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.