
MSP makes Mother's Day call urging UK Government to extend maternity pay
The Scottish Greens are urging the UK Government to support the next generation by extending maternity and paternity pay and shared parental leave.
Gillian Mackay MSP, who is expecting her first child this summer, marked Mother's Day by calling for support to be expanded to cover 52 weeks of full pay.
She said that too many people are being forced to decide against having children for financial reasons and that those who want a family 'should not be deterred by poor parental pay'.
The MSP suggested that expanding support for statutory maternity, paternity and shared parental leave could be paid for through wealth taxes.
She said: 'The early days of a child's life are vital, and every new parent should have the opportunity to spend quality time with them and to introduce them to the world.
'But many are unable to do so in the way they want to and are being forced back to work early.
'This Mother's Day, the UK Government could make a big difference for expectant parents by expanding maternity and paternity pay and offering them far greater peace of mind and stability.
'Statutory maternity pay in the UK is far too low, and lags far behind many other European countries.
'A lot of young workers, in particular, are finding themselves squeezed, with far too many forced to decide against having a family or delaying doing so for financial reasons.
'Not everybody will want to have children, but people who do should not be deterred by poor parental pay.
'Particularly at a time when household bills and living costs are going up, we should be supporting parents and ensuring that babies are given the best start in life.
'By increasing support for parents and putting money in their pockets we can support our next generation and spread opportunity.'
Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) is paid for up to 39 weeks at 90% of the mother's average weekly earnings (before tax) for the first six weeks.
This is followed by £184.03 or 90% of their average weekly earnings (whichever is lower) for the next 33 weeks.
Statutory paternity leave is paid for two weeks and is either £184.03 a week or 90% of the person's average weekly earnings (whichever is lower).
Shared Parental Leave allows parents to share up to 50 weeks of leave and up to 37 weeks of pay between them.
The UK Government said the standard rate of parental payments is reviewed annually at the discretion of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
From April 2025, the rate will increase by September 2024's Consumer Prices Index (CPI) figure of 1.7%, from £184.03 to £187.18 per week (2025/26).
A UK Government spokesperson said: 'This Government wants new mothers to be able to take time away from work in the later stages of their pregnancy and in the months following childbirth and are entitled to 52 weeks of leave and 39 weeks of Statutory Maternity Pay or Maternity Allowance.
'Statutory Maternity Pay and Maternity Allowance are uprated each year and are only one element of support available for pregnant women and new mothers, who may also be eligible for Universal Credit or Child Benefit.
'As we fix the foundations of the economy, we're uprating benefits and supporting 700,000 of the poorest families by making changes to Universal Credit deductions to help low-income households and make everyone better off.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mirror
7 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
WASPI women clear 'significant hurdle' in bid for court review over pensions
The Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) campaign group has announced it has cleared a significant hurdle in its battle for a High Court challenge. The Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) campaign group have announced a significant step forward in their fight for a High Court challenge. WASPI is pushing for a judicial review to compel the UK Government to rethink its decision to dismiss a compensation package for women impacted by the way changes to the State Pension age were communicated. On Friday, the campaigners revealed they've been informed their case is arguable, paving the way for a court hearing. A prior report from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) suggested that compensation between £1,000 and £2,950 could be suitable for each affected individual. However, in December 2024, the UK Government stated that while it accepted the Ombudsman's finding of maladministration and apologised for the delay in contacting women born in the 1950s, a blanket compensation scheme, potentially costing taxpayers up to £10.5 billion, cannot be justified. In February, WASPI campaigners put forth arguments for a legal case challenging the decision not to compensate women, reports the Daily Record. The campaigners' lawyers argue that the UK Government's reasons for deciding that people should not receive any remedy violate legal principles. WASPI also anticipates a hearing to consider its application for a costs capping order, ensuring campaigners wouldn't be burdened with unknown costs to cover legal fees if they lose. Nevertheless, the organisation has warned it may need to withdraw its legal challenge if it lacks this monetary safety net and is appealing for more donations to support the fight. WASPI's chairwoman Angela Madden hailed the go-ahead in their legal battle as a "landmark moment in our campaign". Speaking out, she remarked: "We are grateful for the funds raised so far and understand the country's purse strings are tight, but the Government cannot be allowed to brush this injustice aside." Declining to give a detailed opinion due to ongoing proceedings, a spokesperson for the Department for Work and Pensions stated to PA news agency: "We do not comment on live litigation. We have apologised for there being a 28-month delay in writing to 1950s-born women." They continued to outline the department's stance: "However, we do not agree with the Ombudsman's approach to injustice or remedy and that is why we have decided not to pay compensation." This week, WASPI has been proactive by introducing a fresh interactive tool that reveals the level of MP support across the country for a compensation scheme aimed at helping around 3.6 million women impacted by the shift in their state pension age. Recent data uncovers that 179 MPs have openly criticised the UK Government's refusal to compensate the WASPI women in the past few months. Of these, WASPI points out that 56 Labour MPs have vocally condemned Number 10 for failing to address this injustice, with a considerable number more believed to be silently supportive, including several high-profile ministers. The map reveals a near-unanimous backing from smaller parties, with a robust coalition of Liberal Democrat, Reform UK, SNP, Green, Plaid Cymru and DUP MPs rallying behind the call to compensate WASPI women. Minor parties are almost entirely in agreement, with a formidable alliance of Liberal Democrat, Reform UK, SNP, Green, Plaid Cymru and DUP MPs endorsing the plea for WASPI women's compensation. Approximately a dozen Tory MPs have also recently reiterated their support for compensation. These revelations coincide with the launch of WASPI's revamped website, which now includes resources to help supporters pen letters to their MPs and join the campaign for a modest annual fee of £15. Among the most fervent advocates for WASPI women are members of the State Pension Inequality for Women APPG, led by Labour MP Rebecca Long-Bailey. This cross-party group of MPs, one of the largest in Parliament, comprises representatives from all major political parties who have pledged to persist in their quest for justice. However, according to WASPI campaigners, 134 MPs who previously supported calls for compensation have not reaffirmed their stance following the Labour Government's announcement in December. The data does not account for serving government ministers or whips, at least 80 of whom have previously expressed their support for the campaign. The stances of all MPs on compensation can be found on WASPI's interactive 'state of the nation' map, along with new campaign resources, here.


The Independent
a day ago
- The Independent
Government stalling in efforts to cut foreign aid spent on asylum seekers
The government is struggling to cut the amount of money from the foreign aid budget it spends on asylum seekers in the UK, new figures show. Home Office figures show the department expects to spend £2.2bn of overseas development assistance (ODA) this financial year, of which £2.1bn is expected to be spent on asylum support. The predictions for this year are only slightly less than the £2.4bn spent in 2024/25. Official development assistance (ODA) – which was slashed earlier this year to 0.3 per cent of GDP to pay for a boost to defence spending - is used to promote the economic development and welfare in developing countries around the world. A portion of this money is handed to the home office to support asylum seekers after they arrive in the UK, most of which goes towards their accommodation. But the government's failure to cut back on this spending has led aid organisations to accuse ministers of 'robbing Peter to pay Paul', claiming they are in danger of a 'reckless repeat of decisions taken by the previous Conservative government.' Figures published in March revealed that the number of asylum seekers housed in costly hotels has increased by more than 8,000 since the general election, with 38,079 migrants being housed in hotels at the end of December. It comes despite Sir Keir Starmer previously saying a Labour government wouldn't use the foreign aid budget to pay for asylum seekers' hotel costs – but admitted that the government would not be able to stop doing so immediately. 'I'm not going to pretend to you we can do that in the first 24 hours', he said in May 2024. Meanwhile, Labour's election manifesto vowed to 'end asylum hotels, saving the taxpayer billions of pounds'. Gideon Rabinowitz, director of policy at the Bond network of development organisations, warned that 'cutting the UK aid budget while using it to prop up Home Office costs is a reckless repeat of decisions taken by the previous Conservative government.' "Diverting £2.2bn of UK aid to cover asylum accommodation in the UK is unsustainable, poor value for money, and comes at the expense of vital development and humanitarian programmes tackling the root causes of poverty, conflict and displacement. "It is essential that we support refugees and asylum seekers in the UK, but the government should not be robbing Peter to pay Paul', he told the BBC. Meanwhile, Sarah Champion, chair of the International Development Committee, said: "Aid is meant to help the poorest and most vulnerable across the world: to alleviate poverty, improve life chances and reduce the risk of conflict. "Allowing the Home Office to spend it in the UK makes this task even harder." "The government must get a grip on spending aid in the UK. The Spending Review needs to finally draw a line under this perverse use of taxpayer money designed to keep everyone safe and prosperous in their own homes, not funding inappropriate, expensive accommodation here." The Home Office told the BBC it is committed to ending asylum hotels and is speeding up asylum decisions to save taxpayers' money. The department also said it had reduced overall asylum support costs by half a billion pounds in the last financial year, saving £200m in ODA which had been passed back to the Treasury. In April, The Independent revealed that the government had awarded a contract which allows for hotels and barges to house asylum seekers up until September 2027, despite Labour vowing to end the practice. The contract, advertised ahead of the election, was awarded by the Cabinet Office in October 2024 – just months after Labour won a historic landslide election victory - and runs up until September 2027. In June, the home secretary admitted she was "concerned about the level of money" being spent on asylum seekers' accommodation, adding: "We need to end asylum hotels altogether."


Metro
a day ago
- Metro
Tommy Robinson kicked out of restaurant because 'staff didn't want to serve him'
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Tommy Robinson is upset after being kicked out of a restaurant for making staff 'feel uncomfortable'. The right wing activist – real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon – was out eating at the Hawksmoor restaurant near Regent Street, central London, before staff realised who he was. Footage taken by EDL member Guramit Singh Kalirai, who was dining with Robinson, shows the restaurant manager explaining 'staff felt uncomfortable'. Kalirai replied: 'Is it because of the colour of my skin?' The manager responded: 'No, no, no. We have a duty of care to our members of staff. We like to look after our people, as I'm sure you can understand. 'I'm very sorry. I hope it hasn't inconvenienced you.' The footage was posted to X, with Kalirai saying: 'Just been kicked out of Hawksmoor steak house for no reason. Literally just had our starters.' The manager could be seen handing Robinson a business card with the CEO of Hawksmoor's details on it 'if he has any questions', and told him the restaurant will cover the cost of the drinks. Metro has contacted the Hawksmoor for comment. Robinson was released from prison last month after he was jailed for repeatedly lied about a Syrian refugee. But he had his sentence reduced, and was released from HMP Woodhill in Milton Keynes. Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: I thought Robbie Williams was overhyped but he can still kick it MORE: What I Own: At 22 and 23, we bought a run down London four-bed for £910,000 MORE: Major US fast food chain to open in London Heathrow airport – a European first