Decisions concerning certain documents: see Minutes


Equal treatment between men and women engaged in a self-employed capacity - Pregnant workers (debate)
The next item is the joint debate on:
the report by Mrs Lulling, on behalf of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the application of the principle of equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity in a self-employed capacity and repealing Directive 86/613/EEC - C6-0341/2008 -;
the report by Mrs Estrela, on behalf of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 92/85/EEC on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding - C6-0340/2008 -.
Mr President, 22 years after the vote on a text that was already aimed at ensuring equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity in a self-employed capacity, including their assisting spouses, the Commission has at last submitted a new proposal to replace the ineffective and toned-down 1986 text, but it has done so using a more solid legal basis.
I should like first to mention a major improvement, namely that the establishment of a company between spouses or recognised life partners shall no longer be prohibited in any Member State. This is an effective way of improving the situation of assisting spouses, those millions of invisible workers employed in agriculture, craft occupations, commerce, SMEs and the liberal professions. Their fate has been a matter of concern for the European Parliament since the 1990s.
Unfortunately, the Commission's proposal is still too weak on one essential point: the social security of assisting spouses and recognised life partners. Experience shows that, where assisting spouses have to take it upon themselves and apply to join a social security scheme, the large majority of them do not do so. None of these people realise that, in the event of divorce, often after more than 20 years of marriage and work in the family business, they will lose all welfare benefits, especially pension rights.
We also wish to retain the old provision concerning the recognition of the work of assisting spouses, in order to provide for compensation, notably in the case of divorce, where the assisting spouse is in a precarious situation after years of work for the family business.
Lastly, as regards maternity protection, we have found a formula that is best suited to the specific circumstances of female self-employed workers and assisting spouses. They must have the right to take maternity leave of the duration of their choice, provided that the total length does not exceed that specified in the Directive on female workers.
Those are the amendments that we feel are most important in order to prevent the publication of another diluted directive, which will not enable us to guarantee equal treatment between men and women in this area.
We have been informed of a dozen amendments tabled by Mr Cocilovo, on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, which concern the definition of assisting spouses and life partners. I am a little surprised, since, in the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, we - and here I refer to all of the groups - had agreed to abide by the definitions contained within the Commission's proposal, which is legally sound and acceptable to everyone, to the effect that assisting spouses should also be understood to mean the life partners of self-employed workers recognised by national law.
This definition is clear; it is precise. Why table amendments that are vague and legally unsound? I call on the ALDE Group to withdraw these amendments. I assume that there is a misunderstanding between the shadow rapporteur of that group and Mr Cocilovo. I am working on this point at present.
The Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality has unfortunately adopted another report containing 74 amendments, the majority of which have no direct link with the initial objective presented in the Commission's proposal, which was to strengthen the foundation of maternity protection by improving the health and safety of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding.
I should like to make it clear that this directive does not concern female self-employed workers, female assisting spouses or the partners of self-employed workers. Their specific situation will be examined within the framework of the new directive on equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity in a self-employed capacity, which will be the subject of a report.
(The President cut off the speaker)
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly I should like to thank the following people: the shadow rapporteurs; the draftsmen of the opinions of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on Legal Affairs; the secretariats of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament; the social partners; the NGOs; the experts who took part in the public hearings held in Brussels and Lisbon; the Commission and Council representatives; and my assistants. I thank everyone for their support and suggestions.
The proposals in my report are therefore the result of a highly participatory process and of many working meetings with all those interested in equipping the European Union with a directive on maternity leave appropriate to our times. The main aims of my proposed amendments are: firstly, to reinforce the rights of female workers during pregnancy, after birth and while breastfeeding; secondly, to promote the reconciliation of professional, family and private life; and thirdly, to help Europeans who want to have children to do so, thereby increasing the birth rate.
I therefore propose extending the protection against dismissal to 12 months, removing the obligation to perform night work and overtime if the woman so wishes, and reducing the working day by two hours for the purpose of breastfeeding, without the loss of any privileges. However, the most innovative proposal in relation to the European Commission's proposal concerns paternity leave. Community law must enshrine the principle of shared leave to encourage a fairer distribution of private and family responsibilities between men and women and to thus improve the quality of life and well-being of children. Fathers must be involved in family responsibilities, from the birth or adoption of a child. We must also combat the economic, social and cultural prejudices associated with the right to paternity leave, and change mentalities.
Whereas, for example, in Sweden, a man who does not share the parental leave is regarded by society as a poor father, in the countries of southern Europe, the reverse is true: fathers are coerced by employers and work colleagues into not taking the leave to which they are legally entitled. I therefore propose that two weeks' paternity leave should be mandatory, non-transferable and paid at 100%, without the loss of any professional rights. It has been proven that the sharing of family responsibilities between men and women is the first step towards the essential reconciliation of family and professional life. While having the same right as men to a professional career, women cannot, however, do the same work as men outside the home and triple the amount within the home.
Family life is one of the reasons why there are more unemployed women than men. Furthermore, a common question in job interviews is whether applicants intend to marry or have children. Women's personal lives are scrutinised and they end up losing out if they exhibit the natural desire to be mothers. Motherhood cannot be viewed as a problem for employers or for the economy. On the contrary, it is a service provided to society, as it allows us to tackle the low birth rate and ageing population and, at the same time, guarantee the sustainability of the social security system.
It is therefore unacceptable for women to be penalised because they are mothers. However, the truth is that they frequently cannot make progress in their careers, they do not receive the usual productivity bonuses or share of the profits, and they have to accept more menial and less professionally gratifying work. We need to change this situation.
Mr President, honourable Members, I would like to start by thanking Mrs Estrela and Mrs Lulling for their report. I appreciate their efforts and the support the European Parliament has given to the Commission proposals within the package of measures adopted last autumn for harmonising working and family life.
As you know, the task of harmonising working, family, and private life is one of the priorities of the Commission's gender equality plan. The process of promoting policies focused on these issues is of key importance for enhancing women's participation in the labour market and for coping with problems connected with the changing forms of the family, the ageing population, and support for the equal treatment of men and women. Seen in this context, I think it is necessary to improve legislation in the sphere of maternity and parental leave. In a similar vein, it is crucial to improve the status of women engaged in a self-employed capacity.
I am delighted with the progress made on both of the legislative proposals tabled by the Commission. I am also pleased with the success of negotiations between the social partners on parental leave. I hope that before the summer holiday I will be able to submit a formal motion to make their agreement binding. I would now like to mention in brief the Commission's objectives for the amendment to the maternity leave directive, which are: to promote high levels of safety and health protection for mothers, to encourage women to have as many children as they want, and to support women's participation in the labour market. In this respect, the Commission's proposal is aimed primarily at extending maternity leave from 14 to 18 weeks, increasing maternity benefits to enable women to interrupt their jobs and look after their children while feeling financially secure, and providing the greater flexibility that should be given to women in terms of arranging their maternity leave and the work conditions for their return to employment. I am aware of the difficulties in attaining the right balance between enhancing protection and making these additional measures economically acceptable to employers and to the Member States.
Mr President, honourable Members, the Commission welcomes the numerous amendments made by Parliament, which will help to strengthen or clarify this draft. These include: Amendment 11 on demographic trends, Amendment 25 stressing the need for better harmonisation between working and family life, Amendment 50 on support for Member States in promoting part-time work, Amendment 35 on optional maternity leave before birth, Amendment 53 clarifying that women on maternity leave may have their salaries raised, and Amendment 56 on workers' retirement rights. The Commission is also prepared to accept a number of other amendments, either in principle or in their entirety.
I also welcome the amendment that would make it possible, under certain conditions, to count parental leave as maternity leave. Such a provision would take into consideration the differences between the Member States, and would accommodate the requirements of those Member States with advanced systems of leave for family reasons, such as the Nordic countries. Nevertheless, I would like to avoid a situation where the revision of Directive 92/85/EEC is used as an opportunity to introduce topics that should be addressed in another context. In my opinion, this would undermine the aims of the Commission's proposal, which include, first and foremost, enhanced protection for mothers and, secondly, support for women's participation in the labour market.
Seen in this light - even though I fully support your proposal for the introduction of paternity leave - I do not think that the current directive, focused as it is on the protection of mothers, is a suitable instrument for such a goal. The Commission therefore rejects the amendments relating to paternity leave. In spite of that, the Commission thinks it is right to address this issue in the future, with a view to reaching final agreement among the European social partners on parental leave.
I was also pleased to note Parliament's request to introduce leave in the case of child adoption (Amendment 44). The idea is sound, but even in this case I believe that a revision of Directive 92/85/EEC is not the right way to go about it. We have to realise that the situation of a mother who adopts a child is different. However, just as in the case of paternity leave, the Commission believes it is right to address that question later on, particularly in connection with parental leave.
Mr President, honourable Members, the Commission welcomes your proposal for 20 weeks of maternity leave. This is consistent with the logic of the Commission's own proposal, which provides for maternity leave in excess of 18 weeks to be granted in some instances. However, it is vital to show the impact of this extension on the other provisions of the Commission's proposal. As for breast-feeding, women with maternity leave lasting 18 weeks would have sufficient time to breast-feed their children, without having to adjust their working hours. Under these circumstances, I would not support the idea of introducing a legal obligation concerning adjustment of working hours for breast-feeding women. Instead I would rather call on the Member States to consider the possibility of taking other measures enabling women to keep on breast-feeding even after their 18 weeks of maternity leave. Similarly, on maternity benefits, the Commission's proposal introduces the principle of paying salaries in full. In actual fact, many Member States have already been applying this principle. The Commission's proposal also allows Member States to set maximum levels for such benefits. The Commission is not in favour of the proposal tabled by Parliament for salaries to be paid in full for a specific period of time and maximum amounts to be introduced for the rest of maternity leave, because this would discourage mothers from drawing their maternity leave in full. That is why the Commission does not recommend that these amendments be approved.
The Commission also believes that some amendments either water down the effects of the proposal, introduce too many details or go beyond the scope of the powers of this directive. This applies, for instance, to Amendment 30 concerning the right to refuse night work. I believe that pregnant or breast-feeding women should have the possibility any time of refusing night work without having to state their reasons for doing so. The same applies to the issue of sanctions. In this respect, the Commission holds the view that it is important to specify that compensation should not be restricted by any upper limit laid down at the national level. This significant principle has been established by the European Court of Justice. Therefore, the Commission cannot accept Amendment 68.
Mr President, honourable Members, I would now like to deal in greater detail with the report by Mrs Lulling. First of all, let me underline the great importance the Commission attaches to this proposal. In fact, it is vital to improve the situation regarding equal treatment between men and women engaged in a self-employed capacity, since women are underrepresented in this area, accounting for only one in three business persons in the European Union. It is likewise essential to improve the status of assisting spouses. We cannot agree with the current situation, where people regularly involved in the activities of a family business have no social protection.
I am pleased to see that the opinions of Parliament and the Commission coincide to a great extent. That is why the Commission is in a position to accept (either in their entirety or in principle) a substantial majority of the amendments presented by the rapporteur: primarily Amendment 15 on maternity leave for women engaged in a self-employed capacity and Amendment 18, which is aimed at reintroducing Article 7 of Directive 86/613/EEC relating to recognition of the work of assisting spouses. This also involves a large number of amendments which the Commission can accept in their entirety or in principle. In most cases, these amendments clarify the Commission's proposal and therefore aim for greater legal certainty.
I would, nevertheless, like to point out that the Commission cannot accept Amendment 14 concerning social protection for assisting spouses. It is clear to me that this is a significant aspect for the European Parliament. However, this particular amendment poses some specific problems. First and foremost, the voluntary approach introduced in the Commission's proposal represents a substantial improvement compared to the current status. The proposal of the Commission stipulates - and this is a statutory obligation laid down for the Member States - that assisting spouses should have, at their request, the same level of protection as that enjoyed by persons engaged in a self-employed capacity. The mandatory inclusion of assisting spouses in the system of social protection would also have significant financial impacts. At this time of economic crisis, we should be trying to ensure that businesses, especially small family businesses, do not incur further expenses against their will. Therefore, I think that assisting spouses should be given the option to choose. Furthermore, this amendment would greatly complicate the possibility of reaching agreement with the Council.
In conclusion, I would like to say that the Commission's position regarding the various amendments to both legislative proposals has been given to Parliament in writing, and will be attached to the minutes of the plenary session.
Mrs Madeira has tried to ensure real equality for pregnant workers and any women of childbearing age in terms of accessing and remaining in the labour market. Ladies and gentlemen, women are frequently faced with a choice between professional life and family life, particularly on the issue of motherhood, which ends up preventing them from feeling like complete individuals in terms of their physical and mental health. We must therefore adopt an approach which is not prejudicial to the rights and protection of women, in line with the European social model. We should also like to include parental leave in this framework, which, as we have seen, was not the choice of the Commission.
Commissioner, anyone who spends 18 weeks out of the workplace needs special training on resuming their work in order to maintain their legitimate career prospects and prevent them from suffering a double penalty in their professional life. We therefore need to ensure the following: their job must be protected for 12 months so that they can reorganise their domestic life on returning to work, training and new routines. The increase from six to twelve months is therefore simply good sense. It is vital that each Member State legislates on the rights of self-employed women, and this is therefore a clear political signal to which we should like the Commission to react.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this adjustment in working hours after birth should not be the exclusive right of women, as the spouse, partner or parent should also be able to request this from their employer. This proposal is very important and must be monitored by regulators in the Member States. Finally, ladies and gentlemen, we believe that this approach is more consistent with the European social model to which we aspire. This issue is not just about women; it is also about society.
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say from the outset, to save time, that I agree in essence with the illustration given by Mrs Lulling, who served as rapporteur for the main committee on this report.
The subject is 'equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity in a self-employed capacity'. There are several amendments that were adopted by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and which I tabled again on behalf of my group. Some, I think, can be withdrawn since they actually overlap with the texts already adopted by the main committee.
We too will insist on Amendment 14, concerning Article 6, because we believe that to make optional for the assisting spouse or life partner that which is, however, obligatory for the main worker is to lower protection and to open the door to conditions that undermine the Commission's aims.
For the rest, I think we will also come to an agreement with Mrs Lulling to push for reference to be made to 'assisting life partners' as well as spouses in every passage of the Commission text, rather than leaving it open to interpretation. This is frankly a secondary issue, however, to the main aim shared by everyone.
Mr President, the purpose of the Council directive from 1986 was to apply the principle of equal treatment of women and men engaged in a self-employed capacity, to give assisting spouses a clearly defined professional status and to establish their rights and minimum guarantees. The present motion of the Commission is still not ambitious enough, and contains little in the way of binding solutions.
The proposal to ensure that women who are self-employed have the possibility of taking up to 14 weeks of maternity leave, including two weeks of mandatory leave, is deserving of support, as is the proposal to give them the right to benefit from social security cover for assisting spouses on the same basis as self-employed workers.
On the other hand, the proposal to release self-employed people, and in particular assisting spouses, from the obligation to be members of social insurance schemes is disturbing. This solution will not contribute to the equal treatment of women and men, and therefore it is advisable that the competent body in matters of equal rights covered by the directives should oversee the correct application of this directive.
Finally, I would like to congratulate both authors on a superbly prepared document.
I would first of all like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Estrela, for her report and the effort she has put into this.
I believe that improving Directive 92/85 provides a solution to a genuine, serious problem which Europe is facing. I am referring to both the ageing population and the population decline which we have been talking about for so long. From our point of view in the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, having the family as a fundamental value certainly entitles us to devise a political measure focusing on this issue, which is also why we welcome what is happening with regard to the directive on maternity and to maternal health.
I was pleased to hear in this House Commissioner Špidla supporting the extension of the maternity period, as was approved by our Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality. I do not think that this is related to equal access to the labour market for women. We are also all aware that the World Health Organization and UNICEF support the fact, corroborated with scientific arguments, that women who have given birth actually need 24 weeks to completely recover their working capacity.
I believe that we must not make young women choose between a home life and a career. Indeed, our discussion today about amending the directive will actually provide a basis for achieving this work-life balance. I welcome the introduction of the notion of paternity leave, even though it is not necessary at the moment, because it allows us at least to send a signal to young families which are expecting something like this from us, the European Parliament.
I believe that having both parents at home is vital for babies during their first weeks of life. I also think that motherhood and fatherhood are a fact of life, which is why I agree with treating this matter in the way it deserves and not like a problem or possibly an inconvenience. As a Romanian MEP and mother of two children born, unfortunately, under the Communist regime which my country lived through, I can assure you that I have additional reasons for supporting the measures proposed.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (DE) Mr President, the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality has provided a good contribution here towards ensuring a social Europe, and I would like to sincerely thank both of the rapporteurs, Mrs Estrela and Mrs Lulling.
For us in the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, two aspects of this matter are very important, as I would like to briefly point out. On the one hand, it is necessary to include fathers in the framework strategy to improve the balance between professional and family life. We do not, as the Commission states, want eighteen weeks of maternity leave, as this is already in place in almost all European countries, with the exception of Germany and Malta. We want to go one step further, namely to introduce two weeks of paternity leave.
For us, it is also important for both directives to offer the same rights for same sex couples. This is important in the case of the directive on assisting spouses and the assisting member of unmarried couples. I would also like to point out that these protection systems must be obligatory, otherwise they become arbitrary.
I would, once again, like to return to the argument put forward by the employers, namely that this directive on extended maternity leave would be too much for companies to cope with in a time of crisis. That simply cannot be the case. In Germany, we have a system where, in the case of a pay-as-you-go scheme, the costs are refunded - even up to a hundred percent! That is why I am also asking the Conservative group to show understanding and to follow us in improving legal protection for working mothers.
Before the European elections, we want to send people, especially fathers and mothers, a clear and definite signal that, in times of crisis, the concept of a social Europe will not be abandoned, and clearly state that we aim to invest in people, in future generations and in demographic change. I would also like to ask Commissioner Špidla, in connection with the inclusion of fathers in the legislation, to think again and, together with us, to fight in the Council for progress with regard to maternity leave and ensuring a better balance between work and family life.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to congratulate and thank Mrs Estrela for her report and the quality of it.
It is time for the Commission and Parliament to take up this issue. Measures are urgently needed to protect pregnant women and women who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding, and it is essential to ensure that their rights are respected. From this point of view, the report is well balanced: it deals with the regulation of night work; protection against dismissal; rights linked to social protection and employment contracts and the defence of such rights, in particular those concerning maternity pay.
However, I do not agree with Mrs Estrela's proposals on obligatory paternal leave and the length of maternity leave. It cannot be denied that motherhood is still a hindrance to young women's careers. The very important part on mothers returning to work must therefore not be neglected.
Maternity leave must not penalise women. Maternity leave that is too long will, inevitably, result in fewer chances for women to return to good conditions in the employment market. This is why the Commission's proposal to set maternity leave at 18 weeks, and accompany it with realistic measures, is an excellent one, because it takes the situation of both workers and employers into account.
If we want to fight discrimination and defend women's rights, we need to ensure that women must not resign themselves to saying goodbye to their careers, that doing so remains an active lifestyle choice. We need to expose the hypocrisy of the idea of free choice, which is often a direct result of inequalities in the salaries of men and women and insufficient childcare facilities.
I do not think that paternity leave has a place in this directive. However, if it must remain part of it, it must be more flexible. The vote in committee for the compromise of reducing paternity leave from four to two weeks is a step forward; but why should paternity leave be obligatory?
I agree that fathers should have a role, but it should not become a poisoned chalice and, if we want the presence of both the father and the mother to benefit them and their baby, we need to preserve the notion of choice. Reconciling professional and family life is at the heart of the European social project and such an important cultural change should be freely agreed upon before it is approved.
Mr President, this motion, which aims to extend the minimum length of maternity leave and which contains other regulations which will make it easier to combine family and work is a step in the right direction. We support the motion, although we do not think it goes far enough.
At a time of drastic demographic collapse in Europe, every form of support for the family is valuable. The contact which a small child, and especially a baby, has with its mother fosters the proper emotional development of the child. Breastfeeding a child is very important for its immunity and biological health. However, the proposed change is still not sufficient. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity individual Member States should always be looking for better solutions.
I would also like to draw attention to two problems. Women's entitlement to a retirement pension usually either does not take into account periods spent caring for children, or does so insufficiently. Women and mothers who are in families where there are many children suffer discrimination both in the job market and from the pension system. We should aim to introduce remuneration for caring for children.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (ES) Mr President, I am pleased to see that issues relating to equality between men and women and, in particular, to non-discrimination between the sexes are gradually becoming more prominent in social and political spheres. Nevertheless, the debates we have had in the last few weeks in the context of the reform of these two directives show that there is still a great deal to be done in the way of discussing and convincing.
I am with those who maintain that true equality will only be achieved when we succeed in establishing adequate frameworks so that women are not discriminated against in public life or at work; also, however, when those frameworks enable and, indeed, oblige men to assume their responsibilities in the private and domestic fields.
With that in mind, I wish to stress that Europe-wide maternity leave should be at least 24 weeks, as the World Health Organization and the European Women's Lobby are, in fact, demanding; I also insist on the need for an urgent move towards joint, equal responsibility for couples, so as to share the load, as well as equal responsibility for bringing up children.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL group. - (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Lulling has undertaken a difficult but necessary task. In most EU Member States, carers and helpers, especially wives or husbands, have no legal status and their work is not recognised, in spite of the fact that their activities account for more than 11% of self-employed work in the European Union. An accompanying feature is the absence of social insurance for these people. If this remains a matter of free choice, many people choose not to pay insurance because of the costs involved. The result is frequently a situation where people who cooperate in this way find themselves alone, due to their partner's departure or death, for example, and without any means of support or any entitlement to social benefits or a pension. That is why I am endorsing the proposal to make social insurance in the countries of the European Union mandatory. I would like to add, however, that insurance should be a motivating factor for these people, and it should therefore be affordable.
- (SK) I congratulate Mrs Lulling and Mrs Estrela on the reports they have submitted and I firmly believe that these reports will help many families, banishing discrimination in the sphere of commerce and in the area of maternity support. Many women assist their husbands in business and current social security arrangements do not provide them with any protection. I support an arrangement whereby wives or husbands who help out in family firms receive protection in the same way as independently employed persons.
Of course this must not involve fictional work but work which is part of a company's routine workload. The remuneration provided for this assistance must also be proportionate to the work carried out. I agree with the rapporteur that, in contrast to the Commission, we have not supported registration on a voluntary basis but instead the right of an assisting spouse to be registered in the same social security systems as independently employed persons, thereby covering the costs of sickness, old age and invalidity.
The proposed directive is very important for eliminating discrimination against women who help out in their husbands' businesses and who receive no maternity or old age support, which makes them dependent or highly vulnerable people. These situations often arise particularly in the new Member States, where the business activities of self-employed people still lack proper planning.
(HU) The family is the fundamental value of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats. We are all obviously aware of the current demographic crisis. Although there is less mention of it nowadays, its consequences are at least as serious as those of the economic crisis. Against this background, the occupational safety regulations relating to mothers deserve particular attention. Nevertheless, the proposed directive divides European public opinion, as it does Parliament.
It is not a good idea to extend the occupational safety regulations which apply exclusively to pregnant women and nursing mothers to fathers as their occupational safety arrangements do not require any change as a result of them becoming fathers. If we agree to extend the regulation's legal basis to cover Article 137 of the EC Treaty and we extend the scope of the regulation to cover parental leave, two regulations would apply concerning parental leave, including paternity leave as well. If we asked the social partners to come to an agreement on Directive 96/34/EC on parental leave, which was also mentioned by Commissioner Špidla, why are we trying to prejudge what kind of agreement will be reached?
In some countries the discrepancy between jurisdiction and practice is so great that the task of amending the directive really requires a huge amount of attention. It would not be appropriate if Parliament waded into the discussion like a bull in a china shop. A poorly drafted protection regulation may, in some circumstances, go against employing young women since the cost of employing them would become more expensive than employing their male colleagues.
(NL) Mr President, I should like to congratulate Mrs Estrela warmly on her splendid work. Parliament's proposal to extend maternity leave to 20 weeks on full pay, six of them after the birth, has by no means been plucked out of the air. Many countries already provide for more than 18 weeks for mothers, on 80-100% of their pay. Therefore, I fail to understand why my fellow Members from the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats wish to reduce Europe's ambitions to a meagre 16 weeks.
I would say to those who consider the cost too high that women must not lose out on account of becoming mothers. It is often the case nowadays that women have to resort to other forms of parental leave, but not all women have a right to these. In addition, these are much lower paid, and thus are not feasible for women who are less well-off.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is also important to us that paternity leave and co-maternity leave be regulated here, as this directive also concerns equal treatment between women and men. Fair sharing of childcare responsibilities means that fathers, too, must be granted leave upon the birth of their child. To be frank, ladies and gentlemen, two weeks is a very modest start, but one that is important in those countries where fathers are yet to be given any place in a young family.
Ladies and gentlemen, the social partners failed to reach an agreement on paternity leave or adoption leave, and so we, the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, consider it our duty to regulate the area in this directive for the benefit of fathers and adoptive parents. I am sure that the majority in this House will support us in this.
(ET) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. Better reconciliation of work with family and private life is one of the six priority areas of activity identified in the guidelines on equality between women and men. After all, we are well aware that the European Union faces demographic problems such as a low birth rate and an increasingly high proportion of elderly people. Yet the best solution would definitely not be to establish financial concessions for employers if they encourage their female employees to have children.
I am unable to support the proposed Amendment 22, especially the second part of it. Motherhood and fatherhood are fundamental rights that are very important to ensure balance in society. It is also very important that both parents participate in a child's life from the very first months. I cannot, however, agree with the suggestion to implement compulsory paternity leave. By doing so, we would do a disservice to the newborn child's family - fathers usually earn more. The regulation of paternity leave must be flexible - that is the only way we can achieve a positive result. Finally, I would like to thank Mrs Estrela for the work she has done with such enthusiasm.
(EL) Mr President, the report by Mrs Lulling on self-employed workers is a full report and she personally has worked so much on this issue that I do not think that we need say any more about her. However, we do need to draw the Members' attention to the report by Mrs Estrela who, of course, is well disposed to protect women but who has, perhaps, missed the point, because here in Parliament we consider that we are minor gods and we think that, with our decisions, we can make our dreams come true. The problem is not for us to do what we want, but to do what is feasible, what is truly in women's interests.
We have a directive which relates solely to women, because only they give birth, only they get pregnant and only they can nurse. We therefore want in this directive to set out rights for men, while there is the other social partners' directive on parental leave which can cover men in the manner decided by the social partners. So we should not 'sell' women's rights in a period which is unique in their life, by giving others the right to benefit from everything that women go through physically and we should not punish women by forcing them to stay away from work due to excessive leave, which is not in the interest of any employers, who will wait until they are forty years of age before they recruit them.
(RO) Some subjects are important to the European Union's institutions, others are less important. The important issues are discussed at events with maximum participation and publicity, or at least solutions are sought during them and answers offered. Unfortunately, we have to say that women's rights have not featured among these issues.
The attitude that resolving gender issues is of secondary importance is shared among the Conservatives in Parliament, the Commission and Member States, but not to an equal extent. As this is the final plenary debate of this parliamentary term on this subject, we must acknowledge that Parliament has definitely been the European institution which has taken most seriously the rights and socio-economic status of women, including pregnant and self-employed women.
We have tried through legislation and own-initiative reports to put into practice some of the principles already enshrined in treaties so that we can put 'invisible' groups on the public agenda. Admittedly, this has happened most often in the small hours of the night or when we are coming directly from the airport. However, there is a lack of political will. This is very apparent when it comes to implementing and enforcing the necessary and much-awaited legislation which we draft. Delays and inadequate enforcement are common in Member States.
We urge the European Commission and Member States not to use the crisis as an excuse to ignore other crucial issues, issues linked to the application of European legislation in this area, whether current or older. Sacrificing women and their rights on the altar of some alleged economic interests leads to social decline. I do not know whether women are the future of men, but one thing for sure is that the future of our society depends on women and their health.
(NL) Mr President, research by the World Health Organization indicates that 16 weeks' maternity and childbirth leave is too short, and even recommends 24 weeks. Like the International Labour Organization (ILO), the Commission has now proposed 18 weeks. Parliament has decided on 20 weeks, although there is still a difference between our group and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament: we are in favour of 16 weeks plus four and the PSE Group of 20 weeks. In the end, I can go along with 20 weeks.
My second point concerns parental, paternity and adoption leave. I am strongly in favour of fathers, too, being involved in the first few weeks after the birth of a child, but all of us here know, and I should like to thank Commissioner Špidla for his clarity, that this cannot be regulated in the present directive. After all, this directive concerns health and safety and not parental leave. These are different arrangements, which are to be worked out with the social partners.
My third point concerns maternity and childbirth leave for self-employed women and assisting spouses. I think that Mrs Lulling has done an excellent job on this.
(BG) Examining the amendments to the directive on motherhood at this particular time makes a great deal of sense, as it allows us not only to demonstrate responsibility for resolving certain problems affecting society, but also focus this responsibility on Europe's future. With Mrs Estrela's report we are incorporating a new philosophy into the care we provide for mothers, pregnant women, nursing mothers, as well as for parents in general. It is particularly important that fathers are included in bringing up children. This is what will strengthen the role of the family. Let us use this to restore the balance which is also important in raising children from their early years. This will supplement all our other decisions relating to the European Union's anti-discrimination policies.
It is crucially important for us to provide pregnant women with security and safety, both in the family and at work. We must also give equal access to jobs, provide flexible working hours and specific healthcare services, as well as fully enforce the legislation. It is unacceptable to refuse to appoint a woman to a job who is pregnant and is due to go on maternity leave. We must ensure that women on maternity leave can also automatically enjoy any changes introduced while they are on leave.
My country, Bulgaria, offers extremely favourable maternity legislation, with a long period of paid maternity leave and other options for women to choose from. The dual combination of the right and the freedom of choice, as well as family obligations and a career is a good practice which may be recommended to all Member States. In fact, this is part of the integrated policy on equal treatment for women and men.
(DE) Mr President, the Member States are clearly responsible for legislation in the field of healthcare. Europe has laid down minimum standards for maternity leave. We have varied legislation in the Member States, which cannot be compared. In certain countries, maternity leave is paid out of tax revenue. In others, as is the case in Germany, it is paid through health insurance companies, and enterprises bear the main share of the costs. Both the length of, and the financial support for, maternity leave vary. In all cases, however, the mother is assured protection in case of illness, even after the maternity leave has ended.
You are confusing two issues here: maternity leave and parental leave are two different things - as you pointed out, Commissioner Špidla. What I would like to know is whether, in Germany, for example, the combined total of maternity leave and parental leave would meet the requirements of the new directive? The extension of maternity leave, which focuses on the health of the mother, is not always an advantage for women. Companies will employ fewer women, as men do not take maternity leave.
Moreover, stricter legal protection against dismissal does not help in the search for a new job. We also have to ensure that women are able to find employment and work on equal terms. In this respect, companies are called on to help to ensure a family-friendly working environment.
(SL) In my neck of the woods, we have a saying that children are our greatest treasure, because they are our future. Unfortunately, it seems that we Europeans are showing no interest in that treasure and this is why European culture and identity are coming under threat.
I welcome the Estrela report, because it seeks to ensure the best possible healthcare for pregnant women and mothers. At the same time, this will mean better health for children and fewer problems as they are growing up. In some of the less wealthy countries of the European Union, women have much longer maternity leave than those in the wealthier, Western nations. I am of the opinion that the European Parliament should support the best possible solutions for mothers and children alike. Savings made at the expense of children are the worst kind of investment in the future.
We women want to be mothers, but at the same time, of course, we also have to attend to our own social security in an uncertain world and at a time when one cannot rely on marriages being secure. Combining family and professional life should be our foremost priority in resolving Europe's demographic problems.
(PT) Mr President, I want to talk about Mrs Estrela's report on improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers. This is a small step forward in the protection of motherhood and fatherhood, which are fundamental rights and values of our society.
On behalf of my group, the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left, I called for more progress in the protection of motherhood and fatherhood, specifically 22 months' leave paid at 100%. The report has only proposed 20 months, and not all this time is guaranteed at 100% pay. I therefore do not understand the position of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, which does not even want to accept this.
The small step proposed in this report needs to be approved here today so that the rights of women, children and families can be promoted. It is not enough to say that we defend these rights. We need to take small steps forward in the promotion and defence of these rights.
- (SK) Motherhood is the greatest miracle which God has bestowed on women. It should not be a ground for discrimination against women, but, on the contrary, should be valued by society both during the course of a woman's active life and in her old age.
However, we must be realistic because well-intentioned proposals can sometimes create problems. The EU Member States have different social systems. The Scandinavian countries are advanced in this area but the new EU-12 have some catching up to do and it would therefore probably be very difficult to establish harmonised rules which could be introduced throughout the EU.
Despite the fact that the Estrela report brings some very positive amendments to the draft directive, there are also some contentious points which in my opinion do not belong in this report and which must be removed, as Commissioner Špidla has already mentioned.
The amendment proposals of my political group, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, deal with some of the points, for example the duration and the amount of maternal allowance and extensions in case of premature or multiple births or breast-feeding, free time for the purposes of breast-feeding and the employment rights of women returning to work after maternity leave. I hope that these amendment proposals will be passed in the vote.
(ET) It is clear that we must recognise the need to implement more effectively the principle of equal treatment regarding men and women working as sole proprietors and the spouses who assist them.
Unfortunately, assisting spouses do not form a large and united target group, their status is not regulated in any Member States and their work is not recognised. They lack social protection, their risk of poverty is high, and in the event of a divorce they become complete outlaws from the point of view of social protection.
Thus I believe that it should be made compulsory for assisting spouses to join the social protection system, and a framework of minimal guarantees should be established.
Member of the Commission. - (CS) Mr President, honourable Members, I would like to thank you for a discussion that has tackled the proposal from many different perspectives. I think it is unnecessary to mention all of the proposals. A great majority of the justifications were quite clear, as I pointed out in my opening speech. Nevertheless, I think there were two proposals which cropped up repeatedly from various sides and which were discussed from a number of different perspectives. The first was the issue of paternity leave. I would like to state clearly that, even though I am in favour of paternity leave, I am still convinced that a directive that is designed to protect the health of mothers is not a suitable instrument for the introduction of this particular principle. In my opening speech I stated that the social partners had reached an agreement over parental leave, and it would be logical to include the possibility of paternity leave in this agreement. So there are tools other than the directive, in my view. The other issue to be mentioned was Amendment 14, namely the introduction of mandatory insurance. In this respect, I would like to add that, even though I understand the argument, I still think it is not appropriate to take such a radical step, primarily because it would seriously threaten the possibility of reaching a compromise. On the other hand, I would like to stress that the proposals we have tabled mark a major step forward, because in some countries there is no opportunity to join such a system at present, not even on request. This means that a new obligation will now be introduced. In my view, this is a typical example of upward harmonisation.
rapporteur. - (FR) Madam President, I am sorry that the Commissioner is opposed to the key amendment of my report, supported by all the political groups, calling for assisting spouses and recognised partners to be entitled to the same social protection as self-employed workers on a mandatory basis and not just at their request. Experience proves that, if they are not obliged to make social security contributions, they do not, for the same unfortunate reason that you mentioned, Commissioner: cost.
Of course, social protection costs money, for self-employed workers as well as for employed workers. The desire to save money on social contributions is a huge mistake that must be avoided.
Of course, if, within a Member State, there is no social protection for self-employed workers, we cannot demand that it be made obligatory for their partners. But partners should be entitled to it at their request. I shall make an oral amendment on this, in line with Mr Cocilovo.
Allow me to add a few words on maternity protection, because our position has been very badly misunderstood. If we want to strengthen maternity protection by increasing maternity leave, we should not forget that extending it to 18 weeks, of which only a third would coincide with the obligatory six weeks to be taken after the birth, goes against the objective of better protection for the health of the mother and the baby.
That is why, in our opinion, the best solution would be six obligatory weeks and an increase to 20 weeks for multiple births and breastfeeding. Let us not forget the problems of recruitment and promotion that women of childbearing age already face.
With regard to age, it is absurd to wish fathers to take the same leave as that of pregnant women. Of course, Madam President, the increasing infertility of men in Europe is worrying, but not as much, in my opinion, as the continued inequalities between men and women in the sharing of family responsibilities, as this inequality is the reason why many women decide not to have children. In addition, we will not solve Europe's demographic problem through over-protection, as this only serves to make women unemployable.
Madam President, Commissioner, I am shocked at the European Commission's position on my proposal for paternity leave. It is a conservative and unacceptable position, which is out of touch with reality.
Commissioner, I have not talked about parental leave, but about paternity leave. These are two very different concepts.
If paternity leave does not fall within the scope of this directive, why has the Commission proposed extending the legal basis, and why is this not based solely on Article 137 relating to the protection of health? Why has the Commission introduced Article 141 of the EC Treaty relating to the promotion of equal opportunities for men and women?
Commissioner, and members of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, motherhood and fatherhood are eminent social values which must be respected and brought together. It is here in this directive that paternity leave and maternity leave must be brought together. We must think about children, Commissioner. We must think about the welfare of children because, if they are supported by their father and mother from an early age, their physical and psychological development can be greatly improved.
Furthermore, Commissioner, you cannot be unaware that paternity leave already exists in the national legislation of many Member States. Is the Commission actually trying to remain out of touch with the reality that already exists in Member States?
I am very surprised at this position, Commissioner. It is precisely because the European institutions are out of touch with reality that the people are remote. This is precisely why abstention is so high.
We have to give our citizens reasons to go out and vote. As a result, Commissioner, we must adopt legislation that helps them. If they can see that the decisions taken in the European Parliament improve their lives, they will certainly have more reason to go out and vote next month.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday, 6 May at 12 noon.
Written statements (Rule 142)
in writing. - Even during a crisis, equal treatment should be high on the political agenda. Women will suffer from the present crisis in the long run, and will be hit in the second wave of redundancy. They will have to cope with their unstable social and economic situation and their growing burden of juggling earning money and care responsibilities. In such circumstances, we may not allow women's rights to be taken away from them.
Self-employment is of great importance for women because it could be of great help in avoiding unemployment or in better reconciling professional and family life. In this way, women would have an efficient tool for contributing to the development of the economy. Women should have equal chances to engage in self-employed activities and establish companies; maternity-leave systems should ensure that self-employed women can benefit from them in the same way as employed workers. In parallel with this, safety and health for pregnant workers and those who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding is of crucial importance.
Not only does this help Europe not to lose women's talent and presence in the workforce but it also contributes to facing the present demographic challenge and ensuring children's healthy physical, emotional, and mental development.
As a Social Democrat and mother, I support this directive as it concerns the following issues: the health and safety of pregnant workers, of women who have recently given birth or are nursing their child, equal treatment issues, as well as the right to return to the same or an equivalent job, the right to a career, regulations on leave and labour contract rights or granting more generous financial support during maternity leave.
At present, the length of maternity leave varies from 14 weeks in some Member States to 28 weeks in others. Indeed, in some cases it can last up to 52 weeks, but with benefit provided only for part of it. I therefore think that the option of extending the length of maternity leave and increasing the relevant benefit paid during this period is an adequate way of improving women's health and safety, as well as allowing them to balance their professional and family obligations, thereby promoting equal opportunities for men and women on the labour market.
Stressful conditions in the workplace can have an impact on the state of mind of a woman who is pregnant or has recently given birth. This is why we must take a preventive approach which will ensure that an adequate risk assessment is carried out at the workplace.


Composition of Parliament: see Minutes


Agenda for next sitting: see Minutes


Corrigendum (Rule 204a): see Minutes


3. Justice for the "Comfort Women"
The next item is the five motions for a resolution on justice for comfort women.
author. - (ES) Madam President, I have to say that, as the driving force behind this resolution, I am particularly satisfied that finally we have found the space and sufficient consensus to table it, because I sincerely believe that the subject deserved this, and much more.
We are talking about almost 200 000 women, euphemistically known as 'comfort women', who were forced to be sexual slaves during and before the Second World War by the Japanese Imperial Army. After 62 years, the survivors are still seeking justice.
During their lives they have suffered from poor physical and mental health, isolation and shame, and often extreme poverty. So far the Japanese Government has not complied with international rules on reparation, which include restitution, compensation, rehabilitation and satisfaction, including full disclosure, apology and guaranteeing that the action will not be repeated. This is particularly significant given that Japan is one of the main donors of aid in post-war times.
There was, therefore, an urgent need to react and to point out, as the survivors do, that truth must be linked to justice, and that an apology is empty if it is not accompanied by an acceptance of responsibility. I would like to stress that this is not only about the rights of an individual victim, but about collective rights, which bring with them the responsibility to remember, so that this type of violation does not happen again.
This means that we must ask the Japanese to conduct an exercise in historical honesty and not only acknowledge the facts but apologise on behalf of their predecessors, and to compensate the victims.
Finally, I would like to express my great respect and recognition for the women who had and continue to have the courage to speak out and demand justice, and for the organisations like Amnesty International that are supporting them on this journey.
author. - (SV) Madam President, the Resolution calls for justice and redress for the hundreds of thousands of women, so-called 'comfort women', who were forced into providing sexual services before and during the Second World War. All these degraded women who were held in sexual slavery are still waiting for justice and redress. The Japanese authorities have indeed done a certain amount but, as the Resolution shows, a great deal remains for the Japanese Government and authorities to do in order to give those women justice and redress.
The majority of the women who were forced into this dreadful situation were very young at the time. That means that their whole lives have been destroyed by these terrible experiences. They have been forced to live out their lives in poor physical and psychological health, isolation, shame, and often extreme poverty. The fact that these women have not had full justice and redress also means that those who committed these crimes have effectively enjoyed immunity for their acts.
Again the victims, women, are punished while the perpetrators go free. This Resolution is also important for the reason that it highlights what always happens in war and conflict zones, that it is always women who are the main victims. It is therefore important that we draw attention to this matter. We must try to put a stop to this.
author. - (PL) Madam President, when we talk about crimes and when we think about crimes of the 20th century, we think above all of the crimes committed by the Germans and the Bolsheviks, or rather, to put it more broadly, the Communists. In Europe we are less aware of the fact that in the Far East Japan committed immense crimes from the 1930s until the end of the war. One of the greatest of these crimes was the sexual exploitation of women at this time.
Some 100 000 women from conquered countries in the Far East were forced into sexual slavery by the Imperial Armed Forces of Japan. This sexual slavery, which was in itself totally criminal, had further consequences too. These consequences were enforced abortions, mutilations and murders on a large scale, and large-scale instances of suicide among these women. Obviously any of these women who are still alive today are very old.
It must be conceded that during the post-war period the Japanese Government did much to compensate for these dreadful offences against the women who experienced them. Today this resolution calls on the Japanese Government to make a final political, moral and financial settlement upon those women who are still alive and with the families of those who have died. This is most certainly their due.
author. - (NL) Madam President, I should like to start by expressing my solidarity with these women - I believe on behalf of all of us. I am pleased that this is on the agenda, as it has taken a very long time. The European Parliament has been wavering for five months over whether human rights for women should actually be a priority or not.
Mr Dillen, who has now left, has just said that oppression of women is typical of the Koran - which is complete nonsense, as the matter of 'comfort women' shows that men do not need the Koran to repress and abuse women.
I am actually also rather disappointed with the attitude in the European Parliament. As I have just said, this House wavered over this for a very long time, and I have heard even Members of this Parliament coming up with arguments such as 'Well, yes, but 90% of these women did it of their own free will' and 'Oh well, it is their culture, you have to understand that'. To be frank, I find this sickening. It is rape, and rape is without exception a crime in all ages and all cultures.
I now gather that Japanese school textbooks have been adapted; but I then hear from the Japanese embassy that the tale has to be told very cautiously, as pupils do not yet know much about sexuality and could incur psychological damage. No-one talks about the psychological damage to the 'comfort women' themselves. To be frank, I find that quite shocking. Anyway, I am pleased that this is now on our agenda and that we are just about to adopt it.
I think that it is important that apologies be sincere and unequivocal. It is not a matter of a formality. With the previous Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, once more casting doubt on the whole issue, it is not sufficient for the current government to then say 'Oh, but we shall continue with the previous policy'. Sincere and unequivocal is what is needed.
Also, when I hear the arguments that have been forthcoming from the Japanese embassy in recent days - incidentally complete with a recognition of everything that has already been done - I think that much progress remains to be made on sincerity. I hope, therefore, that this resolution expresses the solidarity of all of us with the victims.
author. - (DE) Madam President, I am very grateful to the previous speaker for having drawn attention to the fact that no religion on this earth is immune to massive human rights violations against women, but this is more to do with dictatorship and authoritarian systems than with a specific religion.
Hundreds of thousands of women before and during the Second World War were forced into prostitution by the Japanese Imperial Armed Forces. Historians' estimates assume that around 200 000 of these 'comfort women' from Korea, China, Taiwan and the Philippines were handed over to Japanese soldiers as sex slaves. The 'comfort women' system is one of the largest cases of human trafficking in the 20th century and led to gang rapes on a massive scale and to forced abortions.
After the end of the war, many women were murdered by the armed forces or prevented from returning home. Many of the survivors remained silent out of shame about their past and were stigmatised and relegated to the fringes of society. The issue of forced prostitution was not broached at the war crime trials and there was no talk of reparation.
Not until the end of the 1980s did the fate of the comfort women come to light again. The reason for this was not an automatic change in awareness, but the rapidly growing women's movement in South Korea. Little by little, women who had been forced into prostitution spoke out publicly. In 1992 weekly demonstrations began in front of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul with the words: the Japanese Government should be ashamed, not us.
In 1997 the Japanese Government was asked for the first time to take legal and moral responsibility internationally for the most severe human rights violations committed against women. In her report the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women demanded financial compensation for the victims and court sentences for the perpetrators. The reaction of the Japanese Government at the time was an out and out rejection of these demands.
It has already been said several times today that the truth must be taken into account. We are therefore asking the Japanese Government publicly to reject any assertions that deny or question the subjugation and enslavement of the comfort women and we are likewise demanding that they accept moral and legal responsibility for the enslavement of 200 000 people. We are calling on the Japanese Government to implement mechanisms to provide reparations to all surviving victims and their families as quickly as possible.
Many victims of the comfort women system have passed away or are at least 80 years old, which means speed is of the essence. We are also calling on our colleagues in the Japanese National Assembly, however, to make their contribution in parliament to help get these mechanisms accepted.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Madam President, there are pages in the world's history we would wish not to be repeated anywhere, ever.
One of these pages is the story of 'comfort women'. I refer to the officially commissioned acquisition of young women by the Government of Japan, from the 1930s and during the Second World War, for the sole purpose of sexual servitude to the Japanese Imperial Armed Forces. We do not know exactly the numbers of women who were enslaved but we know that the 'comfort women system' included gang rape, forced abortions, humiliation and sexual violence, resulting in mutilation, death or eventual suicide, and that it was one of the largest cases of human trafficking in the 20th century, involving not hundreds but thousands of women.
Today, the remaining survivors are 80 and more years of age and one could argue that the problem is no longer an important issue. But I fully understand the wish of these women and their families to clear their names. Today we express our solidarity with the women who were victims of this system. We call on the Japanese Government to formally acknowledge and accept historical and legal responsibility and to implement effective administrative mechanisms to provide reparations to all surviving victims of the 'comfort women system' and to the families of deceased victims.
Taking into account the excellent relationship between the European Union and Japan, based on the mutually shared values of the rule of law and respect for human rights, I hope that the Government and the Parliament of Japan will take all necessary measures to recognise the sufferings of sex slaves and to remove existing obstacles to obtaining reparations before Japanese courts and that current and future generations will be educated about these events. I am sure that official recognition of the existence of the 'comfort women system' and an apology on behalf of the Japanese Government also would do much to help heal the wounds of our painful common history.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, people can be forgiven for their sins, but people's crimes cannot be forgotten. This applies as much to Japan as it did, for example, to Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia.
The Japanese committed immensely barbaric war atrocities in the 1930s and 1940s. To some extent, they paid dearly by having two of their cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, annihilated by the mighty nuclear holocaust brought upon them by the US.
However, Japan inflicted many dreadful evils on the world in the past, and one of these - the sexual slavery of 'comfort women' - only came to prominence relatively recently. Some of these poor and now frail elderly ladies are still with us, as the remnants of a past that is inconvenient for Japan but torturous for them.
These women are asking for two very simple things from today's rich and powerful Japan: an official apology and very modest humanitarian aid. Certainly, the European Parliament, with this joint motion for a resolution, expects and demands that the Japanese Government must do both and fast. Otherwise, aside from the stigma of shame, the EU must consider taking particularly effective action against ex-imperial Japan.
Madam President, the subject of today's debate is a violation of human rights that took place during the 1930s, during the Japanese occupation, when young women in the Imperial Armed Forces were sexually exploited and forced into prostitution, despite the fact that the Japanese Government had signed international conventions on combating traffic in women and children and supported the UN Resolution on Women, Peace and Security.
The sincere sympathy of the Japanese premier is currently being undermined by Japanese officials in connection with the closure of the Asian Women's Fund programme and mandate in March 2007, out of which only monetary compensation was paid to women.
In supporting the resolution and the demand for compensation, we would, however, point out that in modern times, too, the boundary between the normal and the pathological is being eroded, and this flies in the face of moral norms, so there is a need for radical moves to combat prostitution as a form of modern-day slavery. Prostitutes are not just victims of wars that took place 50 years ago; it could also be women of today who are being exploited, in the Belgian Congo, for example, as reported in the press, and indeed in many other countries, even rich ones.
In the name of respect for the human being we should also unmask the spread of a hedonistic and commercial culture that is pointing towards abuse in the area of sex, drawing even very young women and girls into the sphere of prostitution and other forms of demoralisation.
Respect for the identity and dignity of women is not based solely on uncovering crimes or abuses in the sphere of sexual discrimination or other injustices; it is based primarily on the drafting of development programmes and on the real-life practice of principles embracing all areas of a woman's life. These principles must be rooted in a new realisation of the worth of a woman as wife, mother, carer or employee, as a human being and a person who is the equal of a man, despite being different.
Vice-President of the Commission. - (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in 1993 the Japanese Government spokesman at that time, Yohei Kono, extended Japan's 'sincere apologies and remorse to all those ... who suffered immeasurable pain and incurable physical and psychological wounds as comfort women'. In 1995 the Prime Minister at that time, Mr Murayama, also apologised publicly to the comfort women on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the end of the Second World War. That same year the Asian Women's Fund was set up to grant reparations and medical aid to survivors on behalf of the Japanese Government and people.
These attempts to obtain reparations for the comfort women and a renewed public apology from the former Japanese Prime Minister, Mr Koizumi, on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the end of the Second World War in 2005 are positive steps by Japan. Japan has thereby recognised its responsibility for these unspeakable human rights violations. Only a few days ago, the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs confirmed the declaration of the government spokesman, Mr Kono, which I quoted at the beginning, as Japan's official position.
We now have the moving testimony of survivors, and this moving testimony has again aroused interest in this terrible period, in Europe as well as in the United State, Canada and Australia.
Our actions here are not simply about the past; they are about drawing the right conclusions from the events and doing everything in our power to combat today's forms of slavery, sexual exploitation and human trafficking.
With the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights, the Commission is actively supporting NGOs throughout the world involved in preventing violence against women and children and combating human trafficking for the purpose of sexual slavery. On 23 November 2007 the Commission sent out a further signal on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, by having affirmed its emphatic commitment to combating gender-based violence.
The European Union is conducting a regular human rights dialogue with Japan, touching on all the EU's concerns - including women's rights. Japan is a like-minded global player cooperating constructively with us in multilateral forums in order to improve respect for and protection of human rights. Together with the European Union, Japan has therefore issued a resolution on human rights in North Korea and denounced the actions of the regime in Myanmar.
The debate is closed.
The vote on these three topics will take place at the end of today's sitting.


2. Accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations (vote)
- Report: Cristian Dumitrescu


Documents received: see Minutes


14. Impact of tourism in coastal regions (


Signature of acts adopted under codecision: see Minutes


16. Corporate governance in financial institutions (


Resumption of the session
I declare resumed the session of the European Parliament adjourned on 7 October 2010.


6. Organisation and operation of the Publications Office of the European Union (


13. Funding and functioning of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (


Agenda of the next sitting: see Minutes


14. Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (Lithuania and Spain) (


7. Autonomous Community tariff quotas on imports of certain fishery products into the Canary Islands (


Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes
(The sitting was suspended at 2.25 p.m. and resumed at 3.05 p.m.)


Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes
(The sitting was suspended at 12.50 p.m. and resumed at 3.00 p.m.)


1. Amendment of Directive 2003/87/EC so as to include aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community (vote)
- Report: Liese


29. Defence of the parliamentary immunity of Mr Luigi de Magistris (
(IT) Madam President, I should like to have something clarified. I should like to know whether the vote we are about to take is the result of an automatic procedure or of a specific request made by Mr de Magistris, who has earned a reputation over the years for attacking the privileges of politicians, saying they should defend themselves in court and not seek loopholes to avoid it. Essentially, I should like to know whether Mr de Magistris asked for immunity or whether this is an automatic procedure.
Madam President, please can you clarify this issue, because if Mr de Magistris is seeking to avoid trial ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
Mr Silvestris, may I respond? You asked if Mr de Magistris requested immunity or if it is an automatic procedure? Who did you ask?
I am told that Mr de Magistris requested the defence of his immunity.


Resumption of the session
I declare resumed the session of the European Parliament adjourned on Thursday 13 December.
Ladies and gentlemen, I would like give a warm welcome to the President-in-Office of the Council, José Sócrates, and also to the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Durão Barroso. However, I particularly welcome you, ladies and gentlemen.


Transfers of appropriations: see Minutes