• AKTUELL
• PARLAMENT
• ABGEORDNETE
• AUSSCHÜSSE
  • Aufgaben der Ausschüsse
  • Berechnungsverfahren für Sitzverteilung
• INFORMATIONS-CENTER
• SERVICE
• DIALOG
• PETITIONEN
• BUNDESTAGSWAHL 2005

• Publikationen
• Bundestag & Jugend
• Ausstellungen
• Architektur und Kunst

• Impressum / Datenschutz

Committee on Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth-
Secretariate -Berlin, September 2000
Committee printed paper: 14/474

I. Aim and priorities

The aim and the main priority of the meeting was to discuss preparations for the annual conference, scheduled to be held on 17 and 18 November 2000, and the declaration to be adopted at the conference. The chairperson of the Committee on Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth, Christel Hanewinckel, MdB, began by providing details of the preparations that had been made to date for the annual conference. After the participants had briefly introduced themselves, Dr Ursula Nissen of the German Youth Institute outlined the aims of the study that had been commissioned on the subject of the career-selection processes in which girls and young women engaged, which was to form the substantive core of the conference in November. The afternoon was primarily devoted to discussing the draft of the Berlin declaration, which was to be debated and adopted in November.

The programme is attached as Annex 1, the list of participants as Annex 2. The structure of the study described by Dr Nissen is presented in Annex 3. The working text of the declaration is in Annex 4, while Annex 5 contains the rules of procedure of the NCEO.

II. Substance of the conference

Welcoming address to the participants by Christel Hanewinckel, MdB, Chairperson of the Committee on Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth

The Chairperson of the Committee expressed her pleasure at being able to welcome the guests to a meeting in the Reichstag for the first time since the Bundestag had moved there from Bonn in 1999. She offered to incorporate a visit to the Reichstag dome into the programme if time permitted. The Berlin Marathon, which coincided with the meeting, was an apt analogy for their own work, since in both cases it was all about 'taking part'. For women, however, the stakes were higher: when the finishing line was crossed, women wanted to secure an equal share of the prizes; they wanted to be up there with those who were leading the way. That was why they were meeting today and why it was to be hoped that, come November, they would take decisions which would advance their common cause, namely the achievement of real equality of opportunity in practice.

In November, the fourth annual conference of the Network of Parliamentary Committees on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men of the EU Member States and of the European Parliament would take place. The chairperson was pleased to welcome Isabela San Baldomero from Spain, who, as President of the Network for the previous year, was a member of the so-called Troika, the group comprising the past President of the Network, the current President and her successor, who had yet to be named. She also welcomed the Chairperson of the European Parliament Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities, Maj Britt Theorin. She could well imagine that the Troika would be extended in that direction in the future. More direct involvement of the European Parliament could further enhance the effectiveness of the Network. Finally, she warmly welcomed Anke Eymer, a Member of the German Bundestag. It was very gratifying that Mrs Eymer, the Vice-Chairperson of the Committee, had been able to arrange her commitments so that she could attend the meeting. At the next meeting of the Committee she would also deliver a comprehensive report on the outcome of the present meeting. Referring to the choice of a Sunday as the date of the meeting, the chairperson said that this had been done to enable as many people as possible to attend, because Members of Parliament were often prevented from attending weekday meetings by their representative duties. The German delegation, for example, had been unable to obtain permission to attend the last conference in Spain because it coincided with budget week.

Description of the preparations made for the annual conference, presented by the chairperson, Christel Hanewinckel, MdB:

• Agenda
• Organization
• Publications
• Continuation of the Network

The chairperson began by presenting the guest list. All of the EU Member States, the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of Europe had been invited to send delegates. In addition, new ground had been broken with invitations to all of the applicants for accession to the EU. Those who lived in Germany and who were able to draw on their own experiences from the time of the German Democratic Republic were particularly sensitive to the difficulties faced by the other countries of Eastern Europe. The sooner they were able to participate, the sooner it would be reasonable to expect equal opportunities to become not only a subject of widespread interest but also a key political objective in those countries. Various European institutions had also been invited to the meeting, along with representatives of the German Federal Government, the parliaments of the German Länder and German organisations devoted to equality of opportunity and women's issues. A total of 51 acceptances had been received to date.

The participants had been given a copy of the agenda. The conference would focus on two substantive areas. The first was the specialised topic of the career selection processes in which girls and young women are involved. The German Youth Institute was preparing a study on this topic. Dr Ursula Nissen would shortly present a brief summary of the basic structure and objectives of the study, so that measures proposed in the study might be incorporated into the declaration to be adopted in November.

The conference would not only be held in the premises of the Bundestag; part of it would also be hosted in the Berlin offices of Deutsche Telekom. One of Germany's major private companies, Deutsche Telekom had apparently made very significant progress towards equality of opportunity within its own ranks, and the chairperson was keen to hear first-hand reports from there. This was the setting in which an intriguing discussion session would be held on the subject of equal opportunities in the public service and the private sector.

On the first day of the conference, the study would be the subject of intensive discussion, while the second day would focus primarily on supplementing, extending and adopting the declaration. The adopted declaration would then serve as the basis for efficient cooperation in the period following the conference.

As far as the publicising of transactions was concerned, this had been entirely concentrated on the Internet, in which all interesting information was being stored. The first reason for this was one of cost. In view of the deluge of printed information that all Members of Parliament receive, the electronic form of publication, which everyone could access as required, was also more practical. Nevertheless, the chairperson felt that the publications ought to be disseminated still further within the framework of this type of network.
The workload involved in the preparation of conferences stretched national parliaments to the limits of their capacity. Preparations had to be made with the normal resources that were available for parliamentary work. Consequently, one of the important points that would have to be discussed later concerned the need to put the Network on a sound footing and to press for the establishment of a permanent office. Such a centre could be a mine of information for everyone as well as performing organisational functions.

For the next part of the meeting, the chairperson suggested that, before moving on to the next items on the agenda, the participants could all introduce themselves in turn.

Isabel San Baldomero, chairperson of the Committee on Women's Rights of the Spanish Senate, began by thanking the German Bundestag, and especially the chairperson, for this preparatory meeting, which would certainly help to ensure that the women politicians would be able to render a service to all members of their sex in Europe and the world by advancing the cause of genuine equality. These women's conferences served to lend expression to the conviction that much still had to be done for women. In her view, these meetings should certainly be continued. It was a splendid idea that the Belgian Parliament had initially developed, and she was pleased to be able to work together with the others towards genuine equality between men and women. During the Madrid Conference, which had been supported by the Queen of Spain and the Prime Minister, it was apparent that even the highest institutions were taking note of the efforts of the women politicians. The time had come to start calling on the institutions to go beyond mere words and move on to deeds that would make equal opportunities a reality. The situation in Spain was that she, as chairperson of the Committee - her appointment had been ratified by all the political groups in Parliament - was responsible for monitoring the measures taken by the Spanish Government in the domain of equal opportunities and to press the Government to implement the provisions that exist on paper. The rights enshrined in the Constitution had to be reflected in everyday political reality. Her Committee was not a legislative body; its role was to make suggestions and table proposals on individual matters concerning women which were relevant to Spain. In the last legislative term, the Committee dealt chiefly with three issues - women and work, women and domestic violence, and women and health. This work dovetailed with the main theme of the conference, namely women in the decision-making process. She was certain that the Berlin declaration and the participants' contributions would arm her with important conclusions to set before the Spanish Parliament. The principles formulated in the Madrid declaration had been embraced, and they would surely be further developed. Though political views might differ, the most important thing at the present time was to build common foundations. Progress had to be made on the issues that united the participants rather than focusing on divisive issues. In that respect the Network would always find the Spanish Parliament and the Committee on Women's Rights ready and willing to engage in dialogue.

Maj Britt Theorin, Chairperson of the European Parliament Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities, stated that her Committee had decided to adopt seven objectives for the five-year legislative term. The Committee had considered it necessary to identify specific objectives to ensure that it made tangible progress in the desired direction. Among the objectives were more women in decision-making posts, an end to violence against women, an end to traffic in women and measures to pave the way for greater involvement of women in new technology. Another objective was a 50% reduction over five years in the disparities between men and women in the labour market. The Committee also intended to deal with the question of involving women in the peaceful resolution of conflicts. In the sphere of traffic in women, decisions had already been taken, and these would feature in the November conference. At the present time, some 500 000 women had been brought to the EU as slaves, chiefly from the applicant countries. The reason for this was that women could not find work in their own countries. Of all unemployed persons in the applicant countries, 75 to 90% were women. Those countries' social security systems, etc., were being destroyed by the economic difficulties that beset them. Heads of State and Government had to be clearly reminded of their great responsibility in this domain and had to insist that the applicant countries made real progress. This view was reflected in a resolution adopted by the Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities and by the European Parliament. In contrast to the previous debate on the same subject, nobody had treated it lightly this time. Another question that the Committee would address this autumn was the involvement of women in the resolution of conflicts and peacemaking. It was true that the Network had to be organized, and organized in a far more systematic form, to convey a general picture of the subjects currently under discussion, thereby enabling each parliament to influence the work of the others. It was important to have structured cooperation..

Dr Ursula Nissen of the German Youth Institute, Munich, expressed her thanks for the invitation and for the opportunity to give an early summary of the study. She had brought material about the Institute for the participants to look at. With regard to her own function, she explained that she headed the scientific division of the Board of Management. A trained sociologist, she also engaged in academic work, focusing on gender research. Her special field of interest was the politicization of girls.

Maria Do Rosario Carneido, Vice-Chairperson of the Committee on Equality and Family Affairs of the Portuguese Parliament, pointed out that her country and Belgium had been the joint initiators of the Network. She was delighted to be able to attend the conference and to follow the continuation of the parliamentarians' endeavours. The committee she represented had two tasks: legislation and scrutiny of legislation. As far as the legislative role was concerned, her country was said to have very progressive and extensive legislation on equal opportunities. This did not mean, however, that the enshrined principle was put into practice. This was where the committee's second major task came in, namely scrutiny of the implementation of these laws. Only 25% of the Members of the Portuguese Parliament were women, and within the Government the figure was considerably lower. There was no sign of equal opportunities at that level. In the local and regional authorities, women constituted an even smaller minority. So, despite the statutory provisions, opportunities to participate in the decision-making process were by no means equal. The committee had been created during the previous term of Parliament, about five years ago, and the new Government had followed this up by establishing a Ministry of Equality. In July the Ministry had tabled a bill on equal opportunities in decision-making bodies. The committee was very keen to discuss the bill but knew that a majority of Parliament was opposed to such laws. On the draft declaration for the Berlin conference, she said that it had been clear from the outset that the Network was intended as a permanent fixture. The question was how this could be achieved. It was not clear to her what the proposal meant. The key question was how a permanent, useful and politically effective network was to be created.

Catherine Picard, member of the Delegation on Equal Opportunities and Women's Rights of the French National Assembly, emphasized that 11% of the members of the National Assembly were women, as against 6% previously, but that they were still too few to wield a decisive influence. An Equal Opportunities in Politics Act had been adopted, which had even entailed an amendment to the Constitution. Nevertheless, there was still a lot to do. Some of the infrastructure required for participation in the work of the Delegation was not in place. The role of the Delegation was to act as a spearhead and to deliver opinions. It scrutinised legislative bills in terms of their implications for women and made suggestions and proposals, for example on laws relating to immigration, etc. The committee was able to develop its own proposals which it wished the legislature to put into the statute books. One topic that had been attracting special attention in France was that of equal job opportunities. The Delegation wanted to link this to government policy on the family and to the campaign for shorter working hours, which would mean mobilizing the trade unions too. Another point was women's access to posts in all decision-making bodies. Only 8% of women were represented in the management of private and public enterprises and authorities. France had not advanced as far as many other countries in this respect. Promotion of the training of young women, particularly in new technological fields, was another priority area of the Delegation's work.

Tomaso Zanoletti, Vice-Chairperson of the Committee on Equal Opportunities of the Italian Senate, stated that he had great interest in the success of the November conference. There were some promising signs to report from Italy. In recent months, increasing numbers of women had been finding work. The situation had improved for women, but there were still unresolved problems. For example, certain forms of employment, such as part-time work, were less common in Italy than in other European countries. In politics too, women were under-represented. There had only been one woman on the Equal Opportunities Committee, and she was now a member of the Government, leaving only men on the committee. He welcomed the deliberations that had taken place on the subject of the annual conference, especially the decision to invite the applicant countries. The reference to the particular need for public information, said Mr Zanoletti, was very apt. Society should be made aware of issues such as training and employment opportunities for women. But there was also a need to inform politicians; while the competent committees were very active in this field, the same was not true of other MPs. The conference could be a wonderful opportunity to spread the word, and everything should be done to draw attention to it, including the attention of the press. The Parliamentary Assemblies, he said, should also deal with this subjkect. He hoped that the conference would be a step forward.

Monica Barnes, Vice-Chairperson of the Select Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights and Chairperson of the Sub-Committee on Women's Rights of the Irish Parliament, stated that she had previously chaired the Joint Committee on Women's Rights, which had been a separate body with its own budget. Both Houses of Parliament were represented on the Joint Committee. In 1997, several parliamentary committees had been merged, with the result that the committee now dealt with all the aforementioned portfolios. All women in Parliament were aware of attempts to absorb committees on women's rights in some way on the grounds that it was not necessary to have committees devoted solely to women's rights and that the same aims could be achieved if a broader approach were adopted. From the conferences in Portugal and Madrid, delegates had taken home the principle that it was extremely important for every country to have committees on women's rights. Many of the things that were being discussed were by no means self-evident yet. People thought that, once the relevant laws were in place, the problems were solved. Both committees worked very well in Ireland, and the Chairperson of the Joint Committee was also an active member of the Sub-Committee on Women's Rights. Prior to the conference, a great deal of lobbying would be done with a view to restoring the autonomy of the Committee on Women's Rights. At the present time, the Sub-Committee was financially dependent, and its members wanted to alter that state of affairs. Mrs Barnes thanked the German presidency for organising the present meeting and the conference in November. She found the regular exchanges of information very useful. She had been very interested in the remarks by Maj Britt Theorin and in the seven objectives she had enumerated, all of which were important aims in every country. The point concerning the resolution of conflicts had particularly caught her attention, since women had played a very active peacemaking role in Northern Ireland, even in the darkest days of the troubles. These women had been delighted at the establishment of the new Assembly, and the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition had won two seats in it. The women had introduced a particular kind of language and working methodology into the Assembly. Mrs Barnes said that it would please her very much if there were any possibility of inviting the NIWC to the conference. In conclusion, she remarked that she found the Network a very good idea. As Isabel San Baldomero had said, there was a need to think in global terms; compared with women in the rest of the world, those in Europe were highly privileged.

Monika Mühlwerth, Chairperson of the Austrian Federal Council (Bundesrat) Committee on Women's Affairs of the Austrian Federal Council, stated that the Austrian Minister for Women's Affairs was currently establishing a Commissioner for Women in every government ministry. For all the groundwork that the previous Ministers for Women's Affairs had done, it was the case in Austria too that equality of opportunity did not yet exist everywhere, despite all the laws that had been passed. There was still a wide income differential between men and women; the lower the income bracket, the wider the gap. But there were even differences between the income levels of male and female university graduates; it was therefore evident that laws alone were not solving the problem. It would be very important to nurture the process of changing attitudes within society. Women were still in a particularly difficult situation when they had devoted time to the care and upbringing of their children (classed in Austria as a Karenzzeit or qualifying period), since this had adverse effects on their career prospects and income. Mrs Mühlwerth was interested in the study that was being presented today, since it had been observed time and again in Austria too that 98% of girls thronged into a small group of occupations, largely in administration and the service sector, whereas there was still an enormous psychological barrier that inhibited girls from venturing into the realm of science and technology. There were certainly a number of ways in which girls could be motivated and encouraged to take up technical trades too. She also believed that the advent of the new technological communication media meant that new approaches to the organisation of work and of working hours would have to be adopted for both men and women. In this way, men could also be given a greater part to play in their children's care and upbringing, which would itself be a step in the direction of equal opportunities.

Barbara Prammer, Chairperson of the Austian National Council (Nationalrat) Committee on Equal Treatment, who is herself a former Minister for Women's Affairs, pointed out that the post of Minister for Women's Affairs had been abolished in February and that women's affairs had now been assigned to another ministerial portfolio. As chairperson of the committee, she was trying to continue the pursuit of policies for equal opportunities and the promotion of women, which was not easy as a member of the Opposition. The problem areas, she said, had already been quite broadly defined and would surely be unanimously acknowledged as such. She was particularly interested in the Network if it could be established in an institutionalized form. She wished to remind her fellow parliamentarians that over the past three years a fruitful intergovernmental network had also been established. Within that framework, discussions had taken place for the first time on the status of domestic work as a matter for society rather than a private concern. It was important that women and men in the national parliaments should apply pressure with a view to influencing European policies. That was the way to move this issue forward. She also had a specific request in relation to the draft directive amending Directive 76/207. Great importance attached to the way in which national parliaments responded to these proposals. The networking that was now taking place could therefore be important in terms of the European debate; she also considered it especially important to establish dialogue with the countries that were candidates for accession to the EU. She had the impression that opportunities for women were tending to decline in those countries; the number of women leaving decision-making bodies, for example, was greater than the number being appointed to them. As they implemented all the measures that would qualify them for accession, the applicant countries must not forget that equal opportunities was also a prerequisite of membership. The European Union and its Member States surely had an interest in this too. Moreover, Ms Prammer firmly believed that the issue of gender mainstreaming required thorough discussion, because there was a danger that everything would be 'tidied away' into that pigeonhole and that no further concrete action would be taken. It was also necessary, she said, that those involved in the politics of equal opportunities should keep an eye on the business of other committees, since every committee examined subjects with an equality dimension. Finally, she reiterated her thanks for the invitation and said that she looked forward to her future cooperation with the Network.

Iris van Riet, Chairperson of the Consultative Committee on Sexual Equality of the Belgian Senate, began by expressing her thanks for the invitation. She wished to report on the work of the Belgian Senate before making a few proposals regarding the use of the network. She personally regretted that a number of countries were still not represented. Over the past year, a great deal of work had been necessary in Belgium to prepare for the Beijing+5 Conference in New York. There was a Belgian law which required the Government to present an annual report on the development of equal opportunities in Belgium. Before the New York conference there had been a hearing in the Senate, at which the Minister was asked to report on the current situation in the realm of equal opportunities and on various points contained in the Beijing Platform for Action. There had also been a hearing on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), at which a resolution had been adopted, requesting the national and regional governments to ratify the Convention and the Additional Protocol as quickly as possible. In the wake of the hearing, work was now taking place with a view to introducing anti-discrimination legislation. Hitherto in Belgium, the only anti-discrimination laws related to the labour market. Mrs van Riet said that she would like to discuss this point further in the Network. At the present time, a study was being compiled on the remedies that were available to victims of discrimination. In the countries of Europe there were various agencies for victims to approach in the first instance and various statutory regimes. Perhaps the Network could be used to obtain a picture of the general situation. Another point concerned immigrant women, who had particular difficulties in the labour market. The Senate Consultative Committee also wanted to propose that an organization dealing with breast cancer be invited to the conference as an observer. Mrs van Riet had previously sent some material on the work of the Consultative Committee, because the first conference had taken place in Belgium. The material contained proposals which could be discussed later.

Maj Britt Theorin (European Parliament) added to Monica Barnes' remarks by stating that, during the last legislative period, the European Parliament had also discussed the abolition of the Committee on Women's Rights. The argument had been that, once Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam had been implemented, there was no longer any need for such a committee. The proponents of the Committee had had to fight for its retention. There was a need to monitor closely what the Commission and the committees were doing. It was not enough that laws should exist; they also had to be applied, and that required monitoring.

The chairperson thanked the participants for their contributions and stated that they had already embarked on the discussion of the proposals regarding the future work of the group. This discussion did not focus solely on the organization of the network; it was clear that some quite substantive topics had been raised too. These would be discussed in the afternoon in connection with the Berlin declaration. The chairperson emphasized that the paper on the table was only a proposal and that it could and should be extended, altered and supplemented. The vote on the declaration would not take place until November. By then a copy of the report on the present meeting would have been sent to the countries which were not in attendance along with a note asking them to submit their own proposals for the declaration. A good deal of discussion was needed on the way in which the various issues should be approached and discussed. She sometimes had the impression that they still needed to concern themselves with every detail. Whenever they dropped their guard, the substance of their proposals would be gradually eroded and would eventually disappear altogether.

Presentation of the study "Occupation-selection processes in girls and young women: attempts at a theoretical explanation, and the empirical situation" by Dr Ursula Nissen of the German Youth Institute (DJI)

By way of introduction, the chairperson said that she eagerly awaited Dr Nissen's remarks on the study. She had reported in Madrid on the way in which the committee had come to decide on this theme. Evidently, as the participants' initial remarks had indicated, it was a widespread problem that girls, despite very good school qualifications, opted for occupations with poor promotion prospects and few opportunities to enter the decision-making apparatus. It had been realised that it was too late to take action when women had completed their education. It was vital to find out why young women were still making 'wrong' choices at crucial times.

Dr Ursula Nissen (DJI) began by providing some information about the German Youth Institute (DJI). The DJI was the largest non-university research institute in the field of children, youth, the family and gender. The Institute had a staff of 200 and had been in existence since the sixties, when it was created by a decision of the German Bundestag as the successor organisation to other bodies which had existed since 1949. This meant that government policy on children and young people had been accompanied by research activity throughout the history of the Federal Republic. Since the Institute owed its creation to an Act of Parliament, its statutes bound it not only to conduct research but also to provide political consultancy services. Although the DJI was an eingetragener Verein, i.e. a registered association with its own legal personality, 90% of its budget came from the Federal Government, particularly from the Federal Ministry of Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth.

The title of the study - Occupation-selection processes in girls and young women: attempts at a theoretical explanation, and the empirical situation - was a very precise description of its content. In presenting the study, Dr Nissen also intended to focus on specific measures, in so far as they were relevant to the draft declaration. The purpose of the first section, entitled "Topic outline", would be to describe the current situation. While girls and young women were the main beneficiaries of the education drive, they still had to cope with a segmented labour and job market. They were underrepresented in managerial and decision-making posts and therefore had more limited scope to shape their lives, since a career could not be seen in isolation but was an integral part of the whole process of planning one's life. The reference to 'career selection processes' indicated that the study was about the first main threshold that had to be crossed in a young person's life, namely the transition from school to work. The emphasis, in other words, was on younger people of the female sex. At this point Dr Nissen noted that there was practically no material on the situation of girls in Europe as a whole or in the individual Member States of the EU. It seemed that girls were totally under-represented in the body of research in Germany and the other countries of Europe. In the present forum too, the talk was always of 'women', but every woman had her own curriculum vitae, and that had to be the starting point for any measures. The study could only deal with the situation in Germany, but most of the findings were probably applicable to other countries too. The second section would deal with the situation of girls and young women in the Federal Republic of Germany. The first subsection would be devoted to education and training and would examine regional differences; in the German context, this referred primarily to the differences between East and West Germany. Education and training opportunities depended very heavily on regional conditions. This subsection would go on to deal with educational qualifications, an area in which girls generally outperformed boys. Other subjects to be discussed here were the distribution of gender-specific subject choices at school and the current situation in the training market within the German duales System (part-time education combined with on-the-job training) but also with regard to training in schools and colleges. The next part of this subsection would deal with higher education (higher technical colleges and universities) as well as other forms of education funded by the welfare state, such as second-chance courses for young people who left school with no formal qualifications, though the percentage of girls on such courses was small. There would also be details of the economic activity of women, dealing with the distribution of unemployment, executive posts, etc.

The second subsection of Section 2 would be devoted to women's ambitions and interests and the relative importance they attached to their careers and to careers guidance. In this context, Dr Nissen emphasized that there were clear-cut distinctions between the concepts of career choice, career selection and careers guidance and that these were explained in detail. It would also deal with the desire for self-fulfilment and with the twofold ambition of raising a family and pursuing a career, which would lead on to a discussion of the compatibility issue.

The third section of the study would examine theoretical attempts to explain gender-specific career choices. This was a particularly important section because, although there were fairly copious statistical data on these choices, there was an absence of research findings on the same subject. The available data did not explain the persistence of gender-specific career choices. In order to explain this, it was necessary to conduct research into career-selection processes, which in turn necessitated the formulation of theoretically based hypotheses. Even a study designed to identify desirable political measures had to approach the explanation of particular phenomena from a theoretical basis, since initiating processes of change was liable to prove a futile exercise if the initiators could not invoke research findings based on a theory which was rooted in social reality. Roughly speaking, there were two types of approach: structure-based approaches designed to identify segregation and define the structure of the market, which comprised approaches used in organisational and industrial sociology, and subject-based approaches, mainly derived from gender research, which related to the socialization theory and presented the specific behaviour patterns of the female sex as a psychoanalytical construct - Dr Nissen referred here to the term 'doing gender' - in which women and girls played an active part in shaping the way they lived, even if it were only through adaptation or resistance. Career selection was the same sort of construction process in which individual as well as structural factors interacted. She would try to present a theoretical approach that could also serve as a basis for practical measures.

The next section would deal with findings from existing studies, firstly on the role and influence of parents. Only two scientifically reliable studies had been conducted on this subject in Germany. It emerged from these that the role of the parents in their daughters' career selection processes was very important indeed. Given the importance of this role, the shortage of research material on it was astonishing. The two studies showed that parents and daughters were largely in agreement on the criteria that should govern the girls' choice of career, but there was inconsistency between the criteria and their application in practice. The objective criteria on which there was general agreement, such as secure employment, financial independence or self-fulfilment, were not actually decisive in the choice of career, which was still made primarily on the basis of traditional sex roles and stereotypes. The maternal role model was very important when it came to reconciling family and career. That finding also highlighted the link between career choice and the ways in which girls planned their lives. A particularly noteworthy feature of the research was its examination of career choices relating to occupations which were regarded as typically male. One shortcoming that had emerged from these studies was the fact that parents had scarcely any contact with the advisory institutions - in Germany, this referred above all to the Arbeitsämter, the offices of the national employment authority. There was, however, a desire on the part of parents to be involved in the process.

The second subsection of section 4 would deal with career-selection and sex-role guidance in schools. There were almost no empirical studies at all on this subject. Schools should, but still did not always, provide guidance to both sexes on family and career. They should include domestic duties and care of the family within the concept of work, provide space and time to enable pupils to learn about planning careers and about planning their lives outside the workplace and teach them that the social conditions governing the pursuit of particular careers had developed over time and can be changed. In practice, however, schools were not doing these things. There was also a need for classroom study of unemployment.

With regard to public acceptance of institutions providing occupational guidance, which was to be covered in the next subsection, it was also apparent that statistics were available but that research findings were not. In other words, there was no evidence as to whether the careers advice given by these institutions was actually being taken. Nor had any consideration been given to the fact that the emergence of new occupational categories increased the need for careers advice. The available careers services were principally used by pupils at the lower- and middle-level schools (Hauptschulen and Realschulen) in the three-tiered system of German secondary education; these were evidently the pupils who received less advice at home.

The next subsection would examine research on girls in the so-called typically female part of the vocational-training system. This section would focus on the characteristics of such training and would explain the disadvantages arising from these girls' career choices. It would also incorporate theoretical attempts to explain the reasons for these choices. Someone had recently said that our efforts should not focus on coaxing women into male occupations but rather on coaxing men into female occupations. This sounded simplistic, but there really was a need to examine the consequences of such an approach, for example in terms of the work that had hitherto been performed by women.

The next subsection would examine the findings of research into the presence of girls in scientific and technical occupations, in other words the so-called male trades and professions. This referred to the new occupations in the realms of information technology and service provision. The study would make various attempts to explain these career choices and would also examine how an occupational hierarchy was being re-established, even in these new fields of activity. There was also a need to establish a correlation here with the type of school girls had attended, their choice of subjects, etc. The study would then present methods used in empirical research to explain the choices for and against school types, subjects and so on and would thus return to the subjective reasons for girls' attitudes and actions. In the Federal Republic of Germany there were no studies on the length of time for which girls remained in so-called male occupations, and those model programmes which had been conducted had not been adequately evaluated.

The fifth section of the study was to deal with model projects designed to modify gender-specific behaviour in career selection. It would focus on the role of youth-welfare services and models of assistance schemes for young jobseekers. This section would present model programmes run by the Federal Government and by the governments of the Länder, highlighting a government programme which is designed to promote access to technical trades. There were also more recent schemes - in the domain of careers guidance, for example - and model schemes designed to encourage the development of self-awareness among young people and to assist them in the process of selecting a career. The study would examine critically what such schemes could achieve and would suggest that, useful though they might be, they could not increase the number of available training places and jobs, since that was the responsibility of politicians and the business world.

The final section of the study - Results, conclusions and measures needed - would emphasize the need for more action to promote the dissemination of knowledge. Appreciation of the importance of career choices had to be inculcated in children when they were young. Measures taken after career choices had been made could make adjustments but could not effect any profound changes. More knowledge of gender-specific socialization processes was required, especially at the stage of adolescence in which career choices were made. These choices were made between the ages of 14 and 16, at a time when girls had to cope with developmental changes, identity problems and so forth. This was the stage at which they had to decide on a career that would influence the rest of their lives. It was important to realize that structural factors were not the only influence on these career choices but that subjective motives were also crucial. There was a need to investigate why girls chose not to do certain things even though they were given the opportunity to do them. If a free choice of career were to be made possible, it would naturally be necessary to change the conditions that prevailed within the labour market too. Pilot schemes were worthless if the corresponding jobs were impossible to find. There was a need to change the ways in which occupations were evaluated, otherwise boys would never be interested in so-called female occupations. There was still good reason to support girls and women, but such support should not merely consist of special programmes designed to compensate for learning deficits. There was a need to foster young women's independence, not only their specialised knowledge. Vocational guidance should begin in childhood and should be provided systematically at school. Careers advice should not be confined to placement; on the contrary, advisers should also possess knowledge of career-selection processes. Schools, employment exchanges, chambers of commerce, trade guilds and business associations ought to cooperate far more closely with each other. Female role models were important, and mentoring systems, which were not yet very common in Germany, were particularly useful in this respect. The image of the mother needed critical reappraisal, otherwise the reconciliation of family and career would always be a problem. Model programmes also had to be evaluated, and there was a general need for more research on girls and young women.

The chairperson thanked Dr Nissen for her presentation and expressed her surprise at the acute shortage of research in the field of research on girls. She asked what the situation was with regard to boys. Perhaps the subject was virtually taboo. She invited the participants to ask questions.

Barbara Prammer (Austria) said that she was unaware of the volume or recentness of research in Austria. For several years there had been a project called Mädchen können mehr ('Girls can do more'), the aim of which was not only to implement measures but also to conduct critical research. After many years of coeducation, staff in every type of school were asking whether there might not, in fact, be a need for the development of special curricula for girls. One such experiment had failed, because the parents of the children concerned had refused to sanction their participation in the project. Ms Prammer asked what the general view was. She had heard that girls had a different mental approach to technical and mathematical questions, which meant that teachers would have to present these subjects in a particular way to girls in order to arouse their interest.

Dr Ursula Nissen (DJI) said that there was no specific research on boys either. The problem, she said, was that older research studies, when they referred to children and young people, always implicitly meant boys and did not investigate whether different findings would have emerged for girls. The practice of breaking down this type of data by sex had not been introduced until the nineties. Moreover, research showed that interest in this sort of comparison had already peaked. The only broader research that might be found in Germany now, she said, came from the new federal states. In that respect, the study was very useful, because it could provide political impetus too. On the question of girls-only classes, Dr Nissen stated that this was also the subject of lively discussion in Germany and was advocated in many quarters because girls had a different approach to scientific and technical subjects and tended to shrink from competitive situations. There were also numerous opportunities for single-sex schooling in Germany. In occupations in the new technological fields too, in so far as women were represented there, a hierarchical structure was taking root, which meant that women were once more taking up the inferior and lower-paid jobs. This also had something to do with the difference in approach that had been mentioned before. Women were more application-orientated, whereas men had greater interest in the development side, which was more prestigious and lucrative. People in these particular occupations, moreover, were expected to be available at all hours, which placed women at a distinct disadvantage at the present time. That was why even children had to be taught that family duties were part of a person's work and that time must be allocated to them. If that could not be taught to boys as well as to girls, any measures specifically designed to assist girls would be a waste of time.

The chairperson noted that no one had any further questions, one reason perhaps being the lucidity of the presentation. Maybe all the participants could check out the situation in their own countries, she suggested, even if there were no specific research on the subject. This could be explored again in November. She thanked the participants for the first part of the meeting.

Discussion of the preliminary draft of a joint declaration at the Annual Conference ("Berlin Declaration")

The Chair said that a decision on what needed to be done before the Annual Conference had to be taken in the remaining time.
She then asked whether there were any further questions on the explanations given by Dr. Nissen. There were none.

The Chair invited the participants to discuss the "Berlin Declaration". They were asked to think about how to proceed between now and November and whether any amendments, additions, etc. could be made at this stage. On the subject of the drafts, she explained that the "alternative proposal" tabled only contained an extension to the declaration and went somewhat further. She could agree to it in that form. The declaration was based on the results of Madrid and Brussels and Lisbon before that. There were two new points. Firstly the question of how else the network could be funded or, in concrete terms, how the complexity of funding applications could be reduced. Secondly, the four Conferences had made it clear that certain processes were constantly similar. It would make sense to coordinate these processes from a single point, and it was therefore proposed to set up a permanent office in Brussels. This office could also coordinate communication and the exchange of information between the parliamentary committees. If a member wished to pass on a piece of information, he would simply have to give it to this single office rather than having to distribute it to all the other members. Queries could also be addressed to this office quickly. Obviously the next question arising was how such an office would be funded and who it would report to. It would not be appropriate for it to report to the Council or Commission. The Chair suggested that participants refer to the document entitled "Communication from the Commission of the European Communities to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 'For a Community framework strategy to promote equality between women and men (2001-2005)' Point 3.2 - Measures", where explicit mention is made of "support for networking between the parliamentary committees on equal opportunities between women and men of the EU Member States and the European Parliament (support program)" (COM (2000) 335 Eng. Council document 8638/00).

In her opinion, this passage referred exactly to what participants had been working on for years. The support had to continue, and it was therefore necessary to set up an appropriate office. The support program could facilitate the funding. On the declaration itself, she said that the main difference in the alternative proposal was that it made provision for continuing annual meetings of the members. She asked whether participants wanted to keep Annual Conferences in the form used up until now, or whether they would prefer to discuss different issues at working level. During the morning, various issues such as trading in women, etc. had been raised. It was necessary to think about how the different areas could be handled in an efficient, results-focused manner. No decisions would be taken on the declaration today, she explained, but rather in November. She hoped that proposals from individual Member States would be submitted in good time before the Conference so that a synoptic overview could be drawn up in preparation.

Maria Do Rosario Carneiro (Portugal) expressed her surprise. Portugal had been working on the network for a long time. The new proposal gave the network a different direction, and this needed to be discussed. A network of parliamentary committees had been built up, holding discussions, doing lobbying work, etc. in the area of equality in the European Union and in particular in the area of decision-making processes. It had been clear from the beginning that the aim was to try and find a more stable, more concrete position. The really important point was being financially dependent on the Commission. That was why efforts had been made to find a more stable situation, and participants wanted to root the network elsewhere. Since Lisbon, there had been a proposal on the table to try and make the network more stable. All governments and parliaments should support it so that it could be as stable as COSAC, for example. Today's proposal did not go in this direction. Point 1 stated that the Conference should be elevated to the status of a permanent network. But the question was how. Its status was not defined. It was unclear who was to support the whole affair and on what basis. This needed to be defined. The presidency had changed as a result of bilateral agreements, which could not be the basis for a permanent network. She wondered who would hold the presidency next and whether this would be on an orderly basis. She then turned to the permanent office which was being proposed, and asked who would fund it and who would be responsible for it. The network was a political network, not a technical one, she said. There could not, therefore, be an objective to set up an office in Brussels for technical coordination. There were experts in Brussels for technical matters. She therefore requested further explanation. The office was a method of implementation, not the substance. The question of how the network should develop in substance should therefore be discussed first, she said.

Barbara Prammer (Austria) said that she only knew about the background to the situation from her reading of a few documents. She considered it logical for the workings of a network of this type to be based on the revolving Council presidency. This also had a strong effect in obliging the individual Member States to prepare for and conduct the Conferences, and to assume responsibility for ensuring that one presidency ran seamlessly into the next. Of course, an annual meeting would always miss out one country, but that was not too dramatic. Moreover, there could be two approaches. Firstly, there had to be a clear picture from one meeting to the next of what issue was to be worked on. Secondly, it would befit a network if the national committees were also given the chance to become active on a wider scale themselves. An open question in her mind was also the matter of where a secretariat should be based if set up and how it would be funded. The meetings themselves were not a problem, since the country holding the presidency as a result of appropriate agreements would also be responsible for funding the meetings.

Maj Britt Theorien (European Parliament) said that she had also been surprised when she read the proposal for the first time. She herself had only been involved in the network process since Madrid. She welcomed the idea of having a permanent and stable network. An office for the network - greater organisation was required - would need to be independent. The experience of the various parliaments could be fed into the network. She noted that Sweden had no standing parliamentary committee on equality, despite its leading position in the field of equal opportunities, and said that it was therefore necessary to allow other members of parliament to participate in the network. Having an office funded by the Commission was a good solution. A functioning network was also a good idea for the national groups, since it would allow them more time to prepare themselves better on issues for discussion. Finally, she asked why Art. 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam had not been incorporated into the draft declaration.

The Chair replied that there was no reason for this; in fact it had been left out by mistake. The article would be incorporated. Since there were no further requests for the floor, she said, she herself would like to respond to what Ms. Carneiro had said. Perhaps there had been a misunderstanding. The proposed office was not the place where political decisions would be taken. It was intended that the office would form a central point for the exchange of information and the like, and take on organisational tasks and ensure that all sides received information. It would not determine which subjects should be dealt with, nor should it be linked to the presidency. The presidency of the network should continue to be linked to the presidency of the EU in order to increase its political effectiveness. An office would reduce the workload on others and allow them to invest more of their time, energy and initiative in political matters. Referring again to the possibilities in the document she cited before, she said that these demands should also be made.

Maj Britt Theorien (European Parliament) referred to the objectives stated in the declaration, and said that promoting cooperation should be the main objective. This body should not give the impression that it is doing the Council's work for it, as the order of the points might suggest.

Maria Do Rosario Carneiro (Portugal) said she thought there were two different issues being discussed. Firstly there was the question about who should hold the presidency and on what basis. The network was to be independent and permanent, and she was in agreement with this. This meeting was the last one that could be funded by the EU. There was no other basis. Since the meeting in Brussels, there was a desire to become a permanent network, but nobody knew how this could be done. In Lisbon there had been a suggestion to link it to the presidency. If there were other suggestions, that would be acceptable too. The important question at the moment was who would take over the presidency and whether the network would become a permanent and stable entity. Participants needed to know what would be discussed at the next Conference. Portugal, for example, had tried to allow other Member States to answer questions on the basis of the expert opinion, and then to work in the results to give a useful comparison. The question of whether an office was set up in Brussels or elsewhere was a question of implementation, not substance. The important question was how the network was to be built up as a permanent network.

The Chair said she now saw more clearly where the misunderstanding lay. On the matter of the presidency, it was clear that the declaration currently proposed did not include any change. The rules of procedure stated that, from 2001 onwards, the chair would be held by the country holding the presidency of the EU. The reason why this had not been stated again was that this principle had been taken as read. There were no plans to change that arrangement.
Accordingly, Belgium would hold the presidency for the next year, since it would be holding the presidency of the EU. However, Belgium had asked not to have to take on the presidency, since it already held it in 1997.
Up until now, the operational basis had been the Fourth Action Program of the EU. But the intention now was to base the proposal for the funding of the office on the EU document quoted before. It might be necessary to agree on this at a later date when everyone had had time to consider the matter.

Iris van Riet (Belgium) confirmed that Belgium did not wish to take on the presidency and host the 2001 Conference, since it had held the presidency in 1997. The Senate committee had already discussed the matter, and it would be impossible to achieve the necessary cooperation again after such a short period. It had looked at the proposal whereby the country which holds the EU presidency in the second half of the year organises the Conference, but that if this country is not in a position to do so, then the country which holds the presidency in the first half of the year should do so. That country would therefore be Sweden. Belgium therefore asked whether Sweden was prepared to take on the initiative. If not, another solution would have to be found.

Isabel San Baldomero (Spain) explained that when the network was founded, an effort was made to hold an annual meeting for purposes of exchanging information. Ms. Bethune, who had played a major role in the foundation, had asked that the presidency and the tasks that this entailed be rotated. This was the way things had always been done, and it demonstrated the political will to support the network. Spain had wanted to take on the presidency because the country was holding elections in the year 2000 and wanted to get more women into the parliament. This will had also been shared by women in all parties. If she presented the proposal to set up an office in Brussels to colleagues at home, they would ask her why such an office was necessary, since all parliaments had coordination arrangements with Brussels. The choice had been made to make the link to the EU presidency. However, when that proposal was made, Sweden had not yet been involved in the proceedings. She suggested that other countries be asked whether they would take on the presidency, and said that this had to be dealt with before the issue of the office and the funding. The matter of the presidency had to be dealt with as an absolute priority.

Monika Mühlwert (Austria) asked whether it would be possible - once the matter of funding had been cleared up - to separate the presidency from the EU presidency and introduce a kind of rotating system among the countries participating in the network. There were enough issues which concerned all countries. Moreover, she was of the opinion - even if it was matter of form - that the issue of a permanent office was very important, particularly as an information centre. Obviously information could also be exchanged at national level, but the question of "why" lay not in the form, since offices existed for different areas. She stressed the matter of the external effect that such an office would have. A network quickly gave the impression that issues were not being discussed in depth, she said. If there was a permanent office connected to the network, this would create quite a different impression.

The Chair responded that it had always been the case in the past that the chair of the NCEO was held independently of the presidency. She referred to the rules of procedure of the NCEO - Working Plan, according to which the Conference would be organised with EU support from 1996 to 2000. In 1997 the first Conference took place in Belgium. During that developmental stage, structures for the exchange of information, etc. were to be set up. During the consolidation phase up until the year 2000, the focus was on institutionalising the Conference. Now, from 2001 onwards, the stage provided for by the rules of procedure had been reached, i.e. the network was to carry on independently. According to the rules of procedure, the rotation of the chair was to follow the EU presidency from 2001 onwards. However, the current situation was that this was not working. The Chair suggested that she should ask Sweden whether they were prepared to take on the job. If not, an alternative solution would have to be found.

Maj Britt Theorien (EP) suggested that the Chair should raise the point with Sweden, and said that she could also do so, being a Swede herself. However, during the first half of the year, she was sure that it would not be possible because of the workload arising from Sweden's position as EU presidency. She had not been familiar with the rules of procedure, but thought that if they made provision for a permanent network and the Commission could finance it, then that was a good solution.

Dr. Barbara Prammer (Austria) thought that the competent Troika could decide who should organise the Conference. After all, the main issue was which questions should be dealt with. Moreover, she commented that she did not think that national parliaments were overtaxed by the work involved in holding the Council presidency.

The Chair said that the rules of procedure were available on the Internet. She asked whether those present wished to mandate her in her capacity as current Chair to contact Sweden about presiding over the network in 2001. She was sure that it would be useful if Ms. Theorien could assist with this. The meeting agreed to this approach.

Monica Barnes (Ireland) thought it would be a good idea if Member States took on responsibility for the Conference. She said everyone would think it a positive step to have some kind of "administrative centre" and a stable financial situation. Women would have the right to access to funding under a framework strategy. However, she was not sure whether the political dimension had already started to be taken into account. It was not just about ensuring annual meetings. The countries in question should also put pride in being able to organise the Conference. Women who did not come to Brussels could participate in their own countries and be part of the whole affair. She wondered how such a feeling of belonging together could be achieved and how people could make an effort to continue building up the network.

Maria Do Rosario Carneiro (Portugal) said that when the original proposal had been made to involve the Member States, the idea was to secure funding. The origin of the network lay in the participation of women in decision-making processes. That was why the Commission had decided to take on the funding. However, the funding procedure had been very cumbersome, and each individual detail had had to be agreed. Portugal was still waiting to receive funding for the Conference it organised in 1998. It had been agreed that the chair of the network should coincide with the EU presidency because participants did not want to build on the Commission's programs. She was therefore not sure about the wisdom of now building up the network on the basis of a Commission program, since that would make it dependent on the interests of the Commission. This was her own personal opinion, which she had not agreed with the committee.

Catherine Picard (France) said she supported what her Irish colleague had said. The idea should not be to be dependent on the Commission, but rather to be in a position to select an issue and inform the Commission thereof.

The Chair said she remembered well the fears about being dependent on the Commission, and the difficulties experienced in applying for funds. She regretted Commissioner Diamantopolou was not available, since the matter could have been discussed with her. She also saw a problem with being dependent. However, the only other option was for national parliaments to make money available from their budgets. However, it was very questionable whether this would make the network more independent. The situation would differ from one country to another. Four years' work had now been done and the network was up and running. Work should now continue, following the substance mandated by the relevant Conference. She was not prepared to miss out on funding from the Commission in the process, if the possibility existed. However, the Commission should not dictate activities. On the contrary, the aim should be for the Commission to ask the network for opinions on certain plans, for example. She proposed that, in her position as Chair, she might write to Commissioner Diamantopolou, suggesting that the network was assuming that the money from the aforementioned program was available. Those present agreed to this approach.

Dr. Barbara Prammer (Austria) raised two further points. European decisions had to be approved at national level as well, she said. The fact was that the sooner one got involved, the better. That was why she had taken a close look at the draft directive, which she found to be very satisfactory. In such matters, which were dealt with in all parliaments, it was particularly important to coordinate closely, and to work closely with the EP too. Secondly, she said that the network should take an intensive look at the issue of gender mainstreaming. There were no criteria for this. Everyone was using the term without knowing what to measure it against. Here too, members should act as a group before gender mainstreaming brought about the end of equal opportunities policy.

The Chair said that the way EU documents were handled in the German parliament was very unsatisfactory, because the documents normally arrived too late for any influence to be exerted. Important issues were often involved. She wondered whether the situation was the same in other countries. Such references to important documents could also be handled by the office which the network wanted to set up. On the issue of gender mainstreaming she asked who was prepared and in a position to draft a discussion paper on the subject with the aim of ensuring that it did not "stall" the equal opportunities process as Ms. Prammer had mentioned, but instead truly served it.

Iris van Riet (Belgium) said that in Belgium, the former Minister for Equal Opportunities had commissioned a study. This could be sent to the Chair. It set out ways in which gender mainstreaming could be applied.

Maj Britt Theorien (European Parliament) asked a question on the Berlin Declaration. In the last paragraph, mention was made of a political proposal. She wanted to know whether or not it was the task of the participants to provide this in the next few weeks. When it came to gender mainstreaming, she said, the Ministry for Equal Opportunities should be contacted. It has a work program which might be used to develop something useful.

The Chair explained that Point 2 only contained an example. If the study generated results of an international nature, this could be made a demand in the substantive part of the text. Other demands could also be included, for example calling for particular groups to be incorporated into the network as guests. In this respect, the expert opinion was exemplary.

The Chair said she saw no further requests for the floor. She would carry out the tasks given to her during the meeting over the coming week. She hoped that it would soon become clear who was going to take on the presidency. If Sweden refused, the situation would have to be reconsidered. She asked once again for additions and amendments to the Declaration so that preparations could be made for the Conference in an efficient manner.

She thanked all the participants for their contributions.

Afterwards, the guests had an opportunity to explore the area of Berlin around the Reichstag building by taking a boat trip and a tour through the Nikolai district.