Britain is attempting to block controversial new European laws giving women greater maternity rights which it is feared could “turn the clock back” on female employment.
By Martin Banks, in Brussels
Published: 11:35PM BST 17 Oct 2010
The move by the European Parliament could cost British businesses and the Government more than £2.5 billion a year Photo: AP
The European Parliament will this week vote on plans to increase fully-paid maternity leave from 14 to 20 weeks.
The move could cost British businesses and the Government more than £2.5 billion a year and fears are growing that the proposed legislation could lead to some firms rejecting female applicants for jobs.
Britain is expected to seek to block the legislation, if passed by the European Parliament, although senior ministers are wary of intervening to restrict maternity pay as they are fearful of alienating mothers.
Women in the UK are currently entitled to 12 months off, with the first six weeks on 90 per cent pay followed by 33 weeks on Statutory Maternity Pay of just under £125 a week. The remainder is unpaid.
An “extremely close” vote is likely with a possible compromise being for 18 paid weeks and for the level of pay to be established by member states, as originally proposed by the European Commission.
Marina Yannakoudakis, a British Tory MEP, said: “These proposals are going to cost small businesses and our public services billions of pounds and lead to further indirect discrimination against women in the workplace.
“National governments should decide what maternity leave provisions they can afford, and women should choose the best arrangements for them and their families. The EU needs to butt out and drop this crazy proposal.
“This is a badly thought out law, being forced through without any consideration of the far-reaching consequences.”
UK Independence Party MEP Godfrey Bloom warned that small firms – which are responsible for the majority of new jobs – would be less likely to hire those of child-rearing age because of the potential costs they faced if the worker fell pregnant.
He said: “If this legislation had been specifically designed to discourage the employment of young women, the EU could not have done a better job. The costs to business will simply serve as a further reason to not employ young women of child-bearing age.
“Absurd legislation such as this closes the door on opportunities for young women and consigns them to a role as second class citizens, trapped at home by the stupidity of legislators. It will single-handedly turn back the clock to the 1920s by forcing employers to avoid exposure to the penalties by not hiring young women.”
“We know that these plans will cost billions but what is unquantifiable is the damage they will do to women’s job prospects.”
Adam Marshall, British Chambers of Commerce director of policy, also warned of the impact on smaller firms. He said: “We find it troubling that MEPs effectively want to create additional costs for the UK which will be borne by businesses and individuals alike. It has come at the wrong time.”
The BCC has written to all UK MEPs and lobbied other member states to vote against the proposals, including Germany where the proposals could increase annual costs by £1.6bn.
The Federation of Small Businesses also says the plans are unaffordable.
But, Myria Vassiliadou of the European Women’s Lobby, said it was a “myth” that the proposal would overload businesses with costs.
