Should fathers be offered more paternity leave?

image
Rebecca Atkinson
Thu, 28/01/2010 - 12:23

Fathers are to be given the legal right to take three months' paid paternity leave - effectively allowing them to replace the mother at home at the end of her nine-month maternity break.

However, business leaders say such a move will cost £25 billion and take-up is expected to be limited.

What do you think - is the scheme a waste of money and will fathers take advantage?

Have your say...

‹ British Airways strike action How long will it take for the economy to recover? ›
john barnard (not verified):

sir ,its another useless government attempt to buy votes for another term in office(god forbid they ever do manage to) they are basically trashing the house before the rightful owners get it back ,why does this government not get the message its over ,hit the road and lets get back to bringing credibility to our reputation which has been badly tarnished over the last 10years ,,,john,,,

Fri, 29/01/2010 - 15:57
Pisky (not verified):

Of course they should NOT be given any Paternity leave or pay, neither should women.

If they want to have kids that's there responsibility - why should employers and other tax payers fork out and suffer for their brats. Where has individual responsibilty for our actions gone? Why cannot we ( and the politicians) get to the nitty gritty and understand that the only real cause of global warming is that there are too many people in the world and the earth will eventually take its revenge. So why encourage disaster?

England is far too overpopulated, resulting in more crime, more social benefit costs, bad planning and overcrowding.
In a few years time nations will be fighting for resources, well it's already started, hasn't it with Irag and Afghanistan. Revenge of Gaia has also started, Tsunamis, earthquakes, floods? They kill more now!

Gaia will survive - the human race won't.

Fri, 29/01/2010 - 16:25
Guest (not verified):

I am sure it would save time by just giving all parents all the time off they want on full pay and leave the running of this country and the raising of tax to pay for this to those who either have no children or are single, after all, it is them that have to change shifts, work longer hours and fill in for absent co-workers all the time.

Fri, 29/01/2010 - 16:49
XRAT:

Government should not make promises for companies to keep. If government want to give paternity/maternity leave, government should be the ones paying for it.

Too many small companies just can't afford to take on young females and support them while they don't work..., so they don't take them on! Soon men will suffer the same consequences. Children should be planned.., and saved for. If government want to give parents the ability to look after their own children they should start by allowing couples to transfer their tax allowances.

Fri, 29/01/2010 - 18:23
Guest (not verified):

I think this will help bring a bit more equality in the workplace. Current employers who don't take on women 'of childbearing age' will have to have an entire rethink of their workforce, which can only be a good thing.

Xrat - companies can already claim back SMP from the government. Small companies can claim back more than 100% to cover some of the additional costs. I shouldn't think this will be any different for paternity as it will effectively be switching SMP from the mother to the father.

Sat, 06/02/2010 - 18:26
Guest (not verified):

Perhaps we should take a lesson from the Chinese and provide benefits only for the first one or two children, whether it be child allowances or paid time off. If you want to have lots of kids that's fine, I don't mind helping to pay to educate them but I don't see why I should also have to pay for their clothes, birthday and Xmas presents etc. Similarly employers would know there exposure to staff being absent for long periods of time on paid leave would be limited. (No, I don't have children, it was my choice but I don't ask the rest of the country to pay for my interests)..

Sun, 07/02/2010 - 19:18