Mr President, Madam Commissioner, I am in favour of a much more balanced participation of women and men in the decision-making process than is currently the case. But, unlike our rapporteur, I am not conceited enough to claim that everything would be different and better if women participated equally in the decision-making process. Nevertheless, we must not accuse all men across the board of having the wrong intentions, for example in relation to defending the rights of children or to the environment, to name just a few of the areas mentioned in this context by our rapporteur. Fortunately, there are men who are talented and fervent supporters of the rights and interests that are close to our hearts. Unfortunately, there are also female politicians who just cannot be relied upon, even when it comes to putting more female candidates on the electoral lists. In my long political career I can tell you that it has mostly been women who, afraid of competition from me, have tried to put spokes in my wheels. It must, of course, be said that, despite the good policies of equal treatment and equal opportunities which have been developed since 1975 by the Community and, above all, despite the well-intentioned recommendation of the Council in 1996 on the balanced participation of women and men in the decision-making process, progress towards these objectives is slow. It is moving at a snail’s or a tortoise’s pace rather than at the speed of a racehorse. The reason why I voted against this draft resolution on the Commission report in the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities was because it makes a number of exaggerated claims and demands, which are counter-productive for women who want to participate fully in the decision-making process. I am therefore against the reference to a 40% quota, below which measures would be called for to achieve a balanced representation of both genders. I am of the opinion that such measures are essential now and in the future, irrespective of the percentage of participation that is achieved. I am against the demand addressed to political parties that they adopt quota systems and, in particular, the zipper system to set up the electoral lists. This zipper system would be incompatible with the electoral law of my country where, fortunately for me, it is not the political party which decides the place of a candidate on the electoral list, but the people, by means of preference votes. What we need to do is to call on political parties to reform their structures and procedures with a view to getting rid of the direct and indirect obstacles to the participation of women, given that Member States could encourage political parties to put a larger number of female candidates on their electoral lists, by means of financial incentives if necessary. Finally, I find it absurd to demand that only women be trained to take on leading roles and to take decisions when many men, who already have such roles and jobs, would greatly benefit from such training. My Group has tabled amendments to get rid of the counter-productive demands I have just described and I hope that these amendments will be adopted. I would just like to make one more comment, which I should not really do before the vote, on the French translation of our amendments. It is defective to the extent that these amendments are not only incomprehensible but, as co-author, I am bound to say that, when I read these amendments in French, I feel like a mother hen who can no longer find her chicks. So, Mr President, it is the German text which takes precedence. I ask Members to be aware of this and to bear it in mind when we vote.

Political group: PPE-DE