The government has announced today that it will go ahead with its plans to make the second six months of maternity leave transferable between parents.
The new right, announced by Prime Minister Gordon Brown today, would allow women who have had a child and return to work after six months to transfer their unused six months to their partner. This will mean that fathers can take up to six months leave, half of which is paid.
Sarah Jackson, CEO of Working Families, said: “It also marks a step forward in terms of changing the attitudes of employers to new parents. Gender inequality in the workplace is estimated to cost the UK a staggering £23 billion. We cannot afford to carry on throwing away money and talent like this. This small step will begin to make fathers visible at work, and may help employers reconsider outdated assumptions that care for a new baby will automatically be 100% the responsibility of the mother.”
However, Joanna Cowie, head of legal at HRInsight, said that many businesses are concerned about the impact the changes will have on administration processes.†
She said: “The initial response from businesses is that the new rules will be time-consuming and expensive to administer, at a time when they are likely to be struggling to recover from the recession. Small businesses, in particular, are concerned about the likely effect of having to pay for temporary cover and the difficulties posed where both parents are employed by the same employer.
In October 2008 the government postponed its plans to increase paternity rights until 2010, before putting them on ice in June 2009 because of the economic climate.
For more news on childcare and family friendly benefits click here
I agree with Sarah Jackson. This chagne in legislation will give families more freedom to decide how to tackle childcare with greater opportunities for fathers to be involved. In cases where the mother is the higher earning partner it makes sense for her to return to work while allowing her husband to bond more fully with his child.
I disagree with Joanna Cowie’s comment that it will be time consuming. Fathers already have a right to paternity leave so the preliminary paperwork should already be in place by the time a man decides he wants to take advantage of the further period of leave.
I would have thougtht it a bigger admin hassle when employment is with different employers.
Up to about 50 years ago, having children was a necessity. They brought in income and were effectively your pension. Today, having children is a leisure choice. You have them because you want them. I don’t see why there should be any benefits, legislation etc in favour of parents whatsoever. I don’t get any for my leisure choices. Why should everybody else foot the bill for yours.
I’ve come across the notion of having children as a “leisure choice” before and for me it equates to the notion that the “human resource” is simply another resource to be exploited and discarded by organisations in the same way as outdated capital equipment.
You’re right, Pam, in saying that having children is now a choice. However, without them Gordon Brown’s successor is going to struggle to pay our state pensions. Indeed, there may come a time when the UK government adopts measures like the French or Japanese to encourage an increase in the birthrate.
I think it more than a little unethical to endeavour to grab the morale high ground of ‘social responsibility’. You know as well as I do that it is not a factor for those choosing to have kids. They do it because they want to. They’d actually do it whether there was a greater benefit to society or not. To suggest they’re acting in the financial interests of the country is rather like saying I drink alcohol to increase the amount of duty I pay. If we’re grabbing morale high ground, I’d suggest that the one thing the World’s environment can do without is more people.
I have nothing against any kind of benefit being granted. I have an issue as to who pays for it. If people are so keen to ensure the well being of children, then let those people club together and pay for it. And there in lies the rub. People are all for benefits – as long as it isn’t them who has to pay.
I often ask people like yourself to imagine that they are having an extension built and are required as ’employers’ of the workmen to offer the same benefits as company employers have to. When I explain what that would mean, they are horrified.
People have an amazing ability to turn a blind eye to something fundamentally unreasonable whilst they are a beneficiary of the arrangement.