Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-05-Speech-4-011"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001005.1.4-011"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Minister, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am very pleased with the two reports being debated today: Mrs Dybkjær’s report on progress so far, and Mrs Eriksson’s on the future. I found them both enormously interesting. Today, I simply want to talk specifically about what these reports contain – our current objective as Europeans in terms of equal opportunities. What emerges from these reports is that it is difficult to move from theory to practice. Plenty of theory, plenty of fine words. No one is quicker than us to say these things or to come out with fine words, but practical results are a long time coming.
Why does this worry me? Because I think there is currently great ambiguity and awkwardness about equal opportunities in Europe. We want specific actions and we want mainstreaming. The two things are not easily reconciled and we could lose out on both counts. For example, at noon we will be voting on two reports on discrimination and equal access to employment which both exclude gender on the grounds that gender is covered by policies other than discrimination policy.
I find that position awkward and ambiguous, and I think that means more thought is required on the drafts you are presenting to us, because there is no certainty that all this will produce practical results. To take a very simple example, which we were just discussing three days ago in the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, are we talking about defending flexibility or about fighting poverty? Both are possible, but they are also contradictory, because we know very well that flexibility creates more poverty, and next week’s World March of Women will make that point.
So there are contradictions in our equal opportunities policy and I think we must be aware of that so that we can organise the future of our project better, or so it seems to me. Another example, also full of contradiction, is part-time work. It appears in today’s reports amongst the social rights. Is access to part-time work a social right? I have no idea, but I doubt it. On the other hand, there is also something in the reports which seems to me very important and which Mrs Dybkjær has placed well to the fore, as has Mrs Eriksson: the fact that in future we need to be concerned about so-called ‘derived rights’, that is, women’s social rights to autonomy.
What happens to a woman who has spent twenty years with a husband who then leaves her? What sort of pension will she get? Good question! What is her tax position? There is no equal opportunity, there is no real equality for women without autonomy and freedom as social rights, so that they can have control of their lives throughout their lives. I would like this subject, so strongly emphasised in our reports, to be one of our priorities from now on.
I now want to talk about enlargement, which is still, perhaps, one of my concerns. We are delighted that the Finnish Presidency has introduced indicators and I know the French Presidency wants to consolidate this indicator policy into an important institution. I am very pleased about that, I am delighted. But looking at the problem of enlargement, and here I will conclude, because the issue of enlargement worries me a great deal, yesterday we naturally voted in favour of the report on enlargement to a whole series of countries. But where, pray, are the conditions for women’s rights and equal opportunities in that enlargement? I am concerned about that and I urge the French Presidency to be concerned about it."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples