Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, despite all the judicial instruments at European level and in the Member States banning wage discrimination, there are still considerable and persistent wage differences between men and women. The figures that are available to us from – indeed very interesting – European studies, show that there is a wage gap of 25 to 28% and in some countries as high as 30%. For example, the wage gap is greater in the private sector than in the public sector, the industrial and agricultural sectors have greater wage differentials than the service sector, and the gap seems to be widest in those sectors where women are underrepresented. It is not always easy to interpret these statistics correctly. But it is generally accepted that the different career patterns of men and women account for about half of the wage gap – for example, women interrupt their careers more easily than men, with slower career progress as a result – the lower qualifications especially of older working women, the fact that working women are on average younger than working men – in other words, the objective, structural differences. The other half of the wage gap, however, cannot be explained objectively and seems to suggest that there are hidden mechanisms of discrimination at play which lead to the undervaluing of female-dominated jobs and professions. The key mechanism is the job evaluation system, by means of which different jobs are ranked according to importance, and according to that job ranking, are allocated their salary scales. In most cases, this job evaluation is done by the social partners, whether or not based on a system set up by an advisory office. Discrimination in job evaluation is evident from the fact that too low a value is placed on characteristics associated with traditionally feminine jobs, including social skills, women’s greater capacity to concentrate and greater dexterity. As they are awarded lower scores, valued less, these jobs are thus given too low a place in task hierarchies and payrolls, which means that the wage level for women is lower. At the same time, the characteristics associated with traditionally masculine jobs, for example technical insight, physically demanding work or financial responsibility, are correspondingly over-valued. In general, workers do not know how their job is classified. It is even open to question how much insight the social partners have into how jobs are classified within businesses. Moreover, women are generally not involved in job evaluation since they are not the negotiators with the social partners. The question then arises as to what Europe can do about this. Commissioner, I believe that first of all, the gathering of statistical data on wages of men and women, and on wage differentials, must drastically improve. At present, the gathering of statistical data both at European level and in most Member States leaves something to be desired. This should therefore be addressed first. I know that the Commission has appointed a group of experts to set this in motion, but I would also urge them to look for an explanation of the wage differentials. Secondly, the European Union would do well to delve deeper into the issue of discrimination in job evaluation. For this purpose, an initiative could be launched, for example to supplement the Directive of 1975 which deals with equal pay, with an annexe in which a number of rules and criteria are laid down which guarantee a gender-neutral evaluation system. The Member States need a guide. So do the social partners. In my opinion, Europe could provide the perfect solution. Moreover, the social partners must be committed to ensuring transparency concerning the value scales used in the wage formation process. How can people find out if their wage is or is not the product of discrimination if there is no transparency whatsoever in the way in which their wage is determined? The social partners should commit in the same way to involving more women in wage negotiations, particularly to removing discrimination and at long last making wage discrimination No 1 on their agenda, for that never happens. In addition, the guidelines for employment must be tightened up with quantitative objectives, target dates and goals in mind. They are not included, not even in the new guidelines, even though they are much better than the previous ones. This must be followed much more closely. I have never heard the Commission complain about the fact that the national action plans devote too little attention to this issue. In summary, there is a need for a global policy strategy. All these elements would form part of this and of the campaign which the Commission intends to launch and which could, in fact, be a useful tool in highlighting a number of these matters. Commissioner, I would therefore urge you to make this item for once a priority for the benefit of women.

Political group: PPE-DE