Employers’ organisations and a few member states have been falling over each other to predict economic doom if the European Parliament’s proposals for maternity leave and paternity leave were to be adopted. This is disappointing. We need to have a clear discussion on the pros as well as the cons. 

Click Here: Golf special

They have not realised sufficiently one of the key challenges that we in Europe face – in an ageing society, we need more women in work. And they have forgotten to read the most important financial part of the assessment of the proposal’s impact: female participation in the labour market needs to rise by only 1.04% to cover the proposal’s costs. Most of this small addition – 1.0% – is associated with the extension of maternity leave, while just 0.04% more female participation would be needed to compensate for introduction of paternity leave.

The Europe 2020 strategy – to which all member states agreed – envisages raising female labour participation from just below 60% now to 75% in 2020. Those who say that the Parliament’s proposals are too expensive are, in fact, saying that they have no faith at all in the Europe 2020 plans. They are saying that they will not be able to raise female labour participation even by 1.04%.

Recent research has proved that paternity leave leads to fathers taking on more caring duties during their children’s childhood. This sharing of the responsibilities of child-rearing gives women more time to work; two weeks of paternity leave will probably raise female participation by much more than the 0.04% needed to cover the additional costs. Paternity leave would also have other advantages. It would reduce the care gap between genders. It would enable more women to rise to decision-making positions. And it would answer one of people’s most basic urges – to stay as close as possible to their loved ones when they are in need.

Current research does not provide entirely conclusive evidence that maternity leave raises female participation in the labour market. However, empirical evidence shows that 20 weeks of maternity leave does not reduce women’s participation. One only has to look at Scandinavia’s experience to know that this is true. In addition, the opportunity for women to breast-feed for longer cuts healthcare costs for both mother and child.

The more generous leave schemes for women are, the less they feel that their working life is incompatible with having children. That is essential if we are to slow the ageing of our society. And, in an ageing society, there is no option but to invest in leave arrangements that enable men and women to combine, and share, work and care for young and old members of their families.

This proposal should be seen principally as just one element of the adjustments to prepare the European labour market for a future with fewer young workers.

This particular adjustment is not large. And, as opponents fail to point out, the proposals would entail little or no change for most EU member states.

These states should not let themselves – and the EU – be taken hostage by the UK and Germany, countries in which parents have weaker rights. Germany currently only provides 14 weeks of maternity leave, and no paternity leave at all. The UK offers paternity leave and a long, partially paid maternity leave (39 weeks), but after six weeks new mothers are paid only very little. This is all well and good for couples in which the woman has a small job on the side for fun, but mothers whose families depend on their income have to return to work just six weeks after childbirth.

A European directive would send out an important message: Mothers are more than welcome in the labour market, and yes, fathers are invited to share the care for their children.

The sooner we send out that message, the better. Even if we decide relatively quickly (by EU standards), these measures would not come into force before 2015. By then, the effects of an ageing society will be very evident.

Portuguese Socialist MEP Edite Estrela is the rapporteur on this dossier. Antonyia Parvanova is a Liberal MEP from Bulgaria.

As the famous British entrepreneur Alan Sugar once said, equality legislation, if taken too far, can actually reduce the chances of women gaining employment. Businesses are not allowed to ask women if they intend to have a baby, “so it’s easy – just don’t employ them”. His remarks were controversial, but they reflect the real world where employment markets are tough – a real world that politicians sometimes do not live in.

If we pass these proposals, we will not only reduce the chances of young women getting a job, but will also add significant new costs to businesses and our already cash-strapped public services. We will reduce a woman’s ability to choose the most appropriate maternity arrangements for herself. And we will encroach on the principle of subsidiarity, because there really is no case for forcing this through at a European level.

For a small business, the prospect of paying a member of staff for five months for producing nothing is ludicrous. Replacement workers, and the associated agency costs, are particularly expensive – particularly thanks to the agency workers directive. Small businesses want to be able to offer their workers time off when they have a family. When I owned a business, I gave my manager time off for paternity leave long before it was a legal requirement. However, the margins for many micro-enterprises are simply too tight right now; they need all hands on deck to stay afloat. Small businesses know that their staff are their greatest asset and, if they can afford to give them time off, many will.

Small-business owners faced with several qualified applicants for a post (and there is no shortage of skilled people looking for work at the moment) will think twice about employing a woman of child-bearing age.

The costs associated with this directive are enormous: €121 billion between now and 2030. We cannot afford it.

We only know these costs because the European Parliament finally conducted an impact assessment into its amendments. Had it not been for our demands, the proposals would have been passed without legislators having any understanding of the costs associated with them. Resolutions and reports from the Parliament constantly bemoan the poor quality of impact assessments conducted on European Commission proposals, so it was only right that we too looked in detail at the costs of our actions.

Women should be free to choose the maternity leave provisions that are best for them. Some women will want to give birth and return to work within a few days. Others will want to spend a longer period with their newborn. Some will want more time before the birth, while others will want to share the leave with their partner. These choices are reflected in the national maternity and paternity laws of each member state, with some providing long periods with staggered pay and others providing shorter periods on higher levels of pay. Unfortunately, we would no longer give women a choice. Instead of flexibility, we would have prescriptive EU law. How does that empower women?

I also fail to see how this law will encourage young women to give birth. A baby is for life, not just for 20 weeks. It is a huge financial and personal commitment and it should never be made on the basis of the maternity leave offered. Beyond this, I can see no other reason why the EU should legislate in this area: it does not add value, and it does not improve the functioning of the single market.

In framing any piece of legislation, we should always look at the unintended consequences of our actions. The sentiment behind these proposals is a good one: that women should be able to enjoy this important time in their lives and their children’s. However, the unintended consequences would be harmful for taxpayers, for businesses and, most importantly, for women.

British MEP Marina Yannakoudakis is the co-ordinator of the European Conservative and Reformists group in the women’s rights and gender equality committee.