Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-10-18-Speech-1-068"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20101018.13.1-068"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:translated text
"Madam President, now I know how to go about changing and extending one’s speaking time. The Committee on Employment and Social Affairs has called for 18 weeks’ maternity provision, which is four weeks more than was amicably agreed in Germany. The Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality has called for 20 weeks on full pay plus two weeks’ paternity leave plus extension to self-employed workers. What has been completely pushed into the background is the fact that 20 weeks will cost France an additional EUR 2 billion per year and the UK an additional EUR 2.85 billion, according to statements by the Commission. For Germany the additional costs are estimated at around EUR 1.7 billion. Sometimes, you have to think of the costs. We recently had a joint study by the EMPL and FEMM committees that was drawn up with numerous errors. Payments such as Germany’s maternity allowance were not included. The reference framework for German parental allowance was incorrect. The cost estimates commissioned by some Member States were not sufficiently taken into account. You cannot make responsible policy on such a basis. Germany is exemplary: during the parental leave period, two thirds of salary continue to be paid for up to 14 months. This extends 14 weeks of maternity provision to up to 170 weeks. This makes Germany a European champion when it comes to protecting infants, and consequently, it needs an exemption clause in this directive. This is why I have tabled an amendment, together with 50 of my fellow Members from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), which is supported by the European Conservatives and Reformists and large parts of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe. Our aim is for sufficient account to be taken of national systems. We hope that a majority of this House will support this call for reason to prevail in the vote on Wednesday. We want mothers to enjoy adequate protection; but if such protection is carried too far, specifically for ideological reasons, this will represent a major obstacle to women’s employment – which is something that we must remove, not encourage."@en1
lpv:videoURI

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph