Kemi Badenoch, a prominent Tory leadership candidate, has stirred up controversy with her recent comments regarding statutory maternity pay in the UK. Speaking to Times Radio, Badenoch described the current level of maternity pay as “excessive” and argued that the government should reduce regulatory burdens on businesses, including what she views as overreach into people’s personal lives.
Her remarks have sparked a strong debate within the Conservative Party, with other leadership contenders and commentators expressing differing opinions on the role of government support for working parents.
The Debate Over Maternity Pay
Statutory maternity pay (SMP) in the UK currently offers mothers 90% of their average weekly earnings for the first six weeks after childbirth. For the following 33 weeks, the payment is reduced to either 90% of the average earnings or £184.03 per week, whichever is lower. Badenoch’s claim that maternity pay has “gone too far” challenges the current system, raising questions about the balance between supporting working families and reducing burdens on businesses.
Badenoch, the current shadow business secretary, expressed concern that maternity pay, as part of the wider regulatory framework, is funded by taxpayers and can deter businesses from starting or expanding in the UK. She noted that maternity pay is “a function of tax” and that the government is essentially redistributing money from working people to fund maternity leave, which she argues contributes to regulatory burdens that stifle business growth.
“We need to have more personal responsibility,” Badenoch stated. “There was a time when there wasn’t any maternity pay, and people were having more babies.”
Fellow Tories Respond to Badenoch’s Comments
Badenoch’s position has drawn sharp criticism from fellow Tory leadership candidates, who have been quick to distance themselves from her views. Robert Jenrick, a father of three daughters, made it clear that he does not share Badenoch’s stance on maternity pay.
“I want to see my daughters get the support they need when they enter the workplace,” Jenrick said, adding that the UK’s maternity pay is among the lowest in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). “Conservatives should stand with parents and working mums.”
Other leadership contenders echoed this sentiment. Tom Tugendhat emphasised the importance of both maternity and paternity care, recalling how, as a father, he missed out on paternity leave and believes fathers should have more time to bond with their children. Meanwhile, James Cleverly rejected Badenoch’s critique, shifting the conversation towards the high cost of childcare. He argued that it is government interference that has made childcare unaffordable and that efforts should focus on making childcare more accessible to working mothers.
Criticism from Advocacy Groups
Badenoch’s comments also sparked a backlash from advocacy groups supporting working mothers. Joeli Brearley, founder of the campaign group Pregnant Then Screwed, labelled her comments “absolute nonsense” and pointed out that businesses are reimbursed for statutory maternity pay by HMRC, countering the argument that SMP is a financial burden on companies.
“Most families need two incomes to survive,” Brearley said. “Without statutory maternity pay, women would be forced to return to work almost immediately after giving birth, which is neither practical nor healthy for families.”
Brearley further criticised Badenoch’s comments as an example of “dog-whistle politics” that undermines family values, arguing that such rhetoric could harm both families and businesses.
Badenoch Clarifies Her Position
In response to the criticism, Badenoch took to social media to clarify her remarks. Writing on X (formerly Twitter), she reiterated her belief in the importance of maternity pay but maintained her view that the government has gone too far in its involvement in people’s lives.
“Contrary to what some have said, I clearly stated that the burden of regulation on businesses has gone too far… of course I believe in maternity pay!” Badenoch wrote, attempting to dispel any misconceptions about her stance.
Badenoch’s defenders argue that she is raising valid concerns about the role of government regulation in the economy. They contend that reducing regulatory burdens, including maternity pay, could create a more business-friendly environment, leading to economic growth and job creation.
The Future of Maternity Pay and Business Regulation
The debate around maternity pay within the Tory leadership race highlights broader questions about the role of government in supporting families while fostering a thriving business environment. Badenoch’s position, though controversial, raises issues about the impact of regulatory frameworks on the economy and whether reforms are needed to encourage entrepreneurship and business expansion.
On the other hand, the support for working parents remains a critical issue for many in the Conservative Party, with figures like Jenrick and Tugendhat emphasising the importance of maintaining a family-friendly approach.
As the leadership race continues, the conversation about maternity pay, childcare, and government regulation is likely to remain a focal point. How the next Tory leader chooses to address these issues will have significant implications for both businesses and families across the UK.
Further Reading
