A fair share?
by Jen Lexmond
Today maternity leave became the first major casualty of Labour's spending squeeze. Labour had promised in their 2005 manifesto to extend paid maternity leave from nine months to a full year but is now u-turning on their £500 million plan, although they will go forward with increasing the legal limit for paternity leave from two weeks to six months. If we wanted to, we could decry the government for allowing provision for mothers to be the first to be sacrificed on the alter. But we should reconsider.
The extension of paternity leave to six months means that it is much more likely for parents to make a genuine choice about who stays home to care for the newborn. Although at the moment, this extra leave will only be available to take after the first six months of leave is taken by the mother, it still does increase parents' freedom when choosing who stays home and who goes out to work.
A recent survey from the EHRC finds that over half of parents say their current division of parenting and paid work responsibilities is determined by necessity rather than free choice, in other words, whoever makes the least money stays at home. In a time of economic hardship, this trend is only likely to increase. Greater flexibility when it comes to parental leave should therefore be welcomed - in many families the mother not the father will be on a higher salary.
Many MPs (Jo Swinson to name a recent commentator would argue to go further and make all parental leave transferable. While I disagree here and would rather see non-transferable equal parental leave in order to address issues of gender inequality, I still think this would be a huge step forward. And it's hard to see where the extra cost is incurred for the government here either. Uncoupling parental leave from the 'mother' or 'father' doesn't cost a penny to government or to the taxpayer. What it does do is give most families much greater flexibility over how to care for their children.
I'm choosing to not get too upset about this spending cut. What does really wind me up is that the policy change to father's rights is being pushed back for another year and will only come into effect in 2011. What's the point in all of this waiting around?
Jen
I think that more equal parental leave would produce more equal families, where fathers are just as likely as mothers to take on caring responsibilities at home, where children grow up with less gendered expectations about what their role will be in the future, where the pay gap would narrow, and where parents would have greater flexibility and control over how they manage their time. I'm pretty sure this translates to a better deal for children too, though you're right to point out that often the child's perspective is lost in the debate over parental rights.
Michael
I must admit, I happen to disagree with your reasoning (in particular what would appear to be your account of 'equal'), but I'm glad that you stated it - the 'equality' agenda of the left with regard to parental rights might be much more persuasive were it to be less self-consciously political. Perhaps if more were to do this then the debate might not need become as polarised as it often is.
Michael
'While I disagree here and would rather see non-transferable equal parental leave in order to address issues of gender inequality'
Surely, arrangements regarding parental leave ought primarily to concern itself with the welfare of the child? You may well determine that equal parental leave is in the final analysis the best solution for providing a healthy home/upbringing for the child, and this is fine; however, as the argument is presented here, it seems the pursuit of a particular political agenda takes priority. I'm sure that's not the case, but it would be nice to talk about this issue with at least a mention of what it might entail for child welfare.