Father’s Day is approaching, so naturally paternity leave is back in the news – or, at least, back in the Independent newspaper – thanks to a “damning” new TUC survey finding that “the low level of statutory paternity pay stops one in five dads/partners from taking paternity leave at all”.

No one, least of all the Independent newspaper, appears to have spotted that this take-up rate of 80% is considerably better than the 33% previously and repeatedly bemoaned, year after year after year, by the Independent newspaper and (many) others.

One reason for this is that the TUC doesn’t bother to tell us whether its ‘one in five’ figure relates to all new working fathers, or only to the proportion of such new fathers who qualify for statutory paid paternity leave. Indeed, the TUC press release makes only passing reference to the fact, previously bemoaned by the TUC, that one in four new working fathers are not even eligible for statutory paid paternity leave.

Whatever, the TUC calls on the Government to:

• Increase statutory paternity pay: Statutory paternity pay needs to increase to at least the level of the real living wage, to make it feasible for dads/partners to take time out to care for their new-borns. 
• Extend parental leave: Both parents need a stand-alone right to their own individual period of well-paid parental leave – which is not dependent on the other partner sacrificing some of their leave (as it is in the current shared parental leave system).
• Give parental leave and pay rights to all from day one: Parental leave and pay rights should be accessible to all, regardless of employment status – including those who are self-employed, agency workers or on zero-hours contracts. Qualifying periods for parental leave and pay rights should be scrapped and they should be available from day one in a job. 

It’s unclear whether the TUC’s policy wonks have heard of the Equal Pay Act, but there’s certainly no mention here of statutory maternity pay, and the shocking impact of the ludicrously low rate at which it is paid. So we don’t know from their press release whether the TUC also wants parental leave for mothers to be “well-paid”, or just parental leave for fathers/partners. Nor do we know how long the TUC thinks these “individual period[s] of well-paid parental leave” should be. One month? Three months? Six months? It’s all a bit vague, frankly.

Back in 2019, the Fatherhood Institute suggested six months of paid parental leave for fathers (and other second parents). Which is also the duration suggested by Maternity Action, with the backing of the Fabian Society. But now the Fatherhood Institute seems to have settled for a period of just four weeks (plus the existing two weeks of paternity leave). Which is confusing, and disappointing.

Apparently, the campaign group Pregnant Then Screwed is about to come out with a new parental leave proposal of its own, which may or may not align with proposals already on the table, including Pregnant Then Screwed’s previous call for “a minimum of six weeks paid leave at 90% of their salary” for fathers/partners. But if ministers in the next government are to be persuaded of the case for pumping billions of pounds of extra spending into legal reform to enable and support more equal parenting, we need to stop this ‘dad dancing’ and focus on clear, concrete proposals for a shift – over ten or even 15 years – to a new, more equitable and ‘father inclusive’ system that delivers a significant new entitlement to parenting leave for fathers (and other second parents), while protecting and indeed enhancing the existing statutory rights of mothers.

Update, 15 June: The Pregnant Then Screwed report – actually a joint report with the Centre for Progressive Policy – is out today, and it recommends that:

• Paternity leave policy in the UK is reformed based on the principles of improving statutory pay, guaranteeing non-transferable leave, sufficient time for non-transferable leave, and enhancing existing maternity rights; and
• The Government increase the length of non-transferable paternity leave to a minimum of six weeks and pay it at 90% of income in line with current statutory maternity pay.

According to the Guardian, the report estimates that this would cost “between £1 billion and £1.6 billion a year”, though I can’t actually find this estimate in the report. Which would be an increase of between 27% and 43% in the current total spend on statutory maternity, paternity and other parental pay of some £3.7 billion a year.

So, I have questions. And some thoughts. Which I may put into a blog, when I’ve stopped banging my head on my desk.