Who's taking up the government on shared parental leave?

In December 2014 the government introduced a new shared parental leave (SPL) policy, which allows parents to share up to 12 months of leave following
the birth of their child.

This move appears to acknowledge a gradual but notable societal shift in attitudes towards the changing family format and the fluidity of gender roles. Recent studies show that in the last 20 years the amount of households in the UK where the woman is the main breadwinner has risen from 13 to 31 per cent. This proportion should continue to increase, meaning that more working parents will need to re-evaluate the ‘traditional family model’, as often it may be more financially prudent and/or viable for a female breadwinner to return to work as soon as possible after a child is born.

Although it would seem that SPL is a fantastic step in the right direction, it has received criticism for being just a facade. Even by the government’s own admission, the new rules are unlikely to be seized upon by a large number
of parents.

The reality is that the disparity between statutory maternity pay – 90 per cent of the mother’s earnings for the first six weeks of leave – and the rate available under the new SPL rules – around half of what is available to those on the minimum wage, £138.18 – does not make it a particularly attractive option to professional parents.

Until a father’s right to equally paid leave is offered, then the uptake is likely to be minimal, with most couples being unable to afford the luxury of taking the full 50 weeks that are ‘available’.
To further exacerbate the problem, a recent survey by the charity 4Children indicated that
a fifth, or 20 per cent, of working parents ‘will reduce their hours…or consider giving up work altogether’ this year, in order
to meet the increasingly extortionate costs of childcare.

Finally, the less than positive reaction from employers in response to the introduction of SPL was quite telling. Many see SPL as having the potential to be ‘highly disruptive’ to business, a view which appears to imply that they already perceive maternity leave as a considerable enough inconvenience without it being built upon. Furthermore, studies appear to indicate that a large number of employers are not familiar with the details of SPL,
or even aware of its existence.

For reformist measures like
SPL to attain their anticipated potential, employers must recognise the benefits of investing in people’s emotional well-being and thus investing in progress. Rather than viewing progressive measures as problematic, businesses should instead embrace them as an opportunity to tackle the wider issues of gender disparities in the workplace and equal pay, with a view to utilising 100 per cent of their workforce and thus boosting productivity.

This move could have served
to send a robust message about society’s recognition of the changing family format, i.e.
the acceptance that men wish
to be more involved in family life, and that gender equality in the workplace is a crucial issue
that demands attention. Unfortunately, its half-hearted nature has arguably stripped a great deal of the impetus that could have been derived from implementing such a legislative change. SJ

Pippa Allsop is a newly qualified solicitor at Michelmores