Many good companies offer more than the minimum already. My friend Karin got a really good deal from Halliburton.
Unfortunately for my wife her company gave out the legal minimum.
As nice as it would have been to get more money, I'm with the companies on this one. It's not their job to fund people's babies. That's a job for the people themselves or the state. They employ (and pay) people to work, not to breed.

So from 14 weeks to 20 weeks would double its costs. Must be coalition mathematics. No wonder the country is apparently in a mess.

Arent you liable to pay back some of that maternity pay if you dont return to work?

Nicola had 9 months off. Her pay equated to (approx. with government and employer contribution I guess) a couple of months full pay then reduced pay for a few months and finally for the last 3 months just a few hundred quid.

Planning ahead for the last months when income would be reduced we had £2000 stashed away which allowed us to top up her maternity pay with around £650 per month.

Of course it would be nice to have gotten more money but then on the otherhand we chose to have a child so making sure we have enough money to live is our responsibility.

Paternity on the other hand, dont get me started with that one!...........

Well said. I've never had kids. I've usually been the main bread winner in my relationships so it would be very difficult to be able to afford them if I had had any. Like you say people should make sure they have enough money to live on. It sure don't grow on trees.

Some mothers take a full year off and others are back to work within weeks. It would be nice to have full pay the whole time you're off but this is the real world eh.

The problem is si that if Maternity allowances (Time and money) get to generous then it will mean that people will stop employing women esp smaller firms

If I was runnig a small firm and thinking of expanding my work force I would seriously consider if it was worth employing someone of child bearing age given that if they have some children then I could lose a valuable team member for a year and have difficulty in getting a replacement as I have t keep the job open in case they want to come back. I would therefore, if I had two similar candidates employ a man

As more than one person has commented, I just intend to clarify that we are apparently not having enough children in relation to the increasingly ageing population

Or, on the other hand, the human race is already massively overpopulated and straining the rapidly diminishing resources of the planet.
So, that or your pension. Tough call.

I personally think that maternity leave and paternity leave should be the same. There could be other ways of helping families. What about a universal child benefit?

Logans run solution?

It'll be a tricky period but we really should cut down replacing those that are dieing off. There are too many people as it it, we need to depopulate.

Solyent Green might be a better solution.

You can have both. Thus you have good TV, deliscous food and as a bonus a reduction in the population

Yes you are right they are not mutually exclusive.