Photosales
niJobfinder
niCarfinder
Home Delivery
Propertynews
Paternity leave will rise to six months, Brown tells the TUC
Tuesday, 15 September 2009
Paternity leave will be bumped up to six months, Gordon Brown was expected to tell union leaders today — despite fears it will heap pressure on small businesses struggling to cope with the recession.
But promises that new mothers will be able to take up to a year off while paid are being abandoned because the £500m bill can no longer be met.
That breaks Labour’s 2005 manifesto pledge to lengthen statutory entitlement before the next election.
The Prime Minister is addressing the TUC conference in Liverpool and is expected to outline plans that will mean new fathers can divide up parental leave from April 2011. Currently, they are only able to take two weeks.
It would mean mothers going back to work after six months can transfer the rest of their entitlement to their partner, with statutory pay of £123 a week being handed out for the next three months — with the remaining 12 weeks unpaid.
Business leaders reacted angrily, claiming it will heap pressure on small firms that are already battling to survive the current economic climate.
Chamber of Commerce director general David Frost said: “There is absolutely no guarantee that business are going to be back to full health by 2011. This is going to be an administrative nightmare for businesses.
Small businesses can claim back 100% of paternity pay, though larger businesses can only reclaim 92%.
Across the UK, more than 400,000 men a year are expected to be eligible.
While the concession on paternity rights is expected to please powerful union bosses at the annual conference, it is likely to be overshadowed by the rest of the Prime Minister’s speech.
For the first time he is expected to admit the government will have to cut public spending.
- Text Size
Sorry, Richard. I would hardly call taking care of a new born baby an opportunity to swan about the house.
I am of the opinion that if both parents do decide to split the period between themselves then the opportunity should be there for them to do that. The maternity period has not extended, just the flexibility for caring parents to do the right thing by their children and their respective employers.
Posted by Ulysses32 | 16.09.09, 15:46 GMT
As a father of three, this idea is ridiculous. Yes, both male and female should have time with their children but the time span is far too long. Have children but then be responsible for them rather than depending on the state / taxpayer.
Too many benefits, including this one, drain the public purse and should be cut, not increased.
Posted by Ed | 15.09.09, 23:20 GMT
''Its fine in the public sector, where no one has to justify themselves and absence won't be noticed''
Thats right have a go at the public servants again no matter what the issue is - you people really need to find another soft target to pick on - oh the poor private sector! Obviously you have never worked in a packed benefit office (especially with rising unemployment) when everyone is screaming insults at you and you are trying to do 10 things at once and all because half the office is off on maternity leave. Maternity leave is a struggle for everyone but cannot be avoided.
As for this latest announcement:
1. As if any new mother is going to give up 3 months maternity leave and go back to work while her other half takes the remainder.
2. As if her other half can afford to only earn £123pw for 3 months.
Posted by ANON | 15.09.09, 20:35 GMT
in reality i predict that very few men will take up this "opportunity" on affordability grounds. many men earn more than their wives/partners and many couples could not afford to have the main bread winner earning a paltry £123 a week and then 12 weeks unpaid. this is just headline grabbing.
Posted by rs | 15.09.09, 17:41 GMT
Ulysses32,
Ray, like me, presumably believes that people should be entitled to a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, rather than several months' pay for swanning around at home.
The extension to paternity leave will be yet another example of well-meaning, but misguided, socialist ideology making British businesses even less competitive in the global economy. Anyone who supports such a proposal would do well to bear in mind the number of jobs that have already been lost to countries with lower cost bases and less bureaucracy.
Posted by Richard | 15.09.09, 16:15 GMT
I dont even have children but have to laugh at "we do it for our own indulgence"
err if we didnt indulge, there wouldnt be a society in a few generations, we'd die off!
Posted by pregnant pause | 15.09.09, 15:21 GMT
Do you own a sweat factory in a third world country, Ray? Do you ask that employees should sign over their souls when they become employed?
You obviously do not have children and with your own and, with that attitude towards having any, you surely would not deserve them.
Employment is viewed by the many as a means to an end. Work to live, not live to work. If that is your attitude i feel so sorry for you.
Posted by Ulysses32 | 15.09.09, 15:05 GMT
This is just ridiculous. It's fine in the public sector, where no one has to justify themselves and absence won't be noticed but for a small business it could be crippling. Let's remember, we don't have children for the good of society or our employers, we do it for our own indulgence and therefore shouldn't expect to make unreasonable demands on others.
Posted by Ray M | 15.09.09, 13:42 GMT