Paternity Leave in UK One of Worst in Developed World, Committee Finds
The UK has 'one of the worst leave offers in the developed world for fathers,' according to a report by the Women and Equalities Committee (WEC).
The WEC
It also found that the UK's rate of statutory paternal pay is 'completely out of kilter with the cost of living' and has not kept pace with inflation.
WEC Chairwoman and Labour MP Sarah Owen
She said the system is 'in urgent need of an overhaul to fit with the reality of working parents' lives,' and that reform must start with longer and better paid paternity leave.
The report came ahead of the government's review of paternal leave entitlement and as the Employment Rights Bill moves through the House of Lords.
International Comparisons
The committee examined evidence from other models for parental leave around the world, finding that Nordic countries in particular have far more generous paternal leave terms.
Related Stories
6/9/2025
5/30/2025
Norway, for example, introduced four weeks of non-transferable leave and pay for fathers in 1993. Today, parental leave for mothers and fathers is paid at 100 percent of earnings for 46 weeks, or 56 weeks at 80 percent, both with an upper cap.
Spain has transformed its system in recent years after starting in a similar place as the UK. The country introduced 13 days of paid paternity in 2007, and between 2017 and 2021, gradually increased this to 16 weeks, equal to maternity leave and paid at 100 percent of earnings.
Spain also made six weeks of that leave compulsory for mothers and fathers. The WEC said they heard from experts who recommended that the UK should similarly consider making a period of paternity leave compulsory, 'as a way of shifting the culture and challenging gendered stereotypes around family responsibilities.'
Day 1 Paternity Leave Rights
The WEC has called on the government to draw on lessons from Spain's reform of paternal leave, and incrementally increase the period of paid leave for fathers to six weeks over the course of this Parliament.
The committee also urged ministers to remove the requirement that men must be employed for at least 26 weeks before being entitled to paternity leave, saying it should be available from the first day of employment.
Commuters on London Bridge on Jan. 22, 2024.
Victoria Jones/PA Wire
Lack of paternal leave provision for self-employed fathers was also deemed 'deeply unfair,' with MPs calling for the introduction of a paternity allowance, similar to maternity allowance for self-employed mothers.
The report also highlighted the flaws of Shared Parental Leave (SPL), which allows for parents to share up to 50 weeks of leave, so one or both parents can decide when to take leave in a more flexible way.
The committee said SPL was 'extremely difficult for most parents and their employers to understand,' and called for it to be simplified and made more financially attractive to boost uptake.
Reform Needed
The WEC chairwoman said, 'It's essential the Government's proposed review addresses the system's fundamental failings, including low statutory pay, inadequate leave periods for fathers and others, exclusion of many working parents and guardians, plus design flaws and unnecessary complexity in the Shared Parental Leave scheme.'
Owen called on ministers to commit to meaningful reforms in the medium term, 'with a view to going further towards a more gender equal parental leave system.'
She said: 'Tinkering around the edges of a broken system will let down working parents. While much-needed substantial change to our paid parental leave system will require considerable financial investment, this would be outweighed by wider societal and economic benefits.'
Responding to the recommendations of the report, a government spokesperson told The Epoch Times: 'This government is committed to making sure parents receive the best possible support to balance their work and home lives as part of our Plan to Make Work Pay.
'We know the parental leave system needs to be improved and will be carrying out a review to ensure it best supports working families, and through our Employment Rights Bill we will remove the 26-week continuity of service requirement for paternity leave.'
The government said that as part of its review, it will consider all current parental leave entitlements, including paternity leave and pay and the length of leave available to fathers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
MPs may have passed the assisted dying bill, but the debate is just beginning
Now that the assisted dying bill has passed its momentous third reading in the House of Commons, it may seem like legalisation in England and Wales is a done deal. But despite this significant milestone, the bill is not yet law and its journey through the House of Lords is far from a formality. While the terminally ill adults (end of life) bill is now closer than ever to becoming law, both the Commons and the Lords must agree on its final wording. And just like in the Commons, there are passionate supporters and vocal opponents in the Lords. Peers are expected to focus their attention on a number of outstanding, and controversial, issues. One of the biggest concerns that surfaced during both the report stage and today's third reading relates to the speed and process of drafting the legislation. Because this is a private member's bill, introduced by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, it was subject to strict timelines. Leadbeater had just 85 days to work with legal drafters and set out a policy framework before the bill was published ahead of its second reading in November 2024. Despite this, the democracy-supporting charity the Hansard Society has noted that the bill is 'among the most heavily scrutinised in recent times', and it could ultimately receive up to 200 hours of parliamentary debate, especially now that it has moved to the Lords. Still, the fast turnaround meant that many important decisions, such as what medications will be approved for use in assisted dying, have been left for the secretary of state to determine later through what's known as delegated legislation (secondary laws made without a full parliamentary vote). One area likely to receive particular scrutiny is the bill's inclusion of so-called 'Henry VIII clauses'. These are controversial powers that allow ministers to make changes to existing primary legislation, effectively altering acts of parliament without needing a new law. A key example is clause 38 that would let ministers revise the NHS Act 2006 to formally include assisted dying within NHS services. Several amendments aimed at strengthening the bill's safeguards were supported during the Commons stages. These included the introduction of independent advocates, a new disability advisory board, and additional protections for people with learning disabilities, mental health conditions, or autism. An amendment from Labour MP Naz Shah was also supported at the third reading, ensuring that a person who chooses to stop eating and drinking will not automatically be considered terminally ill. This is a protection designed to prevent the system being used inappropriately. Yet despite these measures, concerns remain. Critics worry about the risk of coercion, both from others and self imposed. There is particular unease about people feeling pressured to choose assisted dying because they consider themselves a burden. Questions have also been raised about whether those with conditions like anorexia might qualify for assisted dying under the current wording of the bill. Even with the new safeguards, including mandatory training for doctors to detect coercion and assess mental capacity, many feel the bill needs tighter definitions and clearer criteria to protect the most vulnerable. The impact on palliative and end-of-life care continues to be a major point of debate. Today, MPs backed an amendment from Liberal Democrat MP Munira Wilson that would require the government to assess the state of palliative care services within one year of the law being enacted. Peers in the House of Lords may push further on this issue. Some may argue that before a person can request assisted dying, they should first be referred to a palliative care specialist to fully understand their options. Others may want the law to spell out more clearly who is qualified to assess these requests. Another key question is who should provide assisted dying services. The British Medical Association has previously suggested a model where assisted dying operates outside the core NHS system. This would be a kind of parallel service overseen by the health secretary but delivered by independent providers. This would be similar to how early medical abortions are offered in some parts of the UK. Time is tight in the Lords, so peers will probably focus on a few high priority areas. Any amendments will need to be proposed, debated and approved quickly if the bill is to continue progressing this session. Even if the bill passes, it includes a four year implementation period to allow for the development of more detailed policies, including training for professionals, protocols for medication and clearer guidance on safeguarding. The passing of the bill in the Commons is historic. But the national conversation on assisted dying is not over. And the next phase will determine how this sensitive and deeply personal issue is handled in practice. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Suzanne Ost has previously received funding from the AHRC for her assisted dying research. Nancy Preston receives funding from Horizon Europe, Horizon 2020 and the NIHR
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Voices: Poll of the day: Do you support the assisted dying bill?
The assisted dying bill returns to Parliament today for its final reading amid growing controversy – and a vote that could determine whether the legislation moves forward or falls entirely. A group of Labour MPs dramatically withdrew their support on Thursday night, citing serious concerns about the removal of key safeguards, including the requirement for High Court oversight. They warned that the bill had been 'drastically weakened' and no longer offers enough protection for vulnerable patients. If passed, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill would allow people in England and Wales with fewer than six months to live to apply for a medically assisted death. Approval would be required from two doctors and a panel including a senior legal figure, a social worker, and a psychiatrist. Campaigners are making a final push on both sides of the debate, and with a narrow majority at stake, every vote counts. MPs have a free vote and are not bound by party lines. Supporters argue that the bill offers dignity and choice to those in need. Meanwhile, opponents argue it opens the door to abuse and erodes trust in end-of-life care. With so much at stake and such deeply personal questions at the heart of this debate, we want to hear from you: do you support the assisted dying bill? Vote in our poll and let us know your thoughts in the comments.
Boston Globe
a day ago
- Boston Globe
UK lawmakers begin crunch debate on allowing terminally ill adults to end their lives
Since then, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has been scrutinized, leading to some changes in the proposed legislation, which is being shepherded through Parliament by Labour lawmaker Kim Leadbeater rather than the government. Advertisement Divisive issue In opening the debate, Leadbeater relayed how she had heard hundreds of stories from people who saw their loved ones die in traumatic circumstances. 'Not supporting the bill today is not a neutral act. It is a vote for the status quo,' she said. 'And it fills me with despair to think MPs could be here in another 10 years' time hearing the same stories.' Proponents of the bill argue those with a terminal diagnosis must be given a choice at the end of their lives. However, opponents say the disabled and older people could be at risk of being coerced, directly or indirectly, into ending their lives to save money or relieve the burden on family members. Others have called for improvements in palliative care and greater investments in hospices to ease suffering as a better and more moral alternative. Advertisement Passions were running high outside of Parliament where hundreds of people gathered to make their voices heard. Supporters were dressed in clothing emblazoned with the phrase 'Campaign for Dignity in Dying,' while opponents held up banners urging lawmakers not to make the state-run National Health Service the 'National Suicide Service.' The vote is potentially the biggest change to social policy since abortion was partially legalized in 1967. What lawmakers are voting on The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill would allow terminally ill adults aged over 18 in England and Wales, who are deemed to have less than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death. The terminally ill person would have to be capable of taking the fatal drugs themselves. Proponents of the bill say wealthy individuals can travel to Switzerland, which allows foreigners to legally end their lives, while others have to face possible prosecution for helping their loves ones die. How the vote may go The outcome of the vote is unclear, as some lawmakers who backed the bill in the fall only did so on the proviso that there would be changes made. Some who backed the bill then have voiced disappointment at the changes, while others have indicated Parliament has not been given enough time to debate the issues. The vote is a free one, meaning lawmakers vote according to their conscience rather than on party lines. Alliances have formed across the political divide. If 28 members switched directly from backing the bill to opposing it, while others voted exactly the same way, the legislation would fail. Timeline if the bill passes Friday's vote isn't the end of the matter. The legislation would then go to the unelected House of Lords, which has the power to delay and amend policy, though it can't overrule the lower chamber. Advertisement Since assisted dying wasn't in the governing Labour Party's election manifesto last year, the House of Lords has more room to maneuver. Any amendments would then go back to the House of Commons. If the bill is passed, backers say implementation will take four years, rather than the initially suggested two. That means it could become law in 2029, around the time that the next general election must be held. Changes to the bill Plenty of revisions have been made to the measure, but not enough for some. Perhaps the most important change was to drop the requirement that a judge sign off on any decision. Many in the legal profession had objected. Now any request would be subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. Changes also were made to ensure the establishment of independent advocates to support people with learning disabilities, autism or mental health conditions and the creation of a disability advisory board. It was already the case that doctors wouldn't be required to take part, but lawmakers have since voted to insert a new clause into the bill extending the provision to anyone. The wording means 'no person,' including social care workers and pharmacists, is obliged to take part in assisted dying and can therefore opt out. Government stance There is clearly no consensus in the cabinet about the measure. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has indicated he will back the bill on Friday. His health secretary, Wes Streeting, is opposed, but said he will respect the outcome. Advertisement There are also questions about how it would impact the NHS, hospice care and the legal system. Nations where assisted dying is legal Other countries that have legalized assisted suicide include Australia, Belgium, Canada and parts of the United States, with regulations on who is eligible varying by jurisdiction. Assisted suicide is different from euthanasia, allowed in the Netherlands and Canada, which involves health care practitioners administering a lethal injection at the patient's request in specific circumstances.
