Parents of under-sixes or disabled under-18s will have the right to ask their employers for flexible working practices, including changing hours, working from home or going part-time.

However, employers can refuse the request if there is a "clear business reason" for objecting.

For the first time adoptive parents will given rights covering pay and leave.

Can the new measures help parents combine work and family life effectively? Will you ask your employer for more flexible working hours? How will business be affected?

This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.

Your reaction

Once again, those that have chosen to not have kids, pay for other people's choices. If you want kids, look after them - if you can't afford kids, don't have them. If flexible working is an option, it should be available to EVERYONE.
Sandy, UK

I'm personally shocked that we need legislation to give people the right to ask their bosses for flexibility - regardless of the reason.
Julie, UK

Why should parents get government hand-outs just to fund their lifestyle choices? Lozzie, UK

If you can't afford children, don't have them. Why should parents get government hand-outs just to fund their lifestyle choices? And the 'selfless act of giving birth' argument really doesn't wash. I'd like to have paid leave to go and do 'selfless' charity work but I doubt parliament, not to mention my employer, would be up for that. Alternatively, if the government wants to give hand outs to parents, how about giving me a tax break to help subsidise the private health care and private pension premiums that I pay in addition to funding state-run services which I don't use, thus 'selflessly' freeing up NI and pension coffers for those who really need them?
Lozzie, UK

They can extend the maternity leave all they want, I still can't afford to have children in this country and probably never will. What good is a �200 slap in the face for my husband? Considering the negative attitude from my manager last year when three girls were pregnant at the same time, this will not be welcome!
Susan, UK

A good employer will do their best to give and take. I have no children, yet if I need to go in to work later than usual it's not a problem. When I have my car serviced I arrive late and leave early, but I am trusted to make up the time and to stay late when required. As soon as the government gets involved in the "give and take" cycle it becomes one-sided - in this case rather than me working extra to cover a parent going to Sports Day and them then working extra to cover me having my car serviced, they have the right to leave for Sports Day while I don't have the automatic right to have my car serviced. So, "give and take" becomes "take and take", courtesy of our crackpot government.
John B, UK

Yes, I'm sure that you've all heard it before, but this is SO fundamental to ALL our lives, it needs saying again! You can choose: become a full-time worker, or become a full-time parent. In trying to do both, you'll make a mess of both! Stop being greedy and selfish!
Alan Hall, UK

I can't afford to take what is effectively unpaid leave Ian, UK

My wife is expecting later this year and I thought the prospect of being able to take a couple of weeks paid paternity leave was brilliant....until I discovered I would only get �100 per week. I can't afford to take what is effectively unpaid leave - certainly no more than a couple of days. So congratulations to the government - another great sounding policy that in reality is rubbish.
Ian, UK

Nothing new here! I'm an employer, and I've been offering all this, and more, for years. Good, flexible working conditions generally means happy and productive employees.
John, England

I am a self-employed mother of five. I have to say that I find the "don't have kids if you still want to work" attitudes quite bewildering. Everyone seems to be forgetting that they were kids once - with their education paid for by the workers of the country and their parents could well be retired and earning a pension paid for by the workers of this country. It is hard to raise kids these days. My husband and I set up our own business to give us the flexibility to raise our own kids with limited help, but I wouldn't hesitate to use childcare if I had to, or to work even more flexibly if I could. Surely it is about choice and making a contribution to society. I have made mine - 5 kids to be in the workforce of tomorrow - what has Alan and people like him done for all our futures?
Jeanette, UK

Jeanette (UK) seems to think that on an over populated island having '5 kids' is 'making a contribution to society'. News for her and people like her - it isn't. It's a burden. It's a burden on our resources, a burden on our health and education system and a burden on those of us who have learned the meaning of the phrases 'social responsibility' and 'family planning' and at a time when we should be encouraging both this measure will just encourage those, like Jeanette, in the misapprehension that the rest of the us should support her lack of either.
Mark, UK

These measures are a (small) step in the right direction. We all benefit if parents and carers are properly supported and have time and energy to spend on their kids. It's true also that those of us without kids still have lives, and we can also benefit from flexibility. We shouldn't let employers turn this into parents vs non-parents. All of us could benefit from challenging the 'live to work' culture. There's more to life!
Ben Drake, York, UK

It's in the interests of society Tracy, UK

Sorry to offend but what is wrong with staying home and looking after your own children. It's in the interests of society as it's been shown that the more time a child is in alternative care the more likely they are to do worse at school, become violent and even commit crime! I tried the working mum thing but felt so awful I had to quit. A baby wants its mum not material possessions. A family is not going to end up homeless with children so there really is no need to work unless you want those material things.
Tracy, UK

Whenever parents get the smallest amount of help, people without kids start ranting as though it's a crime to have kids. I have three kids and it's a struggle all round to manage but I wouldn't change it for the world. All you moaners - when you're retired my kids will be paying for all your benefits.
JP, UK

As a childless 'moaner'(JP), I feel I contribute enough during my lifetime to support myself during my retirement years. Today's children will not be supporting me - I will be supporting myself. However, I work for a large company that is offering parents a great deal of leeway in terms of flexible working. As I'm a non-parent (after 3 miscarriages I can no longer have a child) I'm told I have to work inflexible hours to make sure the business remains profitable. My requests for vacation time are considered after those of parents, and my stress levels are at an all-time high. The government should allow non-parents to request flexibility and take sabbaticals on minimum pay.
Gina, UK

As a full-time worker with no children, I have no problem with working parents being allowed to work flexible hours if, on the odd occasion, that I need to work from home or need a few flexi-hours, I would be able to take them. Even those of us without children, sometimes have personal commitments that require a little employer flexibility.
Lisa M, UK

These changes may have some unintended benefits elsewhere in the community. Small employers will struggle to make a business work with yet another level of regulation. They will find that it will be much easier to employ older empty nesters who are not likely to come begging for flexibility and paid additional leave, thereby solving the problem of age discrimination in the workplace. Great bit of lateral thinking, well done.
Peter, UK

It will deter some small companies from employing women with young children Jean Alton, Britain

Though in principle the measures seem good, I think it will deter some small companies from employing women with young children when/if they want to return to work after perhaps a few years at home or if they want to change jobs.
Jean Alton, Britain

Why are these benefits only for parents of mainly pre-school children? I have 2 children aged 7 and 10 and they still need looking after before and after school, during the holidays and when they are ill. In addition there are school events such as sports days and concerts to attend plus homework to help with. My husband and I are very fortunate in that we already work flexible hours and can therefore cope with most eventualities. Without flexible working for all parents, many children at school will continue to lose out.
Suzanne, Hatfield, UK

Nothing is free in this world and it will be those of us without children who end up paying for this.
Chas Kopbar, UK

The company I work for is a small company and they operate a policy of flexibility for personal issues, whether or not you have children, and have survived very well. The benefits they have is a loyal workforce who are well prepared to put in the extra time when necessary. If this company can do it all companies can. My company will even let me off early to ride my horse .. in return I put in the hours when necessary and everyone wins
Helen, UK

A massive step in the right direction A. Legge, UK

These changes are a massive step in the right direction. I work part-time, and am pregnant. Now I will get 6 months off on all but full pay (I don't earn much), and my husband can get time off without having to use up annual leave. Flexibility is negotiable; I would work more hours if I could work between 9.30 and 2.30. That would be difficult for my department, but I am flexible enough that in a year or two I could do it at short notice, help out in the middle of the day if someone phones in sick - that will benefit my employer.
A. Legge, UK

Is does not pay to work if you have a child under the age of 5 no matter what the government does. The cost of childcare, having to pay full rent and paying council tax puts you off. I have worked full time since my son was born and have found it so hard. I welcome the change.
Charlene, London

The benefit of more flexible hours for parents will of course be achieved by non parents having to work more rigid hours. Discriminating against workers for life style choices is clearly unfair and is bound to cause resentment in the workplace. I have already had a big row with my boss because I have been told the day off I booked on Friday has had to be cancelled because "Paul is working at home that day ". The fact that other workers must be present in the office to cover for home workers surely proves home workers cannot cover the full range of duties the job requires, so perhaps they should be paid less.
Alan, UK

How disgraceful to view comments such as those from Alan (UK). Talk about petty self centred individuals. The children of today are the tax payers (and therefore pension, NHS payers) of the future and without them the country will crumble. With fewer and fewer couples having children, any legislation that may help raise the birth-rate should be welcomed. Couples with children put in massively more hours than any singleton and yet still have to pay tax, council tax etc and usually a mortgage with no help apart from a few quid off the government. The selfless act of having children with its loss of social life, strain and stress should be recognised, and large tax cuts should be made available to help couples at the expense of the selfish singletons who think of themselves before others.
Kev, UK

I'm with Alan! Someone had to say it, and it's a pity that others suggested he was being petty and small-minded. Parents aren't being any less self-interested by having children. People forget that nothing is free, and there's a set amount of work in any office that just has to be done whoever ends up doing it and however late they have to stay. In any case, why do infants need their parents' company more than older children (who can appreciate it more)?
Simon, UK

I welcome the new decision and the ones who are complaining like Alan will understand parents when they have their own children. However, Maternity Leave Pay is indecent as only �100 before taxes is not even reasonable. How come many other European countries such as Sweden pay much more and offer longer maternity leave? The UK has to rethink its policy.
Claudia, London

Having children is currently the only method available to serious and dedicated employees to redress the work-life imbalance in the UK. This is the cause of resentment for the childless employees, because we don't have the 'valid' excuses to get out of the office on time, be late in the mornings, or have a day off at short notice. It seems therefore that we are left holding the baby at work, when we are absent or leave on time without a 'valid' reason our whole commitment is undermined. If everybody lived by the working hours regulations, and took advantage of working at home or 'flexi-time' then British business success currently enjoyed would collapse very quickly.
Stuart, UK

While I welcome the idea of flexibility for carers to improve the work/life balance, I do question the focus on children. There are many people without children who are trying both to work and also to act as carers. I would like to see this flexibility extended to those caring for elderly parents, disabled partners or siblings, or other family members as well. These carers voluntarily put in thousands of unpaid hours every year, which it would cost society an enormous amount to cover in other ways, and surely allowing them a little flexibility to make their lives easier is the least we could do?
Helen, UK

To Alan (UK),so having children is a lifestyle choice !.I must say your ability to clarify what is an intrinsic part of human nature in such simplistic terms is admirable. I suppose it is human nature that you will always get petty-minded individuals who cannot look further than their own noses and see the benefits to society this legislation may offer. I have a small child and would like to spend more time with him, I would happily take a cut in salary to do so. In an age when lack of parental responsibility is given as the reason for a fall in the morality of the young, surely any ideas that will allow parents to have a bigger say in their child's upbringing should be welcomed.
Steve Perry, UK

I think Alan has got a good point. Not only do single, childless workers get hit harder for tax, but if they are also expected to work longer with less flexible hours, with booked holidays being subject to cancellation, I think we should be paid more. I have chosen not to have children so I can enjoy myself more. I want to be able to afford to enjoy myself.
Toby, UK

This will not work, for reasons already stated. The bottom line is there is no solution.
Del, UK

Whilst I believe that these measures will certainly help some parents, there remains the serious and usually forgotten problem of the gap in childcare for children between 6 and 13 or 14 (dependent on which country you live in). I fail to see how this is going to help families who are already working part time, particularly if they are employed by small firms where flexibility could be extremely expensive.
Jenny, UK

A good idea in principle - but most of us work for small employers where there are less than 20 employees. These measures will hit these firms disproportionately hard, and may help drive many to the wall, if implemented. Most firms will find a 'good business reason' like, 'we can't afford it', and who can blame them?
John, UK

Spending time with children is a sign of a civilised society and something that we should all support Rustam Roy, England

Finally, a series of measures that will enable British employees to enjoy some of the quality of life that employees in continental Europe have enjoyed for some time. One must not pay too much heed to the ceaseless complaints coming from British businesses, who are, after all, used to Tory governments caving in on just about anything that British businesses did not like. The fact is that the UK would do good to follow the European model of work-life balance, as opposed to the US wage-slave model. What are people working for, if not their family and children? What I do think is strange, however, is comments from child-less people (some posted here) who seem to think this is somehow unfair. Can it be that the anti-child image that a lot of people have about the British is more than just a clich�? As a childless employee myself, I have absolutely no problem with this...spending time with children is a sign of a civilised society and something that we should all support.
Rustam Roy, England (ex-India)