5 Equal treatment of men and women in
employment
| (a)
(25579)
8839/04
COM(04) 279
+ ADD 1
(b)
(26806)
11865/05
COM(05) 380
| (a)
Draft directive on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast version)
(b)
Amended draft of the Directive
|
| Legal base | Article 141(3) EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Document originated | (b) 25 August 2005
|
| Deposited in Parliament | (b) 6 September 2005
|
| Department | Trade and Industry
|
| Basis of consideration | (b) EM of 29 September 2005
|
| Previous Committee Report | (a)HC 42-xxii (2003-04), para 9 (9 June 2004) and HC 38-ix (2004-05), para 4 (23 February 2005)
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | (a) Not cleared; further information awaited
(b) Cleared
|
Background
5.1 There are four main Directives on the equal treatment of men
and women in employment. They concern:
- equal pay;
- equal treatment in access to employment, vocational
training and promotion and working conditions;
- occupational social security systems; and
- the burden of proof in cases of alleged sexual
discrimination.
Each of the Directives has been amended and so the
legislation is dotted around in a way that is not helpful to employers,
employees, Member States and others.
Previous scrutiny of document (a)
5.2 In June 2004 the previous Committee considered
document (a), which proposes the consolidation of the four main
Directives with some amendments (the Recast Directive).[13]
Our predecessors saw merit in the proposal but shared the Government's
caution about some aspects of the draft Directive. They asked
the then Minister for progress reports on the negotiations and
a Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA).
5.3 In February, the then Minister sent the previous
Committee the text of the draft Directive annotated by her Department
to show the amendments which had been agreed by the Council in
December 2004. The Government was content with the amendments.
It also did not disagree with the Commission's view that the Recast
Directive would result in minimal additional costs for business.
But the Department could not reach a final view on this and complete
the RIA until it was known what amendments the European Parliament
might propose and if they would be accepted.
5.4 The previous Committee saw no reason to question
the Minister's view that the amendments were acceptable and was
content to await the RIA and a further Explanatory Memorandum
when the outcome of the European Parliament's consideration of
the proposal was known.
Document (b)
5.5 In July the European Parliament gave a first
reading to the Recast Directive and adopted a large number of
amendments. Document (b) sets out the Commission's views on the
amendments.
5.6 Most of the amendments are minor and are intended
to clarify the text or add emphasis in some places. The Commission
can accept nearly all the amendments in whole or part, subject
to some drafting points. However, it rejects the remaining amendments.
Document (b) sets out the reasons.
The Government's view on document (b)
5.7 The Deputy Minister for Women and Equality at
the Department of Trade and Industry (Ms Meg Munn) tells us several
of the European Parliament's amendments would result in the Recast
Directive placing additional burdens on Member States and employers
and are unacceptable to the Commission. Others would insert references
to Directives which were never intended to be part of the Recast
Directive (for example, references to the Parental Leave Directive
and the Pregnant Workers Directive). The Council and the Commission
intend to resist those amendments in negotiation with the European
Parliament.
5.8 The Minister says that the next step will be
for the UK Presidency to open negotiations with the European Parliament
with the aim of reaching a common position She will send us a
further Explanatory Memorandum after those discussions.
5.9 The Government prepared an interim RIA in May
2004. The Minister says that it will not be possible to reach
a final view on the impact of the Recast Directive until agreement
is reached on the text but the Government continues to believe
that the financial implications are likely to be small.
Conclusion
5.10 We are grateful to the Minister for her Explanatory
Memorandum. Throughout the negotiations on the Recast Directive,
the Government has been punctilious in keeping us informed of
progress.
5.11 We see no reason to differ from the Commission's
and the Government's views on the amendments proposed by the European
Parliament.
5.12 We take the Minister's point that a final
view on the impact of the Recast Directive cannot be reached until
after the negotiations between the Presidency and the European
Parliament. But we need to see the Government's Regulatory Impact
Assessment and we ask the Minister to provide it as soon as possible.
5.13 Document (b) reports the Commission's views
on the European Parliament's first reading amendments and we see
no need to keep it under scrutiny. We shall, however, retain document
(a) under scrutiny until after we have received the Regulatory
Impact Assessment and considered the further Explanatory Memorandum
the Minister has promised on the negotiations with the European
Parliament.
13 See headnote. Back
| 
