IN A world careering towards hell in a handcart faster than Nelly the elephant could say trump, trump, trumpety-trump, it’s ‘reassuring’ to know that some things will never change.

You’d think women – and in particular, mothers – wouldn’t need any more reasons to bash themselves with the guilty stick.

Mothers get it in the neck for all kinds of reasons, from not breastfeeding at all to breastfeeding in public; from losing the ‘baby weight’ too quickly to not losing it quickly enough; from getting pregnant too young, or too old; and for posting too many photos of their children on Facebook (usually by people who post too many photos of their cats.)

But one of the thorniest issues surrounding motherhood concerns maternity leave and the world of work. 

Wading into this prickly debate this week is Lady Barbara Judge, a formidable business bigwig, who believes long maternity leave is bad for women.

At the moment, women are entitled to almost a year off after having a baby, including 39 weeks paid leave, and under new laws, parents can divide the entitlement between them.

Lady Judge, whose impressive CV includes prestigious roles such as first female Chairman of the Institute of Directors, chairman of the Pension Protection Fund and UK Business Ambassador on behalf of UK Trade and

Investment, thinks it’s disastrous for women to take a year off after having a baby because it will harm their career prospects.

She told a recent Wealth Management Association forum she preferred the US’s approach, where where companies with more than 50 employees are only obliged to provide 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave, adding:

“My mother used to say: ‘When a baby is born it needs to be fed, bathed and diapered. An 18-year-old girl can do that. Your job is to get the money to pay the 18-year-old girl.’”

This feels like a big step backwards when all the evidence points towards longer maternity leave helping mothers recover properly and bond with their babies (who in turn benefit from having consistent care, reducing levels of stress and anxiety) before making a successful return to the workplace.

I have long believed that if instead of investing in extra nursery places, the Scottish Government diverted those funds to businesses to allow them to offer parents – both mothers and fathers – extended time off in the first few years of their baby’s life, everyone would benefit.

I’m also not entirely convinced that a year is that big a deal, when you consider most women could work on for another 40 if they have a baby at 30.

I’m not saying everyone should be a stay-at-home parent for the first three of years of his or her child’s life. I was lucky – I could be there, and I wouldn’t have missed a single joyful, exhausting, vegetable-pureeing, nappy-changing, sleepless second of it.

But plenty of women simply can’t afford not to go back to work as soon as possible and they should not be pilloried for doing so – and nor should mothers who decide to take a year off.
The point is we have got to the stage where now, parents have the choice. And whatever Lady Judge says, that choice should not be taken away from them.