UK employers are urging MEPs to vote against proposals to raise the amount of full paid maternity leave from 14 to 20 weeks.

The Federation of Small Businesses says the plans are unaffordable and that it could cost their members £2.5bn a year.

The coalition government says the amendments would double its costs.

Supporters say it is wrong to allow policy to be influenced by temporary economic downturns and that a price cannot be put on a contented workforce.

Women in the UK are currently entitled to 12 months off, with the first six weeks on 90% pay followed by 33 weeks on Statutory Maternity Pay of just under £125 a week.

Businesses can claim back all or most of the money from the government, but say it would put more pressure on them at a time when they are struggling.

Kieran O'Keefe from the British Chambers of Commerce says the proposal would particularly hit businesses with only a few staff.

He said: "Smaller operators are always the ones that seem to suffer the most from this.

"Any change like this will be extremely hard for them to absorb - having to cope with the legal changes, having to cover for somebody while they're out the workplace for an extended period of time - I think is the last thing you want to be doing in the current economic conditions."

'Inestimable pleasure'

The FSB is urging the European Parliament to reject these proposals and is calling for maternity and paternity to be reformed by introducing a "flexible leave" system to allow parents to choose their leave arrangements.

Lynette Burrows, an author on children's rights and a family campaigner, said the proposals could mean businesses would employ men rather than women.

She said: "I think women will just have to take on the chin the fact that there are sacrifices to be made if you want the inestimable pleasure and treasure of having a family that you won't be able to compete on an equal footing with men."

Employment Relations Minister Edward Davey said: "This is a substantial increase at a time when economies across the EU can least afford it.

"In addition to the cost of these proposals - which will double the £2 billion we currently spend on maternity pay - they will be regressive as most of the additional money will go to the highest paid women."

But Belinda Phipps, the chief executive of the National Childbirth Trust, said the objections to the proposed new law were invalid.

She said families should be able to choose how long they should be at home to be able to bond with their baby and that the "temporary financial crisis" should not impact policy.

One mother said it was "not fair that only well off people are able to choose how long they can spend off work while poorer people have to go back to work".

Euro-MPs will vote on the measure later this week.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11560112

I'm not sure where I stand on this, so I'd appreciate any opinions (there's the usual vote-changeable poll too)

Not entirely sure on this one.

I don't think it should raise but the paternity leave should match it.

Having children is a choice afterall.

I'm not passionate about this subject though.

Given that the businesses claim it back from the government anyway I'm not really sure what the issue is.

Paying for it I guess.

You can't claim back the full costs. It's one thing if it's an easily replaceable person like an accountant or receptionist, but if a highly specialist member of staff disappears for months then the cost may be unquantifiable.

You may have to pay many thousands of pounds hiring consultants or outsourcing the work they would normally do. In some cases that might not be practical, and you need to train someone else to cover for them. That means investing many thousands of pounds training someone who you then make redundant six months later.

Alternatively, you simply shut down the entire company until they come back. I think that's what would happen in our case

I'm kind of in both camps as an employer and someone whose wife is on maternity leave.

On one hand I can see why this would be a good thing for poorer mums who want to spend a bit longer with their baby before they go back to work. On the other hand I can see why businesses might not like this. Also nobody's forcing people to have children.

Hmm...

(Damn you JJ! Why did you have go and make me think about something?)

The problem can be exacerbated by the fact that many ladies choose announce when they are due to return to work that they have changed their minds .............. and won't now be returning.

Organising the staffing can be very problematical. ( looking at it purely from the employers standpoint )

My colleagues wife is expecting their third child shortly. Their eldest is 4, so she's had two years out of the last four on maternity leave and now it will be three out of five.

Not only does an employer have to put up with her being off for the three years, now they are expected to pay increased levels of maternity pay, and after all that, who is to say that she will return?

Having children is an essential part of the continuance of the human race, and already we are apparently not having enough, but employers do have a hell of a lot to put up with.

I think the greenies may disagree.

I'd actually say we've had plenty, ta much.
Yes, it'll be a PITA until the older generations have died out, but fewer people on the planet is a Good Thing.
One child per couple, yes please.

Not having enough? The world is overpopulated by several billion and we aren't having enough?

I'm against your quantity, but I'm with you on the principle. I think that couples should be allowed two children, if everyone did it would sustain the population, and remember that not everyone will want/be able to have two children and many will not want/be able to have children at all.

It's a difficult one, yes it is the mother's choice to have the child (though once pregnant she may find her emotions take over), so why should the employer pay for that choice? Then again I don't think the world would be any better if mothers were rushed back to work, they would have to pay for child care which might soak up all of a salary, and the child would be raised by a stranger.

A gut feeling tells me that what we have at the moment it OK.

The question should not be what benefits the employer, but rather what is better overall for the mother, child and society. I have long believed that the economy exists to serve the people, not the other way around, and personally I find it a crying shame that children (especially young children) see more of their carers/teachers than their parents because the latter have to work all hours just to scrape together a decent living.

Mothers in the kitchen where they belong..?