Mumsnet goes to the European Parliament: your thoughts?

[KateMumsnet]

To mark the centenary of International Women's Day, Mumsnet has been invited to the EU Parliament for a rummage about. So we're off to Strasbourg, in a (possibly doomed) attempt to figure out what impact, if any, this labyrinthine institution has had on the equality of women here in the UK.

We'll be sitting in on a special IWD parliamentary session, where MEPs will be discussing what's been achieved to date to further women's equality across Europe, and debating what the next steps should be. The gender pay gap, the vexed issue of maternity leave, the lack of female decision-makers in business and politics, and the grim figures for female poverty across the EU are all on the agenda.

We'll be frantically trying to make sense of it all as the day unfolds; and with a bit of luck and a following wind we'll collar a couple of MEPs and policy bods along the way to answer your questions, and feed back your views.

So, whether you're entirely au fait with the EU's inner workings, or your heart sinks at the very thought of it, do post your questions, observations, gripes or suggestions here, and we'll try our best to get to the bottom of it all.

Ah, just to keep you on your toes!

omg I love that video link. Godfrey Bloom looked a wally. I turned him into a french-speaking woman half way through for the fun of it

I'm back in good old Lunnen Town! Had interesting convos first thing this morning with Marina Yannakoudakis, Mary Honeyball (both on the Women's Rights and Gender Equality committee) and Glenis Wilmott (tabled the resolution against formula manufacturers being able to make marketing health claims for synthetic DHA in follow-on milk).

A bit pie-eyed now, so I'll update on all that tomorrow. My schedule for this evening involves bedtime stories, take-away curry, The Killing on iPlayer and possibly a large glass of wine or three.

V briefly: it's been a really interesting trip. I arrived woefully under-informed, and I'm still woefully under-informed; but I get it a bit better now.

A bientôt, mes amis!

tribpot, that's so true haha! How can they not argue against the high salaries if they're serious about the EU being a bad thing.

Sounds like you had a blast, Kate

This is eye-opening Kate! Just marking place to return to later for a more thorough read.

But bloom!! how on earth could he be on a gender issues board? He is a dinosaur.... and his opinions are outrageous (not just about women either)

So ? a drip-fed selection of chewy bits from the meetings I had yesterday.

First up, Conservative MEP Marina Yannakoudakis, who voted against the proposal to extend maternity provision to 20 weeks on full pay.

Marina says that she doesn?t object to maternity pay (!) but to the form the directive was presented in. She says women have a right to choose, and they should be helped if they choose to return to work - but argues that the proposals were too rigid for today?s economic climate, and that if they?d been applied, companies would simply employ fewer women.

I put ForkfulOfTabouleh?s point that, under the current system, companies claim back SMP ? she responded that the directive hadn?t been clear on whether that would still be the case. If it had been, she might have viewed it differently.

She thinks companies should be encouraged to give the best terms that they can, but that this must be flexible. She wasn?t very keen on principal on further legislation: ?I like to see companies being able to run themselves as much as possible, but with the minimum standard that already exists. We don?t want to go back to the old days.?

Marina spoke very firmly against boardroom quotas in the plenary session: ?We?ve got to win the business case, we?ve got to get there because of our own hard work. Things are improving slowly. I?d rather get there slowly, and get there firmly, than have some man sniggering in the corner saying we?re only there because of a quota.?

She herself made the point that women have got to be twice as good as men to reach the top, but didn?t accept that this logically implied widespread discrimination, and was therefore a matter for legislation.

?You can legislate to a certain degree, but we are getting there under our own steam. There is already basic legislation ? how well is it working? That?s what you?re asking.? On parliamentary quotas, she gave the example of David Cameron ?putting women at the front? ? but said that after that, it was up to them to get themselves elected.

StillSquiffy and Wills: I asked Marina what she thought could/should be done to enable women to return to top level roles by encouraging companies to reduce working hours. She talked about running her own company for 25 years, which she says was 24/7 by necessity.

But ?you don?t have to do an 80-hour week. You only have to do the 80-hour week if you want to be at the top - you could choose to be at different level that suits you at that stage of your life. Different stages, different needs. It?s very personal, it?s not a matter for govt. Govt is there to support, but we have to make our own choices.?

Also asked Abr1de?s question about why we needed an EU Parliament at all. Marina thinks there are many many areas that the EU shouldn?t be interfering in at all. ?I think there are issues like employment that we can deal with better at home. But we no longer live in an island that stops at the channel. We have to think more widely.?

She cited a whole range of issues which didn?t respect national borders, and therefore had to be dealt with at an EU level ? trafficking, child abuse, internet grooming, counterfeit medicines, for example - and she was also keen on portable restraining orders for women who?d suffered DV.

Interestingly, she suggested that we were fortunate in the various protections we enjoy in the UK, and that other member states weren?t so lucky. ?Do we have a corporate obligation to spread our good practices? That?s an EU role.?

She was very critical of the wastefulness of moving the whole shebang to Strasbourg once a month (a decision made at government level by member states), but like others I spoke to she attributes the attitude to Europe held by a good chunk of Brits to the flow of negative stories in the press. ?Wherever I?ve been, people are sceptical, when I leave people often say ?okay, there is a role for us ? not necessarily the role we have now, but there is a role, and there are things we can do with this institution.?

On being MEP and mother, coping with travelling etc. ?It?s extremely difficult. I wouldn?t do it if I had a young child. My youngest is at university and I still find it extremely hard. It?s a trade-off - but I wouldn?t have done it if I had to sacrifice my family?

So there you go. Going off-radar for a bit while I mop up things neglected while I was pretending to be a hotshot journo in Strazza, but more from the others in a while.

Oh, SwallowedaFly, Meglet and others: single mothers featured heavily in the Female Poverty resolution that was passed on Tuesday ? just trying to get hold of a full copy for specifics. There?s also a more general report on lone parents underway which will be published later in the year, and will probably spur further resolutions.

this is really interesting, thanks Kate

NOt too keen on that Marina. I mean, it's clear that men are getting where they are because they're men, not because of hardwork, especially seeing as even Marina admitted they have to work half as hard as women to get where they do. I'm surprised they can look themselves in the mirror, knowing deep down that the only reason they managed to get in the boardroom was because they own a penis.

She sounds like the menz' perfect female politician

Hello all ? here?s a quick rundown of my convo with Glenis Wilmott MEP (leader of the European Parliamentary Labour Party).

I grabbed Glenis primarily to talk about the resolution she's tabled challenging the decision by the EU Commission to allow manufacturers to make health claims for DHA (an enzyme which is added to follow-on milk - there's a bit more detail further up the thread). Here are the key points that she made:

?They?ve been trying to get this claim through for some time, and it?s a marketing ploy. The research on synthetic DHA in formula milk is conflicting: some says yes it does [improve eyesight], some says no it doesn?t - it?s not conclusive. But there?s been no research at all on the benefits of adding DHA to follow-on milk, and since there?s been no research, I don?t see how there can be a health claim.

?For me the issue is, is this claim valid? And if it isn?t they shouldn?t be able to use it as a marketing tool. And if you can prove it to me, great! Put it in everything. But don?t try and mislead parents. They [the manufacturers] would argue that it is proven. But for every letter I get to say that it?s proven, I get another letter to say that it isn?t. So I think more needs to be done on it.?

She was very about the fact that this decision was made behind closed doors. ?We got the minutes and you can hardly read them [in part because they?ve been redacted to protect commercially sensitive information]. We know that some people voted against and others abstained, but it doesn?t tell you who. It?s difficult to get information - it?s not open and transparent. These people make the decisions, and you?ve no information and I don?t think it?s acceptable.

?People are saying that because this decision was made by people who know more about things than us, we shouldn?t question it. My view is that we?re elected politicians and we?re here to question and we?re here to scrutinize. If we think something isn?t valid, then that?s our role to question it, surely??

She used the issue to make the point that we can have an impact on issues which will affect us in the UK ? if we tell our MEPs what we want (they're voting on the resolution this week). And, like other MEPs I spoke to, she put what seems to be a certain, erm, reluctance in the UK to engage with the EU project in part down to ?a very Eurosceptic press. That?s not an excuse, it?s a reality.

"But it?s also our fault: we often use language people don?t understand, and we often talk about things that people aren?t interested in. There?s so much talk about institutional change and reform. ?What can you do to make life better for me and my family?? - that?s what really matters to people.?

Coming right up after the break: Glenis and Mary Honeyball MEP (also Labour) on why they didn?t vote for 20 weeks? maternity leave on full pay ? and the importance of the EU Parliament in driving equality.

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

Glenis and Mary sound quite sensible to me, think they're right about poorer women not having to pay, need to value caring work more and so on. Have I missed the point?

I guess there's a question over whether voting against the whole proposal was the best solution to the problem of low-paid women losing out. Might have been possible to ensure that they didn't lose out with amendments specifying a minimum for the low-paid?

Though of course that wouldn't answer G and M's other point that the 20-week proposal was doomed to fail at the Council of MInisters stage.

Following on ...

Mary talked about the difficulty that female high-fliers face once they've had children in the UK. She pooh-poohed Britain's culture of presenteeism, and said that 70-80 hour weeks were simply unnecessary.

European countries don't do that in the same way. In the EU Parliament for example, although we do late sessions here [Strasbourg], in Brussels you do office hours and people go at 6. We don't do a lot of evenings, in general people don't hang around. And the ones that do tend to be [the British]. So it's not necessary to do 70-hour weeks, whatever you do.

?We need to look much more at work life balance - but how you legislate? I?m not sure. We don't do it in the UK because we have an opt-out [on employment law], but most of the EU countries do now have a 48-hour week. But that wouldn't really help women in senior positions because you don't get paid, you just 'decide to be there'.

Both women were keen on the idea of quotas on private sector boards, citing Labour's all-women shortlists as an example.

Glenis Wilmott: 'It caused a lot of unrest amongst men, but amongst women also, because they felt it was patronizing. However, it did work. You have to have more representation and you have to be able to see them: until you see those women representing you. you don't think 'actually, I could do that job'. If someone can tell me a better way, fantastic - but I don't see one at the moment.?

Mary Honeyball: 'I'm a complete supporter of quotas ? I think it's the only way. It's no good saying 'we want more women in the boardroom'. If you want more women, you have to do something about it. In Norway they have 40% women in boardrooms, and it works very well - the economy hasn't collapsed and Norwegian industry hasn?t disappeared on the face of the earth.'

Courage, chaps! We're nearly there...

Here's the summing-up of my chats with Mary Honeyball and Glennis Wilmott, where we moved onto more general conversation about the EU itself:

On wastefulness, and Catinthehat2's question about why the EU has failed its audit 16 years in a row, Glenis suggested that a lot of Britain?s big government depts would also fail an audit of the same stringency. ?A lot of it isn?t about the institutions themselves, it?s about how the money is spent by member states. We should be demanding that all member states who have EU funding have to sign off the accounts to say that they money?s been spent properly. If we did that, we?d be in a much better place.

?If you listen to parts of the media, you?d think [Britain?s contribution to the EU] was half of the UK budget, and it?s not; it?s proportionally a miniscule amount. But that doesn?t mean we shouldn?t treat it with care, and use every penny properly - we should do, and have measures in place to make sure that happens.?

Mary made a more emphatic point about the redistributive function of the EU: ?We do still put in more than we get out, [but] whatever we think about the state of our economy, we are still one of the better-off member states, so it?s always struck me as a sound principle that you redistribute money to areas which aren?t so well-off. That may not be an argument that everyone subscribes to, but one of the things which we don?t talk about is that the EU does equalize wealth across Europe - and I think that?s a good thing.?

Like Marina Yannakoudakis whom I spoke to earlier on, they both felt a responsibility to spread equalities new and old to the parts of Europe which historically haven?t had the same protections as the UK. ?Even though things are bad at home, others have it worse. We need to we ensure that we have that reduction in the gender pay gap, and equality for women, across all the member states,? says Glenis.

And here endeth, for now, Mumsnet?s despatches from deep within the bowels of the EU Parliament. It?s been fascinating and boggling in equal measure - rather like starting a new school, where everyone but you is chic and soignée, and there's a mystifying set of rules that you can't quite fathom. My schoolgirl French failed me dismally, and at times so did my schoolgirl brain, but overall the experience was brill.

I?m aware that I haven?t managed to cover all the bases, so do feel free to prod me further. There are plenty more illegible scribbles in my notebook where that lot came from and if I don?t have the information you seek, it will give me an excuse to tap one of my (debonair/e and incredibly helpful) new Euro-buddies for the answers . Comme ils disent à Strasbourg ? ?Super!?