Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-10-18-Speech-1-062"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2010-10-18"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding - Precarious women workers (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"fi"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20101018.13.1-062"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2010-10-18-Speech-1-0632
lpv:speaker	lp:Sari Essayah2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Union for the Mediterranean (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation for relations with Israel (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the Maghreb countries and the Arab Maghreb Union (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 unknown; Suomen kristillisdemokraatit (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 member; EMPL (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 member; EPP (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 substitute; ECON (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, in its votes, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality adopted a number of amendments to the Commission’s original proposal for a directive. Unfortunately, in its amendments, the Committee has completely ignored the principle of subsidiarity with regard to the allocation of costs. The attempt to harmonise the regulations on maternity leave in 27 different Member States has resulted in a muddled proposal. Furthermore, mixed up with it all is a proposal for paternity leave, which, under the legal basis, does not even fall within the scope of the directive, as the Commissioner clearly stated right from the outset, luckily. Paternity leave needs to be regulated in connection with the system for parental leave, and not in connection with leave in the sense of recovering from pregnancy or childbirth. The proposals put forward by the Committee on Women’s Rights also ignore the progressive maternity and parental leave schemes in other countries, including the Nordic countries. The Committee’s proposals confuse these parental leave systems, which offer freedom of choice at national level, and in certain respects, they would even detract from the welfare of mother and child. For example, under the Committee’s proposal, if mothers only begin the compulsory six week period of maternity leave after confinement, there is increased risk to pregnant women at the workplace due to give birth soon, as well as their children. Mothers who are almost due will not make it through to the end working an eight­hour day, and this proposal will result in more cases of sick leave prior to confinement. The Committee’s proposal ignores as compensation the national schemes under which maternity leave is closely linked to a significantly longer parental leave, because it does not happen on full pay. For example, in Finland, parents can look after their child at home until the age of 18 months, on average, and we can afford it, because at various stages, employers, workers and taxpayers, too, share the costs. If employers were saddled with the full amount, there is no doubt whatsoever that it would weaken women’s employment opportunities and do a disservice to women as employees."@en1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph