This Kemi ‘row’ is shameless opportunism from those who should know better

Kemi Badenoch
Kemi Badenoch

Oh pull the other one. No, Kemi Badenoch does not want to abolish maternity pay or drag us back to the 1970s. Her comments earlier today do not, as the TUC have gleefully proclaimed, show the “Tories are out of touch”.

During a round of broadcast interviews, Badenoch said that maternity pay is a “function of tax... we are taking from one group and giving to another. This is excessive,” adding that the “burden of regulation is too high”.

The Twittersphere has, with wearying predictability, gone berserk. Labour Party chair Ellie Reeves, displaying less creative flair than a potato, declared that “the Tories and their continuity candidates are completely unserious about the problems they inflicted on the country over 14 years of chaos and decline”.

But among the cavalcade of those queuing up to skewer Badenoch, it is Stella Creasy who takes the crown after tweeting: “this morning Kemi claimed that she would stand up to cultures where she thinks women are treated as second class citizens. Now she’s doing it herself.”

Based on what she actually said, and it was a slightly jumbled exchange, Badenoch does not want to scrap maternity pay. The leadership contender, a woman far brighter and more accomplished than many of those currently trying to tear her down, does not believe women should be chained to their kitchens for a life of servitude.

She was simply making, as a former Business Secretary, the observation that regulations are becoming excessive in Britain. Which they are.

Politicians can barely look at a market without wanting to regulate it. Employing anyone now comes with a bewildering array of obligations. Landlords must comply with over a hundred regulations to rent out a property.

Red tape is incurring significant costs, including stifling innovation, hindering economic growth and driving up prices. If this sounds hyperbolic, just look at the cost increases in sectors with the most regulatory interventions – electricity, housing, childcare.

Even if Badenoch were querying Statutory Maternity Pay, she’d be within her rights. SMP costs the Department for Work and Pensions around £3 billion a year – could the money be used in a more targeted way? Most employers top it up, though the extra is ultimately paid by the employee in lower pay, as with all mandated benefits.

The UK’s maternity system is one of the most generous in the world. Most mothers can take up to 39 weeks of guaranteed pay – nearly three times the EU minimum requirement of 14 weeks. It is not uncommon for a new mother to take 52 weeks of maternity leave, onto which she will add her accrued 20-plus days of annual leave.

The vested interests tirelessly clamouring for more never seem to consider whether this is helping women. Could long periods out of the workplace ultimately damage future career paths?

There are ways we can help mothers – stop treating women in labour like conduits to be ignored. Fix maternity services, around half of which are currently either “inadequate” or “requiring improvement”. Deregulate childcare, to bring down costs and broaden choice. Scrap gender pay gap reporting, which misleads women into believing that they will invariably face discrimination in the workplace.

Enough of the feigned outrage – including from Badenoch’s leadership rivals, who have wasted no time distancing themselves from these comments. Rather than attempt to present themselves as modern progressive males by pillorying their female opponent, perhaps they could start thinking now about how they will comprehensively reform social security. Otherwise voters might suspect they have no plans, nor the desire, to cut our exorbitant welfare bill.