Brussels, 12/10/2010 (Agence Europe) - Differing points of view over the costs and benefits of the introduction of 18 and 20 weeks of maternity leave and two weeks of paternity leave, both of which to be paid in full, were voiced by Members of the European Parliament and experts at the joint workshop of the committee on women's rights and the committee on employment in Brussels last week. At the centre of the debates was the impact assessment on the costs and benefits of extending maternity leave in the EU. Its author is Heening Thomsen of the Ramboll Consulting group.
Evaluation of the costs - Heening Thomsen argued that if more women were replaced during their maternity leave, thus maintaining production levels, costs would be lower and vice versa. Among the member states studied, the costs per birth varied from 0 to 5000 euros, depending on the initial situation in terms of salary and duration of the leave.
In the view of Edite Estrela (S&D, Portugal), rapporteur for the committee on women's rights, mindsets must be changed by legislation. Her opposite number from the committee on employment and social affairs, Rovana Plumb (S&D, Romania), wanted to know in which areas the proposal could be more flexible, to allow the member states a certain margin for manoeuvre. Referring to the issue of receiving full pay, Heening Thomsen replied that “this could be on 100% compensation, but I will leave this question up to the politicians”.
Presentation of the benefits - Mariell Juhlin (Matrix Insight Ltd) proposed a system to quantify the benefits, taking account of a number of decision-making criteria such as the health of the mother and children, the impact on the fertility rate and gender equality on the work market. Konstantina Davaki (London School of Economics) said that “concentrating too much on the costs may obscure other tangible benefits such as the effects on health, or socio-economic benefits such as the fertility rates. In order to have an overall impact on gender equality and poverty, a global approach is needed, taking into consideration all types of parental leave”, she added.
Marije Cornelissen (Greens/EFA, Netherlands) noted that the costs are presented with clear figures, which is not the case with the benefits. Ria Oomen-Ruijten (EPP, Netherlands) noted that there is no consensus on the results and that in terms of participation on the employment market it is possible to reach two diametrically opposed conclusions, depending on the experts.
Balance between costs and benefits - In the view of Thomas Mann (EPP, Germany), we should not just be talking about benefits. A balance is needed between costs and benefits in order to reach the right solution. Olivier Thevenon (OECD) said that the debate should not focus solely on the costs and advantages, because this legislative project presents different aspects. He agrees that there should be a balance between all elements. What if some countries have different types of leave, asked Edit Bauer (EPP, Slovakia). Konstantina Davaki agreed that it is very difficult to take account of all types of leave.
Impact on the employment market - Olivier Thevenon stressed the possible advantages (job security, income security) and disadvantages (tendency to treat men and women differently) of this legislation on the participation of women on the employment market.
Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR, UK) and Elisabeth Lynne (ALDE, UK) voiced their concerns at the effects of this legislative proposal on the employment of women, and particularly on the attitude of employers when hiring young women.
The vote on this dossier (legislative procedure, first reading) will take place next week at the plenary session of the EP in Strasbourg. (G.B./transl.fl)