Equitable extension of maternity leave

Last week’s vote in the European Parliament on the review of EU law on maternity leave sparked off a heated exchange bet­ween those who favour extending women’s rights and those who see this as a cost we can ill afford.

The vote in Parliament responded to a proposal by the European Commission dating back to 2008. It came after several debates, impact assessments and postponements. So it was not a rash vote.

The position adopted last week will now serve as the basis for negotiations with EU ministers in the Council of Ministers. The law will only be adopted if the two institutions come to an agreement. From where I stand, this seems unlikely.

Under existing law, EU countries must grant a minimum of 14 weeks maternity leave. The European Commission proposed to raise this minimum to 18 weeks.

Last week, we had no fewer than 113 votes to amend the Commission’s proposal. Since the report was drawn up by an MEP from the Socialist group, Edite Estrela, it was to be expected she would seek to extend the Commission’s proposal rather than scale it back.

The most important issue related to the duration of maternity leave.

Mrs Estrela’s proposal to extend it to 20 weeks was adopted by a margin of just seven votes (327 in favour and 320 against). I was among those voting against because I felt 18 weeks was more reasonable in the prevailing circumstances. Because it passed by a slim margin, there is little prospect of it being accepted by Council.

Another proposal was to introduce a paternity leave of two weeks. This too was adopted and I voted against for the same reason.

On the other hand, an EPP amendment to introduce a measure of flexibility in the calculation of maternity leave was adopted.

On the level of pay, there was some confusion because two contradictory proposals, one calling for full pay during maternity leave and another calling for 75 per cent pay, were both adopted. I preferred the more flexible 75 per cent ceiling.

There were other elements in the proposal that I supported.

The first was to grant maternity leave also to mothers who adopt a child of up to 12 months, putting them in the same position as natural mothers in terms of bonding with the baby.

The second was to grant additional benefits in special cases such as premature births, children with disabilities, teenage mothers and multiple births.

These were all approved.

The final vote on the entire package was adopted by a cross-party majority of 390 votes. Along with the EPP, I voted for because, although I opposed certain aspects, I do favour an equitable extension of maternity leave.

This leaves one crucial point, namely who should pay for these new rights. This is not specified in the law and it is for individual countries to determine this matter.

Malta is the only EU country where the salary during maternity leave is paid entirely by employers without any assistance from the state. Two other countries where employers pay have generous reimbursement schemes. This explains why Malta’s employers’ organisations were up in arms.

I do not share their stand in opposing improvements in maternity leave. But they are right to protest at having to foot the bill alone. The idea that employers should shoulder this cost alone defies logic. Firstly, because it puts them at a competitive disadvantage as other EU businesses do not shoulder the same obligation. Secondly, because, by putting these costs on employers alone, we are making it cheaper for employers to employ men and virtually inviting them to prefer male over female workers.

So it is not so much the extension of maternity leave that puts female workers at a disadvantage in joining the workforce.

More likely, it is the decision to put this cost only on employers that does so, bordering dangerously on discrimination and, possibly, dubious under EU law.

As I suggested in this column already last August, the solution must lie in considering a more equitable sharing of costs between employers and the state (that is, us taxpayers) for an extension of maternity leave.

Admittedly, this is not the best moment for the state to entertain additional costs, nor to raise taxes for this purpose. But even at their highest end – at €12 million – the estimated additional costs would not sink the country. Let alone if the final package is more reasonable and less costly as I hope it will be.

Finally, let us not forget this new law is not likely to enter into force before 2013 at the very earliest. By that time, our deficit is scheduled to be well under control, if not in surprlus. So we have ample time to plan ahead and work this out.

www.simonbusuttil.eu

Dr Busuttil is a Nationalist member of the European Parliament.