Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-10-18-Speech-1-064"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101018.13.1-064"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, in general, with time comes wisdom. Unfortunately, that is not the case with this second report, which was adopted by a majority in the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality and which we are discussing here in Parliament 17 months after the first report. In its present form, this second report is just as muddled, counterproductive and overloaded with texts that do not belong in a legislative act as the report that was referred back to committee in May 2009.
We have already wasted two years improving maternity protection. If we vote for this report as it stands, we will waste at least the same amount of time again debating with the Council in codecision, when the Commission’s initial 2008 proposal was reasonable. It guaranteed substantial progress in Member States in which the length of maternity leave and maternity pay are still below that which exists in some countries; rarely are we granted 20 weeks’ leave on full, uncapped pay, paid for by the state.
Let us not forget that, in this case, the aim is to establish minimum thresholds, and that we cannot impose radical solutions on the 27. Indeed, in order to encourage an employed and, above all, highly qualified woman to have children, it is more important for her to have the right to a shorter period of leave but on full pay than to have 20 or 30 weeks’ leave or more without a full pay guarantee. Not only are the proposals in the Estrela report counterproductive where women’s employability is concerned; they are also difficult for governments and businesses in certain Member States to finance. It is better today to take one real step in the right direction than to make a promise for the future, to be realised 10 years from now.
Personally, I shall not be voting for this report in its present form, and I call on all my fellow Members to reject all those amendments that have nothing to do with maternity protection, such as the provisions concerning self-employed workers. Barely four months ago, we voted in this House for a directive on maternity leave for self-employed workers.
The same applies to paternity leave, Mr Tarabella, and I am in favour. The Belgians can introduce 20 weeks’ fully paid paternity leave tomorrow if they have a government; there is nothing stopping them from doing so. Similarly – since this is another point to consider – the social partners are currently discussing a directive on paternity leave. Let us wait for them, and action will be taken on this matter as it was on parental leave: this is the right way to go.
I call on my fellow Members to vote in favour of the amendments restricting leave to 18 weeks and of the considered amendments, Madam President, tabled by your group and mine."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"(The speaker agreed to take a blue card question by Marc Tarabella under Rule 149(8))"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples