New fathers are already entitled to two weeks off work

The proposals are expected to include longer paid maternity leave, higher paternity pay and extending flexible working rights to carers.

The plans have been outlined by Trade and Industry Secretary Patricia Hewitt, in advance of the party's conference.

Business groups have already expressed concerns at the proposals, which they say would be "damaging".

Under her latest and most controversial plan, working mothers should get some or all of the second six months of maternity leave paid.

The impact on smaller firms could be particularly damaging Susan Anderson, Confederation of British Industry

Rules introduced in April 2003 entitle working mothers to six months' paid leave, followed by six months of unpaid time off.

Susan Anderson of the Confederation of British Industry, an employers' body, said the government should think about the impact of the proposals on employers.

"The impact on smaller firms could be particularly damaging," Ms Anderson told BBC News.

"Smaller firms need more certainty about when employees are going to return from maternity leave and paternity leave."

Fathers' rights

Ms Hewitt also wants to increase the rate of Statutory Paternity Pay (SPP).

Under current rules, fathers get �102.80 a week or 90% of their average weekly earnings if this is less, for two weeks.

The proposal would increase SPP to a minimum of 90% of average weekly earnings.

Employers still have to pay for temporary cover Stephen Alambritis, FSB

The existing benefit, also introduced in April 2003, has had limited success largely because the rate has been set too low.

Official figures released earlier in the year showed only a fifth of working fathers had taken up the right.

As many as 400,000 fathers each year could be eligible for time off, and take-up was expected to be about 70% when the benefit was launched.

Although increasing paternity pay might help some families, small business leaders are concerned about additional costs.

Stephen Alambritis, head of parliamentary affairs at the Federation of Small Businesses, said parental leave was a "genuine headache" for small employers.

"All absence comes at a cost. Although the government might pick up some of the bill for higher paternity pay, employers still have to pay for temporary cover," he told BBC News Online.

In her third proposal, Ms Hewitt said she was looking at extending flexible working rights to employees with caring responsibilities, such as those with disabled or elderly relatives.

Since April 2003 parents of children under six years of age, and parents of disabled children under 18, have the legal right to request more flexible working arrangements.

Are you a parent or carer who would support these proposals? Are you a business owner who is concerned about such an extension of workers' rights? Send in your comments:

I am a business man with more than ten employees. If these rules come into effect then the only option available to me is to stop employing women. How can I afford to pay a person for 12 months? Female staff members play such an active and important role within my company. Bringing in such a crippling change would, in my opinion, be detrimental to the employment of women in the workplace. Even now, some of the clients we have, have indicated privately to us that they are in two-minds about whether to take on women under the current regime.
Name withheld, Slough

I'm not a parent and don't run a business, but I can see that extension of one group's rights over another's is dangerous. Businesses need a certain amount of work done to remain viable. If some groups get the right to get more and more time off all it means is that others end up doing the work. If the work doesn't get done then either the company or (more likely) the customers suffer. Extending generous rights to fathers grants a huge right to abuse those rights. Basic biology dictates that a woman can only mother children at a certain rate. A man can theoretically father so many children they could spend their entire working years receiving paternity benefits.
John B, UK

I can't afford to employ young women of childbearing age Janet Smith, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk

I am four months pregnant with my second child. I work full-time and have been employed by my current firm for six months. I do not think that maternity leave should be extended. However, I do think that tax credits should be more generous and parents should be given more help with childcare so that it is easier to return to work. I also think maternity pay should depend on length of employment.
Shirellle Poge, Twickenham, Middlesex

I am 13 weeks pregnant and although I will receive a very good maternity package from my employer (a university) on top of statutory pay, I can still afford to take only nine months instead of the full 12. My husband and I both work full time, we don't have an extravagant lifestyle and have to budget hard to pay our mortgage and bills. Having the option of 12 months statutory pay would be fantastic for us. We wouldn't have to break into our savings for the last couple of months and we can then put this towards childcare when I do return to work.
Sharon Olley, Coventry, UK

The idea of extending current so called "rights" is just plain daft for both employees and employers. As a father of two young children and also running a small business, we simply just could not function with the ideas that Ms Hewitt is spouting. Let's hope UKIP get elected and then we can withdraw from Europe and ditch all this business unfriendly nonsense.
Stephen Perriman, Somerton, Somerset

Six months paid leave is already very generous. To increase this will make companies very wary of employing young women when there is the prospect of having to pay out twice: once for the mother and, secondly, for the person required to take her place. If the government is so keen for this to happen, then perhaps they should be the one to foot the bill.
Paul, Fareham

I run a new business. Starting a business is hard work. As yet I do not employ anyone, but the idea of paying someone for a year of doing nothing every time they have a child does not make me keen to be an employer. If I do want to take on employees I will be looking for people that already have families, and will certainly not consider employing any young women. I think this kind of legislation could be good news for the unemployed over fifties. Perhaps we will see a new kind of age discrimination?
Richard Pearson, Suffolk

It's all very well for the government to outline these proposals but I do wonder when they intend to implement them. It is obviously too little too late for me as I have just gone on maternity leave six weeks before my baby is due. I am already dreading the prospect of going back to work and leaving what my four-and-a-half month old child with a childminder because I have to go back to work. Working mothers should be allowed 12 months paid maternity leave, so they can give their babies the best start in life.
Lisa Johnson, Maghull, Merseyside

I run a small professional services business employing eight people. I employ five older women, who are well past the family stage, along with three men of various ages. I can't afford to employ young women of childbearing age. It is not because of the cost of the maternity cover, it is because I can't afford to have someone out of the office for a year. I employ people because they make my business run profitably. You can't have a temp to cover many of these roles. They just need too much training and the costs are prohibitive. If I could sign a pre-employment agreement that the worker signs away their rights to maternity pay (i.e. puts them on an equal footing with male employees) I would love to employ more women. Such an agreement would of course be illegal - even asking the woman in interview if she is planning a family is illegal. Many of them probably have no intention of doing so and could provide ten years of good service, but I can not take that risk. Unfortunately, these politicians seem to forget businesses have to make money or they close down. Why should my business - and by extension, myself - subsidise other people to rear their children? When the business cycle dips again and recruitment becomes harder a lot of females under-35 are going to find it hard to find work other than in the civil service.
Janet Smith, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk

Having read some comments it seems that having a family is a crime in this country.
Rahul, Hounslow ,Middlesex UK

I agree that people need money to raise children, but a salary is what you get paid in return for doing a job. Maternity leave is a social benefit and should be covered by the government. Your employer is not your parent, and therefore people should not consider money for nothing as a right.
Peter, London

After having lived in the UK for four years it still surprises me how few rights new parents have in this country. Extending the rights to pay for new parents has hardly crippled the Norwegian economy, or forced females out of the workforce, such as some people here seem to believe it would do for the UK.
Vidar Hokstad, Croydon, UK

As the manager of the UK division of an American corporation, I can honestly say that this new legislation will make the fight to retain jobs in the UK harder than ever. A whole raft of recent employment legislation is making the UK very uneconomical for manufacturing businesses. Decisions taken today will not be felt for years to come due to the timescales involved in multinational business planning. People need to be aware that short-term gains for the few, are poisoning the pond. In a few years time, the damage being done today will be felt, and only businesses operating in services industries and high-end niche manufacturing will still be operating in the UK - the prospect of which should be truly disturbing.
Name withheld, Basildon, UK

Businesses do not subsidise parental leave, they can claim both statutory maternity and paternity pay back from the state. I can appreciate the argument that employing someone to cover maternity or paternity leave is a hassle, but the belief among small businesses that they will end up paying two people is based on pure ignorance. The best way to deal with sex discrimination is to offer men and women equal parental leave rights. Encourage men to stay at home to care for children between six to 12 months, after breastfeeding has stopped.
Name withheld, London, UK

I was only able to take three months off with each of my children when they were born. Mortgages and other costs meant I had little choice. However, it was my decision to have the children and while my employer at the time was great, it was a terrible drain on my colleagues having to cover for me. Twelve months would have been great, but how can employers be expected to fund it? This Labour proposal is ridiculous proposal and is to get the young family vote. It's pathetic.
Berni Hockaday, Slough

This is the best news ever. I am 45 years old, and a single man with no kids, and no intention of having any. If this proposal comes into force my future job prospects are going to look great. Head to head in a job application with a comparably-qualified and experienced woman candidate of childbearing age, who on earth would employ the woman?
Bob, Leeds, UK

When is the country going to wake up to the fact that this government is going to kill Great Britain PLC? We have always enjoyed a good economy and have been immune from the European disease. This government is determined to emulate their "success". Great Britain has the lowest unemployment rate and has attracted the largest share of inward investment. If we continue to pursue these socialist policies, Britain will have lost its advantages and we will be regarded as being on the periphery. This government is sending out all the wrong signals: Don't come to Britain, we now have the highest compensation culture outside of the USA and we are giving employees expensive rights you will have to pay for. Oh and by the way, we have a little surprise coming in the pensions department.
Paul, Reading, Great Britain

I'm a full-time working mum and have been since 1986. The extension of rights for working parents is to be applauded. There desperately needs to be provision for a more balanced life for working parents in the UK. We, as a nation, seem to be stuck in a time warp of Dickensian working methods and paranoia about home and teleworking, where workers are being treated like dishonest children. There also needs to be some kind of provision for the care of the children over 11 years old. It is well known how this age-group is more likely to fall into the wrong company. However, there is precious little - if any appropriate childcare provision for this age-group. So what is a working parent to do apart from try to cobble together some supervision and care for the over 11 year-old? Its not good enough and fails this age-group and parents like me. Most parents have to work these days. I will find it difficult to work after my son is 11, as I don't have any family to leave him with and childminders don't take children of this age. So, what am I to do? Any suggestions welcome, minister?
Linda Joseph, Cwmbran, Gwent UK

A country needs to have children to support its ageing population, especially in this country with our looming pension crisis. Our business community must share that responsibility. If we exclude women from our workforce, then we ignore half the valuable resources available to us and penalise women for childbirth. Maternity leave is such a short time in a woman's working career and employers need to take this onboard in exchange for the benefits that are gained over the longer term from that employee.
Elizabeth Murphy, Aberdeen, Scotland

Once again Labour poises to strike another nail into the coffin of the British Economy. Great vote winner, but when we all lose our jobs as business relocate to China what will be the point? No job, no maternity leave.
Iain, Chester, UK

What planet is Patricia Hewitt on? As the owner of a small business employing 15 staff (eight female), the current rules are a disincentive to employ women of childbearing age. Extending maternity rights to 12 months statutory pay would undoubtedly lead to such women being (illegally) discriminated against. Some earlier responses suggest that the government should pick up the tab, where do they think the "government's" money comes from? For Patricia Hewitt to even suggest such a scheme shows she has no understanding of business and the sooner the DTI is closed down the better.
Name Withheld, Aberdeen, UK

Do people not realise that today's babies will be the taxpayers supporting them in their retirement? Debra Tofts, Cambridge

If the government continues along these lines, the workforce will be divided into self-employed/agency workers with little rights and those in well paid jobs. Any employer will not want to take someone on full time with these benefits. If the government wants to improve parents' rights, how about sorting out the current mess after separation/divorce where fathers have their families removed by the so-called Family Court System? I doubt anything will happen here as it is likely to upset left-wing feminists. Still, let's pretend to be family-friendly by bashing business over the head. Again the proposals above will only cause people overall in work to have less rights as employers move towards employing more agency workers.
Joe Healy, Horsham, West Sussex

Why is leave to raise a child only available to women? It should be down to the couple to decide between themselves who takes what time off. That would also end the possibility, or indeed need, for businesses to discriminate when hiring young woman.
Maggie, Cambridge

Doesn't anyone understand that employers, especially small organisations, recover the vast majority of maternity pay from the government? There is a lot of ill-informed comment here.
Jane, UK

I fully endorse the government's proposals to encourage parental rights, with emphasis on parental not just maternal rights. It's time society realised raising children involves both a mother and a father. Fathers should be encouraged to take paternity leave and work part time or flexible hours. A better work-life balance is provided for both parents. Employers would benefit from a happier more committed workforce. The government would benefit from a higher tax revenue generated from two working parents. As a mother working for a company which encourages both paternity and maternity leave and flexible working hours, I can speak from experience. I hope to work for this company until I retire.
Laura, Wilmslow, UK

Do people not realise that today's babies will be the taxpayers supporting them in their retirement? Do you plan to wipe out a whole future generation's workforce. All parents should be supported and encouraged for the sake of tomorrow's surgeons, dustmen, politicians, nurses, teachers, cleaners, shop assistants, and grave diggers. How can anyone who lives in the 21st century be so self important that they cannot think of the future? Who has the right to only think of themselves and today?
Debra Tofts, Cambridge

As a senior manager (Finance Director) of a company employing 30 staff, including many ladies of child-bearing age, I can tell you the costs involved are 8% of 90% of salary for six weeks and 8% of �100 per week for 20 weeks, plus 100% of the employer's NIC on the above and 100% of the employer's pension contribution (of total salary). So someone on �20,000 per annum (reasonable central London salary) currently costs �800 salary, approx �200 NIC and �500 pension costs (at 5% of salary), plus holiday pay for the six months (i.e. two weeks full pay minimum, which inc NIC/pension is an extra �900 or so). That's a total of around �2,400. Then, as everyone has said, it is either a question of employing a temp (in a specialised industry that is not realistic) or everyone else works harder and longer, with or without overtime. The extra stress on everyone when there are three girls off at once (10% of the workforce) is unbelievable.
Bob, London

I am a young woman who has just graduated with a masters degree from Cambridge University. I have no intention of starting a family for many years and want to put my qualifications to good use in my chosen field. However, I am finding that employers who initially seemed eager to interview me grow cold once they have seen my engagement ring. I don't see why I should have to hide it, but I am starting to feel pressured into lying and say that I am single in order to find work.
Jennifer, Cambridge, UK

Reading these comments makes me wonder about UK society and its values Simon, Geordie in Luxembourg

Why on earth do these additional rights only apply to mothers? There should be a short period of paid maternity leave (to cover the period of confinement) and then the additional rights, up to a year, should be available to either parent. This would help prevent sex discrimination in the workplace and allow parents themselves to organise their childcare, rather than dictating to them who is best to look after the child. No wonder there are very few rights for the fathers of children where there seems to be a government-endorsed misconception that mothers (rather than parents) are the carers for their children. It would also be a good idea for all employers and the government to recognise that society needs to encourage people to have children.
Karen, London, England

The family is more important; let's realise we are here on this earth to live, not work. Scandinavia has lived with such policies for years. We need to have more sensible life / work policies and this is but one way of it.
Jack, Essex

Reading these comments makes me wonder about UK society and its values.
Simon, Geordie in Luxembourg

As someone who is about to become a father for the first time I have found the statutory paternity allowance a joke. How am I meant to pay a mortgage on �100 per week?
Mark, Bolton Lancs, UK

Without the babies of today there are no customers of the future. If new parents don't get help to raise their children for the first few months of their lives this country will soon have a population of ageing non-working people living off the state and no young people growing up to support them....or are we heading that way already? Put your hands in your pockets now and make young parent's lives easier or regret it in the long run.
Linda, Reading

It never ceases to amaze me that after every sniff of a possible improvement in the lot of UK employees the CBI, IOD and Federation of Small Businesses is up in arms complaining that giving employees extra holidays, or more flexible working hours will destroy life as they know it. Anyone would think that there are no small businesses in countries, such as France and Germany, where employees are treated more as human beings, and less as human resources.
Andrew Taylor, Nottingham, UK

Don't forget that having a child is a biggest commitment that people can make together. Surely by allowing mothers to be at home with their baby at this young age is an investment in the future population. That baby could one day be your Prime Minister. I think it is terrible that women of a child bearing age are already being discriminated against. How would you feel if it was your wife, sister or daughter being discriminated against? Wouldn't you want increased benefits for them?
Name Withheld, Chelmsford

It seems most people see the UK as little more than a place to run businesses Anthony, London, UK

It is enough to look at the Scandinavian countries to see that nothing disastrous will happen. Most European countries provide much better deals for young parents, and there is no reason why Britain should not follow.
Sasha, London, UK

Most of the comments imply that profit should always come before human life. If women were not prepared to earn less money and have their career prospects taken away from them, employers would have no employees. You cannot discount half of the population from employment because their life 'gets in the way'. Unfortunately despite 'equal opportunities' it is still women who take time off from work to look after their children when they are ill or need collecting from school. If fathers took more responsibility, then women would not be such a burden to employers.
Sarah Sherratt, Stoke, Staffordshire

I am 27 and thinking about having children and currently looking for an employer who offers a better than statutory maternity package. At �100 a week - paid by the government - SMP is hardly a substitute for salary and who could afford a further 6 months unpaid leave? People should stop being so narrow minded. If we don't give better options for maternity with our declining population who do people think will be paying for their pensions once they hit retirement age?
Carol Wilson, Aberdeen, Scotland

I started a small business two months ago. It is going well and I am now thinking about taking on my first employees. I will quite simply not be considering employing a young woman because of the risks to me. The government needs to take its head out of the sand and realise that they are hurting the very group they mean to help - to say nothing of discouraging business growth. All this new regulation is just nuts.
Name withheld, London

I just hope the government realises that you don't stop being a parent when the child is no longer an infant. I am a single parent with a child of eight yet under existing rules I am not allowed to ask for flexible working so do not have a great deal of quality time with my child. Parents do not need weeks or months off work but a more practical, flexible working week.
Lizzie, Tyne and Wear

Other countries already adopt the same approach as those outlined in the proposed plans, my sister-in-law in Belgium gets six months on almost full pay and then every three months following this the proportion of wage is reduced up until the first year, after which all benefits cease. I believe that the current offering in the UK of six weeks on 90% pay and then �100 a week is paltry in comparison. The more generous and fairer scheme obviously works over there, and they still have small businesses thriving, so why not here?
K, UK

Having read these comments it seems most people see the UK as little more than a place to run businesses. Are people's perspectives so warped that they can only see this issue in terms of employees, employers and costs? Children are fundamental to the future of the UK (and its businesses, amongst other things); bleating about covering the costs of maternity leave seems very blinkered to me.
Anthony, London, UK

I am sick to death of all these allowances for people who have children Jan, Bedfordshire

It amazes me how many people are "anti-parents", it seems at the moment that mothers are responsible for every problem: if we take full maternity leave we are sponging and ruining companies; if we go to work and put our children into childcare facilities, then we're neglecting our parental responsibilities and creating more "latchkey kids".
Jo, Washington, UK

This is bad news for small businesses like mine. Notice how this Government dumps all the responsibilities and costs on people who don't vote Labour. It will be pensions next and I will be spending less time on running a business and more on being an unpaid civil servant.
Peter, Dorset UK

Small businesses would be particularly badly hit, because large companies with their own "internal labour market" can move people around and share costs. Maybe one solution is to introduce insurance policies for employers to take out to protect against the extra costs of new parenthood for an employee. This would lead to clarity as to the cost, as it could be seen in the price insurance firms need to charge to compete effectively. It would also lead to clarity on how the "risk" is distributed, whether the premium is a factor of individual employee characteristics, or simply the total wage bill.
Simon Morley, Westcliff, Essex

I am sick to death of all these allowances for people who have children. If these thing are necessary then for goodness sake make them available to everyone. At some point we all have elderly parents or a sick partner that need our care and attention. Giving us the facility to do so would save the government millions.
Jan, Bedfordshire

The BBC may edit your comments and not all emails will be published. Your comments may be published on any BBC media worldwide.