The new Minister for Children: what do you think she should be doing?

[WideWebWitch]

Following on from the cabinet reshuffle thread and the discussion about childcare in the school holidays, I wondered which children's issues mumsnetters think the new minister for children should focus on? I'd like to suggest advertising aimed at children for a start, (especially junk food and character tie-ins but don't want a big discussion about it, done so on other threads thanks!) but what do the rest of you think is most important?
Anyone want to volunteer to send her the thread afterwards to ask her what she's going to do about our concerns?!

sadly tom, childbirth is not a certainty post pregnancy, which is why legislation takes account of late miscarriages.
Again, if the SDA is talking about the treatment accorded to women in connection with pregnancy and childbirth, if the govt wanted to provide for a certain period of leave to enable or facilitate or encourage breastfeeding for a certain period then this would be treatment accorded to women in connection with childbirth. As I say this isn't my area of specialism so not spending any time looking into the specifics of this, but you do know how to interpret wording in order to understand what may or may not be possible (or arguable) under it and I appreciate that it is not always easy for a lay person to understand the implications of statutory drafting. The wording that is there is actually fairly wide

sorry "do have to know"

not arguing with the rights and wrongs of anything that you have said tom, and agree with a lot of it, I'm just picking you up on your interpretation that time off for breastfeeding would necessarily be unlawful under the SDA - it wouldn't.

As far as I'm aware, there has been no case law in the UK on this as yet, so neither of us know for sure actually. I may be a non lawyer, but I'm certainly not ignorant of the law in this area and have consulted extensively with the EOC on the issue (I work with them on policy issues, and their (lawyers) view is the current arrangements are illegal).

Lets say, we bring a challenge to the government's position, based on the SDA - i.e. that the leave was making provision for childCARE in giveing women 12 months off, which is illegal, as it can't give childCARE leave to women and not men (that much IS clear in case law)....

And lets say the government decided to justify the 12 months maternity leave by saying it is making this provision for breastfeeding....

Would a non-breastfeeding mother be entitled to the extended leave?

Would women have to prove they are breastfeeding in order to get the leave?

At the end of the day, just look at Europe - it works fine, and maternity leave is 18 weeks or under - the rest is parental leave. Let's have some of that!

Apparently in Norway

"Mothers have 1 full year of paid maternity leave, at least 4 weeks of which must be taken by the father. Women are entitled to 2 hours off work a day to breastfeed. Parents can take 10 days off per child per parent per year to care for sick children."

Can we add into all this decent state funded maternity leave for self-employed mothers? All the new lovely policies don't apply to those of us who don't have an employer.

And yes, a much bigger focus on children with special needs.

lets move to norway

That's true Soupdragon, although if mothers take a full year it's only (!) at 80% of full pay. They can opt to take 10 months at 100% instead.

Tom, does that mean that the Menstruation Leave women are entitled to in Indonesia would be illegal in the EU? They can have 48hrs off work.

Surely though, giving women 2 hours of a day to breastfeed is illegal under the sex discrimination act if Tom is right?

"Tom, does that mean that the Menstruation Leave women are entitled to in Indonesia would be illegal in the EU? They can have 48hrs off work. "

Yes, it would, under UK sex discrimination law - but theyre not in the EU

Clarification - the Sex Discrimination Act is UK law. So Norway is not bound by it.

Ah... I thought it was EU.

Oh, yes, motherinferior, totally agree. I bet even in Norway they don't pay 90% of freelance earnings for a year. I do think it is unfair, as employers can claim stuff back from the gvmt so don't actually pay it themselves anyway. I pay my taxes just the same as before! I agree with parental leave. In fact I agree with any system that pays 90% of earnings for more than five minutes.

What are you on about Tom - breastfeeding leave would not discrimate against men!!!

Men cannot breastfeed - if there was a pee standing up law we would not fight you on that because women cannot pee standing up!!

I do not get your point?? Ok men should have more paternity leave but that is a man issue and the fact that women get a certain amount of Maternity leave is, as I have said as much as benefit for the mother as it is for the father. I am sure if this went to court there would be an uproar, especially for small companies that are being drowned in red tape anyway. Taxes would have to go up and you would have no choice but to continue working because neither your employer or the governemt could afford to stump up the money to pay for your paternity leave.

In an ideal world it would be great if we could all have a year off to spend with our kids but the economics do not add up!! Would you be willing to pay higher taxes - maybe forcing your partner back to work because your net income is not as high - but then am sure you would not mind - you are afterall paying for those fathers not to go to work!!

Tom - you can have menstruation leave when you menstruate - if you do menstruate I will personally pay for you to saty off of work (only if you use a mooncup!!).

The sexes are different - that is how the whole human race keeps going for god sake - I like the fact that my partner is a man, acts manly and treats me like a woman - we are different and that is that. If you could have it your way it seems that we would all be hermaphrodites with the same laws binding us all!!

"What are you on about Tom - breastfeeding leave would not discrimate against men!!! "

I never said it would.

The point I'm making is that current leave arrangements (12 months for women, 2 weeks for men) push women into childcare, men into breadwinning, widen the pay gap and entrench traditional gender roles. I'd rather have a system that offered couples choice, that's all.

Sex differences are all well and good - and if we had menstruation leave, of course I would not take it, as I don't menstruate (seems silly even having to say this).

BUT... men and women are equally capable of CARING FOR A CHILD, and EU and UK law recognises this.

The point I'm making is that leave that is for childCARE should be available for men and women. And the debate is over whether the 12 months of maternity leave is covering breastfeeding or childcare. If the former, it should not be available for men. If the latter, it should be available for men. And the dispute is whether the exemptions under the sex discrimination act allow for leave for women only for breastfeeding. Some think it does, some don't (including me).

It would be helpful if you could read the debate carefully before launching into a rather childish caracature of my position. I've thought about all this very carefully.

And yes, I'd be willing to pay higher taxes.

And I'd also object to my wife staying at home (my reasons given in another thread)

I really just think that this is being taken to the extreme - women are given maternity leave because they need it after having a child - I am sure women would not begrudge men taking it if they were the ones to give birth.
I feel that men and women are intrinsically different and the wrench of leaving a baby they have carried and breastfed is far more distressing for a woman. You may not believe this but then you have never had to do it so you would not know.

As for the rest of it, I was being light hearted, I know this is a serious debate to you but I really think that most men would prefer to stay at work and, if they could afford, it let women take the main burden of childcare.

Lots of marraiges I know have ended because the men did not want to take on any burden of the childcare when their wives returned to work and ended up resenting the fact that they had to play such a major part in their children's lives.

I still do not think the economics of this would work, where are you going to get the money from to pay for all this leave - I am sure that most people would not pay more tax to provide for fathers to have parental leave. Who is going to pay your health insurance, pension etc whilst you are on this leave, nor the government (more due to mismanagement of funds) or your employer could afford to?

OK.
Let me re-iterate what I am proposing so that you are absolutely clear.

If you are a woman, you'd get:

3 months maternity leave paid at 90% salary
3 months parental leave paid at 50% salary
6 months parental leave paid at £100 per week

This compares to the current situation of (correct me if I'm wrong)

6 weeks maternity leave at 90% salary
20 weeks maternity leave at £100 per week
6 months maternity leave at no pay

So, under my proposals, women would be MASSIVELY better off. Breastfeeding would be seriously encouraged, by the availability of paid leave.

What would change significantly, would be fathers entitlements...

Currently,
2 weeks paternity pay at £100

Under my proposals
2 weeks paternity pay at 90% salary
3 months parental leave at 50% salary
6 months parental leave at £100 per week

This would enable couples to make choices about who does childcare and who does breadwinning. It would enhance womens opportunities in the workplace, and give couples an opportunitity to escape traditional gender roles if they want.

I really don't understand the objection.
Is it simply that fathers gain something? If so, I think you need to think this through on the basis of childrens well being and womens opportunities in the workplace.

Women who want to breastfeed gain more opportunities.

I have absolutely NO problem with women having maternity leave because they are the ones to get pregnant and give birth.

But I do object to women being given leave in order to do CHILDCARE (and not men). Beleive it or not, us men are perfectly capable of childcare and some of us do it full time. It is NOT written in the stars that it is womens work, and if we want a society where both men and women get involved in childrens care, we need a system of leave that allows this to happen.

Under present arrangments, after year 1, the mum will have been out of work for a significant length of time, lost out on promotion and pay increases, lost out on skills development and become an expert in caring for her child. Meanwhile, the father will have lost out on developing childcare skills, but have developed his career, work skills and salary. There is NO option for the couple who want the dad at home and mum at work, or the couple who want to share childcare and parenting. NONE - there is only support for traditional gender roles.

So WHAT is the problem?????

aloha - off-topic slightly, but I've claimed some maternity pay back as a limited company. Not sure if this comes off company tax bill or not but I think it will (I feel this is why God invented accountants, I have to confess). Another reason for looking into it?

Oh - and where would I get the money from - I'd take it away from the defence industry - less money for bombs, more for children please.

I'm with Tom on this.

My many Norwegian friends have certainly benefited by their more parent friendly policies, the dads do far more childcare than the English ones that I know, and generally have far more confidence with their children from them being tiny.

It certainly hasn't always been like this though, the older (WWII) generation were as polarised as their British equivalents, the advent of more parent-friendly policies seems to have been the key thing.

As an aside, how many mumsnetters partners would look after 3 children while they worked 2 weeks on, 4 weeks off on an oil rig ?

I am sure that the people who had their tongues cut out in Iraq and had not even the right to air their views on everyday issues like this were extremely glad that we pumped money into bombs.

Yes there is a case for more money to children - but I would like to see more going to health and lots of other things first.

I am sorry to have offended you but I just think that everything cannot be turned into a gender issue, I really think, and will not post again on here for fear of upsetting anyone, that this is a site where people can ask for advice and support and have a giggle, and as people felt offended that people tried to post stuff advertising the mums and dads site that this site should also not be used for what I feel is blatant lobbying on the part of you Tom for what you feel is right and wrong.

Sorry - I thought wickedwaterwitch had started a discussion about what the new minister for children should do - I gave my thoughts, I got attacked for them, I defended and explained myself. I didn't realise this was out of order.

I did not say that Tom.

I just feel that on a few threads you have turned things around to publicise what you are working for. As I said I do not think that this is the right place to do that.

Fair enough if you want the choice to have more paternal leave but I do think that a lot of what you have to say could be achievable if we had an endless supply of money. Raw deal - we have not and I am sorry if you disagree but I do feel that women are more in tune with their children and are better carers as I am sure do other mothers.

I am not going to post on here again because I do not like being patronised - I was joking and trying to put across a point at the same time - you like a lot of people in the political arena only seem to want to speak about things that help your cause - to me there are far more important issues than fathers being given more paternity leave.

To me your case seems like the green parties manifersto - good on one or two issues but in the long run their social and economic policies just do not make any of their 'helping for the greater good policies viable!!'

You also it seemed to me to strive to make me seem uneducated and I am not at all - surely you realised that I was not being serious about you menstruating and breastfeeding - or are you like so many people who are so engrossed in fighting for something they so strongly believe in not able to laugh at anything associated to this.

I can easily laugh about stuff Boe - see as I tickle my boy so hard he nearly wets himself (dissapears for a bit).

Sometimes humour on political issues simply doesn't work because of the cold textual nature of internet conversations - my apologies if I was harsh. I found your comments patronising, so responded with a barb of my own.

Just because I work on an issue, am I excluded from taking part in a debate on the issue on mumsnet? If so, someone should tell me. Would that mean full time mums aren't allowed to talk about mothering?

And I am not into campaigning for more paternity leave. Once again, I am saying that the Minister for Children should be putting together an INTEGRATED EARLY YEARS POLICY that take childrens rights, womens work opportunities and mens caring opportunities seriously.

If you think this is 'like the green party manifesto', then I simply can't agree. I think early years services in this country are in a mess, children are the largest group living in poverty in the UK and I think it should be way, way up the political agenda. If you'd like to talk about how this fits into economic policy, sure, but not here.

Perhaps we should leave it there.