Women and business leadership (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou, on behalf of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, on women and business leadership.
Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou
rapporteur. - (EL) Mr President, my thanks to my fellow members and to the Commission for staying here so late this evening to debate an issue which is perhaps more in keeping with the lively activity and productivity of the day than the dead of night.
First of all, my thanks to my fellow members, both present and absent, from all the political groups with which we cooperated, in order to highlight an issue which is important to society and to the economy and to focus on the strong message that we want to come out of the vote on this report, which is that women need to be promoted to firms' decision-making bodies.
The report has a dual objective: on the one hand, we want to highlight the weaknesses in society and the market and call for them to be corrected, for social justice and decency to apply, for there to be a balanced participation of both sexes where decisions and responsibility are taken. On the other hand, our objective is to stress that women are a valuable human resource, with knowledge, ambition and skills that are not exploited by companies, as this valuable human resource is under-represented on company boards.
The percentage of women on boards of directors is increasing by just one percentage point per annum. How many years will it take? How much energy will be wasted? How much talent will remain in the wings, bearing in mind that approximately 60% of graduates are women?
Research has clearly shown - I shall not bore you with numbers, there is a lot of interesting information in the report - that, when women are involved in companies' decision-making bodies, they turn in better results, perform better and are more efficient.
If our economy today is to achieve the faster growth that Europe needs and if our companies are to become more competitive, they need additional characteristics and competitive advantages. These can be found in female gifts; I say 'gifts' because, apart from their knowledge and education, women have special skills, which are very important to companies, to administration, to understanding and to communication with the market. These female characteristics have proven valuable and companies have tried to make use of them in various ways. The actions applied by numerous companies are very widespread and well appreciated.
Unfortunately, the meagre results force us to seek serious commitments from companies and effective action to give space and opportunities to women.
What we need are arrangements to help balance family and work commitments, a meritocracy, transparency in the administration, in the management of human resources and in the composition of boards of directors. We are calling on companies to undertake to achieve these targets for female representation on their boards of directors and for the Member States to apply women-friendly policies which encourage women to take up demanding careers in this area.
We are calling on the European Commission to map the current situation, thereby supporting the Commissioner in the binding targets already set for female representation at boardroom level. We are calling for it to promote actions to raise awareness, to support actions which companiess have implemented on their own and, if they do not bring in results, we cannot wait any longer. The Commissioner was very clear, we agree with its undertaking and, if we are to have immediate results, we need legislative proposals with targets of 30% female participation by 2015 and even more - 40% - by 2020, bearing in mind, of course, the differences underlying companies.
I should like to add that there are initiatives in various Member States which we truly welcome, but we must work towards a single area of equality and competitiveness, which is why we are insisting on a European regulation, in order to give countries which have not taken any initiatives the chance to participate in this development and in the mobility of human resources. We also need an information campaign because, if legislation is to be applied with success, it needs as its partners society, the market and the social partners.
Viviane Reding
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, gender equality is a fundamental right and it is one of the fundamental principles of the EU. Gender equality is also a condition for economic growth, social inclusion and well-being in our societies. The under-exploited pool of well educated women represents real untapped potential for the EU economy, especially at a time when human capital is a key factor in terms of our competitiveness and when, as a society, we are ageing.
EU Member States might be very different, as the rapporteur has said, but they face a common challenge: the under-representation of women in high-level decision making, in particular in the corporate sector, is a reality almost everywhere.
I know that there are fierce debates about voluntary agreements versus binding quotas. I know too that there are five EU Member States which have followed the Norwegian example and have introduced binding measures to increase the number of women in business leadership. No later than last week, two Member States, Belgium and Italy, adopted legislation to impose gender quotas in business leadership. Irrespective of the solution found in individual Member States - and we know that there are other Member States that have binding quotas for state-owned companies, or general voluntary agreements - one thing that is clear is the business case for gender equality.
This evening and tomorrow at voting time, Parliament will, I hope, take a strong position on this important issue. I thank Vice-President Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulo for her efforts to bring the European Parliament into this debate and for her bold report, and I would also like to thank the members of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, who backed her almost unanimously.
Why, in the European Union, do women constitute 60% of university graduates but only 12% on the boards of the largest publicly listed companies, and only 3% among the presidents of those boards? The question is: can Europe afford this? The answer is no, and it is not simply my answer. It is the answer from studies commissioned by businesses such as McKinsey and Deutsche Bank, indicating that there is a positive correlation between the presence of women in senior positions and company performance.
So gender-diverse boards improve corporate governance and, from a micro-economic perspective, companies that have introduced gender diversity on their boards can also mirror the diversity of their employees and customers. By the way, 80% of purchasing decisions are made by women so it is an advantage to have women on the board, and there is a business case for increasing their involvement in management and corporate decision making.
The Commission is determined to advance gender equality further. You know about our strategy and you also know I have made it very clear that 'Women on the board' should be one of the aims we pursue. That is why, in March this year, I brought together the CEOs and board chairs of big publicly listed companies to discuss possible ways forward. I wanted to give self-regulation a last chance, and I have encouraged companies to develop credible self-regulatory initiatives to make significant progress.
I have called on the EU's publicly listed companies to sign the 'Women on the board' pledge for Europe and voluntarily to increase women's presence on corporate boards to 30% by 2015 and 40% by 2020. After one year - i.e. in March next year - I will see which and how many companies have signed up to the pledge. I will assess the situation to see if there has been significant progress and if we have credible commitments. I hope the answer will be yes. Should it be no - should there be insufficient progress with self-regulation - then the Commission will explore policy options for targeted measures to enhance female participation in decision making.
For me what counts is the end result, and the direction that Parliament takes tomorrow with this vote will undoubtedly be a very strong source of inspiration: not only for the Commission but also, I hope, for the corporate world.
Edit Bauer
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the idea that economic and business leadership is the exclusive prerogative of men has long been untenable. On the other hand, those who think that anyone can be put on the board of directors or included in any other economic decision-making body - based on affirmative action or quotas - only because she is a woman, do not understand what we are talking about, or do not want to understand, or are mistaken at best. Quotas and other positive measures should help - as emphasised by Article 7 of the report - those who have the necessary abilities and are prepared, and all they have to overcome is discrimination.
Discrimination is not a disease that will go away by itself in time; it is a social problem against which we have to take positive measures. Those opposing the introduction of quotas usually argue that positive measures might become counter-productive. This is true, but remember that quotas are not eternal, they should only be used as a temporary solution, as a means of adjustment. The quantified objectives - 30% by 2015, and 40% by 2020 - place a double limitation on the life span of quotas, and we have to realise that Europe slowly but firmly turns into this direction, even if it is not accepted at the same level socially in every Member State. Positive measures, including quotas, serve and possibly are the only means to eliminate indirect discrimination. I would like to express my thanks to Commissioner Reding and Mrs Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou for bringing this topic to this part-session, because we have to admit that this requires a lot of courage, even today.
Silvia Costa
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as everyone knows, being a woman is already an undertaking in itself, because it means having to manage and reconcile family, professional and social life, in a context that still does not adequately recognise the high level of education (as Commissioner Reding mentioned earlier), professionalism and expectations of women.
I appreciate that in this report Mrs Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou has worked extremely hard to collect numerous proposals and objectives that, as a shadow rapporteur and member of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, I advanced together with several of my colleagues. In the European Union women are under-represented, as they are in management positions in companies, currently making up only 12% of the membership of boards of directors of listed companies.
Against this background we are happy to have heard the serious commitment of Commissioner Reding, and we call on the European Commission to propose legislation including mandatory quotas by 2012, to increase percentages to 30% by 2015 and to 40% by 2020, if the steps taken by companies and the Member States are found to be inadequate. In this regard it is an encouraging sign that six countries, including Italy in the last few days, have approved legislation along these lines with a bipartisan vote.
I would like to clarify that these quotas are not just numerical, but also aim to achieve better performance in the corporate system, by sharing the management not just of large enterprises, but also of small and medium-sized enterprises. This is why we are proposing the use of several instruments under corporate social responsibility, including family-friendly services, flexi-time working arrangements, and management training for women.
It is also important to recognise the link between the presence of competences and women's roles in corporate governance with a different approach to process management, optimal use of human resources, anti-discrimination rules and sustainable productivity which they often guarantee.
I would like to raise another point also in response to what Mr Bauer rightly said earlier, and that is that we have not merely just included female quotas, but we have also included an important mechanism, which was our own proposal, and that is that the joint presence of men and women is linked to greater transparency in appointments, in the selection of men and women, so that this is a benefit for everyone, not just for women.
Siiri Oviir
Firstly I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou, for her hard work both between the groups and within her own political family. The approaches of the various groups differ, yet we are all of the opinion that the objective of equal opportunities must be enjoyed by both men and women. As well as being a prerequisite for democracy and social justice, gender equality is also a public good which brings social, political and economic benefits to both individuals and society.
Research carried out in various countries has shown that women's participation in management boards promotes performance, increases companies' efficiency and leads to better economic results and higher profits. These research findings are based on facts. They have not been openly challenged, but implementing the proposals is an arduous task. The predominance of men in positions of leadership once again produces a perception that men are more appropriate and better leaders. Is that really the case?
I would ask whether the recent financial crisis, which grew into an economic crisis, has really taught us anything. If, instead of Lehman Brothers, there had been Lehman Sisters, I would ask whether we would now be battling the consequences of a social crisis. We need a new approach. One pioneer in this area has been Norway, which began to do serious work in this area at the start of the previous decade. Of course, they too faced opposition and mistrust. A law establishing quotas for women's participation has now been in force there for six years and has been successful. This model has also been adopted by several other countries. However, this is still not enough. There is still a lot to do in terms of this vicious circle.
I would now like to turn once more to research. This has shown that experience of having female leaders is changing attitudes in favour of women being promoted to management positions. If there are few female leaders, on the other hand, then attitudes definitely will not change. Consequently, in order to change attitudes, we need to support the promotion of women to leading offices. Political will is needed here. We hold the lever for this in our hands, and I hope that tomorrow we will all support the adoption of this report.
Marije Cornelissen
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (NL) Mr President, the idea that more women are needed in top positions in business is something that unites Left and Right. For years and years now, everything has been tried to get businesses to look after this themselves, but all these efforts, sadly, have amounted to very little. At the moment, the increase is just half of one per cent per annum, at which rate it will take at least another 50 years before 40% of board seats are occupied by women. In my own home country of the Netherlands, last year the increase in the number of women heading up all the listed companies in the country together amounted to exactly one woman.
Commissioner Reding has noted this problem and resolved last March to take firmer action. If businesses do not produce credible plans to have 30% female board membership by 2015 and 40% by 2020, binding measures will follow. I have a great amount of respect for her for that.
It is our responsibility to give Commissioner Reding our full support in this area. We now have the opportunity to demonstrate that we mean business. I would find it a terrible pity if parts of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe were to vote against the core of this report. In that case, it might have been better for the whole report not to have been produced, as it will ruin the credibility of the Commissioner, specifically, instead of supporting it. At this point, we all need to grab this opportunity with both hands. Imagine if I give birth to a daughter in August, then I will be counting on the fact that you will all ensure, with me, that she grows up in a world where there is no glass ceiling preventing her from reaching the top in business. Of course, she may always want to become an MEP!
Andrea Češková
Mr President, I too would like to express my congratulations, because I have two young children at home and I know what a joy it is.
In relation to the topic in hand, I am generally a supporter of equal opportunities for women and men in all areas, and I therefore welcome an initiative in this area, and I firmly believe we must draw constant attention to the issue and bring it to the forefront at Member State level. The established and prevailing monocultures in leading business positions are no longer acceptable, either from an economic or from a social perspective.
I strongly supported this report from the outset, because the rapporteur originally concentrated on creating appropriate framework conditions for women in their career progress. The report has been greatly amended, however, during the legislative procedure in committee, and in its current form it calls for the introduction of specific binding measures at European level. Some Member States have already developed their own initiatives regarding the introduction of quotas, and in my opinion it should be up to the others to decide whether to follow suit.
I firmly believe that, although we all surely wish it was the case, quotas themselves will not help women in their activities and careers unless we create suitable employment conditions.
Jaroslav Paška
on behalf of the EFD Group. - (SK) Mr President, the proportion of women in business management roles is truly low. The traditional issues affecting their professional careers are, I think, well known. Shortly after securing training, they go off on maternity leave, initially with the first child, then with subsequent ones, and natural professional development is interrupted. It is then necessary to look after sick children until they grow up. When women return to a professional career from demanding family duties, their male peers have a significant advantage.
I therefore think it is necessary to devote more attention to measures enabling women to maintain contact with professional practice even whilst they are caring for a family and young children, and to simplify their return to a full professional life once the family no longer needs as much care. Quotas for the proportion of women in managerial positions might also help women to secure socially important positions, as the submitted report suggests.
Laurence J.A.J. Stassen
(NL) Mr President, if it is left up to the Commission and Parliament, in future a quota may possibly be put in place whereby at least 40% of corporate boardroom positions must be occupied by women. It is crazy that the European Union intends to meddle in the staffing policy of businesses with a quota of this kind. I ask myself how many women are really sitting about waiting to succeed to the top of a company as a result of this policy. I would personally decline it in advance, in any case, as I would not want there to be any possibility of doubt about the fact that I got to the top on the strength of my own qualities, and there are many women who agree with me.
Certainly, we do need to ensure that women enjoy the same opportunities as men, but a quota is a ridiculous idea. This is because there is only one relevant criterion on which to judge whether someone belongs in a job, and that is whether that person is the best candidate for the job. Man or woman, gender is not the issue.
It is up to business to decide its own HR policy and this is certainly not something that the European Union should be involved in. We thus also find it unacceptable that the Netherlands is soon to have a female quota foisted on it by the EU.
(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))
Marc Tarabella
(FR) Mr President, I would like to thank Mrs Stassen for giving me the opportunity to ask her this question. Mrs Stassen, you said that quotas were unnecessary. I would like to tell you, not a Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale, but a story set in Norway, where a certain Ansgar Gabrielsen, a minister in his country in 2003, decided, because the proportion of women occupying senior posts in private companies was only between 8% and 9 %, to introduce quotas. He was heavily criticised. He was also told there was no point. Well, I would like to ask you if you know the rate of women's representation in senior posts in Norway today.
Laurence J.A.J. Stassen
(NL) Thank you for your question. That is not the point. To reiterate, we believe that women should reach the top on the basis of their own qualities. As a woman, I would feel very undervalued if I knew that I had obtained a top job through a quota. How does that affect your sense of self worth?
Barbara Matera
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the report by Mrs Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou is crucial for reducing gender disparity in corporate management bodies.
National parliaments in many Member States are debating or have already introduced bills to introduce quotas for qualified women in the boards of directors of public enterprises listed on stock exchanges. As Commissioner Reding said, last week, on 28 June 2011, the Italian Chamber of Deputies passed a bill to introduce female quotas with a bipartisan vote. In Italy in listed companies and companies in which the state has a shareholding, one-fifth of the boards of directors and control bodies will have to be made up of women from 2012, and the female presence will have to rise to a third from 2015.
I support the strong signal from Europe with regard to women's integration in company management, in order to prevent a loss of talent, competence and human potential and to contribute to the performance of enterprises. It is necessary to act swiftly and with quota systems, because the information available in the European Union is worrying. On average women represent only 12% of the members of the boards of the major European listed companies and 3% of the chairmen of such boards.
In this sense it is necessary to give more space to competent, qualified women, and to use the quota system to help them not to be marginalised by the corporate decision-making process. It is important to act at the root of the problem, and therefore I support actions to orient a greater number of young women towards science and technology faculties.
Britta Thomsen
(DA) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking Mrs Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou for this extremely important and, in particular, very courageous report. Equality between men and women is a basic element of the EU's fundamental values, and we all have a moral obligation to ensure that men and women are treated equally. This also applies in relation to the representation of women in business, and therefore also in business leadership. However, equal representation in boardrooms is not just a question of fundamental rights. It also makes good economic sense, particularly when Europe is in the midst of a sustained economic crisis. If we are to overcome the crisis, we need to utilise all of Europe's talents, and if women undertake the longest training and leave their educational institutions with the highest grades, it is plain old common sense that women should have the same opportunities as men to become managers. We simply cannot afford to recruit managers from only one half of the population.
We can currently clear women of the responsibility for the financial crisis, because they were not on the boards of the banks where the decisions were taken. It is the case in general that there are no women on the boards of European companies, and there is no sign that this situation will change unless we actively do something about it. If businesses themselves cannot ensure that women come into the boardrooms, we politicians will have to intervene. We will have to introduce legislation that ensures that women have access to business leadership positions.
Angelika Niebler
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we definitely need more women in the top executive suites of companies throughout the European Union. You all know the statistics. Only one in ten board members in the European Union are women; 97% of board members are men. I think that we all agree that action is urgently needed.
I should like to thank the Commissioner. Commissioner, it was you who took the bold step in March and called for action. You called on companies to take voluntary action. If they do not, you will table a legislative proposal, a legal basis, in March 2012. Thank you so much. The figures that we have seen in the meantime illustrate that something has already been done. If you had not been so bold, Mrs Reding, we would not have made these small steps.
I should also like to thank our rapporteur, Mrs Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou, for her excellent draft. I agree with many of the statements in this draft. I shall support the draft, even though I take a different view of the quota as it now stands in the report. I take the view that, if self-regulation does nothing to help, a statutory quota is needed in order to put pressure on companies. However, I also take the view that we should start by introducing this quota for the supervisory structures of large companies, not for the operational side of businesses. I shall not therefore support the proposal in paragraph 16(b); however, I shall vote in favour of the report, because it says the right things.
How women stand on the quota is a question of their own self-image. I would have no problem in using a quota to open the door. Whether or not I am good at my job is something that I still have to prove, regardless of how I get there. In that respect, a quota helps, but it is no substitute for performance. No woman has a problem with a door being held open. You have to walk through and prove yourself. Women in the European Union also need to be given an opportunity to walk through.
Marc Tarabella
(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this report is the outcome of long debates and extensive deliberations in the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality of this Parliament.
I am truly proud of the work we have done on this issue and I strongly believe that the report is an important landmark in the European debate on the place of women in business leadership.
First of all, I can only welcome the general position of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality (FEMM) on these quotas. As I have often said, it is a necessary evil, which will enable society to progress. However, more importantly than the ideological issue of quotas, the report encompasses a range of elements aimed at facilitating the presence of women at the top of companies, such as initiating a dialogue with the latter or developing training on gender equality. These quotas cannot be imposed in an authoritarian manner. We have to change attitudes to enhance the sustainability of this policy.
Finally, the report calls for measures to achieve a better balance between work and private life, which will benefit men as well as women. I emphasise this, because it is about changing corporate culture to bring about a better balance for all.
I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou, and also Commissioner Reding, who took a very proactive stance. I particularly remember a very proactive article of high quality, which she recently co-signed with the President, Mr Buzek, and which appeared in the US press. She is to be congratulated on this.
Let us ensure that, together, we can finally break the glass ceiling.
Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska
(PL) Mr President, workers' professional ambitions are a very individual affair, and they depend more on personality and individual character traits than gender. This is why differences between modern women and men in this respect are disappearing. Women are making ever bolder moves towards prestigious, well-paid positions in companies, and we should therefore take note of and respond to the problems they have to face. As well as lower pay in comparison to men for the same work, they often find that they are deliberately blocked from promotions to the highest managerial positions.
In line with the European Commission's objectives, we want to change this situation by supporting various initiatives aimed at drawing the attention of companies' management boards to the problem of the low rate of participation of women in management. The measures set out in the report adopted today, which include the promotion of social responsibility, the development of individual capabilities and training for management positions, will help women who wish to hold such positions and make full use of their skills to the benefit of the companies in which they work.
The aim of today's report is to show that we are aware of the problem, and to show that making it harder for women to access managerial positions has a negative impact not only in terms of women's self-esteem as workers, but also in terms of reducing companies' revenue and putting companies in a worse economic position. In my opinion, we must above all change cultural attitudes and the traditional view of women which dominates the HR structures of large companies. If such a change takes place, women with the appropriate qualifications and individual predispositions will be employed in managerial positions as a natural consequence.
Finally, I would like to congratulate Mrs Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou on the outcome of her report.
Nicole Sinclaire
(asking Mr Tarabella a blue-card question under Rule 149(8) Mr Tarabella, you said that quotas were a necessary evil. Would you agree with me that all forms of discrimination are wrong and that discrimination - including positive discrimination - creates victims? And therefore do you agree with legislating for victims?
Marc Tarabella
(FR) Mr President, I think that, in ordinary life, be it professional, social, economic, or just life in general, there is discrimination. We must try to fight against discrimination. There is, of course, positive discrimination, which is adopted precisely to fight against discrimination. When I say that quotas are a necessary evil, it is because I think that society is not moving quickly enough in the right direction, and that it may need to be forced, at a given moment, to move in a better direction.
Here, in the debate we are having today I am going to stop, because my time is up - I said that quotas were a necessary evil; that is what is necessary to ensure that society progresses more quickly.
Elena Băsescu
(RO) Mr President, I too would like to congratulate Mrs Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou for this report she has drafted, which marks a first step towards raising the profile of this issue. The outcome of these debates may offer long-term solutions.
This report highlights an issue which has a significant impact on European business. Promoting women to management positions in companies is difficult and discriminatory. There is a glaring difference between the number of women who have graduated from university and the number who attain management posts in companies. Unfortunately, in spite of economic and social policies being adapted, the European Union is still faced with this problem. In theory, equality on the labour market is supported in absolutely every area. However, the figures show the opposite in practice. In this case, the work potential offered by women is untapped and undervalued. I should point out that various studies have highlighted that the actions of women managers have a positive impact on the competitiveness of companies. However, even in these circumstances, discrimination and prejudice prevent them from advancing in their career.
Another regrettable aspect is that the gender pay gap is maintained at management post level. I welcome that target percentages will be set for increasing the involvement of women in company management by 2015 and 2020. This will provide a specific method for evaluating how well these measures are implemented.
Lastly, I think that European institutions are responsible for initiating reform in this respect, with the involvement of all the decision makers. Joint action is needed at the same time from national authorities, trade unions and employers to get rid of this kind of hidden discrimination.
Katarína Neveďalová
- (SK) Mr President, it is common knowledge that there are more women than men in the world. Statistics also show that women outnumber men in terms of university education. In spite of this, their representation in senior managerial roles within medium-sized and large enterprises is desperately low. It is not just a matter of fairness and gender equality at all levels and at any price, but also of the economic growth of the European Union. Some European countries have begun to introduce legally-binding quotas, and the results, even if slow to materialise, are definitely positive. Discussions on this topic are also underway in other countries. I support this initiative at European level, and I welcome the Commission's initiative to bring forward appropriate legislation in 2012.
I also think there is a need to motivate women and to introduce appropriate legislation for them to able to harmonise their professional life with their family life more easily, for example in the area of childcare and elsewhere. Women must be motivated and constantly encouraged so that they are not afraid of having high ambitions, travelling for work or study, or developing a career.
Nicole Sinclaire
Mr President, firstly I would like to say that I do believe that this should stay as a Member State issue. I think it is essential for each Member State to look at its own economy. We have 27 very different economies and I think different rules work better if Member States look at their own strengths and weaknesses.
I am completely opposed to quotas. I have got where I am through my own merit, I did not need any quota on two scores, being openly gay or being a woman. I did not need quotas either way to succeed. I come from a country that had the first woman prime minister in the western world, so women can succeed on their own merit. What we need to do is look at providing advantages at a lower level. Greater child care: Member States should invest in greater child care. Greater use of technology will allow more women to stay in the workplace.
But I come back to this: discrimination is discrimination. If you are a man who has worked for 20 or 30 years and you focus on a job but you do not get that job because there is a quota in place, you are a victim. You only get one life and your professional life has been taken away from you. That is wrong.
Marc Tarabella
(FR) Mr President, Mrs Sinclaire, this is not a question, it is a, I believe, historic clarification. First of all, the first president in the world was Vigdís Finnbogadóttir, in Iceland, and the first woman prime minister was not Mrs Thatcher, but I am hesitating between Mrs Gandhi, in India, and Golda Meir, in Israel. I just wanted to clarify that.
President
We had also worked that out on the praesidium here - if you consider Israel to be part of the Western world. Do not worry, Nikki, you do not have to answer that.
Viviane Reding
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, there are a great many women who have proved in politics, in business and in society that they are simply very capable. Since this very fierce debate started, there has been movement in some of our Member States: more and more women are being nominated to boards - which shows that when you look for them you can find them. They do exist.
Allow me to be a little polemic. We do not find many of the 60% of university graduates who are female on company boards. It seems that there is a male quota on company boards, an 88% male quota in the case of publicly listed companies: it certainly looks that way. We have noticed, in analysing the trend over recent years, that we are progressing without intervention at a rate of 0.5% per year. At this speed it will take 50 years to reach equality. We ought to think about that, especially at a time when we need all the talent available in order to make our economy thrive. With an ageing population, and as talent begins to be scarcer, we need women, and women mean business. Women mean life. Women mean everything positive - and we should give them a chance. It is as simple as that. The talented will go forward - as they do in this House, by the way.
I hope that tomorrow there will be a solid vote in support of Ms Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou's report, which is a very good one. It is a report which gives me courage and faith in this Parliament. The ideas that have been tabled here have been taken up in the commercial world by many companies. You need only look at how many women have been nominated to company boards in recent days. Things are moving, so let us help this movement to go forward.
We, as politicians, can help it to go forward. Of course we need the corporate world to go with us, and we need the Member States to go with us. I see it as a very positive development that, in many Member States, relevant laws have been introduced or are in preparation. Things are moving. I thank Parliament for helping them to move even more quickly.
Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou
rapporteur. - (EL) Mr President, I shall be brief, because I have already spoken at length. Commissioner, I believe that it is clear this evening that overwhelmingly male boards of directors do not express the values of the European Union and do not benefit either companies or the economy in macroeconomic terms.
We need to enrich them with women, precisely because women have talent. You may say that companies cannot engage in equality-based politics. Companies want talent and effective partners and employees. In that quest, they do not have a man or women before them; they have talent, the right person.
However, life shows us and the figures quoted tonight make it clear that female talents are not in view. How can women account for 60% of graduates and post-graduates and only 3% or 8% of company boards? Therefore, certain measures are needed, certain methods that will give firms and society the chance to discover and exploit this talent. I believe that no one contests this, which is why we propose quotas, in order to provide momentum and opportunity to showcase this talent that we all believe exists.
I believe - and here I owe a reply to Mrs Niebler, who followed the report very attentively and made a very specific distinction for supervisory boards - that the objective of the report, the objective of our debate this evening is to give women an opportunity to play a role in which they exercise power, decisions and responsibility. Supervisory boards are not the same thing as boards of directors. I believe that we should not give women secondary rather than leading roles.
Be that as it may, our report states that when - and if - the Commission makes a legislative proposal, it should take account of the specificities and, I repeat, of subsidiarity, because we know that company law is not the same in every country.
Be that as it may, even with these minor distinctions, I believe that Parliament will send a strong message tomorrow both to the European Commission, regardless of whether the time is ripe, and to the Member States, as well as to companies themselves and to women themselves, that we are paving the way to help them achieve their ambitions and to offer their talents to society.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday, 6 July 2011


ERDF, ESF, Cohesion Fund (revenue-generating projects) (debate)
President
- The next item is the report by Mr Arnaoutakis, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Development, on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) amending Regulation (EC) 1083/2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund in respect of certain revenue-generating projects (13874/2008 - C6-0387/2008 -.
Stavros Arnaoutakis
rapporteur. - (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the new financial management rules in the general Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 include provisions for financing contributions from the funds and, in particular, on revenue-generating projects (Article 55), projects which, as there is a clear danger of their being over-financed, need special treatment in order to take account of revenue when calculating the maximum percentage of Community financing. A method therefore needs to be defined for calculating the revenue from such projects. During the previous period from 2000 to 2006, this principle was applied in practice using a flat-rate method. During the new programming period, according to the Commission's proposal, which the Council has accepted, a more precise and stringent approach is applied when calculating Community financing of revenue-generating projects. This new approach is based on the calculation of maximum eligible expenditure, rather than a flat-rate reduction in the percentage of cofinancing. Under Article 55, for the 2007-2013 period, a revenue-generating project means any operation involving an investment in infrastructure the use of which is subject to charges borne directly by users or any operation involving the sale or rent of land or buildings or any other provision of services against payment. An important difference therefore, in the new period is that, according to the definition in paragraph [...], the provisions of Article 55 apply to a broad spectrum of projects which qualify as revenue-generating projects and not just to projects to invest in infrastructure which generates large net revenue, as was the case in the 2000-2006 period.
According to the outcome of the informal consultation of Member States by the European Commission, the provisions of Article 55 are clearly unsuitable for projects cofinanced by the European Social Fund, which mainly finances intangible operations rather than infrastructure projects. The same applies to minor projects implemented with cofinancing from the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund. For these projects, the monitoring rules which must be adhered to, such as the fact that revenue may be taken into account for three years after closure of the operational programme, are a disproportionate administrative burden in relation to the anticipated amounts and pose a serious risk during programme implementation. That is why, after it had consulted the Member States, the Commission felt it necessary to seek approval of an amendment to Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, which is limited to Article 55(5) and relates to the following two points only: the exemption from the provisions of Article 55 of operations cofinanced by the European Social Fund and the definition of a threshold, set at EUR 1 million, below which projects financed by the ERDF or the Cohesion Fund would be exempt from the provisions of Article 55 as regards calculation of the maximum eligible expenditure and as regards monitoring. The remaining provisions of Article 55 have not been amended.
Furthermore, given that it is important to safeguard the imposition of common project implementation rules throughout the programming period, a retroactive validity clause has been included, so that the revised provision applies from 1 August 2006. This technical amendment will simplify the management of revenue-generating projects where possible, by limiting the administrative burden in accordance with the principle of proportionality.
Vladimír Špidla
Member of the Commission. - (CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on 15 November the Commission adopted the draft revision of Article 55 of the general regulation on Structural Funds, which applies to the conditions for taking account of revenue-generating projects within the framework of the cohesion policy programme. The reason for the change was to simplify administrative procedures. The first actual operation carried out in accordance with Article 55 showed that there were serious difficulties with effective implementation. These difficulties, as reported by the Member States, demonstrated that there was a lack of proportionality in the application of the procedures for setting the maximum eligible amount of the so-called 'funding gap' and in monitoring projects.
The aim of the amendment to the regulation in question is to exempt all operations cofinanced from the European Social Fund as well as small projects with overall costs of less than EUR 1 million cofinanced from the European Fund for Regional Development and the Cohesion Fund through the application of Article 55. The decision to impose a ceiling of EUR 1 million arose from preliminary studies and was aimed at retaining the general nature of Article 55.
We hope that thanks to this simplification, which constitutes a form of 'de minimis' clause, we will be able to speed up the administration of funds for the Member States and their regions, especially in relation to the most innovative operations in areas such as research and support for renewable energy sources, etc.
It was nevertheless important to avoid legal uncertainty, which would have unfairly delayed the payment process. The uncertainty could have led project managers to interrupt the running of operational programmes, which had to be avoided at all costs.
In view of this, the Commission decided to propose only one change of a technical nature. This decision led to success since we completed the revision process in just three months, thanks to the work of the Council and the parliamentary committees for regional development and employment. On behalf of the Commission I would like to express my sincere gratitude to your rapporteur Mr Arnaoutakis. Thanks to our productive cooperation I hope to secure agreement from the European Parliament, thus making it possible to complete the revision by the end of the year. This would allow the managing authorities to continue with their work, which is a compelling aspect of the simplification.
The revision of Article 55 has also demonstrated the quality of the work being undertaken in collaboration with the Directorate General for Regional Policy and the Directorate General for Employment which benefits political cohesion. This cooperation has never weakened. The proof of this is that within the framework of the plan to assist European economic regeneration we have combined forces with Commissioner Hübner on a proposal for three new fundamental amendments to structural fund regulations. These amendments will also be debated.
Jan Olbrycht
Mr President, we have before us what is essentially a very short and succinct regulation. It is, however, of great significance. Its significance relates to the context of the change.
Firstly, through this change, the European institutions are demonstrating that they are able to respond flexibly to the difficulties arising during implementation of a certain policy. A readiness to genuinely simplify and facilitate procedures for the beneficiaries indicates that the European Commission, in conjunction with the European Parliament and the Council, is truly prepared to adjust provisions to prevailing conditions.
Secondly, this Regulation is also significant insofar as it involves amending a regulation during the programming period. This is particularly important, because it is not the final change, and the conduct of debates on change to that regulation will be very significant in the context of preparing an amending package linked to the crisis.
Thirdly, the European Commission has repeatedly been criticised for the way it monitors allocation of resources. The Court of Auditors' criticism mainly concerned overly complicated procedures.
Today's Regulation indicates that bold and decisive action is called for, so as to improve effectiveness and demonstrate that it is possible for European funds to be allocated in a swift, efficient and effective manner.
Jean Marie Beaupuy
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, as my fellow Member, Mr Olbrycht, just said, this is a simplification first - we hope so, at least. It is without doubt the run-up to Christmas that is inspiring us to make this progress, to offer this gift to Europeans.
However, as Mr Olbrycht just said, we hope, above all, that this gift is not the only one of its kind and, next March, we will have to give our verdict on the recovery plan so that, in the face of the financial crisis, we have more productive initiatives with which to look forward to a Europe-wide recovery.
Within these drafts that we shall have to vote on in March, we are convinced that the Commission will propose new simplification tools to us, particularly regarding our 'small-scale players', regarding our SMEs. This is absolutely vital since, if the policies that we are debating and that we have been working on for months and years are to be genuinely effective, then this will, this dynamic that we want, must not be thwarted by any discouraging administrative aspects.
Commissioner, you emphasised just now this good work that has been done with Parliament's Committee on Regional Development, in particular. You know that we, the other Members of this House, are very keen to work with the Commission. That is why I would stress, once again, that we are hopeful of making very firm progress towards new simplifications during the coming year.
However, the work that we are doing aside, it is our wish, at European level, that - through you, at the Commission, in particular - the Member States assume their share of the responsibility. We all know that, at the level of the ERDF and ESF Funds, and of the CAP Fund and so on, it is the Member States that add further complexities to our own European administrative complexities.
Through our action and through our debate this evening, we hope not only that the European Union's initiative will be acted upon at EU level, but also that, at Member State level, we are heard and that they too make a clear effort to simplify.
Mieczysław Edmund Janowski
Mr President, essentially, the European Parliament resolution we are today debating is of a formal and technical nature. Nonetheless, it relates to important issues concerning use of Union aid. The proposed Regulation concerns Article 55 of the Council Regulation laying down general provisions for the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund. The current wording of paragraph 5, referring to a sum of EUR 200 thousand as the maximum monitoring procedure cost, is replaced with a text whereby the provisions concerning revenue-generating projects will only be applied to operations funded by the European Regional Development Fund or the Cohesion Fund if their cost does not exceed EUR 1 million.
With this in mind, I should like to pose the following question. Is the sum referred to adequate? Is it not too high or too low? I am convinced that this can be a way of avoiding unnecessary bureaucratic burden in relation to a large group of smaller operations. It should lead to more operational management of projects that often involve local authorities and concern environmental protection, innovation and energy for instance. By way of example I could mention that in Poland we have over one hundred different types of institutions managing the implementation of Union funds. Effective use of this aid depends on the efficient operation of such institutions.
I also trust that adoption of this initiative will lead to further simplification in the future, as the Commissioner was kind enough to indicate. On behalf of the Union for Europe of the Nations Group, I would like to express appreciation of this creative approach to provisions, enabling Union resources to be used in the most rational manner possible.
Lambert van Nistelrooij
(NL) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Arnaoutakis's proposal clearly illustrates that simplification is possible, and this is something Parliament has enquired about on many occasions. It is also taking a very long time, in a number of cases, for projects to be finalised in the Member States and, for the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, this is a good example of efficient simplification.
This time round, the desire for change came from the Member States and from the Commission, but more can be done. I happen to know that a working party of regions and cities has been set up in the Committee of the Regions, whose mission is to identify and tackle these bottlenecks, and which aims to make proposals to this effect. I think that we should, in fact, utilise these very experiences and pick up on further changes in 2009.
Moreover, the Commission has presented the entire package, including the economic recovery plan, in which context funds can be spent more quickly, amongst other things. In Parliament this week, we will be discussing the Haug report in the framework of the budget, in which the wish is expressed to carry on working in this vein and to pick up speed as other control and management-related aspects are examined.
Finally, I should like to touch upon a topic that was also broached by Mr Beaupuy: Member States can do an awful lot by, for example, making the financial management declaration, or taking political responsibility for the implementation of funds. As a result, we, in our resolutions, could simplify procedures even further. The urge for change from the people on the ground is considerable. Certainly with a view to next year's elections, we should be able to say that Europe does do good things, but it should also do them properly. The Member States' declarations are a step in that direction.
Gábor Harangozó
(HU) The purpose of the regulations governing the use of EU grants is to ensure that these sources will be utilised in the best possible manner and be allocated to the most appropriate place. In other words, the funds must not only be spent, but spent for genuine, revenue-generating investments. However, we often set up such a bureaucratic system of regulations for this purpose that it is more of a hindrance to efficient use, and represents an unnecessary burden for both the enterprises and the administration.
The streamlining of revenue-generating regulations has a twofold benefit. A greater number of small and medium-sized enterprises can have more ready access to EU funds for economic stimulus, while the administration is able more quickly and simply to determine whether these funds are being used properly. We must trust our entrepreneurs, those who make the economy work; we can pull through this crisis only if we join together and help each other. I support the proposal, and at the same time I ask the Commission to continue on the same path, weeding out unnecessary administrative obstacles from the assistance programme. I sincerely hope that this inaugural programme will be followed by other similarly sound initiatives.
Zbigniew Krzysztof Kuźmiuk
- (PL) Mr President, I should like to draw attention to four issues in the debate on changes to Council regulations concerning structural funds.
Firstly, the legal provisions applicable to benefiting from European Regional Development Fund, Cohesion Fund and European Social Fund financial aid are often so complicated that they deter potential beneficiaries from applying for these resources. The aforementioned legal provisions can also hinder project implementation and accounting.
Secondly, it is therefore entirely appropriate for the European Commission to have tabled a proposal to amend Article 55 of the Regulation. One of the effects of the amendment would be to exclude revenue-generating projects funded by the Cohesion Fund from the scope of Article 55. This change should facilitate the implementation of actions such as projects aimed at social inclusion or the provision of care services, for instance.
Thirdly, the scope of application of Article 5 of the Regulation would also be limited as regards small projects cofinanced by the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund in terms of calculating the maximum sum of eligible expenditure and the monitoring of these projects. In addition, all these measures would apply retroactively from 1 August 2006.
Fourthly, all these proposals are a positive example of how provisions regarding the structural funds can be simplified effectively, thus enabling them to be used more efficiently. In my view, not only does this serve the interests of the beneficiaries, but it also benefits all European Union citizens.
Jan Březina
- (CS) The bill under discussion deals with the problem of revenue-generating projects. This problem directly affects many claimants drawing funds from the European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund. The current legal arrangements have imposed a significant administrative burden and have also created a situation of legal uncertainty as for a whole three years after the conclusion of an operational programme they allow revenues from the project to be taken into account. If revenues exceed a specified minimum level, there is a risk that the claimant and ultimately the state also will have to return the funds.
I firmly believe that such a rigid approach has no place, especially for small projects and projects financed from the European Social Fund. Concerning the second category of projects in particular, there are no revenues of a commercial nature, only revenues of local authorities and non-profit making organisations that are raised in the form of administrative and other fees. As these revenues subsequently serve to implement objectives that are in the public interest, it makes no sense to return them to the EU.
In my opinion our task is to simplify the mechanism for drawing money from the structural funds while of course retaining the controls that are essential for supervising the transparent handling of EU finances. I therefore welcome the decision to exempt projects financed by the European Social Fund from the mechanism for monitoring revenues and the decision to raise the cost limit from EUR 200 thousand to EUR 1 million in the case of projects financed from the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund. This step will undoubtedly simplify administration and increase efficiency in the implementation of these projects.
Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
(RO) The European Regional Development Fund, European Social Fund and Cohesion Fund are instruments which have been provided to Member States to support the economic development of various European regions. However, the perception is that using these financial instruments involves a great deal of red tape.
For the 2007-2013 period an approach based on calculating maximum eligible expenditure is being used instead of a forced reduction in the cofinancing rate. The purpose of the proposal amending the regulation is to replace the arrangement based on proportionality for monitoring operations under EUR 200 000 by not applying the provisions of Article 55, operations cofinanced by the European Social Fund and operations cofinanced by the European Regional Development Fund or Cohesion Fund, the total cost of which is less than EUR 1 000 000. The retroactive application of this amendment simplifies the management of cofinanced operations from the structural funds, in terms of both calculating maximum eligible expenditure and monitoring.
Reducing the disproportionate administrative burden will be beneficial in particular to SMEs managing projects in the areas of the environment, social inclusion, research, innovation or energy. Thank you.
Andrzej Jan Szejna
- (PL) Mr President, for small projects cofinanced by the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund, and also for operations cofinanced by the European Social Fund, the current monitoring mechanisms undoubtedly represent an undue administrative burden that is disproportionate to the sums concerned and a significant risk factor for the implementation of these programmes. Pursuant to the monitoring mechanisms, income may be taken into account for as long as three years after closure of the programme.
The Commission has therefore recognised, quite rightly, that it is necessary and important to adopt changes to Article 55(5) of Regulation 1083/2006. The purpose of these changes is to effectively simplify the existing provisions concerning structural funds in the interests of the citizens and for their benefit. The changes would apply in important areas such as the natural environment, social inclusion, research, competitiveness and energy.
I should like to say that, in the context of the current financial and economic crisis, great efforts are also being made in Poland to ensure that structural funds can be used at the earliest opportunity. The aim is to enable funds to be allocated as soon as possible. For the new Member States in particular, this is one potential way of countering the economic crisis. The structural funds must be used swiftly and efficiently.
Zuzana Roithová
- (CS) I and many small-scale entrepreneurs would like to express our appreciation for the way in which the European Commission has reacted with unexpected speed, vigour and directness to suggestions from both Member States and MEPs in submitting this additional clause for Regulation 1083. The simplification of the law, together with retrospective application, is above all good news for the great majority of small firms with projects worth up to EUR 1 million which may contribute significant added value in terms of European competitiveness and especially employment. I view the flexible approach taken by the European Commission as a harbinger of further good news concerning the de-bureaucratisation of the complex processes for monitoring small projects.
Vladimír Špidla
Member of the Commission. - (CS) I would like to thank you for the debate. I think that the arguments in favour of the proposal have come from many sides. I have nothing to add to them. A question was put, however, about the method of determining the figure of one million. Allow me, therefore, to touch on this very briefly. In the first place we had the experience of the previous periods and secondly there was the relatively challenging effort to simplify the system without disrupting its overall equilibrium. Therefore the idea of a specific limit was proposed and at the same time the Commission carried out a study into these questions. Based on these ideas and also on the recommendations of 3 July 2008 from the working group on structural activities, the Commission specified in the proposal an amount which, as I have heard in the debate, is generally regarded as acceptable.
Stavros Arnaoutakis
rapporteur. - (EL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, simplifying procedures and ensuring mechanisms are flexible is extremely important during this serious financial crisis. Cohesion policy has an important role to play. The amendment to Article 55 is a good example of excellent cooperation between the institutions of the European Union. That is why I should like specifically to thank Commissioner Hübner and the President of the European Parliament for adopting the proposal so that it can be voted through by the end of the year. As one Member said, this decision is a Christmas present.
Simplification will work positively for European citizens and this evening we are sending out a message that we can amend some regulations for the benefit of European citizens. This method of direct amendment must be used again in future, as it has been proven that bureaucratic procedures make it hard to implement projects. I am certain that the new provisions will help to improve the application of the priorities of cohesion policy.
President
- The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday 16 December 2008.


19. Impact of counterfeiting on international trade (
- Before the vote on Amendment 1:
Carl Schlyter
Mr President, many of our colleagues want to vote in favour of the idea in the Green resolution not to make internet providers and telecom providers responsible for the content on the internet and so on, but many of those colleagues who want to vote in favour of the Green resolution do not like paragraph 15, which is related to another subject. In a spirit of Christmas compromise, we would like, in an oral amendment, to withdraw paragraph 15 from our resolution, in order to enable more people to vote for it.


14. Protocol on the Implementation of the Alpine Convention in the field of Transport (
- Before the vote:
Reinhard Rack
Mr President, the accession of the EU to the Transport Protocol of the Alpine Convention is a small but perfectly formed piece in the jigsaw of a new transport policy in Europe. We are still left with the subjects of the efficiency, fluidity and safety of transport, and to these we are adding concerns relating to the people living near, and the environment surrounding, the routes. This sends out an important message. Particularly after a 15-year membership of this European Union, we Austrians feel reassured by the fact that it was we who introduced our European Community to a great many of these concerns, and that this has led to Europe taking on these concerns.
Many thanks to all the Members who contributed to this.


3. Zimbabwe
President
The next item is the debate on six motions for resolution on Zimbabwe.
Jaroslav Paška
Mr President, this is not the first time we have discussed the method of governing employed by Robert Mugabe and his party. In July 2008, the European Parliament adopted a resolution implementing sanctions against Robert Mugabe and his entourage. The reason for this decision was, just like today, serious violations of human rights by the ruling administration.
New cases of intimidation, arrests and also the uninvestigated disappearance of political rivals of the ruling party confirm to us that Robert Mugabe and his political party know that a fair and transparent political contest would strip them of power and raise the prospect of penalties for terrorising the population and pillaging the wealth of the country over many years.
We can surely all agree on the adoption of the draft resolution, in the hope that measures initiated by the EU may assist the people of Zimbabwe, who are terrorised by their government, to reverse, with the assistance of civic and opposition leaders, the current difficult situation in the country by means that are as peaceful as possible. For the European Union to accredit an ambassador of Robert Mugabe in this situation would surely be seen as an affront to decent people. Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, let us try, at least through our political behaviour, to promote important political changes in Southern Africa.
Geoffrey Van Orden
author. - Mr President, since I have been in this Parliament, some twelve years now, we have been trying to help the people of Zimbabwe have better lives and greater optimism for the future.
We have been clear on two points. Firstly, that as long as Robert Mugabe remained in power, protected by a small self-serving element in Zanu-PF and the security forces, pillaging the nation's wealth for their own enrichment, there was little prospect of real change. Secondly, that it was up to the people of Zimbabwe, with the support of their African neighbours - and here I name South Africa in particular of course - to bring about the necessary change.
Maybe, just maybe, there is at last some movement in the right direction. You know when Mugabe is worried: he starts to panic. His police and militia start attacking anyone they see as opponents. The MDC is supposed to be in a power-sharing coalition, but in the past few days, MDC Ministers and MPs, as well as human rights activists, have been beaten up and arrested.
I suppose Mugabe is increasingly nervous on two counts. He has seen what has happened to his friend and main bankroller, Gaddafi; and just a week ago, on 31 March, the Southern African Development Community, which includes South Africa and all Zimbabwe's neighbours, at last voiced its grave concern at the resurgence of violence in Zimbabwe. It has called for an end to that violence and for all elements of the global political agreement to be implemented. It has appointed a team to work out a road map to peaceful, free and fair elections in Zimbabwe, and today, that team is in Harare.
We are calling on European governments and the EU to intensify their engagement to use all their political influence in Southern Africa to help bring about rapid change for the better in Zimbabwe and pave the way for properly monitored elections to be held in an atmosphere free from intimidation.
Until there is evidence of real change, the restrictive measures specifically targeting Mugabe and his close allies must remain in place. In this regard, there is no way that the EU should accredit Mugabe's unilaterally appointed envoy as ambassador. Once the people of Zimbabwe have their freedom restored, and genuine democracy and the rule of law established, I feel sure that the international community, including the EU, stands ready to come forward with generous assistance.
Judith Sargentini
Mr President, I have been involved with the situation in Zimbabwe for some ten years now, by my reckoning. I used to work for a development organisation in Amsterdam and, every now and then, we would bring Zimbabwean human rights activists to the Netherlands, to Europe, in order to give them some breathing space. Not just so they could get to know other activists and swap stories, but also to give them an opportunity to get away from Zimbabwe for a little while.
One of the people I met at that time was Abel Chikomo, whom we have also mentioned in this resolution. A human rights activist who has never lost his enthusiasm, his motivation, for the cause in all these years. It is because of people like him that we are adopting these kinds of resolutions because, to be honest, I do not think that Mr Mugabe is losing any sleep over this. What these resolutions are about is ensuring that he and his colleagues from the MDC have renewed motivation to continue their work. What could we possibly aim to do with these resolutions other than enforcing sanctions?
I would therefore insist that we tighten the Kimberley Process for the trade in conflict diamonds to such an extent that diamonds from Zimbabwe are prevented from being offered for sale at all, because they are the reason why the government has been violating human rights, oppressing people, using child labour and so forth. Our involvement in Zimbabwe is well known, but we should continue to mention it, again and again, precisely because of people like Abel Chikomo.
Kristiina Ojuland
author. - Mr President, it is a matter of grave concern that the human rights situation in Zimbabwe has worsened during the last months in particular, and this concern relates to Zanu-PF's deliberate obstruction of the Zimbabwean government of national unity.
The European Parliament must demand an immediate end to the persecution of the political opposition to Zanu-PF, of civil activists who are being arrested and tortured, and of NGOs, which have been raided and whose members have been detained arbitrarily. The EU should keep its restrictive measures against individuals and entities with links to the Mugabe regime in place until there is real evidence of a change for the better in Zimbabwe.
The Zimbabwean people should also be given freedom of expression without the fear of violent persecution, arbitrary imprisonment or torture, and those who have been committing systematic political harassment should be prosecuted.
Ana Gomes
The wave of oppression that is breaking over Zimbabwe is a clear sign of the trouble that will precede the coming elections. The international community and, in particular, the political players in the region, such as the Southern African Development Community, cannot tolerate the harassment and arbitrary arrests carried out by Zanu-PF and the security forces against civil society activists and members and supporters of the MDC, and they have to demand greater respect for human rights before the elections take place.
Police raids on offices of human rights organisations, such as the Zimbabwe Human Rights Forum and several others, allegedly in searches for subversive material, and the arrests of various NGO workers and members of the MDC itself, along with students and young activists, which have intensified since February, are tactics in an unacceptable campaign of intimidation. Instead of launching a campaign of terror against those who refuse to sign a petition against the restrictive measures imposed by the EU on leaders linked to Mugabe, the leaders of Zanu-PF should pay more attention to the lessons to be drawn from the Arab Spring, and allow truly free elections to take place.
Seán Kelly
deputising for the author. - Mr President, firstly, I want to say that I am speaking on behalf of my colleague, Alain Cadec, who was to be the speaker here this afternoon. Of the three topics we are discussing, this is by far the worst and probably the most recurring, as speakers have said. Robert Mugabe has been strutting the world stage for far too long now and has been behaving in a most dictatorial and brutal fashion towards his own people, and particularly towards opponents within his country.
The government of national unity, which was set up in 2009 to bring about democracy, is obviously not working, due to his efforts to ensure that it does not. The intimidation, arbitrary arrests and disappearances - which is probably another way of saying summary executions - of opponents, particularly in recent months, is quite unacceptable. Even NGOs have not escaped: their offices have been raided and their staff have been detained, so it is quite obvious that action needs to be taken against this dictator.
As Mr Van Orden said, at least the African Union is now beginning to form some class of opposition to him, and that gives us here in the European Union an opportunity to side with it and to bring every possible diplomatic force that we have at our disposal to bear on this issue to ensure, firstly, that Mr Mugabe stops the arrests and the executions, and secondly, that the constitution is accepted for the freedom of the Zimbabwean people, which will lead to free elections and the establishment of a truly democratic government in Zimbabwe.
Rui Tavares
Mr President, we all know that the 2008 agreement, implemented in 2009, for the sharing of power between Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai, or between Zanu-PF and the MDC, was not an ideal agreement, nor was it an agreement to bring about an ideal world, but it was the only possible agreement to try to improve the situation of human rights and democracy in Zimbabwe. The fact is that Mr Mugabe and his allies have done everything they can to ensure that this agreement does not work. They have used pressure and intimidation in attempts to break the opposition movement, which now has a majority in the lower house of parliament. Just a few minutes ago, it was reported that there have been attacks and violence towards people who had gathered around a memorial where there were MDC militants.
It is vital that the EU does not avert its gaze from what is happening in Zimbabwe, that it does not allow Mr Mugabe to get away with this final trick of appointing an ambassador without going through his country's constitutional mechanisms, and that it also ensures that the sale of diamonds does not profit Mr Mugabe and his allies.
Filip Kaczmarek
Mr President, not everyone in Zimbabwe will be happy about today's debate, since in a few days' time, 18 April will be Independence Day in Zimbabwe. Those who do wrong things in this country will have their celebration spoiled.
Agreements concerning the distribution of power are often problematic. This is due to the fact that generally, they do not reflect the result of a democratic decision of the citizens, but a compromise forced by the situation. This was precisely the case in Zimbabwe. However, agreements on the power sharing can be acceptable and may have a positive impact on society if certain conditions are met. One of them is the improvement of the human rights situation. That is why we are dealing with human rights in this country. For example, it is questionable whether the restrictive measures represent a necessary and effective tool. However, we must not allow people who do not want to sign a petition calling for the abolition of these measures to be beaten and harassed. That is why we defend those who struggle for human rights.
Kriton Arsenis
Mr President, Mugabe's party and its mechanisms, as my fellow Members said, are currently threatening, torturing and striking out against anyone fighting for democracy, democratic freedoms and the transition to a smooth democratic regime in Zimbabwe.
We are responsible for what is happening in Africa. We have intervened on numerous occasions in the history of democracy on this continent, especially at the beginning when these new countries were being created, and we have obstructed democratic procedures when they threatened our interests. As such, we have a double duty to help Zimbabwe acquire a democratically elected government.
Emotionally, this situation is extremely important to Greeks. We had a very harsh dictatorship from 1967 to 1974 and, at that time, any condemnation from the Council of Europe or an international organisation gave hope to the citizens fighting in Greece.
That is why we must not brook any relations with illegally appointed representatives of Zimbabwe and former associates of the Mugabe regime, and the European Union, together with the countries in its region, must guarantee the transition of Zimbabwe to democracy and the application of the Kimberley Process.
Charles Tannock
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, the EU supports the Kimberley Process, which aims to eliminate African conflict diamonds - or so-called blood diamonds - from the global market. However, recent developments in Zimbabwe are worrying. The Chairman of the Kimberley Process, Mr Mathieu Yamba from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, has decided unilaterally, and without consultation, to allow the marketing of diamonds from Zimbabwe's Marange mine. This mine, which was debated in the House last year, was seized by President Robert Mugabe and his cronies. Hundreds of people were dispossessed of their homes and there are reliable reports of his security forces torturing, raping, and even killing, local residents.
The sale of diamonds from the Marange mine will help Mugabe to further consolidate his tyrannical hold on Zimbabwe and, indeed, enrich his Zanu-PF thugs. I therefore urge the European Union, as a party to the Kimberley Process, to raise this scandal at the highest level and insist on the restoration of consensus-based decision making in the Kimberley Process. More generally, I have long been calling for a similar system, a certification, to cover other natural resources extracted in Africa in order to prevent brutal governments or guerrilla groups from selling minerals to fund arms purchases. I am pleased to be working alongside the London-based, internationally renowned, human rights NGO Global Witness in this endeavour, in which the US Administration is leading the way with the passing of the Dodd-Frank Act.
Cristian Dan Preda
(RO) Mr President, let me begin by saying that whenever I hear talk of Robert Mugabe, I see the Romanian dictator, Nicolae Ceauşescu, before me. In actual fact, in the 1980s, Mugabe was a regular guest of Ceauşescu's, along with Gaddafi. I am grateful to Mr Van Orden because he reminded me of the link between Mugabe and Gaddafi.
In fact, I think that Mugabe has learnt something from Ceauşescu, namely, hatred for civil society activists. The 46 members of civil society who were arrested on 19 February by the security forces in Zimbabwe are currently charged with treason. They are now at risk of being sentenced to death. This is the penalty. Their only 'crime' is that they discussed what happened in Egypt and Tunisia.
The solution for the Mugabe regime is basically to hold fair and free elections. Let us hope that this will be possible on this occasion.
Sari Essayah
(FI) Mr President, in February, the EU Foreign Affairs Council adopted conclusions concerning the situation in Zimbabwe. The period for EU sanctions to be in effect would be continued, because no adequate progress had really been made in the country's internal reforms.
The lifting of restrictions will require tangible progress to be made in the implementation of the political power sharing agreement of 2008. That apparent power sharing agreement was unable to prevent Mugabe's security forces from continuing to persecute his opponents, and right now, they are being arrested, tortured and murdered, even right up to ministerial level.
Since EU sanctions are not targeted at the people of Zimbabwe, the EU at present is still the country's biggest provider of aid, which it grants, in particular, for agriculture and food production. The EU must continue to put pressure on Mugabe, and if there is a decision to hold elections, the EU should be involved as an observer.
Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg
(PL) Mr President, since our last debate on Zimbabwe in October last year, the situation in this country in southern Africa has not changed. Unemployment has reached 90%, average life expectancy is 44 years, and the citizens of this country have no access to basic healthcare services. It is obvious that the political agreement reached two years ago by President Mugabe and Prime Minister Tsvangirai has failed to meet the hopes placed in it and that a new, fully democratic solution is needed. The internal situation in Zimbabwe has not changed in the last six months, but the external situation has. Today, we are debating a country in the context of the 'Spring of Nations' in Africa, and although Harare is 6 000 kilometres away from Tunis, the most recent case of Côte d'Ivoire shows that sometimes, democracy knows no barriers at all. The European Parliament therefore urges the government of Zimbabwe to take into account the current international situation and the strong reorientation in domestic politics and, above all, to cease repression of the political opposition, to release its representatives from the prisons and allow them to participate in the elections.
Six months ago, I said that a poor country like Zimbabwe cannot afford to look for alternative problems. Today, I think that the African 'Spring of Nations' puts an additional strain on the political debt of President Mugabe.
Cristian Silviu Buşoi
(RO) Mr President, as a member of the Delegation for relations with the Pan-African Parliament, I firmly believe that the European Union, and Lady Ashton in particular, should take a strong stand against the actions of the Mugabe regime involving the intimidation and harassment of human rights activists, and encourage respect for public rights and freedoms, including the freedom of expression and assembly, which Zimbabwe has formally committed to at a global level. Zimbabwe must abide by its international commitments, including the African Charter of Human and Peoples' Rights, by repealing all its national laws which contravene the international texts on the protection of human rights.
I also sincerely believe that countries in the region, and mainly South Africa, could get involved in supporting the return to democracy and respect for human rights in Zimbabwe.
Elena Băsescu
(RO) Mr President, the events currently going on in Zimbabwe sound an alarm bell for the human rights situation on the African continent. With the prospect of the elections in June, President Mugabe is conducting a campaign of intimidation against his rival candidates. Hundreds of government officials, human rights activists and opponents of the regime have been arrested during the last two months. This situation is unacceptable.
In addition, the drafting of a democratic constitution has been postponed for a year by Mugabe. The new fundamental law would have guaranteed that the elections were held in transparent circumstances.
I should point out that the country's economic situation is deeply affected. The President supports nationalisation of the mining sector, which is the main economic sector in Zimbabwe. Such a measure is harmful as it is precisely the foreign investments in this sector which have maintained the state's stability in the wake of the economic crisis.
Mitro Repo
(FI) Mr President, in Zimbabwe, President Mugabe and the Zanu-PF Party have not managed to keep to the terms of the Global Political Agreement concluded in 2009. Zimbabwe has been unable to move towards democracy. On the contrary, in the past few months, there has been a clear increase in the intimidation of political opponents and the number of arbitrary arrests and disappearances. Efforts to create stability will not bear fruit in a political climate like the present one.
Zimbabwe is still a country where you can be abused or tortured for your political opinions. The legislative system, which suppresses free and open journalism, restricts the right to freedom of speech. Journalists are harassed. Everything should be done to support the country's progress towards genuine democracy and economic development.
It is only right and fitting that, in February this year, the European Council decided to extend restrictive measures concerning people and organisations connected with the Mugabe administration and to keep a record of the blacklist. I also think that these should be continued until there is real evidence of genuine change in Zimbabwe. However, the measures should only be targeted at Zimbabwe's corrupt government and must not be allowed to exacerbate the plight of the Zimbabwean people.
Albert Deß
(DE) Mr President, back when I was a child, I received letters from what was then Rhodesia. Three of my grandfather's sisters were Catholic nuns in the then Rhodesia and in South Africa. They never wrote of the people of Rhodesia having to go hungry. What we hear from this country today is simply intolerable. Rhodesia, and later Zimbabwe, were the bread basket of southern Africa. Mr Mugabe - a communist socialist dictator - has managed to turn this bread basket into a famine zone.
I would like to thank all the fellow Members who have put this matter back on the agenda. It is intolerable that this dictator, Mr Mugabe, has been allowed to terrorise the people of Zimbabwe for so long. I believe that the key to ending this lies in southern Africa. I regret to say that for as long as South Africa fails to put this dictator in his place, he will continue to terrorise his people.
Maroš Šefčovič
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, I think we would all agree that Zimbabwe and its human rights violations have been on our agenda for far too long. Every glimpse of hope of some positive development is immediately crushed by outbursts of political repression and violence. This is exactly what happened again just a couple of months ago. The European Union therefore had to proceed to renew its restrictive measures, for the eighth time, in February this year.
By this clear gesture, we wanted to underline the critical importance of an agreement between the government parties on the necessary steps leading to elections in the country. In this context, the EU emphasised its willingness to revise its decision in response to further concrete developments on the ground.
The EU is deeply concerned at the upsurge in political violence seen in recent months in Zimbabwe. On 11 March, together with 21 embassies and representations, the EU issued a statement to express its concerns over the increase in what appears to be politically motivated intimidation and violence.
In this context, the EU welcomes the outcome of the recent SADC summit on 31 March 2011. The SADC communiqué calls for an immediate end to violence, intimidation, hate speech and harassment, and calls upon the government of Zimbabwe to complete all necessary steps to hold an election. It offers assistance so that elections can be organised in accordance with SADC principles and guidelines governing democratic elections. For that reason, the SADC will appoint officials to join the South African facilitation team and work with the joint monitoring and implementation committee.
The EU believes that strengthened facilitation and mediation efforts by SADC and South Africa are key to preventing further instability in Zimbabwe. The EU welcomes the region's efforts to mediate in the Zimbabwean crisis.
South Africa, in its capacity as facilitator, together with the SADC, as guarantor of the Global Political Agreement, has decided to accredit the Zimbabwean Ambassador. At this point in time, keeping a formal channel of communication open with Zimbabwe and maintaining a dialogue with the inclusive government is vital, and we should not jeopardise the position of the EU Ambassador in Harare. The EU will act and proceed in close coordination with all EU Member States.
The EU remains the largest provider of development assistance to Zimbabwe. We want to clearly express that we are tough on the regime, but we try to assist the people. With the disbursement of approximately 365 million since the establishment of the Global Political Agreement in 2009, we are - as I said - the largest donor.
Resources are only channelled through UN bodies and specialised NGOs. Since 2009, the EU has also supported governance reforms, as stipulated in the Global Political Agreement, including the constitutional reform process. The EU also funds human rights programmes, including programmes from human rights defenders. We just have to hope that all the international pressure will finally lead to free and fair elections in Zimbabwe and to the gradual normalisation of the very difficult situation in this country.
President
The debate is closed.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Alain Cadec
In recent months, many opponents of the Mugabe regime as well as NGO representatives have been arbitrarily arrested by the Zimbabwean authorities. Mr Mugabe's party has systematically prevented Zimbabwe's government of national unity, formed in 2009, from paving the way for a democratic transition and credible elections. There must be an immediate end to all political violence perpetrated by Mr Mugabe's supporters. The European Union and its Member States must actively engage with the African Union and the Southern African Development Community so as to ensure that future elections are not held in a climate of intimidation and violence. I welcome the fact that the European Parliament resolution calls on all Zimbabwe's political parties to work together in drafting a new democratic constitution, acceptable to all the people of Zimbabwe, prior to the next elections.
Monica Luisa Macovei
Once again, we see that intimidation, arrest, violence and even torture are the weapons used by Mugabe against his political opponents and civil society. The forces loyal to Mugabe have intimidated opposition ministers in the government of national unity. They have harassed leaders of human rights organisations and arrested 46 representatives of civil society on the charge of treason, with some of them having been beaten and even tortured while under arrest. A sustainable structure cannot be built based on fear and terror or against civil and political liberties.
I call on the European Union's High Representative to support the efforts to hold free elections in Zimbabwe, devoid of violence and intimidation. A legitimate government is required which will respect rights and fundamental freedoms, in other words, show respect for human beings. Tightening the European Union's restrictions on Mugabe's people must be one measure.