Et VOILÀ, Madame Lenin!
Both Glenis Wilmott and Mary Honeyball voted against the Pregnant Worker?s Directive (20 weeks maternity leave on full pay), arguing that it was always clear that the Council of Ministers (national govts), who have ?co-decision? on all legislation, would never agree to pass it.
Glenis: ?It was ambitious and it was good, and we supported the principle - but we knew it wasn?t going to get any further, and what was the point of that? It?s great to grandstand - you can grandstand as much as you like - but it doesn?t improve the lives of women. Now it?s stuck in the Council of Ministers, and it?s going nowhere, which is exactly what we knew would happen.
Glenis also said that the proposed legislation would only benefit mothers on middle and higher incomes: ?When we worked it out, lower paid women would actually have been worse off under the proposals. We didn?t think that was right, we didn?t think poorer women should have to pay the price of the changes, we thought everyone should benefit.?
Both thought that 16 weeks? paid leave would have been more likely to pass, despite ongoing rumblings of discontent from UK businesses:
Glenis: ?With Equal Pay they said exactly the same thing, with the minimum wage they said exactly the same thing - and they?re bound to because they?re thinking of their own interests.
?But if you?re serious about the position of women and their families, what is the point of giving them maternity leave if you don?t give them the pay? Most women wouldn?t be able to afford to take advantage of the leave if they don?t get paid.?
On the wider subject of the Gender Pay Gap, Mary Honeyball called both for more legislation and for keeping the subject firmly on the agenda: ?[The Equal Pay Act] was fantastic legislation but I?m not sure it?s still doing its work.
"And it?s not just a question of equal pay for work of equal value, because the sorts of jobs that women do - for example care work ? tend to be lower paid. It?s a cultural thing and quite difficult to do, and when times are hard it?s even more difficult. It?s just one of those things that you need to keep talking about so that it gets into the public consciousness.?
Glenis pointed out that the resolution on female poverty called on member states to address the fact that this inequality extends into old age: ?The people who lose out the most are single [mothers], and older women ? because they have lower pensions than men. The fact that you?re lower paid also makes you a poorer pensioner ? women are coming off much worse all round."
She said it was debatable whether this kind of inequality was better tackled by Europe, or by member states themselves: ?I don?t mind whether it?s tackled at an EU or national level. But will it be tackled if we leave it to member states? This is why EU legislation is so important. If it?s done at an EU level, then it?s done across the board.?
Mary Honeyball: ?UK governments haven?t particularly wanted to [legislate for equality] - it?s come from Europe. That was particularly true in the Eighties, and I suspect it?s going to be true again now.?
She called for much better childcare provision in the UK: ?Women can?t go back to work if there isn?t anything that?s reasonable and affordable for their children. It?s quite straightforward really.
"Scandinavian countries are absolutely brilliant. They have massive social security budgets, but a different attitude: they think it?s important, so they?re prepared to pay for it. What I think we need is to turn it around, and say to government: ?this is important, and it matters for the economy. If you have people at work, you?re generating wealth through tax revenue ? it?s all good??.
Next up: quotas in the private sector