header-logo header-logo

Does shared parental leave need a rethink?

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

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll