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?

I agree with those who have said this is a gimmicky waste of money the country simply can't afford.

Soon - yes but savings only happen if lots spare.

Ie monthly household wage £6000
Monthly household expenditure £5000
Save £1000

Over year £12000 saved

If take home now £1000. That's £4000 short a month. £4000 x3 = £12000. = all savings gone. So that's max 16 week maternity leave if not on full pay. A few before birth, rest after. Means both parents needs to be back in work by 3 months after birth approx. there would be no more savings after for remaining 9months

Clam, I saw that too and did a wtf.

I appreciate this might be the position based on other threads- threads that I haven't seen - but the 50%(?) of respondents here who have said it's a shabby gimmick were definitely ignored.

I find it pretty sexist that paternity pay should be raised to more than what SMP would be as it assumes that the father is the higher earner. That's not to say I don't welcome any incentive for parents to equally share their children's early months. But please don't do it in a way which panders to the idea of father=breadwinner. It's insulting

Justine, why did you misrepresent the majority view on here?

Ok, put it out there; why do men get 4 weeks at double rate of mat pay? Men are worth more?
Or could it be 1 week at £800 vs 4 at £200...

Who on earth needs two parents at home for a month? Even with twins I think that's pushing it!

Hmmm, some of you seem to have a pretty low opinion of a man's ability to help out with the trials and tribulations of life with a newborn.

I think this is a step in the right direction, which while perhaps not perfect, starts to increase the expectation that fathers can actually do this child rearing thing too - and do it well - which means it isn't always the woman's sole responsibility, and duties can be shared more equally.

And perhaps in a few decades there will be many more men taking time off to raise their children while more women return to work, which is surely only a good thing?

I actually think this is something that will help women - at the very least, it will give less puff to those wankers at the CBI bellyaching about how unfair it is for poor old little employers for women to take 2 separate years off work during their 40+ years stint at the coalface and therefore tacitly approving of discriminatory employment practices and being quoted in the national press while doing so.

Anti nobody is saying men can't look after newborns but seriously how many mothers will want to leave their newborn?The fact remains the vast maj of mothers will want those precious first months themselves particularly after carrying said baby for 9 months so we're going to be funding 2 sahp when we can't afford it. Madness.

Sure LePetit I agree no mother is going to be leaving her newborn, I was talking more about it being a step in the right direction that perhaps would lead to more shared parenting throughout the first few years of the child's life.

But actually wouldn't most new mums appreciate the father being at home a bit longer in those early weeks? This is only a small cost with a big gain for society IMHO.

I strongly don't think men should be paid more than women during their leave.

This would not be anywhere near a priority for me in terms of things the gov should be funding. I would much rather other issues tackled.

Didn't see justine on telly but if she said MN supports. What's the point of asking our opinion if they're not going to actually read our comments.

I am pretty damn pissed off that men are worth minimum wage but women are not.

Great idea, where's the money coming from? Another piece of pre-election bribery.

Cheddar and others - why do you see the proposed 4 weeks as equivalent to the later SMP rate instead of the 6 weeks at 90% that women get at the start?

Sorry I'm confused, what's this about funding from 'savings to tax credits'? Does this mean they are lowering everyone's tax credits so a few dads can have a couple of extra weeks off? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

Another policy the country can't afford.

The thought of Ed Milliband and Ed Balls (up) leading the country is one I cannot bear to think too long about. Labour chose the wrong Milliband brother.

Probably because I'm 7 months into maternity leave and on lower rate SMP atm. I would love for it to be min wage! I also can't stand the idea that looking after your baby isn't even considered worthy of NMW in this country.

In a more reasoned manner, then, I think Labour are missing the point. Maternity leave (in many cases) is a time when money is tight because at some point, whether at 6 weeks or later, the mother's salary is going to nosedive. OK, the proposed paternity leave falls within the protected period of the first 6 weeks, but won't most people be looking forward and won't want to use whatever savings they have immediately? And that's not to mention the couples where the man is the main breadwinner, where 90% of the woman's salary plus NMW doesn't go halfway to covering outgoings. It's got nothing to do with culture, men not taking paternity leave. It's cold hard cash and that's all there is to it. Or if not all, it's a huge factor.

In my case, DH took his 2 weeks pat leave each time plus 2 weeks annual leave immediately afterwards. Would we have taken up the offer of 4 weeks pat leave? Possibly. DH got his first week at full pay so we were only down in cash 1 week out of the first 4. We might have just stuck with that arrangement.

I think it's great. 260 a week is above minimum wage for a week.
I think fathers should have more time with their newborns.

The vast majority women will at least be off for a couple of months. Simply recovering from giving birth means more than a month. During this time they will often be relying on their partners wage and due to that a partner working needs to be earning enough to facilitate this. This raise in amount does.
I'm not sure why people think this is negative for women. I do hope it applies to any partner though so lesbian couples would be similarly entitled if one gives birth and one works.

I loved DH begun off in those first few weeks. With our last he did two weeks paternity leave two weeks holiday. Work coped and I got to properly recover.

This might not be the best policy but it recognises that Dads contribute more than just money and that they are parents too. The current amount of paternity pay is so low many families can't afford to take it. The amount suggested should fill that gap. Families for whom it still isn't enough should surely be able to save enough to manage.

I think there are better things to spend money on. But. I would love it if DH had a month off with us when baby is born. That seems fair - I felt sorry for him having to go back to work after his paternity leave when our first child was born. Unpaid would be ok, but the option to take that time off from work, and it not be part of his limited amount of annual leave, would be fab. It would then be up to us to budget/see if we could take it. It would be a luxury.

Actually, what would be really great would be four weeks of paternity leave, that he can take any time in the year following birth. So if an employer would struggle with him being off four weeks in a row, they can come to an arrangement of maybe a week off every three months, plus his normal annual leave. These early days are so precious.

I agree with the sexist tone of this proposal. As soon as I read about this this morning it really annoyed me at how unequal it was. Just give men and women the same pay for the same job ffs!

So mat/pat leave available for x amount of time at £x per week, regardless of male or female and x weeks when both parents can claim simultaneously. Would that really be so hard to cost out for any of the parties?