EU Increase maternity leave 2nd reply

For completeness here is Catherine Bearder MEP reply to Bill Bloggs letter 'EU increase maternity leave policy'

 

Dear Bill,

Thank you for contacting Catherine regarding the vote last week in the European parliament on the revision of the pregnant workers directive. Catherine forwarded me this email and asked me to respond on her behalf and also pass on her good wishes. She hopes to be getting down to Bracknell soon. If you have any questions for Catherine in future it is best to contact her via catherine@bearder.eu rather than her cix account, which she is phasing out and doesn't check as regularly.

 

Catherine did not support the amendments you refer to. Her Liberal Democrat colleague in the European parliament Liz Lynne MEP tabled amendments to the proposals by the European Parliament's Women's Rights and Gender Equality Committee, calling for full pay to be taken out of the report. This directive was always intended, quite rightly, to provide minimum standards to protect pregnant workers and women who are breastfeeding, but some of the amendments in the report went further and did not take into account the different traditions of Member States. For example, some countries have maternity leave, some have paternity leave as well, and some have parental leave. This leave is paid in totally different ways and at different rates – some from the social security systems, some from businesses and some are a mixture.

 

Whilst Catherine supports the original purpose of the directive, her view is that we can only really impose minimum standards at EU level and it should be for Member States to go beyond this if they wish. This legislation is intended as Health and Safety legislation for women at work.

 

Catherine is, as you are, concerned about the enormous costs associated with the proposed changes and was pleased that a second, more detailed impact assessment was carried out in to the Women's Rights Committee's amendments which between now and 2030 would cost some €121 billion.  As I said before, the extension of maternity leave could cost the UK €3 billion (£2.5 billion) each year. This is a staggering amount at a time when we have to stabilise the economy and deficit after years of mismanagement and waste by the Labour Government.

 

The amendments as voted through by MEPs last week could have a significant effect on businesses and particularly small businesses that are struggling to fight the effects of the recession.

 

This is still the first step in a long negotiation process and now the text will go to the Council of Ministers for their consideration. I believe that the UK's coalition government will not approve these proposals as it would have a negative impact not only on the UK but other Member States also.

 

Thank you once again for contacting Catherine and I hope this response has been of use to you.

 

Yours sincerely,

Mark Wheeler

Office of Catherine Bearder MEP

EU - Increase maternity leave policy

BillBloggs writes another letter.

A letter to Liberal Democrat MEP's Catherine Bearder and Sharon Bowles.

Dear MEPS,

I am appalled!

Here we are in a major recession with major cuts in Government expenditure, half a billion jobs to go in the public sector hence the need to rely on the private sector to create more jobs - and what do the bloom'in EU want to do? Hang another millstone around the necks of both public and private sector employers with increased maternity leave payments!

AND - that is on top of the EU wanting a 6% increase in their budget for which the UK would have to pay nearly a billion pounds a year more towards!

I do hope that neither of you two voted for any of this????!!!!!!

Personally, I would welcome more cuts to child related benefits in the UK, including maternity leave! Why? Because there are 6.8 billion people on this finite planet of ours already.

Many of them in the richer countries are consuming at the rate of 2, some even 3, and a few even at 5 planets! By 2050 there is projected to be 9 -10 billion people on our planet - i.e. 50% more - all of whom will still be seeking to get richer by yet more economic growth - and thus to be able to consume even more limited resources.

Yet, we are also supposed to be cutting CO2 emissions globally by well over 50% by 2050.

Yet, every new human arriving on our planet between now and then will be adding to those emissions...............And those arriving in the wealthier countries, like the UK and the rest of the EU, will consume a lot more and emit a lot more CO2 than those arriving elsewhere.......So, how is this going to work then?

I ask you, arguing from the standpoint of Sustainability and Climate Change alone, should the EU/UK be encouraging childbirth by increasing maternity leave benefits?

Why exactly is it being proposed?

The most common argument I hear in favour is that we need to encourage more children so that they will pay for better pensions for us when we get old That is based on the logic of the madhouse.

They will all grow old and want even better pensions too, so we will need ever more people ad infinitum - which is clearly unsustainable on a finite planet. This is a ponzi scheme.

It is worse than pyramid selling!

When we in the UK are already stressed by an overpopulation problem, caused chiefly by immigration, this argument makes no more sense than to suggest that we need to increase our numbers so that we don't get outnumbered by immigrants!

Perhaps the real reason behind all this is the EU want more new citizens so as to increase their budget still further, and spread their member states national debts upon?!

Arguing from the same standpoint, I would now like to put several questions on child based benefits in general to you;

Should we really be encouraging families in the UK to have more children by offering parents child based benefits that increase with the quantity of their offspring? So, in principal, shouldn't we move towards stopping all child based benefits after the first child?

Clearly this can only be done gradually from where we are now in the UK. The coalition have made a start, thankfully, but have merely scratched the surface! (How many £billions/annum would that save when we finally got there?)

Therefore, apart from helping all parents universally for their first child, it seems to me that (were we able to go back to the beginning again rather than starting from where we are now!) the only absolutely fair, perfectly reasonable and logically sound reason to assist parents financially beyond that is solely on the basis of need. The state should be acting as a taxpayer funded charity organisation, only upon the unexpected loss of employment or unfortunate onset of ill health etc - when and while the parents are struggling to support themselves, let alone more children than their first child. Such assistance should never ever be provided indefinitely except in extreme cases.

Might you agree with this supposition, in principle at least?

I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on these matters!

Yours sincerely,

Bill Bloggs

 

And a very speedy same day reply from Sharon Bowles MEP Office;

Dear Mr Dowling,

Thank you for your email.

Sharon did not support amendments in the Parliament to the Pregnant Workers Directive which sought to provide 20 weeks full time maternity pay. While she supports moves for increased gender equality and for the safeguarding of pregnant women's rights in the workplace, these amendments are just not financially viable to introduce at this time in the economic recovery.

The implementation in the UK alone is estimated to cost close to £2bn. This is not only very costly for the UK, but to impose this stipulation across the European Union is unfair on those Member States who do not have the budgetary resources to support it.

Further to this, implementing this particular amendment during a time of economic constraint may lead to increased discrimination against women securing jobs as maternity leave packages would cost employers more than ever before. Sharon has met with the Federation of Small Businesses on this matter who estimates each pregnancy will cost employers on average £7000.

Thank you once again for contacting Sharon and I hope this response has been of use to you.

Yours sincerely,

Constituency Office Manager

Office of Sharon Bowles MEP, Liberal Democrat Chair of the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee Member of the European Parliament for South East England

 

Posted on behalf of Bill Bloggs who is a member of the

www.optimumpopulation.org and Green Peace

Unfair Competition for UK and EU IT Workers?

IT workers have been subject to usually high competition from lower paid professional Non EU Workers (mainly Indian) within their industry. I expect this is not the only industry that is affected the same issue. This is of course an issue for all the EU nations but the UK seems to be effected by this problem to a higher extent.


This extract of a letter to Andrew Mackay Bracknell MP from A Bracknell blog reader explains the problem quite well;

Despite the worsening economic climate and the wave of redundancies affecting IT departments across all industry sectors, 35,430 UK work permits were granted to non-EU technology workers during 2008. Relocation of staff to the UK by companies with offices based in different countries represented around 80 per cent of work permit applications issued last year.

According to APSCo (Association of Professional Staffing Companies) the recession and a more restructive immigration system introduced in 2008 has “barely dented the influx of non-EU foreign IT workers coming to the UK”.

The intra company transfer system is being massively abused to bring in Indian IT workers at lower than local market rates.

Some company's "UK" staff must consist almost entirely of company transfers e.g. providing services to other companies and directly replacing local UK staff. Offshoring sucked the blood from the UK economy from the outside, this is doing it from the inside.

Indian work permits are harder to get than UK ones, shorter and need to applied for again if you exit the country. Other countries like Germany put a minimum 40k on the salary to avoid undercutting local rates and ensure the skill is in demand and unavailable (rather than a cheap replacement).

Would you agree with my view that the British Government should now seek to protect the British workforce as other countries protect their nationals. Inward investment is commendable, but not at the expense of hardworking British families and those who choose to live here and engage in the British way of life.

If the UK government does not want to have many more families consigned to living on the dole something needs to be done. Our heavy industry has been destroyed, leaving Britain a service sector country. Now our services are being "out sourced" and "off-shored". The cost of living means we cannot compete on price with countries where the cost of living is lower.

Shouldn't the British government have a policy that if a non-UK business wishes to acquire a UK business, then they may do so only if they guarantee that a large percentage of the current British workforce will be maintained? There should also be a limit on the ability of UK businesses to outsource. Protectionist perhaps (only within Europe though), but how else can the British workforce compete, survive this economic crisis and retain a skilled workforce in a vital sector?

Why am I writing to you about this? I'm sure the UK is not the only nation in Europe to suffer from such an influx. So I would like to understand what is being done to address this issue and protect jobs for nationals primarily in the UK, but also across Europe. What is the Conservative party doing to address these issues at home and in Europe? Are you putting pressure on the current government to do something about it?


Of course I can not agree with protectionism as I believe in free trade but it appear to me that a number of things can be done, like enforcing the law with regards to work permits and ensuring that IT workers are paid at least the market rate so that UK/EU IT workers are not undercut and therefore a level playing field within the UK is ensured.

In another letter to Steve Webb (Lib Dem MP) by a different Bracknell Blog reader the more complex issues are examined.


As a UK IT worker, I am concerned that weaknesses in the current UKBA Point Based System (PBS) are leading to the undercutting and displacement of settled workers by non-EEA(European Economic Area) IT workers via employer sponsored tier 2 visas. The tier 2 Intra Company Transfer visa is the most used route for this purpose, and in 2008 alone there were over 35 thousand tier 2 ICT visas issued to non-EEA IT workers (mainly Indian nationals).

This route is not for shortage skills and it does not require any resident labour market test. The majority of these non-EEA IT workers are brought in by IT Service companies and sent to work at client sites i.e. they are not used internally by the sponsoring company.

I would like to know the Liberal Democrat position on the following:

a) the current main protection for UK settled workers is the requirement for employers to pay the "going rate". The UKBA set this rate for different occupations and it is typically set at the 25% percentile salary. This is too far too low to prevent undercutting and displacement, and is not aligned with allowing employers to bring in the "best and brightest" from the global pool of talent. I believe the "going rate" should be set at the median salary as a minimum, but the 75th percentile salary would better reflect the migrant worker's status as "best and brightest".

Should the "going rate" be set much higher?

b) the new PBS has been operating for almost a year and from 5th October employers have been able to request next year's allocation of certificates of sponsorship (COS) i.e. they must estimate how many tier 2 visas they will sponsor in the next year and request that allocation of COS's from the UKBA. The biggest users of tier 2 visas (other than the NHS) are IT Service companies.

Many of these companies have made UK employees redundant in the last year.
Should companies that have made UK employees redundant in the last year be allowed to bring in large numbers of non-EEA workers?

c) I have a great respect for the UKBA and its difficult and growing role. The recent Migration Advisory Committee report on "Tier 2 and Dependents" mentioned the issue in resourcing the policing of the tier 2 system. It was intended to be self-policed by employers, who are also one of the main economic beneficiaries of the system. The UKBA need more resources to uncover and tackle abuses. In the US, there is a $500 "Fraud Prevention and Detection Fee" added to employer sponsored visa application charges.

Should a "Fraud Prevention and Detection Fee" be added to UK tier 2 employer sponsored visas?

d) The inability to find specialist skills in the UK is often quoted by companies as a reason for sponsoring non-EEA workers. These same companies either do very little training of UK staff or have been cutting training. In the US there is a $1500 "Scholarship & Training Fee" added to employer sponsored visa application charges. This is invested in training US citizens in shortage skills.

Should a "Scholarship & Training Fee" be added to UK tier 2 employee sponsored visas?
There are a number of misconceptions propagated by employers benefiting from sponsored visas for non-EEA IT workers (primarily tier 2 ICT visas for workers from India), and I hope some of the following will help debunk these:

a) Employers can't find people with the right skills in the UK...

No. The sector skills council has stated that there are no skills shortages in IT. Independent research by academics such as the highly respected Professor John Salt of UCL has shown that the vast majority tier 2 ICT IT workers are junior staff with standard IT skills. In the US, they have 4 "skill" levels for H-1B "employer sponsored visas for skilled workers" and 80% are at the lowest level (i.e. only have a couple of years experience) and the biggest users of H-1B visas are the same IT Service companies. The real issue for these companies is that they cannot find people with the right skills that are willing to work at below average salaries.

b) At least the workers are paying taxes here...

No. the large IT Service companies get dispensation from HMRC so they do not pay income tax or national insurance in the UK as long as they stay for less than 2 years. The employer also avoids employer national insurance contributions, the median stay is 18 months (according to NASSCOM).

The MAC report on "Tier 2 and dependents" said: "We were also told that, currently, an employer can issue a three-year certificate of sponsorship while the employee simultaneously tells HMRC that he or she is coming to work in the UK for under two years.

We understand that it is common for immigrants in receipt of allowances to claim that they intend to stay in the UK for one year and 364 days."

This probably costs the UK in the order of £1/2 billion in taxes every year, and the migrant workers gets free primary healthcare and education for their children.

c) Allowing multinational companies to transfer workers from offices around the world makes the UK an attractive location for businesses to invest, and creates wealth and jobs in the UK.

Yes, it does. Most companies transfer a small number of senior managers and unique specialists between offices, and this must be allowed under the GATS agreement. However the intra company transfer route was never intended as the main source of employees, nor as a route for supplying services to clients "onshore". Some large IT Service companies have 4 times as many tier 2 ICT workers in the UK as permanent UK employees. Unlike "well behaved" users of the system, many of the large (primarily Indian) IT Services companies do not invest much or create many jobs in the UK. In fact research by many sources (including Professor John Salt) has pointed out that many of the "tier 2 ICT" IT workers from India are brought across to learn the job in the UK from the UK workers and then the job is outsourced to India and the UK workers are made redundant.

d) if we reduced the number of non-EEA IT workers allowed to work here, then the work would just move offshore to India, and it is better to have the workers doing the job here
It is at least 3 times cheaper to do the work in India. The only reason the work is being done in the UK is because it cannot already be easily outsourced/offshored. As the workers do not pay taxes but consume resources in the UK, it is probably better for the UK if they were offshore.

These letters were provided to me by the IT workers who could not get a response from their various MP's see here. They are frustrated because they feel as if nothing is being done, therefore I decided to publish their letters to get the word out there on there behalf.

This story is also related to the report on Lloyds bank here who are being investigated by the Border Agency

EU Referendum IN or OUT Not Happy

Today on the Daily Politics BBC2 show ex Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell said "When the issue of whether or not there should be a referendum on Lisbon came up then we said it would be much more sensible to have a referendum on 'in or out' but the Lisbon Treaty is now history."

Nick Clegg confirmed that we would keep this pledge during the Liberal Democrat annual conference (I remember I was there). But now the position is not clear. Was Sir Menzies Campbell simply wrong or are the Liberal Democrats withdrawing the EU In/Out referendum.
Apparently this was one of the reasons why UK Independence Party thought a hung parliament would be a good thing as a coalition could of led to a chance for a referendum according to Lord Pearson.

Today on BBC 5 Live Nick Clegg said "The only way to sort out the debate about EU membership was to have a referendum in this country as to whether we stay in or stay out. What we can’t do is to be a member of a club and complain about it from the sidelines." So what is going on? I hope the Liberal Democrat stance is clarified soon.

I don't believe this is a vote winner especially after the conservatives withdrew their cast iron promise. This is a policy we should keep and if the Liberal Democrats don't then I for one wont be very happy about it!

Mark Reckons has blogged on this very point and I could not agree with him more see Lib Dems should not ditch the in/out referendum pledge

Is the Electorate Anti EU as a Whole?

Is a high proportion of the electorate within the UK anti EU?

David Cameron was very clear this a.m. in The AM Show - he wants to stay in Europe. He was adamant that the UK must not leave the EU. He specifically said he does not want an in/out referendum, he did not even indicate that he would work to get back some powers (his previous stance), only that he would bring in a bill to bind any UK government to hold a referendum before ratifying any future treaty. That is in line with France, Ireland, Denmark, etc.

The statement: It is a fact that a high proportion of the electorate within the UK are anti- EU is not necessarily true. It is true of Sun & Mail readers but not necessarily of business people. Financially it would be a disaster to come out. The trouble is these people have not made the case for staying in whereas Rupert Murdoch and some sections of the Northcliffe group have been allowed to brainwash the non-thinking electorate.

I don't personally feel the recent choosing of officials was a farce. It was possibly undemocratic BUT this is another case where the British media take words that are similar to one in English and translate them wrongly. They did it previously by translating federation as 'federation' rather than its true meaning 'confederation' (and most of them don't even know the English meaning of that word!). This time they have translated président as 'president' rather than 'chairman' which is the more usual French use of the word.

If this had been a pan-europe democratic ballot-box vote those incumbents would have been imbued with much more power. A real mandate, meaning an EU Federation brought much nearer which would certainly not be acceptable to the majority of UK citizens or other EU citizens for that matter. As it is they have limited power. It can be argued that it would have been more democratic if the elected MEPs had voted directly for these positions openly in the EU chamber rather than a ministerial deal at a closed door banquet but the ministers were from every member state.

This post was written by Old Biddy and is been posted here on their behalf by Dazmando

An EU Referendum Would Split the Tory Party‏

Conservative MEP's Daniel Hannan and Roger Helmer quit their frontbench posts to concentrate on campaigning for a referendum on Europe after David Cameron said it was pointless to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty now it has been signed.

The comments by a French government minister who branded the Tories' new European policy "pathetic" may even help them in the short term polls given how some people feel about the French.

I think the Tories are really making a mess of Europe given their new grouping in the EU parliament and the effect of this on there relations with the bigger European governments etc.
The Conservatives now have no strength in Europe to get any of their wishes through, like a having the power for a Sovereignty Act or to repatriate powers from the EU. I very much doubt the EU would consider another treaty within the first conservative term in office after the Lisbon Treaty and therefore won’t have any form of referendum.

I think Daniel Hannan and Roger Helmer are right to resign and campaign for a referendum to give the people a say as the Liberal Democrats would do. I also imagine that UKIP Leader Nigel Farage is trying his best to get Daniel to join his party as this really would be a great move for UKIP, if they could carry it off. I’m sure they would love too grab Daniel. Daniel Hannan also has a massive ground swell of support within the conservative party.

But the real problem for the Conservative party is that they could almost never hold a referendum on an in/out question on Europe. If they ever did, the leadership I guess would campaign to be in Europe but many of the grass roots would campaign to be out of Europe. In fact if this happened I could imagine UKIP gaining more activists from the Tory party during such a campaign then ever before. The same may also be true to a lesser extent of the Labour Party.

I actually think there are only two options if you really have given up on the European project and that's vote Lib Dem for a referendum or go the whole hog and vote UKIP.

Daniel Hannan Blog can be read here

Charlotte Gore makes a point that the Tories should stay quite on Europe here

Irelands Yes Vote a problem for both the Tories and Lib-Dems

The Yes vote in Ireland poses a real problems for the Tories and the Lib-Dems
Now that Ireland have voted yes to the Lisbon Treaty, I see that David Cameron is promising a referendum on the treaty IF the Poles and Czechs manage to delay ratification until he wins the GE.

I understand from press reports that ratification by Poland is imminent but that there is even some sort of undercover agreement with between the Tories and the Czech President to try to delay the Czech ratification!

If this ruse fails and it is ratified by all 27 members before the Tories win, then it seems to me that Cameron will still have to promise to run a referendum on the treaty in view of the strong euroscepticism in his party and throughout the country!

Goodness knows exactly how the Lib-Dems plan to play this EU situation now?

The simplistic IN/OUT referendum the Lib-Dems have said they will promise us in their Manifesto may not come across to the average voter as being much different to a Yes/No treaty referendum promise from the Tories.

So, presumably there are not many votes to be won by making such a promise now?
But, a No result in a treaty referendum after ratification would just mean the UK would be asked to run it again until we got a Yes vote - just like Ireland, wouldnt it?

What would that achieve, other than more chaos, ditherring and confusion - and a continued half-hearted UK commitment to the EU, with UKIP and the BNP becoming increasingly active?

Can the Lib Dems still steal some votes from the eurosceptics over this situation?

I think so, but only if the Lib-Dems offer a clear middle course option in their IN/OUT referendum!

I.E,

IN as the EU stands?

IN subject to a list of specific major EU reforms that they demand on behalf of us voters? or

OUT? if they don't get them!

Unlike both the Labour and Tory parties, this would show the voters that the Lib-Dems are not only very tough negotiators for the UK's best interests, but also that they really are truly a liberal, democratic and a progressive party - offerring the prospect of a real change for democracy in the UK.

In my view this, and only this 3 choices referendum, will lay the UK's EU membership issue to rest once and for all.

And it will prove to the voters that, while the Lib Dems may be broadly supportive of our EU membership, that thay really are constructively critical of many aspects our EU membership at the same time - as I have so often heard them claim!.

Okay, I say, Lib-Dems - prove your credentials!

Billbloggs

Please note: This blog post was post by Dazmando for and on behalf of Billbloggs as a guest post.

Can We Change the Lib Dem Manifesto on EU Membership?

EU membership?

It is a fact that a high proportion of the electorate within the UK are anti- EU.

But, do they really want the UK to leave the EU?

Let us assume that the Lib Dem party manifesto promises an IN-OUT referendum within one year of taking office.

Bearing in mind that they campaigned for such a referendum at the time of the Treaty fiasco in the Commons last year, I think they will lose much credibility if this quietly disappears!

Would this make enough of us inclined to vote for them, and might they actually be elected as a result?

They would declare themselves as being pro-EU and would be campaigning for an IN vote, so it would certainly seem a two edged sword.

Personally, I think it would win them considerably more votes, but not nearly as many as a far more meaningful referendum would.

What if the majority of the electorate really do want us to stay in the EU, but far too many of them will vote for OUT simply because they do not like the way the EU functions at present, nobody seems to listen to their complaints, and the only choice being given is IN or OUT?

What if they really only want to see the way the EU functions reformed?

Why not offer the electorate a referendum that involves two leading questions -:

Do you want the UK to leave the EU? - YES or NO

Do you want the UK to stay in the EU, but wish to see the EU reformed? - YES or NO



During the run up to this referendum the reforms desired by the electorate would become clear, and the UK would be at far less risk of a much feared protest vote for OUT.

In my view, the most democratic party out there, the one laying claim to be doing the most to reform the workings of the EU, should take note!

Billbloggs

Please note: This blog post was post by Dazmando for and on behalf of Billbloggs as a guest post.



Billbloggs has send in an email request to Nick Clegg for him to answer the above question on Sundays Q&A session with him at the Lib Dem Party conference, Billbloggs has also sent a letter to the Lib-Dem news on the above subject for publication.