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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll