Shared Parental Leave: share your views and you could win £300! NOW CLOSED

[AnnMumsnet]

Parents with children due or adopted from 5 April will be among the first to take advantage of Shared Parental Leave. To coincide with its introduction Shared Parental Leave, we have been asked by the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills to find out what you think about this new policy for parents.

The team there say "From April 2015, parents will have greater choice and flexibility over how they share the care of their child in the first year of their life. Shared Parental Leave allows working couples share up to 50 weeks of leave and 37 weeks of pay in a way that suits their work and family needs. For example, parents can take time off together or they can tag team, stopping and starting leave and returning to work in between if they wish.
Check your eligibility and how much pay you can get here. We'd love to know what you think about this and how you'd use it for your family."

So, please have a look at the information provided here and let us know on this thread what you think. If you or your partner is pregnant and your baby is due from 5 April do you think you'll use it? Would you have used it when you had your last child if it had been an option? Do you think you will share leave with your partner if you have children in the future? How would it work in your family?

Have a look at the video:

Add your comment by 30 March 2015 at 9am and you'll be entered into a prize draw where one MNer will win a £300 voucher for the store of your choice (from a list). Insight T&Cs apply

Thanks and good luck
MNHQ

Err, what? I wasn't trying to make a killer argument for no, the OP isn't about the level of payments. Whatever the level - the rights need to be equalised first.

Then - what can the country afford? What would suffer if these payments were increased?

What can the employer afford? Some employers consider it valuable to pay extra, just as some give above SSP too.

I think it is great for couples and I wish I had the opportunity when my children were little. My husband and I like sharing family responsibilities and spend time with our children.

I know Yonic. My equation would probably be less time = better paid.

It wont help me as my children are to old but I think this has been a long time coming and is a great idea

Both me and my partner had 6 months parental leave when we had our son. It would have been nice to have this level of flexibility. However, the pay is still awful and a real barrier to parents spending quality time with their babies.

I think it's great. As a new dad, I feel that I really missed out on spending quality time with my daughter. I do think statutory paternity pay should be higher however.

Lion, after the first six weeks it's currently 33 weeks at the £138 rate, would you half the time and double the pay? That really wouldn't give much scope for splitting the paid time.

I think this is a fantastic development. I'm not sure we would have used it as I was very keen to be with our LO but I really do think that people should have the option to work out the best care they can and have the flexibility to decide who (if anyone) stays home and when.

I love this idea. My dh would have loved to have been able to have extended time with our daughter and it would have enabled me to keep my hand in at work easier. I would have liked to have a full six months at home then split the rest between us, if we could have split each week that would have been fantastic.

The only issue is breastfeeding, I can see that being a barrier for a lot of families (not ours as our dd is adopted)

m.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20406743

About a third of women are doing some BF at 6 months, only 1% are EBF.

I would hope that for those still BF but not EBF, feeding before and after work could happen if they wanted. Otherwise, of course they could take more of the leave.

Jammy, you can request the leave in up to 3 separate blocks, your employer can grant more if they choose.

We're (hopefully) doing it - our baby is due in May. Apparently I'm the first person at my work to request it, which means HR are running round like headless chickens trying to figure out the process. It doesn't seem to me like it's been taken seriously enough by HR departments (it's the same at DH's work too).

Our plan is for me to take 26 weeks maternity, then for DH to take 13 weeks as shared parental leave.

For us it'll work ok as we earn pretty much the same, so worst case scenario, is that throughout those 39 weeks we'll have one full time salary and one of us on SMP/equivalent.

The thing that annoys me is that it's considered differently to maternity leave/pay from an employer's perspective. My employer offers standard legal minimum for maternity, but DH's employer offers a really good package. Because parental leave is different, they only have to offer the legal minimum whilst still offering more for maternity. That does not seem like much of an incentive to me.

I think that will change over time, avocado - and I also think they'd've had a much harder battle bringing it in otherwise.

Doesn't help you, I know, which sucks, but congrats on your PG!

Thankyou and no, I know, they'd have had a real battle bringing it in if it had to be on completely equal levels at the start. It would end up with people losing a lot of maternity benefits, which obviously would be awful.

Yy - I think many employers would've cancelled any enhancement then slowly brought bits back if they had to be equal straight away.

Hopefully in a few years both men and women will be asking about parental benefits when they first start a new job

I am not sure it is a good idea. Most parents would not be able to cope with the drop in earnings and it causes lost of difficulties for small businesses. Large companies will be able to cope as they have the resources to move staff around and cover for absences.

I am mystified by the "coping with drop in earnings" argument. As a poster said up thread regardless of who is on leave, you have 1 ft wage and 1 on SMP, what's the difference ? The difference is that if the mother is the higher earner (as I was) then the baby gets more time at home with one of its parents in the first year.

My first child was born in 2004 so we missed this by a mile. However dh had a period as a SAHP when the dcs were younger which has made us a stronger, happier, healthier family. I think this is great.

With the old System my partner took the remainder of my entitlement, so after 6 months i went back to work and my husband used the last 3 months to look after our DS3.
Yes i would use this again especially given the changes and more flexibility within the maternity/paternity entitlements, i personally think it is a better way for the child to be looked after and breaks the mother in to someone else caring for their child.
A father caring for the child could/should help out with separation anxiety suffered by mothers who have the full entitlement of 12 months, which in turn keeps a happy family/work bond.

so yes we would and will use it if the possibility arises with a DS4!

I think we would definitely take advantage. Great idea and a huge help.

Yy still.

Same with this: "it causes lost of difficulties for small businesses"

The total leave is not going up; it us just being split. All businesses have to consider either parent may take some leave. That's it.

Jezza, businesses have to deal with absences due to maternity leave already, so what's the difference? the only bigger impact it could have is if both parents work for the same company and are off at the same time.

Still, the feeling I get is that most people assume that the father is the higher earner. If that's the case, then of course the family as a whole will be financially worse off if the father takes leave. But like you say, if the mother is the higher earner (or if both parents earn the same), it can be really beneficial.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that within most of my friendship group, couples either earn the same or the woman earns slightly more. I'm the first of my immediate friends to have a baby so I've not seen what others have done, but I'm sure it would work well for my friends too.

I think it's something that should have been introduced a long time ago. I haven't had another child because I am the breadwinner in the house and we could not financially manage. Shame it's a little late for us now!

I think it's a brilliant idea, and it's about time too. Both parents deserve to spend time with their child.

If my husband and I were ever to have a child ourselves (we each have one from previous relationships), we would definitely take advantage of this.