Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-12-15-Speech-5-029"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001215.2.5-029"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the report which we are discussing here bears the attractive title, "Towards a Europe for all ages – promoting prosperity and intergenerational solidarity", and concerns the Commission's communication on this matter, which is already one and a half years old.
Our Committee on Employment and Social Affairs worked very hard to table its very long motion for a resolution. At my advanced age I am, of course, pleased that it says in the motion that the vast experience and skills of older people need to be used; this means that even when people are over 75 they should not be consigned to the scrap heap.
As part of efforts to combat discrimination on the basis of Articles 13 and 137 of the Treaty, there is a campaign for measures to be introduced to ensure that older people are no longer excluded from the workplace, which is actually saying that the obligatory age limit and also compulsory early retirement are discriminatory.
In this context, the Commission is then even called upon to draft a proposal for a directive which should make it possible to combat discrimination specifically on the grounds of age. Obviously we need to be careful that we do not contradict ourselves in the many long resolutions which we adopt here. You see, on the one hand, we are saying that we wish to use obligatory age limits to get rid of the elderly so as to free up jobs for young people, but, in other areas, we are almost demanding the abolition of obligatory age limits. I do not necessarily think that all women should go out to work either, because we are after all calling for the labour force penetration rate of women to be increased through changes in family and tax policy. I do not believe that all women – or all men – should have to go out to work if they decide to have a career break or to stop working in order to devote themselves to their family. Family and tax policy should be designed to ensure that men and women who have family commitments are free to decide whether they wish to go out to work or not.
I am glad, however – and Mrs Flemming referred to this case of discrimination – that women are no longer discriminated against in this way now. When I started working for the unions I was told that I would be dismissed if I were to get married. As a result I am unfortunately still single today!
If we really want to do something for older working women, then the pension companies in the Member States should be called upon to rectify the disastrous consequences of the wage discrimination which women were exposed to until 1975 by virtue of the fact that they were paid – entirely legally – only 80 or 90% of men's wages. They should be called upon to eradicate this discrimination, which has a knock-on effect on the pension, by using 100% of a man's salary at the time as a basis for calculating the pension.
This really would be a good thing, and in so doing the consequences of such dreadful discrimination would be removed. I have one final point: I should like to distance myself from paragraph 18 of the motion for a resolution. Surely we cannot call upon the Member States to undertake the task of caring for people in nursing homes. I believe that it is for the Member States to decide – in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity – how to resolve this problem, whether it be through a nursing insurance scheme or in other ways. I will, of course, be voting in favour of the report, but I thought it important to clarify these points."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples