Labour would double paternity leave, and raise it to £260 a week - what do you think?

[KateMumsnet]

Hello all

Labour has announced plans for a "Father's Month" which will double paid paternity leave from two to four weeks. They've also pledged to raise paternity pay by more than £100 per week to at least £260 a week - equivalent to the minimum wage.

Do tell us what you think - are these changes to be welcomed? How, if at all, would they have affected your family's experience in the first few weeks with a newborn?

Agree with snowy. Two separate issues 1. The current system for maternity and paternity leave (and in fact, the whole shebang of a child's life and cate versus the demands of work) is not ideal and 2. these suggestions would enable more men to take more time off around the birth of their children. The fact that labour is addressing point 2 does not make them entirely to blame for point 1.

Dh and I are both self employed so this would not make any practical difference to us BUT I believe it would make a substantial difference to perceptions around parental responsibility, and is in fact an acknowledgement of the increasing role fathers play (or want to play) in their children's lives.

Lol at the posters who don't want their partners around when the baby is born! That's not labour's fault either! I would have loved someone to help out. I would have loved to have a public acknowledgment that the baby was our shared responsibility.

I think this is a good idea.

*care not cate

I think Labour are grasping at straws and trying to buy votes.

Awful idea. The country can't afford it. It's not necessary. I coped with 3 preschoolers at home. DH couldnt take his 2 weeks off until mine were several weeks old. Awful for businesses.

Enough to make me sure I won't vote labour.

As others have said, vote buying and gimmicky. And not very flexible. Why not allow 4 weeks at any point in the first year of the child's life ie 4 separate weeks. Would have been very handy to have DH off the first week I returned to work, for example. And easier to spread the pay cut that £260 a week might well be.

I wouldn't have put it very high on the list of priorities for the country . Do they not realise that this kid of gimmick will lose them votes?

We have shared parental leave coming in from April of this year. The only issues I have with it are that there isn't a version of maternity allowance for self-employed partners, and that you have to formally end maternity leave for it to start up. Because you have to end maternity leave I think that extending the statutory paternity leave period is a great idea.

There is also the the lib dem suggestion of 6 weeks use it or lose it leave for each parent to go alongside the available shared leave.

Shared leave would really suit us as I'm self employed - 6 weeks off and then DH taking over but following me around for baby feeding would be perfect!

No sympathy for businesses (as someone who runs one) because they should be prepared to support employees who become parents. They shouldn't feel safe and not need to plan for parental leave because they employ men instead of women.

DH had about 4 weeks off when DD1 was born. That was because I was ill and couldn't care for both of us. He hadn't planned it, but his work was really good about him taking the extra as holiday.

He is now into week 3 after DD3's birth (2 weeks paternity and 1 week annual leave). This time he was able to plan how long to take and had a date to witk with as I had an ELCS. I'm allowed to drive again at 3 weeks, so that has been the deciding factor in how long he has taken. However he seems to be more needed at work this time, so has been checking emails, working from home a bit and has been into a meeting.

I think his work would probably struggle with him being off for 4 weeks and he wouldn't be happy to deal with any resultant mess at work. Both of our jobs ask that you don't take more than 2 weeks holiday consecutively for this reason. Obviously a baby is different. But you also can't generally find cover for 1 month, whereas 6 or 12 month maternity leave is a bit easier to recruit for.

I'm not keen on this.

Even at an enhanced rate, it could still mean quite a big drop in household income.

And even if it doesn't cost employers in their payroll, it will cost them in terms of getting someone in to cover the role. Two weeks is like covering a holiday or a minor illness and business can generally manage that. Four weeks and I'm not so sure.

Also, it's allegedly being paid for by savings in expected tax credit costs because of extension to number of funded early education hours. Which itself presumably costs taxpayers money, and how that will be found was not mentioned today.

I was considering labour, but any party making expensive promises has to be a bit mad in my opinion. A month off for fathers is a bit too much imho,I was keen for dh to go back to work after ds2 arrived, he was driving me round the bend. What would have been nice would be to have him home early for tea time a couple of days a week for the first couple of months, but that's a nightmare to manage and probably sounds less appealing in a manifesto!!

With first 2 we struggled with the amount of paternity pay, so raising level of it would have been very welcome indeed. By the time dc3 came along dh's employer paid it at normal holiday rate so there was no dip in earnings which was fab.

Not sure dh could have coped with a month at home post-birth. Was all a bit intense for him.

good idea but depressed by the sexism that becool and others have already pointed out. Seems men HAVE to be paid at least minimum wage to spend time with their babies (while the mothers are around as well) but women can exist on the pittance of maternity leave while coping all on their own.

I'd much rather they increased smp, I've just started maternity leave and since I'm the main wage earner I have no idea how we will cope.

It's just a gimmick for votes. I rather see more deep thought and planning go into policies around helping people prioritise families needs over bosses demands.

As others have said, it's just another Labour bribe for votes.

To me it's a clear sign that fundamentally they haven't changed. It's still the same notion that you can just throw money at problems without really looking at the bigger picture.

We still have a huge deficit, granted it's smaller than it was. So how do they expect us to trust them to spend more yet still cut the deficit when they're making clear bribes rather than what the economy really needs.

Bottom line is we're still massively in debt. Is this really a priority right now?

It is better than it is now.

So a good thing.

That and back the hell away from teachers and I might vote labour. Might.

'another Labour bribe' - what, you mean completely unlike Tory bribes to pensioners, for e.g. - massive giveaway in pensioner bonds at many times the usual interest rate the government has to pay. And it's a pretty odd bribe that takes at least 9 months to take effect!

how do labour plan to pay for this?
the country CAN'T BLOODY AFFORD IT!

This will be well received by fathers; however Labours statement is only half the story.

If any Government increases Paternity Pay, they will also have to increase Maternity and Adoption Pay, otherwise the increase will be ruled as being discriminatory.

Two questions:

1. How much will all this cost?

2.Where will the money come from?

To me it's a clear sign that fundamentally they haven't changed. It's still the same notion that you can just throw money at problems without really looking at the bigger picture.

^^ This.

Where is the money coming from?

I think it's a good idea. As only 55% of fathers are taking the two weeks off at the moment this might help more manage a week or two. I'm assuming the full four weeks isn't compulsory? Obviously it should be paid equally across sexes, ideally at 90% pay but that would be harder to fund. It could save money long term with higher breastfeeding rates and less of a gender pay gap.

'another Labour bribe' - what, you mean completely unlike Tory bribes to pensioners, yes, very similar, but with a difference.

This Labour back of a fag packet policy trying to pad out their manifesto - no doubt also funded by a tax spent several times over - has been announced on the same day Labour have said they ARE business friendly and they can trust them not to put the costs of business up.

Pensioners however, greatly struggled under Labour, it was under them our Base Rate went to the lowest level since BoE records began over 300-years ago affecting their savings, and 'the cost of living' shot up e.g. Council Tax went up over 110%.

All with State Pension rises no where near matching (just) the Council Tax and Private Pension were raided, raising £118 billion from pensioners (now and in the future), but estimate to already equate to £250 billion of lost returns on that £118 billion.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2613609/Revealed-Labours-stealth-raid-took-118BILLION-pensions-paving-way-end-final-salary-schemes-suddenly-unaffordable.html

No doubt Labour having screwed them have no policies other than 'Death Taxes' waiting on the side lines, as pensioners both REMEMBER the Labour governments of the 1970's and the 2000's, with the 2015 administration more likely to follow the policies of Old Labour in 'the good old days'.

Labour must really hate the small business. More administration, more staff issues.

And the country can't afford it.

I dread a labour gov.

It should be identical to SMP at that stage, ie 90% wage.

Anything else is sexist.