Business secretary Peter Mandelson has sidelined the plans to investigate the appropriateness of the regulations.
The proposals, announced in 2005, ruled that for the first 26 weeks of maternity leave a woman should be paid 90% of her salary (currently women receive 90% pay for six weeks).
Beyond this, leave was to be awarded in three blocks of four-month periods - one for the mother, one for the father and one for either parent. The first eight weeks of each block would be paid at 90% salary and the second half at the statutory rate (£123.06 per week.) These blocks could have been taken any time until the child's fifth birthday. Currently paternity leave stands at two weeks.
A spokesman from the Department of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) said: "We have not yet announced a date for extending maternity and paternity rights. We are continuing to review the appropriateness of all new regulations due to come into force in the current economic climate. It is only right that in tough economic times we look afresh at the costs and benefits of new regulations."
The announcement has been welcomed by the CIPD, Mike Emmott, employee relations adviser at the CIPD, said: "The bureaucratic burdens involved in allowing mothers and fathers to share parental leave have always concerned us. In most cases parents work for different companies - making the administration of the measure potentially very complicated. What would have been cumbersome in good times could become the straw that breaks the camel's back in a recession - and could damage the long-term business case for better work-life balance."
But Richard Martin, partner in the employment team at Speechly Bircham, added: "The noises Mandelson has been making for some time indicated a decision along these lines was likely but the logic seems flawed - why is it more costly for businesses to have a man out for six months rather than a woman?
"There will be a degree more admin and businesses would have to understand the changes and how to implement them but once up and running there should be no greater cost other than for businesses which had deliberately sought to avoid recruiting women of child bearing age so as to avoid the issues surrounding maternity leave."
