This therefore justifies the counterparties

MP villepiniste Hervé Mariton is the author of a report by the Group UMP of the Assembly entitled: "regain control on the issues of society."

Is it possible to delete or trim benefits related to maternity for the retirement of women

Non. Motherhood is an event which in fact causes a deterioration of career and which, Furthermore, ensures the survival of the retirement system. This therefore justifies the counterparties. Do not interpret foolishly the jurisprudence of the Court of cassation, the European Court of human rights or the notice of the dump. The principle of equality between men and women must not lead to in fact amplify real inequality in the flows of career and dismantle a piece of our family policy. The Government can start from the objective fact that only the wife and the credit for this one year of contributions retirement (on the two planned currently). It could furthermore "offer" quarters, this time without distinction to the woman or the man who stops working. I have the impression that these ideas are progressing to the Government, even though I am aware of the "Jesuitism" of the device to imagine.

Such a scenario would still penalize women resumed their activity at the end of their maternity leave...

It is a risk, and the likelihood that women lose is real. We are forced to pass through holes square without having defended early enough and strong enough interest, for the country, a family policy.

Is this a rebuke to the Government or Nicolas Sarkozy

I understand that the Government seeks to plug gaps "technical" opened by the authorities, but there is also a political battle to lead France and Europe: what is the intelligence of a family policy, his interest in the dynamism of the country and the survival of its pension system. The defence of family policy is a marker on the right: If we bow our electorate sanction us. Do not put our flag in our pocket! There are on this subject and on questions of society in general the need to regain control and more anticipate.

But there are various sensitivities in the majority...

Some, probably influenced by a vision individualist and consumerist society, wonder and promote for example support for the child rather than families. The problem will rest in the back on the "staffing autonomy" by Martin Hirsch. He is right to extend the RSA under 25 years old young people who work. But when he imagines a staffing autonomy, I am puzzled and frankly hostile if it of finance cropping on the allowances allocated to families whose children have more than 18 years. I prefer to help families make the autonomous youth instead of considering that it is the responsibility of the State.

On the retirement of mothers as well as on other aspects of family policy, is there not a temptation back on achievements to make savings

I think that there is no risk for PLFSS 2010. But there is a risk in the medium term, because the output of crisis will require drastic savings. If we do not reiterate that family policy is a basis of our model of society, it can be washed.

INTERVIEW BY ELSA FREYSSENET