AMENDING THE 1976 EQUAL TREATMENT DIRECTIVE
(21473)
10382/00
COM(00) 334
|
Draft Directive amending Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions.
|
| Legal base: |
Article 141 EC; co-decision; qualified majority voting
|
| |
| Department: |
Education and Employment |
| Basis of consideration:
| Minister's letter of 11 April 2001
|
| Previous Committee Report:
| HC 23-xxviii (1999-2000), paragraph 3 (1 November 2000) and HC 28-iii (2000-01), paragraph 5 (17 January 2001)
|
| To be discussed in Council:
| 11 June 2001 |
| Committee's assessment:
| Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision:
| Cleared |
Background
7.1 The last time we considered this proposal
(in February), we did not clear it, urging the Minister to press
for amendments which would make it more consistent with the final
version of the Race Directive,[5]
and asking to be kept informed of progress, both generally and
in respect of some specific provisions. The Minister for Education
and Employment (Baroness Blackstone) has now written to Lord Brabazon
of Tara, addressing our concerns, as well as those raised by our
sister Committee in the House of Lords.
The Minister's letter
7.2 One of our concerns related to the definition
of indirect discrimination. The Minister updates us on the Government's
view, saying:
"You will be aware that
the two leading options are to use the older definition in the
Burden of Proof Directive,[6]
or to use the more recent definition in the Article 13 Race and
Employment[7] Directives.
From the purely gender perspective, there are advantages of continuity
in remaining with the Burden of Proof Directive, but from the
broader equality perspective, there are advantages of consistency
in using a common Article 13 definition. As I said in my earlier
letter, the arguments are finely balanced; either option would
be acceptable to the UK. However, I have sought the views of key
players in the UK about which definition was preferable, and there
is a majority (though not unanimous) opinion for the Article 13
definition.
"In the light of these responses, and the comments
of others (including the Scrutiny Committee's own preference for
the Article 13 definition) the Government's opinion is that the
balance tips in favour of using the Article 13 definition. Whether
or not this is something of which we are able to persuade other
Member States remains to be seen."
7.3 The Minister also informs us of the
progress she has made in regard to the mainstreaming[8]
provisions. She says:
"The Committee will
recollect that I was concerned about the way that the Commission
had framed the mainstreaming article, as it was far from clear
what we might actually be required to do. The UK has proposed
an amendment within the Working Party on Social Questions, which
would make clear that the obligation lies upon Member States to
mainstream gender into all laws and administrative policies (rather
than a general requirement which might have covered all UK employers).
This is in line with the Government's commitment, when legislative
time permits, to place a duty on the public sector to promote
gender equality. This amendment seems to be gaining some support."
7.4 The Minister tells us that support is
also growing for including provisions on direct discrimination
and on victimisation in the Directive (two further areas on which
we had asked for information). She assures us that the Government
is arguing for their inclusion in order to make the protection
provided by the Equal Treatment Directive comparable with that
provided by the Race Directive, and that it is pressing for consistency
between the measures wherever practicable. She does not update
us on the provisions relating to post-dismissal situations.
7.5 Finally, the Minister reports on the
likely timetable for the proposal, and to the Committees' wish
to see a revised text. She says:
"As you are no doubt
aware, this dossier is co-decided. The Parliamentary opinion is
not now expected before mid-May. This may result in a further
depositable text, if the Commission produces a revised text in
response to the Parliament's opinion. But the production and content
of such a text is entirely within the Commission's gift, and there
is no obligation upon them to produce a text. Even assuming that
the Commission does so, it is possible that any such text might
not reflect all the issues currently being negotiated between
the Member States in the Council's working group.
"Political agreement on a common position is
a priority for the Swedish Presidency, and the timetable set by
the European Council in Stockholm may strengthen its determination
to reach agreement in its June Council. The timetable between
the adoption of the Parliament's First Reading Opinion, the possible
production of a revised proposal by the Commission and a political
agreement on a common position at the June Council is thus likely
to be tight.
"In these circumstances, you may rest assured
that I shall do my utmost to keep you updated on progress."
Conclusion
7.6 We thank the Minister for her helpful
letter which has addressed almost all our concerns. We are pleased
to learn that the Government now agrees, on balance, that the
definition of indirect discrimination should be consistent with
that in the Race Directive, and trust that its view, as well as
its amendment on mainstreaming, will win the day.
7.7 We are not at all happy, however,
with the information about the tight timetable for this measure.
It is far too reminiscent of the situation which arose over both
the Race and the Employment Directives. Once again, it appears
likely that a final text which differs considerably from the one
we have seen will be agreed without our being able to scrutinise
it.
7.8 Given the satisfactory nature of
the Minister's response, we clear the document, but with some
reluctance. We trust that the Minister will do all she can to
keep us informed of progress.
5 (20831) - ; see HC 23-vii (1999-2000), paragraph
4 (2 February 2000) and HC 23-xix (1999-2000), paragraph 2 (24
May 2000). Back
6
Directive 97/80/EC. Back
7 (20801)
13540/99; see HC 23-vii (1999-2000), paragraph 4 (2 February 2000),
HC 23-xix (1999-2000), paragraph 2 (24 May 2000) and HC 23-xxiv
(1999-2000), paragraph 1 (12 July 2000). Back
8 The
integration of equal opportunities in all Community and Member
State policies and actions. Back
|
