Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 25 October 2011 - Strasbourg

15. State of play of the Maternity Leave Directive (debate)

  President. – The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Council on state of play regarding the Maternity Leave Directive by Edite Estrela, on behalf of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (O-000184/2011 – B7-0623/2011).

  Edite Estrela, author. – (PT) Madam President, the process of revising the Maternity Leave Directive began in 2008, when the Commission tabled its proposal. The European Parliament adopted my report a year ago, by a large majority. After all this time, what response does the Council have to give to European women and families? This initiative is part of what is known as the conciliation package. Of this package’s three proposals, only the revision of the Maternity Leave Directive is still awaiting the Council’s position: the other two were adopted in 2010.

It is therefore hard to understand the repeated postponement of the most comprehensive proposal defending the health and safety of women in the workplace, promoting gender equality and the reconciliation of professional and family life, and helping to stem the demographic decline of recent decades. One hundred years ago, the European population made up 15% of the world population: in 2050, it is not likely to comprise more than five per cent. The ageing of the population and the resulting reduction in its size are threatening the sustainability of social security systems, and of economic growth itself. Maternity should therefore not be viewed as a burden on the economy, but rather as a service provided to society.

Moreover, the costs of my proposal – adopted by Parliament – are not as high as many claim. The financial impact study on the proposals adopted by the European Parliament concluded that the costs of the proposal will be completely covered if it contributes to an increase of only one per cent in the participation of women in the labour market. According to the Europe 2020 strategy targets, the rate of employment of men and women should reach 75%. Full-salary payments are fair because families should not be financially penalised for having the children that they want and that Europe needs. Contrary to the claims of certain Member States, the European Parliament’s proposals are balanced and workable, in line with the recommendations of the International Labour Organisation and the World Health Organisation.

I should like to thank the Polish Presidency – you in particular, Mr Mleczko – for the interest and diligence it has demonstrated with regard to clearing obstacles in this area. Despite the efforts of the current Presidency and the flexibility demonstrated by the European Parliament, the excuse of the financial crisis and austerity has taken precedence over everything else. That includes the defence of human rights, because that is what we are talking about when we discuss maternity leave and paternity leave: human rights.

There seems to be money for everything except meeting the public’s expectations. According to Eurobarometer, eight out of 10 Europeans are in favour of extending maternity leave to 20 weeks at full pay: in other words, they are in favour of the European Parliament’s proposal.

For all these reasons, I am asking the Council how can it continue to disrespect the position of the European Parliament, founded on an unprecedented debate and voted for by a significant majority from all political groups? How can the Council refuse to debate the adopted amendments with the European Parliament and negotiate their phasing in? How can the Council continue to ignore the will of the majority of the European public?

Europe is mired in a profound crisis, and more serious than the financial economic crisis is the leadership crisis. Difficult times such as these are when the lack of the great leaders of the past is most keenly felt: leaders with strategic vision and the ability to make decisions; courageous and visionary leaders; leaders able to differentiate between the essential and the incidental; leaders worthy of the public’s confidence. The crisis is not affecting everyone in the same way: we know that the crisis has been serving as an excuse for cutting state benefits, and we know that the European Council is quicker to help out banks than Member States in difficulty. For how long will the public accept this situation?

I shall conclude by saying what I said in another debate on this subject: times are hard, but this is when societies have the greatest need for daring decision makers, because, as the Roman poet, Horace, noted thousands of years ago, he who is afraid of turmoil ends up crawling.

  Radosław Mleczko, President-in-Office of the Council. – (PL) Madam President, discussion of the possible revision of the Maternity Leave Directive naturally entails the search for a balance between the provisions of European law, national traditions, cultural values, economic realities, social trends and finally, the demographic challenges to which Ms Estrela made reference. So we must not be surprised that the search is not an easy one. Mutual respect is needed as a condition for reaching agreement. The European Commission has its reasons in the proposal it has submitted, the European Parliament has its reasons, and the Council, too, has its reasons when it advances the arguments to which I would like to return in this speech.

The impression may be that although each of these three institutions has the same objective in mind, it seems as if they are all looking in different directions. The question we asked ourselves at the beginning of the Polish Presidency was, in fact, one about this shared horizon and this shared objective – will it be possible to find this shared horizon and move in the same direction? We want parent-friendly legal regulations which promote a good work-life balance, which engender a sense of security and both encourage and make it possible for those parents who want to invest and who can invest in their career development not to have to worry about the quality of care given to their children.

I think we are agreed as to this statement of the goal of our work, but the dispute concerns the choice to be made as to how to achieve that goal. We are, in fact, talking about which route to take in pursuit of this goal, and not about the goal itself, which appears to be a shared one. It is therefore a dispute about methods, not objectives. The question is: is it possible to reach agreement, and if it is not possible now, then what can we do to achieve this shared goal and this shared vision?

Honourable Members, when we were beginning the work of the Polish Presidency, we knew that negotiations on the Maternity Leave Directive had come to a standstill. Parliament had tabled numerous amendments to the Commission’s proposal, and the Council had not adopted a common position. It still has not taken one today. Furthermore, many of the Member States have questioned the possibility of further work on the directive. When I say this, I wonder if the situation really is so bad and if we can say that the work we have all been doing – the work which the Polish Presidency, too, has done and which we are going to continue to do – has been wasted. There are many reasons why I hope this is not the case. I think that the mechanism for adopting European legislation, which gives powers to the European institutions and defines their mutual relations, has – paradoxically – been effective here. I say paradoxically, because it is thanks to the stalemate in which we have found ourselves and which we are trying to resolve that we have the time to carry out additional analyses which also take account of the dynamically changing situation in Europe and the question of selecting the best solution in the light of these conditions.

Perhaps, if it were not for this mechanism, rashly-taken decisions would have had the opposite effect to the one intended. We have gained time. How will we use it? It is the time we need to make the best possible decision, tailored to the current situation, because this is something we also have to remember. In this European dialogue – I am sorry, because I nearly said ‘dispute’ – in which we are involved, perhaps there will be neither winners nor losers, and may this indeed be the case. So I would like to express my thanks, principally to the Commissioner, Ms Reding, to the rapporteur, Ms Estrela, and to the ministers in the Council who are responsible for the Maternity Leave Directive, for their inspiration, motivation, assessments and analyses which have been, and are, the basis of all that has been done by the Presidency. We have had dozens of discussions and meetings for the specific purpose of working together to weigh up all the arguments and ensure that we do not make the wrong decisions. So I would like to thank everyone who has helped and is helping the Polish Presidency.

Last week, Ms Reding and I held a meeting in Kraków with the ministers responsible for the Maternity Leave Directive. We invited the ministers to join us several days before today’s sitting of Parliament and our debate because we wanted to hear their opinions again; we wanted to ask them to present their arguments and think about the future of possible changes to the directive. In a moment, I will move to the conclusions which came from that meeting. I would like, now, to thank the European Parliament again for its questions. We gave them to the ministers responsible for the directive at the informal meeting in Kraków and beforehand. In the opinion of the Presidency, those questions are the best proof of how concerned you are, honourable Members, for the future of Europe.

Honourable Members, we have watched the directive grow; it has grown up, it is now nearly 20 years old and over those years, it has proved its merits. By using the directive as a basis, or by making use of its provisions, the Member States have introduced legislation to protect working mothers. For the Polish Presidency, the search for answers to demographic challenges, including the promotion of solutions to help people achieve a work-life balance, is and will be a priority. This is why we have not assumed that there is nothing which can now be done in the debate on parental rights. At the informal meeting of ministers, which was held last Friday, we talked about issues relating to maternity leave in the broadest possible context. For it seems that a correct diagnosis of the legal, historical and cultural context may – and I do not doubt this – point the way to possible decisions about how to achieve equal participation in the labour market and how to help people balance their working lives with the rest of their time.

I would like to share with you – and this seems to me to be extremely important – some detailed questions and doubts which have been expressed directly by the ministers of the Member States. Is maternity leave and the level of allowance paid during maternity leave guaranteed by law? Can this question be considered in isolation from the length of other types of leave to which parents are entitled or in isolation from the levels of other allowances to which they are entitled in relation to having children in their care? How does the system of care for young children work? Its influence on people’s ability to reconcile their working and personal life is obvious. Will paying an allowance equivalent to full pay, as Parliament has proposed, serve a better purpose than paying an allowance which is proportionally lower but which is paid for a longer period and not just during the period of maternity leave? Another very important question: in view of the increasingly common tendency for both parents to care for young children and in view of the legal measures already in place in many Member States allowing both parents to benefit from maternity or paternity leave, is it not the case that the changes concerning the extension of maternity leave will hamper those Member States in achieving their objectives? These are, of course, only a selection of the issues discussed by the ministers at our meeting last Friday. It is also indirect testimony to how many different measures are already in place in the European Union. I would like, here, to express my thanks to my fellow ministers that they agreed to this further debate at the request of the Polish Presidency and put forward arguments in justification of their critical stance towards the position of the European Parliament.

Honourable Members, the lack of a common position in the Council is not the result of laziness, neglect or whim. Neither is it – and I would like to stress this – only or even principally the consequence of evaluating the financial effects which adoption of amendments to the directive would entail for many of the Member States, particularly in the form proposed by the European Parliament. The Member States – as we very well know – allocate huge amounts in their budgets to allowances related to the birth and care of children. What is important is that in the view of many Member States, Parliament’s amendments ignore a large number of the measures which are already in place and which are in accord with the directive.

Honourable Members, the current directive was intended to improve the safety and health at work, and I quote, ‘of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding’. It was supposed to establish the minimum level of that protection. Among the amendments tabled by the European Parliament, there are many which have raised doubts among some of the Member States, such as those which talk about provisions on breastfeeding breaks for example, but not only this, because there is also a detailed specification of the number and length of these breaks. Is it hard to understand, with such far-reaching and detailed amendments, that in this situation, doubts have also arisen not only on the part of many Member States, but also on the part of the European Commission, as to whether the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality will be upheld?

Honourable Members, we have legislation in the European Union today which governs minimum European standards on maternity leave. Thanks to the question which has been asked by Parliament, thanks to the opportunity of hearing the ministers’ opinions at the meeting held by the Presidency last week, and in connection with the opportunity of presenting the comments of particular Member States, I am going to have the honour today, on behalf of the Presidency, of hearing your opinions. I know that many of them are going to be critical and harsh opinions, but we have come here so that we can talk about them.

Thank you, too, for what is, in our opinion – in the Presidency’s opinion – the very constructive nature of the questions which have been put to the Polish Presidency. They are questions as regards which you have indicated your readiness to reach a compromise. In the Presidency’s opinion, it will be possible to reach this agreement if account is taken of the differences between measures in place in Member States, the financial and social costs of the changes, and the principle of subsidiarity. However, let us say equally frankly that in view of the challenges being presented by the crisis, but also because of the measures already in place in Member States, in the Presidency’s opinion, the Council cannot accept a 20-week period of fully-paid maternity leave.

During the discussion in Council, some Member States pointed out that their national legislation does, in fact, include provisions on several of the matters raised by the European Parliament, such as breastfeeding breaks, special conditions of work for parents with disabled children and additional maternity leave. However, the generally-held view in the Council is that particular measures, including measures relating to these matters, should be left to the Member States, and it stresses that the trend or direction of these changes, of which I spoke at the outset, is shared both by the European Commission and the European Parliament, as well as by the Member States and the Council.

How can we most effectively serve the interests of women in the labour market? Are longer minimum periods of maternity leave and allowances equivalent to full pay the answer to the challenges of the labour market today? It can be stressed again, here, that many of the Member States are moving in this direction, towards such measures. Such measures have been introduced in Poland. However, critics of this solution are pointing to differences in the incomes of working mothers and are asking: why should maternity leave for the highest earners be paid for by the taxpayer? Perhaps the best solution is the one contained in the current directive, which makes the minimum amount of parental allowance equivalent to the amount of allowance which would be paid in the event of sickness and leaves the Member States to specify the upper limit.

You are also asking if the Council will include paternity leave in the revised Maternity Leave Directive. As you know, the Presidency does not have a mandate to present the position of the Council, because a common position has not been adopted, but on the basis of the discussions we have had, I would like to inform you on behalf of the Presidency that, in our opinion, the Member States will not support such a measure, not because they do not appreciate the importance of paternity leave in social policy. Quite the contrary – many of the Member States have already introduced such a measure, and I can say again that Poland is among them. However, the generally held opinion among the Member States and in the Council is that the directive on maternity leave and safety and health at work should not be extended to include paternity leave. Once again, we are not talking about the direction of change, we are not discussing whether paternity leave is an institution which should develop. The Council is showing the direction in which we could proceed.

Honourable Members, I realise that my speech has already exceeded the time limit, but I do want to talk about these decisions openly. I think they concern matters which are so important for the European Union’s citizens that there is no room here for playing or pretending to work. This is why, from the beginning of the Polish Presidency’s work – my thanks are due again to Ms Estrela, who noted this fact – we have attached great importance to the dossier we are talking about today. Please allow me, Madam President, honourable Members, to make a few more remarks, which are a kind of summary of what I have said today and which stress the lack of a formal mandate from the Council and report the state of the discussion in the Council on this subject.

I cannot promise Parliament that agreement will be reached in Council during the Polish Presidency. Whether we are going to continue this work will depend, to a large degree, on your evaluation and on the arguments advanced by the Member States. However, on behalf of the Presidency, I would like here to thank the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council for continuing the process of the search for the best solutions and to promise to conduct further work with the preparatory bodies, particularly if there are visible signs that the Council and Parliament can discuss a realistic compromise at a later stage.

On behalf of the Polish Presidency, I can assure you all that if the progress of today’s discussion gives grounds for thinking that Parliament is ready to negotiate, and therefore – and I say this openly – is also ready to change its current position, then I will immediately and with pleasure pass this good news on to the Council. If, during the Polish Presidency, it were possible to propose further realistic steps towards reaching agreement, it would also be a promising sign for the ensuing work of the Trio Presidency. This is why we are attaching such great importance to today’s debate, and this is why I thank you once again for the opportunity to take part in it. The Polish Presidency is treating this dossier with the greatest care and is fully aware of its significance. We are counting on your support.

I would like today’s debate to bring us closer to agreement, but if this does not happen, then at least I would like our dialogue and clash of arguments not to be wasted, and I would hope that the exchange of views which is taking place fosters the introduction of further measures which are good for parents and their children, and that sooner or later we find, in this complicated world, the best solution to these matters too.

  Edit Bauer, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (HU) Madam President, I am grateful for the Polish Presidency’s efforts and courage in handling this dossier, and I must say that the news we have heard about last week’s meeting of the ministers for social affairs were much more pessimistic than what we have heard from you. Let me quote from the news. We found only one item, and, as I said, it is not very optimistic: ‘The message of the meeting was clear: Member States simply said no to the extreme proposal of the European Parliament’.

The analysis of the situation – and the situation we are in is indeed very complicated – has two dimensions, one of which is procedural. How can we come out of the deadlock that you also spoke about, observing the rules and competences? The other is a matter of substance: what happens to mothers, what happens to the directive on maternity leave?

As regards procedures, to be honest, we have been waiting for a move by the Council for over a year. We know that at first reading, the Council’s response is not subject to any deadlines, and this delay may be the reason why Parliament opted for a somewhat unorthodox method and put a question to the Council in order to receive information, naturally without interfering with the competence of the Council. We regret that we were unable to extend the rights of mothers and failed to improve their living conditions.

However, it was difficult to interpret the news, also coming from this informal meeting, that the Council refused to adopt a Council position for the proposal. This leaves the question: what is the next move? Can we expect a position from the formal ministerial meeting?

As for the matter of substance, it would be easy to turn the situation to our advantage and say that we have warned you before, because, as you also know, Parliament was fairly divided on the issue of maternity leave. Our aim is not to revel in ‘we told you so’. What we have to focus on as our objective is to protect maternity and improve the living conditions of mothers. I believe that we all agree on this.

To those colleagues who are revolted by the lack of progress and say that maternity leave is the human right of mothers, I would point out that a relevant article is included in the revised Social Charter of the Council of Europe – Article 8 on the right of the protection of maternity – which states that signatory states must grant working women at least 14 weeks of paid leave, disbursed from social security benefits or other budgetary resources.

There is a provision in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, too, under the heading ‘Family and Work’, which guarantees the right of mothers to protection against dismissal from their jobs and paid maternity leave.

Madam President, allow me to add one final idea. I would like to say that development is so divergent from one Member State to another that it is extremely difficult to find common minimum standards, but ‘passerelle clauses’, the transitional clauses that would allow for the combination of parental and maternity leave, may be the way forward.

  Rovana Plumb, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (RO) Madam President, I want to thank the Polish Presidency for the way in which it has endeavoured to address this new directive. I could say it is new because it has undergone numerous improvements thanks to the amendments tabled in Parliament.

You stated, Minister, that the three institutions have a shared objective, but it is targeted in different directions. I can sincerely tell you that, as far as the European Parliament is concerned, it is targeted at citizens. I know that the Polish Presidency is pro-European and we certainly need more Europe, but we should not forget that Europe belongs to its citizens and not to governments.

This is why I want to tell you that this directive and the stance which we have adopted in Parliament are sound because all it does is provide a new instrument which we can use to ensure that a work-life balance is achieved and also to resolve the economic crisis we are going through.

I did not understand what you were referring to when you said that Parliament has overlooked existing solutions. What does our position stand for? Maternity leave which has simply taken into account the recommendations made by the World Health Organisation and a new vision: one where motherhood must not be penalised.

Minister, I am surprised that no representatives from the European Commission are here, but I hope that together, given that the codecision procedure applies, we will be able to find a solution enabling us to make progress with this dossier which is so important, especially at the moment. Indeed, the ‘passerelle’ clause may provide a solution.

  Antonyia Parvanova, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, I would like to thank the Minister for his frank response.

The reconciliation of work, family and private life is recognised as a key element of achieving one of the EU headline targets of the Europe 2020 strategy. It is therefore necessary to give priority to addressing barriers to women’s participation in the labour market and men’s more active involvement in caring duties.

The report presented by the European Institute for Gender Equality last week, during the meeting of the Ministers for Family Affairs and Gender Equality in Kraków, reveals that women spend three times longer than men on child care per day. Women are still the main carers, both for children and for the dependent elderly, and they are more likely than men to be involved in both paid and unpaid work in all Member States.

The revision of the 1992 directive on maternity leave is a necessary precondition for achieving the EU 2020 targets. However, as my colleagues have already said, the press recently reported that during the meeting in Kraków, the Ministers unambiguously stated that they were not willing to move forward with the proposal. What we did not hear, either from that meeting or from you, was the ideas of the Member States on how to improve the current directive. Bearing in mind EU citizens’ worries and concerns on the matter, it would be irresponsible for the Council just to shelve this proposal due to its inability to present an alternative. A responsible attitude would define the pragmatic and reasonable outcome of the current situation.

I think that compromises from both sides are needed, but this can be achieved only through debates and not by taking the issue off the agenda. In this regard, I would like to raise the following question. Does the shelving of this proposal mean that the Council is satisfied with the rules set out in the current directive, and does it think that they are adequate for achieving the EU 2020 targets as well as dealing with low birth rates and the upcoming demographic challenge? If the answer is no, the Council should then present the latest and lowest common denominator position. That would be a starting point in order to move forward on this issue.

  Marina Yannakoudakis, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, we all know the word Parliament derives from the French word meaning ‘to talk’. Sometimes, I think this Parliament talks too much and is not willing to listen to Member States’ concerns. The ECR Group opposed tabling this question, as we saw little value added. Perhaps we are the only group which puts faith in its Member States. We certainly believe it is not the duty of Parliament’s Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality to hassle the Member States.

The normal sequence of events of any directive is that once it is passed by Parliament, it goes to the Council, which may then deal with it as and when it sees fit. The Women’s Rights Committee is now trying to push its overreaching, expensive and unnecessary proposal onto the Council. Early this year, I was practically a lone voice in the committee calling for a reassessment of the directive, and I wish to state again what I said in the past. The Maternity Leave Directive is not right for women; it is not right for businesses, and it is not right for Member States’ governments in a time of economic recession. Twenty weeks of fully-paid compulsory maternity leave, two weeks’ fully paid paternity leave and breastfeeding breaks of three hours a day are totally unrealistic.

There is a reason why the Council is blocking these proposals. The Council is the last line of defence a Member State has; national governments are sending us a powerful message, and it is time we listened. We should have listened months ago and amended this directive to make it workable for all the stakeholders. Time and again, rigid rules supported by so-called social dimensions triumph over common sense. We need to be more flexible. We did not listen, so now we are paying the price. By refusing to make compromises and concessions, we have managed to let down the very women we are here to support.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (ES) Madam President, I am very grateful for the speeches and the explanations from the Presidency, which were very long, but, even so, were unconvincing.

As stated, what we are dealing with is a health-related issue. This is what the World Health Organisation (WHO) says, not the European Parliament. We are dealing with an issue of economic opportunity. The reports we have produced say so. They show this is not a problem of costs, but is, in fact, an opportunity to improve and further strengthen our emergence from the crisis, also in the area of gender.

This is an issue of rights; the rights of women who work and want to be mothers, and the rights of mothers who want to work. It is a question of joint responsibility, because we cannot ignore the fact that having children is not only the responsibility of mothers, but also of fathers and, in a general way, of society as a whole, because as far as I know, there is no other known way of having children, and societies need them. We need to make fathers accept the responsibilities of fatherhood, but we also need society to accept that mothers must not fulfil this duty alone.

I would also like to add that this is a matter of Europeanism, because while it is true that the Member States have certain prerogatives, I think we would all agree that we should make sure no mother in the European Union feels discriminated against because the government in place in her country does not have such a clear and responsible vision of what the rights of a working mother mean.

  Ilda Figueiredo, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (PT) Madam President, it was a year ago that the European Parliament adopted a very clear position on the revision of the Maternity Leave Directive. It is becoming scandalous that the Council has not tabled a proposal and continues to block the revision. It shows a total lack of respect for the European Parliament and, above all, for the women and men intending to have children, and for the children deprived of this essential support in the first year of their lives.

It should not be forgotten that a report intended to increase the minimum maternity leave period from the present 14 weeks to 20 weeks of leave at full pay has been adopted by the majority in Parliament. Two weeks of paternity leave at full pay for fathers was also introduced. These are fair proposals that must be accepted by the Council in order to support families, motherhood, fatherhood and children. It is not enough to say that we want to increase the birth rate and then not act accordingly by improving the policies that could give some substance to this.

Given the social value of motherhood and fatherhood, the way the Council is behaving is completely unacceptable: refusing all negotiation, and allowing an injustice to working women, to mothers and fathers, and, above all, to society to drag on. It is intolerable that the Council is adopting an attitude of veritable disdain towards the European Parliament and is not responding to the proposals that we have tabled, even if there are some Member States with reservations. We therefore await a positive response from the Council after this debate.

  Derek Roland Clark, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Madam President, I would like to ask the Minister how he can justify this proposal to treble maternity pay by requiring firms to pay new mothers their full salary for 20 weeks. Does he not know we are in the middle of one of the worst recessions of modern times? This will present businesses with the prospect of a 2 billion burden. Even my government opposes this move. In addition, Minister, you plan to extend minimum parental leave from three months to four months for each parent. That is separate from the maternity leave, with one month of the four not transferable to the other parent.

Is the Council prepared to compromise on main issues like the duration of maternity leave and the level of payment? Otherwise, you intend to give Member States two years to amend their laws – though how you can say ‘their’ laws, I do not know. This comes straight from the Commission factory, and we shall oppose this job-destroying proposal.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Antonyia Parvanova (ALDE). – Madam President, I would like to ask the honourable Member for his views on the fact that his government is approving an increase, which is more than twice the increase necessary for maternity leave, on a military budget – which is actually intended not only for security but for killing somebody else’s children.

  Derek Roland Clark (EFD). – Madam President, the honourable Member has pointed out an anomaly in the laws. She is right: it is wrong, it should not happen.

  Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE). – (FR) Madam President, I should like to thank the Council representative for his long presentation on the state of play of this issue between Parliament and the Council.

I would like us to come back to the root of the problem concerning this issue, in which all of us, men and women, are involved in many different ways. The issue with which we are concerned is, of course, the health of pregnant women and women who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding. I believe that all the mistakes we have allowed ourselves to make at one time or another with regard to paternity leave and the confusion over parental leave have now sown the seed of doubt and brought us to a standstill.

I would like to say to Ms Estrela that her report has transported us to a fantasy land through demagoguery and a lack of responsibility. We have got off to completely the wrong start by suggesting that there is a connection between birth rates and the length of maternity leave. All the statistics throughout Europe indicate otherwise.

The second point I would like to emphasise is that the Commission’s proposal to grant 18 weeks’ leave provides a platform for negotiation of which we can take full advantage to reach a consensus between the Council and Parliament. The fact is, the contentious provisions that have led us to the current deadlock were passed by a very small majority and certainly did not earn a great deal of support.

I believe that we definitely need to break this deadlock if we have any sense of responsibility. We cannot remain caught up in the situation in which we find ourselves today. I believe we need to suggest starting all over again with the Commission’s proposal so that, between us, Council and Parliament, we can reach an agreement and free ourselves from the deadlock we are in.

  Britta Thomsen (S&D). – (DA) Madam President, Mr Mleczko, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking my colleague, Ms Estrela, for the questions she has posed to the Council. I cannot emphasise enough how important it is for us to continue to press for the negotiations on this directive to be resumed. I think it has been made clear today that, as far as Parliament is concerned, we are willing to negotiate in an attempt to reach agreement with the Council. However, this requires the Council to make its position clear so that we can obtain an absolutely clear starting point for the negotiations. We owe European citizens a fair and sensible maternity scheme that is capable of rectifying the financial disparity between men and women and which, at the same time, provides the motivation for European families to have more children. Mr Mleczko, there is a shortage of children in Europe.

All women in the EU should have the right to have children without losing their earned income or their pension. Equality is a cornerstone of the EU, and the one gender, women, must not be placed in a poorer position or penalised because they make the huge contribution of having children. The Member States have used the economic crisis as an excuse for not investing in the health and safety of women and children. That is extremely disturbing. If we can afford to give billions to support the banks, we can clearly also afford to provide proper maternity conditions for all women. Besides, the internal market should not just be about cheap goods. It is also important for the internal market to ensure high social standards for workers. We must not have disparate competitive conditions throughout the Union, leading to social dumping where undertakings can see a profit in diminishing the conditions for women. Therefore, the negotiations on this Maternity Leave Directive represent a cornerstone in the attempt to raise standards on the European labour market and improve social conditions for families.

IN THE CHAIR: MIGUEL ANGEL MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ
Vice-President

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). – (RO) Mr President, I welcome this debate and regard it as a first step towards attempting to resolve a situation which absolutely needs to be resolved in the current context.

I believe that this debate raises at least three types of question. Are we still able to see even beyond the crisis? Are we still able to see Europe’s future through the interests of European citizens, and not through the immediate reality described as the economic crisis?

If we are, then we need to try to change the way we speak about this. This matter is not about the benefit for women, about the benefit for men or even about the benefit for children. It is about the benefit for Europe’s societies which need to survive and be viable. This is what this is all about.

If we want to stick with the nation state principle where we preserve our multiculturalism and identities, we ourselves will have to promote our birth rate policies. I believe that we need to think about European cohesion in totally different terms. Not in terms of financial resources, but completely in terms of human resources.

Does Europe still need families? If it does need families, we have to encourage mothers and fathers to support their children. Education and social cohesion are not a matter of providing services which society can provide better or worse.

If we think in terms of these three factors which are common to European conscience and philosophy, we only have one solution: to say ‘yes’ to this directive and not to try to think in terms of a commercialist vision, which is alien to the spirit and concept of Europe and, in my opinion, an absolute menace to Europe’s future.

  Franziska Katharina Brantner (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, the revision of the directive has been under way for more than three years. We urgently need a clear result. As early as October 2010, we in the European Parliament spoke out in favour of 20 weeks maternity leave on full pay and two weeks paternity leave. This was a clear signal that we support equality and a sustainable future for our society. However, there has been no progress in the Council for a year and Germany, in particular, is blocking the process.

The feasibility study carried out by the European Parliament has shown that an increase of only 0.04% in the employment rate for women would cover all the costs of the two-week paternity leave period. Since Ms Reding took office, we have been waiting for a proposal on a paternity leave directive. So far, we have seen nothing. As long as nothing happens in this respect, we must include fathers in this directive. At a time when the birth rate is falling, society is ageing and the cost of pensions is increasing, a rise in the employment rate for women and a stable birth rate are of great importance in ensuring economic stability. We want an approach based on equality between men and women and between fathers and mothers.

Therefore, I would like to urge the Council, and the German Government in particular, to make progress in this area and to show that the European Union stands for equality and not for a botch-up, so that we can meet the expectations of our citizens.

  Mikael Gustafsson (GUE/NGL). – (SV) Mr President, I would like to express my support for Ms Estrela and thank her for her initiative to urge the Council to enter into negotiations with Parliament. I would also like to thank the Polish Presidency, which has really made a huge effort in this area.

I am convinced that it is through negotiations that we can open the doors in this area, but we must be able to negotiate on the basis of a proposal.

I would also like to take the opportunity to point out the importance of shared parental responsibility for children. There is much to indicate that a better balance between family life and work, for both men and women, leads to better social development, both from the point of view of equality and from an economic perspective, above all, a long-term economic perspective.

It is therefore high time that all of the parties involved took responsibility and sat round the negotiating table. That is the only way that we will be able to find a solution to this problem.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, Mr Mleczko, wherever possible, our work should be ambitious. The excesses of one section of Parliament have caused the current deadlock. I should say at this point that I personally voted for the directive. We were aware of the risks involved, but some in this Chamber wanted to make a stand. We now find ourselves at war.

The Commission is also partly to blame, having chosen to base the Maternity Leave Directive on combating gender discrimination. On a number of occasions, the Council warned us that it would not waste time on the excesses of its institutional partners. This has been proven by the outcome of the meeting in Kraków.

So there are two possible solutions. One: the Commission could propose a new text. Two: Parliament can keep on voting until the Council is satisfied, given that it does not accept the results of the first parliamentary vote. This was the strategy used to ratify the Treaty and to save the euro, but unfortunately, it cannot be applied here in Parliament.

So we really are at an impasse. The first proposal – starting from a new Commission proposal for the legal basis – is the only way that we can break the deadlock, particularly as the legal situation at work for pregnant women, women who have recently given birth, or are breastfeeding, is unsatisfactory in several Member States. The personal skills of future generations are shaped from birth through the special links between mother and child. Theoretical and practical recognition for maternity is essential if we are to tackle the problem of declining population figures in European countries.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, I have naturally listened attentively to all the speakers, particularly the introductory statement made by Mr Mleczko on behalf of the Council, in which he said that the crux of the matter is whether we can reach an agreement. I think that we can. Bear in mind that two camps with opposing views clashed within this Parliament. At the end of the day, the advocates of 20 weeks carried the day by a few votes.

However, I am one of those who believe that there is a middle way, perhaps going back to the Commission proposal, namely, 18 weeks at a decent rate of pay. That said, I would like to dispense with ambiguity. In French, we use adverbs when we want to be vague: we say paid decently or reasonably. We need to define a figure – perhaps 75% or 80% of full salary. I feel that having a minimum entitlement which applies in all European Union countries would be an appropriate starting point for relaunching discussions.

I would like to thank Ms Estrela for putting this item on the agenda. To conclude, I would also like to establish a right to paternity leave, which is essential if parents are to share the load when their child is born: two weeks at full pay for fathers. Are you surprised that I am defending this idea in particular?

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, you are looking at one worried dad there.

The European Parliament voted on this Maternity Leave Directive a year ago, almost to the day. One year on, we are still at an impasse. The standoff was fairly inevitable and, given our ambitions, I have to say that it was underestimated at the time. The issue has been put on ice, even though the Council, as colegislator, is required to take a view, irrespective of the red lines drawn by the Member States.

To cut a long story short, it is the procedure rather than the substance that is really at stake this evening, but for the record, my position on the substance has not changed. Should we increase the number of women in work? Yes. Should we promote a better work-life balance? Yes, of course. Should we address population issues? Again, yes. Yet by asking for too much – 20 weeks at full pay – we are indirectly paving the way for further recruitment discrimination against the very women that we want to protect, who, by the way, did not ask for this.

First the Hungarian Presidency and now the Polish Presidency have come up against this issue, only to admit defeat a week ago in Kraków. So, although I have my doubts about the degree of flexibility promised by some Members, given that it is imperative that we extricate ourselves from this situation, I have a question for the representatives of the Council. Why can we not go back to the Commission proposal, as suggested by Ms Záborská and as endorsed by Mr Tarabella just now? Why have you not put forward a common position that would also allow our Parliament to play its part fully as colegislator?

  Christa Klaß (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Mleczko, ladies and gentlemen, the European Maternity Leave Directive is a never-ending story. I have clear memories, as many of you certainly do too, of the many long-drawn-out and difficult discussions, the hearings in committee and ultimately, also in plenary. We all had the same objective, which was to provide support for mothers. We were fully focused on this. However, everyone had very different ways of achieving this objective. In some cases, we clashed head-on with one another as result of taking different approaches. This has not been forgotten.

It is difficult to put maternity benefits on the same footing throughout Europe and to harmonise the situation, when we know that the Member States are taking different types of action in this area. Mr Mleczko, I am grateful for your clear statement. You have once again highlighted the problem.

We in the European Parliament have put together the longest possible wish list and we are now surprised that we have not received a response from the Council. We have simply overburdened the Council with our wishes. The Council is aware of the many differences and the differing approaches in the Member States. The vote here in Parliament on the key points was carried by a very small majority. Only 327 Members voted in favour of 20 weeks maternity leave. A total of 320 were against and 30 abstained. The votes on full pay and on including paternity leave produced similar results.

It is important for us to recognise that Ms Estrela’s report is not a sound basis for negotiation. Even Ms Estrela will have to admit that the project has failed. If you want everything, you will end up with nothing. The questions that have been asked and Parliament’s readiness to negotiate, which has just been mentioned, will not take us any further. The different conceptions are too far apart. If we want to achieve something, we must start from scratch and make responsible, viable proposals. We must also finally acknowledge that the European Maternity Leave Directive will lay down minimum standards and that paternity leave forms part of parental leave.

  Silvia Costa (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that compromises are made not only by aiming downwards but also by seeking a middle way that aims upwards, and by improving the living and health conditions not only of women but also of children, whom I believe have not received much attention in this debate.

I appreciated the intellectual honesty and politeness with which Mr Mleczko described the Council’s difficulty. I truly hope that a balanced compromise can be reached. However, I believe that we have done well to raise the bar compared with the requests contained in the Commission’s project, which were truly modest.

I want to say one thing which I believe is really a basic objection. It seems as though Europe has not yet understood that, unless it helps reconcile work and motherhood, millions of European women will be excluded from the labour market or will be unable to remain in it. A different type of compromise would rejuvenate Europe, reduce childhood and family poverty and increase the productivity and community of Member States, unless the only proposal for welfare reform and cost optimisation is to increase women’s pension age, which would lead to a paradox. Under this system, these women will never reach pension age, because they will leave their jobs, as happens in many countries including mine, because it is not possible to reconcile work and family during their productive and childbearing years.

I believe that unless European economic thought revises its conceptual base and moves beyond an ‘accountancy’ approach, growth will not be intelligent, inclusive or sustainable, because the women will not be there.

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE). – (FI) Mr President, the European Union offers its employees in the European Commission, the Council, the European Parliament and its own political groups 20 weeks of paid maternity leave. However, the other Member States do not allow – the Council does not allow – this same benefit to be offered to all women in those countries. Why do you divide our citizens into two groups, an elite one, and one that we cannot afford?

I have heard the answer many times: that we cannot afford it. It would have been interesting occasionally to hear the Commission say, when discussing a bank bailout, that we could not afford it. When the banks discharge their duties irresponsibly, here we pour in money, and there is definitely money available for this, but when it concerns families, equality and children, there is none. I think that at present, the European decision-making system and our values are both in crisis.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, the European Parliament and Council need to reach agreement on making headway on this legislative act.

In the current circumstances, a balance has to be struck between the need for women’s employment and the financial impact of maternity leave. At the same time, a variety of options have to be offered to avoid women’s professional status declining as a result of their absence from the workplace.

I should emphasise that the option for amending the maternity leave period was highlighted by the European Parliament in Amendments 4 and 42 made to the proposal for a directive. They are aimed at protecting the child’s health and development and at the mother’s wellbeing as an active member of the workforce.

In terms of achieving the 75% target for women’s employment, offering mothers this option is a particularly useful measure. At the same time, the two amendments leave it up to families to establish a work/life balance.

The Romanian Government has been forced recently to amend the legislation in this area to reduce budgetary expenditure and tackle the impact of the economic crisis. This means that women in Romania have two options: they can choose to return to work during the first year after the birth of their child, along with a bonus from the State, or to take two years’ maternity leave.

In addition, in line with the commitments made to the International Monetary Fund, Romania is obliged to use its new social care legislation to reduce the number of allowances of this kind from 54 to nine, thereby preventing as well the fraudulent use of social care funds.

  Emine Bozkurt (S&D). – Mr President, I would like to say to the Minister that this debate is not about time schedules for breastfeeding but all about priorities: priorities of men and women, and priorities of the European Union. Like men, women should also have the right both to work and have a family without having to choose.

In the Europe 2020 strategy, we aim to reach a 75% employment rate for women. To achieve this, immediate measures are necessary. In the EU, we are working towards a competitive and inclusive economy. Thinking that all the responsibilities of having children should be endured by women alone is outdated but, unfortunately, still reality. We should promote shared responsibility and stress the role of both parents in raising children.

The Maternity Leave Directive is stuck with the Council. This diminishes our chances of achieving the Europe 2020 goals. Would the Council agree to a gradual implementation of the directive? What is your stance towards paternity leave? Would you agree on our proposals regarding the length of maternity leave and the level of payments? What is Poland planning to do to facilitate a compromise? We expect a constructive approach from the Council, because we are losing valuable time in achieving true gender equality.

  Nadja Hirsch (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Mleczko, it is not the case that we are starting from nothing. We should always remember that we in Europe have a good minimum standard in comparison with many other countries. Regardless of that, the Commission has submitted a new proposal. It is simply a result of the timing that the situation with regard to equality has changed. Therefore, the Commission proposal was a wise move, a step forward, which sent out a clear signal, but, at the same time, it was sufficiently moderate, at 18 weeks and 75%, that it would have been practicable.

Unfortunately, I can only agree with the other speaker. Here in the European Parliament, a small majority put together a huge wish list. At the moment, it is sadly the case that we must either stick with this wish list or get nothing. I would like to make it quite clear to you that I would rather we took the new Commission proposal as our basis, so that we can at least move forward. Each individual country can then decide whether to add other provisions. Then it will be up to every individual Member State to raise its own standards even further.

  Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, Mr Mleczko, we return once again today to the subject of maternity leave. I think we should look at the question of maternity leave from more than just the economic point of view. Naturally, it is important that working women who are on maternity leave should be given the financial resources to maintain their families. Also important is the question as to how businesses will manage with these additional expenses in a situation in which it is they who are going to bear the costs of the allowances for mothers. How can we avoid causing a situation in which employers, worried about the costs, avoid employing young women who are planning to become mothers?

These are very important questions and I understand that it is precisely these questions which differentiate the positions of the Member States in the Council and are making it difficult to reach a shared position. However, in all this let us nevertheless not forget those who, in my opinion, are the most important – the children. For the child and for the woman, the time after a baby is born is the only time which a mother can fully devote to her child. Furthermore, if the European Union is to achieve the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy and avoid the consequences of the demographic decline, new compromise measures have to be introduced. Perhaps a little less ambitious than those which Parliament has demanded. Perhaps we should go back to the European Commission’s proposal?

I appeal to the Member States to think again about the possibility of guaranteeing all mothers in Europe a compromise of 18 weeks with their new-born children. Mr Mleczko, do you think a measure such as this has a chance of securing a majority in the Council, so that we could, in fact, ensure 18 weeks of maternity leave on full pay for all future mothers in Europe?

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, aside from a few declarations rejecting any discussion on the content of the maternity leave proposal out of hand, the Council has remained silent for almost a year. That silence deserves to be censured, which is what we are doing today. Parliament has repeatedly stated that it is willing to engage in discussion. Although we are maintaining our target of 20 weeks of maternity leave, discussion and compromise is always an option.

We must not let the wool be pulled over our eyes on the costs, an issue that has come up repeatedly. The national governments tell us that the cost of the measure would not be viable, given the current crisis. The reason why I say that we must not let the wool be pulled over our eyes is that many women already have this leave, notably in France. They are already supplementing their maternity leave with sick leave or paid leave. Yet what is even more unacceptable, in my view, is the fact that national governments are still discounting Parliament. This is unacceptable when it comes to a matter that is so vital to our citizens’ daily lives.

We live in a world where a trader can pretty much trigger a financial crisis at the push of a button, yet we are still waiting. What we want now is for the Council to deign to take an official position on the matter at long last.

  Sari Essayah (PPE). – (FI) Mr President, this directive is a good example of what happens when the European Parliament ignores differences between national family leave systems among the Member States of the EU, including duration, funding arrangements and applicability to existing family leave systems and practical working life. The amendments tabled by the European Parliament are driving something that is good up a blind alley.

The demand for full pay put forward by the European Parliament ignores national compensatory systems where maternity leave is linked to a much longer period of parental leave – although not on full pay – but where responsibility for child care can be shared between the father and the mother. The proposal by the European Parliament does nothing to promote women’s equal participation in the labour market, especially if salaries are left entirely to the employer to pay. In its proposal, the European Parliament ignored the contribution made by the social partners to the development of family leave systems and the fact that in many countries, there are agreements on pay during maternity leave in collective agreements, with all parties making a contribution.

I quite understand that the Council wants individual countries themselves to decide regulation on such matters as the timing of compulsory maternity leave, breaks for breastfeeding, and supplementary leave and how it may be compensated; just as paternal leave is not generally covered under the directive on the protection of pregnant women.

The European Parliament needs to appreciate that the level of regulation should, as far as possible, conform to that for parental leave, so that national law can be made comprehensively consistent.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). – (FI) Mr President, a year ago, I voted here in favour of a 20 week period of maternity leave. We need to ensure that mothers and children everywhere in Europe can benefit from this relatively short period of time, which is invaluable to both.

I quite understand that, in the current economic situation, projects that call for new funding pose a challenge. However, when Europe invests in expectant mothers and in children, Europe is investing in its own future. That cannot be measured in terms of money. Children are Europe’s real capital. There will be no life or Europe without new generations.

The labour market also needs to be developed coherently, so that women never face discrimination on the basis of motherhood or age. Together, we have to change our attitudes, to make Europe a more humane Europe of people. I hope that the Council will show the understanding and courage needed to make progress in this matter.

  Barbara Matera (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I strongly support the question put to the Council by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality following the former’s lack of response to the adoption of the Maternity Leave Directive approved by Parliament on 20 October 2010.

In order to achieve a 75% employment rate for women, as established by the EU 2020 strategy, and help with the reconciliation of work and family life, the measures introduced by the revised Maternity Leave Directive must be adopted, such as the extension of leave to 20 weeks on full pay and the introduction of two weeks’ paternity leave on full pay.

I note with regret that the current Polish Presidency has not managed to open negotiations for the revision of this directive, and therefore we will all be putting pressure on the forthcoming Danish Presidency to make this directive a priority and kick-start the stalled negotiations. We are, however, very aware of the difficulties that Member States are facing in the current serious economic and financial crisis and therefore we understand the difficulties they could have in introducing such long maternity leave.

I support maternity leave and therefore I support motherhood as life, because life, the future, is represented by children – our children – who will be the new European Union. We must therefore support maternity leave for the future of the whole European Union. I do not want to use forceful words, but I believe that this report should be supported in order to guarantee more security, and give greater impetus to the European Union so that it can recover from this serious economic crisis.

  Zita Gurmai (S&D). – Mr President, I would like to thank the Minister for the update. I wish he had better news.

Every part of the draft directive is equally important. However, I think that we have to look at a broader perspective here for a moment because it seems to me that we cannot see the wood for the trees. We need these directives – yes, we do need them – for our children’s health and for the inclusion of women in the labour market, so that more children are born. We simply do not have a choice in this matter, given the problem of an ageing society. Is the time perfect? No it is not. Will it get better? No it will not. If we want to act, there is no time like the present.

Our rapporteur has shown that she intends to be flexible but, given our institutional system, we have to meet the Council half way. I appreciate the willingness of the Polish Presidency in at least having put the issue on the table again, but now the task will go to the upcoming Danish Presidency. I am confident that, by having a progressive approach, a country with a female Prime Minister has what it takes to move this dossier out of the pit it seems to be in.

  Astrid Lulling (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, as I said yesterday, when we discussed the agenda for this session, it seems utterly ludicrous to put this question to the Polish Presidency at this stage, here in plenary, when we are in the throes of the ordinary legislative procedure following the adoption at first reading of our report on reforming the Maternity Leave Directive on 20 October 2010.

Admittedly, the Belgian Presidency, the Hungarian Presidency, and thus far the Polish Presidency, have failed to establish a formal position in response to the report adopted here one year ago. This being the case, the Polish Presidency certainly has no mandate to answer these bizarre questions, some of which are proposals for compromise based on the text adopted at first reading. This is not the way to proceed, Mr President. The trialogue is the place for proposing and discussing compromise solutions with a view to reaching agreement with the Council at second reading.

The real question is this: why has there been no trialogue meeting yet? We all know the answer, which has been confirmed by the Polish Presidency. It is because the majority who adopted the report unfortunately fell into the trap set by the rapporteur, in that the report was so jam-packed as to rule out any dialogue. Now the rapporteur wants to back down on some points by means of an oral question to the Council. This is a strange way to behave; it disregards the new ordinary legislative procedure, undermines our standing with the Council and, what is more, has made us a laughing stock.

Had I been the rapporteur, I can assure you that I would have already initiated discussions with the Council, through the proper channels. The rapporteur’s question demonstrates a paucity of understanding: an intellectual deficit. I am very sad that I was unable to spare Parliament from this, but I am even more saddened by the fact that this means that millions of European mothers, present and future, have been waiting for over a year for maternity leave to become better protected, all because of certain populist and overly ambitious MEPs.

Those responsible for this situation, the rapporteur first and foremost, ought, at long last, to have realised that everything that is exaggerated is insignificant. The best solution would be for Parliament to withdraw this unfortunate report and for another person to be tasked with drafting a reasonable text …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, the European Union’s institutions consider that it should definitely be a matter of importance to ensure a minimum level of protection for mothers, especially by guaranteeing immediate maternity leave in the period after their child’s birth. The proposal for a directive also deals with protection in the workplace for breastfeeding mothers, the ban on dismissing women after six months’ maternity leave, the rules on adoption, overtime and night-shift work.

I urge the European Council not to use the current economic and financial crisis as an excuse to ignore the issues linked to the application of European legislation in this area, bearing in mind the need for a birth rate policy tailored to the real circumstances of families in Europe.

  Heinz K. Becker (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, back in 2010, there was a discussion involving all the groups which warned, among other things, about the burdens that are imposed in times of crisis. This may be even more applicable today. However, it is important that we make a clear commitment at a high level to maternity and paternity leave. Therefore, now is the right time to take a pragmatic approach. We must find the best possible solution using what is on the table in front of us.

One approach could be not to opt for the maximum solution, but instead to choose the best possible standard solution, in other words, a minimum standard which could be established from the bottom upwards, so to speak, for the whole of Europe, before we start to discuss extending it. However, it is also important for us to look in more detail at what is happening in the Member States. In Austria, for example, there is a separate law governing paternity leave. I am not yet confident that all these aspects will be adequately taken into account. Until now, the focus has been exclusively on the provisions for maternity leave. In other words, in the current situation, we must investigate the proposals pragmatically and calmly and work actively towards a dialogue between Parliament and the Council.

  Iliana Malinova Iotova (S&D). – (BG) Mr President, I wish to begin with a word of thanks and congratulations to Ms Estrela because, for several years, she has been defending this such important directive with a great deal of determination and tenacity. I also want to tell you, Ms Estrela, to ignore the criticisms from Ms Lulling because she is expressing just her opinion. I can assure you that no one in this Chamber shares her view.

You have been defending this directive for several years, but this is precisely because the Council has not been able to find the time for a year to respond to this directive and adopt it. Even though our position in the European Parliament is still crystal clear today, we are again inclined towards making compromises, with the sole purpose of doing something good for families and mothers in Europe.

Unfortunately, there has been no response from the ministers. Motherhood is an expense for Europe’s governments, but we regard it as an investment in the future. In a year or two, Europe will have dealt with the economic crisis, but I wonder whether it will have dealt with the demographic issues so quickly and easily. The provision of better maternity conditions is not a policy for obtaining money, but an opportunity for a better career, for more work, which is also more productive, and for giving children a better upbringing. All of these are prerequisites for the European economy’s competitiveness.

We have had enough of restrictions in Europe because this is a path leading nowhere. We must improve maternity conditions and encourage the families who want to have children, and not add to their insecurity and fears. We already have positive examples of this, such as the practice followed in Bulgaria. For four years, mothers have been receiving in the first year 90% of their last salary; in the second year, the minimum wage, and nothing only in the third year.

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE). – (NL) Mr President, we do not need to have a debate to try and persuade each other as to why maternity leave, long maternity leave and paid maternity leave are necessary. We all know that debate. What now needs to be done is to get the debate afloat again.

We could do that in two ways. Either the Presidency concedes to Parliament that it has asked for far too much: ‘I will fix it at 18 weeks, I will eventually be able to introduce that, but I will leave out paternity leave’. That was actually the proposal Ms Plumb put forward in the Committee on Social Affairs at that time, a sensible proposal. That is a possibility which Member States can sound out.

The second possibility is that you, with the Commission – and I do not actually see anyone from the Commission here – can withdraw the proposal. If the Commission withdraws the proposal, they can come back with a new proposal. I do wonder actually why we have not taken that course. As the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), we have said: ‘You are asking for too much, and if you ask for too much, we will fail’. That has now happened.

However, there are two possibilities and I ask the Presidency to come up with a new initiative. Come up with a new proposal where you will be asking for less. Take another good look at Ms Plumb’s proposal, which was unfortunately outvoted by the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, and then come back to us. I think that we really can find a solution.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). - (SK) Mr President, we have called many times in Parliament for the legislation currently in force relating to pregnant employees and parental leave to be improved, and for measures to be adopted for improving the balance between work, private and family life. Women should be able to balance their obligations better, thus strengthening equal opportunities between periods of maternity leave, and also between women and men in terms of working life, working conditions and the labour market.

In my opinion, an extension of maternity leave would definitely have a positive impact on the health of the mother, and would help women make a better recovery from childbirth and build a stronger relationship with their children. Longer leave and stronger rights for women returning to work after leave would also, among other things, surely contribute to equal opportunities on the labour market. We should also bear in mind a fact that is even enshrined in the text of the directive, which is that women should be protected from discrimination based on pregnancy or maternity leave, and should have access to adequate means of legal defence, to ensure compliance with their right to dignified working conditions and a better work-life balance.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I would like to thank Ms Estrela for her work. To be honest. I do not understand the concerns of many Member States with regard to the costs of extending maternity leave and paying a full salary.

Indeed, in my view, the economic crisis should not be an excuse to sweep aside fundamental rights. As a mother, I know that it is essential for women to be able to count on maternity leave also because, for cultural reasons that are hard to eradicate and a lack of adequate child care, women are responsible for over 80% of the care of elderly and disabled people, as well as their children, with inevitable consequences in terms of employment and career.

In addition, the growing phenomenon of single mothers, which we talked about yesterday and today, should not be underestimated since single mothers account for 85% of single-parent families. The phenomenon is also a matter for further concern because only 69% of single mothers are employed and, on average, 18% of single mothers only work part-time, which means that single mothers are a category more at risk of poverty and unemployment.

I will conclude by saying that, in my view, maternity leave forms the foundation of the reconciliation between family life and professional life. Therefore, we certainly cannot take a step backwards on this basic objective. Finally, I would like to add that leave should obviously not be restricted to women, but that fathers must also be able to take up this opportunity.

  Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I heard and appreciated the heartfelt tone with which the Council representative introduced this debate. However, I must say that genuine problems unfortunately remain, despite the care and respect shown for Parliament.

Non-implementation of the directive results in a number of serious consequences for the health of mothers and children, for the respect for people’s fundamental rights, which have been built over a long period of time, and, in my view, also has negative effects on employment. I do not understand how we can achieve the EU 2020 goals unless we have tools to increase the rate of employment of women, starting with the directive on maternity and paternity leave. It will also not be possible to tackle the falling demographic trend, often cited as one of Europe’s future problems, unless concrete action is taken to support families that decide to have children.

Therefore, we need to make an effort to rapidly make this directive a reality and, allow me to say so, this topic of the difficulties caused by the crisis really does not stand up. Do we think the crisis will last forever and therefore we are not going to defend women and motherhood now? Do we think that priority choices do not need to be made in the crisis and that everything is blurred together? If we believe in the goals that we have written down, we need to indicate what the priority policies are, even in the crisis. In my view, this is one of them.

  Sabine Verheyen (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank Mr Mleczko for his very clear description of the current situation. We have constantly heard in this debate that it is all about improving the position of working women who decide to have a child. In my opinion, the directive is focusing too closely on increasing maternity leave to 20 weeks. Do we really believe that the decision to have a child can be reduced to an issue such as 20 weeks’ maternity leave? As the mother of three children, I am very well aware that it is important to have overall packages and good provisions in place for families, in order to have a positive influence on the decision to have a child and to create equal opportunities for women.

The current draft directive does not even come close to doing justice to the different provisions and overall packages in some Member States, some of which are very good. We need flexible solutions which take into consideration the situation in the Member States and in society and the resulting needs of women. Maximum requirements and wish lists will not resolve the problem in this case. Therefore, we in Parliament firstly need to establish a sound, realistic basis for negotiations. Comprehensive maternity benefits and the welfare of children must be given the highest priority. We can ensure that this is the case using different methods and models. People who are intent on getting their own way regardless will not necessarily achieve their objectives more quickly. A lack of willingness to compromise does not open doors or build bridges. A moderate proposal would be a better solution to providing improved maternity benefits and making progress in this area.

I believe that we must start looking for another approach on the basis of the Commission’s draft directive which offers more flexibility for different concepts in individual Member States in order to significantly improve maternity benefits and protection for children in the first few months of life. This will not be possible with the current draft which has not had broad support, as some Members have made clear today. I would like to see a little more flexibility, more realism and a greater focus on what the Member States have already achieved, without calling our basic requirement into question.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, the achievement of balanced demographic development in European society and 75% employment of women, as set out in the Europe 2020 strategy, requires the adoption of measures to protect mothers with children who are in work. The substantial ageing of European society and the lower birth rate show that the personal care of children by mothers is not sufficiently valued in the current legal and social environment. Nonetheless, according to all available medical knowledge, personal care is essential for the healthy physical and psychological development of infants in the period when they are beginning to notice their surroundings and the mother is their main source of security, emotion and, last but not least, also sustenance.

I personally believe that women should have maternity leave for at least 20 weeks with regard to birth and caring for the infant, and this period ought to be extended if the woman gives birth to more than one child.

  Phil Prendergast (S&D). – Mr President, this is a timely question from Mrs Estrela, and I would like to thank her. I have been a midwife for over 20 years and I have heard some very discriminatory remarks here this evening. In Ireland, we have a good level of maternity leave and also an option for eight weeks’ unpaid leave, but the situation for fathers is nowhere near as good. They have no entitlement to paid leave at all. Fathers, in fact, can be very badly treated in the justice system across the EU, and workers in general have made huge sacrifices through cuts in pay, hours and allowances. It is time that we recognised this and granted fathers paternity leave.

19 EU countries already have paternity leave, and making a statement of intent to extend this meagre entitlement to fathers is the right thing to do.

  Ulrike Lunacek (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, I have listened to most of the debate and I feel the need to express my amazement at some of the points made. I am astonished when I hear in particular the Conservatives in Parliament from the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) saying that it will be too expensive, that the European Parliament is asking for too much and that we should tread more softly and moderate our demands. At the same time, it is those very Conservatives who are constantly saying, for example in Austria, the country where I come from, that they are the party of the family and of business. I have to ask myself whether they have not yet understood that proper maternity benefits and enabling fathers to spend time with their children right from the beginning also brings benefits for business. It results not only in happy children and happy families, but also motivated employees. So, please take this seriously and establish a real party of the family.

I would also like to say something about the statement that Parliament should not ask for as much. I would like to demand of the Council that it at least …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) Mr President, I admit I am concerned that the European Council has so far failed to formulate its position on revising the Maternity Leave Directive. The European Parliament has done everything to make the revision of the directive fit into the current period, and for this legislation to contribute to better care for mothers and infants by the state. The EU is ageing and slowly dying, and the position of the European Parliament is therefore natural and right, revising the current legislation to extend maternity leave, increasing contributions and enabling fathers to have paid leave for infant care as well. If some Member State representatives think that better care for mothers and infants when they most need it is a large burden for their countries, they should also say how they want to address current demographic developments, and how they want to secure the future of their country without children. Without good care for women during the period of maternity, Europe will not have children, and without children it will have no future, and that would be terrible, in my opinion.

  Dimitar Stoyanov (NI). – (BG) Mr President, we have a saying in our country which goes: ‘Let us stop splitting hairs’. The calls which we have heard in the Chamber, in other words, Parliament’s readiness to conduct some compromise negotiations with the Council on reducing the duration of maternity leave below 20 weeks is ‘hair-splitting’.

This leave cannot be less than 20 weeks. This is not really a very great requirement; it is not even a minimum requirement. I will finish what my colleague, Ms Iotova, was not able to say. In Bulgaria, 100% paid leave is given for 410 days, along with another year on the minimum wage. I myself am currently expecting my first child and I can tell you that, if the amount of fully paid maternity leave had been less, I would not have managed to convince my wife for us to have this child right now.

Therefore, Mr Mleczko, tell us whether you will submit this issue for a radical solution, or will the Council continue to beat about the bush in a populist manner?

  President. – Congratulations on your forthcoming fatherhood, Mr Stoyanov.

We have reached the end of the catch-the-eye session with this speech, in a debate that I think has been one of the most fascinating that I have ever chaired. I am sure my male colleagues will not be offended if I say that, whenever our female colleagues are in the majority in speaking, the debates are usually extremely interesting.

I am going to give the floor to the President-in-Office of the Council, Radoslaw Mleczko, so that he can conclude with his response to the speeches that have been made on this important issue in their entirety.

  Radosław Mleczko, President-in-Office of the Council. – (PL) Mr President, I would like first of all to offer a little criticism of myself and apologise to you for the fact that I overran my time slightly when making my initial statement. This happened for two reasons: first – very mundanely – is the fact that this is my first appearance in the European Parliament; second – more importantly – is the fact that I was having to condense the careful study I have made of measures which have a beneficial impact on work-life balance, pro-family measures and measures which are intended to help mothers return to work in 27 Member States. Please believe me, it is a huge lesson in humility.

It also results in the conviction that when we talk about the length of maternity leave and the level of related allowances, we should and it is our duty to take into consideration the traditions and experience of the Member States and also the fact that this experience is based on a directive which is already in place, the possible revision of which we are talking about here. Of course, I could talk endlessly here about those changes. I would ask you, Mr President, to cut me off in a moment if I do not curtail my comments.

All the more therefore, I would like to thank Ms Estrela and Parliament for putting their questions to the Presidency and for the opportunity of taking part in this debate which, I am sure, is going to be of enormous significance for the further development of work on this dossier, regardless of whether the end of this work will be reached during the Polish Presidency or the next Presidency. We are in the Trio with Denmark and Cyprus. We are going to work together and share our observations and experience. In particular, I would like to note the fact that you have spoken here, honourable Members, about very specific proposals for a way out of the situation in which we now find ourselves. Proposals have been made for a return to the European Commission’s proposal, and there has also been consideration of the possibility of a new proposal from the European Commission and of the use of a ‘passerelle’ or ‘bridge’ clause, which could be the answer to a number of doubts. I would also like to thank you very sincerely for the respect you have shown for the existing tradition arising from the measures currently in place in the Member States and for what you have said about the fact that we have standards and are not starting from scratch and, what is more, that the current directive has given rise to traditions on which we can build the future. Thank you, too, for those remarks which pointed to the need for feasibility in the measures which would be introduced or proposed. Thank you for the encouragement to hold talks and seek optimal solutions, and also for the requests for new initiatives on the part of the Presidency.

For me – as the person responsible for work on this directive – the conclusion which has come from our debate is simple: objective analysis of all the arguments which were heard today and immediate contact with the European Commission and my colleagues in the Council.

  President. – Mr Mleczko, I should like to inform you that there is no formal time limit on the length of speeches by either the Council or the Commission, other than that imposed by prudence and a sense of just measure. Naturally, I should recommend the exercise of both virtues, but there is no time limit on your speech.

The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I am extremely glad that the oral question on extending maternity leave was raised this evening by Ms Estrela, as it is important to follow up on the vote that we had on this issue just one year ago. It is certainly a very ambitious vote, which received a large majority in favour of increasing the minimum maternity leave to 20 weeks on full pay as well as paternity leave. Thoughts on the matter are relatively fluid, given that Member States were granted a certain flexibility regarding the principle of the bridging clause. That said, I regret that we have heard very little from the Council since then. Of course, our Parliament must be realistic and take into consideration the current economic crisis. I would therefore suggest maintaining the principle of full pay but that it is phased over two stages: extending maternity leave firstly to 18 weeks, and subsequently to 20 weeks. I would like to thank you but also remind you not to overlook adoption leave.

  Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The lack of agreement to the European Parliament’s proposed revision of the Maternity Leave Directive testifies to the short-sightedness of certain politicians and the fact that they are being guided by current and narrow economic arguments. We need to look at achieving a work-life balance and promoting gender equality in the labour market from a broader perspective.

The decisions we make today will have long-term consequences. Europe is facing not only a financial crisis, because before long, it will also be facing a demographic crisis. Europe is getting older, and therefore what we have to do is to create the kind of measures which would make it easier for families to decide to have and bring up children. The lack of such measures will, in the future, affect labour markets and insurance and pensions systems. This is why maternity leave, the guarantee of a return to work after taking maternity leave, and paternity leave are so important. Rejection of the European Parliament’s amendments will be seen as offering an economic advantage, but it will be a short-sighted advantage.

We have to think, today, of the future of Europe. We must also remember that the proposals contained in the report are intended to facilitate the furtherance of fundamental European values – the equality of women and men and the absence of discrimination in the labour market.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Extending maternity leave to 20 weeks raises significant issues. First of all, such a measure would entail substantial costs, amounting to EUR 2 billion a year for France alone. As a woman, and a committed activist, I cannot help but wonder whether extending maternity leave by so much would do more harm than good to women. Distancing them further from work runs the risk of them losing skills, could increase the period of underpaid work, and thereby compound gender inequality when hiring. Furthermore, does anyone need reminding that in France, where they give 16 weeks’ maternity leave, the birth and fertility rate is one of the highest in the European Union? France was one of the first countries to introduce active measures to support families by developing child care facilities, crèches, and measures making it easier to reconcile work and family life. The French example has much to offer. In my opinion, it is these kinds of measures that go in women’s favour that we should be focusing on.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. – (ET) I consider it extremely regrettable that the Council has not hitherto managed to take a position regarding the Pregnancy and Maternity Leave Directive (92/85/EEC). I understand that this is a complex matter, taking into consideration the financial crisis and the differences between Member States, but if negotiations commence between Parliament and the Council, it will be possible to achieve the required compromise. Europe’s demographic future is not encouraging, and having discussed this situation already in 2008 in this same hall, we passed a resolution calling for measures in connection with the duration and protection of pregnancy and maternity leave, convinced that a corresponding policy would be able to influence the birth curve, creating a financially and psychologically favourable environment for families. We have spoken a great deal about the equal opportunities and equal rights of men and women in the labour market, and it is clear that longer maternity leave and also paternity leave create better grounds for this.

IN THE CHAIR: RODI KRATSA-TSAGAROPOULOU
Vice-President