UK cautious on social measures

Date: 26/06/1997

CONCERN is growing at what some diplomats see as an attempt by the UK to retain a de facto opt-out from the EU's social chapter.

Experts say London's approach to the current negotiations on the burden of proof in sex discrimination cases could be setting a worrying precedent.

Although the UK cannot formally play a part in social chapter negotiations until the Amsterdam Treaty is ratified, EU leaders agreed last week to allow it to sit in on talks from now on and said every effort would be made to take its views into account when framing legislation.

London has already put forward two objections to proposed new rules placing greater responsibility on employers to prove their innocence in sex discrimination cases.

One of the changes requested merely asks for reference to be made to a 1991 directive on the treatment of pregnant women. But in its second objection, London is effectively asking to be exempted from the new law before it has even been passed. “If they are allowed to join in the negotiations, try to wreck them and then ask for a derogation, this does not prove to us that they really want to join,” said one national official.

London argues its objections to the proposal are based on common sense. A 1983 UK law outlaws discrimination based on sex, race or disability, but the criteria for proving discrimination differ from those in the proposed EU directive. The government says it would have to change part of its law to comply with Europe-wide rules on sex discrimination while leaving the provisions on race and disability intact - an unnecessary and time-consuming legal process.

Social affairs ministers hope to reach initial agreement on the burden of proof rules tomorrow (27 June), although a couple of sticking points remain.

Eager to help their new British partner, they are expected to tack a clause on to the directive allowing for member states' differing legal systems to be taken into account. But legal experts question whether this would survive a challenge in the European Court of Justice.