Verbatim report of proceedings

Monday, 12 March 2012 - Strasbourg

1. Resumption of the session

IN THE CHAIR: MARTIN SCHULZ
President

(The sitting was opened at 17.00)

  President. – I declare resumed the session of the European Parliament adjourned on 16 February 2012.

2. Statements by the President

  President. – Ladies and gentlemen, the Arab Spring began a year ago and brought freedom to many of our southern neighbours. In Syria, too, the people went out on the streets and demonstrated peacefully, full of hope for a better life, just as in the other countries.

We are seeing how a brutal dictator has set his face against freedom and instead decided on open warfare against his own people. More than 8 000 people have died in Syria this year and, as we are all bitterly reading and hearing about every day, the bloodshed shows no sign of stopping.

The people of Europe, of the entire world, are all aghast at the inhuman brutality of the regime and the trouble the international community is having in stopping these atrocities. The European Parliament is calling on President Al-Assad to at least allow in humanitarian aid for the civilian population.

I believe that you will certainly share my view that we should call on the international community to give its full backing to the joint UN-Arab League Special Envoy Kofi Annan in his difficult mission and to come together to campaign for humanitarian aid for the civilian population.

We are appealing, at the same time, for all the veto-holding powers on the UN Security Council not to make their dealings on the Syrian issue dependent on tactical political considerations.

Yesterday, once again, was the Day of Remembrance of Victims of Terrorism. Eight years ago, on 11 March 2004, one of the worst terrorist attacks ever to take place on European soil took place in Madrid. One hundred and ninety-one people were killed at Atocha railway station, and a further 1 800 badly injured. Today we commemorate all the victims of terrorism – from Madrid to London, from Bologna to Utøya.

We, the elected representatives of the peoples of Europe, stand shoulder to shoulder with the families torn apart by these barbarous acts, shoulder to shoulder with all those who have lost relatives and friends. Our thoughts go out to the survivors of terrorist attacks who suffer physical and mental wounds sustained in the attacks, many for the rest of their lives. The European Parliament definitively condemns all forms of terrorism.

In its unpredictability and cowardly anonymity, terrorism is one of the most repugnant phenomena of modern times. We will determinedly do everything we can to support the victims and the survivors of terrorist attacks.

Yesterday also saw Japan, and all of us, commemorate the tsunami disaster of 11 March 2011. One year on, we can all still see images of this terrible tragedy and the nuclear disaster unleashed by the tsunami. After adopting its agenda, the European Parliament will debate this event and its consequences as the first item today. In any event, at the beginning of our part-session today, our sympathy goes out to the countless victims of this terrible natural disaster and this enormous nuclear disaster.

I would be grateful if you would all begin this part-session by observing a minute’s silence, both for the victims in Syria and for the victims of terrorism and of this natural disaster.

(The House observed a minute’s silence)

3. Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting : see Minutes

4. Verification of credentials : see Minutes

5. Composition of political groups : see Minutes

6. Composition of committees and delegations : see Minutes

7. Signature of acts adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure: see Minutes

8. Documents received: see Minutes

9. Oral questions and written declarations (submission): see Minutes

10. Lapsed written declarations: see Minutes

11. Texts of agreements forwarded by the Council: see Minutes

12. Action taken on Parliament’s positions and resolutions: see Minutes

13. Transfers of appropriations: see Minutes

14. Petitions: see Minutes

15. Order of business

  President. – The final version of the draft agenda for this sitting, as drawn up by the Conference of Presidents at its meeting of 8 March 2012, pursuant to Rule 137 of the Rules of Procedure, has been distributed. The following amendments have been tabled:

Monday: no amendments.

Tuesday: the Committee on Legal Affairs has adopted a report by Ms Lichtenberger on the request for waiver of the immunity of Krisztina Morvai. This report will be included in voting time on Tuesday.

The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) has requested that Ms Quisthoudt-Rowohl’s report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending certain regulations relating to the common commercial policy as regards the procedures for the adoption of certain measures,

Does anyone want the floor in this connection?

  Daniel Caspary, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, at the moment there is no debate scheduled in respect of this report. This report relates to the Omnibus area of trade policy, and given that how we, as the European Parliament, implement our new and extra rights in the field of foreign trade policy in practice in the law is certainly a significant issue, we believe it is reasonable that we should also hold a debate on this in plenary. I would be very grateful for your support.

(Parliament approved the motion)

Wednesday: The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) has requested that a statement from the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the situation in Belarus be added to the agenda for Wednesday, after the debate on the situation in Nigeria.

  José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (ES) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, surely the deterioration of the political situation in Belarus, the problem of the political prisoners and the crisis that has arisen in relation to the EU ambassadors, which was analysed by the Foreign Affairs Council last Saturday, require that Parliament hold a debate on this issue. Therefore, Mr President, we call for a statement by the High Representative or, if she cannot be present, by the President-in-Office and, of course, by the Commissioner for Neighbourhood Policy and for a debate to take place.

Accordingly, Mr President, we ask that, on the basis of this statement, this matter be included in the agenda, together with a debate and a resolution.

(Parliament approved the motion)

Thursday: no changes to the agenda.

(The order of business was adopted)

  Francesco Enrico Speroni (EFD) . – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, during the Conference of Presidents I had called for the Vice-President/High Representative’s speech on maritime piracy to make specific reference to the case of the two Italian marines being held in India. I do not see it here, although I imagine that having taken such a decision at the Conference of Presidents, it will be done. Thank you.

  President. – Mr Speroni, it was decided during the Conference of Presidents not to change the title, but to ask Baroness Ashton to deal with the fate of the two Italians you refer to in her remarks. She was contacted and informed of this.

16. One year after Fukushima - lessons learned (debate)

  President. – Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the European Parliament has been asked to make a statement on the tsunami and the destruction in Fukushima. After my statement there will be a debate in the form of a round of addresses from Members speaking on behalf of the groups.

One year ago, on 11 March 2011, Japan was devastated by a triple disaster. First, an enormous earthquake, measuring nine on the Richter scale, rocked the country. Then, a tsunami with 20-metre-high waves laid waste to a 400-kilometre-long coastal strip. The next day, the first of three reactor blocks at the Fukushima Daiichi power station exploded. A nuclear meltdown occurred – the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl.

Today, we in the European Parliament are commemorating the 19 000 people who lost their lives, the thousands who lost family members and friends, the more than 340 000 people who had to flee radioactive contamination and all those who lost their house and home for ever.

The dignity with which the Japanese people reacted to this triple disaster moved the whole world. The bravery of the nameless heroes of Fukushima, who entered the reactor and laid down their lives in order to prevent worse from happening, touched us all.

The drive with which the population approached reconstruction impressed us all deeply. The Fukushima nuclear accident initiated a global debate about the safety and the future of nuclear power.

This contentious debate is one that also permeates this House. Every one of us must decide for himself or herself where they stand on this debate. It is a good thing, though – however contentious it may be – that we have that debate in this House. That is because, although the energy mix – the individual combination of energy supplies from different sources – and thus also the decision in favour of or against nuclear power lies within the competence of the Member States – in other words it falls within the sovereignty of the national governments and parliaments – there should still be a debate at European level.

After all, all of us in Europe are connected to the power grids of our neighbours. The energy decisions of one country have an impact on the lives of people in other countries. Ultimately, 30% of Europe’s energy supply is derived from nuclear power – and whether or not that is safe is something that affects us all.

While the earthquake and the tsunami in Japan were tragic natural disasters, the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl was man-made. Fukushima could have been prevented. That is the lesson that has to be learnt from this accident.

Leaving aside all differences of opinion between those who advocate and those who oppose nuclear power, there is one thing that is therefore undisputed, namely that we must do everything in our power to ensure the maximum possible degree of safety for nuclear power stations.

In contrast to many institutions, which merely discussed and debated after the tragedy, the European Parliament took action. We welcome the efforts made over the last year by the European Commission and the experts we have here in Parliament to make nuclear power safer.

That includes the voluntary stress tests carried out on 143 nuclear power stations in the EU in all 14 Member States in which nuclear power stations operate. The Commission will be submitting its final report on this in June.

Allow me, at this point, to reiterate my demand that nuclear power stations that fail the stress test must be withdrawn from the grid immediately. I cannot imagine that it makes sense to carry out a stress test and then to continue to operate any nuclear power station that does not pass that test.

I also welcome the report on nuclear waste that we adopted in the House over the last year. For the first time there are binding rules and safety standards for handling nuclear waste right across Europe. In February, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety reached agreement on a report on energy efficiency. Cuts of 20% are to be achieved by 2020 in order to bring about more efficient energy use across Europe. The truth is that that would be an important milestone on the way to achieving our ambitious 20-20-20 targets.

Let us learn the lesson from the Fukushima disaster, which brought immeasurable suffering to the people of Japan, that, irrespective of the often irreconcilable differences of opinion that there are on this issue – in favour of or against nuclear power – we have a common responsibility for ensuring the maximum possible safety of nuclear power. We in the European Parliament, especially, have a responsibility to continue to implement tangible measures in future, as we have in the past.

The warning from Fukushima is clear: not everything that can be done is justifiable.

(Applause)

  Jean-Pierre Audy, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Ms Reding, ladies and gentlemen, yesterday at 06.46, Strasbourg time, time stopped in Japan. In a joint prayer, the Japanese people turned their thoughts to those killed or injured by the natural disaster together with the serious nuclear incident at the Fukushima power plant.

One year earlier, on 11 March at the same time, 06.46, an earthquake of 8.9 on the Richter scale caused the loss of the plant’s electricity supply. The reactors shut down and the emergency generators went into operation. Unfortunately, 55 minutes later, 14-metre high waves devastated the plant: 19 000 dead, 340 000 displaced persons, an earthquake and a tsunami produced the greatest nuclear disaster in the world.

Mr President, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) I would like to thank you for your initiative and to say that the dignity and courage of the Japanese people, their government and the families affected are in our thoughts. We are thinking of them.

This disaster led to a political debate, as you have pointed out, involving all sectors of the public. In the heat of the moment, some states decided either to shut down nuclear power plants immediately or to gradually phase them out. However, worldwide there are more nuclear plants being constructed than the number shut down, and so the issue is a topical one.

Moreover, this disaster is just one in the list of increasingly frequent disasters worldwide. Who could forget the earthquake in Haiti or the Deepwater oil disaster? Commissioner, the European Union reacted immediately, and I would like to thank your colleague, Mr Oettinger.

After the disaster on 11 March, the European Council met immediately, on 24 and 25 March 2011, and called for a comprehensive evaluation of the safety risks of nuclear power for all the plants in the European Union. The European Commission was asked to review the June 2009 directive on nuclear safety, and the programme was thus set up.

Today, all the Member States have carried out their evaluations; we await a peer review and the European Council in June 2012 will make an overall assessment.

The PPE Group would like thinking to focus on the following areas for improvement.

Firstly, with regard to safety standards, the European Union and its citizens must be assured that we have the best safety standards in the world. We know that these safety standards develop in line with scientific expertise and that they must be continually amended and made binding upon operators in the sector.

Secondly, governance must be reviewed so as to give greater independence to the national safety authorities.

My third point relates to transparency. In this sector, transparency must be beyond reproach. All national safety authorities must make their documents public to ensure that their citizens are properly informed.

Fourthly, we must review development and the technical criteria relating to the selection of sites where nuclear power plants are located.

Fifthly, we must jointly improve emergency preparedness and response. I would like to remind Members of the proposal to create a European civil protection force.

Sixthly, operators’ civil liability needs to be clarified. We must include all the costs of nuclear power within cost prices, including possible risks and the costs of decommissioning power plants, either through suitable insurance, or through own capital requirements.

Seventhly, the full costs should be included – sorry, I just said that, in relation to risks and decommissioning.

Eighthly, I would like to mention scientific training and research. On this point, I welcome the Commission’s proposals to extend the Euratom research programme by two years.

Worldwide, we will not be able to resolve our problems concerning energy and competitiveness, maintaining our lifestyle while tackling global warming, without addressing all these issues, which are necessary for the operation of nuclear power plants throughout the world and, in particular, for maximum safety.

  Marita Ulvskog, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (SV) Mr President, in the light of everything that happens over the course of a year, even extensive disasters like that in Fukushima can be forgotten about. The focus shifts. Those of us who are decision-makers concentrate on other crises and problems, while the eyes of the media are turned towards something else. It is therefore extremely positive and important that we are now marking the anniversary of the disaster in Fukushima here in the European Parliament and other places.

The events of 11 March 2011 represented a disaster that few could have imagined beforehand. There was an earthquake, a tsunami and a nuclear meltdown that resulted in the almost immediate deaths of more than 19 000 people and in 325 000 people becoming homeless.

The small town of Ukedo, situated immediately north of Fukushima, was completely destroyed. Many of its inhabitants also died. The town is no longer habitable. Its population has fragmented, with the people now living in surrounding towns. The town still exists, nevertheless. It remains in the survivors and in relations between people from workplaces, schools and neighbours, but as time goes by, even these links and networks fade away. Nothing will remain.

Fukushima was not only a human tragedy; this disaster, of course, also awakened the debate concerning nuclear power as an energy source. The most important lesson that I believe we can learn from Fukushima is this simple, but sometimes also difficult one: the future does not lie in nuclear power. Nuclear technology is certain to remain in various forms for a considerable time yet, but if states do not actively choose to build nuclear power plants as a result of policy choices, it will quite simply not be tenable. The market will not invest in nuclear power. Nuclear power is entirely dependent on subsidies. It will therefore become more expensive, while renewable energy will become cheaper. It is as simple as that.

Each country has the power to decide on its own energy sources. However, the political responsibility now lies with us in the EU, and we in the Member States can demonstrate that it is possible to satisfy the energy needs of the future by means of renewable energy. We are facing a major challenge in this area. The current view of alternative and renewable energy sources is that they are not efficient, sufficiently well developed or sufficiently widespread, and they are not something that is generally used by ordinary industry, society and citizens. If we are to succeed in this task, we need major investments in research, development and infrastructure and in actually cooperating with the market and society in developing this energy source.

We are holding this debate in order to remember and honour the victims of Fukushima. It is also a springboard for the future. What we need to demonstrate is that it is possible to learn from history.

  Adina-Ioana Vălean, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, on behalf of the ALDE Group, I would like to express solidarity with the victims of the natural disaster and nuclear accident that happened in Japan one year ago.

The EU should, and will, continue to give Japan and the disaster zone all the necessary humanitarian, technical and financial aid and support. In our opinion, Europe’s policy response to the disaster has been satisfactory. It was important that we did not take dramatic decisions with a long-term impact on the spur of the moment.

The Commission proposed, agreed and coordinated voluntary stress tests. We consider this was the right thing to do. My group looks forward to the final report that will be presented at the European Council in June 2012, and is confident that all the necessary steps will be taken to ensure that our nuclear plants are safe and even able to resist terrorist attacks.

However, we also recognise that it is impossible to create a 100% risk-free world. The main question now is what should the nuclear future of the European Union be? It is a question for which there is no common answer. The reality is that we do not have similar views in the European Union on nuclear energy as part of national energy mixes, so we cannot at this moment have a common answer other than that of focusing on the safety of nuclear power.

The disaster in Japan highlighted the risks of nuclear power, but this was not something we did not know about. Another answer is the common energy market. We should work on this, in order for governments to be able to invest in renewable energy resources that are environmentally sound, affordable and reliable. Even though we can accept nuclear power as part of our energy mix for a while, we will have to look to a different future.

  Rebecca Harms, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, I would like to thank my fellow Members for arranging this debate, this look back at the events in Japan a year ago. I found what took place in many countries around the world at the weekend very impressive, as was the strength of the signal that we sent Japan, through which we showed that we will also continue to share the grief and dismay of the entire Japanese people even as we go on from last weekend. I also believe, however, that, one year on from this disaster, we need to give closer attention to this matter.

Over the last week, I have had visitors from Japan with me in Brussels who I got to know a few weeks ago during a journey through Japan and to Fukushima. The delegation was headed by Eisaku Sato, who was governor of Fukushima Prefecture for 18 years. The entire delegation from the Fukushima Prefecture made insistent calls on, demands of and requests to the people of Europe that we cannot ignore. The people of the Fukushima Prefecture still feel abandoned in the very difficult and highly dangerous situation in which they live. They do not feel that the Japanese Government is actually taking serious pains to protect them, apart from anything else because the limit values for the ordinary population living in the region around Fukushima have been raised to such an extent that they now correspond to those normally applied to workers in the most heavily contaminated control areas of nuclear power plants. In other words, the Japanese authorities are very consciously accepting an increase in cases of cancer, other diseases and genetic damage in the Fukushima Prefecture in the years, decades and generations to come.

Europe cannot look the other way here, and we must finally force the World Health Organisation to act responsibility in such disaster situations. It must not allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to force it to turn a blind eye to so much irresponsible behaviour.

The IAEA should also be facing criticism from Euratom, the European Commission and the Member States for claiming that the Fukushima nuclear power station was under control and for failing to retract that claim on the anniversary of the disaster. As things stand, the Japanese experts do not agree about the status of the situation in the ruins of Fukushima. Nobody can say how much reactor fuel is still smouldering there; the ruins have not even stabilised as yet. At any time, a tremor could cause these ruins to collapse, an event that would trigger the next disaster for the local population.

It is an objective of the IAEA to spread nuclear power throughout the world. We must not leave it, in this situation, with the responsibility for the entire world. Politicians, experts, farmers and citizens from Japan and the region are begging and demanding that they should be sent an international task force. The experiences gained in Europe from the Chernobyl disaster could save lives in Japan and could perhaps even help stabilise the power station.

The strongest criticism in Japan is aimed at the European stress test, which is now also being applied there. Of the 54 reactors, only two are currently operating. All the others are being inspected under stress test criteria. Toshiba engineers, which is to say people who are very much part of Japan’s ‘nuclear village’, the committed community that champions nuclear power, have told me that the Fukushima nuclear power station passed this stress test with flying colours a year before the disaster.

Ladies and gentlemen, this stress test is truly dubious. The claim that we are improving safety by applying this stress test will be reviewed, in case of doubt, after the next nuclear disaster. It sends a shiver down my spine to think of a European-tested nuclear power station in Japan failing to withstand the next disaster.

I call on the representative of the Commission to carefully consider what Europe has to offer. Our know-how in relation to the energy switch-over and our experiences from Chernobyl are what is needed in Japan – certainly not the European stress test.

  Sajjad Karim, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, may I firstly start along with you in offering our sincere condolences and best wishes to all those who were affected by the catastrophic events in Japan a year ago. Many of the nearly 90 000 residents who were evacuated in the weeks after the disaster are still reluctant to return to their home towns, where radiation in some areas measures roughly 25 times the level for evacuation in the first place.

The unprecedented events in Japan and the impact of the earthquake and tsunami on the Fukushima nuclear power plant have raised the profile of nuclear safety and led to questions around the world about the need for nuclear power. We take what happened at Fukushima very seriously and nuclear safety is, and must be, a top priority. There are lessons for both government and industry on how we continuously improve both existing and new-built nuclear power stations.

Following Fukushima the stress tests and investigation need to be robust and evidence-based so that the right lessons are learnt. We must remember that the Fukushima incident showed that two natural disasters can happen at the same time. The nuclear power plant could withstand the earthquake, but could not cope with a 20-metre-high tsunami that caused the power supply to the plant to cut off.

Here it is important to learn the lessons from the Japanese response to the crisis. Preparedness and disaster response capacity for an event of this scale should be constantly under review as part of an evolving process that takes account of the individual specific site. We must praise the brave emergency teams who brought the situation under control, but there were clearly issues that the authorities and TEPCO could and should have handled differently.

The events at Fukushima were a shock to us all, but I am confident that the reaction was, and still should be, sensible, proportionate and based on the facts. As the Commission is currently reviewing the EU’s legal framework, we would urge it to take fully into account the lessons from Fukushima and the stress tests; a rushed piece of legislation could have negative consequences for both safety and energy security. Regulators and industry should work together to ensure that we make continuous improvements to the nuclear safety of both existing and future nuclear power plants. After all, nuclear safety is paramount and should be at the top of our agenda.

  Marisa Matias, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (PT) Mr President, one year ago, we witnessed the tragic combination of an earthquake, a tsunami and an industrial nuclear accident, one after another. Today, we pay heartfelt tribute to the many thousands of victims of Fukushima. We are honouring the victims and telling them that it has taught us a lesson: we need to learn to live with natural disasters, but, with nuclear disasters, we have the obligation to prevent them.

Unfortunately, however, that does not seem to be true. One year on from Fukushima, new nuclear plants continue to be built. One year on from Fukushima, new nuclear plants continue to be planned. Japan has, unfortunately, the memory of enduring tragedies: Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We Europeans too have the memory of an enduring tragedy: Chernobyl.

For all these reasons, Fukushima obliges us to reopen a debate that should never have been closed: the nuclear energy debate. One year ago, nuclear energy was unquestionable for the Japanese; today, two thirds of Japanese do not want it. They know that it costs lives. They know that this cost has no price; on the contrary, it is a cost that increases from one generation to the next.

The policy of stubbornly favouring nuclear is the politics of arrogance. Here in Europe too we have a majority of public opinion against nuclear, but, despite this, nothing seems to change. There are 320 000 refugees in Japan today; 100 000 of those will never be able to go home again. What was once familiar is now dangerous; what was once comfort is now in ruins. It is the ruin of a building or house with radioactive vegetation; it is the ruined soil or the contaminated water. Moreover, Fukushima cannot be visited like, for example, a Maya ruin or a Roman ruin can. Nevertheless, like those, Fukushima too paints a portrait of a civilisation and the portrait painted by the ruin of Fukushima is that of our civilisation. The civilisation that chose to include a deadly technology in its development model.

No one is at fault for an earthquake and a tsunami, but there are people responsible for a nuclear disaster. In Japan, like Europe, many citizens have decided to set up nuclear-abolition campaigns. They know better than anyone that safe nuclear energy is something that does not exist. They know better than anyone that no stress test can simulate what happened at Fukushima. We know, therefore, that energy policies are national but, Mr President, there are no borders in the sky.

  Francesco Enrico Speroni, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the tragedy of Fukushima has shown that after Chernobyl there is still no absolute safety when it comes to nuclear power plants.

It is quite true that the cases are very different: with regard to Chernobyl it was an accident inside the power plant; in the case of Fukushima, the causes were external, an earthquake and a tsunami of unprecedented intensity among the greatest that have ever occurred, as far as we know from the history of the planet. This, however, can only raise questions about the safety of nuclear power.

I am not one of those who claim – given the incidents – that we absolutely must reject nuclear power, although in many countries, this seems to be the way they are going, but in any case a thorough discussion must necessarily take place, while taking into account, as has often been repeated, that it is a matter for Member States but that Parliament should also have a say. Allow me to conclude by expressing my condolences and sympathy to all those who have been affected by this disaster.

  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, one year has passed since the terrible natural disaster in Japan, which was one of the worst accidents in the history of civil nuclear power. This anniversary is an opportunity for us to convey our condolences to those who are suffering and to ask ourselves what lessons we have learned and what we have done about nuclear safety.

Long before the Fukushima tragedy, the Commission initiated a process of improving nuclear safety with the aim of developing a consistent European dimension based on high standards. The first milestone was the adoption of the Nuclear Safety Directive in 2009, followed by the Waste Management Directive in 2011. I would like to thank Parliament for the constructive role it has played in the adoption of these two key elements.

After the Fukushima accident, the Commission initiated a comprehensive risk and safety assessment of all nuclear power plants operating in the EU. This was endorsed by the European Council and by Parliament. As you know, the stress tests have been under way since June 2011. They are based on a common EU methodology. I listened very carefully to what Ms Harms said and I will convey this message to my colleague, Commissioner Oettinger.

All 14 Member States that operate nuclear power plants – and Lithuania, which is decommissioning its nuclear power producing unit – are participating in the voluntary process and have provided national reports which are now subject to peer reviews. As you know, our neighbouring countries are also committed to the EU stress test methodology. Switzerland and Ukraine are participating. The results of the peer reviews, which are an essential part of the process, will be known by the end of April. The final report will be presented by my colleague, Commissioner Oettinger, to the European Council at the end of June 2012. He has asked me to tell you that he will also be available for discussions on it with Parliament.

The outcome of the stress tests is expected to provide an objective overview of the nuclear safety situation in the EU, and will form a basis for legislative or non-legislative proposals that the Commission will bring forward to improve the nuclear safety framework. The main areas for improvement could be technical safety requirements, nuclear safety governance and emergency preparedness and response. Security threats, including malevolent acts, are an important part of stress tests, and a discussion group on nuclear security has been set up in the Council of the European Union to address these. The first results of that group will be published in its final report, also in June. This report will be annexed to the Commission report, which will be presented to the Council and to Parliament.

The implementation of the resulting recommendations is a national responsibility. However, monitoring and reporting mechanisms should be established to ensure the implementation of the necessary safety improvements. The fact that the results will be made public will help to ensure that all the necessary steps are taken to guarantee the utmost safety and security. The Commission will closely and actively follow all developments.

Last, but not least, it is necessary to strengthen the safety culture and emergency preparedness worldwide. The stress tests are already acting as an international benchmark, and from the very beginning the Commission involved the neighbouring countries, in order not to be alone in going ahead with these, but to extend the safety culture beyond our frontiers. International cooperation, particularly in the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency, is more important than ever. The Commission intends to contribute to the updating of the Convention on Nuclear Safety with the aim of increasing its effectiveness, governance and enforceability.

IN THE CHAIR: ANNI PODIMATA
Vice-President

  President. The debate is closed.

17. Equality between women and men in the European Union - 2011 - Women in political decision-making (debate)

  President. – The debate is closed.

– The next item is the joint debate on:

– the report by Sophia in 't Veld (A7-0041/2012), on behalf of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality, on equality between women and men in the European Union – 2011 (2011/2244(INI))

– the report by Sirpa Pietikäinen (A7-0029/2012), on behalf of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality, on women in political decision-making – quality and equality (2011/2295(INI))

May I take this opportunity to say that it is a great honour for me to preside over the work of and debates in this Chamber.

Today, however, the honour and pleasure are double, because I am proud – as we all are – of my gender and because, even though we still have a long way to go, we have the satisfaction of knowing that the European Parliament is doing its very best and leading the way in the right direction.

  Sophia in 't Veld, rapporteur. − Madam President, my report, which is an own-initiative report, addresses a number of issues, some of which are controversial, sometimes surprisingly controversial. I will start with the first one: the one on quotas or binding targets for more women on the executive boards of listed companies.

I would like to start with a quote by an American feminist who said, decades ago already: true equality will only have been achieved if we have as many incompetent women in positions of power as incompetent men. I do not think I need to say much more about quotas, but I do not think there is anybody who is really in favour of quotas. The trouble is that, so far, voluntary measures have achieved next to nothing, and we need to do something because doing nothing is not an option. If we see the report last week from the Commission demonstrating that only 13 % of board members are female and only 3 % are actually leading listed companies, that is pathetic.

The Commission promised us concrete measures last year and last week the report, as I said, exposed the complete lack of progress. I have to say to the Commissioner that I am slightly disappointed at the follow-up. You propose another consultation, Commissioner, whereas after decades of stagnation and after a year of trying with voluntary measures, I would say that the time to act is here; it is no longer a time for words.

Another issue that to my surprise turned out to be slightly controversial and something that I would like to put on the political agenda is that of single-person households, not to be confused with single-parent households – single-person households. Thirty per cent of all households, Europe-wide, are single-person households. Only one person – not with children, just one person – and they are in relative terms and in absolute terms placed at a disadvantage; a huge disadvantage, compared to others when it comes to taxation, social security, housing, pensions, insurance and what have you.

The European Union does have all sorts of policies in support of families, which is fine; I support that. But demographic developments show that the composition of households is changing and it is time that the Commission recognised the new demographic reality and ensured fair and equal treatment for people living alone. No one should be either rewarded or penalised for the size or composition of their household.

I am also very happy that Parliament wholeheartedly endorsed the paragraph calling, or rather reiterating, its call, for a road map on LGBT rights. Commissioner, this is a very strong political appeal by this House – a repeated appeal – to the Commission to come forward with proposals for a road map analogous to the gender equality road map. If we can do it for women, and the European Union has achieved a lot for women and gender equality, we can do it for LGBT people.

Finally, I am also surprised and a little bit dismayed at amendments against the unblocking of the horizontal Anti-Discrimination Directive and the calls to give fresh impetus to the talks on maternity and paternity leave. I mean, if you do not want quotas, if you do not want to address the gender pay gap, if you do not want to unblock the horizontal Anti-Discrimination Directive, if you do not want to talk about maternity and paternity leave, then what do people actually want to do for gender equality? Because it is not going to happen spontaneously, colleagues; it is not going to happen. We have been waiting for decades; now is the time to act.

  Sirpa Pietikäinen, rapporteur. − Madam President, women are under-represented at all levels of political decision-making: at local level, in elected positions, at national level, and at European level.

They are under-represented in nominated positions; in the Member States as ministers or in the European Union as Commissioners. And they are also under-represented in the preparation of legislation in the Commission or in administrative and governmental structures at national level. They are under-represented in other areas of democratic input into preparing legislation, such as trade unions or employers’ organisations which negotiate wages, for example.

That is not good enough. Women are very strongly segregated in political decision-making. Quite often it is men who hold the positions with the economic resources. They are the prime ministers, finance ministers, ministers for economy, trade and so on. Women are responsible for the tasks to be taken care of with these resources: education, social care, environment, health and so on. So there is a very strong and problematic gap, and the question is one of equality and quality.

It is stated in various international conventions that women’s rights are human rights. Women have an equal right to be part of decision-making. This is a question of equality. Not because women would take better decisions, but because an organisation of that kind, with variety, different kinds of experiences, education and life experiences, makes better decisions. This is clearly shown in the World Bank’s studies, for example.

Then comes the question: what should we do? Firstly, we really need a multi-faceted action programme that has follow-up mechanisms, reparative mechanisms with sanctions and actions, both at local and national level, in Parliament’s committees and at Council level.

It would mean, and I really hope to see this, the Commission committing itself at European level and encouraging Member States to get involved in discussions with political parties – the starting point for democracy in various fields – so that all the political parties have the kinds of rules, regulations and practices that ensure equal numbers of men and women in their own decision-making and in their own preparations for electoral lists. If necessary, that should then be ensured by sanction mechanisms, with a sanction fee, or by the way in which financial resources for political parties are used.

We have to tackle the electoral lists and we have to do a lot of work at European Union level also. The results of the most recent elections for the President and Vice-Presidents in Parliament itself were not very encouraging and nor is the current situation. How many top posts in Parliament’s Secretariat are held by women? We should not be preaching on issues we are not able to deal with ourselves.

We need education, active media, a platform for civil society and women’s organisations to work. We have to encourage our Member States to propose men and women for the next round as Commissioners, as well as to take care that, when nominating candidates for the EU Commission’s top posts, they ensure that there is equality in numbers and they give consideration to the segregation between men and women as regards posts.

And, yes indeed, we have to ensure that there is an environment that helps women participate in politics. That means equal pay; that means social security; that means services for care of the elderly and child care, and other aspects.

I hope and wish that we all, men and women, commit ourselves to making this action programme happen, for a better world for our children.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Madam President, thank you for the opportunity to speak a little. The outstanding words of the preceding speaker said it all. I find it much less outstanding, however, that the time limit was exceeded by over a minute. I would like to speak on this important subject under the catch-the-eye procedure, but I see my chances as somewhat restricted given that it is not possible when each speech goes so far over the time allotted. I really would ask Members, therefore, to please stay within their allotted speaking time.

  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. − Madam President, firstly I thank Ms in ’t Veld for her report, in which she covered the whole spectrum of gender equality issues. We have already debated many issues thoroughly in the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality and also in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.

Equality between women and men is a pillar of the Treaties and of the Charter and of the Commission’s Strategy for Equality, but inequality in real life remains significant unfortunately. The Commission has put on the table many initiatives to fight inequalities. I shall just quote some of them: the Europe 2020 Strategy, where everybody agreed that we need to reach an employment rate of 75 % by 2020. Men almost tap this ceiling, but women are lagging behind hugely, most of all when women become mothers as they then work much less, whereas when men become fathers they work much more on their jobs, so something in our society is going wrong here. This is mirrored in the difference in average pay between men and women.

This year we fixed 2 March as European Equal Pay Day, because before that date the average paid to women was not the same as average male income. So we cannot continue to act as if this is business as usual because the difference has been maintained and progress is very slow.

We also know that we cannot afford in our society and in our companies not to utilise the female talent. 60% of women are university graduates – just look at the top level – but you do not find them in our companies at those levels which should be normal judging from their education. We all know that we are running out of talent in our societies, so we need more than ever for the untapped potential of women to be integrated into our economic world.

Parliament has asked me regularly to propose legislation to increase female representation on corporate boards if self-regulatory measures fail. You also know that I started with a self-regulatory initiative one year ago, and that I presented a report one week ago, after one year, and progress in Europe has gone from an average of 12% to 14% for women on the boards of listed companies. If I analyse where this progress has taken place, in three quarters of the Member States matters are at an absolute standstill. Progress has only been achieved in those Member States where there are national quotas – in the Netherlands from 14% to 19% in one year, and in France from 12% to 22% in one year, which really shows us that maybe it will be necessary to go one step further than just incentives.

So I launched the public consultation – the first ever public consultation by us on this subject, by the way – and we are obliged to have a public consultation before we come out with a proposal. This public consultation is not about whether we need more women in decision-making at an economic level, but how we should get there. The public consultation will run until 28 May and following the input the Commission will then take a decision on further action later this year. I count on the strong support of Parliament to make further progress.

To make further progress also in the political field, because there also participation by women is stagnating and no clear positive trends are being seen, several political parties have discussed the best way to increase participation by women, and six EU countries have introduced binding measures to increase the number of women in politics: Belgium, France, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain. The only thing which is growing is the idea that increasing female representation in political decision-making is good for democracy and good for economic prosperity. So I would like to thank Ms Pietikäinen very much for her efforts to put all the facts and figures on the table, to analyse why the facts and figures, unfortunately, are very disappointing, and to trigger a debate which is absolutely necessary not only in this House but also in the Member States – in the Member States where women on average only make up 25% of members of national parliaments and only 23% of senior ministers.

I hope very much that tomorrow’s vote will be a strong message to improve the representation of women in politics and a source of inspiration for all stakeholders involved at national level. We need this strong message because there is a lot of movement in our Member States to get out of the actual situation, but they need to be helped and to be supported. I call on this Parliament tomorrow to help them and to support them.

  Lívia Járóka, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, Parliament is commemorating the 101st International Women’s Day by putting two very important reports on its agenda: on equality between women and men in the European Union and on women in political decision-making.

The goal that equal work deserves equal pay, set more than one and a half centuries ago by the protesting female labourers of New York, is still valid today. Women earn 15% less in the European Union and, although more than half of the total voting population is female, they only share 10% of the global income.

In addition to eliminating the gender pay gap, still pending are the proper recognition and reinforcement of women’s role in families and enforcing the principle of equal treatment. It is unacceptable that being a woman and being a mother still constitute a disadvantage and a risk poverty factor in 21st century Europe.

Besides the importance – as Commissioner Reding recalled – of the presence of highly qualified women in leading positions in the public and private sector, much more emphasis should also be placed on improving the situation of vulnerable women, such as single mothers or orphan girls, elderly, minority and immigrant women, mothers of large families and those who interrupted their studies because of childbirth, as they are especially exposed to the risk of poverty and multiplied discrimination. For them the glass ceiling is much thicker than we would think.

Women in ethnic minorities, especially Roma women in Europe, have completely different problems from their male counterparts or the majority of women and find themselves in an especially vulnerable position when it comes to child care and state child-care facilities.

This crisis compels us to take into account, at once and seriously, the economic importance of gender equality because gender-based exclusion is not only unfair – as we always say – but offsets the economy as well. Member States and the private sector should be encouraged to integrate gender experts into their crisis management.

All the political groups in this Parliament are agreed that, in spite of the programmes set up in the last few years, no real achievement has really been made when it comes to equal opportunities. Although both of the reports ask questions that address many of the issues – and, as some of them come under the principle of subsidiarity, many colleagues are finding it difficult to agree with them – we in the PPE still believe that the questions raised during the discussions of the two reports are extremely important and should be kept at the top of the European agenda.

  Antigoni Papadopoulou, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (EL) Madam President, it is true that, when it comes to achieving the same pay for the same work, progress has been slow. The 17.5% differential in average pay in the European Union will be hard to bridge.

Progress in achieving gender equality has been equally slow. There are valuable reserves of women going to waste in the economic and business sector: just 12% of company executives and just 3% of chairs of the board are women.

There is also under-representation of both elected and appointed women in decision-making centres: 35% of women in the European Parliament, 24% in national parliaments, 23% in ministries, 31% at regional level; the only shining example by way of exception is Scandinavia, where 42% of elected parliamentarians are women.

The serious economic crisis and fiscal cutbacks are exacerbating the situation and chronic stereotypes persist. Measures to reconcile family and work are not being applied everywhere and, unfortunately, positive action is not being applied everywhere.

As such, we agree that more drastic measures are needed by governments, parties and parliaments. Women need to be financially independent and to be promoted to positions in which they take economic and political decisions.

Our group, the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, supports the proposal by Sophia in 't Veld to introduce quotas, with an objective of 30% for company boards of directors by 2015 and 40% by 2020. We support the introduction of legal provisions to safeguard equal pay for equal work. Finally, we support targeted action and drastic measures to achieve a critical mass of 40% of women in decision-making centres by 2015.

We also agree with the rapporteur Sirpa Pietikäinen on a yearly report on progress by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities and on regular monitoring of measures by governments, parliaments and parties and we also agree on binding corrective measures and sanctions where the objectives set are not attained.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (ES) Madam President, I would like to congratulate Ms Pietikäinen because she has managed to put together a good text. Let us hope that it is still a good text tomorrow because if its main content is adopted, Europe will lead the fight for equality in decision-making processes in the political sphere.

Seven years ago, I was elected President of the Basque Parliament. At that point I received a call from the European Parliament: they wanted to know how we had managed to bring about a situation where a Chamber which, up to that point, had been made up of 70% men and 30% women had come to comprise 53% female Members of Parliament. The Basque Equality Law, which was passed in 2005, lay behind the change. I am pleased that much of its content has been reflected in this report.

Basque law requires political parties to put forward candidates in parallel, with an equal proportion of men and women in posts where there is a chance of being elected. Furthermore, it promotes this application of equality towards the executive, as is the case here with the European Commission, the consultative bodies that have dealings with it, its foreign service and the teams that negotiate in areas of conflict.

From a regional level to a European level, men and women have much to contribute and much to gain if we work together in this undertaking. Inequality between men and women is undemocratic, inefficient and unfair. It prevents 50% of the human race’s knowledge and potential from contributing to the economy, to society and to politics on an equal basis with the other 50%.

Furthermore, it disrupts the world of emotions and affections. Gender violence is the most dramatic consequence for women. In exchange, many men are burdened by stereotypes that limit and threaten them. That is the reality that must be altered and debates and reports such as the ones we are going to vote on in this part-session contribute to that end.

Commissioner, do not fear the Member States: take on equality in politics too, in the same way as you are prepared to do with company boards, because we men and women may be different but there is no reason why we should continue to be unequal.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (ES) Madam President, I too applaud, salute and support the in 't Veld and Pietikäinen reports.

Reducing the salary gap is a necessary and fundamental fact but in order for it to be possible, in order to achieve that equality, it is not enough for women to occupy the space that belongs to them in the public, political and economic sphere. In addition, men must assume the responsibility that falls to them – that falls to us – in the private sphere. The two are different sides of the same coin and in order to achieve this we need measures that clearly encourage moves in these two directions.

On the other issue – the issue of quotas - which is, shall we say, controversial, I am in favour. Call it parity, call it working in parallel, call it what you will but we need to encourage equal opportunities and equality, equal presence in economic and political decision-making bodies and if that does not occur naturally, it must be done by means of an incentive scheme. That is what we are doing, what we are promoting and what I hope the majority of the House will also support tomorrow.

I think that we also need to remember that, when we speak of discrimination, we should not speak only about men and women but rather about many other alternatives in terms of sexual identity that are not sufficiently recognised. This is also something that the in ‘t Veld report sets out in a very serious and very reasonable way and I think it must be defended.

Finally, I think that it is also good to remember the need to emerge from this economic and financial crisis in which we find ourselves with proposals that are not simply green but that also have a gender vision that not only fails to discriminate but also helps women to occupy that space in society and the workplace that they have not had up to now.

  Marina Yannakoudakis, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, there is a saying that less is more, and this is very appropriate for this report. There is much in the report to give credit for. There is an equal amount I feel should not be tackled here but best dealt with at Member State level.

Last week, we held International Women’s Day and during the day a film called ‘Made in Dagenham’ was played. Those of us who saw the film could not fail but be impressed by the women’s struggle to gain equal pay and the demand for a level playing field in the workplace. Forty years on, women in Europe are still struggling for equality in certain areas of life.

As a woman I believe women have the right to real choices in their lives. As a Conservative politician I have a duty to work towards this objective. I strongly support the calls in this report to put a stop to domestic violence and other crimes against women, including forced marriages and female genital mutilation. On the matter of forced marriages I am proud that my government in the UK is looking to criminalise this cruel practice but I do not believe that legislative quotas and rules on maternity leave should be made at EU level. Leave this to the individual Member States who know their men and women best.

I admire the report’s bold statements about same-sex families and the rights of lesbians and gay men as a further move towards equalities in all areas.

With reference to the report on women in politics, I will be honest and open about the fact that in 2009, during the European elections, the leader of my party imposed temporary, positive measures to encourage and help women become MEPs. This experience taught me that positive measures work best when they are implemented at Member State level and on a temporary basis. The EU is not the right body to be making permanent legislation on quotas for our political parties, businesses or any other sector for that matter.

It is with regret, therefore, that I will be unable to support this report.

  Mikael Gustafsson, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (SV) Madam President, I would like to start by thanking Ms in ’t Veld for her excellent report, which highlights a number of important issues within the area of equality. This includes, for example, the need to expand care facilities such as pre-school facilities and homes for the elderly, to close the pay gap among women and to call for legislative measures to combat the violence of men against women. I am also pleased that the report stresses a woman’s right over her own body and thus her right to access contraception and to a safe and legal abortion.

There is one point that I do not agree with, however, and that concerns the question of prostitution. I have a slight problem with the concept of forced prostitution. This would rather imply that you think that there is such a thing as voluntary prostitution. In my view, this is quite wrong. The prostitution system as a whole is based on the exploitation of women, commercial ruthlessness and an outdated view of men’s and women’s sexuality. I will therefore vote against Amendment 7 tabled by the rapporteur. Otherwise, it is an excellent report, which I support in its entirety.

I will now turn to the other rapporteur, Ms Pietikäinen. I would really like to thank you for your open way of working. That has undeniably helped to make this report such an excellent one and to really emphasise the participation of women in politics. The EU and its Member States must work much, much harder to ensure that more women are treated equally in our representative democracy. We need to put an end to the current quota of men. Despite the fact that women make up 50% of the population, they are not at all democratically represented in political assemblies. In the European Parliament, they constitute just over a third. In the national parliaments the situation is even worse. On average, women do not even make up 25%. This is embarrassingly low. We cannot just continue to simply talk about changes. What we need now is action. In many cases, there will be a need for legislative measures in order to get to grips with this.

One option could be – if necessary – to introduce different kinds of quotas. However, just as Ms in ’t Veld said, that is perhaps not the place to start, but at some point we will have to deal with this issue. Certain people are appalled at the idea of quotas. Well, I agree with them – I am appalled at the current male quotas. This is something that happens informally and on the quiet, but men are nevertheless given preference at the expense of women. Some people even say that it is bad for women to be elected on the basis of their gender, but instead it is more likely the case that the current male quota is harmful to men, as people assume that many men have been elected simply because they are men. In the name of democracy, we must therefore achieve a system whereby women’s and men’s experience can be utilised in a much clearer way and reflected in our parliamentary assemblies. Therefore, vote in favour of Ms Pietikäinen’s report.

  Tadeusz Cymański, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (PL) Madam President, we all strongly oppose discrimination against women in any area of social or professional life. We are aware that, unlike men, women face a double challenge, that of bearing children, and that of a working life. The reversal of negative demographic trends is also essential. It is for these reasons that we would like to make it easier for women to reconcile family and working life. We support the European Parliament’s decision concerning maternity leave and we await the Council’s decision on this matter. It is our opinion that increased resources from Structural Funds should be allocated to the creation of pre-school childcare facilities in countries where its availability is still too low, and where the cost of organised childcare is often prohibitive.

Regarding the report on women in political decision-making and, in the broader context, equality between women and men, I would like to express my support for measures which encourage women to participate in political parties and in elections. I am, however, opposed to establishing parity, both in politics and in business. I am against creating a situation in which female candidates would feature on electoral lists only because a party had to fulfil the criteria of a defined quota system. It is women themselves, who, according to conversations, statements and surveys, do not wish to be indebted to parity for their career. Frequently, the proposals for establishing quotas are perceived by women themselves as belittling, and as a failure to acknowledge their real talents and competencies. We need to combat discrimination. The majority of women do not want their promotion in the workplace to be based purely on the fact that they are women and not men.

We should also differentiate between women fighting for a just cause, one that is important on a social level, and extreme feminist movements, which, at least in my country, represent only a small percentage of women. Additionally, many Polish women do not identify with the initiatives aimed at defending the so-called reproductive rights of women, in other words, unrestricted access to abortion. I, therefore, feel compelled once again to express my deep disappointment concerning the report on equality between women and men, in which one of the core proposals appears to be the protection of so-called sexual rights, in other words, the promotion of abortion. The controversial nature of the project discussed is evident also from the result of the vote in the Parliamentary Committee, where nearly half of the Members present abstained from voting, or voted against the report. The Polish delegation of my political group will not support these reports at tomorrow’s vote.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI). – (DE) Madam President, the average gender-based wage gap in the EU is 16.4% and it has scarcely fallen over recent years. In a few Member States it is even on the increase. When we discuss the equality of men and women, this figure in particular is the one that throws light onto the inequality that we currently have.

This wage gap has a series of complicated, often intertwined causes, such as the lower value placed on work done by women, gender separation in the labour market and also traditions and stereotypes. The gender-based wage gap is a consequence of all these factors and inequalities in the labour market.

Austria has the second-largest income gap between men and women of all the Member States of the EU. In Austria, women earn as much as 25.5% per hour gross less than men on average. This is a problem that has long been known.

The argument that many women in Austria and elsewhere work in part-time jobs does not cut the mustard. The reasons for this bad outcome are to be found in society. For one thing, women traditionally work in professions that are less well paid than men, while for another there continue to be too few women in management positions. I am firmly convinced that businesses and organisations with more women in leadership positions or at least with mixed management teams are considerably more successful.

For that reason we need to break down differences in income and we need this intensive debate about quota arrangements.

  Mariya Nedelcheva (PPE). – (FR) Madam President, Ms Reding, ladies and gentlemen, for some years now, around the month of March, citizens’ attention has been drawn to the report on equality between women and men in the European Union. For 2012, the rapporteur is Ms in 't Veld. This year, the debate has been reinforced because it is being conducted in parallel with the report by Ms Pietikäinen on women in political decision making. I congratulate our two rapporteurs on their excellent and relevant work.

So, here are our comments this year.

First of all, this year, as usual, we have taken stock of the advances made and progress still to be made. With new force we are stressing the fact that equality between men and women in the EU is far from a reality. It is easy to see that the principle of ‘equal work, equal pay’ is still not complied with by all the Member States.

Combating stereotypes and diversifying training choices for girls is very relevant at the moment. There are obstacles to access by women to the labour market, which need to be removed. To end the scourge of violence towards women, the EU’s full support is required. At a time of economic crisis, it is essential that we take care to protect women from insecurity and isolation.

Finally, promoting the place of women in decision-making bodies, governing boards, parliaments, political parties and governments gives a greater chance of being successful, but also of recognising that, thanks to women, we can have more successful and more suitable policies, enterprises and social sectors.

Commissioner, we were pleased to learn about your report. As well as being useful, it gives a new impetus to equality between men and women. I would ask you to publish it every year. Most of all, we would like the good practice clearly identified within it to be rolled out, because I do not believe in sanctions. They devalue women, and they devalue our struggle which is, on the one hand, to encourage women to embark upon careers that will take them to the highest level and, on the other hand, to put an end to the gender discrimination that women have to face.

I do not believe in the carrot and stick; I believe in increased awareness that gives rise to political will, and the ownership of initiatives designed to improve the situation of women at all levels. What I would therefore advocate is an acceleration of action and an increase in resources, particularly since the regulatory texts already exist. We need a strong and committed political will, brave enough to implement the legislation.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D). – (SK) Madam President, firstly I wish to say that I welcome the fact that we are debating women's rights and gender equality at a European Parliament sitting. I was the shadow rapporteur for the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament on the report on equality between men and women in 2011 and I would like to thank the rapporteur and other rapporteurs for the highly constructive discussion, even though I understand that in this area we have different views across the political spectrum on different items in terms of this report. This is, of course, natural. However I believe we have a common goal and that is that we women should have the same status, rights and opportunities as men in today's society.

This process is obviously long term, but together we can help it along for example by encouraging women to become more involved in areas of employment where they are in the minority, for example in so-called 'green' jobs, science and research or IT, by reducing the pay gaps for the same work, and by enforcing quotas, such as in management and decision-making positions, whether in business or in politics.

It is, of course, essential that we create the necessary legislation in the field of violence against women, where we still have a huge problem. We cannot forget to pay adequate attention to sexual reproductive health in women, because all women should have control over their reproductive and sexual rights. This is also because we will allow them access to affordable high quality contraception.

In order for women to be able to participate in working life as fully as men, we must, of course, also support the important role of mothers, wives and family members, who are most frequently responsible for the care of family, children, parents and relatives. We must allow women the flexibility to study, the possibility to enter into more flexible employment contracts with more flexible working hours, or to provide social facilities for their loved ones, be they children or elderly relatives. In this context I would also like to call on the Council to finally resolve the issue of maternity and parental leave, as proposed by the European Parliament last year.

I believe that we will be able to provide constant support for this equality of rights process and that next year we will deal with this report, which will be able to record much greater progress than we have seen to the present day.

  Antonyia Parvanova (ALDE). - Madam President, let me first congratulate both rapporteurs for their excellent work in presenting today a comprehensive view of the state of play concerning equality between men and women in the European Union and clearly identifying the key issues to be addressed – and, I would say, more importantly, to take action upon.

On behalf of the ALDE Group I would like to stress the word ‘action’. We have held discussions in this house on gender equality, made calls and supporting declarations and initiatives, but as yet there have been no definitive and concrete actions. I am therefore turning to you, Madam Commissioner, to tell you that you have a majority in this House waiting for concrete proposals which would allow us to deliver on gender equality and the fundamental principles of the European Union.

We very much welcome the focus in this year’s report on equal economic independence, equality in decision making and the need to guarantee equal pay for equal work. These issues resonate even more loudly in these times of economic crisis, which particularly affect women and actually increase existing inequalities.

Can we still accept in 2012 that on average women have to work two more months per year to receive the same salary as men? As you said, Commissioner, we have gained just one day since last year; at that rate, we will have to wait 60 years to achieve equality between men and women. None of us here can rationally explain to our citizens the persistence of the existing gender pay gap. If progress is not being made at national level it is the responsibility of the European Union to act – notably with a legislative proposal – in order to guarantee equality for all its citizens: men and women. This is actually the logic of the subsidiarity principle, not the other way around. If Member States are failing to guarantee fundamental rights for all, the issue has to be addressed and tackled at European level.

The same principle should also apply to our combating of gender-based violence, which is also an issue closely linked to the economic independence – or rather, dependence – of women. As rapporteur on the Directive on the Protection of the Victims of Crime, of which women represent a vast majority, I hope they will automatically be able to address properly the specific needs of victims of gender-based violence. But let us be realistic: we will not be able to fight comprehensively violence against women with this piece of legislation only. That is why we need a comprehensive European strategy.

  Ulrike Lunacek (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, here in the plenary and in the gallery, how often do we hear, when talk turns to quotas, many women saying that they do not want to be ‘token women’ or many men saying, as indeed one Member did today, that this is clearly discrimination?

When they say things like that, people are clearly overlooking the fact that a great many men already occupy top positions not because they are particularly well qualified or because the quality of their work is so outstanding, but solely because they are male.

That is why quotas are so important and necessary, and I would like to offer special thanks to Ms Pietikäinen, who succeeded in getting a wording to that effect in her report, which I will briefly read out in English now.

Today an informal system of quotas is de facto in play, where men are privileged over women and where men choose men for decision-making positions, which is not a formalised system but nevertheless a systematic and very real deep-rooted culture of positive treatment of men’.

(DE) We need quotas in order to ensure equality, and I therefore want to thank both rapporteurs, Ms Pietikäinen and also Ms in ‘t Veld, for their excellent reports Ms Pietikäinen, a member of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), has, I hope, succeeded in convincing many members of her group, too, that they should vote in favour of her report tomorrow so that we can direct a really strong plea to the Commission and the Council to realise gender equality as, nearly forty years after the International Women’s Year of 1975, it really is high time that that was achieved.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Madam President, in our opinion, the Pietikäinen report advocates, first and foremost, the introduction of quota systems to promote parity in political decision-making positions as a means of resolving women’s underrepresentation in such posts. We believe the question is being cast in the wrong way and aims to resolve the problem of insufficient women’s participation in politics in an illusory and unreal way. Women’s political participation is not just about senior positions. It is about the various areas of women’s lives: their participation in organisations, trades unions and culture, and in their daily lives.

Women have greater difficulties participating in these areas owing to difficulties accessing education and culture, but also owing to the economic difficulties that are the immediate result of the wage inequalities of which they are victims. Moreover, precarious jobs means they have little time for social, political and cultural participation. The lack of public childcare services is another factor contributing to the overburdening of women.

It is these structural inequalities that should be combated and there should be no attempt to establish artificial equality, whilst keeping the real problems of the majority of women off limits. We believe the report by Ms in ’t Veld highlights some of the main reasons for discrimination between men and women that are directly related to their economic and work situation. Unfortunately, if the so-called austerity measures advocated by the European institutions – specifically, the majority in this Parliament – are continued, they will lead to enormous steps backwards in the level of equality between men and women; to the further weakening of labour relations, with the weakening of the principle of collective bargaining; to higher rates of unemployment; to increasingly precarious jobs, which already particularly affect women; and to cuts in the public child care system, which is essential to reducing the excessive burden of work that falls on women.

The firm rejection of austerity measures, which are a declaration of war on women and on workers, is a precondition for advocating equality between men and women.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, quite apart from the reports, there is no doubt that gender equality can be achieved through a profound change in mindset at an individual level, through a social and collective consciousness, and by giving women an important role in the institutions. The objective can be achieved through social and cultural efforts rather than through legislation, although laws are of course needed to help working women, policies are needed for the family, and laws are needed to balance work and family time.

What is absolutely not needed is what the European Union wants, or what the European Union appears to want, in other words having as its goal the recognition of same-sex families at European level. I cannot agree with what I read in the first report. It states that Parliament regrets the adoption by some Member States of restrictive definitions of family in order to deny legal protection to same-sex couples and their children.

Well, yes, in Italy there is no legal protection of the same-sex family simply because it does not exist. If, after imposing so many absurd regulations and directives, the European Parliament and the Commission believe that they can even change the definition of family, they are wrong: the family is made up of a man, a woman and their children.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Sophia in 't Veld, blue-card question. − I am pretty shocked by what I hear. Not only do you say that you are opposed to same-sex families, but you actually deny their very existence. I think that is very offensive to all those same-sex families with legal status in many Member States. There are five Member States where gay couples can get married – legally married like anybody else because they love each other and they are committed to each other – and in other Member States they can sign up to a registered partnership. You are simply denying reality. What do you have to say about that?

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), blue-card answer – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I do not deny that we must protect the rights of homosexuals. What I refuse, and in Italy it is so, there are no same-sex families, and they will never exist, simply because the family that is protected – and even the European Parliament should protect it – is the traditional family, made up of a woman, a man and their children. That is all there is to it, I think it is pretty elementary. This is the reality in Italy and in the other 22 countries.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Ulrike Lunacek (Verts/ALE), blue-card question. – Mrs Bizzotto are you saying that same-sex families do not exist in Italy?

I know quite a few such families, so I wonder if you really know your country very well. Could you please explain how you can say that in Italy same-sex families do not exist?

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), blue-card answer – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in Italy, forgive me, families are ones made up of a man, a woman and children. This is the case: I am sorry, but if you think otherwise you are clearly misinformed.

  Silvia Costa (S&D) . – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, let me just clarify this: I think, personally, that I have some concerns over one point in the report but I would not express it in the way Ms Bizzotto did, in the sense that it seems to me that the report goes a bit beyond the remit of the European Union, not so much when it describes various types of cohabitation, of family, and so on, in different forms, but when it says that the EU must somehow enter into what comes under family law which is still subject to subsidiarity.

As far as same-sex families are concerned, I would like to make it clear that there are definitely same-sex unions in Italy, there are same-sex unions in situations where children are present, but same-sex union is not treated as being equivalent to the condition and legal status of the family and this is allowed under the various freedoms of Member States. I believe this is the point that should be clarified, it is not denying reality, it is denying legal gender equality in this case in my country.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). - Madam President, totalitarians who might be shy about interfering with the elective process can still do so indirectly by controlling the selection process by which candidates are chosen; that was the essence of democratic centralism in the Soviet Union. The call for quotas and for prescriptions of rank order is in danger of constructing a formula that is so prescriptive that the real selection decision is taken by the formula deviser and not by the political party.

In a democracy, political parties are private organisations and are not creatures of the state; they must be free to decide who should represent them as candidates without state interference. It is for the electorate to decide whether or not it likes the candidates and not for the government to do so. Parties, in my view, should decide candidates on merit, and neither on the basis of discrimination nor on the basis of quotas. But in the end that is their business.

Prescribing rank order, of course, is possible only in closed-list systems. How long will it be before the voter in open-list systems is forced to cast high-preference votes for both male and female candidates regardless of party and to cast appropriate percentages of the vote for various approved minorities? Perhaps in the end the poor voter will have the right only to cast a ballot paper that has already been completed by affirmative action or positive discrimination. This drive for quotas has little to do with women’s rights and everything to do with an obsessive desire that no part of the political system should be free from control by the political class.

  Edit Bauer (PPE). – (HU) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is customary that we take stock of developments in the field of equal opportunities every year, and very often we are faced with criticism for not having anything new to report. The fact is that not much can change over the course of one year and so there are not too many new developments for us to report every year. The only news we always have is that once again everything remains unchanged. Although changes are underway, and I have to say that, on the whole, we are witnessing positive changes, they are not always steady and not always unidirectional. We cannot even claim to have statistical support for them because the fact is that we are very often working with provisional and incomplete statistics.

The latest statistics on the pay gap, from 2010, are now tabled before us, and they are incomplete; data on two countries are missing. When discussing these figures we must therefore be aware of the extent of their inaccuracy. One thing I would like to note in this respect is that while we are talking about inequality between men and women, this issue, too, is an extremely complex one. In fact, very often it is not about the differences between men and women in general, but more about the differences between men and women when it comes to being parents. This is perfectly apparent when we look at the pay gap, and from that point on it indeed becomes a serious social issue with farther-reaching implications than the differences in pay themselves. I would like to point out that very often we fail to make use of the means provided by European legislation, whereas other times we stray into areas where it is the principle of subsidiarity that should apply.

My question to the Commissioner is whether she intends to look into the issue of equal opportunities institutions in greater detail, because it would seem that they are not really fulfilling their functions. Thank you very much.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Liisa Jaakonsaari (S&D), blue-card question. – (FI) Madam President, rather like Ms Bauer, I would like to see something new in this debate. Ms Bauer, you also said that the trend had improved, but do you quite seriously believe this to be the case? Because it would seem – and I wish the Commissioner would comment on this in some way – that this economic crisis is making things worse for equality. Cut-backs in the public sector, for example, are specifically targeted at women. I would therefore like you and the Commissioner to comment. Surely you cannot think that things are getting better?

  Edit Bauer (PPE), blue-card answer. – (HU) Ms Jaakonsaari, thank you very much for this very interesting question. What I wished to explain in this respect before I ran out of time was that we do not really have any data regarding the crisis. Our latest data, published last week by Eurostat, pertain to the year 2010. Therefore we have practically no European data available on developments in the past year. So despite our intentions to put out a fresh message, this is basically impossible. As regards trends, I also wished to explain that they are not unidirectional. In respect of the pay gap, for example, we can very often observe regression in some countries. Progress is, therefore, not at all clear or unidirectional.

  Silvia Costa (S&D) . – (IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that to sum up the situation and indicate more advanced goals for equality between men and women – today, in March 2012 – means facing up to the dramatic data from the economic crisis that show a rise in female unemployment, especially among young people, increasing poverty amongst women and I feel we should also acknowledge the rise of violence against women, especially where it is perpetrated in private. There is a situation, therefore, of suffering exacerbated by the cuts being introduced in many States in areas such as welfare, education and social security, which has mainly hit women.

I believe there is a connection between this situation and the continued exclusion of women from the decision-making process and that this leads to an underestimation of the impact on women of the crisis and of our policies. Against this backdrop, the two reports focus on some goals that I agree with: a stronger focus when planning 2014-2020 Structural Funds on actions also targeted at women; economic independence, encouraging women entrepreneurs with Guarantee Funds and support tools; abolishing the gender pay gap, by reassessing women’s work and professionalism; prohibiting discriminatory behaviour – for example in my country, forcing women employees to sign blank resignation letters.

We also call for standards and measures to recreate a balance in terms of representation, with transparent selection procedures for men and women in politics and in decision-making, and I would welcome it if Commissioner Reding can with the support of Parliament – as she has announced – really get a directive on quotas in enterprises.

We also need to act at a symbolic level, not only countering the stereotypes in the media, but by promoting the enhancement and respect even for the dignity of women which is all too often commodified and abused. I am disappointed that the rapporteur Ms In ’t Veld proposes an amendment to delete this reference to the dignity of women, perhaps not fully grasping that the degradation of their image becomes a legitimisation of the violence towards them. Thank you.

  Silvana Koch-Mehrin (ALDE). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, who in Europe is still talking about votes for women? The answer is that nobody is nowadays, as we take women’s right to vote for granted. How was that situation brought about? It was done through legislation, through compulsion, in other words. I therefore think it is important that we should also introduce gender quotas today through legislation. The result would be that we would not have to talk about it any more, as it would be just as self-evident as women’s right to vote.

Voluntary self-imposed obligations either do not work or are not even entered into, and this applies just as much to the economy as to politics. In a representative democracy such as Europe, the majority of the population, which is to say women, must actually be represented accordingly in politics. Yet the reality in the parliaments and in the parties is something quite different.

When it comes to the economy, numerous studies have shown that an equal distribution of women and men in executive positions considerably improves the economic success of a company. Moreover, it is also the case that the decision on whether or not to buy something is taken by women for nearly every product. As a liberal, I stand for competition, and I stand for a free and fair market economy. However, both of these only work when basic conditions are in place that permit that very freedom and fairness.

Those conditions are not in place for women when it comes to executive positions. I therefore look forward, Ms Reding, to the proposals that you will be bringing forward in May on the participation of more women in executive positions. It is, I would say, high time for that to happen.

  Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – (PT) Madam President, congratulations to the authors on their reports. Around a century after the first International Women’s Day, true gender equality remains an impossible dream for the majority of the world’s women.

As women parliamentarians, we have a gender obligation to contribute to this brave work to transform voluntary measures into mandatory ones. Until women are no longer victims of gender violence, which is the most serious and urgent problem, it is in this area that the European Parliament has to make the greatest efforts. Until there is no workplace discrimination or inequality of opportunities, we will be actively or passively responsible. Until there is no wage inequality between men and women, our political initiatives will be failing. Until the sexual and reproductive rights of women, such as abortion, are ensured, there will be no genuine equality. The recent declarations by the Spanish Minister of Justice are evidence that some Member States are taking steps backwards in this regard. The battle for equality, for social justice and for dignity will never be won whilst there is still discrimination against one half of humanity by the other half.

  Paul Nuttall (EFD). - Madam President, figures show that the pay gap between men and women is still large. After all these years of EU gender equality regulations, targets, and initiatives, the situation is still pretty poor.

And now you want to introduce quotas for women in boardrooms. To be perfectly honest, when I read it, I did not know whether to laugh or to cry. Because, if a women is dedicated and good she can get to the top. Did Margaret Thatcher need quotas to become the British Prime Minister? No, she did not. She did it based on raw ability, an iron will and because she was the best person for the job.

When you bring in quotas you lessen quality. You promote mediocrity and I contend that businesses should have the right to hire the best person for the job and it should not matter whether they are male, female, black or white or anything else. It is called a meritocracy and it is something which Britain and the English-speaking peoples of the world have been pioneering for centuries.

How would you feel, if you were a women who had worked very hard and had gone into management, only for a token woman to be handed a similar job? If anything, this will create a culture of discrimination. As colleagues will constantly ask, did you get there because you are good or did you get there because you ticked a few boxes?

You call this positive discrimination. I contend that discrimination is never positive. So here we have it. In a desperate bid to sound popular you are not only patronising women, you are promoting mediocrity and you are hampering business. I would urge all Members to vote against this report tomorrow.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE), blue-card question. – Madam President, I would just like to question my colleague about his understanding of meritocracy, and ask on which facts he bases his knowledge that one could not find more qualified women to sit on company boards than there are at the moment.

  Paul Nuttall (EFD), blue-card answer. – If a woman is good enough, she will be promoted. It is as simple as that. What we should have is a situation where we are not hampering business with regulation in times of austerity. What we should be doing is ripping up red tape and allowing businesses to hire the best person for the job, not introducing even more ‘big state’ legislation and tying the hands of businesses.

No, let us do the opposite. Let us deregulate and let us ensure that the best person for the job gets it, regardless of gender, colour, creed, religion or anything else. The best person should always get the job.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), blue-card question. – Madam President, just a brief question for Mr Nuttall. I understand that he considers that those people in the top jobs right now are there purely on the basis of merit. As we have observed, 97% of them are white men.

So, Mr Nuttall, you say they are the best people for the job. Would you say that the people in top jobs, 97% of whom are white men, have done a great job with our economy lately?

  Paul Nuttall (EFD), blue-card answer. – No I would not; but I would not say that women would probably do a better job. Hang on – the greatest monarchs that we have ever had in our country have been women. Undoubtedly! Probably our greatest Prime Minister of the last century was a woman. It is as simple as that. But she got there – and the Labour Party probably does not like that fact, but there we are – purely on merit because she was the best person for the job.

I tell you that, if you go down this line, all you are doing is tying the hands of businesses in times of austerity. It is wrong! You should deregulate. You should do away with red tape and give businesses the freedom to hire the people they want.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE) . – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I too will be mentioning much of the data that has already been discussed: women represent over half the European population, but suffer many disparities in terms of treatment and of course in terms of pay. This terrible figure of 17.5% lower average pay than men is really unbearable! That means a woman has to work 14 months to earn what a man earns in a year. All this must be considered in the light of another figure regarding the merits of women, which is that 59% of graduates are women.

Disparity does not even spare the European institutions, even though they have always attached great importance to the issue of equal opportunities. Within Parliament itself, the figures belie the good intentions, so that today women in this House occupy 34% of the seats; since the beginning of the legislature, the number of women vice-presidents has fallen from six to three out of 14, while the number of women committee and subcommittee chairs have currently dropped from 10 to eight out of 22. Since 1952, there have been only two women presidents out of 28, Simone Veil and Nicole Fontaine, and in the administration, even though women make up 60% of the staff, only 23% have an important role.

Therefore, there is still much to be done, starting with the European Parliament and the question is: how can we set a good example to Member States with the statistics I have just mentioned?

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Commissioner Reding for her commitment, and also for launching this important consultation, and I also share her thoughts: I do not believe in quotas, I have always thought that women should step forward on the basis of their qualities and merits, but I agree, Madam Commissioner, it is a matter that should be debated and for that I thank you.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D). – (RO) Madam President, I would first of all like to congratulate the two rapporteurs for the fine job they have done, and to tell you that, although the European Union has made a great deal of progress in terms of legislation and regulations, we are still far from achieving the objective of gender equality. In addition, gender stereotypes are still hampering a fundamental shift in society, while the austerity measures have had a far-reaching effect and hit women directly. This is why I think that we need to work together and take consistent steps in terms of legislation as well.

I too welcome raising the issue of introducing quotas for public consultation because our political group supports both equal representation in the political and economic decision-making process and the introduction of quotas. We need to take these positive actions so that we can get closer to achieving the objective of gender equality. In addition to this, we also need legislative solutions for reducing the gender pay gap which has now increased in percentage terms in the wake of the austerity measures adopted and the job losses suffered by women. In this regard, we need legislative solutions. We also need to introduce a gender aspect to budget policies, especially as we prepare for the forthcoming 2014-2020 financial framework.

  Gesine Meissner (ALDE). – (DE) Madam President, Ms Bauer said earlier that nothing has changed. We do talk about equality every year, that much is true. Many things are changing a little bit, though. I get the impression that there are more men in the Chamber for the debate this year than last time, and that is a very positive thing, in my opinion. I would like to offer my sincere thanks to Mr Gustafsson, the chair of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality, who fights in a very committed fashion for women’s rights, and also to my Liberal colleague Mr Schmidt, who will be speaking later.

We are, after all, talking about fairness, and men, too, can see that things are unfair and are critical of that fact, which I think is excellent. There is another thing that is different this year. Last week there was the Gender Pay Gap conference in Brussels, and one of the speakers there began her address in a very unusual way. She said that men are less well qualified, yet they receive more money and pay more tax. Women are better qualified, they have university degrees, yet they receive less money and they pass less tax. She went on to question whether maybe it was perhaps the wrong approach to subsidise places in higher education for women if they then go on to pay less tax. She meant this as a joke, of course. What she meant was the exact opposite, and that is also the way that it has to be seen.

When 60% of qualified graduates are women, can we afford for so few women to have the opportunity to develop into good jobs? Can we afford that? The truth is that this is crazy. After all, what we are doing is throwing away economic opportunities galore. It has already been said that, with one third female membership of executive boards, the working atmosphere and the success of companies are demonstrably improved. That is the case for businesses, but of course it could also be the case for politics. I therefore wholeheartedly thank the rapporteur, as well as Ms Reding and all those who champion this cause. We need more fairness in this area.

IN THE CHAIR: ROBERTA ANGELILLI
Vice-President

  Nicole Kiil-Nielsen (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Madam President, in addressing the issue of quotas, Ms Reding has brought up an old debate on the legitimacy of binding legislative measures. As far as I am concerned, I am fully in favour of proactive, binding measures on the issue that we are considering today, since it is plain that matters are not progressing at all.

At university, it has been said that at the top colleges there are brilliant female students who have far higher qualifications than their male colleagues. However, as soon as students enter the world of work, it is clear that difficulties arise and that women are not managing to break through the notorious glass ceiling. At European Union level, we cannot continue to do without the skills of half of the population, once referred to as ‘half of heaven’.

What I would like to say to you is that I belong to a political organisation which enshrined equality in its own rules in 1984 in France, and that we have obtained brilliant results. We have had the first female regional president in France. We have had female candidates for the presidential elections. Currently in this Parliament, I am one of eight women elected out of a total of 15 MEPs, making more women than men.

I therefore believe that when a decision is taken to move things forward, all that is needed is to take measures such as these in order to achieve equality. I am 100% in favour of these binding measures because parity seems vital to me. This is, quite simply, a question of justice. It is not a question of quotas. I believe that we must talk of parity, and not of quotas. Quotas are 30-40%; they are not justice. Justice is 50:50. I believe that we absolutely must achieve that. Madam President, I would like to propose to you that we should be setting an example, particularly in respect of the Member States; why should we not introduce parity in Parliament’s executive Bureau, from the next term? I think it would be important to start with that step.

(Applause)

  Christa Klaß (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, the annual equality report presents us with an opportunity, time and again, to discuss the legitimate demands of women in Europe, to highlight misalignments in our societies once again, and it is an opportunity that we are exploiting.

However, we should concentrate on the important points, namely on the things that we can actually change at this point. Ms in ‘t Veld’s report puts the necessity of economic independence at the heart of the debate. Economic independence means the ability to act on one’s own and is therefore the key to autonomous living, for both women and men.

Even in the 1960s it was still the case in Germany that women had to get the approval of their husbands before they could go out to work. We can but smile about that today; it is something we have overcome. Yet we still have not managed to achieve equal pay for equal work or work of equal value.

What right do men have to earn an average of 17.5% more than women in Europe? Somebody should explain that to us at some point. This wage gap also stretches right on into old age, and we have observed in Germany that pensions are so low that there is a gap of 59% between men’s and women’s old age pensions. That, of course, is down to the course of women’s working lives, which are certainly different than those of men: raising children, family and care give the working biographies of women a different pattern to those of men.

Yet this work is of at least equal value. In fact, I would argue that family and community work are actually fundamentally more valuable to society than many a job based in an air-conditioned office. We need to continue to work for equal pay for equal work and for equal pensions if we are serious about wanting equality between the sexes.

As we move towards that goal, we also need more women on executive boards. I am very grateful to Commissioner Reding for making this issue her issue and for handling it as she has. She has adopted a very clear position on the matter, and I hope for broad, cross-party support for it.

I am aware that we women who have today made these grand speeches, often still have to fight for majorities in our own parties. I invite everyone here to do this together as a cross-party initiative. We need broad support from all the parties and all the social groups.

One thing is very clear, and that is that we need more women in executive positions in the decision-making executives if we want to change anything, and we women do want change. As a minimum, we want equality in Europe. We all need to work together towards achieving that.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, after welcoming the work done by Ms Pietikäinen and Ms in 't Veld, the rapporteurs, I would like to make the following observation: debates are being conducted, progress is being made, but the problems remain, and not for lack of effort.

I would particularly like to welcome the work done by Viviane Reding, the Commissioner, in relation to her resolute positions – for we have to be daring – in the face of a relatively conservative economic world. I am going to focus on the issue of quotas, moving towards parity, as our fellow Member Ms Kiil-Nielsen said, which would obviously be the aim.

Quotas, it has to be said, are a necessary evil. It has been shown in the sphere of public politics that, in order to achieve better female representativeness, it was necessary to have binding laws that in the end, perhaps, one day, will herald a natural trend within societies. It must be acknowledged that, within the world of business, this is not the case. Here we come up against real conservatism, particularly on the part of the economic sphere, but also its representatives among employers, who say that they are making efforts. However, we are left with no change. If we do not take these measures, we will achieve nothing.

Often, the business world does not hold back from advising the world of politics, asking us to exercise good governance. For once, we can return the compliment and ask them to take their inspiration from what has been done in politics, in the public sphere, in the Commission and the European Parliament. Perhaps they could also learn from the Norwegian example, which has demonstrated its value, since in 10 years the percentage of women on boards has gone up from 9% to 42%, as a result of a binding law on parity.

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE). - (FI) Madam President, my thanks go to the rapporteurs for their excellent reports, although they did not make comfortable reading. There are hardly any sectors in which men and women are equal.

I also understand Commissioner Reding’s frustration: things have progressed slowly. If, for example, progress had been made in the area of equality of pay at a rate of just 1% since the Treaty of Rome, we would no longer have different salaries for men and women, and there would be no pay differentials. Progress, however, has not been made.

The EU should now take action, but what it says in EU decisions is being ignored. These relate to intentions, endeavours, plans and action plans with regard to equality. Very rarely, however, are any practical decisions taken. I do not know if this is now appropriate, but I will make the comparison anyway: if an animal has no ear tag, the farmer receives fines of many thousands of euros, but if a woman is paid a lower wage than a man, what does the EU do? It expresses regret, announces intentions and makes plans, but there is no penalty.

I hope that Ms Reding and the entire Commission will find the strength to continue the struggle. I also hope that measures will be taken, if any progress is to be made in this area, or that people should at least be frank and say that men and women do not deserve equality, under EU legislation. However, I do not think that they should do that.

  Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio (PPE). – (ES) Madam President, from the European Parliament I wish to pay tribute to all women today because, despite the fact that we have made much progress since March 1911, when women took to the streets to demand the vote and better working conditions, I think that women’s equality is still a long way away.

Today women can work without having to get permission from anyone but, in many cases, they continue to earn less than men for similar work, which is unacceptable. We must also remember women in rural areas, whose work goes unnoticed.

I think that another uncomfortable truth, but one which we must continue to denounce, is violence against women. This year alone an excessive number of women have already been murdered, leaving aside serious threats from those who believe they have the right to perpetrate physical or psychological violence against women. It is time to say enough and to say it loud and clear.

From this Parliament I reiterate my commitment to the European protection order for victims and to the Directive on the rights of victims which the Commission put forward and which will be voted upon next June, God willing. It also has to be said, and I should like to remind people, that motherhood is still an obstacle to the progression of women and I think this is a trend that should be changed.

I want to send a message of hope: many women, with the help of more and more men, need to advance along the path of equal opportunities, rights and responsibilities. We have come a long way but there is a lot left to do.

I have to admit that I do not believe in quotas in any way, shape or form but I must say that something has to be done and I agree with many of you and, of course, with Ms Reding, in opening this debate and advancing along that path so that women regain the place that they deserve and to that end you can count on my support.

  Zita Gurmai (S&D). - Madam President, some of you, hopefully very few people, might wonder why we are talking about gender equality when we have just celebrated International Women’s Day last week and when we also have the crisis to deal with. The reason is that, even though there have been developments, and goals have been achieved, a lot still needs to be done when it comes to gender equality. I will not let anyone use the crisis as an excuse for not doing this. The gender pay gap remains at an unacceptable level, gender-based violence is still taking thousands of victims every year, sexual and reproductive rights are threatened, women have difficulties on the labour market – just to give you a few examples.

I am asking for a clear commitment from the Commission and from the Member States to change these unacceptable conditions. Clear commitment in my understanding means binding measures and quotas. That is what I have been calling for, for a long while now.

It is true that it will take some political will. This is why I say that we need more women in decision-making positions. I do not expect men to fully grasp our difficulties and I do not require them to do so. We will work with them in our common interest. All we need is the possibility to do so at regional, national and European level.

Commissioner Reding, let us have the campaign, as we had with Margot Wallström in 2009; let us have the campaign on parity, because this is a great example for European citizens that we are for women, for men, and for equal treatment for women and men. I believe that we can conduct a very good campaign. It is good for us; it is good for Europe, because if you educate a man you simply educate the man; if you educate the woman, you educate society. That is what we badly need.

  Olle Schmidt (ALDE). – (SV) Madam President, we need more women in leadership roles in European business. The situation is very disheartening. We know that diversity is always beneficial. However, what is the situation in our own institutions? In the Commission, nine out of 27 Commissioners are women. In Europe, women constitute a majority, but at the EU’s top-level meetings they make up a very small minority, which will be even smaller after yesterday’s election in Slovakia. Seven of the 39 Court of Justice of the European Union judges are women. Of the members of the European Court of Auditors, three are women and 24 are men. The management of the European Central Bank does not include a single woman. Not a single one! In our own assembly, the situation with regard to equality is currently worse in the new Bureau than it was during the first half of the parliamentary term. Shame on us!

However, the debate should not just be about whether or not there should be quotas. There are other options. We could try new nomination methods. We could always nominate two candidates, a man and a woman, for every position. We could create lists of competent candidates of both genders. We could train the people who are responsible for nominations. The EU institutions must set a good example. Otherwise our proposals will merely be viewed as empty words.

  Barbara Matera (PPE) . – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the participation of women in political decision-making at all levels is crucial, as it enables us to take practical steps to facilitate the lot of women in their difficult task of reconciling their private and working lives.

Without the participation of women, political decision-making lacks the sensitivity needed to deal with the specific problems of women and there is little attention to discrimination against them – concerning access to employment as well as child care facilities for their children.

In order to address this serious imbalance in the participation of women in politics, I support the introduction of quotas for electoral lists. I do not like them, but I like the result that quotas can bring and have brought in recent years: just a few days ago, to mark International Women’s Day, a draft bill was approved by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs of the Italian Chamber of Deputies which requires electoral lists to have at least 30% of women in towns with more than 5,000 inhabitants. This is therefore a great step forward and I hope that it can be accepted by other Member States as a best practice.

We need to achieve greater participation by women in positions of business leadership, especially on the boards of directors and supervisory bodies of enterprises. Indeed, several studies have shown that having more women in these positions contributes significantly to business competitiveness and a growth in profits.

This appears to be in tune with the Kratsa report we approved a few months ago right here in this Parliament. I agree with the European Commission and I am pleased. Indeed, my compliments go to Commissioner Reding for launching a public consultation to assess the possibility of proposing legislation on gender quotas in enterprises.

I hope that the European Parliament will be a model in this sense, that the participation of women may increase in the upcoming 2014-2019 term, and I hope in particular to change the minds of those colleagues like Mr Nuttall, who is currently not present here in the Chamber, who think that in this Parliament only three women deserve to be Vice-Presidents; I do not think so and indeed I wanted to ask him what strange country he has been living in. Thank you

  Maria Eleni Koppa (S&D). – (EL) Madam President, the economic crisis has hit less protected groups particularly hard and, unfortunately today, in the 21st century, women are still a vulnerable group.

In my country, Greece, women have been victims of the crisis from the outset and were among the first to be dismissed. The percentage of female employment is much lower than male employment. Today, two years after the economic crisis started, women are over-represented in the most insecure jobs and in inadequately paid jobs and under-represented in positions of responsibility.

There is a huge differential between men’s and women’s pay; a differential that is growing day by day. The image of women who are mothers, who are working, who are immigrants is the image of Greece itself and Greece is being damaged.

The problem of equality has not been resolved. Today in the European Parliament, we must renew our commitment to fight, with greater force than ever, so that gender equality becomes a reality, because all of us, men and women, stand to gain from that.

  Astrid Lulling (PPE). – (FR) Madam President, on the occasion of International Women’s Day it is a very good idea to debate here reports on the situation of women in the European Union, particularly with regard to equal treatment and equal opportunities between men and women in all spheres. Unfortunately, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality has once again wasted the opportunity to produce reports that could have obtained a large majority at committee and could have been approved by a large proportion of MEPs in plenary.

One may wonder why it is not possible to find consensus on the progress clearly still to be made in most Member States to guarantee equal rights, equal treatment and equal opportunities between men and women. Unfortunately, it is because those that see themselves as left-wing, in the committee and also in plenary, take a perverse pleasure in including demands in these reports that interfere with subsidiarity, as in the case of guaranteed minimum income or abortion, or which derive from extremist positions that even in a favourable economic climate would be unaffordable.

The self-proclaimed holders of the monopoly on the safeguarding of equality are insisting upon these ideological and populist proposals. Personally, I deeply regret the fact that they are doing women a grave disservice and preventing progress instead of promoting it. The unfortunate Estrela report on the protection of maternity is a perfect example of this. If we and the Commission had been listened to, the minimum length of maternity leave in the European Union would already have been extended by at least two weeks, at least a year ago.

With regard to quotas to achieve the aim of parity, I have a certain sympathy for the women that have spoken to me on this subject. They want nothing to do with quotas because they are succeeding without quotas. They fear being categorised as quota women, namely in the same category as women who have only been promoted because of quotas.

(DE) The European Parliament has the most gender-balanced composition, 35% women and 65% men.

(FR) because what they want, what the Germans call der gläserne Abgeordnete, what they will certainly try, very diligently, to do, is to find out what is going on with the remaining 5%, who are apparently neither men nor women. This must be corrected in the German version, and perhaps in other versions, because this House is definitely made up of 35% women and 65% men. This is, clearly, far from parity and, above all, absolutely not balanced.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D). – (PL) Madam President, I am of the opinion that the work of both rapporteurs deserves due recognition. I am pleased with the particular reference made to three main areas, namely equal pay for equal work, increased equality in decision-making as well as women’s dignity and the elimination of domestic violence. Highlighting the gender pay gap across the European Union, where women are paid 17.5% less for the same work, is in itself a very important statement. I welcome the fact that the rapporteurs call on both the Commission and on the Member States to address this issue. In my country, which is governed by a coalition of liberals and Christian democrats, we tried to determine the extent of this percentage gap. The relevant government body refused to provide the required information, stating, however, that it might be in a position to do so within 30 days.

I would also like to draw attention to the advantages of the proposal to reduce the gender pension gap. Experience shows that what is frequently proposed to us is raising the retirement age for women, that is, for women in particular, without explaining what the actual differences in the level of pension payments will amount to. I also share the concern that the economic crisis and budgetary cuts are exacerbating the problem. Why? What are we being offered? Fewer nurseries, fewer pre-schools, school closures and reductions in collective services. What do we get in return? Nothing in terms of equal pay for equal work. This is therefore, a good report, which I will support wholeheartedly.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8)).

  Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE), blue-card question. – (PL) Madam Presidetn, I feel as if Mr Liberadzki has, in a way, summoned me up to the blackboard and provoked me to ask him the following question. Mr Liberadzki, what I would like to ask you is: are you familiar with the latest Eurostat data, published on 17 February? It contains data relating also to our country, Poland, according to which the gender pay gap has been reduced from 10% to 2%. It is also states that Poland currently has the lowest gender pay gap of all EU Member States.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D), blue-card answer. – (PL) Thank you very much for your question, Ms Skrzydlewska. I have indeed seen the data you refer to. I had wanted to confirm this data with the Central Statistical Office. My request was declined, however, on the grounds of the aforementioned government agency’s inability to authorise this type of information.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, I can vouch from personal experience that it is not easy being a woman in politics, and being a young woman in politics is even harder. It is primarily down to us to change this situation. We need to make a greater effort and, therefore, always be one step ahead of men. At the same time, we must retain our feminine touch when we are engaged in politics and not attempt to be more macho than the men.

I support Ms Pietikäinen’s report out of female solidarity and as a colleague. However, I must make a few comments. Women constantly need to fight for what they want. It does not need to be based exclusively on these representation quotas which we are always debating. Women do not need to take up political positions simply because they are women. We need to have a certain representation quota, but because the women are competent and deserve to be given these positions. When it comes to promoting women to decision-making positions, we need to talk about it less and take concrete actions. We women must support each other, whether young or mature, because solidarity alone is the key. The level of success achieved by a woman politician must be possible for other women also to achieve later on, who are perhaps younger and better qualified. This is why I endorse the rapporteur’s proposals for supporting women’s organisations and promoting mentoring.

Finally, I would also like to mention another point which affects women’s ability to achieve their full potential: the acts of violence inflicted on them, especially in the family setting. I would like to take this opportunity to applaud that on 8 March, International Women’s Day, Romania enacted the amended law on preventing and combating domestic violence.

  Jutta Steinruck (S&D). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, without quotas I would not be a Member of this House, but I am also self-confident enough to say that I do not do my work badly, nor am I a bad politician. I believe that the quotas fulfil their purpose, since, in the past, we had 100% male quotas, and the time has come for us to do away with them. The reality is that there is progress when it comes to equal rights for women in Europe. It may be at a snail’s pace, but fortunately the movement is in the right direction. Especially in times of crisis such as those in which we find ourselves at the moment, it becomes particularly clear that there is still major discrimination against women in the European labour market. Women are the first to be fired, in traditional female professions our salaries are currently going backwards in many cases, and women in executive roles continue to be in short supply, despite better qualifications from secondary and tertiary education.

Today we have discussed how women in Europe – and this is not news to us – continue to earn less than their male colleagues. It is not enough to talk about this and to debate it, however. Ultimately, we have to also start to change fundamental structures. Professions that are mainly occupied by women are, as a rule, less well paid. We need new and more objective ways of evaluating work, while greater transparency in respect of salaries would also be an important step towards equal pay. The culture of silence in business keeps women in the dark about the fact that they earn less. If we had more transparency within companies, women could defend themselves better against this, and this needs to be tackled now, just as we need quotas on boards of directors, in executive roles or even in political positions.

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I thank the two rapporteurs. These two reports from the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality arrive in the aftermath of International Women’s Day, and while they bear witness to the incessant pressure that Parliament has brought to bear in order to promote equal opportunities, on the other hand, they also emphasise Parliament’s ineffectiveness in this legislature in which it has voted on some 10 reports on this issue, almost one every two and a half years. And the result?

The data provided by the report: increasing poverty of women, increasing cases of violence, of discrimination, the gender pay gap, and less welfare. What solution is proposed? The two reports are connected in the sense that when we read them together, we get a first answer to the problem: very few women in decision-making positions, very few truly positive actions to promote equal opportunities.

I totally agree on the need expressed by several colleagues that we must refer to merit, but do we really think that the current make-up of decision-making positions, so unequal in terms of gender, is qualitatively as good as it could be? I do not think quotas are the best possible solution, but for now they are the only one available and anyone who contests this solution also has to come up with alternative proposals.

So I support the Pietikäinen report. On the other hand, regarding the in ’t Veld report, I would like to highlight some problems: it again raises the issue of the definition of family, recognition of civil unions, de facto couples, sexual and reproductive rights, and appeals for support from the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This Charter, in fact, simply sets out the principle of subsidiarity and recognises rights that the Constitutions of individual Member States and the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and of the European Court of Human Rights already recognise.

Having guaranteed the right of each individual to life, in Article 9 the Charter recognises that the right to marry and start a family must be governed by national laws. It then addresses discrimination in a later chapter, covering equality.

If she had really wanted to support equal opportunities, the rapporteur perhaps should have mentioned Article 33, if she was looking for support in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as this article ensures that the family can enjoy legal, economic and social protection, and to that end also provides protection systems for reconciling family and professional life. I am thinking, for example, of the recent case of the state-owned public broadcasting service, RAI, in Italy, which shows how important it is to work on this issue and not on the other.

For these reasons, I consider it necessary that those parts that mar the in ’t Veld report should be removed from the text in order to strengthen the rightly binding part. In each Member State, the debate on the recognition of civil unions is open, and this continual interference by the European Parliament does nothing but produce defensive reactions and slow down the work that is being done at a national level.

I think that all of us here should make an effort to do those things that are in our remit better and try to produce some additional results so that gender equality may be truly recognised and thus ensure that a truly more democratic society may be built. Thank you.

  Michael Cashman (S&D). - Madam President, I am pleased to see as many men as women speaking in this important debate this evening, because it is only if we address this issue together that we can make equality a reality.

Inequality can be seen in persistent wage gaps, unequal opportunities and also, sadly, in the continuing violence against women in all its forms. The statistics on violence against women are terrifying and shame every single one of us. We should address what happens to a woman as if it were happening to us. If that violence or that inequality is wrong for us, then it is wrong for the woman – it is wrong for the other. Violence is often targeted against women because they are different – because they are lesbian, bisexual or transgender. Some countries in the European Union today still require transgender women to undergo full sterilisation simply to be who they are. That is unforgiveable.

Women deserve a safe, strong and equal place in our society, regardless of whether they are lesbian, gay, straight, bisexual or transgender. The exclusion of women from politics and the economy remains the norm around the world. As was said before, all the directors of the European Central Bank are men.

Let me finish by saying that the slow pace of change in 2012 is depressing. The fact that we are still having this debate now means that we are not achieving. The economic crisis is being used as an excuse to do less and to abandon our values. Now is the time to reinforce those values, not abandon them.

Finally, women with the same opportunities are able to achieve in exactly the same way, but we must challenge the stereotypes of women that are being promoted, often by men and sadly by some religious organisations. Women are equal. It is as simple as that. We have to have the political will to make that simple fact a reality.

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE). – (SV) Madam President, Commissioner, I welcome the fact that we are having a debate on an annual report on equality. It is important that we focus our attention on what needs to be done. There is a great deal more that we need to do, and we still have a long way to go.

However, I regret the fact that the debate has to a certain extent been hijacked by family policy, which is not something that should be dealt with at EU level. We must respect different cultures, traditions and religions. It is best for us to do that at national level.

What we can and should do is increase our commitment to enabling the participation of women in leading positions. I really appreciate Commissioner Reding’s commitment with regard to the position of women, but I do not believe that legislation on quotas at EU level is the right approach to take. Women should progress on their own merits, on the basis of their skills and knowledge. It is important to put pressure on the business sector to continue the debate, but not to legislate. It is not only listed companies that we are concerned with here. We want women in leadership positions in all sectors of society. Why should women not be heads of schools or universities, directors of hospitals or hold other important positions? What is important, in fact, is to acknowledge that women are an advantage both in the business sector and in politics.

The way forward must also be based on freedom of choice. We must not force women into a particular model. Instead, we women must be able to choose our own path and to decide what we want to do and how we want to do it. We must make things easier for women and facilitate this, but we must not dictate from above.

We must make the Member States aware of this and urge them to take measures to make it easier to solve the family dilemma, for example. Financial independence is one of the good alternative routes to equality. It needs to be easy to start and run a company. I am pleased that the report draws attention to women’s entrepreneurship as a way forward. It is essentially a question of changing culture, mentality and attitudes. It should be normal for women to be in leadership positions. That is something we must teach our children.

Facilitating access to the labour market for immigrant women is also an obvious way to improve equality. I will finish by saying that when we are endeavouring to break the glass ceiling we need to focus on vulnerable women. Violence against women, domestic violence against women and sexual abuse of women are still increasing. If we compare this with the debate on quotas, then the quotas debate becomes a luxury. I am hoping for a proper fight in the future, most importantly against violence against women.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D). – (RO) Madam President, I believe that we all agree that the active involvement of women in the European Union’s labour market has a positive impact on the whole of society and the economy, regardless of the industry and place where the activity is carried out, whether in their country of origin or in another Member State.

I think that the measures adopted to tackle the economic and financial crisis at European level should focus greater attention on providing the support that can be given to women wishing to get involved in an economic venture, which also includes encouraging their enterprising spirit. To achieve this, I believe that it would be beneficial to set up specialised organisations for providing training and professional and legal advice, precisely so that women entrepreneurs can become familiar with the necessary procedures and benefit from potential public and private funding available for starting up economic ventures.

I also support the proposal made in the report for applying an EU-level strategy, aimed at offering not only equal job opportunities, but also the smallest possible pay gaps between men and women performing the same job and holding the same qualifications. Otherwise, the opportunity cannot be turned into reality.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, at present there are three female Heads of State or Government in the EU: in Germany, in Denmark and, in an acting capacity, in Slovakia. Only 23% of the ministries in all the Member States are headed by women. In the whole of Europe only a quarter of national MPs are women, although statistically more women than men live in the European Union. The European Parliament, with a male to female ratio of 65:35, is actually above the average, but that is still far from equality.

I therefore clearly support the demand for a real parity of the sexes in political decision-making. The female population needs to feel represented in politics. When the majority is represented by a minority, the democratic structures of the Member States must be open to question. In this, the 21st century, more than ever, we need to fight for the equality of the sexes in society, but above all also in politics. These two areas, society and politics, each condition and influence the other. Equality in society requires equality in politics, and vice versa.

A mandatory system of alternating men and women for party electoral lists is an important step, in my opinion, towards ensuring that equality. When it comes to the economy, too, we will need to find new ways to promote women and equality. Women need to be actively promoted. They need to actually be given the chance to also be able to occupy leadership roles. In this area, we need to join forces, exploit synergies and work together towards a Europe of great promise and equal opportunities.

Personally I am not a big fan of quotas, but we have to recognise that voluntary systems do not work. 8 March was International Women’s Day. There was much talk about targets for a gender-equal Europe, much of which quickly subsided. A few things get taken further; little is actually realised. What we have here, however, is a specific approach that the Member States can set to work with and actually implement. Please let us follow our words with action.

  Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, Commissioner, the percentage of women taking part in political decision-making processes is increasing year on year, but women are still not participating in political life to the same extent as men. Across the European Union, on average, one in five members of parliament is female. The provision of equal opportunities for women and men who wish to participate in political life is undisputedly one of the cornerstones of democracy. In my opinion, it is important to inspire women to take an increasingly more active role in politics. That is why I welcome the various proposals aimed at encouraging them to do so and making it easier for them to become involved, as presented by Ms Pietikäinen in her report.

Preferential treatment when it comes to filling nominated positions, composing electoral lists and recruiting for decision-making positions are positive steps in the direction of a greater participation of women in public life. We should not forget, however, that all of the measures which, in practical terms, enable women to reconcile their different roles, so that their participation in politics does not impact negatively on their family life, are of equal importance. For that reason, in order to increase the participation of women in politics in real terms, we must not overlook the essential measures that enable women to balance working and family life.

It is worth taking this opportunity to mention the issue of unequal pay between women and men, a problem which we have been dealing with for many years in various areas of employment. The fact that there has been very little change during the years since the prohibition of discrimination in this area was introduced into legislation, proves that genuine equality between women and men will not be implemented without significant engagement on the part of the Member States. Let us remember that for women, lower remuneration translates into a lower pension and greater risk of poverty. It is high time for this to be changed. It is high time for the slogan ‘Equal pay for equal work’ to become a reality.

  Constance Le Grip (PPE). – (FR) Madam President, it cannot be denied that the cause of women owes much to Europe. The principle of equality between men and women was enshrined in the Treaty of Rome, and has constantly been reaffirmed since, in the many subsequent treaties.

Equality between men and women is truly one of the European Union’s fundamental values. As a result, Europe has always worked very proactively for gender equality and for the promotion of women. Gradually, progress has been made. Many legislative instruments, such as directives, have been put in place. Here in Parliament itself, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality has been very active and vigilant for many years. A European Institute for Gender Equality has been established. Programmes are set up and financial resources are allocated, year after year. More recently, on 2 March, we celebrated European Equal Pay Day, for the second time.

It cannot be denied, therefore, that a raft of legislative measures exists, and that European political will has materialised on several occasions. Nonetheless, we must acknowledge that the struggle for equality between men and women and, in particular, for equal pay, is still a topical issue. On average, across the European Union countries as a whole, there is still a salary difference of approximately 17%. For equal work, women still earn 17% less than men. That is, of course, completely unacceptable.

The Women’s Rights Committee is also currently working on a motion for a resolution to call on the European Commission to revise the 2006 directive on equal treatment, which is one of the areas that generates the most concern, and is a particular focus of European women’s worries and demands in all our societies.

On another subject, that of setting up quotas, both within the decision-making bodies of large enterprises and in politics, I come from France, which adopted a long time ago – over 10 years ago – binding rules on quotas in politics and more recently – about a year ago – a law introducing quotas on the boards of large companies. Of course, France is not the only country to have opted for legislation of this kind. With regard to the progress made after several years of implementation in one case, and a few months in the other, we can see that things have changed and progress has been made. Quotas are therefore a necessary evil. Quotas have an impact.

Commissioner, you recently took a significant step towards establishing quotas Europe-wide in the decision-making bodies of large enterprises, by launching this major public consultation to gather views on what action should be taken, possibly including legislation. On this issue, you will have my full and whole-hearted support.

  Andrea Češková (ECR). - (CS) Madam President, Commissioner, I will address my speech to you. I firmly believe that the market mechanism of supply and demand is supremely important on the labour market, and we should not interfere with it through unnecessary regulation. In my opinion, we should focus on the aspects that create the same labour market working conditions and preconditions for women as for men, in relation to establishing a family. That is where the weak point lies in many Member States. I cannot agree with the introduction of legislative measures such as binding quotas. I am also unable to support a repeat claim to 20 weeks of mandatory and fully paid maternity leave. I do not see the benefit of the measure in terms of gender equality - quite the contrary.

I would like to stress, however, that women have the right to exercise control over their own reproductive and sexual health. Women’s right to sexual and reproductive health is, in my opinion, one of the fundamental human rights that must be guaranteed in all Member States of the European Union. Women must not face obstructions when it comes to taking contraceptives, and nor must they be obstructed when they want to have an abortion. A woman must take the decisions about her own body herself, because it is she who will have undergo the major changes involved in pregnancy, birth and breastfeeding, in addition to which a child constitutes a lifelong commitment for her.

We do not want to return to the late 19th century, a period depicted so well by ‘The Cider House Rules’ – a film translated, I assume, into all EU Member State languages. In other words, although I disagree with many of the measures contained in the submitted reports, I will always agree with the specific points concerning the freedom of women to decide their own fate.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Edite Estrela (S&D), blue-card question. – (PT) Madam President, I should like to ask Ms Češková if she considers it fair for parents to be financially penalised when they decide to have a child; that is, for them to stop receiving their full wages because of maternity leave. Does she not think that we need polices that stimulate the birth rate, given the democratic deficit that we have in Europe?

  Andrea Češková (ECR), blue-card answer. - (CS) Madam President, I do not know whether it was an interpretation issue, or whether I understood correctly that families are punished for deciding to have a child. In my interpretation, I heard the word ‘punishment’. Firstly, it cannot be a punishment, in my opinion, and secondly, we all freely decide our own fate, and so a family that has decided to have children must always consider how the children are to be fed, how the home is to be secured and which of the two parents - the father or the mother - will be the bread-winner and will secure the home. Whether it is one child, two children or five children, and whether it is the father or the mother, it is always a free decision, in my opinion, and that is how it should continue to be in the future. I understand what you mean about the proposal for our committee, Vice-President, concerning the directive on maternity leave from two years ago, but you are well aware that, as our committee voted for your initiative, the Member States can never respond.

‘Catch-the-eye’ procedure

  Csaba Sógor (PPE). – (HU) Madam President, I am convinced that in light of the demographic trends in Europe, we must place even more emphasis on family support measures. In this uncertain situation that was created by the economic crisis, we must lend even more assistance to families, and one requisite of this is in fact to create more flexible employment conditions for women. Besides respecting the principle of equality between men and women, we must not forget, and I say this as a father of four, that having children demands greater sacrifice from women than from men, even if one only looks at their careers. Some countries have extensive family support practices in place.

However, in others, such as Romania, this field is still in its infancy. We have therefore tabled a motion to the Romanian Government to draft proposals for extensive family support measures. We believe that a successful Europe can only be built if we seek to resolve the issue of our ageing society primarily by increasing birth rates rather than by trying to do it via immigration policy.

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, for many years, both the European Union and the Member States have been taking a variety of measures aimed at combating discrimination against women on the labour market. The measures taken, however, are not producing the desired results. Consequently, both Commissioner Reding and the rapporteurs are calling for the adoption of rigorous measures that will force businesses to employ women in managerial positions. I doubt that European legislation will bring about the desired results. Experience in the Member States suggests that the best results have been achieved in countries that focused on work at grass-roots level, creating conditions that make it easier for women to return to work after childbirth as well as conditions that are favourable towards the reconciliation of family life and working life.

In my opinion, we should focus on the issue of mentoring and promote a family model based on partnership, whereby household chores are performed by both women and men. First of all, however, we should facilitate the use of European funds for the development of infrastructure enabling women to reconcile family commitments with work. In particular, we should bear in mind this latter issue when negotiating multiannual financial frameworks and restructuring cohesion policy. That would improve the situation of women and contribute to achieving the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). – (SK) Madam President, men and women should have equal rights, and it is the duty of the legislative institutions to create conditions in which each woman and each man can fully realise their potential. It is one of the faces of freedom, which is the most important feature of democracy. However the introduction of quotas does not lead to equal rights. Those who are proposing the introduction of quotas in politics are in fact restricting the rights of voters. They are telling people that their opinion of who should represent them in parliament is of secondary importance. This creates a democratic deficit, which cannot be defended even with statistics.

If we wish to achieve real equality for women, we should not discriminate against motherhood and childcare. Let us begin to respect women in their decisions and seek ways to ensure that they are truly free when making such decisions.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE). - (CS) Madam President, it is, of course, important to warn against the impacts on women and families of insensitive cuts to social programmes in a time of crisis, but I do not agree with a number of points that simply repeat ideas from many other reports. Yes, women in the EU are more educated than men and they unfortunately have lower pay. What then? Will we be saying the same thing again here next year? In other parts, complex social and economic issues are jumbled up with the promotion of an unambiguously gender-based view of the world. Point 47, in particular, is quite unacceptable.

I also find it humanly and logically incomprehensible that our Parliament should be criticising the way that the family is defined in certain Member States. Are the authors not concerned that this runs contrary to subsidiarity and to cultural traditions? Who is to be judge and to assess which definition is the right one? We should remember that the family has persisted for thousands of years because it is where new generations are born and bred, and that this is a calling to which we gladly - women as well as men - sacrifice our personal interests for a limited period of time. Are not the rights of children more important than other rights? In a time of crisis, we should concentrate on solving complex issues such as the economic situation of families with larger numbers of children, instead of binding quotas that result in humiliation for women.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, I am going to talk about the role of women in the context of the regional development policy. We obviously need, now more than ever, to make ever-increasing use of the talents of women in the process which I would call a ‘European revival’.

Whether we are talking about the role of women in economic development, about their role in caring for and bringing up children and caring for the elderly, we agree that they must be given the full, proper credit for this and, in particular, not be discriminated against. In order to reduce the disparities currently noted in terms of salary level or representation in various positions, as specified in the report, I believe that action needs to be taken on all fronts.

My perspective as a member of the Committee on Regional Development is that projects which are carried out at regional level and financed using European funds must present as clearly as possible the way to ensure gender equality as part of the activities involved in these projects. The European Regional Development Fund can encourage specific actions to be taken, aimed at promoting gender equality, which will be assessed during the project evaluation and selection process. I think that the time is right for integrating more gender equality aspects in a more effective manner into regional policies so that European funds will be used in the future to support projects carried out accordingly.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) Madam President, last year, in the European Union, the number of women over the age of 65 was 38% higher than that of men. Therefore, at European Union level, the number of women exposed to the risk of poverty and social exclusion is higher than that of men.

According to Eurostat, in 2010 the employment rate among women aged between 25 and 64 was only 43.3% among those with a low level of education, 66.6% among those with an average level education, and 80.6% among women with a high level of education. Although 60% of higher education graduates are women, they are not represented at the same level in politics or in business management positions. We believe that setting a goal of equal representation in elected positions in the national parliaments and the European Parliament and of 40% by 2020 in the management positions of major European companies will encourage women to develop and plan for adequate careers.

  Emer Costello (S&D). - Madam President, I am still new here. I am very pleased to be here and my arrival has meant that the Irish delegation in the S&D is 100% female, a fact that I am particularly proud of.

Irish women particularly have much to thank the European Union for. After Ireland’s entry into the European Union much equality legislation was placed on our statue books, which I regret successive Irish Governments had failed to do. One of the most significant examples of this was the removal of the marriage bar, whereby women who worked in the public service were denied the right to work after they married. The marriage bar was lifted in 1974 following our entry into the European Union.

Membership of the EU did much, but progress has been slow since then and there is still much that has to be done. Women are under-represented at decision-making level in many spheres: at government level, at national parliament level and also at local government level while at the same time women are very active in communities. Yet women in communities feel that their work there is very much undervalued. For that reason I believe that the implementation of quotas is necessary to improve the participation of women.

I compliment the two rapporteurs of this report and also welcome the commitment and the call on the Commission to introduce gender auditing of budgets, particularly in these difficult economic times.

  Cornelia Ernst (GUE/NGL). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, has anyone in this Parliament actually ever written a report about the number of men in middle and top positions who are mediocre, low-achievers? Had there been such a report, it would have observed – as we already know from our real lives – that a great number of men who really are not effective and not particularly brilliant nevertheless occupy top positions. We would also have hit upon the idea that perhaps the factor of excellence in performance, which is supposed to be the sole criterion for top positions, is not, in fact, the only factor.

There is a glass ceiling for women, also known as structural discrimination, and as long as that is the case, we will need this quota. It is very crude tool: all the quota does is to create formal equality, which is the prerequisite for bringing about real equality of rights and fairness between the sexes.

It seems to me that we should not beat around the bush, we should give this our clear support and I am therefore nailing my colours to the mast in support of this quota.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Madam President, even if our subject today is women, I personally am predominantly masculine. Sixty per cent of all university graduates in the EU are women. Despite this, women still earn much less than their male colleagues with the same level of qualification. It is high time that this wage gap were closed – we must have the same pay for the same qualifications. The other side of the coin, however, has to be that there must be the same opportunities for the same qualifications. For that reason, Madam President, I believe that quota arrangements should be rejected.

Commissioner Reding’s approach is one that I would say is not really sensible. It is highly questionable, for example, whether board members who have gained their place through a quota would really feel accepted. For that reason, young women need to be pointed in the direction of their education opportunities early on, including when it comes to so-called ‘typical women’s jobs’. At the same time, however, these typical women’s jobs need to be re-evaluated and given higher status.

At the end of the day, the key subject is the compatibility of career and family, more flexible opening times for nurseries and schools, but also family tax quotients. Every way of life must have its place without placing people’s livelihoods in jeopardy.

  Krisztina Morvai (NI). – (HU) Madam President, I would like to deliver my speech in Hungarian. The report is correct in pointing out that there are certain groups of women who are particularly disadvantaged and disenfranchised. What I see as a problem here, however, is that from a professional women’s rights standpoint, it is inappropriate that while the report includes women belonging to ethnic minorities among such groups, it fails to include women belonging to indigenous national minorities. We could fill libraries with literature on how women belonging to indigenous national minorities suffer every type of discrimination generally directed against such minority groups to a much greater degree. Let me give you two examples from Europe and at the same time ask the drafters of this report whether they are familiar with these cases.

The first concerns the language law affecting the Hungarian minority in the historic region of Upper Hungary. Women suffer much more than men do from the legal disadvantage and human rights infringement of not being allowed to use their own language before the authorities and in healthcare. After all when it comes to healthcare, it is mostly women who care for children and the elderly, accompany their relatives to attend various medical appointments and take care of the day-to-day business of their families before the authorities. My second question is this: are Parliament and Commissioner Reding aware that a 99-year-old woman was recently stripped of her Slovakian citizenship for the sole reason of making use, being a Hungarian, of the legal option to adopt Hungarian citizenship? There is so much talk here about the right to sexual identity. Why does a person not have the right to national identity? In particular, are we aware of how serious an impact this has on women?

(End of ‘catch-the-eye’ procedure)

  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. − Madam President, I would like to thank the two rapporteurs, Ms in ’t Veld and Ms Pietikäinen. They have given us the basis for a very animated debate. In this Chamber I have often criticised the fact that there were very few men in the Chamber during debates on women’s and gender equality questions, but I must say that tonight was a first. There were many more men than usual. It is good that this debate – where both sides are heard, where people have different opinions, because it is a question of society and not a question of women alone – is led by men and by women.

I think we all agree that there are many challenges and that the challenges have not become less but that problems are growing. Where we do not agree is on the measures to be taken in order to change this situation. Mostly we do not agree on what should be done at European level and what should be done at national level, although very often the two have to be combined.

So I really need the support of Parliament in order to go forward in those areas where there is a very clear European competence. I need the help of Parliament to continue to raise awareness about the very large number of inequalities and to take the measures that are needed to change this situation. By the way, I would like to tell you that all Commissioners are aware that in their portfolio the balance between men and women needs to be tackled.

One example I could give of how European law and national action have to be combined is the question of the gender pay gap. Several Members who asked this question are no longer in the Chamber but, at any rate, I think it is important that I tell you this. We do have a European directive on equal pay for equal work, and there was a very interesting hearing concerning that problem last week in Parliament. The result of this hearing was that, where the directive is applied by national courts, direct discrimination is no longer very high. We are going to review this directive, analysing, with a report in the coming months, how it works and in which countries it has made quite a difference.

But there are very many problems of indirect discrimination. Women earn less because they make up the majority of people in part-time work and because they leave work when they become mothers. Fathers do not leave work when they become fathers. A majority of those in underpaid jobs are women. That explains the gender pay gap.

One of the conclusions of the hearing was that we desperately need transparency rules to be applied in the Member States. Some Member States have acted on this but most have not. We need to go a step further in regard to this problem. So you can see that, while sometimes a European directive solves problems, other problems can only be solved at the level of the labour market, at the level of the social partners working together and at the level of national governments introducing transparency rules.

I need the European Parliament to encourage those organisations in civil society which help us to make progress happen. In the last year I have seen that many of those have a lot of energy and action. I will give you the latest example which I found when I started to look at the reasons why there were so few women at decision-making level in our economic world. The business schools of Europe united their forces and last Wednesday they presented a pool of 3 500 women, highly qualified in studies and in experience, in top management, who are ready to be put on the boards of any big listed company. They have helped us to show that the women are there and that we just need to use the talent which is available in society. They also need our help in order to understand that the European Parliament helps them to go in this direction.

This brings me to the point where I really do need your help as well, namely with the measures seeking to reach the point where qualified women are no longer blocked by the glass ceiling and where their talent is not lost to the economy as is happening today. Some of you have said that on the boards of the largest listed companies in Europe we have a de facto male quota, because 86% of the members of these boards are men. And where are the women – those 3 500 for instance who were put forward by the business schools? We have to help this talent to express itself in the interest of our society and of our economy.

I also need your help in order to help those forces in the political parties which fight for a better representation of women on the electoral lists. We all know, through party political experience, that this is not very easily done. That is why all those who try to do this need a strong European Parliament that says yes, we will go for equality in the representation of men and women as well. Only with a balance between men and women in our national parliaments and in our European Parliament will we have a real democracy and a real equilibrium in policies which can be achieved for the good of our society.

I am personally absolutely convinced that only in a society where equilibrium is reached between men and women can we have a real development both in societal terms and economic terms. We need both. So please, Parliament, vote massively tomorrow.

  Sophia in 't Veld, rapporteur. − Madam President, I thank the Commissioner for her strong words. I think you can count on the majority of this House to support any measures you take.

First of all briefly on quotas: I think there are a couple of misunderstandings here. Quotas, as many people have said, are indeed a necessary evil. This is not an instrument to push incompetent women into top jobs. This is an instrument to break the glass ceiling, which is not a visible brick wall but consists of very subtle, invisible, sometimes even subconscious mechanisms that favour men over women. That is what we need to tackle.

Secondly, I heard the word ‘subsidiarity’ a number of times in the debate, when we talked about LGBT families in particular.

Frankly, I think that the subsidiarity principle is invoked rather selectively. We very often discuss matters here which are outside our competence but I would say that free movement is one of the four pillars of a Europe without borders. That is definitely the competence of the Commission, as are equality policies.

So why is addressing the recognition of LGBT families not an EU competence, when we have an EU Alliance for Families which is funded or co-funded by the Commission? Why does that only apply to one single model of families? Why not to all families in the whole of the European Union, even in those countries where the families exist but the people are not recognised?

In my country for example, same-sex couples can legally marry. It is a law and I find it very annoying that a law in my country is not recognised in another country. This is not about imposing gay marriage on all Member States. It is simply about mutual recognition. We recognise the ingredients of cheese and beer across the European Union. Why do we not recognise love and family, the most important things in our lives?

  Sirpa Pietikäinen, rapporteur. − Madam President, first of all I would like to thank the Commissioner not only for her very strong words but also for her strong actions on striving towards equality and parity.

Firstly, I would like to thank all my colleagues for this very fruitful discussion, the point of which is that different actions are not exclusive to each other. We can and we need to have voluntary action and the activity of women and men themselves. We need affirmative actions and we need to support civil society and women’s organisations. But we need legislative actions too.

In my mind, the core is parity and that both men and women are treated and given the same possibilities. In my mind, human rights are never subject to voluntary action if someone wants to give human rights to someone else. Nor, in my mind, is it an issue of subsidiarity for human rights to be respected on one side of the border but not on the other.

To me, legislation, be it quotas, is a fair deal where we all commit ourselves to obeying the rules and we all commit ourselves to behaving like human beings. It is a bit like when we commit ourselves by law, not just voluntarily, to driving on the right side of the road where that applies, and on the left side in some other cases.

This is why quotas, to me, are not a question of having unqualified men or women. It is a question of giving access on the basis of a meritocracy to everybody.

Lastly, it is my wish that the Commission strengthen the role of the European Institute for Gender Equality and strengthen their finances and ability to act and serve as a platform for women and other NGOs and that the Commission may find resources to support women’s organisations campaigning on equality in upcoming elections, be they national or for European Parliament.

  President. − The joint debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow, Tuesday 13 March 2012, at 12.30.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) Gender equality is indeed one of the European Union’s most important values and it is therefore crucial for attention to be constantly focused on this area. The report rightly highlights the need to increase women’s economic independence. This is particularly important not just for combating poverty but for guaranteeing better social security for women of retirement age because the sizes of pensions are directly dependent on the length of service completed and salary earned. Although the employment rate for women continues to rise, it is still as much as 13% lower than that for men. Here it would seem that Lithuania is a welcome exception, as the employment rate for women in 2010 was almost 2% higher than it was for men, and the rate of unemployment was even 7.8% lower than it was for men. However, here we should focus on the quality of women’s employment. I would still put such figures down to the fact that women agree to work more willingly, even when the pay is low. After all as many as 31.4% of European women work part-time, mostly due to family circumstances, compared to only 8.1% of men. Having considered these two facts, we can clearly see that it is still too difficult for women to secure economic independence in Europe today. In this context I believe that we must take action to help working parents by ensuring sufficient high quality, accessible and affordable child care services in the Member States.

  Carlo Casini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Equality between women and men is an undeniable achievement of the modern era. Its foundations are equal human dignity and universal recognition of human rights. Unfortunately, in the report we are discussing today, there is an unacceptable contradiction that radically changes its meaning. Human dignity and human rights concern all human beings and therefore also the most fragile, weak and poor. Demanding abortion as a woman’s right, hiding this request in a misleading fashion in a question on sexual and reproductive rights (which in itself is worthy of full consent, provided that they do not include the right to destroy the life of an unwanted child) is unacceptable. For this reason I cannot vote in favour of the report. I would like to add that equality between men and women does not mean having the same identity and that motherhood is the sign of a capacity for receptivity (what may be called ‘feminine genius’) that man does not have. In that sense, women can walk at the head of all humanity towards goals of freedom, justice, peace and solidarity. But, to be themselves, they must not walk alone, but rather accompany all the weakest people on Earth, starting off from their own children.

  Robert Dušek (S&D), in writing. - (CS) Much progress has already been achieved over gender equality in the European Union. An improvement can be seen particularly in the wording of legislation. Genuine equality, however, has not yet been achieved. There are enormous disparities in this area. While equal pay for equal work with equal qualifications has become the norm in multinational corporations and conglomerates, gender stereotypes prevail in regional or rural areas, leading to almost absolute inequality between women and men. Member States and EU bodies should focus mainly on the labour market in these areas. Gender equality can be achieved in the future only if women have equal access to the labour market today, and if they get the same pay for the same work. The establishment of a family and the responsibilities of motherhood appear to be an insurmountable problem for the inclusion of women in work. Young women are often discriminated against when starting their first job, as employers are concerned about the future interruptions to work due to childbirth. I am therefore calling for a search for new options for supporting women when returning to work after maternity leave. The second substantial problem is the insufficient financial value placed on social work and care for close relatives in hospital or in old age. Here too we must look for new ways to support women, because they are almost the only ones who care for close relatives.

  Richard Falbr (S&D), in writing. - (CS) We must finally stop talking and start doing something fundamental about the problem of women receiving lower pay than men for the same work. I would like to point out that, according to the statistics, the Czech Republic is close to being the worst Member State of all from this regard. Pay continues to differ substantially under various pretexts, the most common being that the man is the family bread-winner. Unfortunately, this is encouraged by a very old International Labour Organisation convention which established decades ago what the pay of a man working in the steel industry should be, in order to feed a wife and two children. It might be a good idea for the Member States to annul this Convention. I also discussed this with the Spanish Labour Minister during the Spanish Presidency of the EU.

  Monika Flašíková Benová (S&D), in writing - (SK) Gender equality is a right guaranteed by Article 23 of the Charter. Despite this women earn, on average, significantly less than men for the same work carried out. Women earn on average 17.1% less than men in the European Union and the pay gap varies between 3.2% and 30.9%. In the private sector women’s salaries tend to be one quarter less. The inequality starts to be visible after a woman's return from her first maternity leave. Women’s interrupted careers also lead to differences in pension contributions, thus increasing the risk of poverty among women in old age. Again, I see no reason why giving birth and bringing up children should be penalised, or why women should be economically dependent on men because of this.

There are not only differences between men and women in terms of salaries, but also in the employment rate. The current difference clearly indicates the need to encourage greater involvement of women if the EU is to achieve the target of the Europe 2020 strategy, which is an employment rate of 75 percent. Continued participation in employment will strengthen the lifelong economic independence of women and will allow them to have adequate pensions.

I believe it is high time to accelerate the pace of change towards full equality. Personal and cultural stereotypes are difficult to tear down, but I see no reason why institutional changes should be delayed.

  Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The adoption of the reports by Sirpa Pietikäinen and Sophia in't Veld is of great significance for the struggle for equality between women and men across the Member States of the European Union. Relating as it does to local, national as well as European Parliament elections, this issue concerns all levels of government. I am pleased that in some cases the proposals concern parity of representation, that is, a 50% representation within Parliament’s key bodies. Both reports clearly set out the direction for our actions. We should, however, pay particular attention to implementation of the proposals they contain. We have to prepare road maps for the implementation of the reports and monitor all these actions. In adopting them in the European Parliament, we need to ensure that our institution sets a good example for other institutions. The offices of the President and the Vice-President of the European Parliament as well as that of the Chairs and Vice-Chairs of the committees should be subject to parity. We should also ensure that we maintain a gender balance in offices within political groups, including the European People’s Party. During the last elections, only three of the 22 candidates for the highest positions within our group, were women. In my opinion, this number should be much higher, and we should ensure that this situation does not occur during the next term. I am glad that one of the reports mentions Poland as a positive example of a country that has introduced an electoral quota system. We have not yet achieved the desired results, but I think that it will take time for the legislation introduced to translate fully into reality.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Defending women’s rights is not an outdated cause. Naturally, throughout Europe equality between men and women is enshrined in legislation. However, the facts remain, and latent discrimination still continues: all we have to do is to take a look around us to see that. Two thirds of MEPs are men. Defending women’s rights also means pointing out that women must be free to make decisions about their own bodies. All women must have access to information and contraception. Let us not forget the importance of education on this point, as well as organisations providing advice and support to women, such as family planning. Maternity should be a choice, not a scourge. We fought for centuries in Europe for free will and freedom of choice: let us not adopt a regressive attitude in talking about women. Rights to sexual and reproductive health must be protected. Of course, we may differ as to the exact interpretation and definition of these rights, particularly with regard to abortion. We cannot, however, differ about our wish to protect women, irrespective of their choices. When abortion is legal and possible, we cannot abandon these women, at the expense of their health.

  Iosif Matula (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Ensuring equal opportunities is an objective that has not been fully achieved yet. Statistics show where women are at the moment and because the situation is far from being fair, we must make firm decisions. Extending the quota system at private enterprises level throughout the European Union would mean, however, to go very far. Personally, I believe we have a great need for women in the management structures of companies, but also in politics. The change must start, however, with the mental attitude. We must fight against the stereotypes promoted by men, but also by women themselves. Although women make up more than half of the population, they do not seem to be ready yet to elect women to public office.

At a practical level, I would suggest we turned more attention to women in rural areas. We can use European funds to inform, train and provide them with employability and well-being perspectives, in order to ensure their economic and social independence. I do not believe that we can continue to question the ability or competence of women employees today, just like we cannot decide on behalf of women in matters regarding their health and the way in which they wish to achieve their full potential, either.

  Evelyn Regner (S&D), in writing. – (DE) It is still the case that too little is being done in respect of the equality of the sexes in the workplace. The introduction of an EU-wide quota of women in private companies would be a first step. I therefore welcome, at this point, the clear and public commitment by Commissioner Reding and her first steps towards this. The facts have long been known: in 2010 only 12% of board members in the EU’s biggest listed companies were women, and only 3% of chief executives are women. These figures are shocking, especially given that women make up more than half of the population, around 56% of tertiary students are female and for years now the majority of graduates have been female. Self-imposed obligations on the part of companies simply do not work, although companies with at least one woman in their executive boards record significantly higher profits. Further steps need to be taken after the introduction of mandatory quotas in order to promote women in the business environment as a whole. In this area we need a comprehensive programme without delay, as a strong female core in businesses will also ensure future equality of opportunity. The European institutions should take a leading role when it comes to political decision-making. In this House, one third of the Members are women. In order to achieve something for the equality of women at work, let us women work together across party lines, as it is in all of our interests to get clever women into leadership roles.

  Olga Sehnalová (S&D), in writing. – (CS) Equal pay for equal work is one of the themes of this year’s International Women's Day, along with increasing the number of women in managerial positions. In the Czech Republic, the pay gap is far worse than the European average. According to widely-known Eurostat figures, the gap persists at 26%. In any other area, a difference from the rest of Europe of 17% compared to what we are entitled to and what we consider natural and fair would be unacceptable to us. A substantial section of European citizens consider pay differences to be one of the most serious inequalities between women and men. I support the report, because it sets out the problem of gender inequality in all of its breadth and complexity.

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I wholeheartedly support the 2011 Resolution on equality between women and men in the European Union. This very important report shows that, despite continuing progress, women are being discriminated against in all areas of social, economic and political life. The differences relate to their participation in political life, career advancement opportunities, unequal pay and the risk of unemployment. Until we eliminate these differences, there will never be true equality between women and men. In particular, I would like to draw your attention to the issue of violence against women, which constitutes the main obstacle to equality between women and men, and is one of the most widespread violations of human rights. In this context, I appeal to the European Commission to prepare a directive on preventing and combating all forms of violence against women, and to proclaim 2014 as the European Year for Combating Violence Perpetrated by Men against Women.

It is also important that the European Union and all Member States, in as short a timeframe as possible, sign and ratify the Council of Europe Convention of 11 May 2011 on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence. I would like to draw particular attention to item 47 of the Resolution, which emphasises that women must have control over their sexual and reproductive rights, inter alia through the provision of access to affordable high-quality contraception. I appeal to all Member States to commit to the effective implementation of this provision.

18. Composition of Parliament : see Minutes

IN THE CHAIR: GEORGIOS PAPASTAMKOS
Vice-President

19. Succession and the European Certificate of Succession (debate)

  President. – The next item is the report (A7-0045/2012) by Kurt Lechner, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and authentic instruments in matters of success and the creation of a European Certificate of Succession (COM(2009)0154 - C7-0236/2009 - 2009/0157(COD))

  Kurt Lechner, rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for European citizens who have assets in another country or who live in a country other than their home country, it is currently practically impossible to plan their succession properly and with legal certainty. The heirs, for their part, face disputes that are to some extent irresolvable but always cost time and money.

Twelve million EU citizens live in another Member State. Many have assets in another country. Thirteen per cent of marriages are mixed-nationality, and around 20 million citizens of third states reside in the European Union. They are all affected. The need for uniform European regulation in this area is obvious. In future, citizens will be able to choose, and to decide that the inheritance law of their home state should apply to their succession. For the majority of Member States, this right to choose is something entirely new. Where a citizen fails to make a choice of legal system, the inheritance law of the country in which they were habitually resident at the time of their death, where they had the main focus of their life, will apply to their succession.

The inheritance law and of course also law on indefeasible interests that will subsequently apply in each individual case will then apply to the whole succession. This includes land and property, wherever it is located. Successions will thus no longer be fragmented. In most cases, courts will be able to apply their own law and, in contrast to the status quo, in future, court decisions will be mutually recognised.

For the heirs, who hitherto had to do battle with authorities and courts in multiple states, it is particularly important that there is to be a European Certificate of Succession, which must be recognised as proof of inheritance in all Member States and can be used in all Member States for entries in land and property registers, but also for disposal over succession assets, for example over bank accounts. This will make things enormously simpler and easier for citizens. It will provide real benefits, and save time and money.

I would also briefly like to bring up a few individual points. First of all, the regulation does not apply to inheritance tax, which remains unchanged. That is always the first or second question that citizens ask, and it is something that would, in fact, merit an initiative of its own.

Secondly, the relevant national law concerning inheritance and indefeasible interests also remains unaltered. Thirdly, the new rules will only start to apply three years after the entry into force of the regulation. Fourthly, the United Kingdom and Ireland have made use of their opt-out. We hope that they will join in later. The same applies to Denmark.

In contrast to other regulations covering this field, such as Rome I and II, we are not dealing here with a codification and finishing-off of existing agreements – rather, this is a fundamentally new creation for all Member States. For that reason, the outstanding quality of the Commission proposal deserves specific recognition and respect. Nonetheless, considerable improvements were still achieved in the course of the two-and-a-half years of discussions, which is down to the intensive collaboration of all the institutions. I would like to thank the members of the Committee on Legal Affairs for the important contributions they had to make and for their support, which led to a number of significant improvements and additions.

I would specifically like to thank the Council, too, which worked intensively in all its configurations on this dossier and helped provide clarifications and improvements. I would particularly like to thank the Danish Presidency, which brought the discussions to their conclusion and effectively sealed the deal. Finally, I would like to thank the Commission again, as it not only brought forward a sound proposal, but was also excellent in the way it assisted and influenced the discussions in both technical and content-related terms.

Given that we were just debating gender policy, Commissioner, I feel I should just point out that the consultation and assistance from the Commission came exclusively from women, as far as I could see. Please do pass on my thanks to the relevant people. This regulation is relatively simple and comprehensible for the citizens. There were, however, difficult issues to be tackled and resolved in the negotiations. Everybody showed the willingness to find a common solution for the benefit of the citizens. As a result, everyone made concessions for the common good. For this, too, I would like to offer my sincere thanks.

  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, believe me, I am very glad to see that this proposal is on the agenda of this plenary sitting because citizens have been waiting for a long time, for too long. The Council identified this problem back in 2000 as an area for action and this is now the first time that an EU instrument has been adopted in the area of succession. This is not just for a few people, because around 10% of the total number of successions in the EU involve an international dimension. The value is about EUR 120 billion, so this regulation provides a unique opportunity to show that Europe is taking action to make life easer for citizens in difficult human and legal situations.

I am very much aware that succession is a delicate, sensitive area which is intrinsically linked to national policies on family protection and judicial systems, and that there are considerable differences between the national laws, but fortunately we have had a wonderful rapporteur, Mr Lechner. By the way, I think this is one of the last actions he will take in this Parliament, because he will be retiring. I think, Mr Lechner, with this action you have left a stamp on the European Parliament and I think we can all thank you for the work you have done in the interests of the citizens of Europe.

The result which the rapporteur is proposing is remarkable and the Commission lends its full support to it. The resolution which is for adoption tomorrow maintains the main policy objectives set for the Commission, namely that successions will be governed by one single law – that of the country of habitual residence of the deceased. People will be able to plan their succession in advance by choosing the law of their country of nationality wherever they move in the European Union, and there will be free movement of court decisions and of authentic instruments in Europe. The cherry on the cake is, of course, the European Certificate of Succession which will enable people to prove their status as heirs and exercise their rights throughout the EU.

I absolutely agree with the rapporteur that the text which has been under discussion for such a long time has been very much improved thanks to the arduous work of the rapporteur and the committee. The rapporteur insisted in particular on ensuring legal certainty for people who drafted wills prior to this regulation, so thank you very much for the work you have done on this. I am sure this is one of the points we can put on the table during the European Year of Citizens in order to show that, yes, we care for citizens.

  Klaus-Heiner Lehne, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, it is a shame, really, but this House never learns. We find ourselves here at this ungodly hour debating an extremely important legislative proposal that, according to Commissioner Reding, directly affects 10% of the citizens of the European Union, some 50 million people. They are joined by a far bigger number, the potential heirs, who are probably also indirectly affected to a considerable degree. Despite this, because of the circumstances that find us sitting late at night, there are not many of us here. Perhaps there should be some consideration at some point in the Conference of Presidents of whether, once in a while, we could be spared a strategic debate about a meaningless summit with no end in sight and instead a subject such as this, which has a real impact on people, could be given a more prominent place on the agenda. I believe that the reputation of this House would then be considerably better than it currently is in the eyes of many members of the general public.

The truth is that this is an incredibly important proposal, and it has also been an incredibly difficult one. It proved to be a very complex proposal, and at this point, as the Chair of the Committee on Legal Affairs, I would like once again to offer my very sincere thanks to Mr Lechner, who worked for a long time in this committee, where he showed himself to be one of our best and most competent members, for his work. Mr Lechner’s legacy to the committee and to this House is a real leaving present, and one that is very significant, important, politically and also legally valuable, and that is something that I think bears reiterating at this point, in this debate, as he has decided to relinquish his seat at the end of the week, which will unfortunately mean – and I feel entitled to lament this once again at this point – that he is leaving us.

I can only hope that the Council is impressed with what has been decided in this report. Preliminary negotiations to that effect were, of course, carried out. I believe the Council would do well to simply approve the Lechner report. That would mean that we would ultimately have a finished dossier that would help the citizens of this, our Europe, and that would be a sound piece of work that would also represent progress in creating a Europe for the citizens.

  Luigi Berlinguer, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I too would like to echo the warm greetings extended to Mr Lechner and the assessment of his work, which he carried out with competency, tenacity and determination: a labour of love, sometimes this draft regulation met with an obstacle and he withdrew it and began negotiating again with the Council, with the Commission, and with the Committee on Legal Affairs. I believe he can be proud of this. I note that there is unanimous consensus in his favour.

Turning to this regulation of ours, I too am convinced that this is an important thing, which may not hit the headlines in the press, may not be considered high politics, but the construction of the European Union also involves meeting the needs of citizens in their daily lives – first and foremost of those millions of people with interests in more than one Member State dealing with procedures that are difficult to unravel, tedious and which sometimes touch on sensitive issues at the heart of a family which politics generally finds difficult to grasp. The European Union should take pride in being based on such sensitive attention.

The solutions that have been proposed are new and intelligent ones. For example, those drawing up a will have been given the freedom to choose between their habitual residence and their state of origin. This makes decision-making more flexible, since there are such major differences between one State and another that the question of succession could always be rather tricky.

But the law has also been made more certain, because once the legal solution has been chosen – either habitual residence or country of origin – this requires limitations of the jurisdiction and of the conflicts that can arise and therefore it is a more peaceful way of proceeding in this area and so there is more freedom and more certainty.

Then there is the certificate of succession: now, we may believe that certificates are of little importance, but they create the conditions to ensure the heir is in a condition of greater flexibility and certainty with regard to all the possible difficulties that may arise. That is a positive aspect of this law.

It is true, this law is by no means perfect: there are problems concerning whether there is an executor of the will or not, the feasibility of direct inheritance, and so on, but I just want to say another word of a political nature. We hope that the Council will approve this text, and we hope it will become law. However, we must not lay this text to rest, because we cannot have England in a different condition – with the United Kingdom left like that – because Europe cannot do without the United Kingdom, and so we must therefore make sure that we overcome these difficulties. Thank you.

  Alexandra Thein, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are in the process of re-regulating succession and family law in respect of which law is to be applied, which courts have competence and the recognition and enforcement of judgments from other countries. We have done so already in respect of the arrangement of child support and divorce law. Tomorrow we will be voting on the law of succession, and marital property law will follow.

As Mr Lehne has already said, in the plenary today we are not discussing any old abstract political issues. Instead, we are helping our citizens in a quite tangible way to solve what are currently in some ways irresolvable problems. In the worst case scenario it can happen in a cross-border succession case that the heirs appeal to the highest instance of the courts in different Member States, spend a great deal of time and money and that there are then two contradicting decisions because each of the courts applies the law in that Member State. The aim is for such situations to be avoided in future.

We are on the verge of a change of system when it comes to succession law. In future, the entire succession will be in the competence of the courts of the Member State in the territory of which the bequeather was habitually resident at the time of their death. This is because we are working on the basis that people have a stronger relationship with the country in which they reside. However, someone who, by way of example, as a German permanently resident in Strasbourg, regards him- or herself as having a closer connection with Germany, can choose to have German law apply to their succession. In order to avoid a French court having to apply complicated German succession law, there is, in such circumstances, also a provision for the succession to be brought before a German probate court. Meanwhile, those who like to winter in Mallorca need have no fear either, as, wherever you go on holiday, it does not constitute habitual residence in the country in which you holiday.

Furthermore, this regulation will not affect inheritance tax. Denmark, the United Kingdom and Ireland, as we have heard, will not initially be involved as a result of their opt-outs. That is a shame, as so many Britons, in particular, have holiday homes in southern Europe and these would then also be subject to the common law and not, as up to now, to the law of the Member State in which the land is located. A major information campaign will be necessary. I would also like to thank Mr Lechner once again for his comprehensive work and for the solution that he reached. His work shows how important it is that this Parliament should contain not only career politicians but also professionals from other walks of life.

  Eva Lichtenberger, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Lechner, who really did excellent work in a very open way and also always managed to integrate all the shadow rapporteurs really well. The current decision actually only brings inheritance law into line with a development that has been growing over recent years. People are mobile. They are living outside their countries of origin and building a life there, yet when it comes to their succession, in the end they always had to fall back on their country of origin. This can give rise to enormous difficulties and major irritation. I am therefore very pleased that this decision has now finally been made, with the one sour note being the failure – for the 536th time – of the United Kingdom to participate. Each Member State has many, many reasons not to participate, but this case is particularly tragic.

There was one thing that I was looking out for, namely that same-sex couples could not be discriminated against under reference to public policy when it comes to them actually exercising the inheritance rights that they claim with their choice of legal system. For me, that is a key desideratum of modern times. Lifestyles have changed, after all.

  Sajjad Karim, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, there are some colleagues in the room who have been pointing at me and gesturing as other comments have been made regarding the United Kingdom’s position on this.

Can I start off by saying, first of all, my very sincere thanks to our colleague Mr Lechner for the tremendous amount of hard work that he has put into this dossier over a period of about two years or so? I thank him for everything he has done in making sure that he has made his contribution and I wish him well for whatever he chooses to do after he leaves us. He is going to be missed.

Can I also echo the comments that were made by Mr Lechner about the timing of debates that take place in this House? This debate is significantly overrunning. No fault of yours, Mr President, but the fact of the matter is I was due to meet with Mr Lidington, the United Kingdom Minister for Europe, this evening. This was one of the issues I wanted to discuss with him. That is not now going to happen.

Can I also express my real disappointment at the decision in the Council whereby the UK and Ireland found themselves in a position where they did not feel they were able to opt into this regulation?

I have always said that the lack of an opt-in is always going to be very theoretical because the practical effects will remain and will be very real for many EU citizens. For instance, more than 15% of successions that have been carried out in the United Kingdom had a cross-border element: 3.1% of the UK population comes from another EU Member State and I consider that the failure to resolve the issue of clawback is a fundamental flaw in the final regulation as it will close off its benefits to a huge number of citizens from other Member States who happen to be living in the UK and Ireland, and conversely the large numbers of expat UK citizens spread throughout Europe.

I note that there remain concerns within delegations in the Council regarding other aspects of the regulation such as the provisions relating to administration. Practices vary widely across the European Union in this area, and we must consider whether the final article agreed between Parliament and Council will meet the needs of citizens and practitioners from all Member States.

May I suggest finally that a second reading, even if very short, would allow us a period to refocus and approach the difficulties that still remain with a freshness of mind, because quite clearly it is in the interests of all of us, this House and the Commission, to see if we can resolve the difficulties that we set out to resolve at the outset.

  Jaroslav Paška, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (SK) Mr President, I have studied with interest the European Commission's proposal for a regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and authentic instruments in matters of succession and the creation of a European Certificate of Succession. I understand the fact that the increasing migration of EU citizens can bring some problems for the heirs of the deceased who have settled in another country. In my opinion, the binding of the determination of jurisdiction and applicable law of succession to some kind of habitual residence of the testator or deceased, which as a key concept is not properly defined or clearly defined in the regulation, seems to be unfortunate. This broad and loosely formulated term allows courts in different countries to expound the law differently and I therefore believe it is necessary to select more precisely worded definitions for such a sensitive regulation in the next course of action.

  Dimitar Stoyanov (NI). – (BG) Mr President, matters relating to judicial disputes over succession are among the most difficult areas in interpersonal relations governed by law. They are usually among the most complicated to resolve. It is no coincidence that the case which I had to resolve as part of the exam in civil law to complete my law course and studies was precisely on this subject. The question was about dividing up an inheritance, of course within the scope of my Member State, which made it simpler to some extent. However, precisely this event in my life gives me a definite idea of basically how complex this subject is. I also have a definite idea of what a huge job Mr Lechner has done. I think that this report, which is his last in the European Parliament, is a fine crowning achievement, like an award which he will be able to have with him until the end of his days, and everyone in the European Parliament will remember him for this.

However, I also wish to mention another matter relating to what I am saying, taking into account my own reports which I have received in the Committee on Legal Affairs and how much work Mr Lechner has done. Commissioner, it has struck me that the quality of the legislative proposals tabled by the Commission is slightly poorer than we have been used to. I know that you rely on us as committed European politicians to do such a good job, like Mr Lechner. However, I would like to ask the Commission to make a more serious effort and submit acts of better quality.

  Tadeusz Zwiefka (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, we are frequently, and unfortunately, justly accused of discussing matters which are far removed from the day-to-day problems experienced by citizens of the European Union. Sometimes, we also discuss matters over which European institutions have no legislative power. Today, at this precise moment, we can say that we are talking about an issue which is extremely important and crucial for EU citizens. It is these EU citizens who will be served by this very document. It will assist them in situations that are inherently very difficult, since when we have lost someone close to us, the situation is already very traumatic. The ensuing regulatory jungle people then have to face in order to deal with the estate of a deceased relative is a real nightmare.

The regulation which we have worked on, and which Mr Lechner in particular, has worked on - and I would like to extend my sincere thanks to him for this - will afford both future testators as well as future heirs much greater legal certainty when negotiating their way through this regulatory jungle. It is a perfect example of an effective EU legislative measure. Given that succession law differs wholly or at least partially across the various Member States, these EU measures build a legal bridge of sorts in order to make life easier for those of our citizens who are scattered across Europe and living outside their home country, without encroaching on or altering national law. The introduction of a European Certificate of Succession will allow the administrators of an estate, the heirs and the executors of the will to formally establish their succession status. This report, on which Mr Lechner has worked for over two and half years, backed, of course, by the outstanding support of the European Commission and a number of successive presidencies, most certainly provides added value.

It should be pointed out that the reconciliation of succession regulations, which often relate to deeply rooted traditions, and are derived from such an enormous variety of legislation, required great skill. Here, both the Commission and our rapporteur have risen to the challenge, a notable achievement on which they deserve to be commended.. I would, moreover, like to draw attention to the fact that conflict of law rules have been established, for cases where the law to be used to govern succession has not been chosen in advance. This is also important.

As I conclude, Mr President, I would just like to refer to an important issue. Adequate information is essential for citizens to benefit from this legislation. I therefore appeal to the Commission and to the governments of the Member States disseminate information effectively.

  Evelyn Regner (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, Ms Reding, Mr Lechner, the new Succession Regulation will make life easier for many testators and heirs and dramatically reduce the number of cross-border disputes in succession matters.

There is a rapidly growing number of people who have assets in other Member States or who live in another Member State. The new Regulation should provide them with greater legal certainty when drawing up their wills or planning the provision for their survivors. I stress the word ‘should’, because once again there would seem to be a large fly in the ointment. It seems that the Council is blocking a uniform Europe-wide result on account of the stubbornness of some Member States.

The United Kingdom and Ireland have now negotiated an opt-out on two points: in relation to estate administration and, as already mentioned, in connection with the clawback clause as a result of the contestation of gifts on account of a reduction of indefeasible interests.

However, this derogation will not only be disadvantageous for the people of the United Kingdom and Ireland. Heirs who are citizens of other Member States will also be negatively affected by this. In that regard, we cannot talk about a purely British or purely Irish problem. With regard to the clawback clause, we must ensure that no systematic opportunities for forum shopping are created, where people settle in another Member State simply to circumvent the inheritance law of their own Member State.

In all of the negotiations, the European Parliament advocated a common solution with the participation of all Member States. As the Member States, in the Council in particular, were not able to reach an agreement on the issue of gifts on account of a reduction of indefeasible interests and the administration of the estate, these areas will now remain almost unregulated, which will result in legal uncertainty.

The Member States are now called on to reach a compromise on the two outstanding issues for the sake of simplification of the legislation and greater legal certainty. We must not make the life of heirs more complicated and expensive unnecessarily. For that reason, I am calling for the Council to truly take Parliament’s concerns to heart. The new Succession Regulation is practical and right, but it must not become a cherry-picking regulation where people who deny the indefeasible interests move to Ireland or the United Kingdom.

Mr Lechner, could you please stay for a while longer in order to resolve the remaining problems with your tenacity and problem-solving skills?

  Janusz Wojciechowski (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, we are debating an issue which makes clear to us the extent to which the European Union can be needed by ordinary people, ordinary citizens. Succession law is one of the branches of law that concerns most people, virtually each and every one of us. There may be some individuals who do not accumulate any assets during their lifetime and I am not sure whether they should be commiserated with or congratulated. The vast majority of people, however, leave behind an estate of some sort and sooner or later, succession becomes an issue.

Mr Lechner’s proposal deserves respect and esteem. Sterling work has indeed been done. The Commission’s proposal developed by Parliament is beneficial to inividuals, and it simplifies procedures in matters of succession. The principles of recognition of decisions and choice of law applicable to a succession case are of particular importance. This truly is an enormous achievement, and I would like to pay tribute to Mr Lechner for the work he has done.

In my opinion, the provisions contained in this regulation will assist European citizens in managing their succession rights without unnecessary formalities and bureaucratic obstacles. The situation will be transparent in terms of the rules to be applied in order to resolve frequently complicated international relations in the area of succession law.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and congratulations to the rapporteur.

  Gerard Batten (EFD). - Mr President, this regulation is the thin end of yet another wedge. The danger is that it will lead to an EU law of property ownership. An EU certificate of succession is a short step away from a European probate registry and the introduction of an EU property tax.

Now, I doubt that many people in England realise that we are debating the EU’s intention to take control of inheritance law. The one good thing I can say about this is that the British Government has exercised its opt-out. It has not done that out of any principle – it does not have any any principles where the EU is concerned and there is only so much that you can get past the British public at any one time. What amazes me is not that they have opted out but that there was ever any serious intention of opting in.

I was going to address myself to the MEPs here but as there are so few of them it is quite a redundant statement this evening. Anyway, some MEPs might like to consider the wisdom of handing yet more control to the EU in this area and vote with MEPs from the UK Independence Party against it.

  Raffaele Baldassarre (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are almost 450 000 international successions opened each year in the European Union, for a total value, as has already been said, of over EUR 120 billion. Nonetheless, there are still numerous difficulties for citizens to face to establish which State, and which authorities shall have jurisdiction in matters of succession. To that we should add that most Member States do not allow the citizen to choose the jurisdiction applicable at the time of succession.

There are also numerous questions arising regarding the judicial recognition of official notarial acts in a Member State other than the one where they were drawn up. These serious shortcomings, these tangible needs on the part of European citizens, are addressed by the regulation which we are about to adopt, and in doing so, ladies and gentlemen, we are not approving a classic piece of legislation, but rather we are creating an instrument to regulate a crucial aspect of institutional organisation within every society: indeed, the concepts of inheritance and succession as well as the rules governing its effects and individual details have huge repercussions for the organisation of any society.

For that reason, I would like to sincerely thank everyone who contributed to this challenging project and in particular Mr Lechner for his work and for his efforts during the difficult legislative process that is now coming to its conclusion. I thank him first and foremost on behalf of those millions of European citizens who will benefit from a tool that fully meets their needs and makes a substantial contribution to the process of European integration. Thank you.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D). - (SK) Mr President, I believe that we should endorse the basic policy line in the Commission proposal. The proposal, of course, does not affect the existing laws of the Member States, but will for the first time allow a new cross-border succession regime. This is obviously an important step towards strengthening the internal market and I regret the fact that some Member States continue to hamper progress in this matter.

The proposal creates legal certainty, it is comparatively clear and straightforward and, with regard to the key issues, can also be understood by the man and woman in the street. Fragmentation of successions would be avoided. Because habitual residence would be the connecting factor, the competent court would be able, as a rule, to apply its own law. The new choice-of-law right would make citizens more autonomous. The restriction to the law governing nationality would maintain the public policy function of law on succession and safeguards for relatives. It would prevent evasion or abuse of the systems to as great an extent as possible.

Naturally, the regulation cannot resolve all problems and should not regulate every detail, but it would considerably improve the present legal position. Individuals would be given a clear and secure basis for arranging their succession and they would be able to exercise their rights on the internal market more effectively. Legal clarity and legal certainty are central qualities within law on succession in particular. The regulation would strengthen these legal values, benefit the public and create considerable European added value.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, the proper functioning of the internal market should be facilitated by removing the obstacles to the free movement of persons who are currently facing difficulties asserting their rights in the context of a succession having cross-border implications. The scope of this regulation should include all civil-law aspects of succession to the estate of a deceased person, namely all forms of transfer of assets, rights and obligations by reason of death. This regulation should allow citizens to organise their succession in time by choosing the applicable law. The law applicable to their succession shall govern the determination of the beneficiaries for all types of successions and regulate the succession as a whole from its opening to the transfer of ownership of the property forming part of the inheritance to the beneficiaries.

Documents issued by notaries in matters of succession in the Member States should circulate under this regulation. The European Certificate of Succession, issued under this regulation, should constitute a valid document for the registration of succession property in a register of a Member State. The registration authorities may require the person seeking registration to provide additional information and documents required under the law of the Member State where the register is kept, for example information or documents relating to the payment of taxes.

The application of this regulation to all Member States would have been very important in order to achieve the internal market and remove the obstacles to the free movement of persons. This is why we hope that the current situation, where the United Kingdom, Ireland and Denmark are not bound by and are not subject to the application of this regulation, will be resolved.

‘Catch the eye’ procedure

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, this report brings clarification that will facilitate the mobility of European citizens. I welcome the establishment of jurisdictions according to the area of the succession, according to Amendment 6 to the Commission’s text. Moreover, mutual recognition of succession rights will eliminate existing bureaucracy by using the European Certificate of Succession. In this way, the long-term cross-border mobility of persons is encouraged.

In addition, a predictable legal regime for inheritance throughout Europe is provided by eliminating conflicts of jurisdictions. I would like to point out, in this context, the clarifications brought by the new Romanian Civil Code with regard to this matter. The inheritance law is fundamental to the civil system of my country and its adaptation to today’s realities ensures the optimal functioning of the legal circuit of assets.

  Alajos Mészáros (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, all EU citizens are entitled to exercise their rights as heirs, and their right to dispose of their property when they die. The regulation on succession reinforces these rights. In cases of cross-border succession the heirs are often faced with administrative difficulties and barriers to the assertion of their rights. Thanks to this regulation, in the future citizens will have at their disposal streamlined rules and legal instruments uniformly applicable in all Member States. The introduction of the European Certificate of Succession facilitates the demonstration of one’s status as an heir. This document will contain uniform data on heirs and their rights across all official languages and Member States, thereby facilitating the work of the authorities and enabling the rapid, cost-effective conclusion of succession proceedings.

The appropriate issuance of official documents required for the proceedings, such as certificates of vital records, in minority languages must also be ensured in future so as to guarantee equal rights for all EU citizens. Finally we would like to bid farewell to Mr Lechner. We thank him for his work and wish him all the best.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Mr President, if we consider how long we have had the fundamental freedoms in the EU, it is astonishing that the EU has only in the last few years started to pay greater attention to the legal problems that arise as a result of the freedom of movement. These problems are caused, above all, because a great deal of land and property has been acquired in Member States other than a person’s own, and because the working environment is becoming ever more flexible and there is therefore an increasing amount of mobility of workers, not to mention cross-border marriages and divorces. It is therefore important to ensure that there is legal protection.

It makes sense to establish rules that it is possible for the average citizen to understand. The possibility in relation to inheritance law of people being able to choose the law of their home country fulfils this condition, as this is the law that citizens are familiar with, at least in a rudimentary way. In view of the change in circumstances for families in Europe in particular, citizens must be able to be sure which law is applicable in their particular case. That is something that we must guarantee for citizens at all costs.

(End of the ‘catch the eye’ procedure)

  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, I do believe that this is very good news for European citizens. There are 450 000 successions per year which have an international background. We are now giving citizens the freedom to choose and we are reducing red tape. That is what we should do in order to allow citizens to exercise their right to free movement.

The negotiations on this file, which represent the first cross-border cooperation in this area, have involved a lot of technical work and a lot of time in order for delegations to understand the underlying issues and the differences between the legal systems. An important part of this work went into trying to accommodate the concerns of the UK and Ireland. The future regulation, which is now on the table, already constitutes a fair compromise which the UK and Ireland should be able to accept because there are substantial benefits in it for their citizens. At any rate, even if we decide on this without the participation of the UK and Ireland, they will of course always have the possibility of opting in later.

On the information question, I agree absolutely with Members of this House that it will be important, once this piece of legislation comes into force, to inform citizens about their rights and their possibilities. The European Council of Notaries has designed a website, with the financial support of the Commission, in 22 languages, in order to inform citizens about what the new rules will bring to them. I think it is very important that notaries in all the participating Member States will be informed and will inform their clients about the new possibilities available to them.

  President. – Mr Lechner, my dear Kurt, please accept my congratulations and my wishes for your good health; I trust that your knowledge and experience will be invested for the good of Europe of the people.

I consider myself to be very lucky to have had the good fortune to work with you during our previous term of office in the Committee on Legal Affairs.

  Kurt Lechner, rapporteur. − (DE) Mr President, thank you very much for your kind words regarding my departure. That will take place in exactly four days’ and 150 minutes’ time, and I can say that I will make every effort to ensure that it is as long as possible before the blessings of this Regulation are applicable to me.

I would like to thank all of my fellow Members for their valuable contributions and also for their appreciation. However, I would, in particular, like to thank the Commission once again. We worked together splendidly and that is why we have succeeded in achieving a result here.

It is in the nature of this matter and the diversity in the way in which people live and the conflicts of aim in this complex situation that there cannot be an all-round satisfactory solution for every possible scenario. Questions and problems will always remain. In this regard, I agree with everything that Mr Berlinguer said here. However, I would like to say to Ms Regner that there has probably been a misunderstanding here. It is not the case that clawback and estate administration are not regulated. In the case of clawback, it is a question of how gifts are covered by the indefeasible interests during the person’s lifetime, and this matter is regulated. It is just that it is not regulated in the way that the United Kingdom or Ireland would have liked. Whether a different common solution will be arrived at at some point is another question, and Mr Batten has clearly overlooked the fact that for citizens of the United Kingdom who live in France or Belgium or who have land or property in France, Belgium or even in other Member States, the law of a foreign country rather than that of the United Kingdom already applies.

Let us now get a few years of practical experience and clarification under our belts and then consideration can be given to how we can take this further. I personally could imagine, for example, that we could extend the freedom of testators to choose their arrangements and also the options for the choice of law somewhat in 10 or 20 years’ time, but that is a matter for the future.

In any case, we are making a huge improvement that will benefit citizens, as well as the courts and authorities. This Regulation represents a huge step forward for citizens and sets a milestone in European legal history.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place at 12:30 tomorrow, Tuesday, 13 March 2012.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The importance of cross-border successions within the European Union has been repeatedly emphasised. The diversity of substantive law rules, the rules on international jurisdiction or applicable law, the multitude of authorities that can notified in the case of an international succession, as well as the fragmentation of successions that may result from these divergent rules constitute obstacles to the free movement of persons within the European Union. Citizens are currently facing significant difficulties asserting their rights in the context of an international succession. These different rules prevent the full exercise of the private property right which, according to the settled case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, is an integral part of the fundamental rights whose observance is ensured by the Court.

In my opinion, there must be clear indications of the situations where the issuing of a European Certificate of Succession is required. If the succession does not have cross-border implications, the national procedure shall continue to be followed. Since the European Certificate of Succession replaces the national certificate and since the legislation of a Member State contains different stipulations relating to the national certificate of succession, I think the European Certificate of Succession needs to contain both European elements considered minimal and mandatory and any additional elements stipulated by the national legislations.

  Louis Grech (S&D), in writing. – I welcome the Lechner report as it will help to establish further clarity and legal certainty for both the testator as well as for his heirs on his demise. With an estimated 12.3 million Europeans living in another EU country and 450 000 international successions per year which are in total valued at more than EUR 120 billion, it makes sense for the implications linked to cross-border successions to be discussed and even tackled at EU level. Nevertheless, the public policy aspects and principal national traditions in the field of succession distinct to each Member State should be respected, and should neither be encroached upon nor undermined by this Commission proposal. The fact that certain Member States have utilised the opt-out clause sends a strong message that certain countries disagree with elements of this proposal. This should be addressed and resolved – the main objective of this regulation is to eliminate or at least minimise the fragmentation which is currently prevalent in the field of succession at EU level and not to construct further barriers between Member States.

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE), in writing. – (IT) This proposal for a directive introduces a system of judicial cooperation between Member States on matters of succession, where the deceased has widespread interests in countries other than that of their habitual residence. I would like to express my appreciation for the work done by the rapporteur, Mr Lechner, who has succeeded in encapsulating the various approaches into one text, summarising them in a comprehensive set of rules. At a juridical level, it protects the primary interest which is to obtain a simplified succession procedure, firmly linking provisions to worthy principles (protection of heirs, legatees and creditors until now penalised in cross-border successions) and innovative procedures (introduction of the European Certificate of Succession and the freedom of testators to choose which law to apply to their succession). At a political level, the removal of barriers between Member States, of any kind, even regarding the law, is a great step towards the creation of a common space governed by shared laws, where people can truly identify themselves as European citizens.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) Around 10% of successions in the EU have foreign elements relating to another Member State. It represents a total value of around EUR 123 billion. As the various rules in inheritance law are so different throughout Europe, cross-border successions can be very complicated. In order to establish which legal system is applicable, it makes sense to link this to the testator’s place of residence. On the other hand, people who live in a foreign country, but who wish their succession to be handled in accordance with the law of their home country, must be able to specify this in their will. It is important that we do not see the disintegration of inheritance in Europe. In this regard, a European Certificate of Succession will enable relatives to prove their position as heirs without a great deal of red tape. The process is thereby simplified and disputes avoided. However, the European Certificate of Succession should be restricted to cross-border cases. Harmonisation beyond that is not necessary.

20. Judicial training (debate)

  President. – The next item is the oral question (B7-0106/2012) by Klaus-Heiner Lehne, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, and Juan Fernando López Aguilar, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (O-000059/2012)

  Tadeusz Zwiefka, deputising for the author. − (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, working in the Committee on Legal Affairs it is of course quite normal that every day I come across many legislative drafts, particularly in the areas of international civil law, commercial law and inheritance law, which we were discussing just a minute ago. I am also absolutely aware that as soon as these bills become law, they will require the judiciary – principally judges – to know about Union regulations as well as about the legal systems of other Member States.

For a long time now the MEPs working in the Committee on Legal Affairs, encouraged primarily by our colleague Luigi Berlinguer, have laid considerable emphasis on every type of training that might provide additional knowledge to the judiciary in European Union Member States, as it is they who, in practice, put Union regulations into practice. They will of course have direct experience of these situations with ever increasing frequency as there will be more and more of these regulations.

With new and constantly changing regulations and with the involvement of judges and other legal workers, the application of Union law will be natural and uncontested. Training is required for all employees throughout the judiciary. It cannot simply hide these problems that we are facing today and which we need to overcome. It is absolutely essential. I would even say: compulsory. In a question addressed to the European Commission, which was prepared by the chair of the Committee on Legal Affairs, Mr Lehne, as well as by the chair of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affiars, Mr López Aguilar, we would like to express our concern regarding the implementation of the ambitious plan for at least half of employees in the legal sector in the European Union to participate in different types of training by 2020. We ask how existing training structures and platforms for the exchange of experiences between judges or prosecutors can be strengthened and to what extent the European Parliament will be included in work on these important issues.

Right from the beginning of the Stockholm programme we have been talking about the need to create a European legal culture. All Union institutions, that is, the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission, have declared their support and appear to be completely clear about the importance of such training. In the work that has commenced on the ‘Justice’ programme for 2014-2020, the issue of training for employees in the judiciary has been considered to be among the most important. However, in order to be able to communicate effectively, there must – literally – be a common language and, for this reason, another issue that is important is to improve university level legal studies programmes.

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar, author. – (ES) Mr President, as Mr Zwiefka just explained on behalf of Klaus-Heiner Lehne, the co-author of this question, the aim is to give rise to a debate and a motion for a resolution highlighting the importance of judicial training, the training of lawyers, in particular judges and prosecutors, who are the first applicators of European law. The EU is a legal construct. This is precisely what explains its history of success, in particular since the launch, through the Treaty on European Union, of an area of justice and home affairs and, through the Treaties of Amsterdam, Nice and, of course, Lisbon, of an area of freedom, justice and security that has seen what I would go as far as to say are formidable developments over the last 10 years, in the mutual recognition of legal resolutions requiring a space for European justice in which judges and prosecutors can deliver their utmost, to the best of their ability. In order to achieve this it is essential to have adequate training in the different legal cultures, in the different traditions and in the laws of the Member States and, if possible also, in the use of the different community languages.

Accordingly, importance must be placed on judicial training but also on making use within the European Judicial Training Network of centres providing judicial training, of institutions accredited in their collaboration with the European institutions, in particular, the Commission, precisely in order to roll out those judicial training programmes in which Parliament is showing interest.

That is why this question is being posed, with a view to finding out, first, what the Commission is planning on doing and how it plans to achieve the aim that by 2020 at least half of the judicial staff in the EU and the Public Prosecutor’s office should have participated in some sort of training course and course on European legal culture.

Secondly, how can we strengthen our collaboration with centres providing judicial training, with the institutions that devote themselves to legal training.

Thirdly, how does the Commission propose to take advantage of the willingness of the European Parliament to adopt a proactive position in relation to driving forward the justice programme, which is at the heart of development of the Stockholm Programme and, in particular, the pilot project specifically geared towards the training of judges and magistrates, remembering always the important role performed for these purposes by the Court of Justice of the European Union, which is a great catalyst for European legal culture, in cooperation with the European Court of Human Rights.

IN THE CHAIR: LÁSZLÓ SURJÁN
Vice-President

  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, let me say how much I appreciate the fact that Parliament and the Commission share the same vision on this subject. Thanks to the collaboration between the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, we have now on the table a very ambitious resolution with regard to the communication the Commission adopted on European judicial training in September 2011.

What the Commission would like to do, and you share this view, is to build trust in EU-wide justice to create a genuine European judicial area. To build this trust, it is very important that judicial training is reinforced.

We have set as an objective that 700 000 legal practitioners – which equates to half of the legal practitioners in the European Union – should have participated in training on European law by 2020. To achieve this ambitious but also, we believe, realistic goal all available resources at local, national and European levels will need to be mobilised and used.

And of course, all stakeholders have to commit themselves to integrating Union law and its implementation into national and local training activities. They must commit themselves to increasing the number of judicial training activities on European law and the number of participants.

Member States’ councils of the judiciary and legal professions must organise matters in the most optimal way, so that human resources are available and training time factored when organising each national judicial system.

The Commission will, of course, work with the strength of existing stakeholders: the European Judicial Training Network, the Academy of European Law, the European Institute for Public Administration. It will also cooperate as closely as possible with the different European professional legal organisations.

Furthermore, we aim to initiate a two-week exchange programme for new judges and prosecutors as from 2014 onwards and we undertake also to facilitate funding available for European judicial training to support high quality projects, as you may have read in the proposals for the future financial programmes.

As regards follow up of the proposed pilot project, the Commission has initiated the steps necessary to adopt a Commission decision in early spring.

  Salvatore Iacolino, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have listened carefully to the indications from the Commission about reinforcing judicial training. There is no doubt that this is a top priority, because we believe that the judicial training of magistrates and judicial practitioners serves not only to bring the various legal systems closer together – though they must remain distinct due to the typical characteristics of each – but certainly this mutual tangible cooperation can certainly facilitate what, today more than ever, is the transnational dimension of the law: lawyers, judicial practitioners, who must be supported by a common and consistent judicial training sector, possibly through exchanges via Erasmus, so as to set out an area of freedom, justice and security in which each component can make its own voice heard in a common European market in which competitiveness and sustainability are closely linked to a system of free movement of professions, in which it is important to have high quality assurance standards.

For this reason, it is important to have a European professional card, a sort of European accreditation, in a context in which trust – as set out in the Stockholm Programme between the various Member States – should be based on a tangible mutual recognition of judicial orders, so that entry of young judicial practitioners onto the labour market can be facilitated and so that those who have the ability to use more than one language ​can be taken into account. There is still a role for the most important agencies in a context in which the financial perspectives of the 2014-2020 budget will have to be characterised not only by important and significant pilot projects, such as the one that has just been mentioned, but by appropriate and adequate resources so as to expand the number of people benefiting from this programme. Thank you.

  Luigi Berlinguer, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has produced a massive amount of laws and standards to establish European legislation, and has created the European area known as the Stockholm Programme. There is an imbalance between this monumental amount of legislation and the use which citizens make of it, which is numerically, in percentage terms, very limited.

On the other hand, national judges, lawyers working within individual States have grown up with the legislation of their own country and are mainly trained in this sense, whereas we believe that the true European judges are national judges capable of changing their mentality and imbuing themselves with a knowledge of European law. Therefore, before talking about training we need to discuss a great communication campaign aimed at citizens and legal practitioners, so that they can be the vehicles for this great innovation andso that they can increase capacity to profit from the benefits provided by this legislation.

Primarily, though, it is a grassroots movement that must be created, through in-service training – we cannot provide judicial training of professionally highly qualified adults as if it were a lesson for schoolchildren. We must stimulate curiosity in dealing with their cases, encouraging them to connect with other colleagues and to come up with solutions, given that today common law and civil law are converging, and are not as far apart as they once were within our judicial culture. This is the real point.

In our proposals, and I am happy that the European Commission is now convinced of this, we are calling for a reversal of the trend: bottom-up, more legal status than judicial training. There in a very interesting example in the Netherlands, called Eurinfra: it is a network of leaders in every court who spread this knowledge and push magistrates on this issue. This is the substance of our project, and we hope to have the full support of the Commission.

  Cecilia Wikström, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (SV) Mr President, within the European institutions we have gradually built up an understanding of each other’s differences. This is highlighted most clearly, of course, in our election slogan ‘united in diversity’. The fact that we have discussed and together considered how we should take various approaches to solve problems and understand each other’s differences has been absolutely essential for integration in Europe. Only by exchanging experience can we learn to look beyond our differences and instead try to find something that increases our respect for each other’s differences.

I am convinced that this also applies to the legal professions – to judges, prosecutors and lawyers. It is easier to build trust among the Member States’ legal systems if personal meetings take place, meetings in which people can talk to each other, conduct a dialogue and also educate each other by means of personal exchanges. Only in this way can respect and knowledge be established and our differences overcome.

An important element in ensuring that the rules we adopt here have the intended effect throughout our Member States is that we provide opportunities for greater exchange and discussion among those who are there to interpret our laws and regulations. I therefore believe that this debate at this late hour represents a proposal that will lead us closer to a common understanding of what European legal culture is and can be in the future.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Mr President, as we all know, the law currently consists of a multitude of binding legal standards that are not merely produced at national level, but are mostly drawn up at EU level and are to some extent also influenced by international law, not to mention the judicial decisions that, as we know, influence the ongoing development of the law. In order to keep up-to-date with the increasingly rapid developments in the judicial sphere, further training is, without doubt, essential.

Particularly if the EU is serious about increasing the protection of victims during trials and ensuring that traumatised victims are dealt with sensitively, further judicial training for legal practitioners is definitely necessary. It would also be desirable if long-standing problems of the past in connection with the rights of minorities and restitution issues were finally resolved in a satisfactory manner for those victims who have been discriminated against, not to mention the question of unlawful legislation like the Czech Beneš decrees, which are still in existence.

It will also be interesting to see whether any amendments, and what kind of amendments, result from General Comment No 34 by the UN Human Rights Committee of 2011, which questions these penalties for the denial of historical facts. After all, throughout Europe there are numerous laws that penalise the denial of historical events, such as the Armenian genocide. Judicial training will, without doubt, have to take account of that, too.

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE) . – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I thank Commissioner Reding for the important work she is doing, in this delicate task of shaping a European judicial culture. I thank her for recognising, in the project presented by me and my colleague, Mr Berlinguer, an opportunity to implement the Stockholm Programme and to continue on the lines set out by the Commission’s last announcement, in September, to which Commissioner Reding herself made reference.

I would, however, like to emphasise that the objective of the pilot project tabled together with Mr Berlinguer is to help build a common platform of law in the sense of a place where we can overcome the distrust not only between various Member States but also between different legal professions, and between various judicial professionals. In fact, the innovative features that we thought of introducing into this pilot project represent not only continuity of training, as very well explained by Mr Berlinguer, with an inversion of the trend in terms of supply, but first and foremost continuity in terms of ensuring that the judiciary, lawyers, notaries and university professors all share the same culture because they share the same training programmes.

Commissioner Reding was right to say in her speech that this was an important issue. However, I cannot find this highlighted in the indications that Commissioner Reding presented to this Parliament compared with the Commission’s draft proposal on this pilot project.

I would therefore like to draw attention to this point: it is important that when we start up an experimental project we involve all legal practitioners and not just magistrates. Judicial culture is not built up not only through the decisions of magistrates, judges or prosecutors whoever they may be, but it is built by sharing the same cultural background, which must belong to all stakeholders, otherwise it will not reach citizens in the way that the Stockholm protocol is trying to do.

  Kinga Göncz (S&D). – (HU) Mr President, the common market and the free movement of capital, services and labour are among the most important EU acquis. The number of cross-border relations, both in personal and business life, is on the rise. On one hand, this necessitates the ability to resolve cross-border civil, commercial and family law disputes at Member State level, and the mutual recognition of Member State court judgments and decisions. On the other hand, free movement also requires European citizens’ trust in the legal certainty of the individual Member States, in the expertise of their law enforcement personnel, and in the independence and freedom from political influence of their courts. It is therefore important for us to acquaint ourselves with each other’s legal systems, and for our lawyers to be familiar with and able to appropriately apply common European norms and directives.

As shadow rapporteur for the 2014–2020 Justice Programme, I find it important to allocate sufficient and properly used resources to the training of judges and lawyers and to building this trust and guaranteeing the necessary conditions. Lawyers should know and be able to apply both the letter and spirit of EU law.

  Evelyn Regner (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner Reding, the Commission has set itself ambitious objectives. Fifty per cent of the members of the legal profession are to undertake judicial training beyond their national borders by 2020 – objectives that are ambitious, but not easy to implement. A positive aspect of this is that existing national and European training opportunities for this purpose are to be extended and provided with financial support.

In this regard, I would be particularly interested to know how you will deal with the problem of language barriers. The survey revealed that not that many judges speak foreign languages sufficiently well to be able to attend judicial exchange programmes in a different language. I would also be interested to know how the European Parliament is to be involved in the planned initiatives.

As you can see from the motion for a resolution, the European Parliament is fulfilling the obligations imposed on it by the Treaty and, specifically at a time when Member States are implementing national austerity packages, is putting forward good ideas for achieving the objectives. Video conferences, Internet applications and, in future, a Erasmus programme for judges, prosecutors and, hopefully soon, also criminal investigation officers and lawyers, are just a few examples.

By way of conclusion, I would just like to say how important it is for judges and representatives of the legal professions to get involved themselves, as they know best where the shortcomings are and how these can be remedied.

‘Catch the eye’ procedure

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE). – (EL) Mr President, allow me to recount my own personal experience. One day, when I was defending a private individual in my country, Greece, I cited certain provisions of European law in order to substantiate my defence of my fellow countryman.

The judge was forced to interrupt and stay proceedings for several months, in order to obtain an interpretation from the Court of Justice of the European Union on a matter which was perfectly clear. Unfortunately, national judges do not have the experience and familiarity needed to rule directly on matters at issue during proceedings.

I think that this is a frequent occurrence in numerous Member States. It causes a great deal of inconvenience to citizens, additional bureaucracy and delays in the hearing of cases by the national courts and, of course, an excessive workload for the Court of Justice of the European Union that could certainly be avoided.

Today’s debate is therefore very important and I wish to ask a very specific question: if, Commissioner, we apply the pilot programmes on judicial training, will we also make provision for a proper assessment system? In other words, will we be able to know if that effort has direct results for citizens and improves the dispensation of justice?

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). − (SK) Mr President, the ever-changing legislative environment in the European Union places ever greater demands on our judges, prosecutors and legal professionals who must be able to apply in real time all legislative changes when carrying out their work. It is therefore essential that these people involved in the application of law in the European Union should be open to the possibility of permanent additional professional training.

For capacity, logistical and also financial reasons, I think it would be good when organising such additional training to rely on the existing network of universities and specialised schools operating in Member States which would, after receipt of the appropriate accreditation, provide the necessary additional work courses with new relationships with national, comparative and European law for judges and judicial staff. I firmly believe that this is the only way for the Commission to meet the objective that it has set itself for 2020.

(End of the ‘catch the eye’ procedure.)

  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. – (FR) Mr President, it is late, and I will be brief.

May I just thank you for your support on this very important matter. It is an essential matter, because if we want to create this Europe of justice with an area of trust, trust demands, firstly, knowledge. It is therefore vital to create the necessary pre-conditions by working together with the legal profession, and with those who hold responsibilities at national level, so that that knowledge may become a reality for the greatest possible number of legal practitioners, at all levels of responsibility.

I should like to add another point to this: trust also means meeting people. It is very important for legal practitioners from one country to get to know judges, prosecutors and lawyers from another country so that, if they have questions, they know which professional or colleague to contact.

The programmes that we are going to set up will, obviously, be content-based, but they will also be about getting to know other systems and individuals.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Wednesday, 14 March 2012.

21. One-minute speeches (Rule 150)

  President. − The next item is the one-minute speeches on matters of political importance.

  Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE). - (PL) Mr President, equal pay for men and women for the same work is one of the most important areas in the fight against discrimination. This is a requirement for bringing about equality as regards the position of men and women in employment. Even though the principle of equal treatment as regards pay was already written into the Treaty of Rome and even though a series of measures has been implemented to combat this problem, today differences in pay are still at a relatively high level. The European average is currently 16.5%.

Reality has demonstrated that there is no single magic bullet. Every country has declared that it wants to combat unequal treatment in employment but there is still much to be done. For this reason, in my opinion, greater pressure has to be applied on Member States to make their policies more effective. We should gather good practice and implement it on a European level. It is my hope that by 2013 the European Commission will provide an explanation for the poor results of the implementation of the provisions of the Directive on the principle of equal pay for men and women and will put forward specific proposals for action. Thank you.

  Teresa Riera Madurell (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, in this first part-session following International Women’s Day, I also wish to highlight the inclusion for the first time of a specific article on gender equality in the proposed Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. It is an achievement on which we should congratulate ourselves.

It gives us strength to promote a whole series of measures in the Horizon 2020 programme that will help to put an end to the fact that even though they obtain 45% of doctorates, women represent only 30% of our research workforce and occupy only 18% of university chairs.

It is not just a question of justice: in our own interest as Europeans we need all our human capital. Further, it is proven that equality in a team contributes to quality and stimulates innovation and productivity.

Gender-sensitive research leads to greater effectiveness, to increased impact, to a more innovative, inclusive and secure society and to socially-responsible science. In short, the full participation of women in science and technology will contribute greatly to achieving the main objective of the Horizon 2020 programme: improving the excellence and efficiency of our research and innovation.

  Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – (PT) Mr President, the Galician shipbuilding sector is in its death throes, waiting for the European Commission to present alternative tax subsidies for shipbuilding, following the suspension of the system known as tax lease.

The productive activity of shipyards accounts for 5% of Galicia’s gross value added and creates around 10 000 jobs. As a result, Galician shipbuilding companies have gone nine months without concluding any new contracts to construct boats; 3 500 jobs in auxiliary companies have been lost and 1 000 direct jobs are at risk.

Galicia’s shipbuilding industry is literally on the brink, and any further delays will have catastrophic consequences for the economy and for jobs in our region. For all these reasons, I call on the European Parliament to urge the European Commission to respond immediately and urgently, so as to communicate to the sector a new proposal for tax lease that is fair and satisfactory.

  Paul Nuttall (EFD). - Mr President, the Commission intends to impose a new interpretation of the weight and dimensions of HGVs to allow for cross-border traffic of mega trucks. This measure would allow mega trucks into the UK through the back door because in the end the government will surrender to a ruling on competition grounds.

In making this decision, no research to assess the safety, congestion and pollution impact has been taken. In 2009 the Commission stated that mega trucks are more dangerous than standard HGVs. The Commission is not even waiting to analyse the public consultation, which only closed in February. Of course the Commission interpretation will become a minimum standard and so lorries could get bigger, even beyond the 25 metres. This will surely have a massive impact on safety and cost to the British taxpayer. For example, how many bridges up and down the country in the UK will have to be reinforced to accommodate these heavier loads?

This just shows you the power that these unelected EU Commissioners have. No one voted for them, and yet they can make unilateral decisions, off the cuff, which will affect local areas and businesses right across the UK.

  Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President, the capitalist growth promised by the European Union and bourgeois governments is serving the profitability of capital, not grassroots needs. We have galloping unemployment, with 25 million unemployed, and it is spreading in leaps and bounds to all the Member States of the European Union.

Unemployment is taking on nightmare proportions for women and young people. One in two are unemployed in Greece and Spain. Unemployment in Greece has escalated to 23% and the number of unemployed has topped 1 million. However, in reality, the situation is even worse.

At the same time, the Greek Government and the Troika are abolishing collective agreements and slashing wages and pensions. Wages for young people have been cut by 32% and miserly unemployment benefits have been cut by 22%. The working classes, the grassroots classes and young people are in a living hell.

Thousands of young people are going down the route of forced emigration, wandering around Europe and other continents looking for ways to survive. There too they are faced with slave offices and flexible forms of work and are being offered starvation wages that do not meet basic requirements. Young people, regardless of whether they are living in their own country or have been uprooted from it, should not accept the unemployment, poverty and impoverishment to which capitalist barbarity is condemning them.

In such circumstances, the workers need to join forces in the fight for protection and relief.

  Corneliu Vadim Tudor (NI). – (RO) Mr President, in a meeting of the political bureau of the Bolshevik Party in 1923, Stalin said: ‘It does not matter who and how they vote, what matters is who counts the votes.’ Evil and cynical, but so current. Just as there is a drug mafia, a weapons mafia, a bank mafia, there is also a public opinion polls mafia. As a sociologist by profession, I can testify that in my country, Romania, this situation has reached proportions that are downright monstrous, especially because, year after year, the market of public opinion polls has an extremely high turnover, running to tens of millions of euros. False opinion polls are the overture to electoral fraud.

I call on the European Parliament to get involved in establishing a strict control of the public opinion polls market at continental level, with exemplary punishments for offenders. We cannot talk about democracy and free elections if they are tainted by shameless fraud.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, for various reasons, especially in this period of economic difficulties, the problems that couples or families face have increased and this often leads to domestic violence. Furthermore, recent events have shown how innocent persons can be affected when violence transcends family borders. We need much clearer measures and effective programmes to prevent these situations. Families, most often the victims of this type of violence, must be protected. Children and young people must be protected.

I am convinced that both the operational programmes of Member States that will be supported from European funds and the programmes implemented at European Union level, such as the Daphne programme, will continue to encourage and provide financial support to projects aimed at combating domestic violence. I regret that at a time when the challenges are major, there are people who cannot manage certain difficulties. To reduce this phenomenon, we need consolidated actions at European and national levels.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, Romania, like other Member States, was confronted with an extremely difficult winter in February, involving massive snow falls accompanied by freezing temperatures. Consequently, many vegetable producers from several Romanian counties are in a very difficult situation at the moment. In Vrancea alone, one of the most affected counties, over 44 000 m2 of foil tunnels of the total surface of 67 000 m2 were damaged in a proportion ranging from 60% to 100%. Unfortunately, there are no stipulations in the current legislation regarding possible compensations for vegetable producers. In addition, greenhouses and foil tunnels cannot be insured because they are not considered profitable investments by the insurance companies.

I believe that the European Executive must take into account these events and look for solutions to assist the affected producers in order to mitigate the effects of the losses incurred, but also to relaunch the activity in this sector with major implications for both vegetable growers and consumers, who will be confronted with the lack of vegetables and with the increase of their prices on the market.

  Nikos Chrysogelos (Verts/ALE). – (EL) Mr President, a short while ago we debated the report on gender equality. However, I wish to emphasise that, although we talked about improving the position of women, in Greece things are in reverse. The ‘equal pay for equal work’ slogan seems a far cry from reality and unemployment is now at unprecedented levels among both sexes, although the impact of the crisis is worse for women. Social infrastructures, which are already weak in Greece, are constantly being eroded, but this mainly affects women, because the two sexes have different starting points. In the past, unemployment was higher among women than among men, but now it has doubled.

Women were working under deregulated working conditions well before they were officially adopted. Pay cuts have hit women harder, given that they are already on low wages, and the differential has now reached 20%.

In order to address the problems of the Greek crisis, we need to at least offset losses of income with targeted measures to improve social infrastructures and social cohesion, if we want to carry on talking about gender equality.

This is something that needs to be taken into account in all measures and policies.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, every day, the agreement concluded between the International Monetary Fund, the European Central Bank, the European Union and the Portuguese troika is exposed for what it is: a pact of aggression against the Portuguese people and workers. We in Portugal are experiencing a situation of continuous economic recession that led, in the second quarter of 2011 alone, to more than 157 000 jobs being lost and 40 000 companies going out of business. Unemployment in its broad sense has hit 20.3%, a quarter of the Portuguese population is living on the breadline and the imbalances in income distribution are deepening.

Under the pretext of the crisis, the government is attempting to withdraw rights from workers, casting them into instability and unemployment. Under the pretext of the crisis and at the order of the European institutions, it is renouncing the country’s collective property and wealth by privatising sectors like electricity, and cutting funding for the Portuguese health service and increasing charges for users, a measure which could be shamefully tied in with the spike in the death rate in Portugal. Moreover, faced with all this social disaster, the European institutions, the government and the Portuguese Socialist Party (PS) carry on shouting out the same measures.

Portugal needs a new course that includes renegotiation of debt, state support for productive activities, the return of strategic sectors of the economy to public ownership and genuinely redistributive tax reform.

  Nuno Melo (PPE). – (PT) Mr President, I should like to say that Portugal is living through a period of terrible drought. Currently, 30% of Portuguese territory is suffering extreme drought and 70% is suffering severe drought. The consequences for my country’s farmers are enormous: shortage of animal feed, increased price of hay and straw, increased water and electricity costs, and declining production of cereals, vegetables and many other products.

Mr President, Europe is about cohesion and solidarity, and it would be hard to understand if, in the face of such a crisis, Europe did not help my country’s farmers. The appeal that I am making is for that to happen; for the European institutions to be aware of this inescapable consequence of the effects of global warming that affect the countries of southern Europe first and foremost, Portugal included; and for specific financial mechanisms to be set out within the framework of the common agricultural policy.

  Luis Yáñez-Barnuevo García (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, yesterday was the eighth anniversary of the largest terrorist attack in the history of Europe. It took place in Madrid, claimed around 200 lives, left 1 800 injured, thousands of families destroyed and a nation in turmoil. Eight years later, that event is still remembered as if it took place yesterday even though those responsible have been tried and imprisoned, or are dead, and even following an exemplary trial, which has not occurred in the United States with 9/11 or in London with the significant attack that took place there.

However, I asked for the floor, above all, in order to describe how one person symbolises the dignity, the fortitude, and the determination to overcome adversity on the part of victims and that person is Pilar Manjón. This lady lost a 20-year old son and maintains the leadership of the Asociación 11-M de Afectados por el Terrorismo with dignity, which is something that deserves mention here and for which the European Parliament should pay tribute to her.

  Georgios Koumoutsakos (PPE). – (EL) Mr President, restructuring of the Greek debt, with the biggest exchange of government bonds in history, is now a done deed. This will provide much needed respite in a painful marathon that does not end here, with the Greek people as the runner, making drastic sacrifices and a tremendous effort. The Greek economy is crossing the desert of recession and Greek society is crossing the desert of unemployment, while all that shoppers are finding are empty shelves and locks on the door.

Greece urgently needs to find an oasis of growth. What has been applied in my country so far has been the standard of and an experiment in harsh fiscal austerity. However, the time has now come to apply the standard of growth.

In order to do so, we need new, practical ideas. Setting up a Greco-European development bank is a serious and realistic idea proposed recently by the leader of my party to the German Chancellor.

I believe that the European Parliament should support and promote that idea.

  Joseph Cuschieri (S&D). - (MT) Mr President, I refer to notice 2012/C 50/04 published in the Official Journal, in which the European Commission analysed the State Aid granted to Air Malta, the national airline. Air Malta will stop servicing profitable routes, will be giving up slots in foreign airports and will be reducing its capacity by 20%. This may lead to a reduction in the flow of activity in the tourism sector, and will possibly have a negative impact on the tourism and travel industries in Malta. Employees and their families are worried about the future. The tourism and travel industries make up around 25% of Malta’s GDP, and provide employment for around 40.000 people. The European Commission is envisaging a reduction in the 1.300-strong workforce of Air Malta, while the employees themselves are not to blame for the current situation. In light of these facts, and with a sense of solidarity, we feel duty bound to voice the concerns of these workers. The solution to this crisis is not, and should not be to the detriment of the workers’ well-being. The consistent and reliable connection of the Maltese Islands to European and other international destinations is crucial for the strengthening of tourism and of the economy, and is vital for safeguarding existing jobs and creating new employment opportunities in Malta.

  Andrzej Grzyb (PPE). - (PL) Mr President, information has recently been circulating in Europe about the activities of the Freedom Party in the Netherlands and its leader Geert Wilders, who has created a special website encouraging citizens to submit reports or rather complaints about workers in the Netherlands who have come from outside the country. The main subjects of these complaints, due to the number of such employees in the Netherlands, are Poles, who are, I would emphasise, working there legally in many Dutch companies. They are being accused of taking jobs and benefits while, according to Dutch banks, it is Poles working in the Netherlands that account for 0.3% of Dutch GDP, which translates into almost EUR 2 billion.

Wilders’ response to the reactions from ambassadors of many countries to these upsetting events has been ‘mind your own business’. I am disappointed by the failure of the Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte to comment on this development, despite the fact that half of the Dutch people are waiting for the Dutch Prime Minister to distance himself from such a xenophobic initiative.

  Andrés Perelló Rodríguez (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, I want to alert this Parliament and the European Commission to the perverse effects that the doctrine of budgetary cuts is having on the public health system in some Member States, in particular in Spain, where health falls within the competence of the Autonomous Communities.

We now have to add cuts made to heel-prick tests by the Government of Castilla-La Mancha, of which Ms de Cospedal is the President, to the scandalous delays in payments to suppliers, problems in the field of health research and professionals’ salaries. These are the heel-prick tests that are carried out on children within the first five days of life and that enable rare diseases to be detected that would otherwise make their life impossible, turning it into a veritable hell.

Cutting healthcare to meet our creditors is simply inhuman. The EU should consider giving some sort of instruction or recommendation, without prejudice to the competences of the Member States, so as to ensure certain minimum levels of care and to ensure that as Europeans we do not take such a big step backwards in terms of health rights. It would suffice if the same level of effort were put into this as has been put into saving the banks and paying our creditors without failing to obey their orders so as to achieve this and ensure that some do not have to die so that others can realise their debts.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D). − (SK) Mr President, I am very glad to be able to welcome Commissioner Vassiliou, who is currently responsible for education and youth, because I wish to talk about youth unemployment. Unemployment among young people and their employability in the European Union is indeed a problem today; even President Barroso has begun to talk about this, and he has allocated special funds to help in the battle against youth unemployment. I personally believe, however, that we must go much further and reform the educational system throughout the European Union and provide more support to professional training; this is an approach that the Commission itself is finally adopting. It is also one of the views that prevails in the new opinions and new programmes which the Commission is submitting for the next programming period.

However, one thing that is still slightly lacking is a plan which we have not yet formulated in the European Union; we should carefully consider what we, as the European Union, will require. We should not only talk about which skills and what sort of jobs, but we should in fact hold an objective debate about the direction in which the EU wishes to turn and create true cooperation between those responsible for the field of employment, education and the economy in the European Union and discover which kinds of education and young people we will need for the future, so that we may really combat unemployment for the future too, and not only address the impact of problems that we failed to address in the past.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, I believe in the need to protect the intellectual property rights but I consider that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is not the right tool to achieve this goal. According to experts, the permissive language of the text is interpretable and can lead to the violation of the fundamental rights of citizens. I welcome sending the treaty to the Court of Justice of the European Union considering also that there are other grounds for concern, which should convince us to vote against it.

The efficiency of ACTA will be reduced if the countries where the practice of counterfeiting is at its highest are not among the signatories. In addition, the developing countries that are currently excluded from the treaty could be pressed in the long term to ratify a text to which they have not contributed. The rules on intellectual property must be established both at European level and globally through organisations such as the World Trade Organisation or the World Intellectual Property Organisation. Not being part of them, ACTA could harm these governance structures.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D). – (HU) Mr President, thank you, this is the first time that it is you in the chair to give me the floor. Whether or not we should be allowed to punish countries that are already in a difficult budgetary and financial situation by depriving them of Cohesion Funds support is an important Europe-wide issue. Financial discipline must obviously be observed by all governments. However, even if a government does deserve the sanctions imposed, the suspension of cohesion policy funding punishes municipalities, regions, enterprises and the population, and is therefore unjust. I find it unacceptable and unfair for the Commission to have proposed the suspension of almost EUR 500 million of support to Hungary.

One has to wonder whether the Commission will apply a punishment similar to Hungary’s in the excessive deficit procedure against Spain. The European Commission must not judge by double standards. This is not to say that I want Spain to be punished. Quite on the contrary. I fear that tomorrow’s meeting of the Council of Ministers for Finance will be pervaded by no more economic rationality and political wisdom than the previous decisions of the European Commission.

  María Irigoyen Pérez (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, just one minute to draw attention to Equatorial Guinea. This country, which has had a dictatorship since 1979, has been persecuting the leaders of the only democratic party, the Convergence Party for Social Democracy, for more than 20 years. On 9 March, it marked the end of one month since the detention of Dr Wenceslao Mansogo, imprisoned for a crime that has not been proved conclusively.

The latest news about this African country has set off all possible alarm bells. The international community, and in this case Unesco, cannot accept USD 3 million from the dictator for an award that bears his name or provides him with something to hide behind. This trap, contrary to the opinion of the international organisation’s legal experts, is an attempt to clean up the dictator’s image.

This country, which is experiencing 14% growth, has the highest infant mortality rate: 20% of children die before reaching the age of five. Ladies and gentlemen, as we have learned, dictators are no guarantee of stability. Let us call for the freedom of Wenceslao Mansogo, the International Relations Secretary of the Convergence Party for Social Democracy.

  Emer Costello (S&D). - Mr President, I am calling on the Commission to investigate whether EU action can be taken to tackle the growing problem of street sales of imported prescription drugs in Dublin and in other Irish cities and towns. These are drugs which require a prescription in Ireland but are being bought over the counter in other EU countries, mostly in Eastern Europe, have been brought into Ireland by criminal gangs and are being sold to drug users on the streets of Dublin and other Irish cities and towns.

It is a very worrying development. There is evidence that there are vast quantities of Z-drugs such as Zopiclone, which is used to treat insomnia. These are being sold on the streets of Dublin to drug users. They are dangerous substances, particularly if taken in conjunction with alcohol or other substances.

There is no doubt that the availability of these drugs is fuelling Dublin’s drug crisis. Because the drugs have been purchased legally in other EU countries, prosecutions in Ireland can be lengthy and complex. I believe that the Commission should now examine whether EU-level action can be taken to tackle the problem of street sales of prescription drugs in Member States and Ireland where a prescription is required. The EU should consider minimum EU-wide rules on prescribing drugs and ending the bulk buying of over-the-counter drugs, as Spain has done in the past.

  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, almost half of Romania’s population lives in poverty and yet, the government tells people that they must choose between increasing salaries and supporting the economy by reducing the employers’ social security contributions. These measures can be achieved at the same time if the government seriously considers the objective of reducing fiscal evasion and corruption in the administration. People could be given back quickly the salaries that were cut without mercy and companies could reduce their tax burden immediately, but only if the budget is freed from under the huge pressure of the clientele and mafias supported by the ruling party and if the misappropriation of public funds stops.

The economic crisis will be overcome only if we part with the logic of austerity measures that have plunged Romania into poverty, if people are helped to survive by having their salaries restored to previous levels, and, at the same time, if the economy is stimulated to operate in order to create jobs and generate growth.

  President. − The item is closed.

22. Statute for a European cooperative society with regard to the involvement of employees (short presentation)

  President. − The next item is the report by Sven Giegold, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on the Statute for a European Cooperative Society with regard to the involvement of employees (2011/2116(INI))

  Sven Giegold, rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this year we are celebrating the Year of Cooperatives, as declared by the United Nations. Cooperatives are part of the social and solidarity economy and have a very particular significance for the general economy, including in the European Union. Some 160 million enterprises are active in this area. They have 120 million members, to whom these enterprises belong, and 5.4 million employees. That shows that the cooperative sector is an important one. This sector has regional roots. It has shown itself to be stable, even in the financial crisis and, at the same time, it is also contributing to the achievement of the Europe 2020 objectives, not only in relation to growth and employment, but also in respect of social cohesion and climate protection, for example.

That is precisely why the European Union should take seriously the mandate conferred on it by the Treaty to remain neutral in relation to different forms of ownership and to take account of the special characteristics of cooperatives. While working on this report, we worked particularly well with all of the shadow rapporteurs and I would like to thank them most sincerely for that. I see that Ms Regner is also still here at this late hour. In our work, we attached particular importance to the question of how the Statute for a European Cooperative Society – which was also established within the framework of the European Cooperative Society – can be amended. After all, it is a sad fact that the recognition for the cooperative sector accompanying the establishment of the legal form of the European Cooperative Society has, unfortunately, not yet been crowned with a great deal of success. In total, despite an extensive process, only 17 European Cooperative Societies have been founded and only 32 workers have found work in these enterprises.

It is clear that this process of a directive and a statute is too complicated. It does not meet the needs of the sector in terms of its cross-border business. We would therefore like to see a revision, but a revision of the statute first of all, and without lowering the standards that were sensibly established. The standards for workers must be given particular consideration in this regard.

However, our Committee on Employment and Social Affairs was not satisfied with that. Instead, we took a look at the other support measures for the sector of the social and solidarity economy. Here we see, above all, that the competences for this sector are extremely fragmented within the Commission, despite several statements by Parliament. A lack of resources is also evident in the lack of results. We have few members of staff in this area, and these people are distributed throughout the various Directorates General. We would like the Commission to take the initiative to enhance the open method of coordination in this area and to initiate a procedure for the systematic comparison of the best experiences in the Member States for promoting the social and solidarity economy.

We also propose that the activities that the Commission has already adopted in its 2004 Communication on the promotion of cooperative societies in Europe, that is to say the 12 actions that were placed on the agenda in this Communication, now be put into practice. Only three of the 12 actions have been implemented. Still outstanding, for example, is an extensive education programme in this area, but also a systematic recognition of the special characteristics of cooperation societies.

We would also like the special nature of cooperative societies and the social economy to be recognised in the area of public procurement and State Aid in particular, as well as in connection with the regulation of the financial markets. It is unacceptable for precisely those sectors that have proven to be particularly helpful during the financial crisis to become victims of the rules once the crisis is over. I call on the Commission to go beyond the rules of the internal market in this area. Please get started on this and strengthen the social and solidarity economy.

‘Catch the eye’ procedure

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). - (SK) Mr President, the topic of the effective functioning of cooperatives and the participation of employees in their management is of great importance in the context of the revival of the European economy. Cooperatives will not only promote the interests of their members, but will also intensify local development through the creation of infrastructure at a regional level. Their great importance is felt mainly in the field of social innovation and when ensuring supply, especially in rural areas and urban agglomerations. The more than one hundred and sixty thousand cooperatives owned by more than a quarter of all Europeans and which provide work for around 2.4 million employees testify to this. From this perspective it is a pity that in a European environment it has so far been possible to establish only seventeen so-called European cooperatives. I firmly believe that this situation will improve.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, during this economic and financial crisis Europe is faced with, there is, however, one area which has been affected less by the crisis. I am referring to cooperative societies. Their turnover has increased, they have been affected less by bankruptcies and redundancies, they provide jobs at local and regional level, and one extremely important factor: they cannot be relocated. Cooperatives also offer jobs requiring high qualifications, with women taking a significant number of them. I think that Member States must give greater support to initiatives of this kind, even though there are countries where the cooperative concept has been discredited for historical reasons, and its adoption must be supported by employees from businesses affected by the crisis, precisely to prevent them from being relocated. This is why I support the idea of organising campaigns aimed at informing the European public about the contribution of cooperatives to sustainable economic and social development.

  Csaba Sógor (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, I heartily welcome Mr Giegold’s own-initiative report on the Statute for a European Cooperative Society with regard to the involvement of employees. I find this supplementation with pan-European relevance useful, in particular because in my home country, Romania, just as in other Member States in that region, the statutes and credibility of cooperatives had been seriously compromised in the communist era. Furthermore, the Commission’s report of 5 October 2010 is not too promising either, as some of its chapters seem rather vague. An open method of coordination could enable a stronger European presence in the system of cooperatives, which would be quite welcome and useful. I sincerely regret that this is only an own-initiative report.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D). - (SK) Mr President, in Europe there are one hundred and sixty thousand cooperatives that provide work for around 5.4 million employees. The financial economic crisis has shown that it cannot be answered from the sole point of view of the shareholders of these companies, but an enterprise, as a social organisation, should also take into account its responsibilities. An enterprise has responsibilities not only towards shareholders, but also employees, creditors and society.

Legislation regarding cooperatives and employee participation varies substantially across the EU. The statute for a European Cooperative Society (SCE) is so far the only social economy legal form available at EU level. Cooperatives and other social economy enterprises are part of the European social model and the single market and therefore deserve strong recognition and support, as provided for in various EU key documents.

A revision of the directive should address above all the specific needs of employees in cooperatives, including the option to be both owner and employee of the same enterprise. I believe it would be appropriate for the Commission to develop an instrument to facilitate employee and user ownership of cooperatives. Employee participation in enterprises should be taken for granted in all Member States of the European Union and greater employee participation in cross-border forms of enterprise should be advocated rather than remaining at the level of the lowest common denominator.

  Evelyn Regner (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Giegold, because he involved both the shadow rapporteurs and the rapporteurs for the opinions in the work right from the start, and not only that, he involved us to such an extent that we were able to develop the content of the report together. He mentioned that there are only 17 European Cooperative Societies, and that is what we are recording in 2012, the Year of Cooperatives. That is obviously very few. It means that this European Cooperative Society has not been a great success. Yet, why is that?

I think it is very important to pinpoint the reason for this. Is it the provisions that are too complex, or is there actually any need for this cross-border cooperation after all? With this report, we are trying to promote and breathe life into the cooperatives of the social economy, and not those that are already able to operate in a profit-orientated way anyway.

Finally, I would like to point out the very considerable importance of the right of employees to participate contained in this report, and mention how important it is to treat this with kid gloves in the future, too.

(End of the ‘catch the eye’ procedure)

  Androulla Vassiliou, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, the Commission welcomes the interest of the Parliament in the Statute for a European Cooperative Society, as well as, more generally, in cooperatives and other social economy actors. As 2012 is the International Year of Cooperatives, this attention is even more important.

The report provides a very useful and timely contribution to the review of the legislation on the Statute for a European Cooperative Society. Besides, it can increase visibility and raise awareness of the positive role that the cooperative model of business can play for the attainment of the Europe 2020 objectives.

The role of cooperatives was neglected for a while until the world started experiencing the economic crisis, when interest in cooperatives’ capacity to contribute to growth, employment and social welfare, grew again. It is true that cooperative businesses that have stayed faithful to cooperative values and principles have generally been able to resist well the impacts of the financial and economic crisis.

The report contributes well to the reflection launched by the Commission on the future of company law and is in phase with the Social Business Initiative that the Commission adopted in October last year.

The Commission notes in particular Parliament’s proposal on the future of the Statute of the European Cooperative Society, employee participation in such bodies, the strengthening of cooperatives and attention to gender issues. The Commission also thanks the rapporteur, Mr Giegold in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, as well as Mrs Regner and Mrs Estrella in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality for their contribution.

The Commission has observed, as stated in the report, a certain lack of interest in the instrument created by the European Cooperative Regulation. Only 24 European cooperatives were created as from 2006, the date of the application of the regulation.

On 23 February 2012 the Commission adopted a report on the implementation of this regulation and sent it to the European Parliament, the Council and other institutions. The text reveals that the complexity of the instrument is one of the main obstacles to the success of the European Cooperative Regulation. Therefore the Commission plans two large conferences in order to consult stakeholders on whether and how to simplify the Statute for a European Cooperative Society, one in Brussels in April with the participation of Commissioners Tajani and Barnier, and the other in Cyprus during their Presidency in September.

The Commission envisages coming back to the Parliament after you have examined the report on the implementation of the regulation and after concluding the consultation of stakeholders on this issue during the two big events. The analysis and proposals made in the report will be taken into account in the assessment process and consultation on the simplification of the legislation on the Statute for a European Cooperative Society. It will also feed the Commission’s work on company law and social businesses.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday, 13 March 2012.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) Cooperatives reflect the discriminations existing in society, since their leadership is, for the most part, made up of men. The EU should take into account the gender perspective when monitoring the proper implementation of the European Cooperative Society Directive. I argue that the European Commission should submit a study with up-to-date data that are comparable and distributed according to sex, in order that women’s participation in cooperatives in the EU be better understood. This model for organising businesses could play an important role in the current period of economic and social crisis.

23. Bologna process (short presentation)

  President. − The next item is the report by Luigi Berlinguer, on behalf of the Committee on Culture and Education, on the contribution of the European institutions to the consolidation and progress of the Bologna Process (2011/2180(INI)).

  Luigi Berlinguer, rapporteur. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the purpose of this report is to relaunch the initiative on the Bologna Process, keeping in our minds and in our sights an important goal, which is that qualifications awarded by universities across Europe must have overall recognition and validity.

Once someone has earned a qualification at a university in a Member State, it must be such that all other universities recognise it, this is the main objective. It is a mistake to consider university education as a matter that is exclusively internal to Member States. The true dimension of the university and place of study is international, because studies and research are international, and professions are now international.

We need to free the professional market from the shackles and ties which today impede employment mobility within Europe. This is a precondition that has economic value and also provides a response to a great aspiration on the part of young people. Who is this task incumbent on? It is up to individual Member States to organise study courses, but recognition abroad is not a task that can be performed within the State, it is up to the European Union to provide and make a policy to encourage this.

Article 149 of the Treaty of Lisbon states that it is the task of the EU to recognise qualifications, contribute to the development of the quality of education and higher education, and develop its European dimension. For this reason, our report points out that, as well as the responsibility of the Member States, there is also a need to underline the EU’s responsibility; and the biennial meetings of the ministers of education, such as the upcoming one in Bucharest, must gradually come under the remit of the EU. What is to be done then?

Our report identifies a number of measures, within the framework of a series of procedures, a gradual approach to achieve them: to support any actions that tend to give a European profile to universities within the EU; curriculum flexibility; learning outcomes and consequently monitoring for the assessment of learning outcomes; assessment for the quality of what happens in universities as a condition to create that trust between different higher educational establishments which lies at the heart of mutual recognition. The final goal is to set up automatic procedures that attest to the validity of qualifications throughout Europe.

Secondly, remove social barriers against young people, against students from weaker sections of society, which today are being exacerbated by the cuts on the part of many governments. Change the teaching, to make it more learning centred, develop life-long learning, build a European higher education sector to enter into dialogue with the European research sector.

These measures are instruments of growth. More than 900 years ago in Bologna, a great jurist, Irnerius, spread the idea of creating with the Alma Mater the unification of European culture. It was a time when there were no States. Now that States do exist, there is a supranational dimension and today for that reason we call upon the EU to promote a European university citizenship. Thank you.

‘Catch the eye’ procedure

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE). - (CS) Mr President, cutting the education budget is a recipe for disaster. How can we induce Member States to invest at least 3% of GDP in science and education in a time of crisis? How can we motivate businesses to play a much larger role in the scientific programmes of universities despite the recession, and to cooperate with them in providing work for graduates? In order to avoid expanding the crowds of unemployed graduates at employment offices, we must increase graduate mobility and eliminate barriers to the recognition of diploma qualifications, and this also requires convergence of educational programmes. This is not, however, a priority for universities. I welcome this report, which draws attention to a number of weak points in the Bologna Process, which would otherwise be a good path towards education, and towards an educated economy, and thus also towards the future recovery of economic growth in the EU.

  Ivailo Kalfin (S&D). – (BG) Mr President, I would first of all like to thank Mr Berlinguer for his excellent report. Unfortunately, in many countries the recognition of higher education diplomas involves a costly, slow-moving process when it comes to the recognition of diplomas received in another European Union country. If we want to make the European economy more competitive, reduce youth unemployment and take advantage of the benefits of youth mobility, we need to overcome the protectionism which is imposed in some countries by deliberately restricting the recognition of diplomas received in other countries.

I would like to call on the European Commission to resolve at least two issues at a supranational EU level: the standardisation of higher education degrees (at least at Bachelor’s and Master’s level) and secondly, the introduction of legislation to facilitate as much as possible the recognition of diplomas received in another country at the corresponding Bachelor’s or Master’s level. Unless this is established at supranational level, we will continue to face protectionism from national legislations.

  Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR). - (PL) Mr President, as the European Conservatives and Reformists Group we have a problem with voting on this report as there are a number of things in it that are positive and deserve recognition such as, for example, the recognition of qualifications. This is, of course, something that interests us. It was an enormous pleasure to welcome the announcement of cooperation with universities from third countries, particularly those from the Eastern Partnership. These are excellent points in Mr Berlinguer’s report and we would like to give them our support.

However there are also a number of items that aroused our concerns. The rapporteur said that it is worth encouraging the poorest levels of society to study and to continue in education. At the same time, this report contains a call for a compulsory period of study in a university in a country other than the student’s home country. Well, obviously this would be a good thing, but it would significantly increase costs. We also do not agree with the idea of standardised core curricula, as this should be an issue for universities, and with increasing costs and a true sense of European citizenship. Thank you very much and apologies for overrunning.

  Piotr Borys (PPE). - (PL) Mr President, I would like to offer my warm congratulations to my fellow Member for this report. We have been discussing the Bologna process for years. It is good that we have subjected it to an evaluation. What we are trying to achieve, and what is already taking place, is of course to force greater mobility among students. At this point mobility is the most important, as we have an open labour market and competition is Europe-wide. There are many examples: hundreds of thousands of Polish students and graduates are participating in the European labour market. They are managing very well in the labour market because of their mobility. It would appear that linking the Bologna process with the Erasmus issue and the question of recognition of qualifications is the most important issue. Employability can be achieved in this way, so we should monitor the Bologna process. Of course, it is important to approach this in a flexible manner because not all institutions of higher education can be compared using the same principles, for example music colleges. For this reason, I would like to support this report, knowing that this Bologna process requires constant monitoring.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). − (SK) Mr President, in April this year a Ministerial Conference will be held in Bucharest on the Bologna process, which should identify priorities for the next three years. If we recall that the main objective of the Bologna Process is the requirement that every European university student has the right to graduate with a qualification that is recognised throughout the Union, then we should primarily look at how many of our universities are able to provide students with a high-quality education in order that any employer throughout the European Union will truly respect their diplomas.

We should focus the limited amount of funds which we can use also in these difficult times for the support of education on particular measures to stimulate the development of quality in those universities and schools that have the potential to achieve a high European level of quality in education and to grant titles that are recognised and valid throughout Europe.

(End of the ‘catch the eye’ procedure.)

  Androulla Vassiliou, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, first of all let me congratulate the European Parliament and in particular, Mr Berlinguer, for this very timely report. Mr Berlinguer, you have brought your work to a successful conclusion just as we prepare for the Bologna ministerial conference, which was mentioned by several speakers.

The European area of higher education fully deserves the political and public attention that it is receiving today. The Bologna ministerial conference is taking place at a difficult time for Europe with unemployment, especially among young people, reaching record levels in many parts of the continent. Therefore it is the right moment to ask how the Bologna process in higher education can help us to find solutions for the crisis. It also presents an opportunity to assess progress after a decade of reports.

The European Commission welcomes this report, which highlights the main achievements of the Bologna process so far and points to the way ahead. This is an essential contribution to what is a crucial discussion about the future of higher education in Europe.

I believe we have seen considerable progress in the implementation of Bologna reforms. Close to two-thirds of the 47 participating countries have more than 90% of their programmes in line with the Bologna two-cycle system. Access to higher education has been widened and quality assurance has improved. And yet plenty of challenges lie ahead.

The comparable use of the European credit transfer system, the development and assessment of learning outcomes and the transparent implementation of qualification frameworks are among the most important challenges. Therefore, we must strive for further improvements in quality, stimulate mobility and ensure that our systems and curricula become more relevant to our labour markets. Above all, we must open up access so that greater numbers of students from all backgrounds can enjoy the benefits of higher education.

I can assure you that the European Commission will continue to work closely with all partners involved in the Bologna process to achieve its shared objectives.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday, 13 March 2012.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) This own-initiative report has come out at an opportune moment. Young people are living extraordinarily difficult lives, owing to high levels of unemployment. As such, whatever the sector involving young people, we need to understand how it can be at the service of combating the crisis. In this case, it is important to realise how the Bologna Process, in particular, can help. Moreover, despite the levels of unemployment amongst qualified young people, it is crucial that Europe does not allow the dissemination of the idea that our model for growth should not depend on the qualifications of the workforce. Bologna is still making its way. Any student involved in a course at any European university should be able to see the qualification that they have obtained recognised throughout the European Union. As that is still not the case throughout the EU, it is important to speed up this harmonisation. This is the only way that a genuine ‘European Higher Education Area’ will be possible. The more expansive the area of knowledge, the more opportunities there are for young Europeans who, as is well known, are not affected uniformly by this crisis throughout the EU.

  Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The motion for a resolution draws attention to some very important issues, including the need to increase student mobility and exchanges of students and university lecturers between European universities. There is also the important issue of mutual recognition of credits and converting these into assessments, the need to integrate the Erasmus programme and the requirement for mutual recognition of university qualifications and degrees. It finally provides an opportunity to simplify the transfer by students of documents, grants and even student loans between universities. If these proposals really were implemented, they would significantly reduce barriers that still make it impossible to move freely from one country to another for the purposes of study. They would also improve the competitiveness of graduates on the European labour market. There can be no doubt that these kinds of measures deserve support. For this reason I call on the Commission to monitor the results of the Bologna process and to encourage Member States and institutions of higher education to introduce solutions to improve student mobility and to create common educational systems.

24. Agenda of the next sitting : see Minutes

25. Closure of the sitting

26. Closing of the session

  President. – I declare the 2011–2012 session of the European Parliament adjourned.

(The sitting closed at 23.00)