On 6 December, the Employment and Social Policy Council held a policy debate on the draft directive aimed at improving the protection of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding. The majority of the EU Member States rejected the European Parliament’s amendments to extend maternity leave to 20 weeks on full pay.
To recall, despite strong opposition from the UK and Germany, despite all the warnings from business leaders and Conservative MEPs, being aware of the costs and the impact of such proposals on business and national governments, the European Parliament, on 20 October, voted to extend fully paid maternity leave from 14 to 20 weeks in all EU member states, going beyond the Commission’s proposal to extend it to 18 weeks.
The European Parliament has amended the Commission proposal so that workers are paid their full salary while they are on maternity leave. The European Parliament has voted to introduce compulsory payment of 100% of salary for workers on maternity leave. Such amendment, if adopted, would entail a substantial increase in maternity pay in the UK. In fact, it would double the costs of maternity leave for taxpayers. It could cost to the UK an additional £2.5 billion a year.
At a time when governments are seeking ways to cut public spending and businesses are struggle to survive in the aftermath of the economic crisis, the European Parliament adopts such amendments which would impose massive costs on businesses and governments, with already overburdened social security systems. Several Member States, including the UK, were already concerned that Commission’s proposal would further increase employers’ costs as well as social security expenditure. Obviously they are now even more concerned with costs resulting from the European Parliament proposed amendments.
Obviously, such proposal is facing strong opposition from member states, particularly from the UK and Germany. In fact, the majority of the EU Member States could not accept the European Parliament amendments as they would considerably increase costs at a time of serious economic constraints.
The UK has been leading the opposition to such plans. Edward Davey, ahead of the Council meeting, said "The proposals put forward by MEPs would be extremely costly to business and also to the public purse” hence, "I will be lobbying against these costly and regressive proposals today and making our case to Member States – I know that many of them already share our concerns.”
The Council could not reach an agreement on its first reading position on the draft proposal however according to the Council Conclusions “A very large majority of ministers considered that the amendments adopted by the European Parliament at first reading, notably the requested extension of the minimum maternity leave to 20 weeks on full pay, did not constitute an appropriate basis for negotiations.”
According to the Belgian Presidency, the European Commission's original proposal “could be a more acceptable basis for a compromise than the European Parliament's amendments.” It seems the Council will now base its discussion on the European Commission’s proposal.
The Commission has proposed that new mothers shall be paid 100% of their salary but with a possibility for Member States to set a ceiling at the level of sick pay. Hence, Member States could fix a lower amount, which must not be less than the national rate paid to those on sickness leave. It is important to bear in mind that the Commission’s proposal would have less impact on business and national social security systems, nevertheless it would also entail further costs. According to the former Government’s Impact Assessment, the Commission’s proposal would entail annual costs around £6.9m.
The European Parliament has also included in the proposal a compulsory minimum two weeks of paternity leave, fully paid. Several Member States are unwilling to include paternity leave within the scope of this draft directive as its main purpose is “to improve the health and safety at work of pregnant women and workers who had recently given birth or were breastfeeding” and "not to reconcile work, family and private life, which was covered by other EU rules.”
According to the Council’s Conclusions several Member States are willing to include "a "passerelle" clause in the draft directive, allowing the member states to take into account forms of leave other than maternity leave offered to the mother which fulfilled certain conditions.”
The Council might adopt its common position during 2011. These policies are already extensively governed by EU legislation and need to be stopped. Hence, this proposal should be ditched.
There are a wide variety of national practices as regards maternity leave. Maternity leave is paid in different ways and at different rates. Therefore, it should be the Member States and not Brussels to decide on maternity leave issues and, particularly, on social security benefits. There is no need for further EU legislation. Brussels should not decide how much maternity leave British mothers should take.
Social and employment policy is one of the areas more costly to the Exchequer and business. The Conservative party must keep its manifesto promise and repatriate powers over social and employment policy otherwise the UK employment and social issues will continue to be decided by Brussels through regulations and directives adopted by QM and the ordinary legislative procedure, as the present proposal.
