The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s March report on equalising parental leave has been dismissed as impractical in the face of such a huge budget deficit and a recession whose timescale is unclear. But Labour’s manifesto authors should make a note of it on the back of their envelope because it could provide one key idea to frame the centre-left’s position on both the family and gender equality for the next decade.
While Labour has introduced a number of measures which have improved the lot of parents and carers, the fact that women have been given much more maternity leave than men has entrenched inequality in caring roles and given the wrong signal to employers about the relative value placed on men and women in the work place. Paid maternity leave has been increased from six to nine months, and soon to be 12, but paid paternity leave has stuck at two weeks. Legislation does not simply set down the law, it also shapes societal attitudes, and the imbalanced extension of maternity rights has unfortunately suggested that women should continue to carry the burden of caring and pay the price with their career.
This was brought home anecdotally in a conversation with a high-flying lawyer girlfriend of mine who said that the recession had exacerbated the choices employers face when deciding whether to lose a male or a female employee. ‘They look at us coming up to 30, with babies on the horizon, and suddenly for the women the good projects dry up, mistakes are over-exaggerated, and morale plummets.’ She added that no one would begin to try to take their employers to a tribunal – they are legal firms, after all – and most will simply leave to try and find work when the recession abates. No one likes to be seen as a troublemaker.
There is little quantitative evidence that women are being unduly affected by the recession, but the fact remains that men are cheaper to maintain in the workplace than women who take spells of maternity leave. Internationally, the UK is conspicuous for its low rates of paid maternity leave, and almost non-existent rates of paternity leave. Norway, for example, introduced a paternity quota in 1993 which increased the number of fathers taking leave from 4 per cent to 90 per cent today. One of the biggest factors was the societal expectation which accompanied the change – if fathers didn’t take the leave, they lost it, and with it their sense of being a ‘good dad’.
At a time when the Tories are increasingly trying to couch the debate about the family in retrograde language about marriage and the need for mothers to spend more time with their children, Labour could adopt policies which also appeal to parents, but on an equal basis by focusing on measures which will truly help family life and increase women’s pay and status in the workforce at the same time. This may be too difficult to achieve in the current recession, but as a long-term objective, Labour should make it a rallying cry.
As a new Dad, two things spring to mind.
First, maternity leave is at the statutory minimum after any employer’s arrangement ends (usually after 6 months). After 9 months of leave, there is no payment, your employer is only binded to keep a role in the firm for you commensurate to the one you left.
Second, why address just paternity leave? The better idea would be to create a pot of time, say 18 months for either or both parents to share, 6 as an employer arrangement and 12 at statutory minimum to be taken before the child was 18 months old. That way, both or either parent could stay at home. Also, it equalises any gender imbalance to employers.
Third, child benefit, most of a child’s early years are the most expensive, childcare is very expensive and the high cost prohibits many women from returning to work.
Why not put the lump sum of all child benefit payments into the child trust fund from day 1 and set an annual withdrawal limit instead? Parents can then use these funds, not as cash but childcare vouchers or retail vouchers for their children as and when they see fit. With childcare costs offer running into hundreds of pounds a month, this would give real choice to parents.