Guest post and Q&A: Jo Swinson - 'Shared Parental Leave: the time is now'

[MumsnetGuestPosts]

It doesn't feel like that long ago that my husband and I were excitedly listening to the sonographer's description of what we were seeing on the screen at our first antenatal scan. Hearing that heartbeat for the first time is amazing, but planning for your new arrival brings a certain sense of trepidation, along with the excitement – especially as people are constantly telling you your life is never going to be the same again, with a knowing smile.

Parents-to-be who are going through this at the moment can now choose how they split the leave from work after baby is born in a way that suits them. To benefit from Shared Parental Leave - which kicks in on April 5 - you need to give your employer 8 weeks' notice. So, if your baby is due in April, you should let your employers know as soon as possible.

Shared Parental Leave will mean that - while mums still have to take at least two weeks of maternity leave immediately after birth - working couples can split up to 50 weeks of shared parental leave and up to 37 weeks of pay after that. With each parent able to take up to three separate blocks of leave, families now have a real choice in how they spend the first year of their child's life.

Beyond this, I believe that Shared Parental Leave will be a catalyst for the wider cultural change we need - where fathers feel empowered to take time off to look after their children and not constrained by outdated stereotypes. Our survey found that public attitudes have changed significantly; most now see childcare as an equal responsibility of both parents.

We also know that many employers are supportive and are keen to offer mums and dads more flexibility to keep talent in their organisation. Maintaining a strong link to the workplace, whilst playing a full part in the early stages of their child's life, is really important for women and men who plan to return to work. There are many mums who want to be able to balance being a hands-on parent with a dynamic career and there are many working dads who want to be able to spend more time bonding with their baby in the early months of their child's development. Employers see the benefit in terms of staff loyalty and providing women with the option to return to work earlier, which is why many are embracing the changes.

These changes are close to my heart. I've campaigned for them for years, and I'm delighted to have been able to change the law as the government minister responsible. Becoming a mum myself has only reinforced how important it is: the archaic assumption that childcare is only an issue for women fails to recognise the crucial role that dads play. While ‘having it all’ might seem like an impossible challenge, at least we now recognise that women might want both a fulfilling job and family life. With just two weeks of paternity leave and popular culture that far too often brands dads as hapless and bumbling, men are written out of the family script with worrying regularity. Research clearly shows that fathers playing a more active role has a positive impact on a child's development.

However as the Family and Childcare Trust recently reiterated, the cost of childcare is rising, and for many families, who takes leave and for how long remains a financial decision. Even in difficult economic times, we have made a start in tackling this problem by extending free early years education to the most disadvantaged 2-year-olds. There is clearly a long way still to go, though, and the Lib Dems have ideas about how tackle this in the next parliament.

At the moment, there is a gap in paid support for parents from the end of paid maternity or parental leave at 9 months, before free childcare hours kick in at 2 years. The Lib Dems propose to fill that gap with 15 hours of free childcare for all working parents. On top of this, it is our ambition to increase free childcare to 20 hours a week for all 2, 3, and 4-year-olds, and for children from 9 months to 2-years-olds in the case of working parents. We're the only party with a comprehensive offer to help parents with the care of their child right through from birth to school.

In the meantime, I believe that Shared Parental Leave will help kick-start a cultural shift in the workplace; ultimately making it just as normal for fathers to take on childcare responsibilities as mothers. When mothers and adopters have real choice about when they return to work, and when fathers have more time to bond with their baby, children will have better outcomes. Employers should benefit from lower staff turnover and having a workforce that is more flexible and motivated. The arrival of a little person turns your life upside down (albeit in a wonderful way), so giving families choice about how they make it work is essential.

Please do share your experiences and ask questions on the thread below - I'm interested to hear whether our ambition matches your reality.

Find out more about Shared Parental Leave and check your eligibility here.

@stargirl1701

I think shared parental leave is great but employers will need to offer enhanced packages to enable it to work. I get 3 months full pay as part of my mat leave terms and conditions. My husband gets SPP.

I would prefer to see children cared for at home by a parent until 2 years than see free childcare but I recognise that many others would not.

As I say, I definitely encourage employers to enhance SPP, though even when this doesn't happen, there's lots of couples for whom SPL will make lots of economic sense especially where the woman is the higher-earner.

@Viviennemary

If people earn roughly the same this can work. But it's just pie in the sky for couples where one partner earns substantially more than the other. It just isn't going to work for a lot of people.

If the partner that earns substantially more is the woman this will make a huge difference as currently the man doesn't have the right to take any kind of extended leave until the baby is 6 months old, whereas SPL will enable the woman to return to work earlier if she wants to and then share the leave. In about a third of couples the woman earns more.

@Gonzales27

I'd like to know if any of the parties plans to do anything about the way private nurseries are able to manipulate the "free childcare" hours so that the nursery makes additional profit from the subsidy by not passing it on in full to the parents.

In our area we have proved to our council that the nursery is being paid £3.25 per hour by the council but only reducing the parents bill by £2.50 per hour. But the council are not investigating the nursery as their bizarre rules are being adhered to even though the outcome is that only the nursery benefits!!

(the nursery has constructed a convoluted billing system to prove that if you deducted costs for meals and non-core hours, then the "free hours which are specific times in the day, are billed at £2.50! So although the daily rate is £42 the hourly rate is £2.50 and that's what will be deducted from your bill for the "free" 15 hrs. )

How can politicians allow such well meaning policies to be so badly distorted from their original intentions. I know of several other nurseries where similar shenanigans are taking place.

This is absolutely unacceptable - providers should not charge parents anything for the free hours that the children are entitled to. Anyone who doesn’t think their provider is playing by the rules should contact their council, or if the council is unable to resolve the issue you could contact the Department for Education: form.education.gov.uk/fillform.php?self=1&form_id=cCCNJ1xSfBE&type=form&ShowMsg=1&form_name=Contact+the+Department+for+Education&noRegister=false&ret=%2Fmodule%2Fservices&noLoginPrompt=1

Thank you very much to Jo for coming on - she had to dash off, but has asked me to say thank you and goodbye!

Hey Lucy.. Thanks for organising this. It's a big change and not everyone is ready for it yet. Is there any chance was can have a similar web chat once the reality of the new provision is clear and we can actually see whether it is something worth celebrating?

I notice from what jo Swindon said that in 2/3 couples the father is the bigger earner. If this is only going to open an opportunity for dads in families where the mother is already the main earner it seems unfair.

Guyropes

The statutory position is that there are six weeks at 90% pay and 33 weeks at £138 per week available per couple. The six weeks at 90% must be taken at the beginning so in practice I think would always be taken by the woman.

There have always been families where the level of pay of £138 per week (which is also the standard paternity leave rate for the initial two week period) has caused issues, meaning the woman has gone back to work before 9 months or whatever. I'm not sure what you think is unfair? Genuine question, not being snidey.

Hi knickerfull.. So we are moving from a position which was unfair for families who could not afford to have the mother on £138 for any length of time to a position where families who have the woman as the main earner have a choice for dad to stay at home for a bit, but where families who have the man as the main earner don't. Yes, I get you, both positions are unfair, but I can't see how the new position is going to create a culture of equality.... The more 'traditional' set ups where dad works more and is likely to do less child raising are not given a realistic choice for dads to go for SPL.

Well, either kind of family will probably always need to save up for the period of lower joint pay.

I wouldn't want the six weeks of maternity pay cut down to three as the original point of it, I think, was to protect the women's physical health after birth.

And isn't the real unfairness the pay inequality, not the SPP?

No, I wouldn't want the first 6 weeks to be taken away from the mum either. But it would be great if the SPL paid 6 weeks at 90% to the father at whatever point the couple chose for him to take some SPL. Wouldn't it?

SPL needs to have a fair structure. What is the point in bringing in new legislation which is supposed to create more equality when actually what it does is compound existing inequalities.

I agree, it would be good to have more equality of pay, the situation seems to be that in 2/3 of families women earn less than the man.

I don't think it will, on its own, create a culture of equality. No one action could, surely? Gender inequality is multi-factorial. But I do think this is an important step, for two reasons. First, it will help a significant number of families: not all, maybe not even most, but some. Second, it is of symbolic significance, as it challenges the notion that only women take time off to care for their babies.

The Equal Pay Act didn't create a culture of equality; the Equality Act didn't either; neither did getting a historic number of women into Parliament. It's all two steps forward, one step back. I would be surprised if the majority of men even wanted to take full advantage of this measure, but it has to be a good babystep forward.

Guy ropes, the trouble is that the government is then funding a significant amount more per annum, and it's also quite unfair to single mothers. Would the government fund 12 weeks at 90% for all with 6 of those 12 for either parent?

I really hope your husband decides to take some time off as SPL.
I had the same worries but took 4 months off anyway as I figured that such amazing time with the kids was worth the risk and it hasn't harmed my career at all. In fact I'd say it's improved it as I'm grateful that my work allowed me to take the time off.
Actually I enjoyed being with the kids so much (and they enjoyed me being home too I think) that when I went back to work I went back part time so I could keep spending some quality time with them (I now spend every Weds afternoon with them).
That's helped my career and employer too as I'm likely to stay at the same place for longer now as I've got such a good set up :-)

The Government have done quite a lot in recent years to help dads spend more time with their kids and it's now time for us dads to stand up and take what we are entitled to otherwise we might regret it.