header-logo header-logo

20 September 2018 / Nicola Tager
Issue: 7809 / Categories: Features , Family , Employment
printer mail-detail

Does shared parental leave need a rethink?

nlj_7809_tager

Nicola Tager writes on the legal & practical complexities of establishing parity in parental leave

  • Analyses difficulties with the shared parental leave system, and the knock-on effect on take-up rates.
  • Considers recent decisions regarding whether an employer that provides enhanced maternity pay but does not provide enhanced shared parental leave pay commits direct discrimination.

More than three years have elapsed since shared parental leave (SPL) was introduced in April 2015. The government intended to send a clear message that responsibility for providing care in a child’s first year could and should be shared between both parents. Parents can share up to 50 weeks of leave with up to 37 weeks of pay (subject to satisfying eligibility criteria), and can choose to take the leave in blocks in order to provide greater flexibility.

Surprisingly low take-up

Research suggests that the amount of caring that fathers do in the first year of their child’s life influences the distribution of responsibilities (including domestic tasks) further down the track. Many families reported a more enthusiastic, nuanced approach to childcare.

However, recent figures published

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll