UK calls for time on discrimination plan

Date: 05/06/1997

By Simon Coss

PLANS to introduce Europe-wide rules to shift the burden of proof in sex discrimination cases could be blown off course by the Union's newest convert to the Maastricht Treaty's social chapter.

Social affairs ministers will discuss European Commission proposals to place greater responsibility on employers to prove their innocence in discrimination cases at a meeting next Thursday (12 June).

But diplomats say the new UK government has asked for time to study the plan before deciding on its stance - and claim London has already expressed concern about the content.

When the proposed new rules were brought forward last year under the Maastricht Treaty social chapter, the UK's former Conservative government took little interest in them as its opt-out meant it would not be bound by anything agreed.

That changed with the election of the new Labour administration, which has pledged to sign up to the social chapter as soon as possible. “Because they were not part of the Social Protocol, they never spoke up before. Now they want more time to study the proposals,” explained one Council of Ministers insider.

Publicly, the UK is at pains to stress that it has no particular problems with the proposed directive. “This a directive we can live with. It is all good stuff,” said one social affairs expert.

But diplomats from other member states say London has privately expressed worries that it will be difficult to incorporate the rules into national legislation. “They are not happy, to put it mildly,” said one.

The Commission this week expressed surprise at reports that London might have misgivings. “We are baffled by their position since what is being proposed reflects procedure in the UK courts,” said a spokeswoman for Social Affairs Commissioner Pádraig Flynn.

As things stand, there is very little London can do, beyond relying on the goodwill of EU partners, to influence the talks.

But if the UK were to sign up to the social chapter using a 'fast-track' approach (rather than waiting a possible two years while the updated Maastricht Treaty is ratified), it might be able to exert some influence over the closing stages of negotiations.

Late last month, London circulated a letter to Union colleagues calling for just such an approach, suggesting a separate agreement be concluded at this month's Amsterdam summit “which would simply amend the existing wording of Protocol 14 [the social chapter] to make it clear that it applied to all member states”.

Most EU governments have indicated that politically they would have no problem accepting such a solution, but some suggest there could be legal hitches as the weighting of votes would have to be reassessed to take account of the newcomer.

Ministers face a further problem at next week's meeting because the Commission has refused to amend its proposal. Many delegations object to the fact that its plans envisage extending the rules to cover discrimination in social security and pensions systems. Italy is keen for social security systems to be covered by the directive, while most other delegations are not.

It is still hoped that the Council will be able to agree on a common position next week, but the Commission's stance means a unanimous agreement will be needed.

If there is a deal, it will have to be scrutinised by the European Parliament. MEPs have already indicated that they think the scope of the directive should be wider and may amend it before passing it back in a form member states are likely to find unacceptable.

To change it back to some-thing they could live with, governments would have to reach unanimous agreement on the rules for a second time. By then, the UK could well be on board, altering the delicate balance between member states once again.