Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Guest posts

Guest post: Nick Clegg - 'When it comes to parental leave, we must pay fathers the same as mothers if we want gender equality'

63 replies

MumsnetGuestPosts · 25/10/2014 20:46

Let’s bankrupt Britain’s businesses and, once we’re done, burn the buildings to the ground.

This is what you might have thought I’d said last week, if you saw some of the reaction to my plans to increase fathers' rights when it comes to shared parental leave.

From now on the Civil Service will pay the same to fathers who take parental leave after their babies are born as it pays mothers who do so.

Let’s be clear: we are not doubling the leave and pay that is available, we are just making sure it can be shared between mothers and fathers as they see fit. Whether it’s mums or dads who take the leave, they’ll receive equal pay – and we’d like businesses to follow suit.

A significant change, yes, but highly controversial? I didn’t think so, until I saw the outrage it prompted from parts of the right-wing press.

Such a step, they declared, will be ‘crippling’ to taxpayers and business. But why, when there is no extra cost to the economy attached? For every day a man spends at home, a woman will be back at work, so what’s the problem?

What the critics are really saying is that companies can afford to lose a woman for a few months, but they can’t afford to lose a man. The message is loud and clear: women, we don’t need you. Or, at least, we don’t need you as much.

What utter rubbish – and a sorry glimpse into the dated misogyny that still stalks part of the British establishment. It feels ridiculous for me to even write in this article that women are as valuable to their employers as their male counterparts – of course they are! – and yet it seems the flamingly obvious still needs to be said.

Thankfully the dinosaurs and naysayers are not reflective of the country at large. The broader reaction was much more positive. Indeed, many businesses understand the difference a contented, valued workforce can make to their bottom line.

Where I do agree that there are legitimate questions to be asked is on the issue of take up. From next spring we are radically transforming Britain’s leave rules. For the first time ever parents will have a legal right to divvy up between them the year off that is available after a baby is born, in whichever way they see fit – a far cry from the previous system, under which women were given a year and men a paltry two weeks. But we need to encourage fathers to take advantage of this new right.

Better pay arrangements will help. Many men are reluctant to take time off when their children are born, discouraged by the raised eyebrows of their bosses and colleagues. But they are also put off by the drop in earnings they’d face – especially if they’re the bigger earner. That’s why the Civil Service will make it more affordable for fathers to make this choice, and we want as many companies as possible to do the same. In government again the Liberal Democrats would also introduce a “daddy month” – a new, additional use-it-or-lose block of time for new dads to stay at home. We know more men want to be more involved with their children home and, crucially, we know the difference it makes to a child’s development when they do.

As more and more couples enjoy these new rights, I hope we’ll see another big benefit too – helping us tackle the pay gap, which still stands at women, on average, being paid 20% less than men. It’s after children are born that the gap really begins to grow, with women being passed over for promotion or else moving into part-time work. But if both sexes are equally likely to take time out of their career to look after young children, and if both are equally likely to go part-time to help them juggle work and home – employers won’t have an excuse for letting women fall behind.

So the only thing that will be “crippled” by new, fairer leave rules is the outdated assumption that women should be in the kitchen while men bring home the bacon. There is certainly still a lot more to be done before mothers and fathers enjoy real equality of choice, and we won’t get there overnight. But we won’t get there at all if the everyday misogynists get their way. So long as my party has a say over things, they won’t.

OP posts:
YonicScrewdriver · 26/10/2014 08:14

because the man is only eligible for shPP at the point the woman relinquishes it, Cherry.

SquirrelSwarm · 26/10/2014 08:24

This sounds a great policy. It leaves in choice, so no mother should be so pressurised into going back to work too early and enables fathers to increase their role at the baby stage. I went back when my first child was nine months (before a year paid was the norm!). It would have been lovely if my husband had been able to be at home for a couple of months after that.

I like the idea of the Daddy month. My first was born just before Christmas and it was easy to stretch the two weeks to three. DH may not have sobbed at the train station but he wasn't ready to go back.

I can't see how any of this attacks a mother's special physical role.

Bring it on!

NancyJones · 26/10/2014 08:31

I think it's an excellent idea! I'm stunned at pp suggesting women would feel pressured to return or worse, that fathers are incapable of looking after their babies! Who would pressure these women? Their husbands? If do then surely they're in the wrong relationship.

I'm not sure on the exact detail but I think the first 6wks should be ring fenced as childbirth is fairly traumatic even when straightforward. I'd also worry that BF rates may drop as some women struggle to establish bf in the first couple of wks but have it nailed by 6wks.
The other thing I'm wondering is does this offer the opportunity for both to take 6mths together at no extra cost? So instead of taking 1yr in total, you both take the first 6mths and establish a strong family bond. This may also go a long way towards helping prevent pnd. I know lots if women on a package of 6mths full pay so I'm guessing in those cases it wouldn't to too detrimental to the couple financially.
Well done Mr Clegg. Recently, I have started to see you as more sincere.

Chunderella · 26/10/2014 08:46

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

sleeplessbunny · 26/10/2014 09:21

I also like the idea of a Daddy month as a carrot to increase take up and normalise the idea of men taking time off. Amongst my male German colleagues (intl team) there is always at least one away on 2-3 months paternity leave. My understanding is that leave there has to shared in order to access the full amount, i.e. use it or lose it, to at least some extent. No one bats an eyelid and it seems to be perfectly normal for men to take this time off.

Chunderella · 26/10/2014 09:24

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Stillwishihadabs · 26/10/2014 10:27

I think this a great idea. We certainly would have used it. When ds was born I earnt nearly double what dh did (not anymore-I wonder why ??) oh perhaps because I had to take 2 maternity leaves. With ds I took the second unpaid 6 months (ooch) with Dd we simply couldn't afford so she was in childcare from 5 months. If dh could have taken the leave then Dd could have been at home with a parent longer

sleepyhead · 26/10/2014 10:53

Interesting comment from the boss saying his career wouldn't have survived him taking paternity leave. It tells you everything you need to know about what he really thinks about women who take maternity leave...

YonicScrewdriver · 26/10/2014 11:04

Well he's right in the sense that until men start to do it, it will be odd to do it.

Men have as much right as women to make flexible working requests; the take up is much less though, I believe.

But we've got to start somewhere!

Cherrypi · 26/10/2014 11:16

It's definitely a start. I think it would be good if they could take it off together as patterns for who is responsible for childhood paperwork, jabs etc start very early on.

Just think when there is completely equal leave rights the men will look more of a employment risk as they could become fathers at any age where there is a limit with women.

YonicScrewdriver · 26/10/2014 11:20

They can take it off together; only one lot of SHPP will be paid at a time though.

Realistically, how many couples could afford 18 months with both on shPP?

Cherrypi · 26/10/2014 11:25

Very few. I wonder what the statistics are on how many take a year at the moment.

Chunderella · 26/10/2014 11:32

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

jellybeans · 26/10/2014 13:14

I agree with people saying it will be more pressure to get mums back to work. Clegg is hellbent on trying to make us like Sweden even though their system is far from perfect when you look into it in detail. Their system was built on 'pushing' mothers out to work and 'pulling' men into the home. Purely for economic and narrow visions of gender equality.

Clegg genuinely believes a mother is nothing special to a young baby. It may not be for him/Miriam (anybody but the mother will do it seems) but to many people the early year is crucial for attachment. This doesn't have to be the mother but in general a mother who wants to be with the baby is the best person what with breastfeeding etc.

Also for me, progress is not both parents working 40 hours a week. One parent doing 40 and the other caring or both parents doing 20 hours each and joint caring would be better.

Sharing leave should be an option (after the first few weeks for maternal recovery) for those families where the dad is a SAHD. But they should stop trying to force everyone to live in their way. About a third of mums of young children don't do paid work and many mums actually want to look after their babies without being made to feel they are 'hogging' the time all for their selfish selves!! Equality should mean unpaid caring is valued too, whether it is by mother or father.

Chunderella · 26/10/2014 15:36

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

FrogGreen · 26/10/2014 16:34

I agree with this policy. Totally! In our family, we've been fortunate in that I haven't had to work full time since the DC came along. I've been able to work part time and have some unpaid time away from work when it suits our small DCs.

I do appreciate our good fortune in this, but, dammit, DH isn't the only person in the family with some ambition. I also want to do well and achieve stuff in my professional field - but as things are I pretty much have to accept playing 2nd fiddle. So when the DCs are sick or there's a childcare hiccup, I take the extra hours/days/weeks off work, and my "career", such as it is, suffers. I can't help but believe that, had it been "normal" for him to be more involved in their day-to-day care from early on, it'd be more "normal" for him now, and we'd now run on a more equal basis.

Also, I know I and friends of mine have been discriminated against in previous job application / promotion situations due to being women of childbearing age. Would be great if this were to even out.

Don't expect it to change quickly though. In Finland and Sweden where I've lived and worked, it's still unusual for men to take much of their entitlement. My Finnish friends say it'll be a generation before it's the norm.

YonicScrewdriver · 26/10/2014 16:56

Another point re BF - I went back after 6m and fed morning and evening and expressed once at work - it wasn't really possible for nursery to give this milk so it was saved for weekends etc - if DH had been home he could have used expressed milk more easily.

YonicScrewdriver · 26/10/2014 16:56

Once = once a day.

Excitedmum2bK · 26/10/2014 17:11

I'm quite supportive of this policy. We are expecting our first and I'm the higher earner between us. DH would happily stay at home with the baby while I go back to work. But with the current policy, I'm might have to go back before the full 26 weeks if we want to keep up with our mortgage repayments.

I just hope many employers would see this as a positive step forward.

ceeb · 26/10/2014 21:20

I think this is long long overdue. How can there be equality/equal pay in the workforce if women continue to bear the full responsibility of raising children? Raising children starts from when they are born. Men don't do it because they don't want to be docked the pay/work opportunities - exactly what happens to women. If these new policies don't go into effect, women will continue to be discriminated against at work.

anastaisia · 27/10/2014 01:06

I think this is a great policy - as a self employed mum I could have taken a couple of months off to enjoy the baby cuddles full time and then let my partner take over with being 'on duty' while I worked from home, cuddled and fed as needed (I'm in the 22% that is still exclusively feeding after 6 weeks) and not have lost so much business over the months off as I did.

It isn't something that would suit every family and that's fine - but there's no need to restrict choices for those that would benefit because of that. I don't mind if you don't split your parental leave but I'd like our family to be able to!

k8bakes · 27/10/2014 11:38

I'm surprised by some peoples views on this for a number of reasons. These types of changes will make things fairer for both families, and females in general.

The current situation is that the 1 year parental leave can be split between mum and dad, although dad can only take his share after 20 weeks. If the couple decide dad should start his leave at 20 weeks he will be paid the APP. This is the same pay as a mum would be getting at 20 weeks if she has SMP. However, many companies have better maternity benefits, and some mums might be getting half pay at 20 weeks (or better.) I think it's wrong that a dad who takes parental leave, which I believe is an important job, would get paid less than a mum for doing it.

This could be a significant factor for some families in deciding on who should take what role. But I believe role decisions would be better made based on individual abilities and desires.

The changes coming into place in April 2015 do not really change the amount of government pay that mum or dad receive for taking parental leave, however, they do increase the flexibility. Allowing it to be taken concurrently and the dad to start anytime from the birth onwards. (Mum still has to take the minimum 2 weeks/4weeks, as it is now.)

So Nick Clegg is just saying that company benefits schemes should be made equal, so that families can make their decisions based more on their ideals than their financial situation. (Although if one parent earns more that the other this would still not be the case.)

Sounds right to me.

And, this has a knock on benefit for all females. If men are just as likely as women to be off for a significant period, then there is less reason for descrimination. Uptake of APL has been low. (Although people I have spoken to in HR, and my husband to his HR, know about it, they don't know people who have done it!) Normalising paternity leave will help reduce descrimination, both towards females regardless of their child status, and towards dads who take paternity leave.

No one is trying to steal your maternity leave, if you feel like that then maybe rethink who you're with.

And no one is devaluing the role of a mother, they just want to also value the role a father can play, and to value the role a woman can play at work.

YonicScrewdriver · 27/10/2014 12:04

Yy k8

FrogGreen · 27/10/2014 15:32

yy k8 thanks for your post and for explaining so clearly what I couldn't really.

It's about making what is normal and accepted for working women (who happen to be parents) normal and accepted for working men (who happen to be parents.)

Newshoesplease · 27/10/2014 15:59

It's just another way for women to be controlled. Take our maternity leave and give it to the men. That's not equality. Bearing a child is a role only women can do! Maternity leave.is for recovery of the mother as well as to look after your new baby.
This reminds me of the supposed "inequality" of women's car insurance being cheaper, which led to our premiums increasing.
Equality my arse.

Swipe left for the next trending thread