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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll