Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-03-Speech-4-049"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
dcterms:Language | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030703.4.4-049"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:spokenAs | |
lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, first of all I should like to thank, most warmly, the rapporteur of this report on gender budgeting, because it seems to me that, thanks to this document, we are taking an important step forwards, as Mr Solbes-Mira has just said. The rapporteur has explained that countries both outside and inside Europe have already been applying the practices of gender budgeting. Therefore I hope, Commissioner, that we will keenly support this report.
I should like to say, to the Member who believes that we are being ideological when we discuss this question, that this is an economic question. If I take as an example the issue of pensions, which affects most countries in Europe and, in the last few months, France in particular, gender budgeting enables us to make a diagnosis of the situation. We discover, for example, that while the difference in wages between men and women is 25%, that difference rises to 47% as soon as retirement age is reached. That is the sort of diagnosis that this study enables us to carry out.
Having said that, this diagnosis is not sufficient, because the pessimists will say that that is going to cost us money. Economic equality between the sexes does cost money, whether it is professional equality or equality of retirement pensions, as is the case with many other subjects. I should like to remind those pessimists that it is possible to produce a different analysis of inequality between men and women, namely that it is economic inequality between men and women that costs money. A better analysis and a better practice of equality in financial matters would make it possible to reduce a cost rather than to increase it. I say this for the benefit of those who think that we are being ideological. They are wrong, because we are also thinking in economic terms when we consider this issue."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples