept that there are challenges regardless of geography.

Scotland rightly lauds the importance that it accords child development. I hope that the bill will be supported for the right reason: in the interests of the wellbeing of parents and premature children. All the evidence is that a positive approach to terms and conditions reaps benefits for everyone, including progressive employers.

There is talk of the future introduction of shared parental leave and what that will mean. The approach will bring challenges. I agree that Scotland needs to listen to the clear message that campaigners are sending and find person-specific alternatives. We forget at our peril that the parents whom we are dealing with are individuals with individual circumstances and support needs. We can improve the law for the parents of not just premature babies but all babies in neonatal care.

I was reassured to hear Donald Cameron say that he will share the content of this debate with colleagues. That is important. Until he said that, I was very ready to intervene to ask what his position is. It is positive that members are making suggestions.

When I was researching the topic for this debate, I found an article from The Guardian entitled, “Mothers of premature babies also need care—as I know too well”. The article was written last year by Joanna Moorhead, who concluded by saying:

“It’s not the time to fall apart, and a little bit of support can make all the difference.”

The proposed measure could help many people, and I commend Alison Johnstone for bringing it to our attention today.