Mr President, I speak as the Chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs, which has concerned itself with this problem of its own accord, as Mrs Gröner knows. We have issued a favourable opinion, though we have highlighted certain points, because the objective of gender equality, as laid down in the Treaty and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, is an important objective that Parliament does well to debate. Mainstreaming equality, as Mrs Gröner has said, means intervening in the fields of decision-making, political and administrative processes, encouraging the making of decisions that take into account the goals we must achieve. Therefore, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities proposes that Parliament should adopt a plan of action alongside measures which, of course, are provided for in the legislation and are aimed at reaching the objectives we wish to achieve. Mr President, this is a process which has ramifications in our social structures and in the institutions and which, naturally, must see effective equality as the conquest of substantive equality of fundamental rights and duties in an open, globalised society that wants to give due importance to all cultural expressions. I believe expressions of equality have a profoundly cultural content. I think it is fundamental that there should be a high-level policy group to restore the gender balance in Parliament’s governing bodies and in Parliament as a whole, especially in view of enlargement, which must take into account the goals we wish to achieve. Therefore, the opinion that the Committee on Legal Affairs has drawn up and which I want to convey to this House, here this evening, points out that we have referred to the 2002 Lalumière report, approved by the Bureau. That report not only provides for the appointment of a higher percentage of women at A1 and A3 levels in the next few years, but it also states that, in terms of career development, the principle of priority should be applied systematically. This principle, however, has been considered by the Committee on Legal Affairs to be in some ways a little excessive, going rather beyond the goals we want to achieve, because it is at variance with the case-law – which I believe is quite enlightened – of the Court, which naturally considers that it is against national rules to automatically give priority where candidates of different sexes short-listed for promotion are equally qualified. Such a priority should, of course, be seriously taken into account initially in the context of competitions for posts, but it must not constrain the actual outcome in practice. In other words, giving absolute and unconditional priority to the under-represented gender for appointment or promotion is, according to the Court’s ruling, not only going beyond the objective of promoting equal opportunities but also replacing this objective with an outcome of equal representation, which can only be achieved if this objective is fulfilled. I believe, therefore, that this philosophy of the Court and this fundamental principle, which, with some moderation, brings a substantive balance to decision-making, should be adopted as appropriate instruments that Parliament must adopt in order to achieve a more mature equality, which would be a victory in the process of social and cultural life.

Political group: PPE-DE